2
32

[–] Gumbatron 2 points 32 points (+34|-2) ago 

Nice to see a win for the purity of our precious bodily fluids.

0
19

[–] Maroonsaint 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

For real. Only foreign substances I want are for enjoyment. What exactly does it do? I only know the cconspiracy video shit about it. For mass dumbing down or mass sedation agreeableness. Shit like that.

1
36

[–] NoisyCricket 1 points 36 points (+37|-1) ago  (edited ago)

There is two sets of science on the subject. There is the bullshit pushed by the FDA and then there is the entire rest of the world. ALL available data says there is no benefit to water fluoridation. Additionally, the FDA rolled back the amount of they officially endorse as safe limits in water because they admit they have no idea the amount of fluoridate Americas were receiving. This was only forced because of mass occurrences of fluorosis. Which basically confirms the FDA provided toxic, heavy metal poisoning to potentially millions of Americans.

Now then, it dramatically more cost effective to simply ensure people have fluoridated products available to them. And globally the statistics clearly show this provides equal or superior protection to what the FDA forces and does so without poisoning the general public.

The simple fact is, water fluoridation is toxic, is unhealthy, is almost impossible to monitor for safety, has poisoned millions of Americas, is expensive, and serves no benefit over that of simple off the shelf products. When you add to this that there are well documented studies proving a lowering of IQ in children and brain changes in adults, only the most evil of fucks support water fluoridation.

1
20

[–] chirogonemd 1 points 20 points (+21|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Most of the research to be found on the effects of fluoride at the cellular level is performed on rats. There was one particularly interesting study performed in India on children who drank well water with high levels of fluoride, and it dramatically effected their dentition and their thyroid gland hormones.

There have been quite a few adverse effects from exposure to fluoride documented. The ones that I would personally be concerned about as a possible carry-over to human beings with consistent life-long exposure would be:

(1) Fluoride displaces iodine in the thyroid gland. This upsets the amount of active thyroid hormone in the system, which is basically the "throttle" of your cellular metabolism. Thyroid hormone is incredibly important for just about every tissue and organ system.

(2) Fluoride disrupts matrix metalloproteases (MMPs) in the bone. This actually causes you to lay down more bone, but its structure is compromised and weak. The data show that rates of osteopathic fracture have increased since fluoridating water. The rates of hip fracture track very nicely with the introduction of fluoride into our water.

(3) Fluoride seems to induce stress by reactive oxygen species in a concentration dependent way. Exposures of 1 mM sodium fluoride creates oxidative stress in hippocampal (brain) cells. Low concentrations also increase ROS in the blood. As concentrations get higher, the thymus becomes effected. The kidneys seem the most resilient, as we'd expect, and weren't effected until quite high concentrations. FLUORIDE DOES CROSS THE BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER. It is without question potentially neurotoxic, but again this is concentration dependent, and the possible psychiatric/psychological effects of long term exposure are not known. This makes me afraid of just throwing fluoridated water at an infant in the womb. This is because the infant in the womb becomes contextually more like the observed rat studies, smaller, more vulnerable to a given concentration, and has brain matter which is not fully developed. This could have lifelong impacts on the organism. A concentration that may be deemed "safe" for a 150 lb. adult, is likely to be much riskier for a fetus that can fit in the palm of your hand. (But oh boy, the mother might have a 15% less likelihood statistically of developing a tooth cavity!).

(4) There is a still a lot of research going on as to the combined effects of fluoride and other heavy metals. The predominant cell signalling pathways activated by fluoride change when there are things like aluminum present. The jury is out still.

Overall, I think there are very good reasons to avoid fluoridated water. It is a reckless experiment for what...cavity prevention? Of course, human beings are more resilient to toxins than rats as just a factor of body mass and the sophistication of our detoxification pathways. But we get into unknown territory when we talk about acute versus chronic exposures, bioaccumulation in tissues like the bone, and what effects are observed over a LIFETIME of exposure in the milieu of other metals.

Just from a general common sense perspective, and on a philosophical basis, it seems outlandish to institute compulsory drugging of an entire population via something as fundamental to their lives as water. Especially when you consider the relative ease of access to fluoride products that can be applied with water and a brush, making the exposure only temporary and less systemic. Given we know there are systemic effects from intake, to compel people to drink it rather than just say, "brush your fucking teeth", verges on conspiratorial. In fact, I think it crosses that line. Given the affordability of fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash, that we continue to fluoridate the water supply in developed countries is absurd.

0
1

[–] Someguy667 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It hardens bone... you penual gland(trid eie)

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

[Deleted]

1
22

[–] knightwarrior41 [S] 1 points 22 points (+23|-1) ago 

Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that fluoridation is a medical treatment as claimed by opponents for over 60 years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as claimed by the Ministry of Health.

0
9

[–] TheKobold 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

God damn right it is.

0
15

[–] fartyshorts 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

Started because of aluminum production. Good con.

1
18

[–] RecluS 1 points 18 points (+19|-1) ago 

Since you brought it up. You guys should NOT be using deodorant / antiperspirant that has aluminum. It is literally a neurotoxin. I prefer Toms of Maine unscented. Bitches love it. As long as you shower daily and are well kept it allows women to smell your pheromones more.

0
6

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

I use some weird kind without aluminum too. 👍

0
4

[–] lifes-not-fair 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Don't use anything. Shower daily. If needed, use rubbing alcohol in a spray bottle.

Body odor is largely related to various foods. Garlic is obvious. But meat also increases body odor.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/31/8/747.abstract

0
3

[–] 475677 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

A clean man doesn't need deodorant. That shit is to stop you from sweating so much which it never does unless you get the good shit from the chemist and it always hides your natural smell. If you sweat so profusely that you stink to high hell though you're going to need a shower to get clean anyway and then you go back to smelling normal which if you're like an indian and smell like curry and death is easily changed by fixing your diet and getting your body fit so you don't sweat as much in the first place and when you do the people around you smell clean eating instead of how you treat your body like a dumpster.

0
1

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

Can confirm.

1
8

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Here is the study and here is the damning paragraph from the abstract:

The standardized weighted mean difference in IQ score between exposed and reference populations was –0.45 (95% confidence interval: –0.56, –0.35) using a random-effects model. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses also indicated inverse associations, although the substantial heterogeneity did not appear to decrease.

Note that in this context "significant" means "scientifically significant", or "provable to actually exist" I want to know whether they controlled for wealth and race. Also i want to see a lower p.

edit: I've read a bit more and it looks to me like they're p-hacking.

0
2

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

it looks to me like they're p-hacking.

Why do you say that? I don't see any signs of p-hacking (changing analysis and/or testing lots of variables looking for a 'significant' effect). In fact they deliberately ran tests to try to exclude p-hacking (funnel tests etc).

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

0
1

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

Interesting. I'm curious to know which way the arrow of causation goes, or whether some third thing causes both.

0
0

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I doubt lower IQ leads to fluoridation...

0
0

[–] Saufsoldat 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The thing is that the studies uses a completely different definition of "high-fluoride areas" than most of your retards. They were talking about places in China where the ground water is polluted with that shit and the levels are several times higher than anywhere in the US.

1
0

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

Huh. I grew up in the mountains, and our water came from a reservoir replenished by glacial runoff.

I'm smart as fuck... compared to people who must've grown up with fluoride water. Forest for the trees and all that, but I don't feel that smart.

0
7

[–] Durm 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You have to wonder how, unless everyone habitually swished tap water around their mouths for 10 minutes a few times a day, it was ever supposed to help.

Fluoride is a calcium replacement for remineralization, and will bond in spots with missing calcium atoms, because of similar size. It is used because of the well documented difficulties of getting calcium to self-assemble with an existing tooth, which would need a lot of very special circumstances to work. In the absence of acids that pull calcium atoms off, this property is actually what makes calcium so amazingly stable and work so well for teeth.

I'm not sure if there was ever any real proof that having elevated fluoride in the tummy and maybe blood, would ever make it to the surface of the tooth where the erosion would occur. And I'm not sure for whatever new formation from the inside I would ever want fluoride to bind instead of the calcium if it even could. If it did, imagine how the less stable fluoride accidentally getting mixed in would make a child's adult teeth more prone to issues for the rest of their lives, being imbedded through out.

0
6

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

Fluoridation is mass retardication.

0
3

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

The US program didn't get kicked into high gear until the seventies. It was the eighties before smaller communities had fluoridation. Anyway, some other research recently found that IQ scores have declined significantly (I think 4.5 % was indicated in the stuff I read) since that time frame.

0
6

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

Meanwhile I find opinion pieces suggesting mass lithiation of drinking supplies explicitly to influence psychology. This is a strange world.

0
1

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

(((Anna Fels))), no surprises there

1
4

[–] rosche 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I was surprised to read that NZ had fluoridation. I thought the US was pretty much the only "civilized" country to be doing it, albeit at the cost of a 5% deficit in IQ compared to the rest of the world. The Chinese did a study 15 years ago, and determined the figures to be in that range IIRC.

Today, when IQ scores are equalized for culture, the Chinese come out about 5% higher than Americans. If any country wanted to medicate the population for malleability, wouldn't it be the Chinese, since they're so much about control? Yet - they saw the damage, and decided it wasn't good for the country.

We've been on spring water ~20 years.

0
3

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

That's been changing. For a long time the US was the only country. Since the 1980s or 1990s it has been expanding out to other countries. In spite of the fact that the science is very clear that it serves no purpose other than to dispose of industrial waste and potentially injuring health. IIRC, last count I saw was around eleven countries had been suckered. They continue to push the effort even though there is no benefit in doing so compared to established practices within these countries adopting it.

It's almost as if people intend to lower IQs and prevent critical thought.

0
1

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

Based on your comment, I looked it up. It seems there's a sprinkling of fluoridation in places like Africa and South America, involving small numbers of people. The really big users of fluoridation are the UK, US, Canada, Singapore, Ireland, and Spain. No fluoridation in most of the rest of Europe, India, China, most of latin America, and so forth. So - most of the world still has full cognitive ability. Guess that's good to know. Also - might be a good bit of info for deciding where to vacay.

0
1

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

Sorry to hear that. There's a real good alternative to fluoride, for people who mistakenly believe it helps the teeth. Nuts. Yep - regular old nuts - almonds, cashews, etc - are really able to stop tooth decay. They are very high in fat (but it's the good kind of fat) - and that coats the teeth and starves the bacteria (which can't eat fat). I've been doing it for about 7-8 years, every day at least a handful. Was losing teeth before then, none since.

2
-2

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

How are those cavities? Faggot

load more comments ▼ (21 remaining)