Debunked: "we must either reduce the earth's population to 1 billion ..."

[Mick West]

Typical viral usage in the anti-population-control crowd:

"...we must either reduce the earth's population to 1 billion or reduce the standard of living to an agrarian "peasant" status."

—Platform for United Nations Urban-Ecological Summit, Sec. 9.2-3-2, Istanbul, Turkey, June 1996, signed by Bill Clinton in New York June 4, 1993.

Step 1 - Original Source

I can't find any original source, or even a slightly authoritative source. A search for "United Nations Urban-Ecological Summit" yields no results. the phrase "reduce the standard of living to an agrarian" appears in no books, only web pages with anti-population-control leanings.

There was a United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) in Istanbul, Turkey from 3 to 14 June 1996. Which had this declaration.

http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/2072_61331_ist-dec.pdf

The closest thing in there was:

We make these commitments with particular reference to the more than one billion people living in absolute poverty and to the members of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups identified in the Habitat Agenda

Another odd point is the viral quote has "signed by Bill Clinton in New York June 4, 1993.", which is three years before the actual conference. What Bill Clinton signed on that day was actually the Convention on Biological Diversity, which says nothing about human population except:

conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity is of critical importance for meeting the food, health and other needs of the growing world population,for which purpose access to and sharing of both genetic resources and technologies are essential

Digging deeper finds the same quote with two references:

http://hil001.blogspot.com/2010/12/david-rockefeller-1915.html

5. Dr. Kent Hovind. VIDEO: Dr. Kent Hovind's Christian Answer for the NWO Part 1 (YouTube; 5 December 2008)
6. The Convention on Biological Diversity, signed by President Bill Clinton of the United States in New York on the 4th of June 1993, Section 9.2.3.2. Platform for United Nations urban-ecological summit held in Istanbul, Turkey, June 1996.

Then looking for references to that:

http://just-another-inside-job.blogspot.com/2007/12/rise-of-global-governance_28.html

91. Global Biodiversity Assessment Section 9, phase One Draft, Section 9.2.3.2. p. 108 (See also Global Biodiversity Assessment, (Cambridge Cambridge University Press) 1995, p. 773).

Page 773 of the book gives:

So it's just an obscure reference (in a 1152 page document) to a 1975 estimate that if everyone lived like the Americans do, then the world could not really support more than 1 Billion people, or 2-3 if they live like European. I strongly suspect that Dr. Kent Hovind was paraphrasing this in his video, and it somehow then got repeated as what was actually in the report. There's actually nothing about reducing the world's population. Just an academic commenting on the excesses of consumerism in the US.

Single sentence debunking:

That's a made up quote, based on a 40 year old study on how many people the world could support at the US standard of living.

 

[Mick West]

There's a 2010 Alex Jones reference that quotes and misinterprets the text:
http://www.infowars.com/agenda-21-alert-obama-railroads-us-with-the-bullet-train/

Shaw explained that there are 2 plans that the collectivists have prepared to implement their program of complete domination:
1. Maintaining a controlled industrialized society, achieved by depopulation of the planet by 85%, down to 1 billion people, or
2. Creating peasant societies that can "sustain" 5 to 7 billion people worldwide (2)

...

2. U.N. Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, page 773:""Whittaker and Likens (1975) have estimated that an 'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people, probably more if the large agricultural population were supported by an industry-promoting agricultural activity. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion…"

Some earlier versions of this and similar quotes, with debunking, here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100722

It seems like this misinterpreting has become part of the conspiracy canon, to the extent that it's accepted as fact, and even attributed as a quote from Bill Clinton.

 

[Mick West]

One can understand how the paraphrasing could get some traction, as it explicitly states that population reduction must be done. But the original quote says no such thing, it's more just a critique of US consumptionism. So it's interesting that someone could have such a distorted world view, that they view this academic assessment as some kind of call to genocide. A search for a phrase in the original quote, "industry-promoting agricultural activity", gives about 45 results, with the top one being Alex Jones' infowars.com. There's a variety of tenuous inferences drawn from it:


http://canucwhatic.blogspot.com/2011/03/gradual-subversion-of-democratic-party.html

In the US, tighter controls on levels of consumption, and standards of living, intrusive carbon taxes, tolls, massive land grabs, conservation easement, zoning restrictions, energy audits, forcing small business to become energy efficient, etc. are supposed to take place. Some already have.

