Take your medicine.?.

TalkieWalkie

Great post Bomber, as usual.

Aside from the obvious, a big concern for me with fluoride is the fact that it accumulates in and calcifies the pineal gland in the brain (the min's eye. third eye). In my opinion this helps dumb down populations not only intellectually but spiritually. This calcification of the pineal gland disconnects spiritual messages to the soul. Which incidentally would be a fantastic was of making the populace feel lonely, fearful, depressed, worried, angry etc etc the list goes on.

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Great post Bomber, as usual.

Aside from the obvious, a big concern for me with fluoride is the fact that it accumulates in and calcifies the pineal gland in the brain (the min's eye. third eye). In my opinion this helps dumb down populations not only intellectually but spiritually. This calcification of the pineal gland disconnects spiritual messages to the soul. Which incidentally would be a fantastic was of making the populace feel lonely, fearful, depressed, worried, angry etc etc the list goes on.

I posted about the pineal gland a while ago. Here's the link to the post http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63557361&postcount=2

TalkieWalkie

RoboClam wrote: »

I posted about the pineal gland a while ago. Here's the link to the post http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63557361&postcount=2

Bull.

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Bull.

Well, one tries!

TalkieWalkie

RoboClam wrote: »

Well, one tries!

Some will always try. You cant argue against spirituality with science (full stop)

RoboClam

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Some will always try. You cant argue against spirituality with science (full stop)

Whatever spirituality is, it isn't science I agree. But that doesn't mean that the pineal gland or fluoride has any involvement though.

TalkieWalkie

RoboClam wrote: »

Whatever spirituality is, it isn't science I agree. But that doesn't mean that the pineal gland or fluoride has any involvement though.

And it doesn't mean that it doesn't, right ?

espinolman

RoboClam wrote: »

Whatever spirituality is,

It is a conspiracy , that no one knows what spirituality is , people used to know long ago , but today you can't even find a good definition in any dictionary .

TalkieWalkie

espinolman wrote: »

It is a conspiracy , that no one knows what spirituality is , people used to know long ago , but today you can't even find a good definition in any dictionary .

Thats the whole idea, their agenda, imo.

TalkieWalkie

Something I found on Prozac and Fluorine

Posted by Lorna on December 06, 2002 at 12:11:00:

Here is an eye-opening article on Prozac from Stratiawire.com:

Friday, December 06, 2002


NAILING DOWN PROZAC-FLUORINE CONNECTION

DECEMBER 6. EXCLUSIVE STRATIA WIRE REPORT. THE LID IS OFF, FINALLY. THE TRUTH IS OUT.

For over a year, I have been pursuing a story about Prozac. I have received much opinion and estimate, but until now I have been chasing elusive facts. Now the facts are in.

I am perfectly willing to have these facts challenged, but only with better facts, not with feelings or presumptions or agendas.

Here is what I’ve been chasing down: the assertion that Prozac actually contains fluorides.

As many of us know, the subject of fluorides (in toothpaste, mouthwash, water supplies of cities) has been a very hot topic. As in, are these chemicals toxic to the human body?

I’ve written on this before, and you can find the stories in my archive. Particularly, there has been terrific conflict at the EPA, where scientists have gone on the record with claims that fluorides in water supplies ARE toxic.

See other data on overgrowth of bones, crippling skeletal malformations, arthritic symptoms of varying severity, et al. From Fluorides.

There is much data in the counter-literature suggesting that fluorides can cause cancer.

I believe no one with an open mind can read the vast counter-literature on fluorides without concluding that these ubiquitous compounds do cause very serious problems.

Okay. Let’s start with this: The RxList site is an authoritative venue for information about medical drugs. After looking up Prozac and its composition, I emailed RxList and asked for a statement about the possible fluoride content of Prozac.

I received a timely answer from one of their pros, Neil Sandow, Pharm. D. “Each molecule of fluoxetime HCL (Prozac) contains three fluoride atoms.”

I queried back to find out whether “fluoride atoms” meant “FLUORINE atoms,” since it was my understanding that fluoride is a term that applies to molecules (combinations of atoms), whereas fluorine is the element and therefore any atoms would be called fluorine. I was told that I was correct.

With that little personal confusion straightened out, I asked RxList another question: Could they tell me the weight, in milligrams, of the fluorine in a standard daily dose of Prozac? After all, you always want to know about dose level.

Here was the reply from Sandow. I am giving you the details, in case anyone wants to challenge these facts or the arithmetic. F stands for fluorine in the message I received: “F molecular weight=18.9984032. There are 3 F’s in each Prozac molecule, so 3 x 18.9984032 = 57.

“The molecular weight of the Prozac molecule is 345.79.

“The proportion of Fluorine to Prozac is 57 / 345.79 = .165 or 16.5%.

“So, for a typical daily dose of 20mg of Prozac the amount of fluorine would be .165 x 20 = 3.3mg (or 6.6mg for a 40mg/day dose).”

Every day that a person takes a standard dose of Prozac, he gets 3.3 milligrams of fluorine. At the higher dose, he gets 6.6 milligrams of fluorine.

As you might imagine, over the years there has been much debate about the level at which fluorine becomes toxic for humans. I found a writer, Darlene Sherrell, who has done much work in this area. With a search engine, you can find her highly recommended piece which goes over this issue with a fine tooth comb. (“The Dose is the Poison”)

I wrote her and relayed the fluorine content of Prozac. She replied, “It is certainly clear…for the typical individual, 6.6mg/day [of fluorine] is more than enough to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis…and 3.3mg [of fluorine per day] is darn close. For the sensitive individual one Prozac a day would be excessive and likely to cause gastrointestinal problems almost immediately.”

So there it is.

Of course, I am commenting here on a narrow aspect of what Prozac does to the human brain and body. My archived articles go into all the other forms of damage this drug can deliver.

I’d say it’s time to get this information out to people.

In a related matter, Dartmouth researcher, Roger Masters, has discovered in a survey of Massachusetts communities, that there is a correlation between areas where silicofluorides are placed in the water and the presence of LEAD. I have queried him as to why he thinks this correlation is present. But his detailed research shows that (highly toxic) lead seems to “follow” these fluoride compounds around. One can only imagine how many cases of the bogus disorder called ADHD have been diagnosed---when lead and fluorides are the real culprits.

Masters writes, “Silicofluorides are largely untested. Virtually all research on fluoridation safety has focused on sodium fluoride, even though the studies in the 1930s showed important biological differences between these chemicals. The correlation with blood levels is especially serious because lead poisoning is associated with higher rates of learning disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse and crime.”

Masters, according to a Dartmouth press release, points out that “over 90 percent of America’s fluoridated drinking water supplies are treated with silicofluorides.”

(I want to thank RxList for timely help. They had no idea where I was going with this fluorine information, and it should not be inferred that they were trying to help me make a case against Prozac.)

Footnote: I'm well aware that varying degrees of evidence have been put forward to show that fluorides create a marked sedative effect in humans. I'm still followiong that one down. If true, this would put yet more light on the impact of Prozac on the population.

http://askwaltstollmd.com/archives/fluoride/136264.html#136389

Yitzhak Rabin

In reference to the above, it doesn't matter that fluorine is one of the elements in the compound. As compounds do not retain the characteristics of their individual elements. As I said earlier

They are compounds made from fluorine. Not sodium fluoride.

A compound changes its properties drastically from the original element.

Like how Sodium reacts violently with water and would burn skin.

Clourine is a poisonous chemical used as a war weapon.

But... Sodium Clouride is the most widely used food seasoning in the world.

alastair

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fact: While the figures do suggest that fluoridated is apparently more effective vs unfluoridated water against tooth decay.

The figures of fluoridated water include the use of fluoridated mouthwash and supplements, likewise the unfluoridated figures exlude use of fluoridated mouthwash and supplements.

Really? Because the Irish/Northern Irish study makes no such claim.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Only 1 positive potential impact. Improved oral health. This in itself is dubious as evidenced by the fact that only some EU countries fluoridate their water.

There's only the one positive benefit ever suggested for fluoridation - no-one disputes this. The evidence is that it performs that task, albeit in a scenario where greater use of alternative sources of fluoride have reduced tooth decay levels as well. The fact that not all states choose to fluoridate water doesn't mean they dispute the positive benefit of fluoridation - they may well decide against it on the principle of opposition to mass medication. Take Dr Carlsson from Sweden - the man you credit with stopping fluoridation there - does he dispute the positive benefit of fluoridation? No - he concedes it exists. His opposition is based on the potential for increased fluorosis, and he states that you don't need to look beyond that for an argument against fluoridation. So given the actual fluorosis problem in a state that does fluoridate - say Ireland, would you consider it a serious problem? I know I wouldn't.

Joshua Jones

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis examined the raw data from a large study that was conducted by the National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR). He concluded that fluoride did not appear to have any decay preventing success, as there was little difference in the DMFT values (the mean number of decayed, missing or filled teeth) for approximately 40,000 children. It did not matter whether they grew up in fluoridated, non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated communities. (Yiamouyiannis, J.A. "Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-87 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren", Fluoride, 23, 55-67, 1990).

Dr. William Marcus, believes that a study conducted by Battelle for the National Toxicology Program on the toxicology of fluoride shows that there were dose-related increases in bone cancer in male rats. Dr. Marcus also questions the removal by peer reviewers of cancers at other sites in the rats as well. Especially worrisome to Dr. Marcus is the fact that that levels of fluoride that caused the cancers in the rats were lower than those seen in humans who ingested lower amounts, but for a longer period. These levels are generated because fluoride is accumulated in the body and is not secreted.

Dr. Marcus was formerly the chief toxicologist for the EPA's Office of Drinking Water, but was fired in 1991 after insisting that an unbiased evaluation of fluoride's cancer potential be conducted. Marcus fought his dismissal, and was able to be reinstated after demonstrating in court that it was politically motivated.

http://thyroid.about.com/cs/toxicchemicalsan/a/flouride.htm

The Unioned workers of the EPA in Washington are against it.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

alastair

Joshua Jones wrote: »

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis examined the raw data from a large study that was conducted by the National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR). He concluded that fluoride did not appear to have any decay preventing success, as there was little difference in the DMFT values (the mean number of decayed, missing or filled teeth) for approximately 40,000 children. It did not matter whether they grew up in fluoridated, non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated communities. (Yiamouyiannis, J.A. "Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-87 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren", Fluoride, 23, 55-67, 1990).

Lots of studies before and subsequent to this find otherwise - including the one comparing tooth decay here and the north.