THE TRUTH ABOUT SODIUM FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER

dontgetfooled

King Mob wrote: »

Yea for the vast majority of the time humankind have been evolving on this Earth the water we drank was fairly dirty and chock full of diseases.

It does have a discernible purpose btw the way.
Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride. Fluoridated water operates on tooth surfaces: drinking it creates low levels of fluoride in saliva, which reduces the rate at which tooth enamel demineralizes and increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities.

http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t048360372371167/

Hey,

Just to point out, the first article comes from the US Government (see my OP)

The 2nd from SpringerLink, which is owned by Cinven, a European private Equity firm, who is partly funded by Barclay's Bank, a major global financial player, the 25th largest company in the world.

Anthony Tuke, former President of Barclays Bank is a member of the Bilderburg Group.

Vested interests there me thinks.

DGF

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Hey,

Just to point out, the first article comes from the US Government (see my OP)

The 2nd from SpringerLink, which is owned by Cinven, a European private Equity firm, who is partly funded by Barclay's Bank, a major global financial player, the 25th largest company in the world.

Vested interests there me thinks.

DGF

Ok then can you point out where these studies have been altered or are being disingenuous ?

And how does having a really really lose connection to barclay's mean anything? Or is it a case of any evidence against the conspiracy is evidence of a cover up?

dontgetfooled

King Mob wrote: »

Ok then can you point out where these studies have been altered or are being disingenuous ?

And how does having a really really lose connection to barclay's mean anything? Or is it a case of any evidence against the conspiracy is evidence of a cover up?

Number 1 - Straight from the US Government. Need I say more?

Number 2 - A direct link to a world financial player & the Bilderburg Group.

I'm pointing out they have vested interests and are absolutely involved if this is sinister, without a doubt - 100%.

In fact, it actually strengthens my belief that this may be sinister.

Look up the Bilderburg Group if you haven't already heard of them.

DGF

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Number 1 - Straight from the US Government. Need I say more?

Yes you do need to say specifically where the study is falsified.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Number 2 - A direct link to a world financial player & the Bilderburg Group.

I would not call that a direct link by any stretch of the imagination.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

I'm pointing out they have vested interests and are absolutely involved if this is sinister, without a doubt - 100%.

In fact, it actually strengthens my belief that this may be sinister.

You've yet to show it is sinister. Otherwise you logic is circular.

dontgetfooled

Yes you do need to say specifically where the study is falsified.

Its the same organization thats pumping the stuff into the water supply, what do you think they are going to say?

I would not call that a direct link by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, Barclays IS connected to the Bilderburg Group, even wikipedia has the paper trail. Who are the Bilderburg Group? Look them up.


You've yet to show it is sinister. Otherwise you logic is circular.


I said its strengthens my belief that it MAY be sinister. And if it is then The Bilderburg Group are involved, without a doubt.

DGF

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Its the same organization thats pumping the stuff into the water supply, what do you think they are going to say?

I'm pretty sure the CDC isn't the people actually doing the pumping.
But no you can cannot find fault with that study and are basing your objection purely on a preconceived idea you have?

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Well, Barclays IS connected to the Bilderburg Group, even wikipedia has the paper trail. Who are the Bilderburg Group? Look them up.

Well I got a loan from AIB. I'm pretty sure you can link AIB to who ever you want. So because I'm partially funded by AIB I must be controlled by the Bilderburg group.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

I said its strengthens my belief that it MAY be sinister. And if it is then The Bilderburg Group are involved, without a doubt.

DGF

Yea you've actually yet to show any evidence to support it.

dontgetfooled

I'm pretty sure the CDC isn't the people actually doing the pumping.
But no you can cannot find fault with that study and are basing your objection purely on a preconceived idea you have?

All the departments in the US Government tow the line, your on a CT board, surely your aware of this?

And I'm basing it upon their past history of lying. I don't need to list examples. If you had a friend who lied to you consistently, would you trust them?

Well I got a loan from AIB. I'm pretty sure you can link AIB to who ever you want. So because I'm partially funded by AIB I must be controlled by the Bilderburg group.

Err, No. You've either missed the point (you obviously don't know how an org like the Bilderburg Group operates) or are clutching at straws there.

Yea you've actually yet to show any evidence to support it.

As I said it MAY be sinister, but one things for sure, it ain't for our teeth!

DGF

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

All the departments in the US Government tow the line, your on a CT board, surely your aware of this?

