Discussion

I needed to disable self-signups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type sign-ups lately. Please contact me directly if you want membership on this forum. Thanks.

Forum Navigation
Please to create posts and topics.

Humans could go extinct - infertility crisis

12

In just 40 years male sperm count in western countries is 50 percent lower. Google "male sperm count decline".

Percent of women aged 15-49 who have ever used infertility services:  12.7% (US data)

In Germany: "around 15-20 percent of women have no kids even though they want to"

 

Seems like the degenerated life style and diet of humans will some day make us go extinct. One can only speculate who is behind this, I have my guesses...  There are several billion dollar industries that only benefit if we are weak, sick and low testosterone. If you rule the world the last thing you want, is that your sheeple are strong, healthy and start using their brains.

I just want that every child at least has the chance to grow up healthy. When someone is 18 years old and wants to start poisoning themselves, I dont care. But children should at least have the chance to go another path.

 

 

 

Даниил and Luke have reacted to this post.
ДаниилLuke

Thanks for bringing this topic back up. Here’s some information to consider from a 1974 USAID report on how to handle the run-away human population growth.

Because of the momentum of population dynamics, reductions in birth rates affect total numbers only slowly. High birth rates in the recent past have resulted in a high proportion m the youngest age groups, so that there will continue to be substantial population increases over many years even if a two-child family should become the norm in the future. Policies to reduce fertility will have their main effects on total numbers only after several decades. However, if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970's and 1980's. Moreover, programs started now to reduce birth rates will have short run advantages for developing countries in lowered demands on food, health and educational and other services and in enlarged capacity to contribute to productive investments, thus accelerating development.

Source:

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf

I find it interesting that the stated goal is to reduce fertility with immediate plans on reducing birth rates. These are two different things.

How do you achieve a reduction in fertility ? You have to poison people, and seriously poison them at that. How do you poison the entire world's population without them knowing about it? You sneak it to their food or course.

Last I checked, the WHO is still running the vA supplementation programes in about 110 countries. And more programs are being implemented to accelerate it.

“No other technology offers as big a way to improve life for the world’s poorest at such low costs or in so short a time,” says Rolf Carriere, GAIN’s Executive Director. “Our alliance can jump-start the process by helping countries initiate large-scale food fortification in just one year, rather than the 10 years or more that conventional assistance programs often take to put into action.” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation started GAIN with a $50 million grant, followed by contributions from the Canadian, US and Dutch governments, with the World Bank serving as the trustee.

GAIN will assist recipient countries in putting iron, iodine, Vitamin A, folic acid and other vitamins and minerals into every day foods like salt, flour, oil, sugar and soy sauce, depending on each nation’s food habits.

Source:

https://www.who.int/news/item/12-06-2003-new-global-alliance-brings-food-fortification-to-world-s-poor

Whereas, they could have stated the goal was to reduce the number of children people have. They could have openly done that with a variety of financial incentives and in doing so also kept people in good health. But, that would have cost them way too much money. And, people just live too long when they are healthy.

And poisoning the world's population achieves secondary goals. vA It makes people fat and dumbs them down. There’s been about a 20% drop in IQ scores since the 1970’s. VA also makes people weak and fearful. It slowly gets them sick, and keeps them sick. Most importantly it feminizes men. All, exactly what a new world government would want in the human population.

It slowly but surely enslaves the people of the world to pharma and the medical sector. Pharma now rakes in trillions of $$ yearly off of people who would otherwise not be this sick. It’s all just too convenient and profitable for it to be a coincidence.

 

Spokes, Jenny and 11 other users have reacted to this post.
SpokesJennyCurious ObserverrDavidkathy55woodRetinoiconMaxДаниилArminLukeYuriSean

Sometimes I think the most unhealthy people I know are the ones with the best insurance, LOL.

kathy55wood, Даниил and Luke have reacted to this post.
kathy55woodДаниилLuke

Don't know if what this ex navy surgeon is saying is true, (you know, we do live in the world of fake news) but I wouldn't be surprised if the vaccine is more dangerous to *young healthy people like soldiers* than the disease.   And will they keep giving it year after year?  And what will that do to the their general health over time?  And their fertility?

 

Retinoicon and Luke have reacted to this post.
RetinoiconLuke

I guess we will never know what damage the vaccine will do.

For example I will never be in any statistic about the side effects of accutane. But it harmed me and many people I know A LOT.

They will just say  "you would have gotten this disease anyway", "its your genes" "has nothing to do with the vaccine" "its not caused by diet, just eat whatever you want" and whatever stupid things most of the docs say.

 

How retarded is it to vaxxx the whole world population with a new type of vaccine, that we almost never used before for a virus that isnt deadly for most people. Isnt the survival rate for kids like 99,997 percent and they still want to vaxxx them?  Just insane what our "leaders" want us to do.

Sussan, Даниил and Luke have reacted to this post.
SussanДаниилLuke

It's clear that many domestic and global health initiatives operate like a trojan horse. For example, it is interesting that of all halogens we could have chosen to purify/sanitize water, that we chose all of them (fluorine, chlorine, bromine) other than the one to which are bodies use in metabolic function (iodine). Disaffection of water for human consumption and in swimming pools is far superior, safer, and less expensive with the use of iodine at 1 to 2 ppm, that with the use of chlorine and its derivatives at the same concentrations.16-19

The US government is recommending no more than .7 mg / L of fluoride after about 41% of adolescents are suffering from fluorosis – a condition affecting the appearance of tooth enamel.  Most “health” experts recommend consuming 8 cups of water in a day.  This is approximately two liters, and therefore 2 mg of fluoride. Which, again, is 13 times more fluoride than the RDA of iodine. Simultaneously, these "health" authorities will tell you how much of a danger excess Iodine exposure poses to your health while pushing fluorinated water and toothpaste (the toxicology of iodine is dramatically less than fluoride/LD50). Fluoride poses no known biological function, and its benefit to tooth enamel is far overstated. I haven't used fluorinated toothpaste in 6+ years. I can go days without brushing my teeth and never get cavities (Vitamin K2 is very important for oral bacterial homeostasis). 

