12 Reasons To Reject Fluoridation!

Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 1:05 am

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2006/04/03/12_reasons_to_reject_fluoridation.htm

12 Reasons To Reject Fluoridation!
Categories
Environmental poisoning
Health through Nutrition
Practical Health
Take Action
The Nature of Government
The dangers of mainstream edicts is that they are highly ingrained in the population at large. Trying to create awareness on the dangers and the absurdity of some these practices is very difficult.

Dennis Stevenson has put together a single page which can be downloaded here. This sheet can be handed out at rallies, conferences and other events, at and around shopping centers, or to friends, acquaintances or strangers or as a news release. It can be posted up on community notice boards, shops, offices or at work etc. It can be letter boxed (3 sections with 2 folds). It can be reprinted in newspapers, newsletters, magazines and books. It can be read in Parliament.

It can be distributed to all people within a particular field, eg. Members of Parliament or local government, radio, television and the print media, law enforcement officers, lawyers and court officials, armed forces, scientists, universities, schools, colleges, libraries, at conventions, election rallies, to celebrities, authors, health campaigners, etc etc.

Please print and distribute far and wide as possible

Thanks,

Chris Gupta
-----------------

> 12 Reasons to reject fluoridation!
>
> For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930's and 40's, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste escaping from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA's owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn't poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant 'father of propaganda' Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that promoted fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation (DHERF) was founded in Australia in 1962. Its Governors, Members and donors comprised key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc.
>
> The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense.
>
> 1. Only parents or individuals have the right to decide if they or their children take drugs. This point should end the debate on compulsory fluoridation. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration show fluoride isn't a food, nutrient or dietary supplement: "Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect *[e.g. water fluoridation] would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient." F.D.A. 1963).
> 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 fluoride chemical used for fluoridation in Australia is untreated toxic waste captured inside fertiliser factory smokestacks.
> 3. 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 examination, scripts must be for a specific person, drug, duration and dose - never 'take some whenever you're thirsty'. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You have the right to refuse! These 14 safety requirements are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation.
> 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.
> 6. Fluoridation is undemocratic. We've rejected fluoridation in over 90% of referendums with votes as high as 98% against. Now, referendums are denied us.
> 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.
> 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.
> 9. Fluoridation aside, most other decay is due to a poor diet of lots of processed carbohydrates, e.g. we average 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. The only reason teeth get badly decayed is they weren't filled early enough as parents often can't pay the high costs charged by dentists (earning up to $500,000 a year).
> 10. Australian authorities often make mistakes. Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently, Vioxx, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren't compulsory. Fluoridation is!
> 11. If someone tried to force us to take a pill every time we drank a glass of water, we'd suggest they go where it's eternally hot. The only real difference with fluoridation is that the pill is dissolved in the water before they make us take it.
> 12. Among experts, the controversy rages over fluoridation. Regardless of who's right, if the safety of any drug is so hugely controversial, doesn't common sense demand it not be used at all? Certainly not forced on millions of people for their whole life!
>
> If fluoridation is forced onto any State, deaths and tooth decay will increase (search 'fluoride deaths', 'dental fluorosis' on the internet) and the ecosystem, other life forms and our rights will suffer.
> ACTION: 1. Copy this page - as is. 2. Form a team. 3. Letterbox your electorate. 4. Display on notice boards/shops. 5. Tell representatives of your will. For a digital copy, email nofluoridation@aanet.com.au © 2006 Dennis Stevenson (07) 5594 2023 can help with fluoridation interviews, debates, talks, humour, workshops and campaign plans.
> Dennis is a former Parliamentarian and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly 'Fluoridation Inquiry' (1989-91). The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. Dennis put this evidence in a 177 page Dissenting Report, part of this major government report, but longer than the 131 page section which attempted to suppress the evidence.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 18, 2006 Posts: 67

Well it says right in the article that the author's rejection of fluoride isn't based on any scientific reasoning, just "common sense," which a lot of christians claim to have too.

I want to see more evidence than just one article rejecting fluoride.

Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:26 am

AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT J. CARTON, Ph.D.
IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000247.htm

Water Fluoridation
http://www.doctoryourself.com/fluoridation.html

Fluoride Accumulates in Pineal Gland
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/12/30/fluoride_accumulates_in_pineal_gland.htm

Excerpts from NRC Report (on fluoridation)
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/epa/nrc/excerpts.html

Fluoridated Water Kills Horses, Dogs
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/07/15/fluoridated_water_kills_horses_dogs.htm

I'll post more later. All the best to all.

Confident Learner Joined: Nov 18, 2006 Posts: 67

any websites that weren't made in a website wizard type program?

Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 10:23 pm

Why aren't you dead?

Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 3:08 am

more on why flouride is so very bad for you

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/

Confident Learner Joined: Jan 29, 2006 Posts: 90

Tormentor wrote:

any websites that weren't made in a website wizard type program?

How about this one?

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

And thats why I have a 4 stage filter system and you can not only taste the differance but you can feel it, in less then a week I was generaly feeling better! fith stage will be a revers osmosis cell

Just Arrived Joined: Oct 01, 2006 Posts: 3

Ah, the international communist conspiracy impurifying our precious bodily fluids.

This article may help:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34920.html

Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:33 am

I thought of the same thing.
Here where I live (Salt Lake) there was a large discussion in the northern part of the state regarding fluoridation of drinking water in a northern area of the state (Davis County). All of the opponents really did remind me of General Ripper.

Graduate Thinker Joined: May 18, 2006 Posts: 777

well for my self I got the filter system due to the chlorin amongst other crap in our water. Has nothing to do with perinoia about flourine *Blinks*

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

Tormentor wrote:

Well it says right in the article that the author's rejection of fluoride isn't based on any scientific reasoning, just "common sense," which a lot of christians claim to have too.

I want to see more evidence than just one article rejecting fluoride.

I authored '12 Reasons to Reject Fluoridation'. From your comments above, it seems you haven't read it. Why not take the opportunity to do so. However, let me address what you say.

It is misleading to claim that I said the article wasn't based on any scientific reasoning. That is the basis of the article and its 12 points. What I did say is, "The simple proofs below require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense." Keep in mind that the foremost definition of the word 'science' is from Latin 'scientia' meaning knowledge.

Saying "just common sense" is not a reasoned comment. As an example, one could study many scientific papers on, 'Can gravity harm people?' but may get a more practical understanding by holding a brick and letting it fall. Common sense would then reveal that if you had your foot under the brick, you could be harmed.

Also illogical is referring to '12 Reasons...' as 'just one article'. Reason tells us that it is not the number of articles that is of value, whether one or one thousand, but rather what is contained or proven in an article.

Surely you are aware that what often passes for science - though in fact is propaganda - is usually voluminous. As an example, fluoridationists commonly claim that 'all the studies show that fluoride is effective'. However, all such 'studies' are entirely worthless as NOT ONE OF THEM uses correct scientific metholdology, eg. NONE were double blind studies.

If you want a classic example, the NZ Hastings study, used worldwide for many years to 'prove' fluoridation is effective, would suffice. "The school dentists in the area of the experiment were instructed to change their method of diagnosing tooth decay, so that they recorded much less decay after fluoridation began." (Early Flawed Studies at http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm)

I spent hundreds of hours creating '12 Reasons...' as a summary of fluoridation so readers would not need to research the subject further (and certainly not for 30 years as I had done) to understand the issue.

I wrote the article so that readers, though having no scientific training, could, with certainty, know that fluoridation should be rejected. This is why seven of the 12 points prove the case through common sense. The first point, relating to Natural Law, 'Only parents or individuals have a right to decide what drugs they or their children should take' should logically end the controversy without further discussion.

I could continue though pehaps it is best if you read the article itself to make a decision. I would humbly suggest that if you are not then convinced that compulsory artificial fluoridation of community water supplies should be soundly rejected, then no amount of further research is likely to make a difference.

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 6:14 am

Heh... I don't like breathing the nasty shit that comes out of a cars tailpipe, but I have little choice there either. I'd rather venture to say that breathing those carcinogenic compounds is far worse for the human organism then the trace amounts of fluoride were forcibly being exposed too… and there’s always bottled water.

Quote:

I spent hundreds of hours creating '12 Reasons...' as a summary of fluoridation so readers would not need to research the subject further (and certainly not for 30 years as I had done) to understand the issue.

Having spent so much time examining the issue, what do you believe is the real reason (not the stated public health reason) it's being added to the water?

Newbie Joined: May 05, 2008 Posts: 15

MockingGods wrote:

Heh... I don't like breathing the nasty shit that comes out of a cars tailpipe, but I have little choice there either. I'd rather venture to say that breathing those carcinogenic compounds is far worse for the human organism then the trace amounts of fluoride were forcibly being exposed too… and there’s always bottled water.

Quote:

I spent hundreds of hours creating '12 Reasons...' as a summary of fluoridation so readers would not need to research the subject further (and certainly not for 30 years as I had done) to understand the issue.

Having spent so much time examining the issue, what do you believe is the real reason (not the stated public health reason) it's being added to the water?

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.

Your suggestion that we cannot do anything about fluoridation was covered in my article: what to do.

There is more than one reason that fluoridation is pushed - I explain four of them in '12 reasons ...'. Those who benefit include many dentists, fluoride polluters, confectionary companies, manufacturers of toothpaste and other dental products. Even politicians can be rewarded by voting fluoridation in. In Canberra in 1989 when we voted fluoridation out of the water (after 25 years of Canberrans never having had a say in the matter), there was great pressure put on politicians to reverse their vote.

One, Robyn Nolan, told me she was threatened that if she didn't change, and vote for fluoridation, she would not be pre-selected by the Liberal Party for the next election. Robyn didn't bow to this threat (which is in fact a crime under the Crimes Act - a lot worse than attempting to bribe a police officer) and she was not pre-selected.

As far as who benefits from fluoridation, weren't my explanations enough for you? What were you trying to get me to say: that up to 50% of major tranquillisers used for psychiatric patients are fluoride compounds? While that has been explained to me a number of times by people working in that field, I have not researched the matter.

I just know we have the right to refuse to take drugs.

By the way, bottled water - which is usually more expensive than petrol - certainly won't eliminate fluoride from your diet. Once fluoride poison is poured into the water supply, it pollutes the entire food chain, from watering, cooking, preparing food, the animals that drink it (that we then eat or drink the products of) and so on. This includes the hundreds of drinks or fruit juices that are made from or are reconstituted with the chemical cocktail that manufacturers get from the tap.

In addition, evidence shows that there are thousands of people who are very suceptible to fluoride poisoning who are effected (skin uruptions, etc)when bathing, showering or even having a cup of tea or coffee at a friend's place.

Always remember that the fluoride compounds used in fluoridation are some of the most poisonous chemicals on Earth. They can kill any living organism, from the smallest to the largest.

Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:57 am

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 then 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. As of now, our society is built around carbon based fuels, and thus no one dares expose its obvious deleterious affects. Only once we're well beyond the use of carbon fuels, will its real affects become widely known.

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?


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