Maybe he could do an analysis or discussion on chemotherapy, radiotherapy or anesthesia. Next time you purchase prescription drugs take a good look at the side effects! But that is ok because the Government receive remuneration for that! Lets look at what you GP and hospital wants to inject every child with, What's really in vaccines? Proof of MSG, formaldehyde, aluminum and mercury
www.naturalnews.com/037653_vaccine_additives_thimerosal_formaldehyde.html#ixzz2De8u5djJ
I saw no mention of sodium chlorite being given to all of the soldiers to take on tours to purify the water! Oh yes sorry it is ok then because the Government approves it for this purpose. Fruit and veg is washed in it, again that’s ok and no warning mentioned! Food production lines use it to sanitize the equipment for the food we eat, again that is ok. The list goes on.
It is ok to fry ones brain and body with deadly Radiotherapy without warnings because it is “approved” The Government highly promote and even insist it is ok to inject mercury at least 27 times into every child before he or she is 5 years old, Toxic effects include damage to the brain, kidney, and lungs.[1] Mercury poisoning can result in several diseases, including acrodynia (pink disease),[2] Hunter-Russell syndrome, and Minamata disease.[3] Symptoms typically include sensory impairment (vision, hearing, speech), disturbed sensation and a lack of coordination. This is just the start of the list. It can also cause death and the best part is that your child can not be enrolled into school unless he/she has received all vaccines!
Government promote fluoride in water and toothpaste: e is a highly toxic substance. Consider, for example, the poison warning that the FDA now requires on all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S. or the tens of millions of people throughout China and India who now suffer serious crippling bone diseases from drinking water with elevated levels of fluoride.
In terms of acute toxicity (i.e., the dose that can cause immediate toxic consequences), fluoride is more toxic than lead, but slightly less toxic than arsenic. This is why fluoride has long been used in rodenticides and pesticides to kill pests like rats and insects. It is also why accidents involving over-ingestion of fluoridated dental products–including fluoride gels, fluoride supplements, and fluoridated water–can cause serious poisoning incidents, including death.
The debate today, however, is not about fluoride’s acute toxicity, but its chronic toxicity (i.e., the dose of fluoride that if regularly consumed over an extended period of time can cause adverse effects). The concerns with fluoride are primarily as follows:
• Current safety standards only protect against the most obvious forms of harm: Current safety standards for fluoride are based on the premise that severe dental fluorosis and crippling skeletal fluorosis are the first adverse effects that fluoride can have on the body. These effects represent the crudest, most obvious tell-tale harm caused by fluoride. In the words of American University chemistry professor, Dr. William Hirzy, it would be a “biological miracle” if fluoride did not cause other harm prior to producing these end-stage forms of toxicity. Research already shows, in fact, that fluoride can cause arthritic symptoms and bone fracture well before the onset of crippling fluorosis, and can affect many other tissues besides bone and teeth, including the brain and thyroid gland.
• The current “safe” daily dose for fluoride fails to withstand scrutiny: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) states that anyone over 8 years of age — irrespective of their health condition — can safely ingest 10 milligrams of fluoride each day for their entire life without developing symptomatic bone damage. Ten milligrams, however, is the same dose that the IOM concedes can cause clinical signs of skeletal fluorosis within just 1o to 20 years of exposure. On its face, a dose that causes clinical fluorosis in just 10 to 20 years can not be considered a safe lifetime dose, particularly since — contrary to IOM’s claim — clinical fluorosis is not asymptomatic, as it can not only cause chronic joint pain, but overt osteoarthritis as well. The IOM’s safety standard instills little confidence, therefore, in the medical understanding that currently underlies fluoride policies in the U.S.
• Some people are particularly susceptible to fluoride toxicity: It is well known that individual susceptibility to fluoride varies greatly across the population, and yet, the National Research Council has recently found that breathtakingly large gaps still exist in the safety literature on the effects these populations may be experiencing as a result of current fluoride exposures. The bewildering degree of uncertainties identified by the NRC stands in stark contrast to the IOM’s conclusion that 10 mg/day is so definitively safe that no “uncertainty factor” needs to be applied to protect vulnerable members of the population.
• The margin between the toxic and therapeutic dose is very narrow: The NRC concluded that the allegedly “safe” upper limit of fluoride in water (4 mg/l) is toxic to human health. While the NRC did not determine the safe level, their conclusion means that the safe level is less than 4 times the level added to water (0.7-1.2 mg/l) in community fluoridation programs. This is far too slim a margin to protect vulnerable members of the population, including those who consume high amounts of water.
Although fluoride advocates have claimed for years that the safety of fluoride in dentistry is exhaustively documented and “beyond debate,” the Chairman of NRC’s comprehensive fluoride review, Dr. John Doull, recently stated that: ”when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began.”
In this section of the website, we provide overviews of the scientific and medical research that implicates fluoride exposure as a cause or contributor to various chronic health ailments. In 2001, the union of scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Headquarters Office in Washington D.C. stated: “we hold that water fluoridation is an unreasonable risk.” The research in this section helps to demonstrate why EPA’s own scientists reached this conclusion, and why a growing number of health professionals do so as well. BUT THIS IS OK!
I rest my case
