Simple fluoride question

[Praktik]

Not docility directly but damage to the hypothalamus, and the protective cellular membrane. The connection would be in damage to the brain, not low IQ. Low IQ is just a result of the damaged brain. I don't think it is a stretch to theorize that it could serve as a pacifier by harming the hypothalamus. The endocrine system relies on the hypothalamus to function properly. The endocrine system is instrumental in determining mood. Therefore it can produce a docile mood by restricting the neuron flow from the hypothalamus and the nervous system.

Ok, well - I'm no neurologist. I'd be interested if anyone here had access to the expertise to further the discussion on the point above.

It's easier for me to cautiously accept your quote as a possibility, its just I've seen it stated as fact and have yet to come across anything concrete that demonstrates that fluoride fluoride increases docility.

Since the source on this involves Nazis and Soviets, what I'd like to see is if either country has some science telling them that it increases docility in their archives. Heck, would be cool to see what their rationale was period.

 

[Without Rights]

In other words you have no real evidence but a lot theories that take the evidence and strectch it to the breaking point.
But Carry on. Our Precious Bodily Fluids must be preserved.

You use a lot of fallacious arguments.

Selective observation by being blind to every post of scientific papers and focusing on one theory, then stretching that into "a lot of theories". No just one theory with logical explanations.

Ad Hominem by saying I am stretching the evidence without actually explaining yourself. Why don't you point out the errors in my logic?

 

[Thunder]

Without- honestly now, you want to believe that fluoride is bad for you. most of us will tell you brushing your teeth with toothpaste and washing your mouth with mouthwash is just fine. you clearly DO NOT want to believe us, regardless of all the evidence and reports we provide to you.

so what are you really trying to accomplish here? convince us of your point of view? it aint gonna happen buddy.

 

[Without Rights]

Ok, well - I'm no neurologist. I'd be interested if anyone here had access to the expertise to further the discussion on the point above.

It's easier for me to cautiously accept your quote as a possibility, its just I've seen it stated as fact and have yet to come across anything concrete that demonstrates that fluoride fluoride increases docility.

Since the source on this involves Nazis and Soviets, what I'd like to see is if either country has some science telling them that it increases docility in their archives. Heck, would be cool to see what their rationale was period.

The theory is at least plausible and worth thought. I've said earlier that I don't know for sure about the Russians and I don't want that to be the focus. This is a CT thread so it is natural to mention the conspiracy aspects surrounding F use by the Nazis and Russia. And we do have testimony from a military officer, liaison to Russia, who says they openly talked to him about them fluoridating and the purpose was to dumb down and pacify the Russian serfs.

I know testimony from one guy is not 100% proof of fact, but it should at least compel a constructive debate, especially in a CT thread.

 

[Without Rights]

Without- honestly now, you want to believe that fluoride is bad for you. most of us will tell you brushing your teeth with toothpaste and washing your mouth with mouthwash is just fine. you clearly DO NOT want to believe us, regardless of all the evidence and reports we provide to you.

so what are you really trying to accomplish here? convince us of your point of view? it aint gonna happen buddy.

You have not listened to anything I said. I never said brushing was bad. I actually said that fluoride is proven to fight cavities when used topically. Never proven through ingestion. Ingestion has been proven bad.

All the evidence you provide? Where? Those three papers that only show correlation to decreases in cavities since fluorides use? Even though the same decreases, sometimes greater decreases, are recorded in countries that do no fluoridate. No studies showing it is safe, no controlled studies to show it is effective. Give me a brief synopsis on all the evidence you provided, please.


What am I trying to accomplish. What are you trying to accomplish? No one here as even remotely convinced me of positive effects from ingestion. As well, no one as even tried to look at the science I produce and find flaw in them.

 

[Thunder]

And we do have testimony from a military officer, liaison to Russia, who says they openly talked to him about them fluoridating and the purpose was to dumb down and pacify the Russian serfs.

.

and did this "military officer" provide any proof?

I guess no. Just like Rumsfeld said that Al Qaeda had giant underground bunkers in Afghanistan..but provided no proof.

Proof is in the pudding..and I see no chocolate. The Nazis and Soviets DID NOT use fluoride as mind control.

Am I wrong? Did they? Prove it.

 

[Without Rights]

and did this "military officer" provide any proof?

I guess no. Just like Rumsfeld said that Al Qaeda had giant underground bunkers in Afghanistan..but provided no proof.

