dudemanbro
Community Member
- MBTI
- INFJ IEI-Ni
- Enneagram
- 4w5 sp/sx
[video=youtube;lj6Z9UyH8Ms]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj6Z9UyH8Ms[/video]
Why do people believe conspiracy theories?
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
Like i've told you before you DO NOT SPEAK FOR SCIENCE
The CDC post skewed research...watch the congressional hearings in that documentary where the regulator is forced to admit that they have done NO TESTING ON THE EFFECTS OF THIMEROSOL ON HUMANS (they rely on a test done by a drug company in the 1920's using a small sample group of people with terminal deisease and because they all died of the disease they concluded that it wasn't the thimerosol that killed them!)
I posted scientific studies but you seem oblivious to these which suggests to me that you did not read them, which is totally unreasonable of you
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
lol
SUBMISSIVE OBEDIANT SYNDROME! AAhahahahahaha!
YES that's perfect!
Everytime a person tries to brand a truth teller as 'crazy' or a 'paranoid schizophrenic' or 'emotionally stunted' or 'oppositional defiant disorder' we (the people who don't have our heads buried up our schving schvings) should say to them that they simply have SUBMISSIVE OBEDIANT SYNDROME (SOS) and are in desperate need of some medicating!
I will prescribe them HEAVY doses of the holy plant of marijuana to help them open up their 5th circuit on Dr learys 8 circuit of consciousness lol
SOS!
This is an intergalactic SOS signal
The human race is suffering from mass psychosis...please send us help!
Is there any intelligent life out there? More to the point is there any intelligent life down here?
Last edited:
- MBTI
- ISTJ
- Enneagram
- 9w1
This seems like a lot of words to ultimately say: Yes some of it was true, but not all of it because I dont want it to be true. Proof: the world didn't end.
Last edited:
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
Sorry I didn't do this yesterday [MENTION=731]the[/MENTION], I had family and friends over swimming, and I was exhausted after, so I just decided to do this today. Now I will point out a FEW of the several flaws I saw in this article designed to manipulate a persons perspective with misinformation or conveniently left out facts. It would take hours to pick apart a reading this long, and I don't want to do that anymore. It's not fun.
Most of my comments will be what I thought as I read through it again. Because of this, some of my questions might be answered later in the article, before I post I'll check that, but it doesn't mean I'll answer every single point. I'll start from the top.
I hope I proved my point that I was not exaggerating the faults I saw in this article. When you run the actual numbers instead of just saying, "oh look at all these things that have fluoride in them, and drinking water just puts you over the top!" you see that the added effect of fluoridated water is SAFE. NOT some conspiracy to kill us all. Fluoridated water can't even kill us according to the evidence presented in this article.
Most of my comments will be what I thought as I read through it again. Because of this, some of my questions might be answered later in the article, before I post I'll check that, but it doesn't mean I'll answer every single point. I'll start from the top.
Questionable statement. Obviously a biased article just by this opening statement. However this is not enough to dismiss the article, after all that is hardly evidence.
Ok, now the study they are talking about here was hard to find and dang near impossible to find what they mean by "high concentrations". I found it though. Finally got to the original article after half an hour of searching....Here is a quote from the original article:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ As you can see, this study is based on results substantially higher than what is present in our drinking water. That is said right in the study. But this article conveniently left that part out.
If you read their source here, this study is based on topical fluoride used by dentists. It says nothing as to the effects of fluoride in the water. The fluoride treatments used by dentists are considerably higher concentration (leading to higher levels in the blood as compared to the lower concentrations in the water). Whats funny is this study says that concentrations of 4.75 ppm of fluoride are shown to effect sperm effectiveness. The topical fluoride treatment used by dentists (according to this study) raises blood concentrations of the fluoride up to 1.2 ppm (a fourth of what the study proved an effect on). Also, the maximum containment level goal of fluoride in our drinking water is 4 ppm, but you need to remember that the concentrations in the water will be considerably greater than the concentrations in the blood after ingestion. For example, the topical fluoride gels the dentists use is at concentrations of 12,300 ppm (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/dental-products/gels/) which leads to a concentration of 1.2 ppm in the blood. It takes a 4.75 ppm to effect sperm count. Now, if it takes 12,300 ppm to create a 1.2 ppm effect in the blood, what do you think ingestion of 4ppm of fluoride in drinking water will do? Litterally, that's a 3000 times greater concentrations, and even that is only a fourth of the needed concentration to effect sperm. Again, the article here conveniently leaves out this considerable difference in the numbers.
This is a bunch of dangerous sounding words without any talk of the concentrations. As previously shown, it takes many orders of magnitude greater of concentrations for it to effect humans. Sure, if you pore fluoride on your skin, it will burn ya. But 4ppm (the maximum in our water) is such a small concentration.
says nothing to the effect of fluoridation. Looks like they listed there supposed "proofs" of the dangers of fluoride in the water, and are now talking about how "a lot" of people (so they say) are moving to remove fluoridation. This makes it seem like a good idea for us to agree because they have experts saying the same thing. This is just manipulative word play to get a person to agree with them, even though their "evidence" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
This seems to me to just be a political play by the Israeli government to gain support. Unless this article can put up some evidence to the toxicity of fluoride in drinking water at concentrations no greater than 4 ppm, it should be very clear that fluoride in drinking water is NOT dangerous. I will skip ahead to any supposed evidence of the dangers of fluoride. I will comment no more on the manipulative word choices of this article.
Many things can be toxic, it depends on the concentrations. Even water can kill you. Takes a LOT of water, but it can. I couldn't find a source as to the concentration of sodium fluoride that is poison to rats.
I would be very interested to see where they got such a statistic, but unfortunately there is no source....How convenient.
What? Where did this come from. As mentioned before, their own source listed that a topical gel of concentration of 12,300 ppm leads to levels of 1.2 ppm in the blood (which is what causes the problems), and it wasn't until the blood reaches concentrations of 4.75 ppm that it causes problems. Sorry, but 4 ppm in drinking water as compared to 12,300 ppm in a topical gel has a 12,296 point difference. Sure, its a different medium, so lets just say 10,000 points (rounding down). That seems quite a safety net. The only thing I could see needing to be tested for safety is to check average fluoride levels in peoples blood that drinking treated water to 100% prove my hypothesis. However, a 10,000 ppm difference in concentration is very considerable, no matter the medium.
I'm not going to look it up, but my question here is how long does it take the body to process and filter out fluoride. Considering how little fluoride would make it into the blood at such minimal concentrations, I would say it is probably safe, but you would need to measure how much fluoride gets into the blood from drinking water, and then how long it takes for that amount of fluoride to be filtered. But again, these concentrations are so minimal.
WOW! Oh my goodness. That is so dramatic. Seriously? Water levels are max at 4 ppm because they know people drink a lot of water. They compensated for that. You get those dental treatments maybe twice a year. You drink water daily. According to that earlier study, the body filters out the fluoride from the dental gel within a day. It's not something that is cumulative, well unless you constantly ingest large dosages, then I think it can deposit in the bones. But that is large dosages, and only part of that will deposit in the bones. I don't know the numbers. However we are talking concentrations on the order of tens of thousands greater than present in water. In this case, just test the average fluoride levels in the blood for people, and you will see whether or not its a problem. However, again, we are talking concentrations that are considerably different.
Additional fluoride? Seriously? a difference of 2 ppm is almost nothing when you consider all of the filtration the body does.
1500 Micrograms per what? ppm is a relation of some substance as contained within a set amount of another substance. This just says there's 1500 micrograms of fluoride in peas. How many peas? A cup? An ounce? A pound? Makes a huge difference.
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Before I talk about this though, this consideration is not the point of this discussion. We are talking about the safety of fluoride in the water. Safety of fluoride in toothpaste is something else. Now. 1000 ppm of fluoride at 0.5 mg of fluoride is equal to (ppm=micrograms/gram) 1 microgram/mg = 0.5 microgram in this sample. Now, 1 cup of water has about 236 grams of water (assuming room temperature). So, if you had this amount of fluoride in 1 cup of water, it would be equal to about 0.00212 ppm. It is actually considerably less fluoride as compared to drinking a cup of water. So, if you now convert that to a ppm approximately equal to normal fluoridated drinking water, it is equal to 2.3 grams of drinking water. That's about the size of the last joint on your pinky finger of fluoridated drinking water. So, brushing your teeth is equal to just wetting your tongue with water. Variations on that scale are next to nothing.
He raises a few good points of things that need testing, but considering the concentrations we are dealing with, this is hardly reason enough to suspend fluoridation of water based on supposed dangers. This is all conjecture, not evidence to dangers. I'm going to stop here. I'm about half way through I think, and this has taken about two and a half hours.
What happens when fluoride intake exceeds the optimal? The inescapable fact is that this substance has been associated with severe health problems, ranging from skeletal and dental fluorosis to bone fractures, to fluoride poisoning, and even to cancer.
Skeletal Fluorosis
When fluoride is ingested, approximately 93% of it is absorbed into the bloodstream. A good part of the material is excreted, but the rest is deposited in the bones and teeth, and is capable of causing a crippling skeletal fluorosis. This is a condition that can damage the musculoskeletal and nervous systems and result in muscle wasting, limited joint motion, spine deformities, and calcification of the ligaments, as well as neurological deficits.
Large numbers of people in Japan, China, India, the Middle East, and Africa have been diagnosed with skeletal fluorosis from drinking naturally fluoridated water. In India alone, nearly a million people suffer from the affliction.[SUP] [/SUP][SUP]39[/SUP] While only a dozen cases of skeletal fluorosis have been reported in the United States, Chemical and Engineering News states that “critics of the EPA standard speculate that there probably have been many more cases of fluorosis – even crippling fluorosis – than the few reported in the literature because most doctors in the U.S. have not studied the disease and do not know how to diagnose it.” [50]
Radiologic changes in bone occur when fluoride exposure is 5 mg/day, according to the late Dr. George Waldbott, author of Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. While this 5 mg/day level is the amount of fluoride ingested by most people living in fluoridated areas,[SUP] [51][/SUP] the number increases for diabetics and laborers, who can ingest up to 20 mg of fluoride daily. In addition, a survey conducted by the Department of Agriculture shows that 3% of the U.S. population drinks 4 liters or more of water every day. If these individuals live in areas where the water contains a fluoride level of 4 ppm, allowed by the EPA, they are ingesting 16 mg/day from the consumption of water alone, and are thus at greater risk for getting skeletal fluorosis. [52]
Dental Fluorosis
According to a 1989 National Institute for Dental Research study, 1-2% of children living in areas fluoridated at 1 ppm develop dental fluorosis, that is, permanently stained, brown mottled teeth. Up to 23% of children living in areas naturally fluoridated at 4 ppm develop severe dental fluorosis.[SUP] [53][/SUP] Other research gives higher figures. The publication Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, put out by the National Academy of Sciences, reports that in areas with optimally fluoridated water (1 ppm, either natural or added), dental fluorosis levels in recent years ranged from 8 to 51%. Recently, a prevalence of slightly over 80% was reported in children 12-14 years old in Augusta, Georgia.
Fluoride is a noteworthy chemical additive in that its officially acknowledged benefit and damage levels are about the same. Writing in The Progressive, science journalist Daniel Grossman elucidates this point:
“Though many beneficial chemicals are dangerous when consumed at excessive levels, fluoride is unique because the amount that dentists recommend to prevent cavities is about the same as the amount that causes dental fluorosis.”[SUP] [54][/SUP]Although the American Dental Association and the government consider dental fluorosis only a cosmetic problem, the American Journal of Public Health says that “…brittleness of moderately and severely mottled teeth may be associated with elevated caries levels.” [SUP]45[/SUP] In other words, in these cases the fluoride is causing the exact problem that it’s supposed to prevent. Yiamouyiannis adds, “In highly naturally-fluoridated areas, the teeth actually crumble as a result. These are the first visible symptoms of fluoride poisoning.” [55]
Also, when considering dental fluorosis, there are factors beyond the physical that you can’t ignore – the negative psychological effects of having moderately to severely mottled teeth. These were recognized in a 1984 National Institute of Mental Health panel that looked into this problem.[SUP] [/SUP]
A telling trend is that TV commercials for toothpaste, and toothpaste tubes themselves, are now downplaying fluoride content as a virtue. This was noted in an article in the Sarasota/Florida ECO Report,[SUP] [56][/SUP] whose author, George Glasser, feels that manufacturers are distancing themselves from the additive because of fears of lawsuits. The climate is ripe for these, and Glasser points out that such a class action suit has already been filed in England against the manufacturers of fluoride-containing products on behalf of children suffering from dental fluorosis.
Bone Fractures
At one time, fluoride therapy was recommended for building denser bones and preventing fractures associated with osteoporosis. Now several articles in peer-reviewed journals suggest that fluoride actually causes more harm than good, as it is associated with bone breakage. Three studies reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association showed links between hip fractures and fluoride.[SUP] [57][58][59][/SUP] Findings here were, for instance, that there is “a small but significant increase in the risk of hip fractures in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm.” In addition, the New England Journal of Medicine reports that people given fluoride to cure their osteoporosis actually wound up with an increased nonvertebral fracture rate. [60] Austrian researchers have also found that fluoride tablets make bones more susceptible to fractures.[61] The U.S. National Research Council states that the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. [62]
Louis V. Avioli, professor at the Washington University School of Medicine, says in a 1987 review of the subject: “Sodium fluoride therapy is accompanied by so many medical complications and side effects that it is hardly worth exploring in depth as a therapeutic mode for postmenopausal osteoporosis, since it fails to decrease the propensity for hip fractures and increases the incidence of stress fractures in the extremities.”[SUP] [63][/SUP]
Fluoride Poisoning
In May 1992, 260 people were poisoned, and one man died, in Hooper Bay, Alaska, after drinking water contaminated with 150 ppm of fluoride. The accident was attributed to poor equipment and an unqualified operator.[SUP] [/SUP][SUP]55[/SUP] Was this a fluke? Not at all. Over the years, the CDC has recorded several incidents of excessive fluoride permeating the water supply and sickening or killing people. We don’t usually hear about these occurrences in news reports, but interested citizens have learned the truth from data obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. Here is a partial list of toxic spills we have not been told about:
July 1993 – Chicago, Illinois: Three dialysis patients died and five experienced toxic reactions to the fluoridated water used in the treatment process. The CDC was asked to investigate, but to date there have been no press releases.
May 1993 – Kodiak, Alaska (Old Harbor): The population was warned not to consume water due to high fluoride levels. They were also cautioned against boiling the water, since this concentrates the substance and worsens the danger. Although equipment appeared to be functioning normally, 22-24 ppm of fluoride was found in a sample.
July 1992 – Marin County, California: A pump malfunction allowed too much fluoride into the Bon Tempe treatment plant. Two million gallons of fluoridated water were diverted to Phoenix Lake, elevating the lake surface by more than two inches and forcing some water over the spillway.
December 1991 – Benton Harbor, Michigan: A faulty pump allowed approximately 900 gallons of hydrofluosilicic acid to leak into a chemical storage building at the water plant. City engineer Roland Klockow stated, “The concentrated hydrofluosilicic acid was so corrosive that it ate through more than two inches of concrete in the storage building.” This water did not reach water consumers, but fluoridation was stopped until June 1993. The original equipment was only two years old.
July 1991 – Porgate, Michigan: After a fluoride injector pump failed, fluoride levels reached 92 ppm and resulted in approximately 40 children developing abdominal pains, sickness, vomiting, and diarrhea at a school arts and crafts show.
November 1979 – Annapolis, Maryland: One patient died and eight became ill after renal dialysis treatment. Symptoms included cardiac arrest (resuscitated), hypotension, chest pain, difficulty breathing, and a whole gamut of intestinal problems. Patients not on dialysis also reported nausea, headaches, cramps, diarrhea, and dizziness. The fluoride level was later found to be 35 ppm; the problem was traced to a valve at a water plant that had been left open all night.[SUP] [64][/SUP]
Instead of addressing fluoridation’s problematic safety record, officials have chosen to cover it up. For example, the ADA says in one booklet distributed to health agencies that “Fluoride feeders are designed to stop operating when a malfunction occurs… so prolonged over-fluoridation becomes a mechanical impossibility.”[SUP] [/SUP] [SUP] [/SUP] In addition, the information that does reach the population after an accident is woefully inaccurate. A spill in Annapolis, Maryland, placed thousands at risk, but official reports reduced the number to eight. [65] Perhaps officials are afraid they will invite more lawsuits like the one for $480 million by the wife of a dialysis patient who became brain-injured as the result of fluoride poisoning.
Not all fluoride poisoning is accidental. For decades, industry has knowingly released massive quantities of fluoride into the air and water. Disenfranchised communities, with people least able to fight back, are often the victims. Medical writer Joel Griffiths relays this description of what industrial pollution can do, in this case to a devastatingly poisoned Indian reservation:
“Cows crawled around the pasture on their bellies, inching along like giant snails. So crippled by bone disease they could not stand up, this was the only way they could graze. Some died kneeling, after giving birth to stunted calves. Others kept on crawling until, no longer able to chew because their teeth had crumbled down to the nerves, they began to starve….”Mohawks filed suit against the Reynolds Metals Company and the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa) in 1960, but ended up settling out of court, where they received $650,000 for their cows.[SUP] [67][/SUP]
They were the cattle of the Mohawk Indians on the New York-Canadian St. Regis Reservation during the period 1960-1975, when industrial pollution devastated the herd – and along with it, the Mohawks’ way of life….Mohawk children, too, have shown signs of damage to bones and teeth.”[SUP] [66][/SUP]
Fluoride is one of industry’s major pollutants, and no one remains immune to its effects. In 1989, 155,000 tons were being released annually into the air,[SUP] [/SUP] and 500,000 tons a year were disposed of in our lakes, rivers, and oceans. [68][SUP]
[/SUP]
Cancer
Numerous studies demonstrate links between fluoridation and cancer; however, agencies promoting fluoride consistently refute or cover up these findings.
In 1977, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk, former chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, released a study that linked fluoridation to 10,000 cancer deaths per year in the U.S. Their inquiry, which compared cancer deaths in the ten largest fluoridated American cities to those in the ten largest unfluoridated cities between 1940 and 1950, discovered a 5% greater rate in the fluoridated areas.[SUP] [69][/SUP] The NCI disputed these findings, since an earlier analysis of theirs apparently failed to pick up these extra deaths. Federal authorities claimed that Yiamouyiannis and Burk were in error, and that any increase was caused by statistical changes over the years in age, gender, and racial composition. [70]
In order to settle the question of whether or not fluoride is a carcinogen, a Congressional subcommittee instructed the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to perform another investigation.[SUP] [71][/SUP] That study, due in 1980, was not released until 1990. However, in 1986, while the study was delayed, the EPA raised the standard fluoride level in drinking water from 2.4 to 4 ppm. [72] After this step, some of the government’s own employees in NFFE Local 2050 took what the Oakland Tribune termed the “remarkable step of denouncing that action as political.” [73]
When the NTP study results became known in early 1990, union president Dr. Robert Carton, who works in the EPA’s Toxic Substances Division, published a statement. It read, in part: “Four years ago, NFFE Local 2050, which represents all 1100 professionals at EPA headquarters, alerted then Administrator Lee Thomas to the fact that the scientific support documents for the fluoride in drinking water standard were fatally flawed. The fluoride juggernaut proceeded as it apparently had for the last 40 years – without any regard for the facts or concern for public health.
“EPA raised the allowed level of fluoride before the results of the rat/mouse study ordered by Congress in 1977 was complete. Today, we find out how irresponsible that decision was. The results reported by NTP, and explained today by Dr. Yiamouyiannis, are, as he notes, not surprising considering the vast amount of data that caused the animal study to be conducted in the first place. The results are not surprising to NFFE Local 2050 either. Four years ago we realized that the claim that there was no evidence that fluoride could cause genetic effects or cancer could not be supported by the shoddy document thrown together by the EPA contractor.
“It was apparent to us that EPA bowed to political pressure without having done an in-depth, independent analysis, using in-house experts, of the currently existing data that show fluoride causes genetic effects, promotes the growth of cancerous tissue, and is likely to cause cancer in humans. If EPA had done so, it would have been readily apparent – as it was to Congress in 1977 – that there were serious reasons to believe in a cancer threat.
“The behavior by EPA in this affair raises questions about the integrity of science at EPA and the role of professional scientists, lawyers and engineers who provide the interpretation of the available data and the judgements necessary to protect the public health and the environment. Are scientists at EPA there to arrange facts to fit preconceived conclusions? Does the Agency have a responsibility to develop world-class experts in the risks posed by chemicals we are exposed to every day, or is it permissible for EPA to cynically shop around for contractors who will provide them the ‘correct’ answers?”[SUP] [74][/SUP]
What were the NTP study results? Out of 130 male rats that ingested 45 to 79 ppm of fluoride, 5 developed osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. There were cases, in both males and females at those doses, of squamous cell carcinoma in the mouth. [75] Both rats and mice had dose-related fluorosis of the teeth, and female rats suffered osteosclerosis of the long bones.[76]
When Yiamouyiannis analyzed the same data, he found mice with a particularly rare form of liver cancer, known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. This cancer is so rare, according to Yiamouyiannis, that the odds of its appearance in this study by chance are 1 in 2 million in male mice and l in 100,000 in female mice.[SUP] [/SUP] He also found precancerous changes in oral squamous cells, an increase in squamous cell tumors and cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors as a result of increasing levels of fluoride in drinking water. [77]
A March 13, 1990, New York Times article commented on the NTP findings: “Previous animal tests suggesting that water fluoridation might pose risks to humans have been widely discounted as technically flawed, but the latest investigation carefully weeded out sources of experimental or statistical error, many scientists say, and cannot be discounted.”[SUP] [78][/SUP] In the same article, biologist Dr. Edward Groth notes: “The importance of this study…is that it is the first fluoride bioassay giving positive results in which the latest state-of-the-art procedures have been rigorously applied. It has to be taken seriously.” [SUP]71[/SUP]
On February 22, 1990, the Medical Tribune, an international medical news weekly received by 125,000 doctors, offered the opinion of a federal scientist who preferred to remain anonymous:
“It is difficult to see how EPA can fail to regulate fluoride as a carcinogen in light of what NTP has found. Osteosarcomas are an extremely unusual result in rat carcinogenicity tests. Toxicologists tell me that the only other substance that has produced this is radium….The fact that this is a highly atypical form of cancer implicates fluoride as the cause. Also, the osteosarcomas appeared to be dose-related, and did not occur in controls, making it a clean study.”[SUP] [79][/SUP]Public health officials were quick to assure a concerned public that there was nothing to worry about! The ADA said the occurrence of cancers in the lab may not be relevant to humans since the level of fluoridation in the experimental animals’ water was so high.[SUP] [80][/SUP] But the Federal Register, which is the handbook of government practices, disagrees:
“The high exposure of experimental animals to toxic agents is a necessary and valid method of discovering possible carcinogenic hazards in man. To disavow the findings of this test would be to disavow those of all such tests, since they are all conducted according to this standard.” [SUP]73[/SUP] [SUP] [/SUP]As a February 5, 1990, Newsweek article pointed out, “such megadosing is standard toxicological practice. It’s the only way to detect an effect without using an impossibly large number of test animals to stand in for the humans exposed to the substance.” [81] And as the Safer Water Foundation explains, higher doses are generally administered to test animals to compensate for the animals’ shorter life span and because humans are generally more vulnerable than test animals on a body-weight basis. [82]
Several other studies link fluoride to genetic damage and cancer. An article in Mutation Research says that a study by Proctor and Gamble, the very company that makes Crest toothpaste, did research showing that 1 ppm fluoride causes genetic damage.[83] Results were never published but Proctor and Gamble called them “clean,” meaning animals were supposedly free of malignant tumors. Not so, according to scientists who believe some of the changes observed in test animals could be interpreted as precancerous. [84] Yiamouyiannis says the Public Health Service sat on the data, which were finally released via a Freedom of Information Act request in 1989. “Since they are biased, they have tried to cover up harmful effects,” he says. “But the data speaks for itself. Half the amount of fluoride that is found in the New York City drinking water causes genetic damage.” [SUP]46[/SUP]
A National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences publication, Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, also linked fluoride to genetic toxicity when it stated that “in cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations.”[SUP] [85][/SUP] The result of this is not only birth defects but the mutation of normal cells into cancer cells. The Journal of Carcinogenesis further states that “fluoride not only has the ability to transform normal cells into cancer cells but also to enhance the cancer-causing properties of other chemicals.” [86]
Surprisingly, the PHS put out a report called Review of fluoride: benefits and risks, in which they showed a substantially higher incidence of bone cancer in young men exposed to fluoridated water compared to those who were not. The New Jersey Department of Health also found that the risk of bone cancer was about three times as high in fluoridated areas as in nonfluoridated areas.[SUP] [87][/SUP]
Despite cover-up attempts, the light of knowledge is filtering through to some enlightened scientists. Regarding animal test results, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, James Huff, does say that “the reason these animals got a few osteosarcomas was because they were given fluoride…Bone is the target organ for fluoride.” Toxicologist William Marcus adds that “fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects.” [88]
The Challenge of Eliminating Fluoride
Given all the scientific challenges to the idea of the safety of fluoride, why does it remain a protected contaminant? As Susan Pare of the Center for Health Action asks, “…even if fluoride in the water did reduce tooth decay, which it does not, how can the EPA allow a substance more toxic than Alar, red dye #3, and vinyl chloride to be injected purposely into drinking water?”[SUP] [89][/SUP]
This is certainly a logical question and, with all the good science that seems to exist on the subject, you would think that there would be a great deal of interest in getting fluoride out of our water supply. Unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case. As Dr. William Marcus, a senior science advisor in the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, has found, the top governmental priority has been to sweep the facts under the rug and, if need be, to suppress truth-tellers. Marcus explains[SUP] [90][/SUP] that fluoride is one of the chemicals the EPA specifically regulates, and that he was following the data coming in on fluoride very carefully when a determination was going to be made on whether the levels should be changed. He discovered that the data were not being heeded. But that was only the beginning of the story for him. Marcus recounts what happened:
“The studies that were done by Botel Northwest showed that there was an increased level of bone cancer and other types of cancer in animals….in that same study, there were very rare liver cancers, according to the board-certified veterinary pathologists at the contractor, Botel. Those really were very upsetting because they were hepatocholangeal carcinomas, very rare liver cancers….Then there were several other kinds of cancers that were found in the jaw and other places.Once Dr. Marcus acted on his findings, something ominous started to happen in his life: “…I wrote an internal memorandum and gave it to my supervisors. I waited for a month without hearing anything. Usually, you get a feedback in a week or so. I wrote another memorandum to a person who was my second-line supervisor explaining that if there was even a slight chance of increased cancer in the general population, since 140 million people were potentially ingesting this material, that the deaths could be in the many thousands. Then I gave a copy of the memorandum to the Fluoride Work Group, who waited some time and then released it to the press.
“I felt at that time that the reports were alarming. They showed that the levels of fluoride that can cause cancers in animals are actually lower than those levels ingested in people (who take lower amounts but for longer periods of time).
“I went to a meeting that was held in Research Triangle Park, in April 1990, in which the National Toxicology Program was presenting their review of the study. I went with several colleagues of mine, one of whom was a board-certified veterinary pathologist who originally reported hepatocholangeal carcinoma as a separate entity in rats and mice. I asked him if he would look at the slides to see if that really was a tumor or if the pathologists at Botel had made an error. He told me after looking at the slides that, in fact, it was correct.
“At the meeting, every one of the cancers reported by the contractor had been downgraded by the National Toxicology Program. I have been in the toxicology business looking at studies of this nature for nearly 25 years and I have never before seen every single cancer endpoint downgraded…. I found that very suspicious and went to see an investigator in the Congress at the suggestion of my friend, Bob Carton. This gentleman and his staff investigated very thoroughly and found out that the scientists at the National Toxicology Program down at Research Triangle Park had been coerced by their superiors to change their findings.”[91]
“Once it got into the press all sorts of things started happening at EPA. I was getting disciplinary threats, being isolated, and all kinds of things which ultimately resulted in them firing me on March 15, 1992.”[SUP] [/SUP]In order to be reinstated at work, Dr. Marcus took his case to court. In the process, he learned that the government had engaged in various illegal activities, including 70 felony counts, in order to get him fired. At the same time, those who committed perjury were not held accountable for it. In fact, they were rewarded for their efforts:
“When we finally got the EPA to the courtroom…they admitted to doing several things to get me fired. We had notes of a meeting…that showed that fluoride was one of the main topics discussed and that it was agreed that they would fire me with the help of the Inspector General. When we got them on the stand and showed them the memoranda, they finally remembered and said, oh yes, we lied about that in our previous statements.[SUP] [/SUP]For all his efforts, Dr. Marcus was rehired, but nothing else has changed: “The EPA was ordered to rehire me, which they did. They were given a whole series of requirements to be met, such as paying me my back pay, restoring my leave, privileges, and sick leave and annual leave. The only thing they’ve done is put me back to work. They haven’t given me any of those things that they were required to do.”[92]
“Then…they admitted to shredding more than 70 documents that they had in hand – Freedom of Information requests. That’s a felony…. In addition, they charged me with stealing time from the government. They…tried to show…that I had been doing private work on government time and getting paid for it. When we came to court, I was able to show that the time cards they produced were forged, and forged by the Inspector General’s staff….”[SUP] [/SUP]
[SUP] [/SUP]What is at the core of such ruthless tactics? John Yiamouyiannis feels that the central concern of government is to protect industry, and that the motivating force behind fluoride use is the need of certain businesses to dump their toxic waste products somewhere. They try to be inconspicuous in the disposal process and not make waves. “As is normal, the solution to pollution is dilution. You poison everyone a little bit rather than poison a few people a lot. This way, people don’t know what’s going on.”
Since the Public Health Service has promoted the fluoride myth for over 50 years, they’re concerned about protecting their reputation. So scientists like Dr. Marcus, who know about the dangers, are intimidated into keeping silent. Otherwise, they jeopardize their careers. Dr. John Lee elaborates:
“Back in 1943, the PHS staked their professional careers on the benefits and safety of fluoride. It has since become bureaucratized. Any public health official who criticizes fluoride, or even hints that perhaps it was an unwise decision, is at risk of losing his career entirely. This has happened time and time again. Public health officials such as Dr. Gray in British Columbia and Dr. Colquhoun in New Zealand found no benefit from fluoridation. When they reported these results, they immediately lost their careers…. This is what happens – the public health officials who speak out against fluoride are at great risk of losing their careers on the spot.”[SUP] [/SUP]Yiamouyiannis adds that for the authorities to admit that they’re wrong would be devastating.
“It would show that their reputations really don’t mean that much…. They don’t have the scientific background. As Ralph Nader once said, if they admit they’re wrong on fluoridation, people would ask, and legitimately so, what else have they not told us right?”[SUP] [/SUP]Accompanying a loss in status would be a tremendous loss in revenue. Yiamouyiannis points out that “the indiscriminate careless handling of fluoride has a lot of companies, such as Exxon, U.S. Steel, and Alcoa, making tens of billions of dollars in extra profits at our expense…. For them to go ahead now and admit that this is bad, this presents a problem, a threat, would mean tens of billions of dollars in lost profit because they would have to handle fluoride properly. Fluoride is present in everything from phosphate fertilizers to cracking agents for the petroleum industry.”[SUP] [/SUP]
Fluoride could only be legally disposed of at a great cost to industry. As Dr. Bill Marcus explains,
“There are prescribed methods for disposal and they’re very expensive. Fluoride is a very potent poison. It’s a registered pesticide, used for killing rats or mice…. If it were to be disposed of, it would require a class-one landfill. That would cost the people who are producing aluminum or fertilizer about $7000+ per 5000- to 6000-gallon truckload to dispose of it. It’s highly corrosive.”[SUP] [/SUP]Another problem is that the U.S. judicial system, even when convinced of the dangers, is powerless to change policy. Yiamouyiannis tells of his involvement in court cases in Pennsylvania and Texas in which, while the judges were convinced that fluoride was a health hazard, they did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief from fluoridation. That would have to be done, it was ultimately found, through the legislative process.[SUP] [/SUP] Interestingly, the judiciary seems to have more power to effect change in other countries. Yiamouyiannis states that when he presented the same technical evidence in Scotland, the Scottish court outlawed fluoridation based on the evidence.
Indeed, most of Western Europe has rejected fluoridation on the grounds that it is unsafe. In 1971, after 11 years of testing, Sweden’s Nobel Medical Institute recommended against fluoridation, and the process was banned.[93] The Netherlands outlawed the practice in 1976, after 23 years of tests. France decided against it after consulting with its Pasteur Institute[SUP]64[/SUP] and West Germany, now Germany, rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1 ppm was “too close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected.” [SUP]84[/SUP]Dr. Lee sums it up:
“All of western Europe, except one or two test towns in Spain, has abandoned fluoride as a public health plan. It is not put in the water anywhere. They all established test cities and found that the benefits did not occur and the toxicity was evident.”[94]Isn’t it time the United States followed Western Europe’s example? While the answer is obvious, it is also apparent that government policy is unlikely to change without public support. We therefore must communicate with legislators, and insist on one of our most precious resources – pure, unadulterated drinking water. Yiamouyiannis urges all American people to do so, pointing out that public pressure has gotten fluoride out of the water in places like Los Angeles; Newark and Jersey City in New Jersey; and [95]Bedford, Massachusetts.[SUP] [/SUP][SUP]46[/SUP] He emphasizes the immediacy of the problem:
“There is no question with regard to fluoridation of public water supplies. It is absolutely unsafe…and should be stopped immediately. This is causing more destruction to human health than any other single substance added purposely or inadvertently to the water supply. We’re talking about 35,000 excess deaths a year…10,000 cancer deaths a year…130 million people who are being chronically poisoned. We’re not talking about dropping dead after drinking a glass of fluoridated water…. It takes its toll on human health and life, glass after glass.” [96]There is also a moral issue in the debate that has largely escaped notice. According to columnist James Kilpatrick, it is “the right of each person to control the drugs he or she takes.” Kilpatrick calls fluoridation compulsory mass medication, a procedure that violates the principles of medical ethics.[SUP] [97][/SUP] A New York Times editorial agrees:
“In light of the uncertainty, critics [of fluoridation] argue that administrative bodies are unjustified in imposing fluoridation on communities without obtaining public consent…. The real issue here is not just the scientific debate. The question is whether any establishment has the right to decide that benefits outweigh risks and impose involuntary medication on an entire population. In the case of fluoridation, the dental establishment has made opposition to fluoridation seem intellectually disreputable. Some people regard that as tyranny.”[SUP] [98][/SUP]Notes
[1] Brooks, Megan. “Fluoride May Be Neurotoxic in Kids.” Medscape.com. N.p., 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.scoop.it/t/family-centre...1/medscape-fluoride-may-be-neurotoxic-in-kids>.[2] Lu, Z, et al. “In vivo influence of sodium fluoride on sperm chemotaxis in male mice..” Archives of Toxicology Jul 24 (2013). In vivo influence of sodium fluoride on sperm chemotaxis in male mice. (accessed November 20, 2013).
[3] “MALE FERTILITY.” Fluoride Action Network. http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/fertility/ (accessed November 22, 2013).
[4] Adams, Mike. “PROOF: Chinese Industrial Fluoride Suppliers Openly List Sodium Fluoride as ‘insecticide’ and ‘adhesive Preservative’ in Addition to Water Treatment Chemical.”PROOF: Chinese Industrial Fluoride Suppliers Openly List Sodium Fluoride as ‘insecticide’ and ‘adhesive Preservative’ in Addition to Water Treatment Chemical. NaturalNews.com, 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 11 Sept. 2012. <http://www.naturalnews.com/037024_sodium_fluoride_insecticide_proof.html>9
[5] Ibid
[6]Alvarez, Lizette. “Looking to Save Money, More Places Decide to Stop Fluoridating the Water – NYTimes.com.” The New York Times . N.p., 13 Oct. 2011. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/us/more-places-change-course-on-fluoride-in-water.html?pagewanted=all>.
[7] Diep, Francie. “Portland, Oregon, Says No To Fluoridation.” Popular Science. http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/fluoridation-defeated-portland-oregon (accessed November 21, 2013).
[8] Huff, Ethan. “Israel commits to ending water fluoridation by 2014, citing major health concerns.” NaturalNews. http://www.naturalnews.com/042079_water_fluoridation_Israel_health_concerns.html (accessed November 21, 2013).
[9] Huff, Ethan. “Huge victory against fluoride in Australia.” NaturalNews. http://www.naturalnews.com/038984_Australia_fluoride_involuntary_medication.html (accessed November 22, 2013).
[10]“Statement on Water Fluoridation.” NIDCR Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Nov. 2011. http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.aspx
[11]Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, in interview with Gary Null, 3/10/95. His statement is referenced in the Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, Fifth Ed., Williams and Wilkins.
[12]Joel Griffiths, “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy,” Covert Action, Fall 1992, Vol. 42, p. 30.
[13]Ibid., p. 27.
[14]Ibid., p. 28.
[15]Ibid.
[16]McNeil, The Fight for Fluoridation, 1957, p. 37.
[17]Griffiths, op. cit., p. 28.
[18]Griffiths, op. cit.
[19]G.L. Waldbott et al., Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, Lawrence, XS, Coronado Press, 1978, p. 295.
[20]Paul Farhi, Washington Post, 11/23/91.
[21]Griffiths, op. cit., p. 63.
[22]Longevity Magazine, pp. 7-89.
[23]The Morning Call, 2/7/90
[24]Science, 1/90.
[25]Waldbott, op. cit., p. 255.
[26]Letter, Rebecca Hammer, 3/83
[27]U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, “Policy statement on community water fluoridation,” July 22, 1992, Washington, D.C.
[28]“Statement on Water Fluoridation.” NIDCR Home. http://www.nidcr.nih.gov/OralHealth/Topics/Fluoride/StatementWaterFluoridation.htm
[29]Los Angeles Times. 1/ 26/95..
[30]The Chicago Tribune, 1/26/95.
[31]A.S. Gray, Canadian Dental Association Journal, October 1987, pp. 763.
[32]Letter, Sierra Club to Wm. K. Reilly, EPA, 7/21/89.
[33]John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride, 1990, Vol. 23, pp. 55-67.
[34]Center for Health Action, 3/30/90.
[35]Clinical Pediatrics, Nov. 1991.
[36]ADA News, 10/17/94.
[37]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p.31.
[38]Waldbott, op. cit., p. xvii.
[39]Statement by Dr. James Patrick before Congressional Subcommittee, 8/4/82.
[40]Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, Vol. 59, Apr. 1993, p. 334.
[41]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Lee, 3/10/95.
[42]F. Exner and G. Waldbott, The American fluoridation experiment, 1957, p. 43.
[43]Federal Register, 12/24/75.
[44]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p. 33.
[45]Jan G. Stannard et al., “Fluoride levels and fluoride contamination of fruit juices,” The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1991, pp. 38-40.
[46]Waldbott, op. cit., pp. 307-308.
[47]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p. 49.
[48]New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, release, 11/89.
[49]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Yiamouyiannis 4/28/90.
[50]Chemical and Engineering News, 8/1/88, p. 36.
[51]Waldbott, op. cit., p. 38.
[52]F. Exner and G. Waldbott, op. cit., pp. 42-43.
[53]Schenectady Gazette Star, 8/5/89.
[54]Daniel Grossman, “Fluoride’s Revenge,” The Progressive,
Dec. 1990, pp. 29-31.
[55]Gary Null interview with Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, 3/10/95.
[56]George Glasser, “Dental Fluorosis – A Legal Time Bomb!” Sarasota/Florida ECO Report, Vol. 5, No. 2, Feb. 1995, pp. 1-5.
[57]JAMA, Vol. 264, July 25, 1990, pp. 500
[58]Cooper et al., JAMA, Vol. 266, July 24, 1991, pp. 513-14.
[59]Christa Danielson et al., “Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population,” JAMA, Vol. 268, Aug. 12, 1992, pp. 746-48.
[60]New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 322, pp. 802-809
[61] Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 11/94.
[62]U.S. National Research Council, Diet and Health, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1989, p. 121.
[63]“Middletown, Maryland latest city to receive toxic spill of fluoride in their drinking water,” report by Truth About Fluoride, Inc., in Townsend Letter for Doctors, 10/15/94, p. 1124.
[64]Reprinted by M. Bevis, “Morbidity associated with ingestion/dialysis of community water fluoride,” CDC, Dental Div., 6/11/92, distributed by Safe Water Foundation of Texas.
[65]Townsend Letter for Doctors, 10/94, p. 1125.
[66]Janet Raloff, “The St. Regis Syndrome,” Science News, July 19, 1980, pp. 42-43; reprinted in Griffiths, op. cit., p. 26.
[67]Robert Tomalin, “Dumping grounds,” Wall Street Journal, Nov. 29, 1990; reprinted in Griffiths, op. cit.
[68] “Summary review of health effects associated with hydrogen fluoride acid related compounds,” EPA Report Number 600/8-29/002F, Dec. 1988,
[69]John Yiamouyiannis, Lifesaver’s Guide to Fluoridation, Delaware, Ohio, Safe Water Foundation, 1983, p. 1
[70]John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk, “Fluoridation of public water systems and cancer death rates in humans,” presented at the 57th annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists, and published in Fluoride, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1977, pp. 102-103.
[71]New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.
[72]Newsday, 2/27/90.
[73]Oakland Tribune, 2/16/90.
[74]NFFE Local 2050, 3/90.
[75]Washington Post, 2/20/90.
[76]The Lancet, 2/3/90.
[77]Center for Health Action.
[78]M.W. Browne, The New York Times, 3/13/90.
[79]Medical Tribune, 2/22/90.
[80]New York State Medical News, 3/90.
[81]S. Begley, Newsweek, 2/5/90.
[82]Safe Water Foundation, 3/4/90.
[83]Mutation Research, Vol. 223, pp. 191-203.
[84]Joel Griffiths, Medical Tribune, 2/22/90.
[85]Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Vol. 21, pp. 309-318.
[86]Journal of Carcinogenesis, Vol. 9, pp. 2279-2284.
[87]Mark Lowey, “Scientists question health risks of fluoride,” Calgary Herald, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Feb. 28, 1992; in Griffiths, op. cit., p. 66.
[88]Gary Null interview with Dr. William Marcus, 3/10/95.
[89]Center for Health Action, 3/90.
[90]Longevity Magazine, 7/89.
[91]Gary Null interview with Dr. William Marcus, 3/10/95.
[92] Ibid
[93] Yiamouyiannis J. Interview. Mar 10, 1995.
[94] Longevity. July 1989.
[95]Ibid
[96] Fluoride Action Network. http://www.fluoridealert.org
[97] Yiamouyiannis J. Interview. Mar 10, 1995.
[98] Browne, Malcolm. “Rat Study Reignites Dispute On Fluoride.” The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/13/s...ispute-on-fluoride.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm (accessed November 25, 2013).
[h=3]Global Research Related Articles[/h]Fluoride in your Drinking Water May Be Damaging your Brain: Expert TestimonyThe fluoride debate is changing, and fast, as more Americans are becoming aware of the known health risks of water fluoridation. City councils across the country are beginning to give their residents a choice when it comes to fluoridated ...
Untested Type of Fluoride Used in the Overwhelming Majority of U.S. Water SuppliesDartmouth University wrote in 2001: In a recent article in the journal NeuroToxicology, a research team led by Roger D. Masters, Dartmouth College Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus, reports evidence that public drinking water ...
I hope I proved my point that I was not exaggerating the faults I saw in this article. When you run the actual numbers instead of just saying, "oh look at all these things that have fluoride in them, and drinking water just puts you over the top!" you see that the added effect of fluoridated water is SAFE. NOT some conspiracy to kill us all. Fluoridated water can't even kill us according to the evidence presented in this article.
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
Well, I don't speak for science in the sense of the abstract form Science (if we can say there is one, because I don't think Socrates had a form of science), but I do speak of science in the sense that my points are based on logical analysis.
I wish I could pick and choose what studies I base my opinions on muir. That must be awesome being able to reject something because it disagrees with me. I rejected your studies because they were either retracted due to fraud, redone and new results where found, or other points that made them logically incorrect based on other scientific research. I explained why I think the way I do and the way I reach my conclusions. You assume I'm wrong because I'm young. You've made such comments before. That's hardly a way to gain you support muir, and even less of a reason to base your arguments on.
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
I don't see how you reached this conclusion. My point is that I argue the effects of "conspiracy theories" like vaccine toxicity, fluoridation of the water, etc., and from that I have seen many times that conspiracy theorists have very faulty reasoning skills. Based on this evidence, I conclude that the greater conspiracy theory is just as unreliable. I cannot test their conspiracy theory empirically, so I suppose you could fall back on the "anything is possible" argument, but as I mentioned in my first post in this thread, that's another reason why I hate conspiracy theories. I can't prove or disprove that the rich people of the world are trying to kill off the average citizen to make a better world for them, but I can argue that vaccines are infact safe. And furthermore, if anyone finds the reason of vaccines are toxic to be proof of their conspiracy theory, I find there reasoning to be flawed since it is inherently incorrect.
Lark
Rothchildian Agent
- MBTI
- ENTJ
- Enneagram
- 9
Its not really awesome, its confirmation bias, it means you either dont have a falsifiable hypothesis to begin with or its not something you entertain as an objective.
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
That's right genius the government is dumping lots of toxic industrialist by product in our water because it really cares about our teeth!
Uh huh...they can't create a tax system that doesn't reduce poverty but they really care about your teeth!
great 'logic' there
[video=youtube;LEZ15m-D_n8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEZ15m-D_n8[/video]
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
No you can't argue that vaccines are safe
I think you should perhaps speak to some parents who believe that their child has been affected by vaccines and see what they have to say
You could begin with the following documentary that has testimonies from parents, doctors and scientists:
[video=youtube;fVwLo3lmKyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVwLo3lmKyo[/video]
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
Not a single bit of my argument even relates to your comment here. My argument is based on the logic of the levels of fluoride in the water are not toxic. I have said nothing about motivations, and I have not done any research on actual effectiveness of the fluoride treatment.
My point here was that conspiracy theorists go to great lengths, even to convince themselves that they are spreading the "truth" when really they don't have a clue about science. That article you posted is a perfect example. It's all about how fluoride in the water is toxic, but his own sources suggest otherwise! He didn't have a clue what he was talking about. Or worse, he does know what he is talking about, and he is manipulating the facts to suit what he wants to spread fear into the public when it is unwarranted. He just put a bunch of words together to try to convince people that it was toxic. It was the same with the vaccines debate. That's what I mean when I say conspiracy theorists jump to conclusions, make leaps of logic, and don't base their opinions on real science. Even you share his belief despite what the numbers show. That's also what I mean when I say you tell other people to keep an open mind when yours is closed. Please, do you see what I am trying to say? :shocked:
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
I don't reject your agruments because you're young i just know you are wrong
Also you didn't reject my scientific studies in the vaccines thread...you haven't commented on them
But you know what...i bet if you try hard enough you could find a member of the relevant government body who will tell you that anything going against the government line is a lie...that doesn't mean they are telling the truth though
Its the independent researchers that are the ones to trust
[video=youtube;tBRwOohhHuA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBRwOohhHuA[/video]
Mary Shelley
Fearless & Powerful
- MBTI
- XXXX
I am grateful that conspiracy theorists promote so many different conspiracy theories that they discredit themselves for all of them.
dogman6126
Community Member
- MBTI
- ENFJ-wasINFJ
So I'm just wrong. No reason for it, it's just that I'm wrong. Well ok, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
muir
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
I want you to use your much flaunted powers of 'logic' here
I'm gonna lay down some really simple facts for you and you can then use your infallible logic...so here we go....
1. The flouride that is put in the water supply is a toxic substance
2. The flouride that is put in the water supply is an industrial by-product
3. The lobby groups of big business in washington hold massive sway over the politicians there to such an extent that people now say that US politics is completely dominated by money
4. The government argument for dumping a toxic industrial by-product into our water is that it is good for our teeth
5. Now bare in mind that big soft drink corporations like coca cola are members of the powerful CFR and that soft drinks are said to be damaging to peoples teeth and that they also contain aspartame (which says on its patent that it is the excretions of genetically modified organisms) and yet there is no real drive to prevent the use of soft drinks which would help peoples teeth but yet the government claims to care about peoples teeth; soft drink vending machine are even allowed in schools!
6. The government has colluded with the banks behind the fed to create a ponzi scheme economy on the verge of collapse leaving many americans jobless, homeless and dependent on food banks, whislt pursuing tax policies that favour the rich at the expense of the poor and yet the government is claiming to care about your teeth....the rich of course don't drink the tap water...they drink spring water
7. this means that the US government is using the water supply as a way to medicate the entire population without the people able to make an independent, informed decision about matters not to mention not being given a vote on it which raises ethical concerns as well as questions over the nature of 'democracy'
And you are trying to tell me that it is ok for them to do this?
Last edited: