Bill Gates wants 1 Billion dead.

Beano

weisses wrote: »

source ?

Knock yourself out on the history of all this.

http://www.sv40foundation.org/cpv-link.html

Science and bureaucracy do not happen overnight. That does not make it a conspiracy to kill millions of people.

weisses

Beano wrote: »

it was used for 3 more years after sv40 was discovered. not 3 more years after sv40 was discovered in the vaccine.

Where in that piece you quoted are they referring to your point above?

you can quote from it and post it here

I came up with this

By 1960, the Salk injectable polio vaccine (IPV) had been administered to about 98 million American children and adults, and Sabin’s OPV had been administered to about 10,000 Americans and millions in the USSR where the clinical trials had been conducted.[27] It was estimated that 10% to 30% of the vaccines contained live SV40.[28] The federal agency in charge of vaccine licensing and safety at the time was the Division of Biologics Standards (DBS) of the National Institute of Health (NIH).[29] Incredibly, this agency did not order a recall of any of the SV40-contaminated vaccines.[30] The tainted vaccines continued to be administered until 1963 when they were all used and replaced by allegedly SV40-free vaccines as required by the new federal regulations promulgated in 1961

Beano

weisses wrote: »

Where in that piece you quoted are they referring to your point above?

you can quote from it and post it here

I came up with this

Well it appears i got my timeline wrong. I'm only human. Doesnt make this a conspiracy to kill millions.

they made a decision to use up what they had. Bureaucrats dont like wasting money. Perhaps they judged the risk of using what they had against the financial cost. Did they make the right decision? I dont have the numbers to know definitively. Still not a conspiracy to kill millions. They seemed to have been quite blatant about it.

weisses

Beano wrote: »

Well it appears i got my timeline wrong. I'm only human. Doesnt make this a conspiracy to kill millions.

they made a decision to use up what they had. Bureaucrats dont like wasting money. Perhaps they judged the risk of using what they had against the financial cost. Did they make the right decision? I dont have the numbers to know definitively. Still not a conspiracy to kill millions. They seemed to have been quite blatant about it.

Problem is that apparently it was used for 20 more years

An analysis presented at the Vaccine Cell Substrate Conference in 2004[27] suggested that vaccines used in the former Soviet bloc countries, China, Japan, and Africa, could have been contaminated up to 1980, meaning that hundreds of millions more could have been exposed to the virus unknowingly.

Bill Gates would have nothing to do with this probably :pac: .... Very shocking practice nonetheless

And if you knowingly and willingly let Doctors go ahead with vaccinating people with a contaminated vaccine of which you don't know the implications of ... How would you call that ?


(big Pharma Boardrooms) Ahh well we got rid of Polio but we created a much bigger problem we can make huge profits from

Beano

weisses wrote: »

Problem is that apparently it was used for 20 more years



Bill Gates would have nothing to do with this probably :pac: .... Very shocking practice nonetheless

And if you knowingly and willingly let Doctors go ahead with vaccinating people with a contaminated vaccine of which you don't know the implications of ... How would you call that ?


(big Pharma Boardrooms) Ahh well we got rid of Polio but we created a much bigger problem we can make huge profits from

but it hasnt created a bigger problem so lets not pretend that it has. The other countries that kept using the vaccine made their own risk analysis and decided to continue. Still not a conspiracy.

weisses

Beano wrote: »

but it hasnt created a bigger problem so lets not pretend that it has.

Not for Big Pharma ...

Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem

Beano wrote: »

The other countries that kept using the vaccine made their own risk analysis and decided to continue. Still not a conspiracy.

Any source regarding the "risk analysis" or did you pull that one out of the hat as well ?

Beano

weisses wrote: »

Not for Big Pharma ...

Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem



Any source regarding the "risk analysis" or did you pull that one out of the hat as well ?

do you think they make these decisions without risk analysis? you think they just said "**** it, it'll be grand"?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Not for Big Pharma ...

Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem

So was their goal to cause cancer?
This can't be the case because they couldn't have planned to do this if they didn't know the contamination could cause cancer.

If they didn't set out to cause cancer, why did they produce the vaccine in the first place?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Not for Big Pharma ...

Cancer rates are up because of this according to a source I quoted earlier

The only one pretending is you here by stating it didn't create a bigger problem



Any source regarding the "risk analysis" or did you pull that one out of the hat as well ?

Cancer rates are not up though;

One study from Denmark

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671021

A 2005 review

This article reviews the data regarding contamination of poliovirus vaccines with SV40 and summarizes the results from epidemiologic studies of vaccine recipients. Long-term follow-up studies have not revealed recipients of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines to be at an increased risk for cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889993

A 2007 review;

In summary, the most recent evidence does not support the notion that SV40 contributed to the development of human cancers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131333

jh79

The presence of SV40 in the Salk vaccine was not recognized until 1960,5 years after the vaccine was licensed in 1955. In the USA, vaccine lots approved in 1961 and later were required to be free of SV40, but lots approved earlier were not recalled, so vaccine-related human exposure to SV40 may have continued until 1963. While there is no evidence of SV40 contamination in polio vaccines licensed in the USA and UK after 1961, some vaccines prepared by an eastern European manufacturer contained infectious SV40 until the 1970s.

From the 2nd link above

weisses

Beano wrote: »

do you think they make these decisions without risk analysis? you think they just said "**** it, it'll be grand"?

That's a No then to my question.

I like to see the guy explaining his risk analysis to people that got vaccinated with the contaminated stuff

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Cancer rates are not up though;

One study from Denmark

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12671021

A 2005 review

This article reviews the data regarding contamination of poliovirus vaccines with SV40 and summarizes the results from epidemiologic studies of vaccine recipients. Long-term follow-up studies have not revealed recipients of SV40-contaminated poliovirus vaccines to be at an increased risk for cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15889993

A 2007 review;

In summary, the most recent evidence does not support the notion that SV40 contributed to the development of human cancers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17131333

Then one reliable source is telling different things then the other

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Then one reliable source is telling different things then the other

How do you mean?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So was their goal to cause cancer?
This can't be the case because they couldn't have planned to do this if they didn't know the contamination could cause cancer.

If they didn't set out to cause cancer, why did they produce the vaccine in the first place?

I don't know what their "goal" was

Hilleman made some stupid remarks if it wasn't intended

Logic would dictate if you want to get rid of people you not gonna make a polio vaccine in the first place

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

How do you mean?

I quoted from a reliable source a few posts back regarding the cancer

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I quoted from a reliable source a few posts back regarding the cancer

Have you a link to the full paper, couldn't find it?

How do you know the differences in cancer rates was not just natural variation, the fact that further studies show no correlation suggest this?

Also if the link is definite in your eyes (due to this study) why did further studies not show the same correlation?

What kind of hare brained conspiracy involves a virus that very rarely if at all causes an adverse effect?

Beano

weisses wrote: »

That's a No then to my question.

I like to see the guy explaining his risk analysis to people that got vaccinated with the contaminated stuff

How would i have a cite for that? should i dig back in public records from 50 years ago? Have some cop and accept that decisions of that nature are not made willy-nilly. and they are not made by a single person.

Despite everything in this thread you still havent shown that there any conspiracy to deliberately infect people using the polio vaccine. You have assumed there is and expect others to disprove it despite there being no evidence of a conspiracy at all. I know that is par for the course (and i have been reminded by mods that skeptics are second class citizens in the CT forum ) but it really doesnt paint you in a good light.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Have you a link to the full paper, couldn't find it?

How do you know the differences in cancer rates was not just natural variation, the fact that further studies show no correlation suggest this?

Also if the link is definite in your eyes (due to this study) why did further studies not show the same correlation?

What kind of hare brained conspiracy involves a virus that very rarely if at all causes an adverse effect?

I was referring to this one

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I was referring to this one

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10472327

I know but i want to read the full paper have you a link?

weisses

Beano wrote: »

How would i have a cite for that? should i dig back in public records from 50 years ago? Have some cop and accept that decisions of that nature are not made willy-nilly. and they are not made by a single person.

Hey you suggested they had a risk analysis done and decided to go ahead with vaccinating people with contaminated serum ... Not a decision to take lightly so there must be something on the web at least referring to your hypothesis

Beano wrote: »

Despite everything in this thread you still havent shown that there any conspiracy to deliberately infect people using the polio vaccine. You have assumed there is and expect others to disprove it despite there being no evidence of a conspiracy at all. I know that is par for the course (and i have been reminded by mods that skeptics are second class citizens in the CT forum ) but it really doesnt paint you in a good light.

