Poisoned by our own government!!!

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

As many people already know the commonly used sodium fluoride is extremely toxic, and contrary to most “medical professionals” it is not good for the human body. But if you have become health conscious and stopped drinking fluoridated water, your good right? Yes and No.


If you were raised in a community that fluoridates the water, it has built up in your system. Sodium fluoride is an accumulative poison. If you are like me, born and raised in a fluoridated city, it has built up in your body. Mainly in your bones, thyroid glad, and pineal gland. So how do you get that fluoride out of your system?
That is a very complicated question. There is no 100% verified method of totally detoxing fluorides from your body. But there is several methods that I have used (along with many others), that can make a huge difference. For example: Joint pain disappearing, Chronic headaches gone, an ability to think clearer, and weight loss.
Number one of coarse is to stop fluoride exposure as much as you can. Even though you may have stopped drinking it in your water, many preserved foods contain it.

Second is to start using a sauna regularly. Saunas expel many heavy metals and toxins (including fluoride) from your system. Third, getting enough sunlight daily plays a large role in detoxing the pineal gland. As well as getting enough time in the dark. Sounds strange I know. But the right balance of light and darkness helps to regulate the melatonin production (the main function of the pineal gland). Forth is getting enough exercise (which also helps regulate melatonin production). And fifth is doing a raw liver detox. The raw detox is were most people cringe and get turned away. But it is very simple and effective. All that you need to do is drink two cups of tea a day, cut back on preserved foods, and increase your intake of raw foods. Here is the tea recipe that I use.

* 1 thick slice of lemon
* 1 piece of fresh ginger, 2/3″ long, peeled and bruised
* 1 cup boiling water

Place lemon and ginger in cup. Add boiling water and leave to infuse for two minutes. Remove lemon and ginger and drink immediately.
Using these five methods is very effective! But it is not a quick fix. It took all of that fluoride years to accumulate, and it will take years to get it all out. Everyone is different and can expect different results, but for myself I started to feel a large difference in 3 months. I have now been doing it for 3 years, and have felt great! I am at the point that if I drink a cup of coffee that contains fluoridated water, or eat a processed food that has fluoride, I become physically ill.

http://canadianawareness.org/2011/03/how-to-safely-detox-fluoride-from-your-body/

Dunno who the bigger spoofer is here Talk E or the original author!!!

Talk E, why do you keep scraping other peoples work and claiming it as your own?

Can you not think for yourself?

Hondo75

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Any source on that? And why should we care what colour we are inside? Are we worried about inverse racism?

its called sunset yellow. great name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Yellow_FCF

In relation to the fluoride issue a few simple steps i follow
Avoid tap water if possible ,bottled water 2l 49c in lidl/aldi
use flouride free toothpaste http://www.hollandandbarrett.ie/pages/product_detail.asp?pid=1167&prodid=1478&cid=87

studiorat

Hondo75 wrote: »

its called sunset yellow. great name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Yellow_FCF

In relation to the fluoride issue a few simple steps i follow
Avoid tap water if possible ,bottled water 2l 49c in lidl/aldi
use flouride free toothpaste http://www.hollandandbarrett.ie/pages/product_detail.asp?pid=1167&prodid=1478&cid=87

Are you sure that bottled water is fluoride free? Lots of it isnt..

The clue is in the name Mineral Water!!

Hondo75

not sure prob some levels in the bottled,but it must be a natural occurance rather then man made stuff .
i am fond of black tea without milk and that causes problems as well:( what can you do..
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/fluoride-black-tea-may-pose-health-risks

Voodoo_rasher

Hondo75 wrote: »

its called sunset yellow. great name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_Yellow_FCF

In relation to the fluoride issue a few simple steps i follow
Avoid tap water if possible ,bottled water 2l 49c in lidl/aldi
use flouride free toothpaste http://www.hollandandbarrett.ie/pages/product_detail.asp?pid=1167&prodid=1478&cid=87

Euthymol toothpaste as far as i know contains no Fluoride. I use it all da time.

studiorat

Hondo75 wrote: »

not sure prob some levels in the bottled,but it must be a natural occurance rather then man made stuff .
i am fond of black tea without milk and that causes problems as well:( what can you do..
http://www.emaxhealth.com/1275/fluoride-black-tea-may-pose-health-risks

Ah dude. That article say's for people who drink one more gallons of black tea a day. What's that 8 pints of tea a day? I reckon the caffine would get ya first.