"... an 'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people, probably more if the large agricultural population were supported by an industry-promoting agricultural activity. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion…" -- U.N. Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, states at page 773:""Whittaker and Likens (1975)

http://berniedecastro.com/2010/07/24/sustainable-development-otherwise-known-as-agenda-21/
(from a comment)

Check out net comments on the original draft of the Biodiversity Assessment Report by Heywood and Hansen (officially suppressed).

Generally, 90% of us must go…and the current progressive president is accelerating that end.

The official U.N. Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, states at page 773:""Whittaker and Likens (1975) have estimated that an 'agricultural world' in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people, probably more if the large agricultural population were supported by an industry-promoting agricultural activity. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion…"

Sounds insane but it is all at the United Nations website and related official sites.

 

[Unregistered]

This is the site written by Casandra Anderson(pen name) that promotes this de-population bunk.
http://morphcity.com/ She works for G. Edward Griffin and was credited with the research on WITWATS. Cassandra Anderson is a member of WACLA and is the one who brought GEG into MJM project. Most of her fears stem from her misinterpretation of Agenda 21 which she describes as a blueprint for de-population.
http://morphcity.com/home/87-geoengineering-climate-ghous-plan-b

 

[Mick West]

Interesting stuff. It seems like a common sub-theme here is the rejection of any criticism of the US way of life.

http://www.freedomadvocates.org/art..._advance_sustainable_development_20040615100/

So what could be wrong with the idea of being sustainable? We don't want to be unsustainable, do we? The problem with Sustainable Development is that it flies in the face of man's will to advance. America is the greatest country in the world. Why? Because its citizens were allowed the use of its bountiful resources. There was no king or dictator to control man's creative action.

The idea behind Sustainable Development is to foster a mentality of guilt in people over the use of natural resources. Every time one starts their car... Every time one turns on a water faucet... Remember, be sustainable! Don't exceed your allotment of resources... Big Brother is watching you. We all must learn to live the same, think the same and most importantly... be sustainable!

America was not created using this mindset. America was created with the mindset of full speed ahead!!! I don't think NASA was concerned about being sustainable when they were going to the moon.

 

[ThorGoLucky]

Thanks for the research, Mick. I had seen quotes including that one from the human extermination conspiracy folks. Although I think that the Earth is overpopulated with humans, that's a far cry from condoning extermination. I simply want reasonable rational steps to stop the loss of natural habitat and promote sustainability.

 

[Mick West]

As does just about everyone they quote, but they misinterpret.

It seems very reasonable to me that we should discuss ways in which population growth can be kept from being a problem. It's quite a leap from there to genocide.

The Gates foundation says one of the benefits of a good vaccines will be in a great reduction of child mortality, which in turn leads to reduced poverty and easier family planning, and smaller family sizes. But some people then take this as an admission that Bill Gates is planning mass genocide or serialization with vaccines.

http://publicvigil.blogspot.com/2010/12/bill-gates-malaria-and-sterilization.html

Bill Gates explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llAG5V7x17A&hd=1

But unfortunately the (perfectly reasonable) concept of "population control with vaccines" (as part of a general package of reducing poverty and raising the standard of health care) is just incomprehensible to many people.

 

[Jay Reynolds]

This is the site written by Casandra Anderson(pen name) that promotes this de-population bunk.
http://morphcity.com/ She works for G. Edward Griffin and was credited with the research on WITWATS. Cassandra Anderson is a member of WACLA and is the one who brought GEG into MJM project. Most of her fears stem from her misinterpretation of Agenda 21 which she describes as a blueprint for de-population.
http://morphcity.com/home/87-geoengineering-climate-ghous-plan-b

Please tell me some more about this person. By email, if you would rather.
Jay thechief762@gmail.com

 

[Unregistered]

Cassandra Anderson is a pen name for this women who lives in Santa Monica California that works as a personal assistant to G. Edward Griffin. She puts together the Unfiltered section in his news letter and videos various conspiracy people when they visit him at his home. I know way too much info on her that I can't tell you because of a personal trust I have with her when I was a member of the same WACLA group. She has tremendous influence on this Griffin group bringing in the concepts of Chemtrails, vaccines, and various other de-population plans. However her most important threat is the Agenda 21 conspiracy in what she calls "A overarching blueprint for de-population.

 

[Steve]

http://thegreatculling.org/index2.php#/home/
New video from Paul Wittenberger the director of WITWATS coming soon designed to freak more people out about nothing once again. Murphy and Paul are splitsville now so we have a new reporter Chris Maple instead. Sad.

