EPT
U.S. soldiers being injected with WHAT? - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
| ||
|
Shivaz
Canada1783 Posts
Cause its right and people argueing against this don't want to address it. | ||
|
threepool
United States150 Posts
It turns out, just like Yurebis's fluoride-could-build-up-in-your-body claim, to be not only wrong but impossible for really basic reasons. Your body is constantly recycling water, therefore *any* water-soluble compound will be completely gone in a few days. You only need the most elementary facts to understand what's going on here: fluoride is an ion, i.e. a charged particle, which will remain in solution with water, because water is a polar substance. If it doesn't react with anything, it will get cleaned out naturally as you pee, and consume more water. If it *does* react with something, that will get rid of it even faster. Aside: While reading about possible precipitates of fluoride ion in the bloodstream, I came across the hilarious claim made my fluoride alarmists that fluoride causes osteoporosis. The way it's supposed to work is that fluoride precipitates calcium out of solution, preventing calcium in your bloodstream from ending up in your bones. Who can spot the flaw in this logic? ...SPOILER... The problem is that the RDA for calcium is 1000mg, calcium is 20/9 times as heavy as fluorine, calcium has a valence of +2, and fluorine has a valence of -1. That means that to eliminate this 1000mg of calcium from your bloodstream, you would need to consume 900mg of fluoride, many times a fatal dose. If the 1mg/L figure is right, you would need to consume 9 liters of water in a day to eliminate 1% of your calcium intake. It's beyond ridiculous. I bring this up to illustrate the basic problem with the anti-fluoride claims: they invariably lack any concept of logic whatsoever. They count on you to not look closely at the facts, while pretending that somehow dozens of Ph.Ds who have dedicated their lives to questions like these have somehow overlooked something so basic. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 12 2009 04:20 KlaCkoN wrote: Yurebris, have you any idea of how many things which are essential for your survival that will you in doses of 5 mg/kg? It's a horrible argument and no grounds for calling something a poison. Hell I have read studies in nature linking the slightly elevated manganese levels in the soil of Slovenia (I think it was) to the fact that CJD is slightly more common there. Everybody stop taking your vitamins!!! OMG!!!. (Poisoning due to excess vitamin intake is actually a fairly real problem though as opposed to flouride poisoning =p ) And seriously, if you drink 400 liters of water just like that you will have much, much larger problems than flouride poisoning on your hands. (Hint: you will be dead from water poisoning =p) Flouride doesn't "build up" in your body, and the people who recomended that it be administrated to the entire population knew this. The chemistry is pretty straight forward, flouride forms HF in your stomach and is then distributed throughout your blood system. At high doses it will dissolve you from the inside, at low doses it will simply insert flouride into the crystal lattice of your teeth/bones. (mostly teeth for whatever reason.) If you have read an article (published somewhere that matters) where it has been shown to do something else then feel free to link it, I would be interested. Why keep comparing fluoride with vitamins? You don't need fluoride to live at all, it's not required by any inner system in the body. Please stop making these comparisons. There's no relativist reasoning to why put this stuff in the water. "It's not as bad as" or "You haven't proved there's any consequences" are cop-outs. I don't have to prove there are consequences. The fluoride introducers have to prove it's safe. I don't have the answers, but neither do them. Yet they say they do. - Fluoride is useless for the body. Not used at all. Lethal at 5mg/kg. There are tons of half-assed studies but very few experiments saying it's good for your teeth. But putting in the water is the most stupid way to go about it. That way we just put the entire country's health at risk for something we have studied only the short-term side effects of. That makes sense. - Again, there are zero long term experiments looking for side effects. They only look for immediate side effects, and ignore fluoride buildup in the bones and elsewhere. Not all fluoride gets expelled. Some stay in. Or else it would be completely useless, even for your teeth. I'm not the one introducing a useless, artificial chemical, which is lethal at 5mg/kg, they are. They should assure it's safe. - But they have not. They put it in, lied that it's safe, and make mocking, non-random retrospective studies, AFTER it's in already, to convince us that it's safe. Rinse, repeat, all over the world. Just because you don't feel any effects or aren't dying of it, doesn't mean there are no consequences. We don't know, they don't know. They don't care. You don't care. You make it look like I'm against something that's naturally occurring, that we consume every day. We don't need fluoride. Fluoride is very low in naturally occurring levels, except in places where they get water from a fluoride rich artesian aquifer or something. Point is, it's useless, you don't need it, yet they put it everywhere. With taxpayer's money, saying it's for your own good. What the hell. How can you stand for something that is useless, may harm you in the long run, and you're paying for it? One of the consequences could be arthritis (21.6% in adults today) , could be IQ reduction (hurr), thyroid problems (7.35%), bone cancer, I don't know. No tests were done. No one cares. Let's just put random stuff in the water and say it's good for you. Yeah. Because you see, starting with fluoride, they can just make up a bunch of retrospective studies numbers, and add whatever the fuck they want to whatever they need. You won't complain, you won't doubt. They'll just say "It's good for your.. uh eyes!" and then add more shit. Some get to make more money, some get to be more sick. It's incremental so you won't even notice. It may be useless, but who cares, we're not dying. Let them add more stuff. I hate incrementalism, I hate moral relativism, and the saying that the "end justify the means". And that's exactly what this is. A swindle. I'm sorry I said I wouldn't post anymore. It's just that this pisses me off. | ||
KwarK
United States43750 Posts
On May 12 2009 06:01 Yurebis wrote: One of the consequences could be arthritis (21.6% in adults today) , could be IQ reduction (hurr), thyroid problems (7.35%), bone cancer, I don't know. No tests were done. One of the consequences could be penis enlargement. I don't know, no tests were done but it seems a fucking good reason to keep it in the water supply. | ||
|
Disintegrate
United States182 Posts
| ||
|
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 06:01 Yurebis wrote:- Fluoride is useless for the body. On May 12 2009 06:01 Yurebis wrote:There are tons of half-assed studies but very few experiments saying it's good for your teeth. Seriously, how can you be this dumb? | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
AKA what public policy taught you is wrong. just pointing out that you shouldn't be calling others stupid when your initial point is completely counter-productive. P.S: I didn't even read the rest of that big post after reading the first paragraph. For that reason. | ||
|
Clasic
Bosnia-Herzegovina1437 Posts
| ||
|
Wohmfg
United Kingdom1292 Posts
On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote: threepool, you call him dumb, then you compare our "conspiracy theorizing" to the teachings of dare. you say that what dare taught you was wrong. AKA what public policy taught you is wrong. just pointing out that you shouldn't be calling others stupid when your initial point is completely counter-productive. P.S: I didn't even read the rest of that big post after reading the first paragraph. For that reason. But it's by logic that he knows that what dare taught was wrong. And it's by logic that he knows that fluoride has benefits and probably doesn't do any long term damage. What's the problem? Are you saying that just because a government run program warning of possible dangers of drugs is spreading misinformation, then the government can't tell the truth about other things such as fluoride? edit: missed some words lawl | ||
|
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote: threepool, you call him dumb, then you compare our "conspiracy theorizing" to the teachings of dare. you say that what dare taught you was wrong. Actually, I did it in the reverse order. And my insult above had nothing to do with the dangers of fluoride, it has to do with the fact that Yurebis suddenly changed his tone to criticize the *effectiveness* of fluoride, which is a completely different point from the *safety* of fluoride. The fact that he can't tell the difference makes me think he's dumb, as well as referring to studies that he clearly hasn't even attempted to read as "half-assed". In other words, he's obviously just making shit up at this point. On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote:AKA what public policy taught you is wrong. That's a really silly generalization. Sometimes public policy is correct, other times it's as insane and paranoid as fluoride/vaccine alarmist conspiracy theory. The only way to tell the difference is critical thinking, blanket rules like "never trust authority" just make you look like you can't think for yourself. Put another way: there are idiots everywhere, in public policy as well as on message boards. The key is to identify the people who know what they're talking about (hint: they usually have Ph.Ds, or at the very least a basic grasp of science) and ignore the people who talk out of their ass. If you don't trust "policy", then maybe you should stop flossing and brushing your teeth--exactly the same people recommend those things as recommend fluoridation of the water supply. Exactly the same people. On May 12 2009 08:40 travis wrote:P.S: I didn't even read the rest of that big post after reading the first paragraph. For that reason. Don't brag about the desire to remain ignorant, but there's nothing in there you wouldn't get from a basic chemistry class at a decent university. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
Neo7
United States922 Posts
What irks me is the fact that they tried to cover up their "oops we fucked up better not tell our CoA." To me, if you're damaging someone from a beta vaccine, you better report it now so it doesn't happen again down the road. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
We don't know if it's safe because no experiments have had the focus of long-term side effects, ever. With inconclusive proof of safety, you'd expect people would refrain from defending this stupid practice, yet it has been pushed and applied everywhere. | ||
|
QuoC
United States724 Posts
| ||
|
Brett
Australia3822 Posts
On May 12 2009 09:29 Yurebis wrote: I've called the studies half-assed because every single one of them that I've seen are non-randomized retrospective studies. If it's not random, you can pick and choose the results easily. We don't know if it's safe because no experiments have had the focus of long-term side effects, ever. With inconclusive proof of safety, you'd expect people would refrain from defending this stupid practice, yet it has been pushed and applied everywhere. It is not useless. Stop cherry picking your arguments. It's basically common knowledge that it is the single most effective measure that a nation can take to reduce dental caries across the population. You've already been shown many sources stating as much. Is it necessary for life or function? No, of course it's not, and nobody here is arguing that it is. Stop bloody straw manning in every post  . Everyone knows that you can simply brush your teeth, floss etc and your oral health will generally be just fine. But the simple fact is that not everyone does this; they're either too poor, too stupid or too ignorant. The fact is that people like that are very likely to place a strain on the public health system and fluoridation helps alleviate this problem. You're right, there don't appear to be any long term studies conducted to test long term effects. But the process of fluoridation has been used for decades. Many generations have used it for many years and there is no correlation between the process and any health problems being suffered by people around the world. You're arguing that fluoridation is an experiment by multiple nation states, across multiple generations...That this massive secret has been kept from everyone and anyone... Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? The respective governments, as those responsible for fluoridation, make that decision based upon public health benefits. They do so in the knowledge that there are no observable downsides to doing so. We're talking since the fucking 1930's buddy.. You don't think they'd have noticed problems? If you don't think that reducing strain on the public health system is a good enough reason to infringe upon your liberty to choose not to intake fluoride, fine. That's an argument grounded in reality. Similarly, don't get vaccinated...But stop acting like you have something to hang your hat on when you exclaim that fluoridation is: a) poisonous b) a multinational, multi-generational experiment being kept secret for some ulterior purpose because you have no proof of either and sound completely off your tree. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
It's not secret. It's hidden in plain sight. Fluoride is poison and bad for you *BUT* it's good for your teeth, the children's teeth. That's it. I pay for a few garbage studies, and people themselves get the bandwagon moving. If the government cares so much for your health, and if this was indeed such a scientifically and health motivated move, why don't they listen to the anti-fluoride doctors and concerned people? Because they've made their minds, just like you did. They are certain that 1ppm isn't harmful, period. Because if it is harmful, in any way, at any rate or time frame, they'd be screwed. If they listen to the opposition, they'll have realized they lied to themselves, their clients, their children. So they're not going to admit anything. Even if they know it's not safe anymore. They'll never say there may be this or that risk. What's done is done, and they're not backing off. Neither is you. Fluoride in the water is useless. Toothpaste needs high concentrations of fluoride to be effective against cavities, yet the minuscules amounts of 1mg/Liter is supposed to help? I don't buy it. I don't give a fuck about how many papers you give me, I'm sorry. I could datamine just as many bullshit papers trying to prove my point, but I'm not going to. Retrospective studies don't prove jack. I want to see experiments, yet there are none. There's just as much junk from your side of the aisle as there is on mine. So I have to go back to the basic premises to argue my case. I hope you understand. -Ingested fluoride is useless in every shape or form inside your body. -Fluoride is "minimally" lethal at 5mg/kg of body mass -Only use is in topical form, when it touches the teeth. -Fluoridated water everywhere have always been at about 1ppm concentrations -Fluoride toothpaste varies from 400ppm~5000ppm -No experiments have ever been done on the long-term side effects of ingesting fluoridated water. Most studies focus on cavities/fluorosis. I have two major disagreements based on the above: Why should I believe the government and fluoride-selling companies when they say that the 1ppm fluoride in the tap water is going to help me anywhere NEAR as much as brushing my teeth with 1000x more concentrated fluoride toothpaste? I don't brush my teeth whilst I drink water. I don't think my teeth even have that much contact with the water when I drink it. Maybe the lower teeth, but that's it. Why should I believe the government cares about my health when they haven't even looked into the long-term health effects this substance could have on me, before introducing fluoride in the water supply? My belief to the above questions is that: No, it doesn't help even a hundredth percent, it's all hype, myth, just to sell us toxic waste in a forcible and massive way. I'm not sure, I have no evidence, or proof. I don't care. I believe I should not believe my government, and should doubt it in every way, at every step. And there's a lot of ground to doubt their intentions here. Unless you've invested yourself in their lies, which I never did. | ||
|
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 12 2009 13:40 Yurebis wrote:why don't they listen to the anti-fluoride doctors and concerned people? Because those doctors are in a fringe minority, and "concerned people" generally have no qualifications for informing such decisions. Have you ever done a single scientific study, or published a single paper? If not, please just stop trying to tell everybody that you know what's involved, what it takes, what the standards of rigor are, or anything at all for that matter--you're just making a fool of yourself. On May 12 2009 11:37 Brett wrote:But stop acting like you have something to hang your hat on when you exclaim that fluoridation is: a) poisonous b) a multinational, multi-generational experiment being kept secret for some ulterior purpose because you have no proof of either and sound completely off your tree. QFE | ||
|
food
United States1951 Posts
my dentist trying to poison me | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
You've got to be fucking kidding me. I hate the FDA and wikipedia but here goes a stupid quote: As of April 7th, 1997, the United States FDA (Food & Drug Administration) required that all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. carry the following poison warning: WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately. Potentially fatal dose = 5 mg of fluoride per kg of bodyweight. It doesn't fucking matter to you if the FDA labels it with a POISON WARNING? And I can't call it a POISON? You guys are out of your fucking minds. I'm not going to argue with you anymore. | ||
| ||
