cactus flower wrote:

I too am open to being convinced either way, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence.

It current studies are not conclusive, I suppose we are back with the issue of the precautionary principle.

The problem with the precautionary principle is that it really doesn't help much. Everything carries a certain risk (c.f. the US lawsuit currently trying to block the CERN LHC in case it causes the universe to implode). The real problem is identifying the actual risk as against the benefits and the levels of uncertainty surrounding them. In this case, it's just not clear cut at all - you can come down on either side reasonably (and personally my position on this has changed several times as I have encountered new evidence). On the other hand I think it's overwhelmingly clear that, whatever the risk, it's pretty darned low - hence the uncertainty. The 44 year programme of mass poisoning has corresponded with great leaps in life-expectancy and if it really were a hugely dangerous poison, we'd expect to see a different pattern.

chekov wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I too am open to being convinced either way, on the basis of the best available scientific evidence.

It current studies are not conclusive, I suppose we are back with the issue of the precautionary principle.

The problem with the precautionary principle is that it really doesn't help much. Everything carries a certain risk (c.f. the US lawsuit currently trying to block the CERN LHC in case it causes the universe to implode). The real problem is identifying the actual risk as against the benefits and the levels of uncertainty surrounding them. In this case, it's just not clear cut at all - you can come down on either side reasonably (and personally my position on this has changed several times as I have encountered new evidence). On the other hand I think it's overwhelmingly clear that, whatever the risk, it's pretty darned low - hence the uncertainty. The 44 year programme of mass poisoning has corresponded with great leaps in life-expectancy and if it really were a hugely dangerous poison, we'd expect to see a different pattern.

I would be inclined to agree that with blocks of population drinking it over that period, it should be possible to draw some conclusions. I'm not in the position to comment on the scope and quality of the studies.

The precautionary principle is not likely to give cut and dried answers that will keep everyone happy all the time but is a useful approach to ensuring that possible negative outcomes are appropriately weighted in decision making. Catastrophic outcomes should not be risked for modest gains.

I am not sure that I am too happy about the boys with their toys at CERN throwing stuff about to see what happens. If you wanted to talk about that, there is a thread here somewhere...

Aragon wrote:

But Ibis nobody is asking you to form an opinion based on 'wild claims'. You don't deal with the specifics of what Soubresauts is saying - and disgregard scientificaly valid studies which have been presented to you in this thread. I can refer you for instance to Paul Connett's article above - which is comprehensively linked to many studies that you can read through. If there is any 'wildness' in this situation, it is the claims of the fluoride promoters about the desirability of polluting our drinking water with the stuff.

I have read everything Soubresauts points to over the last couple of years, largely as a result of Soubresauts' threads. I have read the other material as well, and don't see any reason to think the argument is an open and shut claim as both you and he seem to think. I certainly don't see anything to suggests that fluoride is a major health risk, and the idea that "th' guv'mint is puttin' stuff in th' water" just doesn't give me the hysterics, I'm afraid.

Aragon wrote:

In the final analysis, the idea of enforced medication is simply wrong - medically and ethically.

Leaving aside fluoridation for the moment, I have no problem with legally required vaccination, or any other public health measures. The huge advance in health that we enjoy compared to the 19th century is the result of such measures, and the exaggerated concerns on individuals give them no opt-out rights as far as I am concerned.

chekov wrote:

The problem with the precautionary principle is that it really doesn't help much...
On the other hand I think it's overwhelmingly clear that, whatever the risk, it's pretty darned low - hence the uncertainty. The 44 year programme of mass poisoning has corresponded with great leaps in life-expectancy and if it really were a hugely dangerous poison, we'd expect to see a different pattern.

What an extraordinary series of value judgements! Unsupported too. Chekov, you don't seem to realize that you are, effectively, rubbishing nearly all of the NRC 2006 report. Try reading it first.

And what is the "great leap" in life-expectancy in Ireland since 1964? Are you aware that Ireland has one of the lowest figures in the EU?

cactus flower wrote:

I would be inclined to agree that with blocks of population drinking it over that period, it should be possible to draw some conclusions. I'm not in the position to comment on the scope and quality of the studies.

I can enlighten you: There hasn't been one study. Zilch. The health effects (apart from dental) of 44 years of fluoridation on the population of Ireland (the only democracy with mandatory fluoridation) have never been studied by medical researchers.

Quote :

The precautionary principle is not likely to give cut and dried answers that will keep everyone happy all the time...

"If in doubt, leave it out." Looks cut and dried to me.

ibis wrote:

I have no problem with legally required vaccination, or any other public health measures.

Jeez! Very revealing.

And you still affect loyalty to John Gormley and the Green Party!

There's nowt as queer as folk.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

I have no problem with legally required vaccination, or any other public health measures.

Jeez! Very revealing.

Yes, I imagine it is. Do you also oppose mandatory vaccination?

soubresauts wrote:

And you still affect loyalty to John Gormley and the Green Party!

There's nowt as queer as folk.

I have disagreements with some of what the Greens espouse, or have espoused over the year, but they're still several fields ahead of any other Irish party in any direction I want to go in.

ibis wrote:

Do you also oppose mandatory vaccination?

Of course I do.

Quote :

I have disagreements with some of what the Greens espouse, or have espoused over the year, but they're still several fields ahead of any other Irish party in any direction I want to go in.

Can we take it that one of your disagreements is with the Greens' Health Policy on fluoridation? That states:

Quote :

The Green Party has always opposed the fluoridation of water supplies and the latest evidence emerging from the united States fully vindicates our position. In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation.

soubresauts wrote:

ibis wrote:

Do you also oppose mandatory vaccination?

Of course I do.

Which makes you a danger to public health. I've neither time nor respect for that position.

soubresauts wrote:

Quote :

I have disagreements with some of what the Greens espouse, or have espoused over the year, but they're still several fields ahead of any other Irish party in any direction I want to go in.

Can we take it that one of your disagreements is with the Greens' Health Policy on fluoridation? That states:

Quote :

The Green Party has always opposed the fluoridation of water supplies and the latest evidence emerging from the united States fully vindicates our position. In Government we would immediately ban water fluoridation.

I don't much care about it, to be honest - and every time I look at your comments on the issue, I care a little less.

soubresauts wrote:

What an extraordinary series of value judgements! Unsupported too. Chekov, you don't seem to realize that you are, effectively, rubbishing nearly all of the NRC 2006 report. Try reading it first.

Sigh. An attempt to estimate risk and uncertainty = "an extraordinary series of value judgements" and one that comes from an obvious position of ignorance "try reading it first".

soubresauts wrote:

And what is the "great leap" in life-expectancy in Ireland since 1964? Are you aware that Ireland has one of the lowest figures in the EU?

Almost 10 years since 1960 as it happens: http://www.cso.ie/newsevents/pr_lifetable0103.htm

The government's multi-faceted poisoning programme seems to be limited in its success.

Its five o'clock lads. You have all fought the good fight and I do feel marginally less confused about the issue. Thank you for all the links and thought provoking comments. Why dont we all go and have tea with slim buddha in the signing in sticky. Or else, have you tried the Decontamination Chamber. I usually drop in for a few minutes around five o'clock.

chekov wrote:

Almost 10 years since 1960 as it happens: http://www.cso.ie/newsevents/pr_lifetable0103.htm

Thanks for the link. It shows that the rise in life expectancy was greater in unfluoridated countries than in Ireland.

Quote :

The government's multi-faceted poisoning programme seems to be limited in its success.

Clutching at straws...

Chekov, if you don't particularly object to fluoridation, would you tell us how you rationalize the forced medication of the whole population?

Since Ibis has raised the subject of enforced vaccination I’d like to ask folk to stand back and consider a few things about this phenomenon.

The medical profession admit that they do not fully understand the workings of the human immune system.

They admit that the most significant factors contributing to resisting and surviving disease are proper nutrition, access to clean water and sanitation – and not vaccination . These are responsible for the widespread reduction in disease. Throughout the world today, wherever people are dying from ordinarily survivable diseases, nutrition and living conditions are still the cause of the problem.

It is not disease but deadly poverty resulting from our global economic system that is mostly responsible for killing these people.

There is another contradiction in the proponent’s argument as set out by Ibis : they dismiss the incidence of side effects from vaccinations as being insignificant and say the benefits outweigh the risks. Why not apply the same principle to naturally occurring disease? For the vast majority of well nourished and housed people, these diseases represent no threat. Why are the minority in one case more significant than in the other? The benefits to the majority of not vaccinating are infinitely preferable to the damage done to them otherwise.

As to the science of the medicine itself, the first thing to understand about vaccination is that it permanently destroys the possibility of life long immunity to diseases caught naturally. This is a vital and fantastic gift from nature, acquired over millennia, which it is monstrous arrogance to start tinkering around with. Vaccines are, from this point of view, the systemic equivalent of lobotomy. In many instances, booster vaccinations are needed throughout life. How is that an improvement on lifelong immunity acquired naturally? Like ALL medication, vaccines have effects beyond the problem they are supposed to deal with – side effects in other words. The fact that these get written on the packaging in smaller letters than the alleged benefits does not mean they are less significant. With successive vaccinations, there are cumulative effects on people. The effect on the human immune system of vaccination of successive generations is also not understood – how the mother’s artificially altered system affects the developing child and how the child’s own subsequent vaccinations act on the in-vitro experience. Medical science has not even begun to explore many of these vaccination issues. And yet it claims with its customary and strident chauvinism that there is no problem. Those who want answers to these questions are deemed stupid for even thinking of them. We are to shut up and do what we are told.

There are thousands of unknowable possibilities. What is the effect of a vaccination on someone who may have undetected cancer? Undetected Hypothyroidism? Undetected glandular fever (quite common)? These are all circumstances in which the immune system may be impaired and vulnerable to external assault. And remember, unlike naturally occurring disease, vaccines come with poisonous preservatives and other substances and, critically, nowadays often flood the system with three or even four different types of disease. It is virtually unheard of in the normal run of events that a person would catch so many diseases at once. The same people who were rubbishing the notion that vaccines laced with mercury preservatives caused autism have had to back down when it was proved that the mercury was indeed responsible. But their arrogance and certainty remains undimmed. Having removed the thimerosol from childhood vaccinations (though not everywhere) it continues to be used in others – like flu jabs for the elderly. Who cares about them, right?

Even among its most ardent proponents, you will not find a doctor who will guarantee that vaccinations are safe. And certainly there are millions of people who have experienced side effects. Immediate death from vaccination would be pretty strong evidence of their undesirability, which is what some people want the anti-vaccination lobby to be able to point to – as if all the other consequences were unimportant beside that. That said, some people have indeed died from them. I know of many people who have had devastating experiences with vaccination. Just one example: the 18-year old daughter of a friend of mine developed Rheumatoid Arthritis – a serious disease of the immune system – following a vaccination she had a year ago in preparation for a trip to Africa. Within days she was confined to a wheelchair. She now spends a lot of her time in severe pain, completely incapacitated because every single joint in her body is affected - and will have this condition for the rest of her life. There is no doubt that it was the vaccination that caused this – even her doctors have admitted it. She is pumped full of steroids – another devastating form of medication with serious side effects – to help counter the effects of the vaccination and to make it possible for her to do something with her life during periods of remission.

And aside altogether from any of the above, the notion that we can ‘eradicate’ disease is utterly preposterous. As well attempt to eradicate death itself. Disease will exist whatever lunacy we perform upon our precious immune systems. The question is learning to live optimally with the fact of disease, that yes, some people no matter what, will suffer more than others. The exact same thing is true of vaccination – except that vaccination is an infinitely inferior solution to what our bodies were already capable of doing for themselves.

Have just popped Dr. Strangelove into the laptop.

Dr Mary Grehan -- wasn´t she a PD? -- writes a column in the weekly Irish Medical News (whose website is down at the moment). In the latest edition, in the course of a fierce attack on the Greens (Lightbulbs, greenies and Sellafield), she writes:

Quote :

The Greens always stated that they were uncomfortable with the fluoridation of the country´s water supply. The mass medicating of the general population without the consent of that population i.e. the fact that fluoride is being added to our drinking water without our consent.

Many of our population cannot afford to buy bottled water and must drink what is provided. The problem of fluoridation has not been addressed and the Greens have not introduced any decision to deal with it. However, when they became part of the Government they decided that the ordinary water supply was excellent and bottled water was the bad guy.

A week or so later, Mr Gormley makes a trip to Galway to make a statement and tell us that he is about to hand over €16 million to improve the quality of the Galway water supply...

But policy with regard to water is floundering whereas policy regarding fluoride is going nowhere. It is easy in opposition to demand clean water. It is easy to demand a change in policy as regards fluoride but the carrying through of such changes must be thought through and carried out step-by-step. Being in Government is not easy...

There is always talk, talk, talk in opposition. Tell everyone what to do in Government and there now is barely a whimper. Power, they say, at all costs and to hell with previous policies. Compromise should never be part of Government.

Since the Greens will do nothing about fluoridation, we must look to Kathy Sinnott, who's beavering away on this issue, yesterday in Limerick.

Meanwhile, more globally, 2000 professionals, including nearly all of the world's experts on fluoride, have joined the call for an end to water fluoridation.

soubresauts wrote:

Since the Greens will do nothing about fluoridation, we must look to Kathy Sinnott, who's beavering away on this issue, yesterday in Limerick.

Meanwhile, more globally, 2000 professionals, including nearly all of the world's experts on fluoride, have joined the call for an end to water fluoridation.

Ah Bjork you're back, how's Iceland.

I think after seeing a recent alex jones show on flouridation and other food additives I think now i've got the paranoia about it. If there was a decent filtering machine then I think I'd buy one but I think it's an osmosis yoke or a distillation rig up. I'm really not sure I like the idea of putting stuff into my digestive and blood system that there is a question mark over.

Do you know what the stance of European Directives etc. are on flouridation ? There's none done in Germany is there ?

Quote :

"As a member of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, it became clear to me that the Irish policy of contaminating its water supplies was not just bad public health policy but in contravention of EU environmental and public health directives," explained Ms Sinnott.

http://www.limerickleader.ie/news/Sinnott-to-speak-in-Limerick.4720531.jp

from your link soubresauts. If it's in contravention of EU directives then why the hell are we doing it ? Are we not getting fined up to the back of our eyeballs for this now ?

more ...

Quote :

"Hydrofluorosilicic acid is an industrial waste by-product which is a very active and highly absorbed molecule when swallowed," she said, adding that this should not be confused with less absorbent sodium fluoride used in toothpaste and other dental products or chlorine.

Referring to a decision taken by 53 US cities who rejected fluoridation of their water earlier this year, Ms Sinnott added: "People in the US have the right to vote on whether or not they want this cumulative poison added to their water, while we in Ireland are being mass medicated by successive governments for the past 45 years with no choice in the matter."

Dunno about Iceland, but most of Europe is icy at the moment. Anyway, about the water...

Auditor #9 wrote:

I think after seeing a recent alex jones show on flouridation and other food additives I think now i've got the paranoia about it.

Who/what/where is Alex Jones?

Quote :

Do you know what the stance of European Directives etc. are on flouridation ? There's none done in Germany is there ?

EU directives may put a stop to fluoridation. There could be an important ruling soon; see this.

No, there's no fluoridation of water in Germany. But just when you're thinking the Germans are very smart (and they are very good about water supplies), you learn that most of the table salt in Germany is fluoridated. Madness. The Germans could be ingesting even more artificial fluoride than Irish people. All the popular mini-supermarket chains (Lidl, Aldi, etc.) stock only fluoridated salt.

You won't be surprised to hear that, for the past few years, Lidl (and possibly Aldi too) has been selling that fluoridated salt in Ireland. I and others were aware of it by 2004. It is illegal, since Irish people are already fluoridated through the water. Earlier this year the Irish "Expert" Body on Fluorides & Health managed to get Lidl to stop it, as you can confirm if you wade through their meeting minutes (always late, and always gobbledygook).

Whatever about fluoridated salt (prevalent in the German-speaking and adjacent countries), the only places in continental Europe with water fluoridation are in Spain -- Seville, Cordoba, Murcia, Bilbao, and a few other districts. The authorities would prefer you didn't know that...

Those minutes were interesting: a lot of data and reports and virtually no conclusions. What is the difference between the EU Directive and the group that was mentioned? Are those the most recent minutes of the group?

soubresauts wrote:

Dunno about Iceland, but most of Europe is icy at the moment. Anyway, about the water...

Auditor #9 wrote:

I think after seeing a recent alex jones show on flouridation and other food additives I think now i've got the paranoia about it.

Who/what/where is Alex Jones?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/fluoride_study_finds_horror_stories_factual.htm

cactus flower wrote:

Those minutes were interesting: a lot of data and reports and virtually no conclusions. What is the difference between the EU Directive and the group that was mentioned? Are those the most recent minutes of the group?

About EU Directives and all that -- I'm not an expert, and I don't have time right now to check out everything. Apart from Kathy Sinnott, the Irish environmental organization Voice has expertise in this area; see links here.

Yes, those are the most recent minutes of the Expert Body. The minutes appear on the website five or six months after the meeting, even though the EB meets about every three months. Apparently they need all that time to add the appropriate level of gobbledygook, paid for by the taxpayer of course. Every document issued by the EB is characterized by cover-up, deception and bad faith.

Self-harm is not just an individual thing with the Irish. We do it on a society level.

We Irish are wasters: We waste our heritage, we waste our environment, we waste our health, and we waste our money. We pay dearly to do all that.

It seems there is only one elected Irish politician willing to say anything in public about all that.