Anatomy of an anti-fluoridation myth

The internet seems to nurture and promote myths. Consequently it’s a great place for the ideologically motivated person desiring a  bit of  “evidence” for their confirmation bias. They can even get a bit pretentious and call their googling “research.”

Phil Evans on the New Zealand Fluoride Free Facebook page, provides an example of just such a myth. He is also someone who claims to have “been researching fluoride” for “many years.”

Europe has banned fluoridation?

Phil’s article is a hatchet job on the Ministry of Health’s new website on Community Water Fluoridation. He has produced what he claims is a  “long list of factually incorrect information” on that site. I will just deal with one issue here – his promotion of the myth that Europe has banned fluoridation of public water supplies. Partly because it is a popular myth for anti-fluoridation activists – but also because it illustrates the nature of the “research” done by many activists – and the unreliability of relying on any old link that Google throws up in that “research.”

He rips into Robyn Haisman-Welch, Chief Dental Officer from the Ministry of Health:

“She is not being honest about the reason fluoridation was removed in Europe, which is a European Court ruling banning the practice because it was illegal to force medication on the public.”

He also makes this claim about the European Court in his second paragraph. Taking issue with references to the use of milk and salt fluoridation or use of other alternative methods in Europe he claims:

“The actual reason is that the European Court ruled some years ago that using fluoridation chemicals was medical intervention, and was therefore illegal. It has nothing to do with practicalities.”

The myth

So there it is – the anti-fluoridation myth. Europe has banned community water fluoridation. The European Court has called the practice “illegal.”

banner-web

Fluoridation banned in Europe – a common anti-fluoridationist claim

The point is that using Google and confirmation bias as your “research” tools it is easy to find support for the claim. Do a search for “European Court” and “fluoride” and you have all the “evidence” you need to confirm your bias (but none from a primary source like the European Court). It’s there on Fluoride Alert, Fluoride Action Network of NZ (FANNZ) and any number of  political, alternative lifestyle, alternative health or diet, and conspiracy theory websites.

Statements like:

“The European Court of Justice has defined fluoridation as a medication and has refused to sanction its implementation.”

“… the European Court of Justice recently determined that fluoride is a medicine, and therefore water fluoridation is a form of forced medication.”

Now, the trouble with this “research” is the difficulty of checking with any primary source. If the claims are referenced, they cite similar articles from similarly unreliable sources, not primary sources. (Fluoride Alert and FANNZ have made an art form out of circular citations – they very often just cite themselves).

However, I did find what appears to be the origin of this myth, because it is very frequently quoted – an article by Doug Cross at the UK Campaign Against fluoridation website. He claims:

“Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods! That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of ‘functional drinks’ in member states of the European Community. (HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June2005)”

Often the quote marks used when this is quoted give the impression they are quoting from the actual European Court of Justice ruling. Which is wrong – the document does not refer to fluoridation at all!

Also, while the title of the Court judgement is often given it is never linked to the document itself.

The Court decision

The specific ruling referred to in the Doug Cross’s often quoted  article is easily found by searching on the European Court of Justice web site – providing you don’t use “fluoride” or “fluoridation” in the search.” Those words just don’t occur in the document.  In fact “water” only shows up a few times.

So here is the judgement - JUDGMENT OF THE COURT In Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03 and C-316/03 to C‑318/03.

The judgement refers to a conflict between the Netherlands and Germany over trade in a few food items. The codes in the title refer to these items. They are:

  • C-211/03, Lactobact omni FOS in powdered form; one gram of powder contains at least 1 000 000 000 organisms from the following bacterial strains: lactobacillus acidophilus, lactococcus lactis, E. faecium, bifidobacterium bifidum, lactobacillus casei and lactobacillus thermophilus; the recommended consumption is approximately 2 g per day, dissolved in half a glass of water or with yoghurt, although the dose is doubled where the need is greater and during the first four weeks of taking it;
  • C-299/03, C 1000 in tablet form containing, in particular, 1 000 mg of vitamin C, 30 mg of citrus bioflavonoids, hesperidin rutin complex and other ingredients; the recommended consumption is one tablet per day;
  • C-316/03, OPC 85 in tablet form containing, in particular, 50 mg of extract of bioflavonol – oligomere procyanidine; the recommended consumption is one tablet per day;
  • C-317/03, Acid Free C-1000 in tablet form containing, in particular, 1 110 mg of ascorbate of calcium – 1 000 mg of vitamin C and 110 mg of calcium; the recommended consumption is one tablet per day;
  • C-318/03, E-400 in tablet form, containing 268 mg of vitamin E; the recommended consumption is one tablet per day.

Yes, a key issue in the case was whether some of these products should really be classified as medicines and not foods, or that they contained genetically modified or novel organisms, and therefore trade in them is not permitted under food regulations. But how the hell this judgement can be used to claim that the court had ruled “fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods” is beyond me.

What has this to do with fluoridation?

I know I am not a lawyer. I can understand how a lawyer for FANNZ might use this case as an argument in their own attempts to make fluoridation illegal. And they are welcome to attempt this – although I suspect they won’t get very far by relying on that judgement.

But one thing is abundantly clear to anyone with basic comprehension skills. This judgment did not rule that fluoridated water is a medicine. Or that it cannot be used to prepare foods. And it did not rule that trade in foodstuffs from New Zealand would be banned by Europe as some of these sources were claiming.

So another anti-fluoridation myth hits the dust. Except it won’t. It will be repeated ad nauseum by anti-fluoridation activists. They will even give links to “prove” their claims. And those activists will claim they are doing “research.”

unfortunately, like many other stories told by anti-fluoridation activists, a bit of critical thinking and deeper searching proves the myth to be based on a complete lie.

The lesson

Something to remember when using Google for research – the rubbish, as in other situations, usually rises to the top. It is the easiest to find and gets the most hits. Oh, yes – be careful with that confirmation bias – it will trip you up.

See also:

Similar articles on fluoridation
Making sense of fluoride Facebook page
Fluoridate our water Facebook page
New Zealanders for fluoridation Facebook page

About these ads

107 responses to “Anatomy of an anti-fluoridation myth

  1. Ken, I have to congratulate you on your diligent use of Primary Sources

    The EU regulations are a minefield and most people lose the will to live trying to understand them

    Like

  2. Ken, the USA National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences 2006 findings (NRC/NAS 2006) can be sourced online. That doesn’t make them irrelevant to the fluoride debate. Just one finding noted in them should have been sufficient to end fluoridation in 2006: i.e.

    “In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate…”

    IN SIMPLE TERMS, THIS MEANS: A 10-kg, iodine-deficient bottle-fed infant, whose formula is reconstituted with water containing 1 part per million fluoride (1 ppm/F), could have detrimental “effects on thyroid function from regularly ingesting no more than one-tenth to three-tenths of one litre of formula; whereas an iodine-adequate 10-kg bottle-fed infant could have similar effects from chronically ingesting merely one-half or more of one litre of water fluoridated at 1 ppm.

    Bearing in mind that normal thyroid function is imperative to optimum health and that a deviation from normal thyroid function can have catastrophic effects for some, please explain how fluoridation could possibly be safe for all.

    Like

  3. Fluoridation is for the express purpose of treating people; thus it breaches the informed consent to treatment protocol which medical practitioners are supposed to observe. It is also likely to breach the Nuremberg Code; especially as it could be shown that fluoridation is still an experiment on the people. If it isn’t an experiment, why have the recommendations for it changed over decades as adjustments are made for people overdosing on fluoride, etc.?

