October 04, 2012
On October 2nd a retired demographer at the World Bank admitted that vaccination campaigns are an integral part of the World Bank’s population policies.John F. May, the Bank’s leading demographer from 1992 to 2012, told the French web journal Sens Public (and in turn transcribed by the think-tank May works for) that vaccination campaigns, especially in so-called “high-fertility countries”, are means to achieve population reduction in those countries. May:
“The means used to implement population policies are “policy levers” or targeted actions such as vaccination campaigns or family planning to change certain key variables.”
Defining
“population policy” as “a set of interventions implemented by government
officials to better manage demographic variables and to try to attune
population changes (number, structure by age and breakdown) to the country’s
development aspirations”, May continues to explain that the World Bank is
taking up the lead role in achieving general population reduction.
It
is not the first time that World Bank officials boast about their willingness
to implement strict population control policies in the Third World. In
its 1984 World Development Report, the World Bank suggests using
“sterilization vans” and “camps” to facilitate its sterilization policies for
the third world. The report also threatens nations who are slow in implementing
the bank’s population policies with “drastic steps, less compatible with
individual choice and freedom.”
“Population
policy has a long lead time; other development policies must adapt in the
meantime. Inaction today forecloses options tomorrow, in overall development
strategy and in future population policy. Worst of all, inaction today could
mean that more drastic steps, less compatible with individual choice and
freedom, will seem necessary tomorrow to slow population growth.”, the report
states.
Some
of those steps are now being taken.
A study published in Human and
Experimental Toxicology in May of 2011 concluded that “nations that require more
vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.” (Page 8).
After
an in-depth study into the effects of vaccine-coverage in relation to mortality
rates among infants, the authors Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman came to
this disturbing conclusion and advised that “a closer inspection of
correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and
IMRs, is essential.” ~ but naively concluded that “All nations ~ rich and poor,
advanced and developing ~ have an obligation to determine whether their
immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.”
The
authors cannot be expected to know that, actually, that the desired goals are
exactly being achieved. Their final point is significant in this regard, that
they obviously were not working on the notion that vaccines were harmful and
obviously drew their final conclusions on the basis of the idea that the
increase in high mortality rates among infants were unintended.
The
opposite is the case. The World Health Organization, the World Bank, The UN
environmental department, the UN Population Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation and all the other arms of the creature we call the scientific
dictatorship are closing in on all of humanity with mass-scale vaccination
programmes and genetically engineered food.
Where
the mantra used to be “to combat global warming, we need a one world
government”, now it sounds something along the lines of “when we wish to
eradicate poverty, we must have a global government and reduce human numbers,
by the way.” Any pretext will do. More recently it was oceans in need that
prompted the World Bank to initiate a global “alliance”. The same argument can
of course be applied and is being applied to every other possible calamity.
Following
this line of reasoning will inevitably bring you to pretexts under which global
population control can be sold.
Want to reduce victims of drunk driving?
Reduce human numbers.
Looking to cure cancer?
Reduce the birthrate
so less people will die as a result of it.
so less people will die as a result of it.
The
scientific community has joined the effort, attempting to sell population
reduction to stop poverty and disease worldwide.
Under
the guidance of Ban Ki-moon’s top advisor, Dr.
Jeffrey Sachs,
several studies have been published which call for mass population reduction in
the name of poverty-reduction. In 2009 Sachs and his protégé’s Pejman Rohani
and Matthew H. Bonds wrote the paper Poverty trap formed by the ecology
of infectious diseases. They write that the “poverty trap may (…) be broken by
improving health conditions of the population.”
The
question that arises, of course, is how to improve “health conditions”.
In another study from 2009 Bonds and Rohani say:
““(…) the birth of a child in the poorest parts of the world represents not only a new infection opportunity for a disease, but also an increase in the probability of infection for the rest of the susceptible host population. Thus, epidemiological theory predicts that a reduction in the birth rate can significantly lower the prevalence of childhood diseases.”
