I disgaree, therefore I must “have an agenda” and be dishonest.  You keep stooping lower and lower.  It is no more “unconstitutional” than any other government action APPROVED BY THE MAJORITY of the people all around you.  YOU are the one who doesn’t get it—you and your minority don’t get to override the will of everyone around you.  And it’s not “somehow”—as if the benefits of fluoridation are illusory—they are verified by 60 years of results.

Hey genius: 

I defy you to find any chlorine residual in the water from your tap.  The chlorine dosage is based upon the concentration of organics and pathogenic organisms in the water and the chlorine is completely dissipated before it comes into your home.  Fluoride, on the other hand, is dosed with the intention of having a residual at the tap, otherwise it couldn’t perform all the medical magic that follow-the-leader sheep like you claim it does.

richiem999, You have not explained satisfactorily why Synthroid is prescribed so heavily. The only thing you have exposed is more medical malpractice and with anecdotal evidence straight from the horse’s mouth (Kirschner). If what he says is true, that doctors hand out drugs without first performing clinical analysis and lab work to verify a patient’s condition, then those doctors should loose their licenses to practice medicine. If Synthroid is being misused by “millions of Americans,” that is the fault of the medical profession. As for ridicule, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it. Those who oppose fluoridation have long since been the butt of patronizing commentary from the likes of you. (continued below)

“Black helicopters” and references to “Dr. Strangelove” are just a couple that have long since been worn out. But you know all about “strawmen,” don’t you? Your attempt to shift the focus from my original challenge is pathetic. Are you even capable of following a stream of logic? (continued below)

For the third time, richiem999, answer the question without any further diversion or consider YOURSELF exposed.

FACT: Before modern drugs hit the market, fluoride was once the standard treatment for hyperthyroidism
FACT: The “optimal” fluoride level touted by pro-fluoridationists exceeds the dosage used to treat hyperthyroidism
Q: Are people who drink fluoridated water being treated for hyperthyroidism without their informed consent?
Q: Are people with undiagnosed hypothyroidism who drink fluoridated water being made even more sick, perhaps to the point of being left bedridden?

Regardless of its source, I know firsthand the devastation of hypothyroidism left undiagnosed by incompetent medical doctors.

Your knowledge of the Constitution is nonexistent, richiem999. We do not live in a “democracy,” where anything goes provided that the “majority” approves. Our form of government was established as a Constitutional Republic, where individuals have certain unalienable rights. One of them is the right to not be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process. In any event, 52% (not 53%, as reported by the SVH) is far from signifying a “mandate.” No amount of grandstanding by the pro-fluoridationists can change that. When you filter out the ballots that were sent to voters who do not receive PUD water, the margin dropped to 51%-49% (yes, we sifted through the data). Those who are on PUD water and failed to receive ballots could have easily pushed the yes votes aside.

richiem999, where is this fluoride coming from?  Do you know?  Do you understand what is really going on here?  You act like you’ve done your research, so tell me point blank: where is this fluoride going to come from?

Irtnog, right on!  You da man!  :)

Don:  Of course I have answers, but just like everything else rational you won’t accept them because they don’t conform to your narrow view of the world.  The fact that they are based on credible scinetific studies means nothing to you.  Just like your statements about fluoridation being “unconstitutional”—on that, dear sir, you are delusional.  And you have failed to answer a very simple question—why do you think you get to impose your will on the majority? Answers on next post.

Don:  Fact #1—False.  Fluoride was not “standard treatment.” There was one small study in the 1950s in which 15 patients who had hyperthyroidism were given relatively large amounts of fluoride (massive compared to fluoridated water).  Those researchers concluded such was “only occasionally successful.” But it was never “standard treatment.” Care to look it up?  Find “Effect of fluorine on thyroidal metabolism in hyperthyroidsm,” Galletti & Joyet, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, 1958.  Fact #2—False (see above re: massive amount)—continued next post

Don:  Your first Q—No.  Fluoride in drinking water does NOT affect the function of the thyroid.  MANY studies have shown this.  Check out “Effect of fluoride on thyroid gland: Cinical Study,” Leonme, et.al, Journal of the American Dental Association, 1964.  (Oh, you believe I forgot dentists are part of the “fluoridation conspiracy.” To what end?) In that study people who consumed water with 3.48 ppm fluoride for more than 10 years—no effect on thyroid gland size or function.  Want more recent?  Try “Trends in urban mortality in relation to fluoridation status,” Rogot et.al.. American Journal of Epidemiology, 1978.  (see next post)

Don:  And there are others… Your final question—people being made “more sick”.  Again, no.  Yes, shrug, I know where fluroide comes from.  Guess what, table salt—sodium chloride—is “poison” if you take too much.  You can drown in a foot of water.  Should we ban them?  Thanks for the debate guys and gals, but you won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours.  The difference is, the vast majority of the scientific community, medical professionals, etc., understands that fluoridation is safe and effective.  Your community voted in favor of fluoridation.  End of story.

richiem999, I’m not asking if you know where fluoride comes from, I’m asking where THIS fluoride is coming from?  Where are they getting the fluoride to put in our water supply?

Answer the question clearly and honestly, richiem999.  Not doing so either makes you ignorant or repugnant.  Where are they getting the fluoride they are going to put in our water supply?

