Simple fluoride question

[Without Rights]

I like how every "skeptic" has skipped over everything I said in the last 5 posts and focused on hypotheticals and non-debatable arguments.

 

[Without Rights]

I'm really not interested in the debate anymore.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed personal attack.

Please point out parts of my arguments that make you doubt my sanity. That way you may actually have a purpose in all your typing.

 

[Mr.D]

So according to your theory if a products demand is influenced by a lie then the price should be lower somehow. No, no no. It matters zero whether the demand was created by a real need or by circus clowns, the demand is there. The law of supply and demand is not effected by the reason for the demand, only by the demand itself.

1)According to you water fluoridation is due to a conspiracy of fluoride and phosphate companies.

2) Thus, the demand from water utilities for fluoride is caused by said conspiracy.

3) Hence we conclude that without the conspiracy, demand would be lower. (So in the sense that the demand depends on this "lie," yes. The absence of the "lie" would indeed lower prices)

4) And according to the laws of supply and demand, when all else remains the same, price goes down as demand goes down.

5) So: Without the conspiracy, fluoride price goes down.

QED.

In order to make an economic argument, you need to provide evidence of (among other things) what the demand is for fluoride outside the water utilities. Ironically in attempting to refute me, you asserted (without evidence) that

the only buyer is water utility companies.

Which is exactly what I said you need to provide evidence for.

Why are you fighting me so hard on this anyway? (Including a rather unwarranted personal attack via drug reference), I'm trying to get you to improve your economic argument which is thus far very poor.

For example,

all the suppliers still profit. They don't lose money on delivering because they charge for delivery.

Not if their costs exceed their income (including those delivery charges), which is why you need to provide evidence for what this conspiracy costs (what it actually _does_ might also be handy) - in addition to information regarding market pricing of fluoride.

Also in your math equation you only counted one pound per year.

No, I didn't.

$0.01 per 11,172,000 pounds

 

[Belz...]

If something is toxic then it's toxic. Why would the amount matter? It's still toxic isn't it?

You're not being serious, are you ?

You don't seriously think that a very small amount is the very same are a large amount of the same substance ? Come on, now.

 

[Belz...]

WHAT? The links to those numerous scientific studies doesnt do it for you?

Might've missed them, which is why I actually asked to see evidence.

Instead of whining, would you mind linking back to them ?

I give up, you must be living in a very high fluoride area or something!

Sure. I'm such a docile person...

 

[Belz...]

I already explained this earlier.

Water or oxygen itself is obviously not a poison. That's the difference.

Well, now you've just exposed your own ignorance. Everything is toxic in excessive quantities.

Your point is destroyed by the fact that fluoride is $.05 per lbs and the only buyer is water utility companies.

Dentists ? Toothpast companies ?

Drinking fluoride does not work, as you say.

Actually, it has to because the fluoridated water passes through your teeth, doing what it should be doing. It simply follows from the premises.

It poisons your body proven by science that I already posted as well as others.

I'm aware that fluoride is toxic at certain levels, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that its toxic, or "pacifying", at the level we have in our tap water.

Pointing out that my analogy is flawed is an argument.

Fine. Your argument was silly to the extreme. It has nothing in common with the subject being discussed.

So you are just ignoring parts? O.k.

If you think your argument is more convincing in all caps, then by all means, shout.

I posted already, take the time and educate yourself.

Translation: "Well, it wasn't very convincing to the other skeptics, here, so I'm certainly not going to shoot myself in the foot."

 

[Without Rights]

1)According to you water fluoridation is due to a conspiracy of fluoride and phosphate companies.

2) Thus, the demand from water utilities for fluoride is caused by said conspiracy.

3) Hence we conclude that without the conspiracy, demand would be lower. (So in the sense that the demand depends on this "lie," yes. The absence of the "lie" would indeed lower prices)

I know the demand would be lower without the conspiracy. But what I don't know is how that helps your argument.

Your exact quote

what you have not yet demonstrated is that water fluoridiation demands artificially created by "a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies" are sufficient to generate the profit margins! For that we need other figures to figure out (among other things) what that $0.05 per pound might be without the fluoridation demand.

So you are saying I have to prove that a market exists without the conspiracy. In order for me to have a convincing argument I have to prove a demand beyond the demand that already exists?

