Undeniable evidence from numerous studies proves that fluoride causes cancer

a reply to: Metallicus

Unsurprising to see the usual suspects parroting the Official party line. Nobody should be forced to ingest fluoride unless they consciously decide to.

If you believe the "benefits" of fluoridation outweigh the potentially harmful effects of ingesting it, then you can choose to drink it. But in a free and civilised society, people should have the choice.

It is all about moderation. Fluoride is a very simple element that sits right next to oxygen. Most dentists are nuts about fluoride because there is a mountain of evidence in favor of it for teeth health. In terms of body health and the various flavors of fluoride, it is complex.

originally posted by: Metallicus
The evidence that fluoride causes cancer is becoming overwhelming and is coming from multiple sources. My hope is that this poison will be removed from the water supply in the next decade or so, but we will see. Dumping poisonous industrial waste products into the public drinking water is big business.

The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently released a document called Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts that highlights the many health hazards caused by the consumption of fluoride. And the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) recently submitted a compilation of its own to OEHHA, which is soon to make a final decision concerning fluoride's toxicity, providing additional evidence that fluoride causes cancer.

FAN has been working for many years to raise awareness about the toxicity of fluoride, with the eventual goal of getting it removed from public water supplies. And its most recent efforts involving OEHHA could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak, as it has the potential to unleash the truth about fluoride on a massive scale, and spark a revolt against its use.

According to a recent FAN press release, OEHHA's report was birthed out of an inquiry into the science of fluoride's toxicity. It is also a prelude to the group's scientific advisory board Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) meeting to be held on October 12 - 13, 2011, which will make a decision on the status of fluoride as a carcinogen.

Source

Recently?
The document in your source was from 2011.
oehha.ca.gov...

It doesn't even state that it causes cancer so you are either misreading it or spreading misinformation.
Which is it?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: Metallicus

Unsurprising to see the usual suspects parroting the Official party line. Nobody should be forced to ingest fluoride unless they consciously decide to.

If you believe the "benefits" of fluoridation outweigh the potentially harmful effects of ingesting it, then you can choose to drink it. But in a free and civilised society, people should have the choice.

Similarly, the usual suspects are parroting the alternative "health" sites nonsense and trying to justify this by saying "we should have a choice".
Yes, you should have a choice but that choice should be based on sound information and not what has been suggested by the OP's post.

a reply to: Metallicus

Try bringing up the fluoride problem with any average person, and they will think you are a nut. You cannot question our masters, or the useful idiots come out in droves to defend them.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Consider yourself lucky. One in two Americans will be diagnosed with Cancer, and another 20something% will die from cancer.

originally posted by: Pardon?
Similarly, the usual suspects are parroting the alternative "health" sites nonsense and trying to justify this by saying "we should have a choice".
Yes, you should have a choice but that choice should be based on sound information and not what has been suggested by the OP's post.

Um, no, that is where you are wrong. The choice should be there regardless of whether there is sound information available or not. That would meet the definition of a free and civilised society. How does my decision not to drink fluoride negatively impact you?

Sound information? What you really mean is information that is approved by authoritative bodies with a conflict of interest and an agenda that is not in the best interests of the common person's health and well-being.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Can you point to the sound information in the opening post?

a reply to: Dark Ghost

How about it being used in water supplies for over 70 years?

That's a lifetime, so any real, derogatory effects on humans would have shown themselves by now.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Pardon?
Similarly, the usual suspects are parroting the alternative "health" sites nonsense and trying to justify this by saying "we should have a choice".
Yes, you should have a choice but that choice should be based on sound information and not what has been suggested by the OP's post.

Um, no, that is where you are wrong. The choice should be there regardless of whether there is sound information available or not. That would meet the definition of a free and civilised society. How does my decision not to drink fluoride negatively impact you?

Sound information? What you really mean is information that is approved by authoritative bodies with a conflict of interest and an agenda that is not in the best interests of the common person's health and well-being.

Does all drinking water have fluoride in?
No.
Therefore you have a choice to drink water with it in or drink non-fluoridated water.
What's your problem?

If you make the choice not to drink fluoridated water then that is down to a misunderstanding of the science (which is reproducible and not tied to any "agenda") or as a result of believing misleading threads like these.
If you can show me using the OP's first post where it says conclusively that fluoride causes cancer in humans then I will go and purchase a new pair of reading glasses as I can't see it.


Oh, could you inform me what exactly this "agenda" is that you speak of please?
You know, so I can make an informed choice...

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: Metallicus

Unsurprising to see the usual suspects parroting the Official party line. Nobody should be forced to ingest fluoride unless they consciously decide to.

If you believe the "benefits" of fluoridation outweigh the potentially harmful effects of ingesting it, then you can choose to drink it. But in a free and civilised society, people should have the choice.

Similarly, the usual suspects are parroting the alternative "health" sites nonsense and trying to justify this by saying "we should have a choice".
Yes, you should have a choice but that choice should be based on sound information and not what has been suggested by the OP's post.

Indeed the mainstream media has proven it has massive conflicts of interests with various industries. Why should they be considered anymore trustworthy than alternative news sites?

originally posted by: Pardon?
Does all drinking water have fluoride in?
No.
Therefore you have a choice to drink water with it in or drink non-fluoridated water.
What's your problem?

I am fortunate enough to have that choice, but for many people that cannot afford anything else but tap water, they do not have the choice. Anyway. the idea that even people who prefer to drink tap water when they can are forced into ingesting fluoride is ridiculous.

If you make the choice not to drink fluoridated water then that is down to a misunderstanding of the science (which is reproducible and not tied to any "agenda") or as a result of believing misleading threads like these.

Do you honestly believe there are no alternate agendas in the scientific community? Really?? You think every person that comprises the scientific community is concerned most about the health and well-being of the worldwide population?

If you can show me using the OP's first post where it says conclusively that fluoride causes cancer in humans then I will go and purchase a new pair of reading glasses as I can't see it.

Can you show me where I said I agreed with that particular argument in the opening post?

Oh, could you inform me what exactly this "agenda" is that you speak of please?
You know, so I can make an informed choice...

Control and money. TPTB (who I assume you don't even believe exist) do it for control purposes — while money to them is always welcome, they don't need money as much as they need control/power. For their subordinates, it's mainly about turning over a healthy profit.

Let me guess: you think I am crazy and believe the real agenda is driven by altruism and righteousness...?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Pardon?
Does all drinking water have fluoride in?
No.
Therefore you have a choice to drink water with it in or drink non-fluoridated water.
What's your problem?

I am fortunate enough to have that choice, but for many people that cannot afford anything else but tap water, they do not have the choice. Anyway. the idea that even people who prefer to drink tap water when they can are forced into ingesting fluoride is ridiculous.

If you make the choice not to drink fluoridated water then that is down to a misunderstanding of the science (which is reproducible and not tied to any "agenda") or as a result of believing misleading threads like these.

Do you honestly believe there are no alternate agendas in the scientific community? Really?? You think every person that comprises the scientific community is concerned most about the health and well-being of the worldwide population?

If you can show me using the OP's first post where it says conclusively that fluoride causes cancer in humans then I will go and purchase a new pair of reading glasses as I can't see it.

Can you show me where I said I agreed with that particular argument in the opening post?

Oh, could you inform me what exactly this "agenda" is that you speak of please?
You know, so I can make an informed choice...

Control and money. TPTB (who I assume you don't even believe exist) do it for control purposes — while money to them is always welcome, they don't need money as much as they need control/power. For their subordinates, it's mainly about turning over a healthy profit.

Let me guess: you think I am crazy and believe the real agenda is driven by altruism and righteousness...?

Fair enough.
And if they drink tap water they're also "forced" to ingest sodium, potassium, calcium, chlorine, phosphates, trihalomethanes, arsenic, cadmium, aluminium, various hormones...the list goes on.

So what harm does fluoride added to water do to you?
What are you basing whether you need to have a choice on?
Is it just a case of because you don't want it in then that's it?

Are you familiar with the way bottled water is produced and where it comes from?
Do you perform a chemical analysis of every bottle of water you consume?
I mean, bottled water is big business, the labels may not be showing all of the water's contents to lure you into a false sense of security.
If you can't trust anyone, what do you do?
Or do you source your own water from a well which you've had assayed?
Do you see what I'm getting at?
You've not really thought this through have you?

"(The agenda is) control & money".
So where does the fluoride come into it then?
Money I can understand (although I'm sure they'd make a hell of a lot more from selling bottled water) but control?
Really?
In what way does adding fluoride to tap water exercise control of people?

I don't think you're crazy, misinformed yes, but not crazy.
And other than a desire to reduce cavities in kids I don't think there's much of an agenda either.

originally posted by: riley

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: Metallicus

Unsurprising to see the usual suspects parroting the Official party line. Nobody should be forced to ingest fluoride unless they consciously decide to.

If you believe the "benefits" of fluoridation outweigh the potentially harmful effects of ingesting it, then you can choose to drink it. But in a free and civilised society, people should have the choice.

Similarly, the usual suspects are parroting the alternative "health" sites nonsense and trying to justify this by saying "we should have a choice".
Yes, you should have a choice but that choice should be based on sound information and not what has been suggested by the OP's post.

Indeed the mainstream media has proven it has massive conflicts of interests with various industries. Why should they be considered anymore trustworthy than alternative news sites?

What's it got to do with mainstream media?
It's got to do with the science and I'm afraid the "science" in this case isn't true.
It's an alternative site in the OP twisting the words and inventing a conclusion which is different to the study's.
It's there in plain sight.
Don't be delusional.

a reply to: riley

The "alternative media" in the OP was a bunch of dead links. Can't be too hard to top.

a reply to: Metallicus

To the naysayers, Harvard did a study concluding fluoride lowers IQ levels. It was mainstream news for like a few hours and was quickly scrubbed. However, after a search one found this link: hsph.harvard.edu... ...In case you don't trust those pesky ivy league schools with their secret transgender clubs there's this... www.thelancet.com...

Oddly enough most of the studies on that link were mostly done in China. According to this link, m.cancer.org... , they claim there's no evidence of it causing cancer, but long term exposure can cause skeletal fluorosis. In the UK, they noted it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken into fluoridation. Overall, the more exposure to fluoride your body absorbs the more chances of detrimental health effects occurring.

An interesting note is that,
www.webmd.com... , says it will prevent bone loss and make bones stronger. I'm not sure which site is more reputable webmd or cancer...

One thing for sure is there needs to be more independent high quality studies done not funded by people with an interest of skirting EPA regulations when it comes to dumping aluminum wastes into rivers. It's like trying to find a study that concludes GMOs cause cancer. Personally, one avoids these kinds of stuff. Oh and boron is very useful.