Have some spelling errors. You mark my words. They will introduce Fluoride power plants & still no one will ask why. Instead, they will be told what to think. This will be there solution to Uranium alternatives while no one will draw the relation. Years from now you will find i was right. Infact, you will then realize that fluoride,uranium,radon,hydrocarbons are forming pockets under tectonics that are being caused by offshore oil drilling. Increasing Earthquakes & Volcanoes. coming soon.
Hydrogen peroxide in the ears. When your eye ball feels a cold flush, your done. do in both ears daily starting with the right ear. Food grade HP in distilled water. 1 drop food grade iodine under the tongue. sodium bicarbonate(3 tsp daily), Potassium has gamma which vibrates higher than alpha waves is natural brain food. I am not positive, but in low doses can negate free radicals or transport them(cant remember), but dont qoute me. AND!!!!!! Canabinoids = tree of life. Oxydize blood.
I dont know the exact science, but mercury in sertain animals have some compound that allows it to digest, you are more likely to get Hepatitus before you get mercury poisoning from what i think was fatty fish. So its actually ok to eat some types without any ill effects. Wish i could find that info. Also, Fluoride is radiation. It can be found in Villiaumite, a rock that fluoresces under UV light & has a MOH's hardness. You guys are the science pro's right? isnt that a state of decay?isotope
@LendMeYourHand I will make no claim to be a physicist, but no types of radiation I am aware of are called Fluoride. The type of radiation with the most mass that I know of is alpha radiation, which is the emission an alpha particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons. This is a far cry from the anion of Florine with its nine protons, eight electrons, and roughly ten neutrons (I say roughly due to isotopes which may contain more or less in the neutron department, such as F-18).
@sarcleaeolist Its the electronegative ionic bond on 1 single shared electron which creates the instability, thus verification of decay rate. As this cannot be compared to alpha particles when in relation to external contamination, which is why 3mile Isle reports the profound contamination through ingestation of fluoride. It is the Ide which initiates the instability off ionic bonding that clearly tells us a tale of Ultra Violet emmisions. Volcanic rocks & villiaumite. F18's halflife is low.
you should research squalene (found in fish oil, especially skate liver oil and shark liver oil) taken ORALLY!!!! squalene given in injection is extremely bad, but taken orally is fantastic and has manyyyyyy benifits including getting rid of toxins in the body and makes more white blood cells which helps with radiation...
From what Ive read so far, the hormetic model seems to most accurately represent the effects of radiation. Research data seems to hypothesize that very low doses do infact trigger repair mechanisms. We'll probably have to wait for further research to take this to a theory but its interesting none the less.
I'm interested, if MD50 is a lethal dose for 50% of the population, does that mean that it would take almost double the MD50 dose to kill top 1% (at the end of the scale) of the same population?
In other words, if median lethal dose is administered to all 100% of the population, will 50% die and 50% survive?
And is that population comprised of the individuals that are of same age, gender and health?
Also, wouldn't the dose, at which even 1 average healthy person dies, be considered lethal?
The article on the topic on Wikipedia is a good summation. LD50 is more or less an arbitrary, relative measure of acute toxicity.
LD1 and LD99 are measurable points, but there may not be a --linear-- relationship. There may be 100 points from LD1 to LD50, but only 5 points from LD50 to LD99. A curve is usually created with an endpoint like lethality on one axis, and dose on the other. This is the dose-lethality curve.
The populations are usually isogenic animals (clones).
Fair enough. I'm no expert in any way, but it seems to me that LD50 model is inappropriate for all known substances.
If I may notice, LD50 seems fairly adequate for "friendly" substances, usually found in our body, like sugar or salt, etc.
However, to me, it does not seem appropriate to apply the LD50 model on substances that are not found in our bodies, not even at traces, because those would be, logically deducting, toxic at any level.
The general assumption of statistical sampling is that you have a normally distributed group in the test, so that we can extrapolate from that group to the whole population. The LD50 would (hopefully) represent a median point where 50% of all the animal model would die.
It's use is not in absolutely determining what is safe to use, but in ranking the acute toxicity of exposures. It is not the best measure of toxicity, but nevertheless very useful and historically supported.
Oh one more thing: is there any model or scale (linear or not) that is used for substances that are toxic over prolonged periods of time, i.e. chronic toxicity (as opposed to acute toxicity)?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm
will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association
Actually to understand why they can not declare that no harm will be done by water fluoridation, first you need to understand scientific method. Scientific method is hypothetico-deductive. It does not prove anything, however it disproves the opposing ideas. When it can not disprove a opposing idea it accepts is as objectively true and waits to see if it can disprove it later with the help of future evidence. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
Wouldn't that depend on the situation? There is no evidence against unicorns but they aren't considered real, and many things have been proven through the scientific method, like electrons and protons. They didn't go out and prove all the other hypothesis's wrong they just found an electron.
Flu vaccines have been used for over 70 years, given to millions of people in multiple countries every year; the elderly, children, and those with chronic diseases included.
What kind of side effects did you have in mind? Something that has never been tested for?
It has no benefit to our health what so ever, in fact the TRUE fact is that it damages the human mind and body; SCIENTIFIC fact. Don't make this bullshit video to convince that it doesn't matter the airplanes spray in the sky, or mercury in vaccine, or pesticide on food. The fact is it is all dangerous and bad for humans, fuck off with ur bullshit tryin to convince ppl otherwise!
It seems you are reacting on an emotional level, rather than any kind of thoughtful, rational approach.
I place a high value on data obtained by objective testing. I generally trust my colleagues in the field of science to act in the best interest of the society they live in.
When I look at both sides, I notice one side yells and TYPES IN CAPITALS a lot, and the other have peer-reviewed publications, education and expertise, and are open about their methods and data. No contest.
I've just viewed your channel. I didn't realize you were a full-fledged spittle-spewing New World Order, Illuminati, CIA Mind Control, Alex Jones Zombie.
Clearly, further discussion would be pointless. You have abandoned reason for madness. Enjoy the ride!
I completely believe you when you say your an info junkie. Now you have to take the next step and set up objective parameters to determine which info is credible and which is not.
If you believe fluoridated water is some how harmful at municipal concentrations, you're subscribing to bad information.
Sit down and really think right now what your standards are for accepting a claim.
Secondly, I support vaccination whole-heartedly, and I CANNOT be accused of being brain-washed by Big Pharma or the media - I get my news from the remarkably reliable Private Eye, and my training is in Civil Engineering - the latter gives me an accurate understanding of the scientific method and a great admiration for its reliability.
Oh, and I reckon Sparticus is annoyed as some kids laughed at his tin-foil hat... =P
Chlorella saved many people after hiroshima... you make good points... however thimorsal is converted to methylmercury not ethyl... moreover many infants especially boys who develop some neurological impairment are incapable of removing the mercury out of the body... the mercury deposits in the brain or else where in the body... it is very hard for an infant to detoxify such a poison, although there are treatments now where detoxification is curing autism... thank god for natural medicine...
The algae chlorella was once touted as a super-food, but further research showed it to be expensive, largely inedible, and impractical to produce.
Thimerosal (note the spelling) is converted to ethyl, not methylmercury. It is essentially salicylate and ethylmercury. The established half-life is on record at less than a week.
Do you have a peer-reviewed citation where detoxification was verified to cure autism by an independent third party? If not, take your worthless claims somewhere else.
Well the worlds most renowned doctor on the topic of chlorella would argue otherwise, Dr. klinghardt, he has a heavy metal detox program you can google, for anyone who might be suffering from heavy metal poisons, especially mercury Dr. Mercola also is an advocate of chlorella and has written many articles on the topic, i hate to break it to you but mercury has NO biological benefit and no reason to be in the body and YES one molecule of mercury can cause devastating effects to cells in the body
He has 7 publications listed in Medline, and not a one of them mentions Chlorella, although there is a lot on chloroquine, and his work there is pretty solid. 7 pubs isn't very good, and none is more recent than 13 years ago.
Can you find a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates that Chlorella does any "detoxifying" under controlled conditions?
Have you ever looked up how much mercury is in a slice of bread, or a bowl of oatmeal? How much you breathe in every day?
What is the pathway for converting ethylmercury to methylmercury? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? You didn't even spell methylmercury correctly.
The two are very distinct, have very different half-lives, and different toxicities.
I don't know where you got the info that thimorsal (or however the heck you spell it) breaks down into methylmercury. It does not. The reason you might be confused is because methylmercury dose limits are used and not ethylmercury (which I think it strange, but works because we know that methylmercury is more toxic than ethylmercury). This is according to the FDA.
Are you referring to the claims of Dr. Rashid Buttar? He uses his son as an example of this, and mentions that his wife had mercury fillings. He claims that he can cure some cases of ASD with detoxification and that some children with autism cannot clear metals from their systems.
Even if this were true - it doesn't show a link to vaccines. The additive is not used in routine childhood vaccination in the U.S. and the amount of metals vaccines expose you to is far less than other sources.
Oh - nevermind - you think Dr. Mercola is an "expert".
One molecule of mercury is going to do SQUAT - which is why the FDA allows Homeopathic "Doctors" to sell nothing for money - because it's not going to actually harm anyone. Why don't you go pick on them - they are selling dilute poisons (so dilute as to no contain anything) packaged as "medication" and "natural therapies".
btw - Dr. Rashid Buttar (who treats cancer and autism with detoxification) is in trouble with his state medical association and he's whining that they are being unfair.
Surprise! Surprise!
From his website: "Our treatments are so effective, that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
So, that's one person claiming that detoxification cures Autism.
It's not only dose size that's poisonous. Different atoms and molecules have different effect on different parts of a body. This video is multitrillion dollar propaganda.
Even while we cannot observe obvious health effects from the absorption of mercury or other heavy metals into the blood stream at low levels,
We cannot accurately assert what behavioral and psychological effects even short term low level exposure a person can have. I for one am highly sensitive to the food I eat and see very noticeable reactions that I cannot readily attribute to psychosomatic response. So despite my desire that we do not live by fear, I will continue to avoid these things.
