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:
Targets 52,880 users:
- 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…
Joel Dooris The more I find out about the history of how it got in water in the first place, the more I’m finding we can’t take it out. It had ZERO to do with teeth, dental health was just a great side effect so they marketed to that.
Jeff Shaw Fluoride treatment was listed by the CDC as the #9 most important public health advance of the 20th century, between family planning and recognition of tobacco as a health hazard: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm?mobile=nocontent
During the 20th century, the health and life expectancy of persons residing in t…See More
Durham Against Fluoride Jeff – do you believe the CDC? The CDC has also stated that overexposure to ingested fluoride is the precise reason 40% of adolescents suffer from Fluorosis which is the deterioration of your dental enamel. http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/dental_fluorosis.htm
enter description here
Jeff Shaw Yes, I believe the CDC. Yes, I believe overexposure can be an issue. But you can’t just look at one issue in isolation: CDC (and basically every legitimate scientific organization) say that, despite any potential problems, fluoridation is on balance beneficial.
Doctors also acknowledge that some people are sensitive to vaccines. This is not an argument against vaccination.
Doctors also acknowledge that some people are sensitive to vaccines. This is not an argument against vaccination.
Joel Dooris Have you done the research yourself on this subject, or are you just basing it on what you’ve been told? I’m sorry if that seems an upsetting question, but because someone else asked me that question it pissed me off enough to actually go and look it up. Now I ask you to do the same.
Durham Against Fluoride Jeff, do you agree that our water plant should medicate the water supply? How do you measure dosage? Don’t you need a prescription from a doctor in order to receive medicine? Also YOU are the one my friend taking CDC’s statement in isolation, and are flat out wrong that every “legitimate” scientific organization say Fluoride is beneficial. Did you read the meta analysis produced by Harvard? If not perhaps you are on the losing side of the argument:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/fluoride_b_2479833.html
At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily…See More
Jeff Shaw I’ll make a bet with you. Why don’t we call CDC *right now* and ask them whether fluoride is on-balance beneficial? This would seem to resolve the question of which one of us is taking their view in isolation, right?
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.)
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.)
Maria Winslow I will personally drill the teeth of the loser for free.
Durham Against Fluoride Sadly Jeff the CDC is not the final say. You would win the bet, because the CDC is invested in the perpetuation of this policy…Unlike you I like to think for myself and don’t take my cues from a singular agency. I can make a decision based on a comprehensive analysis of the data. I got a better bet for you – since you’re so passionate about this and apparently know enough to argue about it on my page and yours, why don’t you face me in a skype debate on the topic, and I will post on my site and you can present to your entire facebook friend list and we will see who’s information/argument is better received?
Durham Against Fluoride http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/abc11_investigates&id=8887007
abclocal.go.com
The I-Team investigates as mounting studies suggest chemical can be harmful.
Jeff Shaw Forget the CDC. (Which is not “a singular agency,” but whatever.) There is no credible scientific organization that is opposed to fluoride. These are the people that actually engage in comprehensive data analysis. Sure, there are people that want more studies to achieve optimal health policy, as well they should, but no one thinks it’s been on-balance a problem.
(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.
(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.
Durham Against Fluoride What about the debate Jeff? your anecdotal evidence that you have bad teeth and grew up without fluoride added to your water doesn’t scientifically prove anything nor does it justify your assertion that we should systematically and forcibly medicate everyone via the drinking water. To reverse that, I grew up fluoridated and I have terrible teeth but I don’t use that as an argument. Anyhow it’s pretty clear you don’t know enough on this subject to engage in a 2-way conversation about it, let alone a debate, so just remember you were exposed to this information when it is revealed how wrong you were.
Joel Dooris Jeff I congratulate you on your ability to find fault the methods of Harvard researchers, not many people can boast that!
Jeff Shaw You’ve gotten enough of my attention. I hope the return you got on the Facebook ads was worth it.
Joel Dooris “I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs.
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.
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.
Joel Dooris “E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer
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?
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?
Joel Dooris Oh by the way most of the research libraries in the EPA are now closed to private citizens… so good luck getting any supporting data. They used to be open for anyone!
