These low life, professional liars really need to change their name to the Ministry of Truth. Total garbage – none of our media, or this ridiculous blog, are mentioning the 23 (so far) studies from Harvard proving fluoride gives brain damage to kids- and lower IQ’s to all. “Dah…but I don’t have lower IQ and I drunk fluoride” – yeah, and you probably believe Global Warming is man made, Osama did 911, that the Crown is not cultivating opium in Afghanistan, and the NZ SAS being in Syria is heroic (not a war crime). Fact is, the Nazis were the first to fluoridate the town water supplies- to make people more ‘compliant’ (dumbed down). And do a search on Wiki for Countries which don;t have a fluoride program- its all the smart ones (or ones without foreign/european owned Central Banks). Personally, I don’t think the author is qualified to comment on fluoride, if they have been drinking it. As for the Ministry of Truth – well we all know anything the Government tells you is most often a lie.
“…yeah, and you probably believe Global Warming is man made…”
Gosh, what were the chances? Didn’t see that coming. Nope. No Sirree. Never in a million years. Takes me completely by surprise that does.
…Osama did 911…
Ah, a troofer too? How precious.
….that the Crown is not cultivating opium in Afghanistan…
What? No mention of the lizard people? Disappointed!
Fact is, the Nazis were the first to fluoridate the town water supplies- to make people more ‘compliant’ (dumbed down).
I’ve never understood the mechanics of that idea. I mean, how does it actually work? Take water. Add fluoride (???) and you have a docile population? Wha..?
(…awkward silence…)
Nope. I don’t get it. How does it work? Fluoride isn’t magic, you know.
Exposing the Slick, Shameless Propaganda of NZ ‘Health’ Authorities
by afamildura
Pro-F Propaganda Video
Fluoride video from the Ministry of Health
Uploaded by: Waikato DHB, New Zealand
Date: July 14, 2013
Rebuttal
Claim 1: Fluoride is everywhere, in everything.
Response: “Fluoride as a drug has contaminated most processed foods and beverages throughout North America” (Limeback 2000). “The major dietary source of fluoride for most people in the United States is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities” (NRC 2006, p. 24). Ergo, if municipal drinking water was no longer artificially fluoridated, general fluoride exposures would fall significantly. It is therefore misleading to imply that this type of exposure to fluoride would occur regardless of fluoridation. Furthermore, if fluoride is so abundant in nature, then why has nature devised a mechanism for keeping fluoride away from the developing infant? As clarified by the National Research Council, “even at very high fluoride intakes by mothers, breast milk still contains very low concentrations of fluoride compared with other dietary fluoride sources” (NRC 2006, p. 36). Connett poses the apt question, “if ingested fluoride is necessary to protect children’s teeth… why it is that the level of fluoride is so low in mothers’ milk (0.004 ppm)? Did evolution screw up on the baby’s first meal and nutritional requirements?” (Connett 2008, p. 2).
Claim 2: Fluoride toughens teeth and thus prevents decay.
Response: “When water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride’s main benefit to teeth came from being swallowed during childhood. When swallowed before the teeth erupted, dentists claimed fluoride would build up in the internal matrix of the teeth and make them more resistant to cavities for the rest of the child’s life.. Although water fluoridation was launched on this premise, it is now known to be incorrect” (FAN n.d.).
Claim 3: Fluoride occurs naturally, but to benefit teeth, it needs to be topped up.
Response: “Natural does not necessarily mean good. Arsenic, like fluoride, leaches naturally from rocks into groundwater, but no one suggests topping that up. Besides, there is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals, as they are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature” (Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 246).
Claim 4: The amount of fluoride added to water is around a spoonful in a bathtub. At this level, fluoridation is safe for the whole family… an adult would have to drink several thousand glasses of fluoridated water to get a lethal dose of fluoride.
Response: This is typical industrial ‘claptrap’. With this type of analogy, “there is a world of difference between a chronic toxic dose and a lethal dose. What we are particularly concerned about is the impact of consuming water at 1 ppm over an extended period of time… proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others” (Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 248). “In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation” (Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon 2007). “Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups” (Thiessen 2011, p. 5).
Claim 5: There is over 60 years of scientific evidence to back up the safety of fluoridation.
Response: “The [York] review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed” (Sheldon 2001). “What the [NRC] committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look… when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began (Doull in Scientific American, Jan. 2008). “The absence of studies is being used by promoters as meaning the absence of harm. This is an irresponsible position” (50 Reasons #45).
Claim 6: Nationally, water fluoridation has been shown to reduce tooth decay.
Response: See: Dr. Paul Connett’s presentation (New Zealand 2013); and Dr. Connett’s classic 1998 interview with New Zealand’s Dr. John Colquhoun. For an overview of modern fluoridation studies, click here.
Claim 7: There will be both a human and a dollar cost if councils cease fluoridation.
Response: This claim is totally bogus. When fluoridation ends, decay rates do not rise as a direct result, as numerous post-cessation studies demonstrate. This data indicates, “no substantial prevention of cavities by fluoridated water and no increase in the incidence of cavities after stopping fluoridation, as determined by comparison of cities stopping it with cities continuing it” (Beck 2013). When comparing fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated nations’ decay rates, we see no discernible difference that could be attributed to water fluoridation status. ‘Hip pocket’ savings have also been poorly calculated and exaggerated (see: Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, pp. 249-250).
Claim 8: Water fluoridation can benefit everyone… old, young.
Response: When promoters make these types of claims, they are usually referring to reducing inequalities in dental health. The evidence for this claim, however, paints a very different picture. According to the York review ream, “the evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (CRD 2003). Risk assessment expert and NRC report (2006) panelist, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, makes a special point of this fact in her recent presentation to the citizens of Blount County. Furthermore, it is particularly the old and the young who may be most adversely impacted by fluoride. For example, in 2006, the National Research Council stated that fluorides may act to “increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease” (NRC 2006, p. 222); this prompted a recommendation that, “studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia” (NRC 2006, p. 223). At the other end of the age spectrum, children may be at increased risk of neurodevelopmental impairment.
Claim: Dentures are becoming a thing of the past because/partly due to water fluoridation.
Response: This statement is false and highly misleading. Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started (50 Reasons #17), and as reported in Nature in 1986, “Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation” (Diesendorf 1986). In 2007, it was confirmed in the British Medical Journal that, “although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition” (Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon 2007). Further discussion: FAN (c. 2010); Mildura (2011); Wichita (2012); FAN (2012).
Claim: Not everyone agrees with fluoridation, but the vast majority of health organisations endorse fluoridation.
Response: “Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published (see chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride for the significance of this PHS endorsement for the future promotion of fluoridation). Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science” (50 Reasons, #46).
Claim: Some people think that adding fluoride to water is mass medication.
Response: Firstly, refer to: Water Fluoridation & Medical Ethics (n.d., also see: video version); Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water (2000); The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation (2002); A Response to Dr. Wu (2013). Then also note: “Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719… states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council’s guidance on consent also stresses patients’ autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm. This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit” (Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon 2007).
Claim: People who don’t want fluoride in their water can filter it out.
Response: “It’s ridiculous to think that people who need to escape fluoride can go and organise their own water supply. We all pay our water rates for a proper clean water supply, and in fluoridated towns, we’re not getting it” (McRae in Fire Water, 2011); “It [fluoridated water] will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment” (Connett 2002). Simply and undeniably, water fluoridation is ethically, medically and pharmacologically unsound. Exposing citizens, against their will, to a highly biochemically-active substance, is self-evidently unethical.
Claim: Fluoridation does not cause illness or disease.
Response: “Today, we know that fluoride interferes with many other biochemical molecules and processes in addition to interfering with enzymes. At the heart of this biochemical interference is the fact that the fluoride ion is small and negatively charged. It has a strong attraction for centers of positive charge. Thus it seeks out the metal ions at the active site of some enzymes; it surrounds and combines with other positive ions like aluminum, forming stable complexes which can mimic and interfere with the biochemistry of phosphate ions (e.g., aluminum tetrafluoride can switch on G-proteins which are involved in the transmission of messages across membranes). Fluoride can also interfere with hydrogen bonds which are critically important for both the structure and function of many important molecules, like proteins and nucleic acids. All of fluoride’s interactions in biochemistry are concentration-dependent and the places where it is most likely to strike are in the regions where calcified tissues like the teeth and the bone (where fluoride concentrates) interface with adjacent tissues like connective tissue” (Connett 2012). “Halfway through the twentieth century, fluoride piqued the interest of toxicologists due to its deleterious effects at high concentrations in human populations suffering from fluorosis and in in vivo experimental models. Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its “good reputation” for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses. In recent years, several investigations demonstrated that fluoride can induce oxidative stress and modulate intracellular redox homeostasis, lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyl content, as well as alter gene expression and cause apoptosis. Genes modulated by fluoride include those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell-cell communications and signal transduction” (Barbier et al. 2010). “As I intensively studied the literature and performed my own research, the evidence clearly demonstrated that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial” (Limeback 2013). “What is now clear is that, if proposed today, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay would stand virtually no chance of being adopted, given the current status of scientific knowledge” (Howard 2010). “When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumulates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. In chapter 22, we listed the many health concerns that simply have not been investigated in fluoridated countries. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leaving little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water (see chapter 20)” (Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 251).
Claim: Fluoride is not an industrial waste product and is manufactured to exacting quality and purity standards. Once diluted, it is no different to the fluoride found naturally.
Response: “The fluosilicic acid brands used in artificially fluoridating Australia’s water supplies are known to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury—major public health hazards for which no safe level exists” (Awofeso 2012, p. 8). “Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer… Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans… Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether” (Limeback 2000). Silicofluorides… a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles, are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”” (NTEU 2003). “Further analysis should be done of the concentrations of fluoride and various fluoride species or complexes (especially fluorosilicates and aluminofluorides) present in tap water, using a range of water samples (e.g., of different hardness and mineral content). Research also should include characterizing any changes in speciation that occur when tap water is used for various purposes—for example, to make acidic beverages. The possibility of biological effects of SiF62−, as opposed to free fluoride ion, should be examined. The biological effects of aluminofluoride complexes should be researched further, including the conditions (exposure conditions and physiological conditions) under which the complexes can be expected to occur and to have biological effects” (NRC 2006, p. 88). “Essentially no studies have compared the toxicity of silicofluorides with that of sodium fluoride, based on the assumption that the silicofluorides will have dissociated to free fluoride before consumption” (NRC 2006, p. 53). LEARN MORE.
Claim: Some countries don’t fluoridated their water, because they already have enough natural fluoride in their water.
Response: “In Europe, only Ireland (73%), Poland (1%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), and the U.K. (11%) fluoridate any of their water. Most developed countries, including Japan and 97% of the western European population, do not consume fluoridated water” (50 Reasons Intro). Learn the REAL reasons why many countries don’t fluoridate their water. Further discussion available via videos: Mildura (2011) and Wichita (2012-a); (2012-b).
Claim: Water fluoridation has been described as one of the top public health advances of the 20th century.
Response: “Not a day goes by without someone in the world citing the CDC’s statement that fluoridation is “One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century” (CDC, 1999). Those that cite this probably have no idea how incredibly poor the analysis was that supported this statement. The report was not externally peer reviewed, was six years out of date on health studies and the graphical evidence it offered to support the effectiveness of fluoridation was laughable and easily refuted” (Connett 2009).
Well, Ross, I guess you are quite skilled at the CtlC/CtlV tactic but there was no need to copy the whole blog post – you could have just provided the link to the Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura and left at that.
Nice to know they feel so threatened by this video they go into such an extreme attack mode.
If you have any real interest in the subject, Ross, have a look at my articles on it – they deal with many of the issues raised in your copy and paste. The links are at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/
Hi Ken,
I thought that all your blog readers needed to see the full text but I note that you didn’t replace my posting with that from WordPress in which AFAMildura had functional links to their supportive references.
There’s a challenge.
Regards,
Ross
Here’s a challenge for you, Ross. What about expressing your criticisms of the video in your own words and more briefly. I will then respond to you points. But I am not responding to such blatant copy and paste trolling.
All I can assume is that you find the video threatening to your position but can’t explain why in your own words.
I don’t believe you Ken – you demand responses from people that explain why the anti lobby don’t want a by-product (H2SiF6) of manufacturing superphosphate put into drinking water as an additive to address the disease of tooth decay. Then when you get a comprehensive response you conclude the writer is in attack mode and not really interested in the subject. The ‘new’ video is just an update on a MoH one and contains much of the garbage put up by the wdhb at the Tribunal. They learned nothing. from
Trevor, make your specific criticisms and I will respond to them.
Currently I can only assume that the video upsets you but you can’t say why.
If use of HFSA upsets you, what about the other chemicals added to our water, Cl2, alum, ammonia, hydrochloride acid, lime, etc.? some of these are at least as toxic as HFSA in their concentrated form.
Speaking as one of the blog’s readers, Ross, I am perfectly capable of following a hyperlink in order to read something from the original source. Copying and pasting vast screeds of text without the hyperlinked “sources,” such as they are, is decidedly unimpressive.
Well that’s an intelligent and highly researched response Cedric – about on par with the WDHB video.
Try a hyper link to the Waikato time article this morning which shows Waikato students below average in core subjects – What area scores highest? The one with the lowest rate of added fluoride, Canterbury.
Ken, Previous comment was tongue in cheek but seeing you lack a sense of humour get your teeth into this.
There are three inherent flaws with water fluoridation:
1. Firstly, it doesn’t do it’s intended function. It was designated as tooth decay prevention; to benefit the teeth. Science has shown over past decades that it does nothing beneficial for the teeth. In fact, it does a lot of deleterious things down the road like mottling of the teeth, as well as other skeletal changes. So it’s not doing what it was supposed to do.
2. Secondly, it’s NOT fluoride. Fluoride is a generic term. In NZ its hydrofluorosilicic acid, a waste product from the fertilizer industry, that is added to our water. It is too toxic to be dumped in landfills, into the air, into rivers and lakes or the ocean, but our science experts say it can go in our water supply.
3. Thirdly, there’s no dosage control. When an infant is fed formula, the majority of their diet is water and usually its tap water; it’s not spring water that has no fluoride in it. So, a small baby will drink more water for his or her weight than you will for your weight. It’s the only drug that’s administered without a prescription.
That is medication – not prescribed by a Doctor but by bureaucrats who think they know better than doctors everywhere.
Please inform me if there is any valid research anywhere that shows that the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid is:
1. Safe to use as a fluoridation chemical.
2. That this same acid is really effective at ending or reducing tooth decay.
Thanks
Mr Nutter – you haven’t been paying atention. I have been dealing with these questions in a number of articles. Perhaps you could go to the links and discuss them there.
3: You know, their is no dosage control for water either. And one would have fatal effects from overconsumption of the water before toxic effects from the contained F would kick in. See my article Is fluoridated water a medicine? for details on the medicine myth.
Most doctors and Dentists, and their organisations, in NZ support fluoridation of public water supplies where feasible.
Question 2 – Hydrofluorosilicic acid hydrolyses in water and consumers actually get the F anion – not HFSA. This anion has been shown, via a topical mechanism, to reduce mineralisation (which causes tooth decay) and enhance remineralisation (which reduces tooth decay). You have been misinformed if you believe that there is any HFSA in drinking water that comes out of the tap.
If fluoridation is so crucial to dental health in Hamilton can you explain why the latest Waikato DHB stats (2011) for oral health in five-year-olds show that for the 1,830 children surveyed in fluoridated areas 57.60 per cent were caries free while the 1,859 children surveyed in non-fluoridated areas were 64.12 per cent caries free?
Also why in the Maori cohorts the 637 Maori children surveyed in fluoridated areas 32.34 per cent were caries free while the Maori children surveyed in non-fluoridated areas 51.72 per cent were caries free?
For cohorts within the 2,283 Year 8 children surveyed there is statistically insignificance difference between the respective groups.
You have cherry picked a small part of that data (and of course that puts you in the dishonest position of ignoring all the rest).
There is one a obvious factor you ignore – is the difference you mention for this small selected number statistically significant (we can be absolutely sure it is not significant to the 2 decimal places you have quoted). Go back and look at the other years, try aggregating over the 10 years data was available, etc. to get more reliable conclusions.
But the problem with all this data is that it is simply results for children at schools in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. It does not relate to fluoride intake. For example, my granddaughter goes to a school in Hamilton city – all her friends travel to the same school from out of town. There are other factors also.
But that is the problem with data like this – you would have to go into a lot more detail about living conditions, diet, etc., to be sure of getting a handle on F intake. Unfortunately no one seems to have collected the appropriate information.
But it is of course one of the cherry picking arguments anti-fluoridationists use locally. Basically dishonest because it ignores all he rest if the data.
But it seems you have had to fall back in that because you couldn’t respond to my request to actually make some infix criticisms of the video you criticised by copy and paste from an overseas source. Does this mean you actually can’t personally find anything wrong with it.
Stop ingesting fluoride Ken, it is obviously causing damage to your brain cells. The opening claim of the MoH video, which is an update of an older one but with same disinformation therein, is that fluoride is the most common element on earth. I have checked the science from 2010 and of the 98 natural elements listed the most common is oxygen. In fact fluoride is notable only by its total absence from the list.
Another of around 14 items of miss-information in the video is the claim that 60 percent drink fluoridated water – that percentage is approximately 48 and in decline.
Globally 45 communities have ceased fluoridation of their drinking water in the first half of this year. They have joined the 98 percent of the global community who access fluoride through other means or who have less poverty and poor diet than NZ. That tells me the nutters are winning.
Frankly I find your arguments full of holes and your adherence to discredited science pitiful. As a result this is my final contribution to this debate. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on your delusional conclusions
Try a hyper link to the Waikato time article this morning…
Hmm, no.
I get my science information from the scientific community. I’m smart that way.
Anonymous people from the internet? Not so much.
Articles from blogs or newspapers? Nope.
My standards are higher that that.
Cedric – Ditto my previous to Ken. The makers of the video got their info from that section of the science community who have decided the science is settled. I subscribe to the scientific principle that if something is claimed to be settled it is no longer science.
Without exception everything I have learned on this subject came out of the scientific community, a community that is deeply divided on fluoride.
Bye
Trevor, perhaps you need a new hearing aid. Even with my advanced years I know they didn’t say “the most common element on earth”. Just one of the more common ones – 13th most common I think.
There are not 98 “natural elements”, but 92. No, F is nowhere near the top but it is very far from the bottom.
What’s this about arguments full of holes? I am not the one running away.
Ditto my previous to Ken. The makers of the video got their info from that section of the science community who have decided the science is settled. I subscribe to the scientific principle that if something is claimed to be settled it is no longer science.
Without exception everything I have learned on this subject came out of the scientific community, a community that is deeply divided on fluoride.
Mr Nutter, using strawman arguments is not a clever way to go in this forum.
Many subjects of scientific investigation are never settled. However, within the scientific community consensus often exists in regard the conclusions and current state of understanding that can be drawn from known evidence.
Without evidence, both your preceding claims regarding the scientific community exist only in your own mind.
Richard – get the spelling right CROSBIE.
Cedric – John Key’s chief science advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman
Ken – You need to update your list, of the 118 known elements in the universe there are 98 occurring naturally on earth. Fluoride is not one of them. The F you refer to is #09 and that is Fluorine, it sits between Oxygen and Neon.
#98 is californium
Bye
Trevor, this is a bit childish of course but fluoride is the anionic form of fluorine. Because fluorine is an extremely reactive element it is not found in its elemental form in nature – it’s most common ore is fluorite (CaF2) where it occurs as the fluoride anion. The F anion also substitutes for OH and CO3 in apatite and bioapatite structures – in the process reducing their solubilities. This is why it reduces mineralisation and enhances remineralisation of the bioapatite in teeth – hence reducing tooth decay.
The transuranic elements (atomic number >= 93) are all produced artificially. Things are of course a little more complex than that as some of the elements with atomic numbers < 92 have not been found in nature and are produced artificially. Whereas some extremely trace amounts of some longer living isotopes of transuranic elements have subsequently been found in nature.
But are you seriously going to argue that fluoride does not occur in nature? Is this the basis of your opposition to fluoridation?
Mr Nutter, regarding Gluckman – in his comment he did not say “settled.” He said “effectively settled.”
See my article Poisoning the well with a caricature of science where I describe how confirmation bias and naive hostility towards science often means people don’t see the qualifying adjective. Seems to describe you, eh.
Spinning an argument based on the straw man proposition that mainstream science claims that scientific research is settled in any area is well tedious.
AGW climate deniers use it, creationists use it, anti-fluoridation activists use it, anti vaccination activists use it. Trevor Crosbie uses it.
All seem incapable of comprehending that consensus on the state of current understanding is not a claim to total and final understanding.
Even if Gluckman had omitted the qualification (he didn’t), the argument reduces to willful and petty abuse of semantics. Well done Trevor.
Cedric: What mainstream scientific communities reject it?
Can you name a single blessed one?
Nutter: John Key’s chief science advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman
(shakes head sadly)
English comprehension fail.
Try again.
What mainstream scientific >>>communities<<< reject it?
Can you name a single blessed one?
(One as in “scientific community”, just so we’re clear).
“It has often been written on this blog and elsewhere that the mark of a true crank is hatred of the scientific consensus, be it consensus regarding the theory of evolution, the science that says homeopathy is impossible, anthropogenic global warming; various areas of science-based medicine; or the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Perhaps the most famous expression of distrust of a scientific consensus is the famous speech by Michael Crichton, in which he famously said:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
To which I (and many others) responded, “Bullshit! Period.”
In fact science is all about coming to a consensus, but it’s about coming to a consensus based on data, experimentation, and evidence, a consensus that has reproducible results that are, as Crichton put it, verifiable by reference to the real world. After all, what is a scientific theory like the theory of evolution or Einstein’s theory of relativity but a statement of the current scientific consensus regarding a major scientific topic? What is peer review but quality control (making sure the scientific methodology is sound) coupled with testing new science against the current consensus to see where it fits in or where it exposes weaknesses? What is science but attempting to forge a consensus regarding theories and statements that most accurately describe the universe in a useful and predictable way?
Of course, questioning the consensus is often necessary in science. Indeed, it is critical to scientific advancement. However, there is a huge difference between questioning a current consensus and producing the data and experimental evidence to show that there is a real scientific question and JAQing off about science. The latter, raising spurious or already answered questions about…” (Respectful Insolence)
USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950′s that in his post as U.S.Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to…
“Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their gulags (concentration camps), to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”
Ref : The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin
“At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there he was told of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotisizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners-of-war to make them stupid and docile.”
Ref: Victorian Hansard of 12th August 1987.
As of May 2013, a total of 43 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and a total of 19 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 37 of the 43 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, while 19 of the 20 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 11,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.
Are you accusing Jordan or Perkins of lying, Ken?
The Nazis were into eugenics, and the connection between the eugenics movement and fluoridation in the US is well documented.
Yes I am ugly Truth. The Nazi link has been well debunked. Have you not heard the Godwin rule – the first person to bring up a Nazi link has lost the argument.
I’m certainly calling Fluoride Alert liars, considering that a brief search demonstrates that Borkin’s book does not even contain the word ‘fluoride,’ let alone the nonsensical quotation supposedly attributed to it.
I have been finding that whenever I check out a reference or citation used by FANNZ or Fluoride Alert it is wrong, distorted or completely misrepresents the quoted article. Consequently I refuse to accept anything people say quoting them until I can check it out for myself. They are just completely unreliable – not at all credible.
Ken, are you saying that Jordan and Perkins are lying because you know about the Nazi eugenics program, or are you accusing them of lying out of necessity?
Ugly Truth, there is just no credible sources or evidence. It’s been thoroughly debunked. But of course I can’t convince you – you have your conspiracy theory and you are sticking to it. Evidence is the last thing you need for that.
UT, I am demanding primary documentation before I call anybody a liar. Official transcript for Jordan and page references for Perkins’ book please. Online copy if you can find it.
Hm. You know, on consideration, I’m not even convinced Jordan or Perkins ever existed in the first place. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that they’d been invented out of whole cloth.
This is a profound level of stupid. Nazis? Really?
Did you do any fact-checking at all? Any?
Some site somewhere spoon-feeds you this lurid story and you swallow it whole like some brainless moron.
Fuck me but people like you are dumb.
Fact check!
Before (not after) you cut-and-paste something on the internet, engage your critical thinking skills and do some FUCKING FACT-CHECKING YOU WORTHLESS TURD!!
It’s not that hard. This is the internet. Look at your source material. Go back to primary sources of information.
Even the very wording of the claim should just scream red flags at you from the get-go.
USAF Major George R. Jordan…
Who?
… testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950′s…
The wha…? Seriously?
… that in his post as U.S.Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to…
Um, evidence? This is just hearsay. Evidence or get the fuck out.
“Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their gulags (concentration camps), to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”
How? Water + fluoride = Docility? Really? Ok then….how?
(…crickets chirping…)
That’s a scientific claim. That’s readily testable. How does fluoride make you docile? How?
Ref : The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin
What kind of a reference is this? Who is Joseph Borkin and why should anyone give a damn?
While there he was told of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff.
So somebody was told about something by somebody else…again?
Derp. Real weapons-grade derp.
This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water.
OK, how?
Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotisizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.
Infinitesimal amounts, eh?
As of May 2013, a total of 43 studies…
43? Are you sure? Maybe it’s 143? Or perhaps it’s eleventy zillion studies? Imagine how much more impressive this would be if someone did some basic fact checking rather than spouting bullshit on the internet?
Of these investigations, 37 of the 43 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ…
Wait a minute! “elevated exposure”? Huh? What happened to our “infinitesimal amounts”? What the fuck happened to that?
The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 11,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.
Children? Wait. Slow down. The Nazis (Kommies) wanted to make the children docile by making them brain damaged over a period of years? Wha…?
I have often observed throughout my life that people who are losing an argument resort to obscene language and personal denigration. Obviously still happening!
You noticed that too, Mr Nutter. Getting a lot of this from the anti-fluoridation people at the moment. It’s an illustration of Schopenhauer’s last piece of advice on his list for winning arguments:
“A last trick is to become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character.”
I suspect that is just some of your mob brown arming the situation – another example of unethical behaviour is sneaking into an organisations email list, which you and your June playmate have now been expunged.
Perhaps you may eventually get back to the basics of the issue and stop writing rubbish designed to confuse and obfuscate.
“If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had bearing on the matter in dispose. This may be done without presumption if the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.”
And during this apparently lengthy testimony, does Jordan so much as mention fluoride? Give us a time stamp. Evidence. Primary sources. You’re so very close. All you need do is prove the man spouted that nonsense and you’ll be able to use him as a source.
