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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Theres the Georgia Guidestones video where it mentions 500 million to 1 billion people...........
 
Unregistered said:
Theres the Georgia Guidestones video where it mentions 500 million to 1 billion people...........
Click to expand...

Yes there is (actually says UNDER 500 million) - but the Georgia Guidestones are not what is being quoted. Nor are they evidence of anything other than one guy's personal opinion, set in stone.

Personally I suspect the writer missed a zero, and intended to write five billion, which was a bit more than the world population at the time.
 
It is possible to filter flouoride out of water, or buy non fluoridated water in fluoridated areas - and no-one will then force you to drink the fluoridated water - so no, it does not not meet the definition of "forced".

It is certainly mass medication though, and the alternatives I mention above are not always easy to accomplish. I have some sympathy for the mass medication/informed consent argument - but none at all for the typical BS put about by anti-fluoridites (it's mind control, it's killing us, it was used in concentration camps, it doesnt' help dental health at all, blah blah blah)
 
MikeC said:
It is possible to filter flouoride out of water, or buy non flouoridated water in fluoridated areas - and no-one will then force you to drink the flouoridated water - so no, it does not not meet the definition of "forced".

It is certainly mass medication though, and the alternatives I mention above are not always easy to accomplish. I have some sympathy for the mass medication/informed consent argument - but none at all for the typical BS put about by anti-fluoridites (it's mind control, it's killing us, it was used in concentration camps, it doesnt' help dental health at all, blah blah blah)
Click to expand...


One point regarding flouoridation that is not bunk is that we pay for the stuff and with the various questions raised about the effectiveness of flouoridation (seperate from the question fo whether its harmful or helpful) combined with economic hard times everywhere one has to wonder why are the various local governments (not every where) still admitantly push for flouoridation? I admit I have no proof and it is pure speculation but I believe some if not a number of these local politcians are getting some kind of kick back to ensure their town/city/county contuinues to push for flouoridation. While the debate about whether its harmful of helpful is still going strong I do believe most on both sides have come to the agreement that flouoridation is an inneffective way to use flouride since theres no way to control dosage.

If my government has to cut costs to meet a budget I would much rather they drop the flouoridation program then cut back on the operational hours of the local library or some other service.
 
Sodium fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature.
 
SR1419 said:
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...
Click to expand...

You mean like how when the Federal government talks about "spending cuts" its actually talking about a reduction in the increases in spending over the next X fiscal years and not actual real cuts in spending, the kind of actual spending cuts we tax paying serfs have to make because we can;t print or borrow our way out of financial trouble?
 
MikeC said:
It is possible to filter flouoride out of water, or buy non fluoridated water in fluoridated areas - and no-one will then force you to drink the fluoridated water - so no, it does not not meet the definition of "forced".

It is certainly mass medication though, and the alternatives I mention above are not always easy to accomplish. I have some sympathy for the mass medication/informed consent argument - but none at all for the typical BS put about by anti-fluoridites (it's mind control, it's killing us, it was used in concentration camps, it doesnt' help dental health at all, blah blah blah)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that all of those points, from 'mind control' to 'used in concentration camps' are all bunk or that you don't believe they are justification for the ending of fluoridation of public water supplies?
 
BlueCollarCritic said:
Are you saying that all of those points, from 'mind control' to 'used in concentration camps' are all bunk or that you don't believe they are justification for the ending of fluoridation of public water supplies?
Click to expand...

Mind control and concentration camps are essentialy the same thing - an oft repeated claim by a chap called Charles Perkins thatNazi's used it in Concentration camps to dumb down prisoners - to make thtm more controllable.

But who was Charles Perkins? There is a claim he was sent by the US Govt to take charge of I.G. Faben after WW2 - but Perkins himself makes no actual mention of any connection with I. G. Faben in his book - an odd omission since it would be quite an important association to establish his credentials, and neither he nor fluoride rate any mention in "The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben".

Also I.G. Farbin had it's own war trial - the records are available online & I see no mention of Perkins or Fluoride in them - but they are very long - it's entirely possible I missed it so please feel free to point them out if you find any.

Perkins' claim is analysed here, which notes his failure to actually document his claim.

Others have looked for evidence to support the claim - eg this forum discussion from 2009, and this one - AFAIK no-one has actually found any.
 
SR1419 said:
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...
Click to expand...

You really think they wanna simply cap us off at 7 billion? These people are sociopaths...of course theyre gonna dress the language up to make it more pallatable. THEY. DONT. CARE. ABOUT. US. The more dumb 16 year olds get knocked up the more indecent and pithy we look to these elitists. No man or woman should hold the fate of its own species in their hands when they themselves are no better. Look up operation paperclip and TELL me eugenics isnt an existential threat.
 
Unregistered said:
Theres the Georgia Guidestones video where it mentions 500 million to 1 billion people...........
Click to expand...
I have always found the Georgia Guidestones conspiracy to be quite intriguing, but never really looked into it much until today..apparently there are several theories..one is that the guy that financed the thing was a huge fan of 2001: a space odyssey, and wanted to erect a monument just for kicks. Another is that it was built as kind of a plan for the future if the world was destroyed by a nuclear war...and the other theory is that it was kind of an advertisement for the granite company that supplied the granite.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4198
 
Mackdog said:
I have always found the Georgia Guidestones conspiracy to be quite intriguing, but never really looked into it much until today..apparently there are several theories..one is that the guy that financed the thing was a huge fan of 2001: a space odyssey, and wanted to erect a monument just for kicks. Another is that it was built as kind of a plan for the future if the world was destroyed by a nuclear war...and the other theory is that it was kind of an advertisement for the granite company that supplied the granite.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4198
Click to expand...

I love scepticism.

But in terms of the Human population on this one planet? (AND I realize that we Humans have other impacts, due to our activity and existence)...just, visually this is rather striking:
3e636ea2bf9174e776c7acaf16f5d3d7.jpg

3e636ea2bf9174e776c7acaf16f5d3d7.jpg


"If You Dumped Every Human Into the Grand Canyon
 
Mackdog said:
I have always found the Georgia Guidestones conspiracy to be quite intriguing, but never really looked into it much until today..apparently there are several theories..one is that the guy that financed the thing was a huge fan of 2001: a space odyssey, and wanted to erect a monument just for kicks. Another is that it was built as kind of a plan for the future if the world was destroyed by a nuclear war...and the other theory is that it was kind of an advertisement for the granite company that supplied the granite.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4198
Click to expand...
Well, I have you to blame for reading this discarded thread...
which quickly devolved into the relative merits of fluoride, instead of these freaky stones.

Personally, I've never understood the fuss: they aren't beautiful, impressive, insightful or, well, anything.

I'm reluctant to take anything too seriously that doesn't appear to be anything more than a single crackpot
who, likely on a passing whim, threw away a few bucks on a bit of land and engraving.

If it has any value, it's as a cautionary tale, re. how much one can get paranoid people worked up
about some vague ideas merely by not disclosing your name. No idea why anyone would take it seriously.

Even more absurd, that someone chose to begin a plan to kill 85% of us, by writing in 8 languages,
and placing on the highest hill around: "I need to kill 85% of y'all!" I guess I'm not cut out for the CT life...
 
Mick West said:
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.
Click to expand...

If it's not that important why add it to the water at all? You're negating your own argument.
 
He didn't say it's not important - he said i's not a big deal.

It's not a big deal because the levels added to water are less than is often encountered naturally - so what's the actual problem?? Humanity has actually evolved with fluoride in the water supply - so why whinge about it now?

It IS important because it is a massive boost to public health.
 
I think that this thread is debunking the "reducing" of the World's population, referencing the
Georgia Guidestones. As far as every report that I have seen or heard about....Earth's population continues to increase.

So, as a "de-bunk", this seems on solid ground.

("Fluoride" hasn't seemed to kill anyone....just made dentists mad...). ;)
 
MikeC said:
He didn't say it's not important - he said i's not a big deal.

It's not a big deal because the levels added to water are less than is often encountered naturally - so what's the actual problem?? Humanity has actually evolved with fluoride in the water supply - so why whinge about it now?

It IS important because it is a massive boost to public health.
Click to expand...

Semantics aside again if it's not "a big deal" why add it to the water at all?

You say the levels added are less than what is encountered naturally, if that's the case why add more? Like the OP you're negating your entire argument.

Please tell me how fluoride is a "massive boost" to public health, and don't tell me about oral care.

For the record I'm not a "conspiracy theorist". I don't believe the powers that be are trying to depopulate us through fluoride but I also don't believe they are concerned with our oral health much less to the point of adding it to the water for our benefit. To me that sounds almost as far fetched as the depopulation theory.
 
I just tend to think that there are greater worries to "worry" about (if one is prone to do so) than fluoride in public water systems...and CTs about so-called "Georgia Guidestones". These are distractions from actual, tangible Real-Life issues that are affecting actual Human Beings, every day.

De-Bunking is part of a path to enlightenment (if you will). An educational ability to clear away the fog, and focus on the goal.
 
This thread is about the 1 billion quote. Please stay on topic. There are plenty of other threads about fluoride.
 
ThatGuyRick said:
Semantics aside again if it's not "a big deal" why add it to the water at all?

You say the levels added are less than what is encountered naturally, if that's the case why add more? Like the OP you're negating your entire argument.

Please tell me how fluoride is a "massive boost" to public health, and don't tell me about oral care.