Great video but one problem arises not just the dose but the way that it is given... Table salt , sugar, radiation, Mold, Bacteria... Let inject same amount of these substances and ingest the same amount I guarantee the effect would all be different.. We digest a lot of bacteria but would not want to inject any of them..
So it not only the does but the way the dose is received to the body.
Now lets see some new Graphs.
Its such a shame to see intelligent people abusing talent
"Let inject same amount of these substances and ingest the same amount I guarantee the effect would all be different *snip*
Now lets see some new Graphs."
Okay: The oral ld50 in mice for Thimerosal is 75-90 mg/kg. The intravenous LD50 is 30 mg/kg.
So injecting vs feeding only increases its toxicity by a factor of 3, meaning that the amount of Thimerosal in a vaccine is still several orders of magnitude smaller than the dose required to produce any toxic effect.
Hehe.. there *is* a relationship and it's Unavoidable Background Radiation we get from *all* sources sans any playing with radionucleotides or radiological materials *or* simply living in places with more radiation from space (Denver, anyone?). And examples of substances that are at once *neccessary* for life and deadly in too high a dose are many. Like Selenium.
Forgive this for being rushed and from memory but I recall a documentary on UK TV (Horizon I think) that addressed the models for radiation risk. It indicated that lower than predicted deaths in areas adjacent to Chernobyl put doubt on a linear no threshold relationship, suggesting that there is a threshold.
Great article on vaccinations in the latest WIRED magazine. Scientists are at an extreme disadvantage, because they are constrained by actual evidence and logic, while the lunatics think that a few hours (or dozens of hours) browsing hysterical blogs on the Internet makes them better qualified to understand the results of scientific results than the actual scientists - AND they are not constrained by either evidence or logic.
Another point I would like people to consider is that private insurance companies, which do the best liability studies, have totally abandoned coverage for damage to life & property due to :
*Acts of God.
*Nuclear War/Nuclear Power Plant Accidents.
*VACCINATIONS.
Bearing this in mind I would strongly advise people to check with their insurance companies to make sure they are covered before considering the vaccinations due to the legal immunity given to vaccine companies (PrepACT2005).
If you are injured by a vaccine in the US, there is a fund known as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Since 1988, it has paid out over 900 claimants who were able to demonstrate causality. The US, in purchasing vaccines for public health pre-pandemic vaccination, has assumed responsibility for the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
You are attempting to use emotional scare tactics. Panic and paranoia are not very smart states from which to make a health decision.
starting a system to track side effects as mass flu vaccinations begin next month. The idea is to detect rare but real problems quickly, and explain the inevitable coincidences that are sure to cause some false alarms.
"Every day, bad things happen to people. When you vaccinate a lot of people in a short period of time, some of those things are going to happen to some people by chance alone," said Dr. Daniel Salmon, a vaccine safety specialist at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Paranoia, Lowered immune system, Seizures or convulsions, Insomnia, Diabetes, Extreme fatigue, Burning or tingling in extremities, Blurred vision or pressure behind the eyes, Self destructive behavior and suicidal ideation, Suicide attempts, Muscle tremors, Loss of co-ordination, Mania, Psychosis.
You need to do a little research on what "adverse event reporting" is.
"AEs are classified as serious or minor; expected or unexpected; and study-related, possibly study-related, or not study-related."
What you have there is a complete list of what symptoms affected people within 72 hours of administration of vaccine. These might have been directly related, or they might have been the result of other stimuli. Assuming the prior is called post hoc ergo propter hoc (one thing must follow from another).
You also need to differentiated between potential risk, rare events, and common events.
In a normal population of 100,000, we expect 2 cases of Guillan Barre every week, 4 anaphylaxis reactions, 47 heart attacks, 22 miscarriages, 5 new cases of diabetes, etc. When you vaccinate 10 million people, you will get the most rare of events occurring within 72 hours of vacccination. The two are not linked, merely coincident.
So far, runny nose, soreness, ache are the most common side effects.
Runny nose, soreness and aches are the results of the chemical in the immune system, called cytokines producing inflammatory reactions. This is part of our normal response to antigen challenge, be it from a vaccine or actual pathogen.
We fully predict these things will occur from most vaccination, live attenuated, or recombinant antigen.
If you are curious, the primary response is from IL-2, IFNg, TNFa, IL1b and IL-6.
I have no idea what your comment about immunization tracking is about.
Cytokines or (signal cells ) are a 'Natural Response' by the Immune system released to the areas of pathogen/virus attack namely the mucus membranes in the nose/mouth/reproductive organs etc. and is a Natural response & is usually a controlled reaction. However studies from the 1918 flu outbreak suggest that some medications & vaccines that by-pass these natural defenses & injected straight into the blood stream can create cytokine storms & are potentially fatal to a healthy immune systems.
Vague. Unsubstantiated. The vaccine hysteria movement. seems to employ two standards of evidence: one for the scientists who must give absolute proof of 100% effective treatments with 0% harmful side effects vs their own vague ramblings where any claim made by anyone anywhere at any time is reason to reject vaccination.
I'm sure we don't have the idea of what constitutes "research." And regardless of whether I have done any research, your method here isn't very productive. You're just stating things as facts without actually substantiating them. Spread that hysteria! Monger those rumors!
And You are not stating anything apart from irrelevant comments which also isn't very productive in questioning the safety issues involved in taking vaccines. Perhaps you should Question Nothing, Believe Everything you hear on mainstream media & just go take your vaccine. Now that would be Productive !
Actually, I am stating something productive. I am stating something important. I'm noting that you have made assertions without backing them up. My "data" is your lack of same in your vague posts. It is erroneous to assume that because I disagree with your inane rambling that I believe everything the mainstream media tells me. I barely listen to or read the mainstream media. I spend most of my life in books and journals. And I don't just believe any random claim I read on the internet.
When this happens it can create all sorts of problems within the body. Hence some of the known side effects listed by the manufacturers on the vaccine inserts but not made public in the promotion campaign by the Governments & Corporate Mainstream Medias. So therefore people are not being given an informed choice & that seriously bothers me.
Cytokines are single proteins, not cells. They affect more than the mucous membrane. They are systemic reactions. Describing immunopathology as a "controlled reaction" is a bit stupid. Ever seen pictures of cholera, Ebola, dengue victims?
Vaccines don't bypass defenses. They activate defenses.
I'd love to read the "studies" you vaguely mentioned. Can you cite them properly?
The studies I have read are far too numerous to cite in a comment box. It is pretty clear that whatever information I give you will Not read & will be dismissed or discredited by you & your vaccines are safe campaign just like the Corporate Controlled Unaccountable Pharmaceutical Companies you aspire too. However I would encourage everyone else to Educate before you Vaccinate as there is NO redress against the companies producing the vaccines & your Insurance Company may not insure you.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And then people you must ask yourself WHY if these vaccines are SO safe have these Manufacturers been given immunity from prosecution should the vaccines cause Injury or Death and IF your Insurance Company will NOT insure you against Vaccinations get them to tell you WHY ?
Look at the tactics here. hopeandjoy is using panic and fear aimed at an emotional response. Oh no! What if this is all a giant conspiracy to kill people off! And my insurance won't cover me! I had better do whatever this person says, or the consequences will be dire.
It's vague innuendo, hopeandjoy, alarmism, and paranoia. Go back to your Gary Null videos content in the knowledge that you were blocked for trying to spread your pointless fearmongering.
EXACTLY! Fear and panic! Panic and fear! Don't think! Act! Your CHILDREN are at stake! You ever watch "Simpsons"? There used to be this woman who would start a panic by shouting, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
I kept thinking he/she would get to some sort of point and then shut up, but it never happened. I was also giving her/him some allowance, because I'm taking notes for my next video.
It was a free peak into the heart of the paranoid delusions of an anti-vaxxer. (hmm... they randomly use uppercase, or is there a pattern???)
He/she is blocked now. It was getting repetitive and boring.
I reiterate my comment from below about how the lunatic fringe maintains one criteria of evidence for the scientists (a bar so high that no science could pass) and a completely different (and generally hypothetical) standard for their own ravings.
Words don't always mean exactly what their etymologies suggest. Look it up! Cytokine is not a cell. As C0c0rdance is (IIRC) a molecular biologist, there's a chance (admittedly remote) that he knows what it is without having to look it up. Naaah ... Science? We don't need no steenkin science!
In 1997 (this is just one example) the Texas Department of Health tried to use legislation to legally force ALL Texas children into the statewide immunization tracking system which run into problems over rules of patient confidentiality.
This is so well done. You make what could be a confusing video into an easily understood one, given the amount of facts you pop up on screen every few seconds.
Another thing is that I've been smoking so am pretty high, which means that you're video must have been interesting because I usually lose interest in words whilst high. Keep it up. :)
Most excellent video, 5'd 'n fav'd. A voice of scientific sanity that is most refreshing. Heck, even too much pure water can kill you. So, we shouldn't consume any water?
Here's another analogy. A lot of us drink coffee. There's 152mg of caffeine in coffee and the LD50 of caffeine is 192mg/kg. Compare that with c0nc0rdance's ethylmercury results. 100 cups of coffee will kill most of us. How many vaccine doses of ethylmercury will kill us? About 150,000 based on c0nc0rdances statistics. Shall we ban caffeine as well? (My data comes from Wolfram Alpha).
Thimerosal becomes ethylmercury AND (2-carboxyphenyl)sulfonyl. The phenyl molecule might lead to a point mutation in DNA, however my data is pretty unreliable and comes from merely looking at the shape of the molecule, ill look it up later. Just to make it aware that ethylmercury is not the only byproduct from the breakdown of Thimerosal.
"And fluoride is only dangerous when it's at 5-10 times higher levels than are found in drinking water in the western world."
This is false, since fluoride is bioaccumulative. I had hoped that you would have done some better research in this matter but I'm quite disappointed. There are several research papers that state explicitly that even 0.1ppm of fluoride, over long periods of time, will have toxic effects. I encourage you to do some more research in this matter.
It's not elucidating a toxic response immediately upon consumption, which is why concordance is a little confused on this issue. However, the fluoridation of water has never been conclusively shown to reduce dental caries, and comes with many serious and proven long term side effects. It seems absolutely ridiculous that anyone could protect this practice, which is literally the dumping of industrial waste directly into the public water supply.
no i understand bioaccumulation, but with the extremely small amounts of the actual fluorine being used, and due to the nature of the actual element, it doesn't seem like too much of a problem.
