Agenda 21 - The Depopulation Blueprint

alastair

jma wrote: »

Yes, here you go:

France...

It's worth pointing out that of all these letters, none actually meet the criteria requested; 'Of those that did stop can you please point to the ones that did so due to safety concerns?' - the closest is the Czech letter, but that only mentions the debate at play as one factor in their decision, and makes no judgement as to the merits of the safety case.

alastair

jma wrote: »

http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/doc/indiaFluoride.pdf

Now this is a little more interesting. What's particularly interesting is that the levels of fluoride in the study are way beyond the levels allowed here, and the low level base sample has twice the volume of fluoride allowed here. Thus just re-enforcing the concept of safe volume limits.

RoboClam

jma wrote: »

Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of this?

Perhaps the concentration of flouride in our water cannot be classed as poisonous, but don't forget, we're talking about long term effects here. And you cannot dispute the fact that fluoride accumulates inside the brain (the human brain that is). You also cannot dispute the fact that sodium fluoride is not "meant" to be ingested. There are absolutely no benefits from ingesting fluoride.

Linky

Effect of prolonged use of drinking water on human health, related to fluoride content (Dissanayake, 1991).

F−1 concentration, mg/L .... Health outcome
<0.5 ................................. Dental caries
0.5–1.5 ............................. Optimum dental health
1.5–4.0 ............................. Dental fluorosis
4.0–10 .............................. Dental and skeletal fluorosis
>10.0 ............................... Crippling fluorosis

On the subject of fluoride accumulation in the brain, while iI of course cannot disprove the statement, I can show you the peer reviewed process of fluoride accumulation in the body.

Linky

Fluoride combines with calcium to form calcium ionospheres that easily permeabilize the cell membrane [15]. The effect of fluoride depends on extracellular calcium and can be blocked by a combination of calcium-channel blocking agents, suggesting that the potentiation of channel activity is dependent on external calcium.
Once absorbed into the blood, fluoride readily distributes throughout the body, with the greatest amount retained in calcium-rich areas such as bone and teeth (dentine and enamel). In infants, about 80–90% of the absorbed fluoride is retained, but in adults this level falls to about 60% [6].
Fluoride is excreted primarily via the urine. Urinary fluoride clearance increases with urine pH due to a decrease in the concentration of HF. Various factors (e.g., diet and drugs) can affect urine pH and thus affect fluoride clearance and retention [6].
Inorganic complexes are formed between fluoride and metallic ions such as aluminum (Al) or beryllium (Be), these compounds are biologically effective having a potential role in physiological and toxicological processes. The fundamental action mechanisms for these inorganic molecules or the most explored at least, highlight their chemical structure that resembles the one of a γ-phosphate [16]. Therefore, several biochemicals and cellular effects of fluoride are explained by their interaction with enzymatic systems that have phosphoryl transfer activity like GTPases and ATPases. On the other hand, it has been reported the interaction between Al–F and Be–F to structural proteins such as actin [17] and troponin C [18]. Some studies showed the determinant role of amino acid residues in order to the establishment of hydrogen bridge between fluoride and some hemoproteins, such as Arg (peroxidases) and His (myoglobin) [19].

And finally, you stated that fluoride is not meant to be ingested and has no benefits.

Linky

The studies described above demonstrated that fluoride can interact with a wide range of cellular processes such as gene expression, cell cycle, proliferation and migration, respiration, metabolism, ion transport, secretion, endocytosis, apoptosis/necrosis, and oxidative stress, and that these mechanism are involved in a wide variety of signaling pathways

Does this make me a "Dedicated Debunker" now too? Because if so, that's pretty :cool:

King Mob

jma wrote: »

Here a couple "peer-reviewed" articles:
http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/doc/indiaFluoride.pdf
http://www.newjerseywatereducation.com/pdfs/Excitotoxicity.pdf

Of course, I'd be happy to post any further documents that I come across, but I'm not going to keep digging around just to keep the skeptics happy.

Yup they certain look like real papers....
Just published in a journal called Fluoride run by a very suspect looking organisation.
But hey, if you believe everything you read....

jma wrote: »

That's a pretty poor argument. If people want to use fluoride, that's fine. Toothpaste has very high concentrations of fluoride. You can buy tubes of it practically anywhere, and if you can't afford a tube every couple of months, then I don't think the fluoride in your drinking water's going to help you much either.

