12 Reasons To Reject Fluoridation!

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

JOBAfunky wrote:

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.

From an article published in, 'The Ecologist' Vol. 16, No. 6,1986
http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/Ecologist.html

"Who profits from Fluoridation? (sub heading)
One of the principal fluoridation-promoting bodies in Australia, the Dental Health Education and Research Foundation (DHERF), is associated with the University of Sydney. The 1979 Annual Report of the DHERF contained a list of financial donors, the "Honour role of contributors". These included the Coca Cola Export Corporation, the Wrigley Co., the Australian Council of Soft Drink Manufacturers, the Colonial Sugar Refining Co., Arnotts Biscuits, Cadbury Schweppes, Kelloggs and Scanlens Sweets.

From the DHERF's total expenditure of $199,000 (Australian dollars) in 1979, $43,000 was explicitly designated for "Fluoridation promotion". Out of $97,000 designated for "Research and educational programmes" and "Publications and films" a large part was also devoted to fluoridation. The promotion of good nutrition including the avoidance of sugary foods, appears to play a very minor role in DHERF's educational and research programmes. Yet it is just these foods, not a so-called "fluoride deficiency' ', which comprise the principal cause of tooth decay."

After the 'Honour Roll' was published by those who believe in freedom of choice in drug taking, DHERF stopped publishing their yearly report.

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:43 am

DennisStevenson wrote:

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....

em: Shakes head.

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

JOBAfunky wrote:

DennisStevenson wrote:

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....

em: Shakes head.

Hi

I'm not very good at working out cryptic crosswords and such. What is 'Shakes head' actually meant to communicate?

Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:33 pm

I've always wanted an "SP" T-shirt, myself. I thought of getting an old Smashing Pumpkins shirt with the heart design and wearing it to an Anon rally, but I have kids in the houses on both sides of me, and the last thing I want is flyers being distributed around the neighborhood declaring that I'm a vicious child-molester.

It would be pretty sweet to see flyers declaring me a pawn of the world dentistry cabal though. Fuck, I'd almost print those up myself.

JOBAfunky wrote:

Complaining against Ad homs and dishing them out in the same post hurts your credibility.

The irony is that I didn't use any ad hominems. The closest I came was in how I talked about his conspiratorial thinking. That of course doesn't address the arguments, but there is still a high burden of proof to be met for such claims, and I feel pretty safe mocking them.

Even in the insults department, he had to REALLY stretch things.

DennisStevenson wrote:

he had already labelled me... contradictory

This is where I "labelled him contradictory":

Quote:

The suggestions to the contrary... contradict basic chemistry.

I will address one item though, in case anybody didn't follow. Pitting of the teeth is a consequence of high levels of fluorides (compared to amounts found in fluoridated water), and nobody here is advocating that people consume large quantities of fluoride. There seems to be a reasonably large consensus that somewhere around 1PPM is optimal for drinking water. Maybe a little more or a little less is better, but you're certainly not going to get pitting of teeth from 1PPM, and besides, pitting of teeth, while certainly not a good thing, is not "decay".

Also, I'm a libertarian, and I'm not arguing for a second that fluorides should be put into drinking water. I AM arguing that fluorides protect teeth from decay though, whether children get them in water, in salt, in dietary supplements, or topically (in toothpaste, etc.). Smile

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

[quote="Eyedunno"]Even in the insults department, he had to REALLY stretch things.

DennisStevenson wrote:

he had already labelled me... contradictory

This is where I "labelled him contradictory":

Quote:

The suggestions to the contrary... contradict basic chemistry.

When you expose a suppressive, they lower their profile for a very short time and then return to try to re-establish control. I cover this in my book. They begin with an attempt at humour as though it was nothing really and, well, it was all just sort of a joke - they meant no harm.

Yet his continued defamation of me was and is a deliberate attempt to debase the evidence and logic I present on fluoridation.

I too was quite deliberate - but in explaning his actions. I wasn't joking. I never lightly label someone suppressive. I didn't in his case. That's why my post was longer. It needed to be.

Eyedunno did as I expected. He then tried to pretend that he didn't really say anything derogatory about me and that I had to, "REALLY stretch things" in saying he called me 'contradictory.'