Fluoride's toxicity has been established as somewhere in the neighborhood of cyanide and arsenic. You don't find that a problem?
The chemical they pour in the water to add fluoride to it would be illegal to pour into any other water source. That in and of itself is a very interesting thing. The EPA actually classifies the chemical as 'hazardous waste'.
Actually, concordance answered most of what you said below this.
just to clarify, sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, and sodium fluorosilicate are all poured in water (most of the time, fluorosilicic acid is used). Which one are you talking about?
i couldn't find anything that said the EPA classified any of the aforementioned chemicals as "hazardous waste". I did however, find a website that claimed no testing was done on water fluoridation by the EPA to test for any problems. I find this hard to believe, because there's no way they'd be able to get away with not testing a known toxic element.
all in all, fluorine is a naturally occurring element, and i can't find anything on it's bioaccumulation
1. Fluoride is stored as fluorapatite in the bones, it's also secreted in saliva. Fluoride is something we need in our diet. It plays a vital biological role in bone formation.
2. It is true that concentrations IN EXCESS of 4 mg/L in over-fluoridated drinking water can cause dental fluorosis and non-deterministic bone thickening. 10 mg/L and above can cause skeletal fluorosis.
3. Public health measures recommend 1 mg/L fluoridation. The EPA sets a ceiling of 4 mg/L, which is too high.
4. The American Dental Association (ADA), the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), the American Academy of Pediatric (AAP), and the World Health Organization (WHO), among many other national and international organizations, endorse community water fluoridation. The CDC recognized fluoridation of water as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
5. Third party studies have confirmed 20-60% reduction in dental caries in areas where water is fluoridated.
6. It has been argued that fluoridation needs are met by toothpaste. Not all children grow up in households with toothpaste for various reasons.
7. In areas where water is naturally over-fluoridated to a level around 4 mg/L, no increase in cancer incidence is seen when compared to a matched population in a low fluoride area. Bone densities have been shown to be modestly correlated to fluoride.
8. Can anyone tell me how much fluoride is in a handful of raisins? (Hint: more than the water)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
5. They have not. WHO data shows that the rate of DMFT is the same in fluoridated and unfluoridated communities.
6. That does not justify pouring toxic waste in the water supply. Buy them some toothpaste if you're so concerned.
7. Another meaningless argument. Natural fluoride is mainly CaF. Calcium is known to impair absorption of F. We do not fluoridate with CaF, we use hydrofluorosilicic acid.
"toxic waste" Did you not watch the video? Titled 'The Dose Makes the Poison'?
If you buy reagent grade NaCl from Sigma, it comes with an MSDS and toxicity warnings. Everything is toxic at a certain dose.
You also apparently do not understand how ionic bonds work. Once fluoride is dissolved in water, it is no longer hydrofluorosilicic acid. It becomes just plain fluoride. If it didn't you wouldn't be able to absorb it across the lumen lining with monovalent proton pumps.
C0nc0rdance is absolutely right. I am a toxicology scientist and I preform LD50 testing (acute oral toxicity) for the EPA and OECD. We test TONS of stuff and EVERYTHING has an LD50. From water to toothpaste, paraquat (pesticide) to crayola finger paint. And from my years in the industry C0nc0rdance is absolutely right "The dose makes the Poison". Most things have such a low toxicity that you couldn't possibly ingest the amount needed to be lethal (the human stomach can only hold so much).
"The dose makes the Poison" is not right in the case of fluoride, as I've already explained. It carries long term health risks and the benefits have not been conclusively demonstrated for systemic use.
Fluoride LD50 = 60 mg F/kg
Now, considering that fluoride is in our water, food and other sources, and that the dose is completely uncontrolled, wouldn't you think that this is something that you should pay more attention to?
Yes I did, and I've explained to you where you went wrong already, yet you continue to persist in your errors.
"Once fluoride is dissolved in water, it is no longer hydrofluorosilicic acid."
No shit, it's fluoride ions + everything else that was part of the molecule + the radium, arsenic and other contaminants that were part of the HFSA solution poured into the water. Call your waterworks and get the results of their testing, which will confirm what i say
2. Because it's impossible to control individual dosages, this is a meaningless objection.
3. A recent report by the NRC suggests that even 1ppm may be too high. Any beneficial effects from fluoridation are dubious at best.
4. Endorsements are meaningless without the relevant studies. There are no case controlled studies supporting fluoridation and the CDC's statement was also a meaningless slogan.
*argh* Knocking down your claims is more effort than it is worth.
1. Fluoride is a key component of bone formation. It is used therapeutically in metabolic disorders of bone. The Effects of Fluoride Therapy on Metabolic Bone Disease A Histologic Study (1967) Baylink, David J. M.D.; Bernstein, Daniel S. M.D.
At least go freaking look up hydroxyapatite. See what it says about it. I don't expect an apology or retraction, but maybe you could do some soul-searching?
2. That data was for the incidence of certain conditions in areas with respect to drinking water natural fluoridation levels. Why don't you see how many cases of non-imported skeletal fluorosis we reported in 2009?
3. Yes, they recommend 0.5--0.7. That's not a bad idea, either. Has to do with the ubiquity of air conditioning.
4. When the ADA disagrees with some "guy on the Internet" over cavities, don't you have to be a little extra skeptical of the "guy on the Internet"?
Making wild and baseless claims is hardly knocking me down.
1. That was a study on therapeutic use, you explicitly stated that fluoride was essential in bone formation, which is obviously wrong. Youre making two entirely different claims now. I expect better from you.
2. Fluorosis rates rise in communities that adopt artificial water fluoridation. This is consistently true.
3. And even the benefits @ 0.5 to 0.7 have not been established. It's nice to see you can admit a mistake.
4. Portraying the opposition as some guy on the internet just proves that you cant debate this issue honestly. There are thousands of dentists, scientists and researchers that are opposed to fluoridation. The reasons why are also completely obvious, why you cant yet grasp this is probably more of an issue of pride than anything.
Where is my case controlled study that proves systemic use of fluoride has significant dental benefits and limited long-term side effects?
But not the majority... I don't need to watch any video or read any study to tell you that I have never met someone with fluorine toxicity and that I ONLY know what it looks like from internet sources and having been the drummer in a Glasgow-bar based punk group means you meet a LOT of people.
I will watch your video, but I am almost certain that there will be an underlying cause to any instance of toxicity.
I live in an area with natural fluoride in the water, at a level considerably higher than the levels due to fluorination. Now, if there was a toxicity problem due to fluoride added to water, wouldn't we in Derbyshire, UK be suffering some real problems?
Moral arguments only serve to get me pissed off with you, try and keep this logical.
If the majority of people don't suffer from it, then the most likely explanation is that another factor is affecting the minority. In any case, a government needs to work on a mostly utilitarien perspective, it's simply not viable to do otherwise.
I find it unlikely that someone can drift along through the early stages and never progress to the later stages if flourine accumulates in the way you claim.
You're only pissed because I just exposed to everyone that you're a selfish, poorly-educated child. Grow up.
And you're wrong, we know for a fact that many people suffer ill-effects from fluoride, this is an indisputable fact. You don't have the right to continue harming their health just because you (a tiny minority on the global stage) want to consume your snake-oil.
Swallow your toothpaste if you're so certain that drinking fluoride is good for you. Don't mind the poison warning.
I'm pissed because taking the moral highground with me just proves you have no real argument to put forward and are a disingenuous cunt trying to use emotion to change my mind. Shut the fuck up.
Spartacus, this video is called The Dose Makes The Poison, stop and think what that means before posting any more of this drivel.
Let's be clear here, you're talking about medicating people AGAINST THEIR WILL. That's why you don't have the moral high ground, and it's why you're pissed.
How about you, shut the fuck up.
And the concentration of fluoride in drinking water has nothing to do with dosage, get that through your thick skull and you'll stop looking like such an ass.
I've offered more than enough evidence to back my position, whereas you haven't offered a single thing except ignorance and vitriol.
I made myself very clear, you can try and misconstrue me all you want, but you're just proving my point about your dishonesty.
Learn to use commas and don't start sentences with 'and'.
That was a joke, wasn't it? The concentration of flourine in water has nothing to do with the dosage of flourine recieved when you drink said water? Seriously, how ignorant can you be?
It's up to you to prove why I should take a drug. I have no obligation to prove why I shouldn't. Proof is always required from the person asserting the positive, take a science class for once.
I haven't misconstrued you at all, you were perfectly clear. You're saying that right and wrong can be determined by a popularity contest regardless of the weight of evidence... just how juvenile can you be? Like I said, concentration is not dosage.
'My' position has already been established, YOU are the one challenging it, or are you suggesting we need to test evolution every time a Creationist says 'God did it'?
I was perfectly clear, but you tried twisting what I said to you anyway.
You have a naive understanding of the government, I've already told you they can't help everyone. Weight of evidence? It's against you, Spartacus!
...
You really do have no understanding of what you're talking about, do you?
The concentration of something is measured in units such as gml^-1 and DIRECTLY contributes to the dosage you recieve.
If you take 2ml of liquid with a concentration of 1gml^-1 of salt, versus your friend who takes 2ml of liquid with a 2gml^-1 concentration, then your friend has recieved a higher dosage of salt, hasn't he? Is this penetrating?
So don't you try and sit there telling me concentration and dosage are unrelated while claiming to have the weight of evidence supporting your argument.
You can also convert the units and compare against surface area rather than weight, but fine: To continue my example, you recieve 2g of salt, or 2000mg of salt. Assuming you weigh 10 stone, or 63.5kg, your dosage is then 31.5mgkg^-1. Your friend (assuming equal weight to you) recieves 63.0mgkg^-1.
Why?
Given that we ingest flouride regardless, I would bloody well hope so!
We do not ingest fluoride's 'regardless' since calcium fluoride (the naturally occurring stuff) is not absorbed very well by the gut.
And no, C0nc0rdance didn't give me a list of them, because there are none. I've asked scientists at both the FDA and Health Canada to provide me with them and they cannot.