As I said, richiem999, your knowledge of the Constitution and government is nonexistent. In the first place 52% (51% if you subtract the ballots from non-PUD voters) is anything other than a “mandate.” That you misrepresent it as a significant “majority” is not surprising. Even so, as I mentioned before, the United States is not a democracy, where anything goes provided that the “majority” approves. The United States was formed as a Constitutional Republic that guarantees individuals certain unalienable rights to safeguard against the tyranny of the majority. I suggest that you also read “Law of the Land,” from the Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 256. On the contrary, richiem999, it is you who is delusional. Now, on to some hard science.

One other thing on Proposition #2, richiem999. It was an *advisory* vote, not a binding one. However, knowing how good ol’ boys operate, it goes without saying that had Prop 2 been soundly defeated, that’s how Munks and Dahlstedt would get around such an outcome. They would point out that it *was* only advisory and vote to fluoridate anyway. Everything that Munks and Dahlstedt have done with respect to the fluoridation issue as been mere appearance for their own sake.

Richiem999-So how do you propose to protect the infants who will be bottlefed with formula? Who is going to pay for any possible Fluorosis damage? Not the insurance company. The parents will have to try to come up with many thousands of dollars for cosmetic dentistry. Cosmetic dentistry is a big money maker for dentists.

Even the powerful ADA is backpedalling away from giving Fluoridated water to infants who are formula fed. That should tell you something right there.

When the ADA is saying that it isn’t actually as safe and effective as previously thought, people should pay attention.

richiem999, on the previous page, you were caught posting misleading information on Synthroid prescriptions. Why should your answers regarding the thyroid gland be any different? Since the ADA has a vested interest in portraying fluoride in a positive light, I would expect any studies for which it is responsible to deny any thyroid interaction. Medical history doesn’t support either one of you. As early as 1854, goiter was induced in dogs by feeding them at least 20 mg of sodium fluoride per day for four months: Maumené E -"Experiencé pour déterminer l’action des fluores sur l’economie animale” Compt Rend Acad Sci (Paris) 39:538-539 (1854). From 1921-1935, European researcher Leon Goldemberg focused on the use of fluorides as anti-thyroid medication, publishing far and wide.

(continued from above) Goldemberg, Pighini, Parhou & Goldstein - La glande thyr, in: Lehrbuch der endokrin. Erkrankungen, Vol. 1, Genf, Ed. Christiani (1923); Goldemberg L - J Physiol et Path 25:1 (1927); Goldemberg L - J Physiol et Path 25:1 (1927); 26 (1928); Goldemberg L - Compt Rend Soc Biol (Paris) 104:1031 (1930); Goldemberg L - Revista de Especialidad, T.V. No.6 (1930); Goldemberg L - Prens Med Argent (Oct. 1930, Dec. 1930); Goldemberg L - “Traitement de la maladie de Basedow et de ‘hyperthyroidisme par le fluor” Presse Méd 102:1751 (1930); Goldemberg L - “Comment agiraient-ils therapeutiquement les fluoers dans le goitre exopthalmique et dans l’hyperthyroidisme” Semana Med 39:1659 (1932); (continued below)

Goldemberg & Schraiber - Revista de la Soc Argentin de Biol: Vol. XI(1)(1935); Vol XI (2) (1935); Vol. XI (7) (1935). University of Wisconsin biochemist Paul H. Phillips began his animal studies of fluoride/thyroid toxicity 70 years ago: Phillips PH, English H, Hart NB -"The augmentation of fluorosis in the chick by feeding desiccated thyroid” J Nutrition 10:399 (1935), cited in:Harris NO, Hayes RL -"A tracer study of the effects of acute and chronic exposure to sodium fluoride on the thyroid iodine metabolism of rats” J Dent Res 34:470-477 (1955). In 1985, Prof. P.P. Bachinskii, Director of the Department of Biochemistry at the Poltava Medical and Stomatological Institute reported that prolonged consumption of water with 2.3 ppm fluoride produced changes in thyroid function,

(continued from above) not only in people with hyperthyroidism but in people with normal thyroid function. The National Research Council’s 2006 report can be found at http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571 . On Page 223, it states, “In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response....” Need I go on, richiem999? I have only scratched the surface. You and other pro-fluoridationists know only deceit and will lose any formal debate. The BOH is out of control and must be reigned in or removed. End of story.

Don:  I never said “significant” majority—it wouldn’t matter if there had been a one vote difference, you lost.  My info on Synthroid was not in error—I was not “caught”.  The science says there are no harmful effects of fluoridation, that it works to reduce decay by as much as 40 percent for young and old.  But as I said, I won’t change your mind and you won’t change mine.  I pray that the Lord will keep you safe and will lessen the angst in your aggrieved spirit.

Wow, I didn’t realize my question was such a stumper.  richiem999, where are they getting the fluoride they are going to put in our water supply?

And here’s another stumper: Since fluoride is not safe for infants, how will we bathe them and feed them formula without exposing them to the chemical?  Do we have to buy bottled water for all babies’ needs throughout the county?

Here’s a great article about the controversy that developed when the water company started fluoridating the water in Malibu, CA.

http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/04/02/news/news5.txt

And here’s a great editorial in the San Diego Union-Tribune on the fear-mongering of anti-fluoridation activists, and the benefits of fluoridation.  But no doubt you won’t want to read it because it’s not consistent with your views:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070923/news_lz1ed23top.html

Page 2 of 6        <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »