The true state of the environment is nothing particularly abnormal as can very clearly be seen in the following chart.
On the other hand, this next chart is the kind of pseudo-science which is all-pervasive these days. Note the dotted line and that the next forty year rise is equal to the previous 60,000 year decline. The graph itself is speculative even displaying a question mark, but this is the kind of thing that passes for science in this debate.
Despite the fact that both vaccines and chem-trails contain some of the same neuro-toxins, vaccines are safe and chem-trails don’t exist.
As stated in a recent article by Mother Jones, “People who have measles are more susceptible to starvation through climate change… In its landmark report last year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that global warming poses a range of health threats… Kirk Smith—an environmental health expert at UC, Berkeley, and a lead author of the IPCC chapter on health impacts—points out that “a child weakened by measles is more likely to die from the malnutrition caused by climate change.” In other words, anything we can do to reduce the impact of existing health problems will be even more important in a warming world. And vaccinating children, he says, is one of the most cost-effective public health tools we have.”
I would also like to mention that if you are susceptible to starvation, measles and climate change are not your biggest problems. Kirk Smith points out that “one of the most cost-effective public health tools we have” is vaccines. I would like to point out that THE most cost-effective public health tool we have is better nutrition. Warmer temperatures, increased rainfall, and increased levels of CO2 would only increase crop yields.
Isn’t there still a malnutrition problem in the developing world? Aren’t people still starving? Between all the UN, IMF, and World Bank programs, you’d think they would have fixed all that by now. Much excess grain is left to rot on the prairies; if it were shipped to poor people, it would have to be transported in a container, insured, and given a value. (It can’t just be taken out of inventory, apparently.) Doing this would decrease the price of those grains and lower the profits of the grain farmers (in most cases, large GMO using mono-culture agri-business farmers.) So feeding the poor is not cost-effective, and until it is, we simply won’t do it. But more on this later.
If, as Mother Jones claims, “Vaccines Are One of Our Best Weapons Against Global Warming”, and people cause global warming, then it follows that vaccines are one of our best weapons against people.
Even Bill Gates, the richest man in the world for 16 of the last 21 years is pushing both vaccines and de-population. How is this possible?
“Probably one of these numbers is gonna’ hafta’ get pretty near zero.”
Well the truth behind this whopper is that there can only be one number which can even possibly trend towards zero: the first one: Population. Either we bring the CO2 levels per person down to zero, or we bring the population down to as near zero as possible. Which is more feasible? It depends on which technologies are available to you.
Bill Gates (whose father was the head of Planned Parenthood) said that the population will have to go to (near) zero for the planet to survive. He said this during a TED talk as well as admitting that vaccines are the ‘solution’ (or one of them) to global over-population in an interview with CNN reporter Sanjay Gupta. Dr. Gupta then went on to defer to this billionaire by dropping questions of research about the link to autism through vaccines, which Bill Gates claimed were all fraudulent..
Some of the more interesting quotes from Gates might be:
Speaking about global population reaching 9 Billion: “Now, if we do a really good job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by 10 or 15 percent.”
As shown in the following graph, disease rates were reduced dramatically simply by improving the nutrition and hygiene of the lower classes in the first half of the century well-before the introduction of vaccines. The mortality rate for measles was already down over 99% by the time the vaccine was introduced in the late sixties.
It’s another hockey-stick moment, of sorts, because the argument is about the same. If one looks at the rate of change mid-graph, let’s say around 1965 for the above example, it would look as though vaccination has had a tremendous impact. The following graph illustrates a similar point on several different levels.