(NaturalNews) This scam starts as follows: the CDC (Centers For Deceit Control and Procrastination) in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of August 17, 2001/Vol 50/ No. RR-14 entitled “Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, says on page 4, 5th paragraph, “that fluoride’s predominant effect is after the tooth comes into the mouth and on the surface of the tooth”.
The question posed to the CDC, the EPA, and the Public Health officials of “why then do we have to ingest it?” NEVER gets answered.
Then there’s the issue of INFORMED CONSENT. Every doctor knows that they can’t force any medication on an individual without their informed consent. The doctor has to tell the patient of the benefits and of any side effects of a prescribed medication. This puts the final decision to take or not take the medication in the hands of the patient. In addition, the patient has the right to question any treatment so as to make a better decision.
Fluoridation clearly violates this principle.
One of the arguments presented by those that push this crap is to say that no one is forced to drink the water. Yes, the fluoride comes to the tap but ultimately it’s the individual’s choice to open the tap and drink the water. Please stop laughing. This is their serious argument.
Another argument is that fluoride is not a drug but rather it is a nutrient. So when the question of since when is the toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry or the aluminum or steel industry a nutrient? They usually look at their watches and tell you that they hear their mother calling them and they have to go.
If it is indeed a nutrient why then do the CDC and the ADA (American Dimwit Association), the major pushers of fluoridation in the U.S., say that tooth decay is a “chronic infectious disease” and recommend fluoride to combat this disease? And why does the Fraud and Drug Administration call fluoride an “unapproved” drug? What a classic example of blatant hypocrisy and the anything goes mentality to make money for the pimp.
Earl Baldwin, a member of the British House of Lords and one of the advisory board members for the York Review, the UK sponsored review of fluoridation had this to say: “What physician do you know, who in his or her right mind, would treat someone he does not know and has never met, with a substance that’s meant to do change in their bodies, with the advice: ‘Take as much, or as little, as you like, but take it for a lifetime because it may help someone’s teeth’?”
With fluoridation there is no control over who gets the “medication” or the dosage. What if someone is particularly sensitive to the substance? Tough! What if you’re an athlete and drink a gallon of water a day? Tough!
When a person consumes a medication, say aspirin for example, isn’t the dose for an infant or a child different that that for an adult? Obviously. With fluoride it’s a one-fits-all mentality.
Let’s say for a moment that the ingestion of fluoride is a good thing. Who gets more? Your body or your dishes when you wash them, your car when you wash it, your lawn when you water it, or the environment when you flush the toilet? You answer that one and then let me know if mandated fluoridation is a good thing or a bad thing.
Should you raise the issue of reduced tooth decay it has already be proven and documented that those living in unfluoridated communities have virtually the same rates of tooth decay as those living in fluoridated communities. But, there is one profound difference: those living in fluoridated communities have a much, much greater risk of dental fluorosis, which is symptomatic of the discoloration and eventual mottling of the teeth leading to a lifetime of cosmetic veneers or living with the disfiguration.
As if ruining your teeth isn’t enough there has been credible documentation showing other debilitating effects. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix proved that fluoride had an adverse effect on the brain. As a result she was told that her work “was no longer relevant to dentistry” and fired. Peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects on the thyroid gland were ignored as were studies linking fluoride to damage of the pineal gland. The pineal gland is located between the two hemispheres of the brain and is responsible for the synthesis and secretion of melatonin. Melatonin affects jet lag, sleep patterns and aging and by the time old age hits, the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland is in very high concentrations.
But wait, there’s more. There is also a profound connection between fluoride and bone damage. With symptoms almost identical to arthritis beginning with aching bones and joints. But the best cover-up had to come out of Harvard University. Elise Bassin, as part of her 2001 doctoral thesis for her dental degree, found a connection between fluoride and bone cancer in adolescent boys. When she submitted her finding to Dr. Chester Douglas, the head of Harvard’s Dental School, he omitted that finding when releasing her thesis. Why would he do this? Maybe the fact that he was on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had something to do with it. Somehow, years later, Bassin’s finding were found and released causing Harvard to do a complete investigation on Dr. Douglas. During the investigation Dr. Douglas made a $2 million donation to Harvard and was eventually exonerated.
One other finding was an adverse effect on the kidneys. It was found that fluoride can damage the kidneys at high levels and that someone with poor kidney function would have limitations clearing fluoride from the body making that person especially vulnerable to fluoride’s other toxic effects.
With all this adversity is there any group, organization or government agency accepting any responsibility? No, No, No! One would think that of the entities heavily involved in fluoridation someone would take charge or accept liability. The American Dental Association does not. The CDC does not. The EPA does not. The FDA does not. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services does not. The National Sanitation Foundation does not. Yet, all these government agencies pass the buck to the National Sanitation Foundation who in turn accepts no liability for the safe levels or the safety of the chemicals it recommends. Pimps, hookers and tricks!
So what started out as an experimental program in 1945, without any health studies done whatsoever, turned out to be a “cash cow” for industries that previously had to dispose of this toxic waste to the tune of millions of dollars a year.
There is a book out there entitled, Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle means that if there is uncertainty, yet credible scientific evidence or concern of threats to health, precautionary measures should be taken.
Applying the Precautionary Principle to fluoridation the following questions and answers arise:
1. Is the risk of harm plausible? Yes.
2. Is the evidence of harm supported by a number of peer-reviewed published studies? Yes.
3. Is the potential harm serious? Yes.
4. Are the effects reversible? Many are not.
5. Is the public being fully informed of the potential health risks? No.
6. Does the proposed intervention achieve the desired benefit? No.
7. How significant are the consequences if the practice is halted? Not very.
8. Are there alternatives? Yes.
Joel Tickner and Melissa Coffin, two scientists that examined the water fluoridation controversy in the context of The Precautionary Principle, raised the following questions in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice.
*Whether there are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply.
*Whether fluoride needs to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay.
*Whether tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with and without water fluoridation.
*Whether people are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply.
*Whether studies indicate fluoride’s potential to cause a range of adverse systemic health effects.
*Whether, since fluoridation affects so many people, one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventative actions.
It should be noted that even if you are not living in a fluoridated community you are ingesting fluoride. When you eat foods and drink beverages that are not produced in your community you are likely ingesting substances that were produced with fluoridated water.
Despite the recommended ingestion of fluoride at 1.2 ppm, the reality is that people are ingesting fluoride at at least 8 ppm.
To solve the issue of tooth decay the proponents of fluoridation say more fluoride is necessary. The opponents of fluoridation say that more education is necessary. Education is needed about better diets, better dental habits and the dangers of sugar in relation to the teeth.
People with open minds need to get involved. Letters to Editors need to be written. City and state politicians need to be inundated with requests to discontinue the practice of water fluoridation. Pressure of non-reelection needs to be thrust upon them if they do not introduce bills to discontinue the practice.
Remember there are more tricks than pimps and hookers and we need to solidify to end this health damaging practice. The life you save and the health you restore may be your own.