CONFIRMED: Fluoride Damages the Brain

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: jinni73

there are 3000 toxic chemicals in our water supply and the regulatory bodies only test for 30

Where? Source please. I find that claim extremely interesting and if true, would like to read which ones and why. Thanks in advance!

the source was the johnny archer book I linked to in my original post on this thread title is on the water front

and I will just leave this here as I want to research it
fluoridealert.org...

originally posted by: jinni73

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: jinni73

there are 3000 toxic chemicals in our water supply and the regulatory bodies only test for 30

Where? Source please. I find that claim extremely interesting and if true, would like to read which ones and why. Thanks in advance!

the source was the johnny archer book I linked to in my original post on this thread title is on the water front

and I will just leave this here as I want to research it
fluoridealert.org...

A study from 1975!?


Here is an article with lots to click on and you can easily verify the information in it....and it is nearly 40 years newer than your "source"....

Edit: Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't this about how much fluoride comes out in saliva? The argument for water fluoridation is that when you drink your water, you coat your teeth in the fluoridated water.

a reply to: jinni73
Why are people living longer then? I never understood this argument (amongst the many many many others) when it is shown to be false.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: jinni73


One point? I could refute everything you can type. Make a list and I will go through them one by one.

[ quote]


well lets start with the history of fluoride and the covers up that have been going on with government departments

web.archive.org...://www.zerowasteamerica.org/FluorideChronology.htm

so as you can deconstruct the masses of proof let us see how your statement that fluoride does not cause any problems in humans works out,
This doctor who was working for the EPA and stated that fluoride causes cancer

Dr. William Marcus, a senior scientist at the US Environmental Protection Agency, was fired for exposing a coverup in a government study showing clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer in animals

In 1990, Dr. William Marcus, senior toxicologist in the Office of Drinking Water at EPA, was fired for publicly questioning the honesty of a long-awaited government animal study designed to determine if fluoride causes cancer. Upon examining the raw data of the experiment, Dr. Marcus found clear evidence that fluoride causes cancer, and suggested that a review panel set up by the government to review the data had deliberately downgraded the results. He was vindicated in December of 1992 when Administrative Law Judge David A. Clark, Jr. ordered EPA to give him back his job, with back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages. EPA appealed, but the appeal was turned down in 1994 by Secretary of Labor, Robert B. Reich who accused EPA of firing Dr. Marcus in retaliation for speaking his mind in public. Reich found among other things that EPA had shredded important evidence that would have supported Dr. Marcus in court. The original trial proceedings also show that EPA employees who wanted to testify on behalf of Dr. Marcus were threatened by their own management. EPA officials also forged some of his time cards, and then accused him of misusing his official time.

so this is a well known case and the sacking and subsequent court case reinstating Dr Marcus with clear evidence presented to the trial proving that the government were covering up the evidence
this is a youtube video of Dr Marcus talking how fluoride is connected to breast cancer www.youtube.com...

what about Dr. Bob Carton, Vice-President of the union representing all 1200 scientists, engineers, and lawyers at EPA headquarters

Other EPA scientists, have attempted to get the truth in the open without success. In November of 1991, Dr. Bob Carton, Vice-President of the union representing all 1200 scientists, engineers, and lawyers at EPA headquarters, presented the Drinking Water Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board of EPA with evidence of scientific fraud in the preparation of EPA's fluoride in drinking water standard. (reference) No follow up to verify these accusations was ever made.

lying is he oh well we will all go home and drink the fluoridated water and just ignore the cancers and osteoporosis and thyroid damage that it obviously does not cause.

edit on 9-8-2016 by jinni73 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: jinni73
I would like to see the "clear evidence".

Also, in regards to Dr. Bob Carton, the EPA fluoride levels he wanted to be looked at again in 1991, were.

a reply to: superman2012

yeah man when I get a bit of time I will get some more info

a reply to: Metallicus

Did they mention that prozac and other similar anti depressants are virtually pure Flouride?

One of the detrimental issues of Flouride is that it "corrodes" our pineal gland which is our "third eye" chakra. If you can get yourself free of Flouride and other toxic compounds from your system you can open your third eye actually realize the divine on high. It's kind of a cosmic Bluetooth connection that chemicals in our reality have corroded and closed up.

Another set of chemicals that we are consuming with relish is "electrolytes". The only electrolyte that we need is sodium chloride. Table salt, iodized table salt.

All the potassium and phosphoric stuff is detrimental to our systems as well.

originally posted by: JefferyBarber
Did they mention that prozac and other similar anti depressants are virtually pure Flouride?

