If fluoride is good for your teeth, or good for you at all...

According to an article I read, plaque is bad because it dissolves minerals out of the tooth enamel. This makes the enamel weak and the teeth much more susceptible to tooth decay. Fluoride will replace those lost minerals making the enamel strong again. The article said to use a toothpaste with fluoride and to get full advantage from it to not rinse your mouth after brushing. And to not drink or eat anything for a half hour after brushing. I personally don't follow that final suggestion except when I brush my teeth right before bed.

I also follow Scrotie's advice to not eat toothpaste.

"

LennyLen wrote:

If oxygen is so good for us, why is it the main ingredient is carbon dioxide, which is poisonous?

Carbon oxide is toxic. Dioxide is not. Thats a lie that it is. But i would say it matters on the density because there is nothing that is healthy in any amount and everything can cause death if overused.

But fluoride can be toxic to our body if You have too low iodine in it.

"

faerwin wrote:

youtube and some random books that are made for profit purposes aren't reliable sources of information

you can apply this statement to literally anything you can quote about fluoride being good for you

you can spray your childrens hair with DDT powder as well, if you so feel up to it. there was a time when THAT was considered super good for you too!!

in case you're not familiar with reading books, the authors do extensive journalist work and research and often come with hundreds of citings and references etc

here is another journalistic work on the topic. again i don't care if you watch/read or whatever. you've clearly made up your mind. this is obviously some type of faith stronghold that you hold and couldn't possibly break down or else your entire world would shatter. its fine. don't pay attention.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC3Q1FeU9Nk

in case you don't even bother to look or examine, here is a link to his script AND links/references (which is also found in the description of the video)
https://www.corbettreport.com/fluoride-fight-the-forced-drugging-of-society/

these are tips of the iceberg on the subject, in terms of things you can research and get into. if stuff like this isn't enough for you to perk up your ears and suggest looking into it further, then by all means. but you should probably stop just slamming out your ignorant blanket statements of "fluoride is safe".


here is another great video by corbettreport which is relevant regardless of the scientific topic you're discussing, The Crisis of Science
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfHEuWaPh9Q

if you want further links, studies and tests as to how pointless, useless and corrupted peer review is then i'd be happy to list those as well


also, lest we forget the absurdity that you want to INGEST something that is supposedly good for your teeth?
"don't swallow toothpaste", but drink and swallow the water? lol

if you want to use fluoride etc then go for it, swish it around in your mouth like i was forced to do in grade school each morning for a timed 2 minutes, then spit it out. you're still getting it into your mouth, saliva etc, as our mouths are the most absorbent parts of our body, but at least you're spitting it out.

where is the logic that you should have it in drinking water at all, even if you concede to the nonsensical argument that its good for your teeth?

oh i'll just separately post this, since im sure many won't actually follow the rabbit hole of links

The Fluoride Problem Testimony of Dr Dean Burk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMMfYZztowA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Burk

ppl say all the time to "trust the experts", but which ones? especially crucial to consider during this whole COVID19 garbage.
well here is one of the most expert experts you could consider on the topic....but don't listen to him cause he'll say something you don't want to agree with

^ so what, in the end, is the actual point? If you want to try and find experts or doctors to validate an opinion, this certainly isnt novel. You can find "experts" for every discussion on either side.

Fluoride in measured quantities is beneficial. Its been studied. Too much fluoride is bad. No debate here.

My earlier question from many pages ago still stands that you evaded (for reasons I still dont understand)

Please, just tell us why you believe fluoride has been studied, approved, and added to our water supply? WHY?

why doesn't discredit information showing its very harmful, not in "large" amounts but in the very amounts they put in your water supply that you give to your pregnant wife or children, or even cattle, animals etc

fluoride in measured quantities is beneficial...for what? teeth? maybe it does benefit your teeth. does that justify killing your brain?

even so, research who does said studies, because as i can very easily demonstrate the process of "science" and such studies is not unbiased or scientific. its often funded by the corporations which stand to profit the most out of such a positive review.
corruption in science runs deep. it has for a very long time. in terms of medicine we're talking around 200 years.


not to mention, if i fail to provide an adequate reason as to why, or just strictly don't know why myself, it doesn't mean its wrong. do you actually expect me to know why? maybe i do maybe i don't. i have my ideas but that information is subjective and very much different from the OBJECTIVE fact that fluoride is a neurotoxin.

The point is that some beneficial doses, can in be harmful as the dosage increases. These is very common with vitamins, oxygen, common elements, on and on. I don't think we disagree here.

Where we do have a large disagreement is the intention. That somehow a global conspiracy, involving many countries, and clinical / medical professionals to poison us with a neurotoxin, to the absolute benefit of no one.

Corruption? Who benefits from a purely chemical standpoint across the entire world? There is no significant money in this at all. I don't understand what the motivation would even be to poison everyone.

My guess is you (I can't be sure), buy into this fringe belief of some sort of mind subversion, or mental suppression which makes populations more calm or controllable (which protip, isn't working as intended if so)

Again what in the fuck is the possible benefit in approving and providing a neurotoxin to billions of people around the globe if these "experts" are to be considered a reliable source? It makes zero sense.

The most likely conclusion that a rational person, and among the majority of clinical professionals, is that fluoride provides marked, and researched benefits to tooth health in measured amounts to our water supply. Can different amounts be toxic? Sure, welcome to 6th grade chemistry.

"

xMustard wrote:

the OBJECTIVE fact that fluoride is a neurotoxin.

Again: so is the alcohol in wine. It's not that your fact here is wrong; it's that you've tunnel-visioned on a single fact instead of processing multiple facts at once, e.g. how potent of a neurotoxin?

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Corruption? Who benefits from a purely chemical standpoint across the entire world? There is no significant money in this at all. I don't understand what the motivation would even be to poison everyone.

I actually fact-checked xMustard's video and it got one thing right.

At one point in American history — just before and during WW2 — there was a group that benefitted: the metal processing industry, most notably aluminum suppliers. The processes used in aluminum plants would create large amounts of fluoride as waste product, which would often contaminate nearby rivers and streams. The discovery that fluoride hardens teeth — which, again, is home chemistry so simple you can verify it experimentally at home — was researched and popularized by an institute with a track record of defending industrial polluters, in particular the asbestos industry.

So it's pretty clear to my trained cynicism what was happening: Big Aluminum hired a team of scientists, inclined to be sympathetic per their reputation, to research ways where they could say their dumping into rivers was not water pollution, but water enhancement.

The thing about corporate propaganda is: it's not always false. Whatever their motivations, what scientists found was applied chemistry based on empirically demonstrable reality, and it is true that fluoride is not particularly harmful in small doses because, due to its frequent occurrence in small quantities in nature, our livers are well equipped to process such trace amounts.

Fluoride toothpaste came later, and it is more difficult to find a legitimate angle for how its creation could have been the result of conflicts of interest.

In all likelihood the fluoridation of water would not be a thing if the idea for it came after the invention and marketing of Crest toothpaste (the first fluoride toothpaste). Similarly, the popular conspiracy theories against fluoride toothpastes would probably not exist today if it weren't for some questionable dealings regarding fluoridated water prior to the rise of those toothpastes. Because there was already some legitimate cause for suspicion for fluoridation, activists against water fluoridation would naturally exhibit confirmation bias in their "investigation" of fluoride toothpaste.

So in conclusion, there is a reason to suspect a conflict of interest that may have led certain scientific studies to overestimate what levels of fluoride are safe in our water supply — specifically, the business interests that dumped waste fluoride into our water supplies. That's why, as I indicated above, I take the studies for fluoridated water with a XXL grain of salt.

I mean, I'm sure the people who fucked up Flint, MI would love to find out about some kind of beneficial effect that occurs as a result of drinking lead water.

"

At one point in American history — just before and during WW2 — there was a group that benefitted: the metal processing industry, most notably aluminum suppliers. The processes used in aluminum plants would create large amounts of fluoride as waste product, which would often contaminate nearby rivers and streams. The discovery that fluoride hardens teeth — which, again, is home chemistry so simple you can verify it experimentally at home — was researched and popularized by an institute with a track record of defending industrial polluters, in particular the asbestos industry.

So it's pretty clear to my trained cynicism what was happening: Big Aluminum hired a team of scientists, inclined to be sympathetic per their reputation, to research ways where they could say their dumping into rivers was not water pollution, but water enhancement.

The US is not the only country that puts fluoride in the water. And while 100% of countries do not, dozens do.

The skepticism and any amount of salt grain taking suspecting a sinister motive would involve a major leap of faith while wearing a tinfoil hat and your dick in a toaster.

So sure everyone(stakeholder) across the globe in every continent got together to poison Billions so that a small percentage of margin would go to these hard metal based production CEO's / Owners, with the guarantee of silence among various opportunists, as they spent money to control a narrative.

It's laughable but whatever.

I mean come on. Canada, US, New Zealand, Australia, Israel, South Korea, and more are just involved in one of the biggest cover-ups and organized secrets ever to have some totally unrelated companies profit hidden under tooth health? Seriously, give me a break.

Which fluorides are you talking about?

NaF? CaF2?


What if:

NaF + HCL (gastric acid) -> NaCL + HF
HF would be bad