It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Round 2: Maxmars v chissler: Happy Water
page: 15
share:
The topic for this debate is ”Fluoridation Of Any Water Supply Is An Intentional Effort To Induce Passivity On Its’ Citizens”.
Maxmars will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
chissler will argue the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post.
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
Maxmars will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
chissler will argue the con position.
Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.
There is a 10,000 character limit per post.
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.
Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.
The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.
This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.
Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.
In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.
Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.
Thank you, MemoryShock and chissler, for this opportunity to debate. I approach this debate with some trepidation…, ‘intent’ can be hard to
quantify directly.
”Fluoridation Of Any Water Supply Is An Intentional Effort To Induce Passivity On Its’ Citizens”
This is a difficult topic -its difficulty being contained within multiple premises:
I will show the following to be true:
- Fluoridation has no other reasonable use in water supplies other than for its long-term effect;
- There is an external agency or influence which pursues and promotes fluoridation;
- The responsible agency derives a benefit from a docile, or less ‘reactive’ population;
I will attempt, in my preferred manner, to avoid littering the debate with charts, graphs, and extraneous material –unless it becomes necessary as a means to address a challenge my opponent may raise on one or more of my assertions.
A Caveat worth noting: There is a major disconnect between what is ‘readily’ available data regarding this matter. Most ‘easily’ accessed data seems to be crafted to avoid the subject of what Fluoride was used for, before the official dentistry applications were presented as a plausible excuse.
Many historical accounts of the introduction of fluoride into our water are strangely lacking in completeness. It seems that mainstream sources consistently fail to point out that the story contains elements greed and profiteering, treason, crimes against humanity, and of course, lies.
As I am limited by time and space, I offer a brief synopsis:
In the early 20th Century, German chemical researchers, found an application for fluoride-compounds as a neurotoxin. Generously funded both commercially and by their government, they revealed they could effectively minimize the threat of resistance to oppression by slowly exposing a population to minute amounts of fluorine-based neurotoxins over extended periods of time. The result was a more docile, compliant, and less confrontational norm in the people exposed to its cumulative effect. The fascist leadership of that government implemented the tool almost immediately. Key US industrialists, aligned with the foreign fascist government on multiple levels, capitalized on the knowledge and began reaping great profits from the distribution and use of the key materials which, oddly enough were easily recovered from the process of ‘reducing’ bauxite into Aluminum. The aluminum was sold to the fascist government, along with the byproduct. Although international efforts led to the eventual elimination of the fascist government, other governments quickly seized upon the research, and eventually, also employed the technique. The purpose of the use of this chemical on water supplies was never revealed; and with good reason. Its use is circumstantial proof that the same fascist mentality remains prevalent in our time, and our 'leaders' are either complicit in intent, or duped into believing that it's use on the population at large represents a 'beneficial' medical treatment.
As we progress further I will reveal more details behind this fascinating story. I promise many 'esteemed' and 'highly honored' names will be dropped. Yes, there will be places and dates specified, but most importantly, you will see that real people have sought the power to execute a large-scale objective of manipulating the minds of the population via chemical controls (perhaps more), and it is happening - even now, even here, even to some of us.
”Fluoridation Of Any Water Supply Is An Intentional Effort To Induce Passivity On Its’ Citizens”
This is a difficult topic -its difficulty being contained within multiple premises:
I will show the following to be true:
- Fluoridation has no other reasonable use in water supplies other than for its long-term effect;
- There is an external agency or influence which pursues and promotes fluoridation;
- The responsible agency derives a benefit from a docile, or less ‘reactive’ population;
I will attempt, in my preferred manner, to avoid littering the debate with charts, graphs, and extraneous material –unless it becomes necessary as a means to address a challenge my opponent may raise on one or more of my assertions.
A Caveat worth noting: There is a major disconnect between what is ‘readily’ available data regarding this matter. Most ‘easily’ accessed data seems to be crafted to avoid the subject of what Fluoride was used for, before the official dentistry applications were presented as a plausible excuse.
Many historical accounts of the introduction of fluoride into our water are strangely lacking in completeness. It seems that mainstream sources consistently fail to point out that the story contains elements greed and profiteering, treason, crimes against humanity, and of course, lies.
As I am limited by time and space, I offer a brief synopsis:
In the early 20th Century, German chemical researchers, found an application for fluoride-compounds as a neurotoxin. Generously funded both commercially and by their government, they revealed they could effectively minimize the threat of resistance to oppression by slowly exposing a population to minute amounts of fluorine-based neurotoxins over extended periods of time. The result was a more docile, compliant, and less confrontational norm in the people exposed to its cumulative effect. The fascist leadership of that government implemented the tool almost immediately. Key US industrialists, aligned with the foreign fascist government on multiple levels, capitalized on the knowledge and began reaping great profits from the distribution and use of the key materials which, oddly enough were easily recovered from the process of ‘reducing’ bauxite into Aluminum. The aluminum was sold to the fascist government, along with the byproduct. Although international efforts led to the eventual elimination of the fascist government, other governments quickly seized upon the research, and eventually, also employed the technique. The purpose of the use of this chemical on water supplies was never revealed; and with good reason. Its use is circumstantial proof that the same fascist mentality remains prevalent in our time, and our 'leaders' are either complicit in intent, or duped into believing that it's use on the population at large represents a 'beneficial' medical treatment.
As we progress further I will reveal more details behind this fascinating story. I promise many 'esteemed' and 'highly honored' names will be dropped. Yes, there will be places and dates specified, but most importantly, you will see that real people have sought the power to execute a large-scale objective of manipulating the minds of the population via chemical controls (perhaps more), and it is happening - even now, even here, even to some of us.
I would like to begin this debate by thanking MemoryShock for all of his efforts and also my opponent. I think the next few days are going to be a
lot of fun. Let's have at it.
The topic of our debate here today is ”Fluoridation Of Any Water Supply Is An Intentional Effort To Induce Passivity On Its’ Citizens”
I have chosen to bold a portion of the topic as a means of emphasizing what the topic truly is. I think it is quite easy to overlook this little aspect and have misguided expectations for what the debate topic is. My position here is to prove to our readers that the fluoridation of a water supply is not to induce passivity, but to simply help treat and prevent tooth decay in it's citizens.
If we are going to understand the process of fluoridation, we must first understand where it originated and why it was necessary.
Dr. Frederick McKay was a 19th century researcher who was looking into what we now know as "dental fluorosis". To put it simply, this condition is when we see black and brown stains on our teeth or at times the cracking and pitting of our teeth. Obviously something that can be extremely painful. It was determined that in the Pikes Peak region of Colorado, 87.5% of the children tested had clear symptoms of dental fluorosis. At the time they referred to it as the Colorado brown stain. Of the children with the Colorado brown stain, these same children also displayed a complete lack of any cavity on their teeth. The brown stains were as a result of such a high concentration of the fluoride ions in their drinking water, that was running down from Pikes Peak into their water. Of those that were consuming water with a lesser concentration, the brown stain was not evident and the lack of cavities was again similar.
It was at this time that it was considered that with a healthy amount of fluoride ions in the drinking water, tooth decay could be severely prevented.
1
Water fluoridation has been widely considered a tremendous public health accomplishment in the 20th century and there are several groups that look upon this process with great joy and offer their full support.
American Dental Association
World Health Organization
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
American Medical Association
1
As we progress with this debate, we will look with greater detail into these organizations that pledge their support for the fluoridation of water supplies.
I cite these groups, associations, and organizations as a means of displaying what the intent of water fluoridation is. It is simply to help prevent and treat tooth decay in the mouths of its drinkers.
I must agree with my opponent on a statement that he has made. Documentation surrounding this process is scarce at best, and we are forced to do our best with the information that we can get our hands on. Those that are on the front lines leading the charge on this process admit fully that more data is essential. What is available to us does show that tooth decay can be prevented by healthy amounts of fluoride being introduced to water supplies. In potent amounts, it can and has been fatal. But nowhere does it say that this process is to induce passivity into it's citizens. Given our skeptical ways, when introduced to any topic that carries ethical implications.. I would expect us to be quick to jump. But this issue is, in my opinion, a cut and dry case of a measure taken to promote dental health.
I do have issues with the ethical implications and I think there is a serious lack of awareness on the issue. But none of this supports the notion that it is to induce passivity.
While it does make for great discussion and I think we'll have a lot of fun with it here for a few days, not everything is a conspiracy.
I will now take the time to have a peak at what my opponent had to say in the opening statement:
We are in agreement.
Fluoridation of water is used to treat and prevent tooth decay. None of the health organizations that openly support this process have ever alluded to there being another reason. It is an obvious fact that there is one reason for this process. Your intentions here are merely to reinforce the obvious.
Aside from the tall tale that we have been opened to, there really isn't much else to respond to from the opening post. I must admit that I am intrigued by this story. But it is obviously nothing more than just that.. a story.
Aye, we agree. A story.
Story:
- a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events
- fib: a trivial lie
2
My opponents opening statement is sorely lacking in a key component to this debate process. He has forgone his opportunity at posing his Socratic questions in that statement and has forfeited one full turn at this opportunity. While he still has plenty of opportunity to pose these questions and I look forward to answering them, I suspect this will prove to be a costly mistake.
I will now move forward with my Socratic questions for my opening reply:
1. Who is this external agency that promotes the fluoridation of water?
2. Can you show me documentation that supports your position that water fluoridation is promoting passivity in its citizens?
3. Has your drinking water been fluoridated?
4. Do you agree that the fluoridation of water prevents tooth decay?
To correspond with my third question posed to my opponent, I direct him to the following link: Rank of States receiving Fluoridated Public Drinking Water: 2006. This is a link I will examine further as this debate progresses, but I am interested in where my opponent fits in.
Of the states, 40 of them are producing fluoridated water to at least 50% of its citizens. And over 25% of those 40 states are providing fluoridated water to more than 90% of its citizens.
If such a large percentage of the American public is currently consuming this fluoridated water, than odds are it includes us. This is important. This isn't a debate of "them", it is a debate of "us". It is we who are consuming this water and we are the people that are supposedly becoming passive due to it.
Are you passive?
Fluoridation of water is used to prevent tooth decay. Nothing more, nothing less. This is reinforced by the fact that the people who are drinking it are the same people who are reading this, and we are the people who are standing up and trying to be heard. We have mobilized and we are not going to continue to accept the status quo.
It does not sound very passive to me.
Thank you.
The topic of our debate here today is ”Fluoridation Of Any Water Supply Is An Intentional Effort To Induce Passivity On Its’ Citizens”
I have chosen to bold a portion of the topic as a means of emphasizing what the topic truly is. I think it is quite easy to overlook this little aspect and have misguided expectations for what the debate topic is. My position here is to prove to our readers that the fluoridation of a water supply is not to induce passivity, but to simply help treat and prevent tooth decay in it's citizens.
If we are going to understand the process of fluoridation, we must first understand where it originated and why it was necessary.
Dr. Frederick McKay was a 19th century researcher who was looking into what we now know as "dental fluorosis". To put it simply, this condition is when we see black and brown stains on our teeth or at times the cracking and pitting of our teeth. Obviously something that can be extremely painful. It was determined that in the Pikes Peak region of Colorado, 87.5% of the children tested had clear symptoms of dental fluorosis. At the time they referred to it as the Colorado brown stain. Of the children with the Colorado brown stain, these same children also displayed a complete lack of any cavity on their teeth. The brown stains were as a result of such a high concentration of the fluoride ions in their drinking water, that was running down from Pikes Peak into their water. Of those that were consuming water with a lesser concentration, the brown stain was not evident and the lack of cavities was again similar.
It was at this time that it was considered that with a healthy amount of fluoride ions in the drinking water, tooth decay could be severely prevented.
1
Water fluoridation has been widely considered a tremendous public health accomplishment in the 20th century and there are several groups that look upon this process with great joy and offer their full support.
1
As we progress with this debate, we will look with greater detail into these organizations that pledge their support for the fluoridation of water supplies.
I cite these groups, associations, and organizations as a means of displaying what the intent of water fluoridation is. It is simply to help prevent and treat tooth decay in the mouths of its drinkers.
I must agree with my opponent on a statement that he has made. Documentation surrounding this process is scarce at best, and we are forced to do our best with the information that we can get our hands on. Those that are on the front lines leading the charge on this process admit fully that more data is essential. What is available to us does show that tooth decay can be prevented by healthy amounts of fluoride being introduced to water supplies. In potent amounts, it can and has been fatal. But nowhere does it say that this process is to induce passivity into it's citizens. Given our skeptical ways, when introduced to any topic that carries ethical implications.. I would expect us to be quick to jump. But this issue is, in my opinion, a cut and dry case of a measure taken to promote dental health.
I do have issues with the ethical implications and I think there is a serious lack of awareness on the issue. But none of this supports the notion that it is to induce passivity.
While it does make for great discussion and I think we'll have a lot of fun with it here for a few days, not everything is a conspiracy.
I will now take the time to have a peak at what my opponent had to say in the opening statement:
Originally posted by Maxmars
- Fluoridation has no other reasonable use in water supplies other than for its long-term effect;
We are in agreement.
Fluoridation of water is used to treat and prevent tooth decay. None of the health organizations that openly support this process have ever alluded to there being another reason. It is an obvious fact that there is one reason for this process. Your intentions here are merely to reinforce the obvious.
Aside from the tall tale that we have been opened to, there really isn't much else to respond to from the opening post. I must admit that I am intrigued by this story. But it is obviously nothing more than just that.. a story.
Originally posted by Maxmars
As we progress further I will reveal more details behind this fascinating story.
Aye, we agree. A story.
- a piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events
- fib: a trivial lie
2
My opponents opening statement is sorely lacking in a key component to this debate process. He has forgone his opportunity at posing his Socratic questions in that statement and has forfeited one full turn at this opportunity. While he still has plenty of opportunity to pose these questions and I look forward to answering them, I suspect this will prove to be a costly mistake.
I will now move forward with my Socratic questions for my opening reply:
1. Who is this external agency that promotes the fluoridation of water?
2. Can you show me documentation that supports your position that water fluoridation is promoting passivity in its citizens?
3. Has your drinking water been fluoridated?
4. Do you agree that the fluoridation of water prevents tooth decay?
To correspond with my third question posed to my opponent, I direct him to the following link: Rank of States receiving Fluoridated Public Drinking Water: 2006. This is a link I will examine further as this debate progresses, but I am interested in where my opponent fits in.
Of the states, 40 of them are producing fluoridated water to at least 50% of its citizens. And over 25% of those 40 states are providing fluoridated water to more than 90% of its citizens.
If such a large percentage of the American public is currently consuming this fluoridated water, than odds are it includes us. This is important. This isn't a debate of "them", it is a debate of "us". It is we who are consuming this water and we are the people that are supposedly becoming passive due to it.
Are you passive?
Fluoridation of water is used to prevent tooth decay. Nothing more, nothing less. This is reinforced by the fact that the people who are drinking it are the same people who are reading this, and we are the people who are standing up and trying to be heard. We have mobilized and we are not going to continue to accept the status quo.
It does not sound very passive to me.
Thank you.
reply to post by chissler
I am hereby requesting an extension as covered under the conditions of the debate.
I am coming up with so much information that it is nearly impossible to encapsulate it in brief enough form. I realize that the request comes late, but it's the best I can do for now.
I once thought this would be hard, I was wrong, it's beyond hard to do justice to the subject in a constrained debate, it's nearly impossible; nearly.
Brace yourself.
I am hereby requesting an extension as covered under the conditions of the debate.
I am coming up with so much information that it is nearly impossible to encapsulate it in brief enough form. I realize that the request comes late, but it's the best I can do for now.
I once thought this would be hard, I was wrong, it's beyond hard to do justice to the subject in a constrained debate, it's nearly impossible; nearly.
Brace yourself.
Reply #1
In 1945-1946, a Twenty One Cities study was completed whereby tooth decay levels was measured in cities with varying fluoridation levels in their drinking water. It was measured that over a period of 13-15 years, those that had fluoridation levels of 1.0-1.2ppm displayed tooth decay at rates of 48%-70% less than others without it. This is concrete evidence that the process of fluoridating water supplies will reduce, prevent, and treat tooth decay among it's citizens.
1
Researchers have examined over 95 studies from 1945 through 1978, and it has been determined that dental issues have been reduced 40%-50% for primary teeth and 50%-60% for permanent teeth. These numbers are absolutely tremendous! We're not talking one or two in ten people have experienced a positive outcome from this fluoridation process. We're seeing that up to six of every ten people are benefiting. When you consider the variables that go into such studies, it is not a stretch to say that these numbers could quite possibly be even higher. But to have concrete evidence that at least six of every ten people are benefiting from water fluoridation, it leaves little to the imagination of what is being accomplished.
I believe I have slightly overstepped myself on this one when I previously agreed with my opponent that there is little documentation available on this subject matter. While there is a vast amount of research still to be completed, there is much that already exists. What does not exist is documentation to support my opponent's position. Which would explain his inability to come up with factual documentation to support that the basic premise of water fluoridation is anything but the prevention and treatment of tooth decay.
Documentation exists on the risks of of this process and yes, if administered in high amounts it can certainly be fatal. But too much of anything is typically a bad thing, so this really isn't letting the cat out of the bag. But the risks of water fluoridation are not what the topic is. What we are here to discuss is whether or not water fluoridation is to induce passivity on it's citizens. In a very short time in this debate thus far I have proven that there is enormous amounts of research to prove that this process actually does help treat tooth decay.
In the best part of the past 100 years, other than random skepticism of ulterior motifs, what is there to actually prove that there is a secondary reason for this process?
Well my opponent does have a story for us, so maybe we can learn something from that.
I will now quote a great article that examines the "conspiracies" surrounding this topic.
Bolding Mine
Really? One of the most studied public health items of all time? I think that is certainly noteworthy.
From the same article...
Bolding Mine
Another interesting note.
Over a period of ten years, a reduction of 60% was displayed between fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. 60% is not a number that can be easily brushed aside. We are not talking a 10%-15% jump where fluoride has been introduced. We are seeing huge numbers of up to and greater than 50%.
There are plenty of theories that exist today that should be given the light of day. September 11th is a controversy like no other. It is thought that the government allowed it to happen or even contributed to the destruction that day. But then there are conspiracies that there were no planes that day and that all the innocent souls that were lost that day are still alive. I am sure someone somewhere can point to some detail and say "this is why I believe it to be true", and I respect their opinion. But at the end of the day, basic logic and the obvious truth needs to intervene.
To say that the fluoridation of water is anything but an attempt to prevent tooth decay is ludicrous. As I've proven, it is one of the most researched health topics of all-time.. and all research shows enormous reductions of tooth decay in those that consume this treated water. Are we to believe that even though it does everything we're told it does, that it also has another ulterior motif? Even though that we're all consuming this water and we display none of the suggested symptoms.. we are still to believe it to be true?
Some theories deserve the light of day and our consideration. Some don't.
Just like Governor Connelly did not shoot JFK on that eventful day in 1963 and just like the simple fact that planes actually were crashed on September 11th, this is a conspiracy that does not hold up. If one wants to overlook the mass amount of documentation and research, you might come to a conclusion. But one would have to look the other way an awful lot to come to this.
Socratic Questions...
Due to my opponent's lack of response, I will simply ask that he take the time to refer back to my original Socratic questions and answer those.
Thank you.
The Benefits of Water Fluoridation...
In 1945-1946, a Twenty One Cities study was completed whereby tooth decay levels was measured in cities with varying fluoridation levels in their drinking water. It was measured that over a period of 13-15 years, those that had fluoridation levels of 1.0-1.2ppm displayed tooth decay at rates of 48%-70% less than others without it. This is concrete evidence that the process of fluoridating water supplies will reduce, prevent, and treat tooth decay among it's citizens.
1
Researchers have examined over 95 studies from 1945 through 1978, and it has been determined that dental issues have been reduced 40%-50% for primary teeth and 50%-60% for permanent teeth. These numbers are absolutely tremendous! We're not talking one or two in ten people have experienced a positive outcome from this fluoridation process. We're seeing that up to six of every ten people are benefiting. When you consider the variables that go into such studies, it is not a stretch to say that these numbers could quite possibly be even higher. But to have concrete evidence that at least six of every ten people are benefiting from water fluoridation, it leaves little to the imagination of what is being accomplished.
I believe I have slightly overstepped myself on this one when I previously agreed with my opponent that there is little documentation available on this subject matter. While there is a vast amount of research still to be completed, there is much that already exists. What does not exist is documentation to support my opponent's position. Which would explain his inability to come up with factual documentation to support that the basic premise of water fluoridation is anything but the prevention and treatment of tooth decay.
Documentation exists on the risks of of this process and yes, if administered in high amounts it can certainly be fatal. But too much of anything is typically a bad thing, so this really isn't letting the cat out of the bag. But the risks of water fluoridation are not what the topic is. What we are here to discuss is whether or not water fluoridation is to induce passivity on it's citizens. In a very short time in this debate thus far I have proven that there is enormous amounts of research to prove that this process actually does help treat tooth decay.
In the best part of the past 100 years, other than random skepticism of ulterior motifs, what is there to actually prove that there is a secondary reason for this process?
Well my opponent does have a story for us, so maybe we can learn something from that.
I will now quote a great article that examines the "conspiracies" surrounding this topic.
2
In fact, fluoridation of water is one of the most studied public health items of all time. The decay fighting benefits of fluoride were discovered by Colorado dentist Frederick S. McKay, who was trying to track down the origin of a certain type of tooth stain, prevalent in several states in the Southwest. He determined, in 1931, that the staining and resistance to decay were both caused by the high concentration of naturally occurring fluoride, common to that region.
Bolding Mine
Really? One of the most studied public health items of all time? I think that is certainly noteworthy.
From the same article...
2
A landmark study was done in 1945 whereby fluoride was added to the water in Newburgh, New York, an area where there the water contains almost no naturally occurring fluoride. Over a 10-year period, the children of Newburgh developed 60% fewer cavities than the children of the comparable city of Kingston, where the water was not fluoridated.
Bolding Mine
Another interesting note.
Over a period of ten years, a reduction of 60% was displayed between fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. 60% is not a number that can be easily brushed aside. We are not talking a 10%-15% jump where fluoride has been introduced. We are seeing huge numbers of up to and greater than 50%.
There are plenty of theories that exist today that should be given the light of day. September 11th is a controversy like no other. It is thought that the government allowed it to happen or even contributed to the destruction that day. But then there are conspiracies that there were no planes that day and that all the innocent souls that were lost that day are still alive. I am sure someone somewhere can point to some detail and say "this is why I believe it to be true", and I respect their opinion. But at the end of the day, basic logic and the obvious truth needs to intervene.
To say that the fluoridation of water is anything but an attempt to prevent tooth decay is ludicrous. As I've proven, it is one of the most researched health topics of all-time.. and all research shows enormous reductions of tooth decay in those that consume this treated water. Are we to believe that even though it does everything we're told it does, that it also has another ulterior motif? Even though that we're all consuming this water and we display none of the suggested symptoms.. we are still to believe it to be true?
Some theories deserve the light of day and our consideration. Some don't.
Just like Governor Connelly did not shoot JFK on that eventful day in 1963 and just like the simple fact that planes actually were crashed on September 11th, this is a conspiracy that does not hold up. If one wants to overlook the mass amount of documentation and research, you might come to a conclusion. But one would have to look the other way an awful lot to come to this.
Socratic Questions...
Due to my opponent's lack of response, I will simply ask that he take the time to refer back to my original Socratic questions and answer those.
Thank you.
It is with sincere humility that I apologize for not responding earlier.
Memoryshock, to you I owe the first and most important apology. You trusted me to continue and conclude this debate, in a manner appropriate to the quality of the debate forum, thus far I have failed twice. I will do my best to make amends. However the process of research has shown me a new rabbit hole (for me.) This topic may have been my undoing.
I offer only an assurance that my intentions to the subject matter and ATS are honorable.
My offer of apology to the noble fighter chissler:
With a heavy heart, (and a hefty chunk of disappointment) I offer my conditional surrender. I can not concede your position in this debate is valid, and I do believe I can convince you to 'look into it again' once the stage that is the debate no longer constrains us to the forms and processes which are in place.
I understand that 'validity' is an irrelevancy in the exercise of competitive debating as an activity; but most importantly, I initially believed the topic was representative of some larger phenomenon, like an ill-defined 'social paranoia' afflicting the generally 'conspiratorially' inclined community. Until, I went back, to earlier sources for corroboration.
I have missed two deadlines, and want to not offer the appearance of any disrespect or disregard for the effort that you has put forth. You deserves the win, in my opinion, based on that technicality alone.
I accept the limitations given within the debate, but this subject has proven significant beyond my original understanding, and surprisingly revealing, overwhelming my focus. I have begun to piece together a puzzle, which is developing into a strong circumstantial case belying the trite meme apparently propagated to characterize the subject of the general 'fluoride' conspiracy theory.
I have entered a rabbit hole it seems, and it is my nature to continue the exploration until I have satisfied the objective of seeing it through to the end. I will be developing a thread which will demonstrate the case as I have synthesized it thus far. I humbly submit the importance of this subject transcends this debate.
I am compelled to consume yet a bit more space before proceeding with what remains of my opportunity to respond. My opponent paints a picture which reflects not only the subject at hand, but the use of criticism of his opponent's form as a function of the debate. That is fair (in fact, sometimes even unavoidable). In doing so, the opponent, in this case me, can often be drawn to dilute their case by responding to the criticism. Often, but not always.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To make the most of my attempt to remedy my apparent lack of attention to this matter I will fulfill my mandatory obligations to respond to explicit questions, and may touch upon questions, unless they seem rhetorical in nature.
1. The external agency, is not readily definable in terms of nomenclature. I refer to the Webster definitions number 2 and 4 of the word agency (note lower case); namely, 1. the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power; as well as 2. an establishment engaged in doing business for another.
'Agencies' in the intended sense, embraces the colloquial use as a general noun relating to a formally structured government entity, but is not limited to such a body. Circumstantial and coincidental policy execution is often indicative of connections that the 'reigning' order maintains. To define it by name you would have to have information that is easily rejected unless the connections are made clear.
2. Absolutely not. In the cyber-medium in which we reside at the moment, it is patently impossible to demonstrate any documentation that can be examined and judged on its face value.
I can provide you with very specific on-line sources I used to compile support for the assertion, thus far, they exceed the level of hundreds. In order to understand this case you must begin your search starting in the late 17th Century, you must include economic history, the social structures of the industrialization of the old and new world, patent cases from the 1800's through to the 20th century, and more still. This case will not be handed to you on a single source platter. At this moment, it can't happen. As I stated earlier I will strive to see that it will, eventually.
3. Irrelevantly, no. However, water fluoridation is no longer a function of how much fluorine-compound exposure a person has any longer. In fact, we, as a species, have always been exposed to some degree, but then - the choices of men came into play, and viola! There is unnaturally sourced fluorides in the blood of every living human being, it would appear.
4. Fluoridation of water prevents tooth decay as effectively as death does. Any attempt to validate fluoridation of water as the means towards this end is a surrender to the notion that fluoride compounds are necessary for good dental health. Such is not the case. And even if it were, does that necessarily validate the disregard for the neurological impact the toxin has over the population? If such were the trade off, I'll just take better care of my teeth, thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a firm believer in propaganda, (in fact, it was part of my analytical experience for 12-years) I can tell you, that it is everywhere, the easier it is to get to, the more likely someone worked to make it so. There is a plethora of links, organizations, and interests which confidently tell us just how safe and beneficial and DESIRABLE it is to fluoridate water. More than can be counted easily.
The tricks of the trade include phrases like - 'there have been no published studies that prove....' (meaning, it must not be true if it wasn't 'published'); and also 'the most studied ...', and 'it was determined that...', all can be reduced to the logician's null-set because the structures are passive and not revealing of premises.
I do not wish to waste my remaining time exposing sources and agendas in propaganda.
Fluorides were so named because, before the element was even discovered, it was known as a useful substance to help in the separation of the constituent components of substances. For example, without flourides, Aluminum cannot easily (industrially) flow separately from bauxite - for refinement.
The hunt for the element itself, it's isolation and even its effect on living beings was spearheaded by European chemists and physicists. By the way, in 1844 the French dentist Antoine Malagou Désirabode recommended the use of "fluates" (as fluorides were still called then) for the preparation of dental fillings. Walter Hoffmann-Axthelm, author of a book on the history of dentistry claims that Désirabode probably was the first to think about a caries - preventive use of fluoride. So much the the dental hero Fredrick McKay. It is a recurring tendency of American-sourced history to imply that America is the alpha and omega of the universe of knowledge and progress - see what I mean about propaganda?
During the decades that followed much protesting took place in the community about apparent illnesses associated with fluoridation, especially in France, but they pretty much fell silent when in 1903 then leading French scientist Grosseron, defended its application for anti-bacterial use in canning concluding: "Sodium fluoride is an indispensable auxiliary to commerce and one cannot prohibit its use without causing to the French industry damage as considerable as unjustified." (Bolding mine)
I point out that statement to exemplify that the myth of 'public welfare' as excuse for policy is as old as humanity's experiment in civilization.
It is noteworthy that the scientists during that time were not living in a glass bubble, they were subsidized, publicly honored, and bestowed social eminence buy the very same interests we see in place now. The 'power-class.' Royalties, Industrialists, Elitists, Financiers; all had there hand in various places, affecting the lives of the productive citizenry, with no consideration of them as having rights commensurate with their own.
If you cannot accept that as a social reality of historical relevance than presumptively you don;t believe it could be true today.
1. Is it representative of your position to state that you deny the relationship of those empowered to affect and effect policy with their social circle are relevant?
2. Do you believe that studies and investigations can not be suppressed or corrupted by extenuating circumstances?
3. If a report is contrary to a power agency's agenda, can they effectively counter it, or nullify it's significance.
4. Given that the framework behind the scenes if one of the officially recognized 'laws', do you deny that the 'laws' can be molded to benefit one party's interests?
5. Were you aware that the fluorine ion is instrumental in pharmaceuticals specifically targeting areas of the brain?
Memoryshock, to you I owe the first and most important apology. You trusted me to continue and conclude this debate, in a manner appropriate to the quality of the debate forum, thus far I have failed twice. I will do my best to make amends. However the process of research has shown me a new rabbit hole (for me.) This topic may have been my undoing.
I offer only an assurance that my intentions to the subject matter and ATS are honorable.
My offer of apology to the noble fighter chissler:
With a heavy heart, (and a hefty chunk of disappointment) I offer my conditional surrender. I can not concede your position in this debate is valid, and I do believe I can convince you to 'look into it again' once the stage that is the debate no longer constrains us to the forms and processes which are in place.
I understand that 'validity' is an irrelevancy in the exercise of competitive debating as an activity; but most importantly, I initially believed the topic was representative of some larger phenomenon, like an ill-defined 'social paranoia' afflicting the generally 'conspiratorially' inclined community. Until, I went back, to earlier sources for corroboration.
I have missed two deadlines, and want to not offer the appearance of any disrespect or disregard for the effort that you has put forth. You deserves the win, in my opinion, based on that technicality alone.
I accept the limitations given within the debate, but this subject has proven significant beyond my original understanding, and surprisingly revealing, overwhelming my focus. I have begun to piece together a puzzle, which is developing into a strong circumstantial case belying the trite meme apparently propagated to characterize the subject of the general 'fluoride' conspiracy theory.
I have entered a rabbit hole it seems, and it is my nature to continue the exploration until I have satisfied the objective of seeing it through to the end. I will be developing a thread which will demonstrate the case as I have synthesized it thus far. I humbly submit the importance of this subject transcends this debate.
I am compelled to consume yet a bit more space before proceeding with what remains of my opportunity to respond. My opponent paints a picture which reflects not only the subject at hand, but the use of criticism of his opponent's form as a function of the debate. That is fair (in fact, sometimes even unavoidable). In doing so, the opponent, in this case me, can often be drawn to dilute their case by responding to the criticism. Often, but not always.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To make the most of my attempt to remedy my apparent lack of attention to this matter I will fulfill my mandatory obligations to respond to explicit questions, and may touch upon questions, unless they seem rhetorical in nature.
I will now move forward with my Socratic questions for my opening reply:
1. Who is this external agency that promotes the fluoridation of water?
2. Can you show me documentation that supports your position that water fluoridation is promoting passivity in its citizens?
3. Has your drinking water been fluoridated?
4. Do you agree that the fluoridation of water prevents tooth decay?
1. The external agency, is not readily definable in terms of nomenclature. I refer to the Webster definitions number 2 and 4 of the word agency (note lower case); namely, 1. the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power; as well as 2. an establishment engaged in doing business for another.
'Agencies' in the intended sense, embraces the colloquial use as a general noun relating to a formally structured government entity, but is not limited to such a body. Circumstantial and coincidental policy execution is often indicative of connections that the 'reigning' order maintains. To define it by name you would have to have information that is easily rejected unless the connections are made clear.
2. Absolutely not. In the cyber-medium in which we reside at the moment, it is patently impossible to demonstrate any documentation that can be examined and judged on its face value.
I can provide you with very specific on-line sources I used to compile support for the assertion, thus far, they exceed the level of hundreds. In order to understand this case you must begin your search starting in the late 17th Century, you must include economic history, the social structures of the industrialization of the old and new world, patent cases from the 1800's through to the 20th century, and more still. This case will not be handed to you on a single source platter. At this moment, it can't happen. As I stated earlier I will strive to see that it will, eventually.
3. Irrelevantly, no. However, water fluoridation is no longer a function of how much fluorine-compound exposure a person has any longer. In fact, we, as a species, have always been exposed to some degree, but then - the choices of men came into play, and viola! There is unnaturally sourced fluorides in the blood of every living human being, it would appear.
4. Fluoridation of water prevents tooth decay as effectively as death does. Any attempt to validate fluoridation of water as the means towards this end is a surrender to the notion that fluoride compounds are necessary for good dental health. Such is not the case. And even if it were, does that necessarily validate the disregard for the neurological impact the toxin has over the population? If such were the trade off, I'll just take better care of my teeth, thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a firm believer in propaganda, (in fact, it was part of my analytical experience for 12-years) I can tell you, that it is everywhere, the easier it is to get to, the more likely someone worked to make it so. There is a plethora of links, organizations, and interests which confidently tell us just how safe and beneficial and DESIRABLE it is to fluoridate water. More than can be counted easily.
The tricks of the trade include phrases like - 'there have been no published studies that prove....' (meaning, it must not be true if it wasn't 'published'); and also 'the most studied ...', and 'it was determined that...', all can be reduced to the logician's null-set because the structures are passive and not revealing of premises.
I do not wish to waste my remaining time exposing sources and agendas in propaganda.
Fluorides were so named because, before the element was even discovered, it was known as a useful substance to help in the separation of the constituent components of substances. For example, without flourides, Aluminum cannot easily (industrially) flow separately from bauxite - for refinement.
The hunt for the element itself, it's isolation and even its effect on living beings was spearheaded by European chemists and physicists. By the way, in 1844 the French dentist Antoine Malagou Désirabode recommended the use of "fluates" (as fluorides were still called then) for the preparation of dental fillings. Walter Hoffmann-Axthelm, author of a book on the history of dentistry claims that Désirabode probably was the first to think about a caries - preventive use of fluoride. So much the the dental hero Fredrick McKay. It is a recurring tendency of American-sourced history to imply that America is the alpha and omega of the universe of knowledge and progress - see what I mean about propaganda?
During the decades that followed much protesting took place in the community about apparent illnesses associated with fluoridation, especially in France, but they pretty much fell silent when in 1903 then leading French scientist Grosseron, defended its application for anti-bacterial use in canning concluding: "Sodium fluoride is an indispensable auxiliary to commerce and one cannot prohibit its use without causing to the French industry damage as considerable as unjustified." (Bolding mine)
I point out that statement to exemplify that the myth of 'public welfare' as excuse for policy is as old as humanity's experiment in civilization.
It is noteworthy that the scientists during that time were not living in a glass bubble, they were subsidized, publicly honored, and bestowed social eminence buy the very same interests we see in place now. The 'power-class.' Royalties, Industrialists, Elitists, Financiers; all had there hand in various places, affecting the lives of the productive citizenry, with no consideration of them as having rights commensurate with their own.
If you cannot accept that as a social reality of historical relevance than presumptively you don;t believe it could be true today.
1. Is it representative of your position to state that you deny the relationship of those empowered to affect and effect policy with their social circle are relevant?
2. Do you believe that studies and investigations can not be suppressed or corrupted by extenuating circumstances?
3. If a report is contrary to a power agency's agenda, can they effectively counter it, or nullify it's significance.
4. Given that the framework behind the scenes if one of the officially recognized 'laws', do you deny that the 'laws' can be molded to benefit one party's interests?
5. Were you aware that the fluorine ion is instrumental in pharmaceuticals specifically targeting areas of the brain?
Reply #2
I tip my hat to the return of my opponent. I'm glad to see that our debate shall continue. But I will take a moment here to say that I am a little confused in what has been said and the approach that has been taken. Since nothing I've said thus far has been refuted, I think I'll take some time to comment on what my opponent has had to say. After which I will push forward with my own position.
Here is where my confusion stems from.
Regardless of what my opponent has had to say thus far or will say afterwards, have you publicly surrendered our debate? Not even half way through and the white flag has been waved. Unfortunate, but I do respect that you have continued to post. Since you have continued, I shall do the same.
But I will scratch my head and wonder why you have conceded defeat so early in a debate. Well, the lack of any bit of substance to support your position would explain it.. but I'm surprised to hear it in your second post.
I don't feel that debates typically come down to who is right and who is wrong. It's about who makes the better case. Unfortunately for your position, having missed an opportunity to pose direct questions in your opening post, missed your second post, and then conceded defeat in your third post.. I can say with the utmost of respect that I would have probably went in another direction.
While I appreciate the gesture, I'm truly disappointed to see our debate dissolve to this. The judges can determine who wins and loses. In the mean time, I'd like to see both of us do our damnedest to fight for the win. If you wish to quit, then please quit. But don't continue on with this debate saying that I've already won. I would rather lose a hard fought debate than have someone give up.
Let us now take a peak at the answers provided by my opponent in response to the ones I posed previously two replies ago.
In response to my first question, I'll just scratch my head and ask if your response is that the agency you refer to does not exist? We're expected to answer in a direct manner and I find that answer to be everything but.
Secondly I asked my opponent if he can provide us with a shred of documentation to support these theories? His response, "Absolutely not." I have nothing else to say on that.
In response to my third question, my opponent has taken the time to go off on some other spiel about everything that I didn't ask. The rules dictate that your answers should be direct. Nothing more, nothing less. I appreciate your answer that your water is not fluoridated, but I question why you feel that it is irrelevant? If that is irrelevant, could you please inform me what exactly would be relevant?
To my final question, my opponent states that water fluoridation does nothing to help prevent tooth decay. Interesting. Can you PLEASE take a moment to respond to any of the factual information that I have provided then? This is a debate, not ramblings of what our own opinion is. I have a lot of opinions on a lot of things but all of which are useless in a debate. I guess it's kind of like a court room. It's not what is right and wrong, it's what you can prove. I have taken the time to prove my position. My opponent disagrees but again does nothing to refute it or pose an alternative.
Even in his story that he posted initially, that we've seen nothing in regards to a follow up with, the lack of any link to any relevant material is painfully obvious.
The rest of my opponent's delayed response was merely conjecture on propaganda. But again, nothing to reference this. Not a single link or citation. I'm not going to waste my time or your time in responding to it because these efforts to take up pixels on our screen with everything but the topic at hand is too obvious.
I will now directly respond to the Socratic questions posed by my opponent:
1. Is it representative of your position to state that you deny the relationship of those empowered to affect and effect policy with their social circle are relevant?
- Those that are empowered to legislate and reform are obviously going to effect policy because they are the ones writing it and voting upon it. What in my contributions thus far have led you to believe that I feel our political incumbents would have no effect on policies?
I find this question to be truly odd as I have not even quoted a government policy. I've quoted researchers and studies. All of which has nothing to do with government policy and/or legislation.
2. Do you believe that studies and investigations can not be suppressed or corrupted by extenuating circumstances?
- Yes.
3. If a report is contrary to a power agency's agenda, can they effectively counter it, or nullify it's significance.
- While unethical, I'm rather certain that yes it does happen.
4. Given that the framework behind the scenes if one of the officially recognized 'laws', do you deny that the 'laws' can be molded to benefit one party's interests?
- You are asking if the governing party would attempt to mold a law into something that is in their best interest. If they were to mold a law into something that was to hurt them, what sense would that make? But to play your game that you are involving us in, yes I believe that governing parties allow their interests to be factored.
5. Were you aware that the fluorine ion is instrumental in pharmaceuticals specifically targeting areas of the brain?
- In my readings, I'd have to say no I was not aware. Would you do us the great honor of providing a link?
I will now pose my Socratic questions to my opponent.
1. You have stated that "water fluoridation is as useful as death" in preventing tooth decay. How do you defend this given the statistics that I have provided thus far?
2. Can you please provide us with a single document that reinforces what you are attempting to tell us? (I know this is a variation of what I've already asked, but you continue to ignore what I've said yet continue to tell us that you are right. It can't go both ways. If I'm wrong, prove it.)
3. Why do you feel that the question of whether your water supply was fluoridated or not is irrelevant?
4. Do you know anybody who has consumed fluoridated water? Refer here.
5. If your answer to question #4 is yes, I ask you if they display any symptoms of passivity.
I tip my hat to the return of my opponent. I'm glad to see that our debate shall continue. But I will take a moment here to say that I am a little confused in what has been said and the approach that has been taken. Since nothing I've said thus far has been refuted, I think I'll take some time to comment on what my opponent has had to say. After which I will push forward with my own position.
Originally posted by Maxmars
With a heavy heart, (and a hefty chunk of disappointment) I offer my conditional surrender.
Here is where my confusion stems from.
Regardless of what my opponent has had to say thus far or will say afterwards, have you publicly surrendered our debate? Not even half way through and the white flag has been waved. Unfortunate, but I do respect that you have continued to post. Since you have continued, I shall do the same.
But I will scratch my head and wonder why you have conceded defeat so early in a debate. Well, the lack of any bit of substance to support your position would explain it.. but I'm surprised to hear it in your second post.
I don't feel that debates typically come down to who is right and who is wrong. It's about who makes the better case. Unfortunately for your position, having missed an opportunity to pose direct questions in your opening post, missed your second post, and then conceded defeat in your third post.. I can say with the utmost of respect that I would have probably went in another direction.
Originally posted by Maxmars
You deserves the win
While I appreciate the gesture, I'm truly disappointed to see our debate dissolve to this. The judges can determine who wins and loses. In the mean time, I'd like to see both of us do our damnedest to fight for the win. If you wish to quit, then please quit. But don't continue on with this debate saying that I've already won. I would rather lose a hard fought debate than have someone give up.
Let us now take a peak at the answers provided by my opponent in response to the ones I posed previously two replies ago.
In response to my first question, I'll just scratch my head and ask if your response is that the agency you refer to does not exist? We're expected to answer in a direct manner and I find that answer to be everything but.
Secondly I asked my opponent if he can provide us with a shred of documentation to support these theories? His response, "Absolutely not." I have nothing else to say on that.
In response to my third question, my opponent has taken the time to go off on some other spiel about everything that I didn't ask. The rules dictate that your answers should be direct. Nothing more, nothing less. I appreciate your answer that your water is not fluoridated, but I question why you feel that it is irrelevant? If that is irrelevant, could you please inform me what exactly would be relevant?
To my final question, my opponent states that water fluoridation does nothing to help prevent tooth decay. Interesting. Can you PLEASE take a moment to respond to any of the factual information that I have provided then? This is a debate, not ramblings of what our own opinion is. I have a lot of opinions on a lot of things but all of which are useless in a debate. I guess it's kind of like a court room. It's not what is right and wrong, it's what you can prove. I have taken the time to prove my position. My opponent disagrees but again does nothing to refute it or pose an alternative.
