Every single vitamin and mineral we need is harmful if overdone. Some fatal.
so the proof the fluoride is bad, is peacenlove's pic?
A plant juice kills insects and is used in insecticides as it can't hurt us. but that pic of bulk sodium fluoride as insecticide , is somehow proof it's bad for us?
Select to expand quoteremery said..
Ingestion of DNA and death are closely related.
In some cases, yet we can ingest snake venom which are peptides and not die. Interesting hey? That's because peptides that make it past the acidic stomach are usually destroyed or filtered in a powerful part of our immune system - the small intestine.
For the truly sceptical critical thinkers the parallels with vaccines is worth considering, since subcutaneous administration of foreign proteins, nano-tech and metals bypasses just about every immune defence mechanism the body has developed to defend from attack under most circumstances in the natural system. Only envenomation by snakes, spiders, scorpions, cone snails, bees etc has a parallel with injections and that is generally not well tolerated by the body.
To be clear for those who missed it, i agree with the principle in medical ethics that we should all have bodily autonomy and choice.
Therefore, we should all have the choice about what medication or nutrients goes into our body. Since sodium fluoride is presented by certain authorities in some countries (not all) as a medication/nutrient, it stands to reason that it should not be put into general essential supply like drinking water. Rather, it should a choice by each and every one of us.
Additionally, i have not and am not arguing that sodium fluoride is ineffective at improving dental health to some degree. So, let's avoid that false argument and distraction from the big issue - informed consent.
So, who disagrees with the statement;
pure water is not a neurotoxin and is not an insect and vermin poison.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
To be clear for those who missed it, i agree with the principle in medical ethics that we should all have bodily autonomy and choice.
Therefore, we should all have the choice about what medication or nutrients goes into our body. Since sodium fluoride is presented by certain authorities in some countries (not all) as a medication/nutrient, it stands to reason that it should not be put into general essential supply like drinking water. Rather, it should a choice by each and every one of us.
Additionally, i have not and am not arguing that sodium fluoride is ineffective at improving dental health to some degree. So, let's avoid that false argument and distraction from the big issue - informed consent.
So, who disagrees with the statement;
pure water is not a neurotoxin and is not an insect and vermin poison.
Brother, have you considered immigrating to a country that doesn't put sodium fluoride in the water or one that provides better informed consent?
A country that promotes love, peace and harmony among all it's brothers and sisters.
Nifty deflection to the personal there. If i did I'd have a lot of choices because despite the Aussie belief in such mass medication most countries don't because they do respect informed consent and basic medical ethics:
worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/water-fluoridation-by-country
As you can see, Straya, USA, Canada, NZ, Chile, Gabon, HK, Singapore and Wales etc are way out of step with the rest of the world. Perhaps this is known to you. Perhaps this is novel. Either way, it's clear.
Most European countries don't artificially add any fluoride in water because they respect the scientific conclusion that fluoride is most effective when used topically in toothpastes and ingesting it in water is not necessary. A simple choice at the shops to buy fluoridated or unfluoridated toothpaste.
Shock horror! Freedom of choice! So controversial!
fluoridealert.org/articles/dental/
I believe in Queensland, most councils have adopted not to put sodium fluoride into the town drinking water, so you don't even have to emmigrate if you feel strongly about the issue. You can also choose to purchase drinking water without sodium flouride. I do that as I don't like the taste of our town water.
For sure, but that's missing the key point isn't it bro .
There's even councils that have withdrawn from unlawful state Local Government Acts, don't operate as corporations, which are all unconstitutional, and returned to organic councils of men and women as we had for over 150 years. Rates are optional and everything communal is done by mutual consensus.
It comes back to the core consideration - are people interested in freedom to choose, or do they prefer to be told what's good for them by the nanny state?
Sounds like paradise, wow, I often forget how much choice we have living in this wonderful country.
Shalom
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..
