0
1

[–] 10554960? [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I always thought this was a fake conspiracy theory used to discredit other conspiracy theories and theorists....guess I was wrong.

0
2

[–] 8Ball 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Flat earth is most likely the fake one meant to discredit other conspiracy theories.

0
3

[–] o0shad0o 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

If you look at the article, and the graph, it shows very little decrease in IQ until levels are above 1.0 mg/L. The article gives a threshhold of 0.8 mg/L. The level apparently used in most of the US is 0.7 mg/L.

0
3

[–] Redpilled_Canadian 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

In Canada many citizens have tried fighting the forced medication of floricidic acid being added to our water. At a federal level they will not address this issue as a human rights issue... I for one believe this toxic waste from industry is very expensive to dispose of, so they have partnered up with crooked politicians to put it in our drinking water.

0
3

[–] cdglow 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The late, great Murray Rothbard (((one of the good ones IMO))) had a great article on fluoride.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/04/murray-n-rothbard/fluoridation-is-dangerous/

I'd think there's been more scientific research on the effects since then (maybe not, it seems even back then some links to cancer and other problems were deliberately suppressed) but he had some other interesting observations.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raising the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

This also makes a lot of sense. If fluoride is needed, then how can we control the dose when different people might need different amounts and drink different amounts of water?

It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass?

Pointing out the obvious corporatism in the fluoride push.

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid’s teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation’s water.

0
6

[–] redneckdoc 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

This is one of the reasons I use a RO water filtration system in my home, and I advise my patients to do the same. I also do not use fluoride-containing toothpaste. My teeth are fine. Fluoride can have very negative effects on the endocrine system, particularly the thyroid gland.

0
1

[–] Mew_Jedia 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Care to recommend a toothpaste?

0
0

[–] hatecrime ago  (edited ago)

I use this. I think it's excellent

And here's a Thread I made about flouride before.

0
2

[–] Amadameus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Remember how dentists tell you that fluoride is the only thing that can rebuild your teeth?

They were lying. It's the only thing sold in America that does this, but other countries have Novamin.

It's not perfect, but it uses a strontium-based system that can bond into your teeth and appears to work reasonably well as an enamel replacement. Sensodyne makes it and sells it overseas as a solution for people with sensitive teeth.

In the states Sensodyne is not allowed to sell Novamin (dentistry lobby banned it) so instead they just sell toothpaste with a numbing ingredient. No more sensitive teeth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensodyne

Go check out Amazon, you can buy tubes of Novamin-containing toothpaste for about $5 a tube. A little expensive - but certainly better than a root canal.

2
10

[–] CognitiveDissident5 2 points 10 points (+12|-2) ago 

Fluoride is a derivative of rat poison. Apart from making you docile and complacent, It also damages your thyroid gland - it was used in the 50's to treat overactive thyroid conditions by essentially damaging the gland to slow down hormone production. It also eats through concrete and destroys bones and teeth - that's why it's in toothpaste. Excellent for dentists.