No, read English. It’s “Fuck me” as in “Holy Shit” or “Can you fucking believe this bat guano”.
It’s an expression of exasperation with morons like you.
Fact check, you idiot.
Warning people about real risks is not dumb.
They’re not real risks. You’ve got no evidence.
Batshit krazy konspiracy thinking from the 50’s (????) is still batshit krazy today. It has not improved with age.
Somebody who told somebody something about something that they claim to have been told about is…stupid.
There’s no evidence. It’s all hearsay.
You are a gullibe tool. Don’t just blindly be led like a little sheep.
Fact check.
It’s not that hard. This is the internet.
How do people like you even tie their own shoe laces?
Ew.
Oh and 55min minutes for some shitty video? You want 55 minutes of my life to watch “something” just ’cause you say so?.
Um, no.
Fuck off.
Who is Jordan and why should anybody care? What’s this got to do with your claim? Cut to the chase.
“No, read English. It’s “Fuck me” as in “Holy Shit” or “Can you fucking believe this bat guano”.”
You don’t get to dictate how people should interpret your words, asshole. If you want to avoid ambiguity then say what you mean instead of talking like your opinion is more valuable that a politician’s promise.
“You want 55 minutes of my life to watch “something” just ’cause you say so?.”
My post was about the audio of Jordan’s testimony, which was the first couple of minutes of the video.
“Who is Jordan and why should anybody care?”
Jordan documented the US supply of nuclear related materials to the USSR as part of the Lend-Lease program, and later testified to Congress about this.
In Jordan’s 1956 speech on national defence, he said:
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
My Grandfather had on many occasions talked in private with Major Jordan.
Major Jordan admitted in private that the information that he publicly shared was only the tip of the iceberg of the real information he had on the extent of how the Lizardmen manipulated thousands of people using fluoride.
I reckon Jordan was confused. These people running prison camps really had no use for F. They found the Pb they used was far more effective in subduing inmates.
Because as it stands, I think that people are just endlessly repeating some piece of utter rubbish made up by some twit who decided they could get some mileage out of Jordan’s good name.
Seriously. That person is positing a “secret missing chapter” based on “some guy who emailed me.”
A brief google search for the quotation turns up a grand total of four sites carrying the text, each with a decided conspiracy theory leaning. No academic sources, libraries, what have you. My impression is that it’s fabricated drivel, repeated by the lunatic fringe.
Hell, the claim doesn’t even seem to appear on the Fluoride Alert website, and they’ll quote anybody who says anything negative about fluoride. I think, if Jordan had ever actually said such a thing, they would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
I don’t care what you expect. My argument is that the reports of Jordan and Perkins which describe fluoride as a dumbing-down agent are consistent with the scientific literature which describes an association between fluoride and lower IQ values, and the related association between the “medicinal” use of fluoride and the eugenics movement, i.e. the Nazis and Nazi supporters like Andrew Mellon.
“I think, if Jordan had ever actually said such a thing, they would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.”
The problem with the Nazi angle is that people don’t like the associations what come with it. It’s too easy for opponents to smear you as a certifiable tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy loon. Perhaps Flouride Alert are simply being conservative about the type of arguments they will promote.
Yeah, see, if you’re describing Fluoride Alert as conservative, I think that’s a pretty strong indication that you’ve gone off the deep end.
So far as I can tell, there is not a shred of evidence that either Jordan or Perkins said anything about fluoride. You have certainly provided no evidence to that effect. Nor does the scientific literature support your various assertions.
Now, if people are routinely accusing you of wearing a tinfoil hat, perhaps you might think about referencing those primary sources when you make outlandish claims. Third-hand rumours of secretly-expunged chapters of books don’t go down well with sceptics.
You don’t get to dictate how people should interpret your words, asshole.
You don’t get to make up your own private language. Read English.
Your own personal interpretation is of no interest to anyone but yourself.
Stop being an asshole.
My post was about the audio of Jordan’s testimony, which was the first couple of minutes of the video.
You dumped an hour long video. There’s no getting around that. It’s stupid.
Jordan documented the….
So what?
During the war I learned how the…
So fucking what? Evidence? Hello? Hearsay is worthless.
I don’t care what you expect.
The rest of us do. You don’t get to make up your own private version of what’s expected as minimum standards of evidence. Primary sources are vital. It’s elementary stuff. If you don’t have that then you’ve got nothing.
My argument is that the reports of Jordan and Perkins…
The “reports” are just hearsay.
….which describe fluoride as a dumbing-down agent are consistent with the scientific literature…
What scientific literature?
What “consistency”?
Infinitesimal amounts, remember?
The problem with the Nazi angle is that people don’t like the associations what come with it. It’s too easy for opponents to smear you as a certifiable tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy loon.
Very easy.
No primary sources and you seem quite miffed that we would dare to insist upon such a thing. Why do you meekly believe such horseshit without asking the most basic questions?
Did it never occur to you to investigate properly before embarrassing yourself on the internet?
You are a gullibe moron.
“So far as I can tell, there is not a shred of evidence that either Jordan or Perkins said anything about fluoride.”
More accurately, you have refused to acknowledge the existence of evidence with does not meet your expectations. The connection between fluoridation and the eugenics movement is factual and relevant, therefore it is evidence.
evidence:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
More accurately, you have refused to acknowledge the existence of evidence with does not meet your expectations.
You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.
The scientific literature doesn’t back you up.
You have no primary sources.
(…akward silence…)
These are minimal expectations. It’s the smart play.
Otherwise you are just being gullible.
If you don’t want to be mistaken for being a certifiable tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy loon…then stop behaving like one.
Lift your game. Aks the basic common bloody sense questions you should have asked before and come back with actual evidence.
If you can’t, then admit you were wrong and led astray by kooks who just pushed your buttons.
This is of course consistent with the reports of Jordan and Perkins, documented as the transcript of Jordan’s 1956 speech on national defence, and Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson’s statement concerning Perkin’s account of fluoride use by the Nazis.
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
“The scientific literature doesn’t back you up.”
Debunk the Chinese data, asshole.
“You have no primary sources.”
So what? Andrew Mellon’s connection to the eugenics movement and his role in establishing fluoridation in the US would convince a reasonable man that the introduction of fluoridation wasn’t just about tooth decay.
“(…akward silence…)”
Like you said, Cedrick:
“Did it never occur to you to investigate properly before embarrassing yourself on the internet? You are a gullibe moron.”
You misspelled “gullible”, you stupid fucking troll.
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
That’s your/Jordan’s evidence ???
… during the war I learned how…
That’s your primary source ???
I was expecting a more explicit reference to the Lizardmen.
This is stupid.
Primary sources. How many times do I have to say it?
Primary..(deep breath)..sources.
Hello?
That’s just the first baby step.
Debunk the Chinese data, asshole.
Read the link that you provided. Read it. Read all of it.
It doesn’t say what you think it says.
(Hint: The authors themselves issue an update)
The best way to find out what the scientific literature says on any particular subject is to read it.
All of it.
Not just one report that you were “helpfully” steered towards.
(Creationists and climate deniers and anti-vaxxers do that too)
Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works
So now you’re a mind reader as well as being a fuckwit, Cedrick?
Here is an excerpt from HSPH:
Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.
… National Research Council has stated that “fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans” (NRC, 2006, p. 256).
UT the authors of the Havard study expressed concern about the way it was being misquoted and used by the anti-fluoridation people. In a press release last year they say “In general, complete information was not available on these 27 studies, and some limitations were identified ” and “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.”
In effect they were warning that it was in appropriate to use their study in the fluoridation debate and that discussion should use evidence collected in he US at the appropriate concentrations (in their own work with the Chinese studies their low F control groups were usually at concentrations similar to that used in fluoridation).
But, of course, this doesn’t worry the anti-fluoride activists. They will use anything that they an make fit with their agenda – distorting the evidence to fit if necessary.
“UT the authors of the Havard study expressed concern about the way it was being misquoted and used by the anti-fluoridation people.”
That’s fine, but it doesn’t affect the point that the relationship between fluoride and low IQ described by the Chinese data supports the testimony of Jordan and Perkins that fluoride has been intentionally used to dumb-down some groups of people.
UT, as I said before people running prison camps usually find the element Pb is very effect in achieving submission and they use it a cording,y. F just does not have that effect. The possible slight differences in IQ reported by the questionable Chinese studies is not the same as “dumbing down.” In fact, it’s very likely that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and excitability.
Read your own link.
Ken read the press release. I read the press release. You evidently didn’t.
Read your own link.
Ken: “UT the authors of the Havard study expressed concern about the way it was being misquoted and used by the anti-fluoridation people.”
UT: That’s fine, but it doesn’t affect the point that the relationship between fluoride and low IQ described by the Chinese data supports the testimony of Jordan and Perkins that fluoride has been intentionally used to dumb-down some groups of people.
Well UT, just as long as you don’t misquote or use it in some anti-fluoride way like those conspiracy loons out there…then that’s fine.
😉
So you’re still back at square one.
You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.
The scientific literature doesn’t back you up.
You have no primary sources.
“You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.”
Still pushing the same old lies, eh, Cedrick?
Here is the quote again:
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence. Without supporting evidence one would be a fool to claim it happened. And in this case without any evidence that F can “dumb down” people you have no scientific evidence of even the possibility. As I said, he element Pb is far more effective in winning compliance from prisoners. And there is plenty of evidence of its use in prison camps.
“UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence.”
Got anything more than an ad hominem, Ken?
So tell me, are all MPs cranks, or only those who say things you disagree with? Is Major Jordan a crank too? Strange that he would testify before the US congress if they didn’t find him to be credible…
You avoid the fact UT that you have no credible evidence – the words of anyone, crank or not, are in themselves not evidence. For you to repeat them as if they were perhaps is an indication of your own silliness but it’s not evidence. Plenty pf cranks, fools and crooks testify to the US house if representatives. That also does not make it evidence.
You have absolutely no evidence that this happened either in Germany or the USSR. (It’s interesting you omit the Nazi camps from your story – don’t you think Hitler was that nasty?). And you are particularly constrained by the fact that F does not have the effect you claim. Also by the fact that there is well substantiated evidence that prison authorities have traditionally used the element Pb rather F for such purposes.
There must be a school where creationists misuse the the term “ad hominem”.
(Oh wait. Different label.)
Meh, same diff. You’re not doing anything different from them.
Find out what ad hominem actually means before you invoke it.
This is the internet. It’s not that hard to find out what it really means.
Here is the quote again:…
Primary sources? What part of primary sources do you not understand?
Is it the “primary” or the “sources” that you find bewildering?
Don’t be so helplessly dense.
Why did you swallow this horseshit in the first place?
Didn’t any red flags pop up at you when you first encountered this?
Any at all?
Why did you go all gaga over a mystery site somewhere on the internet that told you a lurid conspiracy tale about some guy from the 50’s supposedly saying something about “the Soviets” and…fluoride of all things?
If you want to convince us, you have to do at least a bare minimun of fact checking. Just like they should have taught you in school.
Hence the demand for primary sources. Duh.
It’s really basic and really important.
If you don’t have at least that then you’ve got nothing.
Sad.
Your investigative skills suck. This is how real people do it.
Learn.
“You avoid the fact UT that you have no credible evidence – the words of anyone, crank or not, are in themselves not evidence.”
LOL
You’re right that words are not of themselves evidence, but evidence is typically represented with words. Your argument is like debunking a digital picture of a crime by saying: “But it’s only a bunch of pixels! Pixels are not evidence!”
You are clearly trying to debunk the actual evidence that fluoride is associated with IQ loss/dumbing-down, so your opinion of what is credible is not important.
UT – OK it’s clear – you don’t require evidence to believe what you believe. Simple statements are enough for you – but of course you will select the statements to fit your biases.
So the statement of a crank is sufficient for you (“evidence is typically represented by words”) but all the science in the world is insufficient (even though it may be represented in the same way by words) despite being backed up by factual and objective evidence.
“you don’t require evidence to believe what you believe”
True, but evidence relates to matters of fact, so evidence is important regarding the factual nature of the historical use of fluoride to dumb-down some people.
“but of course you will select the statements to fit your biases”
While everyone has some degree of confirmation bias, a recent study found that such biases were more prevalent among people who were opposed to the idea of conspiracies involving public officials.
“So the statement of a crank is sufficient for you (“evidence is typically represented by words”)”
Non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that since evidence is typically represented by words that anything composed of words (eg the opinion of a lunatic) is evidence.
“but all the science in the world is insufficient”
Like the science that shows that ingestion of fluoride can result in mental impairment, you mean?
“No wonder you believe in lizard men”
LOL. You seem to be afflicted with the same sense of omniscience as that liar Cedric. You have scant idea what I believe.
A few questions from one of the ‘nutters’.
What are your ‘primary sources’? Are they;
The York Report
The Fort Collins Report
National Fluoride Information Service
The Dental Association
US food and Drug Administration
US national Research Council
US Environmental Protection Agency
NZ Ministry of Health
?
Tell me why the York Review, often cited by pro fluoridationists, concluded in 2000 that much of the evidence linking CWF to improved dental health came from research that was several decades old and the review concluded that the available evidence did not allow confident estimates to be made of other possible risks to health or reduced dental health inequalities.
The review also identified the need for additional information for the public to make informed choices. That and more is in the Lay Summary of the Medical Research Council working group report:
Water fluoridation and health
Medical Research Council
September 2002
Obviously as long as the NZ National Fluoride Information Service are mandated to provide DHBs and Dentists only with data that promotes CWF, any studies contrary to the mandate will be suppressed.
What are the specific scientific studies/research that has convinced you to accept that injecting an additive produced by way of a toxic by-product of manufacturing super-phosphate fertiliser is safe and effective, as claimed in the few countries who still engage in the practise?
Why do our health authorities persist in claiming that fluoride is a ‘natural element’ and all they are doing is topping up the the fluoride level with ‘naturally sourced fluoride?
Why do the health authorities claim that fluoridated salt is common in in light of the following data from WHO;
Denmark no salt fluoridation
England ” ” ”
Netherlands ” ” ”
Belgium ” ” ”
Austria 6% ”
Italy no salt fluoridation
Ireland ” ” ”
Finland ” ” ”
Greece ” ” ”
Norway ” ” ”
Spain 10% ”
Japan has neither water or salt fluoridation
The USA has no salt fluoridation.
Tooth decay data from WHO Malmo University shows very little variation between countries in DMFT status. Why?
Please stick to specifics and no vitriol or abuse.
A few questions from one of the ‘nutters’.
What are your ‘primary sources’?
I’m not making a claim. Burden of proof.
If you make a claim…then you get to back up that claim.
So, for example, you claim that someone said something?
Ok.
Quote them.
In context and in detail.
Go back to the original source material.
(The key word here is ….ORIGINAL)
Oh, you have a video of them? Great. Just give the timestamp where they actually said what you are claiming they said. The transcript would be nice.
Giving a video of them where they don’t actually say what you are claiming they said is a waste of time.
Oh hang on! This person you are latching on to is making a claim in turn about someone else? Ah.
Well, same procedure. What are his primary sources? Accepting hearsay is a no-no.
See?
Not that hard. Perfectly reasonable.
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro fluoride position. Then when I produce material that challenges your claim you resort to obfuscation and side tracking.
Reading your material leads me to the conclusion that you are more engaged in the intellectual exercise rather than getting to the truth.
I cited the source of the information I presented now stop trying to be a clever dick and provide some considered responses to the questions I posed. Or have you discovered, as I have, that the research to prove or disprove the safety and effectiveness of adding hydrosilicicic acid to our drinking water has not been carried out despite review after review stating that more research is needed?
Trevor Nutter as a chemist my primary sources are varied but often more primary than others used. Frequently I check out the original research papers. One thing I don’t do is rely on FANNZ or Fluoride Alert for reliable information because, as I have shown here, their information is often completely wrong. They frequently dishonestly cite their sources and cherry pick quotations to distort interpretation. They are the last people to rely on for good information.
Like all such reviews the York Review and others will look at old research as well as recent. And they almost always point out areas where more research is required.
Your queries about the FIS should be made to them. But I think there provision of summaries and access to recent research findings are invaluable for people working in the area. Of course all publications, whether the findings support water fluoridation or not, are relevant and your claim that they are suppressing information should be substantiated before taken seriously. The burden of proof is on your to prove that the fluoride anion in our water supply is any different to the fluoride ion in the ores, rocks, etc., or to the fluoride ion present in unfluoridated water supplies. Get to it.
Each country will have its own approaches and policies regarding the problems of fluoride deficiencies. (And of course not all countries have a deficiency – some regions have problems of excess). Water fluoridation is carried out y some, and not by others because it is not appropriate for all conditions.. For example the water supply systems in Switzerland and France don’t lend themselves to fluoridation. Some countries use salt fluoridation. Some milk fluoridation. Some fluoride rinses. Others rely on natural F levels or dental procedure which regularly fluoridate the teeth. Almost all countries agree with the world health authorities that fluoridation in one form or another is beneficial.
Burden of proof. It will not shift.
Do you really think that this handwaving has not been tried before by other crackpots of every single conceiveable stripe under the sun?
Behold…
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro moon landing position.
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro global warming position.
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro evolution position.
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro smoking-causes-cancer position.
See? It doesn’t work.
Then when I produce material that challenges your claim you resort to obfuscation and side tracking.
That’s not what is happening.
You are the one with your panties in a bunch over fluoride. You want to make something of it? Fine.
Produce evidence. Your argument must stand or fall on it’s own merits.
Nothing to do with me.
Reading your material leads me to the conclusion that you are more engaged in the intellectual exercise rather than getting to the truth.
It’s really very simple. People pushing global scientific conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen on the internet. I don’t care who you are and I don’t care what your particular barrow is that you want to push.
The same standards of evidence apply equally.
Not happy about evolution? Think it’s the Devil’s work?
Fine.
Enter the scientific arena. Peer-review. Go for it.
Nothing else matters. No substitutes will be accepted.
Or maybe disputing the link between HIV and AIDS is your pet hobby horse?
Fine.
Enter the scientific arena. Peer-review. Go for it.
Nothing else matters. No substitutes will be accepted.
Same goes for the 9/11 Troofers, the Climate Deniers, the DDT supporters, the Moon Landing Deniers, the anti-vaxxers and all the rest of them.
They are all equally worthless.
They all, however, are given a fair chance before they are told to take a long walk off a short jetty.
Yet what do they do? It’s the same ol’, same ol’…
Link dumping, cutting-and-pasting boring reams of text, JAQ’ing off, cherry picking isolated studies/graphs/statistics, idolizing contrarian oddballs with a Phd, cruising the blogosphere for some tidbit validation while pretending that the mainstream scientific community doesn’t count while at the same time draping yourself in the mantle of “The TROOTH Seeker”.
It’s always the same and it gets tedious after a while.
It’s cliche after cliche after yet another plodding cliche.
“They laughed at Galileo”
“Science is never settled”
“No such thing as a consenus”
“Oh, I’m offended”
“Hey, here’s a study/newspaper article/blog post/ that you will tremble in awe and fear of.”
“The problem is not my lack of evidence. It’s all about you. Your problem is blah, blah, blah…”
Oh you are a real psycho – I initially thought you might just be some sort of devil’s advocate but no, you are a real sick individual. I am delighted I can still think and make rational decisions based on observation and experience. In your case you are besotted with the capabilities and truths you have long since decided are reality.
In truth what you need is the services of a good psychologist who can take your closed and twisted mind apart and reconstruct it along the lines of where we normal people operate.
All the best.
Oh you are a real psycho – I initially thought you…
Yes, we know.
This gambit has already been covered.
“The problem is not my lack of evidence. It’s all about you. Your problem is blah, blah, blah…”
How about the evidence you lied about, Cedrick, when you said that “It doesn’t say what you think it says.”
Did you read the press release?
I did.
Ken did.
It doesn’t help you at all. Read your own link. You should be at least be competent to to that one simple task.
Hmm, let’s see. Major George R Jordan.
(…reads article…)
Accused the Roosevelt administration of smuggling nuclear secrets to the Soviets?
Gosh. Comedy that writes itself.
(…keeps reading…)
John Birch Society?
Ewwww.
Glenn Beck would be so proud.
“I have, finally, more or less established that Jordan did say this stuff (no thanks to you), and am quite prepared to label him a crank.”
Seeing that you were skeptical that Jordan even existed, Chris, it’s hardly surprising that you would dismiss his recollections of historical events as being meaningless opinion.
What the Skeptical Vegan fails to mention is the link between the establishment of fluoridation in the US with the eugenics movement via Andrew Mellon. The eugenics movement also had ties to Fabian socialism, and both of these movements are very much alive today and have members in influential positions in society.
Seeing that you were skeptical that Jordan even existed, Chris, it’s hardly surprising that you would dismiss his recollections of historical events as being meaningless opinion.
Not surprising at all.
Very sensible.
Skeptical that Jordan existed? Well, sure.
Asking “Is this even a real person?” is a basic question. Not exactly unfair.
Jordan had his recollections of historical events.
But…the problem is that it’s just hearsay.
Hearsay is a no-no.
People lie. People embellish. People misremember. It happens.
Why you are prepared to meekly accept whatever Jordan said purely on faith is a mystery to the rest of us.
Evidence.
Primary sources.
What the Skeptical Vegan fails to mention…
Relevence?
Do you want to talk about Jordan or not? Make up your mind.
Don’t go rushing off on a Gish Gallop.
“Meaningless opinion?” I dismiss Jordan’s version of events as fabricated dreck. As did his contemporaries.
Frankly, I think the way to go with your various unsubstantiated (if not flatly contradicted) rantings is to likewise dismiss them out of hand, rather than spend any more time running down the real facts behind whatever it is you expect me to believe.
“I dismiss Jordan’s version of events as fabricated dreck. As did his contemporaries.”
So you are accusing him of lying. What events do you think he lied about, fluoride use or his account of Lend-Lease supplying nuclear materials to the Russains?
You know, when I first heard about David Icke’s Lizard men, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Yet the man sells books on the stuff!
Did you know that Queen Elizabeth is a secret lizard?
I kid you not. This stuff is out there. WAaaaaaaaaaay out there.
That’s what they want you to think, that way, nobody bothers them while they get on with administering fluoride, mining coal and loading the planes that deliver the chem trails.
And you’ll not see or catch one in your garage Ken, they blend right in. But if you goad them enough on blogs with references to Michael Mann and hockey sticks they explode with expletives and references to hard left Marxism. Unfortunately references to NASA has no effect on them.
Just as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so does the burden of proof lie with the one making the accusation.
A: You’re a pedophile.
B: Liar.
A;Oh goody! You just accused me of being a liar. HA! You made a claim!!! Now blah, blah blah…
Nope.
Fuck you.
The burden of proof does not shift. Creationists/ anti-vaxxers/climate deniers/flouride nutters try this gambit all the fucking time and it’s so very stupid.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”- Christopher Hitchens
Hearsay is just hearsay. Nobody cares what Jordan claimed without corroborating evidence. Lots and lots and lots of corroborating evidence.
Why you are prepared to meekly accept whatever Jordan said purely on faith is a mystery to the rest of us.
Evidence.
Primary sources.
Put up or shut up.
You are not doing anything new and, no, you don’t get a free pass.
Indeed, UT? It would seem then that the onus would be on Jordan to prove his claims. Not only did he fail to do so, an investigation of his claims regarding the soviets flat-out contradicted his version of events.
Now, if we’re going to get into the burden of proof, you brought up this nonsense about the soviets using fluoride, you brought up Jordan, and you’ve been demanding to know, ever since Ken rubbished the initial claim, whether we thought Jordan was a liar. You certainly seem ready to lean upon his purported honesty as a shield against scepticism, though you have provided no evidence for Jordan’s trustworthiness, and his contemporaries did not share your high opinion of him.
You have comprehensively failed to prove your case. Therefore, by your own purported standards, you ought to concede defeat and call an end to it.
If your standard of debate is “are you calling this random peddler of unsubstantiated nonsense who you’ve never heard of before I brought him up a liar?” then might I suggest you retire from debating with anybody.
“It would seem then that the onus would be on Jordan to prove his claims.”
Yes, in the context that he made them. I’m the one making the claims in this context.
“Not only did he fail to do so…”
According to whose standards? Some people rubbished what he said, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking as done by defenders of the faith in the civil system, i.e. political reasoning?
“nonsense about the soviets using fluoride”
Hearsay and nonsense are not the same thing. One has meaning, the other does not.
“You certainly seem ready to lean upon his purported honesty”
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he was dishonest, and his testimony is consistent with the morality of the eugenics movement and the fact that fluoride is a neurological toxin. His credibility in my view was due to the fact that he kept notes about verifiable historical events related to the nuclear arms issue.
“You have comprehensively failed to prove your case.”
You cant prove something to someone who is engaged in political reasoning when your evidence supports a conclusion which conflicts with their position. This is clearly an atheistic site, and atheism is consistent with faith in the civil system.
UT are you denying the well substantiated facts that in the Nazi and Soviet (and many other) prison camps Pb was the element use to pacify inmates. Pacification effects of Pb are well substantiated (in its elemental form) whereas there is absolutely nothing to support the idea that the fluoride anion induces pacification (only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ – that is not pacification.
UT, you are confusing atheism with scepticism. This is a sceptical site. Whether some or all of us are atheists is quite beside the point.
The hallmark of scepticism is that we expect evidence for any claims made. Whether by the “civil system” as you call it, or by lone cranks.
Funnily enough, the civil system keeps better and more extensive records than lone cranks. They are, moreover, able to call upon people to testify if they want to get to the bottom of something. And the outcomes of those investigations are likewise recorded if somebody wants to go over their reasoning and perhaps revisit the issue.
I see no reason to assume that the civil system gets it right all the time, but then, there are checks and balances in place to try and correct any mistakes, Such as the press, the courts and the scientific community.
By contrast, the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist is that they believe the State (or the press or the scientific community, or some combination thereof) is lying to them, incompetent or whatever, and that’s why nobody takes their various tall tales seriously.
Now, I’m not familiar with Jordan’s writings on other subjects. Nor am I going to trawl through the 130-odd pages of his diaries to work out if he got anything at all correct. I’m certainly not going to simply take your word for it that there are “verifiable historical facts” buried in there somewhere.
See if you can find an academic work which quotes Jordan or lists him as a source. That at least would give you something on which to base your claims about his reliability outside of the unverified claims. Find a good enough source (remember: peer-reviewed is the minimum standard), and you might just convince me of your viewpoint on something.
Some people rubbished what he said, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking…
Burden of proof. It does not shift.
“Some people rubbished what he said about pink unicorns, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking?”
“Some people rubbished what he said about the Lizard men, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking etc.”
Burden of proof.
(shrug)
The pro-fluoride crowd…
That would be the scientific community.
I don’t get my science information from some nameless “crowd”.
Just like I don’t get my science information from some Warmist crowd or some Darwinist crowd.
The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
Which is why the burden of proof does not shift.
If I accuse you of being a pedophile then I have to provide evidence to support my claim.
If you reject my claim and angrily deny you are a pedophile, I DON’T get to give myself a hi-five and then go off on a coffee break because now you have to proves somehow that you are not a pedophile.
The burden of proof does not shift.
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.
This is an amazing claim. I reckon it’s bullshit. Where’s the supporting evidence that this is not just some tall story? Primary sources.
I don’t have to demonstrate the claim is bullshit. Burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
I’m just >>>REJECTING<<< the claim.
Want me to accept the claim? Fine. Do a bare minimum of work and support the claim.
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he was dishonest…
So?
So what? Wake up, man.
Your neighbour sees someone walks up to you and say…”You’re a pedophile”.
Your neighbour have seen nothing to suggest that the accuser was dishonest…so…
(shrug)
….and his testimony is consistent with the morality of the eugenics movement and the fact that fluoride is a neurological toxin.
Ok, so the accuser has testimony too. Now let’s say you neighbour personally reckons it’s consistent. It’s pedophilia this and pedophilia that and pedophilia in the chuch rectory twice on Sundays. Huh?
His credibility in my view was due to the fact that he kept notes about verifiable historical events related to the nuclear arms issue.
Ok, let’s throw this in the mix too.
The guy that is accusing you of being a pedophile keeps notes on nuclear weapons. Heck, let’s give him a couple of super-duper medals too.
So….you’re a pedophile? Really? I’m shocked.
(…awkward silence…)
Nope. That’s not the way the justice system works and that’s not the way that skeptical thinking works. The burden of proof does not shift.
You cant prove something to someone who is engaged in political reasoning when your evidence supports a conclusion which conflicts with their position.
What evidence? You have put zero effort into this. This whole time you have only repeated the claim and desperately tried to shift the burden of proof. It’s hugely unimpressive. Chis B is the only one that took pity on you and did some digging around to find out if this Jordan guy even existed or not and what he found was flakey.
You cant prove something to someone who is engaged in political reasoning…
“UT are you denying the well substantiated facts that in the Nazi and Soviet (and many other) prison camps Pb was the element use to pacify inmates.”
Fluoride is neurotoxic, and the Nazis were big on experimentation.
“only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ”
Still stuck with ad hominems, Ken. The specific nature of the cognitive impairment isn’t relevant to the issue of harm arising from ingestion of fluoride.
No I’m not. Skepticism as a form of reasoning has value, but atheism is a choice relating to principles.
“the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist is that they believe the State (or the press or the scientific community, or some combination thereof) is lying to them, incompetent or whatever, and that’s why nobody takes their various tall tales seriously.”
No, you don’t get to define the meanings of words to whatever you need to get anywhere within shouting range of a logical argument.
I have not used an ad hominem – you are avoiding the extremely clear role of elemental Pb. And you have no evidence that the F anion has ever been used in that way.
“UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence.”
Cranks and fools are still capable of dealing in facts.
“Pacification effects of Pb are well substantiated (in its elemental form) whereas there is absolutely nothing to support the idea that the fluoride anion induces pacification (only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ – that is not pacification.”
That the impairment can be characterized as pacification or not doesn’t affect the issue of harm.
“only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ”
Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Skepticism as a form of reasoning has value, but atheism is a choice relating to principles.
What “principles”? Don’t make up stuff as you go along.
No, you don’t get to define the meanings of words…
It’s not up for debate.
We know quite a bit about conspiracy theorists.
They pop up all the time.
Ken’s description is in line with the mainstream.
It sucks to be you.
“UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence.”
Cranks and fools are still capable of dealing in facts.
Find out what an ad hominem means. You are confused.
Cranks and fools… and not known for their ability for dealing with facts. That’s why they are called cranks and fools in the first place.
Quoting a crank is not evidence. Well, duh!
That’s not an ad hominem. That’s just basic fucking sense.
“only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ”
Yes, that’s quite true. Again, it’s not an ad hominem.
If I call you an idiot then that’s not an ad hominem.
I’m just calling you an idiot.
If I call you an idiot because you rear-ended my car or you said something stupid then that’s not an ad hominem.
“Only a fool would enter a construction site without a hard hat.”
Not an ad hominem.
“Only a fool would believe anything he reads in a newspaper.”
Not an ad hominem.
“You’ve just done something stupid.”
Not an ad hominem.
“It would be stupid to do that”
Not an ad hominem.
How are these not ad hominems?
Don’t be so fucking dense. This is the internet. You can look this up and find multiple examples of how ad hominems work. It’s not that hard.
Skepticism as a form of reasoning has value, but atheism is a choice relating to principles.
“What “principles”?”
Ethical absolutes as recognized in law, eg the right to life, as opposed to popular values regarding aceptable behaviour, eg human rights.
The point is that both you and Ken have lied about the existence of evidence regarding injury of the right to life, which makes this argument about conspiracy, in particular conspiracy involving fluoridation and atheism.
Ethical absolutes as recognized in law, eg the right to life, as opposed to popular values regarding aceptable behaviour, eg human rights.
What are you talking about? What does atheism have to do with principles or whatever?
You are just making stuff up to suit yourself.
Do you even understand what atheism means?
It’s really simple.
There’s no manual. No set of rules.
It’s exactly like aBigfootism. Except it’s in regards to theistic claims.
Now I need you to stop for a second and think before you go typing a reply.
Don’t type a reply.
Not just yet.
This is a conversation that’s been had before and…I always win.
That’s not gloating. It’s just that I’m not going to have any satisfaction in being right yet again.
Don’t get me wrong, the first twenty odd times on this blog were fun.
But given a choice, I’d rather you play your own Devil’s Advocate and do it without me having to lead you by the hand.
It’s boring to me now because it always follows the same ritual dance and hemmin and hawing from the opposition and….it’s boring.
So stop for a moment and find out why I’m so supremely confident that you have no idea what you are talking about.
I’ll give you a hint.
Ready?
Google the meaning of the word “atheism” as used by atheists themselves.
You won’t find any idle claptrap about principles or whatnot.
It’s really, really simple.
You have a golden opportunity here.
You could be the first person ever to actually do some fact-checking BEFORE launching into it and pre-emptively saving both you and me a ritual conversation.
Do that and it would genuinely impress me. In fact, it would probably impress a lot of the lurkers too.
‘Cos the god bots never do that.
Dictionary definitions are not usually very good. They are too cursory and often fail to take into account common misconceptions.
Plenty of good youtube videos to work with though.
UT – it is a bit rich to accuse me of lying. My claim is that people running prison camps have traditionally used elemental Pb to control and subdue the inmates. This is well established, well documented, and I notice even you did nothing to question the fact. So where is the lie? That is evidence related to injury to life – I am not lying and you don’t dare refute me.
And I assure you this fact has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief or lack thereof.
You said: “So, UT, no evidence”
When there are two witnesses who allege fluoride use as a psychological control agent and the Chinese data supports this testimony.
The chines data in no way support your claim, UT.. No way at all.
They talk of two completely different things – a minor (questionable) influence of high natural F on IQ tests (easily and more realistically attributed to other factors) and subduing a group.
The fact remains that the use of elemental Pb to subdue inmates is a well established procedure – it works and we all know about it. Yet you ignore it? You prefer to lie because of your ideological commitment.
You said: “I have not used an ad hominem” when you blatantly did.
No he didn’t. Find out what an ad hominem actually is. It’s not that hard. This is the internet. You find multiple examples of how ad hominems work.
Don’t make yourself look even more ignorant.
When there are two witnesses…
What witnesses?
You mean Jordan? How do you know he “witnessed” anything?
Evidence.
You need evidence.
Hearsay is a no-no.
As I’ve said before, Ken I’m not going to be drawn into irrelevancies. The difference between IQ and dumbing down is irrelevant in the context of harm arising from the use of fluoride to control people.
The issue of Pb is not relevant because the use of Pb does not have any bearing on the use of fluoride to control people or otherwise.
Do you run a liar’s club here or something, Ken? You’ve lied about ad hominems and the evidence of harm arising from fluoride use, you’ve falsely accused me of lying and Cedrick lies like it is second nature for him.
You are using standard debunker techniques: ad hominems and arguing over irrelevancies.
I am so tired of people of non-scientific background throwing out “references” to support their argument with no link or proper referencing so that one can actually go and confirm whether their extracted interpretation is correct or if the publication is from a reputable journal.
Yes fluoride is toxic but it is the concentration of toxicity that is importantt. Even water is toxic in sufficient quantites. Selenium is a highly essential element but is toxic at the same concentrations as mercury.
Tan Thiam Joo – your comment is simply a copy a paste of a chapter from another source. The source is not even attributed. It makes references to figures not even included.
I find this sort of copy and paste disrespectful. You have not put any effort into it and you expect us to waste our time reading it.
You are welcome to comment here with your own ideas and words. But such extensive copy and paste will not pass moderation. It adds nothing.
Flouride will kill you my magic crystal I got at the head shop told me in a mystical vision. Also the government blatantly puts it in our water to kill us, why else would they spend billions to sustain our health infrastructure? to watch us die a slow death. DOWN WITH THE F!
Every other animal seems to live just fine without all our added chemicals in our diet. Diet is probably one of the leading factors of our health, which is why there’s the renown phrase “you are what you eat”. Also different species of monkeys and many other animals are believed to have evolved through the different diets they choose (randomly) to stick to. If the main argument is that fluoride protects teeth then surely all animals with teeth like ours would have issues with decay..,unfortunately it’s quite the opposite, it is most likely our diet with such junk foods and all these metal related chemicals that we need to protect our teeth in the first place. You can call me what you want, but I haven’t grown up thinking fluoride is bad all my life. It was only when I saw one person’s opinion on fluoride that I decided to do my own research and have my own conclusion on it ..just like you have. The fact is we have far more health problems today then before, and they only seem to be on the increase. If you look into tribes and people who eat organic food, and aren’t so involved with monetary societies and cultures you would see they have far less health issues..and they are not consuming as much fluoride. I understand your going to expect me to spend more of my time spooning you sources only for you to ignore and keep your opinion, which by all means do. But if you are generally interested and are capable to listen without the automatic intent to provide what seems abusive and opposing argument then perhaps it’ll be in your own interest to have a look and conclude whatever you like. I am from a family of doctor’s and they don’t think twice about fluoride so by no means am I saying I’m 100% correct, listen to me. In fact it is only recently that I have decided to do my best to cut fluoride out of my diet (very difficult when looking at the ingredients, it seems to have wiggled its way into everything these days) so that I can have a personal experience and see if I notice a change, and consequently get a clearer conclusion on the topic. I understand you slam sources of the internet but most media outside the internet is controlled by a very small amount of people, which means your mostly only going to have a reflection on their idea as like you they’re not going to display something they oppose, which is why the internet is great, it’s actual freedom of speech unlike reality. Another topic that has always baffled me is that legalisation of tobacco, caffeine etc. and alcohol which scientist rank as some of the most harmful substances (and consequently got fired), yet hallucinogenic drugs which have been used successfully in the medical field are illegal and therefore can no longer be researched easily to potentially fix so many of our health problems. People have many ideas why all of these things are done, and most of the time there belief is due to such global hierarchy structure with the incentive of profit. There are many pharmaceutical drugs that have caused no end of problems but are legal, but no body batters an eye lid it seems, they spend millions testing a product, to then get exclusive sales for a year before all companies get a go too, but if natural substances are able to do the same job as fractions of the cost the pharmaceutical companies will lose their revenues. It’s weird to think that depression, anxiety, OCD, ADHD and all these other “mental health disorders” are on the rise randomly so that all these pharmaceutical drugs can be used, many surprisingly containing fluoride. As I said I’m from a family of doctors in the UK and where we have our agreements is that anti-depressants etc seems to be a business and getting pre-scribed so effortlessly yet they’re such an awful drug. Questioning things is great it’s what pushes boundaries and allows us to strive forward as the human race. As for your quick slams on conspiracy theories, if you invested some time to find the small amount of leaked documents you’d find that many governments worldwide have done or planned to do atrocious things. Anyway I’m rambling and I’m not hear to argue but to provide a point of view. I doubt I’ll check here again as I’ve seen what you’ve got say, and like I said I’m doing a personal experience with fluoride in order to make my mind up, because you can’t be so quick to judge these days as we’re all raised with the influences of values and cultures, those who able to ignore such things and approach areas as a blank canvas I find are far more worth listening to.
Hi Rob – You seem to have a lot of things going on – if you want to stick around there are plenty of people on this blog will engage with you, are there any specifics you worry you that we could perhaps begin a worthwhile discussion 🙂
Fair points, and I agree when I get into a topic I struggle to slow down and back up. So I will do my best here
Haha, yes I should have used paragraphs, I wasn’t really expecting to write such a long response, and once I had I then just posted it to get it out there. I was too lazy to proof read or adjust it’s layout.
So I will make the following arguments brief:
I think if our teeth are rotting because of our diet, then the solution should be to fix the diet…not adding poisons to our water so that it helps one aspect of the human body – teeth protection, and then have little research to what damage in increase of fluoride in our diet can cause.
If fluoride is being added in the idea of health, why not add vitamins and many other supplements to be healthier…why just fluoride which is in rat poisons, considered neuro-toxins, to which scientists are believing is causing issue with bones, autism, pineal gland calcification, I’m sure there’s more to be found too if people look.
Rob, no one is advocating “adding poisons” to our water at the point of consumption. Sure, concentrated chemicals used in water treatment are toxic and poisonous (chlorine was even used as a chemical weapon in the First World War) but they are not poisonous at the concentrations in the consumed water.
There is a lage amount of research on the effects of fluroide in our diet. After all it is a natural component of our food and water and at higher concentrations is known to cause problems like skeletal fluorosis in countries like China and India. We also know that at sub-optimum concentrations a F defied ent diet can lead to or knew with our bones and teeth. Fluoride is a natural and normal component of the bioapatites in our bones and teeth.
There is no evidence that optimum levels of fluoride causes autism of that it is neurotoxic. Calcification in the body is caused by calcium, phosphate and old age – not fluoride. You have been fooled by the simple fact that fluoride is chemically attracted to calcified areas – it does not cause it.
Hmm, I will take that on board, still got a few questions though:
I read somewhere that the fluoride that is added to water systems is different to that of which is natural in water from springs and mountains. I think I read that the natural fluoride is from rocks as it filters through, and this isn’t harmful and everyone has been drinking it for thousands of years.
However people were saying the added fluoride in water systems is a different form of fluoride, and it was this chemically (synthetic? I don’t know how it’s made) added fluoride that perhaps could cause more issues, is it fluoride sulphate? I can’t recall it’s full name confidently, I’m sure you’ll know the specific name.
Also I don’t understand the concept of adding something that is known as harmful at higher concentrations, but at a low dose is considered as not harmful. Is that not the same concept as smoking tobacco? The first cigarette isn’t going to cause cancer/major issues but as you continue the health problems increase as continuous low concentrations of these toxics are taken in.
I also read that a researcher at Harvard says that fluoride reduces IQ? do you know any more information on this?
Could you address why it’s just fluoride being added to supplement our health and not others? Surely it’s a sort of violation on citizens free will? if people who eat healthy and have no issues with their teeth why should they be forced to drink higher doses of fluoride water? Surely it should be the opposite? People who do not take care of their health through poor diet and don’t look after their teeth should have to buy higher doses of fluoridated water if they want the added protection? instead of say making people have to buy bottled water if they want to avoid the higher dosed water?
Also why are many parts of Europe refusing to take part in water fluoridation? Also I read that there’s no evidence of teeth worsening in Scandinavian countries, and they have not tampered with fluoride levels. Why is it all of a sudden that this changes must be made? If I want to be healthier in vitamins or Omega-3s I could buy the supplement, instead of making people who already have balanced level of vitamins and omegas forcefully take it as well.. should it not be the same with fluoride?
(I really don’t know how my responses get so long, sorry. Just curious I guess)
1: “Natural” F in ground waters comes dissolution of fluorides and apatites. depending on the chemistry (Mg and Ca interact) if the “natural F concentration is high (> about 4 ppm) there can be health effects like severe dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis. People have been getting this for thousands of years in high F areas. At the optimum concentration of 0.7 ppm there are no negative health effects.
Many beneficial elements are similar in that they are toxic at high concentrations but have negative health effects at sub-optimal concentrations – consider Se for example.
3: In many European countries fluoride deficiencies are handled via fluoridation of salt and milk or by careful dental treatments including F varnishes. Many parts of Scandanavia have sufficiently high natural F concentration in drinking water. This is also true for parts of Italy. While a few countries may have decided not to fluoridate water supplies on freedom of choice grounds in general there are other reasons like the dispersed nature or age of water treatment plants, etc.
4: Social policies are always a balance between personal choice and social good. Consider policies like free secular education and free hospitals. In practice the social good does not restrict freedom of choice, although such choice may cost something. Consider private education and private hospitals. If people have an ideological objection to iodisation of salt or fluoridation of water they are not forced to consume these – there are alternatives – and these are much cheaper than private eduction and private hospitals.
5: Community water fluoridation has proved effective and safe – even though it is by no means a substitute for tooth brushing, fluoridated toothpaste and good cheap dental care.
6: In NZ the communities involved make decisions on water fluoridation. Part of the problem in NZ has been local ideologically motivated activists attempting to deny that right to voters. Hamilton strongly supported fluoridation in a referendum last October but activists are still trying to prevent the council from following the voters’ wishes.
Rob you are a victim of your earlier choice of poor information sources.
You have made a good decision to seek further information here. Here information is presented from the scientific method.
All your above misconceptions have been addressed here, often repeatedly. I believe your best course now would be to read Ken’s series of articles on fluoridation. Take your time. You might like to look at the comments too, they are certainly enlightening as well, and frequently entertaining.
I stress, take your time. After all, you claim to be curious.
One of the most important resources for any community is access to drinking water. That’s why so many cities are historically located next to rivers.
Putting poison in drinking water?
Not really a good idea.
Health authorities do all kinds of things and spend lots of money and effort to make sure that the water that’s available from your tap is drinkable.
Even if there’s a problem with the smell or look of the water (which may be still perfectly safe), health authorities try and do something about it.
The whole “THEY’RE PUTTING POISON IN OUR WATER. OMG! OMG!! OMG!!!” is just one big, Ooggity-Boogity designed to frighten and manipulate you.
Don’t fall for the propoganda.
Don’t let them use you like that..
Vast, evil, global conspiracies inevitably break down once you look at the nuts and bolts of how such a bizzare thing could even work.
I also read that a researcher at Harvard says that fluoride reduces IQ? do you know any more information on this?
Ask yourself how you should get your scientific information.
Lets’ say that one guy from Harvard supposedly said something.
OK.
So now some other guy from somewhere else on the internet said the opposite.
Now what do you do?
Flip a coin?
This kind of thing happens in internet arguments all the time. I’m sure you’ve seen it yourself. The idea is to adopt a methodology that is solid and not subject to your own personal biases or the biases of someone with a slick blog. It’s all about going back to the science. The kind of science that stands up solid in the scientific arena.
The way you get your science on one topic should be the same minimum standard for all other topics. (Evolution, dangers of smoking, the moon landings, vaccines, climate change, etc.)
Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works
Bo, thanks for the link. I will look at it in more detail tomorrow.
However a quick glance indicates to me a very biased paper making some very obvious mistakes. No original work I could see – simply a review for a specific view point. Personally I would think to has been very poorly peer reviewed.
This is probably related to the nature of the journal. The Scientific World Journal, currently published by Cairo-based Hindawi Publishing Corporation, operates what is known as a “hold open-access model” where the authors are charged for publication. This leads to poor reviewing, and attraction of low quality papers.
However, I will read the whole text tomorrow. Meanwhile, why are you selecting that paper? It is not one normally cited (I think for quality reasons).
I wasn’t allowed fluoride as a kid because I had a hole in my heart, doctors and dentists made me avoid it at all costs until the hole had healed (which it has). I didn’t live in an area where the tap water had an increased amount of fluoride (may of have even been before it got introduced), but if I had would this not mean I could of possibly had more issues?
It seems there is information on both sides which is why I guess there’s this debate, and then it seems the argument becomes on validity.. That’s why I had decided to under-go experimenting with fluoride intake my self. So far the only physical difference is that after brushing my teeth without fluoride I don’t get dead skin within my mouth the next day. Which is nice and less concerning but not really a worthwhile factor.
I doubt I will notice any other factors, I think it will only be rare scenarios where there might be issues, which would be hard to trace back to solely fluoride intake. I will continue to avoid the extra fluoride until my current supplies run out, and then see where the fluoride debate is at (currently only added in a few areas in the UK) .
I guess to me it’s simply because my teeth are currently fine, and many humans who have passed away were not complaining about their teeth either, but I understand that now more and more sweets are eaten etc, that dental issues are on a rise, and this does need to be addressed.
—Off Topic—- but I guess relates to why I have doubts.
I guess I’m just a little sceptical in trusting governments when looking over things that they have done or considered doing (unrelated to fluoride I know). But we live in world so obsessed with culture and consumerism that people take more offence to swear words and middle fingers then poverty, famine, war etc. Governments have the ability to change this, and all money in an economy is borrowed just going further and further into debt, sort of makes money valueless, yet majority of people are inspired by profit regardless of its impacts. It’s still quite a hierarchy. You can also find information on US governments/businesses profiting from war, guarding 90% of opium fields while having Afghanistan’s president’s brother on the CIA payroll? what’s that all about? Why are they more bothered about saving people’s teeth then reducing the expense on war and helping people struggling to eat? and live?
So I guess it’s the combination of these factors that puts me off. If it gets put forward in the UK I guess I won’t have much of a choice but to take part. I found this article as I was looking further into fluoride, and I appreciate the responses I’ve received as it has definitely put some more light on the topic for me. I will look through some more articles here and elsewhere overtime, but I really should be prioritising my university dissertation and exams then my knowledge on fluoride haha.
— forgot to add (relates to my other off topic part)——
oh and I’ve been told a government scientist decided to re-research and rank the how harmful drugs are. He concluded that alcohol was the 3rd most dangerous substance, and as a result he lost his job…he was only trying to help our view on health but it appears the government didn’t like it as it threatened an income supply of theirs.
The scientists name was David Nutt, you can have a look into and make your own conclusion on what “I’ve been told”. You seem to think everything you have been told is superior to everything I’ve been told. For example if I am not to take regard to what I am being told..then surely I should not take regard to what your telling me in the sense that I have a problem. Ignorance.
Prof Nutt was head of a state committee advising the UK government on drugs, he was removed from the committee by the government of the time who were unhappy about his advise on decriminalising currently illegal drugs. Governments do this sort of think in controversial areas but I don’t know what relevance this is to the fluoride issue.
I have just stated that you have been ignorant in the sense that you are disregarding information because I’ve been told it.
What if I was told it from David Nutt himself or the government?
I’m not forcing you to research it, I was just trying to show you that you cannot claim I have made a mistake because I’ve been told something. Especially when you’ve showed no effort in proving that you are correct in saying I am wrong.
From my previous comments you can see I am happy to discuss and take views from others from what they’ve been told and take into account for my own conclusions. I have tried not to bring up my same point of view after being given new information but instead ask the questions I still have that have note been addressed….(perhaps I’ll remind you that you immediately disregarding one of them because I was told it)
Hitchen’s Razor is just a theory you’ve been told…Ritchard, do you see your problem? (that’s exactly what you’ve done to me..)
It’s the fact this seems unreasonable that it brings up these other questions…which I simply ask in the hope someone can address it in a way that the person who has stated the story hasn’t.
It’s comments like yours that make me not want me to participate in discussions online.
Was Nutt a Nutter too? (perhaps a Freudian slip there Ken 🙂 )
The relevance is that Rob is advancing the anecdote (quite different to your story about his dismissal) as justification for a conspiracy argument in which, as Cedric might put it, brave scientists that uncover the awful troof have their careers ruined by the evil Gubmint.
Thank you Ken for providing a worthwhile response.
I did state in a previous comment that it was not related explicitly to fluoride and it was a topic I forgot to add on to the end. It was slightly related to the fact that I have been questioning fluoride is because of these other articles on government’s actions. I have got more information on fluoride which is great, I guess I was hoping to see the other angles on my other questions so that I can decrease my doubts of added fluoride in the future.
Bugger – I wonder if that was a slip,on my part or the the bloody spell check.
However, Nutt visited NZ recently and spoke at a couple of meetings (maybe Royal Society). It’s not as if he has lost his job or been professionally sanctioned – just removed from a government committee – happens all the time. One has to be really biased to see a conspiracy.
A bit of advice Rob – you should be sceptical about reports like this and claims made about fluoride – especially from the natural health industry and it’s advocates. At least with scientific reports one usually has some evidence and reliability. And peer reviewed papers are more reliable than newspaper and natural health magazine reports – by a mile.
Perhaps you should read the banner that says ‘keep an open mind’. Which simply suggests the ability of listening to more than one opinion/story than the one you currently believe, and not disregarding it before looking into it because it conflicts with “what you’ve been told”. Something you appeared incapable of with your first comment to me. None of my responses with you have been over different sides of a debate of whether something is true or false, only the fact you were stating me as wrong for no reason – which ties into your own post of Hitchen’s Razor.
I don’t have a problem with you disagreeing to the story. It was just a case where a scientist was arguing that there was political pressures over the scientific data. So I asked the question to take on more than one opinion.
An example to consider…. do you think Hitchen’s Razor would have value in an argument with someone totally outside of your society and culture? No, they would have to accept this concept first and then engage in the debate by providing evidence. Your also missing the point, I’m not saying Hitchen’s Razor is stupid, I was simply showing your example of disregarding it because it was something you had typed.
Do you see me bashing down on Ken’s point of view on fluoride after he has provided his thoughts to me? All of which are the opposing side of the debate that I originally provided?
and thanks Ken, you have given the responses I was hoping for and I have taken all of your advice on board and have been happy to see the your mature approaches to responding.
“I guess to me it’s simply because my teeth are currently fine, and many humans who have passed away were not complaining about their teeth either, but I understand that now more and more sweets are eaten etc, that dental issues are on a rise, and this does need to be addressed”
I think the crux of the issue here is that fluoridated water is a Public health initiative. Yes, diet is a large part of it and as you allude to, trying to change dietary habits is not feasible.
Yes, you probably do have good teeth, and many people do.
Many people don’t however.
Have you ever seen young kids going to school with rotten teeth?
You said you come from a family of doctors? You are going to Uni?
I guess you are lucky to have been brought up in an environment where good oral health is promoted.
