Agenda 21 - The Depopulation Blueprint

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

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...

So rarely means it's not, haha.........

So chocolate can be poisonous to humans, so go back and delete that statement and I'll delete the quote because of my sympathy over the toothpaste thing...:D

uprising2

RoboClam wrote: »

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

And I assume you can disprove them...............cause you can't, simple.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

So rarely means it's not, haha.........

You're right I do need to qualify the statement with "At typically ingested amounts".

So the study neither shows the effects of fluoride on humans, nor the effects of fluoride at typically ingested amounts.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

And I assume you can disprove them...............cause you can't, simple.

Uprising you do know what the burden of proof is right?

Can you disprove that fluoride gives you superpowers for example?

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Uprising you do know what the burden of proof is right?

Never heard of it................enlighten me and waste your time all at the same time.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Uprising you do know what the burden of proof is right?

Can you disprove that fluoride gives you superpowers for example?

This is a Conspiracy Theorist forum... It's where Conspiracy Theorists come to chat and discuss Conspiracy Theories.
If skeppies wanna enter our forum for whatever reason, the onus is on you to disprove these theories.
If you don't like it, I suggest you ask someone to create a skeppie forum for yas

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This is a Conspiracy Theorist forum... It's where Conspiracy Theorists come to chat and discuss Conspiracy Theories.
If skeppies wanna enter our forum for whatever reason, the onus is on you to disprove these theories.
If you don't like it, I suggest you ask someone to create a skeppie forum for yas

I have a conspiracy theory. The theory goes that fluoridated water can actually have positive effects.

OK so now that I'm a conspiracy theorist, does this mean that no one is allowed to disagree with me?

TalkieWalkie

RoboClam wrote: »

I have a conspiracy theory. The theory goes that fluoridated water can actually have positive effects.

OK so now that I'm a conspiracy theorist, does this mean that no one is allowed to disagree with me?

Sorry clamster, thats not enough. You need to get an initiation beating first

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Sorry clamster, thats not enough. You need to get an initiation beating first

There's always a catch

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This is a Conspiracy Theorist forum... It's where Conspiracy Theorists come to chat and discuss Conspiracy Theories.
If skeppies wanna enter our forum for whatever reason, the onus is on you to

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

And that's what I came here to discuss.disprove these theories.
If you don't like it, I suggest you ask someone to create a skeppie forum for yas

Well unfortunately that's not how it works.
You can't prove a negative.

I can no more disprove this than you can disprove that fluoride gives you superpowers.
Go on, give it a try. I mean if you demand we do it, it's only fair that you show you can do it yourself

What I can do is ask for evidence that has lead people to these theories.
And I can refute the evidence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Or in the case that no evidence is presented, can you explain to me how theory would be then distinguishable from fiction?

But hey, if you don't like people asking questions there's plenty of sites where you can discuss CTs and no one would dare scrutinise any claims....

uprising2 wrote: »

Never heard of it................enlighten me and waste your time all at the same time.

Explained above and probably explained to you hundreds of times before.

uprising2

RoboClam wrote: »

There's always a catch

Don't worry we travel to you, a convoy usually arrives with steelcap boots......Welcome FRIEND;)

uprising2

King Mob wrote: »

Well unfortunately that's not how it works.
You can't prove a negative.

I can no more disprove this than you can disprove that fluoride gives you superpowers.
Go on, give it a try. I mean if you demand we do it, it's only fair that you show you can do it yourself

What I can do is ask for evidence that has lead people to these theories.
And I can refute the evidence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Or in the case that no evidence is presented, can you explain to me how theory would be then distinguishable from fiction?

But hey, if you don't like people asking questions there's plenty of sites where you can discuss CTs and no one would dare scrutinise any claims....


Explained above and probably explained to you hundreds of times before.

You forgot the unicorns??????, that toothpaste must be working.

King Mob

uprising2 wrote: »

You forgot the unicorns??????, that toothpaste must be working.

So you don't want to discuss the topic then?
Or address anything in the post?

TalkieWalkie

This topic has worn itself out. There is not a fool left (bar the Gov) in society who thinks mass forced medication via water supply, is a good idea. Not to mention mass forced poison via water supply.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

This topic has worn itself out. There is not a fool left (bar the Gov) in society who thinks mass forced medication via water supply, is a good idea. Not to mention mass forced poison via water supply.

Yea basically everything you've just said is entirely baseless.

