Forum

Free news

FREE blog

Donate

Search

Subscribe

jews/911

Feedback

dna

Gun poll

RCC

AIDS

Home

Fathers

Surveys

Holocaust

IQ

14th Amdt

19th Amdt

Israelites

NWO

Homicide

Blacks

Whites

Signatory

Talmud

Watchman

Gaelic

Traitors

Health?

 

 

 

The use of fluoride to try to avoid dealing with the problems
of excess consumption of sugars and other poor dietary
habits isn't effective, and can be quite harmful.

"In some developing countries where sugar consumption is low - Nigeria
and Uganda, for example - people are too poor to buy fluoride
toothpaste, don't drink fluoridated water, don't visit dentists and
certainly don't drink expensive bottled water. Yet according to the
World Health Organization, their tooth-decay rates are half that of
the United States.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/lifestyles/html98/fluo_010699.html


""Fluoride destroys acetylcholine".- From the Newsletter: "Whole
Health Studies".

"... acetylcholine- a key brain messenger for memory". - A
neurosurgeon from the Center for Memory Impairment and Neurobehavior
Disorders.

"Fluoride destroys or inhibits acetylcholine." -The Lancet Medical
Journal.

"Fluoride desensitizes (numbs) teeth (by blocking with nerve
transmission by destroying acetylcholine in the nerve)"- A dentist and
(the author in parentheses) ..."

[From http://www.realityi.org/fluoridePoison.htm]


>Me? One cavity and raised in the city drinking flouridated water.

Anecdotes are still not data.  I have all my teeth, never
had even one cavity, and no fluoridated water.  So you
can't claim that's the reason, even trying over and over
won't make that work.

>If you could be more specific regarding the detrimental environmental effects of adding some
>fluoride to the water I might be with you. ...

I haven't been sparse with my substantiation,
but there's plenty more where it came from:

"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes
it faster, than any other chemical.
Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute "

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fluoride.html


"Workers at the Turner Dental School in Manchester found no
significant benefits on tooth decay with up to 2 parts per million of
fluoride in drinking water. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine also
reported that fluoride had no beneficial effect. "

"It was Dr. Trendley Dean, "the father of fluoridation", who first
hypothesised that fluoridation would protect teeth from cavities. It
was also he who declared that it was safe. In 1945 Dean established
the first trial of fluoridation of the water supply in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. Since that time, however, he has twice confessed in court
that statistics from the early studies, allegedly supporting the use
of fluoridation in community water systems, were invalid. "

"The US National Institute of Dental Research figures for over 39,000
children from 84 locations in the USA indicated no difference in the
numbers of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) between those who
lived in fluoridated, partially-fluoridated or non-fluoridated
communities. Dr. Bette Hileman stated: "The average decay rates for
all children aged 5-17 were 2.0 teeth for both fluoridated and
non-fluoridated areas. The Director of the Division of Dental Health
Services for British Columbia showed that DMFT for both fluoridated
and non-fluoridated areas was falling -- but the areas which had the
fewest bad teeth were those which were not fluoridated. And a report
from Holland stated: "Dutch scientists found essentially no reduction
in caries when the fluoride users and non-users had been carefully
matched"

"The largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay ever undertaken was
performed by the USA National Institute of Dental Research. The
subjects were 39,000 children aged five to seventeen living in
eighty-four different areas. A third of the places were wholly
fluoridated, a third were partially fluoridated, and a third were not
fluoridated. There were no statistically significant differences in
dental decay between them. "

"A University of Arizona study in 1992 found that "the more fluoride a
child drinks, the more cavities appear in the teeth."

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fluorideharm.html


Silicofluoridation is associated with increased
absorption of toxins like lead, cadmium, and
others, in humans:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~news/releases/mar01/fluoride.html

This is from Roger D. Masters, the Dartmouth College Research
Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government
Emeritus, who has offered data showing that water supplies
treated with fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride (aka
silicofluorides), are associated with increased blood lead
levels (as well as those of other toxins) in children.  These
treatment systems represent 90% of the public water
supplies in the US.

Masters collaborated with Myron J. Coplan, a former vice
president of Albany International Corporation and a consulting
chemical engineer.  They studied 400,000 children in three
different sample groups. 

Masters is quoted as saying "If further research confirms our
findings, this may be the worst environmental poison since
leaded gasoline."

I'll be interested in any valid arguments you'd care to make
about things like this:

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-3/313-s25.htm

You may also wish to peruse this:

http://thyroid.about.com/health/thyroid/library/weekly/aa020700a.htm

"...  Dr. Phyllis Mullenix believes, based on her research, that
fluoride acts in a way that lowers the I.Q. of children
("Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Mullenix, P.
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 17 (2), 1995).

Dr. William Marcus, believes that a study conducted by Battelle for
the National Toxicology Program on the toxicology of fluoride shows
that there were dose-related increases in bone cancer in male rats.
Dr. Marcus also questions the removal by peer reviewers of cancers at
other sites in the rats as well. Especially worrisome to Dr. Marcus is
the fact that that levels of fluoride that caused the cancers in the
rats were lower than those seen in humans who ingested lower amounts,
but for a longer period. These levels are generated because fluoride
is accumulated in the body and is not secreted.

Dr. Marcus was formerly the chief toxicologist for the EPA's Office of
Drinking Water, but was fired in 1991 after insisting that an unbiased
evaluation of fluoride's cancer potential be conducted. Marcus fought
his dismissal, and was able to be reinstated after demonstrating in
court that it was politically motivated. 

...Aluminum compounds are frequently added to the water supply as
clarifying agents. On its own, aluminum is not readily absorbed by the
body, however, when fluoride is present, the two form
aluminum-fluoride, which is easily absorbed. A long term study
published in 1988 found that even low levels of aluminum-fluoride in
drinking water delivered more aluminum to the brain than concentrated
aluminum fluoride. The same study found that low levels of aluminum
fluoride and sodium fluoride found in "optimally" fluoridated water
cause severe kidney damage and lesions to the brain similar to those
found in Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia. Dr. Robert Isaacson,
State University of New York, found that when aluminum fluoride is
added to the food of rats, the rats developed short-term memory
problems, smell sensory loss and other characteristics of Alzheimer's
disease. (Isaacson, R. "Rat studies link brain cell damage with
aluminum and fluoride in water" State Univ. of New York, Binghampton,
NY, Wall Street Journal article by Marilyn Chase; Oct. 28, 1992, p.
B-6).   ..."

And this:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/NTEU-march01.htm

"...   represents the toxicologists, chemists, biologists, engineers
and other professional employees at the Headquarters location of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. The Agency's
position on fluoride may not corrspond to the one that we
professionals have taken. We have done our own homework on this matter
and have reached our own conclusions.

As you know, our union first voted in 1997 on legislation relating to
fluoridation, when we endorsed a Citizens For Safe Drinking Water
initiative in California to prohibit the addition of fluoride to that
State's water supplies. Our opposition to fluoridation has grown
stronger in the three years since that first action because of the
accumulation of research reports that ever more clearly show: 1) that
fluoridation of drinking water does not reduce dental caries rates;
and 2) the hazards associated with ingestion of fluoride, especially
fluoride derived from hydrofluosilicic acid or its sodium salt (a.k.a.
silicofluorides, SiF).

There are two specific and compelling concerns related to the use of
SiF. First, use of SiF in fluoridation systems in the United States
has been identified as a factor related to increased risk of elevated
blood-lead levels in children (1,2). Second, SiF contributes
significant amounts of arsenic to the water supplies to which it is
added. The importance of this is that the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established a (non-enforceable) Maximum
Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic of zero, meaning that as a health
protection measure, drinking water ought not to contain any arsenic
whatsoever. Recently, EPA reported (3) that the National Academy of
Sciences recommended that EPA should lower its enforceable Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic from 50 parts per billion (ppb) to
possibly as low as 3 ppb as a cancer preventative measure; EPA then
proposed an MCL of 5 ppb, finally setting it at 10 ppb for political
reasons. Recent action by Administrator Whitman has suspended that
proposal ...".

Also this:

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/nteu280-Fluoride.htm

(Can't wait to see what you'd have to say about these.)

I wonder if you've actually managed to read any of these
sources, and contemplate what they're actually saying.

>>Or perhaps you figure that if too much oxygen
>>could be bad, then only a little sarin gas must
>>be nothing to worry about.  Are you capable
>>of understanding why that's a fallacy?
>
>Are you capable of understanding a non-sequitur?

Non sequiturs are understandable as such, only.

It does not follow that fluoridation of water must
be acceptable because too much water could
be harmful.

[...]
>The ADA:

Oh, yes, the ones who stand to make lots of money
from 'endorsement' of fluorides ... 

"In a 1972 report by the American Dental Association, it is stated
that dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to
non-fluoridated areas.) (Douglas et al., "Impact of water fluoridation
on dental practices and dental manpower", Journal of the American
Dental Association; 84:355-67, 1972) "

"The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has
classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high
toxicity.
 
The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is
no proof of safety or effectiveness. The FDA does not consider
fluoride an essential nutrient.
 
Four major studies involving 480,000 children (US, 39,000; Japan,
22,000; India, 400,000; Tucson, 29,000) comparing fluoridated and
non-fluoridated areas showed no significant difference in decay rates.
Proven is that a higher intake of fluoride will actually cause MORE
cavities, especially for children with low dietary calcium intake. "

http://www.sightings.com/health/flouridetruth.htm

>"...Research has shown that fluoride reduces cavities ..."

Please cite the research, and note that much if not
all of it has been shown to have been faulty.

Do you know the difference between topical application
and internal assimilation?  Hint: the former is not being
discussed here, the latter is the problem.

Did you know why toothpaste manufacturers aren't
allowed to claim that fluoride fights cavities anymore?
Hint: they're not allowed to make false claims.

"Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of the
Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and
president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research ...

Dr. Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until
recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial
additive.

In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback
announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should
never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated
water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water.
Never." ...

"... we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs
for half a century. The vast majority of all fluoride additives come
from Tampa Bay, Florida smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a
toxic byproduct of the super-phosphate fertilizer industry."

"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just dumping toxic
fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent,
unsuspecting people to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium,
all of them carcinogenic. Because of the cumulative properties of
toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are catastrophic."

A recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's
worst fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the
fluoride in their hip bones vis-a-vis the balance of the population.
Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic
architecture of human bones."

Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when
fluoride accumulates in bones, making them extremely weak and brittle.
The earliest symptoms? "Mottled and brittle teeth," Dr. Limeback told
me. "In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental
fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own
practice."

"Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver -
which has never fluoridated - has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's."
And, he pointed out, cavity rates are low all across the
industrialized world including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low
because of improved standards of living, less refined sugar, regular
dental checkups, flossing and frequent brushing. ...

"...  data that is 50 years old, and questionable at best. Absolutely
no one has done research on fluorosilicates, which is the junk they're
dumping into the drinking water."

"On the other hand," he added, "the evidence against systemic fluoride
in-take continues to pour in."

"But Doc, the dentists." "I have absolutely no training in toxicity,"
he stated firmly. "Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following
50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental
association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."

Last week, Dr. Hardy Limeback addressed his faculty and students at
the University of Toronto, Department of Dentistry. In a poignant,
memorable meeting, he apologized to those gathered before him.

"Speaking as the head of preventive dentistry, I told them that I had
unintentionally mislead my colleagues and my students. For the past 15
years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is
readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest
thing from my mind." ..."

http://www.youdontsay.org/Reportfl.htm


>[...]  "Just Curious" <inquisitive@all.times.now> wrote:
>>It's a fallacy to try to claim that consuming contaminants
>>would somehow be acceptable because other substances
>>can also be toxic.
>
>Contaminants are in the eye of the beholder.

Your substantiation for that would be _?_

Perhaps you approve of the idea that making
'beholders' less capable of noting the damage
done by pollutants would be equivalent to
'making the problem go away' somehow.
Why would you imagine that?

