Fluoride endgame approaches....

Roadtrippin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Fluoride is by far more harmful to our health than e-coli and moreover fluoride actually weakens our immune system. At least E coli is a bacteria and we can combat against with our immune system. Fluoride causes serious harm to our bodies and mental health. Most of which are irreversible.

Once again, that depends on the dosage.

You have yet to provide me with credible studies that prove that the 0.8 mg/l dosage of fluoride which Irish water contains is harmful.

Any evidence or relevant sources to your claims? Otherwise we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I'm afraid, because else:

Aquarius34 wrote: »

It's getting a tad old and repetitive.

dj jarvis

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You are free to leave this conversation. It already appears you can't handle one.

i dont need your permission to do anything , and you have some cheek , i cant handle a conversation ??? dont make me laugh
you have been asked REPEATEDLY to provide link or proof to your statements, and that being a major component of a conversation , i think you are the one that still does not understand how this works

you STILL cant back it up - you do realize how sad that is coming across
and yet you come back for more
tell you what , you provide a ounce of proof to the earlier statements you made
and ill discuss it with you - but you have not so far , so i wont hold my breath

and again , i was not talking to you , im sure the poster i was talking to can answer themselves

Aquarius34

Roadtrippin wrote: »

Once again, that depends on the dosage.

You have yet to provide me with credible studies that prove that the 0.8 mg/l dosage of fluoride which Irish water contains is harmful.

Any evidence or relevant sources to your claims? Otherwise we will have to agree to disagree on this one, I'm afraid, because else:

I see you are repeating to me as a means to dismiss. That's a well known tactic used. But I am however allergic to repetitive bull****.

See what I said there. I am sure I am not the only one on this forum who is allergic to such. There is still not a thread of evidence nor even it is an argument as to why we should be dumping harmful toxic waste called fluoride into our foods and water supply.

The fact is clear. We are ingesting so much fluoride into our bodies, by other means too. Cigarettes, alcohol, processed food, drinks made with fluoridated water. Fluoride builds up and it builds up in the pineal gland. Our bodies cannot detoxify the amount of fluoride we are consuming daily. It's added to our toothpaste. It says on the back of every tube do not swallow. Yet it's we brush our teeth with toothpaste every day twice daily. Now withstanding, someone else brought up the salt issue. We add salt to every food item and then add more salt at the dinner table. We are over loaded with sodium intake of all sorts.

It's basic common sense, that if we have a chemical like this constantly been added to everything, it's going to add up. We are well and truly over the "dosage" limit.

So one would have to ask.

Why is there a conspiracy to put fluoride into everything these days?

jma

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

The key to toxicity is dose. It is defined as "the degree to which something is poisonous". So you cannot say fluoride is toxic, that sentence doesn't make any sense because it doesn't infer any dose. The level of drinking water an Irish person can consume in a day is not toxic. If our water had fluoride levels higher than 1 parts per million then it would start to become toxic, increasing in toxicity with higher levels of fluoride. No legitimate study has ever concluded that fluoridating water between 0.5 and 1.0 parts per million is anything other than beneficial to human health. Here is a report published on the subject which you probably won't read but I'll supply it anyway.

Tiddlypeeps, I'm not attacking your post, most of your points are valid, but I have a couple of points to make... With regards to the ethics, removing excessive fluoride is obviously good, but adding it is wrong, in my opinion. It has very little benefit, and the benefits that might be there are for younger teenagers more so than adults or infants. With regards to the amount, I think you also need to consider the other sources of fluoride. For example, with smaller kids, according to the EU Public Health website, the estimated tolerable limit is exceeded if they drink more than 1.0 L water containing 0.8 mg F/L and they use a normal amount of regular fluoridated toothpaste. And then there's the long-term exposure. The safety is at least questionable.

With regards to studies, there have been numerous studies and research into the effectiveness of fluoridation and the health effects of Fluoride exposure. This has nothing to do with acute toxicity. Here is one example:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/
Dental fluorosis is another risk factor that has been studied.

