Flouride Aspartame, and Agenda21

Poison for the public, or as the government states "For the Health of the People"

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Poison
• Flouride
• Aspartame
• Agenda
• 21

[jeremt513]

Donald Rumsfeld owns the rights to aspartame.

[T0ASTYWAG1992]

We are being FUCKED on all fronts. They're making it so there is no way for us to escape their grips. Destroying the environment, air, water, food.. We'll be totally dependent on government. They are so FUCKING insane! They are destroying the entire planet just to fuck us over the psychotic fucks!

[SpotTheParakeet]

DONALD RUMSFELD OWNS THE RIGHTS OF ASPARTAME. THAT MUTHER FU@KER

[Suzan2k]

They are fucking insane.

They're trying to kill us.

[randomhalofan292]

and every1 at that conference about agenda 21 didnt say anything about population control(killing masses of people) or the fact that they already have plans for peoples living quarters its disgusting!!!!

[shanesmith20m]

@Patonn89 I think our main disagreement is what is considered a proper journal. Maybe you can send me a PM with an example of one good study from a creditable journal. Since Most I find using your method come from the "Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research". This will give me a better understanding and a place to start. I sent you won from the Journal of the European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

[Patonn89]

@shanesmith20m The fact they they are included in this paper, is a clear sign of bad science. Show it to five professionals, and show them a random sampling of the sources, 4 of 5 will agree it is a poorly researched article. They also didn't do any research, they just pulled pieces out of the work of others, stitching it together in a way that it sends they message they want it to send. You're a smart dude, i checked out ur page, you will see, just put that brain to work. be devils advocate.

[Patonn89]

@shanesmith20m The majority, not all, of the articles i have found also agree it is bad. There is research done in other counties were they do not have Fluoride in the water, and the dental health is fine. If you look at history, it was the replacement of Hog hair toothbrush bristles for nylon bristles in the early 50s that increased dental health in this country, not fluoridation of water. Anyway, most of the references in your paper aren't peer reviewed, and are not credible.

[Patonn89]

@shanesmith20m First, Google scholar supplies journal article, and is nothing like Wikipedia, second, PubMed is a good source, i use it often. I haven't seen the "Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research." I have looked at some studies, but mainly am relying on the information from Doctors in biology, who have done more extensive research for personal reasons. Their consensus is that it is bad, and useless.

[shanesmith20m]

@Patonn89 For a research article to be generally accepted as peer reviewed it needs to be submitted in creditable journal, as well as have repeated results. Google scholar is really as good as relying on Wikipedia for all your information. As a collage student you should know exactly how serious they take such an offense. This is why I suggested PubMed. On another note, are you looking at the "Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research"? It is obviously biased if it's your source

[Patonn89]

@shanesmith20m Your sources arn't peer reviewed man, i don't even think you have any idea what is going on. I check out many of them, they are garbage, you should look at them too, maybe then you will see. Go on Google scholar, and search for fluoride, those will be scholarly peer reviewed journals.  See what one is, if you think the references in that paper are all peer reviewed, you haven't been exposed to peer reviewed literature before.

[shanesmith20m]

When there are hundreds of studies from different sources all saying the same thing, and only 25 saying the opposite, I tend to lean towards what the majority of the scientific community are saying.