Everyday Chemicals affecting Males

Black Uhlan

The Danish Government released official research showing contamination from everday items (some examples: food, nappies, bed linen, waterproof clothing) are feminising two-year old boys and lowering sperm counts. Could this genderbending be an underhand way of limiting the populations? or creating generations less likely and able to revolt? http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2009/978-87-92548-81-8/html/default_eng.htm

mcmoustache

Nope. Just your everyday environmental consequences of corporate greed. It's not intentional.

Here is another link on falling sperm counts.

I'd be very worried, though, if the sperm count is falling in 2-year-olds.

samson09

Business as usual with the added bonus of lowering the reproductive rate of the human population. With this sort of thing you really have to wonder, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

6th

I have amended the tread title.

Undergod

Pretty offensive. People with more oestrogen are less likely and able to revolt?

What I would be worried about is the general health risks. Also I think I've heard that there is a huge increase in eostrogen in the environment as a result of the use of the contraceptive pill.

Black Uhlan

Undergod wrote: »

Pretty offensive.

I apologise in that case, no offence intended.

Undergod wrote: »

People with more oestrogen are less likely and able to revolt?

I would stand by that but try to stray from stereotypes. Also, I would need to expand to seperate, but not exclusively the grass-roots revolutionary (young, dissasociated, male, poor, uneducated) from the scholars and middle-class leaders of a movement like Washington and somewhere in between you would have the radical general types like Collins and Guevara.

Undergod wrote: »

What I would be worried about is the general health risks. Also I think I've heard that there is a huge increase in eostrogen in the environment as a result of the use of the contraceptive pill.

I agree. Its the usual ****ers at play too - Bayer, Monsanto etc with their PAC's, their Lobby groups, their bought and paid for congressmen, senators and Presidents with their stooges in the media covering it up.

This short film is worth watching; http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/Doc_Zone/ID=1233750780

Diogenes

[quote=[Deleted User];63027662]I read a little about this and theres this doctor on youtube who is always blabbing on about it. Years ago when we were cave folk we got a 50/50 balance of male and female meat in out diet. Now we have mostly female, as bulls and so on are not needed really. It is believed to have led to a drop in testosterone levels. They also say soya products for men is nearly as bad as taking the pill. As well as the 50 50 male female meat thing, a bull you eat is likely to have his testicles removes or at least disabled and he will also be lacking testosterone.....I can't remember the dudes name but youtube him....funny enough I think he was european.[/QUOTE]


Thats soooo true, it's not as if we've come out of a century with the highest body count from war that the world has ever seen.

The amount of testosterone in the human body is measured in MGs, I don't think a bull steak is going to significantly alter that.

King Mob

So if the evil overlords are trying to make girly men, why are they allowing this study to be realised?
Why did they ban these substances in toys?

Isn't it funny how in one thread we're being told that all scientists are under the governments control and we shouldn't trust their reseach, while in ones like this the CT crowd just accept the study(from a government agency) no questions asked?

EXODUS251022

Sacked – for telling the truth about drugs

Why was David Nutt sacked?

See what happens when scientists speak the truth, there's a conspiracy without any theory.

meglome

EXODUS251022 wrote: »

Sacked – for telling the truth about drugs

Why was David Nutt sacked?

See what happens when scientists speak the truth, there's a conspiracy without any theory.

You do know he was head of the advisory panel on illegal drugs right?

EXODUS251022

meglome wrote: »

You do know he was head of the advisory panel on illegal drugs right?

Yes I do, and do you know he said some illegal drugs were safer than the legal one's alcohol and tobacco, and nobody seemed to say he was wrong in this conclusion, just he shouldn't say what he's not permitted to, be it truth or lie it must get the go ahead from on high.

You want the truth?, You can't handle the truth.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

So if the evil overlords are trying to make girly men, why are they allowing this study to be realised?
Why did they ban these substances in toys?

Isn't it funny how in one thread we're being told that all scientists are under the governments control and we shouldn't trust their reseach, while in ones like this the CT crowd just accept the study(from a government agency) no questions asked?

Isn't it funny that you are doing the reverse. You (try to) debunk with science, and then presented with actual science that doesn't fit your own views you disregard it. Now thats funny.

bonkey

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Isn't it funny that you are doing the reverse. You (try to) debunk with science, and then presented with actual science that doesn't fit your own views you disregard it. Now thats funny.

It seems to me that KM's not disregarding the science at all, but rather the interpretation of the motive and facts surrounding it.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Isn't it funny that you are doing the reverse. You (try to) debunk with science, and then presented with actual science that doesn't fit your own views you disregard it. Now thats funny.

Actually I didn't disregard it, my questions about it presuppose the study is accurate, as bonkey pointed out..

What I doubt is if it indicates a conspiracy to girlify males.
If it was a conspiracy it doesn't make sense.

If the evil overlords are trying to make girly men, why are they allowing this study to be released?
Why did they ban these substances in toys?

So why do you trust this study when CTers usually tell us not to trust scientific studies?
What makes this one so different?

Undergod

KM, I think you're being a little unfair. Not every CT supposes that the NWO are involved, or that the coverup is part of a larger plan. It could just be that a company knowingly used harmful substances in their products and tried to hide the fact.

That said, that doesn't seem to have been suggested in this thread, and I imagine you could put this down to laziness and negligence rather than any kind of active coverup. Also, seeing as many of the harmful chemicals mentioned are removed by washing, then I don't see there being much cause for concern.

King Mob

Undergod wrote: »

KM, I think you're being a little unfair. Not every CT supposes that the NWO are involved, or that the coverup is part of a larger plan. It could just be that a company knowingly used harmful substances in their products and tried to hide the fact.

Well that was suggested to be the case by the OP.
That these harmful chemicals where part of a depopulation plot.

Also it's not just chemicals on one product so it's unlikely to be just one company as well.

Remember that these chemical have already been banned in children's toys and this seems to be the first study to show a link to other products.

Seems to be a case of companies using chemicals that they were allowed to use but which had a previously unknown effect.
No reason to suspect a conspiracy.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

Actually I didn't disregard it, my questions about it presuppose the study is accurate, as bonkey pointed out..

What I doubt is if it indicates a conspiracy to girlify males.
If it was a conspiracy it doesn't make sense.


So why do you trust this study when CTers usually tell us not to trust scientific studies?
What makes this one so different?

a) Your talking in riddles .You accept the findings of the study yet you don't believe that I should.

Big question here is WHY?

b) What is a "CTer"?
at a guess I would say that it is someone who doesn't agree with you?

c) How does a CT on population control that uses a study as evidence that suggests that exposure to everyday chemicals reduces sperm counts and feminises 2-year-old boys?

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

Remember that these chemical have already been banned in children's toys and this seems to be the first study to show a link to other products.

.

SOME of the chemicals have been banned in toys.

Black Uhlan

bonkey wrote: »

It seems to me that KM's not disregarding the science at all, but rather the interpretation of the motive and facts surrounding it.

Failure to acknowledge is disregarding in my book.

he/she is not really disregarding anything except "CTers" in my view.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

a) Your talking in riddles .You accept the findings of the study yet you don't believe that I should.

No that's not what I said.
I said quite clearly, that presupposing the study is correct, it is not evidence of a plot to make the population more placid.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Big question here is WHY?

The question I asked was why trust this study when we are usually told not to trust scientific studies?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

b) What is a "CTer"?
at a guess I would say that it is someone who doesn't agree with you?

Nope.
I conspiracy theorist is someone who makes up or spreads conspiracy theories.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

c) How does a CT on population control that uses a study as evidence that suggests that exposure to everyday chemicals reduces sperm counts and feminises 2-year-old boys?

I don't understand what you're saying here.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

SOME of the chemicals have been banned in toys.

Many of the chemicals mentioned in the study have been in fact been banned for use in children's products.

If there was a plot to girlify boys, why were any of the chemicals banned?
Why was this study allowed to be published?
Why was it covered in main stream news?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Failure to acknowledge is disregarding in my book.

he/she is not really disregarding anything except "CTers" in my view.

Nope. Just pointing out that your suggesting that the chemicals where put there as an attempt to decrease the population or make the population more docile, didn't make any sense.
I have outlined fairly clear why it doesn't make sense.
How is that disregarding anything?

nullzero

bonkey wrote: »

It seems to me that KM's not disregarding the science at all, but rather the interpretation of the motive and facts surrounding it.

Interpretation is something that is profoundly personal.
If somebody isn't willing to entertain something their interpretation will be different to someone who has a different outlook.
Impartiality is a virtually non existent virtue in web forums, due to their non personal nature which can at times allow for the expression of opinions in a manner which would usually be socially unacceptable.
It is possible for someone to get "the wrong end of the stick" and apply standards which are unsuited to a certain debate which can inadvertently lead to the "wrong" conclusion, so therefore interpretation can sometimes lead someone down the wrong path whilst not excusing their actions.

As for conspiracies relating to "feminisation" of males, I've heard about this before and like most theories it is plausible if not currently proveable, which deosn't make it wrong, it's just one perspective or opinion on the changes we see in our society at large which we find hard to explain, some theories emerge which explain things in the correct way. Others are shown to be false until you reach a conclusion it's best to leave the mud un slung.