Jimoslimos

jma wrote: »

With regards to studies, there have been numerous studies and research into the effectiveness of fluoridation and the health effects of Fluoride exposure. This has nothing to do with acute toxicity. Here is one example:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/
Dental fluorosis is another risk factor that has been studied.

Oh no, no, no no! Not this sh1t again. We've dissected that paper in some detail previously. Look back a few pages

Roadtrippin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I see you are repeating to me as a means to dismiss. That's a well known tactic used.

It wasn't a tactic. I just want you to provide me with actual links to studies or sources that back up your point.

And unlike you, I didn't get personal.

Tiddlypeeps

jma wrote: »

Tiddlypeeps, I'm not attacking your post, most of your points are valid, but I have a couple of points to make... With regards to the ethics, removing excessive fluoride is obviously good, but adding it is wrong, in my opinion. It has very little benefit, and the benefits that might be there are for younger teenagers more so than adults or infants. With regards to the amount, I think you also need to consider the other sources of fluoride. For example, with smaller kids, according to the EU Public Health website, the estimated tolerable limit is exceeded if they drink more than 1.0 L water containing 0.8 mg F/L and they use a normal amount of regular fluoridated toothpaste. And then there's the long-term exposure. The safety is at least questionable.

With regards to studies, there have been numerous studies and research into the effectiveness of fluoridation and the health effects of Fluoride exposure. This has nothing to do with acute toxicity. Here is one example:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/
Dental fluorosis is another risk factor that has been studied.

As I mentioned your argument is a valid one, but the fact that fluoride is naturally occurring means it's not a black and white one so any sides taken in the debate over this particular argument will be opinion and opinion only. The fact that it's not forced medication also weakens the severity of the argument, because people do have the option to source their own water or use filters.

Here is a video I highly recommend watching on the subject of water fluoridation. It covers the benefits of consuming fluoride and not just using it topically. I doesn't just effect children by the way, it effects everybody the same.

Capt'n Midnight

jma wrote: »

Fluoride exposure. This has nothing to do with acute toxicity. Here is one example:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/2012/10/developmental-fluoride-neurotoxicity-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/
Dental fluorosis is another risk factor that has been studied.

Read it again.

Now tell us all how many of the "low Fluoride references" areas would be legal to use for drinking water here.

Aquarius34

You just have to laugh at the desperation for the oppressors. People supporting fluoridation, it's just laughable at this point. Sure why not's lets have a drunk poisoned society on fluoride


Anyone who is not been affected by fluoride is obviously standing up to this ordeal. Seems to make a lot of sense as to how that is. They have common sense and they are not going to allow a state government body poison them with poisonous waste.

Fluoridation began in 1945 by that Nazis, and that's alarming.

Some of us I have you warned are not that gullible to any of this.

The reality is, if you want to have fluoride in your body, it should be a personal choice, it should not be dumped into our drinking water. This way people who don't want fluoride don't have to be poisoned with it and those who do can have has much as they want.

Capt'n Midnight

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Fluoridation began in 1945 by that Nazis, and that's alarming.

Nazi Germany was the first place to link cigarette smoking with cancer and heart disease and implement smoking bans.

Also 1945 is a strange time to start mind control, having the Soviet army on your doorstep is pretty motivational. The biggest movement of people in history was the millions of Germans moving West.

Aquarius34

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Nazi Germany was the first place to link cigarette smoking with cancer and heart disease and implement smoking bans.

Also 1945 is a strange time to start mind control, having the Soviet army on your doorstep is pretty motivational. The biggest movement of people in history was the millions of Germans moving West.

So it still doesn't negate the argument the Nazis brought fluoride into to control the masses. Cigarette didn't have half the chemicals it had back in 1945 as it does now. Just because they found out doesn't mean anything. The Nazis were, power hungry, elitist and racist to the core.

Hitler was a heavy smoker, btw.

Aquarius34

They didn't have fluoride in cigarettes in the 30s and 40s. In the old days it was mostly or near enough to pure tobacco. Doctors up to the 1970s were still telling people to smoke to help with stress. Now it has over 4000 chemicals in it and it's most addictive yet because of all the chemicals that are now in them.