    Like

  4. Blossom, I assume you are referring to the NRC report. I will check out that section sometime.

    Meantime, my article has nothing to do with iodine or thyroid function. Simply the question of integrity and honesty. I have shown that the common assertion that the European Court has banned fluoridation made by your organisation and sister organisations – and very many anti-fluoridation activists is based on an outright lie.

    I am interested in what you response is to the specifics of my article. Will you take steps to correct this misinformation?

    >

    Like

  5. With so many young people – with long lifespans ahead of them – now becoming concerned about their own exposure to fluoridated water, fluoridation’s death knell tolls more loudly.

    Like

  6. Again, Blossom, I find your reference to the “Nuremberg Code” ironic in the circumstance. Care to provide a reference so that I can investigate it as I have with your claims about the European Court?

    >

    Like

  7. …fluoridation’s death knell tolls more loudly.

    Sure it will.
    What will be the excuse of the medical establishment when this great “Berlin Wall” of pseudo-science finally collapses?

    Ah ,the will be a great weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Like

  8. Ken, Where did I state anything about the European Court?

    Like

  9. Ken, to expedite your research please re the iodine-thyroid issue, refer to page 238/467 .pdf “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards”

    Like

  10. Ken, your statement

    “Something to remember when using Google for research – the rubbish, as in other situations, usually rises to the top. It is the easiest to find and gets the most hits. Oh, yes – be careful with that confirmation bias – it will trip you up.

    Is a little suspect.

    Google uses the page rank algorithm which is based on the citation index concept. So if a high ranking paper cites your paper, then your paper gets a higher ranking.

    Obviously, people have tried, successfully in some cases, to spam this system, but this was one of the main reasons that google took off in the early 2000s

    So to suggest that google will prefer rubbish based on hits is not correct.it is based on incoming links from other sites.

    Like

  11. You misunderstand, Andy. I am not claiming anything about Google’s algorithm.. Simply that an unintelligent and non-critical use of google exposes people to the crap floating at the top. This is particularly true of the fluoridation issue and especially the case I discussed. With the appropriate confirmation bias it is easily to fool oneself.

    >

    Like

  12. Blossom, “Ken, Where did I state anything about the European Court?” That is my exact point. My article was about the claim by the anti-fluoridation crowd that the European Court had effectively banned fluoridation. I showed this is based on a lie. Your chose to comment here without any reference to my article or the myth it debunked.

    Why? Just trolling?

    >

    Like

  13. To be fair, ken has done some research here that should get an honest response.

    Like

  14. Ken, you didn’t answer my question which was, Where did I state anything about the European Court?’ As for me not addressing your comment, I threw a FACT into the ring for the express purpose of you having difficulty debunking it (the one pertaining to the NRC 2006 finding re fluoride intake and the iodine-deficient humans).

    Like

  15. Blossom, you came here to comment, but didn’t comment on the article at all. That is my point.

    Why was that?

    Why, after reading my article demonstrating this myth is based on a lie did you ignore it and instead raise other irrelevant material?

    I am not getting into issues of thyroid in this discussion because it doesn’t interest me and it is a diversion. I want to know what you think of your organisation promoting lies like this.

    Surely this is simple.

    I have written a article providing important information exposing lies told by your organisation. Why should you want to divert attention away from it? And why should I cooperate in that diversion.

    Please let us know what your think of the lies perpetrated by your organisation, Fluoride Alert. Specifically on the claims made about a European Court judgment on water fluoridation.

    >

    Like

  16. Ken, I’ve already told you why I changed the subject. End of story.

    Like

  17. I have no interest in the European Court’s judgement on water fluoridation. That one finding by the NRC 2006 (iodine-fluoride issue) is sufficient reason for fluoridation to have ended, everywhere, in 2006. Why hasn’t it? If you refer back to that finding you can discover that iodine-deficient humans can have “effects to thyroid” from 4 to 5 times less fluoride intake than iodine-adequate humans. There are many who are iodine-deficient.

    Like

  18. How does the global, scientific konspiracy work, Blossom?
    Who’s in charge?
    When did it start?
    What are the nuts and bolts of the operation?

    Also, would you mind telling us how you figured it all out? What was your methodology that revealed the awful secret?

    THE FLUORIDE CONSPIRACY IN A NUTSHELL

    Like

  19. Blossom, your naive attempt at diversion and your refusal to discuss the specifics of my article smacks of guilt. You must realise that Fluoride Alert bases much of their propaganda on such misinformation and lies. So you consciously attempt a diversion.

    Of course the lesson that comes from the content of my article and similar exposures is that groups like Fluoride Alert are unreliable as sources of information. They often base their whole story on a lie or an incorrect citation. One has to conclude that anything from that source cannot be taken at face value. It must always be checked out – preferable by going back to primary sources.

    Blossom, if and when I get around to checking the section of the NRC report dealing with thyroid issues I am likely to find a similar story. But of course by then you will no longer have any interest in that story and will have moved on to something else. Another diversion. It’s called a Gish gallop.

    If you are not interested in the European Court judgement, or my exposure of the lie, then you would not have commented here and attempted this naive diversion.

    >

    Like

  20. Here’s some primary sources you may like to check.
    Scientific Facts on the Biological Effects of Fluorides
    Dr David Kennedy DDS
    IAOMT
    “Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century”
    Robert Carlton, Ph.D., former U.S. EPA scientist on “Marketplace” Canadian Broadcast
    Company Nov 24, 1992
    “Regarding fluoridation, the 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”
    William Marcus, Ph.D., senior EPA toxicologist, Covert Action, Fall 1992, p.66

    1.Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of
    collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.
    A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, “Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone
    Composition”, IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol 9, No.11, pp.1021-
    1022
    (1981);
    Y.D. Sharma, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors”,
    Toxocological Letters, Vol.10, pp97-100 (1982);
    A.K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee, “Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen
    Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue”, Toxocologiocal European Research,
    Vol 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981);
    Y.D. Sharma,”Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride
    Ingestion”, Biochemica et Bioiphysica Acta, Vol 715, pp.137-141 (1982);
    Marian Drozdz et al.,”Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective
    Tissue metabolism inGrowing Rats” and “Effect of Sodium Fluoride With and Without
    Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism”, Journal of
    Toxological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp.151-157 (1984).

    2. Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood
    cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a
    foreign agent in the blood.
    Robert A. Clark, “Neutrophil Iodintion Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for
    Degranulation and Metabolic Activation,” Blood, Vol 57, pp.913-921 (1981).

    3. Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to
    properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm
    fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually
    abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1ppm, may
    seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.
    John Curnette, et al, “Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human
    Neutrophils”, Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol 63, pp.637-647 (1979);
    W.L. Gabler and P.A. Leong, “Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonumclear Leukocytes”,
    Journal of Dental Research, Vo. 48, No. 9, pp.1933-1939 (1979);
    W.L. Gabler, et al., “Effect of Fluoride on the Kinetics of Superoxide Generation by
    Fluoride”, Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p.281 (1985);
    A.S. Kozlyuk, et al., “Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated
    Environments”, Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp.6-9 (1987)

    4. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own
    tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals.
    Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth”,
    Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol
    119,p.252(1965)
    Shiela Gibson, “Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function”, Complementary
    Medical Research, Vol 6, pp.111-113 (1992);
    Peter Wilkinson, “Inhibition of the Immune Syetem With Low Levels of Fluorides”,
    Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs.
    Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636,
    (1982);
    D.W.Allman and M.Benac, “Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP
    Concentration in Vivo”, Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55 (Supplement B), p.523
    (1976);
    S. Jaouni and D.W. Allman, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate
    Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity”, Journal of Dental Research, Vol.64, p.201
    (1985)

    5. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.
    S.K. Jain and A.K. Susheela, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in
    Rabbits”, Environmental Research, Vol.44, pp.117-125 (1987).

    6. Fluoride depresses Thyroid activity.
    Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, “Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism,
    Particularly on the Thyroid Gland,” Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol 105,
    pp182-186 (1963);
    Benagiano, “The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism
    in the Rat”, Annali Di Stomatologia, Vol 14, pp.601-619n (1965);
    Donald Hillman, et al., “Hypothyroidism and Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy
    Cattle,” Journal of Dairy Science, Vol 62, No.3, pp.416-423 (1979);
    V. Stole and J. Podoba, “Effect of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thrroid Hormones”,
    Nature, Vol 188, No.4753, pp.855-856 (1960);
    Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, “Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and
    yperthyroidism”, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp.1102-
    1110 (1958).

    7. Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body.
    T.Takamorim “The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents oif
    Fluorine,” The Toxicology of Fluorine, Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct 1962,
    pp.125-129; Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, “High Fluoride Exposure in
    Hemodialysis Patients”, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp.320-324
    (1990);
    Y.Yoshisa, “Experimental Studies on Chronic Fluorine Poisoning”, Japaneses Journal of
    Industrial Health, Vol 1, pp.683-690 (1959).

    8. Flouride promotes development of bone cancer.
    J.K. Mauer, et al., “Two-year cacinogenicity study of sodium fluoride in rats”, Journal
    of the National Cancer Institute, Vol 82, pp1118-1126 (1990);
    Proctor and Gamble “Carcinogencity studies with Sodium Fluoride in rats” National
    Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985;
    S.E. Hrudley et al.,”Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteocarcoma” Canadian Journal
    of Public Health, Vol 81, pp.415-416 (1990);
    P.D. Cohn, ” A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and
    Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males”, New Jersey Department of Health,
    Trenton, New Jersey, Nov 1992; M.C. Mahoney et al.,”Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in
    New York”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 81, pp.81, 475 (1991);
    Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, “Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors
    Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride”, Genetics Vol 48, pp.307-310 (1963);
    J.A. Disney, et al., ” A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom; School-Based
    Fluoride Mouthrinse Programs in the USA” Community Dentistry and Oral
    Epidemiology, Vol 18, pp.46-56 (1990);
    D.J. Newell, “Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer – an association?”, Applied
    Statistics, Vol 26, No.2, pp.125-135 (1977)

    9. Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.
    Nicholas Leone, et al., “Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply”,
    Public Health Reports, Vol 69, pp.925-936 (1954);
    J. David Erikson, “Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated
    Water Supplies”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp.1112-1116 (1978);
    “The Village Where People are Old
    Before their Time”, Stern Magazine, Vol 30, pp.107-108,111-112 (1978);

    10. Fluoride ingestion from mouthrinses and dentifrices in children is extremely
    hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.
    Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, “Fluoride retained from mouthrinses and
    dentifrices in preschool children”, Caries Research, Vol.3, pp.290-299 (1969);
    W.L. Augenstein, et al., “Fluoride ingestion in children: a review of 87 cases”,
    Pediatrics, Vol 88, pp.907-912, (1991);
    Charles Wax, “Field Investigation report”, State of Maryland Department of Health and
    Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67pp;
    George Waldbott, “Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water”,
    Clinical Toxicology, Vol 18, No.5, pp.531-541 (1981)

    11. Fluorides diminish the intelligence capability of the human brain.
    X.S.Li et al, Fluoride, Vol 26, No.4, pp.189-192, 1995, “Effect of Fluoride Exposure on
    Intelligence In Children”. Presented to the 20th Conference of the International
    Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, September 5-9, 1994.

    12. Fluoride studies in rats can be indicative of a potential for motor disruption,
    intelligence deficits and learning disabilities in humans. Humans are exposed to
    plasma levels of fluoride as high as those in rat studies. Fluoride involves interruption
    of normal brain development. Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, which
    integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli, to
    produce behavioral decisions and modify memory. Experience with other
    developmental neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioral
    functions will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats.
    Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No,2, p.176, “Neurotoxicity of Sodium
    Fluoride in Rats”, Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995.

    13. Fluorides accumulate in the brain over time to reach neurologically harmful
    levels.
    Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No,2, p.176, “Neurotoxicity of Sodium
    Fluoride in Rats”, Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995.

    14. “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify the
    Metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication
    include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine.”
    Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18, 1943.

    15. “Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental
    disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic
    disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.”
    Journal of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944.

    Other Facts about Fluoride
    The contents of a family-size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 25-
    pound child.
    In 1991, the Akron (Ohio) Regional Poison Centre reported that “death has been
    reported following ingestion of 16mg/kg of fluoride. Only 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride
    could kill a 100 pound adult. According to the Centre, “fluoride toothpaste contains
    up to 1mg/gram of fluoride.” Even Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Crest,
    acknowledge that a family-sized tube “theoretically contains enough fluoride to kill a
    small child.”
    Fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are
    used to kill rodents.

    1943 The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943,
    states, “fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the
    cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanism of such actions
    are obscure.”.

    Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate.

    1975 Dr. John Yiamouyiannis published a preliminary survey which shows that
    people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated
    areas. The National Cancer Institute attempts to refute the studies. Later
    in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joins with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National
    Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which are then included in
    the Congressional Record by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of
    the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances
    to food used for human consumption.

    Both reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer.
    (Note: Obviously Dr. Burk felt free to agree with scientific truth only after his tenure
    at NCI ended, since his job depended on toeing the party line).

    Like

  21. No, Mr Nutter, copypasta like this doesn’t impress me one bit. Now if you had actually read one pf the referenced papers we could discuss it. But you and I know that is not the case.

    The telling thing is that you have come here because I had an article exposing the lies told about anti-fluoridation activists when they say the the European Court has banned fluoridation. The fact that you did nothing to engage with that issue tells me that you have nothing to suggest I am wrong. You are admitting, in effect, that the anti-fluoridations are lying about this.

    So, Mr Nutter, your motives are the same as Blossom, and attem to to divert attention away from my article and the lies your groups promote by a naive list of copypasta.

    Pathetic.

    Like

  22. Folk, please Goggle http://fluorideinformationaustralia/wordpress.com/ then click on ‘legal’ then ‘affidavits’ then read some or all of the affidavits used by the plaintiff in the early 1990s in the case Safe Water Assn Inc, plaintiff, versus, Fond du Lac County, defendant. The last link includes the 25 affidavits used by the defendant. Judge Peter Grimm found water fluoridation was unsafe by he did not have the power to enjoin (forbid) the practice. Note the June 30, 1993 press release about his ruling commencing page 115 of the .pdf / affidavits. .

    Like

  23. Blossom, does your link in any way relate to the subject of my article – the European Court Judgement, or are you still trying to divert attention away from that? You realise by tacitly admitting that Fluoride Alert has lied about the European Court decision you put yourself in a vey peculiar position to keep quoting from Fluoride Alert?

    >

    Like

  24. My sincere apologies to all rational readers of this page, the above URL had one incorrect insert. Hopefully this link http://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/ will help you source the 25 ‘fluoride’ affidavits used by the plaintiff in the US / Wisconsin court case where Judge Grimm ruled fluoridation harmful but he did not have the power to forbid the practice.

    Like

  25. Oh dear, Trevor, Blossom seems to have excluded you from his correction?

    >

    Like

  26. Ken – 25/9/13 @ 11:54 am – It would be possible to point out inaccuracies you yourself have written on this page but that would be a waste of time. The truth speaks for itself (refer to the iodine-fluoride findings above).

    Like

  27. Yeah, right, Blossom. But in the absence of your finding I have made a mistake I will assume you can’t find an error and have therefor tacitly accepted that your organisation is promoting myths based on lies.

    The floor is yours in the European Court judgement. Don’t waste the opportunity.

    >

    Like

  28. Ken, I have laid no claim to the organization to which you allude. Just because I enter it here doesn’t make it is my organization. However, I know that it was begun by a coalition of scientists and other citizens from 14 countries with a view to ending fluoridation through informed debate. Are you prepared to debate fluoridation, in person, with one of these scientists, in a properly moderated public arena?

    Like

  29. Christ, another Walter Mitty offering one of his idols for a debate.

    We in Hamilton are currently debating the issue because we are having a referendum in fluoridation. I have personally participated in a public debate with an opponent of fluoridation – we both enjoyed it. If you want to debate me you are more than welcome – just do it in the next few weeks before the referendum finishes.

    By the way, I attended an anti-fluoridation meeting in this city the other day and was told no questions or comments from the floor were allowed. They would lead to eviction. That made a farce of the meeting so I left. Apparently it was very boring. Why do these people never allow proper discussion to take place.? Why do the ban pro-science people from commenting in their forums and on the Facebook pages. What are they scared of?

    In Hamilton a member if the local anti-fluoridation group tried to get the Chemistry Department of the local university to muzzle its staff – to prevent them from participating in the debate. What was he scared of?

    But you are just coming in with another diversion. This article is specifically about the European Court and the claim by anti-fluoridation activists that it had rules fluoridation illegal. I have shown it was based on a lie. You have avoided discussing the issue because you know I am right. Your attempted diversions are a tacit acknowledgment of that. What are you sacred of?

    >

    Like

  30. Here’s some primary sources you may like to check.

    No, fuck you.
    How incredibly fucking rude. Nobody cares about your cutting-and-pasting.
    How do people like you tie your own shoes?
    Do you seriously imagine that what you are doing is a good idea?
    Real people don’t do that.
    Nobody wants to wade through your mega cut-and-paste turd that you left steaming on the doorstep.

    Folk, please Goggle…

    No. How about that?
    Just no.
    I don’t care about some link that some anonymous person posted and then begged me to click. It’s nothing to do with the conversation.
    Pimping your blog is just icky.
    And again, it’s just plain rude.
    Please go off somewhere and fight hot lava.

    Are you prepared to debate fluoridation, in person, with…

    Comical.
    Science deniers and their precious need to set up quick and easy debates. It’s not science you want, but a sideshow.
    Creationists do it, climate deniers do it, etc.
    Science deniers and their debate fetish.

    Real scientists don’t do that. They don’t need to. They enter the scientific arena where the real “debate” happens. Everything else is just fluff.

    Why Won’t Al Gore Debate?

    Like

  31. I do not know that you are right about the European Court issue because I don’t follow the issue. The issue on this page isn’t just about the European Court. I’ve changed its direction to the fluoride-iodine issue.

    Like

  32. Blossom, this is my blog. You came here to comment on an article about the European Court and the lies promoted by anti-fluoridation activists. You don’t get to “change it’s direction to the fluoride-iodine issue.” You can write about it on your own blog or anywhere but on this comment section. Don’t be so arrogant.

    Or you can wait until I get around to writing something on it myself – then come along and comment. You comments on that issue will be most welcome then, they are not now here.

    If you don’t wish to discuss the European Court and the lies if the anti-fluoridationists about it then you should not have come here and you may as well take off now.

    >

    Like

  33. No, fuck you.
    How incredibly fucking rude. Nobody cares about your cutting-and-pasting.

    I agree Cedric, fuck you. Fuck you too and anyone who looks like you.
    We have higher standards here.

    We use Primary Sources of Information

    We can cut and paste links to NASA videos like the best of them. Oh yes!

    But fuck anyone else who cut and pastes

    Fucking hypocrite

    Like

  34. Blossom, this is my blog. You came here to comment on an article about the European Court and the lies promoted by anti-fluoridation activists. You don’t get to “change it’s direction to the fluoride-iodine issue.” You can write about it on your own blog or anywhere but on this comment section. Don’t be so arrogant.

    Ken, a simple “fuck off” will suffice

    This is your blog,, anyone who disagrees with you is anti-science.

    So just tell them to “fuck off”. Cedric has set the bar.

    It is very simple

    This is my view,
    If you don’t accept it you are a cunt and you can fuck off.

    It really is that simple Ken

    Like

  35. You know, Andy, perhaps that is why you won’t get into the Facebook discussions. Apparently swearing causes one’s comment to be hidden – even a few “shits” sets of the alarm. It happens automatically – they must have a list of offensive words.

    I wonder if there is some sort of gimmick that will do this for blog comments. Or even just enable the blogger to hide offensive comments. Could be a way of raising the level of discussion.

    >

    Like

  36. No Ken, but it is OK for your house troll Cedric to tell people to “fuck off”

    Do you have a moderation policy on who can tell whom to “fuck off”?
    It would be interesting to get a handle on this.

    Like

  37. No, Andy, but I have got far worse than that. And from you, too. Pots and kettles.

    >

    Like

  38. Yes you have got far worse from that, and I am not making any judgements.

    I have referered to you previously as a “fucking cunt” and I stand by that statement

    The question i have is – is it OK to tell someone to “fuck off” for providing a list of peer-reviewed papers whilst your own contribution is to cut and paste URLS to NASA marketing material?

    i.e If I post a link to a paper that disagrees with your POV, it is OK to tell someone to “fuck off”, bit if someone posts a link to a propaganda video then this is cool and not OK to tell someone to “fuck off”

    Perhaps you could ask your children and grandchildren on what they think the standards of decorum are in telling someone to “fuck off” on a public blog

    I am sure it is in the NZ currliculum somewhere

    Under media studies, or something

    Like

  39. Why not ask your mate Richard Cummings. He will be able to help you won’t he? Or can’t you stand his company any more?

    >

    Like

  40. Ken, I could ask Richard Cummins about the protocol around the use of the phrase “fuck off” on your Blog.
    I could also ask my family, what is the protocol of the use of the phrase “fuck off” on Open Parachute

    it would probably receive a fairly blank response as they wouldn’t have a clue what I was talking about.

    Maybe I could pop down the local and ask some farmers on what they thought in this matter, or ask some random strangers in the street?

    Perhaps I could ask my MP, or even NASA?

    NASA are a primary source of information. (They have a website)

    Hey NASA, am I allowed to say…

    Oh never mind

    Like

  41. Andy is being silly again.

    Like

  42. You know, for a brief, shining moment there, it actually looked as if people were at least prepared to call a temporary truce in the interests of getting an evasive third party to front up on an issue.

    Plainly, that was never going to last.

