Friday, August 16, 2019

The Gates Vaccination Expose

The vaccination arguments can sometimes appear confusing for some people. How can a non-specialist know who's correct? True, virtually the entire medical community is in favor of vaccinations. But on the other hand, you have Marcia Angell writing that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” After reading that, even I was starting to wonder.

Fortunately, you don't need any medical knowledge whatsoever to decide if the anti-vaxxers are really onto something, or if they are tragically deranged. All you have to do is ask them about Bill Gates, who has invested great effort into having millions of children in poor countries vaccinated.

An anti-vaxxer who posted many comments on the previous post mentioned that Bill Gates's own family pediatrician said that Gates did not have his own children immunized - clear proof that he himself knows them to be dangerous!

The only problem? It's completely fabricated. There is no record of this unnamed pediatrician saying any such thing. It seems to have first appeared on some conspiracy website, then spread like wildlife among those who are happy to believe stories which fit their beliefs, even if there isn't any evidence for them.

This does not speak well for the ability of anti-vaxxers to evaluate factual truth.

But it gets much crazier than that!

It's easy to accept that lots of people believe that vaccines are harmful. But Bill Gates?! He gave a hundred million dollars to get millions of children vaccinated!

So according to the anti-vaxxers, this is entirely the point. Bill Gates deliberately worked at getting millions of children injected with harmful vaccines, in order to make them autistic and hopefully kill as many of them as possible.

It's hard to find words for how insane this is. You just have to read a little bit about the tremendous effort and care that Bill and Melinda Gates have put into helping children, to realize how preposterous it is to propose that they actually secretly want to harm and kill as many as possible.

But it gets much crazier than that!

According to the anti-vaxxers, it's not even a secret at all. Bill Gates has been completely explicit about his desire to kill as many children as possible with vaccines. He has publicly stated that it's necessary to do so in order to reduce the world population. The anti-vaxxers cite a quote from Bill Gates at a 2019 TED Talk, in which he said that, "The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care and reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

Of course, this isn't what Gates actually said at all. I knew that even before checking the Snopes article to see exactly how it was distorted. He wasn't saying that "if we do a really great job on killing children and health care (what a crazy juxtaposition!), we can lower the population." His point was that if parents in third-world countries can be more confident that their children will survive childhood (thanks to vaccines), then they won't have so many. As Melinda Gates said: “If a mother and father know their child is going to live to adulthood, they start to naturally reduce their population size."

But it's not just that the antivaxxers distort what Gates said. The point is that anyone who thinks for a moment that Bill Gates wants millions of children to suffer and die, and moreover, that he would openly state this in a public speech (despite at all other times arguing that vaccines are healthy), is clearly utterly out of their mind.

And you don't listen to medical advice from people who are out of their mind.

Further Reading: How Bill and Melinda Gates Are Transforming Life for Billions in the 21st Century

46 comments:

  1. I just fail to grasp the logic. There are all kinds of arguments for both sides, but the fact that Bill Gates accepted one side is sufficent?! Why? What special credibility does he have in this topic? Maybe he is also mistaken? Maybe he is not too smart? Maybe he has other investments that gain from this? Maybe his mistress is paid off by big Pharma?

    I am not claiming any of that is true, I just think that your argument is invalid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slifkin why do give attention to these loonbags? My goodness...

      Delete
    2. Yes, I missed your point. You quote Gates as an authority, which he isn't.
      Unless you just meant to counter the other claim that 'even Gates is against vaccination'. That claim is so irrelevant that it does not warrant an answer.

      Delete
    3. It has nothing to do with whether Gates is or is not an authority. It's about whether it's remotely reasonable to believe that he openly wants to harm children, and what it says about people who believe this.

      Delete
    4. The larger point is that Bill Gates is just a sideshow. What he thinks or doesn't think is irrelevant, he's just one guy. The fundamental question is whether or not the risk of the vaccines outweigh the harm. Since even the most respected organs of the medical establishment have admitted that the "research" can't be trusted, why should the anti-vaxxers accept the "trust us" claims that the pros outweigh the cons?

      Agree with them or not, the anti-vaxxers have raised serious points. Yet the true believers here reacted with true medieval hysteria at anyone questioning their gods. They've drunk deep from the liberal ethos of attempting to shut down or intimidate dissent by making it illegal - proclaiming it אסור, in other words. RNS, you may well be right in your disagreements with the anti-vaxxers, but ask yourself from your life experience - is the name-calling and hysteria of their opponents the tactics and types of people you want to associate with?

      Delete
    5. @DF,

      Billions of people over the past 5+ decades have been vaccinated. Statistically speaking, vaccines are empirically proven to be safe.

      Are all vaccines perfectly safe for all people? That's an anti-vaxxer straw man. None of the medical experts think so. However, anti-vaxxers twist this into the claim that no vaccines are safe for anyone. They are irrational, illogical, and unwilling to learn. They are a threat to public health, and should be treated as such.

      Delete
    6. So you've gone from calling people you disagree with "illiterate" and attempting to dismiss them as mere "conspiracy theorists", to calling them "illogical" and a threat to public heath. Progress...

      Delete
    7. @DF the only evidence that vaccines cause mental retardation are the many antivaxxers who have recieved vaccinations.

      Why do you willfully choose to be an idiot? Do you think its revolutionary to counter the mainstream?

      Delete
    8. @DF,

      The threat is proven, as there have been many measles outbreaks and several deaths over the past 12-18 months, caused by a loss of herd immunity.

      That they are illogical is proven, because they dogmatically maintain a position whose reasoning is based on fear, lies and hysteria. That's not a logical thing to do.

      Do you have any counter-arguments, or are you just upset that morons are called out as morons?

      Delete
    9. Every time you comment you prove the point again.

      I don't have any "counter" arguments, because I never made any arguments on the subject at all, period. I have no special knowledge on vaccines. The only thing of interest to me sociologically is the rabid nature of the believers in the medical establishment. The anti-vaxxers make arguments, accept them or not; the opponents, on the other hand, respond with insults, like you just did. Zealousness was once thought a hallmark of religion; now, it is quite apparent (not from here) things have turned entirely.

      Delete
    10. Anti-vaxxers make unsubstantiated claims, or show a complete lack of understanding of statistics. That's excluding the ones who don't just lie outright. None of them "make arguments". Unless you think "because I read it on the Internet" is an argument. In which case, you should fit right in with them.

      Qualified opponents of anti-vaxxers have rebutted every claim made about the safety of vaccines. They back up their rebuttals with testable evidence. Those of us who can follow the science aren't going to rebut morons on a random blog point-by-point. Because morons on a random blog aren't looking for knowledge; they are looking to spread ignorance.

      Zealousness has never been uniquely tied to religion, so I am not sure why you seem surprised that there are zealots in other areas of life.

      Delete
  2. This is really sad. There are some really far out people who are labeled "anti-vaxers". So what. There are however, many with it, sane, educated, careful people who say vaccines are potentially OK, just let me see a demonstration of their safety as well as their efficacy.


    Where are the safety studies of vaccines vs a true saline placebo (not against another vaccine solution with potential harmful ingredients). They should be publicly available. Somebody please post the links. When I see them so I can read them, I will believe they are safe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't the anti-vaxxers volunteer their kids to get the placebo?

      Delete
    2. Oh, wait a sec: They already can, as their kids aren't vaccinated! Let the study begin!

      Delete
    3. We have decades of circumstantial evidence for the safety of vaccines.

      You know, there are zero studies on the effects of high velocity balls of lead to the human head. So let's start shooting people (in controlled studies, of course0 because we don't have any studies that it's not safe!

      Delete
    4. There have been some studies that have shown more problems with vaccinated vs un-vaccinated populations see
      Effort to Kill New Vaccine Studies Fails


      The CDC has refused to do those studies as the results might "scare" the population into distrusting vaccines see
      NIH Director Dr Bernadine Healy speaks to Sharyl Attkisson about autism susceptibility

      There has clearly been damage from vaccines, the question is how much. VAERS only reports what is submitted, and not all submitted are caused by vaccines BUT not all harm from vaccines are submitted. See
      About The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)
      which has given out more than 4 Billion dollars in vaccine damage.