I believe in Queensland, most councils have adopted not to put sodium fluoride into the town drinking water, so you don't even have to emmigrate if you feel strongly about the issue. You can also choose to purchase drinking water without sodium flouride. I do that as I don't like the taste of our town water.
My dentist tells me that the only place to make big money practicing dentistry in Australia, is Queensland.
www.abc.net.au/news/2023-11-20/qld-fluoride-access-issues-tooth-decay-dental-care-oral-health/103099734
Beter that doctors, scientists and health professionals are guiding public health rather than a bunch of glass-half-full, half-baked normies, tangled up in a web of alt right wing social media algorithms who are full of their own self importance getting all shoutey.
Nifty deflection
that's when peacenlove ignores what I wrote about his pic and starts talking about snake venom
To deflect right through the slip cordon. Is it too much to ask that people who wish to ensure their personal freedoms are not infringed, don't then rely on the taxpayer to fund their (avoidable) treatment and rehabilitation?
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Is it too much to ask that people who wish to ensure their personal freedoms are not infringed, don't then rely on the taxpayer to fund their (avoidable) treatment and rehabilitation?
Fangman for PM
"Approximately 5,500 deaths and 157,000 hospital admissions are attributed to alcohol consumption in Australia each year, and alcohol-related harm costs the economy more than $14 billion per annum."
www.vu.edu.au/mitchell-institute/australian-health-tracker-series/australias-health-tracker-by-area-alcohol-report
Select to expand quoteMark _australia said..
Nifty deflection
that's when peacenlove ignores what I wrote about his pic and starts talking about snake venom
Can't reply to every post, nor is anyone forced to.
my point about choice as to what medication goes into our body is valid.
moreover, since most countries including most of Europe don't fluoridate because they do have some sort of an ethical compass when it comes to mass medication, i think it's pretty clear that fluoride in drinking water is totally unnecessary, particularly when it's far more effective and ethical when administered as part of everyday tooth paste choice.
Select to expand quotefangman said..
To deflect right through the slip cordon. Is it too much to ask that people who wish to ensure their personal freedoms are not infringed, don't then rely on the taxpayer to fund their (avoidable) treatment and rehabilitation?
Misses the point doesn't it? Fluoride is far more effective as part of tooth paste, and it's a free choice.
Either one supports medical freedom and bodily autonomy or not - there can't be exceptions.
so if it's to be put into tap water, we can't pretend that providing tap water is still an essential public utility, since it's no longer just water, but medication
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..fangman said..
Is it too much to ask that people who wish to ensure their personal freedoms are not infringed, don't then rely on the taxpayer to fund their (avoidable) treatment and rehabilitation?
Fangman for PM
"Approximately 5,500 deaths and 157,000 hospital admissions are attributed to alcohol consumption in Australia each year, and alcohol-related harm costs the economy more than $14 billion per annum."
www.vu.edu.au/mitchell-institute/australian-health-tracker-series/australias-health-tracker-by-area-alcohol-report
So is that in support of not putting a known neurotoxin and highly caustic poison into the drinking water?
remember, toothpaste is harmful to babies if swallowed, just like alcohol, which is why the warning is placed onto the packaging.
So, given mark seemed offended that i didn't reply, there's four replies
i'm sure someone will complain about this too, or think I'm SHOUTING or try and paint a simple exploration of ideas as politically motivated - 'far right' or 'left'. Almost as clever as calling someone a conspiracy theorist.
peace be with all
The health 'leaders' who tell us to drink fluoride and get jabbed regularly, leading by example again:
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..
Fangman for PM
"Approximately 5,500 deaths and 157,000 hospital admissions are attributed to alcohol consumption in Australia each year, and alcohol-related harm costs the economy more than $14 billion per annum."
You've highlighted a problem and what's the solution? Ban alcohol, tax it more or something else?
I couldn't help drawing a parallel of other (avoidable) activities that 'infringe' taxpayers like yourself. Like the rescue and often unnecessary and unfortunate deaths or injury of many ocean lovers: Sydney to Hobart yacht race, rockfishers inexperienced swimmers who choose not to swim between flags.
If you want Fangman as PM, how would you expect him to protect important taxpayers like yourself from these reckless risk takers?
Feel free to deflect.
Select to expand quotemyscreenname said..Flying Dutchman said..
Fangman for PM
"Approximately 5,500 deaths and 157,000 hospital admissions are attributed to alcohol consumption in Australia each year, and alcohol-related harm costs the economy more than $14 billion per annum."
You've highlighted a problem and what's the solution? Ban alcohol, tax it more or something else?
I couldn't help drawing a parallel of other (avoidable) activities that 'infringe' taxpayers like yourself. Like the rescue and often unnecessary and unfortunate deaths or injury of many ocean lovers: Sydney to Hobart yacht race, rockfishers inexperienced swimmers who choose not to swim between flags.
If you want Fangman as PM, how would you expect him to protect important taxpayers like yourself from these reckless risk takers?
Feel free to deflect.
You're a smart guy, I'm sure you can work out a few simple strategies.
Ban alcohol advertising like they did for cigarettes would be a simple start. Maybe not have a bottle shop on every street corner?
I'm not into banning alcohol, I've tried all sorts of drugs when I was younger it's a part of youth and experimentation. But making it as freely available and so widely advertised is not good for society.
When the beer brand has more prevalence than the country emblem you're playing for, I don't think that's a great message.
Select to expand quoteFlying Dutchman said..fangman said..
Is it too much to ask that people who wish to ensure their personal freedoms are not infringed, don't then rely on the taxpayer to fund their (avoidable) treatment and rehabilitation?
Fangman for PM
"Approximately 5,500 deaths and 157,000 hospital admissions are attributed to alcohol consumption in Australia each year, and alcohol-related harm costs the economy more than $14 billion per annum."
www.vu.edu.au/mitchell-institute/australian-health-tracker-series/australias-health-tracker-by-area-alcohol-report
Alcohol and tobacco etc are already taxed to (supposedly) contribute to the cost of care. I reckon the high sugar content processed food and drink industry should be in the spotlight to start chipping in a few dollars.
Select to expand quotefangman said..
Alcohol and tobacco etc are already taxed to (supposedly) contribute to the cost of care. I reckon the high sugar content processed food and drink industry should be in the spotlight to start chipping in a few dollars.
For sure!
However cigarettes are way more restricted than alcohol in distribution and marketing. Waiting for the day when they start putting 'Alcohol causes cancer' on your Grange.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..fangman said..
To deflect right through the slip cordon. Is it too much to ask that people who wish to ensure their personal freedoms are not infringed, don't then rely on the taxpayer to fund their (avoidable) treatment and rehabilitation?
Fluoride is far more effective as part of tooth paste, ...
This statement needs clarification please. It's not more cost-effective, it's not more structurally effective. I guess it's more effective as a topical application on a spot lesion, but then you are swallowing all those fun bits of chemistry associated with a fresh minty taste, antiseptic and detergents. It's certainly more effective if you have shares in Proctor and Gamble or Colgate-Palmolive though.BTW, Childrens toothpaste is low in F to help against over ingestion.
I would think most people agree about limiting alcohol advertising and increased taxes on sugar. Likely, just a matter of time, before the nanny state gets around to it.
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
.... remember, toothpaste is harmful to babies if swallowed, just like alcohol, which is why the warning is placed onto the packaging.
Babies can't read the warning labels.
Select to expand quotefangman said.This statement needs clarification please. It's not more cost-effective, it's not more structurally effective. I guess it's more effective as a topical application on a spot lesion, but then you are swallowing all those fun bits of chemistry associated with a fresh minty taste, antiseptic and detergents. It's certainly more effective if you have shares in Proctor and Gamble or Colgate-Palmolive though.BTW, Childrens toothpaste is low in F to help against over ingestion.peacenlove said..fangman said..
