http://www.who.int/immunization/newsroom/newsstory_fall_cases_meninigitis_A/en/index.html
Enjoy
There must have been a major sanitation effort and better nutritional intake at exactly the same time.
How many cases were there before? They said a… Wait, world health organization? I thought this was serious.
massive amounts: with a catastrophic outbreak occuring as recently as '96
Worse is that a bacterial form of it can cause epidemics.
The good news is, the major form of the bacteria that has caused a headache in africa has been isolated because it is a bacteria - so it can be controlled with vaccination. And a fairly cheap vaccination, backed with a lot of Bill Gate’s money
love that free money! Poison as many africans as possible at taxpayer expense, its like ultimate evil. Thank you so much for posting this.
http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html
definitely not someone whom I would allow to put a needle inside me. But its a personal decision, right?
Do you have some information on how poisonous this particular vaccine is? Or do you just know that all vaccines are poison? Also, do you deny that this particular vaccine may be beneficial?
I can’t say I really understand where people are coming from in this thread. More people are getting vaccinated, albeit by a state organization, and less people are dying. Just because it is state action doesn’t mean it can’t have positive effects
Actually, no. Read the link.
“More than one million cases of meningitis have been reported in Africa since 1988. In 1996–1997, one of the largest epidemic waves ever recorded in history swept across Africa, causing more than 250,000 cases and 25,000 deaths.”
"Will this vaccine protect against all types of meningitis?
No, MenAfriVac will only protect again disease caused by the group A meningococcus—the main cause of meningitis epidemics in Africa, accounting for about 80 to 85 percent of all cases. Meningitis cases caused by other groups, such as W135, X and C, also occur. Vaccines for other groups are either not yet available (X) or far too expensive for African countries (C, W, or Y in various combinations). However, it is hoped that a combination of ongoing research and development efforts and tiered pricing will contribute to making these vaccines available to developing countries in the future."
Hmm.. But vive’s second link said something about 540’000 a year. There couldn’t possibly be any discrepancies though. This is vaccines we’re talking about. And look who the sources are! World health organization and the CDC! As mentioned, there’s $375 million at stake, in that one group alone. Billions are spent, of course they’re saving the world. Just double the budget and mission accomplished… By 2020, or so.
“The first vaccine designed specifically for Africa, MenAfriVac was developed by MVP—a partnership between the Seattle-based nonprofit PATH and WHO—through an innovative vaccine development model spanning four continents. The vaccine costs less than one-tenth the US$500 million usually required to develop and bring a new vaccine to market”
This line really stuck out to me. Perhaps this can be used as criticism of the FDA if this vaccine does turn out to be beneficial.
This particular vaccine might be beneficial, thats certainly possible. Immunizations have been used successfully for over a millenium. But its not benign. Vaccines are a means of population control and some vaccines are harmful, yet the vaccine lobby wont even acknowledge this and work with the consumer to make a better product. Instead the push is on for more vaccines, for stricter mandates regarding vaccines, vaccinating children at ever earlier ages, its a pathology, and its all subsidized. Even if you dismiss the obvious evidence of “people trying to kill off the ‘ignorant masses’” theres tremendous moral hazard and caveat emptor should apply. Immunization was produced by the free market, its only vaccines that are pushed by the state, dontchaknow
@Neodoxy, what do think about the TED talk where Bill Gates mentions vaccines as a means of population control?
Malachi,
“Vaccines are a means of population control”
What makes you say this? Are you talking about population control from the point of view from the opposite of what it normally means? I.E enlarging the population? I’m just used to seeing the word used to mean shrinking or stagnating the population, which disease does, rather than enlarging the population, which presumably vaccines do.
Habbababba,
The section you cites states that the vaccine helps to defend against over four fifths of all meningitis cases, what isn’t positive about that?
The TED talk I referenced where Bill Gates says vaccines are a means of population control is a good example of this. We are all using the term in its conventional sense, to denote the shrinking of the population.
ever hear of a sucker ambush? Its when you do something to convince the targets of the ambush that the “kill zone” (in this case, the pointy end of a needle) is a really good place to be.
Malachi,
I’m afraid that I find the article you cited to be without merit. I am immediately skeptical of anything so conspiratorial and I find the article without sufficient evidence and with sufficient logical gaps to discard it altogether. As soon as he cited what he thought that those who would be killing of millions would be saying and then stated that they were their words I lost interest. I also think that the idea that the U.S would attempt to reduce medical costs by killing off large amounts of the population is ridiculous.
@Habbabba
Vive’s second link was about Cryptococus deaths. It has nothing to do with the meningitis A vaccine. He shouldn’t have even posted it
What about the TED talk? Did you bother to watch it? Or do you think Bill Gates misspoke?
do you really think the idea of a global elite conspiring to kill millions of people is not even worth considering, without first considering it? What particularly would lead to such a conclusion? Epistemologically, what would lead you to such a conclusion? Concerns of efficiency?
Exactly.
Malachi,
I did not but I will when I have a little bit more time. With this said I don’t think that it will change my point of view. Secret societies with the power to kill off a sixth of the world’s population without anyone noticing don’t let stuff slip over a TED talk, that’s the primary indicator to me.
Furthermore I don’t think that it would necessarily suit their ends and I find it hard to believe that they would be capable of first of all keeping such a secret, and second of all maintaining their own will to continue with the plan when the entirety of traditional values oppose them.
EDIT
I also don’t believe that they would be motivated to do it over healthcare expenditures.
sounds like an awfully big assumption if you ask me. Its kind of hard to pull off big plans without getting the word out somehow. And, at present they do not have the power to kill of 1/6 of the worlds population, not the right people, and not without positively pyrrhic reprecussions. This is the preparation stage for the big kill, or the long slow kill, or the infertility epidemic. And if these people are experienced planners, which they are, they probably have all three on the drawing board.
I think its a pretty stupid plan, and prone to backfire, and likely wont do anything positive but result in at minimum doubling of the cost of labor worldwide. But that doesnt change evidence that no one has been able to successfully counter. Vaccines are known to contain all sorts of nasty things, toxic heavy metals, abortificants derived from human tissue, and chopped up microbes. There are a lot of things that can go wrong, that you dont get with the superficial “weakened or dead strain” cover story that seems so benign. Like I said, I’m not opposed to immunizations per se. You need to do your own research into the powers that be and their agenda, since this all seems too incredible to believe for you. As far as the part about keeping secrets, I’m really glad you said that because you yourself have revealed the cognitive dissonance of the position you hold. First you say they are so good at keeping secrets that they wouldnt possibly deliberately divulge such a thing at a semi-public gathering of the elites, then you say they couldnt keep it secret when its manifestly an open secret anyway. At least you havent committed the second fallacy, where legitimate sources are defined by whether they agree with you or not. I hope you dont take any of this as abusive, youre obviously a very smart individual and youre well-read, youre not very well informed on this subject, probably because you are too young. I was like you once, I was young, but I dont trust those people anymore, and neither should you.
I tend to agree with that. Its ideological and control-based. A large population is too difficult to control, especially with technological connectivity.