      Clearly more work has to be done but to conclude that the risk benefit is clearly in favor of vaccines is to ignore a lot of scientific data out there.

      Delete
    5. No article which contains the quote Was this a rejection of the data as Big Pharma would hope? can be taken seriously. It's clearly a conspiracy website, and thus starts with a credibility of negative infinity.

      Delete
    6. Negative infinity 😂😂😂😂

      Delete
  3. Doing a study like that would be unethical. It would mean NOT vaccinating half of the kids. Also, it is unequivocally not necessary. In terms of years of life saved there is absolutely nothing that doctors do that is even close to vaccination. A big part of the problem is that vaccines are SO effective that almost everyone has forgotten how bad these diseases were, so it is easy to make believe that not vaccinating is OK.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would be curious to hear what you think about Marcia Angell and her take on vaccines.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your argument depends on the assumption that every anti-vaxxer supports the Bill Gates fallacy. That is highly unlikely!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it doesn't.

      I will make a counter argument: you are illiterate, and that's why you fall for conspiracy theories. My evidence is the body of your comments. I welcome counter-evidence.

      Delete
  6. I did study a paper on adjuvant the complication occur in one of 600000 case, and not all are serious, the deadly complications of infectious diseases are far more frequent. For measles only one of 500 cases. But perhaps are the antivax happy to reduce population by returning to the prewar situation when infants mortality was 30%.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I read Jeffrey Epstein was also An anti-vaxxer

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gates is clearly a magnanimous person who understands that his life-saving vaccines saves lives, but he is also a moron.

    Granted he is brilliant at computers, but that doesn't mean his hashkafas hachaim is worth anything at all. And certainly to a frum Jew, it's a total waste of time.

    Gates is worried about population growth. Let's limit humanity. There are too many people. You hear that drivel? Hashem commanded mankind "Pru urivu", to multiply and fill the world. But Gates is pensive.

    Liberal idiots think they know better. Or they deny G-d by pretending that the world runs without a Manager. Classic liberal trash from a goyish head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are billions of humans. We've multiplied and we've been fruitful. Why do so many religious zealots believe there's also a commandment to be stupid?

      And the purpose of this blog post wasn't to extoll Gates's views on anything. It was to point out how absurd it is to claim that he's an anti-vaxxer.

      Delete
    2. Actually, Chazal criticize Yosef for having marital relations in a time of famine. So just like Bill Gates, they believe that a lack of resources can override pru urvu.

      Not to mention that according to the gemara, ever since Sinai pru urvu does not apply to goyim, such as the Africans who Gates helps!

      Delete
    3. You're a fool. Overpopulation is a real thing -- go read a book. Hashem said peru urvu to Adam when there was no one around!! A very sensible command for that time. When population almost triple since the 70s that is pretty intense. And no one (perhaps some crazies) is saying to have zero children -- just less per family. Pretty reasonable.

      Delete
    4. Your anti-goy diatribe is typical of the 'new' 'frum' Jew who likes to speak for Hashem. 'Hashem's words are contextualized to a scarcely populated world of physical emptiness, where 'fruitfulness' was a requirement to perpetuate and support the family nexus in a hostile world - a world of short lives, cruel death and dying with almost zero recourse to treatment of illness. Hashem never envisioned a world where people would live longer and healthier and as a result its resources would be depleted and its natural climate knocked off kilter by the impact of man-made industry and the eradication of natural habitats.

      Delete
    5. Halachic mistake. During a famine, a person may fulfill pru urvu. Only afterwards are they enjoined from living a pleasureful life while others are suffering. Lack of resources does not override pru urvu.

      Delete
    6. Responses are so ridiculous, especially the notion that Hashem chalilah didn't envision today's world. I wouldn't waste my time debating a heretic.

      But in general, even if you don't like the "pru urivu" argument, understand that there are certain things best left to G-d.

      A classic example is Global Warming. Granted that some scientists argue for it (others appose) but the notion that we should be worried about it is a very liberal, non Jewish and non sensible viewpoint. After all, Global Warming IS out of our control (no matter what some freak claims). So being worried shows that you don't really trust G-d.