Health authorities chose to use mercury in fillings despite their knowledge of "Mad Hatters" and the health implications mercury posed on the human body. Taking a thorough examination of vaccines reveals that their legendary place in medical lore regarding declines in human pathology is far overstated, and that the adjuvants are likely causing deleterious health effects. It also seems that medical authorities (take a look at the recent Harvard/Lancet food pyramid) are hellbent on selling us processed oils/PUFAs and to exclude meat. Taking a look at the activities of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundations initiatives to "rework" the food supply system (Bill Gates is now largest private farmland owner) is enough to make any "conspiracy theorist" wonder what the true intention may be (it certainly isn't philanthropy). 

Judy, kathy55wood and 3 other users have reacted to this post.
Judykathy55woodRetinoiconMaxДаниил

I'm new to this whole world where Vitamin A is a toxin (which I now believe wholeheartedly after reviewing the literature, specifically its relationship to glutathione). With my previous knowledge on a host of health topics, I am pretty disturbed that the medical paradigm injects babies with massive doses of Vitamin A. One has to wonder if "authorities" near the top of the hierarchal pyramid know the true nature of Vitamin A and its impact on physiology. Not a comforting possibility.

Jenny, kathy55wood and 2 other users have reacted to this post.
Jennykathy55woodMaxДаниил

Yeah, when I first wrote P4P I was thinking that this vA fiasco is probably just the result of botched science. However, after I read that Kissinger report, I’m quite sure this “botched science” is deliberate, at least so from the 1970’s till now.

Spokes, Judy and 7 other users have reacted to this post.
SpokesJudygrapesrDavidRetinoiconMaxДаниилYuri

I don't think reducing fertility is deliberate as many countries are now trying to increase their population because the younger generation can't support the retirees. Social Security is like a pyramid scheme--you need increasingly more people at the bottom. China recently changed their one-child policy because it wasn't working, although it did help to slow population growth.  

A major reason for the reduced fertility rate is the amount of hormone disrupting chemicals and foods in our modern world. Flax, for example, contains more estrogen than any plant food and it is currently considered a miracle food by the plant-based diet advocates. If you buy commercial products, it is hard to avoid. Estrogen is the plant's defense mechanism against predator's (like us) who would eat its seeds. It causes miscarriages in females and deformities in the genitals of male babies, in addition to many other side effects (including hot flashes and man boobs.) The plant is saying, "you eat my babies, I will kill yours." 

Some widely used plastics are also hormone disruptors, as are fertilizers and petroleum products. I also wonder if it is affecting gender identity; newborns are naturally supposed to be exposed to their mother's hormones during birth and nursing, but now they are in their environment, their food, pacifiers, toys, etc.

grapes and kathy55wood have reacted to this post.
grapeskathy55wood
Quote from Judy on August 31, 2021, 2:13 pm

I don't think reducing fertility is deliberate as many countries are now trying to increase their population because the younger generation can't support the retirees. Social Security is like a pyramid scheme--you need increasingly more people at the bottom. China recently changed their one-child policy because it wasn't working, although it did help to slow population growth.  

A major reason for the reduced fertility rate is the amount of hormone disrupting chemicals and foods in our modern world. Flax, for example, contains more estrogen than any plant food and it is currently considered a miracle food by the plant-based diet advocates. If you buy commercial products, it is hard to avoid. Estrogen is the plant's defense mechanism against predator's (like us) who would eat its seeds. It causes miscarriages in females and deformities in the genitals of male babies, in addition to many other side effects (including hot flashes and man boobs.) The plant is saying, "you eat my babies, I will kill yours." 

Some widely used plastics are also hormone disruptors, as are fertilizers and petroleum products. I also wonder if it is affecting gender identity; newborns are naturally supposed to be exposed to their mother's hormones during birth and nursing, but now they are in their environment, their food, pacifiers, toys, etc.

Hi, Judy. I live in Russia. Putin tries to seem like a conservative politician, talks a lot about the family, birth rate, etc. And this is always accompanied by loud PR with fanfare. However, Putin is really doing nothing to increase the population of Russia. People continue to crash in accidents, drugs are easy to buy. The moral level of the population is BELOW THE BASEBOARD. I am sure that there will never be another Dostoevsky or Tolstoy in this country. The Internet is flooded with LGBT propaganda. You can have an abortion for free at the clinic, but if you need to take a TSH test, you will have to do it somewhere for money. Where traditionally there was a high birth rate - in the countryside - now unbearable living conditions have been created and people are fleeing to the cities. My country has literally degraded before my eyes very much and quickly. It seems that the only thing that keeps the stable level of the population is the import of a HUGE number of migrants from Asia. But it still seems to me that the population has become much smaller during Putin's rule, I do not believe these fake statistics. As for the maternity capital... It is quite large by the standards of Russia (about 7 thousand dollars). However, you have a limited set of things where you can spend it: 1) improving housing conditions (7 thousand dollars is still not enough to buy an apartment, so most likely you will have to invest it in a mortgage). 2) Paid education. 3) Invest in a pension 4) Well, various little things like buying medicines if the child is disabled. Thus, the money from the maternity capital spent FROM THE BUDGET will almost certainly return to the hands of the oligarchs who own the pension fund, construction business, educational institutions, etc. This is a cut of budget money.

Judy, grapes and 2 other users have reacted to this post.
JudygrapesDavidkathy55wood
12