Proof is in the pudding..and I see no chocolate. The Nazis and Soviets DID NOT use fluoride as mind control.

Am I wrong? Did they? Prove it.

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
You are using a fallacious argument. Burden of proof.

His testimony he cannot prove. I imagine he didn't walk around Red Russia tape recording everything. So you turn this into it didn't happen and speak of it as a fact, like you somehow have superiority over the debate. Where is your burden of proof? Are you not held to the same standard as a military Major? Where is your proof you need to come to the absolute conclusion that he lied in his testimony to congress.

 

[ktesibios]

Without, I think you misunderstand. You are making a positive claim that the Nazis and Soviets used flouride as a mind control drug, and citing an Army Major who made the same claim as evidence. The making of a positive claim carries with it the burden of proof. Unless you cite independent evidence in support, which neither you nor your Major appear to have done, the burden is not met.

Parky, OTOH. is not necessarily making a positive claim that the Major's testimony was a lie. He's simply noting that the burden of proof for your claim has not yet been met, consequently he has no BOP other than to demonstrate that your notion of evidence does not rise to the level required for the claim to be accepted. Since you have not provided any evidence other than your Major's similarly unsupported claim, this has in fact been done.

I'm no logician, but that's how i see it.

 

[Without Rights]

Without, I think you misunderstand. You are making a positive claim that the Nazis and Soviets used flouride as a mind control drug, and citing an Army Major who made the same claim as evidence. The making of a positive claim carries with it the burden of proof. Unless you cite independent evidence in support, which neither you nor your Major appear to have done, the burden is not met.


I'm no logician, but that's how i see it.

I admit I spoke of it like fact early in the thread but I was really just throwing out there. I have stated several times that I don't think it is important to the debate. I said the major is not absolute proof but lack of further proof is not proof that his claims were not true. I myself would not reject it so quickly as everyone in here does because I don't see a reason to. Parky is out of bounds when he claims fluoridation by Nazis absolutely did not happen. He requires proof to make that claim.


*Edit: I didn't read what you wrote to him so excuse my redundancy.

Let me say I don't think I have reached a burden of truth to absolutely prove Hitler and Russia used Fluoride.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Stalin murdered 20 million people. I don't think they had to say he fluoridated the water to try and demonize him.

We didn't know in the 1950s that Stalin had murdered 20 million people. The full extent of his lunacy didn't really become clear until after the fall of the former Soviet Union.

 

[Old Bob]

Sodium fluoride is toxic,and as stated earlier a brain damage agent. One way off loading rubbish and be paid for it is to sell it to the water boards. How dumb are the public to tolerate the lies that we are told. Good for your teeth Bul---it. Cavities can be caused by eating acid based foods and if the correct foods are eaten nothing bad happens. Teeth should not be cleaned for up to 5 hours after eating because food traces have minerals which attach to the enamel, re- enameling and protecting if the food is right. Time to get the pitch forks out to those bar---ds that push the blatant lie. More than one type of fluoride, look it up. As for the rest who think it's good wake up for your kids sake.

 

[Praktik]

How dumb are the public to tolerate the lies that we are told. Good for your teeth Bul---it...(snip)...As for the rest who think it's good wake up for your kids sake.

CT Pet Peeve #36: Disdain for the General Public

This telling quote gets under my skin. Its pretty common to see this type of thinking among CT adherents. We get it Old Bob, you're through the veil man.

This type of thinking has a long history though. The 60's had "hip" versus "square" society. They too were enlightened and the rest of society were blinded, unable to see the evil all around them, ambling along in their dreary, workaday lives mindlessly consuming as the "useful idiots" of the "system". What this ended up doing of course, was to alienate a large segment of the would-be revolutionaries from the source of their potential political success.

They looked down on "the general public." They saw the public as dazed sheep that needed to be slapped awake. Hence the "freak outs" and nowadays things like Zeitgeist, or seeing "9/11 was an inside job!" written on the seat handle on the bus exemplify that approach perfectly. Every revolution needs the general public or they just can't get off the ground. What they needed was an inclusive revolution, not an exclusive one that ended up living and dying on the margins of society.

Thing is, we all know there's a bunch of stupid people out there. Just get in a car and start driving, and that will become apparent very quickly. But I really think quotes like Old Bob's go too far: they're more a sign if his mental and emotional state than anything else. They're like epithets.