      Somewhat similarly, if Hashem demonstrated His favor for the expansion of humankind, then the notion of "population control" is very wrong. One who is worried that humanity on the continent of Africa is over-expanding is probably a liberal atheist or agnostic y'msh.

      Delete
    7. Who told you global warming is out of our control? We certainly can do something to curb carbon emissions and repair the enviroment.

      And the notion that global warming is just a disagreement between scientists, when a) the vast majority of scientists in this field claim that manmade climate change is a threat, and b) those who oppose are almost always funded by the same group of corporations who cannot have their business model change should give people pause.

      Delete
    8. MOST scientists argue for CLIMATE CHANGE, which also includes Global Warming. It is not an 'argument'. it is not 'liberal', it is a reality. It may well be out of our control now, but we are the cause. And you are right, I don't trust God, in the sense that he has no reason or notion to care about such stupidities that we undertake to poison ourselves and kill each other. creations -

      Delete
  9. Normally I wouldn't respond to such stupidity, other than to call it the writer as being an idiot. I don't believe it's a good idea to engage with fools or to give their scrawl any credit. But I'm making an exception in your case as you as so so so offensive.

    Your Judaism is straight out of kindergarten. And that is the problem with so much Haredi or Religious Zionist Judaism today. It's practitioners simply never grew up.

    It's says 'pru urvu', so that's that?
    It also says 'l'ovda ul'shomra'.
    G-d manages the world so we should adopt a laissez Faire attitude to everything?
    Being concerned about our impact on the world and the resources G-d gave us is not a sign of liberal idiocy. It's a mark of responsibility. And sadly it's a mark missing in most religious Jews brains who disregard anything not written in the Mishna Brura. (Another sign that they are big babies, by the way.)
    You level of dumb-ness is an embarrassment and a chilul Hashem.

    ReplyDelete
  10. -Could we all agree that No studies have been done (besides one ingredient, once - yes that's one single one) on the negative effects of injecting those chemicals into growing babies and children?

    -Could we ALSO agree that a lot of the diseases we struggled with are gone due to vaccines?

    Now let's have an intelligent conversation about which risk group is worse.

    We started with a few vaccines, then 12, now it's 72, with projection over a hundred soon.

    Personally I'm not sure, if you take the side of autism and developmental delayes there are today... As an example, if you have a simple plastic heart valve Stent put in, you become sterile. You heard me, the plastic leaking from the valve will cause you not to have kids (which is why we use pig's). But when it comes to vaccines, because it's taking care of one terrible side (the diseases) we can't focus on the side effects?

    Studies can't be done because it would violate the "ethics board", fine. This is an extremely important issue. But let's talk about it without being called nuts or crazy. It's like blind faith without any rational thought.

    As far as the famous "no link has been determined" - simply means we haven't seen a link, not "we've proven there's no link". Especially since NO Studies have been done to check.

    I understand them, they say why think about a sofek if you know a Vaday it's helping in some ways. But this is Totally not sciences attitude in general issues. We always want to see more proof. In this case Any proof.

    This discussion is soo infuriating at this point because both legitimate sides are missing each other's point. Like they're talking passed each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't remember the link, but I have seen links to studies that have been done on the safety of vaccines. It has become a mantra of certain people that no studies have been done, but they have.
      And multiple studies have shown no link between autism and vaccines. What does that tell you? That there is a link but we haven't seen it?! So Tutankahmen may be standing right in front of you. not having seen it just says that you didn't see him, not that he isn't there.

      Delete
    2. Please stop. The things you are saying amount to nonsensical word salad. For example, there is no such thing a "simple plastic heart valve Stent". This is a meaningless collection of words strung together.

      There are coronary artery stents, which are tube-shaped scaffolds made of metal. There are artificial heart valves, which can be mechanical (made of metal and plastic) or bioprosthetic (made largely from non-human animal, such as bovine or porcine, tissue). None of these "will cause you not to have kids" (nor will they cause you to oink like a pig, for that matter).

      The other things you are saying are, unfortunately, equally nonsensical and meaningless. Really, please stop.

