Dow

Overpopulation or Depopulation

Long before now there have been debates as to whether the world was really overpopulated or not, or if overpopulation is even possible. Many argue that Mother Nature knows exactly what to do with the planet and its inhabitants to maintain balance at anytime and I agree with that assertion.

Between 1798 and 1826, an English Demographer and Political Economist, Thomas Malthus published a famous and controversial treatise “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” The thrust of his postulations was that human beings will reproduce at a geometric rate while food production will occur at an arithmetic rate implicitly asserting that the world will be overpopulated. Let us take a quotation which succinctly captures his views “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world?” (Malthus, T.R. 1798 p.61). He proposed prostitution, abortion, birth control including the use of contraceptives and celibacy as a way of checking the human population so that the world will not degenerate to a level of acute starvation and possibly cannibalism.

Due to technological, agricultural and societal developments largely brought about by the industrial revolution, food supply became abundant thus making the Malthusian theory a colossal failure (Wolfgram, A.).

His infamous “Malthusian Controls” which are taught to every first year sociology student, has become a cornerstone belief for many modern day globalists who advocate population control by any means necessary. This radical and dangerous idea promotes the unproven notion that the poor deserve to die because there are too many of them for the Earth to adequately support. Malthus believed that higher wages and welfare should be withheld from the great unwashed because he believed that these two factors would allow the poor to survive and exponentially breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem.

Some Scholars sturdily opposed Malthus: Henry Carey, an American economist and thinker opined that food supply will outstrip population growth only in an economy where the government lacked a clear cut public policy and failed to adopt novel technologies. This was well espoused in his book “The Principles of Social Science. In Friedrich Engels book “Outline of a Critique of Political Economy 1844,” he said that the problem of inadequate food production will be taken care of by advances in science and technology. Economist Simon Julian implicitly called Malthus a Prophet of Doom as the massive geometric population growth of the 20th century did not lead to a worldwide catastrophe.

Was Malthus entirely wrong? Some of his modern day disciples attribute the problems of Africa and the Middle East where the population doubles repeatedly to food shortages and its concomitant effects which include diseases, water shortage, internal strife, conflict, large migrations (Danaher, G. 2011).

Overpopulation is a radical and dangerous myth promoted by elite and international societies. A problem that exists only in dramatically erroneous theories that are not mathematically based. It is simply one of the most flawed concepts right up there with global warming. The theories are based on myths, not science or accurate statistical correlations or causation principles.

Is the world really over populated or is there an attempt to hoodwink a vast majority of people into getting their support for a depopulation agenda?

According to Stephen Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute, the population of the entire world could fit into the American state of Texas. The square miles of Texas is 262,000. Using the old population of 6 billion as at 1999 and a conversion from square miles to square feet, it came to 1,217 square feet per capita. A family of five would occupy that with the status of a mansion. (www.pop.org). The extra 1 billion people may not alter much this calculation.

If we look at Canada which is the second largest nation on earth after Russia, the land mass is 6,198,186 square miles with a population of about 34 million. Most areas are uninhabited and the potentials for it to be tapped are abundant. Can we honestly say the world is overpopulated when many areas are sparsely uninhabited? What about the creative powers of man which population promotes? What about his problem solving ability? Dubai which was largely a desert area has been transformed into one of the most attractive tourist hubs in the world because of man’s prowess to turn challenges into opportunities (BBC UK).

That brings to a reiteration of an earlier question, if there’s more than enough room for everyone on earth as seen above, is there any depopulation agenda and if there is what is the real raison d’etre?
Planned Parenthood – Malicious Advocacy

Depopulation agendas have existed from time immemorial as far back as in 1550 BC in Egypt (Time Magazine US). However it gained momentum and became a topic of global discourse when Margaret Sanger surreptitiously propagated the eugenics agenda. The agenda is hinged on the elimination of ‘inferior races.’ One of the broad misconceptions across those who blindly follow the advice of Planned Parenthood, is that they are a trusted health care provider and passionate educator who can only serve women in their highest interests when it comes to matters of health, whether sexual or reproductive.

We are living in a delusional society where organizations that promote health damaging vaccines, cancer causing birth control, invasive mammograms and radiation screening are supported and actually praised by our governments and the population at large. The most dramatic irony comes from the fact that all of these services are offered in the guise of the “nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care” whose intention is always health and safety.

The International Statistical Association expressed grave concerns about the World Health Organisation’s inaccurate recording of abortion deaths. It is hard to determine how abortions contribute to maternal mortality and the abortion is hinged on this false data. WHO has admitted that getting accurate data is an uphill task yet they churn out policies based on the apparently flawed data and passing them off as valid and objective. They then influence other international organisations and member countries on the basis of a flaw. It has lent its support to abortion by equating maternal deaths with unsafe abortions. It has also mounted severe pressure on Sovereign states to change their abortion laws as well as assisting in the management of unsafe abortion cases. In a special UN session in 1999, when governments collectively agreed that in instances when abortion did not run afoul of the law, healthcare service providers should be trained on how to provide safe and accessible abortion services.

