12 Reasons To Reject Fluoridation!

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

MockingGods wrote:

DennisStevenson wrote:

If exhaust fumes kill more than 50,000 people each year in the US, as the evidence suggests that fluoridation does, then I would agree about exhaust gases.

I'm quite certain, if a study was done, far more than 50k deaths per year could be attributed to human inhalation of combusted carbon based fuels, perhaps not directly, but certainly there are many other mutations and diseases that are aggravated or caused by its inhalation.

Quote:

Those who benefit include many dentists, fluoride polluters, confectionary companies, manufacturers of toothpaste and other dental products.

I've never trusted dentists Evil or Very Mad

How do confectionary companies benifit from flouride in the water?

Well, as with every profession, lawyers and politicians included, even bloggers, some are wonderful: compassionate, bright and courageous and some aren't.

Ah, I was just talking about deaths. If you include the A-Z of diseases that fluoride causes or contributes to, the number of people harmed grows dramatically.

Well there obviously must have been a reason that Mars Ltd (Mars Bars) spent Au$50,000 financing "An international conference on diet and tooth decay, held at the Royal Dental Hospital, Melbourne.." The Age newspaper, Melb, Australia 10 May, 1982. "... One speaker [Professor Neil Jenkins] said theat decay induced by eating chocolate could be controlled by the method of eating it."

So the reason should now be obvious. If fluoride protects children's teeth from decay (it doesn't of course), then parents can let their children eat lots of what is really the predominant contributor to tooth decay - lollies, sugary drinks etc.

This is also covered in the introduction to '12 Reasons to reject Fluoridation' and in Point No. 10.

A pdf of the one page [updated version] is available at: http://www.kindredmedia.com.au/template_images/upload/12REASONS_UPDATED.pdf

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 381

Interesting. Does the small amount of fluoride used by dentists in fluoride toothpastes actually help the teeth?

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:28 am

DennisStevenson wrote:

Ah, I was just talking about deaths. If you include the A-Z of diseases that fluoride causes or contributes to, the number of people harmed grows dramatically.

To be more precise, what I'm saying is that the combustion carbon based fuels in all likelihood posses a greater risk to human health and well-being then fluoride. I'm not of course discounting you may in fact be correct about the dangers of fluoridation. I honestly haven't investigated the subject that deeply, like you obviously have.

Quote:

If fluoride protects children's teeth from decay (it doesn't of course), then parents can let their children eat lots of what is really the predominant contributor to tooth decay - lollies, sugary drinks etc.

So you're saying because parents might believe fluoride helps prevent tooth decay they may allow more consumption of said products, and the confectionary companies are banking on that idea. That's an interesting theory.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 8:33 am

Cygnus wrote:

Interesting. Does the small amount of fluoride used by dentists in fluoride toothpastes actually help the teeth?

I believe what he's saying is fluoride not only doesn't help to protect against tooth decay, but is in fact harmful to the teeth and other biological functions. If this is true, then the small amounts used by dentists would either have no affect or be harmful; same with toothpaste.

I may need to do some actual research. It does seem rather odd this substance is so widely used if it has no efficacy. It would be quite the conspiracy.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 11:53 am

Quote:

> 8. Fluoride is so toxic it causes fluorosis, a disease of constant 'whole body' fluoride poisoning. Its first sign is chalky white mottling of teeth called dental fluorosis. Teeth can also fracture, pit or become dark brown. This irreversible, disfiguring tooth decay is the cellular break down of teeth. Australia's three major government fluoridation inquiries (Tas 1968, Vic 1979, ACT 89-91) all reported that up to 10% of children will get mottled teeth if water is fluoridated. In practice, mottling is as high as 48% (UK Govt. York Report, 2000). Dentists make $600-$1,200 per tooth to hide (cover) fluorosis.

What they're not saying is that the most severe fluoridosis is due to people drinking well water and water from other sources that were not fluoridated to begin with, but simply had naturally high fluoride levels. In addition, fluoride DOES make teeth stronger, even in cases with unsightly results. The suggestions to the contrary are disingenuous and contradict basic chemistry.

Quote:

> 4. The World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, reports sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] as, "... an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] ... [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water. ... The Commission of the European Communities (1978) requires that sodium silicofluoride be labelled as toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin or if swallowed." I.A.R.C. Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 27-4-82, p 250.
> 5. Fluoride deaths. In a 5 month court case of world experts in Pittsburgh 1978, scientists, led by Dr Burk, a US National Cancer Institute founder and its Chief Chemist for 35 years, proved fluoridation **kills 10,000 yearly (cancer), admitted by opponents under cross-examination. In Brisbane, 2 year old **Jason Burton died after taking 6 fluoride pills. His death certificate states, 'Fluoride poisoning'. In New York, 3 year old **William Kennerly died from a 'fluoride rinse' at a dentist. The Court awarded US$750,000.

Alcohol is used as an insecticide (to kill bedbugs and other nasties) and disinfectant (kills bacteria). Its toxicity also results in the deaths of over a million people worldwide every year. But wait! Alcohol is found in fruit juices and is produced by the human body! Guess we all have to start drinking only distilled water now, huh? I'll save the discussion of water intoxication for another day Laughing

Quote:

> 7. Fluoridation does not reduce decay. Few (4%) countries are fluoridated yet nearly all have decades of falling decay rates, including all 10 (unfluoridated) in west continental Europe. WHO (www.whocollab.od.mah.se)1. Also, decay was reducing decades before fluoridation, e.g. NZ school records since 1930 show steep decay reductions for 25-35 years before fluoridation.

Seatbelts do not reduce the mortality rate in automobile accidents. Countries where seatbelts are worn by less than 1% of the population show vastly lower rates of automobile-related fatalities per 100,000 people than do countries with high seatbelt usage.

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

"So you're saying because parents might believe fluoride helps prevent tooth decay they may allow more consumption of said products, and the confectionary companies are banking on that idea. That's an interesting theory."

Dr. C.D. Hearman, lecturer in dentistry at the Melbourne University, in addressing the 12th Australian Dental Congress at Sydney University said, "Cane sugar is a dead food. It contains no protective body-building elements. It perverts the appetite and it rots the teeth. ... There is no real need for refined sugar in the diet."

Now, this is not the message that Coca Cola, Hoadleys, Scanlens etc want people to learn. So instead of other dentists teaching this truth, their training schools have long been taken over by indoctrinators [and receive money from confectioners and dentifrice companies) and now they push fluoride and alledge it protects the teeth (from sugar) when fluoride actually causes tooth decay - making millions extra for dentists.

Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:40 pm

DennisStevenson wrote:

fluoride actually causes tooth decay

No, fluoride actually converts hydroxyapatite to fluorapatite in developing teeth, and fluorapatite is more resilient to acids. Discoloration from excessive fluorides is hardly "decay", and you're being dishonest in claiming equivalence there.

As for why people eat more sugar, it COULD be because the evil fluoride-producing fatcats got in bed with governments around the world, in part by convincing the public that fluorides are good for their teeth, and this resulted in less public vigilance with regard to diet. Or, PERHAPS, it could just be that sugar tastes really good to humans and improvements in production caused the price to drop and allowed people in wealthy nations to consume much more of it. You're right though; that sounds stupid, and the conspiracy makes much more sense.

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

[quote="Eyedunno"][quote]>What they're not saying is that the most severe fluoridosis is due to people drinking well water and water from other sources that were not fluoridated to begin with, but simply had naturally high fluoride levels.[quote="Eyedunno"][quote]>

Dorlands Medical Dictionary defined "Fluorosis - chronic [long term] poisoning with fluoride." and "Mottled enamel - a chronic endemic dental fluorosis that is found in communities using a drinking water that contains one part or more of fluorine per million. The permanent teeth of children so raised tend to erupt more or less chalky white in colour and later tend to become pitted and stained yellow, brown, or almost black."

Your statement that fluoride levels need to be high can be misleading - the problems also occur from well water at 1ppm or less.

It is true that fluorosis from drinking well water etc is a major hazard in some countries such as India, Turkey etc and causes many deaths, crippling etc. But what does that have to do with dental fluorosis [mottling] and death and disease in industrialised countries caused by deliberate water fluoridation at 1ppm [part per million]?

[quote="Eyedunno"][quote]>In addition, fluoride DOES make teeth stronger, even in cases with unsightly results. The suggestions to the contrary are disingenuous and contradict basic chemistry.[quote="Eyedunno"][quote]>

This is common dental propaganda. Repeating it DOES NOT [caps are fun aren't they?] make it true.

To claim that I am insincere and morally fraudulent [disingenuous] apart from being false and in certain settings, libelous, tends to lower the level of discussion. There is less chance of a meeting of minds [learning] when someone resorts to name calling. Also, other readers can be put off by it and no longer follow a useful debate.

This is a tactic taught to dentists to denigrate opponents to fluoridation. It is done to destroy the credibility of those who present evidence showing that fluoridation kills people, doesn't work, is against human rights and is one the world's major environmental pollutants. The tactic works if the person or group is made to appear so very bad, that people do not listen or read the evidence they present.

This is a tactic often tried against myself by unethical politicians, major media and some doctors and dentists.

In 1953, the American Dental Association issued a booklet which was sent throughout the US. Under the heading 'Downgrading the Public Image of Opponents of Fluoridation' dentists were advised to categorise the opposition to fluoridation into one of the following groups: drugless healers of all types, members of religious groups, those with political motives, obscure scientists and self appointed protectors of the public who object to every public health measure etc.

The training manual gave further ways to counter fluoridation opponents. All instructions involved denigration in one way or another. Not once in the booklet was evidence given that fluoridation was actually beneficial. This was about propaganda, not science.

Commonly, those in control of dental associations in Australia, America, Britian etc have been using these tactics ever since.

I don't claim that you are disengenuous. I don't know you or whether you believe what you claim or not. You may. There are people who sincerely believe that fluoridation is safe and effective. However, sincerity does not make one's claims true.

However, one does not need to know any of this. No one should be forced to ingest fluoride. Should that not be the end of the argument about fluoridation?

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:10 am

From a DennisSt...........

Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 1:36 am

DennisStevenson wrote:

It is true that fluorosis from drinking well water etc is a major hazard in some countries such as India, Turkey etc and causes many deaths, crippling etc. But what does that have to do with dental fluorosis [mottling] and death and disease in industrialised countries caused by deliberate water fluoridation at 1ppm [part per million]?

First off, "death and disease... caused by deliberate water fluoridation at 1ppm" isn't well supported. Secondly, you've equated mottling (discoloration) with tooth decay, and this is the part of your argument that I find disingenuous, especially considering the fact that the mottled teeth were correllated early on with greater resistance to tooth decay (with the mechanism for fluorides making teeth stronger discovered later).

DennisStevenson wrote:

Eyedunno wrote:

In addition, fluoride DOES make teeth stronger, even in cases with unsightly results. The suggestions to the contrary are disingenuous and contradict basic chemistry.

This is common dental propaganda. Repeating it DOES NOT [caps are fun aren't they?] make it true.

Correct. Repeating things does not make them true. Tests with fluorapatite, hydroxyapatite, and acids do provide some rather compelling evidence though, as do epidemiological studies.

DennisStevenson wrote:

This is a tactic taught to dentists to denigrate opponents to fluoridation.

Oh, those wacky dentists.

DennisStevenson wrote:

I don't claim that you are disengenuous. I don't know you or whether you believe what you claim or not. You may. There are people who sincerely believe that fluoridation is safe and effective. However, sincerity does not make one's claims true.

Indeed it doesn't, but you must also realize (again) that stating such doesn't constitute a serious objection.

DennisStevenson wrote:

However, one does not need to know any of this. No one should be forced to ingest fluoride. Should that not be the end of the argument about fluoridation?

Indeed. It's the only part of your argument that I agree with, and the only part that's not steeped in bullshit. So yeah, that SHOULD be the end of the argument, but you prefer to spout conspiracy nonsense.

And last I checked, nothing's preventing you from drinking distilled water.

baddogma wrote:

From a DennisSt...........

Hey, he is a DennisSt, isn't he? Perhaps he's part of the conspiracy! Make bad arguments against fluoride in order to get people to support fluoride. It all makes sense now...

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

It’s obvious to me that there is no value in replying to Eyedunno with the thought that he (I presume Eyedunno is a male) has any desire to openly and honestly discuss fluoridation as it effects our rights, health and the environment.

