A Summary of My Thoughts about the Main conspiracy Theories
I don’t believe things just because the Government or mainstream news tells me. I question everything, INCLUDING conspiracy theories, INCLUDING mainstream news. I’ve looked thoroughly into the Conspiracy theories on chemtrails, 911, fluoride and vaccines (and others). Here is a summary of my thoughts on each.
There is absolutely no evidence of Chemtrails, all the so called evidence is merely assumptions that haven’t been tested properly. When you test those assumptions, you find that chemtrails are just contrails, and that the so called emissions of contrails (aluminium and Barium and others) are actually naturally occurring in the environment or a result of industrial activity.
911 is a big one and I’m not going into it in great depth here, but most of the claims are the same as chemtrails – untested assumptions. For example the assumption that the buildings fell at the rate of free fall. They didn’t, this is easily testable. The assumption that WTC7 had no structural damage, an assumption that proves to be false. There are only a couple of photos that show it because it was covered in fire and smoke, but WTC7 had a massive hole in it’s side, twenty stories high, proving that significant debris landed on WTC7 to cause structural integrity issues.
Those are not the only rebuttals – I have looked at every single 911 conspiracy claim and found it to be wanting ie: an assumption was drawn, and then not adequately researched. As soon as the “evidence” points to a conspiracy, the conspiracist has stopped searching, therefore missing the opportunity to truly get to the bottom of their assumption. They have looked only at the evidence until they had enough to prove their point, not enough to ensure that their hypothesis is truly the correct hypothesis. In other words their desire to believe it was a conspiracy has left them to be sloppy in researching all the facts.
The only really unexplained factor of 911 is why in the months prior to 911, Bush and his crew failed to act on evidence provided by the CIA about an upcoming terrorist attack. If the facts don’t support a controlled demolition (they don’t) then the most likely answer, and this is believable but still not provable, is that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney etc hoped that terrorists would conduct an attack, which would give them an excuse to manufacture an opportunity to go back to Iraq. There is heaps of incontrovertible evidence that Bush and his crew wanted to go back to Iraq. This is the most likely explanation when looking at the evidence; that 911 was a real terrorist attack but that Bush’s government had an opportunity to stop it (due to knowledge provided by the security services) but chose not to act in the hope that a “false flag” would be arranged for them. It’s also possible, though no evidence has been revealed as yet, that they may have actually funded or assisted the terror cell in some way. In my view they would not believed that the terrorists would have been so successful, and the eventual destruction of the twin towers probably elicited an “Oh Fuck” from Bush, thinking it was going to be maybe a hundred or two dead if that.
Fluoride causes fluorosis this has been known for many years. Fluorosis causes discolouration but does not affect tooth health otherwise. Also, the CDC recommend that infants not be fed formula made from tap water in areas that are fluoridated. Fluoridation is poisonous for infants. There about even numbers of studies that show that fluoride prevents caries (holes in teeth) versus studies that show it has no effect.
Europe generally do not fluoridate their water, the US generally does. Fluoride is an industrial waste and is added untreated into water supplies.
Reports of the Nazis using fluoride to control inmates is completely unsubstantiated. Does one believe a rumour that has no evidence just because of general distrust of authorities? I don’t trust authorities, I am staunchly anti-monsanto and distrust the FDA on the issue of GMO’s for example, so I’m no apologist for the government.
So my take on fluoride is that it probably doesn’t make a lot of difference to dental caries, causes fluorosis in children and teenagers, possibly has mild neurological effects in adults (but no evidence of this – just that if it has that effect on infants, then I don’t think it’s a good idea to give it adults either), and since it’s effectiveness is topical (by application), fluoridation should be discontinued and anyone who wants to apply fluoride to their teeth does so using toothpaste. There is ZERO evidence that the government is trying to depopulate by adding fluoride to the water. There is ZERO evidence that fluoridation has had any effect on the fertility of fluoridated populations.
Vaccines work and are an important strategy in managing world health. There is no question about that. Anyone who says otherwise is lying or is deluded by anti-vaccine or anti-government paranoia. The science is sound. That doesn’t mean problems don’t occur, but over all the problems are outweighed by the benefits.
The autism scare is a furphy. There have been hundreds of studies that can find no correlation between autism and vaccines, and only a few that show correlations, and these studies have either been discredited or the study samples have shown to be inadequate. Autism has continued to rise even since Mercury was removed from childhood vaccines nearly ten years ago.
The amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is eclipsed by the naturally occurring formaldehyde that already exists in the blood of the vaccine recipient.
I may at some point cover each of these conspiracies in detail, with references to justify my findings. But any person with a dedication to look at all the available facts should be able to arrive at the same conclusions.