Even in his story that he posted initially, that we've seen nothing in regards to a follow up with, the lack of any link to any relevant material is painfully obvious.
The rest of my opponent's delayed response was merely conjecture on propaganda. But again, nothing to reference this. Not a single link or citation. I'm not going to waste my time or your time in responding to it because these efforts to take up pixels on our screen with everything but the topic at hand is too obvious.
I will now directly respond to the Socratic questions posed by my opponent:
1. Is it representative of your position to state that you deny the relationship of those empowered to affect and effect policy with their social circle are relevant?
- Those that are empowered to legislate and reform are obviously going to effect policy because they are the ones writing it and voting upon it. What in my contributions thus far have led you to believe that I feel our political incumbents would have no effect on policies?
I find this question to be truly odd as I have not even quoted a government policy. I've quoted researchers and studies. All of which has nothing to do with government policy and/or legislation.
2. Do you believe that studies and investigations can not be suppressed or corrupted by extenuating circumstances?
- Yes.
3. If a report is contrary to a power agency's agenda, can they effectively counter it, or nullify it's significance.
- While unethical, I'm rather certain that yes it does happen.
4. Given that the framework behind the scenes if one of the officially recognized 'laws', do you deny that the 'laws' can be molded to benefit one party's interests?
- You are asking if the governing party would attempt to mold a law into something that is in their best interest. If they were to mold a law into something that was to hurt them, what sense would that make? But to play your game that you are involving us in, yes I believe that governing parties allow their interests to be factored.
5. Were you aware that the fluorine ion is instrumental in pharmaceuticals specifically targeting areas of the brain?
- In my readings, I'd have to say no I was not aware. Would you do us the great honor of providing a link?
I will now pose my Socratic questions to my opponent.
1. You have stated that "water fluoridation is as useful as death" in preventing tooth decay. How do you defend this given the statistics that I have provided thus far?
2. Can you please provide us with a single document that reinforces what you are attempting to tell us? (I know this is a variation of what I've already asked, but you continue to ignore what I've said yet continue to tell us that you are right. It can't go both ways. If I'm wrong, prove it.)
3. Why do you feel that the question of whether your water supply was fluoridated or not is irrelevant?
4. Do you know anybody who has consumed fluoridated water? Refer here.
5. If your answer to question #4 is yes, I ask you if they display any symptoms of passivity.
chissler;
Well, it seems that my previous post was evidently too obtuse. I was offering you an apology by pointing out that I was aware that that my failure to post is NOT representative of the quality that needs to be maintained by this forum. The offer was a capitulation in terms of not obeying the forms of the debate. I am not surprised that you wish to proceed, and I will oblige.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus far, the Con position presents as its 'proof' the following:
Debunked. Dr McKay was begging for help from the ADA in understanding why the "Colorado brown stain" condition existed? His plea was an open request for assistance. The resulting call to arms went without clear result until after 1927, when people in Bauxite Arkansas were the subject of the same tooth discoloration. In 1931 McKay and other dentists are willing to attest for the public record that it was the fluorine-compounds in the drinking water that was responsible. Of course this raises the question of why they were ignorant of the 100 year-old data available from French and German researchers?
25 years later fluoride contamination is first recognized publicly in America..., but rather than it being a problem..., it's a good thing. The official story calls for tweaking the amounts in water..., despite the dearth of research available showing the negative results of fluorine exposure.
In fact, in 1937 Danish fluoride researcher Kaj E. Roholm, MD, Copenhagen's deputy health commissioner, publishes a 364-page report titled Fluorine Intoxication. In it, he details the bone disease, skin lesions, and mortality that result from long-term exposure to fluoride. He also questions its ability to protect teeth. Danish = ignored in America.
1939 Researcher Gerald J. Cox at the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh releases results from a rat study (showing healthier teeth) to support his recommendation that water be fluoridated. Now mind you, the Mellon institute is the brainchild of Andrew Mellon, owner of ALCOA, the Bauxite Arkansas company responsible for fluoridosis there. When the former Secretary of the Treasury and Public Health Services branch of the US government wants a report published, and accepted, it is. When it is to be discounted, it is. The U.S.P.H.S. left the Treasury during a reorganization in 1939, a review revealed that "there was a tendency to suppress certain scientific reports of importance to the public health on the grounds that certain commercial interests might be offended" [reference: Hampton B.C.: "The Public Health Service leaves the Treasury Department", Publ. Health Rep. 54 (June 30, 1939) 1133].
I should add the following quote:
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .
"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there." - William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937.("Facts and Fascism", George Seldes, p. 122 - and, "Trading with the Enemy", Charles Higham, p. 167 )
Andrew Mellon was part of that clique. The Nazi cartel included other notable persons, since we are in essence referring to members of what we now call the "Bilderberg" group. But Mellon is key. His ethics were bent towards ensuring that the Nazi-controlled I.G. Farben, got whatever it needed to pursue its goals.
Deeper still, for more clear examples of 'unpublished data' which seem to contradict the general "flouride is a blessing to mankind" club:
Source: Scientists at drug company admit...
Somehow, the research you have exposed seems not to include this...
or this:
NOW PLEASE - understand that these are not meant to be reference links. They are solid examples of the 'research' the promoters of fluoridation 'fail' to mention in their statistics. In fact, the research shown us is so twisted as to be bordering on fraud.
*Snip*
How, when a chain of events is so inter-connected with larger agendas, can I accomplish showing you how deep the rabbit hole goes?
1. You have stated that "water fluoridation is as useful as death" in preventing tooth decay. How do you defend this given the statistics that I have provided thus far?
Your statistics are at best incorrect, at worst bogus.
2. Can you please provide us with a single document that reinforces what you are attempting to tell us?
See above, for starters.
3. Why do you feel that the question of whether your water supply was fluoridated or not is irrelevant?
Simply because we are target by fluoridation from alternate sources with even more intensity than from public water sources. (As if the water fluoridation game weren't enough to ensure proper 'overdosing')
4 . Do you know anybody who has consumed fluoridated water?
Of course, everyone in the US probably has.
5. ... display any symptoms of passivity.
Look at the laws we allow our representatives to pass. The wars we are willing to die in for no potential purpose other than someone else's gain, our inability to control our own media, or the FCC, DEA, FDA, EPA..... etc.
Mod Edit: To Remove in excess of ten sentences. The links shall remain as they are essentially the same source.
[edit on 7-9-2008 by MemoryShock]
Well, it seems that my previous post was evidently too obtuse. I was offering you an apology by pointing out that I was aware that that my failure to post is NOT representative of the quality that needs to be maintained by this forum. The offer was a capitulation in terms of not obeying the forms of the debate. I am not surprised that you wish to proceed, and I will oblige.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus far, the Con position presents as its 'proof' the following:
Dr. Frederick McKay was a 19th century researcher ...
Debunked. Dr McKay was begging for help from the ADA in understanding why the "Colorado brown stain" condition existed? His plea was an open request for assistance. The resulting call to arms went without clear result until after 1927, when people in Bauxite Arkansas were the subject of the same tooth discoloration. In 1931 McKay and other dentists are willing to attest for the public record that it was the fluorine-compounds in the drinking water that was responsible. Of course this raises the question of why they were ignorant of the 100 year-old data available from French and German researchers?
25 years later fluoride contamination is first recognized publicly in America..., but rather than it being a problem..., it's a good thing. The official story calls for tweaking the amounts in water..., despite the dearth of research available showing the negative results of fluorine exposure.
In fact, in 1937 Danish fluoride researcher Kaj E. Roholm, MD, Copenhagen's deputy health commissioner, publishes a 364-page report titled Fluorine Intoxication. In it, he details the bone disease, skin lesions, and mortality that result from long-term exposure to fluoride. He also questions its ability to protect teeth. Danish = ignored in America.
1939 Researcher Gerald J. Cox at the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh releases results from a rat study (showing healthier teeth) to support his recommendation that water be fluoridated. Now mind you, the Mellon institute is the brainchild of Andrew Mellon, owner of ALCOA, the Bauxite Arkansas company responsible for fluoridosis there. When the former Secretary of the Treasury and Public Health Services branch of the US government wants a report published, and accepted, it is. When it is to be discounted, it is. The U.S.P.H.S. left the Treasury during a reorganization in 1939, a review revealed that "there was a tendency to suppress certain scientific reports of importance to the public health on the grounds that certain commercial interests might be offended" [reference: Hampton B.C.: "The Public Health Service leaves the Treasury Department", Publ. Health Rep. 54 (June 30, 1939) 1133].
I should add the following quote:
"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime. . . .
"Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there." - William E. Dodd, U.S. Ambassador to Germany, 1937.("Facts and Fascism", George Seldes, p. 122 - and, "Trading with the Enemy", Charles Higham, p. 167 )
Andrew Mellon was part of that clique. The Nazi cartel included other notable persons, since we are in essence referring to members of what we now call the "Bilderberg" group. But Mellon is key. His ethics were bent towards ensuring that the Nazi-controlled I.G. Farben, got whatever it needed to pursue its goals.
Deeper still, for more clear examples of 'unpublished data' which seem to contradict the general "flouride is a blessing to mankind" club:
>>> From Patent #5,807,541 "NSAID/fluoride periodontal compositions and methods" (15 Sept 1998), filed by the pharmaceutical company Sepracor:
A method for preventing dental caries [cavities] by administering fluoride and, at the same time controlling periodontal bone loss precipitated by the fluoride, by providing a combination of fluoride and NSAID is disclosed.
...
We have found that fluoride, in the concentration range in which it is employed for the prevention of dental caries [cavities], stimulates the production of prostaglandins and thereby exacerbates the inflammatory response in gingivitis and periodontitis.
...
Thus, the inclusion of fluoride in toothpastes and mouthwashes for the purpose of inhibiting the development of caries [cavities] may, at the same time, accelerate the process of chronic, destructive periodontitis.
Source: Scientists at drug company admit...
Somehow, the research you have exposed seems not to include this...
or this:
- Summation of Data on Fluoride & Bone Damage (at Exposure Levels Relevant to EPA’s Current MCL) www.fluoridealert.org...
- Fluoride & Bone Damage: Published Data
www.fluoridealert.org...
- Translation of Chinese Fetal Bone Study
www.fluoridealert.org...
- FAN’s response to EPA’s criticisms of submitted health studies.
www.fluoridealert.org...
- Translation of Bachinskii Paper
www.fluoridealert.org...
- A comparison of a review of animal studies on fluoride’s reproductive effects by Stan Freni (1994) and the DHHS (1991).
www.fluoridealert.org...
- Adverse Effects on Male Reproductive System
www.fluorideaction.org...
- Adverse Effects on Brain
www.fluorideaction.org...
– Fluoride Ingestion from Toothpaste
www.fluoridealert.org...
- Objections based on OPP failure to adhere to statutes and guidelines
www.fluoridealert.org...
- Summary of the residue tolerances for Sulfuryl fluoride and the food categories with Residue Tolerances in these categories
www.fluorideaction.org...
.....
- Comparisons of Residue Tolerances: Final vs. Proposed
www.fluorideaction.org...
NOW PLEASE - understand that these are not meant to be reference links. They are solid examples of the 'research' the promoters of fluoridation 'fail' to mention in their statistics. In fact, the research shown us is so twisted as to be bordering on fraud.
*Snip*
How, when a chain of events is so inter-connected with larger agendas, can I accomplish showing you how deep the rabbit hole goes?
1. You have stated that "water fluoridation is as useful as death" in preventing tooth decay. How do you defend this given the statistics that I have provided thus far?
Your statistics are at best incorrect, at worst bogus.
2. Can you please provide us with a single document that reinforces what you are attempting to tell us?
See above, for starters.
3. Why do you feel that the question of whether your water supply was fluoridated or not is irrelevant?
Simply because we are target by fluoridation from alternate sources with even more intensity than from public water sources. (As if the water fluoridation game weren't enough to ensure proper 'overdosing')
4 . Do you know anybody who has consumed fluoridated water?
Of course, everyone in the US probably has.
5. ... display any symptoms of passivity.
Look at the laws we allow our representatives to pass. The wars we are willing to die in for no potential purpose other than someone else's gain, our inability to control our own media, or the FCC, DEA, FDA, EPA..... etc.
Mod Edit: To Remove in excess of ten sentences. The links shall remain as they are essentially the same source.
[edit on 7-9-2008 by MemoryShock]
Reply #3
Long day gentleman, but I'm glad to see I have some time to get my reply up in time. Let's whip this into shape in the next twenty five minutes.
I shall begin this third and final reply with a short response to the recent post by my opponent and we'll examine both responses and questions posed in the Socratic method. Time is off the essence, so let us get down to it.
I'm going to begin my post here with some further thoughts on the water fluoridation process and we're going to examine what happens when water supplies are not fluoridated.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance that already exists in our water. The process of water fluoridation is merely the "topping" of these levels to healthy and sufficient levels whereby tooth decay can be prevented and/or treated. Surveys indicate that in South Africa, most people do not know what fluoride is and are not aware of the fluoridation process. Fluoride most certainly exists in their water supply, but not at the sufficient levels that most parts of the world have enforced. Their fluoride exists naturally, but it is deemed useless as it is so diluted that it does nothing. In this area where water fluoridation does not exist, can you guess how many people experience tooth decay?
More than 90% of South Africa's population suffers from tooth decay. See here if you are interested in reading further on this.
So where do we stand?
I have shown you that in the populations that have treated their water to the sufficient levels, tooth decay is reduced by numbers of up to and including 60%. What else have we learned? In areas where they do not treat their water with the necessary fluoridation, tooth decay exists on a level of over 90%.
My opponent refutes this information by saying it's false. How is it false? Well, we have not really gotten that far with it yet. It just is.
The irony in the fact that this debate comes down to one theme. Our theme here is not necessarily water fluoridation or tooth decay. What our theme of this debate is passivity. The underlying theme to everything we have had to say thus far is about how passive we are as a society. Keeping this in mind, let's look at the approaches that we've seen from both of us in our debate.
I have provided empirical evidence that shows that water fluoridation does work. I have shown what happens when it is not used. And I have even taken the time to discuss current "conspiracies" surrounding this topic. I have considered all aspects in my presentation for this debate. I do not rest on mere opinion and conjecture. I substantiate my assertions with clear documentation that states an obvious truth.
Now my opponent, what has he done? He has relied on the fact that he is right and I am wrong. Nothing more. My facts are incorrect yet he only attempts to refute them by saying that governments can be corrupt. The irony in the fact that it is my opponent who is relying on our reader being passive and not expecting more from him. Seems like the wrong topic to rely on passivity. Or is this an extremely cerebral attempt to prove a point in the last mile of this debate? Now that would be interesting.
I had typed that I would now address my opponents Socratic questions in his recent reply, but having reread the latest post I can see that none were posed. Instead, let us take the time to at least review the answers that were posed in response to my questions.
I asked my opponent about my statistics and how he would refute them...
Now I am the first one to be skeptical of any document published by any individual. I do not fault those who are skeptical. But if someone is going to discredit something, at the very least make an effort. We have years and years of research by professionals who have worked tirelessly on this information, and my opponent discredits it how? By simply saying it is wrong. Why? Because it is. The approach, once again, speaks for itself and needs no more attention.
Now this next one is interesting. I asked my opponent, for a second time, for a single piece of documentation that reinforces his believe that water fluoridation promotes passivity. Alas, we have been provided with documentation in his reply. But wait a minute, have we? Let's look at the titles of the links he has presented.
Summation of Data on Fluoride & Bone Damage
Fluoride & Bone Damage: Published Data
Translation of Chinese Fetal Bone Study
FAN’s response to EPA’s criticisms of submitted health studies.
A comparison of a review of animal studies on fluoride’s reproductive effects by Stan Freni (1994) and the DHHS (1991)
Adverse Effects on Male Reproductive System
Adverse Effects on Brain
Fluoride Ingestion from Toothpaste
Now in all of those, what does any of them have to do with our topic? Where do we see anything on passivity? Well actually, "Adverse effects on Brain" is a potential candidate. We could have something here. But as soon as you open the link, you find this little dandy at the top of the page. (I wish my opponent had of read the first paragraph on the page that he linked)
"Use of high doses" is the first thing we are hit with. Well, we're not dealing with high doses. We're dealing with very minor doses and it has already been stated that in high doses this chemical can be fatal. It also states that even if they found effects in the animals, IF they did, that it did not translate into effects that could be felt by humans.
So my opponent's own reference contradicts his position and does absolutely nothing to let us know that this process promotes passivity among humans.
It's a matter of opinion I guess, but I actually think that little snip of information helped my position.
If I may speak honestly with you for a moment, I would like say express some displeasure. I feel you have spent more time focusing on why you can not prove your position in this debate than on actually trying to prove it. In your explanations of why you can not prove it and why I should win this debate, you have been extremely verbose. But yet so obtuse. I mean no offense and through our u2u's in the past few days I feel comfortable that we have nothing but respect for one another. But I will say publicly that I am somewhat disappointed that you have decided to spend so much time on this debate telling our readers why you can not win.
If my history in these debates tells me nothing else, it certainly tells me that I can lose a debate with anyone.. anywhere.
Best of luck in your closing statements.
Long day gentleman, but I'm glad to see I have some time to get my reply up in time. Let's whip this into shape in the next twenty five minutes.
I shall begin this third and final reply with a short response to the recent post by my opponent and we'll examine both responses and questions posed in the Socratic method. Time is off the essence, so let us get down to it.
I'm going to begin my post here with some further thoughts on the water fluoridation process and we're going to examine what happens when water supplies are not fluoridated.
The Facts...
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance that already exists in our water. The process of water fluoridation is merely the "topping" of these levels to healthy and sufficient levels whereby tooth decay can be prevented and/or treated. Surveys indicate that in South Africa, most people do not know what fluoride is and are not aware of the fluoridation process. Fluoride most certainly exists in their water supply, but not at the sufficient levels that most parts of the world have enforced. Their fluoride exists naturally, but it is deemed useless as it is so diluted that it does nothing. In this area where water fluoridation does not exist, can you guess how many people experience tooth decay?
More than 90% of South Africa's population suffers from tooth decay. See here if you are interested in reading further on this.
So where do we stand?
I have shown you that in the populations that have treated their water to the sufficient levels, tooth decay is reduced by numbers of up to and including 60%. What else have we learned? In areas where they do not treat their water with the necessary fluoridation, tooth decay exists on a level of over 90%.
My opponent refutes this information by saying it's false. How is it false? Well, we have not really gotten that far with it yet. It just is.
Oh the Irony...
The irony in the fact that this debate comes down to one theme. Our theme here is not necessarily water fluoridation or tooth decay. What our theme of this debate is passivity. The underlying theme to everything we have had to say thus far is about how passive we are as a society. Keeping this in mind, let's look at the approaches that we've seen from both of us in our debate.
I have provided empirical evidence that shows that water fluoridation does work. I have shown what happens when it is not used. And I have even taken the time to discuss current "conspiracies" surrounding this topic. I have considered all aspects in my presentation for this debate. I do not rest on mere opinion and conjecture. I substantiate my assertions with clear documentation that states an obvious truth.
Now my opponent, what has he done? He has relied on the fact that he is right and I am wrong. Nothing more. My facts are incorrect yet he only attempts to refute them by saying that governments can be corrupt. The irony in the fact that it is my opponent who is relying on our reader being passive and not expecting more from him. Seems like the wrong topic to rely on passivity. Or is this an extremely cerebral attempt to prove a point in the last mile of this debate? Now that would be interesting.
I had typed that I would now address my opponents Socratic questions in his recent reply, but having reread the latest post I can see that none were posed. Instead, let us take the time to at least review the answers that were posed in response to my questions.
I asked my opponent about my statistics and how he would refute them...
Originally posted by Maxmars
Your statistics are at best incorrect, at worst bogus.
Now I am the first one to be skeptical of any document published by any individual. I do not fault those who are skeptical. But if someone is going to discredit something, at the very least make an effort. We have years and years of research by professionals who have worked tirelessly on this information, and my opponent discredits it how? By simply saying it is wrong. Why? Because it is. The approach, once again, speaks for itself and needs no more attention.
Now this next one is interesting. I asked my opponent, for a second time, for a single piece of documentation that reinforces his believe that water fluoridation promotes passivity. Alas, we have been provided with documentation in his reply. But wait a minute, have we? Let's look at the titles of the links he has presented.
Now in all of those, what does any of them have to do with our topic? Where do we see anything on passivity? Well actually, "Adverse effects on Brain" is a potential candidate. We could have something here. But as soon as you open the link, you find this little dandy at the top of the page. (I wish my opponent had of read the first paragraph on the page that he linked)
The use of high doses increases the likelihood that potentially significant toxic effects will be identified. Findings of adverse effects in any one species do not necessarily indicate such effects might be generated in humans. From a conservative risk assessment perspective however, adverse findings in animal species are assumed to represent potential effects in humans, unless convincing evidence of species specificity is available.
-- Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
"Use of high doses" is the first thing we are hit with. Well, we're not dealing with high doses. We're dealing with very minor doses and it has already been stated that in high doses this chemical can be fatal. It also states that even if they found effects in the animals, IF they did, that it did not translate into effects that could be felt by humans.
So my opponent's own reference contradicts his position and does absolutely nothing to let us know that this process promotes passivity among humans.
It's a matter of opinion I guess, but I actually think that little snip of information helped my position.
Originally posted by Maxmars
How, when a chain of events is so inter-connected with larger agendas, can I accomplish showing you how deep the rabbit hole goes?
If I may speak honestly with you for a moment, I would like say express some displeasure. I feel you have spent more time focusing on why you can not prove your position in this debate than on actually trying to prove it. In your explanations of why you can not prove it and why I should win this debate, you have been extremely verbose. But yet so obtuse. I mean no offense and through our u2u's in the past few days I feel comfortable that we have nothing but respect for one another. But I will say publicly that I am somewhat disappointed that you have decided to spend so much time on this debate telling our readers why you can not win.
If my history in these debates tells me nothing else, it certainly tells me that I can lose a debate with anyone.. anywhere.
Best of luck in your closing statements.
I am truly pleased that my opponent has responded in such a manner. It allows me the freedom to explain once again. The object of this debate is
indeed revolving around the issue of passivity induced by fluorine compounds, and how its use is malignant in nature.
The conundrum for the pro position relates to multiple aspects of the topic. It isn’t simply a question of “Fluoride is good for your teeth and that’s why it is imposed upon you.”
What I require is your attention:
Multiple reliable sources have confirmed that fluoride is, in fact, a slow acting neurotoxin. It is caries-fighting ability is inconsequential after the age of 12 and it is actually dangerous for children under the age of three. Over sustained exposure, 20 or 30 years, it embeds itself in your tissues and interferes with normal functioning of the human brain, eventually reducing IQ and drive, as confirmed by the long term Chinese studies (see “Fluoride's Neurological Effects: studies show there may be grave implications for Alzheimer’s, Dementia, Attention Deficit Disorder, reduced IQ in children - www.fluoridation.com...”)
The effect of fluorides has been under scientific investigation in Europe for a century before Americans ever started. Yet our ADA and AMA along with the support of the Treasury Department, under the leadership of the likes of Andrew Mellon, rejected sincere efforts to expand the communities understanding of what fluorides do to people. Multiple opponents to fluoridation found themselves marginalized because they ostensibly threatened commercial interests, money being enough to drive the cooperation of the political machine. Among the opponents were figures such as Dr. E.H. Bronner, Research Chemist, Los Angeles (Albert Einstein’s nephew), Australian parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson who revealed that the chief chemist sent by the US to assess IG Farben after WWII, Charles Perkins, reported that both the Nazi’s and the Soviets developed the use of fluorides to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination, control and loss of liberty.
The intent of fluoridation was to create the kind of population that would be led like cattle, with no capability to engage a meaningful resistance to the will of the ruling class. How does one measure success?
According to Charles Perkins, "When the Nazis decided to go into Poland, the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans and personnel. The scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to ‘Communize’ the world. I say this in all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorides. Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically."
When Major General Racey Jordan was in charge of the massive lend-lease airlift operations from Great Falls, Montana to Russia, via Alaska, he queried the trans-shipment of considerable amounts of sodium fluoride. He was told frankly that it was to put into the drinking water of the prisoner of war camps to take away their will to resist.
Or were we preoccupied with ensuring their dental health’?
Interestingly, despite the facts, somehow the world government (UN and cohorts) continues the trend to fluoridate the world. Using the ‘dental’ purpose as the validating factor; they refuse to acknowledge or accept recent findings that within countries that do fluoridate their water (such as the United States and Australia), recent large-scale surveys of dental health - utilizing modern scientific methods not employed in the early surveys from the 1930s-1950s - have found little difference in tooth decay, including in "baby bottle tooth decay", between fluoridated and un-fluoridated communities.. (www.fluoridealert.org...).
But the ‘status quo’ would have you believe that the facts of the 21st century mean nothing; all that matters is the ‘American” post WWII research.
Regarding passivity, How many observations about the complacency of the sheople, the apparent unlimited ability for the population to ignore reality, to endure submission to outrageous inequities, and to watch the fabric of their nation degrade slowly are you willing to disregard as irrelevant? I think the meme of the glaring complacency of our population needs little in the way of reinforcement. What we have become is definitely indicative of the effect of long term exposure of two thirds of the population to the glories of fluorides. That’s how I define ‘passive’. Sorry I didn’t take the bait.
I regret only that my opponent can't contend with my verbosity without calling it a flaw. My vocabulary is all I have. My opponent regards my exposition regarding the complexity and depth of this particular "CT" as a lamentation.
Perhaps the sentiment came through, I do lament. I lament that we are to believe that Muscular Dystrophy, ADHD, Autism, Alzheimers, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Manic Depression, Bi-Polar Disorder, and other plagues of modern man are in no way connected to the project to ensure the maximum number of people get their ongoing dose of this toxin.
It will dumb-down and enfeeble the sheople, THAT is it's purpose. I lament that the establishment has succeeded to a great degree in making us 'numb' to to the danger we face, and most importantly, made us numb to each other.
Too many negative issues arise from this practice to be ignored. So many alarms have been sounded and ignored it has become impossible for some to believe that we could be so wrong for so long - what would that make us? Passive, perhaps?
The voluminous amount of data thrown at us is clearly intended to dilute the truth. But certainly all those dentists can't be wrong? Except, they do warn us that fluoride is poison. They do officially recommend NOT exposing children under three to fluoridated toothpaste. The National Kidney Foundation has revised its policy on the endorsement of fluoridation as 'safe'. In fact, to quote some guy, "I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history." - Dr. ARVID CARLSSON, Winner, Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000).
But that would mean we would no longer be 'passive' right? No. There are so many sources of fluoride now, you can barely escape it. www.fluoridealert.org... Seems like we are being 'force fed' supplemental fluorides, just in case.
The so-called "safe" amount in water assumes what? A full dose? Think about how much fluoride YOU consume.
The motive, the means, and the opportunity are there. You be the judge. Don't passively let the establishment judge for you. They lie. Often.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Memoryshock for you kind patience, and of course, chissler, for enduring my presentation. All things have purpose, and that would include the post I missed - I hope when the time comes, you will understand why the presentation took the form it did. No offense taken, none intended. If the structure confounded you, well, as I said before, no offense.
And for you, the readers of this debate. If you have endured this debate thus far, thank you as well, and please.
Do the research. I was surprised at how this scam is being perpetrated. It is not an unreasonable thing to expect those people that foisted such nonsense on us such as "fractional reserve lending of fiat currency", are well equipped to pull this off too. Medicate me?, No thank you!
The conundrum for the pro position relates to multiple aspects of the topic. It isn’t simply a question of “Fluoride is good for your teeth and that’s why it is imposed upon you.”
What I require is your attention:
Multiple reliable sources have confirmed that fluoride is, in fact, a slow acting neurotoxin. It is caries-fighting ability is inconsequential after the age of 12 and it is actually dangerous for children under the age of three. Over sustained exposure, 20 or 30 years, it embeds itself in your tissues and interferes with normal functioning of the human brain, eventually reducing IQ and drive, as confirmed by the long term Chinese studies (see “Fluoride's Neurological Effects: studies show there may be grave implications for Alzheimer’s, Dementia, Attention Deficit Disorder, reduced IQ in children - www.fluoridation.com...”)
The effect of fluorides has been under scientific investigation in Europe for a century before Americans ever started. Yet our ADA and AMA along with the support of the Treasury Department, under the leadership of the likes of Andrew Mellon, rejected sincere efforts to expand the communities understanding of what fluorides do to people. Multiple opponents to fluoridation found themselves marginalized because they ostensibly threatened commercial interests, money being enough to drive the cooperation of the political machine. Among the opponents were figures such as Dr. E.H. Bronner, Research Chemist, Los Angeles (Albert Einstein’s nephew), Australian parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson who revealed that the chief chemist sent by the US to assess IG Farben after WWII, Charles Perkins, reported that both the Nazi’s and the Soviets developed the use of fluorides to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination, control and loss of liberty.
The intent of fluoridation was to create the kind of population that would be led like cattle, with no capability to engage a meaningful resistance to the will of the ruling class. How does one measure success?
According to Charles Perkins, "When the Nazis decided to go into Poland, the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans and personnel. The scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to ‘Communize’ the world. I say this in all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorides. Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically."
When Major General Racey Jordan was in charge of the massive lend-lease airlift operations from Great Falls, Montana to Russia, via Alaska, he queried the trans-shipment of considerable amounts of sodium fluoride. He was told frankly that it was to put into the drinking water of the prisoner of war camps to take away their will to resist.
Or were we preoccupied with ensuring their dental health’?
Interestingly, despite the facts, somehow the world government (UN and cohorts) continues the trend to fluoridate the world. Using the ‘dental’ purpose as the validating factor; they refuse to acknowledge or accept recent findings that within countries that do fluoridate their water (such as the United States and Australia), recent large-scale surveys of dental health - utilizing modern scientific methods not employed in the early surveys from the 1930s-1950s - have found little difference in tooth decay, including in "baby bottle tooth decay", between fluoridated and un-fluoridated communities.. (www.fluoridealert.org...).
But the ‘status quo’ would have you believe that the facts of the 21st century mean nothing; all that matters is the ‘American” post WWII research.
Regarding passivity, How many observations about the complacency of the sheople, the apparent unlimited ability for the population to ignore reality, to endure submission to outrageous inequities, and to watch the fabric of their nation degrade slowly are you willing to disregard as irrelevant? I think the meme of the glaring complacency of our population needs little in the way of reinforcement. What we have become is definitely indicative of the effect of long term exposure of two thirds of the population to the glories of fluorides. That’s how I define ‘passive’. Sorry I didn’t take the bait.
I regret only that my opponent can't contend with my verbosity without calling it a flaw. My vocabulary is all I have. My opponent regards my exposition regarding the complexity and depth of this particular "CT" as a lamentation.
Perhaps the sentiment came through, I do lament. I lament that we are to believe that Muscular Dystrophy, ADHD, Autism, Alzheimers, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Manic Depression, Bi-Polar Disorder, and other plagues of modern man are in no way connected to the project to ensure the maximum number of people get their ongoing dose of this toxin.
It will dumb-down and enfeeble the sheople, THAT is it's purpose. I lament that the establishment has succeeded to a great degree in making us 'numb' to to the danger we face, and most importantly, made us numb to each other.
Too many negative issues arise from this practice to be ignored. So many alarms have been sounded and ignored it has become impossible for some to believe that we could be so wrong for so long - what would that make us? Passive, perhaps?
The voluminous amount of data thrown at us is clearly intended to dilute the truth. But certainly all those dentists can't be wrong? Except, they do warn us that fluoride is poison. They do officially recommend NOT exposing children under three to fluoridated toothpaste. The National Kidney Foundation has revised its policy on the endorsement of fluoridation as 'safe'. In fact, to quote some guy, "I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history." - Dr. ARVID CARLSSON, Winner, Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000).
But that would mean we would no longer be 'passive' right? No. There are so many sources of fluoride now, you can barely escape it. www.fluoridealert.org... Seems like we are being 'force fed' supplemental fluorides, just in case.
The so-called "safe" amount in water assumes what? A full dose? Think about how much fluoride YOU consume.
The motive, the means, and the opportunity are there. You be the judge. Don't passively let the establishment judge for you. They lie. Often.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Memoryshock for you kind patience, and of course, chissler, for enduring my presentation. All things have purpose, and that would include the post I missed - I hope when the time comes, you will understand why the presentation took the form it did. No offense taken, none intended. If the structure confounded you, well, as I said before, no offense.
And for you, the readers of this debate. If you have endured this debate thus far, thank you as well, and please.
Do the research. I was surprised at how this scam is being perpetrated. It is not an unreasonable thing to expect those people that foisted such nonsense on us such as "fractional reserve lending of fiat currency", are well equipped to pull this off too. Medicate me?, No thank you!
Closing Statements...
I'll begin my closing statements with a sincere thank you to my opponent. Those final words were excellent. Very well written and thought provoking to say the least. If that were authored in a thread on our public forums, I think it would see great success.
It was a great post.
However, (there is always a however it seems) the aspect of the post that dealt directly with passivity surrounding fluoride and the world's population, it was merely a story without a link. So our readers are forced to take my opponent's word for what he has to say. In a court room, such conjecture does not hold up. What we expect and what we need is verifiable documentation, and these tall tales simply don't make the grade. Don't get me wrong, it was interesting. I enjoyed reading it. But it's a story.
The internet is a black whole of information. To think of how many web pages exist with the endless amount of content.. it is a little difficult to even grasp. And my opponent will have us believe that in the greatness that is the internet, he can not find a single page to help him verify this tall tale he shares with us? And then he expects us to believe him?
There is a lot of garbage on the internet. A lot! But if he can not find a single page to reinforce this tall tale, I'm sorry but I don't think we can put much stock into it.
Some pages were shown that tooth decay is decreasing world wide. In both fluoridated regions and non-fluoridated. This is excellent news. Unlike my opponent who completely ignored anything I had to say once again, I acknowledge his efforts and I challenge on what I perceive to be slips. I always say that in a debate it's important to run your own race. But to a certain extent one must acknowledge what his opponent has had to say and make an effort to refute what is being presented.
With the exception of my Socratic questions, which even those were not really responded to directly, my opponent has done nothing to examine what it is that I have presented. Why? He's obviously a very intelligent man, so why would he overlook this aspect of the debate? Because what I have to say is correct and it is not going to be refuted. So rather than accept defeat, which he actually has on a few occasions, he has chosen to simply ignore and keep running in his own lane hoping that nobody notices.
The facts speak for themselves.
As with any debate, this should not come down to who anyone feels is right or wrong. It is a matter of who presented themselves and their position better than that of their opponent. I have shown the facts, I have refuted what my opponent has had to say, and I have done my very best to examine all sides of the story. What happens with and what happens without, varying conspiracy theories and what the thoughts are surrounding them. My opponent has not.
Granted my opponent has been verbose in this debate, but more often than not it had nothing to do with the topic. To refer back to the race analogy, while he was so busy running in his own lane ignoring anything and everything around him, he didn't even realize that he was running in the wrong race. And when he did finally point himself in the right direction, he couldn't back up anything he was saying.
I had hoped to hear the end of the story he presented to us in the opening statement. Maybe another time, another place.
I shall wrap this debate up now guys. I thank everyone involved for their efforts and those that took the time to read it.
As we send this debate off to our judges, let's remind us all of one thing.
I'll begin my closing statements with a sincere thank you to my opponent. Those final words were excellent. Very well written and thought provoking to say the least. If that were authored in a thread on our public forums, I think it would see great success.
It was a great post.
However, (there is always a however it seems) the aspect of the post that dealt directly with passivity surrounding fluoride and the world's population, it was merely a story without a link. So our readers are forced to take my opponent's word for what he has to say. In a court room, such conjecture does not hold up. What we expect and what we need is verifiable documentation, and these tall tales simply don't make the grade. Don't get me wrong, it was interesting. I enjoyed reading it. But it's a story.
The internet is a black whole of information. To think of how many web pages exist with the endless amount of content.. it is a little difficult to even grasp. And my opponent will have us believe that in the greatness that is the internet, he can not find a single page to help him verify this tall tale he shares with us? And then he expects us to believe him?
There is a lot of garbage on the internet. A lot! But if he can not find a single page to reinforce this tall tale, I'm sorry but I don't think we can put much stock into it.
Some pages were shown that tooth decay is decreasing world wide. In both fluoridated regions and non-fluoridated. This is excellent news. Unlike my opponent who completely ignored anything I had to say once again, I acknowledge his efforts and I challenge on what I perceive to be slips. I always say that in a debate it's important to run your own race. But to a certain extent one must acknowledge what his opponent has had to say and make an effort to refute what is being presented.
With the exception of my Socratic questions, which even those were not really responded to directly, my opponent has done nothing to examine what it is that I have presented. Why? He's obviously a very intelligent man, so why would he overlook this aspect of the debate? Because what I have to say is correct and it is not going to be refuted. So rather than accept defeat, which he actually has on a few occasions, he has chosen to simply ignore and keep running in his own lane hoping that nobody notices.
The facts speak for themselves.
As with any debate, this should not come down to who anyone feels is right or wrong. It is a matter of who presented themselves and their position better than that of their opponent. I have shown the facts, I have refuted what my opponent has had to say, and I have done my very best to examine all sides of the story. What happens with and what happens without, varying conspiracy theories and what the thoughts are surrounding them. My opponent has not.
Granted my opponent has been verbose in this debate, but more often than not it had nothing to do with the topic. To refer back to the race analogy, while he was so busy running in his own lane ignoring anything and everything around him, he didn't even realize that he was running in the wrong race. And when he did finally point himself in the right direction, he couldn't back up anything he was saying.
I had hoped to hear the end of the story he presented to us in the opening statement. Maybe another time, another place.
I shall wrap this debate up now guys. I thank everyone involved for their efforts and those that took the time to read it.
As we send this debate off to our judges, let's remind us all of one thing.
Originally posted by Maxmars
You deserves the win
Congratulations to both...chissler advances to Round Three.
The judges comments:
[edit on 18-9-2008 by MemoryShock]
The judges comments:
Maxmars V chissler
This could have been a great debate and could have turned out very differently, had Maxmars stuck to the topic of the debate.
Some excellent theories proposed and some great research gathered - unfortunately it had little to do with the subject matter up for debate.
I believe that Maxmars showed inexperience in getting bogged down in the minutiae of a possible flouride conspiracy and because of this, failed to focus on the job in hand.
The material presented was interesting and informative, but ultimately irrelevant to the question posed.
It was also an uphill struggle after missing posts.
chissler did a good job of staying on track, and actually seemed to take it easy on Maxmars, rather than go for the jugular.
The wealth of information presented was informative and educational, and on this occasion he did not need to inject rhetoric to drive his point home.
His experience shone through as he expertly clipped his opponents wings so that the debate did not go off track, and he guided the debate nicely in the direction he wanted it to go, whilst giving his opponent little chance to explore the "rabbit hole"
All in all, a comfortable win for chissler, although I expect Maxmars to learn from this and come back the stronger for it.
Max Mars V. Chissler
Topic: Fluoridation Of Any Water Supply Is An Intentional Effort To Induce Passivity On Its' Citizens
Chissler: Opening Comments.
"If such a large percentage of the American public is currently consuming this fluoridated water, than odds are it includes us. This is important. This isn't a debate of "them", it is a debate of "us". It is we who are consuming this water and we are the people that are supposedly becoming passive due to it."
Smart move. Right out of the gates, tie passivity into the citizenry. I would also have seen you link modern passivity to the faults of our current educational structures...
Max Mars rep1: No DATA
Chissler Rep1: Verifiable Studies through government, and other health agency sources. Well rounded, and argued.
Max Mars Rep2: Interesting Twist... But I'm not biting yet.
To be frank, you are losing me right now... This is a debate, not a T.V. Drama. Drawing out and holding off on the info until the end is not a strong debate tactic.
Chissler Reply 2: First... I hate to say it because it was almost harsh... but the beginning of this made me laugh my *** off...
I do Hope the debate will continue, but at this point chissler has made his statements very clear and concise; I do not seeing him losing this debate.
M M 3:Finaly some links. However, I would have liked to see more than one source for your argument.
You're earlier concession was a fault, as your debate has turned from studied and reasoned (opening) to focusing on getting your opinion (topic) as a driving force for the audiences emotions. It's a good play, but It doesn't seem to work well when it comes to reading as a judge.
Chissler Reply 3: Great link, Many examples of OTHER countries who fluoridate their water.
MM Closing: Well worded, but I'm still not convinced that "Fluoridation Of Any Water Supply Is An Intentional Effort To Induce Passivity On Its' Citizens"
Chissler closing
"The aspect of the post that dealt directly with passivity surrounding fluoride and the world's population, it was merely a story without a link. So our readers are forced to take my opponent's word for what he has to say. In a court room, such conjecture does not hold up."
which is one of many reasons why I award The win to Chissler.
[edit on 18-9-2008 by MemoryShock]
new topics
-
Ditching physical money
History: 1 hours ago -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry: 1 hours ago -
Don't take advantage of people just because it seems easy it will backfire
Rant: 2 hours ago -
VirginOfGrand says hello
Introductions: 2 hours ago -
Should Biden Replace Harris With AOC On the 2024 Democrat Ticket?
2024 Elections: 3 hours ago -
University student disciplined after saying veganism is wrong and gender fluidity is stupid
Education and Media: 5 hours ago -
Geddy Lee in Conversation with Alex Lifeson - My Effin’ Life
People: 7 hours ago -
God lived as a Devil Dog.
Short Stories: 7 hours ago -
Police clash with St George’s Day protesters at central London rally
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago -
TLDR post about ATS and why I love it and hope we all stay together somewhere
General Chit Chat: 9 hours ago
top topics
-
Hate makes for strange bedfellows
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago, 18 flags -
Who guards the guards
US Political Madness: 14 hours ago, 13 flags -
University student disciplined after saying veganism is wrong and gender fluidity is stupid
Education and Media: 5 hours ago, 11 flags -
Police clash with St George’s Day protesters at central London rally
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 8 hours ago, 8 flags -
TLDR post about ATS and why I love it and hope we all stay together somewhere
General Chit Chat: 9 hours ago, 7 flags -
Should Biden Replace Harris With AOC On the 2024 Democrat Ticket?
2024 Elections: 3 hours ago, 5 flags -
Has Tesla manipulated data logs to cover up auto pilot crash?
Automotive Discussion: 16 hours ago, 3 flags -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry: 1 hours ago, 2 flags -
Don't take advantage of people just because it seems easy it will backfire
Rant: 2 hours ago, 2 flags -
Geddy Lee in Conversation with Alex Lifeson - My Effin’ Life
People: 7 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
VirginOfGrand says hello
Introductions • 1 • : VirginOfGrand -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 740 • : matafuchs -
Should Biden Replace Harris With AOC On the 2024 Democrat Ticket?
2024 Elections • 33 • : BernnieJGato -
Gold and silver prices....woo hoo
History • 84 • : annonentity -
The Democrats Take Control the House - Look what happened while you were sleeping
US Political Madness • 108 • : Zanti Misfit -
Ditching physical money
History • 7 • : TheMisguidedAngel -
BREAKING! Another Bridge Hit by a barge #3 this week.
Mainstream News • 110 • : RookQueen2 -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry • 4 • : Dalamax -
15 Unhealthiest Sodas On The Market
Health & Wellness • 40 • : Freeborn -
Remember These Attacks When President Trump 2.0 Retribution-Justice Commences.
2024 Elections • 47 • : Zanti Misfit
5