Agenda 21 - The Depopulation Blueprint

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

Why are you getting so hung up on it? Sodium Fluoride isn't added to our water anyway.. Sodium Fluoroacetate is, and you've already conceded that is also added to rat poison

No - it (Sodium Fluoroacetate) is not used for fluoridation.

caseyann

Di0genes wrote: »

Yeah because genuine secret documents about plans for a global genocide are going to be available via a google search.

Best way to quash it is to hide in plain site:p

thecommander

caseyann wrote: »

Best way to quash it is to hide in plain site:p

No its not.

Making sure noone sees them is the best way to hide something.

caseyann

thecommander wrote: »

No its not.

Making sure noone sees them is the best way to hide something.

God no its not,stick it out there so anyone who thinks,nah sure the government wouldnt do that can attack it,and they fight among themselves.Keep yous distracted.;)And the old sure if it was true they would hide it.

caseyann

My name is URL wrote: »

Why are you getting so hung up on it? Sodium Fluoride isn't added to our water anyway.. Sodium Fluoroacetate is, and you've already conceded that is also added to rat poison

Water is tasting very cloudy and off of late.:(

thecommander

caseyann wrote: »

Water is tasting very cloudy and off of late.:(

Which do you think it is Sodium Fluoride or Sodium Fluoroacetate?

My name is URL

alastair wrote: »

No - it (Sodium Fluoroacetate) is not used for fluoridation.

My mistake. Dihydrogen Hexafluorosilicate is what's used.. and is/was also used as an insecticide as well other things. Besides, I'm not convinced of it's danger in water treatment.. I'd just prefer it wasn't forced upon us

You conveniently ignored a question i asked you earlier btw.. care to answer it?

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

You conveniently ignored a question i asked you earlier btw.. care to answer it?

Sure - I'm of an opinion that prevention is always better than cure, and, unless there's evidence that the risks outweight the benefits (and no-one convincingly claims that the risks are signficant), I'd stick with fluoridation. You could make exactly the same argument for mandatory Rubella inoculation (or any inoculation tbh), but I wouldn't agree there either.

My name is URL

alastair wrote: »

Sure - I'm of an opinion that prevention is always better than cure, and, unless there's evidence that the risks outweight the benefits (and no-one convincingly claims that the risks are signficant), I'd stick with fluoridation. You could make exactly the same argument for mandatory Rubella inoculation (or any inoculation tbh), but I wouldn't agree there either.

Inoculations aren't mandatory.. and have feck all in common with something like protection against cavities.

There's currently some studies being done into whether or not adding lithium to water supplies is a good idea, in order to lower suicide rates.. you'd agree with that too would you? Prevention is better than cure only when the preventative measures are limited to those likely to need them.

namloc1980

What freaks me out is when they add dihydrogen monoxide to water!

alastair

My name is URL wrote: »

Inoculations aren't mandatory.. and have feck all in common with something like protection against cavities.

There's currently some studies being done into whether or not adding lithium to water supplies is a good idea, in order to lower suicide rates.. you'd agree with that too would you? Prevention is better than cure only when the preventative measures are limited to those likely to need them.

I'd wrongly assumed Rubella and TB inoculations were - the smallpox one certainly was in my day.

How exactly would you proposed to limit the benefits of fluoridation to only those who need it - given that they clearly don't opt for the alternatives? If the fluoride doesn't do any harm to to who don't need it, then I see no problem - and I don't see the case being made for harm.

My name is URL

alastair wrote: »

I'd wrongly assumed Rubella and TB inoculations were - the smallpox one certainly was in my day.

How exactly would you proposed to limit the benefits of fluoridation to only those who need it - given that they clearly don't opt for the alternatives? If the fluoride doesn't do any harm to to who don't need it, then I see no problem - and I don't see the case being made for harm.

There's fluoride in loads of stuff nowadays. Would you say that those likely to neglect their oral hygiene are also likely to be poorer than the average person.. or on benefits, or alcoholics or disabled in some way? I'm horribly generalizing here I know.. but my point is that there are ways to know who needs to be targeted. if they're on benefits then supply them with supplements, if they're alcoholics then they're already getting fluoride.

There shouldn't need to be a case made for it being harmful... taking a multivitamin every day isn't harmful but we're not expected to do it, nor supplied with them by the state!

bytey

mcmoustache wrote: »

When are they going to get their act together? The world population is rising way too fast in Africa and Asia. If there is a depopulation strategy being imlpemented, they're doing a shít job of it. For what it's worth, I think we do need population control in poor countries but it's clear that only the Chinese are taking it seriously.

why poor countrys ?

we need it more in the western world , every one who can is having kids
and if they understood the future thats waiting for these kids in an overpopulated world , theyd be slapping a condom on rapidly .

bytey

namloc1980 wrote: »

What freaks me out is when they add dihydrogen monoxide to water!

oh my god its like Bill Hicks rose from the dead and into the forum .

old nerdy joke is old

bytey

caseyann wrote: »

Water is tasting very cloudy and off of late.:(

id check the shape of your tap , that may not be water ;):pac:

Truthrevolution

On top of everything else you guys have said about it flouride also depletes good bacteria in the gut.This can have devastating consequences, it lowers your immune system, damages endochrine function, destablise's mood and can cause autism in young children.By all means we should avoid drinking tap water until these toxins are removed from our water supplies.

TalkieWalkie

Our loving government just want us to have nice teeth

jma

alastair wrote: »

How exactly would you proposed to limit the benefits of fluoridation to only those who need it - given that they clearly don't opt for the alternatives? If the fluoride doesn't do any harm to to who don't need it, then I see no problem - and I don't see the case being made for harm.

Have you not read the PDF I posted? Rat poison aside, there are lots of other things mentioned in it that raises a lot of concern about water fluoridation, no?

What about the bioaccumulation of fluoride in the brain? What about the studies that have been done on pineal gland calcification?

Caries has also been on a steady decline, well before water fluoridation started. It has also been on the decline in countries where fluoridation has been banned or stopped.

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103-f.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.gif

If you don't trust the information in my PDF, maybe have a look at Dr. Blaylock's report on Fluoride:

http://www.lakeschiro.com/Blaylock%20Reports/blaylock_fluoride_4.pdf

RoboClam

Truthrevolution wrote: »

On top of everything else you guys have said about it flouride also depletes good bacteria in the gut.This can have devastating consequences, it lowers your immune system, damages endochrine function, destablise's mood and can cause autism in young children.By all means we should avoid drinking tap water until these toxins are removed from our water supplies.

I assume that you can back your point that drinking fluoridated tap water can have these affects.

jma

RoboClam wrote: »

I assume that you can back your point that drinking fluoridated tap water can have these affects.

Immune System
http://www.fluoridealert.org/immune-system.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDS-4G3DNXT-CC&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F1987&_rdoc=12&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info%28%23toc%236774%231987%23999559998%23594741%23FLP%23display%23Volume%29&_cdi=6774&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=15&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f8a76d8d9fb308ef439c07a051ffc25d
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/immune/gibson-1992.pdf
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/immune/sutton-1991.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/immune/sutton-1987.html
Autism
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20001118214326
http://www.autism.com/fam_anesthesia_fluoride.asp
Endocrine Functions
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/pineal/luke-1997.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-thyroid.htm
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc

King Mob

Honest question, did you actually read any of these or is you misrepresentation deliberate?

We'll exclude all the crap from biased sites....

jma wrote: »

Immune System
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...9c07a051ffc25d

This is the only actual scientific study.
However it has nothing to do with drinking fluoridated water.

It's a study of a chemical that happens to be also used to raise the level of fluoride in the water, not the fluoride.
Also they are in high doses far far beyond what's in drinking water.
Also rabbits aren't human.

jma wrote: »

Autism
http://www.autism.com/fam_anesthesia_fluoride.asp

Well I eat loads of toothpaste when I was a kid and I don't have autism.

So does this anecdote trump that woman's?
If it does, the same applies to my brother.

jma wrote: »

Endocrine Functions
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc

Now if you read the description of the book you can plainly see that they aren't talking about the health effects at the accepted safe levels.

So any chance we can see a few peer reviewed papers, preferably from a neutral site like pubmed?

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

rabbits aren't human.

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P

alastair

jma wrote: »

Have you not read the PDF I posted? Rat poison aside, there are lots of other things mentioned in it that raises a lot of concern about water fluoridation, no?

What about the bioaccumulation of fluoride in the brain? What about the studies that have been done on pineal gland calcification?

Caries has also been on a steady decline, well before water fluoridation started. It has also been on the decline in countries where fluoridation has been banned or stopped.

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103-f.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.gif

If you don't trust the information in my PDF, maybe have a look at Dr. Blaylock's report on Fluoride:

http://www.lakeschiro.com/Blaylock%20Reports/blaylock_fluoride_4.pdf

Nope, I neither trust the info in your PDF, nor the 'reports' of a shill like Blaylock. As requested before - peer reviewed scientific journals will do nicely.

King Mob

My name is URL wrote: »

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P

Chocolate is poisonous to dogs, therefore it must be poisonous to humans right?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Well I eat loads of toothpaste when I was a kid

BINGO!

I knew there had to be something affecting your brain functioning correctly, now I know, I'll try be a bit more understanding with your post's full of nonsense.

You were too young to understand the effect it would have later in life, sorry if I offended you in the past.

bytey

its pretty simple in the end

the human body does not need flouride to assist tooth health
how the hell do you think we managed to survive for so long without it ?


do we think nature created a being that would one day discover that it needed to insert special chemical in its own water to keep it self healthy

anything other than natural solutes in water are not good for you, this includes chlorine

the sooner its gone from our water the better.

you can argue and counter argue that putting it in the water does no harm, but it does no good either - its of no value to anyone.


if you want to keep teeth healthy , you need to floss them , and our ancestors did this using wood picks , corn stalks etc , not by inventing a chemical .

My name is URL

King Mob wrote: »

Chocolate is poisonous to dogs, therefore it must be poisonous to humans right?

That's why it's a fallacy =p

King Mob

bytey wrote: »

anything other than natural solutes in water are not good for you, this includes chlorine

You realise that fluoride can occur naturally in water right?
And that fluoridation often involves removing excess fluoride to keep the levels at their most beneficial?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Chocolate is poisonous to dogs, therefore it must be poisonous to humans right?

Yes!.......Theobromine poisoning, google it.

EDIT:
A family member suffered it before!!, guess how????, eating too much chocolate

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

Yes!.......Theobromine poisoning, google it.

You mean how it rarely effects humans unless they eat ridiculous amounts of chocolate?
Or do you mean how dogs aren't actually able to metabolise the chemical like we can?

Almost as if different species react differently to chemicals...