Both of you are complete amateurs in this topic. I suggest quitting while you're ahead.
Most of the world don't need as they have naturally flourodated water and it would be dangerous to increase the flourine levels or simply can't afford it. You think a country with no food or clean water are worried about their teeth?
You hypocrite, show me your Ba., Ma. or Ph.D if you're so qualified.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Hahahaha, now that is what I like to call 'desperately making shit up to cover your ass'. Seriously, why don't you actually LOOK into the reasons why most of Europe has banned water fluoridation, because it has nothing to do with their natural levels. As I've explained before, naturally occurring fluorides are nothing like the industrial waste that's poured into public water supplies.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, why you keep replying is beyond me.
Oh, now it's Europe, not the world? In Europe's case, the standard reason is essentially along the lines of "We feel there are better ways to provide the flourine", "The levels would become toxic" or "We feel that people's teeth should be regulated by the Health Service not the water board". Some countries do still flouridate their water.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
It is the world, moron. Europe is one example, and they're concerned about long term health effects. Exactly what I've been talking about, WHAT A SURPRISE.
Lets recap:
1. I've shown that fluoridation provides no reduction in DMFT rates
2. I've shown that fluoridation carries serious long term health risks
3. I've shown that fluoridation is performed by dumping contaminated, industrial waste directly into the water supply
You'd have to be insane to support this practice, hypocrite
Europe is NOT indicitive of the whole world, you fucktarded, tin god. I like how you also cherry picked 1 of the 3 reasons then ignored the context: They didn't want to put any MORE FUCKING FLOURINE IN THE WATER BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE! Germany even allows it in certain areas! Asshole!
Lets recap:
1. No you haven't.
2. No you haven't.
3. No you haven't.
You'd have to be naive and gullible to accept your case, liar.
Fluoridating countries are a tiny minority and no, European nations didn't reject fluoridation because 'it was already in the water'. You already know that natural fluoride is not what is put in the public water, so I don't know why you keep mixing the 2 up, except that you're desperately making shit up.
fluoridealert . org / govt-statements . htm
You can read their statements for yourself, it's called research, asshole. You were wrong, get over it, you'll feel a lot better.
Spartacus, I linked you to a paper describing how ionic compound behave in water, it is aparent you didn't read it. Flouride, is flouride, is flouride, is flouride. Those damned chemists doing studies to fuck your case over, eh?
Funny, I got those reasons from a website that was against water flouridation, liar. It seems that, like you, they believe simply adding a spin to whatever the actual statement was will suffice, and that people won't then look up the reasons behind the decision.
The science is this; the ions in an ionic compound become free to move around when disolved. So, explain to me how one metal-flouride compound disolved in water is different from any other?
YOU also brought up Europe; I'm not the one trying to hold up examples of other countries as role modle. YOU brought it up.
Actually, you'd have to be gullible and naive to support putting a known industrial pollutant in your water solely based on the word of someone else that didn't know anything about toxicology.
"Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete."
Dr. Arvid Carlsson
Those darned, naive nobel prize winners in medecine, always raining on your parade huh?
Argument from authority. Cite a single study in a peer reviewed journal demonstrating harm from fluoride at the municipally mandated Fluoridation levels of 1ppm and I swear to you I will turn on a dime.
Note: "Fluoride" (Published by the International Society of Fluoride Research) is not a peer reviewed journal.
I am sure he keeps replying for the same reason your comments keep getting voted down. Because people reject your special brand of tinfoil hat wearing, black helicopter spotting, NWO fearing crazy!
People reject new information that conflicts with their current views, right or wrong. This is no surprise to me though. This has nothing to do with whatever conspiracy theories you happen to believe in, it's just plain science. People used to think that leaded gasoline was great as well, look how that turned out.
Selective acceptance works both ways, Spartacus. Your dogmatic position AGAINST fluoridation blinds you as well. If you can, try clearing your mind, assuming the other position, and see if it is possible to prove it as well, given the same level of zeal.
You are in the position of contention, the large majority of dentists and scientists support fluoridation on the evidence. Can you try to figure out why? What do you know that they don't?
do dentists and scientists support flouridation simply because that's what their 'experts' and forerunners have told them? it then becomes a 'known fact'...but they haven't done any new investigations?
I don't believe the argument - that a bunch of scientists believe it's so - makes it so - they are simply assuming, having a 'belief' / faith in a some past peer reviewed studies. (Peer reviewed studies are notoriously subject to group think.
Are you serious? You really think scientists pass down an oral tradition that may not be challenged? I just can't believe you would even ask this question.
Groupthink? Are you f-ing serious? Clearly you have never done any research of any kind.
I would suggest you go to the nearest medical library and wander amongst the shelves. That's our "oral tradition". Open one of those journal articles, any one, and see where you can find dogma or belief.
Yes, I saw my Nuclear Physicist father, though a leader in the field, be absolutely subject to 'what was acceptable' and what the 'group' his colleagues
( league of collusion) thought.
It's so transparent with many 'scientists' - since the seduction is that 'we are objective'. Really no different than the most programmed religions - just a little finer brains deluding themselves that they see (20/20)
"Accepted" is physics-speak for "well-supported by evidence".
However, if our hypothesis based on what is "accepted" fail to be supported by our experiments - we change them.
Certainly scientists are humans, and models that are "accepted" for long periods of time tend to require very strong evidence to the contrary before they are changed. Personalities/seniority sometimes does matter. However, please point me to a group of people who are MORE objective than scientists?
Have some spelling errors. You mark my words. They will introduce Fluoride power plants & still no one will ask why. Instead, they will be told what to think. This will be there solution to Uranium alternatives while no one will draw the relation. Years from now you will find i was right. Infact, you will then realize that fluoride,uranium,radon,hydrocarbons are forming pockets under tectonics that are being caused by offshore oil drilling. Increasing Earthquakes & Volcanoes. coming soon.
LendMeYourHand 11 months ago
Hydrogen peroxide in the ears. When your eye ball feels a cold flush, your done. do in both ears daily starting with the right ear. Food grade HP in distilled water. 1 drop food grade iodine under the tongue. sodium bicarbonate(3 tsp daily), Potassium has gamma which vibrates higher than alpha waves is natural brain food. I am not positive, but in low doses can negate free radicals or transport them(cant remember), but dont qoute me. AND!!!!!! Canabinoids = tree of life. Oxydize blood.
LendMeYourHand 11 months ago
I dont know the exact science, but mercury in sertain animals have some compound that allows it to digest, you are more likely to get Hepatitus before you get mercury poisoning from what i think was fatty fish. So its actually ok to eat some types without any ill effects. Wish i could find that info. Also, Fluoride is radiation. It can be found in Villiaumite, a rock that fluoresces under UV light & has a MOH's hardness. You guys are the science pro's right? isnt that a state of decay?isotope
LendMeYourHand 1 year ago
@LendMeYourHand I will make no claim to be a physicist, but no types of radiation I am aware of are called Fluoride. The type of radiation with the most mass that I know of is alpha radiation, which is the emission an alpha particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons. This is a far cry from the anion of Florine with its nine protons, eight electrons, and roughly ten neutrons (I say roughly due to isotopes which may contain more or less in the neutron department, such as F-18).
sarcleaeolist 11 months ago
@sarcleaeolist Its the electronegative ionic bond on 1 single shared electron which creates the instability, thus verification of decay rate. As this cannot be compared to alpha particles when in relation to external contamination, which is why 3mile Isle reports the profound contamination through ingestation of fluoride. It is the Ide which initiates the instability off ionic bonding that clearly tells us a tale of Ultra Violet emmisions. Volcanic rocks & villiaumite. F18's halflife is low.
LendMeYourHand 11 months ago
Sometimes I wish I could make certain youtube videos part of the mandatory curriculum in schools.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
you should research squalene (found in fish oil, especially skate liver oil and shark liver oil) taken ORALLY!!!! squalene given in injection is extremely bad, but taken orally is fantastic and has manyyyyyy benifits including getting rid of toxins in the body and makes more white blood cells which helps with radiation...
wheelori814 1 year ago
This puts the cell phone danger to bed nicely
TooMuchToo0ften 1 year ago
You should do a video on the LD50 of Cannabis and compare that to its current legal status.
vesman81 1 year ago
From what Ive read so far, the hormetic model seems to most accurately represent the effects of radiation. Research data seems to hypothesize that very low doses do infact trigger repair mechanisms. We'll probably have to wait for further research to take this to a theory but its interesting none the less.
TheCaptainLulz 1 year ago
i hate you, i meant to go to bed 2 hours ago, but your videos are too damn good to stop watching.
DeemotheAtheist 1 year ago
I'm interested, if MD50 is a lethal dose for 50% of the population, does that mean that it would take almost double the MD50 dose to kill top 1% (at the end of the scale) of the same population?
In other words, if median lethal dose is administered to all 100% of the population, will 50% die and 50% survive?
And is that population comprised of the individuals that are of same age, gender and health?
Also, wouldn't the dose, at which even 1 average healthy person dies, be considered lethal?
mickeypopa 1 year ago
@mickeypopa
The article on the topic on Wikipedia is a good summation. LD50 is more or less an arbitrary, relative measure of acute toxicity.
LD1 and LD99 are measurable points, but there may not be a --linear-- relationship. There may be 100 points from LD1 to LD50, but only 5 points from LD50 to LD99. A curve is usually created with an endpoint like lethality on one axis, and dose on the other. This is the dose-lethality curve.
The populations are usually isogenic animals (clones).
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Fair enough. I'm no expert in any way, but it seems to me that LD50 model is inappropriate for all known substances.
If I may notice, LD50 seems fairly adequate for "friendly" substances, usually found in our body, like sugar or salt, etc.
However, to me, it does not seem appropriate to apply the LD50 model on substances that are not found in our bodies, not even at traces, because those would be, logically deducting, toxic at any level.
This is, ofc, only my observation.
mickeypopa 1 year ago
@mickeypopa
The general assumption of statistical sampling is that you have a normally distributed group in the test, so that we can extrapolate from that group to the whole population. The LD50 would (hopefully) represent a median point where 50% of all the animal model would die.
