Cities openly violate state and federal law

Originally posted by againuntodust
reply to post by 4nsicphd

 

Grandfather exemption, interesting. Looks like you might be right about that! Now whether or not a grandfather exemption is morally appropriate in this (or any) case, that's another story...

Whether it's morally appropriate or not, it's there. So the title of the thread is false info. And the OP, if believed, could get someone arrested or killed.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


I guess I have something in common with Julian Assange now.

By the way...

The FDA argues that fluoride was grandfathered in because it was in use before 1938. However, the only use at that time was for rat and roach poison--water fluoridation did not begin until 1945! Thus, the FDA is basically saying that since fluoride is okay for rat poison, it is okay to put into our drinking water.

Originally posted by Mactire
You were being sarcastic, right?

Nope. There is zero credible evidence that the substance was used as described or in Nazi camps.

The following is from a paper written by A. True Ott...
The Truth About Flouride

This wasn't from a paper. It's from a book Ott is trying to sell, along with his various other books about conspiracy theories in the LDS and government he has no evidence for. Is this really a trusted source?

Ott claims Chinese have been given authority to use their troops on American soil

Ott claims government and LDS are in league with actual demons and satan

Ott doesn't understand what 'minerals' are, despite claiming to have researched them for his doctoral thesis

Does this really seem like someone you should be turning to for accurate information?

Nazi Connections...

This source is nothing but a few sentences with no evidence of the "information" that was supposedly given to the NYTimes. What exactly does this link prove? Explain this to me.

And yet more connections...

This website gets it wrong in just the first few sentences. Why are they talking about elemental flourine? No one is claiming elemental flourine is safe, and no one is putting elemental flourine in water. A basic, middle school level chemistry education tells you that elemental properties change when forming a compound.

Creating a straw man and then knocking it down is an awfully silly way to try to prove a point.

reply to post by Mactire

....It was decided by our government to use Fluoride as a way of population control after the baby boom that erupted after WWII. Pure and Simple.

Do you have any links?

Boy am I glad I have a well..... at least for now.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


I'll tell you what, before I run off to pull another 20 links to various other websites, why don't you find me a single paper that disproves the notion of fluoride being used as a sterilizer.
(One that isn't from some government funded company or lab, I mean)

Even dentists are stepping forward admitting that fluoride is both bad for us, and that it was never even FDA approved. Quoting:

"Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses attainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:
Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)
Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)
Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)
Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)"

In 1950 a man, Dr. Robert Mick, put out a call that he would give $20,000 to ANYONE who could prove that fluoride did what it was claimed to do, and that it wasn't some slow working social experiment by the government. As of a Radio Show appearance in 1991, no one had ever come forward with any evidence to the contrary.

The long short is, I can find a million articles and papers, and testimonies and videos, and diagrams, and pictures, and books, and soundbites from Doctors and scientists and ex-military personnel, and chemists, and science teachers, and researchers who all say that fluoride is a terrible substance that first showed up in the water supplies in Nazi Germany, but only a handful of people that say anything to the contrary, and these people are generally just.... people. Likely disinfo types that troll the net looking to call anyone who dares blow a whistle "full of $h!t", with no proof to back up their claims.

Fluoride weakens enamel
Advanced Health Plan Article

Fluoride myths are actually facts...

Now, I won't be returning to this thread, as it is dead now, and I know you won't be able to produce any non-government funded papers to disprove any of this.

And for the record: Making baseless claims and arguments for arguments sake is a terrible way to make a point.

reply to post by crimvelvet


Don't be too secure in your well water. Did you read my other posts? Both my mother and grandmother died of cancer from drinking well water.

About those links. I didn't have a lot of time to find an all in one page. I ate up enough time debating with "what's his name?" So you may have to connect the dots to Fluoride and population control, ( and feel free to check out the links on the vid above), but here you go.
Link 1
Link 2

PS> Google "Fluoride, or Anti-depressants (of which fluoride is a major ingredient) and sex drive" and you'll get a clearer picture.

Originally posted by Mactire
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

 

I'll tell you what, before I run off to pull another 20 links to various other websites, why don't you find me a single paper that disproves the notion of fluoride being used as a sterilizer.
(One that isn't from some government funded company or lab, I mean)

So, you're asking me to prove a negative? How does that even make logical sense? That's like asking me to prove the KGB isn't watching you through your cellphone right now.

Even dentists are stepping forward admitting that fluoride is both bad for us, and that it was never even FDA approved. Quoting:

"Adverse effects [long quote edited down]"

I think this quote is very interesting, but not for the same reason you do. See, you claim there are "dentists" stepping forward with this information, and then you post a long link without a source. So, I googled a few of the phrases and, lo and behold, I find out that this information comes from the same sorts of places as the previous information given: random blogs with no souces, references, or names.

Do you honestly expect me to believe any information you give me that doesn't have a shred of evidence-based science behind it? Why can't you just prove your point with science, rather than blog posts?

In 1950 a man, Dr. Robert Mick, put out a call that he would give $20,000 to ANYONE who could prove that fluoride did what it was claimed to do, and that it wasn't some slow working social experiment by the government. As of a Radio Show appearance in 1991, no one had ever come forward with any evidence to the contrary.

Again, you're using a logical fallacy. You're asking people to prove a negative, which is illogical. If there is no evidence of something, there is nothing to prove. You may as well ask the scientific community to prove there AREN'T aliens flying through the sky, that there AREN'T gnomes living underground, or that there AREN'T ghosts living in your attic.

Do you see why asking someone to prove a negative is illogical? If YOU are making a claim (that flouride is harmful), then the onus is on YOU to provide evidence of your claim, not the other way around.

can find a million articles and papers, and testimonies and videos, and diagrams, and pictures, and books, and soundbites from Doctors and scientists and ex-military personnel, and chemists, and science teachers, and researchers who all say that fluoride is a terrible substance that first showed up in the water supplies in Nazi Germany,

Really? Millions? You should post a few then, because so far, all you've posted is a couple links to blogs by a well-established con man. Not a single paper, article, or testimony by a doctor, scientist, chemist, or ex-military

[but only a handful of people that say anything to the contrary, and these people are generally just.... people. Likely disinfo types that troll the net looking to call anyone who dares blow a whistle "full of $h!t", with no proof to back up their claims.

Ah, of course. Anyone who disagrees with you and your fellow sheeple must be "disinfo agents". All that baaing you're doing must be giving you a headache.

Fluoride weakens enamel

The "chemist" in this article doesn't seem to know the difference between elemental flourine and the flouride ion found in compounds. Additionally, I used quotations around the word chemist because, beyond the same copy and pasted article you linked above, there is no mention of a "Gerard F. Judd" in an academic sense. No published works on any database I can find, no mention even in the archives of Purdue University's site...nothing.

Again, you're going to have to do better than a blog. I need actual science, not an article that essentially says, "Well, some guy on the internet told me..."

Advanced Health Plan Article

This site is, again, another blog. What I found particularly hilarious about this one is that the woman who runs is, who claims to be an "autologist", is a provable fraud. If you google her name (Vicki Barker), you'll find her LinkIn profile (with the same picture she uses on the ASH site). Taking a look at her "expertise", you'll see the only "work" experience she lists prior to becoming an "autologist" is working in HR in a community organization, and volunteering at a pet shelter.

Wow. Those are some pretty strong scientific credentials there. I know *I* would certainly trust her to give me medical advice.

Vickie Barker LinkedIn Profile

Fluoride myths are actually facts...

Nothing from prisonplanet is worth reading, sorry. Anyone who promotes Alex Jones as a serious source of news is a garbage propaganda mill.

And for the record: Making baseless claims and arguments for arguments sake is a terrible way to make a point.

I know it is. That's why it's so frustrating to me when you use blogs to support your points. If you know it's annoying to make baseless claims, why can't you stop doing it an just produce some actual science?

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


Why can't you show actual science?

Again, you're using a logical fallacy. You're asking people to prove a negative, which is illogical. If there is no evidence of something, there is nothing to prove. You may as well ask the scientific community to prove there AREN'T aliens flying through the sky, that there AREN'T gnomes living underground, or that there AREN'T ghosts living in your attic.

"IF THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING"....................
Thank you for proving my point, and that everything I've and the articles and "blogs" I've posted is, IN FACT, correct. Wouldn't something that YOU believe is a great dental hygiene product have at least one article or shred of proof to the contrary. I noticed you dodged the "proof me wrong" question like it was a bullet.
"You can't prove a negative" is the common cry of people who so blindly follow the piper's call of Government agenda.
Aliens have been proven real by the same science that has proven black holes real. No one has seen a black hole, but no one denies their existence because of the math that supports them. The point is there should be some math that supports fluoride, but there isn't. Not one college thesis, not one freelance scientific paper, nothing.
All studies show that fluoride pits teeth, causes bone cancer, alters the mind, making it docile. Nothing shows that fluoride helps strengthen enamel and/or fights mouth disease. Nothing except that "the Government says so, so that must be the truth." The same government that lied about the reason we got into war during WWII, the same government that lied about 9-11, that kept such things secret as Operation North Woods, Paperclip, the same government that is creating viruses like AIDS, Hoof & Mouth, and Lyme Disease to promote its own agenda. The same government that swore there were WMDs in Iraq. The same government that is paid for and funded by corporations that want to push poisons and unnecessary medications on the populous for the sake of making a dollar.
I don't know what your agenda is here, but I know what the agenda of our leaders and persons of influence are. Its evident in the things that they say. Things like:

“The illegal, we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” -Dr. Henry Kissinger New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973

In a recent speech at TED, Bill Gates, stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion & sterilization), we could lower that by perhaps 10-15%.”

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”. -Dr. Henry Kissinger

“World population needs to be decreased by 50-70%” -Dr. Henry Kissinger

“War and famine would not do. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved. AIDS is not an efficient killer because it is too slow. My favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world’s population is airborne Ebola (Ebola Reston), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. We’ve got airborne diseases with 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that. You know, the bird flu’s good, too. For everyone who survives, he will have to bury nine” - Dr. Eric Pianka University of Texas (Pianka is an evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, who revealed solutions for reducing the world’s population to an audience on population control. He received a standing ovation.)

“The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.” Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

While these don't directly mention the use of fluoride (because I know that's what you'll say), they do reveal an agenda. One that's becoming more and more evident if you just open your eyes. You say "We" are the sheeple, but it is you who seems to walk blindly, following the call os some invisible power.
A blog by a Doctor or scientist/chemist still reflects the voices of PROFESSIONALS. What are your credentials, that you can be so right about fluoride while so many professionals are wrong? Find that answer, and you just might be able to win yourself $20,000....
if that guy is still alive. He's been waiting for 60 years, after all, for someone to prove the benefit of fluoride. Maybe this'll be your year to shine. You aren't going to win this discussion because there is nothing to win. That's the point of Dr. Mick's wager. There has never been proof that fluoride is good. Mick is going along with the first rule of making a bet; "Never gamble unless you already know the outcome". So enjoy your opinions, I'm sure they keep you warm at night. I'll expect your rebuttal. Sheeple like you always have to have the last word. For me, I'm done. I'll wait my 60 years for someone to try and prove the data wrong.

Several of your statements below have shown me you lack understanding of both science and logic. I'll keep this short, as there is no point in trying to convince someone who lives in some sort of alternate reality.

[quote[Wouldn't something that YOU believe is a great dental hygiene product have at least one article or shred of proof to the contrary.

That's not what you asked me for. You asked me to prove it's NOT a toxic, sterilizing agent. It has been proven safe tie and again, but why would me posting the same studies you've (hopefully) already read change anything in your mind?

Aliens have been proven real

Source, please.

No one has seen a black hole,

Black hole "seen" (observed) through x-ray technology

Four black holes observed through x-ray technology

Black hole observed in Omega Centauri

You were saying?

The point is there should be some math that supports fluoride, but there isn't. Not one college thesis, not one freelance scientific paper, nothing.

There are plenty of papers that support flouride. You just refuse to believe anything the government has even put a cent into because of some paranoid psychosis with no basis in reality.

All studies show that fluoride pits teeth, causes bone cancer, alters the mind, making it docile.

You should post some of these studies, then. I asked you to do this two days ago and you have yet to do so.

The same government that lied about the reason we got into war during WWII,

Source, please.

the same government that lied about 9-11,

Source, please.

that kept such things secret as Operation North Woods,

Nothing in the Operations Northwoods (one word, not two) document ever occurred. So, you're mad that the government kept a document of theoreticals from you? Why?

the same government that is creating viruses like AIDS, Hoof & Mouth, and Lyme Disease to promote its own agenda.

Source, please.

Also, what "agenda" does Lyme disease promote? Do you even know a single fact about this disease?

“The illegal, we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.” -Dr. Henry Kissinger New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973

Kissinger is a horrible man. That's not a secret. How does this have anything to do with flouride? You know that he wasn't in charge of that, right?

In a recent speech at TED, Bill Gates, stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, said, “If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion & sterilization), we could lower that by perhaps 10-15%.”

Why did you add "abortion and sterilization"? Why can't you just report his actual quote/ Is it because you're worried I might be able to rub a couple neurons together and realize that what Bill Gates actually meant by reproductive health services is adequate sex education and birth control? The two things he mentioned a few times alter in that speech?

How about you stop making things up and putting words in people's mouths, and just make your arguments from FACT, not FICTION.

“Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the third world, because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries”. -Dr. Henry Kissinger

Here is the ACTUAL quote from Kissinger:

""Whatever may be done to guard against interruptions of supply and to develop domestic alternatives, the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States."

Notice there is nothing in there about making depopulation a policy? Rather, he is suggesting that areas already experiencing a decreased birth rate are good targets for "population pressure". In this instance, he was referring to the resettlement of Latvian and Lithuanian ethnic refugees as a means of putting "population pressure" on the Russian invaders.

You seriously need to learn to look things up before you post them.

Dr. Eric Pianka University of Texas (Pianka is an evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert, who revealed solutions for reducing the world’s population to an audience on population control. He received a standing ovation.)

He did not receive a "standing ovation". One person, Forrest Mims, made this claim, and when asked to support his argument, he couldn't. No one who was there would corroborate his story, and one of the only other professional sources to carry the story later recanted it, finding there was zero evidence to support it.

And yet, people like you continue to propagate this ignorant tripe.

” Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

The only source for this quote is another conspiracy site. Please source it, so you don't look like a liar anymore than you already do.

A blog by a Doctor or scientist/chemist still reflects the voices of PROFESSIONALS. What are your credentials, that you can be so right about fluoride while so many professionals are wrong? Find that answer, and you just might be able to win yourself $20,000....

I'm a physician who sees patients everyday that drink flouridated water. The reason no one has been able to claim the $20k prize is probably the same reason no one has claimed the $100k "Prove AiIDS exists" prize. I tried, and no matter what evidence I offered, the Perth group found some excuse not to accept it, even if the excuse made absolutely no sense.

People like these don't want proof. They want to be right. This is why they aren't scientists: science learns the most when it is proven wrong. More experiments end in failure than success, and we learn more from those failures. I certainly did in undergrad and grad school. However, people like YOU seem to think that it's "good science" to start with a preconceived answer, and then try to fit the facts into your little box. That's not how science works, fortunately.

Sheeple like you always have to have the last word. For me, I'm done.

Sure you are. Hopefully you'll be able to find some actual science for me on the dangers of flouride. That is, provided you're able to steer your browser away from blogs filled with baaing.