Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List

Here is a link to this page:

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 26
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 4/11/2023 8:21:10 PM

Brother IPX Ninja, did the I read the reasoning Garveys Africa and I were having? We were discussing HCG and the natural presence of it in pregnant women and also the use in fertility treatments in trying to help a woman get pregnant.

But when the I say "So if you are someone who fears hCG you better hope your body naturally has enough because if you turn down treatment that includes hCG you could be the one killing your unborn child!" this is untrue Idren. Having been through miscarriages I know this from first hand experience. Doctors do not offer HCG injections to save a miscarrying pregnancy nor to boost levels of when you have low HCG. They merely use it as an indicator of whether the pregnancy is viable by checking whether the levels double every 48 hours in early pregnancy, and if not, check for signs of why not, such as ectopic pregnancies (something I have also experienced). When I was going through these events, however, my doctor did not offer to inject me with HCG. That would not have helped anyways. The HCG levels are simply an indicator of whether the pregnancy and the embryo are viable. Progesterone is the hormone that is given to women, either orally, vaginally, or injected, to maintain pregnancy, if needed. But HCG is not used in the same way. HCG injections, also called Gonapeptyl, in the fertility assistance world are used to trigger ovulation after a woman has been given ovarian stimulants such as clomiphene or pergoveris.

I agree with the point that the original article was flavored with untrue remarks about HCG and what it does, though. I am just sharing the facts I now know about HCG having been through so many fertility struggles and having experience on a personal level. As I said before, I am not sure how lacing a tetanus shot with HCG would cause sterility, or if it would or could, even temporarily as Garveys Africa had suggested.

RASpect Iyahs, More Life Itinually
JAH love

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 4/12/2023 8:22:39 AM

The point I was trying to make is that the addition of more hCG is not going to cause a miscarriage. If you are already miscarrying it is too late to prescribe hCG treatment, but that's not the scenario I was referring to.

If a woman has known issues with her uterine lining, a doctor could, at that point, advise this treatment. If she turned that treatment down because of fears over something negative she heard... then yes, she may not have enough hCG to prepare her body for a healthy pregnancy.

hCG treatment for men and women:

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 4/12/2023 9:20:49 AM

What are eugenics and scientific racism?

Eugenics is the scientifically erroneous and immoral theory of “racial improvement” and “planned breeding,” which gained popularity during the early 20th century. Eugenicists worldwide believed that they could perfect human beings and eliminate so-called social ills through genetics and heredity. They believed the use of methods such as involuntary sterilization, segregation and social exclusion would rid society of individuals deemed by them to be unfit.

Scientific racism is an ideology that appropriates the methods and legitimacy of science to argue for the superiority of white Europeans and the inferiority of non-white people whose social and economic status have been historically marginalized. Like eugenics, scientific racism grew out of:

- the misappropriation of revolutionary advances in medicine, anatomy and statistics during the 18th and 19th centuries.
- Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution through the mechanism of natural selection.
- Gregor Mendel’s laws of inheritance.

Eugenic theories and scientific racism drew support from contemporary xenophobia, antisemitism, sexism, colonialism and imperialism, as well as justifications of slavery, particularly in the United States.

quote: It is quite possible, I suppose, that Fendley initially misrepresented the 11,000 scientists statement as “urging population control” because she did not realize that “population control,” as a descriptive phrase, has evolved significantly in recent decades. It is now a derogatory signifier, appropriately used only to classify individuals and groups who embrace and advance coercive, human-rights damaging notions in relation to impacting human population size and growth. It also works well for rabid, reactionary, regressive idiocy.
-end quote-

People are confused by Bill Gates because when they hear Bill Gates and "population control" they automatically think 'eugenics'. Eugenics may advocate for population control but Population control, in general, would not advocate for eugenics. When people prejudicially force everything to fall under the same blanket they tend to not see the positive goals and reasons for a smaller population or ways of getting there that do not include killing or sterilizing. I do not support any such thing. But I'm using "Population Control" because I think the only way that a reduction can be achieved is by changes in public policy.