4) And according to the laws of supply and demand, when all else remains the same, price goes down as demand goes down.

5) So: Without the conspiracy, fluoride price goes down.

I know how the law of s&d works. It doesn't help your argument at all simply because the demand is there. I agree if demand stopped then it would not be profitable, that's the point of the conspiracy, to create the demand and make it profitable. And anyway, the demand is based on gallons of water used. I guess if we all stopped turning on our water then you would have a point, the conspiracy wouldn't work if we didn't use it.

In order to make an economic argument, you need to provide evidence of (among other things) what the demand is for fluoride outside the water utilities.

No, to make an economic argument I would have to provide evidence for a demand, that is all. There is no need for demand outside the demand that already exists. QED? demand is proven and uncontested.

Why are you fighting me so hard on this anyway? (Including a rather unwarranted personal attack via drug reference), I'm trying to get you to improve your economic argument which is thus far very poor.

Thanks for trying to get me to improve my argument buddy but it is your argument that is very poor. Your argument is like saying, to prove taco bell is profitable I would have to prove that demand exists outside of the people who eat tacos. It makes no sense at all.

Not if their costs exceed their income (including those delivery charges), which is why you need to provide evidence for what this conspiracy costs (what it actually _does_ might also be handy) - in addition to information regarding market pricing of fluoride.

The conspiracy is complete, costs for it are paid in full as I stated in an above post, another one which you don't refute and actually ignore totally. If costs exceed income then it is still to their advantage. If they gave it away it would still be better than paying for $16.5M in perpetual disposal fees.

No, I didn't.

Yes you did

Let's also suppose that maintaining the conspiracy costs $30M a year. How would this conspiracy work?

Before conspiracy: Cost to dispose of 11,172,000 pounds = $16,800,000 / year

After conspiracy: Costs minus Receipts = $29,999,999.99 / year

In your equation they only made $.01 of selling 11,172,000 lbs $.01 each.

The point is still missed since $30M in costs was pulled out of thin air.

 

[Without Rights]

Dentists ? Toothpast companies ?

They use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not byproducts of industry.

Actually, it has to because the fluoridated water passes through your teeth, doing what it should be doing. It simply follows from the premises.

Your right, fluoride touches the teeth on the way down the throat. Why is this an argument for fluoridation again?

I'm aware that fluoride is toxic at certain levels, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that its toxic, or "pacifying", at the level we have in our tap water.

That's because you didn't look at my previous posts.

Fine. Your argument was silly to the extreme. It has nothing in common with the subject being discussed.

No sillier than your argument we should drink fluoride because it touches our teeth on the way down.

If you think your argument is more convincing in all caps, then by all means, shout.

I WILL

Translation: "Well, it wasn't very convincing to the other skeptics, here, so I'm certainly not going to shoot myself in the foot."

Actually I got no responses on the scientific articles and papers I posted. I'm sure the "skeptics" had really good rebuttals but held them back because I wasn't convincing.

No, on second thought, I am sure they purposely ignored them because they can't refute them. Taking them out of the argument is much more soothing to their denial.

If you don't see them, they must not exist.

 

[Mr.D]

So you are saying I have to prove that a market exists without the conspiracy. In order for me to have a convincing argument I have to prove a demand beyond the demand that already exists?

No, you have to show if there's a demand outside the conspiracy and what it is. But you've covered part of that with more recent assertions, so I clarify; you now have to show evidence that there is no demand outside the conspiracy.

No, to make an economic argument I would have to provide evidence for a demand, that is all. There is no need for demand outside the demand that already exists. QED? demand is proven and uncontested.

That's all? Supply of a commodity is irrelevant? Costs are irrelevant? Competition is irrelevant? All you need is demand to make a profit?

The conspiracy is complete, costs for it are paid in full as I stated in an above post,

I grant you that you did assert that lobbying and research were one time costs, though you wrote it in a response to defaultdotxbe. You have yet to provide any evidence as to what the recurring costs are.

If costs exceed income then it is still to their advantage. If they gave it away it would still be better than paying for $16.5M in perpetual disposal fees.