It's use is not in absolutely determining what is safe to use, but in ranking the acute toxicity of exposures. It is not the best measure of toxicity, but nevertheless very useful and historically supported.
C0nc0rdance 1 year ago
@C0nc0rdance
Oh one more thing: is there any model or scale (linear or not) that is used for substances that are toxic over prolonged periods of time, i.e. chronic toxicity (as opposed to acute toxicity)?
mickeypopa 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm
will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association
Didyouknowthisstuff 2 years ago
Actually to understand why they can not declare that no harm will be done by water fluoridation, first you need to understand scientific method. Scientific method is hypothetico-deductive. It does not prove anything, however it disproves the opposing ideas. When it can not disprove a opposing idea it accepts is as objectively true and waits to see if it can disprove it later with the help of future evidence. Absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
LBiolSci 2 years ago 6
Wouldn't that depend on the situation? There is no evidence against unicorns but they aren't considered real, and many things have been proven through the scientific method, like electrons and protons. They didn't go out and prove all the other hypothesis's wrong they just found an electron.
TrueMetis 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=RhZesZe33cw
Didyouknowthisstuff 2 years ago
Oh by the way your vid is on my playlist, as I said, I try to use both sides of the story and let anyone else decide on their own.
did you take your Riddlin today....LOL
Didyouknowthisstuff 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For me its not the mercury, it is the lack of studies for side effects. Period.
Didyouknowthisstuff 2 years ago
Flu vaccines have been used for over 70 years, given to millions of people in multiple countries every year; the elderly, children, and those with chronic diseases included.
What kind of side effects did you have in mind? Something that has never been tested for?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 5
This shit is garbage,
Fluoridated water is POISONOUS WATER, period!
It has no benefit to our health what so ever, in fact the TRUE fact is that it damages the human mind and body; SCIENTIFIC fact. Don't make this bullshit video to convince that it doesn't matter the airplanes spray in the sky, or mercury in vaccine, or pesticide on food. The fact is it is all dangerous and bad for humans, fuck off with ur bullshit tryin to convince ppl otherwise!
youtube . com / wakingupcanada < THE TRUTH
WakingUpCanada 2 years ago
It seems you are reacting on an emotional level, rather than any kind of thoughtful, rational approach.
I place a high value on data obtained by objective testing. I generally trust my colleagues in the field of science to act in the best interest of the society they live in.
When I look at both sides, I notice one side yells and TYPES IN CAPITALS a lot, and the other have peer-reviewed publications, education and expertise, and are open about their methods and data. No contest.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 3
I've just viewed your channel. I didn't realize you were a full-fledged spittle-spewing New World Order, Illuminati, CIA Mind Control, Alex Jones Zombie.
Clearly, further discussion would be pointless. You have abandoned reason for madness. Enjoy the ride!
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
Didyouknowthisstuff 2 years ago
I completely believe you when you say your an info junkie. Now you have to take the next step and set up objective parameters to determine which info is credible and which is not.
If you believe fluoridated water is some how harmful at municipal concentrations, you're subscribing to bad information.
Sit down and really think right now what your standards are for accepting a claim.
RexFordVII 2 years ago 6
Dude, calm down.
Did you wake up with Roids already in your system this morning?
Perhaps you should LOOK INTO some of the claims you just made, and you will see that you are WAY off course.
BrellK 2 years ago 3
Firstly, awesome video dude!
Secondly, I support vaccination whole-heartedly, and I CANNOT be accused of being brain-washed by Big Pharma or the media - I get my news from the remarkably reliable Private Eye, and my training is in Civil Engineering - the latter gives me an accurate understanding of the scientific method and a great admiration for its reliability.
Oh, and I reckon Sparticus is annoyed as some kids laughed at his tin-foil hat... =P
willbxtn 2 years ago
Chlorella saved many people after hiroshima... you make good points... however thimorsal is converted to methylmercury not ethyl... moreover many infants especially boys who develop some neurological impairment are incapable of removing the mercury out of the body... the mercury deposits in the brain or else where in the body... it is very hard for an infant to detoxify such a poison, although there are treatments now where detoxification is curing autism... thank god for natural medicine...
punjabisikhwarrior 2 years ago
The algae chlorella was once touted as a super-food, but further research showed it to be expensive, largely inedible, and impractical to produce.
Thimerosal (note the spelling) is converted to ethyl, not methylmercury. It is essentially salicylate and ethylmercury. The established half-life is on record at less than a week.
Do you have a peer-reviewed citation where detoxification was verified to cure autism by an independent third party? If not, take your worthless claims somewhere else.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Well the worlds most renowned doctor on the topic of chlorella would argue otherwise, Dr. klinghardt, he has a heavy metal detox program you can google, for anyone who might be suffering from heavy metal poisons, especially mercury Dr. Mercola also is an advocate of chlorella and has written many articles on the topic, i hate to break it to you but mercury has NO biological benefit and no reason to be in the body and YES one molecule of mercury can cause devastating effects to cells in the body
punjabisikhwarrior 2 years ago
He has 7 publications listed in Medline, and not a one of them mentions Chlorella, although there is a lot on chloroquine, and his work there is pretty solid. 7 pubs isn't very good, and none is more recent than 13 years ago.
Can you find a peer-reviewed article that demonstrates that Chlorella does any "detoxifying" under controlled conditions?
Have you ever looked up how much mercury is in a slice of bread, or a bowl of oatmeal? How much you breathe in every day?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
thimerosal IS ethyl mercury. converted to methlmercury
galilaya42 2 years ago
What is the pathway for converting ethylmercury to methylmercury? Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? You didn't even spell methylmercury correctly.
The two are very distinct, have very different half-lives, and different toxicities.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Hey - don't be hating on bad spellers. I'm pretty sure I have spelled thermosel about five different ways. :)
I, however, also have no idea where anyone would get the idea that ethylmercury converts into methylmercury - unless someone left a typo somewhere.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
I don't know where you got the info that thimorsal (or however the heck you spell it) breaks down into methylmercury. It does not. The reason you might be confused is because methylmercury dose limits are used and not ethylmercury (which I think it strange, but works because we know that methylmercury is more toxic than ethylmercury). This is according to the FDA.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Are you referring to the claims of Dr. Rashid Buttar? He uses his son as an example of this, and mentions that his wife had mercury fillings. He claims that he can cure some cases of ASD with detoxification and that some children with autism cannot clear metals from their systems.
Even if this were true - it doesn't show a link to vaccines. The additive is not used in routine childhood vaccination in the U.S. and the amount of metals vaccines expose you to is far less than other sources.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Oh - nevermind - you think Dr. Mercola is an "expert".
One molecule of mercury is going to do SQUAT - which is why the FDA allows Homeopathic "Doctors" to sell nothing for money - because it's not going to actually harm anyone. Why don't you go pick on them - they are selling dilute poisons (so dilute as to no contain anything) packaged as "medication" and "natural therapies".
sinmantyx 2 years ago
btw - Dr. Rashid Buttar (who treats cancer and autism with detoxification) is in trouble with his state medical association and he's whining that they are being unfair.
Surprise! Surprise!
From his website: "Our treatments are so effective, that even the North Carolina Medical Board is trying to suppress the truth."
So, that's one person claiming that detoxification cures Autism.
sinmantyx 2 years ago
It's not only dose size that's poisonous. Different atoms and molecules have different effect on different parts of a body. This video is multitrillion dollar propaganda.
By the way, the boming of Japan was not a game!
OttoLund 2 years ago
Even while we cannot observe obvious health effects from the absorption of mercury or other heavy metals into the blood stream at low levels,
We cannot accurately assert what behavioral and psychological effects even short term low level exposure a person can have. I for one am highly sensitive to the food I eat and see very noticeable reactions that I cannot readily attribute to psychosomatic response. So despite my desire that we do not live by fear, I will continue to avoid these things.
Asylumescapee69 2 years ago
[PDF] AUTISM AND VACCINES AROUND THE WORLD: Vaccine Schedules ...
Just go look this up google it..
USA , and Canada Ranks 34th and 20th for deaths for children under 5
now thats a shame
No Correlation I assume.
zgadgets 2 years ago
In scientific use, it means:
Arriving at the same conclusion by multiple methodologies.
But you must use all those Methodologies.. Not some with the same outcome only for your Pleasure..
Did you know that The USA ranks 34 th in mortality rate for children under 5
and we give the most vaccines to our children under 5 .... 36 and rising...
Do you think we can see some graphs and commentary about these facts.. Lets see your talent at work Mr. Genius.... Who are you trying to protect???
zgadgets 2 years ago
Great video but one problem arises not just the dose but the way that it is given... Table salt , sugar, radiation, Mold, Bacteria... Let inject same amount of these substances and ingest the same amount I guarantee the effect would all be different.. We digest a lot of bacteria but would not want to inject any of them..
So it not only the does but the way the dose is received to the body.
Now lets see some new Graphs.
Its such a shame to see intelligent people abusing talent
zgadgets 2 years ago
"Let inject same amount of these substances and ingest the same amount I guarantee the effect would all be different *snip*
Now lets see some new Graphs."
Okay: The oral ld50 in mice for Thimerosal is 75-90 mg/kg. The intravenous LD50 is 30 mg/kg.
So injecting vs feeding only increases its toxicity by a factor of 3, meaning that the amount of Thimerosal in a vaccine is still several orders of magnitude smaller than the dose required to produce any toxic effect.
KingHodor 2 years ago
Hehe.. there *is* a relationship and it's Unavoidable Background Radiation we get from *all* sources sans any playing with radionucleotides or radiological materials *or* simply living in places with more radiation from space (Denver, anyone?). And examples of substances that are at once *neccessary* for life and deadly in too high a dose are many. Like Selenium.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
Forgive this for being rushed and from memory but I recall a documentary on UK TV (Horizon I think) that addressed the models for radiation risk. It indicated that lower than predicted deaths in areas adjacent to Chernobyl put doubt on a linear no threshold relationship, suggesting that there is a threshold.
Rambleale 2 years ago
Great article on vaccinations in the latest WIRED magazine. Scientists are at an extreme disadvantage, because they are constrained by actual evidence and logic, while the lunatics think that a few hours (or dozens of hours) browsing hysterical blogs on the Internet makes them better qualified to understand the results of scientific results than the actual scientists - AND they are not constrained by either evidence or logic.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Another point I would like people to consider is that private insurance companies, which do the best liability studies, have totally abandoned coverage for damage to life & property due to :
*Acts of God.
*Nuclear War/Nuclear Power Plant Accidents.
*VACCINATIONS.
Bearing this in mind I would strongly advise people to check with their insurance companies to make sure they are covered before considering the vaccinations due to the legal immunity given to vaccine companies (PrepACT2005).
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
If you are injured by a vaccine in the US, there is a fund known as the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Since 1988, it has paid out over 900 claimants who were able to demonstrate causality. The US, in purchasing vaccines for public health pre-pandemic vaccination, has assumed responsibility for the safety and efficacy of the vaccines.
You are attempting to use emotional scare tactics. Panic and paranoia are not very smart states from which to make a health decision.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
starting a system to track side effects as mass flu vaccinations begin next month. The idea is to detect rare but real problems quickly, and explain the inevitable coincidences that are sure to cause some false alarms.
"Every day, bad things happen to people. When you vaccinate a lot of people in a short period of time, some of those things are going to happen to some people by chance alone," said Dr. Daniel Salmon, a vaccine safety specialist at the Department of Health and Human Services.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
--AP report, Sep 28, 2009. from CBS website.
Here are just some adverse events for Prozac:
Paranoia, Lowered immune system, Seizures or convulsions, Insomnia, Diabetes, Extreme fatigue, Burning or tingling in extremities, Blurred vision or pressure behind the eyes, Self destructive behavior and suicidal ideation, Suicide attempts, Muscle tremors, Loss of co-ordination, Mania, Psychosis.
You need to do a little research on what "adverse event reporting" is.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
"AEs are classified as serious or minor; expected or unexpected; and study-related, possibly study-related, or not study-related."
What you have there is a complete list of what symptoms affected people within 72 hours of administration of vaccine. These might have been directly related, or they might have been the result of other stimuli. Assuming the prior is called post hoc ergo propter hoc (one thing must follow from another).
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
You also need to differentiated between potential risk, rare events, and common events.
In a normal population of 100,000, we expect 2 cases of Guillan Barre every week, 4 anaphylaxis reactions, 47 heart attacks, 22 miscarriages, 5 new cases of diabetes, etc. When you vaccinate 10 million people, you will get the most rare of events occurring within 72 hours of vacccination. The two are not linked, merely coincident.
So far, runny nose, soreness, ache are the most common side effects.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Runny nose, soreness,aches are usually classed as 'symtoms' of a cold/flu Not side effects from vaccines.
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
Runny nose, soreness and aches are the results of the chemical in the immune system, called cytokines producing inflammatory reactions. This is part of our normal response to antigen challenge, be it from a vaccine or actual pathogen.
We fully predict these things will occur from most vaccination, live attenuated, or recombinant antigen.
If you are curious, the primary response is from IL-2, IFNg, TNFa, IL1b and IL-6.
I have no idea what your comment about immunization tracking is about.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Cytokines or (signal cells ) are a 'Natural Response' by the Immune system released to the areas of pathogen/virus attack namely the mucus membranes in the nose/mouth/reproductive organs etc. and is a Natural response & is usually a controlled reaction. However studies from the 1918 flu outbreak suggest that some medications & vaccines that by-pass these natural defenses & injected straight into the blood stream can create cytokine storms & are potentially fatal to a healthy immune systems.
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
Vague. Unsubstantiated. The vaccine hysteria movement. seems to employ two standards of evidence: one for the scientists who must give absolute proof of 100% effective treatments with 0% harmful side effects vs their own vague ramblings where any claim made by anyone anywhere at any time is reason to reject vaccination.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 3
Do some research you fool.
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
I'm sure we don't have the idea of what constitutes "research." And regardless of whether I have done any research, your method here isn't very productive. You're just stating things as facts without actually substantiating them. Spread that hysteria! Monger those rumors!
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 2
And You are not stating anything apart from irrelevant comments which also isn't very productive in questioning the safety issues involved in taking vaccines. Perhaps you should Question Nothing, Believe Everything you hear on mainstream media & just go take your vaccine. Now that would be Productive !
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
Actually, I am stating something productive. I am stating something important. I'm noting that you have made assertions without backing them up. My "data" is your lack of same in your vague posts. It is erroneous to assume that because I disagree with your inane rambling that I believe everything the mainstream media tells me. I barely listen to or read the mainstream media. I spend most of my life in books and journals. And I don't just believe any random claim I read on the internet.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
When this happens it can create all sorts of problems within the body. Hence some of the known side effects listed by the manufacturers on the vaccine inserts but not made public in the promotion campaign by the Governments & Corporate Mainstream Medias. So therefore people are not being given an informed choice & that seriously bothers me.
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
"Cytokines or (signal cells)"?
Cytokines are single proteins, not cells. They affect more than the mucous membrane. They are systemic reactions. Describing immunopathology as a "controlled reaction" is a bit stupid. Ever seen pictures of cholera, Ebola, dengue victims?
Vaccines don't bypass defenses. They activate defenses.
I'd love to read the "studies" you vaguely mentioned. Can you cite them properly?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
The studies I have read are far too numerous to cite in a comment box. It is pretty clear that whatever information I give you will Not read & will be dismissed or discredited by you & your vaccines are safe campaign just like the Corporate Controlled Unaccountable Pharmaceutical Companies you aspire too. However I would encourage everyone else to Educate before you Vaccinate as there is NO redress against the companies producing the vaccines & your Insurance Company may not insure you.
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And then people you must ask yourself WHY if these vaccines are SO safe have these Manufacturers been given immunity from prosecution should the vaccines cause Injury or Death and IF your Insurance Company will NOT insure you against Vaccinations get them to tell you WHY ?
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
Because public health demands requires we get the stuff now and because fanatic internet crusaders will otherwise embroil them in bogus lawsuits?
Wild guess.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Look at the tactics here. hopeandjoy is using panic and fear aimed at an emotional response. Oh no! What if this is all a giant conspiracy to kill people off! And my insurance won't cover me! I had better do whatever this person says, or the consequences will be dire.
It's vague innuendo, hopeandjoy, alarmism, and paranoia. Go back to your Gary Null videos content in the knowledge that you were blocked for trying to spread your pointless fearmongering.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
EXACTLY! Fear and panic! Panic and fear! Don't think! Act! Your CHILDREN are at stake! You ever watch "Simpsons"? There used to be this woman who would start a panic by shouting, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
"Won't somebody THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?"
Mrs. Lovejoy, if my "nerd senses" can be trusted.
I kept thinking he/she would get to some sort of point and then shut up, but it never happened. I was also giving her/him some allowance, because I'm taking notes for my next video.
It was a free peak into the heart of the paranoid delusions of an anti-vaxxer. (hmm... they randomly use uppercase, or is there a pattern???)
He/she is blocked now. It was getting repetitive and boring.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Aren't the pharmaceutical companies - Baxter in this case - 'using panic and fear aimed at an emotional response.'
the mirror is getting closer.....
tobiaslarsgunnar 2 years ago
I reiterate my comment from below about how the lunatic fringe maintains one criteria of evidence for the scientists (a bar so high that no science could pass) and a completely different (and generally hypothetical) standard for their own ravings.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Greek _ Cyto = Cell Kinos = Movement.
Look it up !
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
Words don't always mean exactly what their etymologies suggest. Look it up! Cytokine is not a cell. As C0c0rdance is (IIRC) a molecular biologist, there's a chance (admittedly remote) that he knows what it is without having to look it up. Naaah ... Science? We don't need no steenkin science!
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago 3
Cytokine: from the Greek "cell" and "movement"
Cytokenesis: From the Greek "cell" and "movement"
Yet, they're radically different things, one is a signaling protein and the other is the state of sharing of cytoplasm.
You can't rely on nomenclature to understand what something is.
RexFordVII 2 years ago
Yes, cytokines are proteins and glycoproteins that were discovered by their ability to attract cells to them.
Hence, they move cells, "cyto"-"kines". But they are NOT cells themselves. That is akin to mistaking a gallon of gas for a 1976 Buick Skylark.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, hopeandjoywithlove. I'm glad it has been kept from you.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
You do not speak Greek, do you?
Has it crossed your mind that it could be mean "to move"?
In wikipedia, where you found this etymology -or was it somewhere else?-, you should continue reading. ;)
Inkubus77gr 2 years ago
In 1997 (this is just one example) the Texas Department of Health tried to use legislation to legally force ALL Texas children into the statewide immunization tracking system which run into problems over rules of patient confidentiality.
hopeandjoywithlove 2 years ago
Awesome video, favorited!!!
Dezekrator 2 years ago
I like how all these anti vaccine people have NO PROBLEM using computers, which are guaranteed to leach toxic e-waste into the environment.
sweettater99 2 years ago 2
The picture at 2:28 is awesome..
atomicnumber86 2 years ago
Great!
Did you send a link to Bill M at RealTime? ;-)
ILYIAB 2 years ago
I could seriously hug c0nc0rdance right now. I'll be sending these videos to a lot of people.
Nykytyne2 2 years ago 2
This is so well done. You make what could be a confusing video into an easily understood one, given the amount of facts you pop up on screen every few seconds.
Another thing is that I've been smoking so am pretty high, which means that you're video must have been interesting because I usually lose interest in words whilst high. Keep it up. :)
Off to watch part two.
Lpoolboy 2 years ago
Most excellent video, 5'd 'n fav'd. A voice of scientific sanity that is most refreshing. Heck, even too much pure water can kill you. So, we shouldn't consume any water?
ozmoroid 2 years ago 2
Thanks, ozmo!
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Here's another analogy. A lot of us drink coffee. There's 152mg of caffeine in coffee and the LD50 of caffeine is 192mg/kg. Compare that with c0nc0rdance's ethylmercury results. 100 cups of coffee will kill most of us. How many vaccine doses of ethylmercury will kill us? About 150,000 based on c0nc0rdances statistics. Shall we ban caffeine as well? (My data comes from Wolfram Alpha).