Actually that's one of the many benefits of Fluoridation.

And while I can back this up, I think it's only fair that you just accept it without evidence.
Cause that really seems to be the status quo around here.

jma wrote: »

Yes, here you go:

As alastair has already pointed out none of those show any of them stopped or refused to do fluoridation due to any safety concerns.

jma wrote: »

Do you have peer-reviewed evidence of this?

Yup.

As Roboclam, dedicated debunker has show:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WJ7-4X8YMN4-1&_user=107385&_coverDate=10/31/2009&_alid=1429735294&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6871&_sort=r&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=168294&_acct=C000008338&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=107385&md5=c0bdb6ec1354917c3ed75e3621cf7b03

F−1 concentration, mg/L .... Health outcome
<0.5 ................................. Dental caries
0.5–1.5 ............................. Optimum dental health
1.5–4.0 ............................. Dental fluorosis
4.0–10 .............................. Dental and skeletal fluorosis
>10.0 ............................... Crippling fluorosis

Now dental fluorosis is not exactly deadly. Skeletal fluorosis is more serious.
Ireland's fluoride level is 0.6 to 0.8 ppm which is roughly equal to 0.6 to 0.8 mg/l.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2007/en/si/0042.html
Which puts it smack in the middle of the "Optimum dental health" and well below the levels that cause even minor problems.

jma wrote: »

Perhaps the concentration of flouride in our water cannot be classed as poisonous, but don't forget, we're talking about long term effects here. And you cannot dispute the fact that fluoride accumulates inside the brain (the human brain that is).

I can dispute that it is actually harmful, just sounds scary.

jma wrote: »

You also cannot dispute the fact that sodium fluoride is not "meant" to be ingested. There are absolutely no benefits from ingesting fluoride.

Now you see here's where you are disingenuous.
Sodium fluoride isn't actually being ingested in the first place. But how exactly is it not meant to be ingested?
There are no benefits to ingesting fluoride, but that's not the point. the benefit is gained before it's ingested.
There are no dangers in ingesting fluoride.

jma

alastair wrote: »

No secret about it:
http://newportnutritionals.com/
That's aside from his various books and paid subscription 'reports'. The guy's a quack with the usual snake-oil shtick.
http://www.blaylockwellnesscenter.com/
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/renew.cfm

Well, that's just being ignorant and naive. Since when are scientists and scholars are not allowed to publish their research or books without being labelled as "shills"? Let me point out that a lot of scientific papers on various sites can only be obtained in exchange for a fee.

By the way, some of his work is also included in the PubMed database, which among other things mentions vaccines like mumps, measles and rubella, and their effects on the brain.

A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 1
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19043938

A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 2: immunoexcitotoxicity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19161050

A possible central mechanism in autism spectrum disorders, part 3: the role of excitotoxin food additives and the synergistic effects of other environmental toxins
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19284184

alastair wrote: »

Requiring some peer-reviewed scientific evidence isn't 'badgering' - and no, you've brought attention to lots of propaganda, but nothing supported by actual evidence.

No, but what you're doing is badgering. You're picking out specific points that you think are easy to debunk, without giving any attention to the other, perhaps a little more legitimate points. And you're wrong that last statement - a lot of stuff I've mentioned is in fact supported by actual evidence, but as I said, you've paid no attention to that. Hence, your input here is not constructive.

For example, fluoride accumulation in the brain is documented. Association between fluoridated tap water and osteosarcoma in young males has been documented. Aspartame and its neurological effects have been documented. I really don't have time to argue though. You can take the info as you like.

King Mob wrote:

Yup they certain look like real papers....
Just published in a journal called Fluoride run by a very suspect looking organisation.
But hey, if you believe everything you read....

A "journal called Fluoride"?! Right... First of all, these were published by the International Society for Fluoride Research. Secondly, one of its founders was a very well-known and well-respected physician and scientist who studied medicine at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He is noted for his research on anaphylaxis and penicillin, health impact of air pollutants, and in the 50s, he began research on fluoride toxicity, and was one of the first physicians to warn of the health risks of mass-medication through fluoridation.

King Mob wrote:

Sodium fluoride isn't actually being ingested in the first place.

Really? Where is it going then? Absorbed by the teeth before you swallow is it?

alastair wrote:

It's worth pointing out that of all these letters, none actually meet the criteria requested; 'Of those that did stop can you please point to the ones that did so due to safety concerns?' - the closest is the Czech letter, but that only mentions the debate at play as one factor in their decision, and makes no judgement as to the merits of the safety case.

FFS, safety concerns and judgement as to the merits of the safety case are clearly not the same thing. What do you think "medical considerations" might be relating to here? And "the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment".

I'm done discussing this with you. You're just wasting my time!

King Mob

jma wrote: »

A "journal called Fluoride"?! Right... First of all, these were published by the International Society for Fluoride Research.

Wow, that does sound like a real journal and all.
But does it actually publish stuff other than papers decrying fluoridation?

jma wrote: »

Secondly, one of its founders was a very well-known and well-respected physician and scientist who studied medicine at the University of Heidelberg in Germany. He is noted for his research on anaphylaxis and penicillin, health impact of air pollutants, and in the 50s, he began research on fluoride toxicity, and was one of the first physicians to warn of the health risks of mass-medication through fluoridation.

Ah, you're right he must be infallible then if he's a doctor and all....

And funnily enough despite all his respect and fame, his "International Society" only seems to be referenced by the usual biased sites...

Have any of the papers that appear in this journal actually made it onto pubmed?

jma wrote: »

Really? Where is it going then? Absorbed by the teeth before you swallow is it?

It's dissolved into the water. You are ingesting fluoridated water, not sodium fluoride.
So what you're doing is taking the fact out of context.

jma wrote: »

FFS, safety concerns and judgement as to the merits of the safety case are clearly not the same thing. What do you think "medical considerations" might be relating to here? And "the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment".

None of those say anything like: "Fluoridation is dangerous."
Often the worries of "safety concerns" are from the 50's and 60's.
Medical considerations does not equal dangers.
Nor does "the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment".
So again taking stuff out of context.
Can you actually show a single case of a government stopping fluoridation because they knew it was dangerous?

jma wrote: »

I'm done discussing this with you. You're just wasting my time!

Yea, why bother answering questions when people will buy any of your claims uncritically.

And what was that you were saying about selectively answering points?

TalkieWalkie

Check it mob, aint jus CT'rs who be thinkin it be blatently obvious that fluoridated water aint no good 4 nobody

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cebpJJeiL_E

This ho even be lyin her a$$ off, backtrackin and switchin her story

jma

King Mob wrote: »

Wow, that does sound like a real journal and all.
But does it actually publish stuff other than papers decrying fluoridation?

I don't see how this is relevant. There are plenty of publishers that focus on certain topics.

King Mob wrote: »

Ah, you're right he must be infallible then if he's a doctor and all....

Is there something wrong with you? Maybe it's all the toothpaste you "eat" when you "was a kid". I didn't say that George Waldbott was infallible because he's a "doctor and all that". I said he was noted for some of the very important research he carried out. I do think that gives at least some degree of credibility.

King Mob wrote: »

And funnily enough despite all his respect and fame, his "International Society" only seems to be referenced by the usual biased sites...

Have any of the papers that appear in this journal actually made it onto pubmed?

No, the papers didn't make it onto pubmed. But just so you know, PubMed isn't that unbiased itself. There is in fact some biased censoring going on there too, and not all published journals there have equally high standards. It lists publications with negligible scientific or medical content such as Time magazine, and administrators and committee members have failed to provide any assurance that their journal selection process is objective. There's a lot of commercial influence and bias, and I think this is the conspiracy in all of this.

King Mob wrote: »

It's dissolved into the water. You are ingesting fluoridated water, not sodium fluoride.
So what you're doing is taking the fact out of context.

Right. Thanks for enlightening us.

King Mob wrote: »

None of those say anything like: "Fluoridation is dangerous."
Often the worries of "safety concerns" are from the 50's and 60's.
Medical considerations does not equal dangers.
Nor does "the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment".
So again taking stuff out of context.
Can you actually show a single case of a government stopping fluoridation because they knew it was dangerous?

You didn't say anything about "dangerous" before. You asked about "safety concerns". And anyway, the point here is - if water fluoridation is sound, beneficial, safe, etc then why have 97-98% of the EU banned or rejected it? But ya, maybe it's because they realised that dentists were going out of business.