I don't think there's any difference between the alleged health risk relative to what the fluorine is bonded to. None of it is 'man made' as such. It's either added to water or it's not. This came up a few years ago with some chancers who were selling Himalayan mountain salt, (I **** you not) telling people that it was alright because it was natural fluoride.

From : here

One such water, Artesia received this recommendation, although containing 1.02 ppm of fluoride - a fact which is aggressively marketed by the company which firmly believes in the proclaimed “fluoride benefits”.

Origin of “Himalaya Salt”

It is claimed that the “magic salt” is coming from the Karakorum (Ferreira, 2002). However, as pointed out by the group TourismWatch (No.28 and No.30) there is no salt mine to be found anywhere in this Himalayan region. Most of the salt was coming from the second largest salt mine in the world, in Pakistan.

Oral Health

People are advised to use this salt for toothbrushing.

One will get “white teeth” and the “dental enamel gets dissolved”, it is claimed...!

Of course it is also advised to rinse the mouth with the same sole which is drunk in the morning.

One is reminded of the incredible feat by Mr. “Dead Doctors Don’t Lie” Dr. Wallach and associated independent distributors who have managed to con people into believing that the “All Natural Tooth Gel” is a “safe natural alternative to fluoride toothpaste”, although the actual label on the toothpaste specifies sodium fluoride as ingredient!

Solair

conscious wrote: »

Red lemonade is also banned in most european countries because it dyes the inside of your body! But Ireland are glad to sell it

That's highly unlikely as product bans / dye controls are done at an EU level, not a state level. If the dye is permitted in Ireland, it's an EU-wide permitted dye.

Anything in any Irish food products would at the very least comply with EU regulations, or go beyond them in terms of food safety.

The one big issue with fluoridated water is that it is now classified as a medicine by the EU. So, I am unsure how we are getting away with using it as a food ingredient in manufacturing or how it is being used without a product authorisation, proper medicines regulation and a marketing license.

If anything, I think the way that fluoride will be removed from water supply here is via EU law, not Irish law as there was a ridiculous supreme court ruling here saying it's fine!

studiorat

Haven't read the article yet but apparently Marmite turns you into a woman of something.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/8533896/Marmite-made-illegal-in-Denmark.html

Mind you fluoride and vitamins are the least of your worries.

What about Benzene? Perrier water can give you cancer FFS. :eek::)

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/10/us/perrier-recalls-its-water-in-us-after-benzene-is-found-in-bottles.html

tony 2 tone

concious wrote:

Red lemonade is also banned in most european countries because it dyes the inside of your body! But Ireland are glad to sell it

No it's not.

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Some chemical used in making red lemonade is banned in Europe, but I think cause it causes cancer, not changes the colour of your insides, still goes down well with whiskey though

No evidence any where of that statment. 'Some chemical' is a bit vague.
In TK red the colouring is noted as anthocyanins.
water-soluble vacuolar pigments that may appear red, purple, or blue according to pH. They belong to a parent class of molecules called flavonoidsSo plant based pigments
are responcable for the red colour.

Talk E wrote:

Aspertame ? Used in most diet and some non diet drinks.
Oh.. and the producers of bottled natural spring water are concerned about our teeth too, so they add fluoride to their bottled water. Nice of them

Aspartame is not a colourant though.

Talk E

studiorat wrote: »

Are you sure that bottled water is fluoride free? Lots of it isnt..

The clue is in the name Mineral Water!!

I have never found fluoride free bottled water and I have search all the main supermarkets

Talk E

tony 2 tone wrote: »

Aspartame is not a colourant though.

It may not be a colorant, but it is a poison, pushed by no other than Donald Rumsfeld. It's the most contested food additive in history.

[SIZE=+4]Aspartame - Rumsfeld's
Bioweapon Legacy[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
Dr. Betty Martini, Founder[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Mission Possible Intl
8-20-5[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Before reading this article everyone should hear James Turner, Atty, explain how Don Rumsfeld called in his markers to get aspartame, a deadly chemical poison approved when the FDA said no: http://www.soundandfury.tv/pages.Rumsfeld2.html The entire film can be gotten at http://www.docworkers.com[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Among the many ironies of our modern world is that Gerald Ford awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom-America,s highest civilian honor-to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on January 19, 1977. Just a few weeks later on March 8, Rumsfeld became the CEO of G.D. Searle to take point on a mission to force the Food and Drug Administration to approve for human consumption a known carcinogen and neurotoxic poison.[/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]Mission accomplished: Today some 9,000 commonly consumed products are laced with this weapon of mass misery and millions of people live with chronic illnesses linked to the artificial sweetener aspartame. It is our belief at The Idaho Observer that if some guy named Parkinson can have a disease named after him, then Donald Rumsfeld ought to have his own disease, too. Hence the term Rumsfeld disease A.[/SIZE] http://www.rense.com/general67/rum.htm

hooradiation

The "Aspartame is poison" phenomenon is perhaps one of the best executed and resilient Internet hoaxes.

Talk E

hooradiation wrote: »

The "Aspartame is poison" phenomenon is perhaps one of the best executed and resilient Internet hoaxes.

Care to elaborate ?

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Talk E wrote: »

Care to elaborate ?

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/healthscares.html

http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html

tony 2 tone

Talk E wrote: »

It may not be a colorant, but it is a poison, pushed by no other than Donald Rumsfeld.It's the most contested food additive in history.

But the previous posts were about red lemonade being banned outside of Ireland(which it isn't) and how the colouring causes cancer (and no evidence shown for that) and you threw up apartame.
Now how can you say aspartame is bad if you are unsure of what it is? You can copy and paste Rense or ATS or whatever but at least check out the basics while you're doing your research.

Talk E

tony 2 tone wrote: »

But the previous posts were about red lemonade being banned outside of Ireland(which it isn't) and how the colouring causes cancer (and no evidence shown for that) and you threw up apartame.
Now how can you say aspartame is bad if you are unsure of what it is? You can copy and paste Rense or ATS or whatever but at least check out the basics while you're doing your research.

I know exactly what aspertame is. I miss read a previous post is all and you quoted it.

studiorat

Talk E wrote: »

I know exactly what aspertame is. I miss read a previous post is all and you quoted it.

I doubt it very much. I don't think you know when you are spoofing and when you are actually telling the truth. Probably feeling a bit sick after drinking that fluoride water are we?

So what did you think of the quackwatch articles?

hooradiation

Talk E wrote: »

Care to elaborate ?

The idea that aspartame is a "known carcinogen and neurotoxic poison" is incorrect.
It all stems from a chainmail that has been doing the rounds for years.
The email in question can be found on the first page of this article.

Like all chainmails, it's nonsense. The speaker quoted is fictional, a crude alias of Betty Martini the founder of Mission Possible International. An organisation that is dedicated to highlighting the supposed dangers of aspartame.
The laundry list of maladies it's supposed to cause have little to no evidence to support them after all the years of research.

But, like most Internet hoaxes it refuses to just stay dead.

My name is URL

studiorat wrote: »

Excellent and interesting articles, although the first discusses whether sub-clinical doses of Lithium have any effect on suicide rates at all and the second briefly discusses ethics of 'mass medication' folic acid in bread, calcium, iodine etc, it only then briefly touches on the subject of small doses of lithium having an effect on suicide.

According to those two articles, nowhere does it say it's a 'good idea to give it to everyone'.

Judging from your conclusions, it would seem that the world has lost the run of it's self.

There's plenty of ongoing debate on the subject, Google is your friend.

For talks sake, if it was established that small doses of Lithium did reduce suicide rates, would you be happy enough for it to be supplied through the public water mains? Would you be happy enough to drink it over the course of your life just because it may reduce suicide levels?

The thread is about fluoridation.. I only used the lithium thing as a comparative example of the thinking behind mass-medicating the populace, and the blind acceptance of it by the people.

Would you not prefer to have a say in what additives are added to your water (you pay for it after all).. or what chemicals you put into your body?

studiorat

My name is URL wrote: »

Would you not prefer to have a say in what additives are added to your water (you pay for it after all).. or what chemicals you put into your body?

I don't think fluoride is needed in the water anymore, but there was a time when it was. Personally I have more immediate concerns regarding health than trace amounts of minerals in water TBH. My favorite mineral water has Lithium, Strontium, Uranium and all sorts of goodies in it already. But I'd be more concerned about sugar levels, red meat, smoking, bad posture etc.

But I see your last sentence there and I'm reminded of what I think this really is about. I think for the most part the argument isn't about whether fluoride is safe or not it's about "freedom", having your say as you put it. The ethics of mass medication, so where do you draw the line? folic acid is put in bread, milk has added vitamins, iron is added, niacin; the list goes on and on.

