Discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances

[4channel]

Some issues when discussed can cause a range of reactions. Sometimes they can lead to an awakening, the beginning of a journey to discovering something new, or they can can cause a certain type of reaction in a person who may not like what they hear. I think that it's all about how we choose to deal with the info we're hearing and how we process it.

Take the issues of let's say ....  fluoride and mobile phone tower radiation. The government has allowed the fluoridation of our water and they have allowed the construction of mobile phone towers in residential areas. Does that mean the water is safe to drink and it causes no ill affect? Does that mean that the mobile phone towers are safe?  What about the handsets. Are they safe for children to use and hold against their heads?

Well, we discuss these things and some people do react angrily to the people discussing these issues. Does this mean that we have to stop discussion that challenges the supposed official stance or challenges what we are told is the mainstream belief? Do we have to self-censor or have this in a [private group? I have noticed that in discussion forums or the media that racist beliefs are a;allowed a platform and yet issues that many folk feel that need to be addressed because of health concerns are not given the same platform. To me racism is abhorrent and yet in the media, it gets the pass ticket while issues that some call important to health freedom do not! Why is that?  Could it be political? What are your thoughts?

NOTE:

Spoiler

This is a discussion that some people here would be interested in while others may not be. Folks with opposing views are welcome as  always. Please, if someone has an issue with these topics being discussed or another member, could they refrain from any attacks on others or deliberately flooding this thread with off topic filler.

[domino-710]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Do you have any idea - what a ' thread ' is all about - most can go anywhich way - not always the way YOU would want.

Replies are given to a previous post - THEY ARE ALLOWED and very much appreciated - the thread grows.

Just an up - do you clean your teeth - if so - what do you use - BICARB - three times a day.

If not - bin your argument.

---

I think you'll find that most toothpastes also contain bi-carb of soda

"Besides fluoride, the other most important ingredient of a toothpaste is sodium bicarbonate, also commonly known as baking soda. This is also a polishing agent and does not negate the effect of fluoride. In addition, sodium bicarbonate helps to neutralize the oral acids and thereby preventing tooth decay."

---

Obviously - but bicarb does not contain flouride. lol

[gewens]

Hello,everyone. To be respectful is very important in your interaction with other members here. I'd like to remind you that content that is harmful, hostile, threatening, abusive, baiting, vulgar, defamatory, harassing, or includes hate or racist speech, name calling, or profanity will be edited or removed. Please read about our policy here: https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Community-Feedback/Updates-coming-to-eBay-com-au-Discussion-Boards/... Thanks very much. 🙂

[4channel]

---

* * *

---

@4channel wrote:

There is science that backs up claims that fluoride is harmful. There is science that backs up claims that mobile phone radiation is harmful. This is supported by medical professionals.With the other science that holds an opposing view,we need to think about who owns that. The media which is the conduit to our minds and shapes the perception of many, who owns that?

Do dollars$$$$$$ sometimes speak louder than the inner voice of morality?

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

But the science is not peer reviewed, and thus, science-wise, is suspect.

You seem to be suggesting that the majority of scientists are dollar driven (note the lack of attention-seeking graphics), not real scientists.

As I said, confirmation bias seems to be prevalent with your posts about these issues.

You have in the past linked to decades old posts that have, at best, several thousand views. That would tend to indicate that not many of the world's 8 billion people even think they are worth reading. Hardly confirmation of your views.

And it doesn't really matter. You have your views, I have mine. You think yours are relevant and mine aren't. I think the opposite.

I should have been a physicist. Life got in the way. But I believe in the scientific method. You don't seem to.

---

4channel writes:

Well, peer reviewed means is that the published paper has been read by one or more members of a scientific community. It doesn't mean that there have been tests done and physical scientific analysis done to determine if the paper is correct.

I don't suggest the majority of scientists are dollar driven. However some few are.

Some links that I have provided from around 2005 may be dated but they were still valid.  And "at best serveral thousand views" on a minority of the links I have provided doesn't lessen the truth. The fact that mainstream news has a strong relationship with large industry and corporations, it welds a heavy influence. ;'Right now we have two former prime ministers from two different politcal parties taking on the Murdoch media which is still seen as a colossus with a stranglehold on our news. Because of where mainstream media is at, people don't get inspired enough to look for other info. There's a thread here about what Malcolm and Kevin are doing about it. 

So you say that our views are opposite. I have no issue with that. But there is also scientific eviidence on the oppposing side.

---

Science proves that fluoride is a neurotoxin that harms children … so why are state and local governments still polluting the public water supply with poison?

01/15/2019 / By Tracey Watson

https://www.pollution.news/2019-01-15-science-proves-fluoride-is-neurotoxin-public-water.html

---

And a respected scientist is Dr. Paul Connett

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Connett2

[4channel]

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

I cannot believe we are still discussing fluoride.  There have been scare stories about fluoride for decades.  I remember when my daughter was a baby, some 50 some years ago, a well meaning friend told me I should not use tap water for mixing her formula, because of fluoride, and suggested I use mineral water. 

---

Your friend was correct. Firstly with babies, mostly their teeth haven't erupted yet so what would be the point? If there was any benefit from Fluoride, it is topical. Its only real purpose is to kill the dental caries bacteria on the teeth when the fluoridated water comes into contact with the teeth. There's no reasojn to fluoridate babies!

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

 And she provided "evidence" in form of article in less than reputable magazine and there were photos of children with teeth eaten away by fluoride, and bones supposedly twisted by deposit of fluoride (looked like serious vitamin D/calcium deficiency to me = rickets).  Funny, 50 years later and most of the world is still alive, none of the predicted disasters happened. 