For example: Among the poor in the US, mothers are given more public assistance and tax benefits for having more children under the logic that they need help taking care of them. But this makes them have more because they don't worry as much about not being able to take care of them. At the same time, this also pushes a lot of fathers out of the equation. Many women are able to live on this assistance as well as portions of the child support from the fathers. There's really no way of making sure the money is used on the children and the courts already recognize the children as being financially responsible for the bills of the house so their support can be applied to rent and utilities. As a result, many mothers on public assistance are able to resell the portion of that public assistance that is surplus to them. So the system is being exploited something that's generating more population and encouraging fewer secure and stable homes by creating a safety net for everyone. And at the same time, this same public assistance can also be abused by the rich who are able to also gain access to it.

Bill Gates does want there to be less people on Earth. However, Bill Gates is not talking about people who are already alive. The Gates foundation has helped save millions. But again, their goals are mainly saving children and preventing the spread of disease is a good way to do that. Even if the children survive and the parents don't this creates a huge problem. Even the loss of one parent can be devastating to the life of a child.

The trick with population control is the understanding that even with billions of dollars you can't help everyone. The more people there are, the more people there are to worry about, whether it's people getting sick, people needing food, homes, driving cars, using electricity, using water, etc. The more humans there are on the planet the harder it is to have equality because the more economics will favor those with money.

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 4/12/2023 9:50:03 AM

So while it's never a waste of money to help a child, no man on earth is wealthy enough to keep saving generations of children. Eventually, their money will run out and people will go back to suffering while most of us are living paycheck to paycheck. Whether it's food or medicine, supply is always going to be limited and the rate at which resources are replenished is already a problem. And what happens to the garbage from 10 billion people? 20 billion people? A lot of people who aren't concerned about this are those that recognize the fact that a lot of people live in economic conditions where they don't use as many resources. But if that's the case, how do we make their lives better? For people who aren't trying to help this may not matter at all but for people who are, this may be the most frustrating thing in the world.

One of the reasons why many farms look more like factories is because of the number of people each one needs to serve. So even if they could produce more chickens, at what cost? And what about fish? Will their populations survive if the demand dramatically increases? And if everyone went vegan, all 7 billion humans, there's no way there's enough land and what happens if there's a famine?

In the book of Genesis, it was a famine that drove Jacob's small family into Egypt. But the story says that they multiplied to the point where a new pharaoh became afraid of their military strength.

Now, we're used to people living longer healthier lives. That's good. But it also means that the amount of resources each person will use from birth to death is also going to increase dramatically. If Jacob's family was already huge in number at the start of the famine it would have been a much different story. They may not have even been allowed to stay in Egypt.

population control should be about sustainability and making good choices for our future.

Messenger: JAH Child Sent: 4/16/2023 12:16:19 AM

Greetings Idren IPX

The I make some good points about the issues of waste disposal and food production for large populations and the Guardian article shares some positive statistics about the work Bill Gates has done. Still I hold to the opinion that more lives = more chances for some one or a collection of people to solve those problems of waste management and food production (the key is Education as Ras Tafari always teaches) and still I hold deep distrust for Bill Gates. For one, we have (most of us a decade or more ago) seen with our own eyes the video of Bill Gates saying that he wants to control the population using vaccines. What positive message could he possibly have meant by that? I don't see it. If he wanted to use vaccines to bring the rates of disease to 0 then say that, but to say you want to use vaccines to control the population? That's highly suspicious to me. What on earth could he have meant?

Contraceptives are one thing, I do think people should have access to safe contraceptives if they want to prevent pregnancy, even if I have qualms with the safety and efficacy of most of the contraceptives available - IUD, birth control pills being harmful to women, and condoms being fairly ineffective. The fact is that, for people who want to prevent pregnancy, abstinance is really the only failproof method. But no one these days wants to hear that much less to practice it.

