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: 12
214
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big Raging Loner
reply to post by daaskapital
 


It boggles the mind. Almost all psychiatric medication contains it too, which is in my opinion largely over prescribed. It all contributes to how much is circulating in our water supply.


Yes, what is it doing in medications used precisely to dull a psychiatric patient's senses? It really makes me think it's not meant as an inert ingredient.
edit on 18-1-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   

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


My post got messed up.

Anyway, I wanted to point out that the accumulation of flouride in the pineal gland has a metaphysical component to the obvious physical implications and symptoms. The pineal gland corresponds to the third eye chakra. Anyone who practices yoga learns about the seven major chakras as well as other chakras in the hands and feet.
Is it surprising that Hitler was deeply interested in the occult? What did he know about the pineal and did he know that sodium flouride affects the pineal? Or is it just coincidence?

www.quantum-self.com...

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



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


That is VERY interesting to me both personally and as a medical professional. I have not consumed tap water of any kind in over eight years because after suffering through multiple bouts of kidney stones and infections of unknown etiology, I was advised by my physician to avoid it. The reasoning is that the fluoride causes inflammation and irritation which creates a friendly environment for bad bacteria to colonize. I live in a city whose water supply is so fluorinated (and chlorinated) that when you turn on the tap, you can smell it. Cardiovascular issues are rampant here, as are kidney stones and gallbladder stones...as a matter of fact, lithotripsy and cholecystectomy are almost as common as cardiac procedures are here. My brother was just treated for kidney stones this week and was told to stop drinking the water, and my best friend has had multiple surgeries to remove very large stones and has also been advised to stop drinking it. We don't use it for anything except showering and laundry...making coffee, koolaid, tea, etc., we use bottled water only. We don't even give tap water to our pets! A couple of years ago, people tried to get city council to stop putting these chemicals into our water and their response? They increased the ratio. It is a wonderful thing to see that research appears to be bearing out the belief that our area physicians have had for years...we are being essentially poisoned by our own water supply. I am going to link this to every person who says I am crazy and wasting my money on bottled water. Thank you for posting this!!!



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkKnight76
 





The dentist patched me up, told me to use a Sonicare toothbrush, and rinse daily with ACT fluoride rinse.


Exactly.....RINSE. Anyone who has had a fluoride treatment at the dentist's office knows that when they insert the mold into your mouth, they tell you very specifically to be very careful not to swallow it. Look at your toothpaste tube...there is a warning to contact the Poison Control Center in case of ingestion. Pediatric toothpaste does not contain fluoride for that very reason...it tastes like bubblegum and kids do swallow it. I had kidney stone evaluation done on actual stones that I passed, and the results showed calcified fluoride crystals, which my nephrologist had already suspected. It is true that not every person who drinks fluoride-laced water will manifest adverse symptoms, just as there are people out there who eat ridiculous amounts of fatty foods and don't ever show signs such as elevated triglycerides or cholesterol. Some people are simply less prone to developing certain health issues than others. Fluoride does prevent tooth decay, and rinsing with it is meant for that purpose. But drinking it every day, especially in areas where the fluoride "dose" is higher in the water, it can and will cause adverse effects in quite a number of people. I have never had another kidney stone since I stopped drinking fluorinated water, and that in itself is proof enough for me, but I know plenty of people like yourself who have consumed it for years and have had no apparent adverse effects from it. And I still use fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinse...but I am not ingesting those. Just don't discount it simply because you have not experienced ill effects...there are tons of people out there who know better, from personal experience.

edit on 18-1-2012 by tigertatzen because: forgot simple grammar there for a second




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by tigertatzen
 




That is VERY interesting to me both personally and as a medical professional


What kind of medical professional are you if you can't tell that the study has nothing to do with what the article is discussing?

Very concerning.





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



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   


Most ground water naturally contains fluoride... that includes spring water.
reply to post by mudbeed
 


You're talking about naturally occurring amounts of a substance. Lots of foods that we eat, for example, contain a naturally occurring amount of sodium (about 10%). That amount typically will not cause adverse effects on the body, but adding more salt to foods can result in hypertension or an inability to control an already existing hypertension. Hypertension as we know, is a leading cause of stroke, which is in turn a leading cause of death. I think the focus is on added fluoride, not the amount that is already there. If the fluoride concentration is so high in the water that you can smell the chemicals, I would say that is indicative of a problem. You wouldn't drink water from a swimming pool or a hot tub would you? Of course not. So why would you want to drink water from your tap that the scent of invokes visions of pool floaties and a bikini? Saying it's ok for our government to fluoridate the water because "it's there anyway" is just silly. You may as well tell a diabetic to go ahead and eat that box of Twinkies because there are naturally occurring amounts of sugar in foods already. And no responsible person would do that, right?



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


I am actually responding more to the entire thread than the study. The study is an "attention-getter" and it serves its purpose. To all the people who say that fluoride causes no ill effects, I am saying it can and it does. As are other people. In answer to your question, I am an excellent medical professional...fabulous in fact. Thank you for asking.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
We should pass a law to ban addition of fluoride to natural water sources by volcanic rock. I doubt the natural sources of flouride will pay any attention, but you know, you can't have a ban on it that people will obey if nature itself isn't made to listen.

Too bad that there is no uptick in the death rate when flouride was added to the water supply. Otherwise we'd actually have, you know, like, actual evidence of the risk.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by tigertatzen
 


I disagree that it serves it's purpose.

It comes across as disingenuous.

That's not how one should be spreading information.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


If articles like these were not worded in such a way, they likely would not capture the attention of most people, therefore the catchy wording of the headliner did in fact serve its purpose. It is true that the study itself is not proportionate to the level of alarm that the article implies, but that is journalism for you. They are also very careful to repeatedly use terminology such as "linked to", "may be" and "correlation", because they know that one study is not proof positive that the leading cause of death among human beings can be attributed to something as easily solved as excessive fluoride consumption. Also, it is misleading in the fact that the study was performed by injection of the substance, not ingestion, as everyone is discussing here. I can only assume that this methodology was used to achieve the highest levels of concentration in the bloodstream very quickly to obtain results versus the other option, which would have been to find 61 people who had never been exposed to fluoride and obtaining data on those subjects for however long it would take to reach the same level by ingestion, which is the typical route. I am not sure why the study was done this way, but I am trying to find more info on that. Unless people are submitting to serial PET scans with fluoridated contrast on a routine basis I am not sure what the significance could be to the general public. I can only assume that the researchers were trying to link their study with the only other way people are exposed to high levels of fluoride, which would be through the drinking water that is treated with it. I do know, however, that there are in fact adverse effects of long-term ingestion of high levels of fluoride and that was what got my attention and what I was responding to.
edit on 18-1-2012 by tigertatzen because: oops...had a case of the fat fingas




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Surely citizens living in a free society deserve the choice of whether or not they want their water supply fluoridated.
edit on 18/1/2012 by Dark Ghost because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:06 AM
link   
It's really hard to get a flouride-free life, since it's everywhere. I've yet to find a toothpaste that's flouride-free, and the water filters are way too expensive. What can you do when the goverment shoves it to you from everywhere? People need to realize this, and fast.
edit on 18/1/2012 by Aprch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by tigertatzen
 




there are in fact adverse effects of long-term ingestion of high levels of fluoride


I believe there will be adverse effects of anything at a high level, including water.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


You are absolutely correct...people actually die fairly often from ingesting too much of something, including water. Fortunately, there is plenty of information out there warning people about the dangers of that. I think the prevailing argument in this thread is not necessarily the amount of fluoride in the water, because if you have adverse effects you can just avoid it, like I do. It's that our city governments don't give us a choice in the matter, nor do they readily supply information about the possibility of those adverse effects. Had I known that something as simple as changing my drinking water source would have spared me numerous hospitalizations and excruciating pain, I would have been buying bottled water long before. It's good for people to get information out there...you never know when you'll learn something new



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Aprch
 


www.burtsbees.com...

They also have a FAQ section which is pretty informative. I know that the Walgreens here sells the toothpaste but you might have to order it online if you're in a location that doesn't have a very high demand for natural products.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:04 AM
link   
reply to post by kokoro
 


First post that i see from you where you at least try to make sense.

Your issue seems to be with the attention this thread has gotten, pretty telling when you in previous posts make comments such as these:



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.




You choose to ignore the truth and instead have decided to pawn this off to get flags and stars.


Regardless of your opinions about the validity of the main source, my OP was not exclusively sourced on this article, as i had a link to other sites with information on most previously found issues with flouride as well. The main source was useful for the type of sensationalism used by the author, to attract viewers into a very important subject. This thread is hardly solely about the source article though, and that was the point. And since you seem to have issues with this, what makes you any different from a troll? If you do not like the information, leave the thread. In no way do you have a right to try to discredit the thread as a whole in order to hide this information from other people that may find this information useful, like you obviously try to do with comments such as this



This thread is dead, its whole premise is false.....




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.

"calcified plaque"? That wording is not even used in the source. What makes you assume the flouride is ONLY absorbed in a "calcified plaque" when there is not even a mention of this in the source? The only place they mention the flouride to be absorbed is in the vascular walls and arteries. Nowhere does it state "part of a wall" or "damaged part of wall" or anything remotely similar to what you imply. A vascular wall is what surrounds your arteries, it is in fact the WHOLE arterie except the central part where the blood stream resides.


1. They tool patients that had been scanned by other means so they knew where the arterial plaque was located within the walls.

"tool patients" ? Again wording not even used in the source. "scanned by other means" what other means? that is an assumption, again not mentioned anywhere.

As for the rest of your post, which seems to be based on alot of assumptions of how this "experiment" took place with similar wording and no source other than your own words, i will not even comment on that.

Look i am sorry if you do not agree with the conclusions drawn or the type of sensationalism used by the author, and as i said, maybe you should contact the author or any of the other sites that are mirroring his article(use google, there are quite a few). They obviously seem to have drawn the same conclusions as the author about this, so they must all be wrong afterall acording to you, as are the rest of us? Maybe you can get him and all the other sites to retract their article? Because that is what you need to do to win this one. Good luck

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



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tigertatzen
 


Thanks! I'll check some herbal stores nearby to see if they have something of the likes.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL
We should pass a law to ban addition of fluoride to natural water sources by volcanic rock. I doubt the natural sources of flouride will pay any attention, but you know, you can't have a ban on it that people will obey if nature itself isn't made to listen.

Too bad that there is no uptick in the death rate when flouride was added to the water supply. Otherwise we'd actually have, you know, like, actual evidence of the risk.


Sodium fluoride isn't found in nature. This has been discussed here. You would know this if you had been paying attention. Also, yes, it's a given the thread title is sensational and misrepresents the thread discussion to an extent.

If you notice, no one really mentions that "fluoridation is killing us", the only people saying that are the trolls.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tigertatzen
 


All fair points and fundamentally I agree with you, still don't agree with the delivery of this particular message but that's neither here nor there.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SyphonX
 




If you notice, no one really mentions that "fluoridation is killing us", the only people saying that are the trolls.


It may not be killing anyone outright in miniscule quantities but it certainly is killing people slowly. That is far from the biggest problem though, i would count all the other adverse effects more than enough to be worried.




top topics



 
214
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join