The ingredient revealed as your daily poison?

[VideoJinx]

you know.. if you'de stand up on your own 2 feet and look around I'm sure you'd find something.

http://www.healthsalon.org/246/dca-studies-on-humans/

Take a look. It's still under studies.. now.. I'm not recommending this, but I put it up here for those interested.. IF you're dieing of cancer and DCA can fix it would you prefer to die of canc or if "completely proven as a cure" would you try DCA and live with the "undetermined side-effects"?

let me also say this, DCA isn't the only option.

Also, Rocky .. will you stop derailing the topic?


As for Flouride Here you go
http://curezone.com/dental/fluoride.html

 

[-Origin]

you know.. if you'de stand up on your own 2 feet and look around I'm sure you'd find something.

So, what you're saying is... Search 4 ourselves?

 

[VideoJinx]

I'm saying, put your mind for use. I'm not a TV, don't leech, discover.

 

[SailorAlea]

Award Winning Video on Fluoride Deception:
Part 1:http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo
Part 2:http://youtube.com/watch?v=7hW0_UMtsb4
Part 3:http://youtube.com/watch?v=5NFOnQQMnx4&feature=related
Ty for posting Deman, but as a believer of a certain group trying to poisen us through food ect.

I'de say those standards are incorrect. Flouride is an industrial waste product.



The Book on Fluoride Deception:
http://books.google.com/books?id=q3...gLQ&sig=bG-KfhUsmobmabHbPILPTiUelL8#PPA218,M1
------------------------------------------------------------

How do you think flouride GETS into those other products? Mostly because they use flouridated water in their production. Soda is made of what? Mostly water.

If you're just going to repeat yourself, I'll do the same. The dental health industry as well as our legislative bodies, consumer-protection agencies and the FDA agree that flouride's benefits outweigh the risks. Your child is at the highest (yet still small) risk until they can be taught to spit. If you're overly concerned, don't buy flouridated tooth paste and give them bottled water until they learn.

Without the tooth paste, the nearly irrelevant, residual amount of flouride in other products could never add up to the "benefits" level of flouride, much less the detrimental level.

I trust the ADA and CDC's findings on fluorosis levels (http://www.ada.org.au/media/Fluoridenow/Documents/AmDA fluoridation_factsRO.pdf and http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23) much more than "CUREZONE.COM."

 

[Rocky]

you know.. if you'de stand up on your own 2 feet and look around I'm sure you'd find something.

What you fail to realise and this is really important so read slowly. I don't want to look for myself, I am happy living my life the way I live it. You're the one coming here and projecting your beliefs to me and the others on this forum. If you want to do that, go right ahead nobody is stopping you, but remember that when you do this, you're gonna get criticisms and you're gonna get non-believers. If you are so determined to educate this forum, YOU need to provide the evidence, and not fall back on your SEARCh 4 urself!! backup line, nobody is buying it.

Take a look. It's still under studies.. now.. I'm not recommending this, but I put it up here for those interested.. IF you're dieing of cancer and DCA can fix it would you prefer to die of canc or if "completely proven as a cure" would you try DCA and live with the "undetermined side-effects"?

let me also say this, DCA isn't the only option.

If you're dying of hunger and mcdonalds, tap water and sodas are the only things available, would you rather die of hunger or take the food you can get? It's the same thing. Btw, from what I remember of the thread, DCA had proven side effects that were harmful to the body, the only "undertermined" thing was how bad it would stuff you up.

Also, Rocky .. will you stop derailing the topic?

I'm not derailing anything, what I have to say is very valid, and if a moderator feels otherwise they are free to give me a warning. Don't use "derailing the thread" as an excuse not to confront your shortcomings.

 

[-Origin]

I'm saying, put your mind for use. I'm not a TV, don't leech, discover.

For someone who's not a TV, you sure spew a lot of video's onto this forum.

 

[Grega]

Jinx let me ask you this. Define "killing you"

Life itself is killing you. Everyone dies its the process of life. Killing us slowly? Allmost every transportation device does that to. You inhail so much poison every day and your body is exposed to radio waves 24/7. Yes jinx, radio waves are bad for you. Every single comodity that humans invented is harmfull to us in some way yet we still expand our lifetime because of those things. Medicine is harmfull to the bodey but it allso has positive effects. So just because medicine is actually poison are you really going to say you will never ever take a single pill?

Cause thats what you are hinting with this fluoride thing.