 

[Mick West]

Looks like a case for preemptive debunking. But then it also looks like it's just recycling several old myths, and presenting them nicely.

Seems to be the usual suspects: Clifford Carnicom and Rosalind Peterson, plus several anti-fluoridation dentists and homeopaths.

 

[justhappy]

As does just about everyone they quote, but they misinterpret.

It seems very reasonable to me that we should discuss ways in which population growth can be kept from being a problem. It's quite a leap from there to genocide.

The Gates foundation says one of the benefits of a good vaccines will be in a great reduction of child mortality, which in turn leads to reduced poverty and easier family planning, and smaller family sizes. But some people then take this as an admission that Bill Gates is planning mass genocide or serialization with vaccines.

http://publicvigil.blogspot.com/2010/12/bill-gates-malaria-and-sterilization.html

Bill Gates explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llAG5V7x17A&hd=1

But unfortunately the (perfectly reasonable) concept of "population control with vaccines" (as part of a general package of reducing poverty and raising the standard of health care) is just incomprehensible to many people.

Population is actually on a path to self correct and peak in just about 50 years, and thereafter trend down. Please don't rush in with the vaccine solution, you may extinct yourself. Many European countries are already NOT keeping up with native population replacement. they only grow by immigration.

 

[Spongebob]

. Dr. Kent Hovind. VIDEO: Dr. Kent Hovind's Christian Answer for the NWO Part 1 (YouTube; 5 December 2008)

The same Kent Hovind they locked up for ten years for fraud?

[video=youtube_share;-lXlZiRchKY]http://youtu.be/-lXlZiRchKY[/video]

 

[Juror No. 8]

Looks like a case for preemptive debunking. But then it also looks like it's just recycling several old myths, and presenting them nicely.

Seems to be the usual suspects: Clifford Carnicom and Rosalind Peterson, plus several anti-fluoridation dentists and homeopaths.

I'm curious. Are you a pro-fluoridation debunker? Do you believe the government should force-medicate the population with a toxic substance through municipal water supplies?

 

[ThorGoLucky]

That's a valid reason to be against fluoridation, except the part of it being toxic at the levels regulated in water supplies. Us debunkers simply address bogus claims of the dangers of fluoridation at such low levels, not necessarily whether it should be done.

Since fluoridation occurs naturally and in high levels in some areas, do you support government efforts to remove excess or all fluoride from water supplies?

 

[Unregistered]

I'm curious. Are you a pro-fluoridation debunker? Do you believe the government should force-medicate the population with a toxic substance through municipal water supplies?

That's like asking if one should be against water treatment because the chemicals used are harmful if ingested in large quantities (chlorine). If you don't trust the government as far as drinking water goes...feel free to stop drinking it. No one forces you to do so. Ifn fact, I'd prefer it if you didn't...more for me!

 

[Mick West]

I'm curious. Are you a pro-fluoridation debunker? Do you believe the government should force-medicate the population with a toxic substance through municipal water supplies?

I wouldn't say I'm particularly pro-fluoridation. But I don't think it's poisoning everyone, and I don't think it's part of any conspiracy.

Various municipalities have done it for what they think are good public health reasons - to decrease the incidence of tooth decay. This seems to have worked well, but the statistics as to its continued usefulness are somewhat debatable - if you have good dental care then you should not need it. I'm not against it though, as there is no evidence of ill-effects.

 

[SR1419]

I'm curious. Are you a pro-fluoridation debunker? Do you believe the government should force-medicate the population with a toxic substance through municipal water supplies?

Indeed, the "government" is not forcing you to drink the water...Moreover, you Do have a say in the process and if enough people feel similarly you can use the process to exact change...

Just last night the town of Bozeman, MT debated this very topic and decided to continue to fluoridate:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/article_05c41826-8dc8-11e1-9420-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[ThorGoLucky]

In my neighboring town of Philomath, the city council voted to stop fluoridation, but then the people approved a ballot measure to bring back fluoridation.

http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/lo...cle_d19b470c-6d80-11e1-a8ae-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[Juror No. 8]

So maybe the government should dump other kinds of medication into municipal water supplies too? Maybe something to help the children focus better in school? Maybe something to combat depression in adults?

Why stop at just teeth?

 

[Mick West]

Because fluoride naturally occurs in the water supply, and it always has. In areas where there is too much, you get fluoridosis. In areas where it was too low, you got more tooth decay.

So it's not really adding something that's never there in water - it's just making the levels consistent at a level that has show to have health benefits.

And we do add other things, as noted. Chlorine is there to prevent infection.

