Vaccines are supposed to preserve life, not inhibit it, or prevent it. What was Gates getting at? I ask this with full knowledge of Gate’s utter devotion to battling so-called “human overpopulation”, so it’s not as if I’m a Polyanna when it comes to Bill Gates. How does one advocate, in polite company, for the use of “vaccines” for that purpose? Are you not admitting that whatever it is, it is not a vaccine, but instead a poison, or a sterilant? I’m asking seriously. Imagine that there is an innocent explanation for his remark. What might it be? Because I’m not coming up with anything on my end.
Here’s a potential innocent explanation.
If people in the poorest countries were given ready access to a full complement of safe and effective vaccines for administration to their children as they have them or bear them, those people will have greater confidence that the children they have or bear will avoid death as children and thus survive into adulthood. With greater “success” in rearing children who manage to survive into adulthood, they will feel less pressure to have or bear large numbers of children as a hedge against premature death. Thus they will naturally choose to have or bear fewer children. This result can thus be said to be due at least in part to the beneficial impact of effective and broadly available vaccine technology.
Is Gates saying this?