    Still, if I might be permitted the last word for posterity, I shall observe that, in slinking away, Blossom has effectively conceded that there is no argument to be made against Ken’s article.

    Like

  43. I don’t slink; I’m still here. It’s just that there is no profit in going round in circles.

    Like

  44. Easy to break that circle for you, Blossom. Read the article, have a look at the Judgement. Tell me if I am right or wrong.

    I am happy to be proved wrong because I would then learn something. But this is not the place for your diversions just because you want to avoid an unpleasant home truth..

    Like

  45. Your diversion is a red herring to lead away from the truth: i.e. fluoride at the very low levels added to public drinking water supplies can cause ‘effects to thryoid’ function and those who are iodine-deficient can be affected with 4 to 5 times less fluoride than those who are iodine-adequate. The European Court ruling takes a back seat to the iodine-fluoride issue. In fact, the back seat it takes is so far back that it is running along behind the vehicle.

    Like

  46. So, since the question of whether Europe has, in fact, banned water fluoridation is apparently a “red herring,” perhaps the way to go would be for your side to stop promoting such demonstrably false claims. That way, people won’t people won’t have to spend time correcting you on them.

    Because personally, I think your unwillingness to discuss or address what is, frankly, a very prevalent lie, actively promoted by your side, utterly destroys your credibility.

    Like

  47. Another red herring.

    Like

  48. Again, Blossom, if this is a “red herring,” it is one assiduously promoted by your side. You have only yourselves to blame if it is detracting attention from these “real issues” of yours.

    Now, typically, if a claim is demonstrated to be false, the response for a reasonable person is to admit the fault, issue a retraction of the claim and refrain from making it in the future. This is the correct course of action regardless of whether the point is a minor one or a major one.

    Your unwillingness to engage on the topic of Ken’s article suggests that you will continue to promote the claim, or allow others to do so without calling them on it, because the “Europe has banned fluoridation” claim plays well with your audience.

    Of course, a cynical person might suspect that your unwillingness to retract false claims is mostly about the precedent doing so would set. After all, if you have to retract one claim just because it’s demonstrably and obviously false,who knows what other claims might have to be retracted before the process finally stopped?

    Like

  49. Read the article, have a look at the Judgement. Tell me if I am right or wrong.

    Sound advice.
    Can you do it?

    Like

  50. At $350 per hour up front I might consider.

    Like

  51. That response was merely to indicate what a time waster it would be acquainting myself with the European Court issue.

    Like

  52. No, but you and your organisation will continue to repeat the lies about this.

    >

    Like

  53. This conversation is a waste of oxygen. Valve now switched off.

    Like

  54. Because personally, I think your unwillingness to discuss or address what is, frankly, a very prevalent lie, actively promoted by your side, utterly destroys your credibility.

    Chris called it.

    Like

  55. Great article Ken. It deserves to be widely read. Keep up the good work. The comment you made about some people thinking googling is research rings true. Blossom is mindboggling stupid to keep popping up to offer no rebuttal to your argument over and over again. They don’t seem to understand science or debating. A troll with L plates? I suppose even they have to start somewhere. (I’d delete them and the overuse of the F word )

    Like

  56. You know, call me a sceptic, but I don’t think we need to be experts in European law in order to work out whether a given court case banned the fluoridation of water or not. You’d expect the text of the case to say, clearly, “this court has found the fluoridation of water to be illegal” (or words to that effect), and then set out the reasoning by which the judges reached that decision.

    Now, I suppose that somebody might argue that the definition of medicine applied by a particular court would mean fluoridation would be illegal, but in this case, you would need another court case to cite that decision in their reasoning for banning fluoridation. So, again, you need an unequivocal statement that the court has banned the fluoridation of water. Otherwise, we have to assume nobody has ever successfully made that legal argument, and hence there has been no ban imposed on fluoridation.

    In short, Blossom’s attempt to appeal to a lack of expertise in European law as a reason not to discuss the article comes across as a bit of an effort to weasel out of the discussion.

    Like

  57. LINK to 5:19 minute video http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UDHW94Mz9xg about US Government admits fluoridated water damaging teeth.

    Like

  58. Blossom, this link dumping that you do?
    Doesn’t help.
    You are only embarassing yourself further.

    Like

  59. To me the key question is this: is water fluoridation banned in any European country? My answer is yes, it is banned in some European countries. They real myth going around which I actually heard myself from a high level fluoride public health communications expert is this: “fluoridation is not banned in Europe.” When you say something like that it means that fluoridation is not banned anywhere in Europe, and that is simply false in my opinion.

    Ken, you are correct in your criticism of people who say the European Court has something to do with this. That court has not stopped fluoridation in Europe, nor has any kind of European organization. But just because you rightfully pointed this out, that does not mean you have “destroyed” the myth.

    What has happened is that individual countries have banned it or stopped doing it and then banned it afterwards. If water fluoridation was not banned in the Netherlands and Sweden then you would expect at least one small town in those countries would want to fluoridate their water. Maybe they heard about how great fluoridation was. Would they be permitted to start fluoridation? Not according to experts in those nations. There are several legal impediments (laws and court rulings) to prevent any town in the Netherlands from starting fluoridation. For those public health people who like to persist in spreading their myth about Europe that means it is BANNED in those countries, without any doubt. Even the high level people promoting fluoridation simply accept this false myth without any investigation on their part. They can’t answer questions about it. They even can’t give a list of nations in Europe where water fluoridation is permitted.

    Before I hear the stock excuses about why Europe has very little water fluoridation let me address them. Yes, some European nations have salt fluoridation. But not all the nations that ban water fluoridation have salt fluoridation. Water and salt fluoridation are not the same thing. Salt fluoridation is banned in the U.S. This shows the toxic nature of fluoride, and how it’s impossible to make it completely safe according to public health standards. Simply getting twice an average daily dose is seen as bad by U.S. public health agencies. Many people are getting twice an average daily dose or more already. Water fluoridation was in existence and was promoted world wide by the U.S. public health service long before fluoridated salt caught on in Europe. But European countries did not widely adopt fluoridation anyway, so they obviously had doubts about it. And nobody denies that some nations stopped water fluoridation.

    Then there is the other excuse that somehow the public water systems in Europe are so different that it’s impractical or too expensive to do. I say that is a made up excuse. I would like to know where this actually happened, what nation decided this was the real reason to not implement fluoridation. If somebody says nation X did not fluoridated because of inadequate water pipes, then I want to see some documentation. So far there has been nothing from fluoridation promoters to support this claim, or if there is I have not seen it. If you look at the list of nations that had water fluoridation in Europe it runs across the continent. So are we supposed to believe that in those nations the public water systems are far different than in the nations that never adopted fluoridation? In the U.S. we have very small water systems with fluoridation, so of course it could be done all over Europe if there was the will to do it.

    Like

  60. Doug, I made very clear that the myth I was debunking was the claim that the European Court had banned fluoridation. You have shifted the goal posts. The point is that people are telling lies and that should be countered, not excused.

    This has been a persistent myth, and is still a myth when put in the form that “Europe bans fluoridation.” It needs to be debunked.

    Like

  61. You have shifted the goal posts.

    Funny how that seems to happen. Must be heavy work.

    Like

  62. I’ve been involved with this subject for many years and I’ve never heard of the myth that Europe banned fluoridation because of a European court ruling. I think that idea is an obscure myth from a single facebook posting and nothing more. I don’t think any large anti-fluoridation group has endorsed that myth.

