EPTOn May 12 2009 14:15 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
I'm not going to argue with you anymore.
Okay I'm going to hold you to that.
U.S. soldiers being injected with WHAT? - Page 20
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
Okay I'm going to hold you to that. | ||
|
SwedishHero
Sweden869 Posts
On May 12 2009 17:19 threepool wrote: The problem isn't with us, the problem is mostly with poor people. Tooth decay can be devastating when someone can't afford treatment--imagine you're already having trouble getting a job, then suddenly you're missing a couple of teeth and have revolting bad breath. In addition, oral infections can easily spread, causing a lot of other health problems including heart disease. It's really a huge problem that can be an economic drain on society, and nobody has come up with a better treatment for the problem than fluoridation, not that I've seen anyway. I don't want to find myself rabidly defending fluoride at all costs here, but I did want to respond to your point, and say that it's not quite as simple as buying mouthwash for everyone on the planet. Good point, I actually agree. I wonder though if people cant afford something like mouthwash, what to they eat that makes their teeth suck, a whole lot of sugar i suppose ), and if they are so poor can they even afford having to pay for water bills hehe. And how would the water taste | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
The government doesn't care about you, lol. It only cares about its public image and electability. Being a Patriot means questioning your government, not trusting it blindly. Many, many times before in history have state governments been wrong, poisoned millions, killed millions, while affirming self righteousness. The Nazi had their own scientists proclaiming their race was indeed superior to all, and therefore they had a right to do what they did. Look up Democide (it's a term, not a movie or anything..) for other historical examples. Think about lead, think about tobacco... man, it's not that hard. Point is, don't trust government. What they teach in school is that you should obey authority and not question them, but they're wrong. You should. Or else things like those happen. I'm gonna reiterate my instance on fluoride now just because. Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because: -Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth -Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard -yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it. Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. I don't have to do a God damned retrospective study with 341421 confounding variables, or even ask a bunch of PhDs to figure that one out, thanks. Fluoridated water still bears unknown long term risks to which government has purposely ignored for decades. -They have made no experiments on the subject (long term effects). None now, then, ever. That alone says a lot. -Still don't know the dangers of fluoride buildup in the bones and perhaps elsewhere (no tests on that either, let's just assume you pee it all.) -No word that it's harmful for babies until 1994. Very concerned, yes yes.. -They've made all those stupid retrospective studies looking out for fluorosis cases AFTER they've put it in. Yeah they really care about you. Not like they're using whole regions as guinea pigs or anything. Nuh-uh. They poison you because they love you <3 -They say 1ppm is good but 4ppm is dangerous (EPA). Such a short range is unknown of in other common toxic substances which are usually hundreds of times apart between safe and unsafe doses. Also consider this, you don't get fluoride only from the water. Food processing companies use tap water, and you inevitably swallow some from your toothpaste too. It can easily buildup to that in the end of the day. Four times is nothing. -They said at the beginning of this madness that it would halve the cavities in children. Now it's <20% less cavities. <10% for adults. Research it rite be4 poizoning us, pls. Therefore, the government doesn't care about your health and has other agendas instead. The above conclusions are enough for me. however, it's not for people who insist that 1ppm is safe. They need evidence to the contrary. No you don't. You're just stubborn. You can't admit you've been fooled. The government and fluoride pushers are supposed to access the risk. It's a completely useless substance outside of combating cavities so don't go comparing it with vitamins. And now even it's main function is outdated, and being officially declared inefficient. Their intentions are fake, the stated efficiency is wrong. Why do you insist on trusting a liar when he's lied this much is beyond my dumbed down intelligence to investigate. Some risks of fluoride that may exist but need more research: -Effects on the thyroid gland -Effects on the pineal gland (really needs more research, there's only this chick scientist on it) -Neurotoxin potential (IQ reduction yadda yadda) -Brittle bones, bone diseases in general (cancer zomg) -Fluorosis, but that has been documented at least | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote: *massive argument post* On May 12 2009 14:15 Yurebis wrote: I'm not going to argue with you anymore. Now now. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote: Some risks of fluoride that may exist but need more research: -Effects on the thyroid gland -Effects on the pineal gland (really needs more research, there's only this chick scientist on it) -Neurotoxin potential (IQ reduction yadda yadda) -Brittle bones, bone diseases in general (cancer zomg) -Fluorosis, but that has been documented at least Some other risks of fluoride that may exist but need more research: -Increased sexual pleasure -Increased general intelligence -Increased physical stamina and strength -Increased flexibility and elderly mobility -Increased hand-eye coordination -Increased general driving ability -Reduced susceptibility to cancer, diabetes, heart disease, flu, HIV, HPV, scoliosis, black plague, mad cow disease, leprocy, heterosexuality, sexuality, asexuality, homosexuality, lockjaw, cauliflower ear, rabies, dementia. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On May 12 2009 14:56 Yurebis wrote: It's the same compound. Sodium fluoride. That's why it's relevant. We're choosing to put it in the water for the most inefficient of reasons: to protect your teeth from cavities. It is a stupid reason, it is a compound which can buildup in the brain and bones (EVIDENCE IN THE STUPID STUDIES IN THE STUPID COOK WEBSITE ABOVE). It's poison. I call it poison. You call it whatever you like I don't care. It is dangerous because it can build up. The danger was unforeseen in the past, but they put it anyway. Without sufficient research, without giving a damn, like you. You don't give a damn and you just accept the saying that it's a safe dosage, and won't consider it can build up. Alright I'm not going to repeat myself. Go take a look at the brain stuff and see if you fancy something. If not, whatever. i can't make you doubt authority, you got to do it yourself. Are you really saying that Sodium fluoride and Sulfuryl fluoride are the same? | ||
|
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote:Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because: -Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth -Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard -yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it. Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. I don't have to do a God damned retrospective study with 341421 confounding variables, or even ask a bunch of PhDs to figure that one out, thanks. You have a very strange style of argumentation. I feel like you try to make seven or so points at a time, all completely different, in the vain hope that one of them will turn out to be correct and you can feel smug. Like your list of bogus articles, you are attempting to use volume to hide lack of substance. Unfortunately, your capacity for logical reasoning is so flawed that you would be very lucky to say seven things and have even one of them make any sense at all. (you don't think the government cares about the GDP--what the fuck?) I'll just deal with this one, them I'm done trying to give you basic chemistry and biology lessons. (note to Chill: I actually mean it) Fluoridated water has two mechanisms of action, topical and systemic. Because it is water soluble, it will spread throughout your body (as does natural fluoride in every drinking supply ever) in a regular concentration, affecting, among other things, the roots of your teeth, which cannot be accessed by brushing, and, particularly in children, the formation of teeth. It will also increase the concentration of fluoride in your saliva, which is of course in constant contact with your teeth. If you were unable to think of this before typing your sorry excuse for a logical argument that you think makes you smarter than 41236128 Ph.Ds, then you are either a moron, or simply do not know when to pause and think. | ||
|
threepool
United States150 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:17 seppolevne wrote: Are you really saying that Sodium fluoride and Sulfuryl fluoride are the same? In his defense, I think he was responding to my previous post. At least I hope so, if he's going to claim that a covalently bonded molecule is the same as a salt with different atoms in it, then I think I've been trolled pretty hard. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On May 13 2009 02:50 Yurebis wrote:Fluoridated water is ridiculously inefficient in fighting cavities because: -Fluoride is only in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth In case anyone still takes this idiot seriously: fluoride in drinking water isn't intended to bond with your teeth on-contact like the fluoride in toothpaste. It's intended to be digested and it will make its way into newly-forming enamel from the inside. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:30 Bill307 wrote: In case anyone still takes this idiot seriously: fluoride in drinking water isn't intended to bond with your teeth on-contact like the fluoride in toothpaste. It's intended to be digested and it will make its way into newly-forming enamel from the inside. Thats not true anymore, they've admitted it's only useful when it's applied to the surface. Topical use. Let me dig some stuff out. I thought you knew that already. Also of course not all fluoride compounds are the same. Some are less active. But the ones used in water fluoridation and toothpaste are active enough that it doesn't make that much of a difference. It's the Fluoride Ion that matters. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119936928/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Dental caries is a bacterially based disease that progresses when acid produced by bacterial action on dietary fermentable carbohydrates diffuses into the tooth and dissolves the mineral, that is, demineralization. Pathological factors including acidogenic bacteria (mutans streptococci and lactobacilli), salivary dysfunction, and dietary carbohydrates are related to caries progression. Protective factors which include salivary calcium, phosphate and proteins, salivary flow, and fluoride in saliva can balance, prevent or reverse dental caries. Fluoride works primarily via topical mechanisms which include (1) inhibition of demineralization at the crystal surfaces inside the tooth, (2) enhancement of remineralization at the crystal surfaces (the resulting remineralized layer is very resistant to acid attack), and (3) inhibition of bacterial enzymes. Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces tooth decay via these mechanisms. Low but slightly elevated levels of fluoride in saliva and plaque provided from these sources help prevent and reverse caries by inhibiting demineralization and enhancing remineralization. The level of fluoride incorporated into dental mineral by systemic ingestion is insufficient to play a significant role in caries prevention. The effect of systemically ingested fluoride on caries is minimal. Fluoride "supplements" can be best used as a topical delivery system by sucking or chewing tablets or lozenges prior to ingestion. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/fluoridation/fluor.pdf You can read the full thing if you like or just the summary. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:23 threepool wrote: Unfortunately, your capacity for logical reasoning is so flawed that you would be very lucky to say seven things and have even one of them make any sense at all. (you don't think the government cares about the GDP--what the fuck?) I'd like to see the studies which show negative correlation of cavities to the GDP of a country, rofl. And tbh, they don't care that much about GDP either. Politicians just want to get elected, and reelected. They'll say whatever you want to hear, and do their job with the least effort possible. As long as they're still seated, who cares. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On May 13 2009 03:55 Chill wrote: Your own argument is defeated by your evidence. "Only useful" and "Primarily" are not the same thing. I'm still looking for more, it's obvious no study is going to affirm certainty in anything, certainty is only obtained after a series of experiments. Of course, government needs no certainty to affirm something is true or not. They're the exception. So if they say it's safe, they're right. If i say it may not be safe, I'm wrong. | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
| ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Some quotes and offline sources http://www.keepers-of-the-well.org/effectiveness_pdfs/Topical_vs_Systemic.pdf Yes I was wrong for affirming certainty too. At any rate, it's another lie, systemic use of fluoride is not certain to even work. Fluoride pushers are no better than me affirming it works. I'm sorry again. Allow me to update my list -Fluoride is primarily in use when it comes in contact with the surface of your teeth -Toothpaste generally have concentrations of 1000ppm and you brush it hard -yet water has 1ppm, a thousandth concentration that of toothpaste, and it barely even rubs against your teeth when you drink it. Therefore, fluoridated water would most certainly have an efficacy of <1% that of toothpaste. -They have made no experiments on the subject (long term effects). None now, then, ever. That alone says a lot. -Still don't know the dangers of fluoride buildup in the bones and perhaps elsewhere (no tests on that either, let's just assume you pee it all.) -No word that it's harmful for babies until 1994. Very concerned, yes yes.. -They've made all those stupid retrospective studies looking out for fluorosis cases AFTER they've put it in. Yeah they really care about you. Not like they're using whole regions as guinea pigs or anything. Nuh-uh. They poison you because they love you <3 -They say 1ppm is good but 4ppm is dangerous (EPA). Such a short range is unknown of in other common toxic substances which are usually hundreds of times apart between safe and unsafe doses. Also consider this, you don't get fluoride only from the water. Food processing companies use tap water, and you inevitably swallow some from your toothpaste too. It can easily buildup to that in the end of the day. Four times is nothing. -They lied about the efficacy and mechanism of fluoride therapy when they weren't sure themselves. Since 1940 ofc. -They said at the beginning of this madness that it would halve the cavities in children. Now it's <20% less cavities. <10% for adults. -They said the primary mechanism of fluoride was that it would go through your system and reach into your tooth enamel as it was forming and make it more resistant. That's why they pushed it to children so much. But that's a lie, they didn't know for sure, it was yet another theory based on them retrospectiev studiez. The best way to use it is topical as we now know. Therefore, the government doesn't care about your health and has other agendas instead. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
| ||
|
Chill
Calgary25998 Posts
Secondly, it's not forced on you - the exposure is fully disclosed and you can choose to get water elsewhere. You can choose to use products using non-fluronated water. If you are concerned with the associated costs, there are innumerable better places to fight that than with water fluoronation. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
Not proof at any rate (many lurking variables involved in this type of statistic), but it's another piece of evidence that systemic use of fluoride is nearly or completely useless. We all brush our teeth and it's just fine, no need to drink that crap. ![[image loading]](http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.gif) | ||
| ||