Hilleman was quoted saying they knew about the cancer.

If that is a conspiracy ? I don't know but its a very sinister situation to say the least

At least I showed you here that they allowed doctors to use a contaminated vaccine on children for years after they knew it was contaminated (which could be a conspiracy on its own)

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

I know but i want to read the full paper have you a link?

Nope sorry ... I didn't look in the link if there was a referral to one either

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nope sorry ... I didn't look in the link if there was a referral to one either

So how do you know the paper is a good one or at least good enough to dismiss subsequent studies?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So how do you know the paper is a good one or at least good enough to dismiss subsequent studies?

I don't .... The best I can do is quote from relative reliable sources ... (to avoid the crap source discussion)

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I don't .... The best I can do is quote from relative reliable sources ... (to avoid the crap source discussion)

So it is possible there are flaws in that research given the failure of others to replicate those findings?

jh79

With respect to the third question, the possibility that the increasing incidence of mesothelioma, brain tumors and NHL in the decades following vaccination might be related to exposure to SV40 in contaminated vaccines seemed plausible when SV40 DNA sequences were identified in these cancers.11, 81 There is no evidence that this is the case. All 4 epidemiologic studies discussed in this review concluded, as had earlier studies,1 that the increased incidence of the cancers did not occur in those who had the highest risk of SV40 exposure from contaminated vaccine. As emphasized in the IOM report,1 these data by themselves do not disprove the role of SV40 in human cancer because the exposure to SV40 by the vaccine is not known at the level of the individual, but they do allow the more limited interpretation that the increased incidence of cancers was unrelated to the contaminated vaccine.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22425/full

Reference 81 is the paper you linked to.

Johngoose

Bill might get his wish with the ebola virus. If this disease spreads it could wipe out half the planet. The planet is certainly overpopulated and disease could be nature's answer to reducing the world population.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So it is possible there are flaws in that research given the failure of others to replicate those findings?

Yes could well be

Although I did not find any research specifically stating that

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

With respect to the third question, the possibility that the increasing incidence of mesothelioma, brain tumors and NHL in the decades following vaccination might be related to exposure to SV40 in contaminated vaccines seemed plausible when SV40 DNA sequences were identified in these cancers.11, 81 There is no evidence that this is the case. All 4 epidemiologic studies discussed in this review concluded, as had earlier studies,1 that the increased incidence of the cancers did not occur in those who had the highest risk of SV40 exposure from contaminated vaccine. As emphasized in the IOM report,1 these data by themselves do not disprove the role of SV40 in human cancer because the exposure to SV40 by the vaccine is not known at the level of the individual, but they do allow the more limited interpretation that the increased incidence of cancers was unrelated to the contaminated vaccine.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.22425/full

Reference 81 is the paper you linked to.

What about this?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

What about this?

Good find .... Explains why the later studies could not link cancer to sv40

still doesn't explain Hillemans remarks though

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Good find .... Explains why the later studies could not link cancer to sv40

still doesn't explain Hillemans remarks though

A joke at the expense of conspiracy theorists

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/11/a-zombie-meme-rises-from-the-grave-maurice-hilleman-the-polio-vaccine-sv40-and-cancer/

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

A joke at the expense of conspiracy theorists

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/09/11/a-zombie-meme-rises-from-the-grave-maurice-hilleman-the-polio-vaccine-sv40-and-cancer/

Yeah read that one ... Not convinced by them tbh

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Yeah read that one ... Not convinced by them tbh

I think if he wanted to do harm he had the skills to do it.

You don't see how he might find the CT funny?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I don't know what their "goal" was

Hilleman made some stupid remarks if it wasn't intended

Logic would dictate if you want to get rid of people you not gonna make a polio vaccine in the first place

So then the most reasonable explanation is that they didn't and don't want to kill millions of people.

