Googling “depopulation through forced vaccination” the first pages are from misinforming “fact checkers” repeating the following lie:
“The theory is that when people don’t have to worry so much about losing children to preventable diseases, they have fewer of them, as explained in the 2014 Gates annual letter.” 1
To prove their point, they show a small correlation between average number of children v. child mortality:
Some countries have more children yet less mortality than others. In fact, in developed countries, those who have 8 children have zero mortality: it’s not about the number of children but about health and food. Gates is never interested in saving those children by enabling access to healthcare and nutrition, only in anything reducing the population.
Some say that Gates was referring to the argument that poor farmers rely on children for labour and try to maximize the number of babies under high infant mortality rate:
1. Gates’ criminal intent is proven by his abortion funding. He’d be irrational to have a different motive with vaccines. You can’t be a serial killer and a philanthropist at the same time. Also, he publicly admired his father: a freemason, director of Planned Parenthood, fond of eugenics. Bill even created a foundation with his father’s name. As proven by their own documents, freemasonry is a Luciferian cult, where Satan results in death and desolation.
2. Gates has vaxxed countries even where 70-80% of the population lives in cities: the farm argument doesn’t apply. Also, considering that the family plot doesn’t get bigger, it makes no sense to have more children for farming.
3. Likewise, an argument about “the poor” doesn’t apply: in poor countries, Gates vaccines targeted even the rich.
4. By changing the farm argument to “kids as a fertility pension fund” still makes the assumption that:
a) “All vaccines reduce child mortality.” Nobody could explain how Hep B vaccine reduces child mortality (zero benefit) while many die after it. Why doesn’t Gates invest in clean water and sewages which have higher epidemiological and life expectancy impact than vaccines? It’s clear he’s not interested in reducing infant mortality but only in injecting HIS “snake oil” through GAVI and WHO, which he controls.
b) “Children support their elderly parents when they grow up”: some can’t be of any support if they lose contact, commit suicide, suffer a violent death, become poor or handicapped, become selfish, etc.
c) “Children support their parents with more money than what was invested in them plus compound interest.”
Bill Clinton said “It’s the economy, stupid!”. Good parents say: “it’s the love, robot!”. Economically, no parent has children for profit but for losses. “Family” is a non-profit business. Whoever came up with this argument is clueless about what love is all about. Gates “wants children to think their parents have children out of self-interest alone, as if parents just want to USE children.” 2
d) “Parents always plan conceptions and births, especially the poor.” Studies show that the poorer, the less access to medication and the less medication adherence. How would they plan conceptions without access to contraception and knowledge about natural family planning?
e) “Conceptions and births always follow the parents’ wishes.” This is debunked by sexual relations ending in conception (e.g. during menstruation), real life contraception failure (10x the WHO perfect/lab use table), miscarriage rates, etc.
f) “The poor are sure that their vaccinated children will reach adulthood”, especially in dangerous neighbourhoods with no food, no water, poor sanitation and healthcare conditions… as if vaccines would solve everything, even car accidents. With children, nothing is for sure: there’s no such thing as children for insurance.
g) “Parents know the future life expectancy of their children”
Life expectancy depends on many variables: can they know for sure if their zone would be war or gang-fight free until they get old? Or the odds of such events in their children’s life.
Do parents in countries with high vaccination rates even know the life expectancy vax impact on their children? Of course not! Then how can anybody assume that for the poorer?
Also, the alleged impact of vaccination in life expectancy could take decades to be confirmed. How can anybody assume the poor would have God’s omniscience about the future life expectancy in their local area at the time of conception, when even the experts are clueless? For example, the HPV vaccine allegedly protects against a couple of the 30 carcinogenic strains and after a decade, there are still no un-biased studies, free of major confounding variables like Pap screening, about how much HPV vaccination increased or decreased women’s life expectancy.
h) “Parents treat children as retirement funds.” This false argument is even included in economics and medical textbooks. Do you actually know a single person willing to change future family size just because they count on a guaranteed state pension in 50 years?
Reductio ad absurdum argument: people wouldn’t have children if there were pensions. Not a single country showed a fall in the birth rate after the introduction of free pensions. In fact, the opposite: people who don’t have to save for their retirement and can spend more in having a larger family.
i) “Parents plan children only because of economic reasons.” Polls show that everywhere in the world, even in poor countries, women desire more children than they actually have, especially if they’d have more income and/or a flexible or part-time job. Also, in hindsight, the older they are, the more children they regret not having. There’s a huge unmet need for children and fertility.
Of course, the freemason controlled global institutions (UN, WHO, IMF, World Bank) only tackle the opposite: unmet need for contraception and infertilizing surgery.
Most parents want children, not because of a selfish desire but because of love, otherwise they’d have pets instead of children. Economics play a role, but not the most important one. Otherwise, there’d be a positive correlation between per capita income and total fertility rate, when in fact it’s the opposite, the more income, the less fertile. Why? Love is fruitful. “The richer, the healthier” yet, the more selfish, meaning less kids. Fertility is higher in the poor even if they have access to vaccines:
Cultural and religious beliefs also play an important role. It’s no surprise that the satanic New World Order is at war with religions. The majority of the world, 4 out of 5 humans, believes in religions promoting fecundity.3 Abrahamic religions4, 3 out of 5 of the global population, follow God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth” (Genesis 1:285). It’s interesting to note that the term “multiply” means having at least 4 children considering the first multiplication factor is 2. Also, it doesn’t say “reach a population under 500 million” as written in the freemasonic Georgia guidestones6, but “fill the earth”, as if there’d be no place left without humans. Yet, Conservation International’s study revealed that half of the planet’s land was untouched wilderness and the whole global population fits in Texas (with Holland’s density).7
Then why, under certain circumstances, could there be a negative correlation between vaccination and fertility? Correlation is not causation. For example, Bill&Melinda Gates grants, international cooperation and development funds and IMF/World Bank/IDB loans to the underdeveloped countries are tied with the implementation of massive vaccination and contraception both at the same time: in that case, it’s clear that the key variable causing lower fertility is contraception, not vaccination.
By discriminating confounding variables like contraception usage and income distribution, we find no correlation if we compare fertility and vaccination uptake with similar lower income population in different areas (countries, provinces, cities). The same lack of correlation is found, comparing fertility in a country before and after the introduction of vaccination.
On other cases, there’s a link with vaccination and infertility, but it shows within a year, proving that the vaccines were causing depopulation, not a parental choice due to longer life expectancy, a cultural concept which should take years to develop.
Vaccines can’t reduce population growth, except by infertilizing, maiming and murdering.
Vaccines have been detected to be weaponized since the mid 90s with the addition of hCG to infertilize women... in 30 countries! The whole vaccine design, trial, manufacturing, distribution and pharmacovigilance system is rigged and not scientifically trustworthy.
Under no circumstance pregnant women should be vaxxed. COVID vaccines have been linked to miscarriages and maternal mortality.
The Holy See states that Catholics are in obligation to object all vaccines linked to tissue extracted from aborted or disected-alive babies (all COVID and most antiviral vaccines) and demand ethical vaccines: cogforlife.org
All over the world countries are showing an increase of excess deaths (between 10%-25%, depending on COVID vaccine doses/capita, ABOVE COVID YEAR 2020)
Watch this videos: https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/wake-up-videos
Keep updated: scientificprogress.substack.com
To save lives, please pray and share.
2 23 Mar 2023 nickij comment: https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/depop-vaccines-no-myth/comments#comment-13867129