Comments by "joe public" (@joepublic3933) on "Coffeezilla"
channel.
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
@parabpbpbp Ok, so I've seen this documentary ages ago, so I can't remember much in the way of details. So to reply to you, I went straight to the transcripts on the site, to check through quickly for an example.
So first episode; lots of info on where the money goes to, with lots of sources (mainly directly the Gates Foundation)... no worries, except for a rather biased vocabulary in the narration ( e.g. "flashy projects" or something like that). The first really interesting bit is how much they've given to Monsanto. The source is given, I click on it....
https://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/27/headlines/gates_foundation_criticized_for_increasing_monsanto_investment
... and get a headline in a web newspaper.Nothing more. Just the headline! That's what I call a very vague source. What would I consider a good source for that? Some peer reviewed economics journal maybe, that had a report with figures...some actual data.
That's just one example, but so happens to be the first. Up til then, it was all just a turn of phrase to make perfectly normal stuff sound sinister.So when your first real bit of detective work (the rest is just quoting from the Gates Foundation site) is based on a headline, it sort of discredits all that will follow!
3
-
@parabpbpbp You're forgetting a small but important detail:
the world extends beyond America.
Do you really think that all the governments, all the scientific communities, all the practitioners of medicine, all of the pharmaceutical companies whether they be major or not, would participate, together, in one big happy family, in a huge cover-up perpetrated by a few wealthy western families? I'm afraid my view of the world is slightly more cynical!
Hollywood stars are the proof of stuff going on? I'm sure they're a highly decadent bunch, practicing all sorts of filthy satanic bare-bottomed silliness. I'm sure there's a few real nasty perverts too.I'm sure they're in all walks of life. Let's hope the police weed them out; it's their job.
There'll always be corruption, too....but none of this requires some sinister global coordination to happen.Which in a way makes it harder to deal with. Spreading lies and unfounded gossip does not help target the real issues.
As you may have guessed, I don't believe in God either!
3
-
2
-
@jeremiahhosea1140 Correct me if I'm wrong , but isn't that book about the treatment of slaves and how they were experimented upon by James Sims?
So Gates Snr was a Eugenicist... a term which has mutated from its origins anyway, but still has the power to create unease, due to its sharing of certain Nazi ideals, mainly. Just because some ideas have roots in dubious places does not make all of them bad: isn't contraception a good concept? I think it is. I'd have hundreds of children by now if it weren't for contraception, so I'm all for it! Is it reasonable to think that the world population can't just go up forever? I think it is. If those are "eugenicist" concepts, then I'm a eugenicist, and so is Bill Gates. But in reality, only a part of the eugenicist philosophy is shared.
Gates has no medical credentials: this is true, so we can ask ourselves why he is where he is today: probably because he is immensely rich, so he can put his money where his mouth is, unlike most of us, and get stuff done rather than waiting round for governments to eventually sit round a table and decide to do things ten years later. Being a mediatised figure, it's his face that crops up all the time, even if the information comes from those who advise him. I expect that with all the connections he has, he's pretty well advised.
When you see how government ministers are shuffled up and moved round, so that you demand where their competence comes from to occupy that post, it's less shocking to me that Gates occupy such a role because at least he's been consistent!
So yeah, he's no doctor, but I think the doctors probably point him in the directions he takes.
Epstein: well, lots of people have met Epstein, I'd imagine. Maybe many met him a whole lot of times.... but does that make them pedophiles? You need more than just: "Bill Gates met with with convicted child-rapist Jeffrey Epstein on "numerous occasions" according to the New York Times" to actually conclude anything.
So basically, you've joined some dots which don't necessarily have any reason to be joined. Everything is linked to everything else if you really want to go far enough... that's ecology for you.
All that to say that a list of statements means nothing.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@philipgeorgiev
My predicted conversation with any conspiracy theorist:
Here's what will happen, if we debate a bit: You'll say "Bill Gates wants to kill half the population, he was chucked out of India, Melinda is a man." I'll ask you for your sources, you'll either say "google it" or "do your own research" or "I don't give links anymore," or « follow the money », or "watch the Corbett report" or you'll just carry on spouting random rubbish.
Then I'll give you my sources, which clearly show you're wrong, but you'll refuse to read (yes READ, not watch, sorry!), saying it's all just biased reports paid by "Big Pharma". Conveniently for you, everything which doesn't go in your sense is sponsored by Bill Gates, including me and anyone else who disagrees with you. Since "almost all media" is apparently funded by Gates (funny how it includes media from every single country in the world), except what's on youtube (which is ironic because it's mainly thanks to him that we're on youtube in the first place), it's impossible to provide you with any evidence. Yet you will ask repeatedly, saying mine isn't good enough without giving any yourself. You will spout on about how evil he is, with lots of CAPITAL LETTERS (you're probably catholic, so I can understand that anyone who promotes contraception is evil to you, since you haven't evolved from the Dark Ages), and completely ignore anything I say. When I ask if at the very least you use Linux and not Windows, you won't reply.
Am I wrong?
1
-
@b.l.a.biglovealwaysbiglove4053
Ok, let me go through some of those points.First of all, when it comes to accusations, it's up to the accuser to provide evidence. Just saying. With regards to Epstein, for example (which I haven't looked into at all), I could never prove he hasn't been on the Lolita express: I can't prove I haven't either! It can only be proved if he has.Is that the case? I don't know, I haven't looked into that at all. So if there is evidence for that I'd be happy to see it .
Damaging people through vaccines: now there's a difficult one as well! As we all know, vaccines aren't 100% safe; nothing is. That's why there are the vaccine courts. That's why research continues permanently to improve them. We don't have the same heavy vaccine schedule in Europe as in the States, so there hasn't been so much controversy over that. I've seen stuff on autism which seems quite convincing, but I've also seen plenty that says it's not related to vaccines. Seems like there's still some doubt on that, which is to be battled among the scientists.
The GMOs is pretty much the same thing, and I'm not going to take a stance on that either; I'll leave that to the scientists.
Why he is listened to? Because he's perfect for the media; a figurehead, household name... who is surrounded by the top of the experts, so pretty well informed, I think.Is he a good person? I don't know. I think he's trying to do good things, but if he's doing it right is another matter. Maybe he is getting richer at the same time, maybe not if he gives it away.
Now let's have a look at the things which have convinced me:
You'll notice my main critic is of stupid conspiracy theories, such as sterilising women in Africa.This one comes up often but was easily debunked:
https://africacheck.org/fbcheck/25-years-on-rumour-by-us-anti-contraceptive-organisation-still-damages-tetanus-vaccine-programmes/
Yeah I know; some say any factcheck site is no good. They cite sources though, so it's not the article itself to which I refer but the sources contained in it.
Next, they say he was chucked out of India. Debunked in five minutes:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200502090716/https://pib.gov.in/newsite/mbErel.aspx?relid=158277
All a mix up of various stories, amalgamated together into a lie.
They say he wants to reduce the population and cite "that " equation:
CO2 = P x S x E x C
They deliberately omit to carry on to the end when speaking of it and say he wants to reduce P, when in fact it's C.
P= people
S= services per person
E= energy per service
C = carbon dioxide per unit energy
The last one, C, must come down to zero because all the others will increase, even if you slow down the rate of increase.
"Innovating to zero" = creating alternative energy sources that do not produce CO2.
Simple maths: anything x anything x anything x zero = zero.
Micro chipping through vaccines is another common one, with reference made to ID2020, where the idea is in fact to give people biometric ID papers or cards when they go in to get vaccinated, thus killing two birds with one stone, to use a rather unfortunate term! Nothing to do with actually injecting people with microchips!
https://www.biometricupdate.com/201909/id2020-and-partners-launch-program-to-provide-digital-id-with-vaccines
What gets me is that even people such as Kennedy have some of these lies on their sites; the population reduction one, for example, which is just so ridiculously easy to disprove. It tends to discredit anything else on their sites which may be founded.
Stage three demographic transition ( or why population increase slows down with better living conditions):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition#Stage_three
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/10/5250
What else? How about a bit of random info:
Danish study on lack of cause of autism by vaccines :
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2101
CDC court case:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/vaccines-trial-us-court-separates-fact-fiction
safety of vaccines :
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/2/325
https://www.advancedped.com/not-foiled-story-aluminum-vaccines/
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/112/6/1394
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/how-biological-patents-promote-research-and-save-lives/
Article in Nature Medecine about origins of COVID 19, by multiple authors from USA, UK and Australia :
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9
But here's a bit of fun, which still proves some points anyway (or not, but so what?!)
Louis CK – Everything is amazing and nobody is happy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdFB7q89_3U
Snakes have legs !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HXMYm4k6w0
Life of Brian- The shoe is the sign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka9mfZbTFbk
Monty Python – Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Ronnie Corbett – Blackberry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAG39jKi0lI
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chrispalko9483 Hi! Haha; I read back those posts and yeah, sorry, it did sound a little harsh from me! My bad.
On to the subject matter though...
I'm glad you noticed you got the wrong country; that's the sort of thing that can easily start unfounded rumours, so it's good to correct it I think.
As for furnishing evidence, I would've thought it's primordial here: are we here to discuss and share our views, or just to blurt out statements? Generally speaking, it's up to the person making the claims to prove them.
That's why I picked up (rather clumsily I admit) on the HPV 2010; I would've liked to see a link or two, rather than just a subject. If you don't want to bring any evidence to the discussion, that's fine....; but it's not much of a discussion in that case.
I personally find peoples' links very useful for researching a subject that interests me; we all know how the youtube algorithms guide us always in one direction, so it's good to have opposite views reflected in the comments section, which lead to other directions of research through the links they provide. If they provide no links, it makes them way less interesting. After all, I can claim absolutely anything, but if I don't back it up with something, it's just hot air.
I hope that wasn't too much of a rant for you! ;)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1