Agenda 21 - The Depopulation Blueprint

Talk E

CiaranMT wrote: »

Focusing on the fatties and ignoring the general public's rude health, I'm assuming?

300 Million is a good chunk of the world population. Then there are an estimated 1.3 billion smokers world wide, another huge chunk.


Are you arguing that those 1.3 billion people are healthy ?


Then we have...

Cancer

Aids

HIV

Drugs

Alcohol

Birth defects

Malnourished

Psychological

Epidemics

(endless list)

CiaranMT

Talk E wrote: »

300 Million is a good chunk of the world population. Then there are an estimated 1.3 billion smokers world wide, another huge chunk.


Are you arguing that those 1.3 billion people are healthy ?


Then we have...

Cancer

Aids

HIV

Drugs

Alcohol

Birth defects

Malnourished

Psychological

Epidemics

(endless list)

These have been with humanity throughout our history, nothing new here. AIDS/HIV can be substituted with Spanish flu, polio, smallpox, etc.

What's your point?

Talk E

CiaranMT wrote: »

These have been with humanity throughout our history, nothing new here. AIDS/HIV can be substituted with Spanish flu, polio, smallpox, etc.

What's your point?

I made my point several posts ago and it's still good.

People may be living longer, but they are not necessarily healthier. :rolleyes:

EDIT:
There have not been 1.3 billion smokers throughout history. And woman only started smoking recently.

CiaranMT

Talk E wrote: »

I made my point several posts ago and it's still good.

People may be living longer, but they are not necessarily healthier. :rolleyes:

EDIT:
There have not been 1.3 billion smokers throughout history. And woman only started smoking recently.

But how do these posts of yours tie into this CT that the world's population is being systematically reduced?

Talk E

CiaranMT wrote: »

But how do these posts of yours tie into this CT that the world's population is being systematically reduced?

Nice cop out

It's quite simple. Because statistics show that people are living longer it gives the illusion that people are healthier. While the reality is, they are sicker. It can be argued and has been, that most of these illnesses are man made. Through greed or a depopulation agenda, depending on your belief.

ed2hands

CiaranMT wrote: »

That page deliberately skews things like AIDS/HIV and is clearly western-centric, where population loss is well known about.

The AIDS/HIV 'pandemic' piece is laughable. Obviously, any disease is going to 'raise mortality and slow population growth'. You could put in cancers or tuberculosis, typhoid or cholera and the context of the sentence wouldn't change.

40m of those infected represents less than 0.6 of 1% of the world population. 11m who have died represents less than 0.2 of 1%.

To put it into context, the Spanish flu pandemic is estimated to have killed between 50-100m.


I agree with you that AIDS is relatively insignificant at the moment, but thats besides the point. The author has included it in his article and thats his perogative.
All i set out to do was supply your demand for a "source" of facts of de-population, which i have done by posting that link. I don't have to or want to defend or debate the finer points of it's content. The links statistics are accurate. And you now admit it above:
"...where population loss is well known about"

As for you claim that it's western-centric, well i would disagree as the page clearly covers all global zones, but i couldn't be bothered arguing the point. Take it up with the author.:) Of course he/she/they would have highlighted western countries as that is where the issue is most clear right now.

And lastly, yes i do appreciate the difference you pointed out regarding fertility rates and eggs. However, the fact is, for whatever reasons, worldwide fertility rates have gone through the floor. That was mine and jma's point.

CiaranMT

Talk E wrote: »

Nice cop out

It's quite simple. Because statistics show that people are living longer it gives the illusion that people are healthier. While the reality is, they are sicker. It can be argued and has been, that most of these illnesses are man made. Through greed or a depopulation agenda, depending on your belief.

Cop out from what? I don't buy into that idea.

ed2hands wrote: »

I agree with you that AIDS is relatively insignificant at the moment, but thats besides the point. The author has included it in his article and thats his perogative.
All i set out to do was supply your demand for a "source" of facts of de-population, which i have done by posting that link. I don't have to or want to defend or debate the finer points of it's content. The links statistics are accurate. And you now admit it above:
"...where population loss is well known about"

As for you claim that it's western-centric, well i would disagree as the page clearly covers all global zones, but i couldn't be bothered arguing the point. Take it up with the author.:) Of course he/she/they would have highlighted western countries as that is where the issue is most clear right now.

And lastly, yes i do appreciate the difference you pointed out regarding fertility rates and eggs. However, the fact is, for whatever reasons, worldwide fertility rates have gone through the floor. That was mine and jma's point.

I'm admitting to it?

It's been well known for years. There's no cover-up about it. Governments in Europe actively encourage having children where population loss occurs.

As for it not being western centric, pay attention to how the different areas are covered.

The reasons for fertility rates dropping are numerous and well known.

Tbh, I don't even know what we're debating here.

Talk E

CiaranMT wrote: »

Cop out from what? I don't buy into that idea.

The cop out came when you said..

But how do these posts of yours tie into this CT that the world's population is being systematically reduced?

After arguing about it for 2 pages

ed2hands

CiaranMT wrote: »

Cop out from what? I don't buy into that idea.



I'm admitting to it?

It's been well known for years. There's no cover-up about it. Governments in Europe actively encourage having children where population loss occurs.

As for it not being western centric, pay attention to how the different areas are covered.

The reasons for fertility rates dropping are numerous and well known.

Tbh, I don't even know what we're debating here.

Not sure either

Just to backtrack a couple of pages then, after someone asked the question "What are the global population trends for the last 20 years?" after which you replied "Indeed, kinda renders any argument on de-polulation null and void"
Thats where we disagree. And so it went on from there...I stated a fact...you demanded a source... i supplied it...you took issue with aspects of it's content...and here we are. Not sure where we're going on this either, but i would personally agree with the general theme or premise of the thread in general, ie the powers that be, whether it be UN or whoever, have an agenda for massive de-population, and the debate is whether they've been carrying it through in any number of subtle and not so subtle ways or what some called "soft kill". Now maybe i shouldn't replaster the thread with links to support this as there's plenty on here already. Monsanto http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvGddgHRQyg...GM crops...big pharma... vaccinations ala Bill Gates...big tobacco...etc etc etc. You could start anywhere and make a good case IMHO.

Now, you state above that "the reasons for fertility rates dropping are numerous and well known." They're numerous alright, and some are well known, but neither you or anyone else can claim to declare all of it "null and void"

CiaranMT

It's pretty clear to see that, despite all these issues affecting population growth, it continues to increase at an astronomical rate. Which was my point.

The UN's own low rate is optimistic to say the least, and even going by their medium rate, the world population will be over 8bn by 2030.

Talk E, your line of reasoning seems to rather obtuse to me, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at tbh, it's confusing

jma

Going back to my water fluoridation issue - you can put it in very simple terms - arguments for and arguments against.

There is really only one argument for, and that has been rendered void because of better dental care, alternative sources of fluoride, etc. That leaves us with arguments against:

• Unethical
• Infringing on individual rights
• Proven adverse effects
• Unproven possible adverse effects (why take the risk)
• Absolutely zero benefits from ingesting fluoridated water (how many times do we use fluoridated water as mouth wash only as opposed to drinking or consuming it? Once, maybe twice a day? A small percentage.

Not to mention the legality issues.
http://www.greenparty.org.uk/files/reports/2003/F%20illegality.htm

So why is it being continued?

Talk E

Because dental benefits are not the real reason for fluoridation.

ed2hands

CiaranMT wrote: »

It's pretty clear to see that, despite all these issues affecting population growth, it continues to increase at an astronomical rate. Which was my point.

The UN's own low rate is optimistic to say the least , and even going by their medium rate, the world population will be over 8bn by 2030.

Talk E, your line of reasoning seems to rather obtuse to me, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at tbh, it's confusing

It not as simple as that. Someone posted that lovely U.N. chart a couple of pages back. The charts people should pay attention to are ones such as these:
http://newworldorderuniversity.com/wp-content/uploads/worldgr.gif

Worldwide fertility rates have gone from 5.02 to 2.65 between 1950 and 2005 and they're still dropping fast for many reasons (and some are "soft kill IMO). The U.N. itself says it expects F rates to keep falling for at least the next 40 years. So based on this info. i can look at that lovely shiny U.N. chart again and hazard a guess of what is nearer the mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY

The famous analagy for the situation is to imagine a car in neutral rolling down a hill. Once it reaches the bottom, it will still travel quite a distance because of momentum. So in other words, the true effect of fertility dropping will not be felt for decades. And then it kicks in and becomes a downward self-perpetuating spiral.

Is it planned? You betcha!!

ed2hands

The real smartass way to defend it would have been:
"So if you believe so much that overpopulation is such a danger, then i presume you aren't having any more children in support of this. If you do happen to have a child/children, you'll be advising them not to have any more than one MAX for the sake of the "earth" ( or none ideally). So probably no grandkids for you then...In fact, just to keep make sure, and keep the CO2 levels down, why don't you just top yourself...

The population crisis is a myth. Westerncentric my ass.

Is the U.N. and secret govt. killing us kindly? One thing's for sure. They don't really care all that much...

Hats off to jma for all the info on this thread. Worth a read.

jma

Cheers, ed2hands

Look at this - even Hollywood is trying to tell us something...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hKWsH9i24Q

ed2hands

CiaranMT wrote: »

The UN have a bit on it (from 2005)

Linkee

This whole idea of depopulation is very western-centric anyway, where population growth is already slowing or is in reverse. I mean, if you were a half-decent NWO, you be better served to head on down to Africa and raze the place to the ground. Likewise with India.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1DRGcSets&feature=related

They're half-decent alright...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI0fnRbhHFo

jma

Here's another issue:

Take a look at the last section on this web page (website belongs to the Irish Dental Association):

http://www.dentist.ie/resources/faqs/prostho/index.jsp

How safe are Amalgam / Mercury fillings?
Amalgam FillingDental amalgam has been used on patients for over 150 years. All available world-wide research indicates that amalgam is not harmful to health. This view is endorsed by the International Dental Federation, the International Association for Dental Research, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and many dental associations, including the American, British and Canadian.

No Government or reputable scientific, medical or dental body anywhere in the world accepts, on any published evidence, that dental amalgam is a hazard to health.

These statements are false and extremely misleading. Mercury is very toxic. Amalgam fillings release mercury vapour constantly over time, even more so when the fillings are exposed to heat or chewing gum, etc. Perhaps most people will remain unaffected by this, but some people will have trouble excreting the mercury from their body, and this can lead to chronic, or sometimes acute mercury poisoning. The problem is that mercury poisoning is not easily detected and can lead to a large number of different symptoms, including damage to the difestive system, circulatory system and the central nervous system. A number of auto-immune diseases have also been linked to mercury poisoning.

With regards to the statement above, there has been a large number of peer-reviewed studies carried out that suggest amalgam fillings can have very serious side-effects to a person's health. Furthermore, there are a number of governments and local governments that have either banned, are in the process of banning, or have restrictions on the use of amalgam fillings. Some of these include Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Japan, and California.

Considering all the facts, uncertainties and controversies, that's a pretty shameless statement for the IDA to put up their website, I think!

humanji

Have those countries actually banned the use of amalgam because it's hazardous to your health, or do they just not use them?

hooradiation

jma wrote: »

With regards to the statement above, there has been a large number of peer-reviewed studies carried out that suggest amalgam fillings can have very serious side-effects to a person's health.

That's pretty interesting - got any links to hand?

jma

humanji wrote: »

Have those countries actually banned the use of amalgam because it's hazardous to your health, or do they just not use them?

In most cases, it seems to be both for health and for environment reasons. In Germany, for example, they regulate the use of Mercury and prohibit use on children, pregnant women, people with liver problems, etc.

The following are extracts from the bill H.R.4011, "Mercury in Dental Fillings Disclosure and Prohibition Act", sponsored by Diane Watson, U.S. Representative for California's 33rd congressional district:

(1) Elemental mercury and mercury compounds are known to be toxic and hazardous to human health and to the environment.

(3) A dental amalgam, commonly referred to as a `silver filling', consists of 42 to 58 percent mercury.

(9) Recently funded research by the National Institutes of Health has concluded that when inorganic mercury is located in brain tissue, researchers are unable to demonstrate an appreciable half-life, or decrease, of mercury over time (more than 120 days). The implications of this conclusion are that dental amalgam exposure will permanently increase mercury body burden.

Dental Amalgam, used in many dental fillings, causes exposure to mercury, a chemical known to the state of California to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm'.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.4011:

I'm still doing my research, but here's one link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_amalgam_controversy#Autoimmune_disorders

jma

Here's another decent link "The Case Against Amalgam" (PDF):
http://www.iaomt.org/articles/files/files193/The%20Case%20Against%20Amalgam.pdf

hooradiation

Those are some pretty interesting links - a brief skim seems to highlight the bone of contention being that nobody can conclusively prove if the amounts of mercury released is causing measurable harm to people rather than "is there mercury being released by amalgam fillings".
The wikipeida link covers the Maths Berlin overview of five years worth of research and it is, at it's best, highly inconclusive.
Even the "The Case Against Amalgam" pdf you linked suffers this issue as it simply asserts that low level exposure from fillings is bad and in almost the same breath admits that there is no research to back this up and that the best they can come up with is "very provocative indications" and "suggestions". Indeed that entire section (page 10) is laden with evocative language and topped with an appeal to fear so I'm worried that it's not as fair as it could be.
Though as an aside, given the meme of "big pharma invents scares to make money" i found this section from the wikipedia article to be amusing

"Consumer Reports magazine, among others, claims that the connection between many of these diseases and amalgam fillings is solely revenue generating propaganda. Consumer Reports told its readers on several occasions that "if a dentist wants to remove your fillings because they contain mercury, watch your wallet.""

All in all, I have no doubt the amount of mercury in my body is higher than it would have been if i didn't have any fillings. But it is also higher than it would have been if i didn't have tuna steak last night.

But in both cases there is very little in the way of consensus on the negative effects, if any, so I'm probably going to hold off on expensive dental procedures and swearing off tasty, tasty tuna for now.

ed2hands

hooradiation wrote: »

Those are some pretty interesting links - a brief skim seems to highlight the bone of contention being that nobody can conclusively prove if the amounts of mercury released is causing measurable harm to people rather than "is there mercury being released by amalgam fillings".
The wikipeida link covers the Maths Berlin overview of five years worth of research and it is, at it's best, highly inconclusive.
Even the "The Case Against Amalgam" pdf you linked suffers this issue as it simply asserts that low level exposure from fillings is bad and in almost the same breath admits that there is no research to back this up and that the best they can come up with is "very provocative indications" and "suggestions". Indeed that entire section (page 10) is laden with evocative language and topped with an appeal to fear so I'm worried that it's not as fair as it could be.
Though as an aside, given the meme of "big pharma invents scares to make money" i found this section from the wikipedia article to be amusing

"Consumer Reports magazine, among others, claims that the connection between many of these diseases and amalgam fillings is solely revenue generating propaganda. Consumer Reports told its readers on several occasions that "if a dentist wants to remove your fillings because they contain mercury, watch your wallet.""

All in all, I have no doubt the amount of mercury in my body is higher than it would have been if i didn't have any fillings. But it is also higher than it would have been if i didn't have tuna steak last night.

But in both cases there is very little in the way of consensus on the negative effects, if any, so I'm probably going to hold off on expensive dental procedures and swearing off tasty, tasty tuna for now.

Can i ask you if you've looked into the vaccination issue much in relation to mercury?
Maybe you're aware, it has now been removed and replaced with some organic compound i think. Why was this done?

Am wondering is long-term mercury poisoning easy to trace?

That section from wiki you just linked also has a section on tests done on dentists and the negative health effects.

King Mob

ed2hands wrote: »

Can i ask you if you've looked into the vaccination issue much in relation to mercury?
Maybe you're aware, it has now been removed and replaced with some organic compound i think. Why was this done?

Certain vaccines have ingredients with mercury compounds, saying that it was just mercury isn't the full truth.
One such ingredient is thimerosal which was removed from childhood vaccines as a precautionary measure to allay false fears and to boost vaccination rates.

There was and is no evidence that it caused any harm.

hooradiation

ed2hands wrote: »

Can i ask you if you've looked into the vaccination issue much in relation to mercury?
Maybe you're aware, it has now been removed and replaced with some organic compound i think. Why was this done?

As much as people would like to think that this was done by "public pressure" it's far more mundane than that - after a study in 1999 about mercury in food, the CDC asked vaccine manufacturers to remove Thiomersal (which is an Organomercury compound, not actually just a big old lump of mercury as people often seem to think) as a precautionary measure.
See here, the 4th paragraph down for the reasoning behind the oft maligned FDA deciding to take this step

ed2hands wrote: »

Am wondering is long-term mercury poisoning easy to trace?

From my, admittedly limited, understanding it would depend on dosage. If you're getting relatively high doses over time it'll be easier to identify than, say, the small amount of mercury a filling would introduce.
Which is central to the question here - if the long term, low level exposure to mercury is essentially impossible to trace how can you attribute it's presence to any condition or sets of conditions while still being intellectually honest?

ed2hands wrote: »

That section from wiki you just linked also has a section on tests done on dentists and the negative health effects.

I read the that section, but it has many of the same problems as most of this research - a lot of the evidence seems to be weak at best. For example, the latest report shows that there is a link between cognitive impairment and the dental profession BUT exposure among these dental personnel is not much greater than exposures to the general population through the dental amalgam in their fillings - which goes back to the above, if they're not exposed to much more than the rest of us what explains this cognitive impairment?

ed2hands

Thanks for replies.

jma

I think the burden of mercury on the body can be assessed by testing urine, stool, hair and saliva samples, to a certain extent anyway.

The amount of mercury vapour released from filling can be easily measured with electronic equipment as far as I know.

Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known. If mercury in amalgam fillings is constantly being absorbed by tissue and inhaled, I honestly fail to see how this can be safe.

Obviously, people aren't going to keel over dead after getting a filling, but if mercury can play even a minute role in a person developing a chronic disease or symptom, it's not something I'd like planted in my mouth.

I personally have a number of symptoms that various doctors, dentists and specialists haven't yet been able to explain. They all came some time after I got my first mercury fillings. I was to get 7 fillings in total. When I saw that the dentist was using amalgam on the first tooth, I told her I wanted the white fillings. She told me that white fillings weren't possible, but assured me amalgam was perfectly safe, so I let her continue. She also used amalgam on the second. When I found out afterwards that she was planning to use amalgam on all 7 fillings, I walked out and went to a different dentist. The second dentist told me my teeth were all fine, I didn't need any further fillings, and that one of the previous fillings I had just got was poorly done. My new dentist advised me to have them removed. I was awful mad! When I went back to the first dentist to speak my mind though, she had already left the surgery. Pretty sure she was fired. Another dentist at the surgery confirmed I didn't need any further fillings, but obviously wouldn't admit to any guilt or whatever.

Anyway, I'm very eager now to have my two fillings removed, and just need to find someone that will remove them safely. Really hoping it will get rid of at least some of my symptoms...

jma

Interesting fact sheet:
http://www.iaomt.org/articles/files/files286/Fact%20Sheet%20with%20active%20references%209-06.pdf

hooradiation

jma wrote: »

Mercury is one of the most toxic substances known. If mercury in amalgam fillings is constantly being absorbed by tissue and inhaled, I honestly fail to see how this can be safe.
Obviously, people aren't going to keel over dead after getting a filling, but if mercury can play even a minute role in a person developing a chronic disease or symptom, it's not something I'd like planted in my mouth.

"The dose makes the poison" is a maxim for a reason.

As an aside, do you avoid seafood?

jma

hooradiation wrote: »

"The dose makes the poison" is a maxim for a reason.

I know that, but I don't really think it's relevant. You can't really say that mercury fillings are perfectly safe. And there's not much point endorsing amalgam when there's safer alternatives available.

Chronic exposure by inhalation, even at low concentrations in the range 0.7–42 μg/m3, has been shown in case control studies to cause effects such as tremors, impaired cognitive skills, and sleep disturbance in workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_poisoning#Elemental_mercury

hooradiation wrote: »

As an aside, do you avoid seafood?

I do actually. Not a big fan of seafood at all.