I don’t want this to come across as all preachy but as a public health initiative, community fluoridated water is an excellent method to reach those lower socio-economic groups not lucky enough to have had the benefits you have had 🙂
Yeah I can understand that, and I’m all for preventing inequalities. However would that example not suggest that my privileges could have allowed me to buy lots and lots and lots of sweets and destroy my teeth more compared to someone without these privileges. Perhaps I was lucky that I was not as excited by sweets as most kids are.
Why is controlling diet not feasible, can it not be as a feasible as trying to protect teeth with fluoride? if something is harmful there should be control measures I think, which I guess is why there’s this debate on fluoride as people are weary to how harmful it is (then it comes down to what information they’ve heard and what is more valid etc.). So if companies are adding chemicals that harm teeth then perhaps there should be control measures, to promote health over profit.
I guess the other argument is that I could have afforded to have lots of high quality dental treatment. But I’ve actually barely been to the dentist, and am definitely due a check as it’s been years, but I’ve only had 1 filling which appears to be far less then my friends who are from a variety of backgrounds.
I’m definitely more susceptible to the adding of fluoride after Ken addressed some areas of fluoride that I was yet to learn about. But I guess the horror stories from the past make alarm bells ring in my head, and when I go looking for information I seem to find information that brings up more questions instead of providing solutions to my original ones. To which then I suppose its trying find out which sources are the most reliable and why, but I currently don’t have the time, I should even be spending my time here to be honest.
Richard, I’m sorry if I’m coming across as over-reacting to your comment. I should have phrased the Nutt story as a question (which was my intention as I wanted a response showing the other argument), as my reason for mentioning it was the idea of politics vs science. You seem to think I have an issue with you disproving or providing opposing information. That’s the opposite to my issue, I want those responses so I can educate myself. The fact is if you look back you did not question my statement (that I failed to get across effectively as wanting someone to shed more information on) you simply stated it was wrong, or that I had made a problem because I had read something – it was this that did not sit well with me. But I really am wasting too much energy on this as I have deadlines I need to get done first.
Person anecdote…personal assurances of “experimenting”…lack of trust in governments…hopeful feeling that one day will look at some unidentified articles from somewhere…gosh so busy at Uni haha…some unnamed gov’t scientist lost his job…poor guy…
[negative response]
No you! Anyway paradox something…. make your own conclusion…You seem to think everything you whatever…so yeah…ignorance something.
[negative response]
Open mind, yeah? opinions…than the one you….conflict with what you’ve…you appeared incapable….your first comment….with you…you were….no reason…Hitchen’s Razor…I don’t have a problem…asked a question…hey consider..Hitchen’s Razor something…you’re missing the point…do you see me bashing?…
[negative response]
Why not diet? so if companies something…horror stories…alarm bells ringing….I guess something….dental appointment…more questions…not much time…want to educate myself…doesn’t sit well with me…wasting too much time…deadlines.
Well I’m sorry that I’ve come across that way, I just had a lot of questions that I wanted answered. It wasn’t my intent to force my opinion on others or to state them as fact, I will just leave it at that. But thanks for the extra information that I was able to gather from here.
“Yeah I can understand that, and I’m all for preventing inequalities. However would that example not suggest that my privileges could have allowed me to buy lots and lots and lots of sweets and destroy my teeth more compared to someone without these privileges. Perhaps I was lucky that I was not as excited by sweets as most kids are.”
Really!?
So as a 6 year old child, the only thing preventing you from having rotten teeth was that you were not as excited as the poor kids by the seductive and alluring charm of sweets…?
I may have shot myself in the foot there. I wasn’t trying to suggest that it’s poor kids fault for eating lots of sweets, therefore they should suffer. If that’s what’s came across I apologise. I want everyone to have great teeth, they should be entitled to this.
It’s just what is the cause of our teeth getting worse? (I’m assuming it’s diet?) Why is that part of the problem not getting as much attention as the protection of the teeth.
These are just questions that come to me, I’m not trying to stir things up or claim facts. I’m grateful for the extra information I’ve learnt on fluoride. But I seem to be causing more trouble here than good. Which I didn’t set out to do. So I think I might just remove myself from this article from here on.
Perhaps teeth are getting worse; Western diets certainly are changing. Be aware that although a contributing factor, poor diet is not the only reason for dental caries.
But there is a logical fallacy in your reasoning called the False Dilemma or false dichotomy. This is where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
I will offer an analogy.
If we know that most car fatalities are caused by poor driving, does that mean we should not provide seatbelts or airbags? Rather spend our resources only on improving our driving skills?
That’s a great analogy. I agree, and I’m sure most cars worldwide have now got seatbelts and air-bags now. So why is not the same with fluoride yet?
If it really is harmless and it only brings the benefit of better teeth protection then surely all countries would have adopted it. It’s not like this is a new discovery.
The only other logic I can think behind this is that every other country that does not have this in place is because their natural fluoride levels already meet the levels that countries are artificially adding. Is this the case? have we been slow to get the hint all these years? I have no idea. If it is then I can’t think of another question that would pop to mind, and I would be pro-fluoride!
Rob, health authorities around the world, and internationally, recognise that fluoride at optimum concentrations is beneficial to oral health and harmless. Most advanced countries therefore have either some sort of fluoridation (salt, milk, water) and/or dental treatments in action. Is some countries natural levels of fluoride are adequate – in others the levels are too high and removal, or finding other sources of water, is the issue.
For most of the world, though, these considerations are a luxury. Just getting clean drinking water is the problem,
Is the only reason some of these countries started and then stopped fluoridating their water supplies due to the people requesting it to stop, because people like me getting the wrong end of the stick? and if so wouldn’t scientist and health authorities be out-raged? To them it would be like turning down free health-care, or the same kind of analogy of starving people turning down food?
Also you mentioned the fluoridation of salt and milk, is that all forms of milk and salt fluoridated in that country? or is it provided as an option?
I realise if you don’t know these answers it’s a bit much for me to expect you to deliver them and not for me to go find them myself. Which I’ll happily do after my exams and such. If I was to do so is there a renowned scientific/scholarly findings website that you could point me towards? or where you get your information from that is more reliable?
“Is the only reason some of these countries started and then stopped fluoridating their water supplies due to the people requesting it to stop, because people like me getting the wrong end of the stick?”
Better question, now I think you are getting closer to the real reasons for fluoridation/ not fluoridating. My analogy was limited; death from a car accident is not comparable to tooth decay!
But even when seat belts were made to be compulsory (Here in New Zealand in 1972) there was a public backlash – those with more libertarian views believe it should be up to the individual to decide, this “right” however needs to be weighed against the cost of not wearing seatbelts to the public health system.
The reasons why some countries fluoridate are a combination of social and political reasons, as a public health measure it needs governmental approval to be implemented. And as such there will always be people who oppose it based on there political views.
The science on CWF is effectively settled no matter what information you have read on the Internet, however there is a significant “anti science” anti-fluoride movement in the world – from what you have written, it seems as though you have already been exposed to this.
If you take a close look at the people who oppose CWF you will find many of them also oppose vaccinations as well as holding other common conspiracies such as Chem trails etc etc.
I was hoping this blog would help me make a decision.
Both sides have made a good case with the available resources.
After what seems like a stalemate, I’ll make my choice based upon
the perceived integrity of the participants.
If consuming Fluoride makes one vindictive and patronising whilst trying to
have a civilised discussion (perhaps more of an exercise in debating for some), then I think the smart thing to do would be to side with the calmer, more rational, topic focused Anti-F group.
I think I’ll leave the Fluoride out. What’s the worst that can happen?
Thanks for the interesting read.
Ken. Thank you for posting the video. Christopher Atkinson, makes a good point regarding chemtrails and vaccines. You are dealing with a few things here. 1. Hysteria/conspiracy generated by vested interest to divert away from the causes of the economic crisis, which has nothing to do with the banks or the myth of the Rothschilds, it has to do with private property and the ownership of all that we need to survive by the elites that is then utilized to enrich themselves 2. Personality disorders that are rife and marked by black and white parsimonious thinking, that no amount of evidence to the contrary will suffice in altering skewed thinking
3. Anti-intellectualism and the degeneration back into the dark ages that accompanies crisis where there is fear of the Status-Qua being overturned. It has historical precedence for those interested. http://www.articlesfactsstats.com/375013347 http://www.articlesfactsstats.com/383703420
There is anti-fluoride sentiment in my town, and I’ve spent a while getting to the bottom of it. My problem with the pro-fluoride side of this argument in this and many other threads is that it seems to be more a matter of ego and an almost religious fervor regarding the wonders of fluoride and an immediate dismissal of criticism. This seems hardly scientific, and given that the burden of proof falls not to the detractors of fluoridation, but its proponents, I don’t understand how such a zealous and unscientific approach to fluoridation can be considered acceptable.
I don’t drink fluoridated water, i have never had a cavity, and my teeth are healthy. Studies showing the efficacy of systemic fluoride place it as trivial at best, or completely ineffective at worst, so why do people care so much about ensuring that other people drink a dodgey and unnatural substance. You can add it in supplementary form, and topical application is available
If anything, more study is required, and fluoridation should be stopped until it can be proven safe and effective. If it had been proven safe and effective already, the opponents of fluoridation would lose support over the years, not gain it. Also, the origins of fluoridation are very sketchy. The Mellon institute defended asbestos and DDT as well as Lead in gasoline.Their endorsement of fluoride at the behest of the people who stood to profit from selling it to municipalities is an affront to the science.
Its important to keep an open mind. I don’t like that the moderator of this page attacks people who disagree with him without actually rebutting anything in a credible way, and I don’t like that calling someone a conspiracy theorist seems to be an acceptable way of dodging a legitimate question.
Truly, this is madness. Not even going into the controversy over the dangers of fluoride, the evidence that it is effective is simply not strong enough to justify forcing it on everyone. Even if it is effective, there are moral implications. Aspirin prevents heart attacks, should we add it to the water? What about depression? Anti-depressants and valium would cut down on violent crime I’m sure, but the ethics are clear. You can’t force your neighbor to drink a chemical he doesn’t want to drink. Its immoral.
So here, you can do as you’ve done so far, rip the post apart, call me a whackadoo, circle-jerk each other as you dissect it line-by-line and sneer like school bullies over the pointless points. OR, we can grow up, realize that science has no room for egos, that the default for fluoridation or any municipal practice should be a resounding “no” until there is irrefutable information to support it and informed consent among the population.
Btw, there is nothing wrong with that guy up top reposting pertinent information. Argue what he said, not how it was conveyed. I want to see the studies showing that drinking hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride is A) SAFE in long term, unbiased trials and B) Significantly effective in preventing tooth decay. and C) Does not cause environmental damage, as most municipal water is not consumed and I know there have been many environmental lawsuits in the past levied against fluoride polluters.
Everything else is splitting hairs and a waste of energy. Thanks for your time in reading. Cheers.
Paul, thanks for yet another “you need to keep an open mind, here’s my personal anecdote, you guys don’t argue the science and are mean to us, listen to our personal anecdotes” comment.
Paul, nobody is going to conduct studies on whether “drinking hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride is safe/effective/whatever.” Why, you ask?
Because nobody is drinking the stuff.
I’m going to ask you to go back and read that sentence a couple of times until it sinks in. That’s right, your key demand is based upon a false premise, which we see repeated again and again by certain members of the anti-fluoride crowd. “People are drinking fluorosilicic acid!” they cry. Lies.
The very point of using these chemicals for water fluoridation is that, at the concentrations they are added to water, they dissociate quickly and completely into their component parts. Including fluoride.
If you would like to reassure yourself on this point and other matters relating to fluoridation chemicals, I suggest reading through this paper.
Ok, you want specifics?
1. Hydrofluoric acid is not naturally found in any water source. We’re not talking about naturally occurring sodium fluoride here. Let’s not compare apples to oranges.
2. The benefit of fluoride on teeth is purely topical.Why are we drinking it? It’s already in mouthwash and toothpaste. If someone practices proper dental hygiene, they should get plenty of benefit, without ingesting chemical waste.
3. Some fluoride is manufactured specifically for fluoridation. HF acid is also produced as a waste byproduct, try and guess where yours came from because the local government won’t tell me.
4. This PSA cherry picks from the tree of science for hire, and completely ignores the massive amount of studies linking fluoridation to all kinds of adverse health effects, both physical and cognitive.
Including studies that show that it’s bio-accumulative.
Caleb, here is my response to your points – I would very much like to get your acknowledgment (and refutation if your are able) of these:
1: I think you are confused here. Hydrofluoric acid is never used for community water fluoridation. I think you have confused it with fluorosilicic acid which, together with sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride is. The fluorosilicates decompose on dilution to produce silica and the hydrated fluoride anion which has the beneficial effect at optimum concentrations (and iA exactly the same as the fluoride anion occurring natural in waterways). I also think that you meant calcium fluoride is naturally occurring as this, together with apatites, is usually the mineral supporting natural fluoride in waterways.
2: The surface or “topical” action of fluoride is the predominant mechanism for protection of existing teeth. However ingestion of food and water containing fluoride plays a major role in this as it enables transfer of F to saliva and surface biofilms which helps support that protection. With developing and pre-eruptive teeth ingested F does play a protective role – of course the surface reaction cannot occur then. Also, let’s not forget the role of F in developing healthy bones.
3: Whether the fluoridation chemicals are manufactured directly from the F containing ores or as by products in the manufacture of other chemicals is surely irrelevant. They are not wastes if they are used. In this country a simple request of the local council will give you the information you require.
4: You are welcome to discuss here any of the studies you believe supports your claims of negative effects, or to critique the studies which don’t. But a simple statement of your opinion is a nothing more than that.
Having read the majority of this debate with no preconceptions of my own regarding fluoridation, I found myself leaning towards Trevor’s arguments. Having graduated from a scientific discipline myself (geology), I am well accustomed to reading well researched arguments, properly backed by peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Kens comes across like a fox news presenter, does not adequately counter the points made by Trevor but instead repeats himself or otherwise relies on character defamation. These methods appeals to the larger volume of public , those with attention spans too short to do the necessary reading to form balanced opinions.
Well, Pando, anyone with a scientific bent knows the importance of evidence. This is as true for geologists as it is for other groups.
So, I am surprised you did not provide any evidence for your assertion. What about taking issue with something that I have actually written – after all there is not a shortage.
Any reading of these articles will show that I do rely on peer-reviewed papers and, OK I am biased, but I do think my arguments are well researhced. This contrasts with those arguments of people like Trev.
So, if you are at all serious (who knows, you may be Trev in drag 🙂 ) them I expect a reasoned reply based on evidence.
Or if you aren’t serious I expect you will run away and not respond to such a reasonable request.
Ken is obviously a paid propagandist, you need only to read his responses independently to see. Defamation, attacking arguments based on their format rather than their content, and a very consistent vagueness towards science that is so superior that it cannot be questioned in spite of mountains of contradictory evidence.
This might as well be fox news.
Monsanto and Merck have both been caught paying Internet “trolls” to attack any arguments made against their agenda. I would not be surprised if it is the same here.
I would like to know why you completely ignored the post and link of TA Crosbie.
As I scroll through your responses, I see you have a strategy of attacking people’s presentation and character, rather than their content. If what they say does not stroke with your opinion, you respond with ad hominem and allegations of them “just trolling”.
Do I detect a case of confirmation bias and blindness to whatever does not suit you?
As to the efficacy of ingested fluoride, there is no convincing evidence for its efficacy in preventing tooth-decay and plenty of evidence for its negative effects on mental and physical health.
Scientific opinion is increasingly shifting to a negative one where it concerns fluoridating drinking water. It is a case of the benefits not outweighing the costs.
It is ofcourse, from a medical viewpoint, madness to advise general medication of a populace with a substance of which the dosage levels are impossible to determine. Completely unscientific and unethical.
No doubt you will call me a troll, or similar.
I have as yet to see a convincing argument from your side, other than extolling the merits of ingesting something the efficacy of which lies in topical application at doses much higher than ever encountered through water fluoridation. .
Dervish, I think you have a bit of confirmation bias yourself. I often interact with Trev. We know each other personally, live in the same city, and can exchange a joke. He, unfortunately never maintains a discussion – but I have come not to expect that of him.
There is, in fact, evidence of a beneficial role for ingested fluoride during early years. I discussed this, and in particular, the paper of Cho et al., (2014) in my article Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health. Have a read of the article and the paper.
You say “I have as yet to see a convincing argument” for the efficacy and safety of community water fluoridation. Can I suggest again this is because of your confirmation bias? You are too selective in your reading. The cited example of Peckham’s paper illustrates this. It is a shoddy paper and one has to be very blinkered to rely on it – but then again that is the purpose of a known anti-fluoride campaigner like Peckham getting something into a journal that anti-fluoride campaigners can cite as if it is reliable proof of something.
After reading these articles, I would welcome any criticisms you have of them and we can discuss them here. I would hate for you to run away as Trev does without contributing to a sensible discussion.
No, I won’t call you a troll. But I do note that I often get people here who use a non de plume and never return to participate in a discussion they may have initiated. I call then drive-by trolls. I hope you aren’t another one of them.
As to the efficacy of ingested fluoride, there is no convincing evidence for its efficacy in preventing tooth-decay
Duh.
Evidence that is convincing enough that every scientific and public health community and authority on the planet will not to dispute that it is a safe and effective measure for dental health,
Name a single scientific community, dental or public health authority that supports your claim.
Dervish, I’ve occasionally suggested this to others.
Get an up to date textbook on dentistry or public health.
Read the chapters on community water fluoridation.
Read all of the references for the chapter.
Read all of their references.
Get an up to date textbook on the (bio)chemistry of calcium and fluoride in bones and teeth.
Read it.
Read all of the references… And their references…
Get an up to date textbook on bioapetites.
Read it.
Read all of the references… And their references…
Get an up to date textbook on endocrinology.
Read the chapters on bone and renal endocrinology (yes, the kidneys are involved in this, as well as other organs that you would be surprised at – I’ll leave that for you to discover)
Read all of the references… And their references…
That’s a short-cut to the point where the experts on the subject of community water fluoridation began their researches… And possibly qualifies you to comment further.
Please pardon my poor English from Singapore. Here 100% of our population has been receiving fluoridated water at 0.5 mg /L since 1958. We have many children with dental fluorosis and many adults with bow legs. Many English and medical dictionaries defined fluorosis as fluoride poisoning and as a disease. How can this NZ video from government MOH claim that fluoridation does not cause disease?
lkyfluoride – could you please provide figures for the extent of dental fluorosis and its different forms for Singapore. Also, figures for the prevalence of skeletal fluorosis?
Water fluoride art 0.5 mg/L is not defined a poisonous and is not the cause of fluorosis.
However, many parts of the world suffer from excessive dieatary fluoride intake – that is a completely different problem.
NZ Science Blogs
Open Parachute 
These low life, professional liars really need to change their name to the Ministry of Truth. Total garbage – none of our media, or this ridiculous blog, are mentioning the 23 (so far) studies from Harvard proving fluoride gives brain damage to kids- and lower IQ’s to all. “Dah…but I don’t have lower IQ and I drunk fluoride” – yeah, and you probably believe Global Warming is man made, Osama did 911, that the Crown is not cultivating opium in Afghanistan, and the NZ SAS being in Syria is heroic (not a war crime). Fact is, the Nazis were the first to fluoridate the town water supplies- to make people more ‘compliant’ (dumbed down). And do a search on Wiki for Countries which don;t have a fluoride program- its all the smart ones (or ones without foreign/european owned Central Banks). Personally, I don’t think the author is qualified to comment on fluoride, if they have been drinking it. As for the Ministry of Truth – well we all know anything the Government tells you is most often a lie.
LikeLike
James, take a few deep breaths and count to 10.
If you have any real comments or questions express them and we can discuss them.
I am dealing with the myths and misinformation in the anti-F propaganda one at a time. Will get around to the “brain damage” lies.
But boy, do you sound like a conspiracy theorist.
LikeLike
You would have to be amazingly stupid to believe that load of rubbish.
LikeLike
No specifics from you either? Interesting. The video really seems to have upset some people.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Daily Blog Watch Wednesday 17th July « The Daily Blog
“…yeah, and you probably believe Global Warming is man made…”
Gosh, what were the chances? Didn’t see that coming. Nope. No Sirree. Never in a million years. Takes me completely by surprise that does.
…Osama did 911…
Ah, a troofer too? How precious.
….that the Crown is not cultivating opium in Afghanistan…
What? No mention of the lizard people? Disappointed!
Fact is, the Nazis were the first to fluoridate the town water supplies- to make people more ‘compliant’ (dumbed down).
I’ve never understood the mechanics of that idea. I mean, how does it actually work? Take water. Add fluoride (???) and you have a docile population? Wha..?
(…awkward silence…)
Nope. I don’t get it. How does it work? Fluoride isn’t magic, you know.
LikeLike
Exposing the Slick, Shameless Propaganda of NZ ‘Health’ Authorities
by afamildura
Pro-F Propaganda Video
Fluoride video from the Ministry of Health
Uploaded by: Waikato DHB, New Zealand
Date: July 14, 2013
Rebuttal
Claim 1: Fluoride is everywhere, in everything.
Response: “Fluoride as a drug has contaminated most processed foods and beverages throughout North America” (Limeback 2000). “The major dietary source of fluoride for most people in the United States is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities” (NRC 2006, p. 24). Ergo, if municipal drinking water was no longer artificially fluoridated, general fluoride exposures would fall significantly. It is therefore misleading to imply that this type of exposure to fluoride would occur regardless of fluoridation. Furthermore, if fluoride is so abundant in nature, then why has nature devised a mechanism for keeping fluoride away from the developing infant? As clarified by the National Research Council, “even at very high fluoride intakes by mothers, breast milk still contains very low concentrations of fluoride compared with other dietary fluoride sources” (NRC 2006, p. 36). Connett poses the apt question, “if ingested fluoride is necessary to protect children’s teeth… why it is that the level of fluoride is so low in mothers’ milk (0.004 ppm)? Did evolution screw up on the baby’s first meal and nutritional requirements?” (Connett 2008, p. 2).
Claim 2: Fluoride toughens teeth and thus prevents decay.
Response: “When water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride’s main benefit to teeth came from being swallowed during childhood. When swallowed before the teeth erupted, dentists claimed fluoride would build up in the internal matrix of the teeth and make them more resistant to cavities for the rest of the child’s life.. Although water fluoridation was launched on this premise, it is now known to be incorrect” (FAN n.d.).
Claim 3: Fluoride occurs naturally, but to benefit teeth, it needs to be topped up.
Response: “Natural does not necessarily mean good. Arsenic, like fluoride, leaches naturally from rocks into groundwater, but no one suggests topping that up. Besides, there is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals, as they are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature” (Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 246).
Claim 4: The amount of fluoride added to water is around a spoonful in a bathtub. At this level, fluoridation is safe for the whole family… an adult would have to drink several thousand glasses of fluoridated water to get a lethal dose of fluoride.
Response: This is typical industrial ‘claptrap’. With this type of analogy, “there is a world of difference between a chronic toxic dose and a lethal dose. What we are particularly concerned about is the impact of consuming water at 1 ppm over an extended period of time… proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others” (Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 248). “In the case of fluoridation, people should be aware of the limitations of evidence about its potential harms and that it would be almost impossible to detect small but important risks (especially for chronic conditions) after introducing fluoridation” (Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon 2007). “Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups” (Thiessen 2011, p. 5).
Claim 5: There is over 60 years of scientific evidence to back up the safety of fluoridation.
Response: “The [York] review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed” (Sheldon 2001). “What the [NRC] committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look… when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began (Doull in Scientific American, Jan. 2008). “The absence of studies is being used by promoters as meaning the absence of harm. This is an irresponsible position” (50 Reasons #45).
Claim 6: Nationally, water fluoridation has been shown to reduce tooth decay.
Response: See: Dr. Paul Connett’s presentation (New Zealand 2013); and Dr. Connett’s classic 1998 interview with New Zealand’s Dr. John Colquhoun. For an overview of modern fluoridation studies, click here.
Claim 7: There will be both a human and a dollar cost if councils cease fluoridation.
Response: This claim is totally bogus. When fluoridation ends, decay rates do not rise as a direct result, as numerous post-cessation studies demonstrate. This data indicates, “no substantial prevention of cavities by fluoridated water and no increase in the incidence of cavities after stopping fluoridation, as determined by comparison of cities stopping it with cities continuing it” (Beck 2013). When comparing fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated nations’ decay rates, we see no discernible difference that could be attributed to water fluoridation status. ‘Hip pocket’ savings have also been poorly calculated and exaggerated (see: Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, pp. 249-250).
Claim 8: Water fluoridation can benefit everyone… old, young.
Response: When promoters make these types of claims, they are usually referring to reducing inequalities in dental health. The evidence for this claim, however, paints a very different picture. According to the York review ream, “the evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable” (CRD 2003). Risk assessment expert and NRC report (2006) panelist, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, makes a special point of this fact in her recent presentation to the citizens of Blount County. Furthermore, it is particularly the old and the young who may be most adversely impacted by fluoride. For example, in 2006, the National Research Council stated that fluorides may act to “increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease” (NRC 2006, p. 222); this prompted a recommendation that, “studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia” (NRC 2006, p. 223). At the other end of the age spectrum, children may be at increased risk of neurodevelopmental impairment.
Claim: Dentures are becoming a thing of the past because/partly due to water fluoridation.
Response: This statement is false and highly misleading. Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started (50 Reasons #17), and as reported in Nature in 1986, “Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation” (Diesendorf 1986). In 2007, it was confirmed in the British Medical Journal that, “although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition” (Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon 2007). Further discussion: FAN (c. 2010); Mildura (2011); Wichita (2012); FAN (2012).
Claim: Not everyone agrees with fluoridation, but the vast majority of health organisations endorse fluoridation.
Response: “Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published (see chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride for the significance of this PHS endorsement for the future promotion of fluoridation). Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science” (50 Reasons, #46).
Claim: Some people think that adding fluoride to water is mass medication.
Response: Firstly, refer to: Water Fluoridation & Medical Ethics (n.d., also see: video version); Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water (2000); The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation (2002); A Response to Dr. Wu (2013). Then also note: “Under the principle of informed consent, anyone can refuse treatment with a drug or other intervention. The Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine 199719… states that health interventions can only be carried out after free and informed consent. The General Medical Council’s guidance on consent also stresses patients’ autonomy, and their right to decide whether or not to undergo medical intervention even if refusal may result in harm. This is especially important for water fluoridation, as an uncontrollable dose of fluoride would be given for up to a lifetime, regardless of the risk of caries, and many people would not benefit” (Cheng, Chalmers & Sheldon 2007).
Claim: People who don’t want fluoride in their water can filter it out.
Response: “It’s ridiculous to think that people who need to escape fluoride can go and organise their own water supply. We all pay our water rates for a proper clean water supply, and in fluoridated towns, we’re not getting it” (McRae in Fire Water, 2011); “It [fluoridated water] will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment” (Connett 2002). Simply and undeniably, water fluoridation is ethically, medically and pharmacologically unsound. Exposing citizens, against their will, to a highly biochemically-active substance, is self-evidently unethical.
Claim: Fluoridation does not cause illness or disease.
Response: “Today, we know that fluoride interferes with many other biochemical molecules and processes in addition to interfering with enzymes. At the heart of this biochemical interference is the fact that the fluoride ion is small and negatively charged. It has a strong attraction for centers of positive charge. Thus it seeks out the metal ions at the active site of some enzymes; it surrounds and combines with other positive ions like aluminum, forming stable complexes which can mimic and interfere with the biochemistry of phosphate ions (e.g., aluminum tetrafluoride can switch on G-proteins which are involved in the transmission of messages across membranes). Fluoride can also interfere with hydrogen bonds which are critically important for both the structure and function of many important molecules, like proteins and nucleic acids. All of fluoride’s interactions in biochemistry are concentration-dependent and the places where it is most likely to strike are in the regions where calcified tissues like the teeth and the bone (where fluoride concentrates) interface with adjacent tissues like connective tissue” (Connett 2012). “Halfway through the twentieth century, fluoride piqued the interest of toxicologists due to its deleterious effects at high concentrations in human populations suffering from fluorosis and in in vivo experimental models. Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its “good reputation” for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses. In recent years, several investigations demonstrated that fluoride can induce oxidative stress and modulate intracellular redox homeostasis, lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyl content, as well as alter gene expression and cause apoptosis. Genes modulated by fluoride include those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell-cell communications and signal transduction” (Barbier et al. 2010). “As I intensively studied the literature and performed my own research, the evidence clearly demonstrated that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial” (Limeback 2013). “What is now clear is that, if proposed today, fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay would stand virtually no chance of being adopted, given the current status of scientific knowledge” (Howard 2010). “When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumulates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. In chapter 22, we listed the many health concerns that simply have not been investigated in fluoridated countries. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leaving little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water (see chapter 20)” (Connett, Beck & Micklem 2010, p. 251).
Claim: Fluoride is not an industrial waste product and is manufactured to exacting quality and purity standards. Once diluted, it is no different to the fluoride found naturally.
Response: “The fluosilicic acid brands used in artificially fluoridating Australia’s water supplies are known to be contaminated with lead, arsenic and mercury—major public health hazards for which no safe level exists” (Awofeso 2012, p. 8). “Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer… Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans… Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether” (Limeback 2000). Silicofluorides… a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles, are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”” (NTEU 2003). “Further analysis should be done of the concentrations of fluoride and various fluoride species or complexes (especially fluorosilicates and aluminofluorides) present in tap water, using a range of water samples (e.g., of different hardness and mineral content). Research also should include characterizing any changes in speciation that occur when tap water is used for various purposes—for example, to make acidic beverages. The possibility of biological effects of SiF62−, as opposed to free fluoride ion, should be examined. The biological effects of aluminofluoride complexes should be researched further, including the conditions (exposure conditions and physiological conditions) under which the complexes can be expected to occur and to have biological effects” (NRC 2006, p. 88). “Essentially no studies have compared the toxicity of silicofluorides with that of sodium fluoride, based on the assumption that the silicofluorides will have dissociated to free fluoride before consumption” (NRC 2006, p. 53). LEARN MORE.
Claim: Some countries don’t fluoridated their water, because they already have enough natural fluoride in their water.
Response: “In Europe, only Ireland (73%), Poland (1%), Serbia (3%), Spain (11%), and the U.K. (11%) fluoridate any of their water. Most developed countries, including Japan and 97% of the western European population, do not consume fluoridated water” (50 Reasons Intro). Learn the REAL reasons why many countries don’t fluoridate their water. Further discussion available via videos: Mildura (2011) and Wichita (2012-a); (2012-b).
Claim: Water fluoridation has been described as one of the top public health advances of the 20th century.
Response: “Not a day goes by without someone in the world citing the CDC’s statement that fluoridation is “One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century” (CDC, 1999). Those that cite this probably have no idea how incredibly poor the analysis was that supported this statement. The report was not externally peer reviewed, was six years out of date on health studies and the graphical evidence it offered to support the effectiveness of fluoridation was laughable and easily refuted” (Connett 2009).
Claim: It’s safe; it’s natural; it’s cost-effective.
Response: It’s unsafe; unnatural; and ineffective.
LikeLike
Well, Ross, I guess you are quite skilled at the CtlC/CtlV tactic but there was no need to copy the whole blog post – you could have just provided the link to the Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura and left at that.
Nice to know they feel so threatened by this video they go into such an extreme attack mode.
If you have any real interest in the subject, Ross, have a look at my articles on it – they deal with many of the issues raised in your copy and paste. The links are at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/
LikeLike
Hi Ken,
I thought that all your blog readers needed to see the full text but I note that you didn’t replace my posting with that from WordPress in which AFAMildura had functional links to their supportive references.
There’s a challenge.
Regards,
Ross
LikeLike
Here’s a challenge for you, Ross. What about expressing your criticisms of the video in your own words and more briefly. I will then respond to you points. But I am not responding to such blatant copy and paste trolling.
All I can assume is that you find the video threatening to your position but can’t explain why in your own words.
LikeLike
I don’t believe you Ken – you demand responses from people that explain why the anti lobby don’t want a by-product (H2SiF6) of manufacturing superphosphate put into drinking water as an additive to address the disease of tooth decay. Then when you get a comprehensive response you conclude the writer is in attack mode and not really interested in the subject. The ‘new’ video is just an update on a MoH one and contains much of the garbage put up by the wdhb at the Tribunal. They learned nothing. from
LikeLike
Trevor, make your specific criticisms and I will respond to them.
Currently I can only assume that the video upsets you but you can’t say why.
If use of HFSA upsets you, what about the other chemicals added to our water, Cl2, alum, ammonia, hydrochloride acid, lime, etc.? some of these are at least as toxic as HFSA in their concentrated form.
LikeLike
Speaking as one of the blog’s readers, Ross, I am perfectly capable of following a hyperlink in order to read something from the original source. Copying and pasting vast screeds of text without the hyperlinked “sources,” such as they are, is decidedly unimpressive.
LikeLike
Copying and pasting vast screeds of text without the hyperlinked “sources,” such as they are, is decidedly unimpressive.
Seconded. Screw you, Ross. You stink.
LikeLike
Well that’s an intelligent and highly researched response Cedric – about on par with the WDHB video.
Try a hyper link to the Waikato time article this morning which shows Waikato students below average in core subjects – What area scores highest? The one with the lowest rate of added fluoride, Canterbury.
LikeLike
Trevor, only a nutter would try to draw such a conclusion.
LikeLike
Ken, Previous comment was tongue in cheek but seeing you lack a sense of humour get your teeth into this.
There are three inherent flaws with water fluoridation:
1. Firstly, it doesn’t do it’s intended function. It was designated as tooth decay prevention; to benefit the teeth. Science has shown over past decades that it does nothing beneficial for the teeth. In fact, it does a lot of deleterious things down the road like mottling of the teeth, as well as other skeletal changes. So it’s not doing what it was supposed to do.
2. Secondly, it’s NOT fluoride. Fluoride is a generic term. In NZ its hydrofluorosilicic acid, a waste product from the fertilizer industry, that is added to our water. It is too toxic to be dumped in landfills, into the air, into rivers and lakes or the ocean, but our science experts say it can go in our water supply.
3. Thirdly, there’s no dosage control. When an infant is fed formula, the majority of their diet is water and usually its tap water; it’s not spring water that has no fluoride in it. So, a small baby will drink more water for his or her weight than you will for your weight. It’s the only drug that’s administered without a prescription.
That is medication – not prescribed by a Doctor but by bureaucrats who think they know better than doctors everywhere.
Please inform me if there is any valid research anywhere that shows that the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid is:
1. Safe to use as a fluoridation chemical.
2. That this same acid is really effective at ending or reducing tooth decay.
Thanks
LikeLike
Mr Nutter – you haven’t been paying atention. I have been dealing with these questions in a number of articles. Perhaps you could go to the links and discuss them there.
1: Look at Fluoridation – it does reduce tooth decay.
2: Look at Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies?
3: You know, their is no dosage control for water either. And one would have fatal effects from overconsumption of the water before toxic effects from the contained F would kick in. See my article Is fluoridated water a medicine? for details on the medicine myth.
Most doctors and Dentists, and their organisations, in NZ support fluoridation of public water supplies where feasible.
Question 1 – look at Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies? and NZ Water and Wastes Association Standard for “Water Treatment Grade” fluoride, 1997 referred to there.
Question 2 – Hydrofluorosilicic acid hydrolyses in water and consumers actually get the F anion – not HFSA. This anion has been shown, via a topical mechanism, to reduce mineralisation (which causes tooth decay) and enhance remineralisation (which reduces tooth decay). You have been misinformed if you believe that there is any HFSA in drinking water that comes out of the tap.
LikeLike
Ken,
If fluoridation is so crucial to dental health in Hamilton can you explain why the latest Waikato DHB stats (2011) for oral health in five-year-olds show that for the 1,830 children surveyed in fluoridated areas 57.60 per cent were caries free while the 1,859 children surveyed in non-fluoridated areas were 64.12 per cent caries free?
Also why in the Maori cohorts the 637 Maori children surveyed in fluoridated areas 32.34 per cent were caries free while the Maori children surveyed in non-fluoridated areas 51.72 per cent were caries free?
For cohorts within the 2,283 Year 8 children surveyed there is statistically insignificance difference between the respective groups.
See:
http://www.health.govt.nz/nz-health-statistics/health-statistics-and-data-sets/oral-health-data-and-stats/age-5-and-year-8-oral-health-data-school-dental-services
Ross
LikeLike
Ross, see my article Fluoridation – it does reduce tooth decay. That shows the data for the whole of NZ.
You have cherry picked a small part of that data (and of course that puts you in the dishonest position of ignoring all the rest).
There is one a obvious factor you ignore – is the difference you mention for this small selected number statistically significant (we can be absolutely sure it is not significant to the 2 decimal places you have quoted). Go back and look at the other years, try aggregating over the 10 years data was available, etc. to get more reliable conclusions.
But the problem with all this data is that it is simply results for children at schools in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. It does not relate to fluoride intake. For example, my granddaughter goes to a school in Hamilton city – all her friends travel to the same school from out of town. There are other factors also.
But that is the problem with data like this – you would have to go into a lot more detail about living conditions, diet, etc., to be sure of getting a handle on F intake. Unfortunately no one seems to have collected the appropriate information.
But it is of course one of the cherry picking arguments anti-fluoridationists use locally. Basically dishonest because it ignores all he rest if the data.
But it seems you have had to fall back in that because you couldn’t respond to my request to actually make some infix criticisms of the video you criticised by copy and paste from an overseas source. Does this mean you actually can’t personally find anything wrong with it.
LikeLike
Stop ingesting fluoride Ken, it is obviously causing damage to your brain cells. The opening claim of the MoH video, which is an update of an older one but with same disinformation therein, is that fluoride is the most common element on earth. I have checked the science from 2010 and of the 98 natural elements listed the most common is oxygen. In fact fluoride is notable only by its total absence from the list.
Another of around 14 items of miss-information in the video is the claim that 60 percent drink fluoridated water – that percentage is approximately 48 and in decline.
Globally 45 communities have ceased fluoridation of their drinking water in the first half of this year. They have joined the 98 percent of the global community who access fluoride through other means or who have less poverty and poor diet than NZ. That tells me the nutters are winning.
Frankly I find your arguments full of holes and your adherence to discredited science pitiful. As a result this is my final contribution to this debate. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on your delusional conclusions
LikeLike
Try a hyper link to the Waikato time article this morning…
Hmm, no.
I get my science information from the scientific community. I’m smart that way.
Anonymous people from the internet? Not so much.
Articles from blogs or newspapers? Nope.
My standards are higher that that.
LikeLike
Cedric – Ditto my previous to Ken. The makers of the video got their info from that section of the science community who have decided the science is settled. I subscribe to the scientific principle that if something is claimed to be settled it is no longer science.
Without exception everything I have learned on this subject came out of the scientific community, a community that is deeply divided on fluoride.
Bye
LikeLike
Trevor, perhaps you need a new hearing aid. Even with my advanced years I know they didn’t say “the most common element on earth”. Just one of the more common ones – 13th most common I think.
There are not 98 “natural elements”, but 92. No, F is nowhere near the top but it is very far from the bottom.
What’s this about arguments full of holes? I am not the one running away.
LikeLike
Mr Nutter, care to estimate the nature of this “deep division” in the scientific community on fluoride? 50:50? 95:05?
I suspect you are relying upon the 1% who are activist on the issue.
LikeLike
….that section of the science community…
What “section” would that be? Name it.
What mainstream scientific communities reject it?
Can you name a single blessed one?
I subscribe to the scientific principle that if something is claimed to be settled it is no longer science.
Riiiiight. That’s smart. Not.
So…evolution? Global warming? The Earth being round? Sexual reproduction or…the stork? Germ Theory? The Heliocentric Theory? The moon landings?
🙂
LikeLike
Ditto my previous to Ken. The makers of the video got their info from that section of the science community who have decided the science is settled. I subscribe to the scientific principle that if something is claimed to be settled it is no longer science.
Without exception everything I have learned on this subject came out of the scientific community, a community that is deeply divided on fluoride.
Mr Nutter, using strawman arguments is not a clever way to go in this forum.
Many subjects of scientific investigation are never settled. However, within the scientific community consensus often exists in regard the conclusions and current state of understanding that can be drawn from known evidence.
Without evidence, both your preceding claims regarding the scientific community exist only in your own mind.
LikeLike
Ah shucks.
Trevor Crosby/Nutter has indicated his intention to run away.
And RonL isn’t answering questions.
LikeLike
Richard – get the spelling right CROSBIE.
Cedric – John Key’s chief science advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman
Ken – You need to update your list, of the 118 known elements in the universe there are 98 occurring naturally on earth. Fluoride is not one of them. The F you refer to is #09 and that is Fluorine, it sits between Oxygen and Neon.
#98 is californium
Bye
LikeLike
Trevor, this is a bit childish of course but fluoride is the anionic form of fluorine. Because fluorine is an extremely reactive element it is not found in its elemental form in nature – it’s most common ore is fluorite (CaF2) where it occurs as the fluoride anion. The F anion also substitutes for OH and CO3 in apatite and bioapatite structures – in the process reducing their solubilities. This is why it reduces mineralisation and enhances remineralisation of the bioapatite in teeth – hence reducing tooth decay.
The transuranic elements (atomic number >= 93) are all produced artificially. Things are of course a little more complex than that as some of the elements with atomic numbers < 92 have not been found in nature and are produced artificially. Whereas some extremely trace amounts of some longer living isotopes of transuranic elements have subsequently been found in nature.
But are you seriously going to argue that fluoride does not occur in nature? Is this the basis of your opposition to fluoridation?
LikeLike
Mr Nutter, regarding Gluckman – in his comment he did not say “settled.” He said “effectively settled.”
See my article Poisoning the well with a caricature of science where I describe how confirmation bias and naive hostility towards science often means people don’t see the qualifying adjective. Seems to describe you, eh.
LikeLike
Spinning an argument based on the straw man proposition that mainstream science claims that scientific research is settled in any area is well tedious.
AGW climate deniers use it, creationists use it, anti-fluoridation activists use it, anti vaccination activists use it. Trevor Crosbie uses it.
All seem incapable of comprehending that consensus on the state of current understanding is not a claim to total and final understanding.
Even if Gluckman had omitted the qualification (he didn’t), the argument reduces to willful and petty abuse of semantics. Well done Trevor.
LikeLike
Cedric: What mainstream scientific communities reject it?
Can you name a single blessed one?
Nutter: John Key’s chief science advisor, Sir Peter Gluckman
(shakes head sadly)
English comprehension fail.
Try again.
What mainstream scientific >>>communities<<< reject it?
Can you name a single blessed one?
(One as in “scientific community”, just so we’re clear).
“It has often been written on this blog and elsewhere that the mark of a true crank is hatred of the scientific consensus, be it consensus regarding the theory of evolution, the science that says homeopathy is impossible, anthropogenic global warming; various areas of science-based medicine; or the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Perhaps the most famous expression of distrust of a scientific consensus is the famous speech by Michael Crichton, in which he famously said:
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
To which I (and many others) responded, “Bullshit! Period.”
In fact science is all about coming to a consensus, but it’s about coming to a consensus based on data, experimentation, and evidence, a consensus that has reproducible results that are, as Crichton put it, verifiable by reference to the real world. After all, what is a scientific theory like the theory of evolution or Einstein’s theory of relativity but a statement of the current scientific consensus regarding a major scientific topic? What is peer review but quality control (making sure the scientific methodology is sound) coupled with testing new science against the current consensus to see where it fits in or where it exposes weaknesses? What is science but attempting to forge a consensus regarding theories and statements that most accurately describe the universe in a useful and predictable way?
Of course, questioning the consensus is often necessary in science. Indeed, it is critical to scientific advancement. However, there is a huge difference between questioning a current consensus and producing the data and experimental evidence to show that there is a real scientific question and JAQing off about science. The latter, raising spurious or already answered questions about…”
(Respectful Insolence)
LikeLike
USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950′s that in his post as U.S.Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to…
“Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their gulags (concentration camps), to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”
Ref : The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin
“At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there he was told of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotisizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners-of-war to make them stupid and docile.”
Ref: Victorian Hansard of 12th August 1987.
As of May 2013, a total of 43 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and a total of 19 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 37 of the 43 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, while 19 of the 20 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 11,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
LikeLike
Bloody hell, these fluoridation opponents come out with some whoppers, don’t they?
And their concept of scientific sources is Fluoride Alert!!
LikeLike
Ken, fluoride has long been the favored tool of the Lizardmen.
LikeLike
Are you accusing Jordan or Perkins of lying, Ken?
The Nazis were into eugenics, and the connection between the eugenics movement and fluoridation in the US is well documented.
BTW it’s “their concept”, not “there concept”.
LikeLike
Ugly Truth is on to it, the lizard men are everywhere.
LikeLike
Yes I am ugly Truth. The Nazi link has been well debunked. Have you not heard the Godwin rule – the first person to bring up a Nazi link has lost the argument.
LikeLike
I’m certainly calling Fluoride Alert liars, considering that a brief search demonstrates that Borkin’s book does not even contain the word ‘fluoride,’ let alone the nonsensical quotation supposedly attributed to it.
Feel free to check: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_igfarben02.htm
Likewise, barring an official transcript, I’m going to assume that the quote supposedly attributed to Major Jordan has been fabricated.
Primary documentation please, if you’re going to try and convince us of conspiracy theories.
LikeLike
I’m certainly calling Fluoride Alert liars,
Me too,
I’m through with using the polite euphemism “misinformation” , it’s simply lies, lies and damn lies.
LikeLike
I have been finding that whenever I check out a reference or citation used by FANNZ or Fluoride Alert it is wrong, distorted or completely misrepresents the quoted article. Consequently I refuse to accept anything people say quoting them until I can check it out for myself. They are just completely unreliable – not at all credible.
LikeLike
Ken, are you saying that Jordan and Perkins are lying because you know about the Nazi eugenics program, or are you accusing them of lying out of necessity?
LikeLike
Ugly Truth, there is just no credible sources or evidence. It’s been thoroughly debunked. But of course I can’t convince you – you have your conspiracy theory and you are sticking to it. Evidence is the last thing you need for that.
LikeLike
UT, I am demanding primary documentation before I call anybody a liar. Official transcript for Jordan and page references for Perkins’ book please. Online copy if you can find it.
LikeLike
Chris -here is an article debunking that myth – Truth about fluoride doesn’t include Nazi myth
LikeLike
Hm. You know, on consideration, I’m not even convinced Jordan or Perkins ever existed in the first place. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that they’d been invented out of whole cloth.
LikeLike
This is a profound level of stupid. Nazis? Really?
Did you do any fact-checking at all? Any?
Some site somewhere spoon-feeds you this lurid story and you swallow it whole like some brainless moron.
Fuck me but people like you are dumb.
Fact check!
Before (not after) you cut-and-paste something on the internet, engage your critical thinking skills and do some FUCKING FACT-CHECKING YOU WORTHLESS TURD!!
It’s not that hard. This is the internet. Look at your source material. Go back to primary sources of information.
Even the very wording of the claim should just scream red flags at you from the get-go.
USAF Major George R. Jordan…
Who?
… testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950′s…
The wha…? Seriously?
… that in his post as U.S.Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to…
Um, evidence? This is just hearsay. Evidence or get the fuck out.
“Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their gulags (concentration camps), to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”
How? Water + fluoride = Docility? Really? Ok then….how?
(…crickets chirping…)
That’s a scientific claim. That’s readily testable. How does fluoride make you docile? How?
Ref : The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin
What kind of a reference is this? Who is Joseph Borkin and why should anyone give a damn?
While there he was told of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff.
So somebody was told about something by somebody else…again?
Derp. Real weapons-grade derp.
This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water.
OK, how?
Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotisizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him.
Infinitesimal amounts, eh?
As of May 2013, a total of 43 studies…
43? Are you sure? Maybe it’s 143? Or perhaps it’s eleventy zillion studies? Imagine how much more impressive this would be if someone did some basic fact checking rather than spouting bullshit on the internet?
Of these investigations, 37 of the 43 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ…
Wait a minute! “elevated exposure”? Huh? What happened to our “infinitesimal amounts”? What the fuck happened to that?
The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 11,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.
Children? Wait. Slow down. The Nazis (Kommies) wanted to make the children docile by making them brain damaged over a period of years? Wha…?
LikeLike
“Fuck me but people like you are dumb.”
Yes, fuck you, Cedric. Warning people about real risks is not dumb.
Please pull your head out of your arse for five minutes and go Google Mellon (of Carnegie Mellon university), eugenics, and fluoride.
LikeLike
“You know, on consideration, I’m not even convinced Jordan or Perkins ever existed in the first place.”
Well, surprise me. Here’s some audio of Jordan talking about high level treason.
LikeLike
I have often observed throughout my life that people who are losing an argument resort to obscene language and personal denigration. Obviously still happening!
LikeLike
You noticed that too, Mr Nutter. Getting a lot of this from the anti-fluoridation people at the moment. It’s an illustration of Schopenhauer’s last piece of advice on his list for winning arguments:
LikeLike
Wow, Major Jordan was uncovering the work of the Lizard men and Agenda 21 even before the rest of us had even heard of their names.
LikeLike
I suspect that is just some of your mob brown arming the situation – another example of unethical behaviour is sneaking into an organisations email list, which you and your June playmate have now been expunged.
Perhaps you may eventually get back to the basics of the issue and stop writing rubbish designed to confuse and obfuscate.
LikeLike
What are you saying, Trev?
LikeLike
Last resort of a scoundrel – play dumb!
LikeLike
And this is 29th on the list:
LikeLike
And during this apparently lengthy testimony, does Jordan so much as mention fluoride? Give us a time stamp. Evidence. Primary sources. You’re so very close. All you need do is prove the man spouted that nonsense and you’ll be able to use him as a source.
Found proof of the existence of Perkins yet?
LikeLike
Yes, fuck you, Cedric.
No, read English. It’s “Fuck me” as in “Holy Shit” or “Can you fucking believe this bat guano”.
It’s an expression of exasperation with morons like you.
Fact check, you idiot.
Warning people about real risks is not dumb.
They’re not real risks. You’ve got no evidence.
Batshit krazy konspiracy thinking from the 50’s (????) is still batshit krazy today. It has not improved with age.
Somebody who told somebody something about something that they claim to have been told about is…stupid.
There’s no evidence. It’s all hearsay.
You are a gullibe tool. Don’t just blindly be led like a little sheep.
Fact check.
It’s not that hard. This is the internet.
How do people like you even tie their own shoe laces?
Ew.
LikeLike
Oh and 55min minutes for some shitty video? You want 55 minutes of my life to watch “something” just ’cause you say so?.
Um, no.
Fuck off.
Who is Jordan and why should anybody care? What’s this got to do with your claim? Cut to the chase.
LikeLike
“No, read English. It’s “Fuck me” as in “Holy Shit” or “Can you fucking believe this bat guano”.”
You don’t get to dictate how people should interpret your words, asshole. If you want to avoid ambiguity then say what you mean instead of talking like your opinion is more valuable that a politician’s promise.
“You want 55 minutes of my life to watch “something” just ’cause you say so?.”
My post was about the audio of Jordan’s testimony, which was the first couple of minutes of the video.
“Who is Jordan and why should anybody care?”
Jordan documented the US supply of nuclear related materials to the USSR as part of the Lend-Lease program, and later testified to Congress about this.
In Jordan’s 1956 speech on national defence, he said:
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride.html
LikeLike
My Grandfather had on many occasions talked in private with Major Jordan.
Major Jordan admitted in private that the information that he publicly shared was only the tip of the iceberg of the real information he had on the extent of how the Lizardmen manipulated thousands of people using fluoride.
LikeLike
I reckon Jordan was confused. These people running prison camps really had no use for F. They found the Pb they used was far more effective in subduing inmates.
LikeLike
Nothing beats a lead kosh.
LikeLike
..except a lead cosh
LikeLike
Again, UT, I expect a primary source.
Because as it stands, I think that people are just endlessly repeating some piece of utter rubbish made up by some twit who decided they could get some mileage out of Jordan’s good name.
Seriously. That person is positing a “secret missing chapter” based on “some guy who emailed me.”
A brief google search for the quotation turns up a grand total of four sites carrying the text, each with a decided conspiracy theory leaning. No academic sources, libraries, what have you. My impression is that it’s fabricated drivel, repeated by the lunatic fringe.
Hell, the claim doesn’t even seem to appear on the Fluoride Alert website, and they’ll quote anybody who says anything negative about fluoride. I think, if Jordan had ever actually said such a thing, they would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.
LikeLike
“Again, UT, I expect a primary source.”
I don’t care what you expect. My argument is that the reports of Jordan and Perkins which describe fluoride as a dumbing-down agent are consistent with the scientific literature which describes an association between fluoride and lower IQ values, and the related association between the “medicinal” use of fluoride and the eugenics movement, i.e. the Nazis and Nazi supporters like Andrew Mellon.
“I think, if Jordan had ever actually said such a thing, they would be trumpeting it from the rooftops.”