The conspiracy theory cannot explain anything about the situation and leaves massive gaps of logic that you can't explain.

enno99

I dont think anybody thinks that they are going to vaccinate people where they just keel over and die


Below seems a more likely agenda


http://www.kccb.or.ke/home/com/statements-com/press-statement-by-the-catholic-health-commission-of-kenya-kenya-conference-of-catholic-bishops-on-the-ongoing-national-tetanus-vaccination-campaign-in-60-districts-in-kenya/


We the Catholic Bishops in Kenya are concerned about the following Issues regarding the ongoing Tetanus vaccination campaign:

There has not been adequate stakeholder engagement for consultation both in the preparation and implementation of the campaign. The Catholic Church has not been engaged unlike other public health initiatives where we have been invited to participate as a key stakeholder.
There has been limited public awareness unlike other national health initiatives that are preceded by a public launch where the public can ask questions.
Lack of public information on the rationale with a background that has informed the initiative.

We follow up on the recent questions raised by the Chairman of the Kenya Conference of Catholic Bishops, His Eminence John Cardinal Njue and therefore seek answers to the following:

Is there a tetanus crisis on women of child-bearing age in Kenya? If this is so, why has it not been declared?

Why does the campaign target women of 14 – 49years?

Why has the campaign left out young girls, boys and men even if they are all prone to tetanus?

In the midst of so many life-threatening diseases in Kenya, why has tetanus been prioritized?



Information in the public domain indicates that Tetanus Toxoid vaccine (TT) laced with Beta human chorionic gonadotropin (b-HCG) sub unit has been used in Philippines, Nicaragua and Mexico to vaccinate women against future pregnancy. Beta HCG sub unit is a hormone necessary for pregnancy.



When injected as a vaccine to a non-pregnant woman, this Beta HCG sub unit combined with tetanus toxoid develops antibodies against tetanus and HCG so that if a woman’s egg becomes fertilized, her own natural HCG will be destroyed rendering her permanently infertile. In this situation tetanus vaccination has been used as a birth control method.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So then the most reasonable explanation is that they didn't and don't want to kill millions of people

A conspiracy theory usually contains a less reasonable explanation ... Not making it less valid. Admitted this is not a very strong CT

On the other hand It is also not reasonable to believe the explanation a skyscraper collapsing reaching free fall speed did so because of office fires ... Specially if that theory seems impossible using science and physics.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

You don't see how he might find the CT funny?

No ... Sorry

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

A conspiracy theory usually contains a less reasonable explanation ... Not making it less valid. Admitted this is not a very strong CT

So then if it is not a reasonable explanation, why propose it exactly?

Which part is still valid when it doesn't make any sense?
Why treat this theory differently from pure fantasy?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So then if it is not a reasonable explanation, why propose it exactly?

Why not ?

Like I said something less reasonable does not make it less valid. Its usually at he heart of a Conspiracy theory

I presented some theory's backed up by reputable and less reputable sources, that you can discuss here and which you didn't, instead you start to question why I posted in the first place

Again .. You hold the same approach regarding building 7 for instance so I don't understand why you cannot understand your issues with "presenting a less reasonable theory"

King Mob wrote: »

Which part is still valid when it doesn't make any sense?

The parts that kinda made sense at first (its in the linkies I posted)

King Mob wrote: »

Why treat this theory differently from pure fantasy?

Because its a theory which I backed with arguments and some proper sources that got pretty much debunked with other proper sources and arguments mainly presented by JH79.


So what is your actual issue ?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Why not ?

Like I said something less reasonable does not make it less valid. Its usually at he heart of a Conspiracy theory

I presented some theory's backed up by reputable and less reputable sources, that you can discuss here and which you didn't, instead you start to question why I posted in the first place

Because I thought that conspiracy theories were about finding out what was really going on?
Posting a theory that doesn't make any sense would do the opposite and cloud the issue. No?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because I thought that conspiracy theories were about finding out what was really going on?

Yes ... Why don't you use the same approach and open mind in other threads when presented with valid counter arguments regarding your own position/view

I don't want to make this to personal but I don't understand your issues regarding my sv40 theory. I did not see you discussing it on its merits

King Mob wrote: »

Posting a theory that doesn't make any sense would do the opposite and cloud the issue. No?

Nope ... unless you think its you and you only who can determine if something makes any sense ...

Otherwise I would like the freedom to propose a theory and with the help of others it could be validated or debunked

stuar

I know the numbers aren't large in the whole scheme of things, but........