Most medical and dental organisations endorse fluoridation.
You'd be hard pressed to find a respectable one that doesn't.

A recent survey in Australia found that 70% of people where for it while only 15% opposed it.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2009.00144.x/abstract;jsessionid=E27C9A61D1AF0ABF6278AFD5878A96E4.d03t01

Oh, and the fact that it's not poisonous at the levels present in water.

pablo_escobar

King Mob wrote:

Yea basically everything you've just said is entirely baseless.

war is peace

King Mob wrote:

Most medical and dental organisations endorse fluoridation.
You'd be hard pressed to find a respectable one that doesn't.

10 seconds, California Dental Association

King Mob wrote:

Oh, and the fact that it's not poisonous at the levels present in water.

subjective statement based on emotion rather than external facts.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Yea basically everything you've just said is entirely baseless.

Most medical and dental organisations endorse fluoridation.
You'd be hard pressed to find a respectable one that doesn't.

A recent survey in Australia found that 70% of people where for it while only 15% opposed it.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2009.00144.x/abstract;jsessionid=E27C9A61D1AF0ABF6278AFD5878A96E4.d03t01

Oh, and the fact that it's not poisonous at the levels present in water.

Ok, why do you suggest Ireland is one of the last European country to fluoridate ?
Did all the others stop fluoridating because they realised it was good for us ?
A poison is a poison in any amount. What would be considered poisonous to Humans may not be for Elephants. But it's still a poison.

TalkieWalkie

Pretty standard obvious information here... perhaps you don't know about it though..

97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy.

The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ok, why do you suggest Ireland is one of the last European country to fluoridate ?

Because other European countries fluoridate in other means, usually by fluoridating salt.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Did all the others stop fluoridating because they realised it was good for us ?

Of those that did stop can you please point to the ones that did so due to safety concerns?

And isn't the conspiracy that governments are fluoridating dispite knowing the supposed danger?
Why do you think other countries don't fluoridate?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

A poison is a poison in any amount. What would be considered poisonous to Humans may not be for Elephants. But it's still a poison.

No, poison has a strict definition.

In the context of biology, poisons are substances that can cause disturbances to organisms,[1] usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when a sufficient quantity is absorbed by an organism.

Anything can be a poison in the right amounts.
Pure fluoridated, chlorine free water can be considered a poison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_poisoning

The level of fluoride in Irish water is not poisonous.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Pretty standard obvious information here... perhaps you don't know about it though..

I have seen it before.
It's a copy paste from a biased website that makes claims based on either no evidence or studies taken out of context to sound scary.

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Because other European countries fluoridate in other means, usually by fluoridating salt.
Of those that did stop can you please point to the ones that did so due to safety concerns?
And isn't the conspiracy that governments are fluoridating dispite knowing the supposed danger?
Why do you think other countries don't fluoridate?
No, poison has a strict definition.
Anything can be a poison in the right amounts.
Pure fluoridated, chlorine free water can be considered a poison.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_poisoning

The level of fluoride in Irish water is not poisonous.

Some countries fluoridate salt. But at least they have a choice not to take it.
Non fluoridated salt is also available.
Of course governments are not going to say they stopped fluoridating due to it's dangers, nor do they say fluoride was used by Nazi's to make the prisoners more docile etc etc. That would put them in the firing line for introducing it in the first place.
I thinik other countries don't fluoridate for the reasons that it's not good to ingest fluoride and the people voted against it for this reason and the others i mentioned. (forced mass medication) (the right to choose).

Good enough reasons for me and 1 billion other ppl but not for king mob. Dont worry, you'll still be able to buy fluoridated water for you and your nearest and dearest.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Some countries fluoridate salt. But at least they have a choice not to take it.
Non fluoridated salt is also available.

Well except those who are in areas with naturally high fluoride in the water.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Of course governments are not going to say they stopped fluoridating due to it's dangers,

So then why did they stop?
Why does Ireland continue to do so?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

nor do they say fluoride was used by Nazi's to make the prisoners more docile etc etc.

And the Nazi's used trains to send people to the camps, therefore trains are evil!
But that's assuming this little factoid is true, which I doubt.

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

That would put them in the firing line for introducing it in the first place.

But doesn't stopping fluoridation have the same effect?

But you seem to think that the reason that the did stop was because of the "dangers".
How exactly do you know this is the reason, since as you've claimed they didn't and wouldn't say as much?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

I thinik other countries don't fluoridate for the reasons that it's not good to ingest fluoride

So why do we?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

and the people voted against it for this reason and the others i mentioned. (forced mass medication) (the right to choose).