Yes it's often claimed but never proven.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

And I'm basing it upon their past history of lying. I don't need to list examples. If you had a friend you lied to you consistently, would you trust them?

So it's got absolutely nothing to do with the scientific data but rather a predisposed opinion you have about the government?

And if they lied in this study why not point out where and how?

dontgetfooled wrote: »

Err, No. You've either missed the point (you obviously don't know how an org like the Bilderburg Group operates) or are clutching at straws there.

Then explain to us how a really flimsy link like the one you provided is proof positive that the Bilderburg group is in control of every single scientific study.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

As I said it MAY be sinister, but one things for sure, it ain't for our teeth!

DGF

And what leads you to the conclusion?
Is it the science and the evidence?
Or is it your personal belief?

dontgetfooled

Then explain to us how a really flimsy link like the one you provided is proof positive that the Bilderburg group is in control of every single scientific study.

If the Bildergroup is involved its bad. How do they operate? That's a different thread all together, as I said look it up, there is plenty of info out there if you wish to find it, if you don't, well that's up to you.

And what leads you to the conclusion?

There are almost zero benefits and they are inflated by TPTB.
There is another reason for its presence or else it would not be there. The whole reason it IS there in the first place stems FROM a conspiracy.

Is it the science and the evidence?

The evidence in the declassified memos. detailed in my OP.

Or is it your personal belief?

See above.

King Mob

dontgetfooled wrote: »

If the Bildergroup is involved its bad. How do they operate? That's a different thread all together, as I said look it up, there is plenty of info out there if you wish to find it, if you don't, well that's up to you.

You've yet to show the Bilergroup is involved. Just a very very tenuous link.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

There are almost zero benefits and they are inflated by TPTB.
There is another reason for its presence or else it would not be there. The whole reason it IS there in the first place stems FROM a conspiracy.

And you've yet to show that the benefits are inflated.
You have also yet to show that it has any other effects that would indicate a conspiracy.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

The evidence in the declassified memos. detailed in my OP.

Would you repost that bit for clarity please?

dontgetfooled

You've yet to show the Bilergroup is involved. Just a very very tenuous link.

I said Barclay's is linked to the Bilderburg Group, and therein lies a vested interest. And a "very very tenuous link" as you put it shows they ARE INVOLVED.


And you've yet to show that the benefits are inflated.
You have also yet to show that it has any other effects that would indicate a conspiracy.

For one, watch the you-tube video of the dentist a few pages back, read what the Nazi's used the same chemical for and use your brain if you haven't already drank too much tap water.

(sorry, couldn't resist that one )


Would you repost that bit for clarity please?

Again, please read my OP. There is also enough empirical evidence to imply all is not what it seems or is claimed to be.

Goodnight, I'll check in tommorow.

DGF

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Yea you're right because we had longer life spans when we were using "nature's way."

Once again, you've twisted my point to get a cheap-shot in. As I've said, I'm no Luddite. I fully understand and appreciate the value of modern medicine. Adding chemicals to drinking water for no good reason that I can see, is a little different to treating somebody with antibiotics or some such thing.

King Mob wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation
Most of the stuff there has references.

[/quote]

In the context of the conspiracy theory being put forth, using the CDC a US Governmental Body as a source is not enough to cut the mustard. In fact, I don't believe the CDC is an independent body at all.

bonkey wrote:

Water isn't water, in that you will never get pure H2O as a water-supply. Different locations have different trace elements in the water. Not only that, but as a general rule, you don't want to drink untreated water....whether that be tapwater, bottled mineral water, rainwater, or whatever else it is that you choose to drink instead. As a general rule, we mess around with chemicals to add stuff and remove stuff.

Fluoride? Thats one of those perfectly natural trace elements that we find in water.

That's all very well, and understood, however, because there is a trace element of aluminium or some other mineral in the rainwater of some geographical location does not mean I want the government to add aluminium to my drinking water. I'm open to correction if you guys can show me some decent studies which prove that flouridation actually is worth carrying out. For one thing, it's certainly not believed to be cost effective in terms of the benefits it may or may not provide.

Veni Vedi Vici

Kernel wrote: »

For one thing, it's certainly not believed to be cost effective in terms of the benefits it may or may not provide.

I'm sure its disposal in our water system is cost-effective for the manufacturers trying to legally rid their operations of waste though...

Kernel

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

I'm sure its disposal in our water system is cost-effective for the manufacturers trying to legally rid their operations of waste though...