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, why bother answering questions when people will buy any of your claims uncritically.

And what was that you were saying about selectively answering points?

I'm not a physician or scientist. These aren't my claims! Why should I answer any of your questions? Sure I don't have any publications on PubMed, so anything I tell you would only fall on deaf ears.

Let me make this very clear: I presented points here that I thought were of interest, things that I've found while researching. You're more than welcome to argue those points constructively, and present your own, but what you're doing is not constructive. "Can you point out one this and can you find me an article on PubMed that backs up that" - that's what I'm having issue with.

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Check it mob, aint jus CT'rs who be thinkin it be blatently obvious that fluoridated water aint no good 4 nobody

This ho even be lyin her a$$ off, backtrackin and switchin her story

Well if a politician believes it, it must be true....

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Well if a politician believes it, it must be true....

It's being debated on national TV because many people are saying it lol.

But if king mob doesn't believe it, it must be false, right ? wake up and snap out of it mate, you're clutching at (invisible) straws here.

jma

King Mob wrote: »

Well if a politician believes it, it must be true....

You're totally missing the point, and your arguments are getting less and less intellectual as this thread is growing. I think you should unsubscribe before you make a fool of yourself.

King Mob

jma wrote: »

I don't see how this is relevant. There are plenty of publishers that focus on certain topics.

So it's a journal that only publishes papers that show fluoridation is harmful?
Not strike you as a bit biased, no?

jma wrote: »

Is there something wrong with you? Maybe it's all the toothpaste you "eat" when you "was a kid". I didn't say that George Waldbott was infallible because he's a "doctor and all that". I said he was noted for some of the very important research he carried out. I do think that gives at least some degree of credibility.

It doesn't matter how important his work is or how respected he is.
All of that does not mean he's not subject to biases or bad thinking.
Using his work and credentials to "prove" his journal is a genuine one is an argument from authority.

jma wrote: »

No, the papers didn't make it onto pubmed. But just so you know, PubMed isn't that unbiased itself. There is in fact some biased censoring going on there too, and not all published journals there have equally high standards. It lists publications with negligible scientific or medical content such as Time magazine, and administrators and committee members have failed to provide any assurance that their journal selection process is objective. There's a lot of commercial influence and bias, and I think this is the conspiracy in all of this.

Yea that must be the reason, not the fact that the journal you're talking doesn't peer review or meet the basic requirements of a proper scientific journal...

I bet you have tons of evidence that they censored that journal too...

jma wrote: »

You didn't say anything about "dangerous" before. You asked about "safety concerns".

Ah, seems you're right on that. I did indeed say "safety concerns."

However even then only one of the examples stated safety concerns, the Czech Republic.
And even then it wasn't because there where definite concerns.

jma wrote: »

And anyway, the point here is - if water fluoridation is sound, beneficial, safe, etc then why have 97-98% of the EU banned or rejected it? But ya, maybe it's because they realised that dentists were going out of business.

Well first 97-98% of the EU haven't rejected or banned it. Please show me an example of a EU country where it is illegal.
Because they already fluoridate other stuff. because they were concerned about the ethics of the matter. You listed several of the reasons.
None of which where because they knew it was dangerous.

jma wrote: »

I'm not a physician or scientist. These aren't my claims! Why should I answer any of your questions?

Because it's the honest thing to do?
Because you seemingly have a problem with people selectively answering questions.

jma wrote: »

Sure I don't have any publications on PubMed, so anything I tell you would only fall on deaf ears.

Yea, imagine wanting my evidence from a good verifiable source with good standards and not say some crank's website...
Silly me.

jma wrote: »

Let me make this very clear: I presented points here that I thought were of interest, things that I've found while researching. You're more than welcome to argue those points constructively, and present your own, but what you're doing is not constructive. "Can you point out one this and can you find me an article on PubMed that backs up that" - that's what I'm having issue with.

Well for one I did present a paper from a good source that showed the level of fluoride in Irish water is safe, you didn't seem to want to comment on that...

But yea, why should you answer stuff and back up claims when people buy them unquestioningly?

King Mob

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It's being debated on national TV because many people are saying it lol.

But if king mob doesn't believe it, it must be false, right ? wake up and snap out of it mate, you're clutching at (invisible) straws here.

They also had Joe Coleman on national TV, there must be something to him then too, right?

pablo_escobar

King Mob, your posts on this subject of fluoridated water are based on emotion and ignorance rather than facts.

There's been a number of videos posted with opinioins of qualified scientists and doctors yet you've ignored them all.

It's no wonder people ignore you, i will do the same from now on.

King Mob

pablo_escobar wrote: »

King Mob, your posts on this subject of fluoridated water are based on emotion and ignorance rather than facts.

There's been a number of videos posted with opinioins of qualified scientists and doctors yet you've ignored them all.

It's no wonder people ignore you, i will do the same from now on.

There's you're problem...

Can you point out where exactly I've used an appeal to emotion? Or seemed emotional?
Cause I don't remember any of this.

Cavehill Red

Bobby_K wrote: »

600 seconds from your life that you won't enjoy, only to be taken before
September 2010 (after that it won't matter anymore).
That's the challenge to 50,000 parents (of Irish 12-year-old girls).
Two Videos in 10 minutes [which the HSE does not want you to see].

That's three posts of exactly the same anti-vaccination BS now. How many you going for?

jma

Censorhip of medical journals, commercial bias and influence, conflicts of interest

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1488805/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1488805/pdf/bmj3330045a.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1479665/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1126057/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/

Ya, fluoride is being endorsed by medical and dental organisations. I wonder why? ..............

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

There's you're problem...

Can you point out where exactly I've used an appeal to emotion? Or seemed emotional?
Cause I don't remember any of this.

I didn't notice the emotion, just the IGNORANCE

pablo_escobar

**King Mob post...**

I eat fluoride everyday with my porridge, some days i eat wheetabix and genetically modified bananas.

When i have a fry after hard nights drinking, i like to sprinkle a little bit of mercury and depleted uranium over the bacon and eggs just for taste.

i'm perfectly happy though because there's lithium in the water i drink.

these CT people are nuts man!! mercury is safe for consumption ..sure, it's a poisonous chemical, but that's totally irrelevant like.

Fluoride is poisonous too sure, but hell, i eat that schtuff like no tomorrow because some scientist with a white papal hat told me it's good for human consumption, it must be true..

Jesus fed 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 loaves...etc or was that 2 loaves?

Science is the new religion in today's society.

Don't question science...oh no!! they are the almighty gods of the universe who know everything and are always right.

And those scientists or doctors who disagree? by jaysus, they're mad they are!!

TalkieWalkie

Quality +1

pablo_escobar wrote: »

**King Mob post...**

I eat fluoride everyday with my porridge, some days i eat wheetabix and genetically modified bananas.

When i have a fry after hard nights drinking, i like to sprinkle a little bit of mercury and depleted uranium over the bacon and eggs just for taste.

i'm perfectly happy though because there's lithium in the water i drink.

these CT people are nuts man!! mercury is safe for consumption ..sure, it's a poisonous chemical, but that's totally irrelevant like.

Fluoride is poisonous too sure, but hell, i eat that schtuff like no tomorrow because some scientist with a white papal hat said so, it must be true..

Jesus turned fed 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 loaves...etc or was that 2 loaves?

Science is the new religion in today's society.

Don't question science...oh no!! they are the almight gods of the universe who know everything and are always right.

And those scientists or doctors who disagree? by jaysus, they're mad they are!!

King Mob

pablo_escobar wrote: »

When i have a fry after hard nights drinking, i like to sprinkle a little bit of mercury and depleted uranium over the bacon and eggs just for taste.

That is exactly what I do alright....

King Mob

jma wrote: »

Censorhip of medical journals, commercial bias and influence, conflicts of interest

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1488805/


Ya, fluoride is being endorsed by medical and dental organisations. I wonder why? ..............

So ignoring the fact that this is a letter to the editor, and that it in no way actually disputes the the journal "Fluoride" isn't peer reviewed.

How exactly do you know that it isn't subject to the same biases you are accusing other journals of?

pablo_escobar

Meet Bob

Bob is an android who eats mercury and depleted uranium with genetically modified food.

He likes drinking water, but only water full of fluoride and lithium.

He is perfectly healthy.

That sound like you?