Capt'n Midnight

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Hitler was a heavy smoker, btw.

next you'll be telling us that Hitler wasn't German.

opinion guy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

So it still doesn't negate the argument the Nazis brought fluoride into to control the masses. Cigarette didn't have half the chemicals it had back in 1945 as it does now. Just because they found out doesn't mean anything. The Nazis were, power hungry, elitist and racist to the core.

Hitler was a heavy smoker, btw.

Honest question:
Are you a pro-fluoride dentist secretly trolling that anti-fluoride view point ?

darkhorse

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

next you'll be telling us that Hitler wasn't German.

As a matter of fact, he was originally Austrian.

Aquarius34

opinion guy wrote: »

Honest question:
Are you a pro-fluoride dentist secretly trolling that anti-fluoride view point ?

No I am not. I am just someone has a brain and won't allow anyone to poison it. Knowledge is power you know. Suppression of knowledge is the tactic here.

Voici les nazis fluorure

Aquarius34

(NaturalNews) There has been some controversy over the activity of adding synthetic fluoride to municipal water supplies and elsewhere, but not enough. The seriousness of this issue is more than what most realize. Fluoridation ranks with GMO's and tainted, forced vaccinations among the great crimes against humanity.

Understanding the Different Fluorides

There are two types of fluoride. Calcium Fluoride, which appears naturally in underground water supplies, is relatively benign. However, too much consumed daily can lead to bone or dental problems. Calcium is used to counter fluoride poisoning when it occurs. This redeeming factor indicates that the calcium in naturally formed calcium fluoride neutralizes much of fluoride's toxic effects.

On the other hand, the type of fluorides added to water supplies and other beverages and foods are waste products of the nuclear, aluminum, and now mostly the phosphate (fertilizer) industries. The EPA has classified these as toxins: fluorosilicate acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride.

For this article, the term Sodium Fluoride will include all three types. Sodium fluoride is used for rat poison and as a pesticide. According to a scientific study done several years ago, Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds, industrial waste sodium fluorides are 85 times more toxic than naturally occurring calcium fluoride.

Health Hazards of Sodium Fluoride

Generally, most fluoride entering the body is not easily eliminated. It tends to accumulate in the body's bones and teeth. Recently, it has been discovered to accumulate even more in the pineal gland, located in the middle of the brain.

This consequence of dental fluorosis, which seriously harms teeth, from daily fluoridation has been documented. Yet, the American Dental Association (AMA) continues beating a dead horse, promoting fluoride. There is a refusal to admit that instead of preventing tooth decay, fluoride causes even more dental harm.

The flood of sodium fluoride in water and food also creates other more serious health problems that are not widely publicized, even suppressed. Nevertheless, in addition to fluorosis, independent labs and reputable researchers have linked the following health issues with daily long term intake of sodium fluoride:

*Cancer
*Genetic DNA Damage
*Thyroid Disruption - affecting the complete endocrine system and leading to obesity
*Neurological - diminished IQ and inability to focus, lethargy and weariness.
*Alzheimer's Disease
*Melatonin Disruption, lowers immunity to cancer, accelerates aging, sleep disorders.
*Pineal Gland, calcification, which clogs this gland located in the middle of the brain.

How Did We Get Stuck With Stuff?

According to investigative journalist Christopher Bryson, author of The Fluoride Deception, getting large quantities of sodium fluoride into the water and food system was a ploy of public relations sponsored by the industries who were saddled with getting rid of the toxic materials.

Fluoride was necessary for the processing or enriching of uranium. The pro-fluoride propaganda was started during the Manhattan Project to create the first atom bombs in the 1940's. The spin was to convince workers and locals where the largest nuclear plant was located in Tennessee that fluoride was not only safe, it was good for kids' dental health.

In the early 1950's, the notorious spin master and father of advertising, Edward Bernays, continued the campaign for adding fluorides to water supplies as an experiment in engineering human consent! Then the AMA picked up on the dental issue and endorsed sodium fluoride's addition to water supplies. The few dissenting health studies and reports were usually squashed. Those dissenting voices were dismissed as quacks regardless of their credentials.

Approximately 2/3 of the USA water supply is laced with sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride is a common pesticide. So that residue is in some foods. Some sodas, packaged orange juices, and even bottled drinking water for babies contain fluoride additives. Buyer beware. Read your labels carefully.

Avoiding Fluoridation

Keep in mind that boiling only increases the concentration of fluoride to water more. But removing fluoride from tap water is not so difficult. Reverse osmosis works well for removing fluorides. If you own your home and can spring for the bucks, you can have one installed under the sink in your kitchen. That makes things very convenient for your fluoride removal from tap water.

If this is not your situation, grab a couple of large jugs and fill them up from reverse osmosis machines in health food stores, supermarkets, and other locations. There are several such machines around, usually labeled as using reverse osmosis, and they usually take coins. So it is the most accessible and cheapest way to go if you can't install one where you live.

The Physiological Importance of the Pineal Gland

During the late 1990's in England, a scientist by the name of Jennifer Luke undertook the first study the effects of sodium fluoride on the pineal gland. She determined that the pineal gland, located in the middle of the brain, was a target for fluoride. The pineal gland simply absorbed more fluoride than any other physical matter in the body, even bones.

Because of the pineal gland's importance to the endocrine system, her conclusions were a breakthrough. Her study provided the missing link to a lot of physiological damage from sodium fluoride that had been hypothesized but not positively connected. A veritable root source for the chain reaction of blocked endocrine activity had been isolated.

Good news though. Frequent exposure to outdoor sunshine, 20 minutes or so at a time, will help stimulate a fluoride calcified pineal gland. Just make sure you take off your hat. This is more important than most realize, because the pineal gland affects so much other enzyme and endocrine activity, including melatonin production.

The 2012 Connection

First a bit about 2012, a date many have heard about. According to Carlos Barrios, anthropologist, historian, and investigator who was initiated as a Mayan ceremonial priest and spiritual guide, "Anthropologists visit the temple sites and read the inscriptions . . . but they do not read the signs correctly. . . . Other people write about prophecy in the name of the Maya. They say that the world will end in December 2012. The Mayan elders are angry with this. The world will not end. It will be transformed."

Carlos Barrios goes on to say that the transformation will be both spiritual and physical. The transition started in 1987. He says that we are in a spiritual transition from the rule of materialism, greed, and enmity to a new period of cooperation and peace - but not without difficulty. The current oligarchy is happy with what they have and don't want to give it up, and they are powerful. The Mayans claim that 2012 marks the end of the period of the fourth sun and the beginning of the fifth sun.

Carlos points out that adversarial revolution against the ruling class will not work. It is up to those who want this shift to connect with others of like mind and begin actively creating networks of real cooperation. The old will crumble. The new period will dawn with its growing pains, the severity of which depends on our ability to accept what is happening and go with the flow. This, he says, requires evolving to unconditional love, with an open and simple heart, forgiveness, and cooperation with less ego competition.

Connecting the Pineal Gland to This 2012 Matter

Well, what does all this have to do with the pineal gland? A lot. It is considered a portal to the inner or higher self by yogi masters, including Paramahansa Yogananda, author of Autobiography of a Yogi. Psychics consider it to be the link for inter dimensional experiences. It is associated with what many call the third eye or sixth chakra, which is a doorway to higher consciousness and bliss.

And it is vital for supporting intuition, an ability that will be needed during hard times. So it is necessary to evolve spiritually in order to help create better understanding, acceptance of our fellow humans, and easier group cooperation. Meditation is a part of this evolving. That and a little sunshine, good rest and food, can cause a calcified pineal gland to loosen up and allow that portal to open.