Orygyn 2 years ago
Thimerosal becomes ethylmercury AND (2-carboxyphenyl)sulfonyl. The phenyl molecule might lead to a point mutation in DNA, however my data is pretty unreliable and comes from merely looking at the shape of the molecule, ill look it up later. Just to make it aware that ethylmercury is not the only byproduct from the breakdown of Thimerosal.
Eddiethepizzaboy 2 years ago
How does the mercury get into the vaccine?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
Why all this distrust of government agencies and scientists and specialists on the part of people who want to make themselves look important.
Very well researched video!
dewonthegrass 2 years ago
Jimmy Hendrix was murdered by his girlfriend Claudia
WKaliberr 2 years ago
Very informative, thank you for sharing your knowledge. I will most certainly be researching the topics in this videos.
Xirbtt 2 years ago
Awesome video
5*
WAMMYSISCOOL 2 years ago
"And fluoride is only dangerous when it's at 5-10 times higher levels than are found in drinking water in the western world."
This is false, since fluoride is bioaccumulative. I had hoped that you would have done some better research in this matter but I'm quite disappointed. There are several research papers that state explicitly that even 0.1ppm of fluoride, over long periods of time, will have toxic effects. I encourage you to do some more research in this matter.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Are you implying that the flouridated water is poisoning us?
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
It's not elucidating a toxic response immediately upon consumption, which is why concordance is a little confused on this issue. However, the fluoridation of water has never been conclusively shown to reduce dental caries, and comes with many serious and proven long term side effects. It seems absolutely ridiculous that anyone could protect this practice, which is literally the dumping of industrial waste directly into the public water supply.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Didn't you watch the second part, it's all about the dose size.
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
Google 'bioaccumulation' because you may have misunderstood my comment.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
no i understand bioaccumulation, but with the extremely small amounts of the actual fluorine being used, and due to the nature of the actual element, it doesn't seem like too much of a problem.
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
"due to the nature of the actual element"
Fluoride's toxicity has been established as somewhere in the neighborhood of cyanide and arsenic. You don't find that a problem?
The chemical they pour in the water to add fluoride to it would be illegal to pour into any other water source. That in and of itself is a very interesting thing. The EPA actually classifies the chemical as 'hazardous waste'.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Actually, concordance answered most of what you said below this.
just to clarify, sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, and sodium fluorosilicate are all poured in water (most of the time, fluorosilicic acid is used). Which one are you talking about?
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
i couldn't find anything that said the EPA classified any of the aforementioned chemicals as "hazardous waste". I did however, find a website that claimed no testing was done on water fluoridation by the EPA to test for any problems. I find this hard to believe, because there's no way they'd be able to get away with not testing a known toxic element.
all in all, fluorine is a naturally occurring element, and i can't find anything on it's bioaccumulation
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
"all in all, fluorine is a naturally occurring element"
Cyanide is 'naturally occurring' as well, would you drink it?
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
1. Fluoride is stored as fluorapatite in the bones, it's also secreted in saliva. Fluoride is something we need in our diet. It plays a vital biological role in bone formation.
2. It is true that concentrations IN EXCESS of 4 mg/L in over-fluoridated drinking water can cause dental fluorosis and non-deterministic bone thickening. 10 mg/L and above can cause skeletal fluorosis.
3. Public health measures recommend 1 mg/L fluoridation. The EPA sets a ceiling of 4 mg/L, which is too high.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
4. The American Dental Association (ADA), the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), the American Academy of Pediatric (AAP), and the World Health Organization (WHO), among many other national and international organizations, endorse community water fluoridation. The CDC recognized fluoridation of water as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
5. Third party studies have confirmed 20-60% reduction in dental caries in areas where water is fluoridated.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
6. It has been argued that fluoridation needs are met by toothpaste. Not all children grow up in households with toothpaste for various reasons.
7. In areas where water is naturally over-fluoridated to a level around 4 mg/L, no increase in cancer incidence is seen when compared to a matched population in a low fluoride area. Bone densities have been shown to be modestly correlated to fluoride.
8. Can anyone tell me how much fluoride is in a handful of raisins? (Hint: more than the water)
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
5. They have not. WHO data shows that the rate of DMFT is the same in fluoridated and unfluoridated communities.
6. That does not justify pouring toxic waste in the water supply. Buy them some toothpaste if you're so concerned.
7. Another meaningless argument. Natural fluoride is mainly CaF. Calcium is known to impair absorption of F. We do not fluoridate with CaF, we use hydrofluorosilicic acid.
You're simply chanting decades old slogans.
tinylink . com / ?gs0dTTsOMY
Watch all of it.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
"toxic waste" Did you not watch the video? Titled 'The Dose Makes the Poison'?
If you buy reagent grade NaCl from Sigma, it comes with an MSDS and toxicity warnings. Everything is toxic at a certain dose.
You also apparently do not understand how ionic bonds work. Once fluoride is dissolved in water, it is no longer hydrofluorosilicic acid. It becomes just plain fluoride. If it didn't you wouldn't be able to absorb it across the lumen lining with monovalent proton pumps.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
C0nc0rdance is absolutely right. I am a toxicology scientist and I preform LD50 testing (acute oral toxicity) for the EPA and OECD. We test TONS of stuff and EVERYTHING has an LD50. From water to toothpaste, paraquat (pesticide) to crayola finger paint. And from my years in the industry C0nc0rdance is absolutely right "The dose makes the Poison". Most things have such a low toxicity that you couldn't possibly ingest the amount needed to be lethal (the human stomach can only hold so much).
kevine17 2 years ago 2
"The dose makes the Poison" is not right in the case of fluoride, as I've already explained. It carries long term health risks and the benefits have not been conclusively demonstrated for systemic use.
Fluoride LD50 = 60 mg F/kg
Now, considering that fluoride is in our water, food and other sources, and that the dose is completely uncontrolled, wouldn't you think that this is something that you should pay more attention to?
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
"Did you not watch the video?"
Yes I did, and I've explained to you where you went wrong already, yet you continue to persist in your errors.
"Once fluoride is dissolved in water, it is no longer hydrofluorosilicic acid."
No shit, it's fluoride ions + everything else that was part of the molecule + the radium, arsenic and other contaminants that were part of the HFSA solution poured into the water. Call your waterworks and get the results of their testing, which will confirm what i say
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
1. It plays no role in bone formation, at all.
2. Because it's impossible to control individual dosages, this is a meaningless objection.
3. A recent report by the NRC suggests that even 1ppm may be too high. Any beneficial effects from fluoridation are dubious at best.
4. Endorsements are meaningless without the relevant studies. There are no case controlled studies supporting fluoridation and the CDC's statement was also a meaningless slogan.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
*argh* Knocking down your claims is more effort than it is worth.
1. Fluoride is a key component of bone formation. It is used therapeutically in metabolic disorders of bone. The Effects of Fluoride Therapy on Metabolic Bone Disease A Histologic Study (1967) Baylink, David J. M.D.; Bernstein, Daniel S. M.D.
At least go freaking look up hydroxyapatite. See what it says about it. I don't expect an apology or retraction, but maybe you could do some soul-searching?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
2. That data was for the incidence of certain conditions in areas with respect to drinking water natural fluoridation levels. Why don't you see how many cases of non-imported skeletal fluorosis we reported in 2009?
3. Yes, they recommend 0.5--0.7. That's not a bad idea, either. Has to do with the ubiquity of air conditioning.
4. When the ADA disagrees with some "guy on the Internet" over cavities, don't you have to be a little extra skeptical of the "guy on the Internet"?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Making wild and baseless claims is hardly knocking me down.
1. That was a study on therapeutic use, you explicitly stated that fluoride was essential in bone formation, which is obviously wrong. Youre making two entirely different claims now. I expect better from you.
2. Fluorosis rates rise in communities that adopt artificial water fluoridation. This is consistently true.
3. And even the benefits @ 0.5 to 0.7 have not been established. It's nice to see you can admit a mistake.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
4. Portraying the opposition as some guy on the internet just proves that you cant debate this issue honestly. There are thousands of dentists, scientists and researchers that are opposed to fluoridation. The reasons why are also completely obvious, why you cant yet grasp this is probably more of an issue of pride than anything.
Where is my case controlled study that proves systemic use of fluoride has significant dental benefits and limited long-term side effects?
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
The theraputic use of fluoride for bone disorders is also questionable.
Here is the link with the relevant studies attached:
tinylink . com / ?8Bq6aQbak5
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
not only does cyanide not have any beneficial effects when consumed in small amounts, it's not near as common as fluorine.
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
There is a small amount of cyanide inside almonds.
Geochron 2 years ago
well ya, i'm not saying that you don't consume any, but cyanide is a competitive inhibitor, it doesn't have an beneficial effects
Timmay123456789 2 years ago
Spartacus, if this were the case, we'd all have toxicity by now... Evidently the dose is not enough to harm us...
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Many people ARE exhibiting signs of toxicity.
tinylink . com / ?gs0dTTsOMY
Watch all of it.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
But not the majority... I don't need to watch any video or read any study to tell you that I have never met someone with fluorine toxicity and that I ONLY know what it looks like from internet sources and having been the drummer in a Glasgow-bar based punk group means you meet a LOT of people.
I will watch your video, but I am almost certain that there will be an underlying cause to any instance of toxicity.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
"But not the majority"
Irrelevant, and it really shows the kind of inconsiderate person that you are.
"I have never met someone with fluorine toxicity"
I guarantee you have, early stages of it are called 'dental fluorosis'.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
I live in an area with natural fluoride in the water, at a level considerably higher than the levels due to fluorination. Now, if there was a toxicity problem due to fluoride added to water, wouldn't we in Derbyshire, UK be suffering some real problems?
bimblinghill 2 years ago
Moral arguments only serve to get me pissed off with you, try and keep this logical.
If the majority of people don't suffer from it, then the most likely explanation is that another factor is affecting the minority. In any case, a government needs to work on a mostly utilitarien perspective, it's simply not viable to do otherwise.
I find it unlikely that someone can drift along through the early stages and never progress to the later stages if flourine accumulates in the way you claim.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
You're only pissed because I just exposed to everyone that you're a selfish, poorly-educated child. Grow up.
