Harmless flouride

[bℓσωηG]

oh okay bak to yur grazing , baa baa

[lickapop]

well maybe I will just go and double check this pineal theory out just to be sure

[bℓσωηG]

i love you maan

[lickapop]

haha thanks man back atcha

[bℓσωηG]

(NaturalNews) Municipalities all across America are currently dripping fluoride chemicals into their public water supply, dosing over a hundred million Americans with a chemical that they claim "prevents cavities."

What's interesting here is that this biological effect of "preventing cavities" is a medical claim, according to the FDA. And as such, making this claim instantly and automatically transforms fluoride into a "drug" under currently FDA regulations.

This means that cities and towns all across America are now practicing medicine without a license by dripping liquid medication into the public water supply without the consent of those who are swallowing the medication.

If you or I did this, we would be arrested and tried as either terrorists (because contaminating the water supply is an act of terrorism) or felons practicing medicine without a license. So what allows cities and towns to get away with these very same crimes?

Cities openly violate state and federal law

Keep in mind that a medication can only be legally prescribed to someone after they have been diagnosed with a medical need. In other words, a doctor can't legally prescribe you some pharmaceutical unless he examines you and determines you actually need it. But fluoride is medicating everyone whether they need it or not, without any medical diagnosis whatsoever.

And that means those children or adults who already have high exposure to fluoride (from swallowing toothpaste or drinking fluoridated bottled water, for example) may now be exposed to too much fluoride from the added amounts in the tap water. Excess fluoride can cause serious health problems such as bone fractures and dark spots appearing on your teeth (dental fluorosis).

This does not appear to concern the proponents of fluoride -- people who believe they alone have the right to practice mass medicine without a license by dripping an unapproved drug chemical into the public water supply without the knowledge or consent of those who are being medicated by that chemical.

Every city and town in America currently engaged in fluoridation of the water supply is committing felony crimes. Town leaders who approve of water fluoridation are criminals operating in clear violation of FDA regulations, state medical laws and federal laws.

How to fight back

If you happen to see one of these town leaders at a town meeting, make a citizens' arrest and put them in handcuffs, then turn them over to the local sheriff.

You may also wish to write a strong letter to your state medical board and complain that your city or town officials are "practicing medicine without a license" by dosing your city residents with an unapproved drug.

If they insist fluoride is not a drug, tell them to read the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). (http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinform...)

There, you will find that the Act states:

The term "drug" means... articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

Now, I don't personally agree with this definition of a "drug" but this is what the FDA claims it to be, and it clearly states that any item intended to "affect the structure" of the body is a drug.

Fluoride is intended to affect the structure of the teeth. That's the whole claimed purpose of dumping it into the water supply. Therefore, fluoride is a drug.

Furthermore, since it is a drug, it is ILLEGAL to dump it into the water supply, even if it were approved by the FDA to treat cavities (which it isn't).

Thus, every employee of every city or town that is currently dumping this chemical drug into the water supply is guilty of a felony crime and should be immediately arrested and prosecuted for contamination of the public water supplies as well as practicing medicine without a license.

Call your local police department and report these crimes. It's time to arrest these fluoro-terrorists who are illegally contaminating our public water supply with illegal drugs. Stop the fluoride madness.

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/028913_fluoride_chemicals.html

[Slybacon]

http://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=25130

^^^^ was posted on the same day but i dont remember seeing 2 threads for its.... hmmm

[lickapop]

http://www.naturalnews.com/028913_fluoride_chemicals.html

 

How to fight back

If you happen to see one of these town leaders at a town meeting, make a citizens' arrest and put them in handcuffs, then turn them over to the local sheriff.

haha I could just see it now.

its not right they are dosing us but I dont really see the big deal with it. That could be the fluoride clouding my judgement? I dont know

I rarely drink water anymore anyway... come to think of it all my town water gets fermented and triple distilled:) and I never eat the ice

[Guest svarg26]

i think the government should put more poison in the drinking water. so i can sit back and laugh at all the douche bags who choose to drink it. i demand more fluoride and chlorine. hey guys, it's way better than drinking water from third world countries, so who cares what's in it. drink and be merry and hope that your so called elected officials care about your health.

it's good to see people choose not to medicate themselves. i vote that an elected moron should visit me day and night to brush my teeth for me.

[dworx]

Just because a substance has detrimental effects in excess quantities doesn't make it a poison in the right quantities.

 

Yes that may be true but is there a right quantity for flouride? Lead builds up in our system, by your logic who says flouride doesn't?

I believe the same applies to flouride and really the point of dicussion should not be about whether flouride is toxic [cos it obviously is in large enough quantity], but rather what the appropriate level is and whether it is right to force that level on people via their drinking water. That discussion however is not helped by hysterical and pointless arguments like the one made in this thread. It just makes that side of the fence look stupid.

 

That is your belief, the discussion is about the original post, it is just discussion and all views whether you agree or not should be allowed to enter the discussion as long as it the original poster is ok with that, I personally think the "hysterical and pointless arguments like the one made in this thread" are valid and definitely have a place in the discussion, you think they are hysterical and pointless but why? How do you know that they are incorrect . I don't trust our Gov't or our Scientists - yes I am probably paranoid, but I would rather be paranoid and thinking for myself than one of the sheeple. I refuse to concede just because a friend or a foe disagrees with what I beleive in or because it upsets them.

Personally I don't care what they put in 'drinking' water cos you wouldn't catch me ever drinking the crap that comes out of the municipal water supply and a bit of flouride in the shower isn't a bad thing.

 

Agreed!

[ref1ect1ons]

Indeed some of those 'hyseterical crackpots' are neurotoxicologist who have more to say then the amateur 'skeptics' ever could. Newspaper and T.V fans never seem to make the connection that very smart people are saying these things, only the drivel coming from the status quo and the idiot box seems to try and debunk it with ad hominen attacks.

DR. Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist, here is a link to a statement by her: http://www.fluoridealert.org/pmullenix.htm

Edited September 5, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[herbal_hindsight]

Indeed some of those 'hyseterical crackpots' are neurotoxicologist who have more to say then the amateur 'skeptics' ever could. Newspaper and T.V fans never seem to make the connection that very smart people are saying these things, only the drivel coming from the status quo and the idiot box seems to try and debunk it with ad hominen attacks.

DR. Phyllis J. Mullenix, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist, here is a link to a statement by her: http://www.fluoridealert.org/pmullenix.htm

 

Great article! I am convinced and already was before I read it that the stuff just ain't good for you!

I put it right up there with any other 'processed food'

Organic is best... I am still trying to get myself into an organic routine I'll be putting a raised square foot garden bed in the next couple weeks... fresh produce all the way!

What I can't grow myself I can get from my Dad who has an impressive garden with 18 diff fruits on the go and who knows how many veggies or of course the fresh produce markets!

What may seem convenient now will kill me later so I need to stop buying 'fast' foods and invest in a reverse osmosis water filtration unit!

At least I know what I NEED to do now I just NEED to do it :-p

[bℓσωηG]

 

[lickapop]

well Im semi persuaded

I think I am a little passive when it comes to certain aspects of life

Ive been meaning to get an RO system for the house anyway

[rahli]

Greater concentrations of fluoride in tea than once thought

Seems a large portion the population is fluoridating their own water. Maybe the government doesn't add enough after all.

Edited September 25, 2010 by rahli

[Guest svarg26]

rahli,

this might clear things up for you.

Natural versus Man-made Fluoride:

"Contrary to what we have been told for many decades, man-made fluoride actually leads to fluorosis , a condition that is marked by stained, weakened, hole-filled enamel. Notably, in Europe and US communities where there is no water fluoridation, cavities are less than in fluoridated US communities. Even worse, fluoride can result in hyperactivity and/or lethargy, arthritis, lowered thyroid function, lowered IQ, dementia, disrupted immune system, genetic damage, cell death, cancers, deactivated essential enzymes and lower life span.

Fluoride in its natural form is actually considered an essential trace element, but we only need very tiny amounts and the natural form of fluoride is a far cry from the man-made form added to our water and products. The natural form of mineral fluoride found in your teeth and in nature is called Apatite (calcium fluoro-chloro-hydroxyl phosphate). The unnatural form of fluoride added our municipal water supplies and is sodium fluoride - a chemical by-product of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. Such fluoride has no nutrient value or health benefits whatsoever."

http://curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=1625879

peace.

Edited September 26, 2010 by svarg26

[rahli]

rahli,

this might clear things up for you.

Natural versus Man-made Fluoride

 

I guess you read the link but this may clear things up for you:

Fluoride is known to help prevent dental cavities, but long-term ingestion of excessive amounts could cause bone problems. The average person ingests a very safe amount, 2 to 3 milligrams, daily through fluoridated drinking water, toothpaste and food. It would take ingesting about 20 milligrams a day over 10 or more years before posing a significant risk to bone health.

Whitford discovered that the fluoride concentration in black tea had long been underestimated when he began analyzing data from four patients with advanced skeletal fluorosis, a disease caused by excessive fluoride consumption and characterized by joint and bone pain and damage. While it is extremely rare in the United States, the common link between these four patients was their tea consumption - each person drank 1 to 2 gallons of tea daily for the past 10 to 30 years.

Brick tea fluoride as a main source of adult fluorosis

An epidemiological survey was conducted in Naqu County, Tibet in September 2001 to investigate the manifestations of fluorosis in adults caused by the habitual consumption of brick tea. Profiles were obtained for the total daily fluoride intake, environmental fluoride levels and average urinary fluoride concentration, and a physical examination and a skeletal radiographic study were conducted. One hundred and eleven 30–78-year-old adults were enrolled. It was found that the fluoride level of water sources in Naqu County was 0.10±0.03 mg/l; no evidence of fluoride air pollution was found, but the brick tea water processed foods—zamba and buttered tea—had fluoride contents of 4.52±0.74 mg/kg and 3.21±0.65 mg/l, respectively. The adult daily fluoride intake reached 12 mg, of which 99% originated from the brick tea-containing foods. The positive rate of clinical symptoms by physical examination was 89%; furthermore, 42 of the 111 subjects were diagnosed by X-ray. The positive examination rate was 83%. Although the osteosclerosis-type skeletal fluorosis (overall increased bone matrix density) affected 74%, arthropathy and arthritis affected a significant number of the patients, resulting in functional disability. The results suggest that this brick tea-type fluorosis had even more severe adverse effects on human health compared with both the water-type and coal combustion-type fluorosis that occurred in other areas of China.

[Teljkon]

asdfasdf

Edited December 19, 2021 by Teljkon

[Guest svarg26]

rahli,

i guess you didn't read your first post, where you insinuated that natural fluoride is the same as man made fluoride.

"Seems a large portion the population is fluoridating their own water. Maybe the government doesn't add enough after all."

that was a silly thing to say, wasn't it?

just in case you didn't actually read it. my post included the following.

"Fluoride in its natural form is actually considered an essential trace element, but we only need very tiny amounts and the natural form of fluoride is a far cry from the man-made form added to our water and products."

hence too much tea will have a negative effect. basically too much of anything does.

hope that clears things up a bit for you.

peace.

Edited September 27, 2010 by svarg26

[rahli]

Thanks mate. That make it a lot clearer.

I'll follow up some of the references given in the link you provided and the picture will be all the more clearer.

[Guest svarg26]

thanks buddy. if i didn't quote it, then it must be important information.

please tell me more.

[ref1ect1ons]

Argue the fukin point directly. This backhanded ad hominen reference nonsense is BS. Argue each point on it's merit, elaborate the points of the journal article that make your case. Drop the petty BS, or save it for me.

So the point of the argument from my perspective was that of a difference between man-made and naturally occuring flouride.

Now rahli did not state what source he considered the black tea from, I assume natural (is it an added component?), so I assume the ref rahli provided makes the point that naturally occuring floride is also harmful. I have NOT read the article and do not care to. I am interested in elaborating this part of the article to draw out this point. I am also aware that rahli did not seem, from here, to enter into a debate with svarg about this. Infact you seemed to avoid it by calling attention to svarg's 'refs', while not addressing his point directly.

Svarg has said that there is a diff between natural and man-made floride, svarg has said that apatite, is actually very different from the stuff that is added to our water. It contradicts rahli's journal article, as it would suggest that the black tea source SHOULD NOT have produced the effect it did in an experimental design. So basically svarg has to suggest that there is a third or other naturally occuring source that does not produce these toxic effects (simple, our teeth, apatite). And rahli has to explicitly state his point. Specifically whether he believes all flouride to be toxic or not. Or state what he believed the argument to be about.

Also is apatite the same as the flouride of black tea? (both natural sources), i think that these would be different again.

Although the source may be questionable (i think most uni professors and mainstream scientist are rather questionable also) it has still been reported in a number of places, so perhaps leads back to a good source. On any note the information seems logically sound as it does seem plausible that chemicals produced in a factory would vary, and be potentially more toxic, then their natural counterparts.

I have no understanding of chemistry, which is why I didnt sink deeper. I know I dont have the knowledge here. But some of you do and can educate me through your honest and sincere observations. This is all i ask, as i have done.

Edited September 27, 2010 by ref1ect1ons

[ref1ect1ons]

 

[rahli]

Thanks for clearing that up reflections. i am glad someone can see the senselessness of arguing such an illogical debate. I make it a policy to not argue withfanatics.

There are no sound references suppoting the anti fluoridation debate. Only Kooks

On that note I don't participate in conspiracy theory debates either. What the hell am doing in this thread.

[Guest svarg26]

all i had to do was prove that rahli is a douche bag. after its last post i think that is crystal clear.

to paraphrase aristotle, you can't debate with a vegetable.

peace.

[ref1ect1ons]

Wow you have managed to call me a kook and a fanatic (in an indirect way), obviously this is just an artifact of your reasoning style, which is to attack the person's subjective traits, and avoid addressing anything they have to say directly.

I understand you are sememingly (not objectively) arrogant, as you to refuse to enter a debate, "because I don't argue with fanatics"; so you don't argue with those who hold 'inferior' beliefs, or beliefs that are threatening to your own beliefs. I have evaluated your journal article fairly and integrated it into my value systrem, it has value. But to suggest that everything I offer has no value, now that's fukin stupid. You didnt even consider the information in the first place so how can you call it 'worthless' and dismiss it as 'conspiracy'. It only apppears to be conspiracy, you have been taught to spot 'conpriacy' or threatening information very efficiently, also called brain washing, as the typical reaction is to reject threatening info.

You have misjudged me as a kook, because although you have learnt to identify 'kook's in school, they forgot to teach you to criticise your subjective feelings. If you had done so you would see that I am not a kook, that I am a reasonable and loving man, equal in intelligence and power to you, and am truly worthy to answer you and counter your points.

Svarg may have called you a vegetable, but he didnt call me a kook. You have called me, and I will answer.