Only if Costs - Income < $16.5M, which is the whole point of my original question: Give me evidence that your economic argument is true. So far it's been mixed results. You did provide the market price for fluoride and ALCOA's yearly production numbers, which was a good start. On the other hand there's your implied argument summed up here ...

I have delivered food products for years and the price is ever changing and unstable, yet all the suppliers still profit. They don't lose money on delivering because they charge for delivery.

which suggests that all an aluminum company needs to do is to raise delivery prices until the above inequality is true. If profit is as simple as you imply above, then why doesn't one of the food suppliers you mention just quadruple their delivery charges and make a fortune?


I admit my pulling the arbitrary example out of the air was a red herring in the sense that it derailed the conversation into a tangent, but the gist remains; If you wish to convince skeptical people of your arguments, you must provide evidence to back up your statements.


I was going to let this one go, but what the heck ...

In your equation they only made $.01 of selling 11,172,000 lbs [sic] $.01 each.

No.

$0.01 per 11,172,000 pounds.

Means selling 11,172,000 pounds for $0.01 total.

 

[The Truth Hurts]

For the benefit of Belz...

Hi all, I have done some investigation into this fluoride debate and I have come to the conclusion that there are enough reputable studies regarding negative effects of fluoride to persuade me that it should not be added to water supplies and should be removed from water supplies where it has been added. It is not required to ensure healthy teeth as demonstrated by the following graphs based on data from the World Health Organization which compare countries which have fluoride in the water to those that do not. As you will see from the graphs in the link provided below all western countries have experienced similar improvements in dental health over time regardless of fluoridation.

http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.html

The following link contains a video produced by a show called "What's Good For You" in Australia. It shows a balanced review of the fluoride debate and whilst the article concludes that it is up to us to decide, the truth is it is not up to us because fluoride is being put in the water whether you want it or not.

http://health.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=230698

The following quotes are provided FYI:

"Water fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century... if not of all time." Dr Robert Carton, former President of the Union of Government Scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency.

"There is not a single scientific, or laboratory, study from anywhere in the world which proves that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in humans. There are, however, hundreds of published scientific papers which show that water fluoridation is dangerous to human, animal, plant and aquatic life, which is no surprise, since fluoride is more toxic than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic."
National Pure Water Association, UK

In 1997, more than 1,000 members of the union working at the Environmental Protection Agency HQ in Washington DC, who are directly responsible for the implementation of the US Safe Drinking Water Act, voted unanimously to ban water fluoridation.

"Our members' review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiological studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are the recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower I.Q. in children. As professionals charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply."
Vice-President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, USA.

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children."
Dr Peter Mansfield, Director, Templegarth Trust.

References on the scientific case... against fluoride

Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.

A. K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, "Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition", IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol 9, No.11, pp 1021-1022 (1981)

"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1 ppm or more of fluorine."

Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18, 1943

Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.

Robert A. Clark, "Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation," Blood, Vol 57, pp. 913-921 (1981)

Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2-ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.

"Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments", Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp 6-9 (1987)

Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, and increases the tumour growth rate in cancer prone individuals.

Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumour Growth", Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol 119,p 252(1965); Sheila Gibson, "Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function", Complementary Medical Research, Vol 6, pp 111-113 (1992)

Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.

S. K. Jain and A.K. Susheela, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits", Environmental Research, Vol. 44, pp 117-125 (1987)

Fluoride depresses Thyroid activity.

Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, "Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland," Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol 105, pp 182-186 (1963); "Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and Hyperthyroidism", Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp 1102-1110 (1958)

Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body.

Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, "High Fluoride Exposure in Hemodialysis Patients", American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp 320-324 (1990)

Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.

S.E. Hrudley et al., "Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma" Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol 81, pp 415-416 (1990); Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumours Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics Vol 48, pp 307-310 (1963)

Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.

Nicholas Leone, "Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply", Public Health Reports, Vol 69, pp 925-936 (1954); "The Village Where People are Old Before their Time", Stern Magazine, Vol 30, pp 107-108,111-112 (1978)

Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.

Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, "Fluoride retained from mouth rinses and dentifrices in preschool children", Caries Research, Vol.3, pp 290-299 (1969); W.L. Augenstein, et al., "Fluoride ingestion in children: a review of 87 cases", Paediatrics, Vol 88, pp 907-912, (1991); George Waldbott, "Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water", Clinical Toxicology, Vol 18, No 5, pp 531-541 (1981)

Fluorides diminish the intelligence capability of the human brain.