Aid Group's'Mistake' Caused Children To Die From Tainted Measles Vaccine: UN
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/syria-children-measles_n_5915536.html

On the SV40 discussion a few posts back.
CDC: 30 MILLION Polio Vaccines w/Cancer Contamination
www.westernjournalism.com/cdc-30-million-polio-vaccines-wcancer-contamination/#OYFzD5piVfrTWPVr.99

Deleted page screen cap.


Forced sterilization???????
Kenyan bishops fear tetanus vaccine campaign is aimed to sterilize women
www.lifesitenews.com/news/kenyan-bishops-fear-tetanus-vaccine-campaign-is-aimed-to-sterilize-women

And:
www.kccb.or.ke/home/com/statements-com/press-statement-by-the-catholic-health-commission-of-kenya-kenya-conference-of-catholic-bishops-on-the-ongoing-national-tetanus-vaccination-campaign-in-60-districts-in-kenya/

Then there's the small matter of Bayer and US govt knowingly shipping AIDS tainted drugs abroad...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

Only lastweek 25th September 2014 California prohibited forced sterilization of female inmates, which comes into effect 1st January 2015.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1135

Then we have the current Ebola crisis, and the US govt (and supposedly Bill Gates) own the patent on it..
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=20100429&DB=&locale=en_EP&CC=CA&NR=2741523A1&KC=A1&ND=2

More links for anybody interested:

The CDC, NIH & Bill Gates Own the Patents On Existing Ebola & Related Vaccines: Mandatory Vaccinations Are Near
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/09/17/the-cdc-nih-bill-gates-own-the-patents-on-existing-ebola-related-vaccines-mandatory-vaccinations-are-near/

US bioweapons lab with links to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation at core of Ebola epidemic
http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2014/07/08/us-bioweapons-lab-in-sierra-leone-at-the-epicentre-of-ebola-outbreak/

http://instigatornews.com/investigator-says-ebola-engineered-govt-bill-gates-patents-related-vaccines/

http://dublinsmick.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/us-bioweapons-lab-with-links-to-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-at-core-of-ebola-epidemic/


I didn't write any of the above, just linked to them, any questions e-mail the authors.......

degrassinoel

stuar wrote: »

I didn't write any of the above, just linked to them, any questions e-mail the authors.......

That's not how a discussion forum works Stuar, if you're not prepared to discuss the links you provide, dont bother linking them.

stuar

degrassinoel wrote: »

That's not how a discussion forum works Stuar, if you're not prepared to discuss the links you provide, dont bother linking them.

Ohh sorry almighty, I just added links, for anybody interested, I didn't have time to get caught in a 16 hour discussion as I have before, I'll post what and when I want, regardless............

degrassinoel

Banned - one week. Read the charter and adhere to the rules like everyone else.

Undergod

weisses wrote: »

Why not ?

Like I said something less reasonable does not make it less valid. Its usually at he heart of a Conspiracy theory

???

roundymac

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Ive argued this before, at some point in the future we are going to hit a critical mass in the human population, and thats when the **** will really hit the fan.

It has, it's called "EBOLA"

miss tickle

roundymac wrote: »

It has, it's called "EBOLA"

In fairness, Gates has apparently expressed his alleged love of vaccines and his alleged views on a reduced population, but he understands the web, so he would not choose something which could have such notoriety, considering past alleged indiscretions. Although there have apparently been more than one, here may be the most obvious.
http://vactruth.com/2014/10/05/bill-gates-vaccine-crimes/

Simon Ruszczak

A prophetic thread in light of the current scamdemic.
I would like a billion "Gates" (psychopaths) dead, or better still, never born.

King Mob

Simon Ruszczak wrote: »

A prophetic thread in light of the current scamdemic.
.

Why? Have a billion people died over night?
I thought that the conspiracy theory line was the that pandemic wasn't all that deadly...

Also lol "scamdemic" is the new "sheeple".

Dohnjoe

Simon Ruszczak wrote: »

A prophetic thread in light of the current scamdemic.

It's a thread based on a gross misunderstanding of what Gates said, read the second post.

As for this "scamdemic", who (exactly) is scamming who and why?