In 2002 after a fact finding mission to China by some officials of the United States Department, it was exposed that women who had unauthorised pregnancies had severe penalties ranging from forced abortions to the payment of outrageous fines and other forms of emotional torture. Former President George Bush Jr defunded them as a result of their complicity in the barbaric atrocity. However the incumbent, Barack Obama on March 11, 2009 reinstated funding to them and has since approved about $145 million to the murderous cause (Saunders, B. 2011).

The UNFPA and the International Planned Parenthood Federation collaboratively drafted a document that provided a framework on sexual and reproductive rights and health. In addition to the infamous Maputo Protocol, they aimed at pressuring the bureaucrats in the health sector and policy makers in different countries to make abortion more widely available. (Singson, S. 2007).

In 1984, a report was written and presented to the controllers of the World Bank. The summary of it was a population reduction plan so as to maintain economic growth for developed economies. It was titled “World Development Report 1984.” Poverty and Hunger were touted as a consequence of overpopulation. It advocated the elimination of subsidies for large families, incentives for smaller families and the praising of China for its one-child policy and holding them up as a model. It canvassed the availability of male and female sterilisation, IUD’s in countries such as India, Indonesia and Thailand. There was also the idea of the creation of concentration camps where people could be taken for sterilisation. (Miranda, L.R 2012)

Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation:
Save The Third World By Depopulating It Through Vaccines

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have been focused on reducing the population of poorer countries through the promotion of killer drugs such as Depo-Provera. The foundation is partnering with the British government to raise $4 billion to finance their birth control plan by 2020. This is under the guise of family planning. The foundation is also known to fund an NGO committed to children vaccination known as Gavi. This vaccine has been used on children in Malawi, India and Pakistan. In Malawi, these kids were vaccinated at gunpoint in 2011; Non-polio paralysis struck some of the kids that were vaccinated ( Posel, S. 2012).

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is committing 10 billion dollars over the next ten years to make it the most aggressive decade ever to roll out new vaccines to poor nations around the world. The commitment will also effectively create widespread fertility problems across vaccinated populations.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the World’s most powerful charity. It is funded to the tune of $34.6 in addition to $30 from the investments from Warren Buffet. In 2000, the foundation founded the Global Fund for Children’s Vaccines (GAVI). It is an international collaboration among the Rockefeller foundation, Governments, the World Bank, WHO, International Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Vaccine Makers and UNICEF. (Gale, R; Null, G 2010). During the World Economic Forum, he promised to make $10 billion available for child vaccine development in poorer nations. With the history of vaccines in Africa and third world countries, has any proven to be the solution to the problems there? Does it not make more sense to clean up the filthy sewages to put a permanent solution to needless ailments rather than provide vaccines which will not solve the fundamental problem? Do these vaccines enhance the quality of lives? Is it a solution to the problem of squalor in the continent? In a TED conference presentation, his reasons for massive investments in vaccines may have been revealed “The world today has 6.8 billion people…That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.” (Adams, M 2010).

Fertility has been declining rapidly since the 1950s in all countries of the world and the start of the change coincided with the introduction of the first mass vaccination programs. For instance, in the UK in 1947, a mass DPT vaccine campaign was initiated and in 1958, the first polio and diphtheria vaccines were brought in on a mass scale for all people under 15 years old.

Vaccines contain many ingredients that are potentially damaging to fertility including detergents like triton X-100, also known as octoxynol 10 which is a known spermicide and has been used in experiments to “strip” sperm so that they are no longer capable of fertilizing an egg. In a 1977 study in the Journal of Reproduction and Fertility, triton X-100 was listed in a table of “most potent spermicides” that would produce 100% stripping of human sperm and the dosages needed for such an effect.

Another ingredient that is problematic is polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80) that is in numerous vaccines including the Pediacel five-in-one vaccine given to infants and the gardasil HPV vaccine. Polysorbate 80 is a known sterility causing agent in rats. It caused changes to the vagina and womb, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles and this impaired the rats’ ability to reproduce.

Interestingly enough it is also an emulsifier used in popular brands of ice cream.

Some medical professionals argue that it has only been found to cause infertility in rats, not humans, but the Depo-Provera contraceptive shot also contains polysorbate 80 and it has been added to experimental animal contraceptive injections as one of the ideal sterilizing ingredients.

Baby female rats who were injected with polysorbate 80 at days 4-7 after birth had caused changes to the vagina and womb lining, hormonal changes, ovary deformities and degenerative follicles.