 

[VideoJinx]

What you fail to realise and this is really important so read slowly. I don't want to look for myself, I am happy living my life the way I live it. You're the one coming here and projecting your beliefs to me and the others on this forum. If you want to do that, go right ahead nobody is stopping you, but remember that when you do this, you're gonna get criticisms and you're gonna get non-believers. If you are so determined to educate this forum, YOU need to provide the evidence, and not fall back on your SEARCh 4 urself!! backup line, nobody is buying it.

If you don't see it yet, I'm not here to "Sell" you anything.. so discard my info at your will, in other words "There is nothing to buy". Also, nobody is stoping you from living your life, and if that includings being fed information so be it, but notice when you are fed info and you accept it.. your "buying" it.

Three independent groups of scientists determine that fluoride in the water is the cause of dental mottling

1933 According to a study by Freni in 1994 (71), in 1933 and again in 1984 that fluorides produce cumulative generational effects on biological organisms.

1940 "Fluoride inhibits neuromuscular activity". Ref: Russo, G. Att.Acad. Sci. Nat.., 1940.

1940 Soviet concentration camps maintained by fluoride administration to inmates to decrease resistance to authority and induce physical deteriorization.

1942 "Fluorine may cause anoxia in the newborn and shorten the period of their survival" Ref: Himwich, H.E., et al., American Journal of Physiology, 1942.

http://curezone.com/dental/fluoride.html
just a few quotes from the above link

I trust the ADA and CDC's findings on fluorosis levels

I'm just curious, why do you?

Cause thats what you are hinting with this fluoride thing.

No I haven't

 

[SailorAlea]

I'm saying, put your mind for use. I'm not a TV, don't leech, discover.

I'd suggest you do the same. The website you listed, "CureZone.com," lists unsubstantiated research as fact.

The Center for Disease Control states that no link established link exists between flouridation and cancer:

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/osteosarcoma.htm

I quote:

A number of studies regarding water fluoridation and osteosarcoma have been published in the past. At this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.

CDC continues to strongly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to prevent and control tooth decay and to improve overall health.

CDC has recognized community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Why do I trust the CDC's findings more than CureZone.com? Let's see. One is an established institution trusted with the protection of its populace and is subject to constant, worldwide scientific and political scrutiny, and the other is an obscure, crack-pot conspiracy theorist website that claims that certain debunked research supports conclusions the facts do not.

 

[Rocky]

If you don't see it yet, I'm not here to "Sell" you anything.. so discard my info at your will, in other words "There is nothing to buy". Also, nobody is stoping you from living your life, and if that includings being fed information so be it, but notice when you are fed info and you accept it.. your "buying" it.

How are you any different to the mass media that "feeds" information, all you do on this forum is post (supposedly) relevant material about what's currently killing us. If you're not here to "sell" your way of thinking, please explain to me. What are you here for?

And as much as I'd like to try, I can't search for that myself so an answer would be very helpful.

 

[MC]

MC might be able to back me up on this since I'm pretty sure it was his article I'm referring to, but wasn't that miracle drug to cure cancer (DCA) toxic to humans in large doses? How is that any different to flouride? Please Jinx, if you do nothing else in life, answer this question.

I believe it was Vox Dei that pointed it out in that discussion. But from what I can recall, DCA is toxic to humans in large doses. Then again, as it's been stated a handful of times in this thread, anything in large doses is usually not good for you.

A lethal dose of Sodium Fluoride is between 5-10 grams for a 70kg (about 150 lbs) human. According to the "Active Ingredients" label on the back of a "Colgate Total Mint Strip Gel" (toothpaste) I have in front of me, 0.24% is Sodium Fluoride. While the exact composition of the toothpaste isn't labeled, 0.24% seems like a really low percentage for it to really do a whole lot of harm.

 

[VideoJinx]

independent committees of experts

I wouldn't bank on one source. You have to see the big pic through many sources.

comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies.

Systematic - Purposefully regular; methodical.

as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.

Notice, it says the reviews don't support the notion that flouridated water is linked to cancer. Try searching the link of BONE Cancer and Fluoride.

CDC continues to strongly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to prevent and control tooth decay and to improve overall health.

Notice, they support the notion of putting fluoride in our water. Ask yourself why. Look for the parrents of CDC.. or maybe their partners and see what they do =]

CDC has recognized community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

Promoting its further use.

Why do I trust the CDC's findings more than CureZone.com? Let's see. One is an established institution trusted with the protection of its populace and is subject to constant, worldwide scientific and political scrutiny, and the other is an obscure, crack-pot conspiracy theorist website that claims that certain debunked research supports conclusions the facts do not.

are you basicly saying you trust them because they're an "Authentic or authoritative figure".

