Comment Archives: stories: Feature
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
"Fluoride is a toxic molecule that wreaks extensive, often irreversible, havoc on the body. The thyroid is particularly affected by fluoride exposure because its store of iodine is depleted. Iodine deficiency depresses the thyroid's metabolic and immune functions, resulting in hypothyroidism and lowered immunity.
Unlike iodine, which the body cannot store long-term, fluoride is a problematic and persistent toxin. Its effects are systemic and only about half of what is ingested can be excreted; the rest is stored in bones and tissues, blocking access to other elements, like iodine.
Fluoride and iodine are both halogens. Fluoride, the negative ion of the element fluorine, easily displaces iodine in the body because it is much lighter and therefore more reactive.
Fluoride exposure can come from multiple obvious and not-so-obvious sources. In addition to dental hygiene products and drinking water, many breakfast cereals, juices from concentrate, soda and other processed foods contain alarming levels. Fluoride-containing pesticide use means that the environment is being flooded with fluoride by conventional agriculture (http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pesticides.htm). Also, many antidepressants contain large amounts of fluoride and are widely prescribed, often for a lifetime of use.
Lack of iodine shuts down production of thyroxine, the thyroid prohormone that controls metabolism, and, in one way or another, impacts every aspect of health.
But the action of iodine in the thyroid is not limited to metabolism; it also has an important immune function. If the thyroid is deficient in iodine, a critical step in immunity will be reduced or eliminated." Marianne Leigh
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/031317_fluoride_iodine.html#ixzz2Sl8hN2US"
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
More synonyms in that entry: healing, elixir, placebo, treatment
Fluoride is also an elixir, a placebo and a treatment by your logic.
I need to clarify what an ad hom attack is for you btw. It would have been an ad hominem if I would have said "well your opinions don't matter because you're a troll." Asking if you're participating in behavior that is like a troll is not an attack on your credibility. It's a question about your intent.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
http://thesaurus.com/browse/medication
You'll find a word there that starts with d. Maybe thesaurus.com is in on the conspiracy as well!
Fluoride in the water is being used for EXACTLY the same purpose as that link.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
It's a legitimate question given you won't respond to a single refutation against your evidence.
Anyway. Let's recap.
1. Europe isn't a progressive hive mind
2. That Chinese study wasn't in a controlled environment
3. Lobbyists aren't inherently evil and neither are PACs. (Unless you consider lobbying for the Umatilla and emergency room doctors evil.)
4. Your definition of drug is bizarre and unfounded.
Since you haven't refuted anything up there, I win!
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Home said: "tcraighenry: Are you for real? druginfo/meds is in the url. The first section id 'Why is this medication prescribed?' WTF?"
Yup, WTF, indeed. Why, when it talks about products labeled as medications with fluoride in them, do you then call fluoride a drug. You're making a leap that your link doesn't support.
"I was refuting the statement "fluoride is not a drug." Which is a common, and intentional error, on the pro side."
No, you didn't refute anything. Nowhere in that link is fluoride called a drug, which is what you're claiming it is. The pro side isn't making an error in pointing this out and you have yet to support your claim to the contrary. It seems the common and intentional error lies in your argument, not the argument on the pro side.
"It is being used as a drug - the NIH agrees."
No, it is being used in products labeled as medications. It is *this* specific definition that NIH agrees with. They do *not* call it a drug, as you do.
"I know the pro side hates it being called a drug, because then you can say it forced medication, and be entirely accurate. Still that pesky thing called the truth."
No, the pro side sees the ridiculous idea of calling a mineral a drug because it isn't a drug. You need it to be falsely labeled a drug for your argument about "forced medication" to have any weight, which it does not.
Is adding iodine to salt forced medication, too? Do you even know why iodine was added to salt?
So, yes, about the pesky thing called truth. You don't seem to be working with much of it on your side.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
tcraighenry: ? Your ad hominem does not serve this discussion. Perhaps you should look in a mirror.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
I gotta ask at this point. Homer are you just trolling?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
A topical cream for something like acne is also a medication. Would you call that a drug?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Errr, that last post should have been directed at LobicSabre.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
tcraighenry: Are you for real? druginfo/meds is in the url. The first section id "Why is this medication prescribed?" WTF? I was refuting the statement "fluoride is not a drug." Which is a common, and intentional error, on the pro side. It is being used as a drug - the NIH agrees. I know the pro side hates it being called a drug, because then you can say it forced medication, and be entirely accurate. Still that pesky thing called the truth.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Prescription medication =/= drug. Would you call a topical cream a drug? Not to mention the word "drug" doesn't really mean anything in a medical sense.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
Lobbyists:
Jessica Adomson lobbies for:
Northwest Career Colleges Federation
Oregon Public Broadcasting
Brielyn Atkins lobbies for:
Oregon Violence Against Women PAC
Christel Allen lobbies for:
American Lung Association of the Mountain Pacific
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians
Oregon Housing Authorities
James Anderson lobbies for:
American College of Emergency Physicians, Oregon Chapter
Jeff Anderson lobbies for:
United Food & Commercial Workers Local 555
Anyway, just a few names from our state.
http://www.oregon.gov/OGEC/Pages/forms_pub…
(I believe they have to register, so there's your list.)
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Homer said: "LobicSabre: Funny, the NIH seems to think fluoride is a drug - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginf…"
Funny because they never actually call it a drug on that page. Did you read it before you posted that link.
Further, why would you reference a page talking about medicinal fluoride when we're talking about fluoride added to public drinking water? The two are similar things, but not the same. Nowhere in that page does it talk about fluoridated water. It talks about fluoridated dental products.
Your false equivalency makes your argument invalid.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
LobicSabre: Funny, the NIH seems to think fluoride is a drug - http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginf…
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
"Lobbying is just a group of people acting on behalf of another group of people because the original people don't have time to hang around Salem or wherever. "
Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Man, I have some great swamp land in Florida you might be interested in.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@Paul Cone, chiropractors and acupuncturists *are*, for the most part, quacks.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
1. They don't really have anything. The reason China stopped putting fluoride in the water was because they couldn't adequately control the dose they were providing alongside the pollution and run off in the water. Also China is really fucking big. They have to use steam powered trains to get across the country. But that's the study they like to harp on.
2. They don't refute the ADA or the CDC's claims that fluoride in the water is a good thing.
3. Lobbyists and PACs aren't inherently evil Mr. Burns style organizations trying to kill us with aluminum manufacturing bi-products.
4. Europe isn't a singular entity. When pointed out that countries in Europe do have fluoridation, they got nothing.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@brenna, fluoride isn't a drug. Your argument is invalid. See point #2 in the article above.
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
@disastronaut: So, you don't have any specific rebuttal to the article so you resort to poisoning the well? That's so typical of anti-fluoriders. Grow up!
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Re: “The Sanest Arguments Against Fluoride...”
"natural news"