Truthrevolution

pablo_escobar wrote: »

**King Mob post...**

I eat fluoride everyday with my porridge, some days i eat wheetabix and genetically modified bananas.

When i have a fry after hard nights drinking, i like to sprinkle a little bit of mercury and depleted uranium over the bacon and eggs just for taste.

i'm perfectly happy though because there's lithium in the water i drink.

these CT people are nuts man!! mercury is safe for consumption ..sure, it's a poisonous chemical, but that's totally irrelevant like.

Fluoride is poisonous too sure, but hell, i eat that schtuff like no tomorrow because some scientist with a white papal hat told me it's good for human consumption, it must be true..

Jesus fed 5000 people with 2 fish and 5 loaves...etc or was that 2 loaves?

Science is the new religion in today's society.

Don't question science...oh no!! they are the almighty gods of the universe who know everything and are always right.

And those scientists or doctors who disagree? by jaysus, they're mad they are!!

Flouride doesnt make you docile, it hasnt turned the "fighting Irish" into a nation of subservients who havent got the bottle to put up a protest.Ah sure the banks can take all our hard earned taxes - they deserve it.

Vaccines arent causing spiralling rates of autism.No its all in your imagination how these children develop autistic symptoms strait after a stiff dose of the MMR jab, sure thats when the symtoms first kick in (i wonder why?).No its definitely your imagination - autism isnt a new illness, its always been around, they just never diagnosed it before.

Yes it all makes sense now these "CTers" are barking mad!

King Mob

Suppose it's my own fault for assuming an adult discussion using facts and reasoned debate....

Oh well.

Don't worry guys I'll stop asking questions now so you can go back to blindly accepting what you are told on the internet...

TalkieWalkie

King Mob wrote: »

Suppose it's my own fault for assuming an adult discussion using facts and reasoned debate....

Oh well.

Don't worry guys I'll stop asking questions now so you can go back to blindly accepting what you are told on the internet...

Good choice mobs, see you in surgery. I'll be the one scraping that crystallized fluoride off your brain

pablo_escobar

King Mob wrote:

Suppose it's my own fault for assuming an adult discussion using facts and reasoned debate....

Oh well.

Don't worry guys I'll stop asking questions now so you can go back to blindly accepting what you are told on the internet...

I have an idea, maybe you'll like.

Why not go on the christianity forum and argue about how God doesn't exist and bible is just a bunch of BS?

See how long it takes before you're banned.

Better again, go down to your local church and tell them all what idiots they are.

CiaranMT

You seem to be ploughing a lonely furrow KM. I guess this is CT though.

jma

King Mob wrote: »

So it's a journal that only publishes papers that show fluoridation is harmful?
Not strike you as a bit biased, no?

No, on the contrary. I think it hasn't been subjected to commercial influence.

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't matter how important his work is or how respected he is.
All of that does not mean he's not subject to biases or bad thinking.
Using his work and credentials to "prove" his journal is a genuine one is an argument from authority.

Look, I'm using his credentials to point out that this is a topic that should be investigated further. Please stop trying to twist my words.

King Mob wrote: »

Yea that must be the reason, not the fact that the journal you're talking doesn't peer review or meet the basic requirements of a proper scientific journal...

I bet you have tons of evidence that they censored that journal too...

See my previous post: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=67445729&postcount=199

King Mob wrote: »

Well first 97-98% of the EU haven't rejected or banned it. Please show me an example of a EU country where it is illegal.
Because they already fluoridate other stuff. because they were concerned about the ethics of the matter. You listed several of the reasons.
None of which where because they knew it was dangerous.

Sweden. Actually, it should be illegal in every EU country, according to EU DIRECTIVE 2004/27/EC.

King Mob wrote: »

Well for one I did present a paper from a good source that showed the level of fluoride in Irish water is safe, you didn't seem to want to comment on that...

Ya, I did actually comment on that. I said that the levels of flouride in the water may not be classed as toxic, but that long term exposure has or can have serious adverse health effects.

TalkieWalkie

CiaranMT wrote: »

You seem to be ploughing a lonely furrow KM. I guess this is CT though.

Which forum do you reign ? King Mob has been proven wrong to many times. Dude would argue with a lamp post about the price of a stamp, just for the sake of it, even if he knew the lamp post was right.