The song is a duet with my son.
Now let’s talk about fluoride…
Fluorine
Even when bonded to another element
Is still quite
volatile
Just swallow a little
Sketchy science
Secret Investigations cleared
A policy maker
How many are cleared or given 1 or 2 day sentences
And elevated to posterity yet never held accountable for being life taker?
Palestine’s been going on since 1948
Yet the major just shrugged and said, “It’s not great.”
Before that, how many did Hitler tolerate or celebrate until it was too late?
And sometime in the mix of this time period of war and its aftermath
A Manhattan project man was doing experiments without consent
Because it was known even then that Fluoride fall out might be responsible for a great lament
Smile
Bear it
But don’t question it
Find the documents they’ll tear it
Unless
They can put in the mouth of Trump’s proxy
Then maybe they’ll swear on it
Because they assume that kind people who do not dehumanize immigrants and Palestinian refugees will
Swear to it and
Say keep it in, keep it in!
If it’s a Trump thing, then taking it out must be a sin!
The investigation—and surrounding media controversy—occurred in response to allegations from a Washington D.C.-based non-profit, the Environmental Working Group (EWG). In a letter to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), a government organization which funded Douglass’ $1.3 million dollar study researching the potential link between fluoride and osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, the EWG claimed that Douglass’ final report contained “potential, serious misrepresentations of research results.”This misrepresentation, the EWG alleged, stemmed from the fact that Douglass’ report concluded that there was no significant correlation between fluoride and osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer. Yet a section of a two-page outline of the report, entitled “Publications,” listed a 2001 doctoral thesis written by Elise B. Bassin and supervised by Douglass.Bassin’s thesis did observe a connection between fluoride in tap water and bone cancer. “Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma,” Bassin wrote. Bassin and Douglass started with the same raw data, but came to different conclusions. It appeared that Douglass might have buried Bassin’s findings. Janice Strother, the NIEHS Ethics Coordinator to whom the EWG’s letter was addressed, says she turned the case over to Harvard. The school launched its investigation of Douglass on June 29, 2005.Double the Conflict, Double the Fun The plot thickened like old toothpaste when another element surfaced. Douglass had served as editor-in-chief of the Colgate Oral Care Report since 1997, which according to its website “is supported by the Colgate-Palmolive Company for oral care professionals.”Colgate toothpaste, of course, contains fluoride, and it didn’t take long for the EWG and another group, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), to cry conflict of interest. Douglass’ donation of around $1 million to Harvard in 2001 also came to light, sparking debate over the propriety of a school conducting an investigation against a major donor. “Our view, in light of the high level of secrecy that has surrounded Harvard’s review, it highlights yet another conflict of interest,” says Michael P. Connett, project director of FAN. “Harvard’s investigating a guy who donated the university a million dollars.”Harvard spokesman, John Lacey, wrote in an e-mail that “It is accurate that Chet Douglass made a gift of around $1 million to the dental school in 2001, but that was four years before the complaint was made and a review was launched.”
The Crimson
Haven Thompson 2006
At the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, One Professor's Flouride ...
Harvard spokesman, John Lacey, wrote in an e-mail that "It is accurate that Chet Douglass made a gift of around $1 million to the dental school in 2001, but that was four years before the ...
~ EWG
“The classification of fluoride as a pollutant rather than as a nutrient or medicine is a useful starting point for analysing the adverse effect of fluoride. No fluoride deficiency disease has ever been documented for humans.
In their recent review of water fluoridation, the EU (European Union) Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks highlight that young children are likely to exceed the upper tolerable limits for fluoride consumption in areas with water fluoridation greater than 0.8 ppm and using fluoride toothpaste, although the estimates of ingestion are probably underestimated as they are based on ingestion from food and beverages in nonfluoridated areas [30]. Warren et al. have highlighted the complexity of quantifying fluoride intake in areas where there is widespread water fluoridation and increased availability of fluoride-containing products. They argue that “… it is doubtful that parents or clinicians could adequately track children's fluoride intake and compare it with the recommended level, rendering the concept of an “optimal” or target intake relatively moot” [26, page 114]. Their conclusion supports earlier research that suggested that the term optimal fluoride intake should be dropped from common usage [39]” https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956646/
A recent study of the effects of inorganic fluoride compounds on human cellular functions revealed that fluoride can interact with a wide range of enzyme-mediated cellular processes and genes modulated by fluoride including those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell-cell communications, and signal transduction [66]. Due to high negativity of fluoride, it interacts actively with positively charged ions such as calcium and magnesium.
…population-based-studies strongly suggest that chronic fluoride ingestion is a possible cause of uterine cancer and bladder cancer; there may be a link with osteosarcoma—highlighted as an area where there is evidence of problems requiring further research [30, 72–74].
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3956646/
Findings In this cohort study of 229 pregnant women and their children, a 0.68 mg/L (ie, 1 IQR) increase in specific gravity–adjusted maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy was associated with nearly double the odds of T scores for total child neurobehavioral problems being in the borderline clinical or clinical range…These findings suggest that prenatal fluoride exposure may increase risk of neurobehavioral problems among children living in an optimally fluoridated area in the US.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2818858#google_vignette
=
Consistent with in vitro and animal research, studies of human populations have reported associations between fluoride exposure and damage to the male reproductive system. Most notably, a scientist at the Food & Drug Administration reported in 1994 that populations in the United States with more than 3 ppm fluoride in their water had lower “total fertility rates” than populations with lower fluoride levels. (Freni 1994). While 3 ppm is a higher concentration than used in water fluoridation programs (0.7 to 1.2 ppm), it is still considered a “safe” level by the EPA. According to the study:
“A review of fluoride toxicity showed decreased fertility in most animal species studied. The current study was to see whether fluoride would also affect human birth rates. A U.S. database of drinking water systems was used to identify index counties with water systems reporting fluoride levels of at least 3 ppm. These and adjacent counties were grouped in 30 regions spread over 9 states… Most regions showed an association of decreasing TFR [Total Fertility Rate] with increasing fluoride levels. Meta-analysis of the region-specific results confirmed that the combined result was a negative TFR/fluoride association with a consensus combined p value of .0002-.0004, depending on the analytical scenario. There is no evidence that this outcome resulted from selection bias, inaccurate data, or improper analytical methods. However, the study is one that used population means rather than data on individual women. Whether or not the fluoride effect on the fertility rate found at the county level also applies to individual women remains to be investigated.
~TLVA
End Fluoridation!
End forced or coerced vaccination!
End genocide
Bring us to peacefully decide
That we want to be a free people
Rooted in unity
That is authentic
Free of tokenization of resources
No digital wall
No biodigital ID
Just FREE
The article below is a typical piece where the whole top half smears and attempts to debunk, while promoting the conventional bias, while ignoring important facts and highlighting the same official stances that have tried hard to delay and obscure information about fluoride from the public.
Concerns about artificial fluoridation from intelligent, caring people have been ongoing since it was introduced. Once this article gets to the bottom half it gives the bare minimum of credit to actual concerns, once your mind has already been conditioned to contextualize any real concerns as either conspiracy theory (Itself a term designed to get your discard ideas uncritically if they happen to have a lot of evidence behind them, or are at least worthy investigating with open transparency…
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/is-fluoride-in-drinking-water-safe-what-to-know-after-rfk-jr-s-claims/ar-AA1tqRBS
On the other side, one of the best sources of aggregate information on fluoride health science is the fluoride action network which is funded by RFK’s Children’s Health Defense Fund. The same type of funny triangling occurs with vax/anti vax stuff. Some in the anti vax sector would like use the very tokenization I abhor - just as Kamala and the Dems have already signaled they will be for a digital wall that will seem nicer but won’t be deep down, even though people think is more pro immigrant.
Even those who are critical or anti vax - if they have a large audience, usually have connections to Pharma, etc.
We don’t need to be against these people in order to see clearly the ideas and their wrong headedness.
We need pure hearts and discerning minds to see the lies and truths scattered to the winds to gather them up and use them in a way that joyfully celebrates life lived in harmony and freedom.
Let’s keep our hearts and minds clear, open!
Abstract
Fluoride-induced male reproductive failure is a major environmental and human health concern, but interventions are still lacking. Melatonin (MLT) has potential functions in regulating testicular damage and interleukin-17 (IL-17) production. This study aims to explore whether MLT can mitigate fluoride-induced male reproductive toxicity through IL-17A, and screen the potential targets. So the wild type and IL-17A knockout mice were employed and treated with sodium fluoride (100 mg/L) by drinking water and MLT (10 mg/kg.BW, intraperitoneal injection per two days starting from week 16) for 18 weeks. Bone F- concentrations, grade of dental damage, sperm quality, spermatogenic cells counts, histological morphology of testis and epididymis, and the mRNA expression of spermatogenesis and maturation, classical pyroptosis related and immune factor genes were detected respectively. The results revealed that MLT supplementations alleviated fluoride-induced impairment of spermatogenesis and maturation process, protecting the morphology of testis and epididymis through IL-17A pathway, and Tesk1 and Pten were identified as candidate targets from 29 regulation genes. Taken together, this study demonstrated a new physiological role for MLT in the protection against fluoride-induced reproductive injury and possible regulation mechanisms, which providing a useful therapeutic strategy for male reproductive function failure caused by fluoride or other environmental pollutants.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691523002697
Share this post