Fluoride, Makes us Docile and Passive? Thoughts??

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So which countries do you think it is banned in?
Just the Netherlands?


"Having no legal basis" is not "banned".
jh79 explains this to you very clearly. I have explained this to you before.

The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis

If it is banned, please point to the legislation that specifically bans it. Otherwise, my point stands because if there is no legislation banning it: then it's not banned!
At best, fluoridation opponents are exaggerating, if not outright lying.

This is what the EU says

The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis

Does fluoridation have a legal basis in the Netherlands ?

It didnt in the Netherlands and so the various CC who implemented it already where told to stop using Fluoride effectively banning the use

Its so simples

King Mob wrote: »

Evading the question.
Is the claim that fluoride can be used to make people docile supported by any evidence? Yes or no?

Was it properly researched ? otherwise saying yes or no doesnt mean anything

Advbrd

Now I know where I went wrong.
The kids have gone nuts since we moved out to the country.
I must start adding fluoride to the well to keep the ba$tdards quiet.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

This is what the EU says

Where does it say this? In what context?
Is this the best you have to show "no legal basis" = "banned"? If so, you'll need to try a bit harder...

weisses wrote: »

Does fluoridation have a legal basis in the Netherlands ?

Assuming the letter is real and accurately translated, which I have doubts about still, then yes.
However, your bizarre interpretation of what that means is not correct. This has been explained to you.

weisses wrote: »

It didnt in the Netherlands and so the various CC who implemented it already where told to stop using Fluoride effectively banning the use

Its so simples

Why do you keep saying "effectively" banned?
Is that different from actually banned?

Again, if there is no legislation that bans it, then it is not banned.

weisses wrote: »

Was it properly researched ? otherwise saying yes or no doesnt mean anything

Again evaded.
Anti-fluoridationists claim positively that fluoride can be used to make people docile. Im asking if you believe that this is supported by evidence.

If you were fairly applying your strict standards of evidence, then the answer would be a very strong "no" since there is no evidence to support it at all.

So again, you seem fine with your camp spreading abject lies as long as they're opposing fluoridation.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Where does it say this? In what context?
Is this the best you have to show "no legal basis" = "banned"? If so, you'll need to try a bit harder...


Assuming the letter is real and accurately translated, which I have doubts about still, then yes.
However, your bizarre interpretation of what that means is not correct. This has been explained to you.


Why do you keep saying "effectively" banned?
Is that different from actually banned?

Again, if there is no legislation that bans it, then it is not banned.



Again evaded.
Anti-fluoridationists claim positively that fluoride can be used to make people docile. Im asking if you believe that this is supported by evidence.

If you were fairly applying your strict standards of evidence, then the answer would be a very strong "no" since there is no evidence to support it at all.

So again, you seem fine with your camp spreading abject lies as long as they're opposing fluoridation.

I think its pretty obvious it got banned ...due to the fact it was in use and there was no further legal basis for continuation

You even said the banned myth was debunked .... that is 3 years ago and you still posted nothing noteworthy that support that view

General principle of European Union law[edit]
The concept of legal certainty has been recognised as one of the general principles of European Union law by the European Court of Justice since the 1960s.[3] It is an important general principle of international law and public law, which predates European Union law. As a general principle in European Union law, it means that the law must be certain, in that it is clear and precise, and its legal implications foreseeable, especially when applied to financial obligations. The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis. Legislation in member states which implements European Union law must be worded so that it is clearly understandable by those who are subject to the law.

Was fluoridation implemented ? ..yes ... Can you fluoridate the water supply in The Netherlands now ? No ... Why not ?.. It was found that there was No legal basis for its use ... Are CC's banned from implementing fluoridation? ... Yes

I cannot make it any clearer for you

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

I think its pretty obvious it got banned ...due to the fact it was in use and there was no further legal basis for continuation

You even said the banned myth was debunked .... that is 3 years ago and you still posted nothing noteworthy that support that view



Was fluoridation implemented ? ..yes ... Can you fluoridate the water supply in The Netherlands now ? No ... Why not ?.. It was found that there was No legal basis for its use ... Are CC's banned from implementing fluoridation? ... Yes

I cannot make it any clearer for you

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

I asked in the Legal Discussion forum hopefully someone replies.