To deflect right through the slip cordon. Is it too much to ask that people who wish to ensure their personal freedoms are not infringed, don't then rely on the taxpayer to fund their (avoidable) treatment and rehabilitation?
Fluoride is far more effective as part of tooth paste, ...
As a delivery system it's more effective than passing through the gut, which can filter out and alter chemistry. When we get a fluoride treatment at a dentist, the dentist sticks a gel on our teeth for a bit right? That's because dentists, as indoctrinated as they are, do know a basic fact about effective fluoride delivery. If ingestion was optimal, they'd just prescribe a course of fluoride pills or liquid right?
The bulk of European countries who do not fluoridate know this, and don't bother putting industrial waste products such as fluoride into the water supply.
Also i should note that dental care is not really supported by the public purse except for those with special conditions, such as clefts.
So the taxpayer has little or nothing to do with this.
Select to expand quoteCarantoc said..peacenlove said..
.... remember, toothpaste is harmful to babies if swallowed, just like alcohol, which is why the warning is placed onto the packaging.
Babies can't read the warning labels.
Indeed bro, nor can 0-15 years olds do much about the water supply, nor move somewhere else as myscreename suggests, nor do much about fluorosis in their teenage years. They just have to suffer through any health ramifications foisted upon them by their consenting adult community.
I guess when one is thinking about a subject from a self-centred perspective as some have done here, these points can get lost .
it's OK, survival feeds that mindset. It's natural. Look after one's self first and then look after others from a position of strength.
Sweet. So long as how one looks after themselves doesn't ignore our responsibilities to protect the home and defend our babies from harmful STATE policies - right?
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
As a delivery system it's more effective than passing through the gut, which can filter out and alter chemistry. When we get a fluoride treatment at a dentist, the dentist sticks a gel on our teeth for a bit right? That's because dentists, as indoctrinated as they are, do know a basic fact about effective fluoride delivery. If ingestion was optimal, they'd just prescribe a course of fluoride pills or liquid right?
The bulk of European countries who do not fluoridate know this, and don't bother putting industrial waste products such as fluoride into the water supply.
Also i should note that dental care is not really supported by the public purse except for those with special conditions, such as clefts.
So the taxpayer has little or nothing to do with this.
"Fluoride can be delivered topically and systemically. Topical fluorides strengthen teeth already present in the mouth, making them more decay resistant, while systemic fluorides are those that are ingested and become incorporated into forming tooth structures. Systemic fluorides also provide topical protection because fluoride is present in saliva, which continually bathes the teeth."
www.ada.org/resources/ada-library/oral-health-topics/fluoride-topical-and-systemic-supplements
Select to expand quotepeacenlove said..
As a delivery system it's more effective than passing through the gut, which can filter out and alter chemistry. When we get a fluoride treatment at a dentist, the dentist sticks a gel on our teeth for a bit right? That's because dentists, as indoctrinated as they are, do know a basic fact about effective fluoride delivery. If ingestion was optimal, they'd just prescribe a course of fluoride pills or liquid right?
Please tell me more. Perhaps some research demonstrating these filtering and altering effects?
I am pretty sure I do know the basic facts about F delivery, and that I also know about the different impacts F has at the different stages of life on your teeth and their development. I am always keen to learn so, please feel free to educate me further.
And since we are looking at the most effective use of F in teeth; I am very keen to hear how topical application of F to the gum tissue will soak through gum tissues and bone to the tooth secondary tooth buds contained within the childhood jaws to strengthen the developing enamel crystal structures. Without of course, ending up in the gut where it will be subject to 'filtering and altering' affects.
Not so keen to read any more Kremlin propaganda on the Bulgarian 'news' site like last time, so please make sure your sources are credible.
As an aside, every child is under the care of the School Dental service for free.(at least in WA) Their parents' choices have impacts.
