Vaccinations

[Mahk]

Looking at flouridation of water from a vaccination perspective I can see the potential for benefit, however there are many who have adverse reactions to flouride in the water and unlike chlorine it does not readily evaporate over short periods of time. .

Incorrect. There is no such thing as "people with adverse reactions to municipally fluoridated water", the category of people simply doesn't exist and that's the single most important reason why fluoridating the water supply makes such good sense from a public health point of view; it benefits everybody and harm's no one. The scaremongers have successfully duped millions into thinking there are risks, but there simply aren't.

[Notice, everyone, how every single rebuttal to my above statement from other forum members I am about to receive will lack any citations from any medical or dental peer-reviewed scientific or scholarly journals, even though we have been studying fluoride constantly, non-stop, for over a half century with almost 4000 individual published studies on record documenting its safety!]

Yes, if one swallows an entire tube of fluoridated toothpaste you'll have stomach upset and if you do it continually for some time may develop some serious problems, but fluoridated water at the standardized concentration of 1 ppm has only one known drawback and that's an estimated 5-10% of people will develop very mild fluorosis, an entirely cosmetic only condition that most people won't even know they have, because it requires a dentist viewing your teeth from a distance of a just few inches to detect (small white areas on the tooth surface).

If you drink tea, you are consuming a beverage that contains 400% the concentration of fluoride (4ppm) as American fluoridated water, BTW.

[bradders]

fluoride and chlorine cause my gums to bleed and consequently mouth ulcers too (in mouthwash and toothpaste, even the pink water at the dentist causes me problems) at least with chlorine in the water it evaporates. Switching from standard mouthwash to a aspirin gargle and from toothpaste to salt and water has reduced massively the number of ulcers I have, my gums no longer bleed (unless the dentist forgets) and my teeth are actually whiter than they were before. Many doctors agree that there is no one size fits all dosage (I will find sources when I have time) and so fluoridating water through the tap is not an appropriate course of action. If my area started fluoridating the water I would have to start buying bottled water which on the whole is less safe and more harmful to the environment.

[cvC]

There is no such thing as "people with adverse reactions to fluoridated water"

I wonder how you explain this then?


Three dialysis patients died from fluoride poisoning at the University of Chicago Hospital when equipment meant to filter out fluoride from the water supply malfunctioned.

There are also more stories of death and injury caused by fluoride at this link, including what it says is a reference to an Associated Press article about Elk dying a decade earlier than would otherwise be expected after drinking the naturally highly fluoridated water in Yellowstone Park.

http://searchwarp.com/swa370917.htm


Notice, everyone, how every single rebuttal to my above statement from other forum members I am about to receive will lack any citations from any medical or dental peer-reviewed scientific or scholarly journals

Something I found after a bit of googling:


The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report indicating that kidney patients are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects forcing the American Dental Association (ADA) to admit on its website that fluoride is a concern to kidney patients

http://www.inspire.com/groups/us-news-health/journal/kidney-foundation-drops-fluoridation-support/

The link below is to an article from a British organisation called the Institute of Science in Society and where various authoritative evidence against fluoridation is given, including, for example, that:


Five major epidemiological studies from France, the UK and the US show higher rates of hip fractures in fluoridated regions

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NotoFluoridation.php


we have been studying fluoride constantly, non-stop, for over a half century with almost 4000 individual studies on record documenting its safety!

I'd be interested if you could describe in detail just one study that supposedly documents the safety of fluoride. I am aware that, according to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California, the early fluoridation trials are:


especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude

http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm


fluoridated water at the standardized concentration of 1 ppm has only one known drawback and that's an estimated 5-10% of people will develop very mild fluorosis, an entirely cosmetic only condition that most people won't even know they have, because it requires a dentist viewing your teeth from a distance of a just few inches to detect (small white areas on the tooth surface).

England's department of health has apparently presented a review stating that 48% of children in "optimium" fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis, considerably more than the 5-10% you mention.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NotoFluoridation.php

There are pictures of dental fluorosis at the link below, which can be more than "small white areas on the tooth surface" and which it quite obviously does not require "a dentist viewing your teeth from a distance of a just few inches to detect". What does fluoride does to the soft tissue of the rest of the body when it does this to the protective enamel of teeth?

http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/biology.html


If my area started fluoridating the water I would have to start buying bottled water

The link below is to a worrying article from last year that begins:


Drinking bottled water should be made as unfashionable as smoking, according to a government adviser.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3325745/Bottled-water-%27is-immoral%27.html

[Mahk]

Bradders, toothpastes and special fluoride rinses one gets at the dentist are another matter entirely, some people have sensitivities to those, I was talking about fluoridated drinking water. It will have no effect on your gums or mouth ulcer situation you get from toothpaste and/or dental fluoride rinses which have concentrations thousands of times higher than standard fluoridate drinking water. If your community were to switch to fluoridated water there would be no reason for you to have to buy bottled water. If on the odd chance your dentist actually told you this, which I doubt, he is either very ill informed or was simply trying to relax your fears, because he could sense your trepidation that you thought you would be in a difficult situation if your community were to change, so he was explaining alternatives simply to pacify your psychological fears.

Drinking tea, which as I mentioned has 400% the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water, has no ill effects on your mouth, right? [Unless of course hot liquids, in general, are also triggers to your mouth issues, in which case I'd be pointing out that iced tea wasn't a trigger.]

[bradders]

as I say I would rather not drink bottled water but given I have a known sensitivity to fluoride there's no way I'm drinking fluoridated water.

[bradders]

Iced tea is yucky and yes I do get a mild reaction to some teas. I tend to drink Assam tea which has a very low level of fluoride indeed when compared with other types. It should still be my choice whether to have fluoride in the water I drink. If other people want it let them have fluoride drops but not force it on others.

[Mahk]

[Notice, everyone, how every single rebuttal to my above statement from other forum members I am about to receive will lack any citations from any medical or dental peer-reviewed scientific or scholarly journals, even though we have been studying fluoride constantly, non-stop, for over a half century with almost 4000 individual published studies on record documenting its safety!]

So far I am 100% correct (regarding cvC's post). All we have are links to different peoples' delusional misinterpretations, half truths, or third party hearsay telling us what some other sources supposedly says. [Like we're supposed to buy that. Oh brother:rolleyes:] Letting us read the actual scholarly papers directly, however, is a big no no for the anti fluoride scaremonger organizations, so they never provide direct citations for us to go examine the original source material ourselves, otherwise we might learn the truth about what the original paper actually says, and not their distortion(s) of it.

CvC, any chance you could move your post to the fluoride thread instead? This thread is about vaccinations.

[cvC]

So far I am 100% correct (regarding cvC's post)

Perhaps people will decide for themselves about that.


CvC, any chance you could move your post to the fluoride thread instead? This thread is about vaccinations.

My previous post is a response to one of yours about fluoride in this thread. Do you really think I should be answering it in a different one. I had referred here to your failure to come up with the "overwhelming evidence" you'd claimed concerning fluoride in the relevant thread. I did this in response to your nasty harangue of another member for not producing something that you'd demanded here and which he hadn't even claimed to exist in the first place. It was therefore relevant, as I've tried to explain twice already.

[Mahk]

It should still be my choice whether to have fluoride in the water I drink. If other people want it let them have fluoride drops but not force it on others.
Logically I would assume you feel the same way about chlorine which is routinely added to public drinking water too, right?

[Mahk]

Perhaps people will decide for themselves about that.
Gee, maybe I missed it. Which one of your seven URL's was a citation or direct link to a medical or dental peer-reviewed scientific or scholarly journal?


http://searchwarp.com/swa370917.htm,
http://www.inspire.com/groups/us-news-health/journal/kidney-foundation-drops-fluoridation-support/,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NotoFluoridation.php,
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm,
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NotoFluoridation.php,
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/fluorosis/biology.html,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3325745/Bottled-water-%27is-immoral%27.html

By my count, zero.

[bradders]

Logically I would assume you feel the same way about chlorine which is routinely added to public drinking water too, right?
chlorine evaporates so it is easy to get rid of the chlorine by getting a jug of water from the tap and putting it in the fridge for a while before drinking and it is necessary to disinfect the supply due to inevitable contamination in the distribution system. If it were not a necessary part of water distribution then I would say that it shouldn't be included.

[cvC]

chlorine evaporates so it is easy to get rid of the chlorine by getting a jug of water from the tap and putting it in the fridge for a while before drinking

I don't know much about chlorine, but does it really make much of a difference to the chlorine content in tap water to let it evaporate for a while? I don't personally feel like reading through them at the moment, but there are a couple of links below that I've bookmarked about chlorine. The second is to a Daily Telegraph article in which it states at the beginning that:


Babies born in areas where drinking water is heavily disinfected with chlorine are at double the risk of heart problems, cleft palate or major brain defects, according to a new study.

http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/2000/articles/2000-v15n02-p089.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2066421/Babies-exposed-to-chlorinated-water-at-risk-of-heart-problems.html


if it were not a necessary part of water distribution then I would say that it shouldn't be included.