So I will not do so for that reason.

However, there may be another benefit in doing so. There are those in our society who can be termed suppressive or anti-social personalities. They have certain traits that, once understood, can expose the way they work. It is extremely valuable to understand these traits because it is such people, perhaps just one percent of the population, that cause most of the problems in relationships and society.

In reading Eyedunno's statements, he reveals many traits of the suppressive person.

I’m happy to discuss this if readers find it interesting. If you’d like me to expand on something, just ask. I assure you that Eyedunno will give us much to discuss.

Suppressives get involved with a debate so as to sidetrack the issue from a sensible one where people are learning through good communication and goodwill, to one of name calling, ridicule and denigration. If you re-read these posts, you can contrast how the debate was going before Eyedunno got involved, to where he has tried to take it. This is what suppressives do. His form of attack achieves nothing, whereas genuine, good hearted debate moves mountains and can resolve our greatest challenges.

Nevertheless, though discussing suppression, I’ll continue to do my best to also relate some interesting insights into fluoridation, power and corruption from the viewpoint of an insider in government - and please understand that all members of parliament are part of government.

By the way, you will have been personally involved with suppressives at different times in your life, so, if you wish, you can use this information to review relationships (whether personal, business etc) or arguments you’ve had, or may be having. Just don’t be too hasty to label someone suppressive. There are also opposite qualities that one should look for to see if a person has them or not. Perhaps I could mention them at another time.

Under a thin guise of discussing a subject (not just fluoridation), suppressives attack the person. We see that Eyedunno is constant in his attempts at personal denigration. In just three short posts, he had already labelled me “disingenuous [insincere, morally fraudulent], contradictory, dishonest, spouting conspiracy nonsense”, and said that all but one of my dozens of points are “steeped in bullshit”. This includes 99% of the content of ‘12 Reasons to Reject Fluoridation.’ according to his generalised ridicule.

Perhaps the most predominant of his key attacks is to claim that nearly everything I say is, “... conspiracy nonsense.” This is standard fare for fluoridationists. They nearly all use it and repeatedly. Unfortunately, too many of us believe such unfounded allegations when they are levelled at many people in our society who work towards freedom. Have a look at ‘12 Reasons...’ again and see for yourself whether I use many specific details, common sense, evidence and direct readers to where they can get further information - including giving my own phone number and email address. In doing that you will see how the Eyedunno’s of our world seek to wreck things while most of us would build a worthwhile and free society.

Keep in mind that Eyedunno doesn’t attack me because of me, but because of you. It is you he wants to keep away from any genuine examination of fluoridation. This is how fluoridationists have worked for decades. I explained their methods in an earlier post.

Make no mistake, Eyedunno will continue in this vein. I have witnessed it many times. He has little choice. Once a person has been enmeshed in such a personality, they have little control over what they do - they become reactive. What they do is try to suppress, in a covert or hidden way, everyone around them. Usually, exposure is not a problem for them as very few people realise what they are doing. Perhaps I can make their actions and intentions easier to recognise.

In particular, suppressives ignore valid points you make. They just ignore them as though they never happened. Thus you can prove something they said is invalid or untrue and, a little later, the suppressive will make exactly the same claim, as though it still exists as a valid argument. This is why I rarely debate with dentists unless it’s a formal public debate where people can see when valid points are made - and I can highlight what they attempt to do with their denigration. I simply do not recall a single instance when the dentists, doctors or scientists I have publicly debated have ever acknowledged the truth of something I have presented, and here I am talking about specific and detailed scientific, medical and legal evidence. They simply refuse to do so no matter how obvious or proven something is.

This may seem remarkable (and is) but that’s the truth of it from my long term observation.

I have reached the conclusion that the only place you can get a fluoridationist to tell the truth is in court or a parliamentary hearing, provided you have the opportunity to continue to question them until they are forced to, by effective cross-examination - although this is difficult or impossible to do when the judge or committee chairman is corrupt.

I can present evidence on this, but perhaps at another time, lest this current post get any longer than it is.

Suppressives attempt to change the meaning of words. Eyedunno says, “you've equated mottling (discoloration) with tooth decay”. This is a cunning way to try to play down the cellular break-down and decay of bone in the body - its first visible sign being mottled teeth - by just pretending mottling (dental fluorosis) is only a ‘discoloration’.

Eyedunno well knows that I had quoted Dorlands Medical Dictionary as defining dental fluorosis as teeth which ‘later tend to become pitted’. We all know what a pit is, don’t we? This is one of many examples of Eyedunno refusing to acknowledge a truth. You can check this further if you wish by searching ‘fluorosis’ or ‘dental fluorosis’ on the internet.

Suppressives use ridicule and make snide remarks. In an earlier post I reported that the American Dental Association published a booklet instructing dentists how to handle opposition to fluoridation, not by scientific debate, but by denigrating opponents (as Eyedunno does).

Eyedunno then just takes part of what I said and writes, “Oh, those wacky dentists.” Now, this is another attempted put-down. I don’t believe that Eyedunno thinks dentists are wacky at all. Unless I miss my guess, he may well be a dentist or have one in the family who is helping his posts. He certainly doesn’t have the courage to reveal his real name, as I have. I have seen many letters by dentists who pretend to be other than they are.

Suppressives often speak in generalities. Apart from calling me nasty names, Eyedunno’s argument is based on what he says are, “Tests”, “compelling evidence” and “studies” etc.” Yet in no single case does he give details of any test, any study or give any evidence. He just makes claims.

When we understand that truth is the correct time, place, form and event, or if you like; Who did it, when they did it, where they did it, what they did, why they did it, who they did it to and what the evidence of all this is, Eyedunno comes up empty.

Suppressives create red herrings faster than you could pack them in a tin. Eyedunno posts (to me), “Nothing's preventing you from drinking distilled water.” Thus he pretends that this would solve the problem of fluoridation for those who don’t want to be drugged, yet, he knows full well that what he says isn’t true as I had already listed how fluoridation pollutes our entire food chain.

It is almost impossible to escape once it’s poured into our water supplies. I do. But I’m vegetarian, buy organic food, buy hardly any processed food - and certainly not from where it’s produced in areas that are fluoridated.

Suppressives support destructive actions. Fluoridation is one of the most destructive and suppressive actions that any government could assault a population with. If you are not sure of this, please read ‘12 Reasons to Reject Fluoridation’ at the beginning or at: http://www.kindredmedia.com.au/template_images/upload/12REASONS_UPDATED.pdf. From what he says, Eyedunno supports fluoridation wholeheartedly.

Let me make an important point here. Supporting fluoridation doesn’t make one a suppressive, although doing it knowing that it is harmful, causes a breakdown of teeth etc, is a fair indication of suppression. However, there are many characteristics that define an anti-social personality and a social personality. That is why I have listed many of the things that Eyedunno does that suppressives do.

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:47 am

Dennis you sound like a Scientologist.

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:16 am

This is great. Now I'm part of the conspiracy.

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 5:07 am

DennisStevenson wrote:

It’s obvious to me that there is no value in replying to Eyedunno with the thought that he (I presume Eyedunno is a male) has any desire to openly and honestly discuss fluoridation as it effects our rights, health and the environment.

So I will not do so for that reason.

However, there may be another benefit in doing so. There are those in our society who can be termed suppressive or anti-social personalities. They have certain traits that, once understood, can expose the way they work. It is extremely valuable to understand these traits because it is such people, perhaps just one percent of the population, that cause most of the problems in relationships and ... Blah Blah Blah

Complaining against Ad homs and dishing them out in the same post hurts your credibility. But seriously, 3 pages of reply... My eyes started bleeding by paragraph 3. You have got to be more concise if you want people to pay attention to you. But for you idea of conspiracy, I think your best bet for proof is going to be by following the money. Have the confectionery companies financially supported the fluoride industry? Find me some financial links and I'll start buying the conspiracy idea.

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

infidelguy wrote:

Dennis you sound like a Scientologist.

I'm not, but you are right, that's where the data on suppressives comes from. Brilliant stuff. I developed my own understanding of it. But I was happy to use the term 'suppressive' as it fits so well.

I had studied Scientology prior to 1982 but left when I didn't agree with how the organisation was being run.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore