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: 14
214
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by Maslo
 


Well it goes on to conclude that sodium fluoride intake may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Yet that's the problem with most official "fluoride studies" isn't it? All the results are compartmentalized and they'll say "not enough risk here", "not enough risk there", but it's separated into neat little packages. When they say "tap levels are safe" for instance, they don't take into account the fact that everything produced and sold for consumption in America is manufactured with the same tap supplies we drink.

Therefore, it's fairly obvious you exceed "safe dosage" because it's in your bread, it's in your juice, it's in your medicine... anything that is produced with the same tap water, will have sodium fluoride in it. Then you whip fluoridated toothpaste in your mouth to top it all off, a rather extreme amount of intake on the 'broad spectrum', in my humble opinion.

Even this study fails to take this into account, and they only apply the test to the mentioned drugs.
edit on 17-1-2012 by SyphonX because: (no reason given)


That is wrong. Almost all manufacturing and production facilities have onsite industrial supply wells so they DON'T have to use public water for cost purposes.

Additionally, there would be a clear corelation between heart diseases and fluorinated water supply users, which there is not. Most suburban and rural potable water supplies are supplied via well water straight from the ground.




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bisman
i am having trouble finding toothpaste+mouthwash without fluoride

i live in MN, US.
any brands you guys wanna throw at me, im listening



i have been good at not drinking tap, but i still cook my food with tap, and i even want to cut down on that



Look for Tom's of Maine products----they sell a line without fluoride or aluminum.

Also, seems like Burt's Bees products also have some non-fluoride toothpastes.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Fluoride was never intended for good teeth.

Fluoride was a Fascist Conspiracy:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 18-1-2012 by MagnumOpus because: jfk



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
This might sound like a plug or be labeled as spam, but it's not.. I have given up on toothpaste forever. I use a product called GoodGums from a company in Florida. It kinda tastes like # at first but there's no fluoride.

I learned of it from a local health-food store that started carrying it. Just one more way to avoid fluoride. I'm new to ATS.. just recently got past the introduction phase, so I don't want to post the website for fear of labeled a spammer, but hit Google and check it out.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dtrock78
That is wrong. Almost all manufacturing and production facilities have onsite industrial supply wells so they DON'T have to use public water for cost purposes.

Additionally, there would be a clear corelation between heart diseases and fluorinated water supply users, which there is not. Most suburban and rural potable water supplies are supplied via well water straight from the ground.


It's news to me if most food and beverage companies produce from clean ground water. For instance, the vast majority of "bottled water" like Aquafina and the like, they're produced using municipal water supplies. So of course this is fluoridated water. There are many recent documentaries that cover this fact. I don't see how mass-bakeries wouldn't use the municipal tap, it wouldn't make sense for their bottom-line unless they were in an area where clean groundwater was plentiful.

Also, I feel I misrepresented myself in regards to the "heart disease" correlation. I've never really thought, or outright said that fluoride causes heart disease. I bounced a quick debate off someone over the supposed study that was linked, I basically only repeated what it says there, in that it "may have an increased cardiovascular risk" when they use a certain fluorine for the scans.

My problem from fluoride stems from the fact that it's not necessary, it's an unwarranted and illegal practice, as it's a hazardous substance placed in potable water against everyone's will. If people want to fluoridate their own water or salt, then so be it, but I never agreed to it and I have no other source of water right now. I believe it really does cause neurological issues, and it affects the mind above all else. Many common 'everyday' things are damaging, but I feel there is nothing more serious than a consistent exposure to a chemical that disrupts a person's ability to function 100%.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Well that's my point, Syphon.

If there were any kind of correlations between ingesting soluble flouride and health effects, be it psychological, heart, cardiovascular, pineal gland, etc etc it would be blatantly obvious.

Unless you live in a city, or a highly developed suburb, you likely are drinking straight groundwater from a well. So all the people that would be on "public" water would have a markedly higher incidence rate of (name the disease).

Despite what some of the people on this site imply, not everyone that works in the cancer and health industry is "in" on some grand scheme to poison our own population. There are very extensive studies completed annually (mostly at university level) that look at any and every coorelation you can think of - "Do people that microwave their food have higher cancer rates? Do red meat eaters have higher %'s of thyroid cancer? Etc, etc"

Something that would be as clear cut as this would be a slam dunk for a post-Doc



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dtrock78
Well that's my point, Syphon.

If there were any kind of correlations between ingesting soluble flouride and health effects, be it psychological, heart, cardiovascular, pineal gland, etc etc it would be blatantly obvious.

Unless you live in a city, or a highly developed suburb, you likely are drinking straight groundwater from a well. So all the people that would be on "public" water would have a markedly higher incidence rate of (name the disease).

Despite what some of the people on this site imply, not everyone that works in the cancer and health industry is "in" on some grand scheme to poison our own population. There are very extensive studies completed annually (mostly at university level) that look at any and every coorelation you can think of - "Do people that microwave their food have higher cancer rates? Do red meat eaters have higher %'s of thyroid cancer? Etc, etc"

Something that would be as clear cut as this would be a slam dunk for a post-Doc


Think a bit outside the box of just water fluoridation. Fluoride contamination is everywhere these days due to the phosphates, pesticides, teflon and many other sources of fluorides in the food chain. Almost all of America is way way up on the mg/day consumption levels of fluoride.

This study does not restrict itself to fluoride only from public water supplies.

Read up on the fluoride levels in the food chain, from McDonald's processed Chicken to the upatake of fluoride and radiation into the tobacco chain, it is very wide spread. So, this attempt to assign the fluoride source as only being public fluoridated water supplies is a wrong assumption.


edit on 18-1-2012 by MagnumOpus because: clarify



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Curious that it seems a US problem, when-- allegedly--- the number cause of death here in England, is heart disease, which can clearly be brought about from several reasons, but the fluride hardening arteries is something I've never come across in the factors of such an issue...

Very, very intriging that one....

Perhaps the partioning of the world to large sectors as is said to the case by the Rothschilds, seems to have weight if this is all varying forms of population control....

Intriguing to say the least...





posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Perhaps, if you wanted to help out your town and community, you could go schedule a one on one meeting with your town mayor. In my opinion they are too small to be corrupted by any big agenda but have to power to change policies within the town, such as removing fluoridation from the water. If you bring him the evidence and show him its better for the people to stop fluoridating there's a good chance he will listen to you and try to stop it. He could even use it as a strategy to get re-elected and make the people happy. Spend a decent amount of time preparing and researching. Look and talk professional. Be polite and confident. That'll win em over. Use numbers or petition if you need to.

Just a possible idea, but I am going to try it. Whats the worst that can happen, laugh at you? If that's your biggest worry then you are not truly free.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by thestinger
 


It goes without saying, friend, that our biggest problem here in England, is the politicians haven't listened to the people and now they're in a coalition government thats destroying communities and resources in the name of bailing the banksters at the expense of ALL of society...

Fine idea approaching the Mayor, though, but they're too city-centric to be of any actual use, when the real power comes from Westminster, and thats not a paranoid conspiracy-oriented thing to say...

No, no.

As sadly, its all too real...




posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kokoro
 


Fine. I just wanted to post some facts surrounding fluoride. People often freak out for no reason other then they are unfamiliar with a given subject. If it bothers you, well get a life...



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Hey everyone, I've been lurking on this board for a while but I've decided to make my first post on this subject because I'm a dentist.

What's the difference between a poison and a medicine? Dose.

Fl in drinking water is considered one of the greatest successes in dental care/health care in general in the past 100 years. It was discovered when dentists noticed that certain populations had far less cavities than other populations, and after much investigation, they found out that it was due to the Fl in the water. By having Fl in your 'system' your teeth are continuously 'washed' in Fl, which your teeth readily uptake during the natural de/re-mineralization process. The resulting Fl enamel crystal is many times more resistant to erosion than the normal enamel crystal with no Fl. What does this mean to you?

I have 2 offices: one in a major US city that has Fl in the drinking water, one in the country side where people have well water that has no Fl. I see the difference EVERY single day. A patient will have a small cavity on their tooth, so I'll open the tooth up with my drill, and excavate the cavity. In the city, 9/10 of these cavities are very limited, and as a result I can make a relatively small prep/filling. In the country, the same initial clinical presentation of a cavity will have a hugely different result. What would have been a small cavity in the city just keeps on going and becomes a huge cavity in the country. As a result, I have to do a crown or root canal where I would have done a regular filling.

Bottom line: The amount of Fl they put in the drinking water mirrors what is naturally found in locations where people have healthier teeth. The benefit is huge. If you have kids, esp. under the age of 6, get the Fl level in your water measured and consult with a dentist who will tell you if you should limit tap water. Do not mix baby formula with tap water. It will result in brown mottled (but very hard) teeth.

If you don't care and are convinced that Fl is some conspiracy to ruin your health, go ahead, by a reverse osmosis machine, buy bottled water, use 'natural' tooth paste, but you better make sure your oral hygiene is great because any lapse will likely land you in a dental office. I drink (brita) filtered tap water, and so does my family.
edit on 18-1-2012 by DocAdama because: (no reason given)


EDIT: Brita does not remove Fl.
edit on 18-1-2012 by DocAdama because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by DocAdama
 


Thanks so much for just stating the facts. After that people can take it or leave it. By the way your right about Brita filters, given how small a fluoride ion is, it can't be removed just by particulate or charcoal filters. But if it really bothers someone, or the natural fluoride level is really high (rare but not unheard of) reverse osmosis is your best bet.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I do think Dentistry suffers from tunnel vision, as they mislead the readers here by speaking only to the issues of teeth and speaking of dose.

It is misleading to speak in terms of dose, when the material involved has extreme retention time factors to consider. Fluorides have cumulative problems and the dose methods don't protect people when that happens. Dose methods work only when the retention time in the body of the drug is short, and it isn't safe to suggest dose for a material like fluoride that is considered cumulative to various organs in the body. Such vapid recommendations should be called Malpractice. imho

Fluoride water does not just affect the teeth, because it internalizes via the stomoch and the gut digestion processes. So, where it turns up is in higher calcium organs like the Pineal Gland. It internalizes on the surfaces of things like the arterial surfaces to which this reseach item speaks. It highly concentrates in the bone mass, where it builds to nearly the levels seen in the Pineal Glands.

The last person that anyone should listen to is a singularly focused Dentist with tunnel vision that speaks to only the issues of fluoride coating the teeth's enamel. Anyone, Dentists included, that leave off these other obvious risk factors due to fluoride ingestion issues is not speaking with the openness on risk factors and doing no harm that is expected of any practitioner.

So, tell us about the various bone related problems due to fluorides, the Pineal Gland problems linked to fluoride, and fully inform the ATS Forum's readers. Since it appears Dentists only know teeth, perhaps this is the reason all the world has been mislead speaking only to the factors of teeth. imho
edit on 18-1-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Lack of Professional Responsibilty



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
reply to post by kokoro
 





that is exactly what it is taking about when it points to a correlation between calcification and uptake of fluoride. The fluoride is taken up by the calcification within the artery wall (that is exactly what heart disease is). Then the MRI, or Ct or whatever method used can identify where the calcifications are by where the image is lit up.


More literal legerdemain. How about you actually point to the stuff in the article that you try to "explain" instead of coming up with vague preconceptions based on preconceived assumptions all the time? Even better, why don´t you go pester the author of the article, i noticed he already have 3348 facebook subscriber to that article. Shouldn´t you be concerned he is spreading the "false" message? But of course he gets no flags or stars, so why should you care right?





MMkay. This is all from the scientific article.




Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the world 1. The major pathophysiologic change of cardiovascular disease is atherosclerosis in critical arteries. Atherosclerosis is a slow, progressive, and cumulative process that results in atheromatous plaque formation in vascular walls and eventually leads to narrowing of the arterial lumen, occlusion, or aneurysm formation. The development of atherosclerotic plaque is characterized by subendothelial fatty material accumulation, a chronic inflammatory process, and vascular calcification





Coronary calcification can be measured by computed tomography (CT) studies and is one of the most important predictors of future cardiovascular events. The level of coronary artery calcium can also help to reclassify asymptomatic individuals into high-risk or low-risk categories





. Recently, Derlin et al. 12 reported the feasibility of sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT for imaging atherosclerotic calcification in major arteries , including carotid, aorta, iliac, and femoral arteries. They also found that the mineral deposition in the carotid plaque detected by sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT significantly correlates with atherogenic risk factors





Recently, several studies have demonstrated the feasibility of FDG-PET/CT in detecting plaque inflammation in coronary arteries 15–22. Nevertheless, fluoride PET/CT active mineral deposition, which represents the distinct pathophysiologic process of atherosclerosis





The FDG uptake and fluoride uptake of atherosclerotic plaques could have complementary roles in evaluating the cardiovascular risk of patients. The combination of sodium [18F]fluoride PET and CT is a promising imaging modality that provides both metabolic and anatomic information in evaluating vascular calcification


Conclusion:


. Combined anatomic and metabolic imaging with sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT offers a promising, noninvasive method to evaluate atherosclerosis.


Link to full text
edit on 18-1-2012 by kokoro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
WTF I've never heard of this before!

Anyway I am a skeptic to anything I hear, I will look into this myself and if its true then we need to email our congressmen and tell as many people about it as possible because I've never heard of this before and I always read the headlines on the news...



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SubSurge
WTF I've never heard of this before!

Anyway I am a skeptic to anything I hear, I will look into this myself and if its true then we need to email our congressmen and tell as many people about it as possible because I've never heard of this before and I always read the headlines on the news...


You won't read about the problems with fluoride in the mainstream media, but its been warned about from day one that they learned of the technique.

James Forrestal, US Sec of Defense, warned not to use fluoride in the military.

Charles Eliot Perkins, who learned of the fluoride methods from IG Farben, came out as a huge anti-fluoridation person.

Even the John Birch Socienty was anti-fluoride.

Most know that fluoride is an industrially protected pollutant and the same group that protected leaded gasoline for decades protected fluoride. It is the Kettering Group in Ohio and they cover up toxic linked problems for industry.

Fluorides releases caused environment and health problems to plants and animals from every industry that used them and there are hundreds now. Aluminum, Nuclear Enrichment for Uranium, Steel making, Glass making, Coal emissions, gasoline refining, phosphate production, and the list goes on

It is a well known problem and the most covered up issues are the enzyme damage factors that are linked to the mental deficit issues that retard the mind's higher power. It works like the mind slowing effects one gets when you have the flu, except fluoride do similar chemically.


One of the things that they don't tell parents is that there is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a small kid, and most people leave it right in the open in their bathrooms.

=====

It might be good to review what Charles Perkins warned about sodium fluoride:


www.infonews.co.nz...


The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from Mr. Charles Perkins, a chemist:

"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, The Truth About Water Fluoridation, to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. "In the 1930's, Hitler and the German Nazi's envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. ...

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient light lobotomy]

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communize the world. ...

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine--any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."
CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954.

edit on 18-1-2012 by MagnumOpus because: Fluoride Protection Industrially and population control method



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
@MagnumOpus

You are not for real are you? Listening a document sourced to another conspiracy website? That just completely voided the legitmacey of your so called "evidence". After I spent some time researching this "Charles E. Perkins" I've found that the only indexed websites that quote this name are other conspiracy websites, and to no surprise, they only mention this letter. Nothing else. No sources, no other information about this "chemist", absolutely nothing. I'm even on the thought that this "Perkins" never existed, and this "letter" was a fraudulent document to stir up the fluoride conspiracy.

The tinfoil hat wearers in this thread have given me quite the laugh, seriously find some legitimate sources that actually provide evidence, and I mean solid. Not these hilarious conspiracy tinfoil websites.

I've lurked on ATS for quite some time, and there are a lot of very interesting articles and pictures (UFO/aliens are particularly a section that excels). But the majority of users are a joke.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 


My grandmother died from CV disorders. A heart attack resulted in fact before her death she had a number over the last decade of her life which made it miserable. She loved water from the tap. How many other grandmas and grandpas have died because of this!? Make others aware. This is as real as the holocaust.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ashpool
 


Considering the age of that letter (1954) this guy is probably dead by now, and it would be hard to verify if he actually wrote that letter. So rather than question the information as a whole due to the source, maybe we should try to find other more recent, legitimate sources on the same subject and thereby judge it´s credibility?




The results of this study show that the children living in high fluoride areas have lower IQs than the children from the non-endemic area. Also, there were many more children from the endemic area with an IQ score ranking of below the borderline low level as compared to the control; in the endemic area, there were 18 such subject, or 30% of the total, while in the non-endemic area there were only 7, or a rate of 11.5%. The difference between the two groups is significant.




The findings of neurological effects in fluoride-exposed humans is consistent with, and strengthened by, recent findings from over 40 animal studies published since 1992. As with the studies on humans, the studies on animals have reported an impairment in learning and memory prorcesses among the fluoride-treated groups.


www.fluoridealert.org...

They have a pretty good video at the site below which sums it up regarding the general flouride issues.

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




top topics



 
214
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join