The Disappearing Male

[Praxius]

The Disappearing Male
The Disappearing Male - Doc Zone | CBC-TV

"We are conducting a vast toxicological experiment in which our children and our children's children are the experimental subjects." Dr. Herbert Needlemam

The Disappearing Male is about one of the most important, and least publicized, issues facing the human species: the toxic threat to the male reproductive system

The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer.

At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette's syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia.

The Disappearing Male takes a close and disturbing look at what many doctors and researchers now suspect are responsible for many of these problems: a class of common chemicals that are ubiquitous in our world.

Found in everything from shampoo, sunglasses, meat and dairy products, carpet, cosmetics and baby bottles, they are called "hormone mimicking" or "endocrine disrupting" chemicals and they may be starting to damage the most basic building blocks of human development.

Watch the Full Documentary:
Doc Zone Documentaries
This isn't just restricted to Humans, but many other animal species on the planet are having many of the same complications in regards to their respected male genders.

So take a few minutes and check up on the information.... tell me what you think.

Have you noticed more of your friends and family are having more females then males? Do you or know someone who has complications with reproduction?

 

[EagleSmack]

More chicks for us!

 

[tracy]

Not to be crude, but from a purely evolutionary standpoint, we don't need as many males as we do females since their contribution to procreation doesn't take too much time.

 

[Tonington]

Though the species doesn't need more inbreeding in the future...

 

[Praxius]

More chicks for us!

That was my first thought....

 

[Praxius]

Not to be crude, but from a purely evolutionary standpoint, we don't need as many males as we do females since their contribution to procreation doesn't take too much time.

What doesn't take too much time?

If you watched the documentary, it explains the effects on the reproductive system in males is directly contributed to what is taken in by the mother during development. The man made chemicals they focus on in the documentary are shown that the placenta does not have any known means for filtering out these chemicals and therefore they are passing directly into the bodies of the fetus. They have also shown that the chemicals are then embedded into our structure and through our lives, more chemicals are added on top of it all. These chemicals are also found in breast milk, in the plastics used for our foods and drinks, in our homes, all around us and they are directly affecting our and every other animals' health on this planet.

Since the time humans started to manufacture and develop more and more chemicals from petroleum, we have all been lab rats for them to study over the decades, because they simply didn't know what they would do to us in health at the time.

They also focus on a native reserve which is surrounded by multiple chemical plants and over the years they have gotten the attention of scientists around the world because of their higher % of females being born compared to males, due to the majority of males ending up as miscarriages.... and those miscarriages have been increasing more and more as the years go by.

Many of those scientists have pointed to the reserve as ground zero.... or the very first sign of a species extinction.

^ Now that I doubt will ever happen, but it's very possible if nothing is done after so long.

It's hard to continue to debate this when nobody has bothered to view the same information.

 

[scratch]

What doesn't take too much time?

If you watched the documentary, it explains the effects on the reproductive system in males is directly contributed to what is taken in by the mother during development. The man made chemicals they focus on in the documentary are shown that the placenta does not have any known means for filtering out these chemicals and therefore they are passing directly into the bodies of the fetus. They have also shown that the chemicals are then embedded into our structure and through our lives, more chemicals are added on top of it all. These chemicals are also found in breast milk, in the plastics used for our foods and drinks, in our homes, all around us and they are directly affecting our and every other animals' health on this planet.

Since the time humans started to manufacture and develop more and more chemicals from petroleum, we have all been lab rats for them to study over the decades, because they simply didn't know what they would do to us in health at the time.

They also focus on a native reserve which is surrounded by multiple chemical plants and over the years they have gotten the attention of scientists around the world because of their higher % of females being born compared to males, due to the majority of males ending up as miscarriages.... and those miscarriages have been increasing more and more as the years go by.

Many of those scientists have pointed to the reserve as ground zero.... or the very first sign of a species extinction.

^ Now that I doubt will ever happen, but it's very possible if nothing is done after so long.

It's hard to continue to debate this when nobody has bothered to view the same information.

Another member speaking the truth. Good for you.

 

[Nuggler]

What doesn't take too much time?

If you watched the documentary, it explains the effects on the reproductive system in males is directly contributed to what is taken in by the mother during development. The man made chemicals they focus on in the documentary are shown that the placenta does not have any known means for filtering out these chemicals and therefore they are passing directly into the bodies of the fetus. They have also shown that the chemicals are then embedded into our structure and through our lives, more chemicals are added on top of it all. These chemicals are also found in breast milk, in the plastics used for our foods and drinks, in our homes, all around us and they are directly affecting our and every other animals' health on this planet.

Since the time humans started to manufacture and develop more and more chemicals from petroleum, we have all been lab rats for them to study over the decades, because they simply didn't know what they would do to us in health at the time.

They also focus on a native reserve which is surrounded by multiple chemical plants and over the years they have gotten the attention of scientists around the world because of their higher % of females being born compared to males, due to the majority of males ending up as miscarriages.... and those miscarriages have been increasing more and more as the years go by.

Many of those scientists have pointed to the reserve as ground zero.... or the very first sign of a species extinction.

^ Now that I doubt will ever happen, but it's very possible if nothing is done after so long.

It's hard to continue to debate this when nobody has bothered to view the same information.

I watched that, Prax. Good doc.

OMG, where'd my arm go!!!!!.....................:cheese: :wave::tongue7: C ya!!!

Seriously, serious.

But, seriously, ifn I was a youngun again and seen all them wimmen what had been borned at the same time as me..............wellllllllllllll...........:blob6: yeee haww. or sumpthun.

""""The last few decades have seen steady and dramatic increases in the incidence of boys and young men suffering from genital deformities, low sperm count, sperm abnormalities and testicular cancer.

At the same time, boys are now far more at risk of suffering from ADHD, autism, Tourette's syndrome, cerebral palsy, and dyslexia"""""
___________________________________________

If i thought I had a chance of catching all that, I'd sure have fun whilst I could. Low sperm count is not all that bad, and a genital deformity....................well not to "lengthen" the conversation, but it could happen, eh.\\

I been accused of havin Tourette's already, so WTF...............Ain't nothin we can do about it.. May as well roll over and let the ruling classes have their way with us.......os eyb eyb rof won.

Ggun.





;-)

 

[Nuggler]

Though the species doesn't need more inbreeding in the future...

Hey, youse look after yer fammily and I'uns'll look aftere mine, ok!!

Dang meddlers:angry3:

 

[Tonington]

It's hard to continue to debate this when nobody has bothered to view the same information.

What's there to debate? Mankind has a penchant for being dumb asses about polluting. It's not until we see the effects in our own species, in the worst case scenario that most will actually give a $hit.

We can already see this happening with other animals. Endangered stocks of fish, with radical shifts in sex phenotype ratios. Amphibians dieing across the planet. Heavy metal contaminants building up in adipose tissue of Arctic animals, the list is pretty frigging long.

All of those chemicals are contributing to radical changes that we have no idea about and when we do find out about them we're pretty much boned to do anything about, at least in the short term. We've evolved on this planet in very specific chemical conditions. Life is dependent on very specific biochemical reactions, and if you tamper with that, the results aren't good at all. Your kidney has active secretion, that is energetically dependent filtering of your blood, which targets very specific molecules. If you have a deficiency in one mineral, it will effect the bodies need for other related minerals, as they are often interdependent. Such as the Sodium channel and the sodium/phosphorous pump that primes your electrical impulses...

It's all in the literature. Are you surprised that this is happening?

 

[scratch]

What's there to debate? Mankind has a penchant for being dumb asses about polluting. It's not until we see the effects in our own species, in the worst case scenario that most will actually give a $hit.

We can already see this happening with other animals. Endangered stocks of fish, with radical shifts in sex phenotype ratios. Amphibians dieing across the planet. Heavy metal contaminants building up in adipose tissue of Arctic animals, the list is pretty frigging long.

All of those chemicals are contributing to radical changes that we have no idea about and when we do find out about them we're pretty much boned to do anything about, at least in the short term. We've evolved on this planet in very specific chemical conditions. Life is dependent on very specific biochemical reactions, and if you tamper with that, the results aren't good at all. Your kidney has active secretion, that is energetically dependent filtering of your blood, which targets very specific molecules. If you have a deficiency in one mineral, it will effect the bodies need for other related minerals, as they are often interdependent. Such as the Sodium channel and the sodium/phosphorous pump that primes your electrical impulses...

It's all in the literature. Are you surprised that this is happening?

I'm not, I am just surprized that it hasn't happened earlier!

 

[Praxius]

What's there to debate? Mankind has a penchant for being dumb asses about polluting. It's not until we see the effects in our own species, in the worst case scenario that most will actually give a $hit.

We can already see this happening with other animals. Endangered stocks of fish, with radical shifts in sex phenotype ratios. Amphibians dieing across the planet. Heavy metal contaminants building up in adipose tissue of Arctic animals, the list is pretty frigging long.

All of those chemicals are contributing to radical changes that we have no idea about and when we do find out about them we're pretty much boned to do anything about, at least in the short term. We've evolved on this planet in very specific chemical conditions. Life is dependent on very specific biochemical reactions, and if you tamper with that, the results aren't good at all. Your kidney has active secretion, that is energetically dependent filtering of your blood, which targets very specific molecules. If you have a deficiency in one mineral, it will effect the bodies need for other related minerals, as they are often interdependent. Such as the Sodium channel and the sodium/phosphorous pump that primes your electrical impulses...

It's all in the literature. Are you surprised that this is happening?

No, I've been saying we've been used as lab rats for years now.... now I found a straight forward and clear medium that explains the situation I have been bitching about on and off for the last number of years, I figured I would share it.

The bigger question is what to do about it?

Should we do as Nug mentioned and just suck it up?

Should we be forcing our governments and the idiots in the labs to reduce and/or eleminate many of these products from our everyday use like everybody did with smoking?

Or.... if you are aware of all these chemicals existing around us everyday, or just became aware of them, what do you do to prevent/reduce exposure to these chemicals to yourself or your loved ones?

 

[Praxius]

I'm not, I am just surprized that it hasn't happened earlier!

Actually it did happen much earlier... like the 50's. Further into the documentary, they talk about many of the side effects that were discovered in new borns and children who were exposed to these chemicals, which eventually reduced much of the exposure to the general population, but clearly not enough.

Some of the footage they show is from around that time (I think it was between the 30's-50's) where they doused children, newborns and their parents with pesticides like they were innoculations. Just big handfuls of chemical powders tossed and rubbed all over them and then away they go.

 

[tracy]

What doesn't take too much time?.

Their part in the act of reproduction. Women are out of commission for about 1-2 years per child (when you count on pregnancy taking 9 months and the body taking time to get ready for another pregnancy). A single man can impregnate many, many women during that time so you don't need as many of them to continue the species. Fewer males surviving doesn't necessarily mean extinction.

For all the talk of men being the stronger sex, they are more vulnerable to many things. They die younger. Male fetuses are miscarried more often. Male babies are weaker (ask any NICU nurse about "whimpy white boy" syndrome). Males are more prone to many diseases (like autism) and have some diseases women don't (like hemophelia).

 

[scratch]

Their part in the act of reproduction. Women are out of commission for about 1-2 years per child (when you count on pregnancy taking 9 months and the body taking time to get ready for another pregnancy). A single man can impregnate many, many women during that time so you don't need as many of them to continue the species. Fewer males surviving doesn't necessarily mean extinction.

For all the talk of men being the stronger sex, they are more vulnerable to many things. They die younger. Male fetuses are miscarried more often. Male babies are weaker (ask any NICU nurse about "whimpy white boy" syndrome). Males are more prone to many diseases (like autism) and have some diseases women don't (like hemophelia).

All true, but to where is this leading?

 

[karrie]

I wrote a paper on the chemical effects on male fetal formation in grade 10, more than 12 years ago now. None of the info's changed much in that time. It's not going to change anytime soon either.

Males will become more and more endangered, and women will suffer more and more chronic illnesses. We steep ourselves in estrogenic chemicals. What more could we expect?

 

[tracy]

All true, but to where is this leading?

Who knows? I wonder what a society would look like if women made up 70, 80 or even 90% of the population? Would we be a more peaceful society? Would the weaker sex manage things differently? Would women simply take on the traditional roles men have held in our patriarchal society and become more assertive or aggressive?

 

[scratch]

Who knows? I wonder what a society would look like if women made up 70, 80 or even 90% of the population? Would we be a more peaceful society? Would the weaker sex manage things differently? Would women simply take on the traditional roles men have held in our patriarchal society and become more assertive or aggressive?

Why would you refer to women as the weaker sex?
In my life women have always struck me as the smarter and more resilient of the two.
How do really feel about this?

 

[Nuggler]

8OShould we do as Nug mentioned and just suck it up?


SUCK IT! SUCK IT!! SUCK IT UP!!

That was, ah, kind of rhetorical. Wasn't suggesting we do it.

But, whatever floats yer boat.

:lol:

 

[scratch]

8OShould we do as Nug mentioned and just suck it up?


SUCK IT! SUCK IT!! SUCK IT UP!!

That was, ah, kind of rhetorical. Wasn't suggesting we do it.

But, whatever floats yer boat.

:lol:

Another treasure from Nugg.