Yes, that's an aspect to it.

BTW - for those who put all their faith in peer reviewed scientific journals, here's some nice new developments as a doctor is questioned over 20+ fake studies over the years - some of which used entirely fictional patients. Recommended a lot of Pfizer drugs, and coincidentally recieved 5 grants from Pfizer...... :rolleyes:

Read all about Dr. Scott Reuben.

themetallifan

Ok, I need to address loadsa stuff here s bear with me, I’ll do it in order of posts since my last one

@dgf – With regards to reading your first post, I did. Its source is a holistic medicine site...how aptly scientific.( Holisitic medicine being the whole mind-body-soul thing.) You should properly read your other source : http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571. Rather than backing up your claims of ill-effect, it merely states “more research is needed” over and over again. I’ve talked about this in a previous post anyway, so no point in arguing this again.
Just because you think it’s a conspiracy doesn’t mean anything. You haven’t given any evidence except regurgitating your OP, which, as I’ve eluded to, is unreliable.

@Veni Vedi Vici – The video you posted is flawed from the outset. Pure fluoride in toothpaste is NOT the same as that added to water, so correlations without evidence is merely speculation.

@Kernel – The report you linked me talks about IQ studies carried out in China. China has long been controversial in its publication of studies, as only certain ones are translated. The studies are also not peer-reviewed as in other countries e.g. here and the US. In this paper, it even eludes to this – “the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and their relevance to U.S. populations” So again – no evidence.

@everyone against fluroidation – I’m not going to go into conspiracy theories (I know I know...the forum name...), I just want evidence to back up your claims. I’m sick of people wrongly quoting scientific papers and taking them out of context.

KingMob has given two links in post number 83, that are PEER-REVIEWED and reliable sources of information. Can we have some of these to support your case guys?

@Veni – It may be a catch 22 of sorts but the difference is pro-fluoridation papers seem to come from respectable journals, that are peer reviewed. Anti-fluoridation material seems to come from obscure, foreign journals with no peer review system. I know which one I’d bet money on.

KingMob has given good sources too about the benefits of fluoridation, as have I in previous posts.

@mysterious – running out of air...seems you’re going round in circles. I’ve already addressed the fact that it accumulates in the body, on the first few posts. You seem to be ignoring this. What relevance has Hitler got to this discussion?

And do you not get it....no matter how many times we say it. There is a direct benefit of putting fluoride in water – less cavities. But you really don’t seem to want to accept any of our arguments. If we’re wrong that’s fine, but you’re either avoiding the topic or citing invalid references

@dgf – cdc is government funded and the springerlink paper is funded by some company about as closely connected to fluoridation as the central bank is to Science Foundation Ireland. These papers are PEER REVIEWED...and the cdc is not the same organisation that is ‘pumping this stuff’. You are basing all your arguments on your opinion, and not backing anything up with sound evidence.

@Veni – it’s not waste, it’s a waste by-product. It costs more to purify it than it would just to dump the un-separated waste.

@Kernel – I’ll think you’ll find that if you research more on this guy, he lacked any go-ahead from a review board in his lab/hospital.

A conspiracy theory is just that - a theory. No evidence to back it up, but little can be found to 100% disprove it (so it must be true then!)

Phew.....long post. Will check back tomorrow guys.

mysterious

themetallifan wrote: »

@mysterious – running out of air...seems you’re going round in circles. I’ve already addressed the fact that it accumulates in the body, on the first few posts. You seem to be ignoring this. What relevance has Hitler got to this discussion?

And do you not get it....no matter how many times we say it. There is a direct benefit of putting fluoride in water – less cavities. But you really don’t seem to want to accept any of our arguments. If we’re wrong that’s fine, but you’re either avoiding the topic or citing invalid references

So it accumalates and is dangerous and doesnt leave the body, how the **** is this good.

And if they want to save our teeth whats, the point when it causes harm to our body.

Yeah, I smoke weed, it's keeps me on a high, but its a curse to my health. Same thing.


P.S I don't smoke weed:D If I did I wouldn't be so hypocritical to argue another dangeroous product called flouride entering my body.

Phew.....long post. Will check back tomorrow guys.

Oh I can't wait....

Mahatma coat

exactly what does Peer Review mean tho?

aint it another word for CircleJerk

dontgetfooled

themetallifan wrote: »

Ok, I need to address loadsa stuff here s bear with me, I’ll do it in order of posts since my last one

@dgf – With regards to reading your first post, I did. Its source is a holistic medicine site...how aptly scientific.( Holisitic medicine being the whole mind-body-soul thing.)