 

[SailorAlea]

I wouldn't bank on one source. You have to see the big pic through many sources.



Systematic - Purposefully regular; methodical.



Notice, it says the reviews don't support the notion that flouridated water is linked to cancer. Try searching the link of BONE Cancer and Fluoride.



Notice, they support the notion of putting fluoride in our water. Ask yourself why. Look for the parrents of CDC.. or maybe their partners and see what they do =]



Promoting its further use.



are you basicly saying you trust them because they're an "Authentic or authoritative figure".

Your last post contained absolutely nothing substantive. The CDC is under constant political and scientific scrutiny. The government is a slow-moving entity because so much debate ensues before virtually any decision.

Which is a more reputable source? The CDC and ADA (which are two reputable sources) or CureZone.com, posting debunked research as fact?

Would you like me to add a poll to this thread?

Obviously the CDC promotes further fluoride use--as they've found it's safe and has positive benefits.

That CDC link SPECIFICALLY addresses BONE CANCER, which is called OSTEOSARCOMA. Did you even READ the link? That's the name OF the link!

 

[Grega]

No I haven't

Radio waves can cause heart problems aswell as genbetic problems that may even include cancer or worse. Stop using the mobile phone and all devices that require radio waves to operate!

Fluoride can lead to [insert all the things you posted in here im to lazy to check back all 3 pages]. Stop drinking water that contains it and stop using toothpaste that contains it!

I honestly see no difrence.

 

[Rocky]

How are you any different to the mass media that "feeds" information, all you do on this forum is post (supposedly) relevant material about what's currently killing us. If you're not here to "sell" your way of thinking, please explain to me. What are you here for?

And as much as I'd like to try, I can't search for that myself so an answer would be very helpful.

Quoting myself in the hope you respond.

And in addition to what Grega has said, how is trusting a cancer-cure drug that is poisonous any different? So don't take drugs either cause they can kill you.

Read this about Chemotherapy, a way to treat cancer.

Harmful and lethal toxicity from chemotherapy limits the dosage of chemotherapy that can be given. Some tumours can be destroyed by sufficiently high doses of chemotheraputic agents. Unfortunately, these high doses cannot be given because they would be fatal to the patient.

Source

It's the same thing, small doses of something bad can have beneficial effects.

 

[-Origin]

Such as alcohol.

 

[VideoJinx]

Your last post contained absolutely nothing substantive. The CDC is under constant political and scientific scrutiny. The government is a slow-moving entity because so much debate ensues before virtually any decision.

Slow-moving, something to keep in mind. Along with "pre-planned works".

Which is a more reputable source? The CDC and ADA (which are two reputable sources) or CureZone.com, posting debunked research as fact?

The question shouldn't be which is more "reputable", it should be which is more "accurate".

Would you like me to add a poll to this thread?

If you feel the need to..

Obviously the CDC promotes further fluoride use--as they've found it's safe and has positive benefits.

Hrm.. are you sure they havent Underminded/Suppressed anything? I'de go look around abit.

That CDC link SPECIFICALLY addresses BONE CANCER, which is called OSTEOSARCOMA. Did you even READ the link? That's the name OF the link!

The NRC Committee found the overall evidence on osteosarcoma to be tentative and mixed, and no recommendations were made related to this health concern for revising current allowable fluoride levels in drinking water.

Let me add this definition in as well.

ten·ta·tive (tnt-tv)
adj.
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.
2. Uncertain; hesitant.


--------------

Such as alcohol.

Did i mention fluoride was found in beer?

 

[Rocky]

Such as alcohol.

You need lots of that to be able to stand reading this thread.

 

[SailorAlea]

Slow-moving, something to keep in mind. Along with "pre-planned works".



The question shouldn't be which is more "reputable", it should be which is more "accurate".



If you feel the need to..



Hrm.. are you sure they havent Underminded/Suppressed anything? I'de go look around abit.





Let me add this definition in as well.

ten·ta·tive (tnt-tv)
adj.
1. Not fully worked out, concluded, or agreed on; provisional: tentative plans.
2. Uncertain; hesitant.

Exactly. They found that the evidence had no clear indication that it was dangerous at the recommended, low levels which are beneficial.

You're posting an unreputable source that is suggesting already-debunked-research is fact.

"no recommendations were made related to this health concern for revising current allowable fluoride levels in drinking water." They found NO reason to change the current allowable levels of fluoride based on that research.

Once again you have posted nothing substantive.

 

[VideoJinx]

Sigh.. stick to that if you want.. but I'de google more lol..