According to a study made by John Hopkins University, one of the reasons for infertility being so prevalent is STIs. So this sexually permissive culture has led to a rise in infertility. So that goes back to the abstinance discussion.

Population control enacted by individuals of their own volition is one thing, but involuntary population control via infertility is another. And the same study by John Hopkins says that "non Hispanic Black women are 44% more likely to be infertile" compared to other races. Yet the study offers no explanation or even hypothesis as to why this is so we are left to wonder. Is it because they don't receive adequate gynecological care (also linked to infertility)? Is it because of STIs? Is it by some design, some eugenics agenda? We don't know.

Infertility is a deeply personal subject to me, we all know, I've been very open about it. Not only am I fighting a battle against infertility but my younger brother also is doing the same. Our parents have 7 children between the two of them (rumored to be more from my dad's time overseas with military). So this is weird, for 2/7 to have fertility issues when our parents were obviously quite prolific. My Kingman and his only sister both have issues with fertility as well. I have a lot of suspicions as to why this is, but I highly distrust anyone who talks about quelling earth's population in vague ways using vaccines.

And again mentioning hCG.. in response to the I mention about uterine lining... uterine lining can be made thicker using progesterone and even then sometimes unsuccessfully, hCG does play a part in maintaining progesterone levels but most women undergoing fertility treatments use progesterone in oil injections in order to maintain progesterone levels until a placenta is fully formed and can take over that job. But women who have problems building adequate uterine lining often face issues overall because there's not always an easy fix to that. HCG injections, as I mentioned before, are used to trigger ovulation during fertility treatments like IUI and IVF. I don't claim to be a doctor or have medical training, I've just been through a lot of this in my personal life and I've had to become educated about this subject, I've had to actually inject myself with all of these things and more besides. It's important to me to get this cleared up for simple education's sake because I don't want anyone who struggles with infertility to read that comment and think erroneously about the use of any of these injections.

But yes in general the I statement about not rejecting an hCG injection for fear of it causing infertility is correct. It would be silly and unfounded to reject an hCG injection when your doctor suggests it to help you get pregnant, because this method is used often, has been used for years, and is many times a component leading to a successful fertility treatment leading to a healthy baby.

The original post by Ras Nate either included false statements about hCG or misunderstandings about a similar but not same chemical. The statement that HCG was developed by the WHO is shockingly erroneous. So who is this Dr Ngare mentioned and why is he making these statements about HCG? surely as a doctor he knows that it is a natural hormone produced in the body? Unless he was speaking of a separate but similar substance and there was something lost in translation? The quote calling it "anti Human Chorionic Gonadotropin" is more revealing, though. Was the vaccine laced with actual hCG or with an antibody to hCG? Was it actually an antibody to hCG that the WHO developed and included inside of certain vaccines? That would explain quite a lot.

I still have questions about the original article posted, but I don't doubt that something was going on. It seems to be inexpertly explained, however, giving rise to these confusions. Again I don't claim to be an expert but now having more experience (now compared to when I first read the article) I can clearly see there are issues with that article and how it explains the problem with these specific vaccines in Kenya, Mexico, Nicaragua and the Philippines.

Thankhs again for the reasoning. Important and relevant topic here.
More Love, More Life

Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 4/20/2023 12:53:27 PM

I can perfectly understand your distrust of Bill Gates. The following line in his speech does sound problematic if we don't understand how he's arriving at this point, that "new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, etc" causes the population to DECREASE. You would assume that if these things were good they would increase the population.

But this factcheck article does a good job of helping us to understand what he meant. Keep in mind, this guy is worth 116 Billion dollars. Most billionaires don't tend to be good public speakers. Especially those in tech companies. So this leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding and that's not your fault because it's their responsibility to speak in a way that their audience can clearly understand.