      Delete
  11. Should of specified "placebo study". (Good luck with an old school double blinded placebo study).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do babies need a placebo study? How would the placebo effect prevent them from contracting mumps? They are babies.

      Delete
  12. There does seem to be evidence that not all is as it seems with the Gates program. Of course those who hold that the anti-vaxxers are evil etc won't dare to look.

    https://vaccineimpact.com/2019/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-and-world-health-organization-work-together-to-conceal-vaccine-death-statistics-in-poor-countries/

    I don't have the reference to hand but I did come across research that showed that the chance of a serious reaction to the vaccine was in proportion to the numbers of vaccines given in one go, so the above makes sense.

    Again I'm not anti vaccine but I do think there is a witch hunt on here. Reading some of the comments I think if you replaced 'anti-vaxxers' with 'the devil' you could be forgiven for thinking it was a galach speaking....

    ReplyDelete
  13. And lest I forget, your "Jews Good, Goyim Bad" attitude is so disgusting and simplistic that only an adult with the understanding of a 3rd Grader would say something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The nutso anti-vaxxers are not going to be persuaded because they are nuts. Like everything to do with nuts people, either you are willing to coerce them or you're just wasting your time.

    The saner anti-vaxxers are not going to be persuaded because for the 100th or so time, you have not addressed their argument. I will therefore, once again, present it as simply as possible:

    Like any other medical procedure, vaccinations come with risks and benefits. The medical establishment claims that the benefits of vaccination are so great and the risks so minor that the choice is obvious to any rational person. However, we happen to know that the medical establishment lies frequently and sometimes even mendaciously. We also happen to know of a number of cases in which children have been terribly effected by vaccines and, instead of taking these on board in their risk estimates, the medical establishment resorts to outlandish gaslighting of the parents in question. As such, as a parent I elect not to subject my child to the risks of vaccines, since doing so has a minimal effect on his/her risk of contracting the diseases in question.

    A real response to this, however, is never forthcoming from any of the vaccine activists. Case in point: in England children are not vaccinated against chicken pox, and yet in Israel if you do not give your child this vaccine you will be attacked as a wicked anti-vaxxer. Is the NHS staffed by malicious anti-vaxxers or did it decided that (get this!) the risks of giving the vaccine are great enough to make it not worth it.. And if it is true of one vaccine, may it not be true of another? Or let's look it another way. The NHS insists on bundling measles vaccinations with those for Mumps and Rubella. They will not give you a separate vaccination even if you ask for it (even though it is SO important that everyone be vaccinated)! And yet, in Japan they given them separately. Is the Japanese government composed of malicious anti-vaxxers or do they (get this!) believe the risks of giving the MMR vaccine are great enough as to make it not worth it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You state the cost-benefit analysis of the anti-vaxxers more or less accurately, so far as I can tell as a non-combatant. So agree with them or not, what exactly is "nutso" about that position?

      Delete
  15. "Case in point: in England children are not vaccinated against chicken pox, and yet in Israel if you do not give your child this vaccine you will be attacked as a wicked anti-vaxxer. "
    Is it not true that different countries require different mixes of vaccinations to protect their populations? For example:
    "The CDC and WHO recommend the following vaccinations for South Africa: hepatitis A, hepatitis B, typhoid, yellow fever, rabies, meningitis, polio, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR), Tdap (tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis), chickenpox, shingles, pneumonia and influenza." https://www.passporthealthusa.com/destination-advice/south-africa/
    Just because there are different susceptibilities to different diseases in different geographical areas does not in itself suggest a conspiracy. At. All.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't suggest it suggested a conspiracy. At. All.

      I pointed out that different governments, in fact, disagree about whether the benefits of certain vaccinations outweigh the costs. If I agree with the government of England, but I live in America, then I am an 'anti-vaxxer'. (Your point is irrelevant, because in this case the issue has nothing to do with different susceptibilities because of climate or anything else.)

      Delete

Comments for this blog are moderated. Please see this post about the comments policy for details. ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED - please use either your real name or a pseudonym.

Voting Realistically

In my post of last week , I argued for voting strategically instead of ideologically. Ideologically, I identify with the normative dati camp...