U.S. soldiers being injected with WHAT? - Page 23

On May 13 2009 14:44 Zerg Zergling wrote:
lots of naive people here.

yurebis, you bring up lots of good points, but teaching people is more than just presenting the truth. HOW you present your points is just as important as WHAT you present.

still lolling though at the naivety of people to actually think that government is benevolent. i suppose if you haven't graduate college you haven't really been out in the real world enough to know how the world really works (even then, people are generally idiots, hence why america actually believed george bush when he said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction).

yurebis, i'm actually intrigued to hear more about fluoride, but i think the "debate" has reached an impasse without actually comparing the legitimacy of each side's studies. this is the general nature of scientific debates - it tends to lean more on verifying studies than on "philosophy."

i agree though - people who don't realize that government is self-serving and that much of science these days is biased aren't fit for this kind of debate.

On May 13 2009 10:03 travis wrote:


Do you think the bush administration was corrupt? And often made terribly corrupt decisions driven by corrupt intentions?

If so, isn't it possible that such a corrupt administration existed back then?

If not, then I think you are naive :/

On May 09 2009 10:22 Raithed wrote:

yes, one day that too.

On May 13 2009 14:44 Zerg Zergling wrote:
lots of naive people here.

yurebis, you bring up lots of good points, but teaching people is more than just presenting the truth. HOW you present your points is just as important as WHAT you present.

still lolling though at the naivety of people to actually think that government is benevolent. i suppose if you haven't graduate college you haven't really been out in the real world enough to know how the world really works (even then, people are generally idiots, hence why america actually believed george bush when he said that iraq had weapons of mass destruction).

yurebis, i'm actually intrigued to hear more about fluoride, but i think the "debate" has reached an impasse without actually comparing the legitimacy of each side's studies. this is the general nature of scientific debates - it tends to lean more on verifying studies than on "philosophy."

i agree though - people who don't realize that government is self-serving and that much of science these days is biased aren't fit for this kind of debate.

On May 13 2009 18:59 Liquid`Drone wrote:


but dude, this goes far beyond mere corruption.. deliberately tainting your water supply on a nearly nationwide level just to make some money?

1930s

In 1930, the major asbestos company Johns-Manville produced a report, for internal company use only, about medical reports of asbestos worker fatalities.[36] In 1932, A letter from U.S. Bureau of Mines to asbestos manufacturer Eagle-Picher stated, in relevant part, "It is now known that asbestos dust is one of the most dangerous dusts to which man is exposed".[37] In 1933, Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. doctors found that 29% of workers in a Johns-Manville plant had asbestosis.[36] Likewise, in 1933, Johns-Manville officials settled lawsuits by 11 employees with asbestosis on the condition that the employees' lawyer agree to never again "directly or indirectly participate in the bringing of new actions against the Corporation."[37] In 1934, officials of two large asbestos companies, Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan, edited an article about the diseases of asbestos workers written by a Metropolitan Life Insurance Company doctor. The changes downplayed the danger of asbestos dust.[37] In 1935, officials of Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan instructed the editor of Asbestos magazine to publish nothing about asbestosis.[37] In 1936, a group of asbestos companies agreed to sponsor research on the health effects of asbestos dust, but required that the companies maintain complete control over the disclosure of the results.

1940s
The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

In 1942, an internal Owens-Corning corporate memo referred to "medical literature on asbestosis . . . . scores of publications in which the lung and skin hazards of asbestos are discussed."[36] Either in 1942 or 1943, the president of Johns-Manville, Lewis H. Brown, said that the managers of another asbestos company were "a bunch of fools for notifying employees who had asbestosis." When one of the managers asked, "do you mean to tell me you would let them work until they dropped dead?" the response is reported to have been, "Yes. We save a lot of money that way."[38] In 1944, a Metropolitan Life Insurance Company report found 42 cases of asbestosis among 195 asbestos miners.[36]

1950s

In 1951, asbestos companies removed all references to cancer before allowing publication of research they sponsored.[39] In 1952, Dr. Kenneth Smith, Johns-Manville medical director, recommended (unsuccessfully) that warning labels be attached to products containing asbestos. Later, Smith testified: "It was a business decision as far as I could understand . . . the corporation is in business to provide jobs for people and make money for stockholders and they had to take into consideration the effects of everything they did and if the application of a caution label identifying a product as hazardous would cut into sales, there would be serious financial implications."[40] In 1953, National Gypsum's safety director wrote to the Indiana Division of Industrial Hygiene, recommending that acoustic plaster mixers wear respirators "because of the asbestos used in the product." Another company official noted that the letter was "full of dynamite" and urged that it be retrieved before reaching its destination. A memo in the files noted that the company "succeeded in stopping" the letter, which "will be modified."[41]

I certainly believe the bush administration was involved in some illegal activities, corruption being one of them, and I don't believe many governments of the world are free of this.. but not every single thing a government does is done for malicious reasons..

and further what about the government of ireland, australia and new zealand? are they involved for the same reasons?

