To promote the recent protest of Chapel Hill’s water authority for systematically medicating our drinking water, I purchased $29.00 in adspace for the above video on Facebook.com. When I built the campaign I set the following parameters:
- who live in the United States
- who live in Chapel Hill, NC, Durham, NC or Raleigh, NC
- who like #Peace, #Activism, #Health, #Social change, #Social science or #Politics
I had hoped this would get the word out enough to inspire some extra voices to attend and support our effort but instead it produced a window into the awareness level of the general public. The fact that people are talking at all about this subject makes our effort easily a total success and the metrics support this conclusion as well:
However, what I have posted below is educational in and of itself, especially to those who are already awake to the fluoride deception. The comments garnered are from the original DAF post on facebook and secondly the comments seen on the clear main antagonist Jeff Shaw’s own public Facebook page. Antagonist is a somewhat harsh word, if he were not so dismissive and rude on the assumed privacy of his not-private Facebook page. What transpires is yielding for everyone as Jeff and his FB friends discuss public water fluoridation. Thankfully a couple seem to call Jeff’s bluff and this is no doubt beneficial to our case thanks to Jeff’s self evidently poor understanding of the issue. When the true naysayers stop talking, you can bet we are close to critical mass.
What is truly frustrating about battling fluoride is that the very symptoms of overexposure (decrease in Intelligence Quotient) literally prevents a certain portion of the population from making the neural connections necessary to understand the totality of the evidence. In other words – Fluoride makes you too dumb to realize fluoride is making you dumb! Forge ahead and you will see what I mean…

Doctors also acknowledge that some people are sensitive to vaccines. This is not an argument against vaccination.
Terms of the bet: if you win, I will admit I was wrong. If I win, you take down the page. Fair enough, right? I’ll even throw in a donation to a charity of your choice if I lose.
(And I’ve read the Harvard stuff, yeah. 1. They only conclude we need more studies (which I’ll never say no to, we can always learn more), and 2. I think their methodology is flawed anyway.)
(Also, that WTVD story is the worst, least scientific bit of reporting I’ve seen from a mainstream news agency. I award the journalist no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.)
Look, you bought Facebook ads to spread this nonsense or else I never would have seen it. I grew up in two areas without fluoride and my teeth are terrible: I don’t want that to happen to another generation of kids, so I commented.
But this has taken up enough of my time. Anyone that buys this stuff I’m not going to convince anyway. You have a nice day now.
Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a
long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”
– Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.
AMA isn’t probably what you’d consider a credible scientific organization.
data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects.” – Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.
EPA is probably too crazy for you too, aey?
Jeff Shaw Posted
1. They conclude we need more studies, which I’ll never say no to, and
2. They conclude that there is probably an optimal level of fluoridation, which of course there is, and (most importantly)
3. It is unwise to take any one study, even a study that aggregates data, and draw conclusions from it. Anyone can find one study that might suggest caution or skepticism on an issue, because a) there are a lot of studies out there and b) caution, skepticism and further study are rarely bad.
But don’t lose the forest when you’re looking at a tree. I can find a study in two minutes urging more study on global warming, or on vaccine safety. That doesn’t mean the larger argument isn’t settled.
Perhaps some of the opposition was controlled.
In any case your approach is working.
________________________________
“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in the enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.” SOURCE: CDC (2001). Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 50(RR14):1-42.