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.

 

Fluoride Linked to #1 Cause of Death in New Research

page: 11
214
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
Fluoride is more toxic than Lead. We considered Lead too dangerous to put in paints and fuels. We willfully add Fluoride to POTABLE WATER SUPPLIES.

It goes without saying, but I'm sick of having to repeat myself, to myself, or to others that may be listening, as if I am an automaton fighting a losing battle.

Anyway.. S&F
[snip]. I'll stick to water as pure as possible, and fluoride free dental products. Every little bit helps.
edit on 17-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2012 by Asktheanimals because: offensive language removed


This all started in the 1930's when those in the industrial industry created a substance so deadly that it could not be put into public waters and it could not be burried in the earth. Sodium Fluoride is a bi-product result from scrubbing smoke stacks in chemical plants. The grand industiralists decided to put this poison in the public water system and turning every person into a personal chemical waste disposal unit under the guise of preventing tooth decay. These business men paid dentists to go along with the plan and it worked...for a while.

Sodium Fluoride kills human cells on contact. Even Hitler fed this ingredient into the concentration camps to keep the prisoners "calm" because it destroys the brain. As for those "minions" who actually put this crap into our modern day water supply, if the worker spills this substance on his/her skin, they are not allowed to drink any water for at LEAST 8 hours. If one were to disobey this rule, they die within minutes.

Now if this is unacceptable to you there are options. Option number one is to purchase a water filtration system that filters the fluoride out of the water. It's called reverse osmosis. The basic unit is installed under your sink and you would be able to drink safe water. The only disadvantage is that it takes out all the natural minerals as well. There are ways to add the minerals back into the water after it's been filtered. Phion makes water products to put the minerals back in to the water.

In my state, we've tried going to hearings to stop the fluorid in our water but they EPA and the State won't listen.

I could write volumns on this subject, but it's up to you to protect yourself from this danger to you mind and body. The reverse osmosis systems will run you about $100.00 for the system and about $50.00 a year for the filter replacements. It's cheap in comparison to hospital bills in the future. I hope this helps you.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus

Highly unlikely.

I know nothing about medical sciences but upon reading the full text it is patently clear, as the sun is in the sky, that it is about the use of fluoride based pharmaceuticals in PET/CT scans.



edit on 18/1/12 by Chadwickus because: (no reason given)


Yes !!! Thank you, F18 Fluoride is a radioisotope used in CT and PET scans. They inject it and it lights up what they want to look at, which in this study was arterial plaque in patients with heart disease. No other conclusions can be drawn from this except that F18 fluoride can be used to diagnose early heart disease.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Sorry... didn't have the time tonite to read ALL the pasts, but my doctors tells me that natural fluoride is okay; it's the run=off-cast-off of industrial fluoride that's being put in all of our water systems, because there's no better way to "get rid of it." And my doctor says, "DON'T drink Los Angeles water!!!"



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Our City voted to ban this in our water supply last year... Have they? We cannot say for sure.

Regulation says yes.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I bet the people who flagged this thread are the ones who have been reading for years about the flouride and have tried to avoid flouride if they can. Would you also drink water laced with statins because some MD decided it would help prevent cholesterol? Would you consume water that John Holdren puts sterilants in? Are you one of those people who believes that all these mad scientists really have our best interests at heart and that they know better than we do?

Would you take the word of a PHD(since us lowly ATS posters here don't carry any weight)?


Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:
1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.



and the word of an MD


As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:
"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."




And then there's this, which I especially like as a source


5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke's finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).


www.fluoridealert.org...
edit on 18-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by kokoro
 




And no, no link can be made from that paper. That is my whole point here. The paper make no link at all to a disease or to harm at all, apparently I cannot get you to understand that. If he made any connection from that paper then he is an idiot so no apparently he doesn't "have a better idea of things". Clearly, he doesn't know a damn thing about medicine, that is clear to anyone who does.


So that is your whole point huh? Well that point is based on your opinion, which seem to differ with the authors opinion, my own, as well as most people in this thread. Maybe you should ask yourself why? Let me spell it out, the link is obvious. Since you seem unable to deduce this link, let me illustrate.

First, the article clearly shows that flouride is absorbed by the arterial walls.


Fluoride uptake in vascular walls was demonstrated in 361 sites of 54 (96%) patients, whereas calcification was observed in 317 sites of 49 (88%) patients. Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta.


What does this mean? It means that arterial walls absorb flouride very well. The fact that it was directly injected into the bloodstream in this study, does NOT mean that it is an invalid study, as drinking it, and really consuming it in any way, means that it will eventually be fused into your blood stream after digestion, and the result will be the same. This flouride WILL be absorbed into your arterial wall.

Your ineptitude to see this link does not mean that no one else see it. Just think about this before your next post.

edit on 18-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
reply to post by Wolfenz
 


You may want to watch the entire movie as I believe you missed the point of the sarcasm

The General goes nuts and launches his bases nuclear bombers to provoke a war with the Soviet Union because he believes fluoridation is a communist plot that has made him impotent.

It is poking fun at people who believe fluoridation is a nefarious conspiracy.



its a double satire !! I could show you something else funny thats a double satire

With Astronaut turn Governor John Glenn in the Tv Show called Frasier talking about Ufos
just like some of his Astronaut Pals in the Real World !!


Dr Strange Love I wouldn't think Stanley Kubrick nor Peter Sellers would joke about it ... Fluoride
with people
as you do realize that Dr Strange love is more less a Side Spoof Parday of a Movie Called Fail Safe!!
both movie's were made in 1964 ....


Well a few Nuts like me... GELLERMAN & NEURATH think . that Dr Strange love Bit about Fluoride is a Double satire


GELLERMAN: Actually, today, fluoride can be found in virtually all processed foods in the United States….and critics include Noble Prize winning scientists, dentists and health researchers. Chris Neurath is with the Fluoride Action Network:


Living on Earth Re-Thinking Fluoride with Audio .. ( LISTEN) !!
www.loe.org...


If you go deeper !! Pineal Gland calcifies because of Fluoride
and One of the Few things the gland does is Sexual activity !! as it does many others !

just maybe thats what Jack D Ripper is talking about


I Have the Movie on DVD and you believed Wrong ...

It a Double Speak kind of thing something Mae west was famed For !!

Peter Sellers and Stanly Kubrick were Geniuses a Bit like that that sticks to you

Truth through Comedy is a Killer !!

reminds me of !
White Rabbit Jefferson Airplane !! a Classic Satire slipping thought the Censers!! on live Television !
Pill popping hallucination !! classic and they did NOT have a Clue !!! except for the Hipsters at Home viewing this Live !

Jefferson Airplane "White Rabbit"
Live on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.






It depends how you look at it ...



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


If you'd read the thread, you would know.

It's all or nothing with some it seems...

There's no "disagrees with putting fluoride in drinking water but thinks the source in the OP is completely wrong", it's either completely on the bandwagon or it's completely off!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by curious7
Groundbreaking new research has also come up with the following over the years:

* drinking red wine helps your heart

* Eating too much beef can damage your heart

* Not eating enough meat can be detrimental to your health

* Salt is bad for you

* Salt is good for you

So yeah, anything like reported in the OP gets a big "that's BS" from me and I then ignore it because they'll change their minds in future



I would think in Degrees to much to little a Pinch here and there ahh the Formula .. over dosage or Lacking



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by kokoro

Originally posted by arbiture
I should also point out that cardiovascular disease is the #1 killer in the US and many western nations. Of course when you get right down to it EVERYONE when they die, "Dies" of cardiac arrest. For example, more women by far die of cardiovascular disease then die of breast and ovarian cancer combined. So the OP making a DIRECT link to fluoride and cardiovascular disease together is frankly misleading. If there is a causative relationship that says fluoride consumption in municipal doses causes cardiovascular disease (like eating bacon every day likely in some people will, statistically) I would welcome seeing some solid data.



Let me say this again.. THE ARTICLE IN THE OP IS NOT TRUE, THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT THE "AUTHOR" CLAIMS TO SOURCE MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO LINK BETWEEN FLUORIDE AND HEART DISEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NONE! NADA!!

Honestly, the ignorance in this thread is Appalling. Seriously , did you guys bother to read the paper?

The fact that the OP has over 90 stars for this piece of garbage thread makes me sad and frankly a little concerned about reading comprehension skills in America.

OP, you have ignored at least 3 people , myself included, telling you that the paper you reference makes no such connection yet you continue to use it as a scientific basis for your theory that fluoride is killing all of us. If that is what you think it says you need to read it again and and again until you understand what it is saying. It is not talking even remotely about the toxicity or disease causing properties of fluoride. Either: 1. you are ignorant of medical science and how to read a scientific paper or 2. You choose to ignore the truth and instead have decided to pawn this off to get flags and stars.


This thread is dead, its whole premise is false.....
edit on 17-1-2012 by kokoro because: (no reason given)


So then do you think Fluoride is harmless?


You think it is as harmless as bacon do you? Actually it seems you are trying to justify the use of it in a sense, down play it. It ever occur to you why more and more countries are banning it's use? Umm maybe because IT KILLS PEOPLE!? You are trying to tell us that poison does not kill people well.. good luck with that


Yes our city and state governments care so much about our white teeth.. sure
edit on 18-1-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 


If you'd read the thread, you would know.