Bongalongherb

It seems like the AMA in the past never done any research into fluoride according to their old letter below. And Germany 'a drinking water fluoridation experiment' they said. The AMA even back then just added it when they themselves said no research was ever done into the side-effects of it.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I think its pretty obvious it got banned ...due to the fact it was in use and there was no further legal basis for continuation

These two things are not the same.

weisses wrote: »

You even said the banned myth was debunked .... that is 3 years ago and you still posted nothing noteworthy that support that view

The myth was that Fluoride is banned in 95% of Europe.
This is debunked.

The current myth is that it is banned in "some countries".
(Even if your arguments held) One country does not equal "some".
Again, the myth is debunked.

You already agree with those things.

General principle of European Union law[edit]
The concept of legal certainty has been recognised as one of the general principles of European Union law by the European Court of Justice since the 1960s.[3] It is an important general principle of international law and public law, which predates European Union law. As a general principle in European Union law, it means that the law must be certain, in that it is clear and precise, and its legal implications foreseeable, especially when applied to financial obligations. The adoption of laws which will have legal effect in the European Union must have a proper legal basis. Legislation in member states which implements European Union law must be worded so that it is clearly understandable by those who are subject to the law.

Ok, putting aside the relevance of this and how it doesn't support "no legal basis meaning banned", it seems that this is shooting you in your own foot.

How can something be banned if there is no law banning it?
Because according to this, for something to have a legal effect, there must me a law.
Are you arguing that the ban has no legal effect?

weisses wrote: »

Was fluoridation implemented ? ..yes ... Can you fluoridate the water supply in The Netherlands now ? No ... Why not ?.. It was found that there was No legal basis for its use ... Are CC's banned from implementing fluoridation? ... Yes

I cannot make it any clearer for you

Here's another example:
The Irish Air Corp used to have jet fighters.
They don't now.
There is no legal basis for them to have jet fighters (ie. there is nothing requiring that they must have them.)
Therefore: Jet fighters are banned in Ireland.

Which part of that do you disagree with?
Or is "Jet fighters are banned in Ireland" a true statement?

weisses wrote: »

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

Yet, then don't want to seem to focus on these issues and would rather make up lies.
Something you again seem ok with just as long as the lies are for a good cause...

weisses wrote: »

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

It's more telling that you have trouble answering a yes or no question.
But it seems like you don't believe that there is any evidence supporting the claim that it makes people docile.
I don't understand what's so hard about saying that.

jh79

http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057663764/1/#post101476190

From the legal discussion forum

Advbrd

weisses wrote: »

Anti fluoridists have issues with fluoride in general in regards to the docile part

I use fluoride ..... What does that tell you ?

Well.... going by this thread, you do not appear to be "docile and passive" so I would have to say that the heading is nonsense.

jh79

So it's not banned in Holland in the legal sense according to those in the legal forum.

Getting back to the OP what is the evidence that it makes us docile and what is the supposed science behind it?

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

So it's not banned in Holland in the legal sense according to those in the legal forum.

Getting back to the OP what is the evidence that it makes us docile and what is the supposed science behind it?

officially or legally prohibited then ?

endacl

weisses wrote: »

So docile and passive that we don't even look if there is already a thread on the subject ........ shocking stuff that fluoride :rolleyes:

Circular paranoia.

Those who think flouride makes people docile avoid it. They refute all evidence provided by clever folks who actually know about stuff, and are therefore 'not docile'. Those who pay no heed to the daft conspiracy are, by definition, 'docile'. From the point of view of the conspiracist, common sense on the part of people who know there to be no issue with flouridization is proof that the theory is true.

There's no reasoning with circular paranoia. I'm obviously 'docile', but I've grand healthy teeth.

weisses

Advbrd wrote: »

Well.... going by this thread, you do not appear to be "docile and passive" so I would have to say that the heading is nonsense.

That is proof my tin-foil hat is working

jh79

weisses wrote: »

officially or legally prohibited then ?

It's not banned according to those in the legal forum. That's what's incorrectly claimed by Fluoride Alert et al.

If the Dutch want fluoridation they easily can introduce it by passing a bill in parliament and there are no legal hurdles preventing that.

If it was banned they would have change the law.

Now that you require robust scientific evidence do you now reject any association between fluoridation and IQ , cancer etc?

Do you now reject alternative medicine and herbal remedies and the like ?

endacl

weisses wrote: »

That is proof my tin-foil hat is working

Tinfoil causes aliens, dude. Careful now...

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

It's not banned according to those in the legal forum. That's what's incorrectly claimed by Fluoride Alert et al.

If the Dutch want fluoridation they easily can introduce it by passing a bill in parliament and there are no legal hurdles preventing that.

If it was banned they would have change the law.

Now that you require robust scientific evidence do you now reject any association between fluoridation and IQ , cancer etc?

Do you now reject alternative medicine and herbal remedies and the like ?

No they cannot

the fundamental social right Article 11 was added in the constitution in 1983.

Basically outlining that fluoride cannot be added to respect the inviolability of the human body

Article 11 was specially drafted because of the fluoride debate

weisses

endacl wrote: »

Tinfoil causes aliens, dude. Careful now...

Passed that .... I'm blinking sideways now

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No they cannot

the fundamental social right Article 11 was added in the constitution in 1983.

Basically outlining that fluoride cannot be added to respect the inviolability of the human body

Are you still arguing that it's banned even though it's been shown not to be the case?

What's the difference between "Banned" and "officially or legally prohibited"?
Are you arguing they mean the same thing?

Why do anti-fluoridations claim it is banned (in the Netherlands as well as other countries)?

weisses wrote: »

Article 11 was specially drafted because of the fluoride debate

Source for this?
The article in question does not mention anything about fluoride. Neither does the judge in his letter. You'd think if that claim is the case, then he would have explained that in the request of information...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

What's the difference between "Banned" and "officially or legally prohibited"?
Are you arguing they mean the same thing?

Well if you google definition of banned that comes up

King Mob wrote: »

Source for this?
The article in question does not mention anything about fluoride. Neither does the judge in his letter. You'd think if that claim is the case, then he would have explained that in the request of information...

http://www.dentalinfo.nl/kennis/waarom-er-geen-fluoride-in-ons-drinkwater-zit/

Onaantastbaarheid
Als afsluiting van de discussie over de drinkwaterfluoridering werd in 1983 het sociale grondrecht artikel 11 opgenomen in de constitutie. Dit artikel stelde dat eenieder het recht heeft, behoudens bij of krachtens de wet te stellen beperkingen, op de onaantastbaarheid van zijn lichaam. De jurisprudentie van de Raad van State en de Hoge Raad uit de jaren zestig en zeventig over de drinkwaterfluoridering lag hieraan ten grondslag.

En zo komt het dat wij na 1976 geen extra fluoride in het water meer hebben ter voorkoming van cariës en dat het onwaarschijnlijk is dat eventuele fluorideverhogingen in het drinkwater ooit nog door de Nederlandse overheid zullen worden uitgevoerd.

In dutch ... google translate will help you a long way

jh79

weisses wrote: »

No they cannot

the fundamental social right Article 11 was added in the constitution in 1983.

Basically outlining that fluoride cannot be added to respect the inviolability of the human body

Article 11 was specially drafted because of the fluoride debate

Not particularly bothered if this is truely the case doesn't change the science behind it.

