Agenda 21 - The Depopulation Blueprint

CiaranMT

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

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.

One has to be a ruler supreme to pass comment? Head on :P

pablo_escobar

CiaranMT wrote:

Head on..

Please do, sometime today preferably.
You've had very little to say so far that would deserve attention.

TalkieWalkie

CiaranMT wrote: »

One has to be a ruler supreme to pass comment? Head on :P

There is "pass comment" and there is repeatedly p!ss into the wind. One can't cry when one gets wet.

jma

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

There is "pass comment" and there is repeatedly p!ss into the wind. One can't cry when one gets wet.

LOL

alastair

jma wrote: »

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.

The guy's a quack with a hard sell for snake-oil tablets and faux-medical literature. Sure he has work in the PubMed database - under the 'alternative' category, which doesn't actually require any evidential analysis - unlike boring 'conventional' medicine - which also goes to explain all the 'possible' stuff in the titles..

jma wrote: »

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.

Not constructive in the sense of not accepting completely bogus claims, and demanding something approaching evidence? Awful, isn't it?

jma wrote: »

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.

Fluoride accumulation in the brain is documented in rare cases alright, but there's no link to fluoridated water - none whatsoever - even in scenarios where much greater levels of fluoride exist in water than would be allowed here. Equally there's no evidence to show a link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. But feel free to just throw out unsubstantiated 'info' willy nilly.

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".

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

Let's break this down, shall we? You were asked 'Of those that did stop can you please point to the ones that did so due to safety concerns?', and the honest answer is you don't know of any. All of the rationalisations you present have nothing to do with safety. The Czech authority stated that the debate over safety did not come to any conclusions - and that the reason why fluoridation was phased out was for (and I quote) economic and technical reasons. No matter how you spin it - it's not what was asked of you, was it?

alastair

pablo_escobar wrote: »

Please do, sometime today preferably.
You've had very little to say so far that would deserve attention.

You're pretty quiet on how deserving of attention your CMA link was. Perhaps because you didn't actually pay any attention to it? :rolleyes:

meglome

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

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

You know guys you'd be screaming from the rooftops if Kingmob acted this way towards you. And again you prove you have no interest in this 'truth' you claim to want.

uprising2

Off to bed now, just ate a dalmane30, while I'm asleep maybe kingmob could break down the chemical composition of the component's and draw a detailed diagram of the molecular structure of the active ingredient's that make me sleep.......................................

KingMob Says:
Your not asleep!, your just dreaming you are, a peer reviewed document from my anus can scientifically prove your awake.

Night all, dont stay up too late Mobby with your assignment......

RoboClam

uprising2 wrote: »

Off to bed now, just ate a dalmane30, while I'm asleep maybe kingmob could break down the chemical composition of the component's and draw a detailed diagram of the molecular structure of the active ingredient's that make me sleep.......................................

ATTENTION! Dalmane (aka flurazepam) is poison! Look at this (non human) study on rats, mice and cats.

Link

High doses caused an apparent central excitation, most clearly seen as clonic convulsions, superimposed on general depression. Following a lethal dose, death was always associated with convulsions.

This terrible poison must be stopped.

jma

alastair wrote: »

Blah blah blah blah ................
...........................
Fluoride accumulation in the brain is documented in rare cases alright, but there's no link to fluoridated water - none whatsoever - even in scenarios where much greater levels of fluoride exist in water than would be allowed here. Equally there's no evidence to show a link between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. But feel free to just throw out unsubstantiated 'info' willy nilly.

You're really starting to get on my nerves, alastair! Just because you find a shaggin' document on PubMed, doesn't mean there's no evidence! Here's one that did find an association:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294

And just to let you know: CW Douglass from your link there has been accused of a cover-up relating to the research carried out by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and there was an ethics complaint filed against him. But that's probably irrelvant to you since the article is in your beloved PubMed database.

If you can't look past pubmed.gov, then that's your problem! Stop pestering me!

alastair wrote:

Let's break this down, shall we? You were asked 'Of those that did stop can you please point to the ones that did so due to safety concerns?', and the honest answer is you don't know of any. All of the rationalisations you present have nothing to do with safety. The Czech authority stated that the debate over safety did not come to any conclusions - and that the reason why fluoridation was phased out was for (and I quote) economic and technical reasons. No matter how you spin it - it's not what was asked of you, was it?

Good man yourself! Thanks for breaking it down for me there. It all makes sense to me now! "it's not what was asked of you" - WTF is your problem!?

The letter also states that the debate over "excessive [health]-threatening intake" contributed to the phasing out.

You really are ignorant and naive! Who do you think you are anyway? Countless physicians, reporters, scholars and scientists are voicing concerns over water fluoridation, and just because their "journals" might not appear on the PubMed site, you call it "unsubstantiated" and "willy nilly". Among them, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, recipient of a Nobel Prize for Medicine.

But they're all quacks because they don't have any publications on pubmed.gov.

alastair

jma wrote: »

You're really starting to get on my nerves, alastair! Just because you find a shaggin' document on PubMed, doesn't mean there's no evidence! Here's one that did find an association:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294

And let's see what they say:

Further research is required to confirm or refute this observation.

And as a follow-up to the report this makes interesting reading

jma wrote: »

And just to let you know: CW Douglass from your link there has been accused of a cover-up relating to the research carried out by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, and there was an ethics complaint filed against him. But that's probably irrelvant to you since the article is in your beloved PubMed database.

And the outcome of that complaint? That's right, the guy was exonerated. But let's not mention that fact eh?

jma wrote: »

Good man yourself! Thanks for breaking it down for me there. It all makes sense to me now! "it's not what was asked of you" - WTF is your problem!?

The letter also states that the debate over "excessive [health]-threatening intake" contributed to the phasing out.

No it does not.

jma wrote: »

You really are ignorant and naive! Who do you think you are anyway? Countless physicians, reporters, scholars and scientists are voicing concerns over water fluoridation, and just because their "journals" might not appear on the PubMed site, you call it "unsubstantiated" and "willy nilly". Among them, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, recipient of a Nobel Prize for Medicine.

But they're all quacks because they don't have any publications on pubmed.gov.

The case on the science is made or lost in peer-reviewed journals - thats how science works. Opinions are cheap, and no - not everyone is a quack - but Blaylock certainly is, as well as being an out and out shill. Opposition to water fluoridation is one thing, and no doubt many disagree with the principle, but that's a far cry from stating that it poses any danger to health. It's worth noting that Arvid Carlsson's opposition to water fluoridation rested on it's potential to cause dental fluorosis, which he felt didn't need to be looked beyond. It's a clear position alright, but not one that engages with safety risks at all.

uprising2

RoboClam wrote: »

ATTENTION! Dalmane (aka flurazepam) is poison! Look at this (non human) study on rats, mice and cats.

Link



This terrible poison must be stopped.

You can say that again, I woke at 9.30am and walked in a zombie like state before returning to the coffin of life.
But it must be stated I took this poison of my own accord, I knew what I was taking, I also knew had I took a few more of them and I'd be sleeping under daisies for a while, till the maggots ate my brain, but I knew.................

jma

Dr. B. HAvlik DrSc wrote:

However, the second half of the 1980's saw an intensive debate in scientific circles regarding the acceptibility, effectivity and safety of fluoridation. Although this debate reached no conclusive decision, it contributed to the fact, that after 1989 the newly privatised water suppliers began to phase out fluoridation ...

Ya, Douglass was exonerated by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. Of course he was. Douglass donated ~ 1,000,000 USD to the HSDM. Furthermore, there was conflict of interest written all over this, and Douglass had a financial interest since he worked for big players in the toothpaste industry.

alastair

jma wrote: »

Ya, Douglass was exonerated by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. Of course he was. Douglass donated ~ 1,000,000 USD to the HSDM. Furthermore, there was conflict of interest written all over this, and Douglass had a financial interest since he worked for big players in the toothpaste industry.