Absolutely false.

Fluoxetine is the active ingredient in Prozac. Fluoxetine is made of 5 key ingredients, one of them being fluoride. Less than 20% of Prozac is fluoride, 80% is comprised of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen etc.

The practice of adding fluoride to the water supply has been discontinued in the Netherlands (1976) and Belgium (1995?)
Source: Fluoridering - Wikipedia

So yes, it's possible to get your politicians to make the right choice, but in the US politics seems to have turned into a bit of a sitcom.

Netherlands scores 9th in this list:
Asia tops biggest global school rankings - BBC News:

Overall rankings
Rankings based on maths and science, at age 15

1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. South Korea
4. Japan
4. Taiwan
6. Finland
7. Estonia
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada

originally posted by: [post=21193238]whereislogic
Overall rankings
Rankings based on maths and science, at age 15

1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. South Korea
4. Japan
4. Taiwan
6. Finland
7. Estonia
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada

Singapore and Hong Kong, #1 and 2 in your list, have a fluoridation system that covers aprox. 100% of their population.
LINK

So your evidence proves fluoridation makes pupils more clever.

An important quote from the Lancet article.

Strong evidence exists that industrial chemicals widely disseminated in the environment are important contributors to what we have called the global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity.6, 7 The developing human brain is uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemical exposures, and major windows of developmental vulnerability occur in utero and during infancy and early childhood.8 During these sensitive life stages, chemicals can cause permanent brain injury at low levels of exposure that would have little or no adverse effect in an adult.

The point being that what is considered a safe level of consumption for adults, is not safe for developing infants into early childhood. Children should be the main focus when officials decide how much of a chemical is safe for human consumption, NOT adults.

Oh ya, blushing yoor teef mayks u stupit?
Haha funnee guy.
Seriously, I stopped brushing.
Lost my teeth but saved my brain.

originally posted by: seeker11
An important quote from the Lancet article.

Strong evidence exists that industrial chemicals widely disseminated in the environment are important contributors to what we have called the global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity.6, 7 The developing human brain is uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemical exposures, and major windows of developmental vulnerability occur in utero and during infancy and early childhood.8 During these sensitive life stages, chemicals can cause permanent brain injury at low levels of exposure that would have little or no adverse effect in an adult.

The point being that what is considered a safe level of consumption for adults, is not safe for developing infants into early childhood. Children should be the main focus when officials decide how much of a chemical is safe for human consumption, NOT adults.

Except that article mentions nothing about differing toxicity in fluoride between children and adults. You can't just go "things can potentially happen, therefore this happened!".

a reply to: GetHyped

I agree, that part of the article does not specify differing toxicity levels in fluoride between children and adults, just as it doesn't say anything about the different toxicity of any of the other chemicals mentioned. But the entire premise of the study is based off of neurotoxicants and their affects on developing children. Given the results of studies that HAVE been done, much more research SHOULD be done, in my opinion.

In the article, fluoride is recognized as a developmental neurotoxicant. I'm not sure why, given the results of the study, we should not remain prudent in the amount of fluoride added to the water and recognizing that higher levels have been shown to affect developing brains of children, such as the study in China, quoted below. It would be nice to have more studies of fluoride in particular, and to include varying effects on IQ based off of the amount of fluoride consumption. I'm interested in knowing if anything higher than what is naturally occurring in the water would have a detrimental effect on children, or at what point or level of consumption, would begin to have a negative effect.

A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose–response association would be desirable.

In the summary of the study I quoted in this response and my prior one,

Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.

The root causes of the present global pandemic of neurodevelopmental disorders are only partly understood. Although genetic factors have a role,5 they cannot explain recent increases in reported prevalence, and none of the genes discovered so far seem to be responsible for more than a small proportion of cases.5 Overall, genetic factors seem to account for no more than perhaps 30–40% of all cases of neurodevelopmental disorders. Thus, non-genetic, environmental exposures are involved in causation, in some cases probably by interacting with genetically inherited predispositions.

Strong evidence exists that industrial chemicals widely disseminated in the environment are important contributors to what we have called the global, silent pandemic of neurodevelopmental toxicity.6, 7 The developing human brain is uniquely vulnerable to toxic chemical exposures, and major windows of developmental vulnerability occur in utero and during infancy and early childhood.8 During these sensitive life stages, chemicals can cause permanent brain injury at low levels of exposure that would have little or no adverse effect in an adult.