For the record I'm not a "conspiracy theorist". I don't believe the powers that be are trying to depopulate us through fluoride but I also don't believe they are concerned with our oral health much less to the point of adding it to the water for our benefit. To me that sounds almost as far fetched as the depopulation theory.
Click to expand...
Rick, I'm missing your point.

Surely you know that fluoride began being added to water because the data said that it should reduce cavities.

And it did.

That was the obvious reason.

There were no major side effects, and it's no big deal.

So, what, exactly, are you arguing?





ETA: D'oh! Sorry Mick...I (sloooooowly) typed that before seeing your post...
 
NoParty said:
Rick, I'm missing your point.

Surely you know that fluoride began being added to water because the data said that it should reduce cavities.

And it did.

That was the obvious reason.

There were no major side effects, and it's no big deal.

So what, exactly are you arguing?
Click to expand...

I find it far fetched that fluoride is-was added to the water for the sole purpose of reducing cavities is my argument as I've already stated in my previous post. I haven't been on this site long but the debunkers on here seem to be as radical as the hardcore conspiracy theorists, almost to the point of shilling.
 
ThatGuyRick said:
I find it far fetched that fluoride is-was added to the water for the sole purpose of reducing cavities is my argument as I've already stated in my previous post. I haven't been on this site long but the debunkers on here seem to be as radical as the hardcore conspiracy theorists, almost to the point of shilling.
Click to expand...
Why do you find it far-fetched? Based on what? It was pretty basic science in the '50s and nothing's really changed.
Aside from your personal incredulity, what are you basing your radical opinion on?
 
NoParty said:
Why do you find it far-fetched? Based on what? It was pretty basic science in the '50s and nothing's really changed.
Aside from your personal incredulity, what are you basing your radical opinion on?
Click to expand...

Based on common sense. Is reducing cavities REALLY that important? They care about our oral health THAT much? With all the issues in the world this is what they spend their time on? Absolutely amazing.
 
ThatGuyRick said:
Based on common sense. Is reducing cavities REALLY that important? They care about our oral health THAT much? With all the issues in the world this is what they spend their time on? Absolutely amazing.
Click to expand...
So, if reducing cavities, a costly and painful thing to fix via dentistry, can be achieved cheaply and
effortlessly...you're opposed to it because...uh...the world has other issues also...? This is your "common sense"?

"Common sense is not so common." --Voltaire
 
ThatGuyRick said:
Is reducing cavities REALLY that important?
Click to expand...
Yes... it is. The CDC considers the reduction of tooth decay one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century.

External Quote:
And, some stats from the NHS (UK):
  • there were 15% fewer five-year olds with tooth decay in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas
  • there were 11% fewer 12-year olds with tooth decay
  • there were 45% fewer hospital admissions of children aged one to four for tooth decay (mostly for extraction of decayed teeth under a general anaesthetic) in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...itoring_for_england__full_report_1Apr2014.pdf

45% fewer admissions means fewer resources used to treat something which can naturally be reduced, which I would imagine cuts cost marginally. Enough at least to bother adding fluoride to water.
 
Other than regular bulk deliveries, adding fluoride to a municipal water supply is fully automated and it takes very little effort to operate and maintain that equipment, giving a high return for minimal cost.
 
NoParty said:
So, if reducing cavities, a costly and painful thing to fix via dentistry, can be achieved cheaply and
effortlessly...you're opposed to it because...uh...the world has other issues also...? This is your "common sense"?
Click to expand...

Cute straw man as that's not what I said. Again do you truly believe they care about our oral health THAT much? Is reduc ing cavities that important? Answer the questions please.
 
Ben Harrison said:
Yes... it is. The CDC considers the reduction of tooth decay one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century.

External Quote:
And, some stats from the NHS (UK):
  • there were 15% fewer five-year olds with tooth decay in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas
  • there were 11% fewer 12-year olds with tooth decay
  • there were 45% fewer hospital admissions of children aged one to four for tooth decay (mostly for extraction of decayed teeth under a general anaesthetic) in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...itoring_for_england__full_report_1Apr2014.pdf

45% fewer admissions means fewer resources used to treat something which can naturally be reduced, which I would imagine cuts cost marginally. Enough at least to bother adding fluoride to water.
Click to expand...

So they're adding fluoride to the water for the sole purpose of benefiting children aged one to four, got you. I'm assuming you didn't post adult numbers as they were very poor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
  • Sticky
Escaping the Rabbit Hole - Updated Endnotes and References
Replies
9
Views
10K
Stealth777
Stealth777
Mick West
Debunked: "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary ..
Replies
5
Views
11K
Mick West
Mick West
R
  • Locked
"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "
6 7 8
Replies
287
Views
109K
Mick West
Mick West
Jay Reynolds
Debunked: The "Deep Shield" Hoax
Replies
4
Views
9K
Jay Reynolds
Jay Reynolds

Latest posts

Trending content

Back
Top