Would be interesting to make the economic case for fitness… if more professions required fitness standards like first responders.
I find it funny that lifeguards, firefighters, EMTs, etc require fitness tests but physicians don’t— those that you should consult prior to beginning a new exercise routine have extreme unfamiliarity with fitness personally and professionally (on average)
This is an article that is near and dear to my heart. I've been on the natural health train for quite sometime by eating organically, taking a single med, and drinking RO water. I feel sorry for the general public as they have no idea what they are consuming. If herbicides and pesticides do their job on what they are designed to eliminate, then eventually they will kill people as well. Congress won't act on the public's behalf because there's too much money involved in all the wrong places. It is really difficult to be an educated consumer these days. I, personally, don't have a solution for these issues we face as a nation. I can only depend on those like Justin Mares to spread the word about what we are doing to ourselves and to the planet. More power to you, Justin. Keep up the great work you are doing.
"The natural outcome of this is a distrust of institutions. Corruption - at the FDA, the NIH, the CDC, the EPA, the USDA - is the root cause of our health crisis."
Call me skeptical, but someone should really drill into the validity of these findings from the NIH. Two supporting comments:
(1) Based on the above quote, along with other numerous examples you have previously written about, why would/should I (in this case) believe the results of this study (sponsored by NIH) are credible, versus otherwise assume they have been paid for by the American Dental Association, for example.
Why the ADA? I'll connect some dots:
-- The ADA basically serves as a trade union for dentists.
-- It works aggressively to limit alternative oral care options via state law & regulation it lobbies (pays) for from the dues paid by its member dentists.
-- Invasive care (forms of oral surgery) is where the money is for dentists, and weak or otherwise compromised teeth are lifetime annuities for dentists. Permanent teeth that form cavities prior to the age of 18 most likely will require crowns or root canals in their 40's.
Therefore, if flouride is, in fact, efficacious to developing strong teeth, and the treatment is most effective when teeth are forming in early ages, then why not make a case it is harmful, and what better an audience than parents predisposed to protecting their kids?
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not demonizing dentists. However, the agenda of individual state dental associations and the national association they pay fealty to (the ADA), demand close and careful scrutiny. They are not the public's friend despite PR efforts to the contrary. Same goes for virtually all trade associations. They limit competition and innovation in most industries while justifying their actions in the name of public safety.
(2) Are the outcomes from bacterial/systemic oral infections from diseased teeth worse than the outcomes from ingesting flouride? There is solid evidence that bacterial infection in teeth can kill you if left untreated. Is there an equivalent risk with ingesting the recommended amounts of flouride? Do some research on oral disease that exists within rural populations in the US. The social/ financial impact and the heightened risk to coronary and other chronic disease associated with the bacteria is sobering.
If the option here is to curtail flouride treatment at the risk of compromising long-term oral health versus otherwise your general health, I am inclined to go with the flouride and spend less time in a chair with stainless drills in my mouth.
Please follow the money on this one. Find out who has their fingerprints on that study.
Thank you for helping me finally explain my low IQ!
On insurance, are you familiar with Discovery Vitality in South Africa? Given your SA connection, presume you are. What do you think about it? From what I gather, nothing in the US is nearly as integrated and expansive.
"Despite the risk of thyroid dysfunction, IQ damage, ADHD and endocrine harm, most counties in the US went forward with a fluoridation program." That should wake everyone up!
I also wrote an article about Edward Bernay's contribution to pushing this propaganda. I appreciate you adding in alternatives and steps to take to avoid fluoride. Great work!
Would be interesting to make the economic case for fitness… if more professions required fitness standards like first responders.
I find it funny that lifeguards, firefighters, EMTs, etc require fitness tests but physicians don’t— those that you should consult prior to beginning a new exercise routine have extreme unfamiliarity with fitness personally and professionally (on average)
That is such a great point, I hadn't thought about it but you're absolutely right!
This is an article that is near and dear to my heart. I've been on the natural health train for quite sometime by eating organically, taking a single med, and drinking RO water. I feel sorry for the general public as they have no idea what they are consuming. If herbicides and pesticides do their job on what they are designed to eliminate, then eventually they will kill people as well. Congress won't act on the public's behalf because there's too much money involved in all the wrong places. It is really difficult to be an educated consumer these days. I, personally, don't have a solution for these issues we face as a nation. I can only depend on those like Justin Mares to spread the word about what we are doing to ourselves and to the planet. More power to you, Justin. Keep up the great work you are doing.
"The natural outcome of this is a distrust of institutions. Corruption - at the FDA, the NIH, the CDC, the EPA, the USDA - is the root cause of our health crisis."
Call me skeptical, but someone should really drill into the validity of these findings from the NIH. Two supporting comments:
(1) Based on the above quote, along with other numerous examples you have previously written about, why would/should I (in this case) believe the results of this study (sponsored by NIH) are credible, versus otherwise assume they have been paid for by the American Dental Association, for example.
Why the ADA? I'll connect some dots:
-- The ADA basically serves as a trade union for dentists.
-- It works aggressively to limit alternative oral care options via state law & regulation it lobbies (pays) for from the dues paid by its member dentists.
-- Invasive care (forms of oral surgery) is where the money is for dentists, and weak or otherwise compromised teeth are lifetime annuities for dentists. Permanent teeth that form cavities prior to the age of 18 most likely will require crowns or root canals in their 40's.
Therefore, if flouride is, in fact, efficacious to developing strong teeth, and the treatment is most effective when teeth are forming in early ages, then why not make a case it is harmful, and what better an audience than parents predisposed to protecting their kids?
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not demonizing dentists. However, the agenda of individual state dental associations and the national association they pay fealty to (the ADA), demand close and careful scrutiny. They are not the public's friend despite PR efforts to the contrary. Same goes for virtually all trade associations. They limit competition and innovation in most industries while justifying their actions in the name of public safety.
(2) Are the outcomes from bacterial/systemic oral infections from diseased teeth worse than the outcomes from ingesting flouride? There is solid evidence that bacterial infection in teeth can kill you if left untreated. Is there an equivalent risk with ingesting the recommended amounts of flouride? Do some research on oral disease that exists within rural populations in the US. The social/ financial impact and the heightened risk to coronary and other chronic disease associated with the bacteria is sobering.
If the option here is to curtail flouride treatment at the risk of compromising long-term oral health versus otherwise your general health, I am inclined to go with the flouride and spend less time in a chair with stainless drills in my mouth.
Please follow the money on this one. Find out who has their fingerprints on that study.
Great points. This reminds me of how cancer is approached by these same organizations. Always follow the money loop in the health-sick system!
Thank you for helping me finally explain my low IQ!
On insurance, are you familiar with Discovery Vitality in South Africa? Given your SA connection, presume you are. What do you think about it? From what I gather, nothing in the US is nearly as integrated and expansive.
absolutely! they're doing incredible work, and have a very compelling model
"Despite the risk of thyroid dysfunction, IQ damage, ADHD and endocrine harm, most counties in the US went forward with a fluoridation program." That should wake everyone up!
I also wrote an article about Edward Bernay's contribution to pushing this propaganda. I appreciate you adding in alternatives and steps to take to avoid fluoride. Great work!