It's all or nothing with some it seems...

There's no "disagrees with putting fluoride in drinking water but thinks the source in the OP is completely wrong", it's either completely on the bandwagon or it's completely off!



Quelle difference? My dad used to tell me that we need water daily to survive but we can also drown in it.


This is really mostly all I need to know about the stuff


Of course, a huge number of Americans are already being mass medicated against their will through the water supply by the artificial addition of sodium fluoride, from which one of a myriad of debilitating health effects includes lowered IQ and increased docility. Indeed, as Joseph Borkin documented in his book The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, the first occurrence of artificially fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Nazis explained that the reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize women and coerce the victims of their concentration camps into calm submission.

www.infowars.com...


But there's more and more evidence of it's terrible effects appearing over the years.

Just like there's always more and more evidence of the NWO, which years ago people ridiculed every time it's brought up.

edit on 18-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain

So that is your whole point huh? Well that point is based on your opinion, which seem to differ with the authors opinion, my own, as well as most people in this thread. Maybe you should ask yourself why? Let me spell it out, the link is obvious. Since you seem unable to deduce this link, let me illustrate.

First, the article clearly shows that flouride is absorbed by the arterial walls.


Fluoride uptake in vascular walls was demonstrated in 361 sites of 54 (96%) patients, whereas calcification was observed in 317 sites of 49 (88%) patients. Significant correlation between fluoride uptake and calcification was observed in most of the arterial walls, except in those of the abdominal aorta.


What does this mean? It means that arterial walls absorb flouride very well. The fact that it was directly injected into the bloodstream in this study, does NOT mean that it is an invalid study, as drinking it, and really consuming it in any way, means that it will eventually be fused into your blood stream after digestion, and the result will be the same. This flouride WILL be absorbed into your arterial wall.

Your ineptitude to see this link does not mean that no one else see it. Just think about this before your next post.

edit on 18-1-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



NO that is not what it says at all but I can see why you would draw that conclusion if you don't have a medical knowledge base. That is not meant to be an insult by the way.

The fluoride was injected yes. It absorbed into the calcified plaque in the arterial walls of patients with known heart disease. That is what the radioisotope is SUPPOSED to do. Let me go step by step ok?

1. They tool patients that had been scanned by other means so they knew where the arterial plaque was located
within the walls.
2. Their goal was to test F18 Fluoride radioisotope against the other method of imaging to see if they could get the same accuracy in diagnosis. Does that make sense? this is how you find out what test is the best for what disease.
3. so they inject the fluoride, and watch WHERE it absorbs.
4. the places it absorbs is where arterial plaque is located.
5. They compare images to see if the fluoride isotope absorbed in all the right places.
6. The radio isotopes have a predictable half life so they are then excreted by the kidneys after the body degrades them. If they were not you would still be able to see them on scan later, which is not the case.


My ineptitude? Lets not be condescending ok? I have many years of medical experience and study of scientific literature to back up my position. I'm sorry if you find my unwillingness to just swallow what some anonymous blogger says without question offensive.


edit on 18-1-2012 by kokoro because: spelling



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier

Originally posted by kokoro

Originally posted by arbiture
I should also point out that cardiovascular disease is the #1 killer in the US and many western nations. Of course when you get right down to it EVERYONE when they die, "Dies" of cardiac arrest. For example, more women by far die of cardiovascular disease then die of breast and ovarian cancer combined. So the OP making a DIRECT link to fluoride and cardiovascular disease together is frankly misleading. If there is a causative relationship that says fluoride consumption in municipal doses causes cardiovascular disease (like eating bacon every day likely in some people will, statistically) I would welcome seeing some solid data.



Let me say this again.. THE ARTICLE IN THE OP IS NOT TRUE, THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT THE "AUTHOR" CLAIMS TO SOURCE MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO LINK BETWEEN FLUORIDE AND HEART DISEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NONE! NADA!!

Honestly, the ignorance in this thread is Appalling. Seriously , did you guys bother to read the paper?

The fact that the OP has over 90 stars for this piece of garbage thread makes me sad and frankly a little concerned about reading comprehension skills in America.

OP, you have ignored at least 3 people , myself included, telling you that the paper you reference makes no such connection yet you continue to use it as a scientific basis for your theory that fluoride is killing all of us. If that is what you think it says you need to read it again and and again until you understand what it is saying. It is not talking even remotely about the toxicity or disease causing properties of fluoride. Either: 1. you are ignorant of medical science and how to read a scientific paper or 2. You choose to ignore the truth and instead have decided to pawn this off to get flags and stars.


This thread is dead, its whole premise is false.....
edit on 17-1-2012 by kokoro because: (no reason given)


So then do you think Fluoride is harmless?


You think it is as harmless as bacon do you? Actually it seems you are trying to justify the use of it in a sense, down play it. It ever occur to you why more and more countries are banning it's use? Umm maybe because IT KILLS PEOPLE!? You are trying to tell us that poison does not kill people well.. good luck with that


Yes our city and state governments care so much about our white teeth.. sure
edit on 18-1-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)



I never said that in fact but nice strawman. What I did say is that the article the OP posted doesn't say what he claims it says. It doesn't say anything at all about the toxicity of fluoride. You guys need to understand that if part of your argument is dishonest it make the whole thing sound dishonest. Is fluoride bad for us? Hell I don't know, but find something else to back up your claim cause this isn't evidence of anything except that it has a particularly useful medical application.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Hey guys did you see the GOOGLE.COM's web page? They are talking about SOPA Censorship of the internet and have a petition set up. Thank you google! This is great, please sign the petition!

On a personal note I have 2 things to say.

1) I drink bottled water and plan to buy a reverse osmosis setup

2) I tried to convey my concerns to friends and coworkers and well that didn't go so well.

I am fed up, and I have lost faith with trying to help the Sheeple of the USA.

That being said, thank you to everyone here that supports the removal of Fluoride in our water.

Peace&love



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by kokoro
 


So, like, are you a member of ADA or something?
edit on 18-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by kokoro
 


So, like, are you a member of ADA or something?
edit on 18-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


Hahahahah! no. And like I said before I don't nessesarily disagree with the basic premise of the thread. It is absolutely important for people to question when something is put into our water.

I do disagree with misrepresenting medical literature. It makes the author look either dishonest or incompetent. Both = bad if you want people to take you seriously.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Should we still use Colgate?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Apparently the National Kidney Foundation no longer supports flouride as a water additive



The issue of water fluoridation continues to heat up as the National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of the chemical additive at the same time the largest association of water professionals in the world was warned not to destroy evidence that may be required in legal actions filed by individuals harmed by drinking fluoridated water.


www.nutritionresearchcenter.org...

www.reuters.com...
edit on 18-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by mudbeed
Why don't you think before posting stories like this?

Fluoride is the #1 killer?

Some college or renowned doctor would have proven this via study by now somewhere.


So basically you believe that since you haven't heard of some college or renowned doctor that has or has not proven Flouride is the #1 killer you will just disregard the possibility completely? This is just the classic appeal to authority fallacy. Have you ever done your own research? Probably not if you are waiting for above authority to spoon feed you the answer. How about this...did you ever think information is suppressed to the general public on the negatives of fluoride? This would obviously make sense to the industries that sell their waste and have it dumped into our water (Aluminum industries). Don't hold your breath waiting for your authorities to tell you what is good or bad.



I am just saying that is one hell of a claim and just sounds like bullcrap just reading it.


Again, do your own research much? What part sounds like bullcrap? Why do you think it sounds like bullcrap? Because it goes against your beliefs? Maybe you should look into the subject yourself and research both sides. Then you could make your own informed, educated claim, instead of saying something "sounds like bullcrap"



Someone below OP said Fluoride is more deadly than lead? Wear a tinfoil hat much?

So you are going to say someone wears a tinfoil hat because they said Fluoride is more deadly than lead. Do you attack everyone ad hominem or just those that say something you can't wrap your mind around. From the above statements it is clear you are incapable or just plain lazy to look into the matter yourself, so take some time and look up Robert E. Gosselin.



I wouldn't put the Gov above Eugenics (just look at our history) and Fluoride has its good and bad points, but the claim of this story is so ridiculous that it's just not believable nor could ever be factual.


If you don't have all the information how could you ever say something could never be factual?? That is quite a bold statement, do you have any info you would like to share to back it up?



OP should apply their palm to their forehead quickly, making a smacking noise.


IF anybody should be getting a face palm it is you. Your logical flaws, ad hominem attacks and bold statements on how something could never be factual, without anything to claim otherwise, shows this. I thought this site was about denying ignorance, not embracing it.

The bottom line is that anytime you don't have a choice to say "NO" you are a slave to the system. Now you can take your own personal responsibility and get filters, etc... that is one step to freedom. However when everyone as a collective group is forced into something they don't want or agree with that is where the problem lies. Don't ever think the government is doing anything in your best interest, unless you like to live as a slave.
edit on 18-1-2012 by HarbingerOfDoom because: added point



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
People are still in denial over this!




top topics



 
214
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join