The problem with the Nazi angle is that people don’t like the associations what come with it. It’s too easy for opponents to smear you as a certifiable tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy loon. Perhaps Flouride Alert are simply being conservative about the type of arguments they will promote.
LikeLike
Yeah, see, if you’re describing Fluoride Alert as conservative, I think that’s a pretty strong indication that you’ve gone off the deep end.
So far as I can tell, there is not a shred of evidence that either Jordan or Perkins said anything about fluoride. You have certainly provided no evidence to that effect. Nor does the scientific literature support your various assertions.
Now, if people are routinely accusing you of wearing a tinfoil hat, perhaps you might think about referencing those primary sources when you make outlandish claims. Third-hand rumours of secretly-expunged chapters of books don’t go down well with sceptics.
LikeLike
You don’t get to dictate how people should interpret your words, asshole.
You don’t get to make up your own private language. Read English.
Your own personal interpretation is of no interest to anyone but yourself.
Stop being an asshole.
My post was about the audio of Jordan’s testimony, which was the first couple of minutes of the video.
You dumped an hour long video. There’s no getting around that. It’s stupid.
Jordan documented the….
So what?
During the war I learned how the…
So fucking what? Evidence? Hello? Hearsay is worthless.
I don’t care what you expect.
The rest of us do. You don’t get to make up your own private version of what’s expected as minimum standards of evidence. Primary sources are vital. It’s elementary stuff. If you don’t have that then you’ve got nothing.
My argument is that the reports of Jordan and Perkins…
The “reports” are just hearsay.
….which describe fluoride as a dumbing-down agent are consistent with the scientific literature…
What scientific literature?
What “consistency”?
Infinitesimal amounts, remember?
The problem with the Nazi angle is that people don’t like the associations what come with it. It’s too easy for opponents to smear you as a certifiable tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy loon.
Very easy.
No primary sources and you seem quite miffed that we would dare to insist upon such a thing. Why do you meekly believe such horseshit without asking the most basic questions?
Did it never occur to you to investigate properly before embarrassing yourself on the internet?
You are a gullibe moron.
LikeLike
“So far as I can tell, there is not a shred of evidence that either Jordan or Perkins said anything about fluoride.”
More accurately, you have refused to acknowledge the existence of evidence with does not meet your expectations. The connection between fluoridation and the eugenics movement is factual and relevant, therefore it is evidence.
evidence:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/evidence
LikeLike
More accurately, you have refused to acknowledge the existence of evidence with does not meet your expectations.
You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.
The scientific literature doesn’t back you up.
You have no primary sources.
(…akward silence…)
These are minimal expectations. It’s the smart play.
Otherwise you are just being gullible.
If you don’t want to be mistaken for being a certifiable tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy loon…then stop behaving like one.
Lift your game. Aks the basic common bloody sense questions you should have asked before and come back with actual evidence.
If you can’t, then admit you were wrong and led astray by kooks who just pushed your buttons.
Evaluating Websites
LikeLike
“Nor does the scientific literature support your various assertions.”
Wrong. It supports my assertion that fluoride is associated with IQ loss.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
This is of course consistent with the reports of Jordan and Perkins, documented as the transcript of Jordan’s 1956 speech on national defence, and Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson’s statement concerning Perkin’s account of fluoride use by the Nazis.
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/health/flouride.html
http://archive.org/details/fluoride.and.mind.control
LikeLike
No, it doesn’t.
Did you even read your own link?
Besides, what speech? Why can’t you quote the actual words?
Primary sources?
Hello?
This isn’t that hard.
We’re not asking for anything unusual. This is really, really easy to do.
If it’s true.
IF.
LikeLike
“You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.”
FOAD, liar. Here is the link.
I’ll repost the quote from Jordan’s speech:
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
“The scientific literature doesn’t back you up.”
Debunk the Chinese data, asshole.
“You have no primary sources.”
So what? Andrew Mellon’s connection to the eugenics movement and his role in establishing fluoridation in the US would convince a reasonable man that the introduction of fluoridation wasn’t just about tooth decay.
“(…akward silence…)”
Like you said, Cedrick:
“Did it never occur to you to investigate properly before embarrassing yourself on the internet? You are a gullibe moron.”
You misspelled “gullible”, you stupid fucking troll.
LikeLike
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
That’s your/Jordan’s evidence ???
… during the war I learned how…
That’s your primary source ???
I was expecting a more explicit reference to the Lizardmen.
LikeLike
I’ll repost the quote…
This is stupid.
Primary sources. How many times do I have to say it?
Primary..(deep breath)..sources.
Hello?
That’s just the first baby step.
Debunk the Chinese data, asshole.
Read the link that you provided. Read it. Read all of it.
It doesn’t say what you think it says.
(Hint: The authors themselves issue an update)
The best way to find out what the scientific literature says on any particular subject is to read it.
All of it.
Not just one report that you were “helpfully” steered towards.
(Creationists and climate deniers and anti-vaxxers do that too)
Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works
LikeLike
“It doesn’t say what you think it says.”
So now you’re a mind reader as well as being a fuckwit, Cedrick?
Here is an excerpt from HSPH:
Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
Additionally:
… National Research Council has stated that “fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans” (NRC, 2006, p. 256).
http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal-gland/
LikeLike
UT the authors of the Havard study expressed concern about the way it was being misquoted and used by the anti-fluoridation people. In a press release last year they say “In general, complete information was not available on these 27 studies, and some limitations were identified ” and “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.”
In effect they were warning that it was in appropriate to use their study in the fluoridation debate and that discussion should use evidence collected in he US at the appropriate concentrations (in their own work with the Chinese studies their low F control groups were usually at concentrations similar to that used in fluoridation).
But, of course, this doesn’t worry the anti-fluoride activists. They will use anything that they an make fit with their agenda – distorting the evidence to fit if necessary.
LikeLike
“UT the authors of the Havard study expressed concern about the way it was being misquoted and used by the anti-fluoridation people.”
That’s fine, but it doesn’t affect the point that the relationship between fluoride and low IQ described by the Chinese data supports the testimony of Jordan and Perkins that fluoride has been intentionally used to dumb-down some groups of people.
LikeLike
UT, as I said before people running prison camps usually find the element Pb is very effect in achieving submission and they use it a cording,y. F just does not have that effect. The possible slight differences in IQ reported by the questionable Chinese studies is not the same as “dumbing down.” In fact, it’s very likely that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and excitability.
LikeLike
Here is an excerpt from HSPH
Read your own link.
Ken read the press release. I read the press release. You evidently didn’t.
Read your own link.
Ken: “UT the authors of the Havard study expressed concern about the way it was being misquoted and used by the anti-fluoridation people.”
UT: That’s fine, but it doesn’t affect the point that the relationship between fluoride and low IQ described by the Chinese data supports the testimony of Jordan and Perkins that fluoride has been intentionally used to dumb-down some groups of people.
Well UT, just as long as you don’t misquote or use it in some anti-fluoride way like those conspiracy loons out there…then that’s fine.
😉
So you’re still back at square one.
You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.
The scientific literature doesn’t back you up.
You have no primary sources.
LikeLike
“You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.”
Still pushing the same old lies, eh, Cedrick?
Here is the quote again:
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.”
This is the link to the last time I posted it.
LikeLike
UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence. Without supporting evidence one would be a fool to claim it happened. And in this case without any evidence that F can “dumb down” people you have no scientific evidence of even the possibility. As I said, he element Pb is far more effective in winning compliance from prisoners. And there is plenty of evidence of its use in prison camps.
LikeLike
“UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence.”
Got anything more than an ad hominem, Ken?
So tell me, are all MPs cranks, or only those who say things you disagree with? Is Major Jordan a crank too? Strange that he would testify before the US congress if they didn’t find him to be credible…
LikeLike
You avoid the fact UT that you have no credible evidence – the words of anyone, crank or not, are in themselves not evidence. For you to repeat them as if they were perhaps is an indication of your own silliness but it’s not evidence. Plenty pf cranks, fools and crooks testify to the US house if representatives. That also does not make it evidence.
You have absolutely no evidence that this happened either in Germany or the USSR. (It’s interesting you omit the Nazi camps from your story – don’t you think Hitler was that nasty?). And you are particularly constrained by the fact that F does not have the effect you claim. Also by the fact that there is well substantiated evidence that prison authorities have traditionally used the element Pb rather F for such purposes.
LikeLike
Got anything more than an ad hominem, Ken?
There must be a school where creationists misuse the the term “ad hominem”.
(Oh wait. Different label.)
Meh, same diff. You’re not doing anything different from them.
Find out what ad hominem actually means before you invoke it.
This is the internet. It’s not that hard to find out what it really means.
Here is the quote again:…
Primary sources? What part of primary sources do you not understand?
Is it the “primary” or the “sources” that you find bewildering?
Don’t be so helplessly dense.
Why did you swallow this horseshit in the first place?
Didn’t any red flags pop up at you when you first encountered this?
Any at all?
Why did you go all gaga over a mystery site somewhere on the internet that told you a lurid conspiracy tale about some guy from the 50’s supposedly saying something about “the Soviets” and…fluoride of all things?
If you want to convince us, you have to do at least a bare minimun of fact checking. Just like they should have taught you in school.
Hence the demand for primary sources. Duh.
It’s really basic and really important.
If you don’t have at least that then you’ve got nothing.
Sad.
Your investigative skills suck. This is how real people do it.
Learn.
Conspiracy theories conspiracy
LikeLike
“You avoid the fact UT that you have no credible evidence – the words of anyone, crank or not, are in themselves not evidence.”
LOL
You’re right that words are not of themselves evidence, but evidence is typically represented with words. Your argument is like debunking a digital picture of a crime by saying: “But it’s only a bunch of pixels! Pixels are not evidence!”
You are clearly trying to debunk the actual evidence that fluoride is associated with IQ loss/dumbing-down, so your opinion of what is credible is not important.
Desperate much?
LikeLike
UT – OK it’s clear – you don’t require evidence to believe what you believe. Simple statements are enough for you – but of course you will select the statements to fit your biases.
So the statement of a crank is sufficient for you (“evidence is typically represented by words”) but all the science in the world is insufficient (even though it may be represented in the same way by words) despite being backed up by factual and objective evidence.
No wonder you believe in lizard men.
LikeLike
“you don’t require evidence to believe what you believe”
True, but evidence relates to matters of fact, so evidence is important regarding the factual nature of the historical use of fluoride to dumb-down some people.
“but of course you will select the statements to fit your biases”
While everyone has some degree of confirmation bias, a recent study found that such biases were more prevalent among people who were opposed to the idea of conspiracies involving public officials.
“So the statement of a crank is sufficient for you (“evidence is typically represented by words”)”
Non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that since evidence is typically represented by words that anything composed of words (eg the opinion of a lunatic) is evidence.
“but all the science in the world is insufficient”
Like the science that shows that ingestion of fluoride can result in mental impairment, you mean?
“No wonder you believe in lizard men”
LOL. You seem to be afflicted with the same sense of omniscience as that liar Cedric. You have scant idea what I believe.
LikeLike
You are clearly trying to debunk the actual evidence…
What “actual evidence”?
…so evidence is important regarding the factual nature of the historical use of fluoride to dumb-down some people.
That’s what you are failing to establish.
Where is your evidence to back up your claim?
You seem to be afflicted with the same sense of omniscience as that liar Cedric.
If you don’t want to be mistaken for being a certifiable tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy loon…then stop behaving like one.
Simple really.
You have no actual quotes from the people you are talking about.
The scientific literature doesn’t back you up.
You have no primary sources.
LikeLike
A few questions from one of the ‘nutters’.
What are your ‘primary sources’? Are they;
The York Report
The Fort Collins Report
National Fluoride Information Service
The Dental Association
US food and Drug Administration
US national Research Council
US Environmental Protection Agency
NZ Ministry of Health
?
Tell me why the York Review, often cited by pro fluoridationists, concluded in 2000 that much of the evidence linking CWF to improved dental health came from research that was several decades old and the review concluded that the available evidence did not allow confident estimates to be made of other possible risks to health or reduced dental health inequalities.
The review also identified the need for additional information for the public to make informed choices. That and more is in the Lay Summary of the Medical Research Council working group report:
Water fluoridation and health
Medical Research Council
September 2002
Obviously as long as the NZ National Fluoride Information Service are mandated to provide DHBs and Dentists only with data that promotes CWF, any studies contrary to the mandate will be suppressed.
What are the specific scientific studies/research that has convinced you to accept that injecting an additive produced by way of a toxic by-product of manufacturing super-phosphate fertiliser is safe and effective, as claimed in the few countries who still engage in the practise?
Why do our health authorities persist in claiming that fluoride is a ‘natural element’ and all they are doing is topping up the the fluoride level with ‘naturally sourced fluoride?
Why do the health authorities claim that fluoridated salt is common in in light of the following data from WHO;
Denmark no salt fluoridation
England ” ” ”
Netherlands ” ” ”
Belgium ” ” ”
Austria 6% ”
Italy no salt fluoridation
Ireland ” ” ”
Finland ” ” ”
Greece ” ” ”
Norway ” ” ”
Spain 10% ”
Japan has neither water or salt fluoridation
The USA has no salt fluoridation.
Tooth decay data from WHO Malmo University shows very little variation between countries in DMFT status. Why?
Please stick to specifics and no vitriol or abuse.
LikeLike
A few questions from one of the ‘nutters’.
What are your ‘primary sources’?
I’m not making a claim. Burden of proof.
If you make a claim…then you get to back up that claim.
So, for example, you claim that someone said something?
Ok.
Quote them.
In context and in detail.
Go back to the original source material.
(The key word here is ….ORIGINAL)
Oh, you have a video of them? Great. Just give the timestamp where they actually said what you are claiming they said. The transcript would be nice.
Giving a video of them where they don’t actually say what you are claiming they said is a waste of time.
Oh hang on! This person you are latching on to is making a claim in turn about someone else? Ah.
Well, same procedure. What are his primary sources? Accepting hearsay is a no-no.
See?
Not that hard. Perfectly reasonable.
The burden of proof
LikeLike
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro fluoride position. Then when I produce material that challenges your claim you resort to obfuscation and side tracking.
Reading your material leads me to the conclusion that you are more engaged in the intellectual exercise rather than getting to the truth.
I cited the source of the information I presented now stop trying to be a clever dick and provide some considered responses to the questions I posed. Or have you discovered, as I have, that the research to prove or disprove the safety and effectiveness of adding hydrosilicicic acid to our drinking water has not been carried out despite review after review stating that more research is needed?
LikeLike
Trevor Nutter as a chemist my primary sources are varied but often more primary than others used. Frequently I check out the original research papers. One thing I don’t do is rely on FANNZ or Fluoride Alert for reliable information because, as I have shown here, their information is often completely wrong. They frequently dishonestly cite their sources and cherry pick quotations to distort interpretation. They are the last people to rely on for good information.
Like all such reviews the York Review and others will look at old research as well as recent. And they almost always point out areas where more research is required.
Your queries about the FIS should be made to them. But I think there provision of summaries and access to recent research findings are invaluable for people working in the area. Of course all publications, whether the findings support water fluoridation or not, are relevant and your claim that they are suppressing information should be substantiated before taken seriously. The burden of proof is on your to prove that the fluoride anion in our water supply is any different to the fluoride ion in the ores, rocks, etc., or to the fluoride ion present in unfluoridated water supplies. Get to it.
Each country will have its own approaches and policies regarding the problems of fluoride deficiencies. (And of course not all countries have a deficiency – some regions have problems of excess). Water fluoridation is carried out y some, and not by others because it is not appropriate for all conditions.. For example the water supply systems in Switzerland and France don’t lend themselves to fluoridation. Some countries use salt fluoridation. Some milk fluoridation. Some fluoride rinses. Others rely on natural F levels or dental procedure which regularly fluoridate the teeth. Almost all countries agree with the world health authorities that fluoridation in one form or another is beneficial.
We have discussed the WHO data here before.
LikeLike
Thanks for that – a half sensible answer at last.
LikeLike
Yes you are making a claim…
Burden of proof. It will not shift.
Do you really think that this handwaving has not been tried before by other crackpots of every single conceiveable stripe under the sun?
Behold…
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro moon landing position.
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro global warming position.
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro evolution position.
Yes you are making a claim – you are claiming that you have the scientific backing for your pro smoking-causes-cancer position.
See? It doesn’t work.
Then when I produce material that challenges your claim you resort to obfuscation and side tracking.
That’s not what is happening.
You are the one with your panties in a bunch over fluoride. You want to make something of it? Fine.
Produce evidence. Your argument must stand or fall on it’s own merits.
Nothing to do with me.
Reading your material leads me to the conclusion that you are more engaged in the intellectual exercise rather than getting to the truth.
It’s really very simple. People pushing global scientific conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen on the internet. I don’t care who you are and I don’t care what your particular barrow is that you want to push.
The same standards of evidence apply equally.
Not happy about evolution? Think it’s the Devil’s work?
Fine.
Enter the scientific arena. Peer-review. Go for it.
Nothing else matters. No substitutes will be accepted.
Or maybe disputing the link between HIV and AIDS is your pet hobby horse?
Fine.
Enter the scientific arena. Peer-review. Go for it.
Nothing else matters. No substitutes will be accepted.
Same goes for the 9/11 Troofers, the Climate Deniers, the DDT supporters, the Moon Landing Deniers, the anti-vaxxers and all the rest of them.
They are all equally worthless.
They all, however, are given a fair chance before they are told to take a long walk off a short jetty.
Yet what do they do? It’s the same ol’, same ol’…
Link dumping, cutting-and-pasting boring reams of text, JAQ’ing off, cherry picking isolated studies/graphs/statistics, idolizing contrarian oddballs with a Phd, cruising the blogosphere for some tidbit validation while pretending that the mainstream scientific community doesn’t count while at the same time draping yourself in the mantle of “The TROOTH Seeker”.
It’s always the same and it gets tedious after a while.
It’s cliche after cliche after yet another plodding cliche.
“They laughed at Galileo”
“Science is never settled”
“No such thing as a consenus”
“Oh, I’m offended”
“Hey, here’s a study/newspaper article/blog post/ that you will tremble in awe and fear of.”
“The problem is not my lack of evidence. It’s all about you. Your problem is blah, blah, blah…”
The Baloney Detection Kit’
LikeLike
Oh you are a real psycho – I initially thought you might just be some sort of devil’s advocate but no, you are a real sick individual. I am delighted I can still think and make rational decisions based on observation and experience. In your case you are besotted with the capabilities and truths you have long since decided are reality.
In truth what you need is the services of a good psychologist who can take your closed and twisted mind apart and reconstruct it along the lines of where we normal people operate.
All the best.
LikeLike
What “actual evidence”?
How about the evidence you lied about, Cedrick, when you said that “It doesn’t say what you think it says.”
LikeLike
Are you still going on about this, UT?
I have, finally, more or less established that Jordan did say this stuff (no thanks to you), and am quite prepared to label him a crank.
http://skepticalvegan.com/2013/03/07/water-fluoridation-a-communist-plot/
Have a good read through this posting, including the documentation linked to in support, then explain to me exactly why I should consider Jordan a credible source on anything, when plainly his contemporaries did not.
LikeLike
Oh you are a real psycho – I initially thought you…
Yes, we know.
This gambit has already been covered.
“The problem is not my lack of evidence. It’s all about you. Your problem is blah, blah, blah…”
How about the evidence you lied about, Cedrick, when you said that “It doesn’t say what you think it says.”
Did you read the press release?
I did.
Ken did.
It doesn’t help you at all. Read your own link. You should be at least be competent to to that one simple task.
LikeLike
Hmm, let’s see. Major George R Jordan.
(…reads article…)
Accused the Roosevelt administration of smuggling nuclear secrets to the Soviets?
Gosh. Comedy that writes itself.
(…keeps reading…)
John Birch Society?
Ewwww.
Glenn Beck would be so proud.
LikeLike
“I have, finally, more or less established that Jordan did say this stuff (no thanks to you), and am quite prepared to label him a crank.”
Seeing that you were skeptical that Jordan even existed, Chris, it’s hardly surprising that you would dismiss his recollections of historical events as being meaningless opinion.
What the Skeptical Vegan fails to mention is the link between the establishment of fluoridation in the US with the eugenics movement via Andrew Mellon. The eugenics movement also had ties to Fabian socialism, and both of these movements are very much alive today and have members in influential positions in society.
LikeLike
Seeing that you were skeptical that Jordan even existed, Chris, it’s hardly surprising that you would dismiss his recollections of historical events as being meaningless opinion.
Not surprising at all.
Very sensible.
Skeptical that Jordan existed? Well, sure.
Asking “Is this even a real person?” is a basic question. Not exactly unfair.
Jordan had his recollections of historical events.
But…the problem is that it’s just hearsay.
Hearsay is a no-no.
People lie. People embellish. People misremember. It happens.
Why you are prepared to meekly accept whatever Jordan said purely on faith is a mystery to the rest of us.
Evidence.
Primary sources.
What the Skeptical Vegan fails to mention…
Relevence?
Do you want to talk about Jordan or not? Make up your mind.
Don’t go rushing off on a Gish Gallop.
LikeLike
“Meaningless opinion?” I dismiss Jordan’s version of events as fabricated dreck. As did his contemporaries.
Frankly, I think the way to go with your various unsubstantiated (if not flatly contradicted) rantings is to likewise dismiss them out of hand, rather than spend any more time running down the real facts behind whatever it is you expect me to believe.
LikeLike
“I dismiss Jordan’s version of events as fabricated dreck. As did his contemporaries.”
So you are accusing him of lying. What events do you think he lied about, fluoride use or his account of Lend-Lease supplying nuclear materials to the Russains?
LikeLike
So you are accusing him of lying.
People lie. It happens. Even when people say something that you really, really want to be true…it can still be a lie.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Reckon there’s Bigfoot in your local park? That’s a big claim.
It needs big evidence to match it.
JFK was the victim of a six-man homosexual thrill kill?
Yep, gonna need some evidence for that. Quite a bit of it.
Soviets/Nazis/Whoever mind-controlled people with fluoride?
Yep, that’s an extraordinary claim. Sounds like total crap.
Roosevelt was a sekrit Kommie who did whatever?
Hmm, yeah. It’s evidence time or get the fuck out.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”- Christopher Hitchens
“The Dragon in My Garage” by Carl Sagan
LikeLike
Actually Cedric, in this case I think it’s a Lizard man in my garage.
LikeLike
You know, when I first heard about David Icke’s Lizard men, I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Yet the man sells books on the stuff!
Did you know that Queen Elizabeth is a secret lizard?
I kid you not. This stuff is out there. WAaaaaaaaaaay out there.
Elizabeth II. is unhuman. Literally.
LikeLike
I think he lied about both. What part of that was unclear?
LikeLike
This stuff is out there. WAaaaaaaaaaay out there.
That’s what they want you to think, that way, nobody bothers them while they get on with administering fluoride, mining coal and loading the planes that deliver the chem trails.
And you’ll not see or catch one in your garage Ken, they blend right in. But if you goad them enough on blogs with references to Michael Mann and hockey sticks they explode with expletives and references to hard left Marxism. Unfortunately references to NASA has no effect on them.
LikeLike
“I think he lied about both.”
So you are accusing Jordan of lying about being told that fluoride was used as a type of mind control?
Just as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so does the burden of proof lie with the one making the accusation.
Go any evidence to support your position?
LikeLike
Just as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so does the burden of proof lie with the one making the accusation.
A: You’re a pedophile.
B: Liar.
A;Oh goody! You just accused me of being a liar. HA! You made a claim!!! Now blah, blah blah…
Nope.
Fuck you.
The burden of proof does not shift. Creationists/ anti-vaxxers/climate deniers/flouride nutters try this gambit all the fucking time and it’s so very stupid.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”- Christopher Hitchens
Hearsay is just hearsay. Nobody cares what Jordan claimed without corroborating evidence. Lots and lots and lots of corroborating evidence.
Why you are prepared to meekly accept whatever Jordan said purely on faith is a mystery to the rest of us.
Evidence.
Primary sources.
Put up or shut up.
You are not doing anything new and, no, you don’t get a free pass.
The burden of proof
LikeLike
Just as the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, so does the burden of proof lie with the one making the accusation.
“Nope. Fuck you.”
The pro-fluoride crowd must just cringe every time you post, Cedrick.
Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
Actore non probante reus absolvitur. When the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is absolved.
LikeLike
Indeed, UT? It would seem then that the onus would be on Jordan to prove his claims. Not only did he fail to do so, an investigation of his claims regarding the soviets flat-out contradicted his version of events.
Now, if we’re going to get into the burden of proof, you brought up this nonsense about the soviets using fluoride, you brought up Jordan, and you’ve been demanding to know, ever since Ken rubbished the initial claim, whether we thought Jordan was a liar. You certainly seem ready to lean upon his purported honesty as a shield against scepticism, though you have provided no evidence for Jordan’s trustworthiness, and his contemporaries did not share your high opinion of him.
You have comprehensively failed to prove your case. Therefore, by your own purported standards, you ought to concede defeat and call an end to it.
If your standard of debate is “are you calling this random peddler of unsubstantiated nonsense who you’ve never heard of before I brought him up a liar?” then might I suggest you retire from debating with anybody.
LikeLike
So, Richard, you reckon Andy is a Lizard man?
LikeLike
He could be, Ken, or in their pay, but I have no hard evidence yet, just a strong suspicion.
LikeLike
“It would seem then that the onus would be on Jordan to prove his claims.”
Yes, in the context that he made them. I’m the one making the claims in this context.
“Not only did he fail to do so…”
According to whose standards? Some people rubbished what he said, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking as done by defenders of the faith in the civil system, i.e. political reasoning?
“nonsense about the soviets using fluoride”
Hearsay and nonsense are not the same thing. One has meaning, the other does not.
“You certainly seem ready to lean upon his purported honesty”
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he was dishonest, and his testimony is consistent with the morality of the eugenics movement and the fact that fluoride is a neurological toxin. His credibility in my view was due to the fact that he kept notes about verifiable historical events related to the nuclear arms issue.
“You have comprehensively failed to prove your case.”
You cant prove something to someone who is engaged in political reasoning when your evidence supports a conclusion which conflicts with their position. This is clearly an atheistic site, and atheism is consistent with faith in the civil system.
LikeLike
UT are you denying the well substantiated facts that in the Nazi and Soviet (and many other) prison camps Pb was the element use to pacify inmates. Pacification effects of Pb are well substantiated (in its elemental form) whereas there is absolutely nothing to support the idea that the fluoride anion induces pacification (only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ – that is not pacification.
LikeLike
UT, you are confusing atheism with scepticism. This is a sceptical site. Whether some or all of us are atheists is quite beside the point.
