Posted on 11/16/2002 6:07:00 PM PST by FormerLurker
It is if they add it to PUBLIC drinking water. You are assuming there is a benefit. There isn't.
I did a fair amount of research on this topic about a year ago. I had no opinion on the subject but was concerned about the dose my daughter was receiving. Her dentist was prescribing oral fluoride pills in addition to treatments and toothpaste. Her primary teeth were presenting evidence of fluorosis (which I later found the World Health Organization lists as indication of a toxic dose). What I found was that as long as the diet had adequate calcium and boron, there was no benfit to the use of fluoride for prevention of dental caries and increasing indication of neurological harm.
The final nail in the "pro-fluoride" argument came when I started searching the literature for indication of dietary fluoride deficiency in any field outside dentistry. Teeth are bone. If fluoride is a necessary constituent for proper bone formation, or augments healthy bone condition, one would expect to find that in the literature. I found nothing but the contrary.
I'm sorry, but we must all have SOME vices. Milk is ONE of mine... LOL
Diet.
By fluorosis, I presume you mean staining.
There are many parts of the country -- in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Indiana, Illinois, etc. -- where natural fluoridation of water supplies is sufficient to create staining.
To my knowledge, this has never been considered a health problem -- outside of cosmetics. Consequently, I question WHO's position on this matter and wonder if it might be alarmist, in the same vein as the enviro position on natural arsenic levels.
The physical effect of fluoride on teeth is to harden them. Now, recalling dimly from over 30 years ago: This hardening effect is confined almost totally to the surface layer. Because of this, the fluoride is best applied by contact, as in brushing or in topical treatments, rather than ingestion. Accordingly, I don't know why there would be any particular application for fluoride in bone formation.
Nor do I believe that fluoridated water is a particularly effective means of transmitting caries resistance. Good diet and dental hygiene can do the trick without any help from the water supply.
So, it is stating that there is a need, that some good purpose can be served. And that, beyond a certain point, additional intake of fluoride is not needed. Not harmful, but "not needed".
There IS no need. Provide ONE scientific study that points to a NEED for a toxin. There isn't. The flawed research performed by those with an agenda is NOT valid. Perhaps you need a bit more info on what I'm referring to...
By Dr. Ted Spence
Fluoride is a very controversial topic, but how controversial I did not realize. The data reveals that fluoride is a chemical toxin. As you can see by my studies and degrees, I place a large amount of confidence in nutritional methods for over coming disease and place little in toxic drugs, synthetic chemicals and especially toxins, like fluoride.
A few years ago, I was asked by the head of our local health department to conduct a review of existing journal research on the toxicity of fluoride with emphasis on its cancer causing potential. I went to the National Medical Library and produced for him some 40 articles on the toxicity of fluoride. When we reviewed them, there was some discrepancy in whether or not fluoride was mutagenic.
Well, half of the articles said that it was and half said that it was not. But it can not be both ways ... We wondered what was wrong. Then the element of bias entered the picture, since Proctor and Gamble has paid for some of the "negative-concluding" research. We were still puzzled.
My only goal is to tell this information to the patients and let them decide. Isn’t that fair ... after all it is their decision? It is the patient’s choice ... isn’t it? The toxicity of fluoride has caused many countries to rethink the fluoride issue and many have rescinded fluoride in favor of the health of their people.
Those banning fluoride are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, West Germany (now unified), Italy, Belgium, Austria, France, and The Netherlands. Despite these retractions of fluoride, the US still presses on with the goal to fluoridate (poison) every community water supply in the United States.
All allopathically-trained dentists are very familiar with the ADA and other "authoritative" positions on fluoride. They rarely mention its toxic potential or the few studies revealing increased tooth decay after fluoride use. The research of Burk and Yiamouyiannis revealed that every major city with fluoride had increased rates of cancer. Not a fair trade for "good looking teeth".
If you don’t want to look at this data, that is your decision. As health professionals, we don’t want to harm patients in any way and fluoride produces great harm. I am referring to taking fluoride internally, where it has been found to cause unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromatid exchanges and yes, mutagenic effects on the cells.
These terms may not bother some people at all, but they mean that there will be an increase in cancer after the ingestion of fluoride. Tsutsui, et al found that the addition of fluoride to healthy liver cell, in vitro, could establish changes that can only be described as cancerous.
The ADA’s official position is that this stuff is safe, yet there have been deaths of children in the dentists office due to fluoride, albeit very few. The point I am trying to make is that this is not to be taken lightly. In a letter [to me] from the ADA apologizing for fluoride, that stated, "There are three basic compounds commonly used for fluoridating drinking water supplies in the United States: sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride, and hydrofluorosilicic acid."
Now any chemist can tell you that these are not the sodium fluoride we are all told about. Sodium hydrofluorosilicic acid is one of the most reactive chemical species know to man. Its toxicity is known in many chemical circles. It will eat through metal/ plastic pipes and corrode many materials including stainless steel and other metals. It will dissolve rubber tires and melt concrete. This is added to our water to produce "healthy teeth".
Fluoride Does the Following:
inactivates 62 enzymes (Judd)
increases the aging process (Yiamouyiannis)
increases the incidence of cancer and tumor growth (Waldbott/Yiamouyiannis)
disrupts the immune system (Waldbott)
causes genetic damage (Tsutsui, et al)
interrupts DNA repair-enzyme activity (Waldbott)
increased arthritis and
is a systemic poison.
"Fluoride is a highly toxic substance.... "
L P Anthony, DDS editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association - 1944
Funny how times change, but truth does not change.
"....we have very strong circumstantial evidence of systemic toxicity of the so-called absolutely safe concentrate of fluoridated water"
Roy E Hanford, MD, "Where is Science Taking US? reprint from Saturday Review
"Don't drink fluoridated water .... Fluoride is a corrosive poison which will produce harm on a long term basis." Dr Charles Heyd, Past AMA president
Some 61,000 cancer deaths in the US result from fluoridation each year. I repeat 61,000. (Burk and Yiamouyiannis) One study found that fluoride elevates cancer mortality 17% in 16 years in large cities. (from Gerald Judd, PhD) "You have been led to believe the fluorine makes teeth harder. The fact is, it actually makes teeth softer." (George Meinig, a founder of the American Academy of Endodontics)
The US sees a 22% increase in decay every 16 years from fluoride use and a 50% decline in decay every 20 years compared with Finland's 98%, Sweden's 80% and Holland's 72%. And they are non-fluoridated. (Gerald Judd)
My only goal is to tell the truth about the ill-effects of a known toxin. I mentioned the paper being published by the Health Freedom News on the neurotoxicity of fluoride. Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin and this has been known for some time; at least since the early 1940s, well before the fluoridation experiment with Grand Rapids.
Dr Gerard Judd, PhD (chemistry), [ emeritus Manhatten project] found that fluoride can inactivate 62 enzyme systems. As a naturopath, nutritionist and master herbalist, I cannot endorse a substance that has known detrimental effects.
Geoffrey Smith stated, "Recent studies suggest that fluoride may be genotoxic." (p 79, Smith) And added, "There is now a substantial body of evidence suggesting that fluoride is mutagenic." (p 93, Smith) Gibson also noted, "Fluoride is one of the most toxic inorganic chemicals in the Earth's crust, ... However, with increasing experience, doubts about both safety and efficacy have arisen." (p 111, Gibson)
And he added, "A possible link between fluoridation of public water supplies and an increase in the cancer death rate has been debated for over 20 years and there is now no doubt that fluoride can cause genetic damage." (p 111, Gibson)
Gibson noted, "Inhibitory effects of fluoride on different enzyme systems have been demonstrated." (p 111, Gibson) And, "A section of the population may therefore be at risk of compromised immune system function from water fluoridation schemes." (p 112, Gibson)
Get the drift; fluoride is not everything it is cracked up to be. Mutagenic, enzyme inhibition, genetic damage, increased cancer rates, genotoxic and controversial, all describe fluoride.
Tsutsui et al noted, a significant increase in chromosome aberrations at the chromatid level, sister chromatid exchanges, and unscheduled DNA synthesis was induced by NaF in a dose- and timedependent manner.
These results indicate that NaF is genotoxic and capable of inducing neoplastic transformation of Syrian hamster embryo cells in culture." (p 938, Tsutsui et al) There, you can see the controversy for yourself. Fluoride is toxic, fluoride is non-toxic; fluoride causes cancer, fluoride doesn't cause cancer. Who do we believe?
The fluoride controversy comes down to
... Who Do We Really Believe?
Here's two articles on mutations caused by fluoride:
Sodium Fluoride-induced Morphological and Neoplastic Transformation Chromosome Aberrations, Sister Chromatid Exchanges, and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Syrian Hamster Embryo Cells, Takeki Tsutsui, Nobuko Suzuki and Manabu Ohmori, Can Res, 44:938-941, 1984 (March)
Sodium Fluoride-induced Chromosome Aberrations in Different Stages of the Cell Cycle: A Proposed Mechanism, Marilyn J Aardema, et al, Mutation Research, 223:191-203, 1989
The titles say it all.
Therefore, because of this controversy my feelings on this matter is that is should be up to the patient. They need both sides of the story to make an "intelligent" decision. I only mean to give them the other side. References are cited for your use and reading enjoyment.
The EPA found that at 2 ppm salmon were sterile, yet at 1 ppm it is placed in our water supply. [Dr Richard Foulkes] Fluoride only helps [if it helps] children up to age 12. Yet, everybody is "forced" to drink it. Oscar Ewing, who pushed fluoride in the legislature, told the senators not to drink it.
The last thing I would say it that by endorsing fluoride you totally eliminate the real prevention of tooth decay ... good sound nutrition. Tooth-brushing [important as it is] does not stop tooth decay.
Fluoride [a toxic] does not stop rampant tooth decay. [Fluoride only hardens to outer surface of the enamel and may prevent calcium from being deposited when a tooth is re-mineralized.] Nutrition stops tooth decay. I have developed a nutritional supportive program which will totally stop tooth decay in less than two weeks.
I have watched many children go from all 20 carious deciduous teeth, to 20 ebernated [hardened] teeth, which are non-painful and hard as rock. I have never seen fluoride do this [after 21 years of dentistry] and fluoride is not even a part of my caries prevention program.
Ted H Spence, DDS, ND, PhD/DSc,MH
References:
Waldbott, George, MD, Fluoride: The Great Dilemma, 1978, Coronado Press, Lawrence, KS
Yaimouyiannis, John, Fluoride: The Aging Factor, 1993, Health Action Press, Delaware
On Neurotoxicity:
Varner, J A, et al, "Chronic Administration of Aluminum Fluoride or Sodium Fluoride to Rats in Drinking water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity", Brain Research, 784(1-2):284-298, 1998, 1998, Feb 16.
Isaacson, R L, et al, "Toxin-Induced Blood Vessel Inclusions Caused By the Chronic Administration of Aluminum and Sodium Fluoride and Their Implications in Dementia", Ann NY Acad Science, 825():152-166, 1997, Oct 15.
Varner, J A, et al , "Chronic Aluminum Fluoride Administration, Part I: Behavioral Observations", Behavior Neural Biology, 61(3):233-241, 1994, May.
Burgstahler, A W, Colquhoun, J, "Neurotoxicity of Fluoride", Fluoride, 29:57-58, 1996 and
Li, X S, Zhi, J L, Gao R O, "Effects of Fluoride Exposure on the Intelligence of Children", Fluoride, 28:182-189, 1995 and
Mullenix, P J, et al, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride on Rats", Neurotoxicity and Teratology, 17:169-177, 1995 and
Zhao, L B, et al, "Effect of Fluoridated Water Supply on Children’s Intelligence", Fluoride, 29:190-192, 199
| ©Copyright 1997-2002 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved. This content may be copied in full, with copyright; contact; creation; and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required. |
|
Is Fluoride Really As Safe As You Are Told?
Part 1 of 3 Fluoride is added to the water supply of most American cities for the ostensible purpose of dental hygiene. The reader will be amazed to find out that such a thing is not only unlikely, but actually the reverse of the ongoing reality The U.S. has been fluoridating drinking water for so many decades that we hardly think about it. Very few articles appear about fluoridation in newspapers and magazines any more. At least chlorine will evaporate from a glass of water if you let it sit for an hour or so. No such luck with fluoride. Even cooking, food processing, filtration, or digestion doesn't remove fluoride. Goes right up the food chain. Accumulates in fat cells. This Is No Accident. What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride was not safe at all, but was actually a carcinogenic industrial waste? What would you think if you suddenly found out that fluoride doesn't stop tooth decay at all, but actually causes teeth to rot and crumble, and by the same mechanism also causes osteoporosis? And after you found out all this, would it surprise you that all federal health agencies have known these facts for years, but have been controlled by the political interests of the nuclear arms, aluminum, and phosphate manufacturers to keep it a secret? Why would they do that? So that, in the total absence of scientific proofs, a toxic industrial waste could be passed off on the public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of $10 billion per year. Or more. Is a deception of this magnitude possible for the sophisticated, discerning American public? Perhaps Lance Ito could answer a question like that. Let's start at the beginning. What Is Fluoride? Fluorine is an element. It is a gas, never occurring in its free state. In microscopic amounts complexed with other minerals, it is often listed as a trace mineral, a nutrient for human nutrition. This has nothing to do with fluoride or fluoridation. The fluoride added to 90% of drinking water is hydrofluoric acid which is a compound of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. Such fluoride is manmade. In this form, fluoride has no nutrient value whatsoever. It is one of the most caustic of industrial chemicals. Fluoride is the active toxin in rat poisons and cockroach powder. Hydrofluoric acid is used to refine high octane gasoline, to make fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons for freezers and air conditioners, and to manufacture computer screens, fluorescent light bulbs, semiconductors, plastics, herbicides, -- and toothpaste. It also has the ability to burn flesh to the bone, destroy eyes, and sear lungs so that victims drown in their own body fluid." Once in the body, fluoride is a destroyer of human enzymes. It does this by changing their shapes. You'll remember from the Enzymes chapter (www.thedoctorwithin.com) that in human biochemistry, thousands of enzymes are necessary for various essential cell reactions that take place every second we're alive. (Howell) Without enzymes, we'd die instantaneously. Once in the body, fluoride is a destroyer of human enzymes. It does this by changing their shapes. In human biochemistry, thousands of enzymes are necessary for various essential cell reactions that take place every second we're alive. Without enzymes, we'd die instantaneously. Enzymes trigger specific reactions in the body. One way they do this is by having the exact shape necessary, like a key in a lock. Fluoride Changes The Shape Of The Enzymes So That They No Longer Fit. Since enzymes are proteins, once they've been changed, they're now foreign-looking. The body now treats them as invaders, even though they're part of that body. This is known as an autoimmune situation - the body attacks itself. Another way to look at it: enzymes are long-chain proteins held in certain shapes. Hydrogen bonds are the velcro strips that hold the enzyme in a certain shape. Fluoride comes along and hydrolyzes the enzyme: cuts the Velcro strips away. The shape collapses. No more enzyme; now just a foreign protein. Starting Point The most thorough explanation of the origin, action, diseases, and politics of fluoride was presented in a book called Fluoride the Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis, PhD. This book is the result of 25 years of research and working behind the scenes of the fluoride phenomenon. Big money generally means big monkey business, you may have noticed by now, and fluoride is right up there. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was the science director of the National Health Federation. He then went on to head the Safe Water Foundation. Dr Y can tell you all about monkey business. No one can comment intelligently about fluoride in the U.S. without dealing with the issues raised in his pivotal book. It is simply a review of the literature on fluoride up to 1994. Dr. Y starts by citing hundreds of international studies of fluoridation that have been conducted all over the world since the 1930s. After awhile, there seem to be just two types:
Examples Of The Former: Taylor Study, University of Austin: fluoride concentration of 1PPM (parts per million) increases tumor growth rate by 25% Fluoride is more poisonous than lead, and just less poisonous than arsenic - Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products -- 1984 "A seven ounce tube of toothpaste, theoretically at least, contains enough fluoride to kill a small child." - Procter&Gamble, quoted in Fluoride the Aging Factor p14 Fluoride supplements should not be given to children under three years old - 1992 Canadian Dental Association Proposed Fluoride Guidelines, Dr. Limeback Fluoride Accelerates Your Aging Process Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 ppm fluoride concentration can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can't repair damaged cells, we get old fast. Fluoride prematurely ages the body, mainly by distortion of enzyme shape. Again, when enzymes get twisted out of shape, they can't do their jobs. This results in collagen breakdown, eczema, tissue damage, skin wrinkling, genetic damage, and immune suppression. Practically any disease you can name may then be caused. All systems of the body are dependent upon enzymes. When fluoride changes the enzymes, this can damage:
Things wear out too fast - the young body becomes old. The distorted enzymes are proteins, but now they have become foreign protein, which we know is the exact cause of autoimmune diseases, such as lupus, arthritis, asthma, and arteriosclerosis. Collagen Is The Body's Glue and Fluoride Ruins It That's not just a metaphor; when collagen breaks down, tissues simply lose their substance, their framework. Fluoride dissolves the body's glue simply by preventing new collagen from being formed. DR Y gives a masterful explanation of fluoride's disruption of collagen. Not only is the collagen incorrectly formed, it is wrongly mineralized. Some collagen, like bones and teeth, should be mineralized in order to give it hardness. Other collagen structures, like ligaments, tendons and, and muscles, should not be mineralized, in order to keep them flexible and resilient. Fluoride mineralizes the tendons, and muscles and ligaments, making them crackly and painful and inflexible. At the same time fluoride interferes with mineralization of bones and teeth, causing osteoporosis and mottling or dental fluorosis. Fluoride Ruins Your Teeth Wait a second here! I thought that was the whole reason why we fluoridated water in the first place - to prevent cavities and build strong teeth, right? The process whereby teeth are discolored and crumble from fluoridation is know as dental fluorosis. The US Public Health service has known since the research of its own Dr. HT Dean in 1937 that as fluoride levels rose, so did the percentage of children with dental fluorosis, in a study of 15 major American cities. The same findings were evident in a University of Texas study comparing dental fluorosis in children who lived in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas of Texas. Dr. Segretto found a 35% higher incidence of fluorosis in children who drank water with fluorine concentration of 1-1.4 PPM, compared with those whose water was in the .3 PPM range. This little study was written up in the Journal of the American Dental Association. Yiamouyiannis goes on and on, citing one peer-reviewed study after another, all coming to the same inescapable conclusion: The More Fluoride In The Water, The More Tooth Malformation And Discoloration. It's beyond controversy, when you view these studies from all over the world - New Zealand, India, Denmark, England, Ireland, Italy, Illinois - same finding. Even with this consistent finding across the board, the standard level of fluoridation recommended for dental health in the US is 1 part per million. How Is This Possible? A major gain for antifluoridation happened in the past few years, which most people haven't even noticed. The FDA required all toothpaste manufacturers to print a warning on the label that if more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste is swallowed, the local Poison Control Center should be notified. The American Dental Association and other defenders of fluoride have testified and continue to insist that dental fluorosis is a "cosmetic condition" and is not a health issue! Permanent malformation of the teeth is a little more serious than cosmetic - but even if it weren't, how can a additive whose only alleged purpose is to benefit teeth destroy teeth?? In their current website, the ADA actually challenges this FDA warning on toothpaste labels, saying that it is unnecessarily strict. Paul Connett, PhD explains that spots on the teeth and dental fluorosis are just an indication of damage to other parts of the body: "The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones." Fluoride And Osteoporosis Bone is collagen. We already saw how fluoride disrupts the formation of enzymes necessary for collagen production. So it's no wonder then that the thin brittle bones characteristic of osteoporosis are the result of fluoridation. This is no false claim. DR Y cites the 1990 study of 541,000 cases of osteoporosis that found a definite connection between hip fractures in women over 65 and fluoride levels. The study was written up in JAMA. Several other major studies are cited, massive amounts of research, again all reaching the same conclusion -
Bone Is Living Tissue. It is constantly being replaced with new cells, and having old cells removed. Bone building is a finely balanced, complicated process. Fluoride has been known to disrupt this process since the 1930s. Dr. Alesen, who was the president of the California Medical Association, clearly explains what fluoride does to bone formation. He cites dozens of international scientific studies proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride has caused thousands of cases of osteoporosis, skeletal thinning, fractures, "rubber bones," anemia, and rickets. Fluoride also causes osteoporosis by creating a calcium deficiency situation. Fluoride precipitates calcium out of solution, causing low blood calcium, as well as the buildup of calcium stones and crystals in the joints and organs. Dozens of other studies, like the Riggs study in the 1990 New England Journal of Medicine, showed that fluoride treatment of osteoporosis in the elderly actually increases skeletal fragility, i.e., more fractures. It's the same mechanism at work: incorrect mineralization, as we saw above. Thin old bones lose calcium; young bones age too rapidly by over-mineralization. Using fluoride as a treatment for diseases like osteoporosis has always been a particularly dumb idea, because of side effects known beforehand:
Other mineral contaminants like lead and strontium-90 are damaging to human bone just by means of their occupying space where they don't belong. They are inert. The difference with fluoride is that it is biochemically active. With all the diseases caused by fluoride, the common thread is "…virtually all these ill effects can be traced to the effect of fluoride on enzymes or proteins, as well as a possible direct effect on the DNA molecule itself." Above we saw how fluoride changes the all-important shape of enzymes, thereby rendering them not only useless, but actually foreign antigens. Cancer And Fluoride By now we all know how cancer begins with one cell whose inner blueprint - its DNA - has been screwed with. Remember those Velcro hydrogen bonds? Guess what other shape they hold together. The double helix - DNA. This turns out to be the exact mechanism of fluoride as a carcinogen. Austrian and Japanese researchers both found that a concentration of 1 PPM fluoride causes disruption of the body's ability to repair its own DNA. Without this most basic cell function, cancer is promoted, and tumor growth is accelerated. That's standard fluoride level in US city water: one part per million. On p. 65 of his book, Dr. Yiamouyiannis provides an amazing chart of some 19 major scientific studies conducted in universities all over the world, together proving beyond a doubt that fluoride causes genetic damage. End of story. Except that on p 68, there is another list of world studies proving the same thing with plants and insects - genetic alteration from fluoride. Chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk when confronted with mountains of data, stated before Congress: "In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical." - Congressional Record 21 July 1976 Can That Be Misconstrued? Burk and Yiamouyiannis completed a monumental research project in 1977 in which they compared cancer death rates in 10 fluoridated and 10 non-fluoridated US cities between 1940 and 1970. The results are on p75 of Fluoride the Aging Factor. The unmistakable fact is that the graph shows that for the first ten years (1940-1950), when none of the 20 cities fluoridated, the average cancer deaths were virtually identical. But after 1950, there is a major increase in cancer deaths in every single one of the fluoridated cities, while the nonfluoridated cities remain clustered together at a much lower level of death. They actually put a number on it: "…30,000 to 50,000 deaths each year from various causes may now be attributable to fluoridation. This total includes 10,000 to 20,000 deaths attributable to fluoride-induced cancer every year." These findings were first confirmed, then denied by the National Cancer Institute (what a surprise). Finally the research was upheld as valid in two separate state courts, Pennsylvania and Illinois. Ask yourself, why are findings of a scientific study being disputed in court? The usual pattern whenever valid research threatens big money. Another study by the New Jersey Health Dept., cited by Dr. Y, found a 50% increase in bone cancer among young men in fluoridated areas. (Cohn) Dr. William Hirzy, an officer in the EPA explains: "Fluoride is a broad-spectrum mutagen. It can cause genetic damage in both plant and animal cells." Once again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Hundreds of scientific studies conducted and reported in the most credible universities and agencies throughout the world for the past 25 years have found an unmistakable correlation between fluoridation and cancer deaths. Even the professional opinion makers can't just make all this data vanish. All they can do is what they're trained to do: change the subject. And keep repeating how safe and effective fluoride is. Brain Damage = Low IQ Penetrating observation. The earliest reference to brain disruption from fluoride exposure is found in a recently declassified secret Manhattan Project memo (1944): "Clinical evidence suggests that C616 [uranium hydrofluoride] may have a rather marked central nervous system effect with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude…" How can all these studies be dismissed and ignored? Many of them are from the most prestigious of scientific journals. And the message has been consistent for the past 40 years - fluoride is a poison.. What kind of power can contradict such a cogent, overwhelming body of work? Only one thing -very good -- $$$$$$$$! Got it on your first guess! So Then Why Are We Fluoridating, For The Last 60 Years? Unrestricted research into almost any area involving health care is really a tiresome business - it's the same boring story over and over: A Toxin in Search of A Market. First a chemical is created, then an angle is figured out on how to mass market it. Then a disinformation program is put into place to create a permanent smokescreen for the actual scientific data. As we saw with ADD, antibiotics, the history of pharmaceuticals, HRT, heart drugs, chlorination, and now fluoridation - the pattern is consistent. With billions of dollars in play, the chemical industry can afford to choreograph its two most willing marionettes: the media and the medical profession. I didn't make this up; I wish it were otherwise. It's embarrassing to be a human when you find out what's been going on. But we digress. Fluoridation. A certified poison, by all the government agencies and scientific agencies cited above. Where does the money come in? Toxic disposal. The rise of the EPA since the 1970s. The increase in environmental consciousness as a political tool for creating the illusion of safety in recent decades. Here's the short version: fluoride is a toxic byproduct in the manufacture of nuclear arms, aluminum, cement, steel, and phosphates. Millions of tons of this poison are produced every year. Imagine the cost of containing and disposing of those mountains of waste every year. It's in the billions. But what if lobbyists from these industries could present "scientific studies" paid for by the industries, and provide for a continual stream of media presentations about the health benefits of fluoride, and create unimaginably lucrative positions for "research" and "education" within the American Dental Association and the AMA, and do all these things in a consistent and unending way, year after year? What are the economic advantages of that? Simple: instead of paying money to dispose of toxic waste, money could now be made by selling fluoride to the water companies of the nation. They'll use the public water supply as a sewer for industrial wastes. And now with these new billions added instead of subtracted, there's plenty to go around, for everyone involved. Out of the Red, into the Black. Somewhere Machiavelli smiles. Dark Alliance Up until 1931, the American Dental Association and the US Public Health Service recognized that fluoride caused dental problems, and that every effort should be made to remove such contamination from drinking water. (Fluoride the Aging Factor, p 140) By 1980, the ADA's tune had changed a little: "…there is no evidence implicating naturally occurring fluorides as a health hazard even at eight parts per million."- ADA News 24 Mar 1980 Following this? In the face of all the decades of our best research, this arrogant and groundless pronouncement, by the profession to whom we have entrusted our teeth, is saying that our water could have 8 times as much fluoride as it has now, and still be perfectly safe! The Players: ALCOA Aluminum, mega-giant producer of aluminum, was founded by Andrew Mellon, who was also appointed Secretary of Treasury, since he seemed to know something about money. ALCOA funded a top research facility known as the Mellon Institute. In 1931, a Mellon Institute report by Gerald Cox suggested that 1 PPM fluoride added to drinking water would be good for the teeth. That was it. No studies, no comparisons, no data. All previous research studies had shown that fluoride was toxic. Stay with me now. The US Public Health Service (USPHS) at that time was under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Treasury - Andrew Mellon, who also owned ALCOA. The USPHS sponsored some research put out by their own Dr. HT Dean, manipulating data so that it "proved" that this same figure of 1 PPM resulted in reduction of tooth decay. So now there were two studies, one by Cox and one by Dean, both funded by agencies controlled by ALCOA, both supporting this arbitrary figure of 1 PPM fluoride that should be added to the water to lower tooth decay. Next problem: sell it to the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association. This took years. Even in 1943, an article in JAMA described fluoride as a poison that damaged enzyme systems even at a concentration of 1 PPM. The article showed concern about 25,000 tons of fluorine released into the atmosphere every year from the phosphate fertilizer industry. (JAMA, Sept 18, 1943). The following year Journal of the American Dental Association ran another article warning that fluoridated water caused osteoporosis, goiter, and spinal disease. They stated that "the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good." (JADA, 1 Oct 1944) So how did fluoridation get started then, with all this information - thousands of negative scientific papers and only two favorable studies? ALCOA money, that's how. In 1944, ALCOA hired an attorney named Oscar Ewing at a salary of $750,000 per year. That same year Ewing was appointed to the Federal Security Administration. The USPHS was a division of the Federal Security Association. So now ALCOA's boy was in a position to control the policies of the Public Health Service. Ewing chose his PR man for fluoridation: Edward Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Please look for the continuation of this article in my next issue. |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
Really?
