.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, January 21, 2017

After blatantly lying about vaccines and fluoride, AP declares it will join Facebook effort to censor “fake news”

Image: After blatantly lying about vaccines and fluoride, AP declares it will join Facebook effort to censor “fake news”The Associated Press won’t report on the vaccine court, which grants unlimited liability to vaccine manufacturers when their products do harm to people. This kangaroo court has paid billions of dollars to families damaged by vaccines, mainly to keep them quiet. Meanwhile, dangerous vaccine science continues to be peddled and sold. And the AP just continues on with the same beloved narrative that all vaccines are safe and effective. The AP is often caught repeating vaccine industry lies. For instance, the AP often claim that mercury has been “phased out” of all vaccines. However, ICP-MS lab tests confirm that there are 51 parts per million of mercury in a flu vaccine which is over 25,000 times the EPA’s maximum allowable concentration of mercury in drinking water. The CDC even admits that mercury hasn’t been completely removed, but the AP is the standard bearer of news, so why doubt them, right?

AP caught lying about fluoride, vaccines, global warming

In much the same way they promote vaccine industry lies, the Associated Press will continue to promote the addition of fluoride byproduct chemicals to municipal water supplies. Even though multiple studies, including one from Harvard, linked fluoridated water to lower IQ and all sorts of health problems, the AP is supposed to be obeyed on the issue of fluoride safety. One AP story criticized a St. Louis community after the municipality stopped adding fluoride chemicals to the water supply. The AP story also failed to distinguish naturally occurring fluoride and the toxic fluoride byproducts that are actually added to the water supply – hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium hexafluorosilicate.
The Associated Press promotes exactly what its masters want. When it comes to the news, there is no truth; there is billions of dollars worth of monetary interests on the line and people in power to protect. In this story, the AP tried to push the global warming narrative with a fake picture and caption, but were forced to retract it when the narrative was exposed...................


  • Yeah, yeah, yeah, Bill. Given that there is no "study from Harvard" that has 'linked fluoridated water to lower IQ and all sorts of health problems".....given that there is no difference between "naturally occurring fluoride" and the fluoride added through fluoridation......given that you attempt to fear-monger about "hexafluorosilic acid and sodium hexafluorosilicate" which do not even exist at the tap in fluoridated water.......your ridiculous claim that the AP is "lying" could not be any more laughable. You live in a vey large glass house when making unsubstantiated claims that others are lying.

    Antivaxxer, antifluoridationist, climate change denier......you are undoubtedly a true menace to the health of the public. What is even more comical is that you have not one clue as to how much those such as you, who spread misinformation wide and far, having no respect for truth and accuracy, threaten the health of anyone who accords even the slightest modicum of credence to your utter nonsense.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 22 January, 2017  

  • Yawn, yes Steven. Why didn't you add a comment on the original published paper?

    With your new president sharing many of our views the future looks bright.

    By Blogger Bill, at 22 January, 2017  

  • Yes, Bill, the truth is one big yawn to antifluoridationists. That's precisely the point. You claim the AP is "blatantly lying" yet you post so many blatant lies on your blog, including in this one, that it's easier to just count the few true statements you make. If you have some "original paper" on which you wish me to comment, just properly cite it and I'll be glad to do so. If you're just referring to that erroneous piece of nonsense of the highly dubious, "Natural News", it is not worth any further comment from me.

    So, why didn't you comment on the outright lies in that "Natural News" piece?

    Antifluoridationists can never seem to grasp the fact that as long as they fail to adhere to truth and accuracy, they will never obtain any semblance of respect. You are your own worst enemy in that respect, Bill.

    Steven D. Slott , DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 22 January, 2017  

  • I don't claim anything Steven I just inform those interested with what is being published in yesterday's media.

    As for bias the BFS, the BDA and the BMA all claimed the York review proved that fluoridation was safe and effective: it didn't as we know. The York team had to issue a denial.
    When Kent University publishes their findings the same people pour their scorn over it. Your lot are as guilty as we are if not worse.

    But nevertheless Just like smoking, blood letting, lead in petrol and asbestos, fluoridation will also be recognised as a malpractice. Maybe in the first year of President Trump's term of office

    By Blogger Bill, at 22 January, 2017  

  • You "don't claim anything"? You've got an entire page here of your claims about some AP story. There is no cite to any other source for this piece, just your name at the bottom as having posted it. Are you saying that you've plagerized the piece and claimed it as your own?

    Please provide documented evidence that the "BFS, the BDA, and the BMA all claimed the York review proved" anything. The York team didn't have to issue anything. If you are referencing Sheldon's personal opinions, he was not a member of the York Committee, and voiced his opinions simply because he wanted to do so, which he was entirely free to do.

    Whatever Kent University report you reference is a mystery. However if you mean Peckham's hypothyroid study, there have been so many people within the scientific literature who have exposed the fallacies and flaws in that study, that you'd need a scorecard to keep track. That antifluoridationists rely on such poor quality evidence to promote their position, is a problem with them, not with the people who expose the fallacies of that evidence.

    "Smoking, blood letting, lead in petro, and asbestos" have no relevance to water fluoridation. If I had a dollar for every time antifluoridationists have blustered about fluoridation being ended, dating back to the very beginning of the initiative 71 years ago, I could have retired years ago. Antifluoridationists have as yet to even get any court to have ever upheld any of their claims, much less to have it "recognised as a malpractice". See, in order for it to be recognised as such, you need some valid evidence to support that claim. There is none.

    Once again, though, Bill, I do respect you for publishing my comments. Too many people don't understand that censorship hurts their credibility, far more than it helps. That you do understand this speaks well for you and gives your site much more credibility than most of the sites of fluoridation opponents who do censor comments. That's why I pay attention to your blogs when they come through on "googlealert".

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 22 January, 2017  

  • Steven I always link the title with that of the original paper and when I leave the last word with ................. it means this is a shortened version.
    You dismiss Trevor Sheldon’s statement as just his opinion!

    Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, DSc, FMedSci.
    Chairman of York Advisory Board
    Department of Health Studies

    In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York and as it founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented.

    The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal.

    It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors............................

    There is a York video on youtube and also a statement about the way the results were wrongly shown to endorse fluoride.

    If I had a pound for all the regurgitated - every $1 invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings – or - safe and effective

    I look forward to when you realize how wrong you were – it will come.

    By Blogger Bill, at 23 January, 2017  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home