    This “banned in Europe” idea deserves more discussion because it is a point made by fluoridation opponents and dismissed by proponents. Please allow me to do a little myth busting like you did. Here’s the American Dental Association’s current statement from their “Fluoridation Facts”

    “No country in Europe has banned community water fluoridation.” “Again, no European country has imposed a “ban” on water fluoridation, it has simply not been imple- mented for a variety of technical, legal, financial or political reasons.
    Political actions contrary to the recommendations of health authorities should not be interpreted as a negative response to water fluoridation. For example, although fluoridation is not carried out in Sweden and the Netherlands, both countries support World Health Organization’s recommendations regarding fluoridation as a preventive health measure, in addition to the use of fluoride toothpastes, mouthrinses and dietary fluoride supplements.”

    This is one of the strangest things I’ve ever read from the ADA. Do you take this statement seriously? This belief required some serious cognitive dissonance. You need to believe that no European country has banned water fluoridation, but but it is not allowed in some European countries. You need to believe just because laws against it are passed and courts make decisions stopping fluoridation in an entire nation that somehow also means it is not “banned” in those countries because some local public health dentists think it’s a good idea. Most people would say those countries have “banned” it according to the definition of the word in English. Do you?

    I don’t blame you if you don’t want to go down this road with me. Yes, perhaps I did change the goal posts of your original posting. But you brought up the subject. To me the really serious myth and contradictory statements about this subject are made by American Dental Society, a wealthy influential trade organization. Their myth is spreading far more than the one your debunked, and very few people bother to check and see if the ADA statement is true.

    A few years ago the ADA claimed it was a fact that there were 60 nations practicing water fluoridation. I called and asked for the list of 60 nations. The ADA insisted it was a true statement but could not give me the list of 60 nations. It turned out to be a complete fabrication, and the ADA changed their words later when negative publicity about the statement became more widely known. They no longer claim that 60 nations are practicing water fluoridation.

    There are myths spread on both sides of the fluoridation issue.

    Like

  63. Doug, you seem upset that I have debunked a specific myth. You may never have heard of the European court claim, but clearly lots of people have as a little googling will show you.

    Now, what about you doing the same. Actually look at the European legislation and give me citations and links to any laws specifically banning fluoridation in individual countries. I am sure there are one or two examples but let’s see how many. Willing to do that research?

    Again, look at the porkies that are being told about the Israeli High Court “banning” fluoridation – another myth heavily promoted of late.

    You acknowledge you moved the goalposts – a way to avoid that is to be specific. That is why I ask for specific legislation, citation and links from you.

    >

    Like

  64. I’m not upset that you debunked a specific myth. I don’t know why you wrote that when in my first post I agreed with you that no European court decision has banned fluoridation in Europe. First of all, no matter what any European court may say about fluoridation it doesn’t mean it actually has the power to do anything about it. The European court has no army, and Europe is not one nation. Plus, there is still water fluoridation going on and fluoridationists are not worried about any European court order to stop it.

    I found that getting the exact European legislation plus legal and administrative decisions banning fluoridation is not an easy thing to find, but maybe I’m not the best web researcher. I did find a couple things.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoridation_by_country: “In 1952, Norrköping in Sweden became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply.[62] It was declared illegal by the Supreme Administrative Court of Sweden in 1961, re-legalized in 1962[63] and finally prohibited by the parliament in 1971,[64] after considerable debate.”

    The references are all in Swedish, but I suspect they contain the details you are looking for. I doubt if any fluoridationists would dispute this wikpedia account.

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

    So that reference has an actual date and case # of a supreme court decision banning fluoridation. There is no water fluoridation in the Netherlands today. It seems in some European countries the decision to not fluoridate or stop fluoridation was an administrative decision made by the government.

    The news about Israeli fluoridation is a bit confusing. I read the supreme court decision. That court seems to think the government intends to stop fluoridation or is obligated to do so because the current water regulations do not allow it. But I think the legislature could pass new water regulations in time to continue fluoridation. The health minister has made statements against fluoridation, but at other times said it might be needed in some areas. I do believe things have changed in Israel significantly, as the mandatory fluoridation rule has been eliminated there. I think mandatory state laws are the primary reason for increased fluoridation in the U.S. over the last several decades. It’s not because the public wants it, and these mandatory laws prevent communities from making their own decision on this issue or having any kind of a vote. From what I see, the U.S. is the only place in the world where water fluoridation has increased significantly in the last 20 years. In Canada, the opposite is happening. Yes, the percentage of Canadians with fluoridated water has been going down.

    Like

  65. Yes, as I said you might find a few countries – you found 2. And relied on Fluoride Alert for one of them. Incidentally Fluoride Alert promulgated the story that the Israeli high Court had “banned” fluoridation. You have read the ruling so you know that is not true.

    This is an example of the point I have been making? anti-fluoridationinists do tend to tell porkies about this whole issue – their information should never be relied on. Always check it out.

    As for public attitudes – in my city the local council decided to stop fluoridation earlier this year. However, people protested and it was put to a referendum. 70% of citizens in the referendum supported fluoridation. But the anti-fluoridation activists are still campaigning to prevent it.

    So much for the public being opposed. Our referendum was just one of three in New Zealand at the same time supporting fluoridation.

    >

    Like

  66. we dont need extra chemicals in are fucking water period they all ready expose us to enough chemicals fuck you idiots supporting chemicals added to are water good or bad we should have a choice if we are getting drugged its fucking wrong and none of you see it well some, because of you idiots my brain and body are suffering because we wont come together and get rid of this fucking evil now just think of any drug or chemical most drugs low does dont harm us at all maybe a little tiny bit now think about how we as a society use fluoride like crack heads we drink it we brush with it and worst of all we bath in it think of the large amounts of this mysterious chemical we absorbed in the shower and dont even think about trying to prove me wrong your all fools to the subject if you never have done any experiments you dont know what you’re talking about im no exception but the fact is common logic tells me we use any chemical every single day it will add up and harm us stop try to promote such a outrageous thing we do not fucking deserve to get experimented on like lab rats get the fucking chemicals out of are water and if you think it stops at fluoride hahahahah are government isnt that kind they give us more goody’s chlorine barium lead traces of arsenic i mean the fucking place where they clean are water are called treatment plants key word TREATMENT think about it people why the fuck would you want more synthetic chemicals in your life cause i surely don’t and if you think sodium fluoride in are water is nothing more then a mineral you’re very confused you are thinking of calcium fluoride sodium fluoride pure man made people like you supporting this fucking evil are ruining it for the rest of us stop telling the goddamn sheep its safe cause its not the worst part about this is are own government is aware of what shit is in are water and they just dont care wouldn’t be a problem for states to switch to big distiller plants btw if you believe the lies about distilled water you’re once again stupid as fuck stop spreading misinformation i still cant believe how many people are ok with the chemicals in are water fuck the world when pure clean distilled is so easy BIG BUCKS IN SHIT WATER LITTLE MONEY IN CLEAN WATER DO YOU PEOPLE GET IT YET

    Like

  67. My…Walter seems a little upset…

    Like

  68. Walter provides conclusive evidence that fluoride leads to loss of punctuation

    Like

  69. Mind you, some people think there is a literary skill in writing such long sentences. :-)

    Like

  70. He ain’t no James Joyce.

    Like

  71. I saw Walter in TV series Breaking Bad.
    This is what happens when you consume too much of his product.

    Like

  72. Andy, I got the vague impression walter was oposed to fluoridation…perhaps lack of fluoride leads to erratic outbursts of poor punctuation?

    Like

  73. Do not put Fluoride in your Walters

    Like

  74. This is the kind of person the anti-fluoride nutters attract.
    The allcaps I can understand and delight in.
    That’s the standard schtick of your average garden-variety kook having some fun expressing their feelings on the internet. Yet the whole “lets’-ignore-basic-grammer-and-punctuation-rules” thing seems to be a speciality of the anti-fluoridationists.
    Anybody remember IAN, for example?
    (…significant pause…)
    Yep.
    There’s one other thing too.
    No one on their side even seems to notice.
    Wierd.

    Like

  75. Pingback: Dental fluorosis: badly misrepresented by FANNZ | Open Parachute

  76. I only see what I want to see, and hear what I want to hear.

    That’s why I love your blog. It makes me feel good to ignore any thing other than what I want to believe.

    My ideas come from institutions and their lessons. Of course I had to think inside their box in order to ‘pass’. But now I’m an ‘expert’ on bullshit. Oh and statistics, they’re just so damn convenient.

    I love the term ‘conspiracy theory’. That’s damn convenient too. Was it the CIA that first coined the term? Shucks, who cares right?

    Being ‘right’ is my critical imperative. I think I’m right, so they must be wrong.

    Keep up the good work. ‘We’ all love you for it.

    Like

  77. Chemical analysis of hydrofluorosilicic acid done by an Ireland lab:
    MINISTER MISLEADS DAIL:
    On 21/3/2000, the Minister of Health was asked, by J. Gormley (Green Party), if, “chromium is present in hydrofluoslicic acid, the fluoridating agent imported from Holland used to facilitate fluoridation of drinking water?” Minister Martin replied that the acid fluoride “does not contain chromium”. FFW obtained a sample of this acid fluoride and had it chemically analysed at an independent laboratory in Dublin. This analysis confirmed our greatest fears, chromium is present and at similar levels as the arsenic also present. Minister Martin misled the Dail and the Irish people. This is misinformation at best or even fraudulent if Minister Martin is aware of the contaminants of this hazardous waste product of the fertiliser industry.
    CAL Limited,
    95 Merrion Square,
    Dublin 2, Ireland.
    Tel: 353 1 661 3033
    Fax: 353 1 661 3399
    CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CONFIDENTIAL REPORT No. W8158
    Lab No. 23034
    Sample Description: Hydrofluosilicic Acid
    Date Reported: 14/08/2000
    TEST RESULT
    Calcium 51ppm
    Magnesium 23.9ppm
    Sodium 33.6ppm
    Potassium 6.2ppm
    Aluminium 2.1ppm
    Boron 14ppb
    Manganese 571ppb
    Copper 90ppb
    Zinc 523ppb
    Phosphorus 26187ppm
    Barium 168ppb
    Iron 11.85ppm
    Sulphur 134.9ppm
    Arsenic 4826ppb
    Cadmium 4ppb
    Chromium 3763ppb
    Mercury 5ppb
    Nickel 1742ppb
    Lead 15ppb
    Selenium 2401ppb
    Thallium <2ppb
    Antimony 14ppb
    Tin 4ppb
    Cobalt 56ppb
    Strontium 88ppb
    Molybdenum 490ppb
    Beryllium <2ppb
    Vanadium 87ppb
    According to the Irish Medicines Board, this hydrofluosilicic acid has never been proven safe or effective and not surprisingly is unregistered, unlicensed and not considered a medicine. So, what is it and why is it untested? Why are we drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of this toxic cocktail without the freedom to make an informed choice?

    Like

  78. Minister Martin replied that the acid fluoride “does not contain chromium”.

    Sure he did…., not, May we have his full reply please. Verbatim.

    Or you are a liar.

    According to the Irish Medicines Board, this hydrofluosilicic acid has never been proven safe or effective

    Liar.

    So, what is it …..

    Don’t be stupid, its chemical composition is no secret.

    and why is it untested?

    Don’t be stupid.

    <i.Why are we drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of this toxic cocktail

    Simple, we don’t drink hydrofluosilicic acid.

    You are confused.

    Like

  79. Some moron wants to cut-and-paste.
    Guess they found some blog.
    Some moron went and cut-and-paste.
    Left a steaming log.

    Like

  80. tilgaz Tizi

    This is why blogs (especially yours) are dangerous. People without a clue spouting uneducated trash. I strongly suggest that you watch the following video.

    Unless you consider yourself more educated and more intelligent than the likes of Paul Connett and the other doctors and scientists in the video, I suggest it is time for eating some humble pie.

    Like

  81. Al Gore’s documentary of similar title is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community whilst the message of the above is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community.

    That simple fact tells us more about the film’s makers than Tizi might realise, and about Tizi.

    Like

  82. I look at what makes up Fluoride which is added to drinking water
    allegedly for our teeth, but I also ask, what is it doing to our bones and flesh?

    Like

  83. Anne, fluoride is also beneficial to our bones. It is a normal and natural component of bioapatites, bones and teeth, and provides strength while lowering solubility. It is not known to have any negative effects on flesh or bones at the optimum concentration used in water fluoridation.

    Like

  84. Tilgaz, perhaps you should have a look at the “debate” or exchange I had with Paul Connett – http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/ and let us low what you think. Perhaps Connett should have eaten humble pie after that debate.

    Connett is not particularly bright and his educational level hardly outstanding. He has no research experience with fluoride and his use if literature citations is very motivated and superficial.

    Like

  85. Do an Autopsy to see what Fluoride does to your bones and compare it with some-one that lives in an aria where fluoride is NOT added to drinking water.

    Like

  86. Look at what makes up Fluoride Ken and is it what YOU would choose for babies, children, adults if you did indeed have a choice? None of us have a choice though do we? Even though the Irish Minister at that time did not have a choice for as I understand it Ireland STILL has fluoridated water-so, in spite of knowing exactly the “make up” of Fluoride he too had to continue drinking that no longer PURE drinking water.

    Like

  87. Anne, a mature person always has choices. Nothing is forced on us.

    As a chemist I am be used by your request for me to “look at what makes up fluoride.” What do you mean by that?

    Like

  88. “A mature person always has choices”
    Poor Kenny boy, what an immature and clueless opinion.

    Like

  89. Oh look, Anne’s back.
    What makes you thing that it’s somehow a good idea to do a cut-and-paste turd and then disappear?
    Shame on you.

    …”and is it what YOU would choose blah, blah, as I understand it Ireland STILL has blah, blah, blah,longer PURE drinking water.”

    Hmm, only three words in caps from one rant?
    Not terribly impressive.
    We once had a guy here from a couple of years back who gave us six full-page posts with all of it in allcaps.
    That’s when we knew we had a winner on our hands.
    (I’ll give you a 2 out of 10 as a pity vote.)

    Like

  90. Why, Nobody?

    Like

  91. Even with the knowledge of the “make up” of Fluoride, Minister Martin was indeed over-rules and the people of Ireland still have fluorided added to their drinking water.
    “Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be. “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” “Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden” “Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. “From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. “The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons.
    More on this site http://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/

    Like

  92. Anne, could you please not indulge in copy and paste – especially from propagandist sites like fluoride alert. Why not make your own argument and support it? I see copypasta as a sign that the person has not properly thought about the issue.