Or perhaps you would prefer to tell yourself
that losses to the environment and species
caused by pollutants wouldn't be an issue,
as long as you personally just don't manage
to recognize the effects?  Why would you
believe that?

Or perhaps you figure that if too much oxygen
could be bad, then only a little sarin gas must
be nothing to worry about.  Are you capable
of understanding why that's a fallacy?

>Alan
>[...]
>Watch out for the di-hydrogenated oxygen too!

Oh, that old saw was worn out before we
got out of elementary school, even in the
small rural district where I attended.

With water, when doctors suggest that you
drink eight 8-ounce glasses or more each
day, you don't pay attention to that?

Do the doctors you know, if any, suggest
that water would be somehow 'improved'
by adding silicofluorides and other toxins
to it?  How about eutrophication?  Have
you any idea what that is, or why it isn't
a good thing for bodies of water?  If at
any time you actually acquire any form
of relevant information, would you be
able to process it, much less offer it
up for others to peruse?  I hope so.

>[...] if you breath [sic] too much of that ...

If you start to breathe good air, maybe you
will experience improved functioning, even
to the extent of offering valid statements.

I suggest you find a way to remove your
head from the toilet, if this is an ongoing
difficulty for you.  If others are holding it
in there against your will, no doubt it'll
be a good idea to reconsider the way
you've been attempting to offer them
your version of 'communication'.

You can't lose: why not give it a try?

Alan White <Alannc44@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> "Just Curious" <inquisitive@all.times.now> wrote:
>>"... medical professionals who see fluoride as a health hazard ... "

>1943? Who wants to return to rotten teeth and abscessed gums. Not me man!

"  ...  Contrary to popular belief, there is no proof that fluoride
fights cavities. In the U.S., the government recently ordered
toothpaste manufacturers to stop claiming it does until they could
prove it. (None bothered to try.) ...

...Dr. John Colquhoun, Principal Dental Officer for the New Zealand
city of Auckland, once advised mandatory fluoridation; so did Dr.
Richard Foulkes, special consultant to the B.C. Minister of Health.
Both later reversed their recommendations. Wrote Colquhoun in 1982:
"Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child's
body can damage tooth-forming cells, then other harm is also likely."
Foulkes wrote in 1992: "There is evidence that fluoridation does not
prevent tooth decay and may cause serious illness, birth defects and
premature death."  ..."

[From http://rvi.net/~fluoride/mail.htm]

"University of Toronto, [...] checked the status of a number of people
who had been using naturally fluoridated water for several decades and
found appalling periodontal disease, with marked morphological
changes, such as enlargement of the roots and narrowing or closure of
root canals and pulp chambers, indicating premature aging of the tooth
structure, making extraction very difficult. Many of these cases had
severe gum diseases and premature need of dentures.

[From
http://home.school.net.hk/~chemmag/issue3/mingk/fluridation.html]

You assume that fluoridation would be needed in water
to prevent dental caries.  Why? 

>Move to the country and disconnect your internet hookup if you want, but leave my teeth alone!

Sir, I can assure you that your teeth are safe from me, but
that I can not extend to your safety from fluoride poisoning.
(I've lived in the country nearly all my life, never drank any
fluoridated water as a child, and my teeth are all in perfect
condition, never once needing any fillings.)  Obviously it is
possible for people to live without fluoridated water and
still have healthy teeth.

Of course, there's the horrible damage done to teeth and
the rest of the human skeletal system by fluoridosis, or
fluoride poisoning, perhaps you'd meant that.  Maybe
you're concerned with making sure that children don't
decrease their consumption of sugar or something.  Or
you fear that the industries heavily invested in dumping
fluorides anywhere they possibly can may be faced with
a call to be responsible for themselves instead.

"Fluoride has been proven by the American Dental Association, no less,
to be responsible for fluoridosis in children ..."

