The Shady Agendas Behind 5 Popular Conspiracy Theories

[lbeezle]

http://www.cracked.com/article_17439...-theories.html

A chuckle here and there but much better conspiracy reading than whatever StinkerX is going to cook up today.

[bba149]

interesting that his article contained the phrase "shady agenda" and that he goes on to try and de-bunk 5 right wing theories. what is his agenda?

[Blindead]

I'm suddenly feeling a bit anti-semitic...

Originally Posted by bba149

interesting that his article contained the phrase "shady agenda" and that he goes on to try and de-bunk 5 right wing theories. what is his agenda?

I wasn't aware one had to have an "agenda" to want to debunk racism

[thatolchestnut]

lol he called global warming a conspiracy...

[AronP24]

"Americas only humor and video site since 1958" lulz

Interesting read...that ended up turning into a rant at the end

Interesting that they Didn't even touch 9/11 or the moon landing or kennedy (in depth)..which IMO are far more popular than flouride in water...

[AronP24]

Originally Posted by thatolchestnut

lol he called global warming a conspiracy...

no they called those that think global warming is a myth a conspiracy....

and that one just ended up being a political rant torwards the end

[Epilerik]

Yeah that list sucked

[psamty]

Pretty much debunked them all. But then again, the arguments used by conspiracy theorists are mostly emotional in nature anyways.

CTer: Man, that flouride is killing me
Normal person: It's good for your teeth
CTer: Don't tell me you actually believe everything they tell you? You're so naive

Crux of CTer thinking: They are intelligent, everyone else is a dumb naive sheep. Somehow it never occurs to them that it could be the other way round.

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by psamty

Pretty much debunked them all. But then again, the arguments used by conspiracy theorists are mostly emotional in nature anyways.

CTer: Man, that flouride is killing me
Normal person: It's good for your teeth
CTer: Don't tell me you actually believe everything they tell you? You're so naive

Crux of CTer thinking: They are intelligent, everyone else is a dumb naive sheep. Somehow it never occurs to them that it could be the other way round.

[bba149]

Originally Posted by Seamless

I'm suddenly feeling a bit anti-semitic...



I wasn't aware one had to have an "agenda" to want to debunk racism

yes, that was the only one that they didn't pin on "conservatives"...

as far as the fluoride, all one has to do is look at say.....england. look at their teeth compared to ours. most of england still doesn't put fluoride their water...

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by bba149

yes, that was the only one that they didn't pin on "conservatives"...

as far as the fluoride, all one has to do is look at say.....england. look at their teeth compared to ours. most of england still doesn't put fluoride their water...

If you think that drinking a poison will help your teeth you should never, ever reproduce.

Hey! Toothpaste has fluoride in it! Let's all promote healthy teeth and EAT a tube of toothpaste a day!

/sarcasm

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

If you think that drinking a poison will help your teeth you should never, ever reproduce.

Cus knowledge is inherited. Oh wait...

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

Cus knowledge is inherited. Oh wait...

Did I say knowledge was inherited?



What I'm saying is, if a parent were to think that drinking POISON helps their teeth, they shouldn't be having children.

BRB owning fat guys on BB.com

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

Did I say knowledge was inherited?

You don't have to say it. It's the premise of your argument or one of the following is because they are the only possible logical premises. Either that knowledge is inherited or that they will teach their kids all that they know...AND/OR that their kids will believe absolutely everything the parents EVER tell them. Those are the only ways that Their beliefs could be passed on to their kids. All of those premises are full of holes.


Btw, just about everything is poisonous or at least bad for you if you have enough of it. Plenty of stuff is good for you in small amounts. Can't remember if it was cyanide or arsenic but basically your body needs one of those in trace amounts. Just turns out that you need SO little of it that taking even a small amount of pure cyanide or arsenic can be very dangerous.

Plus, ya ain't supposed to drink fluoride. It's more of a topical treatment for teeth. You don't refrain from drinking it cus its poisonous period. You refrain from drinking it because it's bad for you to drink it and it doesn't help your teeth as much when you drink it compared to brushing your teeth.

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

You don't have to say it. It's the premise of your argument or one of the following is because they are the only possible logical premises. Either that knowledge is inherited or that they will teach their kids all that they know...AND/OR that their kids will believe absolutely everything the parents EVER tell them. Those are the only ways that Their beliefs could be passed on to their kids. All of those premises are full of holes.

You're definitely entitled to perceive whatever you want. I've already stated what I meant.

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

You're definitely entitled to perceive whatever you want. I've already stated what I meant.

yeah I edited my post 3 minutes after your post cus I hadn't refreshed the page


"Btw, just about everything is poisonous or at least bad for you if you have enough of it. Plenty of stuff is good for you in small amounts. Can't remember if it was cyanide or arsenic but basically your body needs one of those in trace amounts. Just turns out that you need SO little of it that taking even a small amount of pure cyanide or arsenic can be very dangerous.

Plus, ya ain't supposed to drink fluoride. It's more of a topical treatment for teeth. You don't refrain from drinking it cus its poisonous period. You refrain from drinking it because it's bad for you to drink it and it doesn't help your teeth as much when you drink it compared to brushing your teeth."

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

Btw, just about everything is poisonous or at least bad for you if you have enough of it.

Yes, for example water and Potassium. Too much of both can KILL YOU!

I guess this mean Nastysal is going to stop his water and potassium intake, because too mush is potentially FATAL!

Of course, why didn't I see it sooner?!?! This explains how the government is going to kill us all! This is WHY they are supplying us with all this water, an almost unlimited supply! It's just their evil plan to kill us all off for MORE CONTROL!!!! OH NO!!!!!!



*In before a C/T takes this seriously and runs round in panic of water.

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by Dragger

Yes, for example water and Potassium. Too much of both can KILL YOU!

I guess this mean Nastysal is going to stop his water and potassium intake, because too mush is potentially FATAL!

Of course, why didn't I see it sooner?!?! This explains how the government is going to kill us all! This is WHY they are supplying us with all this water, an almost unlimited supply! It's just their evil plan to kill us all off for MORE CONTROL!!!! OH NO!!!!!!



*In before a C/T takes this seriously and runs round in panic of water.

How utterly ignorant. I guess all those scientific papers linking sodium fluoride, MSG, aspartame, and all the rest are just figments of my imagination Drink up you dumb drone, drink up...

STRONG EDIT: IT'S ALL IN MY HEAD

http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html

[MonsterG8r]

Originally Posted by Dragger

Yes, for example water and Potassium. Too much of both can KILL YOU!

I guess this mean Nastysal is going to stop his water and potassium intake, because too mush is potentially FATAL!

Of course, why didn't I see it sooner?!?! This explains how the government is going to kill us all! This is WHY they are supplying us with all this water, an almost unlimited supply! It's just their evil plan to kill us all off for MORE CONTROL!!!! OH NO!!!!!!



*In before a C/T takes this seriously and runs round in panic of water.

You ever wonder why the government is sooooooooooooo conerned about people's teeth enough to add things to their drinking water?? Why not add calcium or vitamin c?? What??...they don't trust you to take care of your own teeth so they feel they must do it?? Puhlease....

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by MonsterG8r

You ever wonder why the government is sooooooooooooo conerned about people's teeth enough to add things to their drinking water?? Why not add calcium or vitamin c?? What??...they don't trust you to take care of your own teeth so they feel they must do it?? Puhlease....

x2

but anyways, justification for fluoride in water arose when aluminum plants were startin up and one of the biproducts had fluoride involved. Well they dumped their wastes into water and people started have bone problems and stuff cus of fluorosis. Well I'm pretty sure the factory owners denied any causal relationship, lol. It was found that excess fluoride was the cause though. In the process of studying fluoride, it was found that a little bit was good for your teeth (but that still doesn't mean you should ingest it, lol). So some folks basically took the "good for your teeth part" to the public to convince people to have some contaminants in their water and over time folks started believin that we actually need it in the water. So now what we got is a system where the government actually intentionally puts fluoride in there. Dunno why, but probably cus many of them think it's good for your teeth if you ingest fluoride, lol.

But anyways, some fluoride is good for your teeth....but it's a topical substance for you to use when you brush your teeth. That in itself lets your teeth get some fluoride. You ain't supposed to be drinking it. However, our water supply does have safely low amounts of fluoride.