___________________________________________________________________
Jeff Shaw Posted
13 Hours ago near Raleigh via Mobile
There’s a “Durham Against Fluoride” Facebook page? Oh, the shame. Go sit in a corner with the anti-vaxers.
Melissa Jane Hobbs srsly.
Lex Alexander FFS.
Melissa Jane Hobbs Oh, and did you know that “sonograms might cause autism?” That’s a random gem I picked up a few weeks ago from some chick who works at the mall. I’m like, uh, dude, first of all, a sonogram is a PRINTOUT of an ultrasound. I don’t think a piece of paper is going to make your kid have autism. And second of all, WHAT.
Melissa Jane Hobbs She said she heard about it in “a documentary on Netflix.” 
Nathan Hobbs Fluoride treatment was listed as the #9 most important public health advance of the 20th century, between family planning and recognition of tobacco as a health hazard: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm?mobile=nocontent
Jeff Shaw Fluoride or GTFO
Nathan Hobbs Vaccination, of course, was #1.
Bryan Shelly When the New World Florder comes for all of you, I’m going to laugh.
Jeff Shaw My precious bodily fluids are already so corrupted, it’s not going to make any difference.
Jonathan Helfgott I still blame every single one of my cavities on the unholy alliance between the all-natural lefties and the anti-government lunatic fringe right wingers that kept fluoride out of Bellingham my entire childhood (and continues to to this day as far as I know).
Jeff Shaw Amen.
Carolyn Nielsen Just like bham !
12 hours ago via mobile
Melissa Jane Hobbs OMG, a different facebook friend of mine just posted the stupidest thing I have seen in a long time… some crap about Merck putting “cancer viruses” in their vaccines. WHAT??? Yeah, I’m sure that’s true. *rolls eyes*
Jeff Shaw My well-meaning hippie vegan lesbian dog food store owning ladies in Bellingham once got legitimately angry at me for supporting fluoride. I had to find a new place to buy food from Russell and penny.
Bryan Shelly Last time I checked, Russell and Penny both have a full set of teeth. Advantage Shaw.
Chris Weld This is your best post ever. As the husband of a dentist, I will point out that people like this will be funding my children’s college education one day.
Jeff Shaw Well, at least there’s a bright side.
Jeff Shaw Annnnnnd now I’m arguing with them, because I don’t have enough to do.
Debbie Preston They can join the nutty Port Angelenos…meanwhile, Forks has had fluoride for decades…..betcha didn’t see that comin’…
Kirk Ross Watts Hill was the original anti-floridation dude. True story.
10 hours ago via mobile
Mary Lane Gallagher Yikes! Flashbacks!
Greg Seeligson Jeff, any comments on the link shared by Thomas Nadelhoffer?
Jeff Shaw About 50. Let’s start here. http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/11/2485561/harvard-scientists-data-on-fluoride.html
Harvard University scientists say that Wichita voters shouldn’t depend on a rese…See More
9 hours ago · 1
Jeff Shaw I have three other meta-comments about the Harvard stuff before I take the dogs for a walk:
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.
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.
9 hours ago · 2
Thomas Nadelhoffer Jeff, I am surprised by your confidence! I provided a link to a study which showed that there are health risks associated with the consumption of flouride (especially in children). The response developed in the editorial you posted (which is poorly argued and not especially well balanced, I might add) seems to miss the point. Insofar as it is well established that flouride can be harmful at higher doses, the onus is on the pro-flouride group to provide data that it is safe at the level they’re advocating (assuming, of course, that the burden is always on the person who advocates a potentially harmful practice). Have you seen such a study? I haven’t (but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any).
Jeff Shaw Thomas, good as always to hear from you. Oddly, I’ve been engaged on this issue for a while. I’ll reply after I walk the pack.
9 hours ago · 1
Adam Raymond That’s really cool that you posted this. I heard the headline from the Harvard study showing that high levels of flouride can lower your IQ on NPR a couple of weeks ago, but I hadn’t had time to actually investigate.
Jeff Shaw I might post something else tonight or I might not — sudden grad school emergency — but I’ll get to it, I swear!
Christine Malumphy You should probably respond to the global warming deniers and creationists first. They have more studies on their side.
4 hours ago via mobile
Advertisements
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.