The hallmark of scepticism is that we expect evidence for any claims made. Whether by the “civil system” as you call it, or by lone cranks.
Funnily enough, the civil system keeps better and more extensive records than lone cranks. They are, moreover, able to call upon people to testify if they want to get to the bottom of something. And the outcomes of those investigations are likewise recorded if somebody wants to go over their reasoning and perhaps revisit the issue.
I see no reason to assume that the civil system gets it right all the time, but then, there are checks and balances in place to try and correct any mistakes, Such as the press, the courts and the scientific community.
By contrast, the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist is that they believe the State (or the press or the scientific community, or some combination thereof) is lying to them, incompetent or whatever, and that’s why nobody takes their various tall tales seriously.
Now, I’m not familiar with Jordan’s writings on other subjects. Nor am I going to trawl through the 130-odd pages of his diaries to work out if he got anything at all correct. I’m certainly not going to simply take your word for it that there are “verifiable historical facts” buried in there somewhere.
See if you can find an academic work which quotes Jordan or lists him as a source. That at least would give you something on which to base your claims about his reliability outside of the unverified claims. Find a good enough source (remember: peer-reviewed is the minimum standard), and you might just convince me of your viewpoint on something.
Otherwise, I’m done with this.
LikeLike
UT, you are confusing atheism with scepticism. This is a sceptical site.
That’s hilarious
LikeLike
Very well, Andy. Astound us with your scepticism. Engage in conversation with UT. I’ll be interested to see how you get on.
LikeLike
Some people rubbished what he said, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking…
Burden of proof. It does not shift.
“Some people rubbished what he said about pink unicorns, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking?”
“Some people rubbished what he said about the Lizard men, but how do we know that this wasn’t your garden variety debunking etc.”
Burden of proof.
(shrug)
The pro-fluoride crowd…
That would be the scientific community.
I don’t get my science information from some nameless “crowd”.
Just like I don’t get my science information from some Warmist crowd or some Darwinist crowd.
The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.
Which is why the burden of proof does not shift.
If I accuse you of being a pedophile then I have to provide evidence to support my claim.
If you reject my claim and angrily deny you are a pedophile, I DON’T get to give myself a hi-five and then go off on a coffee break because now you have to proves somehow that you are not a pedophile.
The burden of proof does not shift.
“During the war I learned how the Soviets used fluorides in the drinking water of Siberian prison camps to weaken the minds of their prisoners, to make them dull, cowlike and more resigned to their slavery.
This is an amazing claim. I reckon it’s bullshit. Where’s the supporting evidence that this is not just some tall story? Primary sources.
I don’t have to demonstrate the claim is bullshit. Burden of proof.
The burden of proof is on the claimant.
I’m just >>>REJECTING<<< the claim.
Want me to accept the claim? Fine. Do a bare minimum of work and support the claim.
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that he was dishonest…
So?
So what? Wake up, man.
Your neighbour sees someone walks up to you and say…”You’re a pedophile”.
Your neighbour have seen nothing to suggest that the accuser was dishonest…so…
(shrug)
….and his testimony is consistent with the morality of the eugenics movement and the fact that fluoride is a neurological toxin.
Ok, so the accuser has testimony too. Now let’s say you neighbour personally reckons it’s consistent. It’s pedophilia this and pedophilia that and pedophilia in the chuch rectory twice on Sundays. Huh?
His credibility in my view was due to the fact that he kept notes about verifiable historical events related to the nuclear arms issue.
Ok, let’s throw this in the mix too.
The guy that is accusing you of being a pedophile keeps notes on nuclear weapons. Heck, let’s give him a couple of super-duper medals too.
So….you’re a pedophile? Really? I’m shocked.
(…awkward silence…)
Nope. That’s not the way the justice system works and that’s not the way that skeptical thinking works. The burden of proof does not shift.
You cant prove something to someone who is engaged in political reasoning when your evidence supports a conclusion which conflicts with their position.
What evidence? You have put zero effort into this. This whole time you have only repeated the claim and desperately tried to shift the burden of proof. It’s hugely unimpressive. Chis B is the only one that took pity on you and did some digging around to find out if this Jordan guy even existed or not and what he found was flakey.
You cant prove something to someone who is engaged in political reasoning…
Ah hominem. Look it up. You just made one.
Ad Hominem
LikeLike
“UT are you denying the well substantiated facts that in the Nazi and Soviet (and many other) prison camps Pb was the element use to pacify inmates.”
Fluoride is neurotoxic, and the Nazis were big on experimentation.
“only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ”
Still stuck with ad hominems, Ken. The specific nature of the cognitive impairment isn’t relevant to the issue of harm arising from ingestion of fluoride.
LikeLike
So, UT, no evidence, reliance on suspect Chinese studies which at most report a few points difference in IQ and don’t relate to “dumbing down!”
Yet I mentioned he well substantiated fact that prison authorities have used elemental Pb for ages to “dumb down” inmates – and you ignore.
Sure sign of a Lizard man.
LikeLike
“UT, you are confusing atheism with scepticism”
No I’m not. Skepticism as a form of reasoning has value, but atheism is a choice relating to principles.
“the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist is that they believe the State (or the press or the scientific community, or some combination thereof) is lying to them, incompetent or whatever, and that’s why nobody takes their various tall tales seriously.”
No, you don’t get to define the meanings of words to whatever you need to get anywhere within shouting range of a logical argument.
LikeLike
“So, UT, no evidence”
If I had no evidence then why did you need to attempt an ad hominem?
LikeLike
UT why do you refuse to acknowledge the use of elemental Pb – the evidence for that is extremely clear?
LikeLike
“UT why do you refuse to acknowledge the use of elemental Pb”
You said that I was ignoring the issue. I left it at that.
Again, If I had no evidence then why did you need to attempt an ad hominem?
LikeLike
I have not used an ad hominem – you are avoiding the extremely clear role of elemental Pb. And you have no evidence that the F anion has ever been used in that way.
LikeLike
“I have not used an ad hominem”
“UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence.”
Cranks and fools are still capable of dealing in facts.
“Pacification effects of Pb are well substantiated (in its elemental form) whereas there is absolutely nothing to support the idea that the fluoride anion induces pacification (only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ – that is not pacification.”
That the impairment can be characterized as pacification or not doesn’t affect the issue of harm.
“only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ”
Definition of AD HOMINEM
1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
How are these not ad hominems?
LikeLike
Skepticism as a form of reasoning has value, but atheism is a choice relating to principles.
What “principles”? Don’t make up stuff as you go along.
No, you don’t get to define the meanings of words…
It’s not up for debate.
We know quite a bit about conspiracy theorists.
They pop up all the time.
Ken’s description is in line with the mainstream.
It sucks to be you.
“UT you can quote the sayings of any old crank you like but that is not evidence.”
Cranks and fools are still capable of dealing in facts.
Find out what an ad hominem means. You are confused.
Cranks and fools… and not known for their ability for dealing with facts. That’s why they are called cranks and fools in the first place.
Quoting a crank is not evidence. Well, duh!
That’s not an ad hominem. That’s just basic fucking sense.
“only a fool would point to Chinese studies referring to IQ”
Yes, that’s quite true. Again, it’s not an ad hominem.
If I call you an idiot then that’s not an ad hominem.
I’m just calling you an idiot.
If I call you an idiot because you rear-ended my car or you said something stupid then that’s not an ad hominem.
“Only a fool would enter a construction site without a hard hat.”
Not an ad hominem.
“Only a fool would believe anything he reads in a newspaper.”
Not an ad hominem.
“You’ve just done something stupid.”
Not an ad hominem.
“It would be stupid to do that”
Not an ad hominem.
How are these not ad hominems?
Don’t be so fucking dense. This is the internet. You can look this up and find multiple examples of how ad hominems work. It’s not that hard.
The Ad Hominem Fallacy
LikeLike
Skepticism as a form of reasoning has value, but atheism is a choice relating to principles.
“What “principles”?”
Ethical absolutes as recognized in law, eg the right to life, as opposed to popular values regarding aceptable behaviour, eg human rights.
The point is that both you and Ken have lied about the existence of evidence regarding injury of the right to life, which makes this argument about conspiracy, in particular conspiracy involving fluoridation and atheism.
LikeLike
Ethical absolutes as recognized in law, eg the right to life, as opposed to popular values regarding aceptable behaviour, eg human rights.
What are you talking about? What does atheism have to do with principles or whatever?
You are just making stuff up to suit yourself.
Do you even understand what atheism means?
It’s really simple.
There’s no manual. No set of rules.
It’s exactly like aBigfootism. Except it’s in regards to theistic claims.
Now I need you to stop for a second and think before you go typing a reply.
Don’t type a reply.
Not just yet.
This is a conversation that’s been had before and…I always win.
That’s not gloating. It’s just that I’m not going to have any satisfaction in being right yet again.
Don’t get me wrong, the first twenty odd times on this blog were fun.
But given a choice, I’d rather you play your own Devil’s Advocate and do it without me having to lead you by the hand.
It’s boring to me now because it always follows the same ritual dance and hemmin and hawing from the opposition and….it’s boring.
So stop for a moment and find out why I’m so supremely confident that you have no idea what you are talking about.
I’ll give you a hint.
Ready?
Google the meaning of the word “atheism” as used by atheists themselves.
You won’t find any idle claptrap about principles or whatnot.
It’s really, really simple.
You have a golden opportunity here.
You could be the first person ever to actually do some fact-checking BEFORE launching into it and pre-emptively saving both you and me a ritual conversation.
Do that and it would genuinely impress me. In fact, it would probably impress a lot of the lurkers too.
‘Cos the god bots never do that.
Dictionary definitions are not usually very good. They are too cursory and often fail to take into account common misconceptions.
Plenty of good youtube videos to work with though.
LikeLike
UT – it is a bit rich to accuse me of lying. My claim is that people running prison camps have traditionally used elemental Pb to control and subdue the inmates. This is well established, well documented, and I notice even you did nothing to question the fact. So where is the lie? That is evidence related to injury to life – I am not lying and you don’t dare refute me.
And I assure you this fact has absolutely nothing to do with religious belief or lack thereof.
LikeLike
“UT – it is a bit rich to accuse me of lying.”
You said: “I have not used an ad hominem” when you blatantly did:
You said: “So, UT, no evidence”
When there are two witnesses who allege fluoride use as a psychological control agent and the Chinese data supports this testimony.
LikeLike
The chines data in no way support your claim, UT.. No way at all.
They talk of two completely different things – a minor (questionable) influence of high natural F on IQ tests (easily and more realistically attributed to other factors) and subduing a group.
The fact remains that the use of elemental Pb to subdue inmates is a well established procedure – it works and we all know about it. Yet you ignore it? You prefer to lie because of your ideological commitment.
LikeLike
You said: “I have not used an ad hominem” when you blatantly did.
No he didn’t. Find out what an ad hominem actually is. It’s not that hard. This is the internet. You find multiple examples of how ad hominems work.
Don’t make yourself look even more ignorant.
When there are two witnesses…
What witnesses?
You mean Jordan? How do you know he “witnessed” anything?
Evidence.
You need evidence.
Hearsay is a no-no.
LikeLike
Dead silence from Andy, I see. Interesting what a narrow range his ‘scepticism’ operates on.
LikeLike
It supports it because it shows an association between fluoride and lower IQ.
I’m not lying. Refusing to be drawn into irrelevances is not the same thing as lying, Ken.
LikeLike
UT – you are not making a claim about IQ but about “dumbing down” – a completely different thing.
When it comes to pacifying and “dumbing down” prison inmates the sue of element Pb is extremely relevant.
LikeLike
As I’ve said before, Ken I’m not going to be drawn into irrelevancies. The difference between IQ and dumbing down is irrelevant in the context of harm arising from the use of fluoride to control people.
The issue of Pb is not relevant because the use of Pb does not have any bearing on the use of fluoride to control people or otherwise.
Do you run a liar’s club here or something, Ken? You’ve lied about ad hominems and the evidence of harm arising from fluoride use, you’ve falsely accused me of lying and Cedrick lies like it is second nature for him.
You are using standard debunker techniques: ad hominems and arguing over irrelevancies.
LikeLike
Yes, he is definitely a Lizard man – how else can one explain such “logic?”
LikeLike
I am so tired of people of non-scientific background throwing out “references” to support their argument with no link or proper referencing so that one can actually go and confirm whether their extracted interpretation is correct or if the publication is from a reputable journal.
Yes fluoride is toxic but it is the concentration of toxicity that is importantt. Even water is toxic in sufficient quantites. Selenium is a highly essential element but is toxic at the same concentrations as mercury.
LikeLike
Tan Thiam Joo – your comment is simply a copy a paste of a chapter from another source. The source is not even attributed. It makes references to figures not even included.
I find this sort of copy and paste disrespectful. You have not put any effort into it and you expect us to waste our time reading it.
You are welcome to comment here with your own ideas and words. But such extensive copy and paste will not pass moderation. It adds nothing.
LikeLike
Flouride will kill you my magic crystal I got at the head shop told me in a mystical vision. Also the government blatantly puts it in our water to kill us, why else would they spend billions to sustain our health infrastructure? to watch us die a slow death. DOWN WITH THE F!
LikeLike
Every other animal seems to live just fine without all our added chemicals in our diet. Diet is probably one of the leading factors of our health, which is why there’s the renown phrase “you are what you eat”. Also different species of monkeys and many other animals are believed to have evolved through the different diets they choose (randomly) to stick to. If the main argument is that fluoride protects teeth then surely all animals with teeth like ours would have issues with decay..,unfortunately it’s quite the opposite, it is most likely our diet with such junk foods and all these metal related chemicals that we need to protect our teeth in the first place. You can call me what you want, but I haven’t grown up thinking fluoride is bad all my life. It was only when I saw one person’s opinion on fluoride that I decided to do my own research and have my own conclusion on it ..just like you have. The fact is we have far more health problems today then before, and they only seem to be on the increase. If you look into tribes and people who eat organic food, and aren’t so involved with monetary societies and cultures you would see they have far less health issues..and they are not consuming as much fluoride. I understand your going to expect me to spend more of my time spooning you sources only for you to ignore and keep your opinion, which by all means do. But if you are generally interested and are capable to listen without the automatic intent to provide what seems abusive and opposing argument then perhaps it’ll be in your own interest to have a look and conclude whatever you like. I am from a family of doctor’s and they don’t think twice about fluoride so by no means am I saying I’m 100% correct, listen to me. In fact it is only recently that I have decided to do my best to cut fluoride out of my diet (very difficult when looking at the ingredients, it seems to have wiggled its way into everything these days) so that I can have a personal experience and see if I notice a change, and consequently get a clearer conclusion on the topic. I understand you slam sources of the internet but most media outside the internet is controlled by a very small amount of people, which means your mostly only going to have a reflection on their idea as like you they’re not going to display something they oppose, which is why the internet is great, it’s actual freedom of speech unlike reality. Another topic that has always baffled me is that legalisation of tobacco, caffeine etc. and alcohol which scientist rank as some of the most harmful substances (and consequently got fired), yet hallucinogenic drugs which have been used successfully in the medical field are illegal and therefore can no longer be researched easily to potentially fix so many of our health problems. People have many ideas why all of these things are done, and most of the time there belief is due to such global hierarchy structure with the incentive of profit. There are many pharmaceutical drugs that have caused no end of problems but are legal, but no body batters an eye lid it seems, they spend millions testing a product, to then get exclusive sales for a year before all companies get a go too, but if natural substances are able to do the same job as fractions of the cost the pharmaceutical companies will lose their revenues. It’s weird to think that depression, anxiety, OCD, ADHD and all these other “mental health disorders” are on the rise randomly so that all these pharmaceutical drugs can be used, many surprisingly containing fluoride. As I said I’m from a family of doctors in the UK and where we have our agreements is that anti-depressants etc seems to be a business and getting pre-scribed so effortlessly yet they’re such an awful drug. Questioning things is great it’s what pushes boundaries and allows us to strive forward as the human race. As for your quick slams on conspiracy theories, if you invested some time to find the small amount of leaked documents you’d find that many governments worldwide have done or planned to do atrocious things. Anyway I’m rambling and I’m not hear to argue but to provide a point of view. I doubt I’ll check here again as I’ve seen what you’ve got say, and like I said I’m doing a personal experience with fluoride in order to make my mind up, because you can’t be so quick to judge these days as we’re all raised with the influences of values and cultures, those who able to ignore such things and approach areas as a blank canvas I find are far more worth listening to.
LikeLike
Hi Rob – You seem to have a lot of things going on – if you want to stick around there are plenty of people on this blog will engage with you, are there any specifics you worry you that we could perhaps begin a worthwhile discussion 🙂
LikeLike
Random thoughts. Jumping from line to line.
Slowly, the eyes glaze over.
Anyway I’m rambling….
What was your first clue?
LikeLike
Slowly, the eyes glaze over.
You aren’t kidding.
Try reading this Rob: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph .
LikeLike
Fair points, and I agree when I get into a topic I struggle to slow down and back up. So I will do my best here
Haha, yes I should have used paragraphs, I wasn’t really expecting to write such a long response, and once I had I then just posted it to get it out there. I was too lazy to proof read or adjust it’s layout.
So I will make the following arguments brief:
I think if our teeth are rotting because of our diet, then the solution should be to fix the diet…not adding poisons to our water so that it helps one aspect of the human body – teeth protection, and then have little research to what damage in increase of fluoride in our diet can cause.
If fluoride is being added in the idea of health, why not add vitamins and many other supplements to be healthier…why just fluoride which is in rat poisons, considered neuro-toxins, to which scientists are believing is causing issue with bones, autism, pineal gland calcification, I’m sure there’s more to be found too if people look.
LikeLike
Rob, no one is advocating “adding poisons” to our water at the point of consumption. Sure, concentrated chemicals used in water treatment are toxic and poisonous (chlorine was even used as a chemical weapon in the First World War) but they are not poisonous at the concentrations in the consumed water.
There is a lage amount of research on the effects of fluroide in our diet. After all it is a natural component of our food and water and at higher concentrations is known to cause problems like skeletal fluorosis in countries like China and India. We also know that at sub-optimum concentrations a F defied ent diet can lead to or knew with our bones and teeth. Fluoride is a natural and normal component of the bioapatites in our bones and teeth.
There is no evidence that optimum levels of fluoride causes autism of that it is neurotoxic. Calcification in the body is caused by calcium, phosphate and old age – not fluoride. You have been fooled by the simple fact that fluoride is chemically attracted to calcified areas – it does not cause it.
LikeLike
Hmm, I will take that on board, still got a few questions though:
I read somewhere that the fluoride that is added to water systems is different to that of which is natural in water from springs and mountains. I think I read that the natural fluoride is from rocks as it filters through, and this isn’t harmful and everyone has been drinking it for thousands of years.
However people were saying the added fluoride in water systems is a different form of fluoride, and it was this chemically (synthetic? I don’t know how it’s made) added fluoride that perhaps could cause more issues, is it fluoride sulphate? I can’t recall it’s full name confidently, I’m sure you’ll know the specific name.
Also I don’t understand the concept of adding something that is known as harmful at higher concentrations, but at a low dose is considered as not harmful. Is that not the same concept as smoking tobacco? The first cigarette isn’t going to cause cancer/major issues but as you continue the health problems increase as continuous low concentrations of these toxics are taken in.
I also read that a researcher at Harvard says that fluoride reduces IQ? do you know any more information on this?
Could you address why it’s just fluoride being added to supplement our health and not others? Surely it’s a sort of violation on citizens free will? if people who eat healthy and have no issues with their teeth why should they be forced to drink higher doses of fluoride water? Surely it should be the opposite? People who do not take care of their health through poor diet and don’t look after their teeth should have to buy higher doses of fluoridated water if they want the added protection? instead of say making people have to buy bottled water if they want to avoid the higher dosed water?
Also why are many parts of Europe refusing to take part in water fluoridation? Also I read that there’s no evidence of teeth worsening in Scandinavian countries, and they have not tampered with fluoride levels. Why is it all of a sudden that this changes must be made? If I want to be healthier in vitamins or Omega-3s I could buy the supplement, instead of making people who already have balanced level of vitamins and omegas forcefully take it as well.. should it not be the same with fluoride?
(I really don’t know how my responses get so long, sorry. Just curious I guess)
LikeLike
I have written articles on a lot of your questions in my posts on fluoridation – see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/
1: “Natural” F in ground waters comes dissolution of fluorides and apatites. depending on the chemistry (Mg and Ca interact) if the “natural F concentration is high (> about 4 ppm) there can be health effects like severe dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis. People have been getting this for thousands of years in high F areas. At the optimum concentration of 0.7 ppm there are no negative health effects.
Many beneficial elements are similar in that they are toxic at high concentrations but have negative health effects at sub-optimal concentrations – consider Se for example.
2. For a discussion of the claimed effects on IQ see my articles on the papers https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/repeating-bad-sicence-on-fluoride/ and https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/02/16/quality-and-selection-counts-in-fluoride-research/.
3: In many European countries fluoride deficiencies are handled via fluoridation of salt and milk or by careful dental treatments including F varnishes. Many parts of Scandanavia have sufficiently high natural F concentration in drinking water. This is also true for parts of Italy. While a few countries may have decided not to fluoridate water supplies on freedom of choice grounds in general there are other reasons like the dispersed nature or age of water treatment plants, etc.
4: Social policies are always a balance between personal choice and social good. Consider policies like free secular education and free hospitals. In practice the social good does not restrict freedom of choice, although such choice may cost something. Consider private education and private hospitals. If people have an ideological objection to iodisation of salt or fluoridation of water they are not forced to consume these – there are alternatives – and these are much cheaper than private eduction and private hospitals.
5: Community water fluoridation has proved effective and safe – even though it is by no means a substitute for tooth brushing, fluoridated toothpaste and good cheap dental care.
6: In NZ the communities involved make decisions on water fluoridation. Part of the problem in NZ has been local ideologically motivated activists attempting to deny that right to voters. Hamilton strongly supported fluoridation in a referendum last October but activists are still trying to prevent the council from following the voters’ wishes.
LikeLike
Rob you are a victim of your earlier choice of poor information sources.
You have made a good decision to seek further information here. Here information is presented from the scientific method.
All your above misconceptions have been addressed here, often repeatedly. I believe your best course now would be to read Ken’s series of articles on fluoridation. Take your time. You might like to look at the comments too, they are certainly enlightening as well, and frequently entertaining.
I stress, take your time. After all, you claim to be curious.
LikeLike
One of the most important resources for any community is access to drinking water. That’s why so many cities are historically located next to rivers.
Putting poison in drinking water?
Not really a good idea.
Health authorities do all kinds of things and spend lots of money and effort to make sure that the water that’s available from your tap is drinkable.
Even if there’s a problem with the smell or look of the water (which may be still perfectly safe), health authorities try and do something about it.
The whole “THEY’RE PUTTING POISON IN OUR WATER. OMG! OMG!! OMG!!!” is just one big, Ooggity-Boogity designed to frighten and manipulate you.
Don’t fall for the propoganda.
Don’t let them use you like that..
Vast, evil, global conspiracies inevitably break down once you look at the nuts and bolts of how such a bizzare thing could even work.
I also read that a researcher at Harvard says that fluoride reduces IQ? do you know any more information on this?
Ask yourself how you should get your scientific information.
Lets’ say that one guy from Harvard supposedly said something.
OK.
So now some other guy from somewhere else on the internet said the opposite.
Now what do you do?
Flip a coin?
This kind of thing happens in internet arguments all the time. I’m sure you’ve seen it yourself. The idea is to adopt a methodology that is solid and not subject to your own personal biases or the biases of someone with a slick blog. It’s all about going back to the science. The kind of science that stands up solid in the scientific arena.
The way you get your science on one topic should be the same minimum standard for all other topics. (Evolution, dangers of smoking, the moon landings, vaccines, climate change, etc.)
Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works
LikeLike
Your considered comments on this article from a peer reviewed science journal will be appreciated. Thanks.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
LikeLike
Bo, thanks for the link. I will look at it in more detail tomorrow.
However a quick glance indicates to me a very biased paper making some very obvious mistakes. No original work I could see – simply a review for a specific view point. Personally I would think to has been very poorly peer reviewed.
This is probably related to the nature of the journal. The Scientific World Journal, currently published by Cairo-based Hindawi Publishing Corporation, operates what is known as a “hold open-access model” where the authors are charged for publication. This leads to poor reviewing, and attraction of low quality papers.
However, I will read the whole text tomorrow. Meanwhile, why are you selecting that paper? It is not one normally cited (I think for quality reasons).
LikeLike
I wasn’t allowed fluoride as a kid because I had a hole in my heart, doctors and dentists made me avoid it at all costs until the hole had healed (which it has). I didn’t live in an area where the tap water had an increased amount of fluoride (may of have even been before it got introduced), but if I had would this not mean I could of possibly had more issues?
It seems there is information on both sides which is why I guess there’s this debate, and then it seems the argument becomes on validity.. That’s why I had decided to under-go experimenting with fluoride intake my self. So far the only physical difference is that after brushing my teeth without fluoride I don’t get dead skin within my mouth the next day. Which is nice and less concerning but not really a worthwhile factor.
I doubt I will notice any other factors, I think it will only be rare scenarios where there might be issues, which would be hard to trace back to solely fluoride intake. I will continue to avoid the extra fluoride until my current supplies run out, and then see where the fluoride debate is at (currently only added in a few areas in the UK) .
I guess to me it’s simply because my teeth are currently fine, and many humans who have passed away were not complaining about their teeth either, but I understand that now more and more sweets are eaten etc, that dental issues are on a rise, and this does need to be addressed.
—Off Topic—- but I guess relates to why I have doubts.
I guess I’m just a little sceptical in trusting governments when looking over things that they have done or considered doing (unrelated to fluoride I know). But we live in world so obsessed with culture and consumerism that people take more offence to swear words and middle fingers then poverty, famine, war etc. Governments have the ability to change this, and all money in an economy is borrowed just going further and further into debt, sort of makes money valueless, yet majority of people are inspired by profit regardless of its impacts. It’s still quite a hierarchy. You can also find information on US governments/businesses profiting from war, guarding 90% of opium fields while having Afghanistan’s president’s brother on the CIA payroll? what’s that all about? Why are they more bothered about saving people’s teeth then reducing the expense on war and helping people struggling to eat? and live?
So I guess it’s the combination of these factors that puts me off. If it gets put forward in the UK I guess I won’t have much of a choice but to take part. I found this article as I was looking further into fluoride, and I appreciate the responses I’ve received as it has definitely put some more light on the topic for me. I will look through some more articles here and elsewhere overtime, but I really should be prioritising my university dissertation and exams then my knowledge on fluoride haha.
LikeLike
— forgot to add (relates to my other off topic part)——
oh and I’ve been told a government scientist decided to re-research and rank the how harmful drugs are. He concluded that alcohol was the 3rd most dangerous substance, and as a result he lost his job…he was only trying to help our view on health but it appears the government didn’t like it as it threatened an income supply of theirs.
LikeLike
I’ve been told …
Rob, can you identify the problem there?
LikeLike
can you identify your problem? its an ultimate paradox. Everything you know is what you’ve been told, whether you read it, hear it, etc.
LikeLike
The scientists name was David Nutt, you can have a look into and make your own conclusion on what “I’ve been told”. You seem to think everything you have been told is superior to everything I’ve been told. For example if I am not to take regard to what I am being told..then surely I should not take regard to what your telling me in the sense that I have a problem. Ignorance.
LikeLike
you can have a look into and make your own conclusion on what “I’ve been told”.
It’s not up to me to research your claims. Burden of proof.
So, ok. I dismiss your anecdote as worthless. Hitchen’s razor
What surprises me is your upset at my questioning of it.
Does the story sound remotely reasonable to you?
LikeLike
Prof Nutt was head of a state committee advising the UK government on drugs, he was removed from the committee by the government of the time who were unhappy about his advise on decriminalising currently illegal drugs. Governments do this sort of think in controversial areas but I don’t know what relevance this is to the fluoride issue.
LikeLike
How have you decided I’m upset?
I have just stated that you have been ignorant in the sense that you are disregarding information because I’ve been told it.
What if I was told it from David Nutt himself or the government?
I’m not forcing you to research it, I was just trying to show you that you cannot claim I have made a mistake because I’ve been told something. Especially when you’ve showed no effort in proving that you are correct in saying I am wrong.
From my previous comments you can see I am happy to discuss and take views from others from what they’ve been told and take into account for my own conclusions. I have tried not to bring up my same point of view after being given new information but instead ask the questions I still have that have note been addressed….(perhaps I’ll remind you that you immediately disregarding one of them because I was told it)
Hitchen’s Razor is just a theory you’ve been told…Ritchard, do you see your problem? (that’s exactly what you’ve done to me..)
It’s the fact this seems unreasonable that it brings up these other questions…which I simply ask in the hope someone can address it in a way that the person who has stated the story hasn’t.
It’s comments like yours that make me not want me to participate in discussions online.
LikeLike
Was Nutt a Nutter too? (perhaps a Freudian slip there Ken 🙂 )
The relevance is that Rob is advancing the anecdote (quite different to your story about his dismissal) as justification for a conspiracy argument in which, as Cedric might put it, brave scientists that uncover the awful troof have their careers ruined by the evil Gubmint.
LikeLike
Thank you Ken for providing a worthwhile response.
I did state in a previous comment that it was not related explicitly to fluoride and it was a topic I forgot to add on to the end. It was slightly related to the fact that I have been questioning fluoride is because of these other articles on government’s actions. I have got more information on fluoride which is great, I guess I was hoping to see the other angles on my other questions so that I can decrease my doubts of added fluoride in the future.
LikeLike
Hitchens; razor isn’t a theory.
Now, get a grip on things Rob.
I don’t believe your story. I don’t buy the seasons you provide about why the guy was dismissed. Because…
I don’t believe everything I’m told,
Geddit?
LikeLike
Bugger – I wonder if that was a slip,on my part or the the bloody spell check.
However, Nutt visited NZ recently and spoke at a couple of meetings (maybe Royal Society). It’s not as if he has lost his job or been professionally sanctioned – just removed from a government committee – happens all the time. One has to be really biased to see a conspiracy.
A bit of advice Rob – you should be sceptical about reports like this and claims made about fluoride – especially from the natural health industry and it’s advocates. At least with scientific reports one usually has some evidence and reliability. And peer reviewed papers are more reliable than newspaper and natural health magazine reports – by a mile.
LikeLike
Perhaps you should read the banner that says ‘keep an open mind’. Which simply suggests the ability of listening to more than one opinion/story than the one you currently believe, and not disregarding it before looking into it because it conflicts with “what you’ve been told”. Something you appeared incapable of with your first comment to me. None of my responses with you have been over different sides of a debate of whether something is true or false, only the fact you were stating me as wrong for no reason – which ties into your own post of Hitchen’s Razor.
I don’t have a problem with you disagreeing to the story. It was just a case where a scientist was arguing that there was political pressures over the scientific data. So I asked the question to take on more than one opinion.
An example to consider…. do you think Hitchen’s Razor would have value in an argument with someone totally outside of your society and culture? No, they would have to accept this concept first and then engage in the debate by providing evidence. Your also missing the point, I’m not saying Hitchen’s Razor is stupid, I was simply showing your example of disregarding it because it was something you had typed.
Do you see me bashing down on Ken’s point of view on fluoride after he has provided his thoughts to me? All of which are the opposing side of the debate that I originally provided?
LikeLike
and thanks Ken, you have given the responses I was hoping for and I have taken all of your advice on board and have been happy to see the your mature approaches to responding.
LikeLike
Hi Rob,
“I guess to me it’s simply because my teeth are currently fine, and many humans who have passed away were not complaining about their teeth either, but I understand that now more and more sweets are eaten etc, that dental issues are on a rise, and this does need to be addressed”
I think the crux of the issue here is that fluoridated water is a Public health initiative. Yes, diet is a large part of it and as you allude to, trying to change dietary habits is not feasible.
Yes, you probably do have good teeth, and many people do.
Many people don’t however.
Have you ever seen young kids going to school with rotten teeth?
You said you come from a family of doctors? You are going to Uni?
I guess you are lucky to have been brought up in an environment where good oral health is promoted.
I don’t want this to come across as all preachy but as a public health initiative, community fluoridated water is an excellent method to reach those lower socio-economic groups not lucky enough to have had the benefits you have had 🙂
LikeLike
My, my, quite a tantrum because I questioned the wisdom of advancing in an argument an assertion based on a story “someone” had told you.
If you choose to participate here I advise you get used to it, expect more of it and don’t be so precious about it.
Many kooks arrive here with scary claims, as you did, about scientists having to tow the line with their research or be persecuted.
It’s standard Schick from conspiracy theorists, a real favourite line. So don’t think you are unique enough to be getting specially picked on.
When challenged conspiracy theorists invariably fail to provide any evidence for the claims.
We still haven’t seen any evidence for your claim that Nutt lost his job because of his data.
LikeLike
Yeah I can understand that, and I’m all for preventing inequalities. However would that example not suggest that my privileges could have allowed me to buy lots and lots and lots of sweets and destroy my teeth more compared to someone without these privileges. Perhaps I was lucky that I was not as excited by sweets as most kids are.
Why is controlling diet not feasible, can it not be as a feasible as trying to protect teeth with fluoride? if something is harmful there should be control measures I think, which I guess is why there’s this debate on fluoride as people are weary to how harmful it is (then it comes down to what information they’ve heard and what is more valid etc.). So if companies are adding chemicals that harm teeth then perhaps there should be control measures, to promote health over profit.
I guess the other argument is that I could have afforded to have lots of high quality dental treatment. But I’ve actually barely been to the dentist, and am definitely due a check as it’s been years, but I’ve only had 1 filling which appears to be far less then my friends who are from a variety of backgrounds.
I’m definitely more susceptible to the adding of fluoride after Ken addressed some areas of fluoride that I was yet to learn about. But I guess the horror stories from the past make alarm bells ring in my head, and when I go looking for information I seem to find information that brings up more questions instead of providing solutions to my original ones. To which then I suppose its trying find out which sources are the most reliable and why, but I currently don’t have the time, I should even be spending my time here to be honest.
Richard, I’m sorry if I’m coming across as over-reacting to your comment. I should have phrased the Nutt story as a question (which was my intention as I wanted a response showing the other argument), as my reason for mentioning it was the idea of politics vs science. You seem to think I have an issue with you disproving or providing opposing information. That’s the opposite to my issue, I want those responses so I can educate myself. The fact is if you look back you did not question my statement (that I failed to get across effectively as wanting someone to shed more information on) you simply stated it was wrong, or that I had made a problem because I had read something – it was this that did not sit well with me. But I really am wasting too much energy on this as I have deadlines I need to get done first.
LikeLike
Person anecdote…personal assurances of “experimenting”…lack of trust in governments…hopeful feeling that one day will look at some unidentified articles from somewhere…gosh so busy at Uni haha…some unnamed gov’t scientist lost his job…poor guy…
[negative response]
No you! Anyway paradox something…. make your own conclusion…You seem to think everything you whatever…so yeah…ignorance something.
[negative response]
Open mind, yeah? opinions…than the one you….conflict with what you’ve…you appeared incapable….your first comment….with you…you were….no reason…Hitchen’s Razor…I don’t have a problem…asked a question…hey consider..Hitchen’s Razor something…you’re missing the point…do you see me bashing?…
[negative response]
Why not diet? so if companies something…horror stories…alarm bells ringing….I guess something….dental appointment…more questions…not much time…want to educate myself…doesn’t sit well with me…wasting too much time…deadlines.
(…awkward silence….)
Alrighty then.
Shatner Performs Palin
LikeLike
Well I’m sorry that I’ve come across that way, I just had a lot of questions that I wanted answered. It wasn’t my intent to force my opinion on others or to state them as fact, I will just leave it at that. But thanks for the extra information that I was able to gather from here.
LikeLike
Hi Rob,
“Yeah I can understand that, and I’m all for preventing inequalities. However would that example not suggest that my privileges could have allowed me to buy lots and lots and lots of sweets and destroy my teeth more compared to someone without these privileges. Perhaps I was lucky that I was not as excited by sweets as most kids are.”
Really!?
So as a 6 year old child, the only thing preventing you from having rotten teeth was that you were not as excited as the poor kids by the seductive and alluring charm of sweets…?
LikeLike
I may have shot myself in the foot there. I wasn’t trying to suggest that it’s poor kids fault for eating lots of sweets, therefore they should suffer. If that’s what’s came across I apologise. I want everyone to have great teeth, they should be entitled to this.
It’s just what is the cause of our teeth getting worse? (I’m assuming it’s diet?) Why is that part of the problem not getting as much attention as the protection of the teeth.
These are just questions that come to me, I’m not trying to stir things up or claim facts. I’m grateful for the extra information I’ve learnt on fluoride. But I seem to be causing more trouble here than good. Which I didn’t set out to do. So I think I might just remove myself from this article from here on.
LikeLike
No problem Rob,
Perhaps teeth are getting worse; Western diets certainly are changing. Be aware that although a contributing factor, poor diet is not the only reason for dental caries.
But there is a logical fallacy in your reasoning called the False Dilemma or false dichotomy. This is where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.
I will offer an analogy.
If we know that most car fatalities are caused by poor driving, does that mean we should not provide seatbelts or airbags? Rather spend our resources only on improving our driving skills?
LikeLike
That’s a great analogy. I agree, and I’m sure most cars worldwide have now got seatbelts and air-bags now. So why is not the same with fluoride yet?
If it really is harmless and it only brings the benefit of better teeth protection then surely all countries would have adopted it. It’s not like this is a new discovery.
The only other logic I can think behind this is that every other country that does not have this in place is because their natural fluoride levels already meet the levels that countries are artificially adding. Is this the case? have we been slow to get the hint all these years? I have no idea. If it is then I can’t think of another question that would pop to mind, and I would be pro-fluoride!
LikeLike
Rob, health authorities around the world, and internationally, recognise that fluoride at optimum concentrations is beneficial to oral health and harmless. Most advanced countries therefore have either some sort of fluoridation (salt, milk, water) and/or dental treatments in action. Is some countries natural levels of fluoride are adequate – in others the levels are too high and removal, or finding other sources of water, is the issue.
For most of the world, though, these considerations are a luxury. Just getting clean drinking water is the problem,
LikeLike
I may have lied, I have a couple more questions 🙂
Is the only reason some of these countries started and then stopped fluoridating their water supplies due to the people requesting it to stop, because people like me getting the wrong end of the stick? and if so wouldn’t scientist and health authorities be out-raged? To them it would be like turning down free health-care, or the same kind of analogy of starving people turning down food?
Also you mentioned the fluoridation of salt and milk, is that all forms of milk and salt fluoridated in that country? or is it provided as an option?
I realise if you don’t know these answers it’s a bit much for me to expect you to deliver them and not for me to go find them myself. Which I’ll happily do after my exams and such. If I was to do so is there a renowned scientific/scholarly findings website that you could point me towards? or where you get your information from that is more reliable?
LikeLike
Hi Rob,
“Is the only reason some of these countries started and then stopped fluoridating their water supplies due to the people requesting it to stop, because people like me getting the wrong end of the stick?”
Better question, now I think you are getting closer to the real reasons for fluoridation/ not fluoridating. My analogy was limited; death from a car accident is not comparable to tooth decay!
But even when seat belts were made to be compulsory (Here in New Zealand in 1972) there was a public backlash – those with more libertarian views believe it should be up to the individual to decide, this “right” however needs to be weighed against the cost of not wearing seatbelts to the public health system.
The reasons why some countries fluoridate are a combination of social and political reasons, as a public health measure it needs governmental approval to be implemented. And as such there will always be people who oppose it based on there political views.
The science on CWF is effectively settled no matter what information you have read on the Internet, however there is a significant “anti science” anti-fluoride movement in the world – from what you have written, it seems as though you have already been exposed to this.
If you take a close look at the people who oppose CWF you will find many of them also oppose vaccinations as well as holding other common conspiracies such as Chem trails etc etc.
LikeLike
Rob, if you use facebook I suggest you “like” or “follow” the Making Sense of Fluoride group – good place to ask questions. https://www.facebook.com/fluoridewater?ref=hl
LikeLike
I was hoping this blog would help me make a decision.
Both sides have made a good case with the available resources.
After what seems like a stalemate, I’ll make my choice based upon
the perceived integrity of the participants.
If consuming Fluoride makes one vindictive and patronising whilst trying to
have a civilised discussion (perhaps more of an exercise in debating for some), then I think the smart thing to do would be to side with the calmer, more rational, topic focused Anti-F group.
I think I’ll leave the Fluoride out. What’s the worst that can happen?
Thanks for the interesting read.
LikeLike
Ken. Thank you for posting the video. Christopher Atkinson, makes a good point regarding chemtrails and vaccines. You are dealing with a few things here. 1. Hysteria/conspiracy generated by vested interest to divert away from the causes of the economic crisis, which has nothing to do with the banks or the myth of the Rothschilds, it has to do with private property and the ownership of all that we need to survive by the elites that is then utilized to enrich themselves 2. Personality disorders that are rife and marked by black and white parsimonious thinking, that no amount of evidence to the contrary will suffice in altering skewed thinking
3. Anti-intellectualism and the degeneration back into the dark ages that accompanies crisis where there is fear of the Status-Qua being overturned. It has historical precedence for those interested. http://www.articlesfactsstats.com/375013347
http://www.articlesfactsstats.com/383703420
LikeLike
There is anti-fluoride sentiment in my town, and I’ve spent a while getting to the bottom of it. My problem with the pro-fluoride side of this argument in this and many other threads is that it seems to be more a matter of ego and an almost religious fervor regarding the wonders of fluoride and an immediate dismissal of criticism. This seems hardly scientific, and given that the burden of proof falls not to the detractors of fluoridation, but its proponents, I don’t understand how such a zealous and unscientific approach to fluoridation can be considered acceptable.
I don’t drink fluoridated water, i have never had a cavity, and my teeth are healthy. Studies showing the efficacy of systemic fluoride place it as trivial at best, or completely ineffective at worst, so why do people care so much about ensuring that other people drink a dodgey and unnatural substance. You can add it in supplementary form, and topical application is available
If anything, more study is required, and fluoridation should be stopped until it can be proven safe and effective. If it had been proven safe and effective already, the opponents of fluoridation would lose support over the years, not gain it. Also, the origins of fluoridation are very sketchy. The Mellon institute defended asbestos and DDT as well as Lead in gasoline.Their endorsement of fluoride at the behest of the people who stood to profit from selling it to municipalities is an affront to the science.
Its important to keep an open mind. I don’t like that the moderator of this page attacks people who disagree with him without actually rebutting anything in a credible way, and I don’t like that calling someone a conspiracy theorist seems to be an acceptable way of dodging a legitimate question.
Truly, this is madness. Not even going into the controversy over the dangers of fluoride, the evidence that it is effective is simply not strong enough to justify forcing it on everyone. Even if it is effective, there are moral implications. Aspirin prevents heart attacks, should we add it to the water? What about depression? Anti-depressants and valium would cut down on violent crime I’m sure, but the ethics are clear. You can’t force your neighbor to drink a chemical he doesn’t want to drink. Its immoral.
So here, you can do as you’ve done so far, rip the post apart, call me a whackadoo, circle-jerk each other as you dissect it line-by-line and sneer like school bullies over the pointless points. OR, we can grow up, realize that science has no room for egos, that the default for fluoridation or any municipal practice should be a resounding “no” until there is irrefutable information to support it and informed consent among the population.
Btw, there is nothing wrong with that guy up top reposting pertinent information. Argue what he said, not how it was conveyed. I want to see the studies showing that drinking hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride is A) SAFE in long term, unbiased trials and B) Significantly effective in preventing tooth decay. and C) Does not cause environmental damage, as most municipal water is not consumed and I know there have been many environmental lawsuits in the past levied against fluoride polluters.
Everything else is splitting hairs and a waste of energy. Thanks for your time in reading. Cheers.
LikeLike
Paul, thanks for yet another “you need to keep an open mind, here’s my personal anecdote, you guys don’t argue the science and are mean to us, listen to our personal anecdotes” comment.
LikeLike
Paul, nobody is going to conduct studies on whether “drinking hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride is safe/effective/whatever.” Why, you ask?
Because nobody is drinking the stuff.
I’m going to ask you to go back and read that sentence a couple of times until it sinks in. That’s right, your key demand is based upon a false premise, which we see repeated again and again by certain members of the anti-fluoride crowd. “People are drinking fluorosilicic acid!” they cry. Lies.
The very point of using these chemicals for water fluoridation is that, at the concentrations they are added to water, they dissociate quickly and completely into their component parts. Including fluoride.
If you would like to reassure yourself on this point and other matters relating to fluoridation chemicals, I suggest reading through this paper.
Click to access pollick.pdf
LikeLike
This video is stupid and has no real facts!
LikeLike
Care to elaborate, Dina? And I don’t mean drive-by links without comment (my scam filter stopped the last comment of your’s for that very reason)
I mean some comment and discussion, argument from you.
I do not mind a few links but bare links without comment will be sent straight to spam.
You may wish to read some of the other posts on fluoridation here.
LikeLike
Ok, you want specifics?
1. Hydrofluoric acid is not naturally found in any water source. We’re not talking about naturally occurring sodium fluoride here. Let’s not compare apples to oranges.
2. The benefit of fluoride on teeth is purely topical.Why are we drinking it? It’s already in mouthwash and toothpaste. If someone practices proper dental hygiene, they should get plenty of benefit, without ingesting chemical waste.
3. Some fluoride is manufactured specifically for fluoridation. HF acid is also produced as a waste byproduct, try and guess where yours came from because the local government won’t tell me.
4. This PSA cherry picks from the tree of science for hire, and completely ignores the massive amount of studies linking fluoridation to all kinds of adverse health effects, both physical and cognitive.
Including studies that show that it’s bio-accumulative.
Total propaganda in my opinion.
LikeLike
Caleb, here is my response to your points – I would very much like to get your acknowledgment (and refutation if your are able) of these:
1: I think you are confused here. Hydrofluoric acid is never used for community water fluoridation. I think you have confused it with fluorosilicic acid which, together with sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride is. The fluorosilicates decompose on dilution to produce silica and the hydrated fluoride anion which has the beneficial effect at optimum concentrations (and iA exactly the same as the fluoride anion occurring natural in waterways). I also think that you meant calcium fluoride is naturally occurring as this, together with apatites, is usually the mineral supporting natural fluoride in waterways.
2: The surface or “topical” action of fluoride is the predominant mechanism for protection of existing teeth. However ingestion of food and water containing fluoride plays a major role in this as it enables transfer of F to saliva and surface biofilms which helps support that protection. With developing and pre-eruptive teeth ingested F does play a protective role – of course the surface reaction cannot occur then. Also, let’s not forget the role of F in developing healthy bones.
3: Whether the fluoridation chemicals are manufactured directly from the F containing ores or as by products in the manufacture of other chemicals is surely irrelevant. They are not wastes if they are used. In this country a simple request of the local council will give you the information you require.
4: You are welcome to discuss here any of the studies you believe supports your claims of negative effects, or to critique the studies which don’t. But a simple statement of your opinion is a nothing more than that.
LikeLike
Hi Ken – would appreciate your comments on this material: http://templeton01436.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/abcs-of-fluoridation-written-by-richard.html
LikeLike
Having read the majority of this debate with no preconceptions of my own regarding fluoridation, I found myself leaning towards Trevor’s arguments. Having graduated from a scientific discipline myself (geology), I am well accustomed to reading well researched arguments, properly backed by peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Kens comes across like a fox news presenter, does not adequately counter the points made by Trevor but instead repeats himself or otherwise relies on character defamation. These methods appeals to the larger volume of public , those with attention spans too short to do the necessary reading to form balanced opinions.
LikeLike
Well, Pando, anyone with a scientific bent knows the importance of evidence. This is as true for geologists as it is for other groups.
So, I am surprised you did not provide any evidence for your assertion. What about taking issue with something that I have actually written – after all there is not a shortage.
Any reading of these articles will show that I do rely on peer-reviewed papers and, OK I am biased, but I do think my arguments are well researhced. This contrasts with those arguments of people like Trev.
So, if you are at all serious (who knows, you may be Trev in drag 🙂 ) them I expect a reasoned reply based on evidence.
Or if you aren’t serious I expect you will run away and not respond to such a reasonable request.
LikeLike
Trevor has arguments?
No, Trevor just cuts and pastes.
LikeLike
Ken is obviously a paid propagandist, you need only to read his responses independently to see. Defamation, attacking arguments based on their format rather than their content, and a very consistent vagueness towards science that is so superior that it cannot be questioned in spite of mountains of contradictory evidence.
This might as well be fox news.
Monsanto and Merck have both been caught paying Internet “trolls” to attack any arguments made against their agenda. I would not be surprised if it is the same here.
LikeLike
Be specific, Paul. Or are you another troll who will run away?
LikeLike
I would like to know why you completely ignored the post and link of TA Crosbie.
As I scroll through your responses, I see you have a strategy of attacking people’s presentation and character, rather than their content. If what they say does not stroke with your opinion, you respond with ad hominem and allegations of them “just trolling”.
Do I detect a case of confirmation bias and blindness to whatever does not suit you?
As to the efficacy of ingested fluoride, there is no convincing evidence for its efficacy in preventing tooth-decay and plenty of evidence for its negative effects on mental and physical health.
Scientific opinion is increasingly shifting to a negative one where it concerns fluoridating drinking water. It is a case of the benefits not outweighing the costs.
It is ofcourse, from a medical viewpoint, madness to advise general medication of a populace with a substance of which the dosage levels are impossible to determine. Completely unscientific and unethical.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/
No doubt you will call me a troll, or similar.
I have as yet to see a convincing argument from your side, other than extolling the merits of ingesting something the efficacy of which lies in topical application at doses much higher than ever encountered through water fluoridation. .
LikeLike
Dervish, I think you have a bit of confirmation bias yourself. I often interact with Trev. We know each other personally, live in the same city, and can exchange a joke. He, unfortunately never maintains a discussion – but I have come not to expect that of him.
There is, in fact, evidence of a beneficial role for ingested fluoride during early years. I discussed this, and in particular, the paper of Cho et al., (2014) in my article Ingested fluoride is beneficial to dental health. Have a read of the article and the paper.
You say “I have as yet to see a convincing argument” for the efficacy and safety of community water fluoridation. Can I suggest again this is because of your confirmation bias? You are too selective in your reading. The cited example of Peckham’s paper illustrates this. It is a shoddy paper and one has to be very blinkered to rely on it – but then again that is the purpose of a known anti-fluoride campaigner like Peckham getting something into a journal that anti-fluoride campaigners can cite as if it is reliable proof of something.
I have written about Peckham’s paper in the article Anti-fluoridation propagandists promoting shonky “review” and again suggest you read this.
After reading these articles, I would welcome any criticisms you have of them and we can discuss them here. I would hate for you to run away as Trev does without contributing to a sensible discussion.
No, I won’t call you a troll. But I do note that I often get people here who use a non de plume and never return to participate in a discussion they may have initiated. I call then drive-by trolls. I hope you aren’t another one of them.
LikeLike
As to the efficacy of ingested fluoride, there is no convincing evidence for its efficacy in preventing tooth-decay
Duh.
Evidence that is convincing enough that every scientific and public health community and authority on the planet will not to dispute that it is a safe and effective measure for dental health,
Name a single scientific community, dental or public health authority that supports your claim.
Or, do a Trevor and run away.
LikeLike
Dervish, I’ve occasionally suggested this to others.
Get an up to date textbook on dentistry or public health.
Read the chapters on community water fluoridation.
Read all of the references for the chapter.
Read all of their references.
Get an up to date textbook on the (bio)chemistry of calcium and fluoride in bones and teeth.
Read it.
Read all of the references… And their references…
Get an up to date textbook on bioapetites.
Read it.
Read all of the references… And their references…
Get an up to date textbook on endocrinology.
Read the chapters on bone and renal endocrinology (yes, the kidneys are involved in this, as well as other organs that you would be surprised at – I’ll leave that for you to discover)
Read all of the references… And their references…
That’s a short-cut to the point where the experts on the subject of community water fluoridation began their researches… And possibly qualifies you to comment further.
Are you up to it?
LikeLike
Dervish wrote:
I took him at his word and didn’t call him a troll. But he appears to have run away, refused to participate in the discussion.
So, my current conclusion is that he is just another anonymous drive-by troll.
LikeLike
Please pardon my poor English from Singapore. Here 100% of our population has been receiving fluoridated water at 0.5 mg /L since 1958. We have many children with dental fluorosis and many adults with bow legs. Many English and medical dictionaries defined fluorosis as fluoride poisoning and as a disease. How can this NZ video from government MOH claim that fluoridation does not cause disease?
LikeLike
lkyfluoride – could you please provide figures for the extent of dental fluorosis and its different forms for Singapore. Also, figures for the prevalence of skeletal fluorosis?
Water fluoride art 0.5 mg/L is not defined a poisonous and is not the cause of fluorosis.
However, many parts of the world suffer from excessive dieatary fluoride intake – that is a completely different problem.
LikeLike