Fluoride, Vol 26, No.4, pp 189-192, 1995, "Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence In Children". Presented to the 20th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, September 5-9, 1994

Fluoride studies in rats can be indicative of a potential for motor disruption, intelligence deficits and learning disabilities in humans. Humans are exposed to plasma levels of fluoride as high as those in rat studies. Fluoride involves interruption of normal brain development. Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli, to produce behavioural decisions and modify memory. Experience with other developmental neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioural functions will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats.

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No, 2, p 176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium F luoride", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995

Fluorides accumulate in the brain over time to reach neurologically harmful levels.

Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No, 2, p 176, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride", Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995

"Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good."

Journal of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944

The contents of a family-size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 12.5 kilo child.

In 1991, the Akron (Ohio) Regional Poison Centre reported, "… death has been reported following ingestion of 16 mg/kg of fluoride. Only 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride could kill a 50 kilo adult. According to the Centre, "fluoride toothpaste contains up to 1 mg/gram of fluoride." Even Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge that a family-sized tube "theoretically contains enough fluoride to kill a small child." (National Pure Water Association, UK)

"Fluorides have been used to modify behaviour and mood of human beings. It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in Nazi prison camps in World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia."

National Pure Water Association, UK

Fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are used to kill rodents.

The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, states, "… fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanisms of such actions are obscure."

Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate.

In 1975 Dr John Yiamouyiannis published a preliminary survey, which shows that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempts to refute the studies. Later in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joins with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which are then included in the Congressional Record (USA) by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption.

Both reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer. (Note: Obviously Dr. Burk felt free to agree with scientific truth only after his tenure at NCI ended, since his job depended on towing the party line)

Fluorides have little or no effect on decay prevention in humans.

In 1990 Dr John Colquhoun is forced into early requirement in New Zealand after he conducts a study on 60,000 school children and finds no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. He additionally finds that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas suffered from dental fluorosis. He makes the study public. There is no scientific data that shows that fluoride mouth rinses and tablets are safe for human use.

A 1989 study by Hildebolt, on 6,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefit from the use of sodium fluorides.

In 1990 a study by Dr John Yiamouyiannis on 39,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefits from the use of sodium fluorides.

In 1992 Michael Perrone, a legislative assistant in New Jersey, contacts the FDA requesting all information regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoride tablets and drops. After 6 months of stalling, the FDA admitted they had no data to show that fluoride tablets or drops were either safe or effective. They informed Perrone that they will "probably have to pull the tablets and drops off the market."

In 1976, Dr D. W. Allman and co-workers from Indiana University School of Medicine (USA) feed animals 1 part-per-million (ppm) fluoride and found that in the presence of aluminium in a concentration as small as 20 parts per billion, (like in a toothpaste tube, using aluminium pans to boil water, or drinking beverages in aluminium cans), fluoride is able to cause an even larger increase in cyclic AMP levels.

Cyclic AMP inhibits the migration rate of white blood cells, as well as the ability of the white blood cell to destroy pathogenic organisms.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55, Sup B, p 523, 1976, "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Tissue Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo".

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."

Robert Carlton, Ph.D., former U.S. EPA scientist on "Marketplace" Canadian Broadcast Company Nov 24, 1992

"Regarding fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects"

William Marcus, Ph.D., senior EPA toxicologist, Covert Action, 1992, p 66

***Most of the above information has been copied from the following website by Selwyn Johnston - http://www.johnston-independent.comfluoride_fraud.html#.

That should keep you all busy for a while : )

 

[Without Rights]

No, you have to show if there's a demand outside the conspiracy and what it is. But you've covered part of that with more recent assertions, so I clarify; you now have to show evidence that there is no demand outside the conspiracy.

There is no demand outside of water fluoridation. The evidence is this. Aluminum and phosphate companies used to pay for disposal of fluoride, hence no demand. Now Alcoa reports they dispose of no fluoride. They were sued for $3M, in 1970 alone, for improper disposal. Before conspiracy they paid to dispose of it after the conspiracy they sell it for $.05 a lb.

That's all? Supply of a commodity is irrelevant? Costs are irrelevant? Competition is irrelevant? All you need is demand to make a profit?

Your taking me out of context but that's o.k. You said I had to prove a demand outside fluoridation, if you would of said NO demand that would of made the point you were trying to get out more understandable.

But on that point, there would not have to no demand outside of the conspiracy because fluoridation requires a huge supply. Hence, demand would significantly increase as evidenced by the fact that Alcoa used to pay for disposal and now they don't

you that you did assert that lobbying and research were one time costs, though you wrote it in a response to defaultdotxbe. You have yet to provide any evidence as to what the recurring costs are.

Recurring costs such as what? I say there are none other than falsely educating the public. I cannot prove that costs don't exist because there would be no evidence of a non-cost. Evidence would be required to prove that there is costs, not that there is none.

Only if Costs - Income < $16.5M, which is the whole point of my original question: Give me evidence that your economic argument is true. So far it's been mixed results.

There is no mixed results. You claim that a conspiracy would cost more than it's worth but you back up that statement with nothing. What cost's do I have to prove don't exist? Ask me an answerable question.

which suggests that all an aluminum company needs to do is to raise delivery prices until the above inequality is true. If profit is as simple as you imply above, then why doesn't one of the food suppliers you mention just quadruple their delivery charges and make a fortune?

Why does the fluoride producers even bother then? Why don't they just go back to disposing of it? Why would it be worth selling if they lose money on selling?

I admit my pulling the arbitrary example out of the air was a red herring in the sense that it derailed the conversation into a tangent, but the gist remains; If you wish to convince skeptical people of your arguments, you must provide evidence to back up your statements.

I provided evidence. If skeptics require impossible evidence then they will never be convinced anyway.

I was going to let this one go, but what the heck ...

No.

Means selling 11,172,000 pounds for $0.01 total.

O.k., so your scenario was completely off base and foolish.

Market value of fluoride is $.05 a lb and ALCOA sells all of it they produce. That is the evidence you need. Supply and demand and competition summed up in one truth. They sell it all and dispose of none.

 

[elbe]

There is no demand outside of water fluoridation. The evidence is this. Aluminum and phosphate companies used to pay for disposal of fluoride, hence no demand. Now Alcoa reports they dispose of no fluoride. They were sued for $3M, in 1970 alone, for improper disposal. Before conspiracy they paid to dispose of it after the conspiracy they sell it for $.05 a lb.

Really? No demand at all? That seems odd to me. Just because you legally have to pay for professional disposal doesn't mean no other industries would want it. I should think that industrial chemical waste can probably still be used in other areas. But I'm no industrial chemist.

 

[Belz...]

They use pharmaceutical grade fluoride, not byproducts of industry.

So ?

Your right, fluoride touches the teeth on the way down the throat. Why is this an argument for fluoridation again?

It isn't. Please pay attention. It was an argument against your ANALOGY about lotions that you'd ingest, remember ?

That's because you didn't look at my previous posts.

No sillier than your argument we should drink fluoride because it touches our teeth on the way down.

See above.

Actually I got no responses on the scientific articles and papers I posted.

I seem to remember you did. Perhaps YOU should go back and read again.

If you don't see them, they must not exist.

And if you see them, then they must be true.

We can play that game all day.

 

[Belz...]

For the benefit of Belz...

Well, thank you.

I agree that no one here has taken the time to answer your post.

 

[Mr.D]

Without Rights:

It's pretty clear this is going nowhere: Every time I ask you for evidence, you assert something and claim your say-so is sufficient. You suggest that I want impossible or ever more evidence and I complain that you've barely provided any.

So, instead of continuing down that endlessly circular path, I'm going to propose going back to square one, in which you stated your belief that water fluoridation was "a conspiracy by phosphate and aluminum companies who had a big expense of disposing of a toxic substance. Now it is a profitable substance."

Since then you have posted a number of times in which you have clarified and expanded your proposed conspiracy and I think it's appropriate to explicitly expand on it in order to enhance the quality of the conversation.

Let me know where I'm incorrect regarding your position and please try to answer the questions which I feel need further clarification.

1) Aluminum companies produce fluoride by-products.