The site in question is merely the hosting site, it did not write the article. This article is freely distributed around different sites (reprinted with permission?)

here's the same article, on a different site & taken from Nexus Magazine:

http://www.whale.to/b/fluoride2.html

The site is not the source.

6th

mysterious wrote: »

So it accumalates and is dangerous and doesnt leave the body, how the **** is this good.

BUT IT DOES LEAVE THE BODY!

dontgetfooled

themetallifan wrote: »

@dgf – cdc is government funded and the springerlink paper is funded by some company about as closely connected to fluoridation as the central bank is to Science Foundation Ireland. These papers are PEER REVIEWED...and the cdc is not the same organisation that is ‘pumping this stuff’. You are basing all your arguments on your opinion, and not backing anything up with sound evidence.

I said SpringerLink is connected to The Bilderburg Group, not Springerlink is connected to water fluoridation. The Bilderburg connection raises the red flag immediately.

The CDC is a Government agency, the article is hosted on a .gov web-page, c'mon, they have vested interest.

The bottom line is, there is little evidence to suggest that Flouride in the water benefits us in any way, even reducing cavities. This being the case, at the very least remove it until proper tests are carried out and all concern is allayed.

However, they are not doing this are they?

Now they have HA, an UNTESTED compound......

dontgetfooled

6th wrote: »

BUT IT DOES LEAVE THE BODY!

6th is right, Fluoride does exit the body.

6th

dontgetfooled wrote: »

The site in question is merely the hosting site, it did not write the article. This article is freely distributed around different sites (reprinted with permission?)

here's the same article, on a different site & taken from Nexus Magazine:

http://www.whale.to/b/fluoride2.html

The site is not the source.

dontgetfooled wrote: »

The CDC is a Government agency, the article is hosted on a .gov web-page, c'mon, they have vested interest

Does the same arguement not apply in both cases?

dontgetfooled

6th wrote: »

Does the same arguement not apply in both cases?

Not really, the CDC is US Government funded, hosted on a .gov webpage is just pointing out the fact it is really the US Governments own study and so the vested interest to validate Fluoridating water is quite obvious.

But I get your point.

themetallifan

mysterious wrote: »

So it accumalates and is dangerous and doesnt leave the body, how the **** is this good.

Apologies if I was a bit unclear on this. What I meant to say is, I've addressed the notion that it doesn't leave the body, with experimentally dervied figures in a previous post. It can be said, definitively, that it does exit the body.

@mahatma - The peer review process basically involves a written article being sent to independent groups of scientists, some of whom are highly knowledgeable about the field and some of whom have no interest in it. Each peer, analyses the paper for faults and holes and sends a report back to the editor of the journal before it is published. On the basis of this, the journal either accepts it or not.

@dgf - It was more the fact that it was hosted on a holistic med site than actually coming from one. It shows what type of 'science' is on the side of anti-fluoridation. Yes but neither writer is from a science background. The closest is Joel Griffiths, the main author who is a medical writer. If he was from a science background, it would say, as these guys love to boast about their importance. A quick google search gives no indiciation as to his qualifications either. So despite the source, it's still written by anti-fluoridation (and avid anti-communism) authors. If you can use the argument that the cdc is biased, I can say this is biased.

Can you link me to the springerlnk publisher - bilderberg club connection. I'm interested in this....

mysterious

themetallifan wrote: »

Apologies if I was a bit unclear on this. What I meant to say is, I've addressed the notion that it doesn't leave the body, with experimentally dervied figures in a previous post. It can be said, definitively, that it does exit the body.

So again why add something posionous like this just to stop cavities.

I'm a real fan of getting logic out of this, cus I see none.

themetallifan

mysterious wrote: »

So again why add something posionous like this just to stop cavities.

I'm a real fan of getting logic out of this, cus I see none.

Firstly, it's not 'poisonous' in the quantities added and no study has found it to be unsafe to add to drinking water at the levels it is currently added. Studies have consistently shown that at the levels it is added, it poses little or no concern.

Secondly, that's exactly why it's added...to fight cavities. Alot of people neglect their dental health, so by adding HFA to the water supply (in minute quantities) many people will benefit from it.

I can't understand your unwillingness to believe the facts published in actual scientific journals over 'findings' published in somewhat dodgy mediums.

I suppose you think that the addition of chlorine to water at similar concentrations - 1mg/ml (which is actually a poisonous compound) is also a bit dodgy?

mysterious

themetallifan wrote: »

Firstly, it's not 'poisonous' in the quantities added and no study has found it to be unsafe to add to drinking water at the levels it is currently added. Studies have consistently shown that at the levels it is added, it poses little or no concern.

Secondly, that's exactly why it's added...to fight cavities. Alot of people neglect their dental health, so by adding HFA to the water supply (in minute quantities) many people will benefit from it.

I can't understand your unwillingness to believe the facts published in actual scientific journals over 'findings' published in somewhat dodgy mediums.

I suppose you think that the addition of chlorine to water at similar concentrations - 1mg/ml (which is actually a poisonous compound) is also a bit dodgy?

So again I have to ask you,

Why in water, toothpaste and now food.

Why the obsession? Why can't they cure cancer and not worry so sexually about our teeth. I don't use flouride toothpaste. My teeth are perfect hadn't a cavity in 2 years.

themetallifan

a)It's in water as way to HELP prevent cavities.
b)It's in toothpaste for the exact same reason. Surely the fact that the reason agrees. for both tells you something for its effectiveness when used (very effective).
c)They don't put it in our foods, it occurs naturally in ridiculously minute quantities. Did you know, it's also present in similarly minute quantities in the air we breathe? (And please don't say...'then why put in water at all since its everywhere else'....it's because water is the easiest means of ensuring everyone benefits and the quantities in food/air are too small to have any effect on dental health.

Also, I'm not so sure what you mean by 'sexually' worrying about our teeth....I think maybe you mean obsessively?? If so, it's because Ireland has a terrible history of dental health (ever notice how many elderly people today have false teeth?)

Oh and the fact that you haven't had a cavity says about as much as the fact that I have never had one...and I have always used fluoride toothpaste.

And they're working on the 'cure to cancer' with papers published everyday on the subject. It'll come with time.

mysterious

themetallifan wrote: »

a)It's in water as way to HELP prevent cavities.
b)It's in toothpaste for the exact same reason. Surely the fact that the reason agrees. for both tells you something for its effectiveness when used (very effective).
c)They don't put it in our foods, it occurs naturally in ridiculously minute quantities. Did you know, it's also present in similarly minute quantities in the air we breathe? (And please don't say...'then why put in water at all since its everywhere else'....it's because water is the easiest means of ensuring everyone benefits and the quantities in food/air are too small to have any effect on dental health.

Also, I'm not so sure what you mean by 'sexually' worrying about our teeth....I think maybe you mean obsessively?? If so, it's because Ireland has a terrible history of dental health (ever notice how many elderly people today have false teeth?)

Oh and the fact that you haven't had a cavity says about as much as the fact that I have never had one...and I have always used fluoride toothpaste.

And they're working on the 'cure to cancer' with papers published everyday on the subject. It'll come with time.

Oh noooooo?
For someone to tell me that I don't know this topic, guess the fingers comes back to you sir:D

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2009/02/08/eu_food_authority_approves_fluoride_in_supplements_newsgrabs_8_february_2009.htm

http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/102963537

Abovetopsecret has a fresh thread with lots of more information that you don't seem to know:pac: on there. There is hundreds of people posting on there, can't see them imagining it either.

I really do think the government are sexually attracted to preventing cavities. I mean I really am flattered by their such care and thoughts for this anti cavity campaign. Funny funny planet eh. It's hilarious.

It's funny, since governments lie generally about everything when it's suits them. They just love our teeth.

Give me a ****ing break.

King Mob

mysterious wrote: »

Oh noooooo?
For someone to tell me that I don't know this topic, guess the fingers comes back to you sir:D

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2009/02/08/eu_food_authority_approves_fluoride_in_supplements_newsgrabs_8_february_2009.htm

http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/102963537

Abovetopsecret has a fresh thread with lots of more information that you don't seem to know:pac: on there. There is hundreds of people posting on there, can't see them imagining it either.

I really do think the government are sexually attracted to preventing cavities. I mean I really am flattered by their such care and thoughts for this anti cavity campaign. Funny funny planet eh. It's hilarious.

It's funny, since governments lie generally about everything when it's suits them. They just love our teeth.

Give me a ****ing break.

So the reason you believe that fluoride is harmful, not because independent verifiable evidence show as much, but rather you read it on a conspiracy website?