OK but why does he bring up "vaccines" in the context of his speech?
Here's what I posted last march.
"His point was that population was going to rise and at best that growth could be reduced by 10-15%. He sounded like it was unavoidable."
"It didn't sound like he was advocating vaccines for a nefarious purpose, because you could get a lot more than a 10-15% reduction in growth if that was your aim."
"I'm sure if we watched the entire speech that his conclusion would be that the easiest part of the equation to change is the carbon footprint of the energy produced. "