Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Graystone]

I'll give you a hand since you seem reluctant to educate yourself.

One of the major driving factors in Henry Kissinger's report on reducing population growth in lesser developed countries was the vast mineral wealth and oil reserves that many of those countries have and how if their population growth was left unchecked it could adversely affect America's ability to get their hands on that wealth.

and is Henry Kissinger aka Bill Gates?

Or are you trying to change the subject?

[Graystone]

You should probably look more closely at the figures from Third World countries - since those are the demographics we're talking about.

http://auth.prb.org/Publications/Dat...opulation.aspx

Aren't infant mortality rates one of the traits the defines what is a 3rd world country? Ie, if the problem is 3rd world countries, and not 1st world ones, simply make the 3rd into 1st, and problemo solvedo!

[TheDemonLord]

Aren't infant mortality rates one of the traits the defines what is a 3rd world country? Ie, if the problem is 3rd world countries, and not 1st world ones, simply make the 3rd into 1st, and problemo solvedo!

^^^

High 5!

[Katman]

https://www.voanews.com/a/dengue-fev...s/4274046.html

[oldrider]

The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc.

It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. -

[Katman]

The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Communist Bloc.

It was also sometimes taken as synonymous with countries in the Non-Aligned Movement. -

Yes, in the context of this thread it would be more correct to refer to them as 'developing countries'.

[Katman]

And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/di...deconstructed/

[TheDemonLord]

And a few myths about Andrew Wakefield dispelled.

http://thinkingmomsrevolution.com/di...deconstructed/

Myth #9: Andrew Wakefield dindu Nuffin, he a good boy.

[Katman]

Myth #9: Andrew Wakefield dindu Nuffin, he a good boy.

Is that really all you can come up with in response?

[TheDemonLord]

Is that really all you can come up with in response?

It's all I care to come back with, in regards to that particular con artist.

[Katman]

It's all I care to come back with, in regards to that particular con artist.

The article refutes the claim that he's a 'con artist'.

I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to argue your case.

[TheDemonLord]

The article refutes the claim that he's a 'con artist'.

I thought you'd jump at the opportunity to argue your case.

The article isn't worth the Zeros and Ones that it's transmitted in.

It's a textbook example of misdirection, re-framing, anecdotal evidence, out-of-context misrepresentation and general horse-shit. It's the same type of article you'd see on a Creationist website Just like this, and all the other conspiracy tripe you're fond of pedalling

And let me be clear - My opinion of Andrew Wakefield - is that he's a con artist. Nothing in that article refuted my opinion.

[Katman]

Nothing in that article refuted my opinion.

Yet you're not game to pick any point from the article and argue why it's wrong.

Interesting.

[TheDemonLord]

Yet you're not game to pick any point from the article and argue why it's wrong.

Interesting.

It's really simple - see the button at the top of this thread with numbers on it - click on any one of them, see the posts that I've made - that's why the article is wrong.

You're trying to make it out that I'm not arguing against it because it's so logically robust and exceptionally sourced that I can't refute it - that isn't the case.

I'm pointing out that I'm not arguing against it, in the same way I don't argue against what is in the bottom of the toilet bowl after a particularly heavy night out.

Although to be fair, the Shit in the toilet makes a more compelling argument that what is in that article...

[Katman]

You're trying to make it out that I'm not arguing against it because it's so logically robust and exceptionally sourced that I can't refute it

Exactly.

If there was anything in it that you could refute, you'd be all over it.