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

However, our water supply does have safely low amounts of fluoride.

Its juts a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit guys... nothing to worry about...

[bba149]

it's not as sexy as "The government wants to poison and/or control us with the poison they're putting in our water" but here goes:



Fluoridation: A Triumph of Science Over Propaganda

Community water fluoridation (herein called simply "fluoridation" or "water fluoridation") is the precise adjustment of the concentration of the essential trace element fluoride in the public water supply to protect teeth and bones. In 1945 Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city in the world to fluoridate its public water supply. Since then, communities throughout the United States have adopted the practice. Water fluoridation is similar to food fortification and enrichment, which encompass the addition of iodine to table salt; vitamins to fruit drinks, milk, and various kinds of pasta; and vitamins and minerals to breakfast cereals and bread. Water fluoridation is the perfect public health intervention, particularly for children. Whole towns are protected in a nondiscriminatory manner. The protection is continuous and effortless to obtain. The fluoride in the water is incorporated into the enamel of developing teeth in children below the age of 16, making their teeth more resistant to decay for a lifetime. It also promotes remineralization of early decay in adults and interferes with the life cycle of decay-causing bacteria present in the mouths of both children and adults.
Water fluoridation is remarkably simple to implement and mimics nature: Virtually all sources of drinking water in North America naturally contain some fluoride. Fluoride levels in the United States are adjusted to about one part fluoride per million parts of water ? a minute concentration.

The Antifluoridationists
While only a minuscule percentage of Americans opposes water fluoridation, an extremist minority urges avoidance of water fluoridation. These antifluoridationists or flurophobics falsely allege that it is unsafe, ineffective, or costly. They assert that exposure to fluoridated water increases the risk of contracting AIDS, cancer, Down's syndrome, heart disease, kidney disease, osteoporosis, and many other health problems in children and the general popluation. But the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence confirms water fluoridation's safety and effectiveness, and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on fluoride have discredited antifluoridation propaganda. Almost at the moment Grand Rapids became the first community to adjust the fluoride content of its water supply, small groups of ill-informed people began objecting to water fluoridation. Early opponents included chiropractors, health food advocates, and members of fringe political and religious groups. The convergence of such individuals and groups led to the formation of small but highly active regional societies whose primary mission was to fight water fluoridation. Most of these organizations lacked the funds, political expertise, or scientific credibility to have an impact outside their respective communities. Eventually, however, a few better-funded national organizations appeared whose agendas included opposition to water fluoridation. By exploiting scientific illiteracy, common phobias, paranoia concerning communist plots and Big Brotherism, and occasional acceptance of folk medicine, these organizations persuaded a minority of Americans. Their tactics included attracting the media; holding demonstrations at the local-government level; promoting referenda; lobbying public health agencies, state legislatures, and the United States Congress; and litigating at state and federal levels. The effects of such activities did not have lasting importance, and antifluoridation efforts have diminished significantly in recent years. Today, most fluoridation initiatives are successful; court challenges by antifluoridationists are rare; and effective antifluoridation lobbying at both state and federal levels is virtually nonexistent. A latter-day antifluoridationist highspot was the movement's extensive campaign in 1995 to prevent enactment of mandatory statewide fluoridation in California. The campaign failed.

. . . And Justice for All
Despite the decrease in antifluoridation activities, they remain a factor ? albeit a minor one ? in the success or failure of profluoridation efforts in most American cities. The tactics of contemporary antifluoridationists tend more to delay fluoridation than to stop it, but in some areas of the United States fluoridation remains in limbo. This lack of implementation translates into tooth decay, pain, infection, and dental-care expense (see sidebar). Moreover, antifluoridation efforts cost taxpayers money by compelling defense of water fluoridation to legislators, judges, and the media. But litigation, which antifluoridationists once considered the ultimate solution to the "fluoridation menace," has failed as an antifluoridation tactic. No American court of last resort has ever ruled against community water fluoridation. And court decisions that uphold water fluoridation as an acceptable public health measure within the police powers of state and local government have bolstered profluoridation efforts. Furthermore, with only two exceptions, American courts have never ruled on the scientific merits of water fluoridation but have allowed the scientific method ? which includes clinical research and peer review ? to determine whether community water fluoridation is acceptable. In both of the exceptions, higher courts overruled lower-court judges and decreed continuance of water fluoridation in the communities in question.