Which European countries had a vote on the matter and when?

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Good enough reasons for me and 1 billion other ppl but not for king mob. Dont worry, you'll still be able to buy fluoridated water for you and your nearest and dearest.

Where exactly are you getting this 1 billion number?
Doesn't this imply that it's also not good enough for 5 billion other people?

Considered that all the peer reviewed evidence I've seen indicates that fluoridation gives benefits as well as the vast majority of the health care professionals and their organisations endorse it and factor in that all I hear from the opposition side is logical fallacies, misinformation, pseudo-science, scaremongering and good old unprovable conspiracies.
So yea, your arguments aren't good enough for me unfortunately.

pablo_escobar

Why does anyone bother arguing with this dedicated debunker, King Mob?

TalkieWalkie, watched this video you posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TskdiL_YqRw

I guess anything that King Mob doesn't want to believe is nonsense.
Hey King Mob, scientific studies show that Lithium in the water is good for preventing suicide in people, let's put Lithium in the water supply!! Great idea!

meglome

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Why does anyone bother arguing with this dedicated debunker, King Mob?

I guess anything that King Mob doesn't want to believe is nonsense.
Hey King Mob, scientific studies show that Lithium in the water is good for preventing suicide in people, let's put Lithium in the water supply!! Great idea!

The reality is water can kill you if you drink enough so most of what is being said here can be said about almost anything. And that's not even counting all the nonsense.

A lot of you are very quick to have a go at Kingmob, some of you have him on ignore. But what i see is someone who uses fact, logic and science to make his points. He does this quite robustly usually which is not to everyone's taste but it doesn't make him wrong. So instead of crying cause he points out the often glaring holes in your theory's, try to show where he's wrong in return.

pablo_escobar

meglome wrote:

A lot of you are very quick to have a go at Kingmob, some of you have him on ignore. But what i see is someone who uses fact, logic and science to make his points. He does this quite robustly usually which is not to everyone's taste but it doesn't make him wrong. So instead of crying cause he points out the often glaring holes in your theory's, try to show where he's wrong in return.

"glaring holes in your theory's" -- ha, that's funny.

You sound like a dedicated debunker too, how sad.

From observation, when King Mob and other DD's are given relevant information which contradicts one set of scientific studies or opinions, it's conveniently ignored and the rhetorical demands for "evidence" continues.

I call it "badgering" rather than debate..but hey i'm probably wrong.

There's another issue where piss poor analogies are used as a response to intelligent questions which DD's are incapable of answering reasonably..

This is when you know the DD hasn't the slightest bit of interest in true unbiased and objective discussion.

uprising2

meglome wrote: »

The reality is water can kill you if you drink enough so most of what is being said here can be said about almost anything. And that's not even counting all the nonsense.

Yes that seem's the case here alright, the previous video states quite clearly by the honest scientists that fluoride added to our drinking water is a poisonous waste product, now why add this crap to drinking water?

meglome wrote: »

A lot of you are very quick to have a go at Kingmob, some of you have him on ignore.

I wonder why?

meglome wrote: »

But what i see is someone who uses fact, logic and science to make his points.

Yes flawed biased rubbish mostly, that he swallows, just like the toothpaste that he claims never did him any harm:rolleyes:

meglome wrote: »

He does this quite robustly usually which is not to everyone's taste but it doesn't make him wrong.

Doesn't make him right either, earlier he said chocolate was poison to dog's but not human's, then tried to backtrack in his usual fashion but forgot to include his usual "unicorn" mantra that he likes to spout in every argument.

meglome wrote: »

So instead of crying cause he points out the often glaring holes in your theory's, try to show where he's wrong in return.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryhowtoguide/a/removefluoride.htm

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fluoride-in-our-water-are-we-brushing-with-danger-381516.html

http://fromtheold.com/news/australia-tv-expert-warn-fluoride-drinking-water-toxi-metals-australian-water-2010080820075.htm

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8318958.Southern_Water__We_don_t_want_fluoride_either/

http://www.wholywater.com/fluoride.html

http://thyroid.about.com/od/drsrichkarileeshames/a/fluoridechange.htm

http://charles_w.tripod.com/fluoride.html

http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoride_cancer.html

http://www.holisticmed.com/fluoride/

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/

http://www.health-science.com/fluoride_toxicity.html

Of course kingmob will say all of these sites are biased, yes they are biased against his biased view, but infact flouride IS a poison that shouldn't be added to drinking water.

jma

alastair wrote: »

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.

Well, first of all, have you even read any of it? As I said, I made it available to anyone that's interested. If you were in fact interested, you could at least look at some of the points raised, and perhaps afterwards, do a little research of your own instead of expecting others to do the grunt work. I'm not expecting anyone to take the info I supplied for granted, I just thought it was of interest and might warrant some further digging. If you prefer not to look, that's fine too. After all, ignorance is bliss.

Secondly, how exactly did you reach the conclusion that Russell Balylock is a shill? What is that you think he's secretly endorsing?

As for peer-reviewed documents: I'm not sure what you're all looking for exactly. Studies have been done, which I've brought attention to. You can either look them up or leave it, but "badgering" about every little detail isn't constructive, IMO. For example, I think it would be interesting for someone here to help find out exactly how much more concentrated our drinking water becomes after it's been boiled.

Also, we're all well aware of the fact that rabbits are not human - of course a lot of the research and experiments will be performed on mice, rats and rabbits.

Here a couple "peer-reviewed" articles:
http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/doc/indiaFluoride.pdf
http://www.newjerseywatereducation.com/pdfs/Excitotoxicity.pdf

Of course, I'd be happy to post any further documents that I come across, but I'm not going to keep digging around just to keep the skeptics happy.

King Mob wrote:

Because other European countries fluoridate in other means, usually by fluoridating salt.

That's a pretty poor argument. If people want to use fluoride, that's fine. Toothpaste has very high concentrations of fluoride. You can buy tubes of it practically anywhere, and if you can't afford a tube every couple of months, then I don't think the fluoride in your drinking water's going to help you much either.

King Mob wrote:

Of those that did stop can you please point to the ones that did so due to safety concerns?

Yes, here you go:

France

Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/France.jpeg

Belgium

The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.

http://www.fluoridation.com/images/c-belgium.jpg

Luxembourg

Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their diary needs.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/luxembourg.jpeg

Sweden
http://www.fluoridation.com/images/c-sweden.jpg

Denmark

We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies.

http://www.fluoridation.com/images/c-denmark.jpg

Norway
http://www.fluoridation.com/images/c-norway.jpg

Netherlands

The main reason for opposition against fluoridation of drinking water ... was that fluoridation was seen as putting a medical additive into drinking water by the government 'for the benefit of the society'

http://www.fluoridation.com/images/c-netherlands.jpg

Finland

We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.

http://www.fluoridation.com/images/c-finland.jpg

Northern Ireland
http://www.fluoridealert.org/northern-ireland.jpeg

Austria

Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.

http://www.fluoridation.com/images/c-austria.jpg

Czech Republic

Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:
- uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
- unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
- unethical ("forced medication")
- toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/czech.jpeg

jma

King Mob wrote: »

The level of fluoride in Irish water is not poisonous.

Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of this?

Perhaps the concentration of flouride in our water cannot be classed as poisonous, but don't forget, we're talking about long term effects here. And you cannot dispute the fact that fluoride accumulates inside the brain (the human brain that is). You also cannot dispute the fact that sodium fluoride is not "meant" to be ingested. There are absolutely no benefits from ingesting fluoride.

alastair

pablo_escobar wrote: »

10 seconds, California Dental Association

Maybe you should invest a little more than 10 seconds, and read what's said on your link?

btw - California Dental Association website statement:

CDA has a long history of supporting community water fluoridation and remains committed to increasing the number of Californians who enjoy the oral health benefits of fluoridation.

alastair

jma wrote: »

Secondly, how exactly did you reach the conclusion that Russell Balylock is a shill? What is that you think he's secretly endorsing?

No secret about it:
http://newportnutritionals.com/
That's aside from his various books and paid subscription 'reports'. The guy's a quack with the usual snake-oil shtick.
http://www.blaylockwellnesscenter.com/
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/renew.cfm

jma wrote: »

As for peer-reviewed documents: I'm not sure what you're all looking for exactly. Studies have been done, which I've brought attention to. You can either look them up or leave it, but "badgering" about every little detail isn't constructive,

Requiring some peer-reviewed scientific evidence isn't 'badgering' - and no, you've brought attention to lots of propaganda, but nothing supported by actual evidence.