The per capita consumption of sugar has gone down, to be sure. But it has been replaced by other sweeteners. And per capita consumption of items like soft drinks and candy has actually increased, if I'm not mistaken.
Would there be any difference between cane (or beet) sugar and, say, high-fructose corn syrup in terms of their contribution to the incidence of caries?
Purportedly, children consume more calories today than they did 30-40 years ago. So, they're getting their -oses somewhere...
Another brilliant post from someone with nothing to say..
A little too many brain cells with mercury damage perhaps?
Read the thread my friend...
After weeks of drilling and resurfacing my teeth and using the medicine I was a lot better and eventually recovered for the most part from the soreness.
I would certainly trust the references you guys made here before I'd trust any government official or program.
I read somewhere, probably in Spot Light magazine, about how the government doesn't mind, and probably promotes, high levels of fluoride in our water, because of it's docile effect upon the public. Tests were done that actually proved it caused animals to become docile. Why wouldn't we be affected much the same way?
I trust president Bush, but he is only there to do a job, mostly calm the masses, IMO. We need to pay attention to guys pulling the strings behind the scenes, the Wizard(s) of OZ, if you will, if we are ever going to get back to Kansas. (What America used to look like)
Do you not take salt, based on this quackery?
Do you prefer bacteria, instead of chlorine, in your drinking water, as well?
Just because something is toxic in one form or in one application does not mean that it isn't safe in another form or application. Even oxygen can be toxic (O3, ozone).
Regrettably, every profession has its loons. And charlatans.
BRUSHING without toothpaste is just as effective in reducing cavities if not MORE so than brushing WITH toothpaste. Diet has an effect on overall health as well.
Flouride causes motling of the enamel, causing MORE serious dental problems than simple cavities.
Point me to a source other than you on that.
Regrettably, every profession has its loons. And charlatans.
And the great okie01 is more esteemed than all of these people...
|
"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. |
|
"fluoridation ... it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. " Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology), Co-Discoverer of streptomycin |
Join voices with the following medical professionals
who see fluoride as a health hazard.
|
So, is that how such a large reduction in cavities was achieved -- 70% of the people started brushing without toothpaste?
I'd say that's a major reason why they do it...
IOW, they would have had a 70% reduction in cavities without the toothpaste if they had tried it. There is NO legitimate evidence that fluoride does anything other than HARM teeth and everything else in your body.
Don't let up on the 'tin foil kook squad', knowing I don't have to tell you that.
Question: Did you or anybody else see C-SPAN a few days ago when that special forum on all the military and an affiliated study group was showing their investigation into the outrageous stuff that went on at a military base back in 1997 or 98?
Many people spoke on the matter of harmful vaccines that were mandatory for a whole base full of GIs to take or be disciplined and/or thrown in the brig. One particular formerly gung-ho pilot and trainer was talking about how he and hundreds of GIs who took an anthrax vaccine became so sick that many of them just walked around the base shivering, puking and staggering like drunks for days. Many complained to the base commanding officer and he said he'd look into it. He did and discontinued the program and immediately stopped all vaccinations.
The next day, after getting wind of the base commander's decision, a Pentagon official arrived at the base with orders, relieved the base commander, reassigned him, and reinstated the vaccination program.
The pilot/trainer and many other officers resigned their commissions that week.
What in the h*ll is going on?!!!!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.