Brainwash Mouthwash?

[Fossils]

THIS MAKES INTERESTING FRIGHTENING READING:

 

FROM: MR J. E. CLARKE, 3 Nursery Avenue, Onchan.

 

A BOOK by Paul C. Bragg NDPHT, printed in 1970 in America, gives the history of fluoridation.

The book was published in the USA, Australia and England by Health Science, California.

In 1939 biochemists were commissioned to find a use for sodium fluoride waste produced by aluminium pot lines.

Also 45 other industries had disposal problems. These industries were hit with expensive damage suits from the noxious effects of the poison on livestock and crops.

These powerful industries came up with the idea of dissolving this waste in drinking water. The next step was to convince the public this was a great idea, they used the media to brainwash the people.

Being powerful corporations they were able to buy into the media to put over their point of view, that's how politics works in America, the rich and powerful brainwash the people in to their way.

Even though fluorine is one of the most potent poisons known to man. A survey conducted between 1950-1970 in over 20 cities in the USA, 10 of which were fluoridated and 10 not, found that the 10 fluoridated cities had a 10 per cent increase in cancer incidences.

Also most of the European countries have banned fluoride by law. In 1962 the public health department of Newburgh, New York which has fluoridated water found that children had even more tooth decay than before fluoridation. Also in Baltimore, Maryland where water is fluoridated tooth decay has steadily increased. Among experts who oppose fluoridation are professor J. D. Ebert; D. G. Steyn of Pretoria; professor Sir Arthur Amies, dean of the dental faculty of the University of Melbourne; Dr A. Benagiano, University of Rome; Gordonoff, University of Bern; Dr C. G. Heyd, past president of the American Dental Association who says that fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce effects on a long-range basis; Lord Horder, medical advisor to the Ministry of Food; Sir Charles Dodds, professor of biochemistry and past president of the Royal College of Physicians who issued a statement saying that fluoride is an extremely powerful enzyme poison.

Apart from all this, isn't it again the law to force so-called medicine on an unwilling public?

[nipper]

Always remember

 

[drawly thicko Government voice]

"We're the Isle of Man we can do whatever we like"

[/drawly thicko Government voice]

[TerryMcCann]

I'm looking forwards to the addition of delicious flouride into the water. It'll save me having to brush my teeth in the morning.

 

Any chance they could add PG Tips as well. I could have an extra 10 minutes in bed each day then

[Miss Take]

Water is poison

 

And yet we're told to drink the stuff every day otherwise we'll die - just goes to show these scientists obviously haven't got a clue what they're wittering on about.

 

Say NO to water.

[Skeddan]

Even though fluorine is one of the most potent poisons known to man.

This immediately makes the book suspect and IMO discredits it. Fluorine is different from fluoride.

 

There is good reputable independent research and materials on fluoride at http://www.fluorideresearch.org/ (see the earlier thread on water fluoridation). Although a bit technical, the last three editions have a fair amount of material for backing resistance to water fluoridation.

 

However if TerryMcCann takes sugar in his tea...

[ballaughbiker]

ffs Fossils are the contents of your post a wind up?

 

Have you missed a off?

[Albert Tatlock]

Water is poison

 

Say NO to water.

...and fish and various other creepy crawling organisms f**k and sh1t in it. It has also passed through millions of other animals and several scousers before we drink it (yet again).

[Chinahand]

Simply canned copy and paste scare stories from the anti-fluorination mob.

 

I googled part of it to see where it came from - I thought Lord Holder medical advisor to the Ministry of Foods dated the letter some what.

 

Pure ad hominen I admit, but this is part of his bio:

 

President of the Eugenics Society during World War II ("Hon. Pres" means "unpaid Pres." in England);

Joint Cttee on Voluntary Sterilization 1934

opposed NHS;

Cons. Physician to Ministries of Pensions, Food and Labor

Pubns:

Editorial Cttee, Annals of Eugenics; "Eugenic Policy", Galton Lecture 1940; the Galton Lecture 1941 was replaced by an informal discussion "Eugenics in Wartime" opened by Lord Horder

 

Looks like he held very enlightened views and is no doubt a perfectly good judge of the modern sciencific investigation of the effects of fluoridation on human health as he died in 1955.

 

As I've posted before - the anti-fluoridation mob will cherry pick, distort and abuse evidence to make their case. They base their appeal on emotion and not evidence. Lets not have an evidence based evaluation of the pros and cons, lets claim its a conspiracy dreamt up by the big corporations to poison us all. Tripe

[BigDave]

People like this really worry me. It's the way they embrace any anti-establishment psudo science as pure fact and scream it from the rooftops, carefully wording things to make them sound more dangerous. An "Enzyme Poison" (and I'm not certain that terminology is even correct) for example would normally be referred to by the medical profession as an Enzyme Inhibitor. By using the word poison the writer intends the reader to imagine something fatally toxic.

[Skeddan]

As I've posted before - the anti-fluoridation mob will cherry pick, distort and abuse evidence to make their case. They base their appeal on emotion and not evidence. Lets not have an evidence based evaluation of the pros and cons, lets claim its a conspiracy dreamt up by the big corporations to poison us all. Tripe

Chinahand - I agree that this is too often the case with many in the anti-fluoridation mob (it is also true of pro-fluoridation to some extent as well). However what you are saying is close to 'monster barring' of a kind - i.e. tarring all antis with the same brush in a way that can be used to dismiss all antis out of hand.

 

I am an 'anti' for reasons given in other thread and on basis of evidence and science (particularly with respect to the evidence of neurotoxic effects). I don't believe its a conspiracy, or causes cancer, but there is evidence with suggests linkage with auto-immune disorders, autism, and the like. (see links to reputable peer reviewed papers). To dismiss that evidence out of hand on the basis of the hysteria of some antis is equally unsound.

 

What you say here also overlooks the ethical considerations which are also significant. Ballaughbiker is an anti - though not believing there are harmful effects. That example alone shows lumping all antis together in the way you do here is tantamount to 'cherry picking' and a distortion and abuse to make the case against antis.

 

I wish antis would be more responsible - not doing so does tend to undermine what IMO are the valid arguments against, but I think pros have to also treat the topic with similar responsibility.

[Chinahand]

Skeddan, I've said I am in favour of an evidence based debate. I use the term anti fluoridation mob deliberately to classify those who are disengenuous in what they are doing. You didn't link to any papers - I'd like to read them. The York review did not find any evidence of the claims you are making.

[monasqueen]

...and fish and various other creepy crawling organisms f**k and sh1t in it. It has also passed through millions of other animals and several scousers before we drink it (yet again).

 

It has all been passed by the management

[Fossils]

Not for ostriches!

 

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7482340865178076863

[Skeddan]

Fair enough if one draws distinction between the anti-fluoride mob and others with sound anti-fluoride views. I go along with that, only it wasn't clear initially that such a distinction was being made.

 

I gave links in the previous thread on water fluoridation, and also referenced fluoride research org. There is a good journal online which can be found here http://www.fluorideresearch.org/backissues.pdf

 

The past 4 issues are well worth reading over. The latest issue has an item which is also interesting: PARADIGMS AND PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY VERSUS EVIDENCE.

 

As I said before, the York Report is now extremely dated. Have a look over these back issues, and I think you will find that there is sufficient basis for a precautionary approach against fluoridation. i.e. there is not conclusive evidence of problems, but sufficient evidence that benefits are minimal and could be serious risks in auto-immune etc. to warrant precautionary approach in not adopting water fluoridation.

 

You should of course check out funding for the journal and editorial board as well. I'd be interested in what you make of what is covered in these papers.

 

BTW personally I am not interested in YouTube videos Wikipedia articles or internet postings on this which don't cut much ice with me on the topic (but rather only make me anti-the 'anti mob'). There are good well researched studies and papers, and it is these rather than propaganda which make sense to consider.

[jimbms]

I think at the end of the day the issue is not concerning the benifits or downfalls of fluoridation but the fact of should people be forced to accept chemical additives against their will in drinking water. whats next forced seditives in school meals to keep kids in order.