And you're wrong, we know for a fact that many people suffer ill-effects from fluoride, this is an indisputable fact. You don't have the right to continue harming their health just because you (a tiny minority on the global stage) want to consume your snake-oil.
Swallow your toothpaste if you're so certain that drinking fluoride is good for you. Don't mind the poison warning.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
I'm pissed because taking the moral highground with me just proves you have no real argument to put forward and are a disingenuous cunt trying to use emotion to change my mind. Shut the fuck up.
Spartacus, this video is called The Dose Makes The Poison, stop and think what that means before posting any more of this drivel.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Let's be clear here, you're talking about medicating people AGAINST THEIR WILL. That's why you don't have the moral high ground, and it's why you're pissed.
How about you, shut the fuck up.
And the concentration of fluoride in drinking water has nothing to do with dosage, get that through your thick skull and you'll stop looking like such an ass.
I've offered more than enough evidence to back my position, whereas you haven't offered a single thing except ignorance and vitriol.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
I made myself very clear, you can try and misconstrue me all you want, but you're just proving my point about your dishonesty.
Learn to use commas and don't start sentences with 'and'.
That was a joke, wasn't it? The concentration of flourine in water has nothing to do with the dosage of flourine recieved when you drink said water? Seriously, how ignorant can you be?
I don't have the burdon of proof, nice try.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Wow, you really are desperate aren't you?
It's up to you to prove why I should take a drug. I have no obligation to prove why I shouldn't. Proof is always required from the person asserting the positive, take a science class for once.
I haven't misconstrued you at all, you were perfectly clear. You're saying that right and wrong can be determined by a popularity contest regardless of the weight of evidence... just how juvenile can you be? Like I said, concentration is not dosage.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Stop projecting.
'My' position has already been established, YOU are the one challenging it, or are you suggesting we need to test evolution every time a Creationist says 'God did it'?
I was perfectly clear, but you tried twisting what I said to you anyway.
You have a naive understanding of the government, I've already told you they can't help everyone. Weight of evidence? It's against you, Spartacus!
...
You really do have no understanding of what you're talking about, do you?
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
The concentration of something is measured in units such as gml^-1 and DIRECTLY contributes to the dosage you recieve.
If you take 2ml of liquid with a concentration of 1gml^-1 of salt, versus your friend who takes 2ml of liquid with a 2gml^-1 concentration, then your friend has recieved a higher dosage of salt, hasn't he? Is this penetrating?
So don't you try and sit there telling me concentration and dosage are unrelated while claiming to have the weight of evidence supporting your argument.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Dosages are measured in mg/kg, not ppm.
Concentration is irrelevant when trying to determine the daily dose of fluorides, which is why hiding behind the 1ppm argument is so bogus.
You seem to think that if the concentration is low enough, then everything is going to be ok. That's just dishonest and scientifically untenable.
Where's my case controlled study that supports fluoridation? Why has most of the world rejected it?
You're way out of your area of expertise here, obviously.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
You can also convert the units and compare against surface area rather than weight, but fine: To continue my example, you recieve 2g of salt, or 2000mg of salt. Assuming you weigh 10 stone, or 63.5kg, your dosage is then 31.5mgkg^-1. Your friend (assuming equal weight to you) recieves 63.0mgkg^-1.
Why?
Given that we ingest flouride regardless, I would bloody well hope so!
C0nc0rdance gave you a list of them.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago 2
We do not ingest fluoride's 'regardless' since calcium fluoride (the naturally occurring stuff) is not absorbed very well by the gut.
And no, C0nc0rdance didn't give me a list of them, because there are none. I've asked scientists at both the FDA and Health Canada to provide me with them and they cannot.
Both of you are complete amateurs in this topic. I suggest quitting while you're ahead.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
(W 3) bfsweb {d o t} org/documents/wrcreport {d o t} pdf
You are looking for page 7. By all means though, read the rest of it.
You didn't even search Google, you hypocrite and liar.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago 3
That's not a case controlled study, retard.
Try again.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Right, so the information in completely flawed because it hasn't been tested on people? Idiot.
Fine, you want case controlled, how's this one:
(w3) bmj (dot) com/cgi/content/full/321/7265/860
Let me guess, there's a problem with this one too, is there?
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Most of the world don't need as they have naturally flourodated water and it would be dangerous to increase the flourine levels or simply can't afford it. You think a country with no food or clean water are worried about their teeth?
You hypocrite, show me your Ba., Ma. or Ph.D if you're so qualified.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hahahaha, now that is what I like to call 'desperately making shit up to cover your ass'. Seriously, why don't you actually LOOK into the reasons why most of Europe has banned water fluoridation, because it has nothing to do with their natural levels. As I've explained before, naturally occurring fluorides are nothing like the industrial waste that's poured into public water supplies.
You really have no clue what you're talking about, why you keep replying is beyond me.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Oh, now it's Europe, not the world? In Europe's case, the standard reason is essentially along the lines of "We feel there are better ways to provide the flourine", "The levels would become toxic" or "We feel that people's teeth should be regulated by the Health Service not the water board". Some countries do still flouridate their water.
I don't see your qualifications yet, hypocrite.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It is the world, moron. Europe is one example, and they're concerned about long term health effects. Exactly what I've been talking about, WHAT A SURPRISE.
Lets recap:
1. I've shown that fluoridation provides no reduction in DMFT rates
2. I've shown that fluoridation carries serious long term health risks
3. I've shown that fluoridation is performed by dumping contaminated, industrial waste directly into the water supply
You'd have to be insane to support this practice, hypocrite
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Europe is NOT indicitive of the whole world, you fucktarded, tin god. I like how you also cherry picked 1 of the 3 reasons then ignored the context: They didn't want to put any MORE FUCKING FLOURINE IN THE WATER BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THERE! Germany even allows it in certain areas! Asshole!
Lets recap:
1. No you haven't.
2. No you haven't.
3. No you haven't.
You'd have to be naive and gullible to accept your case, liar.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago 2
Fluoridating countries are a tiny minority and no, European nations didn't reject fluoridation because 'it was already in the water'. You already know that natural fluoride is not what is put in the public water, so I don't know why you keep mixing the 2 up, except that you're desperately making shit up.
fluoridealert . org / govt-statements . htm
You can read their statements for yourself, it's called research, asshole. You were wrong, get over it, you'll feel a lot better.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Spartacus, I linked you to a paper describing how ionic compound behave in water, it is aparent you didn't read it. Flouride, is flouride, is flouride, is flouride. Those damned chemists doing studies to fuck your case over, eh?
Funny, I got those reasons from a website that was against water flouridation, liar. It seems that, like you, they believe simply adding a spin to whatever the actual statement was will suffice, and that people won't then look up the reasons behind the decision.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
The science is this; the ions in an ionic compound become free to move around when disolved. So, explain to me how one metal-flouride compound disolved in water is different from any other?
YOU also brought up Europe; I'm not the one trying to hold up examples of other countries as role modle. YOU brought it up.
AnimaRaptor 2 years ago
Actually, you'd have to be gullible and naive to support putting a known industrial pollutant in your water solely based on the word of someone else that didn't know anything about toxicology.
"Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete."
Dr. Arvid Carlsson
Those darned, naive nobel prize winners in medecine, always raining on your parade huh?
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Argument from authority. Cite a single study in a peer reviewed journal demonstrating harm from fluoride at the municipally mandated Fluoridation levels of 1ppm and I swear to you I will turn on a dime.
Note: "Fluoride" (Published by the International Society of Fluoride Research) is not a peer reviewed journal.
RexFordVII 2 years ago 3
Yay! Quote mining! Such fun!
Xirbtt 2 years ago
I am sure he keeps replying for the same reason your comments keep getting voted down. Because people reject your special brand of tinfoil hat wearing, black helicopter spotting, NWO fearing crazy!
wormbaby79 2 years ago
People reject new information that conflicts with their current views, right or wrong. This is no surprise to me though. This has nothing to do with whatever conspiracy theories you happen to believe in, it's just plain science. People used to think that leaded gasoline was great as well, look how that turned out.
17Spartacus76 2 years ago
Selective acceptance works both ways, Spartacus. Your dogmatic position AGAINST fluoridation blinds you as well. If you can, try clearing your mind, assuming the other position, and see if it is possible to prove it as well, given the same level of zeal.
You are in the position of contention, the large majority of dentists and scientists support fluoridation on the evidence. Can you try to figure out why? What do you know that they don't?
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Question:
do dentists and scientists support flouridation simply because that's what their 'experts' and forerunners have told them? it then becomes a 'known fact'...but they haven't done any new investigations?
I don't believe the argument - that a bunch of scientists believe it's so - makes it so - they are simply assuming, having a 'belief' / faith in a some past peer reviewed studies. (Peer reviewed studies are notoriously subject to group think.
tobiaslarsgunnar 2 years ago
Are you serious? You really think scientists pass down an oral tradition that may not be challenged? I just can't believe you would even ask this question.
Groupthink? Are you f-ing serious? Clearly you have never done any research of any kind.
I would suggest you go to the nearest medical library and wander amongst the shelves. That's our "oral tradition". Open one of those journal articles, any one, and see where you can find dogma or belief.
C0nc0rdance 2 years ago
Yes, I saw my Nuclear Physicist father, though a leader in the field, be absolutely subject to 'what was acceptable' and what the 'group' his colleagues
( league of collusion) thought.
It's so transparent with many 'scientists' - since the seduction is that 'we are objective'. Really no different than the most programmed religions - just a little finer brains deluding themselves that they see (20/20)
tobiaslarsgunnar 2 years ago
"Accepted" is physics-speak for "well-supported by evidence".
However, if our hypothesis based on what is "accepted" fail to be supported by our experiments - we change them.
Certainly scientists are humans, and models that are "accepted" for long periods of time tend to require very strong evidence to the contrary before they are changed. Personalities/seniority sometimes does matter. However, please point me to a group of people who are MORE objective than scientists?
sinmantyx 2 years ago
Yes, truly 'objective' science would not be influenced by 'seniority and Personalities'. Personalities/Egos are so o