Something to help children focus better in school would be great - except we've no way of knowing if such an addition would be safe, so it would be an incredibly stupid and risky thing to do. Now if there was a natural chemical that was in the water supply in many regions, and it really helped children study, and it was missing in other regions, then would it not make sense to add that natural chemical where it was missing?

Or would you prefer they took it out?

 

[Juror No. 8]

Fluoride-based toothpaste is cheap and widely available. If people want to use it to on their teeth for better dental hygiene, they can.

Why do they need to ingest it? Why does it need to be added to water supplies where it is not already naturally occurring?

 

[Mick West]

It's a public health issue. It's essentially the same reasons they want clean water, and why they add chlorine etc. It's thought to be the most effective way of achieving the public health goal.

 

[Juror No. 8]

It's a public health issue. It's essentially the same reasons they want clean water, and why they add chlorine etc. It's thought to be the most effective way of achieving the public health goal.

Is it really a public health issue, though? This seems a rather large assumption. Were the people who initially brought fluoridation to U.S. public water supplies truly interested in the public's health, or was there another unspoken and unannounced agenda involved? Again, if this only about dental hygiene, people can buy and use all the fluoridated toothpaste they want. It's cheap and widely available.

Why does it need to be dumped into municipal water supplies and ingested by millions of people if it's only about tooth decay?

 

[Mick West]

That's like saying if people want clean water, then they can boil their own, or just drink what comes out the river.

Public health is something done for everyone. The people like it because they are healthy, and the elite like it because their workers are healthy. But it's not really a huge deal either way. Usually the people lobbying for it are doctors and dentists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

Did you look at the two recent examples from above:

[ex=http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/city/article_05c41826-8dc8-11e1-9420-0019bb2963f4.html]
More than 100 people packed the Commission Room, spilling into the hallway at City Hall, to talk about community water fluoridation on Monday night.
Bozeman has been adding fluoride to its tap water since 1953, but a local group has asked the city to stop. The group is collecting signatures on a petition to force a public vote on the issue.
Nevertheless, Bozeman City Commissioners said Monday night that the scientifically accepted, peer-reviewed evidence is clear.
"The studies show that when this is done correctly - and our city does that - there are no health risks," Commissioner Chris Mehl said.
Public health officials say fluoridating the water is the cheapest, easiest way to improve dental health, particularly among the poor.
Members of Fluoride Free Bozeman say fluoride is a toxic substance and a drug that should not be administered by the government.
Commissioner Carson Taylor said he tried to research the issue. He talked to dentists who oppose fluoridation and read studies submitted by anti-fluoridationists.
"There are some arguments that give you pause," Taylor said.
But, he said the only way he could justify taking fluoride out of Bozeman's water would be to say that leading medical and dental experts don't know what they're talking about.
"All I can do is go with the people that have the expertise," Taylor said. "That's why we have a health officer."
[/ex]

[ex=http://www.gazettetimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/philomath-voters-approve-fluoride-measure/article_d19b470c-6d80-11e1-a8ae-0019bb2963f4.html]Two doctors who worked to add fluoride to Philomath's water three decades ago on Tuesday saw voters approve putting it back.

Drs. David Cutsforth and David Grube, Philomath physicians, helped lead a petition drive to get measure 02-76 on the March 13 special election ballot. The campaign was launched by a group of community members called Citizens for Healthy Teeth.
The vote reverses a May 2011 decision by the Philomath City Council to discontinue the fluoridating the city's municipal water supply. Council members cited health concerns, liability issues and personal freedom as the main reasons for discontinuing water fluoridation.
[/ex]

 

[Juror No. 8]

That's like saying if people want clean water, then they can boil their own, or just drink what comes out the river.

But adding fluoride to water doesn't make it cleaner or of higher quality, it's done for medicinal purposes.

By adding fluoride the government isn't improving water quality, it's drugging the population. That's the purpose.

Public health is something done for everyone. The people like it because they are healthy, and the elite like it because their workers are healthy. But it's not really a huge deal either way.

You don't think the government force-medicating the population through water - an essential component of life - is a big deal? I do.

Usually the people lobbying for it are doctors and dentists.

Makes you wonder who's lobbying the doctors and dentists to lobby for fluoride use. Could the doctors and dentists who are pro-fluoridation be receiving money for their efforts?

Did you look at the two recent examples from above:

Yes? And?

People can be tricked by "doctors" and "scientists" into believing all kinds of things.

Many doctors once advocated smoking on behalf of the tobacco companies who were funding them.

 

[Lonn]

[EX=http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/second-thoughts-about-fluoride-reports-scientific-american-56762582.html]'Second Thoughts about Fluoride,' Reports Scientific American
* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Wed Jan 2, 2008 9:48am EST
NEW YORK, Jan. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Some recent studies suggest that
over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth,
bones, the brain and the thyroid gland," reports Scientific American editors
(January 2008). "Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to
shift," writes author Dan Fagin.

"Fluoride, the most consumed drug in the USA, is deliberately added to 2/3 of
public water supplies theoretically to reduce tooth decay, but with no
scientifically-valid evidence proving safety or effectiveness," says lawyer
Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York
University's Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes,
"There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride."
Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is
too much, reports Fagin.

After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council
(NRC) committee "concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function,
especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating
growth and metabolism," reports Fagin.

Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at
the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly,
"The thyroid changes do worry me."

Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in
fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis --
white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can't normally see
fluoride's effects to the rest of the body.

Reports Fagin, "a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated
high fluoride exposures with lower IQ."

"(E)pidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride
exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable
populations such as the elderly and diabetics," writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which
tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old "Iowa
children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50
percent more likely to have mild fluorosis... than [nine-year-old] children
living in nonfluoridated areas of the state," writes Fagin. Levy will study
fluoride's effects on their bones.

Over 1200 professionals urge Congress to cease water fluoridation and conduct
Congressional hearings because scientific evidence indicates fluoridation is
ineffective and has serious health risks. Support them; write your
representative here:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2477/t/2782/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=21960


Contact
Paul Beeber, Esq.
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
516-433-8882
nyscof@aol.com[/EX]

 

[Mick West]

I think everyone is aware that there's a minority of health professionals in the US who don't think that water should be fluoridated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

The question is, how do you choose which health professionals to believe? Why do you side with the none-mainstream? Do you think they are more likely to be correct because there are fewer of them?

 

[Juror No. 8]

I think everyone is aware that there's a minority of health professionals in the US who don't think that water should be fluoridated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy

The question is, how do you choose which health professionals to believe? Why do you side with the none-mainstream? Do you think they are more likely to be correct because there are fewer of them?

If a bunch of "health professionals" argued that the government should add arsenic to municipal water supplies, while another bunch argued that the government shouldn't add arsenic to municipal water supplies, would you still be asking this question? Would you still not know who or what to believe? At what point do you employ your own common sense?

Again, if fluoridating water is a public health issue, and the purpose of water fluoridation is dental care, why do people need to INGEST the fluoride? Do you drink sunscreen when you wish to protect your skin from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation, or do you apply it to your skin? Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide the public with toothpaste, either for free or subsidized?

 

[Mick West]

If a bunch of "health professionals" argued that the government should add arsenic to municipal water supplies, while another bunch argued that the government shouldn't add arsenic to municipal water supplies, would you still be asking this question? Would you still not know who or what to believe? At what point do you employ your own common sense?

They currently add all kinds of highly toxic chemicals. Everything is toxic in sufficient quantity. If arsenic was already present in many water supplies, it had not shown any health problems before at that level, and there were proven health benefits, then I'd certainly consider adding it. Of course the evidence does not really run that way, so my common sense response would be not to add it, unlike chlorine and fluoride.

Again, if fluoridating water is a public health issue, and the purpose of water fluoridation is dental care, why do people need to INGEST the fluoride? Do you drink sunscreen when you wish to protect your skin from the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation, or do you apply it to your skin? Wouldn't it make more sense to just provide the public with toothpaste, either for free or subsidized?

It's vastly cheaper and more effective to put it in the water. It's one thing to give out free toothpaste, quite another for everyone to use it.

 

[Juror No. 8]

It's one thing to give out free toothpaste, quite another for everyone to use it.

Right. In other words, they don't want to give people a choice in the matter. You see, if you give a person toothpaste, he'll either use it only on his teeth or not use it at all. Either way, he won't be ingesting the fluoride. On the other hand, if you dump the fluoride directly into the water supply, then he will be ingesting the fluoride. That's the key point and real motivating factor here - ingestion of fluoride by the population.

The question is, why? Why is it so important for the population to ingest so much fluoride? Cui bono?

 

[Mick West]

Populus bono. The people benefit. At least that's the idea.

It's not that important. It only seems important to people who think it's some kind of plot. Most people just think it's something added to water that improves dental health.

And remember here, this is something found naturally in water, often in much higher concentrations. It's not really a big deal.

 

[Juror No. 8]

Populus bono. The people benefit. At least that's the idea.

Maybe that's your idea, but that's not necessarily the idea of the people who originally brought water fluoridation to the masses.

They might have had something different in mind.

It's not that important. It only seems importnat to people who think it's some kind of plot. Most people just think it's something added to water that improves dental health.

Even if there is no plot and never was a plot and this could be sufficiently proven, I don't want the government believing it can or should force-medicate the population.

And remember here, this is something found naturally in water, often in much higher concentrations. It's not really a big deal.

Just because a substance is found in water naturally doesn't mean you should add more to it.

 

[Mick West]

Maybe that's your idea, but that's not necessarily the idea of the people who originally brought water fluoridation to the masses.

They might have had something different in mind.

But there seems to be no evidence of this.

Just because a substance is found in water naturally doesn't mean you should add more to it.

Even when this natural substance has health benefits? You're fine letting some people get the benefits, but you oppose bringing the other people up to parity, because of your anti-government principles?

 

[Juror No. 8]

But there seems to be no evidence of this.

I don't know. A government that engages in the forced medicating of its citizens certainly constitutes evidence of something, especially when the substance being used only provides an alleged topical, and not ingested, benefit.

Even when this natural substance has health benefits? You're fine letting some people get the benefits, but you oppose bringing the other people up to parity, because of your anti-government principles?

Are you certain fluoride provides a health benefit beyond its use in toothpaste? If not, why do you support medicating people with it on a mass scale? Why are you opposed to giving people plain old fresh, clean drinking water absent any unnecessary additives/medications/toxins?

 

[MikeC]

More emotive language making up a strawman - fluoridation is not "forced medication" - if you were to consume only water from nonfluoridated sources (eg bottled non-fluoridatedor with the fluoride removed) no-one would come around and force you to consume fluoride.

the effect is not just on the surface of teeth - the effect of ingested fluoride, for example, benefits adult teeth before they appear - eg see here http://www.oregondental.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3501
, and the benefits of ingested fluoride HAVE been found to be greater than that of toothpaste -
http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-an.../fluoride/page/the case for fluoridation.aspx

 

[Juror No. 8]

More emotive language making up a strawman - fluoridation is not "forced medication" - if you were to consume only water from nonfluoridated sources (eg bottled non-fluoridatedor with the fluoride removed) no-one would come around and force you to consume fluoride.

And what if one doesn't readily have regular access to bottled, non-fluoridated water? What if they can't afford bottled, non-fluoridated water? What if one only has access to the city tap?

Why are you so intent on the forced medication of people with a known toxin that is completely unnecessary?

the effect is not just on the surface of teeth - the effect of ingested fluoride, for example, benefits adult teeth before they appear - eg see here http://www.oregondental.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3501
, and the benefits of ingested fluoride HAVE been found to be greater than that of toothpaste -
http://www.choice.com.au/reviews-and-tests/food-and-health/general-health/safety/fluoride/page/the%20case%20for%20fluoridation.aspx

There are studies that say just the opposite of these studies, that ingested fluoride has no health benefits, but I guess you're not going to be linking those anytime soon.

 

[O Alem]

Youtube Bill Gates' grandma speech. He basically says we can hire 10 teachers for every time we pull the plug on a grandma.

 

[Mick West]

Youtube Bill Gates' grandma speech. He basically says we can hire 10 teachers for every time we pull the plug on a grandma.

​

He's saying the cost of end-of-life care has grown much faster than inflation, and really provides little benefit, so it HAS taken money away from other things, like education. It's a perfectly valid point. When you are in a coma, or on a ventilator, would you want a million dollars spent on you so you could be kept on that ventilator for a month?

That's why people have DNRs or living wills. Part of what he's suggesting is that it would be better for everyone if more people had DNRs.

It's a touchy and complicated subject though. He makes a joke about "Death Panels", which is how the right have attempted to frame the discussion. Really it's all about opening up the conversation - encouraging people to consider what type of end-of-life care they want, rather than leaving it to the current default. A default which is not only highly wasteful, but is not really helping the dying person, and probably not what they actually want.

 

[SR1419]

It seems to me a lot of the conspiracy folks confuse reducing population growth with reducing the population of those already alive.

Reducing population growth is simply that- reducing the rate at which the population increases through new births...through education, female empowerment, economic growth etc...(the richer you are the fewer babies you tend of have).

That is not the same as suggesting reducing the current population through the elimination of people already alive..."culling" etc...