Bill Gates says we can lower the population through vaccines and medicine

I have found such foods to be cheaper than fresh food. I went on a diet using prepackaged meals, and have managed to lose 25 pounds over a couple of months with few problems. I also found that my food bill was cut almost in half versus what I normally bought, even including the fresh fruit and veg I buy to supplement the prepackaged material.

Industrialization is a wonderful thing--makes the great bulk of food cheaper than taking the time to make it yourself. This has freed up a lot of time in my family, so we are able to get a lot more done over the course of a day.

there was nutrition lost along with the weight though... do you take vitamin supplements? and these articles specifically refer to HIGHLY processed prepackaged foods that aren't even foods by the time they're done with them. what kind of prepackaged foods did you eat?
 
there was nutrition lost along with the weight though... do you take vitamin supplements? and these articles specifically refer to HIGHLY processed prepackaged foods that aren't even foods by the time they're done with them. what kind of prepackaged foods did you eat?

http://www.hormelfoods.com/brands/hormel/HormelCompleats.aspx

I doubt if anyone cares about "nutrition" when they are starving to death, they want the calories, along with the proteins and fats. They can eat some fruit to get everything else they need.

I add to two of those per day a breakfast bar, two cups of yogurt, 1-2 pieces of fruit, a snack bar, and a small dessert. Such a diet is for weight loss, and is probably a bit too spare to live on. Double the size of of the meals, or cut the size of the person's frame by 33% (as with most Africans compared to a tall, heavily built European such as myself), and you should be in the right neighborhood.

These guys aren't saying they have to eat these processed foods and nothing else. They are supplementing their diet.
 
"Bill Gates says we can lower the population through vaccines and medicine "

Freudian slip?

"Uh, I meant, INCREASE!!!"

If you watch the video in whole, its definatly not a freaudian slip. The whole topic is how to lower population, and this is just a bullet point to that goal.
 
:rolleyes: Liberty has no operating system it's up to the consumer, and Ubuntu sucks.

If you want to use Firefox, I suggest you instead use a rebranded version for the reasons stated on this Wikipedia page.

Fail. If you do not know how to use Ubuntu, than of course it sucks.
 
OK, I listened to it three times, and I understand what he said, but it doesn't make sense to me.

How does improving vaccinations and medicine LOWER population? It seems to me, improving these things should INCREASE population.

What am I missing? :confused:
He means that they are improve becuse they sterilize people who take them. It also seems that the GMO Foods with human genes can also make the kids of people that eat them befor they were born also sterilize them, or make them very infertile.
 
Last edited:
You see, anecdotal evidence does not prove such claims.

No, it doesn't.

But when the WHO starts a new immunization program that targets only child-bearning aged women and later discovers that the vaccine they have given them was polluted with a hormone that caused their body to consider a fetus = a virus and develop antibodies against it rendering them sterile......it does cause one to ponder the situation....
http://www.akha.org/content/vaccinations/philippinetetanustoxoidscandal.pdf
 
If you watch the video in whole, its definatly not a freaudian slip. The whole topic is how to lower population, and this is just a bullet point to that goal.

I don't see how anyone could watch that entire video. The first two minutes were about global warming and his voice grates on my nerves.
 
He means that they are improve becuse they sterilize people who take them. It also seems that the GMO Foods with human genes can also make the kids of people that eat them befor they were born also sterilize them, or make them very infertile.

If you guys are going to argue with the other side, at least get the other sides position or argument correct. What is stated above is nowhere close to the position Gates takes.
 
I have found such foods to be cheaper than fresh food. I went on a diet using prepackaged meals, and have managed to lose 25 pounds over a couple of months with few problems. I also found that my food bill was cut almost in half versus what I normally bought, even including the fresh fruit and veg I buy to supplement the prepackaged material.

Industrialization is a wonderful thing--makes the great bulk of food cheaper than taking the time to make it yourself. This has freed up a lot of time in my family, so we are able to get a lot more done over the course of a day.

The problem is that the WRONG packaged foods will free up a whole lot of time (by helping you die much quicker). I'm not a health nut, but the amount of sodium in some packaged and restaurant foods is astounding. Some contain two or three times the sodium you should have in a day. The amount of fat in other foods is even worse, and certain foods don't do well being frozen, while others thrive. Like everything else, it's just important to glance at what you're going to buy before you buy it.

If packaged foods cuts your food bill in half, by the way, you were doing something terribly wrong. Eating fresh cuts my food bill in half and then some :) Buying bulk when it's on sale (chicken and pork freeze exceptionally well), preparing vegetables and fruit properly (salsa keeps better, for instance, than just tomatoes; marinara sauce jars well or freezes in containers; soups can keep for a very long time in a freezer; pie fillings and ice cream toppings can be made ahead of time with fruit that is on the verge of being overripe and headed towards spoiling), and making as much use of every part of what you buy (bones for stock, stale bread for stuffing cubes/breadcrumbs, citrus peels for zest and potpurri, etc.) can go a very long way.

I also make my own microwave meals :) They're delicious and usually only use a little pasta, or a tiny bit of meat, or a handful of vegetables, which is great because that's usually what's left out of a package. It's a great way to use the little bits left over.

Anyhow, I hope you checked the sodium on your packaged meals, and if it's high please consider having a banana and ensure you drink enough water. Just friendly advice.
 
If packaged foods cuts your food bill in half, by the way, you were doing something terribly wrong. Eating fresh cuts my food bill in half and then some :)

This is true. I make meals for the family with plenty of leftovers to freeze.

When the Bertolli frozen meals are on sale, I buy those. And the Stouffers.

E-Mealz has a pretty good meal plan. they base it on the grocer's sales for you. they also have a vegetarian plan, low fat plan, and (weight watchers?) points plan. They use packaged and fresh foods in their recipes, but if they suggest something with high fructose corn syrup or unhealthy, I substitute with something else that I agree with. http://www.e-mealz.com/options.shtml
 
The Mediterranean Bertolli meals seem to have less saturated fat compared to their Classic Meals. http://www.bertolli.us/products/mediterranean-style-meals.aspx these are pricey, so I do wait for sales & use coupons for them.

I don't buy those... they're mostly pasta and meat and sauce, which one can certainly do for much less than the packaged meal price. I buy pasta when it's BOGO, and it lasts for ages (especially since I prefer to make my own, but premade is okay in a pinch). Sauce is cheaply made when one's friends get more tomatoes than they know what to do with (and roasted red peppers make a glorious addition to sauces). Meat is easily purchased BOGO. I'm not sure how much those meals are where you live, but the Bertolli meals here are like $7-$11 each, depending on which you want, and they serve something like 3 (?) people if I recall correctly.

You can make your own versions at home for a fraction of that as long as you already have the hardware (and freezer space) available.
 
I don't buy those... they're mostly pasta and meat and sauce, which one can certainly do for much less than the packaged meal price. I buy pasta when it's BOGO, and it lasts for ages (especially since I prefer to make my own, but premade is okay in a pinch). Sauce is cheaply made when one's friends get more tomatoes than they know what to do with (and roasted red peppers make a glorious addition to sauces). Meat is easily purchased BOGO. I'm not sure how much those meals are where you live, but the Bertolli meals here are like $7-$11 each, depending on which you want, and they serve something like 3 (?) people if I recall correctly.

You can make your own versions at home for a fraction of that as long as you already have the hardware (and freezer space) available.

They are that expensive, and I only buy them when they go on sale and use coupons. They are not economical or healthier than using fresh ingredients. They are what I do buy though when I don't use fresh to cook myself which is rare.
 
Unclear on your post. What's Gates position?

Without making comment on the validity of the argument:

I believe the answer is easily found online with minimal research. From what I have gleaned it is a theory that goes like this, with more children vaccinated against deadly diseases, the child mortality rate drops. When this happens and more offspring surviving, parents tend to have less offspring because the chances of survival or each child is much higher. Over time the rate of increase of a population can be dramatically reduced, especially in impoverished countries where large families are the norm to ensure the survivability of the bloodline. This theory would have been born on historical evidence and studies.

Like I said, right now I am not prepared to take sides on the validity of this theory but I believe it is the paraphrased position of org's like the Gates Foundation.
What it clearly illustrates is that the underlying belief is that vaccinations are helpful, and does not address any harmful side effects or a belief in a malevolent intentional purpose.
 
Without making comment on the validity of the argument:

I believe the answer is easily found online with minimal research. From what I have gleaned it is a theory that goes like this, with more children vaccinated against deadly diseases, the child mortality rate drops. When this happens and more offspring surviving, parents tend to have less offspring because the chances of survival or each child is much higher. Over time the rate of increase of a population can be dramatically reduced, especially in impoverished countries where large families are the norm to ensure the survivability of the bloodline. This theory would have been born on historical evidence and studies.

Like I said, right now I am not prepared to take sides on the validity of this theory but I believe it is the paraphrased position of org's like the Gates Foundation.
What it clearly illustrates is that the underlying belief is that vaccinations are helpful, and does not address any harmful side effects or a belief in a malevolent intentional purpose.

I read his theory. It's here, and it could easily be flawed - http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2009/Pages/2009-preventing-childhood-deaths.aspx

The CDC also tell us vaccines are safe and effective. And the government just put up a conspiracy theory web page to tell us what to think.
 
It could be flawed, but it could easily not be flawed, and there is a large body of evidence that in simplistic terms it is not. It could be that the large increase in the number of vaccines given at too young of an age is causing a large increase of problems. Not enough research has been done on that it seems. It could be that the way vaccines are manufactured has changed significantly and are more toxic now. It could be that vaccines are virtually ineffective and that child mortality decreases are solely due to improved hygienics as some claim, but the data I've seen by those that claim that is also flawed.
Whatever the argument is ones side is done a disservice if it does not correctly state the other sides position and adequately address it.
 
Since Bill Gates wants to reduce the population, I nominate him to lead by example. Him first, along with all of the other population reduction nutcases.
 
Back
Top