Fluoride

[Fourthdimension]

Hi

Ok so some countrys and products say they have no flouride in them but say that those who belive in this alien retillian thing are right (doubtful though it seems all hyped up and full of crap) or say that the goverment is trying to make us ingest flouride in means of contolling us then why would they tell you its there.
Why would nt they just put t in to bottled water, water ,food, milk , juice and then just not tell you its there or label it. Then you 'd all be drinking it and have no choice and no one would know the better or could complain to the goverment.

Its just a thought

[radman32]

Well the government doesn't control everything, so yeah. And sometimes you have to sacrifice somethings in order to keep your plans in motion. So the slow release of info is just a buffer which can't last. I'll be working towards independence and freedom of the individuals.

[Psychic19]

I knew cashews was healthy for teeth and I had a tooth ache but after eating apples and Cashews its gone. But I was eating Cashews and apples before I got to tooth ache though!

Forth there is Fluoride in everything including bottled water. I am not positive about the Reptile thing but the Government is definitely out to control us. I usually drink Aquafina and it has some Fluoride in it. A lot less then tap water but its still in there. Pesticides have it too so I don't know if I should even wash my fruit off with tap water since it toxic with not just Fluoride but also prescription medication and sex hormones. Yes that is what the media found out is in Pittsburgh water.

You ask why isn't the government more secretive & others ask if this is true how can the government keep it a secret. Well how do we know what Area 51 is? There are people exposing what the government is doing and many of these brave souls are dead now. Information leaks everywhere but those who try to educate you can not make you listen. There is no absolute secrecy and there is no absolute disclosure. From a Psychological point of view instead of sneaking around & risk getting caught it is wiser if the population is miss informed. So that is exactly what they did with the Fluoride situation. I tried to talk to someone about Fluoride and he insisted that its good for you in small amounts.

This link has already been posted on this forum but it has a very good educational video on it so I'll post it again.

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

[Panthau]

Thanks for the link, gonna take a look at it later.

Im looking for a waterfilter, which can filter fluoride. Does anyone know any product?

Thanks
Pan

[Xanth]

It's very hard to find a residential product that has a cost worth spending that can filter fluoride.
Stuff like a Britta filter doesn't do it.

[Psychic19]

Its true Brita doesn't do it. I remember Adrian talking about Fluoride. He said they are tiny ions and filters wont remove them. I think you'd need a reverse osmosis filter. Adrian collects his own spring water from his Island but we can't all do that! This really isn't something we can easily get away from.

[Stillwater]

He said they are tiny ions and filters wont remove them. I think you'd need a reverse osmosis filter

I think that you are exactly right; and aqueous flouride is definitely a little ion, and as such, is not going to be filtered by a mesh designed for particulate matter.


Flouridated water is one of those few things conspiracy theory people are always hyping, that turns out to be unequivocally true. We are still flouridating our water supply in the U.S. and across Western Europe, despite the major health problems it is known to invoke, not the least of which is flourosis, which effects teeth and bones. It may also have effects on metabolism, such as hypothyroidism. Other effects, such as early calcification of the pineal have unknown, but potentially deterimental effects. And yet our governments, knowing these things, and also that the benefits that were purported are entirely erroneous, continue to actively flouridate our water, for no rational reason. This fact is indeed disturbing.

[Panthau]

Thanks for the info... it gets disturbing living in this weird world. Have you read
about the neurodermatitis thing? A german guy has found a cure (there were several clinical trials) for it in the early ´90s
but no pharma concern wanted to produce it. In fact, they wanted to buy it of off the guy,
but not produce it, so they can sell their own morbid stuff. Healthy people do bring no money!
The guy who found the cure was mobbed so hard, he nearly died.

Now that there have been a coverage about this from a broadcast station in germany, a small pharma group started to produce this stuff,
its available now in austria, germany and switzerland. Dunno about other countrys, i think they will follow.

The funny thing about that is, that this cure contains only vitamin b12, an emulsifier and avocado oil. Any adverse effects
are nearly completly impossible. Anyone with dermal problems should try this stuff.

http://www.regividerm.de/

[Stillwater]

That is not difficult to beleive. I am not at all preaching for communism here, but incidents like this highlight what is pretty much bound to happen when the public interest is dependent on groups (large companies, in this case) which function and continue to exist by pursuing profit as their primary end.

Many times, the public interest is served by this pursuit, as in the case of more stringent safety standards, but conversely, these businesses will utterly ignore aspects of their products which are not in the immediate public eye, but which nonetheless have dire health consequences. I think a capitalist system can work in principle, but that serious constraints must be placed on products, and public advocacy groups, to which new advances can be reported, should exist to ensure that profit-driven businesses don't make the final say in cases of human interest.

The liberal manifesto, in other words...

[Psychic19]

Yes very true information you have Water. Adrian claims to have a degree in Organic Chemistry. He said Fluoride is an ion.

Thau you bring up a lot of good points as well. For instance sound healing through Cymatics has been suppressed for many years. It isn't very widely practiced and the instruments of its use have not advanced over the years.

[Smokeytehbear]

I think Icke's claims are nutty too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwKcjRD1DNE

I used to think so too.  What's your take on his pupils?

[zareste]

It's always compression artifacts. Unless a video is high-def, none of that's reliable.

[kurtykurt42]

I was thinking it might be possible to kill the fluoride in water with the use of crystals and our thoughts. By holding the crystals you focus all of your intent on converting the water to only two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, destroying all other matter/energy (especially Fluoride). Then you place the crystal in a gallon jug and fill it with tap water. The energy field around the crystals will alter the energy pattern of the water making it safer and healthier to drink.

[Stillwater]

Well, if you were to "destroy" that many flouride ions, you would release a massive amount of energy- nuclear explosion level. They would most likely degrade by fission. Where does your crystal put the nuclear blast?

You can test your apparatus to see if it is really removing the flouride:

Place the crystal-treated water in an inert crucible (preferrably platinum), add concentrated sulphuric acid, and then take a piece of glass which has been covered in wax, and scratch lettering into the wax. Place the glass over the crucible, lettering down, and then heat the crucible. If the flouride is really gone, nothing should happen to the glass. You also need a control test, where water with flouride in it is tested, in which trial the gases from the solution should etch the glass when heated in the cruicible.

It sounds like a lot of effort, but if you are claiming a crystal can take flouride out of the water, you need to do something at least as rigorous to test it, before you tell others it works.

[zareste]

It sounds like a lot of effort, but if you are claiming a crystal can take flouride out of the water, you need to do something at least as rigorous to test it, before you tell others it works.

Who's making these rules?

[Stillwater]

Quantitative Chemists.

A claim was made about the presence or abscence of a certain chemical substance, and quantitative analysis is how you go about backing up a claim like that. So I guess the universe?

And I wasn't kidding around- these steps can reasonably be done by a normal person without much expense( you can use any inert cruicible- platinum just happens to be the best), and they would give a first step toward evaluating whether or not the new method using the crystal was working.

No one said anyone needs to go through steps like that, but if you don't prove it even to yourself, then how can you responsibly tell it to others?

[zareste]

You don't really have to prove it to someone. It's just true or false

[AngelicDraconian]

My thing is, I don't outright accuse reptiles of the fluoride attacks, even if they have some influence on the planet. That's because the ones with the most control of Earth - the ones who decided we should be made stupid and unaware of the outside universe - are the self-proclaimed 'light beings', the angels, Pleiadian types. I would just as soon believe that the 'fragment of Archangel Michael' (if he's real) is taking part in the poisoning.

Indeed, I don't think all Draco's are bad, and I don't think all Pleiadian, light haired higher beings are all good...

No easy way.  The best advice I have received is that the best way to detox or keep your body pure is to simply not eat.  I take fasting much more seriously now as a spiritual practice, especially since now that I am used to it,  eating many things like cheeseburgers or hot dogs instantly make me feel ill.  I only have to take about a bite of something and my body (my mouth) will readily let me know what it is that I'm ingesting and what my body can do with it.  It's a feeling down your whole spine into your gut, as if based on physical experience.

Indeed most food makes me ill, if it's not organic or healthy, I prefur filterd tap water to the normal.
Once you get to experience the normal to the higher version, you can taste which is better...

I drink bottled water and like eating nuts and things not treated or processed with tap water or any other chemicals if possible.  There really is not a whole lot to choose from when you are talking about avoiding fluoride in food anymore

Even most bottle water has it, and I believe so even if it doesn't say so. You can taste it..
I say try blessing your water/food with reiki healing energy.
Or blessing it in a form like that.
But that does take a lot of energy so.
-shrugs-

[Xanth]

You don't really have to prove it to someone. It's just true or false

How can something be known if it's untested/unproven?  If something is unproven, the very least we can say about it is that it's neither true nor false... if's proven then we have a definitive answer.
Please explain...?

[zareste]

True and false does not regard whether someone has proven something to you

[kurtykurt42]

How can something be known if it's untested/unproven?  If something is unproven, the very least we can say about it is that it's neither true nor false... if's proven then we have a definitive answer.
Please explain...?

Sometimes we can use our instincts to determine if something is right or wrong (true or false). All that maters is that you prove it to yourself. Don't rely on others to prove things to you in order to believe it or you may be waiting around for a while...

[Xanth]

Sometimes we can use our instincts to determine if something is right or wrong (true or false). All that maters is that you prove it to yourself. Don't rely on others to prove things to you in order to believe it or you may be waiting around for a while...

The problem is that sometimes self-truths are lies.
This means we can't rely on them as evidence... and why we have a scientific process.

This is fine as long as you don't intend to persuade anyone into your line of reasoning.
But once you start trying to convince people what is right or wrong (true or false) regarding a particular situation... that's when your "instincts" fall to the side and REAL proof is required.

[kurtykurt42]

But once you start trying to convince people what is right or wrong (true or false) regarding a particular situation... that's when your "instincts" fall to the side and REAL proof is required.

Don't be so sure... like I've said before, REAL proof is not always easy to find. What's real to one person may be fake to another.

[Stillwater]

This is fine as long as you don't intend to persuade anyone into your line of reasoning.
But once you start trying to convince people what is right or wrong (true or false) regarding a particular situation... that's when your "instincts" fall to the side and REAL proof is required.

This is along the lines of what I was trying to say. You can prove something to yourself somewhat easily, and it is quite okay to share this with others. There is a distinction between sharing your findings, however, and trying to persuade others, since the latter clearly requires much stronger levels of proof and clarity to be done effectively. It is clearly not your intention to persuade, from what I have seen, and that is perfectly fine. The only danger comes when personal findings are reported as facts, since here the lines gray out. A person might have no intention of offering as their ideas as formal proofs, but when this is the case, it should be implied in the language used, since if the ideas discussed are presented as affirmed statements, rather than as personal experiences, this establishes the idea in the mind of a reader that a more rigorous proof is being intended than is the case.

Don't be so sure... like I've said before, REAL proof is not always easy to find. What's real to one person may be fake to another.

Also quite true. Despite appearances to the contrary, there is actually very little agreement in accademic philosophy as to what constitutes a proof. Granted, we have tools like the laws of logical consequence, but these generally require logical axioms to function, like the law of non-contradiction, and these can never really be proven themselves, though they inductively seem to always hold. It is possible that even the law of non-contradiction itself may be not be fully true, although it is beyond disturbing to think of a situation where the same thing could both be and not be true, and the sort of terrifying world which might accompany such logical disorder.

[Xanth]

Don't be so sure... like I've said before, REAL proof is not always easy to find. What's real to one person may be fake to another.

Regardless of how difficult it is to find it, you still have to find it.  Otherwise it's only true/false to you through your own opinion... and opinion doesn't sway me much. 

And yes, what constitutes proof can widely vary from person to person.