An unusual psychiatrist, professor of medicine at University of New Mexico, and practicing Buddhist, Dr. Rick Strassman, MD, has written a book based on actual human studies of people under the psychedelic drug, DMT, titled DMT, The Spirit Molecule. He has discovered, among other things, that the pineal gland is a source of DMT production during birth and at death, and during near death or mystical experiences. This chemical approach corroborates the idea of the pineal gland as a portal, where the spirit passes through to other dimensions, either entering this physical realm or leaving it.

South American and Central American shamans use Ayahuasca, an herbal potion that stimulates DMT for psychological healing and spiritual initiation ceremonies. They have expanded their ceremonies with Ayahuasca by traveling throughout the world or opening their local facilities to non natives. They are doing this urgently in anticipation of 2012. Their desire is to jump start and expand individuals' consciousness so the transition of consciousness will be facilitated and incorporate as many as possible.

This information is meant to link the physical realm's pineal gland to higher states of awareness and other realms. The point is not to advocate or discourage psychedelic drug use, but to encourage health, meditation and spiritual growth by maintaining a fluoride free pineal gland. 2012 is approaching. Time to get in shape!


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026364_fluoride_pineal_gland_sodium.html#ixzz2HFMon3Fe

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

(NaturalNews)...

That used to be one of RTDH's favourite sources...just saying like.

darkhorse wrote: »

As a matter of fact, he was originally Austrian.

Which he renounced, and took German citizenship....which would make him...German.

darkhorse

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

next you'll be telling us that Hitler wasn't German.

darkhorse wrote: »

As a matter of fact, he was originally Austrian.

Which he renounced, and took German citizenship....which would make him...German.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I do know that, I was answering you original post.

Bears and Vodka

Mrs. Ryan was right all along!

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

That used to be one of RTDH's favourite sources...just saying like.

Which he renounced, and took German citizenship....which would make him...German.

:rolleyes:
I am not RTDHs if that's what you're trying to imply.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I am not RTDHs if that's what you're trying to imply.

No, but I don't believe there has been one CT proven from that awful website.

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, but I don't believe there has been one CT proven from that awful website.

Well I can tell you I don't believe in the moon landings. So there you go. There is quite a crock of **** we have been told and force fed to believe and the harsh truth is we have been doped and lied to our whole lives. I really don't care about what you believe or if you think all C.Ts are untrue or whatever. There is never smoke without fire.

Only an awakened mind can see the truth or handle knowledge. Most people don't have morals anymore and this has to change.. They believe in all the corrupt leaders, politicians, religious leaders and snake oils sales men about everything.now, this is this society is a mess!

They believe without question. Take what is given to them and that is it. We get labeled if we dare question authority or the law. You get, oh he's crazy, he's on something, he's whacked, and he’s drinking too much. Perhaps some are but not all of us are and labels are not going to make people remain in the dark just because our leaders say so or if you say so. it's time for people to wake up and let go this system,.

This comes back to this whole fluoride issue. Despite the over whelming evidence and obviousness that our society is actively been poisoned, people are still hanging onto this notion that the people in position of power care about us. Like they will protect us from some invisible force of terror lurking in the background. The elites do not care about us, they never have and they never will. They want our money. They want our blood. They want our soul and will stop at nothing to get it. That's what is going on here in today's world in every aspect of our society. It's a mental illness and it has got to be reprimanded before we destroy everything.

The good news now is people are questioning these days and they know something is seriously wrong here. The more you try to cover thing's up the more people are going to be suspicious.

That article is very accurate and explains a lot of facts. You don't have to like it, that is your issue not anyone else's. You can stick your head in the sand if you want too. That's totally your own choice.

jma

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

As I mentioned your argument is a valid one, but the fact that fluoride is naturally occurring means it's not a black and white one so any sides taken in the debate over this particular argument will be opinion and opinion only. The fact that it's not forced medication also weakens the severity of the argument, because people do have the option to source their own water or use filters.

Here is a video I highly recommend watching on the subject of water fluoridation. It covers the benefits of consuming fluoride and not just using it topically. I doesn't just effect children by the way, it effects everybody the same.

It might be difficult for some people to source their own water, but apart from that, there's also the issue with informed consent. I'm sure there are lots of people that don't even know that fluoride is added to their drinking water.

Ingesting Fluoride might have benefits. But that doesn't mean it's safe. Smoking has some benefits, too (reduced stress levels, reduced risk of obesity). It's a question of benefits vs. negatives. Here are some examples of points that (to me at least) draw the safety of fluoridation into question, and also suggest that further research is needed in order to be able to label fluoridation as "safe":

Our exploratory analysis found an association between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males but not consistently among females. Further research is required to confirm or refute this observation.
(Bassin et al., 2006)

While the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and their relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the collective results warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence. Investigation of other mental and physiological alterations reported in the case study literature, including mental confusion and lethargy, should also be investigated.
(Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council, 2006: 221)

Whether fluoride exposure causes decreased nocturnal melatonin production or altered circadian rhythm of melatonin production in humans
has not been investigated. As described above, fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans. Actual effects in any individual depend on age, sex, and probably other factors, although at present the mechanisms are not fully understood.
(Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, 2006: 256)

I would quote and reference some more, but it is very time consuming. I hope it's enough, though, to make my point. My references below.

I'm not too sure about that Youtube video, tbh. It has some fair points, but I don't think it really addresses the concerns. Also, it mentions vaccines. It was only fairly recently that authorities and pharma companies made the move to remove mercury from vaccines. Some vaccines still even have small amounts of mercury. Mercury is used a preservative, and again, has extremely little benefits compared to the potential risks. The video also mentions that fluoridation being a toxic/poisonous substance is a myth. This seems a bit misleading, since fluoridation isn't a substance, which makes it a bit ambiguous.

References:

Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA (2006) 'Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States)', Cancer Causes & Control, Vol. 17, May, pp. 421-428

Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences (2006) Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, Washington D.C.: National Academies Press

Aquarius34

jma wrote: »

Ingesting Fluoride might have benefits. But that doesn't mean it's safe. Smoking has some benefits, too (reduced stress levels, reduced risk of obesity). It's a question of benefits vs. negatives. Here are some examples of points that (to me at least) draw the safety of fluoridation into question, and also suggest that further research is needed in order to be able to label fluoridation as "safe":

Now that's a red herring right there. if this topic wasn't so serious and concerning I'd probably laugh my off at these comments You know it's almost as if it sound a lot like Condellizza Rice trying to defend Invading Iraq, when you know the minute she opened her mouth all you can hear is everyone shuffling and a voice in your head going God can someone please put a sock in that woman's mouth...

This thread is reaching a static low.

There s no benefit in ingesting fluoride at all. If you want fluoride so badly make a drug.

Jimoslimos

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Now that's a red herring right there. if this topic wasn't so serious and concerning I'd probably laugh my off at these comments. You're starting to sound almost like a politician now. You know it's to sound a lot like Condellizza Rice trying to defend Invading Iraq, when you know the minute she opened her mouth all can hear in your head, God can someone please put a sock in that woman's mouth...

This thread is reaching a static low.

Hehe! Attacking the few individuals who actually support your cause. Methinks you're here for one reason (nothing to do with fluoridation)

policarp

It still makes me laugh.
Treating water, and most of it is flushed down the pan.
Why bother?

Aquarius34

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Hehe! Attacking the few individuals who actually support your cause. Methinks you're here for one reason (nothing to do with fluoridation)

Oh wouldn't you be so hopeful:rolleyes:

I didn't attack the poster, I explained the red herring in that post. I'm not here for a popularity contest. This is matter of about the health of our nations people. I am not here for a vote or get something out of this, other than justice to prevail.

jma

Aquarius34 wrote: »

There s no benefit in ingesting fluoride at all. If you want fluoride so badly make a drug.

I'm saying, just because something has benefits, doesn't make it safe. Neither does a lack of studies, imo. Fluoridation is a very unique case, though, because of the ethics involved. With most things, we have a choice; here, the government / HSE is making it for us.

Bears and Vodka

Disappointed nobody understood my reference to famous Gladys Ryan water fluoridation case back in the 60s