This is deliberately false and misleading. The remarkable thing is that Eyedunno knows it is, but does it anyway. Most people would be too embarrassed, but he isn't. He simply leaves out that he called me, “disingenuous [insincere, morally fraudulent], dishonest, spouting conspiracy nonsense” and virtually the entire '12 Reasons...' article was “steeped in bullshit.”

Also notice that in his posts he still gives absolutely no evidence for anything he says. He just makes more claims.

He cannot, in a reasonable, logical, decent manner, debate the issue and present evidence for his claims. It's beyond him.

He's a classic.

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:50 am

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

Eyedunno wrote:

DennisStevenson wrote:

... 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..

Yet another false claim. Such unsubstantiated claims are easily made, and commonly so by fluoridationists, but often require detailed rebuttal to understand the truth.

Doctors John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk (B&Y), co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute, in 1976 presented one of the largest and most sophisticated epidemiological studies in modern science, covering the cancer-fluoridation experience, derived from official government statistics, of 18 million Americans over a 30 year duration.

The study revealed that fluoridation causes approximately 10,000 cancer deaths yearly in fluoridated as against non-fluoridated communities.

Fluoridationists thereupon claimed that B&Y had not made allowances for age, race and sex and therefore the study was invalid.

Their claim was false. B&Y used controls for known and unknown variables including geographic and environmental factors, double-blind design to avoid bias, an objective and manageable index (vis cancer deaths) for the time trend studies, together with adjustments for age, race and sex by direct and indirect methods.

Courts often determine controversial health issues. Advantages are evidentiary rules are followed, qualified witnesses are heard and cross-examined.

This occurred during a major, 5 month fluoridation trial in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1977 before Justice John Flaherty.

Professor Leo Kinlen, of the Royal College of Physicians and Regus Professor of Medicine, Oxford University, a senior pro-fluoridation witness, was cross examined by Attorney John Graham.

Kinlen was forced to admit (court transcript p35) that his own study of Birmingham, which he was using world wide to deny increased cancer deaths, showed a rate of cancer increase comparable to the Burk and Yiamiouyiannis study.

He also had to admit that B&Y had made allowances for age, race and sex in their study, but in his own study, he had not.

Drs Schneiderman and Taves, both major defence witnesses, conceded that the B&Y figures were correct.

In his 1978 Decree, Justice Flaherty stated, “The trial brought into my Court experts on the subject of fluoridation and I meticulously considered the objective evidence. In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary.”

Justice Flaherty, in the 27 Pittsburgh suburbs under question, ordered that fluoridation stop. This court finding has never been overturned or sucessfully challenged.

Dr Dean Burk, the Chief Chemist at the US National Cancer Institute for 35 years said “Fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.”

The Australian Medical Association (Media Release 26.6.79), and (in submissions to the 1979 Victorian Fluoridation Inquiry) the Australian Dental Association and the National Health and Medical Research Council, all made the same, proven false ‘age, race and sex’ claim.

Thus, compelling evidence that fluoridation - at the illogically stated “optimum level” (1ppm is a rate, not a dose) - causes thousands of cancer deaths (in the US, but logically, proportional in the few other countries subjected to compulsory fluoridation) every year was, and is, suppressed by the AMA, ADA and the NH&MRC. Is it surprising that some authorities and many people have been misled about fluoridation?

A detailed analysis of North American fluoridation litigation during the Twentieth Century is at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/landuse/vol142/Graham-final2.pdf

There are thousands of scientific and other papers, articles, studies, books, tapes and videos that reveal the A-Z of disease, deaths and environmental damage caused by fluoridation of water supplies. The internet is a good place to start if you would do a serious study. A three page summary of the brilliant book ‘The Ageing Factor’ by Doctor Yiamouyiannis, is at: http://helderwater.co.za/printerfriendly/fluoridation.pdf

However, one need only read '12 Reasons...' posted at the start of this Forum subject to reject fluoridation absolutely.

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:24 pm

OK, I've thoroughly read the discussion, and I am completely confused.