Naughty naughty with the selective presentation of facts once again - Douglass was also cleared by the Federal Office of Research Integrity - which has nothing to do with Harvard, or any grants that Douglass brought to his research. And please explain the logic of 'big players in the toothpaste industry' trying to suppress negative information relation to water fluoridation - they're the very ones who stand to benefit from the ending of water fluoridation programmes (well - them and the salt companies)!

jma

alastair wrote: »

Naughty naughty with the selective presentation of facts once again - Douglass was also cleared by the Federal Office of Research Integrity - which has nothing to do with Harvard, or any grants that Douglass brought to his research. And please explain the logic of 'big players in the toothpaste industry' trying to suppress negative information relation to water fluoridation - they're the very ones who stand to benefit from the ending of water fluoridation programmes (well - them and the salt companies)!

Actually, from what I've read, the ORI didn't investigate. They may have reviewed the the MSDM report alright. Look up Douglass' association with Colgate. And if the adverse effects of fluoride came to light, I don't think it would benefit the the toothpaste industry. Perhaps you don't buy or use toothpaste since the water has enough fluoride in it to prevent cavities, but I'm fairly sure most of us do.

IrelandSpirit

I brush with bicarbonate of soda, havent needed to visit the dentist for over 15 years, but I suppose skepies would probably claim it's cos of the fluoride in water. Wanted to ask if anybody knows what happened to that EU directive, I remember reading something about it last year, that all fluoridated products were going to be taken off the market here ...?

Edit: could've been this year though ... will continue looking anyway.

jma

Do you mean this one?

EU DIRECTIVE 2004/27/EC
http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2004_27/dir_2004_27_en.pdf

IrelandSpirit

jma wrote: »

Do you mean this one?

EU DIRECTIVE 2004/27/EC
http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2004_27/dir_2004_27_en.pdf

Yep, i think that's it, thank you. Saw it mentioned earlier on the thread ...

IrelandSpirit

There's quite a bit out there actually ... found this article interesting: "drinking water medicated with fluorosilicic acid is not classified as medicinal by the UK or Irish government medicines regulator or by the European Medicines Agency." The WTF is it then? Why are the skepies here arguing for its supposed medicinal properties?

Unless the EU Commission faces up to its regulatory duty to enforce the Medicines Directive*, which prohibits any medicinal claim to be made for a substance without a medicinal authorisation, it will not regain EU consumer trust, least of all in Ireland and England where unauthorised and therefore illegal fluoridation chemicals are added to drinking water.

Consumers in both fluoridated Ireland and England are further disadvantaged because their respective governments officially deny the severity of dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation, with the Irish government calling it ‘a cosmetic condition’ and the UK government suppressing fluorosis evidence completely.”

* Directive 2001/83/EC as amended by Directive 2004/27/EC and effective 30th October 2004, classifies all products which are presented to ‘treat or prevent’ disease or which have a ‘pharmacological , immunological or metabolic action’ as medicinal products. The only exemptions are products which are ‘clearly’ foods, food supplements etc.



The amending directive makes clear that ‘in cases of doubt’ (ie ‘borderline products’) medicinal law shall have supremacy over any other EU law. Under these terms hydrofluorosilicic acid whose stated purpose is to prevent dental caries, must be regarded as medicinal.



However drinking water medicated with fluorosilicic acid is not classified as medicinal by the UK or Irish government medicines regulator or by the European Medicines Agency.

http://voiceireland.org/water/fluoridation/eu-scientific-committee-further-compromised-by-conflict-of-interest-on-fluoride/

alastair

jma wrote: »

Actually, from what I've read, the ORI didn't investigate. They may have reviewed the the MSDM report alright. Look up Douglass' association with Colgate. And if the adverse effects of fluoride came to light, I don't think it would benefit the the toothpaste industry. Perhaps you don't buy or use toothpaste since the water has enough fluoride in it to prevent cavities, but I'm fairly sure most of us do.

Did the ORI clear him or not? (hint - yes they did)

The possible adverse effects of 'injested fluoride' would indeed be a boon to the toothpaste industry (or indeed any industry that could allow you to measure the dose you receive) - given that the consensus across most dental bodies is that there is still benefit to water fluoridation - toothpastes etc by definition are not, in their opinion, currently offering a suitable alternative, and there would need to be growth in those industries to act as a viable substitute.

TalkieWalkie

Full respect to......

alistair

roboclam

ming kob

megaloner etc etc

You guys put up a good argument. Well, not good as such, but you fought for your corner, so respect for that.

Could you all please state for the record..

"I would prefer If I, my children, their children drank fluoridated water, rather than have clean un-medicated (poisoned) water".

Just so we know, it will be absolute, positively and clear to us.

I just wanna know where you stand.

Just state weather your into fluoridation or not.......or are you just arguing for the sake of it ?

TalkieWalkie

Just to make it clear..

alistair

roboclam

ming kob

megaloner

Would you rather your child have fluoridated or non fluoridate water ?



To add, anyone who answers the later is not worth debating with.. Retarded sheep. !!

Torakx

How is toothpaste not a good way to apply flouride to our teeth?
I use non flouride but still how is water better when the flouride goes into the body over our lifetime(infact sometimes when you drink the water passes over the teeth not touching them and down the throat.Maybe i missed a part of this thread where someone showed flouride is totally harmless.
Also why do other countries have non flouridated water and only about 10% of the world have flouridated?
The Irish have some of the worst teeth in the world imo and its due to flourosis on the teeth and bad dental care.It costs a fortune to see a dentist that appears to be the main fix thats needed not flouride in our digestive system.

TalkieWalkie

Thats not against the charter, unless boards.ie is into precrime nowadays

jma

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

There's quite a bit out there actually ... found this article interesting: "drinking water medicated with fluorosilicic acid is not classified as medicinal by the UK or Irish government medicines regulator or by the European Medicines Agency." The WTF is it then? Why are the skepies here arguing for its supposed medicinal properties?

Yes, the directive clearly defines fluoridation as a "medicine". Hence, water fluoridation should actually be illegal across the whole of the EU.

I wouldn't say the ORI "cleared" Douglass. They just didn't see any need for further investigation. But sure we can only speculate as to what happened exactly since the report wasn't made available to the public. It sure didn't make him look too credible anyway, at least not in my eyes.

alastair

jma wrote: »

I wouldn't say the ORI "cleared" Douglass. They just didn't see any need for further investigation.

:rolleyes:

Interesting to see that that an accusation carries so much weight with you. even where it's shown to be unwarranted.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

"I would prefer If I, my children, their children drank fluoridated water, rather than have clean un-medicated (poisoned) water".

Well, you might have missed the point of my position, which is that fluoridated water is not 'poisoned'. I'm more than happy to drink fluoridated water, do so every day, and, although I've no kids of my own, am happy to have anyone else's kids drink the stuff too.

I'd hazard that you also drink the same water, and have done nothing to remove fluoride from your water, so can't be particularly convinced as to it's 'poisonous' nature.

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Would you rather your child have fluoridated or non fluoridate water ?

I'm in the same boat as alastair on this one, I don't have kids but I would have no problem letting them drink fluoridated water. I drink several pints a day if I can (Not because I love fluoride oh so much, but because I like to keep well hydrated!).

My stance on this topic and similar topics is that I go with the scientific consensus. The few articles and doctors speaking against it which have been linked in this thread are not enough for me to stop drinking it. As it stands, the evidence presented isn't adequate for me.

I am totally open to changing my mind about fluoridation however. If proper studies are performed with the correct methodology which can show, without ambiguity, that fluoridation of water causes problem X through mechanism Y then I will change my stance. I won't be ashamed to put my hands up and say I was wrong. But until that happens, I'll still be drinking fluoridated water.

You might say that this makes me a sheeple or something similar, but that's life I guess.

TalkieWalkie

You both seem to have misread the question, which is..

Would you rather your child have fluoridated or non fluoridate water ?

My name is URL

RoboClam wrote: »

If proper studies are performed with the correct methodology which can show, without ambiguity, that fluoridation of water causes problem X through mechanism Y then I will change my stance

There hasn't been any study done in Ireland for 45 years. Other countries have shown that it is of little benefit after comparing the instances of caries before and after fluoridation was discontinued.