Fluoridated drugs syndrome goes deeper.
- Thread starter Charles
- Start date
notanothermonday
Padawan Learner
Is there such a thing as organic fluoride? I cannot imagine such a thing.monkee said:
leigh
You could google "organic fluoride".notanothermonday said:
And I can provide some help too
FluoriNe is the term that is used for the element F as in the table of Mendeleev. The gas F(sub)2 is composed of two atoms of fluorine kept together with a covalent bond. This fluoriNe gas is highly reactive and is used for instance to etch glass.
Contact with water results in HF, or hydrogen fluoriDe. Dissolved in water it dissolves in both ions, a proton H+ and the anion F-. Neutralization with NaOH and subsequent evaporation of water will result in the salt sodium fluoride or NaF. There are salts, such as NaF which are highly soluble in water (the ions separate again) or quasi insoluble wherein the ions remain bonded as in CaF.
HF is also highly reactive as it easily fluorinates organic compounds wherein the element fluorine becomes part of the organic molecule by means of a covalent bond. Chlorinated organic molecules are even more sensitive to become fluorinated as the chlorine atom is easily substituted with the fluorine atom. One ends up with organic fluoriNe compounds such as the prozac molecule, but also very simple molecules such as trifluoro acetic acid. In the literature though, I often find the term organic fluoride. I am sure that this was the question posed by Monkee.
And the answer is (ruffle) … I don’t know. :) I do know that tea leaves accumulate fluorine, but I do not know in what form it is stored.
It is a good question and one that relates to some insight that is still in the process of fermentation somewhere in the backburner of my skull. Maybe this evening.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
I haven't been able to find anything on how much flouride is in Yerba Mate. Been switching to that a bit from the tea.
pdouspensky
A Disturbance in the Force
There is a relatively new supplement called conenzyme Q10 that has helped me overcome the sideeffects of flouride toxicity I suffered from statins. At least I can walk again.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Statins have flouride, too? Jeez. I'm glad I didn't let the doctor talk me into taking them.
pdouspensky said:
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
I have about a tablespoon in a mug. Probably more than a teabag and less than Argentine gaucho style.
I have one of those gaucho gourds with a silver straw but i opened the straw and it looked like low quality aluminum so I haven't used it (I've had it for a long time).
I have one of those gaucho gourds with a silver straw but i opened the straw and it looked like low quality aluminum so I haven't used it (I've had it for a long time).
monkee said:
Co-enzyme Q10 or ubiquinone indeed can do wonders. See for instance how Deckard has used it to cure retreating gums, and prevent that ones teeth will fall out over time. (this forum)pdouspensky said:
But it does NOT protect against fluoride toxicity.
The thing is that about half of the statins that are pushed unto the market by MD's are indeed fluorinated molecules (wherein fluor atoms are an integral part of the drug through a covalent bond).
But ALL of them inhibit the bodies own enzymatic activity to produce its own cholesterol. Sad thing, "overlooked" by pharma, is that the bodies own production of coenzyme Q 10 lies down the same synthesis path (mevalonate pathway). People "who are on statins" can have Q10 levels that have decreased by as much as 40 %. !!
In a nutshell, statins inhibit synthesis of cholesterol (which MIGHT be a good thing for SOME) but also of Q 10, which is ALWAYS a bad thing for EVERYBODY, as such will result in degradation of collagen, cardio vascular diseases, sick muscles, seriously decreased energy and tonus.
And so they will say: "See, we knew already that the patient had increased risk for developing cardio vascular disease. Maybe we were too late to start a treatment with statins. "Charles said:
I forgot another one in my previous post. Besides Q10, there is also another very important molecule which is synthesized down the mevalonate pathway. It is isopentenyl pyrophosphate which is indispensable in the production of selenocysteine, a rare but vitally important amino acid that is a building block of selenoproteins.
In: Selenoproteins, cholesterol-lowering drugs, and the consequences: revisiting of the mevalonate pathway.
A decrease of the two dozen or so of selenoproteins normally present in humans can ALSO explain the increased incidence of cancer among patients who take statins.Moosmann and Behl said:
See for instance :
A Forgotten Debate: Is Selenocysteine the 21st Amino Acid?
which was also a scientifically interesting read by the way.
Mr. Premise
The Living Force
Thanks, Charles for the info. on statins. My gut feeling was to refuse to take them, but those doctors can be persuasive in my once-a-decade checkup!
Thanks for the info and the link for the article, I've been looking for something like this. The controversy of statins is far worser than I ever thought. I've seen that almost the entire population with certain "risk factors" for cardiovascular disease are doomed to receive statins. And the thing is, cardiovascular diseases are getting worser with time, regardless of the "precautions" taken.Charles said:
If anyone knows even more about statins, and likely (undisclosed) side-effects of the drugs' or pills' components, I'd like to know. This statin frenzy is already out of control.
I just heard on CNN that "health authorities" are seriously considering recommending cholesterol screening at fifteen months of age (must the USA or UK). No link yet. If it isn't obvious what the pharma corporations are doing, I hope this info helps. Is there some recognized problem with toddlers and cholesterol? Well, if it's on the web, it's not prominent, as I found, but the TV news cites, of course, the latest research, that tells us that it is a problem. As the C's once said regarding "health" issues, "A: Identification is in the hands of the identifiers."
We figure there is more to proliferating statin drugs than just profit, now that they are the most prescribed medicine in the world, UK docs want to talk about putting them in the public water supply, and they want to get toddlers on them. But I can't help thinking that they are more than just another little tool in the PTB arsenal to attack our wakefulness.
C's only mention of cholesterol was in Session 980314:
Q: (V) ... I guess one question I have: there were blood tests done on me; were they correct? Were the results correct results?
A: Some.
Q: (V) Can you tell me what was incorrect?
A: Cholesterol.
Q: (V) That was the one thing they identified on the blood test as being, you know, not normal. So, is my cholesterol more abnormal or less abnormal than they identified?
A: Higher.
Q: (V) Okay, I understand that I need to control this through diet. Is cholesterol as imminent and frightening as they say for our bodies, high levels?
A: HDL and LDL, two different categorizations.
Q: (V) Oh, okay. They were saying that the good cholesterol was high right along with the poor cholesterol. Is that what you are talking about, higher?
A: Yes.
Notice they said "higher" rather than going along with the questioner's lead of "more abnormal or less abnormal". So, is that a suggestion that "higher" than the reported figure may not mean truly abnormal? There's also the suggestion that measurement in general may not be very reliable. And of course, whether or not the reported cholesterol figure was correct or not, truly normal or not, the questioner's doctor pointed it out as "abnormal." And we know where that leads.
I just heard on CNN that "health authorities" are seriously considering recommending cholesterol screening at fifteen months of age (must the USA or UK). No link yet. If it isn't obvious what the pharma corporations are doing, I hope this info helps. Is there some recognized problem with toddlers and cholesterol? Well, if it's on the web, it's not prominent, as I found, but the TV news cites, of course, the latest research, that tells us that it is a problem. As the C's once said regarding "health" issues, "A: Identification is in the hands of the identifiers."
We figure there is more to proliferating statin drugs than just profit, now that they are the most prescribed medicine in the world, UK docs want to talk about putting them in the public water supply, and they want to get toddlers on them. But I can't help thinking that they are more than just another little tool in the PTB arsenal to attack our wakefulness.
C's only mention of cholesterol was in Session 980314:
Q: (V) ... I guess one question I have: there were blood tests done on me; were they correct? Were the results correct results?
A: Some.
Q: (V) Can you tell me what was incorrect?
A: Cholesterol.
Q: (V) That was the one thing they identified on the blood test as being, you know, not normal. So, is my cholesterol more abnormal or less abnormal than they identified?
A: Higher.
Q: (V) Okay, I understand that I need to control this through diet. Is cholesterol as imminent and frightening as they say for our bodies, high levels?
A: HDL and LDL, two different categorizations.
Q: (V) Oh, okay. They were saying that the good cholesterol was high right along with the poor cholesterol. Is that what you are talking about, higher?
A: Yes.
Notice they said "higher" rather than going along with the questioner's lead of "more abnormal or less abnormal". So, is that a suggestion that "higher" than the reported figure may not mean truly abnormal? There's also the suggestion that measurement in general may not be very reliable. And of course, whether or not the reported cholesterol figure was correct or not, truly normal or not, the questioner's doctor pointed it out as "abnormal." And we know where that leads.