To explain how I came to change my opinion about water fluoridation, I must go back to when I was an ardent advocate of the procedure. I now realize that I had learned, in my training in dentistry, only one side of the scientific controversy over fluoridation. I had been taught, and believed, that there was really no scientific case against fluoridation, and that only misinformed lay people and a few crackpot professionals were foolish enough to oppose it. I recall how, after I had been elected to a local government in Auckland (New Zealand's largest city, where I practised dentistry for many years and where I eventually became the Principal Dental Officer) I had fiercely — and, I now regret, rather arrogantly — poured scorn on another Council member (a lay person who had heard and accepted the case against fluoridation) and persuaded the Mayor and majority of my fellow councillors to agree to fluoridation of our water supply.

A few years later, when I had become the city's Principal Dental Officer, I published a paper in the New Zealand Dental Journal that reported how children's tooth decay had declined in the city following fluoridation of its water, to which I attributed the decline, pointing out that the greatest benefit appeared to be in low-income areas [1]. My duties as a public servant included supervision of the city's school dental clinics, which were part of a national School Dental Service which provided regular six-monthly dental treatment, with strictly enforced uniform diagnostic standards, to almost all (98 percent) school children up to the age of 12 or 13 years. I thus had access to treatment records, and therefore tooth decay rates, of virtually all the city's children. In the study I claimed that such treatment statistics "provide a valid measure of the dental health of our child population" [1]. That claim was accepted by my professional colleagues, and the study is cited in the official history of the New Zealand Dental Association [2].

On May 14 2009 02:34 travis wrote:
It's not the same situation at all? Fine, I concede it's not really the exact situation. But not the same at all? Sure it wasn't mandated, but it didn't have to be(not that it ever would or could be)...

Anyways, my point was to display that corporations are rarely interested in the truth, but rather in what nets them more money. And that they will go as far as to repeatedly cover up the truth to get that money.


It's not like I can find an example that is the exact same, because there isn't one.

On May 14 2009 02:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
here in norway, asbestos was huge and used for everything, schools, government buildings, whatever.
then we discovered it was bad and buildings with asbestos were renovated..

I accept that many business owners are selfish and that in many situations, personal profit is the highest motivation. I don't accept that putting a useless waste product into drinking water which is potentially very dangerous for the population and then creating a huge campaign to falsely educate said population about why this waste product is beneficial for them when it is in fact harmful is a good business model to achieve this goal.

if it's dangerous, people would find out, government / companies in charge experience a backlash.

I don't believe the monetary benefits of doing this could be even close to sufficient of a motivation for potentially harming hundreds of millions of people.. it's too big..

On May 14 2009 02:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
are you saying that this is a large list compared to the list of people in favour of fluoridation?

On May 13 2009 14:59 Chill wrote:
I like when people talk about the government like some evil oppressing robot, instead of a group of people like any other group.

On May 14 2009 02:47 Chill wrote:

I don't think anyone is disputing that there is a balance between society's safety and company/govnernment wealth.

Your original point, which you used asbestos to support, is that the government decided to put this in the water to support profits for some third party despite knowing it was harmful. That is a ridiculous claim.

More likely, although equally unfounded, is that they started doing it because they thought it would help people's teeth.

Now if you want to make a case that there are studies showing they should stop doing it but they aren't because of pressures of third party companies supplying the fluoride, go ahead and make that claim. But making a claim that they put it in originally because profits outweigh health is ridiculous and unfounded.

On May 14 2009 03:31 travis wrote:


no, when did I say the government knew it was harmful? it is not the government's job to test it, but rather to make decisions based on the results of previous experimentation.

On May 14 2009 02:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:
are you saying that this is a large list compared to the list of people in favour of fluoridation?