    You have still not explained what you mean by the “make up of fluoride.” Do you know yourself what you mean? I am a chemists and I assure you that the term is just meaningless.

    As for fluoridation of Irish water supplies – that is an issue for the Irish. They have a democratic right to decide the issue via their representatives or referendum. They should not be undemocratically bullied by ideologically driven political activists.

    Like

  93. We pay for pure WATER. We do not expect certain ingredients put in that pure water whether it is meant to TREAT our teeth or not, for it also would TREAT our bones at the same time. However, here are a few different points for you.
    EU Commission hearing exposes fatal flaws in water fluoridation. Press Release
    September 21, 2010
    International scientists, health and environmental campaigners have presented detailed evidence of the adverse effects of adding fluoride to drinking water at an EU public hearing held in Brussels. Its effects on bone and tooth enamel, the brain, kidney, thyroid function and the endocrine system regulating the body’s hormones were confirmed by reference to extensive scientific research.
    Ireland and the UK are the only EU member states to deliberately fluoridate their citizens. The European Commission’s scientific committee on health and environmental risks (SCHER) is critically reviewing fluoride and fluoridation chemicals following repeated questions from Irish and UK MEPs. The committee’s preliminary opinion has already stated that water fluoridation is ‘a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage’. However the debate is rather long but here for you if you are interested look for yourselves. http://www.laleva.org/eng/2010/09/eu_commission_hearing_exposes_fatal_flaws_in_water_fluoridation.html
    The national HEALTH FEDERATION

    http://www.thenhf.com/article.php?id=2570

    Fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods! That is the decision of the European Court of Justice, in a landmark case dealing with the classification and regulation of ‘functional drinks’ in member states of the European Community. (HLH Warenvertriebs and Orthica (Joined Cases C-211/03, C-299/03, C-316/03 and C-318/03) 9 June2005)…

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62003CJ0211:EN:PDF

    http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2005:193:0003:0004:EN:PDF

    Like

  94. Anne, you continue to refuse to explain what you mean by “make up of fluoride.” I am forcved to conclude you have no idea what you are writing about.

    As for the European Court of Justice issue – did you not read the article above? – it was specifically refuting that claim as being dishonest.

    I reapeat, resorting to copypasta and meaningless links just tells me you don’t understand the issue. You cannot make your own points or argue for them. A waste of time – for readers and for you.

    Like

  95. More steaming turds from Anne. Poor, stupid Anne. I wonder if she does this on other blogs too? I’m guessing….yes.

    Like

  96. the debate is rather long but here for you if you are interested look for yourselves…. blah blah link

    Another colossal fail by Anne.

    Does she link to the original source?

    No, of course not. With perfect consistency, commensurate with the depth her research skill and critical ability, she links to an anti-vax, chemtrail believing, anti-fluoridation and non-evidentially-based *alternative medicine*website. There she laps at the sewer of predigested and well excreted opinion.

    Like

  97. EU Commission hearing exposes fatal flaws in water fluoridation
    By sal on September 24, 2010 9:00 AM | Press Release
    September 21, 2010
    International scientists, health and environmental campaigners have presented detailed evidence of the adverse effects of adding fluoride to drinking water at an EU public hearing held in Brussels. Its effects on bone and tooth enamel, the brain, kidney, thyroid function and the endocrine system regulating the body’s hormones were confirmed by reference to extensive scientific research.
    Ireland and the UK are the only EU member states to deliberately fluoridate their citizens. The European Commission’s scientific committee on health and environmental risks (SCHER) is critically reviewing fluoride and fluoridation chemicals following repeated questions from Irish and UK MEPs. The committee’s preliminary opinion has already stated that water fluoridation is ‘a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage’. http://www.laleva.org/eng/2010/09/eu_commission_hearing_exposes_fatal_flaws_in_water_fluoridation.html

    Like

  98. By sal on September 24, 2010

    What is wrong with you? Did your mother drop you on your head as a small child?
    The year is 2014. Did you know that?

    Like

  99. Enjoy drinking your once pure water with added fluoride, it is YOUR future, not mine and it is quite obvious I cannot “open” you closed minds.

    http://www.activistpost.com/2011/02/codex-alimentarius-loves-toxic-fluoride.html

    Like

  100. Anne, you cannot convince us to accept you prejudiced view because you can’t find creidble supporting evidence for it. And you continue to refuse to explain what you mean by “make up of fluoride.” I don’t think you understand the issue.

    Like

  101. This is what you are drinking in your once PURE water. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS CONFIDENTIAL REPORT No. W8158
    Lab No. 23034
    Sample Description: Hydrofluosilicic Acid
    Date Reported: 14/08/2000
    TEST RESULT
    Calcium 51ppm
    Magnesium 23.9ppm
    Sodium 33.6ppm
    Potassium 6.2ppm
    Aluminium 2.1ppm
    Boron 14ppb
    Manganese 571ppb
    Copper 90ppb
    Zinc 523ppb
    Phosphorus 26187ppm
    Barium 168ppb
    Iron 11.85ppm
    Sulphur 134.9ppm
    Arsenic 4826ppb
    Cadmium 4ppb
    Chromium 3763ppb
    Mercury 5ppb
    Nickel 1742ppb
    Lead 15ppb
    Selenium 2401ppb
    Thallium <2ppb
    Antimony 14ppb
    Tin 4ppb
    Cobalt 56ppb
    Strontium 88ppb
    Molybdenum 490ppb
    Beryllium <2ppb
    Vanadium 87ppb
    According to the Irish Medicines Board, this hydrofluosilicic acid has never been proven safe or effective and not surprisingly is unregistered, unlicensed and not considered a medicine. So, what is it and why is it untested? Why are we drinking unmeasured, uncontrolled levels of this toxic cocktail without the freedom to make an informed choice? END

    Do NOT bother to contact me again on this issue until you have had your own LAB REPORT done on the makeup of fluorde.

    Like

  102. Anne, I refer here in the articles below to about 20 LAB REPORTS of samples of fluorosilicic acid. Here are some of the articles I have written on the question of contamination of fluoridation and other water treatment chemicals.

    Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies?
    Anti-fluoridation study flawed – petition rejected
    Water treatment chemicals – why pick on fluoride?
    Hamilton – the water is the problem, not the fluoride!
    Fluoridation: putting chemical contamination in context
    Fluoridation: emotionally misrepresenting contamination

    Now, before you bother to “contact me again on this issue” I ask you to do 2 things:

    1: Obtain an anlaysis of the actual finished drinking water that comes out of your tap (Your utility will be able to porovide you with one as they regulalry analyse their water). Please note very carefuly the actual concentrations for recognised heavy metal contaminants.

    2: Read the above articles.

    On your return please make some sort of rational critique of the articles and comment on contaminants in your actual drinking water. I will then be happy to answer any questions you have.

    By the way, you continue to refuse to explain what you mean by “make up of fluoride.” I don’t think you understand the issue.

    Like

  103. By the way, you continue to refuse to explain what you mean by “make up of fluoride.” I don’t think you understand the issue.

    Heh. A cruel streak in my make up is enjoying this, is it wrong to mock the terminally stupid?

    Like

  104. Some people think it’s wrong to make fun of deeply stupid people.
    I, on the other hand, enjoy making fun of them.
    The allcaps is an especially nice touch on top of the cut-and-paste spamming.

    (…points at Anne and laughs…)

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s