Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??

Lawyer.02

Ireland has massive amounts of Fluoride in the water.
It's in our toothpaste.

I cant get my head around the fact that if its so terrible for us, then why and what is it doing in our water. Some countries have it banned (!)

I've watched documentarys on it. Read research on it.
It doesn't sound like something that should consumed - Obviously.

The idea that it's making us Docile, Passive and Susceptible though (?)
Interested to hear other peoples opinion and thoughts on it...

weisses

So docile and passive that we don't even look if there is already a thread on the subject ........ shocking stuff that fluoride :rolleyes:

Alun

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

I've watched documentarys on it. Read research on it.

But only the ones that agree with your already preconceived position on the subject I'll bet.

weisses

Alun wrote: »

But only the ones that agree with your already preconceived position on the subject I'll bet.

I think that position is taken on both sides of the debate ...

Lawyer.02

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

Some countries have it banned (!)

This is an untrue exaggeration spread by anti-fluoridation campaigners.
There is no country where it is "banned".
There are many where they do not fluoridate water, but instead fluoridate salt and milk for example.

Why do you believe that it is banned in some countries?

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

The idea that it's making us Docile, Passive and Susceptible though (?)
Interested to hear other peoples opinion and thoughts on it...

There is no evidence for this at all.
The wackier anti-fluoridation campaigners claim this sometimes, and ironically it gets repeated uncritically a lot.

Here is a good primer on the issue that doesn't resort to sensationalism:
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058

ScumLord

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

I've watched documentarys on it. Read research on it.

You've researched and watched all the wrong documentaries.

Lawyer.02

weisses wrote: »

So docile and passive that we don't even look if there is already a thread on the subject ........ shocking stuff that fluoride :rolleyes:

I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to put you out. The question came to me and i rushed to type it up ask as i was on my way out the door. Next time ill wait till i have the time to check to see if my question has been asked before i type a question.
Thankyou.

jh79

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

The idea that it's making us Docile, Passive and Susceptible though (?)
Interested to hear other peoples opinion and thoughts on it...

What evidence is there that it makes us docile?

Can you explain the mechanism by which fluoride is meant to makes us docile?

Lawyer.02

Alun wrote: »

But only the ones that agree with your already preconceived position on the subject I'll bet.

No i've looked on both sides, I find it mind boggling that people have taken it this far and they have done research on it and made documentary's talking about it.

I think that if this were the case it wouldn't be allowed. I dont believe it does this.

So how do they get to this point, is there any truth. I was wondering what others thought about this.

As in. Do you believe it? Dont you believe it?

Lawyer.02

ScumLord wrote: »

You've researched and watched all the wrong documentaries.

Ive watched them from both sides. The latest one i watched just came across as bizaree. It got into Hitler using it in camps etc..

ScumLord

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

No i've looked on both sides, I find it mind boggling that people have taken it this far and they have done research on it and made documentary's talking about it.

The conspiracy market is a big earner these days. They'll make a documentary about anything these days.

The Fluoride one was put to bed definitively this year by the Australians. There is no science to back up the fluoride conspiracy.

weisses

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

I'm sorry.
I didn't mean to put you out. The question came to me and i rushed to type it up ask as i was on my way out the door. Next time ill wait till i have the time to check to see if my question has been asked before i type a question.
Thankyou.

Not a bother at all ..... Only we discussed this at great lengths with some very interesting viewpoints

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

This is an untrue exaggeration spread by anti-fluoridation campaigners.
There is no country where it is "banned".

There is ... You know it, we discussed this at length with the court papers to show it was factually banned in the Netherlands

RGDATA!

Lawyer.02 wrote: »

Some countries have it banned (!)

I don't think this is true. Are you sure?

juno10353

According to wikipedia
Water fluoridation is used in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, and a handful of other countries. The following nations previously fluoridated their water, but stopped the practice, with the years when water fluoridation started and stopped in parentheses:

Federal Republic of Germany (1952–1971)
Sweden (1952–1971)
Netherlands (1953–1976)
Czechoslovakia (1955–1990)
German Democratic Republic (1959–1990)
Soviet Union (1960–1990)
Finland (1959–1993)
Japan (1952–1972)[77]
Israel (1981–2014) *Mandatory by law since 2002.[78][7

looksee

There is more fluoride in tea than there is in water.

weisses

looksee wrote: »

There is more fluoride in tea than there is in water.