"Quackery" versus Science
Fluoride is harmless at the levels necessary for maximum benefits. Thousands of studies on fluorides and fluoridation have been completed in the last 50 years ? more than 3,700 since 970 alone. Over 50 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies have dealt with the claim that fluoridation increases cancer risk. None has substantiated the claim. A number of nationally and internationally recognized scientific organizations, including the National Cancer Institute, have reviewed all the available scientific studies on the health of populations with fluoridated water supplies and the health of fluoride-deficient populations. These reviewers have declared fluoridation safe. Indeed, no legitimate epidemiological, laboratory, or clinical study has demonstrated that lifelong ingestion of fluoride at optimal levels in water causes disease in any form. We now have over fifty years' experience with water fluoridation. Moreover, many generations of Americans have spent their lives in areas whose water supplies had naturally occurring fluoride levels 800 to 1,300 percent higher than the levels in fluoridated water. There is no evidence that members of communities with fluoridated water supplies, or with naturally high concentrations of fluoride in their water supplies, have had a higher incidence of any disease than have their contemporaries in areas with water supplies low in fluoride. In 1978 Consumer Reports magazine summed up the situation well: "The simple truth is that there's no 'scientific controversy' over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents, in our opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation." Nearly 145 million Americans can avail themselves of water whose fluoride concentration is optimal. Of the 50 largest municipalities in the United States, 43 have fluoridated water supplies, including four of the five largest cities. Eight states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have mandated fluoridation throughout their respective territories. Three states and the District of Columbia have fluoridated all of their treatable community water supplies. Viable options to community water fluoridation as a public health measure do not exist. There are other community-based methods of fluoride delivery ? school-based programs that involve rinsing the mouth with a fluoride preparation, ingesting fluoride tablets, or submitting to professional dental application of fluoride, for example. But these methods cost considerably more than community water fluoridation, are much more difficult to implement, and are available only to limited numbers of people and only under special circumstances. Such methods are useful to populations without public water systems but decidedly are second-rate.

The Bottom Line
In recent years public resistance to water fluoridation has waned across the United States, partly because of a higher level of education among voters and partly because of consumers' positive experiences with fluoride (as an ingredient in fluoride toothpastes, for example). Healthcare reform movements have made all Americans aware of the importance of disease prevention. Federal, state, and local officials have acted on this awareness, and the pace of efforts to fluoridate America's remaining deficient water supplies has increased markedly. Fluoridation is the high-water mark of efficient public health intervention.


Michael W. Easley, DDS, MPH, is an associate professor in the Department of Oral Health Services and Informatics, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo.


Dollars and Sense
The dental benefits ? and concomitant cost savings ? from fluoridation have been documented for more than half a century. Here are a few facts:
* People who drink fluoridated water for a lifetime will develop up to 70 percent fewer cavities (occurrences of tooth decay) than they would have without fluoridation.
* Because the technology is so simple and the fluoride supplement so inexpensive, fluoridation is extremely cost-effective. Studies indicate that a $100,000 investment in water fluoridation prevents 500,000 cavities.
* Each dollar invested in fluoridation prevents over $80 of dental treatment. Few disease-prevention efforts, and even fewer government-sponsored programs, achieve that level of return on investment.
* The average per capita cost of fluoridating America's public water supplies is 54 cents per year (or $40.50 over a lifetime). The cost of an average single-surface dental restoration is $55. Thus, provision of fluoride in water for a lifetime costs less than one small dental filling.

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

Its juts a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit guys... nothing to worry about...

I could just say the same thing about Vitamin A, which is toxic in high enough amounts of its fat-soluble form.

Originally Posted by bba149

it's not as sexy as "The government wants to poison and/or control us with the poison they're putting in our water" but here goes:



Fluoridation: A Triumph of Science Over Propaganda

Community water fluoridation (herein called simply "fluoridation" or "water fluoridation") is the precise adjustment of the concentration of the essential trace element fluoride in the public water supply to protect teeth and bones. In 1945 Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city in the world to fluoridate its public water supply. Since then, communities throughout the United States have adopted the practice. Water fluoridation is similar to food fortification and enrichment, which encompass the addition of iodine to table salt; vitamins to fruit drinks, milk, and various kinds of pasta; and vitamins and minerals to breakfast cereals and bread. Water fluoridation is the perfect public health intervention, particularly for children. Whole towns are protected in a nondiscriminatory manner. The protection is continuous and effortless to obtain. The fluoride in the water is incorporated into the enamel of developing teeth in children below the age of 16, making their teeth more resistant to decay for a lifetime. It also promotes remineralization of early decay in adults and interferes with the life cycle of decay-causing bacteria present in the mouths of both children and adults.
Water fluoridation is remarkably simple to implement and mimics nature: Virtually all sources of drinking water in North America naturally contain some fluoride. Fluoride levels in the United States are adjusted to about one part fluoride per million parts of water ? a minute concentration.

The Antifluoridationists
While only a minuscule percentage of Americans opposes water fluoridation, an extremist minority urges avoidance of water fluoridation. These antifluoridationists or flurophobics falsely allege that it is unsafe, ineffective, or costly. They assert that exposure to fluoridated water increases the risk of contracting AIDS, cancer, Down's syndrome, heart disease, kidney disease, osteoporosis, and many other health problems in children and the general popluation. But the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence confirms water fluoridation's safety and effectiveness, and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies on fluoride have discredited antifluoridation propaganda. Almost at the moment Grand Rapids became the first community to adjust the fluoride content of its water supply, small groups of ill-informed people began objecting to water fluoridation. Early opponents included chiropractors, health food advocates, and members of fringe political and religious groups. The convergence of such individuals and groups led to the formation of small but highly active regional societies whose primary mission was to fight water fluoridation. Most of these organizations lacked the funds, political expertise, or scientific credibility to have an impact outside their respective communities. Eventually, however, a few better-funded national organizations appeared whose agendas included opposition to water fluoridation. By exploiting scientific illiteracy, common phobias, paranoia concerning communist plots and Big Brotherism, and occasional acceptance of folk medicine, these organizations persuaded a minority of Americans. Their tactics included attracting the media; holding demonstrations at the local-government level; promoting referenda; lobbying public health agencies, state legislatures, and the United States Congress; and litigating at state and federal levels. The effects of such activities did not have lasting importance, and antifluoridation efforts have diminished significantly in recent years. Today, most fluoridation initiatives are successful; court challenges by antifluoridationists are rare; and effective antifluoridation lobbying at both state and federal levels is virtually nonexistent. A latter-day antifluoridationist highspot was the movement's extensive campaign in 1995 to prevent enactment of mandatory statewide fluoridation in California. The campaign failed.

. . . And Justice for All
Despite the decrease in antifluoridation activities, they remain a factor ? albeit a minor one ? in the success or failure of profluoridation efforts in most American cities. The tactics of contemporary antifluoridationists tend more to delay fluoridation than to stop it, but in some areas of the United States fluoridation remains in limbo. This lack of implementation translates into tooth decay, pain, infection, and dental-care expense (see sidebar). Moreover, antifluoridation efforts cost taxpayers money by compelling defense of water fluoridation to legislators, judges, and the media. But litigation, which antifluoridationists once considered the ultimate solution to the "fluoridation menace," has failed as an antifluoridation tactic. No American court of last resort has ever ruled against community water fluoridation. And court decisions that uphold water fluoridation as an acceptable public health measure within the police powers of state and local government have bolstered profluoridation efforts. Furthermore, with only two exceptions, American courts have never ruled on the scientific merits of water fluoridation but have allowed the scientific method ? which includes clinical research and peer review ? to determine whether community water fluoridation is acceptable. In both of the exceptions, higher courts overruled lower-court judges and decreed continuance of water fluoridation in the communities in question.

"Quackery" versus Science
Fluoride is harmless at the levels necessary for maximum benefits. Thousands of studies on fluorides and fluoridation have been completed in the last 50 years ? more than 3,700 since 970 alone. Over 50 peer-reviewed epidemiological studies have dealt with the claim that fluoridation increases cancer risk. None has substantiated the claim. A number of nationally and internationally recognized scientific organizations, including the National Cancer Institute, have reviewed all the available scientific studies on the health of populations with fluoridated water supplies and the health of fluoride-deficient populations. These reviewers have declared fluoridation safe. Indeed, no legitimate epidemiological, laboratory, or clinical study has demonstrated that lifelong ingestion of fluoride at optimal levels in water causes disease in any form. We now have over fifty years' experience with water fluoridation. Moreover, many generations of Americans have spent their lives in areas whose water supplies had naturally occurring fluoride levels 800 to 1,300 percent higher than the levels in fluoridated water. There is no evidence that members of communities with fluoridated water supplies, or with naturally high concentrations of fluoride in their water supplies, have had a higher incidence of any disease than have their contemporaries in areas with water supplies low in fluoride. In 1978 Consumer Reports magazine summed up the situation well: "The simple truth is that there's no 'scientific controversy' over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents, in our opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation." Nearly 145 million Americans can avail themselves of water whose fluoride concentration is optimal. Of the 50 largest municipalities in the United States, 43 have fluoridated water supplies, including four of the five largest cities. Eight states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have mandated fluoridation throughout their respective territories. Three states and the District of Columbia have fluoridated all of their treatable community water supplies. Viable options to community water fluoridation as a public health measure do not exist. There are other community-based methods of fluoride delivery ? school-based programs that involve rinsing the mouth with a fluoride preparation, ingesting fluoride tablets, or submitting to professional dental application of fluoride, for example. But these methods cost considerably more than community water fluoridation, are much more difficult to implement, and are available only to limited numbers of people and only under special circumstances. Such methods are useful to populations without public water systems but decidedly are second-rate.

The Bottom Line
In recent years public resistance to water fluoridation has waned across the United States, partly because of a higher level of education among voters and partly because of consumers' positive experiences with fluoride (as an ingredient in fluoride toothpastes, for example). Healthcare reform movements have made all Americans aware of the importance of disease prevention. Federal, state, and local officials have acted on this awareness, and the pace of efforts to fluoridate America's remaining deficient water supplies has increased markedly. Fluoridation is the high-water mark of efficient public health intervention.


Michael W. Easley, DDS, MPH, is an associate professor in the Department of Oral Health Services and Informatics, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo.


Dollars and Sense
The dental benefits ? and concomitant cost savings ? from fluoridation have been documented for more than half a century. Here are a few facts:
* People who drink fluoridated water for a lifetime will develop up to 70 percent fewer cavities (occurrences of tooth decay) than they would have without fluoridation.
* Because the technology is so simple and the fluoride supplement so inexpensive, fluoridation is extremely cost-effective. Studies indicate that a $100,000 investment in water fluoridation prevents 500,000 cavities.
* Each dollar invested in fluoridation prevents over $80 of dental treatment. Few disease-prevention efforts, and even fewer government-sponsored programs, achieve that level of return on investment.
* The average per capita cost of fluoridating America's public water supplies is 54 cents per year (or $40.50 over a lifetime). The cost of an average single-surface dental restoration is $55. Thus, provision of fluoride in water for a lifetime costs less than one small dental filling.

x2

Though I don't think the cost-effectiveness is enough to justify using taxpayer money to make it mandatory. People should be free to choose. People brush their teeth anyways with fluoridated toothpaste so the point is that fluoridated water isn't even necessary. Yeah it's only 54 cents per person per year, but the point is that people already brush their teeth so that's extra money they could have. Of course, I'm not an anti-fluoride person, I'm more of an anti-tax person.

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

I could just say the same thing about Vitamin A, which is toxic in high enough amounts of its fat-soluble form.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... because Vitamin A and insecticides are pretty much equal

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... because Vitamin A and insecticides are pretty much equal

He never said that you dolt. Grow up and learn to read.

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by psamty

He never said that you dolt. Grow up and learn to read.

You have a crush on me don't you f@gget?

[psamty]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

You have a crush on me don't you f@gget?

You misspelled it, my darling dearest Sultan of Fag

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

How utterly ignorant. I guess all those scientific papers linking sodium fluoride, MSG, aspartame, and all the rest are just figments of my imagination Drink up you dumb drone, drink up...

STRONG EDIT: IT'S ALL IN MY HEAD

http://fluoridealert.org/iq.studies.html

What part of "too much of anything will harm/kill you" don't you get? Stop being an ignorant, gullible, whiney lil girl. You're always complaining about bullsh*t. It's always "There's FLOURIDE in my water" or "there's government in my digital TV cable box watching me" or "contrails from airplanes are gonna kill us all because it's the government spraying us with more flouride".

Bitch, incase you noticed YOU'RE NOT DEAD! SO A LIFETIME OF FLOURIDE/GOVERNMENT MONITORING/CONTRAILS DIDN'T KILL YOU!!!!

(but FEMA and their 22ft tall underground aliens that rule the world will, right? Ya gullible "it was on the internet so it must be true" retard)


Go live your life under your bed in fear of the world, because you're a f*cking coward.

[Nasty$al]

Originally Posted by Dragger

What part of "too much of anything will harm/kill you" don't you get? Stop being an ignorant, gullible, whiney lil girl. You're always complaining about bullsh*t. It's always "There's FLOURIDE in my water" or "there's government in my digital TV cable box watching me" or "contrails from airplanes are gonna kill us all because it's the government spraying us with more flouride".

Bitch, incase you noticed YOU'RE NOT DEAD! SO A LIFETIME OF FLOURIDE/GOVERNMENT MONITORING/CONTRAILS DIDN'T KILL YOU!!!!

(but FEMA and their 22ft tall underground aliens that rule the world will, right? Ya gullible "it was on the internet so it must be true" retard)


Go live your life under your bed in fear of the world, because you're a f*cking coward.

1. The point is, fluoride (motherfukkin rat poison, confirmed) in water supplies is absolutely unnecessary. Anyone saying any ignorant **** like "yea but it's just a little rat poison, it's cool" should be banned from certain jobs and having children.

2. Post exactly what "bull****" I'm "complaining" about. If you mean a world Satanic conspiracy and the destruction of the United States, then yea, I'm pissed about it. If you are too ignorant to see what is happening, or too dumb to connect the dots, then CONGRATULATIONS! YOU ARE AN OFFICIAL ILLUMINATI PROGRAMMED SHEEP ZOMBIE SUB HUMAN DRONE. HOW DOES IT FEEL?

3. LOL @ you not believing things on the internet. You pretty much sum up what you are with that one comment. Like there is nothing credible on the invention that revolutionized society as we know it What an ignorant dog.

[Dragger]

Originally Posted by Nasty$al

1. The point is, fluoride (motherfukkin rat poison, confirmed) in water supplies is absolutely unnecessary. Anyone saying any ignorant **** like "yea but it's just a little rat poison, it's cool" should be banned from certain jobs and having children.

2. Post exactly what "bull****" I'm "complaining" about. If you mean a world Satanic conspiracy and the destruction of the United States, then yea, I'm pissed about it. If you are too ignorant to see what is happening, or too dumb to connect the dots, then CONGRATULATIONS! YOU ARE AN OFFICIAL ILLUMINATI PROGRAMMED SHEEP ZOMBIE SUB HUMAN DRONE. HOW DOES IT FEEL?

3. LOL @ you not believing things on the internet. You pretty much sum up what you are with that one comment. Like there is nothing credible on the invention that revolutionized society as we know it What an ignorant dog.

What part of "too much of anything will harm/kill you" don't you get? Stop being an ignorant, gullible, whiney lil girl. You're always complaining about bullsh*t. It's always "There's FLOURIDE in my water" or "there's government in my digital TV cable box watching me" or "contrails from airplanes are gonna kill us all because it's the government spraying us with more flouride".

Bitch, incase you noticed YOU'RE NOT DEAD! SO A LIFETIME OF FLOURIDE/GOVERNMENT MONITORING/CONTRAILS DIDN'T KILL YOU!!!!

(but FEMA and their 22ft tall underground aliens that rule the world will, right? Ya gullible "it was on the internet so it must be true" retard)


Go live your life under your bed in fear of the world, because you're a f*cking unemployed bum and a coward.