Want to discuss your new found standards when it comes to scientific research and how it impacts your previous beliefs regarding fluoride and IQ or natural remedies and so called alt medicine?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Why do anti-fluoridations claim it is banned (in the Netherlands as well as other countries)?

Not allowed in Sweden ie Banned

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Not allowed in Sweden ie Banned

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

Not on the list , the list could be updated if required.

A ban requires a law stating do not add fluoride.

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Not particularly bothered if this is truely the case doesn't change the science behind it.

Want to discuss your new found standards when it comes to scientific research and how it impacts your previous beliefs regarding fluoride and IQ or natural remedies and so called alt medicine?

This is not about science ... its about law and why the Dutch banned the use of fluoride and added an article in the constitution

In regards to my standards .... They have not changed much ... Its the standard of pro fluoridation research that is addressed in the Cochrane report. Not something I can do much about

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

Not on the list , the list could be updated if required.

A ban requires a law stating do not add fluoride.

What do you think NOT allowed means ?

They got it banned in 1971 because of a repeal to the 1962 fluoridation act

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Well if you google definition of banned that comes up

So then, it's not "legal prohibited" either as has been explained to you.
Or do you disagree with the opinions of the people on the Legal Discussion forum?

weisses wrote: »

http://www.dentalinfo.nl/kennis/waarom-er-geen-fluoride-in-ons-drinkwater-zit/

In dutch ... google translate will help you a long way

Here's what the actual constitution says:

Article 11
Everyone shall have the right to inviolability of his person, without
prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to Act of Parliament

http://www.ivir.nl/syscontent/pdfs/144.pdf
No mention of Fluoride.

The translation of the website you posted does not support your claim that the article was specifically added to address fluoride.

And given how you interpretations of quotes in English don't always match up with reality, I don't have much confidence in your interpretation of something that has been google translated.

So again: Fluoride is not banned anywhere, neverrmind in 95% of Europe.

I too would like to see your opinion on the claims of negative effects of fluoride given your new stringent standards of evidence.
Is there any papers you've seen that pass your standards that show that it can make people docile? If so, please post.
If not, are you ok with anti-fluordiation activists and groups claiming this?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

This is not about science ... its about law and why the Dutch banned the use of fluoride and added an article in the constitution

In regards to my standards .... They have not changed much ... Its the standard of pro fluoridation research that is addressed in the Cochrane report. Not something I can do much about

But it is hypocritical to dismiss research that doesn't meet the Cochrane standard that is pro fluoridation and not dismiss the poor quality research that helped form your beliefs on adverse effects re fluoridation and the benefits of alt medicine, wouldn't you agree?

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Not allowed in Sweden ie Banned

http://www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

Please point to the law that specifically prohibits it.
Otherwise, as has been pointed out to you, it is a dishonest exaggeration to claim it's banned.

I also like how the header of the site you've posted repeats the claim you've agreed is untrue...

weisses

jh79 wrote: »

But it is hypocritical to dismiss research that doesn't meet the Cochrane standard that is pro fluoridation and not dismiss the poor quality research that helped form your beliefs on adverse effects re fluoridation and the benefits of alt medicine, wouldn't you agree?

Was that reviewed as well by them?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Please point to the law that specifically prohibits it.
Otherwise, as has been pointed out to you, it is a dishonest exaggeration to claim it's banned.

Article 11 of the constitution ... They used jurisprudence of the State Council and the Supreme court in regards to the debate in the sixties and seventies on drinking water fluoridation

King Mob wrote: »

I also like how the header of the site you've posted repeats the claim you've agreed is untrue...

What header is that now ?

jh79

weisses wrote: »

Was that reviewed as well by them?

I can't believe you still don't understand or haven't read the Cochrane review . We don't need Cochrane to review this they list the criteria required , Papers by Grandjean etc don't meet it.

I did warn you that this path would back you in a corner.

You could pretend the animal studies by Mullinex are sufficent if you like.