First of all, at no point did Eyedunno use any Ad Homs. He did make some critical statements of the arguments, which is very standard fare around here- we're all about arguing logically. If anything, Dennis has labeled Eyedunno not only a suppressive but a fluoridationalist. (You know, I couldn't figure out which to put first in that juxtaposition- I think that I got the order right).

Then Dennis makes it clear that he of course is right and that Eyedunno is acting in a predictable way based on the profile he assigned. The profile by the way is referred to as anti-social. I may not be able to carkalize the essay on suppressive-ness, but I can address labelling someone with a full-on disorder after reading two or three posts. The DSM has 7 (fairly stringent, I might add) criteria for diagnosing someone with ASPD, and only one of them is addressed by Dennis in his post. Deceitfulness- and that's open to interpretation (obviously, I didn't see any deceitfulness, and Dennis did). With all due respect Dennis, I think you labeled Eyedunno anti-social very lightly indeed.

Second, you're obviously new to these forums, and (no offense) you seem new to the internet in general. You'll notice that the vast majority of users have usernames vastly different from their real names, mine included. To imply that we are all cowards or deliberately deceptive because of this practice is not going to win you any friends. It's a social norm- careful, or you might end up more anti-social than Eyedunno.

So, after reading the article at law.fsu.edu, I found out that it wasn't a study after all, just a rehash of a study with some very unconvincing numbers indeed. So I did a search- plenty of controversy. But then there's controversy about evolution, vaccinations causing autism, and the earth being flat, so why should this be any different? Here's a REAL study. I'd appreciate the link to something contradictory. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
Following the money. To kill 10,000 people per year I would expect a lot more than 200,000 Aussie dollars. Come on. Cigarettes are a multi-billion dollar industry, and much better than fluoride at killing people. The main objection is providing fluoride to individuals is WAY more expensive than adding the appropriate amount to the water- by the way, it's a naturally occurring element, not a drug.

I'm trying hard not to make fun of you, Dennis. I really want to take you seriously. You write very well- but I haven't seen anything even remotely convincing. Especially after howler's like this one-

Quote:

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.

Way to miss the sarcasm.
If you want my respect, take Eyedunno's counter arguments, and explain why they are BS. I'll list some of my favorites.

Eyedunno wrote:

First off, "death and disease... caused by deliberate water fluoridation at 1ppm" isn't well supported."

Please give me the link to an actual study- the abstract.

Eyedunno wrote:

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).

You have been fairly loose with your definitions and have brought him up short for the same thing. To be completely clear-
Decay means "to undergo decomposition." To actively become less effective as teeth.
Discoloration is "To become altered or spoiled in color." To turn a color other than white, in this case.
Fluorosis (or fluoridosis) is "an abnormal condition (as mottled enamel of human teeth) caused by fluorine or its compounds." Basically the teeth become discolored or speckled. I don't see anything to suggest a decline in efficacy.

Dennis wrote:

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.

OK, this one went by completely. We know seatbelts are effective- but given the same standards, we can show little to no efficacy. So he's saying that your methodology is spotty (couldn't resist with all the mottling going around).

Quote:

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.

With decay as defined above, explain how decay=discoloration, or at least what you really meant. I took you as meaning that fluoridosis leads to tooth decay.

Anyway, I wait with bated breath.

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 2:27 pm

Quote:

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.

If you didn't read his three page response, you are missing out. It's central to his arguments.

em: Nods emphatically.

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 3:45 pm

DennisStevenson wrote:

Doctors John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burk (B&Y), co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute, in 1976 presented one of the largest and most sophisticated epidemiological studies in modern science, covering the cancer-fluoridation experience, derived from official government statistics, of 18 million Americans over a 30 year duration.

The study revealed that fluoridation causes approximately 10,000 cancer deaths yearly in fluoridated as against non-fluoridated communities.

Fluoridationists thereupon claimed that B&Y had not made allowances for age, race and sex and therefore the study was invalid.

True.

Quote:

Their claim was false. B&Y used controls for known and unknown variables including geographic and environmental factors, double-blind design to avoid bias, an objective and manageable index (vis cancer deaths) for the time trend studies, together with adjustments for age, race and sex by direct and indirect methods.

No, they didn't. I just read the study. Quote the study's adjustment for age, race, and gender, please.

And most of your "corrections" were non sequiturs, thus in addition displaying an ignorance on your part of how observational medical studies work.

Please explain to me how corrections can be made for "known and unknown variables". I'm curious as to your understanding of epidemiologic studies.

Not to mention that their study was one of the "most sophisticated" in your opinion, revealing obvious bias on your part. I noticed no specific innovation in the study at all.

Posted: Sat May 10, 2008 6:01 pm

Raligan wrote:

Dennis wrote:

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.

OK, this one went by completely. We know seatbelts are effective- but given the same standards, we can show little to no efficacy. So he's saying that your methodology is spotty (couldn't resist with all the mottling going around).

I think I could have come up with a far better analogous argument to point out the weakness of this thing (I was honestly floored by the lousy reasoning, and I basically giggled and shit out the first thing that came to mind), and since I'm pretty sure this was lost on Dennis, I'll just point it out directly.

Dennis has claimed that certain communities with no fluoridation in place have nonetheless experienced improvements in dental health, and I'm prepared to take him at his word on this one; it's not surprising at all. This does NOT, however, support the thesis that "[f]luoridation does not reduce decay"; it merely shows that fluoridation is not the only factor that influences tooth decay, which is something that should already be plainly obvious, since availability of dental care, diet, hygiene can also be shown to improve dental health in communities. So it's a rather blatant example of causal oversimplification.

There is something that does kind of resonate with me about the antifluoridation stuff, and since Dr. Nice showed up, I'd kind of like a little feedback on it. As far as I can tell, fluoride taken internally should do very little (aside from minimal topical effects, like a WEAK fluoride rinse) on everyone but young children whose permanent teeth haven't yet erupted (at least as far as strengthening of teeth is concerned). Am I right about this? If so, isn't fluoridation of public water a bit like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer?

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

To give me a logical flow to answer, I've changed the sequence of some of your comments. I don't believe this has altered your meaning.

Raligan wrote:

Dennis has labeled Eyedunno ... a suppressive. ... The profile by the way is referred to as anti-social.

Suppressive conveys more. Ron Hubbard (LRH) said, "we're calling it a suppresive because it's more explicit."

Raligan wrote:

... With all due respect Dennis, I think you labeled Eyedunno anti-social very lightly indeed.

I understand, and wouldn't recommend it to most people on that level of evidence. However, I've had detailed experience with suppressives and have a different level of understanding. For example, in my book on health I give details of two people I pulled out of hospital (different states and months) the night before they were due to have gall bladder removal operations.

LRH talks of "all sick persons" (and earlier) "are connected to a suppressive person." Basically he's talking of chronic [longer-term] sickness.

Both patients fully recovered after I helped them understand and recognize who the suppressive was (only one in each case) they were connected to who was trigerring their sickness. They got well immediately they cognited that the person (the opposite neighbour in one case and a business partner in the other) was suppressive. It took two days with one and three weeks with the other. That was many years ago. Neither ever had the operation.

Raligan wrote:

OK, I've thoroughly read the discussion, and I am completely confused.

That's exactly what happens when one is involved with a suppressive:-) I know you began your post with this but it fits well here. I'm not saying that's the reason you're confused, but that is what happens. Certainly Eyedunno does make many confusing statements, some of which you point out.

Raligan wrote:

The DSM has 7 (fairly stringent, I might add) criteria for diagnosing someone with ASPD, and only one of them is addressed by Dennis in his post. Deceitfulness- and that's open to interpretation (obviously, I didn't see any deceitfulness, and Dennis did).

Why not define your terms for readers? For instance, what does DSM mean? As for suppressive traits, I certainly gave more than one (although I didn't mention 'deceitfulness' as such, and we just got another one - people are confused around them. One reason is they talk in generalities. Lots of unsubstantiated claims - no evidence.

Raligan wrote:

Second, you're obviously new to these forums,

Yes.

Raligan wrote:

and (no offense) you seem new to the internet in general.

No.

Raligan wrote:

... the vast majority of users have usernames vastly different from their real names, mine included. To imply that we are all cowards or deliberately deceptive because of this practice is not going to win you any friends.

Apart from the fact that what others think of me is none of my business (true of all of us), I make an exception when someone tries to defame and denigrate me while anonymous.

Raligan wrote:

So, after reading the article at law.fsu.edu, I found out that it wasn't a study...

I said it was "A detailed analysis [not study] of North American fluoridation litigation during the Twentieth Century."

Raligan wrote:

...providing fluoride to individuals is WAY more expensive than adding the appropriate amount to the water

Raligan, you didn't see that in any valid study. It's actually the reverse of what you said. "The cost of fluoridating the ACT [Australian Capital Territory] water supply is at present (1990) $150,000 per year (...includes chemicals, labour and power) ... monitoring fluoride levels is an additional $10,000 per year." (p 66 ACT Fluoridation Inquiry Report 1991).

Yet this excludes the major cost, which can be quite expensive, of plant and equipment, not to mention the row boat they use to tow bags of fluoride around the water reservoir.

They don't really, at least not in the ACT, that was another fluoridation system where they used a row boat with bags of fluoride tied to the back.

The Queensland Gold Coast Council, for many years, made small bottles of fluoride tablets freely available for residents. The cost of supplying every ACT child during the relevent growth period of their teeth with fluoride is insignificent in comparison to the costs of fluoridating the entire water supply, less than 1% of which is drunk by children in the target age and all of which mostly poisons, to varying degrees, every man, women, child, animal and plant that it contaminates. However, why would you give your kids rat poison and, sensibly, hardly any residents ever did. It was recently stopped.

Raligan wrote:

- by the way, it's a naturally occurring element, not a drug.

No it isn't. That was already covered under '12 Reasons to Reject Fluoridation' "2. Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth’s crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons. The chemical used to fluoridate Australians (85% fluoridated) is untreated toxic waste from inside fertiliser factory smokestacks."

Nowhere in the world does this toxic waste occur 'naturally'. (Let's not debate that it's 'natural' due to its chemical constituents, even though it's a poisonous industrial waste). It's a crude grade waste, which also contains small amounts of cadmium, radium, arsenic, etc.

"The analysis below comes from North East Water (the water authority adding it to the drinking water) via the Australian Fluoridation Information Network (AFIN)

Herewith attached is the "Raw content analysis" for the fluorosilicic acid (FSA) that - as at October 2007 - is being added to Wangaratta's (Victoria, Australia) public water supply...

This FSA (fluoridating agent) is a Schedule 7 poison and has been categorised as "Corrosive 8". According to a pharmaceutical chemist, an S7 poison is a "dangerous" poison.

Analysis reveals this fluoridating agent contains: Free HF acid 0.31%; Phosphorus 0.04%; Cadmium 0.13 parts per million (ppm); Lead 0.27 pm; Mercury 4.6 ppm; Arsenic 1.18 ppm; Chromium 1.27 ppm."

Raligan wrote:

I haven't seen anything even remotely convincing.

.

I thought we were having a reasonable discussion up to that comment. Are you actually suggesting that you read '12 Reasons...' and still make such a claim?

Raligan wrote:

Anyway, I wait with bated breath.

There is much more I could cover in your posts but I have projects I am working on and will soon make a major home move. So, as much as I enjoy debating (provided it doesn't get unreal like your above comment) I cannot spend the time I would like to.

'12 Reasons...' covers the issue (that's where most of what is being asked under this subject is already covered - a bit too much rehashing). Point 1 alone should end any push for compulsory artificial fluoridation - even without recourse to other compelling points like "4. Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. A patient’s medical history, age, weight, sex, allergic reactions, other drugs taken and illnesses must be determined. After an adequate medical exam, scripts must be in writing, for a specific person, drug, duration and dose - never ‘take some when you’re thirsty’. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You can refuse! These 15 safety requirements are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation."

Posted: Mon May 12, 2008 9:47 am

DennisStevenson wrote:

Both patients fully recovered after I helped them understand and recognize who the suppressive was (only one in each case) they were connected to who was trigerring their sickness. They got well immediately they cognited that the person (the opposite neighbour in one case and a business partner in the other) was suppressive. It took two days with one and three weeks with the other. That was many years ago. Neither ever had the operation.

DennisStevenson wrote:

Certainly Eyedunno does make many confusing statements, some of which you point out.

DennisStevenson wrote:

Apart from the fact that what others think of me is none of my business (true of all of us), I make an exception when someone tries to defame and denigrate me while anonymous.

And if someone tries to "defame and denigrate" you otherwise, it's just fine?

What to you is "defamation and denigration" is to me at no point any worse than "flaming on the Internet". Cry me a river.

DennisStevenson wrote:

Raligan wrote:

- by the way, it's a naturally occurring element, not a drug.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.

DennisStevenson wrote:

That was already covered under '12 Reasons to Reject Fluoridation' "2. Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth’s crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons.

Red herring. Poison or not, arsenic and mercury are both naturally-occurring elements and not drugs. And I could just as easily (and just as irrelevantly) point out calcium, iron, and potassium.

DennisStevenson wrote:

The chemical used to fluoridate Australians (85% fluoridated) is untreated toxic waste from inside fertiliser factory smokestacks."

Nowhere in the world does this toxic waste occur 'naturally'. (Let's not debate that it's 'natural' due to its chemical constituents, even though it's a poisonous industrial waste). It's a crude grade waste, which also contains small amounts of cadmium, radium, arsenic, etc.

"The analysis below comes from North East Water (the water authority adding it to the drinking water) via the Australian Fluoridation Information Network (AFIN)

Herewith attached is the "Raw content analysis" for the fluorosilicic acid (FSA) that - as at October 2007 - is being added to Wangaratta's (Victoria, Australia) public water supply...

This FSA (fluoridating agent) is a Schedule 7 poison and has been categorised as "Corrosive 8". According to a pharmaceutical chemist, an S7 poison is a "dangerous" poison.

Analysis reveals this fluoridating agent contains: Free HF acid 0.31%; Phosphorus 0.04%; Cadmium 0.13 parts per million (ppm); Lead 0.27 pm; Mercury 4.6 ppm; Arsenic 1.18 ppm; Chromium 1.27 ppm."

Sounds to me like you're no longer arguing against fluoride, and you're now arguing against lead, mercury, arsenic, etc. That would be another red herring.

But maybe the only point you want to make at this juncture is that Australian fluoridation methods are particularly bad and dangerous. So I'll play. First we have to throw out your loaded language ("untreated toxic waste zomg!"). Then let's just take your mercury figure here (chosen simply because it seems to have the highest concentration of the heavy metals mentioned). We need to make it clear that this is the amount of mercury in the fluoridating agent. Assuming 1ppm of fluoridating agent used, that's 0.0000046 ppm, or 0.0046 ppb of mercury in the water by my math. The EPA in the USA has a limit of 2 parts per billion on mercury in drinking water. So if we assume totally pure water beforehand, this fluoridating agent has to be tossed in at over 400 ppm in order for the mercury to be a problem according to the EPA, and naturally by that point, the fluoride is already a BIG problem, at over 100 times the EPA limit of 4ppm.

So you've basically gone from yelling that the sky is falling over minuscule amounts of fluorides to yelling twice as loudly over positively negligible amounts of heavy metals and other nasty stuff.

DennisStevenson wrote:

Raligan wrote:

I haven't seen anything even remotely convincing.

.

I thought we were having a reasonable discussion up to that comment. Are you actually suggesting that you read '12 Reasons...' and still make such a claim?

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

We’re fortunate to be able to learn about suppression by reviewing Eyedunno's posts. As I mentioned days ago, he’ll give us ample opportunity. He demonstrates key suppressive characteristics, which I’ll continue to highlight.

If it isn’t immediately apparent to you, that’s OK. The free book at the end will clear many things up. It took me some time to understand what they do and how to recognise them. Their methods can make them hard to spot because of the generalities they commonly use when communicating and their obtuse arguments. Often we’re too willing to make excuses for them. So, just really observe what he does and how he does it. Take time to re-read his comments. Are they uplifting, ever, or just a stream of put-downs, often covert?

Why not look at your own life and relationships to locate someone who communicates as Eyedunno does: using invalidation, innuendo, criticism, ridicule and distortion?

Examine how you feel physically and emotionally when you communicate with them. This is one of the most effective ways to spot suppressives. I don’t mean you might feel bad just once, but virtually every time you communicate with them. This is why their family and immediate associates are often cowed and physically sick people.

A social personality will try to communicate in an honest and open way to exchange ideas, but you’ll see that in communicating with an anti-social personality/suppressive, no matter how good a communicator you are, you’ll usually be left with a feeling that YOU didn’t communicate well. You may feel drained, sort of squashed and may well have a headache or stomach ache. I’ve seen that wherever you find chronic illness, you find the ill person is connected to a suppressive.

I reported that my knowledge of suppressives allowed me to help two people to get better without operations. A Social Personality might say, “That’s interesting” or even, “That’s amazing” and ask questions or for references to learn more. Eyedunno just ‘pulls a face’ (uses an Emoticons face with with big eyes Shocked

) as though the whole thing is incredulous.

When I restate the point (not to Eyedunno but another poster - it's common in the outside world that suppressives jump into other people's communications) that it’s MISLEADING to suggest that the fluoride used for fluoridation is natural, when it’s industrial toxic waste, Eyedunno reiterates that it’s a natural element and not a drug.

Eyedunno wrote:

Yes it is.

If you believe you’ll ever change a suppressives mind about anything, you’re in for a bumpy ride with only one destination - you’ll end up feeling bad.

Eyedunno wrote:

Cry me a river.

Eyedunno’s communication is full of sarcasm.

Eyedunno wrote:

So you've basically gone from yelling that the sky is falling over minuscule amounts of fluorides to yelling twice as loudly over positively negligible amounts of heavy metals and other nasty stuff.

Eyedunno wrote:

Sounds to me like you're no longer arguing against fluoride, and you're now arguing against lead, mercury, arsenic, etc. That would be another red herring.

In the above two statements, Eyedunno deliberately distorts what I said and, having painted a false and confusing picture, then suggests (in the second) that I’m responsible for “another” red herring.

His statements often have nothing to do with the truth of what was said. Rather, he distorts communications so he can invalidate people based on his distortions. And again below.

Eyedunno wrote:

But maybe the only point you want to make at this juncture is that Australian fluoridation methods are particularly bad and dangerous.

Eyedunno wrote:

So I'll play.

An interesting use of words considering that fluoridation kills people and makes thousands more sick and diseased. If you wonder whether fluoridation should exist, you need go no further than reading '12 Reasons..." at http://www.kindredmedia.com.au/template_images/upload/12REASONS_UPDATED.pdf If you would do more fluoridation research, there is no better book than 'The Aging Factor' by Dr John Yiamouyiannis. This is more than a book on various aspects of fluoridation, it is a superb explanation of just how toxins effect our bodies.

Eyedunno wrote:

First we have to throw out your loaded language ("untreated toxic waste zomg!").

Again he tries to misrepresent the truth of the fluorides used for fluoridation and uses another of his cryptic points ‘zomg!.’ as though it must be really bad - or whatever ‘zomg!’ might mean to the reader.

‘Ups and Downs’ is a brilliant book written by Ruth Minshull. It presents practical, easy to understand, and detailed information on suppressives. It’s available as a free pdf download at: http://www.goldcenturypress.com/ups_and_downs.pdf

You can use Eyedunno’s posts as examples as you read.

Posted: Tue May 13, 2008 8:34 am

DennisStevenson wrote:

In the above two statements, Eyedunno deliberately distorts what I said and, having painted a false and confusing picture, then suggests (in the second) that I’m responsible for “another” red herring.

Oh? So is the previously-detailed presence of mercury, lead, cadmium, and so on in the fluoridation agent relevant to the toxicity of fluorides in ~1ppm concentrations? If so, how so, and also how have I distorted your claims? If not, then how is your lengthy breakdown of all the nasties in the fluoridation agent anything other than a red herring? I anxiously await your next stream of ad homs.

DennisStevenson wrote:

Eyedunno’s communication is full of sarcasm.


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