The fluoridation fraud is facing a strong rebellion in Qld

[Whiskers]

Your last paragraph is just crazy,

Simple example... it's pretty obvious most of the western world is suffering from obesity, too much consumption of food, alcohol, drugs etc.

The solution is less consumption, especially the harmful stuff, then the unnecessairy stuff and finally just optominal amounts of the good stuff.

But, some in the chemical/drug company indoctrination espouse to consuming more drugs and chemicals to cause you to loose weight.

Less (consumption) is more healthy.

 

[medicowallet]

Simple example... it's pretty obvious most of the western world is suffering from obesity, too much consumption of food, alcohol, drugs etc.

The solution is less consumption, especially the harmful stuff, then the unnecessairy stuff and finally just optominal amounts of the good stuff.

But, some in the chemical/drug company indoctrination espouse to consuming more drugs and chemicals to cause you to loose weight.

Less (consumption) is more healthy.

Um, that is the minority argument of drug companies etc.

What you WILL find wrt policy are public health initiatives, which promote healthy eating, exercise and education in making the right choices.

You see, even though people know they are doing wrong, they may not change, however there are those which can be changed.

This is where fluoridation is at a crossroads, and once those that can change to better oral hygeine practices do so, which is EXACTLY what I said before then, the public health initiative of fluoridation loses its cost benefit.

Once this happens, sure scrap it, until then, let us not let fantasy get in the way of reality.

Just like there is nothing you can do to stop some people being obese, and heck, if you could add a safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesity, I am sure that it would happen.

MW..

PS Perhaps decreasing the use of that extra o would help as well.

 

[Julia]

Just like there is nothing you can do to stop some people being obese, and heck, if you could add a safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesity, I am sure that it would happen.

I'm sure I'll regret re-involvement in this, but what would be the effect of your 'safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesi6ty" do to people who are not obese and who have no obvious risk factors with respect to cardiovascular events?

i.e. why would people who take care of themselves, eat and drink healthily, exercise well and have no genetic predisposition to cardiovascular events be obliged to consume any substance in the water supply?
It would P*** me off absolutely.

 

[Calliope]

It would P*** me off absolutely.

Only if it was a diuretic.

 

[medicowallet]

I'm sure I'll regret re-involvement in this, but what would be the effect of your 'safe additive to food or water which has proven benefit in prevention of cardiovascular events/obesi6ty" do to people who are not obese and who have no obvious risk factors with respect to cardiovascular events?

i.e. why would people who take care of themselves, eat and drink healthily, exercise well and have no genetic predisposition to cardiovascular events be obliged to consume any substance in the water supply?
It would P*** me off absolutely.

But this would be like fluoride and have almost zero effects on those who consume it.... oh, if only we could find something so good for obesity, it would be a worldwide sensation, a smash hit, a revelation..

Guess that fluoride, with its teensy weensy risk of side effects and its proven benefits will have to suffice..

However my nobel prize winning, multibillion dollar additive discovery would also be subject to cost benefit analysis.... however I am sure the conspiracy theorists will claim that it is used in mind control..

I guess that those with the capacity to look after themselves can feel satisfied that this miracle supplement, whilst having a miniscule risk to themselves, is providing wonderful benefits to their fellow man.. and saving them money to boot... This along with the current public health initiatives of course.

MW

 

[sails]

I see earlier in the thread that fluoride is considered a necessity like chlorine. Chlorine is necessary to keep our water clean where as fluroide is an unnecessary additive.

While it may help some with stronger teeth, it is also possible some could have unwanted side effects from it.

From WebMD:

Fluoride is safe for most people in the amounts added to public water supplies and used in toothpastes and mouthwashes, and applied by dentists. Low doses (up to 20 mg per day of elemental fluoride) of supplemental fluoride taken by mouth appear to be safe for most people. Higher doses are UNSAFE and can weaken bones and ligaments, and cause muscle weakness and nervous system problems. High doses of fluoride in children before their permanent teeth come through the gums can cause tooth discoloration.

Toothpaste and fluoride rinses should not be swallowed routinely, particularly by children. It’s a good idea to make sure that children under six years of age use only a pea-sized amount of fluoride-containing toothpaste, just in case they swallow some.
Special Precautions & Warnings:
Pregnancy and breast-feeding: Fluoride seems to be safe during pregnancy and breast-feeding when taken in doses below the tolerable upper intake level (UL) of 10 mg per day of elemental fluoride and when applied directly to the teeth in toothpastes and mouthwashes. But higher doses are UNSAFE and can weaken bones and ligaments, and cause muscle weakness and nervous system problems.

While low doses are not so likely to cause side effects - how do we really know? We are not made the same and it could be that a lower dose could cause problems and weaken bones in one person more than another.

How do we know that the levels are properly regulated? It also worries me that our toothpastes still have fluoride in them and we also get it in the water. Particularly worrying for young children.

http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-suppl...gredientId=1068&activeIngredientName=FLUORIDE

And for those of us with osteoporisis, the addition of fluoride to the water is of concern. He is an excerpt from the link below:

2) Clinical trials finding association between fluoride therapy and bone fracture. (Back to top)

Due to it's capacity to increase bone mass (see section 4), fluoride has been used since the 1960s as a treatment for osteoporosis, particularly spinal osteoporosis. However, despite approximately 40 years of use, fluoride treatment remains controversial and is no longer recommended by the US National Institutes of Health, Osteoporosis Society of Canada, and French Government among others.

The reasons for the controversy include the high rate of side effects (i.e. arthritic pains & gastrointestinal problems), the contradictory effects on bone mass (see section 4), the narrow margin of safety between beneficial and toxic effects on bone, and most importantly, the tendency for fluoride treatment to increase the fracture rate, particularly non-vertebral fractures such as hip fracture.

Included here is a listing of clinical trials reporting an increase in fracture rates among fluoride-treated patients.

Inkovaara J, et al. (1975). Phophylactic fluoride treatment and aged bones. Br Med J. 3: 73-74.

"Fractures and exacerbation of arthrosis were more frequent in the fluoride group...The many fractures in the fluoride group, 14 during treatment and the following month as against 6 among the controls, were surprising. Three or four of the fractures in the fluoride group appeared to be spontaneous hip fractures. In the past fractures have not been regarded as being caused by fluoride but as resulting from prolonged osteoporosis before treatment. We believe that the fluoride treatment here was probably partly responsible for the fractures in our cases."

Much more to be read at the link: http://www.slweb.org/fluoride-bone.html#2


Like Julia, I may regret contributing to this conversation... :couch

 

[medicowallet]

I see earlier in the thread that fluoride is considered a necessity like chlorine. Chlorine is necessary to keep our water clean where as fluroide is an unnecessary additive.

But if we keep our bodies balanced, should we not be able to ward off bacteria, protozoa, viruses etc that we have for thousands of years?

I mean, why should we put such a DANGEROUS chemical like chlorine in our bodies? I mean we are all made differently and react differently.

I know I do not want CHLORINE in my drinking water, and why should I not have a choice? I cannot believe that chlorine, which is massively TOXIC to the human body is shoved down my throat to control my mind and to ensure that I require medical therapy for CANCER in the future... it is a conspiracy I say.

Wake up to this mass medication madness, and make sure that you lobby your local council to remove CHLORINE from the water, I mean, would you drink your pool water? NO WAY!!

MW

CANCER I SAY
http://www.pure-earth.com/chlorine.html

 

[Julia]

MW, being facetious is unnecessary and counterproductive. Sails raised genuine points of concern which deserve a less mocking response.

 

[sails]

MW, being facetious is unnecessary and counterproductive. Sails raised genuine points of concern which deserve a less mocking response.

Thanks Julia, but I had a laugh over MW's reply. There are none so blind than those who refuse to see - or even look.

Sadly, some doctors are out of of touch with reality and that's from experience.

 

[medicowallet]

Thanks Julia, but I had a laugh over MW's reply. There are none so blind than those who refuse to see - or even look.

Sadly, some doctors are out of of touch with reality and that's from experience.

I make a joke out of it... a joke, get it?

Because, quite frankly, the argument is not even worth the waste of time that it is, as fluoridation has been around for soooo long.. and the conspiracy theorists only have to prove, once, that it is a problem for the legal teams to pull it out.

So, please, do not question my professionalism, as this is not an arena where it is relevant or warranted.

What do you for a living so I can pull it apart?

MW

 

[Whiskers]

I make a joke out of it... a joke, get it?

Because, quite frankly, the argument is not even worth the waste of time that it is, as fluoridation has been around for soooo long.. and the conspiracy theorists only have to prove, once, that it is a problem for the legal teams to pull it out.

So, please, do not question my professionalism, as this is not an arena where it is relevant or warranted.

What do you for a living so I can pull it apart?

MW

Firstly, the fact that "fluoridation has been around for soooo long" isn't evidence of it's safety... just that it's been around for so long... which comes back to the earlier point that the fluoride waste disposal industry threw so much money at trying to change laws, to pay out civil suits with confidentially clauses, to stack regulatory and advisory positions including WHO committees with their own people so as to direct the type of research done regarding fluoridation via their terms of reference and controlling official funding, ie to get the results they wanted to promote.

There is plenty of credible evidence that fluoride, especially fluoride that comes as an industrial by-product containing arsenic, lead, cadmium and other heavy metals or toxins is a health hazard, no matter how small the doseage. It's just that like asbestos, thalamide, DDT etc and particularly like the tobacco industry, they infiltrated the ranks of the regulatory and medical authorities to not only condem and discredit research against their product but to actually promote their knowingly toxic product in medical journals as safe.

Through advertisements appearing in the pages of medical journals for the first time in the 1930s, tobacco companies worked to develop close, mutually beneficial relationships with physicians and their professional organizations. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/

Then of course they insert indemnity clauses into the fluoridation legislation to try to prevent anyone from suing the fluoridation industry. See The Qld Water Fluoridation Act 2008, Part 9 Matters relating to liability and indemnity sec 92 to 98. Sec 94 sums it up.

94 Protection from civil rights and remedies
A person does not have any civil right or remedy against a
public potable water supplier in relation to the fluoridation of
a public potable water supply under this Act.​

As I said in the outset, despite the evidence being there to show it wasn't safe, many products went into commercial distribution for considerable time before they were finally stopped. Asbestos and Tobacco are notable examples of how blatant lies and corruption of the health and regulatory systems gets deadly products into the consumers enviornment.

Secondly, while you deny the fact that the system is corruptable or at least able to be mislead by false research and advice, your "professionalism" is open to question by definition of history.

...and finally, this is no joking matter!

 

[waza1960]

This whole thread is a joke IMO

 

[AntN]

Re: 'The fluoridation fraud' is tin foil hat material

This whole thread is a joke IMO

lol your not wrong there...

The 'scare campaign' form the Dunning Kruger affected, is an embarrassment to the Australian education system. What is more embarrassing, is the people we vote in power consider such arguments of fallacy.

"trust me, I have an anecdotes from the internet"
lol

 

[awg]

If I am to believe what I read, and the balance of evidence from dentists and epidimiologic studies shows that public health is benefit, then I accept it for the "common good", (cost of public health treatment)..and my own & family teeth.(hopefully)

Tooth decay is strongly correlated with other medical issues, especially heart disease.

It seems it is very easily feasible to opt out, by filtering ?, tank supply, or bottled water, if one felt strongly, or was especially susceptible to flouride, in mind or body.

So if one does not accept flouridation (for the common good, on balance of science)..does it follow that one is also opposed to vaccination ?

 

[sails]

...So if one does not accept flouridation (for the common good, on balance of science)..does it follow that one is also opposed to vaccination ?

Very different, imo! Fluoride is available in other forms such as toothpaste and tablets. Vaccinations are not available in any other form.

And one is forced on to people through drinking water - the other is optional.

 

[medicowallet]

Well Whiskers,


It is well known that time is a factor in determining causality.

As I said before, ONE study, conducted well, showing a net negative effect of fluoride would cause the powers to withdraw its use.

Can you please show me a post where I said that the system is not corruptable, or if not, I accept your apology, and your retractment of your "professionalism" statement.

MW

 

[medicowallet]

Very different, imo! Fluoride is available in other forms such as toothpaste and tablets. Vaccinations are not available in any other form.

And one is forced on to people through drinking water - the other is optional.

That is a compelling argument, however, there are a lot of examples where things are forced upon the many for the greater good of the few, moderate good of the many and detriment of the few.

In this case, fluoride is about as benign an additive can be with proven health benefits for the community, with an option to not consume it (rain water / purchased water).

What the argument is, is that there are those in the community who cannot manage toothpaste and tablets optimally, and benefit from water with added fluoride.

MW

 

[awg]

Very different, imo! Fluoride is available in other forms such as toothpaste and tablets. Vaccinations are not available in any other form.

And one is forced on to people through drinking water - the other is optional.

I have to say I dont entirely agree

vaccinations, whilst not 100% compulsory, if declined, one faces various difficulties with enrolling kiddies in school/childcare, and also refusal of some govt family payments.

This is done to reduce the transmission of numerous diseases, to huge and proven public and private good.
I agree with this, but think that sometimes their is a reaction against the immunisation, maybe a tiny % have serious complications, but, on the whole the good way overwhelms the bad.

with respect to flouride, why would dentists be in favor ?...wouldnt rotted teeth mean more business for them?
I can only think that as ethical professionals in the area, they agree with the balance of scientific evidence that is is good for dental health.

Once again I repeat, how easy is it to avoid flouride...answer VERY EASY.(within reason)

You would also be avoiding doses of the following elements: Chlorine..a deadly poison added to kill microbes; copper and iron oxides..boy oh boy if you have seen the INSIDE walls of old water pipes, you would almost die of thirst before you let that muck into you. Also numerous heavy metals, fertilizer, pesticide etc as runoff into water supplies.

geez, have almost talked myself into a home filtration system

the OP has looked at this much more than me, made me curious, sounds like this issue will be opened to more debate, as I said in previous posts, it was my impression the science was conclusive, I could only be persuaded otherwise if properly debated by those qualified and evidence based

 

[Whiskers]

Well Whiskers,

Can you please show me a post where I said that the system is not corruptable, or if not, I accept your apology, and your retractment of your "professionalism" statement.

MW

Just repeating what I said..."Secondly, while you deny the fact that the system is corruptable or at least able to be mislead by false research and advice, your "professionalism" is open to question by definition of history.

You have strongly implied a number of times that the advice of the health organisations and the research that they censor out and endorse is the only credible research and everything else is non credible rubbish... when there are numerous examples, a few of which I nominated such as asbestos, thalamide and tobacco where the health authorities were clearly in denial, misleading, unprofessional and corrupt.

Is it not unprofessional for a medical professional to get emotionally charged, ranting "insulting" and "distasteful" in flatly denying historically medical corruption and malpractice has happened and insist the health organisations are above reproach!?

 

[Whiskers]

Give me one good reason as to why the medical profession would want to harm people with fluoride.

This is the misconstrued question the pro-fluoridation lobby peddles to try to promote a ridiculous answer.

The more reasonable question is...

...with respect to flouride, why would dentists be in favor ?...wouldnt rotted teeth mean more business for them?
I can only think that as ethical professionals in the area, they agree with the balance of scientific evidence that is is good for dental health.

to which the very logical and historically correct answer is...

It's not that they would want to harm people, it's just that they might stand to gain something by not getting in the way.

The short explanation is two fold. Firstly, many dentists rely on advice and policy from the health organisations for indemnity from malpractice suits. So they follow the 'company' line.

Secondly, the American Dental Association carried out internal research to show that dentists made more revenue in fluoridated areas than unfluoridated... there was more money to be made treating fluorosis and associated effects from fluoridation than cavaties.

The cost of filling or removal of a tooth pales into insignificance compared to regular whitening every year or new veneers every 10 or 15 years, as the attached average dental charges for 2011 in Australia show. http://www.privatehealth.gov.au/healthinsurance/whatiscovered/averagedental.htm

The way they justified the 'greater good' arguement for mass fluoridation is exactly the same as the tobacco industry used with a policy of:

Although hygienic and physiological concerns continued to be voiced, clinical medicine claimed that individual assessment and judgment was required.17 During this era, there was a strong tendency to avoid altogether causal hypotheses in matters so clearly complex. There was””and would remain””a powerful notion that risk is largely variable and thus, most appropriately evaluated and monitored at the individual, clinical level. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/​

...to tell their patients that fluorosis or plaque or stain was something peculiar to them .

The bottom line... they make more money from the effects of fluoridation while untruthfully insisting that fluorosis and staining is a minor side effect to be suffered by the few for the greater good. Fluorosis increases with fluoridation to well over 30% of people according to recent surveys.