2) Some of these products are waste (Specifically which one(s?) - I note that I found that aluminum companies sell fluoride compounds to several industries - presumably these are not the products we are discussing)

3) There is "no demand outside of water fluoridation." for this waste anywhere at any time for any purpose whatsoever.
a) In part because it's not "pharmaceutical grade fluoride" and cannot be economically processed to be pharmaceutical grade.
b) Nor can it be economically processed into anything else useful to anyone ever. (including manufacturers of rat poison?)

4) From sales to said utilities: (Income (inc. Delivery) minus Costs) is always advantageous compared to Cost of disposal, but only so long as water utilities want to buy it.

5) This conspiracy suppresses opposing research by
a) doing no ongoing lobbying
b) doing no ongoing research
c) publishing no fake research
e) doing no active suppression of current research
d) "ridicul[ing] anyone who [disagrees]"
e) advertising nationally (for free?)
f) not otherwise interfering with "Dr.'s everywhere ... backed buy 100's of studies." get the message out to anyone who looks.

6) The members of this conspiracy knowingly expose themselves, their family, neighbors and friends ("who can't afford non fluoridated water to cook with and drink" or who go to local restaurants, bars, public parks or anywhere else that might use "local water to process foods") to poison.

Is that the gist of it? There are a few other minor points, but does this cover the bulk of it?

 

[Belz...]

I just thought of something...

If you're a pedestrian, like I often am, you know that you're exposed, every day, to carbon monoxide. Now, this substance is toxic and in fact many people commit suicide with it.

By Without Rights' logic, ANY amount of carbon monoxide is toxic, and we should ban cars at once before they kill us all.

See a problem with that ?

 

[bwinwright]

Without Rights is Correct.

Without Rights, Based on everything I have learned about fluoride, you are absolutely correct. Eustace Mullins says Hitler put sodium fluoride in the drinking water of the prisoners in the concentration camps to make them easier to control, reporting that Hitler was able to reduce the number of guards by 75%, needing only one guard instead of four for a given prison population. Dr. Bill Deagle also scientifically addresses the fluoride question. Of course, there is also Donald Rumsfeld's Plague, aspartame, which is now in thousands of food products. Then, there is the Chemtrails argument where various heavy metals are being dumped into our air supply. Also, the Depleted Uranium situation is extremely ugly and frightening. There is plenty of speculation as to why all of this is happening but one thing seems to be sure; IT IS HAPPENING. People who wish to counteract this poisoning should look into various nutrients, vitamins, minerals, etc. which help to remove various toxins from our bodies, along with scrubbing clean our cardiovascular systems to empower the immune system. At least, this is something we can all do.

 

[Praktik]

Eustace Mullins says Hitler put sodium fluoride in the drinking water of the prisoners in the concentration camps to make them easier to control, reporting that Hitler was able to reduce the number of guards by 75%, needing only one guard instead of four for a given prison population.

We covered this in the beginning of the thread. All I've seen is the testimony from this military man - where are the primary source documents that support it?

Where is the "smoking gun" evidence that this is so?

The testimony, on its own, is meaningless. May I remind you there have been things entered into the congressional record such as the 45 declared goals of the Communist Takeover of America which have no bearing on reality and are borne of a deep paranoid anti-communist mentality. How are we to know that this testimony is not borne of an equally paranoid anti-nazi attitude? As well deserved as that attitude might be, it can lead one to irrationality and the ascribing of evil to every act they do, no matter how mundane.

 

[Peace]

and we should ban cars at once before they kill us all.

Gets my vote.

 

[Belz...]

Without Rights, Based on everything I have learned about fluoride, you are absolutely correct. Eustace Mullins says Hitler put sodium fluoride in the drinking water of the prisoners in the concentration camps to make them easier to control

My mother says that if you eat too fast you'll fart more because of the air you swallow. You shouldn't believe everything people say.

Of course, there is also Donald Rumsfeld's Plague, aspartame, which is now in thousands of food products. Then, there is the Chemtrails argument where various heavy metals are being dumped into our air supply. Also, the Depleted Uranium situation is extremely ugly and frightening.

Is there any nonsense you don't believe in ?

There is plenty of speculation as to why all of this is happening but one thing seems to be sure; IT IS HAPPENING.

No, I don't think we're there yet. You've made a claim.