I again won't claim to know much about this, but think that ozonating the water might be one alternative. It's years now since I've been to a swimming pool and one big reason for which is chlorine, but here is a worldwide directory of pools I found that either have no or reduced chlorine and in some of which the water is ozonated:

http://piscinasana.wikidot.com/

Ozone is also incidentally being used to treat teeth and which you can read more about here:

http://www.dentalozone.co.uk/healozone.html

[bradders]

chlorine genuinely evaporates quite quickly as it is a suspension in water. It varies according to temperature, pressure and volume but the chlorine in a wide jug of 1l of water will evaporate after around 1-3hours while a lie cleaning keg filled with water containing more concentrated chlorine may take as much as 12 hours. Getting a half pint glass of water from the tap and leaving it to stand for about half an hour will remove much of the chlorine. But hardly anyone does this anyway mind you few enough people know that there is chlorine in the water to begin with.
Anyway, this is a vaccination thread so I'll say no more on the subject of water chlorination.

[Mahk]

If it were not a necessary part of water distribution then I would say that it shouldn't be included.

It's not. Many, if not the majority, of the world's nations add no chlorine to their water supply.

Although you may leave your water in an open container for several hours prior to use [:confused:], almost nobody else does, and certainly the makers of beer, reconstituted fruit juice, soft drinks, beverages in general, foods in tins with water, soup, tea and coffee away from your home, etc are just straight water from the tap, chlorine and all. Even many brands of bottled water were recently exposed to be nothing more than city tap water.

Your several hour evaporation routine you mention also does nothing for the chlorine you absorb in the hot steamy shower, which is said to be greater than what you drink! [you are inhaling the fumes, I think.]

So, net result, shouldn't the vocal minority that opposes it have the right to have this toxic poisonous chemical* removed from their water supply, Bradders? Or perhaps is there a more important overriding interest? Should we ask the scientific community or just go by whoever yells the loudest and has the best scaremongering?
---
[Addressing the main thread, not just Bradders now.]

Fluorine is chlorine is vaccine.

They are all good.

In science, there is no "debate" on them, we know what saves lives and contributes to overall public health and we know what kills lives and harms overall public health. Scientists study these concepts constantly and modify them, accordingly, as need be. Are there some rare cases where a person might have an allergic reaction to one of them, maybe even die? Sure, but that doesn't mean we pull the product from the market entirely, folks, when for 99.99% of the general population it saves millions of lives, diseases, and infections yearly. What's better? We save one person from a deadly chlorine allergic reaction or we keep 10,000 people from catching typhoid from drinking non-chlorinated water, many of which will die?

This concept of having to concede to the science-phobic people and allowing them to harm the general public health because of their superstitious ways, annoys me and endangers my family and my community, IMO.

We are all entitled to an opinion, you all just heard mine.

*[Chlorine gas was used by the Germans in WWI and was one of the earlier forms of chemical warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_poison_gas_in_World_War_I).]

[bradders]

It's not. Many, if not the majority, of the world's nations add no chlorine to their water supply.
and their water supply is not really safe drinking water and those who drink it risk many water borne infections as chlorine is needed to keep the water sanitary on it's journey from treatment to tap. In British cities it is not quite as needed as elsewhere due to reduced dependence on water towers. In Ireland, much of the Mediterranean, the US and many rural areas water disinfection is vital as a result of high dependence on external water towers that are not completely sealed or regularly inspected and maintained and lengthy water distribution systems.
In many parts of Ireland there is no chlorine in the water, our old water scheme just used lime to treat the water. This is not without it's problems. Firstly the water was condemned for human consumption due to high levels of microbes when we became subject to health inspection and the situation continues. The ridiculously high levels of lime (mineral not fruit) required to treat water causes heavy sedimentation, corrosion, breakdown of pumping systems and domestic appliances including heating systems.
In the meantime people were drinking the water believing it to be clean because it tasted better than town water and it was clear while in many other areas it was brown. Many of those areas that had brown water incidentally had safe water largely due to the use of chlorine in the water.

There are many stages along the route of the water supply where any microbes or parasites have the opportunity to multiply to dangerous levels including in tap aerators. But the chlorine in the water does a pretty good job of dealing with that.

During the brewing process the majority of chlorine is removed and the same goes for many beverages and food stuffs. Interestingly fruit and vegetables are washed with water with a higher concentration of chlorine than pool water. Again chlorine will on the whole evaporate from the surface before consumption anyway leaving nothing more than a harmless salt.

Would I prefer that there was no chlorine added? Sure but if the public drinking water is to be truly safe right the way to the glass then it is unavoidable.

Now I really will say no more on the subject.

[veganatheist78]

Public vaccination programs are essential to maintain the health of everyone. Without them, preventable epidemic disease would spread like wildfire. In vaccinating yourself and your children, you're protecting not only our own and their health but also the health of others.

[cvC]

Can anyone tell me why this page in has become really wide and, even without my bookmarks up, I have to move it accross to read a line? Perhaps there's an innocent explanation, but there is information here that I can believe certain members don't want people to be aware of and I'm just wondering if someone has done something to make it more difficult to access.

[Mahk]

Again chlorine will on the whole evaporate from the surface before consumption anyway leaving nothing more than a harmless salt.

Would I prefer that there was no chlorine added? Sure but if the public drinking water is to be truly safe right the way to the glass then it is unavoidable.

Just a harmless salt you say? Did you know:

"The drinking of chlorinated water has finally been officially linked to an increased incidence of colon cancer. An epidemiologist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities completed a study of colon cancer victims and non-cancer patients and concluded that the drinking of chlorinated water for 15 years or more was conducive to a high rate of colon cancer."

Health Freedom News, January/February 1987

"Long-term drinking of chlorinated water appears to increase a person's risk of developing bladder cancer as much as 80%," according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some 45,000 Americans are diagnosed every year with bladder cancer.

St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987

"Although concentrations of these carcinogens are low...it is precisely these low levels which cancer scientists believe are responsible for the majority of human cancers in the United States." Report Issued By The Environmental Defense Fund

"Chlorine itself is not believed to be the problem. Scientists suspect that the actual cause of the bladder cancers is a group of chemicals that form as result of reactions between the chlorine and natural substances and pollutants in the water." (organic matter such as leaves and twigs.)

St. Paul Dispatch & Pioneer Press, December 17, 1987

"Greenpeace reports have found chlorine-based compounds to be the most common toxic and persistent pollutants in the Great Lakes."

"The chemical element chlorine is a corrosive, poisonous, greenish-yellow gas that has a suffocating odor and is 2 1/2 times heavier than air. Chlorine belongs to the group of elements called halogens. The halogens combine with metals to form compounds called halides. Chlorine is manufactured commercially by running an electric current through salt water. This process produces free chlorine, hydrogen, and sodium hydroxide. Chlorine is changed to its liquid form by compressing the gas, the resulting liquid is then shipped. Liquid chlorine is mixed into drinking water and swimming pools to destroy bacteria.

Until recently, concerns about drinking water focused on eliminating pathogens. The chlorine used to reduce the risk of infectious disease may account for a substantial portion of the cancer risk associated with drinking water."

Source: Pure Earth (http://www.pure-earth.com/chlorine.html)

There are any number of ways to make water safe without the use of toxic, poisonous chlorine and as I mentioned most of the world doesn't use chlorine so there is no reason we have to. Boiling, filtration, ionization, reverse osmosis, UV exposure are but a few of the ways. Surely, just like fluoride, we have no right to force this dangerous and unnecessary ingredient into the water supplies of those who don't want it (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/08/10/1711387.htm).

Look what happens to your stomach if you drink water containing chlorine right after drinking Coke:
gwIgF24l1Ik

:p

[cvC]

I think another tactic they might be using is to seek to always have the last word.

[Quantum Mechanic]

Can anyone tell me why this page in has become really wide and, even without my bookmarks up, I have to move it accross to read a line? Perhaps there's an innocent explanation, but there is information here that I can believe certain members don't want people to be aware of and I'm just wondering if someone has done something to make it more difficult to access.

:hmm: That sounds pretty paranoid. That happens all the time on VF and other forum sites, at least for me. To suggest a sinister motive, seems a bit strange and out of the blue, unfounded.

EDIT: The page wasn't wide at all for me prior to posting, but then after I posted it was really wide. Just an observation I'm throwing out.

[cvC]

:hmm: That sounds pretty paranoid. That happens all the time on VF and other forum sites, at least for me. To suggest a sinister motive, seems a bit strange and out of the blue, unfounded.

Yes, I anticipated that someone might accuse me of being paranoid and did accept in my post that there might be an innocent explanation for what I'd described. There is information here that is very damning of water fluoridation and, on the previous page, vaccinations, which both affect a lot of people, and I don't consider it unfounded to wonder if there are those who are seeking to obscure it. I've also seen pages at other sites become really wide and thought it might be something to do with putting large photo's up, but that hasn't happened here and so I was just wondering what had.


EDIT: The page wasn't wide at all for me prior to posting, but then after I posted it was really wide. Just an observation I'm throwing out.

I posted several times on this page yesterday and without it widening for me that I recall.

[bradders]

the page widened because of the very long line of '------------------------------------' in Mahk's post

[cvC]

the page widened because of the very long line of '------------------------------------' in Mahk's post

Thanks for explaining, bradders.

[Mahk]

Which post? I'll fix it.

Everything looks fine to me because I have a 1920 by 1200 pixel, very large monitor, so I can't easily tell. It all fits just fine for me.

edit to add: Assuming it was post #264, I just cut the -----down to half. Sorry folks.
Everything OK now?


[Note to self: Communist plot to take over world using the "------" trick has failed. Must try inserting secret ingredients into
vaccines, to induce mind control, instead.];)

[bradders]

that fixed it, mines a petty low res minitor