Hookup, Find Sex or Meet Someone Hot Now

No, Bill Gates Did Not Create The Pandemic  

New2Midlo 52M  
726 posts
10/21/2021 8:46 am

Last Read:
10/23/2021 4:05 pm

No, Bill Gates Did Not Create The Pandemic

While I'm debunking stupid conspiracies, I might as well cover one I did last night, for my dear friends on the precision rifle board. There's a huge hatred for Bill Gates amongst the crazies, which came bubbling up while I online. It began with a random post about how Gates has investments in various Big Pharma companies, to which I replied "so what? The man diversifies his portfolio and drug makers are almost universally winners." This degenerated into a Gates hate fest, including a bunch of other unsubstantiated claims about how he's using insider information to profit from the pandemic. When I asked why the disdain for the guy, I received a "if you don't know why Gates is evil, we're not going to tell you" diatribe. Add another data point confirming these people have zero facts from which to argue. And talk about paranoid! I accused of being a government agent attempting to entrap the crazies. There's a term for that, but I refuse to give it the light of day here. Hell, they even tried their bullshit conspiracy nonsense with two doctors on the board, calling them liars.

In any case, the following picture posted, claiming that Gates' intent to depopulate the planet through vaccines. The actual quote from him , "The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, or percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3." He misquoted in the paper. Wonder why?

For those of us with brains, it's clear he's talking about decreasing population growth, via the means quoted. More on that later. I guess if you don't understand the English language, you could interpret that statement as a desire to depopulate, using vaccines. You'd not consider the reproductive health services to be germane to his statement, because that doesn't fit your narrative. That's exactly what the Sovereign Independent, a now defunct newspaper known for spreading baseless conspiracy theories, did in 20.

A side trip. When I asked whether the poster had validated that information, or if anyone enjoyed their subscription to the paper, I received a response that frankly shocked me. It "here is why i believe it...because reuters says it isn' true..", along with a link to where they debunked it. Seriously, what the ever living fuck???

And now, we come to the validation part of our game, where I bring it all home. Slowing population growth and decreasing infant and mortality at the forefront for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as stated in its first annual newsletter, back in 2009. Here's the portion of that letter, that pertains to the discussion:

When Melinda and I first started our giving, in the late 1990s, our focus on reproductive health rather than childhood deaths. We felt that<b> giving </font></b>mothers the tools to limit their family size to what they wanted would have a catalytic effect by reducing population growth and making it easier to feed, educate, and provide jobs for the who were born.

We were surprised when we saw a newspaper article in 1998 showing that only a few diseases cause most childhood deaths and showing how being invested in creating and providing vaccines for these diseases. A chart in the article showed that a particular type of diarrheal disease—rotavirus— killing over 400,000 per year. How could a disease we had never heard of get so attention and kill this many ? We sent the article to my father and asked him to look into how we could help.

A surprising but critical fact we learned that reducing the number of deaths actually reduces population growth. Chart 3 shows the strong connection between infant mortality rates and fertility rates. Contrary to the Malthusian view that population will grow to the limit of however many can be fed, in fact parents choose to have enough to give them a high chance that several will survive to support them as they grow old. As the number of who survive to adulthood goes up, parents can achieve this goal without having as many .

To summarize, the claim from the rag newspaper is complete bullshit and they knew it. Likewise, anyone with half a brain cell can reach the same conclusion, without a great deal of effort. There's already a number of articles out there that do the legwork for you. Thanks to Snopes for posting the associated links, so I didn't have much legwork to do.

It's a piece of cake to either validate or trash this shit, but some idiots can't be bothered, particularly when said shit aligns with their narrative. Besides, it eats into their conspiracy mongering time. Speaking of validation, while no one on the board admitted I right (shocking!), the anti Gates rhetoric ceased after my post. Oh, and before the loons accuse me of being a Gates fanboy, I don't give two shits about the dude. But I won't hate someone for being that person.

New2Midlo 52M  
1037 posts
10/21/2021 8:47 am

Yet another piece of BS tossed aside.

spunkycumfun 61M/66F  
39485 posts
10/21/2021 11:01 am

I've got a lot of time for Bill Gates not only for his philanthropic work, along with his wife, but also for refusing to leave his vast wealth behind for his kids when he dies.

Become a member to create a blog