The simple fact is there are many places where fluoride is found naturally in water, and some places the concentration is higher than our water, and people and animals were drinking it for thousands of years. 

---

You're probably talking about the condition, Skeletal Fluorosis . It can happen in areas where there are high amounts of naturally occurring fluoride. I believe parts of India have this issue. Most likely the magazines had true accounts if they were referring to that.

Today we see children and adults with medical conditions barely heard of years ago. Now they are common place.

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

And yet, the so called "health" magazines keep trotting out long debunked theories over and over again. 

By the way, even back then when my daughter was a baby, I understood that it's called "mineral water" because it is high in minerals, which could be fluoride. 

---

Some theories and articles that heath mags "trot out" may have been debunked but with what they write about  on certain things. But on the  fluoride  issue and associated dangers which is backed by science, it never has been successfully debunked.

Yes, some mineral water may contain fluoride. The naturally occurring fluoride is very different from what is dumped in our water. What we get is the industrial waste product from the Aluminium Industry and mostly these days, The Fertiliser Industry. A barrel of what is classified as toxic waste can be re-classified as a product once it has been through a sales process.

---

Where is all the Fluoride Coming From?

Naturally occurring fluoride is found as calcium fluoride, magnesium fluoride or sodium fluoride in small amounts as a result of the geological composition of soils and bedrock. What you are mainly finding in your water supply is called fluorosilicic acid. Fluorosilicic acid is the most commonly used additive for water fluoridation in the United States and it is a by-product of phosphate fertilizer. That’s right, the main type of fluoride being added to your water is a liquid by-product of fertilizer that needed somewhere to go, like your drinking water.

The CDC will argue that these fluoride additives are no different than naturally occurring fluoride, and add two studies that demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or in fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. The argument isn’t about the fluorosilicic acid vs. naturally occurring fluoride. It is fluoride ion ingestion itself. 

 https://thehealthbeat.com/reduce-industrial-fluoride-intake/

---

This is what a lot people don't realise. This is mostly because they're never told this.

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

I guess the bringing up dangers of fluoride would have nothing to do with all the water filters these "health mags" are peddling?

---

Definitely not Kazumi. The anti-fluoride movement or the people who are educating us about the dangers of fluoride come from different place than the filter sellers. It would be like saying that locksmiths are connected with the stolen goods fencing criminal network.  Obviously water filter suppliers and manufacturers are here because of what's in our water and locksmiths are here because of what's out there in the community.

[*tippy*toes*]

You come live with me 4channel. I don't drink tap water because of the fluoride. I much prefer the tank water that contains all sorts of weird and wonderful chemicals from crop dusters. It adds to the delicious flavour of the water. 

I am safe. You come be safe with me. No 5G towers here, but I am prepared. I am also safe from chem trails. Them are evil things them chem trails.

PM me if you want my safe address. I allow pets.

[dvd.horder]

this is no contribution to the disscussion..IS this A blatant   attempt  by  CERTAIN PEOPLE to get a response ????

[davewil1964]

Like you, who never actually contributes anything to a discussion?

[*kazumi*]

---

@4channel wrote:

---

---

@*kazumi* wrote:

I guess the bringing up dangers of fluoride would have nothing to do with all the water filters these "health mags" are peddling?

---

Definitely not Kazumi. The anti-fluoride movement or the people who are educating us about the dangers of fluoride come from different place than the filter sellers. It would be like saying that locksmiths are connected with the stolen goods fencing criminal network.  Obviously water filter suppliers and manufacturers are here because of what's in our water and locksmiths are here because of what's out there in the community.

---

The mags get income from those ads.   They print articles that suit the people who pay them. 

[chameleon54]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

I think that they are subject to confirmation bias, and are unwilling to objectively look at the proven science.

And the thread title is the thread title, regardless of post-posting remorse.

---

There is mainstream "proven science" and there is proven science which is buried, silenced,  taken out of context, deliberately discredited and/or held up for derision to render it ineffective.

---

While I,m a little sceptical with discussions raising concerns about the health impacts of fluoride and 5G mobile phone towers, I,ve always left the door open to having my opinion changed.

There is currently another global debate going on which shows the " tinfoil hat brigade," may at times be onto something. 

As a farmer I regularly use Glyphosate ( trade name Roundup ). Right now, I,ve got a 200 litre water tank of it sitting on my ute, 5 litres of pure roundup, ( the 510 g per litre good stuff ) hotted up with a splash of wetting agent and a dash of Kamba. Man that stuff is deadly. You only have to threaten the weeds by pointing the spray gun at them and they die...............Love it, the farm is as clean as a whistle.

We have always been told Roundup is no more dangerous than table salt and in an early promotion of the chemical, one of its developing scientists is reported to have actually drunk a glass of the stuff. Our government agencies have tested it and cleared it as one of the safest chemicals around. A position the Australian government still stands by today. ...........Good enough for me..........I use the stuff like lolly water and are not too concerned if I cop a bit of spray drift while spraying.

Now we are told the chemical is a serious carcinogen, its use has already been banned in a number of countries and its major manufacturer Monsanto is facing global lawsuits over its distribution and sale.

According to Australia's Government and our official chemical registering agencies....." nothing to see here "..........Roundup is still just as safe as it ever was and untrained home gardeners can walk into any hardware store and buy it off the shelf.

The " Tinfoil hat brigade " have been warning us for years about the dangers of Roundup, but as a community we have fobbed them off as the " wacky fringe."  I hope I don't suffer cancer as a result of not giving them the time and respect they sometimes deserve.

[domino-710]

This is not ' tin foil ' stuff.

Why are you still using Glyphosate when there are alternatives.