Fluoridation Is Meant To Treat Tooth Decay

Promoters of fluoridation clearly claim that fluoride chemicals are put in the water to treat tooth decay, a disease, therefore it’s a drug: anyone denying that fact is just plain ignoring the reality of the definition of a drug.

By putting a fluoride chemical in the water supply that everyone has to drink and can’t avoid other than at great cost, it becomes mass medication, 100% of the population are targeted with the drug. However, only children are the expected beneficiary of this medication, less than 17% of the population. That’s wrong. Arguments that even non children’s teeth also benefit are the worst misrepresentations ever made akin to out and out lies

Ask a pharmacist, if there is any drug:
a) where you don’t control the dose?
b) that can be given to everybody?
c) not requiring individual supervision?
d) that does not have FDA approval?
e) not requiring monitoring for side effects?
There are no published government data on acute and chronic side effects of fluoride because they refuse to do them. If you don’t look, you don’t find. The absence of research is not evidence of absence of harm.

Toothlessness from tooth decay is highest in the states that are the most fluoridated; just look here: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/hea_ora_hea_los_of_nat_tee-health-oral-loss-natural-teeth.

The sky is not going to fall when fluoridation stops, but tooth decay and dental fluorosis will as well as a large number of other illnesses like Alzheimer’s, arthritis, Fibromyalgia, cancer, and the list goes on and on.

Hasn’t anybody else noticed that as we’ve polluted our water and the rest of our environment, illnesses of all kinds have been on the increase over the past 6 decades? Well, in case you haven’t been paying attention, fluoride rates right up there as a major human and environmental toxin with Arsenic, Lead, Mercury and Uranium238 found in the very chemical stew that this fluoride chemical comes in.

Councillors and the whole medical bureaucracy need to take their heads out of the sand and look around at the overwhelming evidence against fluoridation. It’s time to stop this nonsense, time to to stop believing senseless, ignorant, overpaid bureaucrats who refuse to look at recent research on the subject telling us myths and fables about what’s good for us.

About fluoridationfree101

I'm a webmaster, science researcher, mathematician and nutritionist who has beat the ravages of chemical sensitivities, especially the harm done to my health by fluoride substances.
This entry was posted in bones, Chemistry, drinking water, Environment, Fluoridation, Fluoride, Health, hydrofluosilicic acid, legal, Truth, water and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Fluoridation Is Meant To Treat Tooth Decay

  1. Jack says:

    If you are going to make such bold claims as “The sky is not going to fall when fluoridation stops, but tooth decay and dental fluorosis will as well as a large number of other illnesses like Alzheimer’s, arthritis, Fibromyalgia, cancer, and the list goes on and on.” then I suggest you put your sources and research in the article. Other than that you are just making uneducated assumptions and making yourself look like a fool. Its called science. Use it.

    Like

    • Why should I do your work for you.

      Each of the statements made in the article are verifiable with a quick search. Look here http://slweb.org/ for the best source for both sides of the argument. If you make the slightest effort at all, you will be surprised and appalled at what you’ll find. Get off the grid and the mainstream lies you’ve been led to believe.

      As a fluoride poisoned person, currently recovering from illnesses caused by that event in 1989, I can assure you that what’s in this article is true and factual.

      This is an article, not a scientific research paper and is part of a synthesis of over two years of intensive research. If I find any errors in anything I write, I quickly make corrections. So far, I have found nothing that refutes anything I’ve said in this one or anything else I’ve ever written on the subject.

      If you don’t look, you don’t find!

      You are jumping to the uneducated assumption that I don’t know what I’m talking about and inferring that I’m a fool, which is the position you are putting yourself in by this name calling tactic, the refuge of a those with no answers, no argument…

      Your comment is very disingenuous at best and lacks genuine concern.

      Like

  2. There are some attention-grabbing deadlines on this article however I don’t know if I see all of them center to heart. There’s some validity but I will take hold opinion until I look into it further. Good article , thanks and we want more! Added to FeedBurner as properly

    Like

    • I think you meant “headlines” instead of “deadlines”
      “center to heart” ???
      I will take hold opinion = I will withhold my opinion

      Odd though that you say “Good article”

      Of course there will be more.

      Like

  3. Jack says:

    I apologize that my opinion is formed by scientific research and intelligent reasoning. I encourage you to investigate the possibility that you perhaps have a hypersensitivity to fluoride. A not so uncommon reaction to this element. I find it pretty hard to believe you were “poisoned” by fluoride and in the context that it is delivered, leads me to imagine that you were held down and fed Flinstone’s fluoride vitamins for days until you crapped, thought, and became fluoride. Just suggesting you investigate the possibility that you are simply hypersensitive to this element, and perhaps you have, but you refuse to believe it.
    Secondly, I applaud your efforts at avoiding fluoride. Pretty damn noble if you are pulling it off because it truly is everywhere. Also, I do encourage research into the possibilities of the deleterious effects of fluoride, and stay current in my research, but to date have found nothing in current research possessing a correlation mathematically significant to bleep on a radar screen. So you as a mathematician can certainly appreciate the data and certainly understand it well enough to interpret it. You can’t make direct causal claims without data to inexplicably back it up. I suggested changing your language or providing the direct scientific source where you draw your conclusions to fluoride= cancer, fibromyalgia, and alzheimers. Cancers have numerous causes and the fact you boil it down to simply fluoride is causal is stupidity and blatantly incorrect. You could have failed out of an online university and still have not come to that radically unintelligent conclusion. I have another one for you. Cell phone=causing brain cancer. I hung up my phone so I am clearly not getting brain cancer. Same logic and reasoning go into my ridiculous conclusion as what goes into yours. Also, the process by which Alzheimers, an autoimmune disorder, is developed is far to extremely complicated to dive into in this comment, but I can sum it up for you. The process is the accumulation of amyloid plaques on the brain. This is due to incorrect folding and assembly of the protein infrastructure of certain regions of the brain. And fluoride is not known in any way shape or form to interfere with protein assembly, packaging or transport. I am sorry sir but you are absolutely incorrect in your assumption and radical conclusions. Just remove that portion. That and a couple others in there that you downright well know are incorrect. AKA the graph you reference in the middle of your article. Also the treatment of tooth decay??? Where in the world did you get that? The goal isn’t treatment. Tooth decay is an irreversible process and is incurable. Hence, why at a dentist you hear drills and removal of tooth structure is the only cure. The goal of fluoride is prevention. And the science is out. IT WORKS!
    Thirdly, I suggest you look at the longevity of people keeping greater than 50% of their dentition vs the populations with severe caries experience and rampant tooth loss associated with carious exposure. I do know this is certainly a direct correlation to quality and longevity of life and don’t require pop science to back me up. And a side note to your claim that toothlessness is highest among states with fluoride exposure…. Your graph states nowhere that fluoride exposure is highest in those states. Factor in socioeconomic status and access to dental care and tell me where your graph leads you. Good health to you sir, but please don’t allow yourself to extrapolate your negative experience to a global issue that is a call for sounding alarms and negatively effecting the generations to come.

    Like

  4. I would like to show thanks to you for bailing me out of this particular challenge. Because of researching through the the web and obtaining notions which were not pleasant, I figured my life was gone. Living devoid of the solutions to the problems you have fixed as a result of your entire write-up is a serious case, as well as the kind which might have adversely affected my entire career if I hadn’t encountered your web site. That natural talent and kindness in playing with all the things was valuable. I don’t know what I would have done if I hadn’t come across such a stuff like this. I’m able to at this moment look forward to my future. Thanks a lot very much for your professional and result oriented guide. I won’t think twice to endorse your blog to any individual who should have guide about this matter.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s