[from http://www.powerup.com.au/~kkaos/alpha1.html]

Also of interest:

http://www.coastalpost.com/98/4/3.htm
http://www.fluoridation.com/poison.htm
http://www.fluoridation.com/enviro.htm

In any event, Mr White, do not swallow your toothpaste
(it may well have the word "poison" printed on the label)
or any of that contaminated water, either, it wouldn't be
at all good for you to do so.


Alan White <Alannc44@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> "Just Curious" <inquisitive@all.times.now> wrote:
[...]
>>"Fluoride has been proven by the American Dental Association, no less,
>>to be responsible for fluoridosis in children ..."
>
>So, I went to the official ADA site to read for myself (just curious, that's all), and, what did I
>find? Well go see for yourself:

Isn't the ADA the ones who tried to claim that the EPA
would somehow 'endorse' fluoridation, when they don't?
Oh, yes, and they also tried to claim that the American
Association for the advancement of Science would
somehow 'support' fluoridation, when they don't?
Isn't the ADA representative of those who make
very large sums of money for endorsements of
fluoride products? 

>http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride.html

You assume I'd been unfamiliar with that site.

Now, please describe exactly where it cites any study
whatsoever showing that silicofluoridation of water
would be either effective or safe longterm, TIA.

Note that I've never questioned the efficacy of topical
applications of fluorides, only the internal consumption
of them without any choice, without evidence that the
practice offers any benefit and with evidence that the
practice does actual harm.  While I'm at it, the use of
artificially-purified reagents in experimentation doesn't
represent the real-word situation of impurity.

"For three consecutive years, 1995-97, The Journal of the American
Dental Association (JADA) has published studies reporting on pervasive
over-exposure to fluoride due to"the widespread use of fluoridated
water, fluoride dentifrice, dietary fluoride supplements and other
forms of fluoride...{There is} an increased prevalence of dental
fluorosis, ranging from about 15% to 65% in fluoridated areas and 5%
to 40% in non-fluoridated areas in North America." The 1996 study
warned parents to limit their children's intake of juices due to
excessive fluoride content."

[From http://204.181.21.150/trufax/fluoride/ovedose.html]

>Read it on your electromagnetically charged screen and weep out those nasty toxins.

Alan, perhaps you hadn't noticed that no one has been
suggesting that anyone had recommended that anything
of the sort be introduced into drinking water supplies, at
least not from this direction.  (At least my computer isn't
polluting to quite the degree that yours is, on usenet.)

Irrelevancies aside, I'll keep providing pertinent sites for
you, even though you haven't done as much for me:

http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/biomed/cdd/fluoride.htm
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/fluoride/blunder.htm
http://www.gsenet.org/library/22wtr/BNFLRIDE.TXT
http://204.181.21.150/trufax/fluoride/fluoride.html

From this last site:

"Steelink C., Fowler M, Osborn M et al. Findings and recommendations
of subcommittee on fluoridation. City of Tuscon AZ 1992 (PO Box
27210). Also see: Chemical and Engineering News (7/27/92).

A study of Tuscon elementary children was performed by
Cornelius Steelink, Professor Emeritus, Department of Chemistry,
University of Arizona. The study was performed in order to determine
the "benefits" of water fluoridation.

They compared tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child's
neighborhood drinking water for 26,000 elementary school children.

Here are the results:

"...a positive correlation was revealed." In other words, the **more
fluoride** a child drank, the **more cavities** appeared in the teeth.

He goes on to state:

"Since this was an unusual result, our subcommittee looked for other
relevant factors. Family incomes was compared to tooth decay. An
excellent inverse relation was found for these 26,000 children: the
higher the income, the lower the number of decayed teeth. Other
anecdotal evidence gathered by our committee included lack of access
to dental facilities, poverty, diet, and oral hygiene as contributing
factors to tooth decay in this group of children."

In the final report, the subcommittee stated that there was no obvious
relation of fluoride content in municipal water to the prevention of
tooth decay in Tucson, and because there are multiple causes of tooth
decay, a decision to fluoridate would still leave pockets of poor
dental health in Tucson. ..."


 

TRAITOR McCain

jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law

f.ck Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition

 

Hit Counter

 

Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party