LogFAQs > #936648900

Demellic posted...

Nah, he definitely said they depopulate:
https://youtu.be/TQNz9ocoCTM

I don't know what the hell you were hearing in that video, but every single time he specifically said "reduce population growth", "reduction in population growth", or "population growth goes down", specifically in the context of child mortality rates decreasing.

Not once did he say "depopulate".

Populations would only increase as people get healthier, they wouldnt have less children, certainly not for the reason you stated. Its far more natural for people to want to have large families and communities where they also take care of each other.

That's not what the data shows.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/child-mortality-vs-population-growth

As you can plainly see, there is a strong correlation between child mortality rate and rate of population growth. One theory that explains this correlation is the one I presented in my last post: if there is a higher risk of children dying before they reach adulthood, people will have more children in an attempt to have some that survive until adulthood. This can even be a cultural artifact from when child mortality rates were higher than they are now.

https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-heavy-metal-605190

First search result clearly says it can be considered a heavy metal.

Some lighter metals and metalloids are toxic and, thus, are termed heavy metals though some heavy metals, such as gold, typically are not toxic.

Sure, there's probably a fringe definition that conflates "heavy metal" and "toxic metal", but it's ridiculously misleading, and the more widely accepted definition is any metal with an atomic number greater than 20, i.e. anything more dense than calcium. And even "toxic metal" can be a little misleading, because it actually means "metal that is generally toxic in low doses", like mercury, cadmium, or lead. What possible reason could there be for calling metals that are generally toxic in low doses "heavy"?

Youre misinformed about the toxicity of aluminum in vaccines, particularly in combination with mercury.

Research indicates that patients with impaired kidney function, including premature neonates, who receive [injections] of aluminum at greater than 4 to 5mcg per kilogram of body weight per day, accumulate aluminum at levels associated with central nervous system and bone toxicity. Tissue loading may occur at even lower rates."

Wow, a light metal that is generally harmless in normal doses to the average person is more dangerous to people with impaired kidney function? It's almost like one of the kidney's jobs is to filter minerals from your blood. You know what light metals are also more dangerous to people with impaired kidney function? Potassium and calcium.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) are aware that aluminum is dangerous. For example, in June 2000, Dr. Tom Verstraeten, CDC epidemiologist, made the following comment to a group of concerned scientists: "The results [for aluminum] were almost identical to ethylmercury because the amount of aluminum [in vaccines] goes along almost exactly with the mercury." He was referring to a landmark study that found "statistically significant relationships" between both aluminum and mercury in vaccines and neuro-developmental delays. Dr. John Clements, WHO vaccine advisor, provided another telling statement: "Aluminum is not perceived, I believe, by the public as a dangerous metal. Therefore, we are in a much more comfortable wicket in terms of defending its presence in vaccines. - Mayer Eisenstein, MD, JD, MPH. Make an Informed Vaccine Decision. 2010. Page 206.

In June 2000? Just before thimerosal was removed from almost every vaccine that contained it? There is literally one vaccine that still uses thimerosal as a preservative and aluminum salts as an adjuvant: The DT vaccine. Even then, it, like all multi-dose vials, is also available in a single-dose vial which does not contain thimerosal.

And aluminum salts are still incredibly, ridiculously nontoxic.

Why would I inject myself with a massive cocktail of neurotoxins when I have a perfectly functioning immune system?

What neurotoxins are you talking about exactly? Because I just gave you an option that eliminated the two supposed "neurotoxins" (ethylmercury and aluminum salts) that most ill-informed people are concerned about in vaccines. So what's left? MSG? Well, glutamate is a neurotoxin in extremely excessive concentrations, but it's also a key compound in cellular metabolism. If you're concerned about glutamates, you'd better avoid pizza, because tomatoes and cheese both contain glutamates in higher concentrations than the two vaccines that use MSG as a stabilizer do. Formaldehyde? You're going to get 100 times more of that from what your body naturally produces as a result of one-carbon metabolism than you are from any single dose of vaccine. In fact, the pectin contained in a single apple will metabolize (through methanol) to more formaldehyde than what exists in any single dose of vaccine.

Was humanity broken in some way before vaccines came along to save them? Do you really believe that pharmaceutical megacorporations are out there trying to save people?

Polio and smallpox would say yes, humanity was broken.

Jonas Salk never patented his polio vaccine. He believed patenting a vaccine was as ridiculous as patenting the sun. He wanted to save lives, not make money. Besides that, pharmaceutical companies stand to make way more money from treating illnesses than they do from preventing them. Vaccines are cheap, and drugs are expensive, whether that's absolute prices, prices as a ratio to cost of production, or total price over lifetime use. So if pharmaceutical companies were truly interested in making money at the expense of public health, why would they still make vaccines?

---

The problem with the internet today is that it's filled with entire generations that did not grow up with the great wisdom of the Wyld Stallyns.