A study done in 1999 on the topic of fluoride found that 62% supported fluoridation and 31% were opposed, thing was that the 31% were more vocal in their opposition than the 61%. Similar findings occurred in Australia. So although you choose to use the term 'blind acceptance' that's not really the case (of those asked the majority supported), it's more a case of those opposing choosing to disregard the majority and shout louder as usual.

So the question should be, should you not fortify food and drink simply because a vocal minority want a choice?

btkm8unsl0w5r4

As someone who has had to pull teeth on children in agony and risk their death by being forced into general anaesthetic, and cause considerable distress to them, I would say that if fluoridation of the water supply saves one of them from the terrible stress then the rest of ye can put up with it.

Public health measures are there for the population that do not and cannot help themselves, not for the individual, If you feel you rights are impinged then respectfully you are a selfish & ill informed.

Flouridation is still needed. As a dentist this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

My name is URL

studiorat wrote: »

I don't think fluoride is needed in the water anymore, but there was a time when it was. Personally I have more immediate concerns regarding health than trace amounts of minerals in water TBH. My favorite mineral water has Lithium, Strontium, Uranium and all sorts of goodies in it already. But I'd be more concerned about sugar levels, red meat, smoking, bad posture etc.

But I see your last sentence there and I'm reminded of what I think this really is about. I think for the most part the argument isn't about whether fluoride is safe or not it's about "freedom", having your say as you put it. The ethics of mass medication, so where do you draw the line? folic acid is put in bread, milk has added vitamins, iron is added, niacin; the list goes on and on.

A study done in 1999 on the topic of fluoride found that 62% supported fluoridation and 31% were opposed, thing was that the 31% were more vocal in their opposition than the 61%. Similar findings occurred in Australia. So although you choose to use the term 'blind acceptance' that's not really the case (of those asked the majority supported), it's more a case of those opposing choosing to disregard the majority and shout louder as usual.

Freedom is my main concern about the whole fluoride issue. I've never believed it to be a real danger to health, though I'm open to the possibility that it has a negative effect on some.

You mentioned bread and milk as other fortified foods, but the choice to not consume those products exists for the majority of people. The majority have very little choice when it comes to consuming fluoridated mains-supplied water.

I wonder if that study you brought up portrays the real opinion of the people. There's every possibility that a good number of people voted in favour of fluoridation simply because of outdated science.. perhaps even because they know that anyone who seems to be against fluoridation are often branded as crackpots and ill-informed lay-people.

There's been many a thread in forums other than CT about the subject, and in almost all instances, people get sucked into assuming that it's only a discussion for conspiracy theorists.

So the question should be, should you not fortify food and drink simply because a vocal minority want a choice?

Surely everybody wants the choice?

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

As someone who has had to pull teeth on children in agony and risk their death by being forced into general anaesthetic, and cause considerable distress to them, I would say that if fluoridation of the water supply saves one of them from the terrible stress then the rest of ye can put up with it.

Public health measures are there for the population that do not and cannot help themselves, not for the individual, If you feel you rights are impinged then respectfully you are a selfish & ill informed.

Flouridation is still needed. As a dentist this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

The terrible stress of having a tooth removed or getting a filling?! I literally don't know anyone over the age of 20 that has not had a filling.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

My name is URL wrote: »

The terrible stress of having a tooth removed or getting a filling?! I literally don't know anyone over the age of 20 that has not had a filling.

QED - a roaring abscess affecting the airway in A&E at 12 at night in a 8 year old, what would you do, rub arnica on their head...you have no idea :rolleyes:

Lefticus Loonaticus

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

As someone who has had to pull teeth on children in agony and risk their death by being forced into general anaesthetic, and cause considerable distress to them, I would say that if fluoridation of the water supply saves one of them from the terrible stress then the rest of ye can put up with it.

Public health measures are there for the population that do not and cannot help themselves, not for the individual, If you feel you rights are impinged then respectfully you are a selfish & ill informed.

Flouridation is still needed. As a dentist this is like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Those children your talking about have not lost teeth because they went without fluoride, they lost em because their parents were negligent and didnt teach em to brush their teeth or eat less sugar. What a way to twist an argument!

If we dont put in fluoride we risk the death of children..... will somone please think of the children :pac:!!!

Well, I dont mean to offend anyone, but let those childrens teeth rot, its the lesser of two evils. Im more concerned about the forced toxic waste consumption at the behest of a dental lobby group than I am about the care of some careless strangers teeth, IMO.

My name is URL

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

QED - a roaring abscess affecting the airway in A&E at 12 at night in a 8 year old, what would you do, rub arnica on their head...you have no idea :rolleyes:

wtf? What do you do, inject her with fluoride?

You're only slightly more qualified than anyone else here to ponder the efficacy of water fluoridation. What do you base your research on.. your own anecdotal evidence?

studiorat

My name is URL wrote: »

Freedom is my main concern about the whole fluoride issue. I've never believed it to be a real danger to health, though I'm open to the possibility that it has a negative effect on some.

Are you open to a possibility that it has positive effects? Or would you prefer just the 'freedom' irregardless of any benefit it may have for others.

My name is URL wrote: »

You mentioned bread and milk as other fortified foods, but the choice to not consume those products exists for the majority of people. The majority have very little choice when it comes to consuming fluoridated mains-supplied water.

The choice isn't really practical, not unless you are the kind of person who examines every packet they pick up in a shop, not the majority. Would it not be fairer for those who choose not, to be the ones who have to examine each package?

My name is URL wrote: »

I wonder if that study you brought up portrays the real opinion of the people. There's every possibility that a good number of people voted in favour of fluoridation simply because of outdated science.. perhaps even because they know that anyone who seems to be against fluoridation are often branded as crackpots and ill-informed lay-people.

That's highly unlikely I think. I also think you are un-necessarily calling persecution on that one.

Why do you use the term out-dated science? What's outdated about it? Any ill effects are inconclusive.

My name is URL wrote: »

There's been many a thread in forums other than CT about the subject, and in almost all instances, people get sucked into assuming that it's only a discussion for conspiracy theorists.

Well the thread was dumped in here alright, wrongly IMO. But the discussion has been centered around freedom of choice and the thread title is provocative to say the least, are you suprised?

My name is URL wrote: »

Surely everybody wants the choice?

Perhaps not, perhaps some people have other things to worry about. That's really a question of positive Vs negative liberty I think. Given the extreems of
individual freedom (usually at the expense of others) people expect, that level of "freedom" is impractical, selfish and exists outside the bounds of normal society.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Flouridation reduces caries rate, caries causes infection, infection causes pain. Flouridation reduces pain. And the beauty of it is people ingest it in water whether they give a crap or not which the at risk people do not.

My experience is 10 years as a dentist, and experience treating children in hospitals and studying 40 years of quality high level research, yours is 10 ,000 poss as a internet nut. There is not reasoning with conspiracy theories however your views will lead to pain in particularly children and the least advantages children at that. I have seen the trauma this causes, your underestimation of the sequalae of tooth decay underpins your naive views in this topic.

Its good to debate topics and if your views come to fruition I will make money, so why on earth would I argue the contrary except for altruistic reasons.

Laisurg

I don't believe it will do us any serious harm but why do it anymore? We have toothpaste we don't need it, do they even put enough in to benefit teeth?
Is it one of the reasons why tap water tastes so rank?

btkm8unsl0w5r4

Its tasteless, and for god sake people its aimed at people that dont use tooth paste thats the point...think laterally. The public health dental specialist ask what can we do on a population basis that will cost the least money and benefit the most vulnerable and require no compliance....the answer is water flouridation or sugar flouridation. Sugar flouridation is a technicial nightmare.

As spock said the needs of the many..........

My name is URL

Angelique Squeaking Nerd wrote: »

Flouridation reduces caries rate, caries causes infection, infection causes pain. Flouridation reduces pain. And the beauty of it is people ingest it in water whether they give a crap or not which the at risk people do not.

My experience is 10 years as a dentist, and experience treating children in hospitals and studying 40 years of quality high level research, yours is 10 ,000 poss as a internet nut. There is not reasoning with conspiracy theories however your views will lead to pain in particularly children and the least advantages children at that. I have seen the trauma this causes, your underestimation of the sequalae of tooth decay underpins your naive views in this topic.

Its good to debate topics and if your views come to fruition I will make money, so why on earth would I argue the contrary except for altruistic reasons.

Well your deduction skills are certainly apparent.

You've been appealing to emotion rather than reason in your last 3 posts.. bringing up screaming and dying children as an argument for.

Based on your own observations, what would the increase in dental caries be as a percentage if water fluoridation were ceased?

and for god sake people its aimed at people that dont use tooth paste thats the point

It's like using a nuke to kill a virus.. not very efficient 'targeting'