Commonly, it is asserted that "consumer culture" needs "sheep" who get told what to buy and then go buy it. Fact is, the engine of consumerism is driven by the need for all of us to differentiate ourselves, to demonstrate to others what makes us unique, or attractive, or intelligent or cultured or cool. Capitalism does not require a Pleasantville Society, it does better with diverse societies of individuals who prize their individuality.

Like ours. Heck, the No Logo fan club has to get their hemp shirts and granola somewhere, and dont those choices tell us a bit about who they are?

So why do they think so many people are "dumbass"? Because people shop at stores? Or litter? Or is it because they elect dumbass politicians? Or because Paris Hilton is one of the most-searched terms on the web? Or - because more people aren't filling the streets to demand an end to water fluoridation??

Or is it because it fulfills a psychological need - the same one that drives our consumer culture - to differentiate ourselves from one another. To display our capacity to "get it", to show just how much we hate the things about the current system that bother us. To elevate ourselves in the pantheon of humanity to the exalted level of "in on the secret" - even if you get none of the benefits of being "in on it" (such as fluoride manufacturing profits), you can see that game they're playing right there... oh ya, you can see...

"How dumb are the public" he says - not as dumb as you say it is Old Bob....

 

[Thunder]

Parky is out of bounds when he claims fluoridation by Nazis absolutely did not happen. He requires proof to make that claim.
.

no my friend. it is YOU who is making the claim. therefore it is YOU who must provide the proof. so far, you have only provided unreliable and uncorroborated testimony.

 

[Without Rights]

no my friend. it is YOU who is making the claim. therefore it is YOU who must provide the proof. so far, you have only provided unreliable and uncorroborated testimony.

I am not claiming the Major said those things, he absolutely said them, under oath and before Congress. How many times do I have to say that his testimony is not 100% truth?

But by your words, you are claiming 100% proof positive that the Major is lying. Burden of proof is on you. My burden of proof ended when I quoted the Major. I never claimed his testimony was fact, just that he said it. It is you who is claiming fact when you say he was lying.

 

[Thunder]

what evidence did Major provide? hearsay? "i heard some guy say something about something that was done"?

what kind of evidence is that? why wouldnt he lie about the USSR? back then, maybe even I would.

 

[Without Rights]

History is also full of dazed sheep. Such as Hitlers populous who gave him the authority to attack any nation he wanted as long as he called them Communists first. All this while claiming Germany was still a free society.

 

[Without Rights]

what evidence did Major provide? hearsay? "i heard some guy say something about something that was done"?

what kind of evidence is that? why wouldnt he lie about the USSR? back then, maybe even I would.

Why wouldn't he lie?

Hmmm, let's see. Maybe because he was a Major testifying before Congress. His career, his commission.

What would be his motivation to risk his career, a slight blight on a already extremely hated Communist nation? Was he ordered to do it? If he did it on his own, what was his motivation? Why did he want congress to think this was happening?

And hearsay is sometimes admissible evidence when there is necessity and when the witness is credible. Also when the accused has no credibility or has a record of similar acts. Most of these things where present. The Major had credibility. The accused had none. The accused was a mass murderer.

Also, Major Jordan testified that one of his tasks as liaison was to procure vast quantities of sodium fluoride from Montana and deliver to Siberia. This testimony is not hearsay.

Is there another use for fluoride that you know of? I personally don't.


I gather that even if it were the Russians who were testifying before Congress, that you would still not even consider it. What's the point of your passion? Mine is my 3 children's brains. I imagine that I am more impervious to fluoride than my kids, so that is why I have spent so much time here.

Do you have a passion for teeth? Do you despise cavities? Do you get paid to do it? (watch out Without Rights, they will focus on just that, being the big CT you are)

What, and this is definitely an open question, is your motivation for such adamant arguing for the use of fluoride?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Why wouldn't he lie?

Hmmm, let's see. Maybe because he was a Major testifying before Congress. His career, his commission. What would be his motivation to risk his career for a slight blight on a already extremely hated Communist nation.

i cant find any information about a major george jordan testifying before congress, except for fluoride CT sites

can you link to some official transcript?

but even assuming he did testify, and he wasnt lying, hes testimony is still second hand, hes telling congress what someone else told him, so we also have to assume they werent lying

 

[Thunder]

2nd hand testimony...about an evil Soviet plot to use fluoride to mind-control the people of Russia. sounds like a nutcase conspiracy theory to me.

 

[Thunder]

What, and this is definitely an open question, is your motivation for such adamant arguing for the use of fluoride?

its kept my teeth in pretty good shape and i like the taste.