Australia TV aires truth about Flouride.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


There was never a problem with the title - That was a deflection by the OP when I showed the credibility of the video to be suspect. He/she countered my statement of invalidity by stating that she/he never sourced the video and simply linked any old youtube.com video, so it shouldn't matter.

As a matter of grammatical meaning, I then showed our OP that even though he/she didn't source the video (which doesn't matter - the source is the source regardless) that through her/his title, he/she demonstrated that the video itself was not just some home-made delusion rantings of a self-claiming soothsayer, but was aired on "Australia TV".

That's all, move along.

reply to post by misinformational


You can't question something's credibility by using wikipedia as a source. That's completely contradictory.

I was querying someone else's suggestion that ''Australia TV'' somehow misrepresented the truth. As far as I can see this programme did air on Australian TV, so I can't see any problem with the title of this thread.

lets see here are some facts for ya:

(I use baking soda or aurevedic toothpaste myself)

Reading the label on this popular brand...
DO NOT SWALLOW
5 percent potasium nitrate - Major uses of potassium nitrate are in fertilizers, rocket propellants and fireworks...
I want lots of that in my mouth...


Sodium Floride .243 percent- It is highly toxic but in very dilute solution (less than 1 part per million) it is thougt that it might HELP prevent tooth decay.
.243 percent....toxic at 1 part per million. .ooo,ooo,1 (I think)
Uses: Insecticide
"thought to help" who was it that was making fun of the source in the OP again...sheesh
"thought to help"


OK, explosive insecticide mixed with flavour and chalk....

Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.

One such toxic, poisonous 'byproduct' is called sodium Fluoride - which according to the Merck Index is primarily used as rat and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and as an "additive to drinking water"

Independent scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package. There is increasing evidence that aluminum in the brain is a causative factor in Alzheimer's Disease

flouride bonds readily with Aluminium and tricks the blood brain barrier into allowing it into your brain.

...Alcoa and the entire aluminum industry - with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste - SOMEHOW sold the FDA and our government on the insane (but highly profitable) idea of buying this poison at a 20,000% markup...'goes down the drain' and voila - the chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system - but we have also PAID them handsomely in the process!!

www.greaterthings.com...

Well, you now know why they don't want you to know what the real truth is:
Eventually they figure their "final (chemical) solution" will prevent you from finding out about it, or indeed even doing anything about if you did.

BTW the dental associations love stannis flouride here is why:

This medication may cause staining of the teeth or tongue. The stains can be removed by your dentist....
...OVERDOSE: If overdose is suspected, contact your local poison control center or emergency room immediately.

www.medicinenet.com...

thats why the label is in fine print







[edit on 5-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


And I'm sure if it was an MSM article, you'd all be screaming about how the PTB had influenced the media to run a smear campaign against TodayTonight because of their shocking exposes:

Miracle water treating skin conditions (apparently all that fluoride is good for something)

With a name like that, Holmes, I'd expect better critical thinking and research.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]

Today Tonight is not credible.

They once had a doctor on the TV that stated a man driving a motor bike very fast would be like a 'human catapult shot out of a cannon' and described a web forum as a street bike gang.

Wiki or not it's just fact. They say some quite dumb things. They also stated they found t-shirts that give you cancer but aren't allowed to tell you which ones I believe. Though this might have been A Current Affair.

Wiki or not, they're pretty useless and fear mongering types.

Believer or not there are more reliable sources about flouride ingestion. I might suggest the person standing outside on your local street corner.

Originally posted by misinformational
With a name like that, Holmes, I'd expect better critical thinking and research.

You display a clear lack of comprehension and logic skills.

I have offered no opinion in this thread on fluoride.
I have offered no opinion in this thread on the credibility of the today tonight programme.

All I have done is ( correctly ) challenged the poster that intimated that using ''Australia TV'' in the title of the thread was misrepresenting the link that the OP provided.

And then, once more I've ( correctly ) pointed out the flaw in you using wikipedia to question anyone or anything's credibility.

Thanks for the video.


It's funny, I was talking to my wife about this. She didn't agree with me. Why would they put it in our water if its bad for us? she said. I didnt have a strong agrument as I didnt have any provable facts about it.

I alteast can show her this video and let her decide for herself.

Intresting that so many other countries dont use it, I thought there would be more.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Ouch Holmes! After having a good cry, some replies to your retort:

You can't question something's credibility by using wikipedia as a source. That's completely contradictory.

I can and I did - so ha!

Wikipedia is a globally reviewed and sourced compilation of information. Through one's research of the sources to any given wiki article, one may draw a conclusion about the validity of any article - most are correct, sourced, and valid. That said, certainly there are peoples that manipulate the information for their own gain - this doesn't denigrate the entire site or information within as each article is individually written - all content is user-created - Which means what? *this is a good time to practice some critical thinking* It means that each article should be individually assessed for its accuracy.

More to the point, Wikipedia's TodayTonight article is accurately and credibly sourced. In fact, sourced false reports by TT are verifiable - this is direct proof that TodayTonight is not credible and any information from them should be questioned.

And where did we get this verifiable proof that TT is not credible? Come on, say it with me: Wikipedia.

I have offered no opinion in this thread on fluoride. I have offered no opinion in this thread on the credibility of the today tonight programme.

Did I imply you did either? Didn't you say something about comprehension and logic skills? Reassessing your statement above may require a bit of both.

Ok, Holmes - I think you made some real progress here today - I'm proud of you buddy! You'll have your official Thinking Hat in no time.

And if I may quote your namesake: "I play the game for the game's own sake."

Originally posted by misinformational
TodayTonight's credibility is suspect.

From Wikipedia:

Criticism Today Tonight is notorious for its sensationalist reporting, and is an example of tabloid television where stories rotate around sensationalised community issues i.e. diet fads, miracle cures, welfare cheats, shonky builders, negligent doctors etc. For this reason the program is constantly under criticism and ridicule, especially by satirical groups such as The Chaser. The show has also been found multiple times to be in breach of The Australian Communications and Media Authority's policies in regards to invasion of privacy and not Presenting factual material accurately.

Too many examples to list: TodayTonight's Criticism - False Reports

Always verify your source.

[edit on 4-8-2010 by misinformational]

This coming from someone who cited wikipedia
Are you serious?

reply to post by blankduck18


I'll point you to the post above yours.

Enjoy!

Data sheets dont lie

www.solvaychemicals.us/static/wma/pdf/5/1/6/3/SF.pdf



Do you not see the skull and bones on each one of these different bags?

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by blankduck18

 

I'll point you to the post above yours.

Enjoy!

and a point back to my post
you cited wikipedia
case closed i dont care about who aired the show

facts are facts
your a hypocrite

putting down bad sources with even worse ones
i am going to go to that page and edit it right now!
yes its that easy

reply to post by blankduck18


There is, undoubtedly, a degree of toxicity for fluoride - no one is arguing that.

But pointing to the MSDS for anything other than sodium fluoride (what's actually in the water) is rather pointless.

As stated, there is a safe level of sodium fluoride allowing in drinking water (1.5mg/L).

Also as I posted, this safe level has been scientifically reviewed in a peer-reviewed scientific article: www.nap.edu...

Is relying on sensationalist news outlets for scientific data (MSDS) any better than Wikipedia?

reply to post by misinformational



Hey look i link this thread to the wikipedia you linked
i think i just proved my point

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by blankduck18

 

There is, undoubtedly, a degree of toxicity for fluoride - no one is arguing that.

But pointing to the MSDS for anything other than sodium fluoride (what's actually in the water) is rather pointless.

As stated, there is a safe level of sodium fluoride allowing in drinking water (1.5mg/L).

Also as I posted, this safe level has been scientifically reviewed in a peer-reviewed scientific article: www.nap.edu...

Is relying on sensationalist news outlets for scientific data (MSDS) any better than Wikipedia?

You say 1.5 ml is safe?
why is it being added if doesnt help us?

Dont say to help tooth decay
thats like drinking suntan lotion to protect from sun uv light
like come on really?

reply to post by blankduck18


Articles in Wikipedia are only credible if the source of the information within the article is credible (as deemed by the researcher). And since all information for EVERY wikipedia has to be sourced, you can verify any claims made within ANY wikipedia article. Then through critical thinking and research, we able to draw a conclusion about the nature of the article and its content.

Sounds like I've said this already, in the same thread even:

originally posted by misinformational
Through one's research of the sources to any given wiki article, one may draw a conclusion about the validity of any article - most are correct, sourced, and valid. That said, certainly there are peoples that manipulate the information for their own gain - this doesn't denigrate the entire site or information within as each article is individually written - all content is user-created - Which means what? *this is a good time to practice some critical thinking* It means that each article should be individually assessed for its accuracy.

You've done nothing but show the nature of user-generated content.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by blankduck18

 

Articles in Wikipedia are only credible if the source of the information within the article is credible (as deemed by the researcher). And since all information for EVERY wikipedia has to be sourced, you can verify any claims made within ANY wikipedia article. Then through critical thinking and research, we able to draw a conclusion about the nature of the article and its content.

Sounds like I've said this already, in the same thread even:

originally posted by misinformational
Through one's research of the sources to any given wiki article, one may draw a conclusion about the validity of any article - most are correct, sourced, and valid. That said, certainly there are peoples that manipulate the information for their own gain - this doesn't denigrate the entire site or information within as each article is individually written - all content is user-created - Which means what? *this is a good time to practice some critical thinking* It means that each article should be individually assessed for its accuracy.

You've done nothing but show the nature of user-generated content.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]

Did you miss my post where i edited the sources on the page you linked the exact page your trying to preach in this thread

Here ill show you how i did it
this can be done on any wikipedia page
you click edited
type in the content
click save at bottom

Originally posted by misinformational
reply to post by blankduck18

 

Articles in Wikipedia are only credible if the source of the information within the article is credible (as deemed by the researcher). And since all information for EVERY wikipedia has to be sourced, you can verify any claims made within ANY wikipedia article. Then through critical thinking and research, we able to draw a conclusion about the nature of the article and its content.

Sounds like I've said this already, in the same thread even:

originally posted by misinformational
Through one's research of the sources to any given wiki article, one may draw a conclusion about the validity of any article - most are correct, sourced, and valid. That said, certainly there are peoples that manipulate the information for their own gain - this doesn't denigrate the entire site or information within as each article is individually written - all content is user-created - Which means what? *this is a good time to practice some critical thinking* It means that each article should be individually assessed for its accuracy.

You've done nothing but show the nature of user-generated content.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]

all wikipedia is user generated content

reply to post by blankduck18


Wow really guy?

I said that each article should be assessed by the merits and credibility of the sources linked. Since the source to the information I linked has changed, then that would require that the researcher reassess the credibility of the sources.

Come on duck, you're better than this

[edit on 5-8-2010 by misinformational]

Hey look to prove it more
someone removed the link i posted on it!


See its that easy for anyone to change content