All quotes were taken from the same study in the following link.
www.thelancet.com...

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: [post=21193238]whereislogic
Overall rankings
Rankings based on maths and science, at age 15

1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. South Korea
4. Japan
4. Taiwan
6. Finland
7. Estonia
8. Switzerland
9. Netherlands
10. Canada

Singapore and Hong Kong, #1 and 2 in your list, have a fluoridation system that covers aprox. 100% of their population.
LINK

So your evidence proves fluoridation makes pupils more clever.

any statistic can be manipulated as we can see with the cancer statistics.
so if we take Singapore, they have limited water supplies and they use reverse osmosis (which removes fluoride) to filter their water

this means the population are not getting the fluoride from toothpastes which the rest of the world has to suffer from as the purification process in most water treatment plants does not go to the extent of using osmosis which removes virtually all contaminants except trihalomethanes

so here is one study from india which monitored different villages levels of fluoride into the water, it showed lower levels of fluoride contributed to higher IQ's Singapore only add 0.6mg per litre or 0.6 ppm,

The IQ level studies that they carry out are extremely limited in number of persons they monitor and this study shows Singapore has more money spent on each individual compared to the rest of the world it also shows they are fifth on the list with an average of 103 points
www.therichest.com... with japan and south korea above them and hong kong on top
south korea force the majority of their students to study technology and engineering according to a girl I used to know who was educated there.

the world health authority have stated (not that I have found the study) that dental records show a lower level of cavities in non fluoridated areas as well as extremely in depth studies in Denmark and Iowa showing fluoride has no effect on preventing cavities

then you have to factor in what removes fluoride like iodine and boron so are these countries getting their food from soil with high levels of boron? or do they eat more fish with higher iodine levels.

a reply to: superman2012

But is it safe as in non poisonous at small dosages? Does the toxicity miraculously disappear? I think not.

However miniscule the effect may be it is still poisonous and it will still have an effect even if it isn't even measurable.

I would be very surprised if drinking it for decades wouldn't have an effect. 7 IQ points is a lot, 1 IQ point or even less would be enough for me.

a reply to: jinni73

Jinny, I do not believe for one moment that fluoride makes kids more clever. Same as I don't believe it makes them dumber. Mine was a very sarcastic reply showing whereislogic that his post had no logic at all.

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: JefferyBarber
Did they mention that prozac and other similar anti depressants are virtually pure Flouride?

Absolutely false.

Fluoxetine is the active ingredient in Prozac. Fluoxetine is made of 5 key ingredients, one of them being fluoride. Less than 20% of Prozac is fluoride, 80% is comprised of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen etc.

Where do you get your percentages from Agartha

I seem to remember the fluoride content of Prozac being 19% but your 80% statement is misleading as these other ingredients are in Prozac.

Ingredients

Capsules
PROZAC capsules contain 20 mg of fluoxetine as the active ingredient. They also contain:
•maize starch
•dimethicone 350
•gelatin
•iron oxide yellow CI77492
•patent blue V CI42051
•titanium dioxide
•edible black ink.

Tablets
PROZAC tablets contain 20 mg of fluoxetine as the active ingredient. They also contain:
•microcrystalline cellulose
•saccharin sodium
•mannitol
•sorbitol
•colloidal anhydrous silica
•maize starch
•sodium stearylfumarate
•crospovidone
•peppermint flavouring
•aniseed flavouring.

originally posted by: jinni73
Where do you get your percentages from Agartha

From the chemical structure of Fluoxetine which is C17H18F3NO. If you know basic chemistry then you can calculate the atomic weight of each element from which we can conclude that Fluoride is aprox. 18.5% of Prozac.

I could calculate the atomic weight (in mass percent) of the other ingredients, but there are websites that can actually do the calculation for you (I used them a lot when I was studying core chemistry).

I seem to remember the fluoride content of Prozac being 19%

That's what I said.

but your 80% statement is misleading as these other ingredients are in Prozac.....

Jinny: if fluoride is approximately 19% of Prozac, then the remaining 81% are all other ingredients together.
Why is my 80% statement misleading??? 100% - 19% = 81%

a reply to: Agartha

so where do I see where the atomic weights are yes I know what the etc means but its misleading It reads as if basically 80% of the weight are safe ingredients carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen yet you fail to mention the other ingredients I mean how much of the cancer causing titanium dioxide is in it or what about the banned in some countries FD and C blue as well as the other toxins

And you have studied chemistry do you think they forget to teach you how dangerous the polonium in the fluoride is.