Earlier
that same year, Bonds wrote a dissertation entitled Sociality, Sterility, and Poverty;
Host-Pathogen Coevolution, with Implications for Human Ecology. The study concludes that the best
way to eradicate poverty and disease is to, well… eradicate humans.
“We
find that, after accounting for an income effect, reducing fertility may result
in significantly lower disease prevalence over the long (economic) term than
would a standard S-I-R epidemiological model predict, and might even be an
effective strategy for eradicating some infectious diseases. Such a solution
would make Malthus proud”, Bonds writes.
“(…)
the new model, which accounts for an economic effect, predicts that a reduction
in fertility may be significantly more effective than a vaccine. It also
illustrates that a sustained vaccination policy would be more likely to
eradicate a disease if done in conjunction with decreased reproduction.”
“This
model”, Bond continues, “is likely to understate the true benefits of reduced
fertility because the effect of reducing the birth rate is to reduce the flow
of susceptible for all diseases, which is the equivalent of a vaccine for all infectious
diseases at the same time.”
If
you eradicate the human, you eradicate the disease- problem solved:
“Infectious diseases, however, continue to be most significant in developing countries, which experience relatively rapid population growth. The effect of this influx of children on the persistence and dynamics of childhood diseases, as well as on the critical vaccination coverage, is reasonably well-established (McLean and Anderson, 1988a; Broutin et al., 2005). But it is now warranted to turn this framework on its head: can fertility reduction be an integral element of a disease eradication campaign?”
The
answer to that question is given by Bill Gates in 2010 when he promoted using
vaccines to lower the population by 10 to 15%:
Disease
and poverty, intertwined as they are, can therefore be eliminated by mass-scale
fertility reduction. The religion of the scientific dictatorship in a nutshell.
It
wasn’t the first time that Mr. Sachs called for global coordination in regards
to population control. In a September 2009 UN press release, Sachs not only lamented human
activity on the planet, but argued for scientists and engineers to take the
steering-wheel in this process:
“We’re
in the age of this planet where human activity dominates the earth’s processes.
Humanity has become so large in absolute number and in economic activity that
we have overtaken earth processes in vital ways to the point of changing the
climate, the hydrologic cycle,” he told the UN Conference on Trade and
Development.”
“We
don’t necessarily need diplomats around the table”, Sachs continued. “We need
engineers around the table, scientists around the table. We need to put the
cards down and have a new kind of process.”
What
kind of model does Sachs envision for his usurping utopia? He stated in an Economist publication in 2000:
“The model to emulate is the Rockefeller Foundation, the pre-eminent development institution of the 20th century, which showed what grant aid targeted on knowledge could accomplish.”
I
don’t have to remind readers that it was the Rockefeller Foundation that funded and developed vaccines designed to reduce your
fertility, and intended to distribute these vaccines on a mass-scale.
In
his commentary The Specter of Malthus Returns, Sachs gives an adequate description
of Agenda 21 without actually mentioning the UN plan for wealth redistribution
and global population reduction:
“We will need to rethink modern diets and urban design to achieve healthier lifestyles that also reduce consumption. And to stabilize the global population at around eight billion, we will have to help Africa and other regions in speeding their demographic transition. We are definitely not yet on such a trajectory. We will need new policies to push markets down that path and to promote technological advances in resource saving. We will need a new politics to recognize the importance of a sustainable growth strategy and global cooperation to achieve it.”
As
Paul Joseph Watson reported in his September 2010 article Global Tax Scam Shifts From Climate
Change to Poverty,
the pretexts under which the ongoing effort to establish a world government is
moving forward is undergoing a transformation.
The
focus has now drifted away from the thoroughly debunked global warming myth to
poverty-reduction. As usually is the case, once the pretext is sold to the
unsuspecting, the eugenicists move in to “reduce fertility.” Global government,
in other words, to facilitate global scientific dictatorship.
Jurriaan Maessen’s blog is Explosivereports.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If your comment is not posted, it was deemed offensive.