Even more reason for Ireland as a tea drinking nation to review their policy

weisses

weisses wrote: »

There is ... You know it, we discussed this at length with the court papers to show it was factually banned in the Netherlands

No, that was not what was shown.
What you showed was a letter promoted by an anti-fluoride site with ambiguous wording.

What you did not show were "court papers" or a law that could be pointed to that showed it was illegal or otherwise banned.

So it is not factually banned in the Netherlands, nor anywhere else, contrary to the claim.

Could you clarify if you believe there is anything to the claims that fluoride can be used to make people docile etc?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No, that was not what was shown.
What you showed was a letter promoted by an anti-fluoride site with ambiguous wording.

What you did not show were "court papers" or a law that could be pointed to that showed it was illegal or otherwise banned.

So it is not factually banned in the Netherlands, nor anywhere else, contrary to the claim.

Could you clarify if you believe there is anything to the claims that fluoride can be used to make people docile etc?

Nope your wrong again ... I showed you the copied high court ruling stating fluoridation should be discontinued in places were it was already implemented .. Effectively banning it from being used ...

For the rest you know my stance on fluoridation ... If not I suggest you do some reading up

weisses

First, before I address the rest of this:
It being "effectively" banned in one country is not the same as being banned in several countries (or "all over Europe" as some claim.) So again, the claim is an untrue exaggeration at absolute best.
Do you agree?
If not, in what other countries is it banned?

weisses wrote: »

Nope your wrong again ... I showed you the copied high court ruling stating fluoridation should be discontinued in places were it was already implemented .. Effectively banning it from being used ...

Well no, that's not what it was at all.
It was not a high court ruling, nor was it quoting from a high court ruling. If it was, that's what anti-fluordiationists would be pointing to, not what is actually held up as the best evidence for the claim.
What was actually posted was a letter from an official (a judge I believe) that had ambiguous language at best but did not say it was banned.
It being "discontinued" does not mean it's banned, effectively or otherwise.
A judge saying it "should be discontinued" (which AFAIR it does not say at all) does not mean it's banned.

And this is before we bring up the validity of it. It was posted from some anti-fluoridation website, so even if the letter is real and actually from a judge in the Netherlands, it still could have been "creatively" translated.
None of which I would put past people who make up and spread lies like fluoride being used by the Nazis.

So again, if it is actually banned anywhere, then it would be a trivial matter to find the legislation that actually bans it and point that out. There would be no need to rely on random letters. Yet, the people who make that claim can't seem to do that. Can you suggest why that might be?
Can you point to any of the legislation that bans fluoridation in any country?

weisses wrote: »

For the rest you know my stance on fluoridation ... If not I suggest you do some reading up

No I don't. You seem to flip from very very strict standards of evidence when someone posts something in support of the effectiveness or safety of it, but when some repeats an anti-fluoridation lie, you fall very silent and seem ok with that.

So could you be clear and state whether or not you believe the idea that it can be used to make people docile?

juno10353

Via wikipedia

Outside North America, water fluoridation was adopted in some European countries, but in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Denmark and Sweden banned fluoridation when government panels found insufficient evidence of safety, and the Netherlands banned water fluoridation when "a group of medical practitioners presented evidence" that it caused negative effects in a percentage of the population.

juno10353

juno10353 wrote: »

Via wikipedia

Outside North America, water fluoridation was adopted in some European countries, but in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Denmark and Sweden banned fluoridation when government panels found insufficient evidence of safety, and the Netherlands banned water fluoridation when "a group of medical practitioners presented evidence" that it caused negative effects in a percentage of the population.

Great, can you post the legislation or otherwise official statements that confirms this?
The evidence of those negative effects would be nice also.

SeantheMan

juno10353 wrote: »

Via wikipedia

Outside North America, water fluoridation was adopted in some European countries, but in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Denmark and Sweden banned fluoridation when government panels found insufficient evidence of safety, and the Netherlands banned water fluoridation when "a group of medical practitioners presented evidence" that it caused negative effects in a percentage of the population.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia ....

America has fluoride in it's water, do they seem like a docile group of people ?

joe swanson

Really, has all the actual and real evidence by actual real scientists not debunked this rubbish by now?

How are people so gullible to believe this still? It astonishes me.


Or maybe I'm just a shill for big toothpaste.

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Nope your wrong again ... I showed you the copied high court ruling stating fluoridation should be discontinued in places were it was already implemented .. Effectively banning it from being used ...

Never really understood the significance of this argument but this is what i found;


"Fluoridation in the Netherlands was proceeding under a 1961 Water Supply Act. Opponents of fluoridation challenged the right of the Minister to authorize fluoridation under the Act, and in 1973 the High Court ruled that fluoridation was not covered by this specific Act.

Subsequently, the Public Health Minister prepared a national fluoridation bill to be presented to Parliament. The Minister was unsuccessful in his attempt to secure the passage of the bill in 1976."

So it is not banned ie there is no specific law stating fluoridation isn't allowed.

jh79

jh79 wrote: »

Never really understood the significance of this argument but this is what i found;

Anti-fluoridationists often claim stuff along the lines of "it's banned in 95% of Europe". The implication of that being that Europe is more aware of the dangers of fluoridation. And because neither of those things are true, they need to find anything at all to back it up, regardless of how flimsy.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

First, before I address the rest of this:
It being "effectively" banned in one country is not the same as being banned in several countries (or "all over Europe" as some claim.) So again, the claim is an untrue exaggeration at absolute best.
Do you agree?
If not, in what other countries is it banned?

I agree its not banned all over Europe, something I never suggested in the first place ..... It is also not the same as being not banned at all (which what you are suggesting by stating

So it is not factually banned in the Netherlands, nor anywhere else, contrary to the claim.

It is

You actually claimed to have debunked the whole thing ... 3 years later and we still didnt see how you managed to do that

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85831785&postcount=794

King Mob wrote: »

Well no, that's not what it was at all.
It was not a high court ruling, nor was it quoting from a high court ruling. If it was, that's what anti-fluordiationists would be pointing to, not what is actually held up as the best evidence for the claim.
What was actually posted was a letter from an official (a judge I believe) that had ambiguous language at best but did not say it was banned.
It being "discontinued" does not mean it's banned, effectively or otherwise.
A judge saying it "should be discontinued" (which AFAIR it does not say at all) does not mean it's banned.

And this is before we bring up the validity of it. It was posted from some anti-fluoridation website, so even if the letter is real and actually from a judge in the Netherlands, it still could have been "creatively" translated.
None of which I would put past people who make up and spread lies like fluoride being used by the Nazis.

Again the relevant info

From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn.”
SOURCE: Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000.

Letter

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

King Mob wrote: »

So again, if it is actually banned anywhere, then it would be a trivial matter to find the legislation that actually bans it and point that out. There would be no need to rely on random letters. Yet, the people who make that claim can't seem to do that. Can you suggest why that might be?
Can you point to any of the legislation that bans fluoridation in any country?

If there is no legal basis to add it to the drinking water fluoride cannot be added to the drinking water without consequences for the body adding it

King Mob wrote: »

No I don't. You seem to flip from very very strict standards of evidence when someone posts something in support of the effectiveness or safety of it, but when some repeats an anti-fluoridation lie, you fall very silent and seem ok with that.

So could you be clear and state whether or not you believe the idea that it can be used to make people docile?

With 97 percent of the studies not good enough for Cochrane who knows what will come out if its properly researched ...

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I agree its not banned all over Europe, something I never suggested in the first place ..... It is also not the same as being not banned at all (which what you are suggesting by stating

So which countries do you think it is banned in?
Just the Netherlands?

weisses wrote: »

It is

If there is no legal basis to add it to the drinking water fluoride cannot be added to the drinking water without consequences for the body adding it

"Having no legal basis" is not "banned".
jh79 explains this to you very clearly. I have explained this to you before.

If it is banned, please point to the legislation that specifically bans it. Otherwise, my point stands because if there is no legislation banning it: then it's not banned!
At best, fluoridation opponents are exaggerating, if not outright lying.

weisses wrote: »

With 97 percent of the studies not good enough for Cochrane who knows what will come out if its properly researched ...

Evading the question.
Is the claim that fluoride can be used to make people docile supported by any evidence? Yes or no?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

With 97 percent of the studies not good enough for Cochrane who knows what will come out if its properly researched ...

The studies that did not meet the High Criteria on the Grade framework are still of sufficient quality to be a good indicator of the likely result and they point towards fluoridation being effective.

Just to give a specific example one study was rejected because it had a time span of 3 years instead of 5. Now how likely is it that after 2 extra years a complete drop in effectiveness to 0% would be observed?

If Grandjean or Mullinex came out with a study showing IQ drop over 3 years instead of 5 would you dismiss the study as totally worthless? Or would you see it as an indicator of a serious adverse effect and see it as a justification for a more comprehensive study??

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

The studies that did not meet the High Criteria on the Grade framework are still of sufficient quality to be a good indicator of the likely result and they point towards fluoridation being effective.

Just to give a specific example one study was rejected because it had a time span of 3 years instead of 5. Now how likely is it that after 2 extra years a complete drop in effectiveness to 0% would be observed?

If Grandjean or Mullinex came out with a study showing IQ drop over 3 years instead of 5 would you dismiss the study as totally worthless? Or would you see it as an indicator of a serious adverse effect and see it as a justification for a more comprehensive study??

Doesn't matter.... the studies didn't make it ...

I thought all the studies in favor of fluoridation were supposed to be comprehensive ... Now not it seems

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Doesn't matter.... the studies didn't make it ...

I thought all the studies in favor of fluoridation were supposed to be comprehensive ... Now not it seems

So you're rejecting all studies that do not match the criteria set by the Cochrane review?

Grand so, seeing as the only evidence you will accept states Flouridation to be effective in children and there are no studies meeting the same standards showing adverse effects what exactly is your opposition to fluorodation based on?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So which countries do you think it is banned in?
Just the Netherlands?


"Having no legal basis" is not "banned".
jh79 explains this to you very clearly. I have explained this to you before.

The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis

If it is banned, please point to the legislation that specifically bans it. Otherwise, my point stands because if there is no legislation banning it: then it's not banned!
At best, fluoridation opponents are exaggerating, if not outright lying.

This is what the EU says

The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis

Does fluoridation have a legal basis in the Netherlands ?

It didnt in the Netherlands and so the various CC who implemented it already where told to stop using Fluoride effectively banning the use

Its so simples

King Mob wrote: »

Evading the question.
Is the claim that fluoride can be used to make people docile supported by any evidence? Yes or no?

Was it properly researched ? otherwise saying yes or no doesnt mean anything

Advbrd

Now I know where I went wrong.
The kids have gone nuts since we moved out to the country.
I must start adding fluoride to the well to keep the ba$tdards quiet.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

This is what the EU says

Where does it say this? In what context?
Is this the best you have to show "no legal basis" = "banned"? If so, you'll need to try a bit harder...

weisses wrote: »

Does fluoridation have a legal basis in the Netherlands ?

Assuming the letter is real and accurately translated, which I have doubts about still, then yes.
However, your bizarre interpretation of what that means is not correct. This has been explained to you.

weisses wrote: »

It didnt in the Netherlands and so the various CC who implemented it already where told to stop using Fluoride effectively banning the use

Its so simples

Why do you keep saying "effectively" banned?
Is that different from actually banned?

Again, if there is no legislation that bans it, then it is not banned.

weisses wrote: »

Was it properly researched ? otherwise saying yes or no doesnt mean anything

Again evaded.
Anti-fluoridationists claim positively that fluoride can be used to make people docile. Im asking if you believe that this is supported by evidence.

If you were fairly applying your strict standards of evidence, then the answer would be a very strong "no" since there is no evidence to support it at all.

So again, you seem fine with your camp spreading abject lies as long as they're opposing fluoridation.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Where does it say this? In what context?
Is this the best you have to show "no legal basis" = "banned"? If so, you'll need to try a bit harder...


Assuming the letter is real and accurately translated, which I have doubts about still, then yes.
However, your bizarre interpretation of what that means is not correct. This has been explained to you.


Why do you keep saying "effectively" banned?
Is that different from actually banned?

Again, if there is no legislation that bans it, then it is not banned.



Again evaded.
Anti-fluoridationists claim positively that fluoride can be used to make people docile. Im asking if you believe that this is supported by evidence.

If you were fairly applying your strict standards of evidence, then the answer would be a very strong "no" since there is no evidence to support it at all.

So again, you seem fine with your camp spreading abject lies as long as they're opposing fluoridation.

I think its pretty obvious it got banned ...due to the fact it was in use and there was no further legal basis for continuation

You even said the banned myth was debunked .... that is 3 years ago and you still posted nothing noteworthy that support that view

General principle of European Union law[edit]
The concept of legal certainty has been recognised as one of the general principles of European Union law by the European Court of Justice since the 1960s.[3] It is an important general principle of international law and public law, which predates European Union law. As a general principle in European Union law, it means that the law must be certain, in that it is clear and precise, and its legal implications foreseeable, especially when applied to financial obligations. The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis. Legislation in member states which implements European Union law must be worded so that it is clearly understandable by those who are subject to the law.

Was fluoridation implemented ? ..yes ... Can you fluoridate the water supply in The Netherlands now ? No ... Why not ?.. It was found that there was No legal basis for its use ... Are CC's banned from implementing fluoridation? ... Yes

I cannot make it any clearer for you

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think its pretty obvious it got banned ...due to the fact it was in use and there was no further legal basis for continuation

You even said the banned myth was debunked .... that is 3 years ago and you still posted nothing noteworthy that support that view



Was fluoridation implemented ? ..yes ... Can you fluoridate the water supply in The Netherlands now ? No ... Why not ?.. It was found that there was No legal basis for its use ... Are CC's banned from implementing fluoridation? ... Yes

I cannot make it any clearer for you

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

I asked in the Legal Discussion forum hopefully someone replies.

Bongalongherb

It seems like the AMA in the past never done any research into fluoride according to their old letter below. And Germany 'a drinking water fluoridation experiment' they said. The AMA even back then just added it when they themselves said no research was ever done into the side-effects of it.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I think its pretty obvious it got banned ...due to the fact it was in use and there was no further legal basis for continuation

These two things are not the same.

weisses wrote: »

You even said the banned myth was debunked .... that is 3 years ago and you still posted nothing noteworthy that support that view

The myth was that Fluoride is banned in 95% of Europe.
This is debunked.

The current myth is that it is banned in "some countries".
(Even if your arguments held) One country does not equal "some".
Again, the myth is debunked.

You already agree with those things.

General principle of European Union law[edit]
The concept of legal certainty has been recognised as one of the general principles of European Union law by the European Court of Justice since the 1960s.[3] It is an important general principle of international law and public law, which predates European Union law. As a general principle in European Union law, it means that the law must be certain, in that it is clear and precise, and its legal implications foreseeable, especially when applied to financial obligations. The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis. Legislation in member states which implements European Union law must be worded so that it is clearly understandable by those who are subject to the law.

Ok, putting aside the relevance of this and how it doesn't support "no legal basis meaning banned", it seems that this is shooting you in your own foot.

How can something be banned if there is no law banning it?
Because according to this, for something to have a legal effect, there must me a law.
Are you arguing that the ban has no legal effect?

weisses wrote: »

Was fluoridation implemented ? ..yes ... Can you fluoridate the water supply in The Netherlands now ? No ... Why not ?.. It was found that there was No legal basis for its use ... Are CC's banned from implementing fluoridation? ... Yes

I cannot make it any clearer for you

Here's another example:
The Irish Air Corp used to have jet fighters.
They don't now.
There is no legal basis for them to have jet fighters (ie. there is nothing requiring that they must have them.)
Therefore: Jet fighters are banned in Ireland.

Which part of that do you disagree with?
Or is "Jet fighters are banned in Ireland" a true statement?

weisses wrote: »

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

Yet, then don't want to seem to focus on these issues and would rather make up lies.
Something you again seem ok with just as long as the lies are for a good cause...

weisses wrote: »

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

It's more telling that you have trouble answering a yes or no question.
But it seems like you don't believe that there is any evidence supporting the claim that it makes people docile.
I don't understand what's so hard about saying that.

jh79

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057663764/1/#post101476190

From the legal discussion forum

Advbrd

weisses wrote: »

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

Well.... going by this thread, you do not appear to be "docile and passive" so I would have to say that the heading is nonsense.

jh79

So it's not banned in Holland in the legal sense according to those in the legal forum.

Getting back to the OP what is the evidence that it makes us docile and what is the supposed science behind it?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So it's not banned in Holland in the legal sense according to those in the legal forum.

Getting back to the OP what is the evidence that it makes us docile and what is the supposed science behind it?

officially or legally prohibited then ?

endacl

weisses wrote: »

So docile and passive that we don't even look if there is already a thread on the subject ........ shocking stuff that fluoride :rolleyes:

Circular paranoia.

Those who think flouride makes people docile avoid it. They refute all evidence provided by clever folks who actually know about stuff, and are therefore 'not docile'. Those who pay no heed to the daft conspiracy are, by definition, 'docile'. From the point of view of the conspiracist, common sense on the part of people who know there to be no issue with flouridization is proof that the theory is true.

There's no reasoning with circular paranoia. I'm obviously 'docile', but I've grand healthy teeth.

weisses

Advbrd wrote: »

Well.... going by this thread, you do not appear to be "docile and passive" so I would have to say that the heading is nonsense.

That is proof my tin-foil hat is working

jh79

weisses wrote: »

officially or legally prohibited then ?

It's not banned according to those in the legal forum. That's what's incorrectly claimed by Fluoride Alert et al.

If the Dutch want fluoridation they easily can introduce it by passing a bill in parliament and there are no legal hurdles preventing that.

If it was banned they would have change the law.

Now that you require robust scientific evidence do you now reject any association between fluoridation and IQ , cancer etc?

Do you now reject alternative medicine and herbal remedies and the like ?

endacl

weisses wrote: »

That is proof my tin-foil hat is working

Tinfoil causes aliens, dude. Careful now...

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It's not banned according to those in the legal forum. That's what's incorrectly claimed by Fluoride Alert et al.

If the Dutch want fluoridation they easily can introduce it by passing a bill in parliament and there are no legal hurdles preventing that.

If it was banned they would have change the law.

Now that you require robust scientific evidence do you now reject any association between fluoridation and IQ , cancer etc?

Do you now reject alternative medicine and herbal remedies and the like ?

No they cannot

the fundamental social right Article 11 was added in the constitution in 1983.

Basically outlining that fluoride cannot be added to respect the inviolability of the human body

Article 11 was specially drafted because of the fluoride debate

weisses

endacl wrote: »

Tinfoil causes aliens, dude. Careful now...

Passed that .... I'm blinking sideways now

weisses

weisses wrote: »

No they cannot

the fundamental social right Article 11 was added in the constitution in 1983.

Basically outlining that fluoride cannot be added to respect the inviolability of the human body

Are you still arguing that it's banned even though it's been shown not to be the case?

What's the difference between "Banned" and "officially or legally prohibited"?
Are you arguing they mean the same thing?

Why do anti-fluoridations claim it is banned (in the Netherlands as well as other countries)?

weisses wrote: »

Article 11 was specially drafted because of the fluoride debate

Source for this?
The article in question does not mention anything about fluoride. Neither does the judge in his letter. You'd think if that claim is the case, then he would have explained that in the request of information...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What's the difference between "Banned" and "officially or legally prohibited"?
Are you arguing they mean the same thing?

Well if you google definition of banned that comes up

King Mob wrote: »

Source for this?
The article in question does not mention anything about fluoride. Neither does the judge in his letter. You'd think if that claim is the case, then he would have explained that in the request of information...

http://www.dentalinfo.nl/kennis/waarom-er-geen-fluoride-in-ons-drinkwater-zit/

Onaantastbaarheid
Als afsluiting van de discussie over de drinkwaterfluoridering werd in 1983 het sociale grondrecht artikel 11 opgenomen in de constitutie. Dit artikel stelde dat eenieder het recht heeft, behoudens bij of krachtens de wet te stellen beperkingen, op de onaantastbaarheid van zijn lichaam. De jurisprudentie van de Raad van State en de Hoge Raad uit de jaren zestig en zeventig over de drinkwaterfluoridering lag hieraan ten grondslag.

En zo komt het dat wij na 1976 geen extra fluoride in het water meer hebben ter voorkoming van cariës en dat het onwaarschijnlijk is dat eventuele fluorideverhogingen in het drinkwater ooit nog door de Nederlandse overheid zullen worden uitgevoerd.

In dutch ... google translate will help you a long way

jh79

weisses wrote: »

No they cannot

the fundamental social right Article 11 was added in the constitution in 1983.

Basically outlining that fluoride cannot be added to respect the inviolability of the human body

Article 11 was specially drafted because of the fluoride debate

Not particularly bothered if this is truely the case doesn't change the science behind it.

Want to discuss your new found standards when it comes to scientific research and how it impacts your previous beliefs regarding fluoride and IQ or natural remedies and so called alt medicine?