Full Speech:

When I saw the video at first, I was confused but I was sure of one thing; there is no way that, if Bill Gates were planning on killing people, he would announce such a thing in a TED Talk. I used to listen to a lot of TED Talks and even had the app on my phone. Not only would such an announcement probably get him in a ton of hot water, but it would make it very easy for people to avoid death by simply avoiding any vaccine he might be connected to. But then anti-vaxxers latch on to this without really giving it much thought and they start sharing it without doing any sort of due diligence.

Gates: "When more children live past the age of 5, and when mothers can decide if and when to have children, population sizes don’t go up. They go down. Parents have fewer children when they’re confident those children will survive into adulthood."

So oddly enough, when we understand this, and Bill Gates has done this research that we haven't, then it becomes reasonable that vaccines that save lives would actually REDUCE the population growth. Note... he didn't say to reduce the population by making people unalive. He was talking about a reduction in the percentage of GROWTH which means that people are having fewer children, not that anyone is being killed.

But what about sterilization?

As we talked about earlier in this thread, the subject of sterilization is concerning but is absolutely a crime that also hides all the more benign drugs that already serve the same purpose; even if unintentional.

Many of these things are taken voluntarily. Many side effects of medicinal drugs are listed in sometimes painful-to-watch commercials. When these risks are not explained the company that produces them becomes massively liable if something bad happens. And this is one of those general checks and balances against the potential evils of corporations. Even if a corporation (thousands of real people with real human values, empathy, and emotions) were all willing to purposefully destroy human life, as well as their shareholders (because shareholders are also a check on the behavior of a corporation), the CEO and board would have to be okay with losing millions-billions of dollars in legal actions. This is the single largest reason that most anti-vaxxer propaganda are lies. They don't really think about the consequences, only the support they want to create by inventing a boogeyman on the opposite side. Nothing creates support for your cause like a common enemy. The problem is that Bill Gates is the word genocidal killer in history because his foundation is responsible for saving millions of lives. If he wanted less people on the planet this is clearly an illogical way to achieve that end.

Now if someone says "Hey maybe he has to save some just so that people believe him and then they're lulled into a false security." that would be a great comeback. However, that completely goes against announcing his 'nefarious scheme' to a global audience.

JAH Child: According to a study made by John Hopkins University, one of the reasons for infertility being so prevalent is STIs. So this sexually permissive culture has led to a rise in infertility. So that goes back to the abstinence discussion.

Awesome. Like I said... there are other causes of sterility that we shouldn't get distracted from. If there are vaccines against these STIs then, again, that would contradict the 'nefarious Bill Gates' from making people sterile. STIs are already doing that so why not just kill vaccines? And yes... it's not hard to kill a new technology or miracle pill if you have the money to buy the company and therefore acquire the patent. You could actually sue anyone who makes it and then simply not make it yourself. Gates is wealthy enough to do this and old enough to know how.

So again... vaccines = good. The Gates Foundation saves lives. However, saving lives and telling people to copulate like rabbits are 2 different things. He doesn't seem to be advocating against free-will decision-making. He's simply saying that when humans are better off (healthier, happier, more services, more connected) they tend to have less children.,kids%20than%20low%2Dincome%20ones.


This is a dynamic that most people are probably not even thinking about but it also means that the largest and fastest-growing population is the poor and therefore more children are being produced that have a higher risk of suffering because their parents have limited means of taking care of them. And this draws public resources which means it's also drawing resources away from providing a better quality of life to everyone. Fewer people = better quality of life.

Unfortunately, most of the children being created are not going to be put in an advantaged trajectory in terms of education and social environment to become that person who is going to figure out solutions to the problems of overpopulation. If and when they do, their solution is probably going to sound a whole lot like Bill Gates's solution because he's saying we need to have fewer people BY CHOICE but save as many as we can and give people better lives.

1 - 1011 - 2021 - 26

Return to Reasoning List

Haile Selassie I