According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, which is part of the United Nations, scientists from the organization are developing vaccines specifically to damage fertility as a method of contraception. A suggested ingredient for the vaccine is Polysorbate 80 (also known as tween 80). As it is a preferred ingredient, scientists are obviously aware of its ability to cause infertility.

Far from being mere anecdotal reports, scientists are aware that an ideal sterilizing recipe is polysorbate 80 and squalene oil together, as they demonstrated in this patent for an animal contraceptive vaccine:

“In a preferred embodiment the vaccine comprises oil, preferably a biodegradable oil such as squalene oil. Typically, the vaccine is prepared using an adjuvant concentrate which contains lecithin in squalene oil. The aqueous solution glycoprotein is typically a phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution, and additionally preferably contains Tween 80.”

This is exactly what some vaccines contain. In fact, the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System lists 25 pages of teenage girls and women who had miscarriages after being injected with Gardasil when pregnant, and that is just for one type of vaccine.

So if you’re considering having a vaccine or giving your child one, don’t have any if you intend to get pregnant within three months of the vaccine and avoid any vaccines that contain polysorbate 80, octoxynol 10 (Triton X-100) or squalene (known as adjuvant AS04).

According to Professor Iles, of Middlesex University, a new cancer vaccine being developed in conjunction with U.S. firm Celldex Therapeutics will rev up the immune system, directing it to destroy Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) which is made by around half of bladder and pancreatic-cancers. Perhaps an ulterior motive was the driving force behind such irresponsible research since scientists have known for decades that any attempts to depress or destroy hCG may lead to permanent infertility in women.

Ironically, the hCG hormone the researchers are trying to destroy is actually used during female infertility treatments in order to stimulate the release of eggs from the ovaries. Temporary depression and disruption of hCG causes a range of hormonal imbalances and is considered a leading cause of miscarriages. Consequently, many once infertile women may suddenly conceive with repeated injections of hCG.

One of the primary reasons that women who abuse cocaine can no longer conceive is because of hCG disruption. Cocaine inhibits hCG concentrations in maternal circulation which affects secretion by the placenta required to maintain pregnancy.

GMO Technology and Decreased Fertility

Scientists in Austria recently conducted the first ever long-term multi-generational feeding study of Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) corn (NK 603 x MON 810) in mice. The study consisted of two groups: an experimental group, which was fed a 33% GM corn (maize) feed, and a control group, which was fed an equivalent non-GM corn feed. The mice were allowed to live a natural life and were monitored for four generations. Scientists recorded organ weight, gene expression, body mass, metabolism, life span and number of offspring of both groups of mice. The scientists found that mice fed GM corn had significantly less pups per litter than the control group on the third and fourth generation. Furthermore, pups whose parents were fed GM-feed weighed less at birth and at weaning and experienced significantly higher mortality rates than those fed non-GM corn. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek reported that there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet and mice fed non-GM corn reproduced more efficiently.

Using a microarray analysis, the scientists reported that 1016 genes had been differentially expressed in the mice fed GM corn with most being up-regulated. Essentially, the GM-fed mice had hundreds of their proteins, which are encoded by genes, expressed in an increased or decreased quantity, which as a corollary altered certain biological processes in their bodies. For example, sensory perception, ion transport and the ability to breakdown proteins (proteolysis) were down-regulated or under-expressed, while the ability of the mice to regulate T-cells (a primary immunological response especially in fighting cancer), circadian rhythm regulation and the FAS signalling pathway (which is a major pathway for cell apoptosis and is important in the elimination of cancers) were over-expressed. This study elucidates the fact that biologic damage from GMOs may not manifest until the third generation and details strong evidence for the mandatory labelling, and even more so for the mass extinction, of these highly dangerous and unnecessary foods.

Alexey V. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

“Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.”

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said “The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile.”

The published paper also included measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc.

Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half thebabies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova’s feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry’s problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding “neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior.” Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females “at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens.” One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Chemicals – One of the Biggest Predictors of Depopulaton

One of the biggest predictors of long-term depopulation is a society’s endorsement of chemicals in consumer and medical technology.

Edinburgh University researchers claimed a crucial window between eight and 12 weeks of pregnancy determined future reproductive problems.Exposure to chemicals found in products such as cosmetics during this period may affect later sperm production. The research team was led by Professor Richard Sharpe of the Medical Research Council’s Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, based in Edinburgh.

A study by Brunel University, the Universities of Exeter and Reading and the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, shows for the first time how a group of testosterone-blocking chemicals is finding its way into UK rivers, affecting wildlife and potentially humans. The research was supported by the Natural Environment Research Council and is now published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study identified a new group of chemicals that act as ‘anti-androgens’. This means that they inhibit the function of the male hormone, testosterone, reducing male fertility. Some of these are contained in medicines, including cancer treatments, pharmaceutical treatments, and pesticides used in agriculture. The research suggests that when they get into the water system, these chemicals may play a pivotal role in causing feminising effects.

