Loading ...
Fluoride and Your Teeth
Fluoride has been added to the drinking water in many communities because it has been claimed it reduces tooth decay 40% to 60% over communities that don’t have fluorinated water. This belief was first promoted in the early 1940’s but studies since that time have shown that Fluoride is a toxin we do not need. The 11 organizations listed below stopped supporting the Fluoridation of water in 1996:
- American Heart Assoc.
- American Academy of Allergy & Immunology
- American Cancer Society
- Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Action Network
- American Diabetes Assoc.
- National Institute of Law Municipal Officers
- American Chiropractic Assoc.
- American Civil Liberties Union
- Nat’l Kidney Foundation
- American Psychiatric Assoc.
- Soc. of Toxicology
If you visit the Wikipedia page on fluoride at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride, you’ll see this is a very toxic substance that many are being forced to drink.
Some sites state that fluoride is necessary for strong teeth and bones but no studies have conclusively proven this. Do your own due diligence and decide for yourself by visiting:
Pro Fluoride sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/
Fluoride update sites
www.fluoridation.com
www.keepersofthewell.org
www.fluoridealert.org
www.bragg.com
www.fluoride-journal.com
www.bruha.com/fluoride
www.gjne.com/cfsdwh
www.nofluoride.com
www.zerowasteamerica.org/fluoride.htm
Here’s something for you to think about:
Adolf Hitler sought a means to make people docile and suggestible. He discovered that odorless sodium fluoride slowly poisons and makes dormant the small tissue in the brain’s left rear occipital lobe that normally helps a person resist domination. Fluoride allows muscles to move one way, but not relax. In large doses fluoride can cause paralysis and death.
“Referenced from the article ‘Fluorine is a Deadly Poison !’ from ‘Dr. Patricia Bragg”.”
Sodium fluoride is classified with arsenic and cyanide as a dangerous poison and is used in rat poison. Hydrogen fluoride is an industrial pollutant. It is illegal to sell or give away a fluoride pill of 1 mg. Fluoride slowly destroys the body’s self-repair and rejuvenation capabilities causing premature aging, bone damage and deformities.
It’s up to you to decide whether you want fluoride in your toothpaste, food, drinking water or body after visiting the sites above.
Last 5 posts in Minerals
- Lowering Blood Pressure - December 31st, 2007
- Is Iodine REALLY Important? - November 12th, 2007
- Is Iron as Important as We Were Taught? - November 12th, 2007
- Is Manganese Magic? - November 11th, 2007
- Copper Holds You Together - November 11th, 2007
Subscribe to my free newsletter about natural remedies products and we will help you heal yourself! The eBook is titled 'Balance Your Life'.
Posts
To the creator(s) of this Natural Remedies Products blog,
It would have been nice to get an objective opinion about the toxicity associated with water fluoridination. Your website leaves much to be desired. Only 2 websites that are Pro-fluoridination? And one of these is the wikipedia reference you suggest your readers look at to discover for themselves the toxicities associated with fluoride? This is weak. And while wikipedia can provide some useful information on a topic, it is not a scientifically-valid source, and as such should not be used as a primary reference for directing your readership. It can be inaccurate, and shows laziness on your part. Surely your perspective on this matter would require your own due diligence, yes?
One other comment. Usually any reference or quote that associates Hitler with a cause will raise a red flag for anyone seeking the truth on a subject…all too often activists use “Hilter Did It” correlations as a sleight of hand to evoke an emotional response on something that generally has nothing to do with the issue. Furthermore, you didn’t even reference the Hitler quote that you wanted us to think about! I would suggest removing this as it adds no value to your argument. By using it to support your cause you are assuming a certain level of intelligence of your readership that they should find insulting.
Here’s a reference from a historically anti-industry peer-reviewed journal (IJOEH) that you might want to add to your “pro-fluoridination” list:
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/1003_Pollick.pdf
Hope this helps.
Jon
Hi Jon,
First off I wanted to thank you for commenting on our post. In regards to your response to wikipedia, I think their popularity speaks for itself, this is why they were referenced. Can you suggest other resources for our readers to reference? The reason I ask this is because right on the first page of the pdf that you reference is this:
“Osterman found that overall river fluoride concentrations
theoretically would be raised by 0.001-0.002
mg/l, a value not measurable by current analytic techniques.
All resulting concentrations would be well
below those recommended for environmental safety.”
If fluoride is safe for people to drink in any quantities, then why do they say right there in the pdf that the resulting concentrations would be well below those recommended for environmental safety? If it is safe for us to drink, why would they say that? Is there a risk of poisoning the water supplies? Poisoning us?
In terms of “using the name Hitler” to elicit emotional responses, yes, the idea was to show the relationship between the sick mind of Hitler versus the corporations trying to pawn off excess poisonous waste by selling it to municipalities to place into our drinking water in low enough quantities that are “well below those recommended for environmental safety”.
I suppose since you referenced the pdf we will leave it there, but I surely hope that you or anyone wanting to show the pro side of fluoridation comes up with something better than that.
Again, Thank You for your comment.
Hey earthquakie,
Actually, the reference I suggested gives both sides of the story (as it clearly states) , but concludes on the pro-fluoridination side of the issue. So sure, if you want to cherry-pick the reference you’ll find something to support your side of it. Who needs context?
However, the idea the fluoride is safe to consume in any quantity is a red herring, and not what any serious toxicologist would propose. Like most things, whether it be “natural” or man-made, the benefits of fluoridinated water only extend across a certain concentration range; below this range there is little health benefit, and above this range there are well-documented toxicities and adverse health effects. Ever hear of Paracelsus? The dose makes the poison, right? Or is this no longer valid? It is, afterall, the basis for all science-based toxicological studies, no matter what side of an issue you want to take.
And hey, if you want to make the relationship between Hitler and corporations that recycle fluoridinated by-products (or “poisonous waste” as you so eloquently put it) for the benefit of people’s health, the more power to you. Off hand I can’t think of an activist group that I’ve come across that hasn’t made similar equivocations. It is your job - nay, your duty! - to make things sound as dire as possible, even if it means invoking supreme hyperbole to the point of making ridiculous comparisons to arguably the worst dictator of modern times. Keep up the good fight! Regards,
jon
Hi Jon,
Again, thank you for another reply, although I fail to see the inferences against myself and my friend in our purposes for our writings. I don’t believe that I inferred you to any likeness of any kind? We don’t adhere to any group, organization or philosophy, just that we want to help people achieve perfect health if possible.
As to your inference to “cherry picking”, I prefer to call it nit picking, of which you did a very nice job of with your very first comment. Something of which was not my intent. The idea was to show that your side is not such a good side to be on either, although you are trying very hard to portray a sense of control, your slight of hand towards us betrays your intent.
In regards to a Red Herring, does it not say that it is “well below those recommended for environmental safety”? If I get bit by a snake, the medicine is made from snake venom and it is injected and I am fine, but does this mean that I need to take snake venom every day? Do I need to add it to my water and toothpaste just to be sure I have enough? Of course not! The same goes with fluoride, it does not and should not be added to our water supplies or toothpaste or anything else they wish to sell the idea for. Just like snake venom, it is poison and should be treated as such.
I guess you can tell at this stage that I do in fact know who Paracelsus was and what he did, so I fail to see why he was brought up, because now I feel a need to point everyone to your unfavorite site so they know who and what you are talking about: Paracelsus.
I have to laugh at this stage because everyone in the world knows what Hitler was like….he would do ANYTHING to serve his own agenda and Corporations are exactly the same. They are in existence to make money to satisfy their investors and to survive by making large amounts of money, no matter what it takes, they will do ANYTHING to serve their agenda. If corporations were not this way, we would not have large corporations in existence, that is their makeup and nature.
Every writer uses something in their work to give people a vision of the point they are trying to bring across, just like you trying to infer that my friend and I are radicals from some group or organization that people should be wary of having anything to do with, of which we are not.
I appreciate your views Jon and again want to thank you for your comments, you are welcome here any time.
Hi earthquakie and friends,
thanks for the response, although there appears to be some misconceptions on your part.
You said:
“I fail to see the inferences against myself and my friend in our purposes for our writings. I don’t believe that I inferred you to any likeness of any kind? We don’t adhere to any group, organization or philosophy, just that we want to help people achieve perfect health if possible.”
I guess you mean you fail to see the inference that you have taken an activist stance against fluoridinating water. How do you fail to see this? You can use your favorite reference (wikipedia), or look the word up on Dictionary.com to see what constitutes an activist. Inherently there is nothing wrong with being an activist. Unfortunately there is a tendency to misrepresent the other side, so that is what I was pointing out. And I’ll point out that you do adhere to a particular philosophy, otherwise you wouldn’t have spent the time you did to espouse the “evils” of industry and corporations (again, this is an all too common view held by many activists).
You also said:
“The idea was to show that your side is not such a good side to be on either, although you are trying very hard to portray a sense of control, your slight of hand towards us betrays your intent.”
Correction - your idea was to show that water fluoridination is not something anyone should support…period. As for the rest of this comment…What?! I’m not really sure what to make of this. It sounds like the rumblings of the paranoid. Could you get any more nebulous? If I was trying too hard to “portray a sense of control,” I apologize - although I’m not sure over what I was attempting to control. I thought my intent was fairly obvious: add to the discussion another point of view, and highlight some areas where I thought you could improve your story. I only wish I had the powers of mind control through writing! That would come in handy, wouldn’t it.
Later, you said:
“If I get bit by a snake, the medicine is made from snake venom and it is injected and I am fine, but does this mean that I need to take snake venom every day? Do I need to add it to my water and toothpaste just to be sure I have enough?”
I’d love to get a survey of dental professionals who would equate dental carries and other maladies that can result from chronic exposure to untreated water with a snake bite. Are you serious? At some point you have to look at the mechanism of disease, as well as the proposed treatment or measure of prevention. There is faulty logic at the heart of this comparison.
And if the fluoride levels are reported to be “well below those recommended for environmental safety,” isn’t this a good thing? That means that fluoride levels in water are at a concentration thought to be protective of human health, yet safe for the environment. Where’s the hang up?
Finally, thanks for directing people to my “unfavorite site.” Again, refer to my initial post to get an accurate take on my opinion of wikipedia. In this particular instance I think they did a decent job of summarizing his philosophy. However, based on your post it is difficult for me to believe that you have a good understanding of “what Paracelsus did,” or more to the point, the significance of the quote that is often attributed to him. You say that, like snake venom, fluoride is a poison. This alone underscores a lack of understanding of toxicology. Again, Paracelsus’ idea was that the DOSE makes the poison, not the CHEMICAL makes the poison. Using this logic, a snake venom antidote is not a poison when used at a concentration that will combat the poisonous effect of the actual snake venom. Used at unhealthy doses, the antidote becomes a poison. This is why potency is such an important concept, not only in toxicology, but in pharmacology and nutrition. In fact (as I’m sure you are very aware), basic natural vitamins and minerals that are required for achieving and maintaining a healthy body can be poisonous if consumed at inappropriate doses.
I’m sure you would agree that coffee isn’t the most healthy beverage in the world; regardless, I love it. But would you be surprised to find out that there are over natural 1000 chemicals in roasted coffee? Did you know that only 30 of these chemicals have been seriously looked at, and 21 of these tested positive in rodent carcinogenicity testing? Does this make coffee something we should ban from the public? http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1567504&blobtype=pdf You’ll also notice in the same article that, of the compounds reviewed, natural chemicals are almost as likely to be carcinogenic as synthetic chemicals.
Anyway, I do not equate “radical” with “activist,” so you’re off-base with that inference. I was a little chippy at the end of my last post, and for that I apologize. I appreciate your want to steer people towards a more healthy way of life, although the notion of “perfect health” can vary depending with whom you speak. In the end, this is not my website; I wanted to offer ideas on making this particular blog of yours more accurate. Thanks for welcoming me. Regards,
Jon
Hi Jon,
Thank You for replying, I am rather enjoying this difference of opinion and thoughts. I wanted to place a quote here:
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
What I really wish to say here is that just because one person has a different opinion on a particular subject does not mean the person is an activist, radical, or what ever name you wish to associate with them. It simply means their concept is different than yours.
So, not only do we encourage people coming here to this article to form their own opinion, we actually tell them to do just that:
“Do your own due diligence and decide for yourself” middle of discussed article above.
“It’s up to you to decide whether you want fluoride in your toothpaste, food, drinking water or body” this is from the very last sentence in the article above.
So, where is the activism?
We chose not to write a book on the subject. We wanted to simply lay basic groundwork for people to find out for themselves what they feel is right or wrong for them. There are already lots of books and websites out there specializing in this issue.
At this point and time I am not going to banter back and forth with you, as it has become a war of words about I said you said, which is unproductive and useless.
“I see the necessity of sacrificing our opinions sometimes to the
opinions of others for the sake of harmony.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Francis Eppes, 1790.
By the way, coffee is not good for you and I wish you would stop drinking it….LOL But, it is your choice and because you already know so much about it, why would you subject your body to that?
I am however glad that you replied, I was wondering if you would or not. No apology is needed, we both just feel strongly about our perceived side of the issue and of each others responses.
Thank You, yes, we simply want people to be able to have the healthiest life they choose to make for themselves, thats all.
Enjoy and hope to hear from you soon.
Thomas Jefferson quotes from University of Virginia Library