Playing with numbers. It would take a fall of 85% in births PLUS an excess mortality rate of 400% to get to a 30% reduction in world population in ten years

After reading Igor Chudov’s latest post on his excellent SubStack, it got me thinking.

What would be the components of a population reduction conspiracy?

Let’s start with some data.

World population around 8 billion.

Annual births around 134 million.

Annual deaths around 67 million.

Net 67 million increase in the world population.

(My guesstimate for deaths has been around 115 million with an average life of 70 years – shows how wrong you can be – 100%/ 70 years x 8 billion people).

A fall in the birth rate of 10% would equate to 13.4 million fewer births and a 10% increase in deaths would equate to 6.7 million more deaths.

The net change in the world population with a simultaneous decrease in births and a 10% increase in deaths would result in a 20 million reduction in the increase in the world population from 67 million to an increase of 47 million.

That is, instead of the world population increasing by 67 million a year, it would only increase by 47 million – still an increase in the world’s population equivalent to that of Spain.

So what would be required to actually REDUCE the world’s population?

Well, zero births would be the most significant method. Lots of abortions and infertility. Given that at least half of the most fertile people on the planet could not care less about the likes of the WHO, WEF or Fauci, birth rates in these people would not reduce by much, if at all, if left to their own devices. African nations dominate this group. 1.4 billion people right there, the same number as India or China. South America – around 0.4 billion. Asia (ex-China&India but including Pakistan, Bangladesh and Japan) have another 1.4 billion people.

Maybe a similar 1.4 billion people in the “West” have complied with the potential sterility inflicted by injections? Maybe half of who will remain fertile and have normal, rather than babies with severe or serious conditions?

There is little to no prospect of a reduction in the world population from falls in the birth rate – from a global perspective. As with climate change, any contribution to a fall in the world population from births would be from the West. (The current global birth rate already reflects lower birth rates from countries like China and Japan).

To reduce the world population by increasing the rate of deaths looks the most likely to reduce the world population.

Given that current deaths are around 67 million a year, this would have to double to offset births. In other words, ignoring changes in birth rates for the moment, excess mortality globally, would have to be 100% - a long way to go yet compared to the horrific around 15% excess mortality rate being experienced from c19 mRNA injections. Maybe the plan always was that excess deaths would start slowly and accelerate to the doubling required over a few years of poisoning.

As a reminder, 68.7% of the planet has received at least one dose and, with 13 billion doses administered so far, 68.7% of the world represents 5.5 billion people having received an average of 2.4 doses each.

So, 100% excess mortality would stabilize the world’s population if births continue at the current rate.

To reduce the world’s population, let’s assume a 50% reduction in the 134 million annual births AND a 100% excess mortality rate. So births drop to 67 million while deaths increase to 134 million a year.

Now we have the world’s 8 billion population decreasing by 67 million a year, rather than increasing. Is that sufficient to satisfy a goal of reducing the world population?

Exactly how much of a population reduction is the goal? 30%, 50%? Over what time frame?

Let’s test one scenario and see what it looks like.

The goal is to reduce the world’s population by 30% in the next ten years.

That implies a reduction of around 240 million a year. Our previous scenario of excess mortality of 100% with a fall in birth rates of 50% resulted in a rate of reduction of just 67 million. To meet a goal of 240 million would require something like a reduction in births to just 20 million (from 134 million) and an increase in deaths to 260 million(from 67 million) – which would equate to an excess mortality rate of s little under 400%.

It may very well be that 5-10% of those injected will die ahead of their time. We don’t know what the results of massive c19 mRNA injections of toxins will bring. It does not sound that far fetched given the numbers of vaxx dead we are already estimating, which is really only the initial poisoning phase.

Of course, global catastrophes – whether from wars, starvations, natural disasters, new diseases or from moronic climate change policies could also occur that aren’t planned – though climate change deaths certainly ARE planned.

Food for thought.

Speaking of food, if you don’t want to subscribe, you can buy me a coffee if you like! https://ko-fi.com/peterhalligan