Lead author on the research paper, Dr Susan Jobling at Brunel University’s Institute for the Environment, said: “We have been working intensively in this field for over ten years. The new research findings illustrate the complexities in unravelling chemical causation of adverse health effects in wildlife populations and re-open the possibility of a human — wildlife connection in which effects seen in wild fish and in humans are caused by similar combinations of chemicals. We have identified a new group of chemicals in our study on fish, but do not know where they are coming from. A principal aim of our work is now to identify the source of these pollutants and work with regulators and relevant industry to test the effects of a mixture of these chemicals and the already known environmental estrogens and help protect environmental health.”

Men exposed to high amounts of pesticides in foods are far more likely than men with less contact to have diluted or deformed and sluggish sperm. Each of the semen problems can reduce the ability of sperm to reach and fertilize an egg and could make conception harder, the researchers say.

The chemicals — two plant killers and an insecticide — most likely reach men through the water supply. Drinking water in some areas contains significant levels of the substances.

Exposure to current levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) can affect gene expression and fertility of women just 12 hours after exposure.

BPA is a chemical found in baby bottles, water bottles, canned foods and an array of other consumer products. The potential health effects of BPA are no longer debatable and the evidence of its impaired affect on fertility are now well established.

Human studies have found BPA in many tissues and fluids, including urine, blood, breast milk, the amniotic fluid of pregnant women and the antral fluid of mature follicles. A national survey conducted by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2003-2004 found BPA in 93 percent of the 2,517 people (age 6 and up) who were tested.

Previous research from North Carolina State University and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) showed significant reproductive health effects in rats that have been exposed to bisphenol-A (BPA) at levels equivalent to or below the dose that has been thought not to produce any adverse effects.

A study published online in the journal Biology of Reproduction found that exposure of pregnant female mice to the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol A may produce adverse reproductive consequences on in fetal ovaries after the mother has first been exposed to the chemical.

The European Science Foundation (ESF) launched a report showing that reduced male fertility may be making it even harder for couples to conceive and be contributing to low birth rates in many countries.

More than 10% of couples worldwide are infertile, contributing to the growing demand for assisted reproduction techniques such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) which itself causes cancer.

Sperm counts have dropped significantly in the last 50 years in developed countries. Today, at least one in five 18-25 year old men in Europe have semen quality in the subfertile range. Testosterone levels are also declining. This is mirrored by increasing testicular cancer in most industrialised countries and more developmental abnormalities such as undescended testes. All of these factors are linked to reduced fertility and may have common origins during fetal development.

Why Don’t We Empower People Instead of Depopulating? 

Instead of spending billions of dollars in futile depopulation efforts, why can’t the circumstances for these large families to live a more dignified existence be created? Why spend billions of dollars to provide vaccines when it can be funnelled for the provision of a healthier environment which will translate into prosperity as health is wealth. Why can’t there be more pressure put on African leaders not to still the commonwealth since the west is bent on playing a big brother role/ The rogue behaviour of African leaders has led to the impoverishing of the continent and not large families. The creation of failed states through western conspiracy as evidenced by the fact that as a condition for the receipt of loans from the World Bank and IMF, subsidy on essential items are always asked to be removed in the name of development (Abioje, P.O 2012). Isn’t it hypocrisy for the West to subsidise education, healthcare and other essential citizens for its citizens and tell African leaders to remove them? Isn’t the lack of subsidy killing the poor?

The overpopulation hue and cry is all hogwash and an attempt to divert attention from the real issues. If more love can be shown to Africa and other developing economies by meeting the real needs of these people, there would not be any need for a depopulation agenda which is not only counterproductive but a source of misery for both parties.

As an old cliche goes, there is enough for everyone’s need but not enough for everyone’s greed; the mindless quest for power is the real evil that needs to be rooted out as that is the root cause of the needless depopulation agenda.

The good news is that people are awakening to the depopulation agenda and they’re refusing these initiatives at all levels. Rejection of vaccines, GMO, medical technology and chemicals in our consumer goods is taking place at record levels. Populations worldwide are coming to the realization that we do not need to kill ourselves to save this planet or its inhabitants. The real question is when will the bubble burst and when will we transform technology to benefit the masses rather than a select few?

Marco Torres is a research specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention, environmental toxins and health policy.

Sources: 
wpfdc.org
ruvr.ru
huffingtonpost.com
preventdisease.com
vactruth.com
thecagegilded.wordpress.com
catholic.org
cwfa.org
c-fam.org
real-agenda.com
lifenews.com
voxfux
sfgate.com

SOURCE: