Who am I and why this site?
I am a 63 year old retired individual. Most of my life, I was like most people, stuck on the hamster wheel trying to make a living. Like most people I “blindly trusted and beLIEved” what I was taught or told. I became an environmental activist about 10 years ago, when I could see the degradation of our environment and felt the need to get involved. One day I watched a documentary that changed my life and my perspective on reality as we know it. It made me realize that I could no longer trust what people in authority were telling me. I began to question everything. It sent me down a path to covering many topics. One of these topics was the subject of health and fluoride was part of it. I could see that there were many things happening in the world that most are unaware of and I felt that I needed to bring awareness to the general public and be part of the awakening that is happening.
Headlines like these made me very concerned for my (grand)children’s future.
- 232 Toxic Chemicals found in 10 Babies
- Number of Chemicals Known To Be Toxic To Children’s Brains Has Doubled In The Last 7 years
- Environmental Toxins Linked to Rise in Autism
Studies show that brain disorders are the result of excessive environmental toxin exposure from different sources.
My concern for the health and safety of our children has motivated me to become a full time activist. I have made 4 documentaries and put together 3 sites/ blogs and this is my fourth. I did want to do something about ending water fluoridation some time ago, but just couldn’t figure out until recently how to make it unique. Now I have and so we begin.
The truth unveiled
When we turn on our taps we expect the water to be as pure as possible and free of any contaminants that could harm us and our children.
What if I told you that is an assumption that we have all made at one time or another and “we trust” that the people who provide our drinking water would never put anything in it that could harm us in any way. Well those are in fact false assumptions due to unearned trust.
And I will show you that trust has been broken as you will be shocked by the revelations found here. We will not be debating the science showing fluoride is safe and effective as the courts have reviewed all the scientific evidence and judged fluoride is not safe and is not good for our teeth.
Most of the information I present here comes from the USA, as that is where water fluoridation had it’s beginnings. The idea and the science that supposedly backed it up, was then exported to other countries. In fact the fluoridation product that is used here is also imported from Florida. As well the science that is used to regulate fluoridation here, comes from there. Under the Ontario’s Safe Drinking Water Act water fluoridation is regulated under NSF Standard 60 , which is an independent American based, not- for-profit, non-governmental organization .
Fluoride is any combination of elements containing the fluoride ion. In its elemental form, fluorine is a pale yellow, highly toxic and corrosive gas. In nature, fluorine is found combined with minerals as fluorides. It is the most chemically active nonmetallic element of all the elements and also has the most reactive electro-negative ion. Because of this extreme reactivity, fluorine is never found in nature as an uncombined element.
Fluorine is a member of group VIIa of the periodic table. It readily displaces other halogens—such as chlorine, bromine and iodine—from their mineral salts. With hydrogen it forms hydrogen fluoride gas which, in a water solution, becomes hydrofluoric acid.
There was no US commercial production of fluorine before World War II. A requirement for fluorine in the processing of uranium ores, needed for the atomic bomb, prompted its manufacture.
Fluorine compounds or fluorides are listed by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) as among the top 20 of 275 substances that pose the most significant threat to human health.(7) In Australia, the National Pollutant Inventory (NPI) recently considered 400 substances for inclusion on the NPI reporting list. A risk ranking was given based on health and environmental hazard identification and human and environmental exposure to the substance. Some substances were grouped together at the same rank to give a total of 208 ranks. Fluoride compounds were ranked 27th out of the 208 ranks.(8)
Fluorides, hydrogen fluoride and fluorine have been found in at least 130, 19, and 28 sites, respectively, of 1,334 National Priorities List sites identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).9 Consequently, under the provisions of the Superfund Act (CRECLA, 1986), a compilation of information about fluorides, hydrogen fluoride and fluorine and their effects on health was required. This publication appeared in 1993.(9)
Fluorides are cumulative toxins. The fact that fluorides accumulate in the body is the reason that US law requires the Surgeon General to set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride content in public water supplies as determined by the EPA. This requirement is specifically aimed at avoiding a condition known as Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis (CSF), a disease thought to progress through three stages. The MCL, designed to prevent only the third and crippling stage of this disease, is set at 4ppm or 4mg per liter. It is assumed that people will retain half of this amount (2mg), and therefore 4mg per liter is deemed “safe.” Yet a daily dose of 2-8mg is known to cause the third crippling stage of CSF.(10,11)
In 1998 EPA scientists, whose job and legal duty it is to set the Maximum Contaminant Level, declared that this 4ppm level was set fraudulently by outside forces in a decision that omitted 90 percent of the data showing the mutagenic properties of fluoride.(12)
“Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”
– EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton (Downey, 2 May 99)
Dr. Robert Carton, Ph.D, former Environmental Protection Agency Scientist (20 years), Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998
“The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water.”
The Real Fluoridation Facts
Fluoride is a Poison?
Yes. Fluoride is an acute toxin with a rating higher than that of lead.
According to “Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products,” 5th Edition, 1984, lead is given a toxicity rating of 3 to 4, and fluoride is rated at 4 (3 = moderately toxic, 4 = very toxic). On December 7, 1992, the new EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead was set at 0.015 ppm, with a goal of 0.0ppm. The MCL for fluoride is currently set for 4.0 ppm – that’s over 250 times the permissible level of lead.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Fluoride used in water fluoridation is also a toxic waste product — which means it contains other heavy metals. It is the most bone seeking element known to mankind. The US Public Health Service has stated that fluoride makes the bones more brittle and dental enamel more porous.
How Much Fluoride am I Taking In?
Current total intake is now estimated to be between 5 and 7 mg/day in “optimally fluoridated” areas. Current fluoride intake is equally divided between drinking water (in fluoridated areas), food, other beverages, and dental products, meaning that even if you don’t live in a fluoridated area, fluoride is endangering your health. Average fluoride content in juices is 0.02 to 2.80 parts per million, in part because of variations in fluoride concentrations of water used in production. Children’s ingestion of fluoride from juices and juice-flavored beverages can be substantial and a crucial factor in developing fluorosis.
Grape juice has been found to contain up to 6.8 mg/L of fluoride, a can of chicken soup up to 4 mg of fluoride. Fluoride can be found in water, toothpaste, mouthwash, Dentist’s treatment, fluoride pills, juice, soft drinks, canned food, commercial fruit and vegetables, Teflon and Tefal coated items “such as frying pans”, etc. (Note: No “optimal” fluoride intake has ever been scientifically documented.)
Here the issue of water fluoridation is discussed by Floyd Maxwell, a Chemical Engineer He will give you a Chemical Engineer’s perspective. His web site, Just-Think-It.com, has the article that this video is based on, at http://www.just-think-it.com/no-f.htm
William Hirzy, PhD former chief chemist for the EPA and former President of the Union of Professional Employees of the EPA
“Sodium fluoride is a registered rat poison and roach poison. It has been a protected pollutant for a very long time.“
So called pharmaceutical grade fluoride is nothing more than rat and insecticide poison
Here is a newspaper clipping from 1918 of a news story that claims Sodium fluoride as an insecticide kills insects upon contact.
The specific fluoride chemical used to fluoridate your drinking water is: hydrofluorosilicic acid ( HSFA ). Hydrofluosilicic acid is the most corrosive chemical agent known to man. It is an unpurified industrial (toxic waste) by-product that comes from the wet scrubbers of the smoke stacks of the phosphate fertilizer & aluminum industry? Due to the lack of processing, this chemical is known to contain a number of toxic substances in its fluid mix such as FLUORIDE (20 to 30%), LEAD, ARSENIC, MERCURY, and it usually contains any or all of the following substances as well: cadmium, selenium, radium, radon, polonium, radioactive uranium 238, chromium and phosphorus.
It is classified as:
“dangerous good” by Transport Canada, “hazardous substance” by Environment Canada, “persistent, bio-accumulative & toxic” by Canadian Environmental Protection Act a “class one hazardous waste” by US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is tanked untreated and shipped to municipalities as a “fluoridating agent”
That’s in every glass of water that you drink. Is this really a healthy drink? I don’t think so!
How dangerous is it. Watch this 2 minutes news clip.
This is a mainstream news story about a fluoride spill at a Rock Island, Illinois water treatment plant where the fluoride was actually EATING HOLES in the concrete. But no worries – the spill was cleaned up and the fluoride CONTINUES to be added to the water supply.
FLUORIDE SPILL EATS HOLES IN CONCRETE Youtube
William Hirzy, PhD former chief chemist for the EPA and former President of the Union of Professional Employees of the EPA
“If this stuff [silicofluoride] gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!”
“The solution to pollution is dilution”
The answer to pollution is to dispose of it in our drinking water. Great idea don’t you think? NOT.
See the full document HERE
HFSA is classified as an Inorganic Fluoride* which makes it illegal to dump it in the environment as per:
Canadian Environmental Protection- List of Toxic Substances (Schedule 1) #40 Inorganic Fluorides:
The Fluoride Deception exposes the truth about water fluoridation and the phosphate mining industry – YouTube
Fluosilicic acids Other Names
CAS No. 16961-83-4Corticotropin
Fluosilicic acid (6CI)
Hexafluorosilicate (2 – ), dihydrogen
Silicate (2 – ), hexafluoro-, dihydrogen (8CI, 9CI)
Silicic acid (H2SiF6)
Silicofluoride Silicon hexafluoride dihydride
Now I would like to cover an important document. It is called a Material Safety Data Sheet.
What is a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)?
A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) is a document that contains information on the potential hazards (health, fire, reactivity and environmental) and how to work safely with the chemical product. It is an essential starting point for the development of a complete health and safety program. It also contains information on the use, storage, handling and emergency procedures all related to the hazards of the material. The MSDS contains much more information about the material than the label. MSDSs are prepared by the supplier or manufacturer of the material. It is intended to tell what the hazards of the product are, how to use the product safely, what to expect if the recommendations are not followed, what to do if accidents occur, how to recognize symptoms of overexposure, and what to do if such incidents occur.
What does the material safety data sheet say? Is the water fluoridation product safe to use?
It says: under: Other Health Effects
Fluoride is a bone seeker, and excessive amounts will produce weakening and degeneration of the bone structure. Chronic exposure may cause excess accumulation of fluorine (fluorosis) in the teeth and bones. Severe fluorosis in children weakens tooth enamel resulting in surface pitting. After prolonged high intake in adults bony changes occur characterized by hardening or abnormal density of bone (osteosclerosis), benign bony growths projecting outward from the surface of the bone (exostoses) and calcification of ligaments, tendons, and muscle attachments to bone. Ingestion and skin contact may cause an abnormal reduction of blood calcium (hypocalcemia) and kidney damage since fluorides precipitate calcium stored in the body. There may also be heart, asthma, nerve, intestinal and rheumatism problems. (1,3,4)
So, what we have here is called disclosure, just like pharmaceutical TV commercial, as to what health effects can be expected if this ingested. Why do manufacturer’s do this? To avoid liability when these health issues occur and they do. Basically, they say, “we told you so”.
So who gets to see this? Definitely not the consuming public. This information has in fact been suppressed by key people in governments at all levels, especially by those working in the health departments. They are the ones who are pushing this on an unsuspecting public, who have unfortunately been duped by them, as so many others. I will cover this as we go along.
Mosiac updates it’s MSDS giving Children Warning! Artificial Fluoridation is NOT Safe – YouTube
The Merk Veterinary Manual states that “FLUORIDE IS A CELLULAR POISON”
Fluoride exposure from the environment has been associated with natural contamination of rock, soil, and water or from industrial waste or smelting processes. Fluoride compounds have been added to human water supplies at concentrations of ~1 mg/kg to reduce dental caries. This recommendation is not universally accepted……
……. Acute fluoride exposure at high concentrations will cause corrosive damage to tissues. In contrast, chronic exposure, which is seen more frequently, causes delayed or impaired mineralization of bones and teeth. The solubility of fluoride correlates generally with the degree of toxicity. Fluoride is known to interact with various elements, including aluminum, calcium, phosphorus, and iodine. Fluoride is a cellular poison that interferes with the metabolism of essential metals such as magnesium, manganese, iron, copper, and zinc. Because bacterial metabolism may be affected in a similar manner, this attribute accounts for the use of fluoride in dental hygiene products. Soluble fluoride is rapidly absorbed; ~50% is excreted by glomerular filtration. More than 95% of the fluoride that is retained is deposited in the bones and teeth, forming hydroxyapatite after the interference with calcium metabolism and replacement of hydroxyl ions. At low levels of fluoride exposure, the solubility of the enamel is reduced, resulting in protection. At higher levels of exposure, the enamel becomes dense and brittle. If exposure occurs during pregnancy, developing bones and teeth are severely affected. Faulty, irregular mineralization of the matrix associated with altered ameloblastic, odontoblastic, or osteoblastic activity ultimately results in poor enamel formation, exostosis, sclerosis, and osteoporosis.
From the Fluoride Free Windsor website.
Public Health representative Dr. Heimann caught lying on camera
In this video Windsor Utilities Commission’s Chief Operating Officer, John Stuart, answers Councillor Dilkens’ question – does the fluoride come from the smoke stack scrubbers of factories? YES confirms the WUC admin. But Dr. Heimann has stated otherwise to the Tecumseh, Amherstburg and Lasalle council members. Far too often Public Health and Dental Health Authorities claim fluoride is
naturally occurring when trying to convince municipalities to buy in to artificial water fluoridation. But naturally occurring calcium fluoride is NOT what is used in water fluoridation, calcium fluoride is present in the water before the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid. Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is a waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry – it is classified as HAZARDOUS WASTE before it is tanked untreated and shipped to municipalities as a “fluoridating agent”. One has to wonder why Public Health makes such misleading statements about the source of the fluoride used in water fluoridation. For more information on the actual product, hydrofluorosilicic acid, and where it comes from visit here: http://cof-cof.ca/hydrofluorosilicic-…
There’s a saying. “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding something”
And see Fluoride Free Windsor’s article about the product here:
The Safe Drinking Water Act (of Ontario) states that all water systems must meet licensing requirements. The license requires that chemicals used meet the National Sanitation Foundation Standard 60. This standard provides criteria to conduct a toxicological risk assessment (it must be tested for SAFETY!). “The NSF standard requires that the chemicals added to drinking water, as well as any impurities in the chemicals, be supported by toxicological evaluation.” Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, NSF “A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects” NSF Fact Sheet 2008 The US Environmental Protection Agency, the National Sanitation Foundation and Dr. Heimann himself admit these toxicological studies have never been done. Hydrofluorosilicic acid does not meet the legal requirement that it conform with standard nsf60. No studies on the product means no proof of safety and no compliance with regulation. There is no legal fluoridation product – the practice needs to end. On February 29, 2012 Windsor Utilities Commission passed a motion to recommend that the City of Windsor cease artificial water fluoridation.
New evidence in regards to water fluoridation has shown that the science used to prove its effectiveness in preventing dental decay and it’s safety in regards to consumption were severely flawed. This documentary takes an in depth look at the history of water fluoridation and how entire populations have been mass medicated and slow-poisoned without their consent, a clear human rights violation. It is a shocking reality that many cities still fluoridate their public drinking water supply with hydrofluorosilicic acid even though modern science proves it is extremely harmful to the tissues of the body. This film shows the history of fluoridation which involved key players in eugenics, the military and of course the medical, dental and health organizations that have promoted this toxic substance and profited from the illnesses and suffering that has resulted. Revealed is the flawed science promoted by these industries as well as the work of many important and historic individuals who have dedicated their lives to exposing the truth about this harmful process. Featuring an in depth interview with Peter Van Caulart, director of the Environmental Training Institute and Vice President of the organization COF-COF (Canadians Opposed To Fluoridation), as well as appearances by some of the many innovators in the fight to cease fluoridation. The information presented in this film is meant to not only educate the individual but also give them the tools and knowledge necessary to end this unnecessary, unethical, and unproven practice in their own community. For more information, check out this website: http://www.cof-cof.ca
What we are being told publicly:
The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention named community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.
We are also told that fluoride is Safe and Effective.
However what we are most often being told about water fluoridation is not based on facts and I will show that here. I will also show that it is being done illegally.
In fact I will show you that the water fluoridation process is a fraud and that most us have been deceived. Many people who promoted the process, came to realize later that they had been duped after doing more research. I will provide some of their stories as well as court cases, that have declared that the water fluoridation process causes harm, has no real science to back it up and more.
The Courts have said …
Illinois Trial Court:
“This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.” – Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann
I will do my best to unravel this lie in a logical process so that most can grasp it.
“Money makes the world go round, so money talks and people can be bought.”
In a future post I will show you how science can and is being bought by big corporations to increase profits at the cost of our health and the environment.
“Fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has.”
– Albert Schatz, PhD Nobel Laureate for discovering streptomycin
quoted in Sutton’s Fluoridation:The Greatest Fraud
“Water fluoridation is the single largest case of scientific fraud, promoted by the government, supported by taxpayer dollars, aided and abetted by the ADA and the AMA, in the history of the planet.”
– David Kennedy, DDS President International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Dentist David Kennedy on Fluoride
This is a short interview with David C. Kennedy, DDS, and former head of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.
Economic Motives Behind Water Fluoridation – Fluoride is a Protected Pollutant
Industrial pollution of air and water with fluoride provided a strong motive for promoting fluoridation of water supplies
Economic Motives Behind Fluoridation was written by the late Dr F. B. Exner
In 1955, when I wrote the article which is now Chapter 4 of “The American Fluoridation Experiment”, (1)1 knew in a general way that Industrial pollution of air and water with fluoride provided a strong motive for promoting fluoridation of water supplies. But I knew few of the details, and had no idea how strong the motive was.
I knew far more when I testified to the Councils of the American Medical Association, in August 1957; (2) but the picture was far from complete. It is now clear that the one utterly relentless force behind fluoridation is American “big industry”, and that the motive is not profit, as such, but fear. Read more.
I have to disagree with the late doctor, as it is the fear of the loss of profits that drives big industry as he calls it.
Below is a copy of the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) document that reveals the City Of Chicago spent $36 million to add fluoride to the drinking water. The FDA lists Fluoride as a poison. The City Of Chicago and countless other cities add fluoride to the drinking water which used to be the main ingredient in rat poison and is used in psychotropic drugs such as Prozac, Luvox and Paxil.
Water fluoridation is the ideal solution for industry’s fluoride waste disposal problem. Like the tall smoke stack introduced a decade earlier, it diverts and disperses pollutants far and wide. Chemicals that would cost $7,000 per tanker to dispose of are sold instead to cities at $265 to at least $722 per ton. Consequently, the phosphate fertilizer manufacturers invest millions of dollars in grants and lobbying of government officials to promote water fluoridation.
– “Fluoridation: License to Dump Toxic Waste In The Name of Public Health”, Health Action Network, Fluoride Report No. 4, Jan (1997)
Contaminated with arsenic, lead, barium, cadmium, and mercury, no analyses of fluorosilicic acid are performed at the source, and only rudimentary analyses are performed at water treatment plants prior to their injection into public water systems. In many artificially fluoridated areas, the lead and copper content of the water exceeds EPA/Safe Drinking Water Act standards. This occurs because of the caustic nature of fluorosilicic acid and its capacity to leach copper and lead from soldered pipe joints and brass fixtures.
– “Fluoridation: License to Dump Toxic Waste In The Name of Public Health”, Health Action Network, Fluoride Report No. 4, Jan (1997)
In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.
So really can you trust what you are being told from governments and mainstream science? The MSDS clearly states otherwise. The courts have even confirmed that there is no science to back up their claims
Main stream science, the medical as well as the dental community will tell you that a few tin foil wearing hat people are behind the conspiracy theory that fluoride is poison and that it causes harm. Well I put this site together to let the unheard of facts speak for themselves and let you decide. When people actually stop beLIEving what they are told and do their own research they usually come to a different conclusion.
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.“George Orwell
Below are two professionals, who tell their stories on how they were duped by the pro-fluorodationist deception, using innacurate data to push their fluoride agenda.
I am Dr. Richard Foulkes. I am an M.D., a health care administrator and former assistant professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at the University of British Columbia, Canada. I was, also, in the 1970’s, a special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia and commissioned by the Government to study the health care system of that province. …..
……We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced. The studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were “selling,” were either omitted or declared to be “bad science.” The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self interest of professional elites. Some of the basic “facts” presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity.
……I know now that I was presented with what has been called “the tainted truth.”….
Fluoride is more toxic than lead! Since artificial fluoridation of water supplies began in 1945, total fluoride ingestion in North America has increased over five time what it was in the 1950’s. (3) The amount of fluoride in food and beverages has increased in non-fluoridated as well as fluoridated areas owing to the importation of food and beverages prepared in fluoridated areas. Children and adults have been slowly accumulating fluoride, a non-essential element (NAS 1989) and known poison, for fifty years due to its being deliberately added to drinking water with the active promotion of our public health authorities.
Tooth decay is not a public health problem………
Who is Richard Foulkes In 1973, British Columbia was considering mandatory fluoridation. They gave the job of researching and reporting the topic to Richard Foulkes, MD. Foulkes then wrote a 2000 page report and recommended that legislation begin to make fluoride mandatory Then something happened. Little by little, Foulkes found out that the statistics that his researchers had based their findings on were largely falsified. It took Foulkes years to run down the truth, but by 1992, he shocked the country by backing down from his original recommendation: “I now hold a different view…the fluoridation of community water supplies can no longer be held to be either safe or effective in the reduction of dental caries..Therefore, the practice should be abandoned.”
– Foulkes, 1992 http://streetlife4everybody.blogspot.ca/2010/07/how-tap-water-can-be-actually-dangerous.html
by Richard G. Foulkes, M.D.
Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation
Dr. John Colquhoun
To explain how I came to change my opinion about water fluoridation, I must go back to when I was an ardent advocate of the procedure. I now realise that I had learned, in my training in dentistry, only one side of the scientific controversy over fluoridation. I had been taught, and believed, that there was really no scientific case against fluoridation, and that only misinformed lay people and a few crackpot professionals were foolish enough to oppose it. I recall how, after I had been elected to a local government in Auckland (New Zealand’s largest city, where I practised dentistry for many years and where I eventually became the Principal Dental Officer) I had fiercely — and, I now regret, rather arrogantly — poured scorn on another Council member (a lay person who had heard and accepted the case against fluoridation) and persuaded the Mayor
and majority of my fellow councillors to agree to fluoridation of our water supply.
Read the rest of the remarkable true story,
“WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION”
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JOHN COLQUHOUN … Dr. John Colquhoun, being first duly sworn on oath and with personal knowledge of the information contained herein, …
“Doctoring” of Data
7. I was shocked to discover, when the statistics were sent to me, they revealed
no such benefit. In fact, in most Health Districts the percentage of children
who were “caries-free” was higher in the non-fluoridated areas than in the
fluoridated areas. I disagreed sharply with my superiors’ action in circulating
a document, “overview of fluoridation statistics,” which omitted the above
information, disgracefully “doctored” the remaining statistics, and claimed
that a marginal benefit existed.
8. When, in addition, I discovered that dental fluorosis prevalences (a sign of
fluoride toxicity) were much higher than expected in fluoridated areas, I
publicly changed my stance on fluoridation in 1983.
9. I have continued my research, which gained me a Doctor of Philosophy
degree in 1987, and appointment to the post-doctoral position of Honorary
Research Fellow of the University of Auckland. Last year (1992) I became
editor of the Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research
(Fluoride), a position which provides a good overview of fluoride research
in different academic disciplines
Interview with Dr. John Colquhoun 1998 – YouTube
Doctor Anna Goodwin speaks out about the dangers of water fluoridation.
She also beLIEved in water fluoridation until she went to a fluoride seminar and questioned what they were saying.
Doctor Lawrie Brett speaks out about the dangers of water fluoridation.
Here is another formally pro-fluoride dentist, who decided to research for studies to back up his claims, but came to find there were none to be found and what he did find was opposite to what he had been lead to beLIEve.
Former pro-fluoride dentist speaks of the dangers of fluoride
Dean Burk former head of National Cancer Institute Research
In 1937, Dean became a co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), and headed its Cytochemistry department for over three decades.
Dean was initially skeptical that there was any link between fluoridation and cancer but later came to believe ardently that fluoride was a major carcinogen, responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. With his NCI credentials, he was the most impressive witness the anti-fluoridation forces around the world had. Needless to say, this role did not endear him to the public health establishment, which fought for its right to medicate the entire public with fluoride in the public drinking water in the name of preventing tooth decay among children.
Dr. Dean Burk, former head of National Cancer Institute Research
“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.” (interview on the Owen Spahn Talk Show, San Francisco, June 1972)
“The political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.” – Dr. Edward Groth, Senior Scientist, Consumers Union, 1991.
“Tell a lie loud enough and long enough and people will believe it.”
– Adolf Hitler
Is there a consensus amongst the scientific community?
It would appear that there are many doctors, dentist and scientist who don’t agree with the CDC statement above. That it is neither safe, nor is it effective
Here is what some of them have to say about water fluoridation.
CANADIAN DENTAL PROFESSOR DEFECTS
Dr. Hardy Limeback, biochemist and Professor of Dentistry, University of Toronto, former consultant to the Canadian Dental Association.
The latest defector from fluoridistas internationale is Dr Hardy Limeback, often cited by Canadian and US health officials in their defence of fluoridated water. But in a shock interview with journalist Michael Downey, published in Toronto’s Sunday Star, 25 April, Limeback joined the growing ranks of former fluoride promoters by conceding that fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and our overall health.
Professor Limeback is currently studying fluoride buildup in the body. “What we’re finding indicates a trend: Torontonians have double the fluoride levels in their hip bones compared to Montreal, where water is not fluoridated,” he said.
“Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never. In fluoridated areas, people should never use fluoride supplements. We tried to get them banned for children but (the dentists) wouldn’t even look at the evidence we presented” (See news.htm for full text).
His public proclamation.
To whom it may concern:
Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. The following summarize my reasons.
New evidence for lack of effectiveness of fluoridation in modern times.:…….. Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation
Professor A.K. Susheela (author of over 100 published scientific papers)
“What is the matter with your scientists that they allow your government to be so stupid?”, October 4, 1998, commenting on the UK government’s support for fluoridation.
“When historians come to write about this period, they will single out [fluoridation] as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we’ve ever had.”
– Paul Connett, PhD, Biochemistry
Dr. Geoffrey Smith, Dental Surgeon, New Scientist, May 5, 1983
“Dental Fluorosis, no matter how slight is an irreversible pathological condition recognised by authorities around the world as the first readily detectable clinical symptom of previous chronic fluoride poisoning.
To suggest we should ignore such a sign is as irrational as saying that the blue-black line which appears on the gums due to chronic lead poisoning is of no significance because it doesn’t cause any pain or discomfort.”
Frederick B. Exner, M.D., May 11, 1960
“Resolved to its simplest terms, the issue before you is this: Suppose I, as an individual, want to do something to one of you for the sole purpose of helping you and you don’t want it done. You are a sane adult. There is no acute emergency. No one else is involved. I have no other ulterior motive. The question then is: ‘Which one of us has the right to decide whether I should be permitted to do something to you ‘for your own good’ but against your will? Do You? Or do I”
Dr. P. Mullenix, Ph.D., research scientist, 1997 letter to Calgary Councillors.
“As a toxicologist involved in fluoride research for over ten years, I was stunned by the Calgary Regional Health Authority’s glib comments proclaiming water fluoridation safe. The ‘fifty years’ of studies about fluoride safety, do not exist. The “ongoing intensive research on fluorides and fluoridation’, does not exist, certainly none investigating safety.”
Dr. A. Schatz, Ph.D., co-discoverer, at age 23, of the first effective treatment against tuberculosis — streptomycin — 1997 letter to Calgary Councillors
“Many individuals with impeccable credentials in science, dentistry, and medicine have published incontrovertible evidence that fluoridation is harmful and does not reduce the incidence of dental caries”.
Alhava E.M., et al., The Effect of Drinking Water Fluoridation on the Fluoride Content, Strength and Mineral Density of Human Bone, Acta Orthop. Scand., 51, 1980
“The highest fluoride content in bone ash was observed in women with severe osteoporosis”
U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1993
“…subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.”
Dr. P.H. Phillips, biochemist, University of Wisconsin
“Fluoride is an accumulative poison which accumulates in the skeletal structures, including the teeth, when the body is exposed to small daily intakes of this element. …it is like lead accumulation in the bone until saturation occurs and then lead poisoning sets in.”
In the March 2001 issue of the journal Neuro Toxicology, a team of researchers led by Dr. Roger Masters of Dartmouth College reported evidence that public drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid is linked to higher levels of lead in children.
“If further research confirms our findings,” Masters said, “this may well be the worst environmental poison since leaded gasoline.” The EPA admits it has no data on the health and behavioral effects of SiFs.
Dr. Masters asked: “Shouldn’t we stop intentionally exposing 140 million Americans to an untested chemical until the risks are extensively and objectively evaluated by independent researchers?”
The late Dr. George L. Waldbott, author of “Fluoridation, the Great Dilemma”
“…When medical practitioners everywhere also recognize the severity of the problems of chronic fluoride toxicosis, and laws mandating truly safe drinking water are sincerely enforced, the health of millions will dramatically improve….”
Carl Sagan C., from Broca’s Brain
The character or beliefs of the scientist are irrelevant; all that matters is whether the evidence supports his contention. Arguments from authority simply do not count; too many authorities have been mistaken too often.
Yearbook of Agriculture, 1939
Fluorine interferes with the normal calcification of the teeth during the process of their formation so that affected teeth, in addition to being usually discolored and ugly in appearance, are structurally weak and deteriorate early in life. For this reason, it is especially important that fluorine be avoided during the period of tooth formation, that is, from birth to the age of 12 years.
Dyson Rose, John Marier, Environmental Fluoride 1977, National Research Council of Canada (NRCC No. 16081).
Fluoride is a persistent bioaccumulator, and is entering into human food-and-beverage chains in increasing amounts.
Careful consideration of all available data indicates that the amount of fluoride ingested daily in foods and beverages by adult humans living in fluoridated communities currently ranges between 3.5 and 5.5 mg. … Long-term ingestion, with accumulation of fluoride in animals and man, induces metabolic and biochemical changes … There is no doubt that inadequate nutrition increases the severity of fluoride toxicosis.
AND, “...chronic intake of fluoride increases the long-term metabolic requirement for both calcium and magnesium.”
DeEds F, Fluorine in Relation to Bone and Tooth Development, JADA, 23, 1936, p 574
Fluorine is a general protoplasmic poison, but the most important symptoms of chronic fluorine poisoning known at present are mottling of the teeth and interference with bone formation.
Chief Dental Officer, British Ministry of Health and Social Security, December 11, 1980.
…no laboratory test has ever shown that 1 part per million fluoride in the drinking water reduces tooth decay.
Bette Hileman, Fluoridation of Water, Chemical & Engineering News, August 1, 1988.
Although skeletal fluorosis has been studied intensely in other countries for more than 40 years, virtually no research has been done in the U.S. to determine how many people are afflicted with the earlier stages of the disease, particularly the preclinical stages. Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed. Skeletal fluorosis is not even discussed in most medical texts under the effects of fluoride; indeed, a number of texts say the condition is almost nonexistent in the U.S. Even if a doctor is aware of the disease, the early stages are difficult to diagnose.
Johnston DW, Current status of professionally applied topical fluorides, Com Dent Oral Epidem 1994, 22
“Professionally applied topical fluoride procedures should not be provided on a routine basis but should be limited, particularly in Canada where caries incidence is relatively low, to high caries risk groups served by dental public health programs and high risk patients in private dental practice. For those selected for these procedures, the maximum benefits must be assured at the least biological and financial costs.” [emphasis added]
William Hirzy, PhD former chief chemist for the EPA and former President of the Union of Professional Employees of the EPA
“Sodium fluoride is a registered rat poison and roach poison. It has been a protected pollutant for a very long time.“
So toxic is the fluoride added to drinking water that, according to Hirzy, if one were to take a dose of it about half the size of that “500 mg vitamin C tablet you take in the morning, you’d be dead long before the sun went down. When you’re talking about something with that kind of potent toxicity,” he says, “it’s unrealistic to think that the only adverse effect it has is death. It must be doing something intracellularly to cause these effects.”
As evidence that the government has known for over sixty years that fluoride is a health hazard, Hirzy quoted from an article, “clear back in 1934 in which the American Dental Association plainly treats the subject very matter-of-factly. It calls fluoride a general protoplasmic poison.”
Journal American Dental Association, October 1944, Editorial
We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 – 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurements….
Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons.
Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943, Editorial.
“Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems. The exact mechanism of such actions is obscure. The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 part per million or more of fluorine, fluoride compounds used as insecticidal spays for fruits and vegetables (cryolite and barium fluosilicate) and the mining and conversion of phosphate rock to superphosphate, which is used as fertilizer.”
“sodium fluoride is a very toxic chemical, acting as an enzyme poison, direct irritant and calcium inactivator..It reacts with growing tooth enamel and with bones to produce irreversible damage.”
– Granville Knight, MD president of the American Academy of Nutrition
Congressional Record, 31 July 56 (Robotry, p. 22)
“Ingesting artificial fluoride chemicals does not prevent tooth decay, but rather destroys your insides and leads to the development of cancer and other illnesses.“
These are the disturbing findings of an assessment recently compiled by award-winning chemist, author, and founder of ThePeoplesChemist.com, Shane Ellison.
“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.”
– Charles Gordon Heyd, MD, president, AMA
“no physician in his right mind would hand to his patient a bottled filled with a dangerous drug with instructions to take as much or as little of it as he wished. And yet, the Public Health Service is engaged upon a widespread propaganda program to insist that communities do exactly that.The purpose of administering fluoride is not to render the water supply pure and potable but to contaminate it with a dangerous, toxic drug for the purpose of administering mass medication to the consumer, without regard to age or physical condition.”
– L. Alesen, MD, president of the California Medical Association
“How can anyone calculate a child’s total fluoride exposure when there are unknown amounts of fluoride in virtually all the foods we eat, mainly because they are processed with fluoridated water,”
says lawyer Paul Beeber, president of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.
Dr. Conrad Sonntag, Alberta Dentist, 1992
“[fluoridation] amounts to mass medication to contest a disease which is neither life threatening nor grossly debilitating. I’d rather not see any more chemicals in the water. We’re trying to treat this problem [decay] much like trying to kill a fly with a shotgun.”
The Courts have said …
In a famous legal battle over fluoridation in the 1950s we find the judge letting us have it:
“By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities…arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary’s pestle to the patient, without the latter’s consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state.”
– Justice Donworth in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS
from Robotry, p 18
Doctor Jane Beck speaks out about the dangers of water fluoridation. She also speaks about, how it violates our informed consent.
The Courts have said …
Texas Trial Court:
Judge Anthony Farris presided over the trial in the case of Safe Water Foundation v. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, 151st Judicial District, No. 80-52271. On May 24, 1982, Judge Farris entered his findings of fact on the record of the case. His main findings were as follows:
“That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man.”
Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, these findings of fact were specifically sustained and upheld as having been established at trial by a preponderance of the evidence, as appears in Safe Water Foundation v. Houston, 661 S.W. 2d 189 (Tex. App. 1983).
The Courts have said …
Pennsylvania Trial Court:
“CANCER INCREASED IN FLUORIDATED CITIES” – SUPREME COURT JUDGE.
Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, Judge Flaherty’s jurisdiction to make and enter his findings on November 16, 1978 was expressly sustained and upheld.
Judge John P. Flaherty, now a Supreme Court Judge, presided over the trial in the case of Paul Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, No. GD-4585-78. The city was sued over fluoridation.
On November 16, 1978, Judge Flaherty handed down his decree. The critical parts of his opinion read as follows:
“Over the course of five months, the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities.”
Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, Judge Flaherty’s jurisdiction to make and enter his findings on November 16, 1978 was expressly sustained and upheld as appears in Aitkenhead v. West View, 397 Atl. 2d 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Nor were his findings ever disturbed on appeal.
In 1988, Justice Flaherty re-affirmed his convictions that fluoridation is a very dangerous practice. In a letter dated January 26, 1988 to Ms. Evelyn Hannan, he stated,
“It has been years now since the case involving fluoridation was before me as a trial judge, but since that time nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that indepth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.
Whether government has the right to force what it perceives as a benefit to the public was not directly before me in the case, but that also is to be pondered.
My hope is that groups such as yours will spur the scientific community into an objective posture on this issue.
Dr. William Marcus, Ph.D, Environmental Protection Agency Scientist, Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998
“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe the EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects.“
In this video Dr Marcus who was the chief toxicologist for the EPA, explains how fluoride causes cancer in the bones.
Here is his memo in regards to the subject above.
“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.” Dr. Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, U.S. National Cancer Institute. Congressional Record, 21 July 1976
“More people have died in the last 30 years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States.”
– Dean Burk, PhD National Cancer Institute–Fluoridation:A Burning Controversy
In his book, Fluoride, The Aging Factor, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis warns:
Fluoride is a poison! . . . it has been used as a pesticide for mice, rats and other small pests. A 10-pound infant could be killed by 1/100 of an ounce and a 100-pound adult could be killed by 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride.
“THOSE who believe fluoride works are entitled to their opinion. That is their right. But they have no right to force others to drink or use fluoride against their will, especially in the face of so much credible evidence of harms . . . The only people who truly benefit from the widespread use of fluoride for “dental” purposes are the big industries that generate fluoride as a waste product.” – Prof David R. Hill, University of Calgary, Canada
Here in the PDF document below, are sworn affidavits from various doctors, dentist and scientist who have been involved in the research on fluoride.
As well as Dr. Marcus who was the chief toxicologist at the EPA and was instrumental in ending the addition of lead in gasoline.
Robert J. Carton, PhD, was an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years in the US federal government writing regulations, managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, and providing environmental oversight of medical research conducted by the government. From 1972–1992 he worked at the headquarters of the US Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC, and wrote the first regulations for controlling asbestos discharges from manufacturing plants.
Both EPA scientist as well as all it’s union members were against water fluoridation
…….Our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis. First, a review of recent neurotoxicity research results…….
………The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” most of the western world, including the vast majority of western Europe, does not fluoridate its water supply.
At present, 97% of the western European population drinks non-fluoridated water.
In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.
There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
There is no difference in tooth decay between western nations that fluoridate their water and those that do not.
So. There you have it. 95% of the world does not fluoridate it’s water and less than 30% of Canadians are being fluoridated. So why are we being fluoridated?
Every body in the rest of the world should be loosing their teeth. Right?
This short video ask the question.
Artificial water fluoridation began in the 1950’s.
Today, we know that drinking fluoride can impact health and fluoride has effects on the brain. Now, years later, science has been informed that drinking fluoride has brain impacts and is a neurotoxin very similar to lead, arsenic and mercury. Additionally, there is no informed medical consent given by each person when they are required to drink this unlabeled and odorless drug.
In 2006, the National Research Council conducted a Scientific Review on Fluoride. Their findings indicate that the evidence does not support the supposed benefits of fluoridation but does support adverse health effects.
Is Drinking Fluoride Safe? explores public water fluoridation.
TV NEWS show exposes Fluoride for what it is – poison!
TV NEWS show exposes Fluoride for what it is – poison!
Scientists speak out against fluoridation
In a full length video produced by the Fluoride Action Network, respected professional researchers, scientists, and health practitioners openly discuss their experience and opinions concerning the adverse health effects and ethical problems associated with the public health policy of water fluoridation.
Featuring a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, three scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, as well as dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, this professionally-produced 28 minute video presents a powerful indictment of the water fluoridation program.
It comes down to this
Money makes the world go round, so money talks and people can be bought.
If you put your beliefs aside and really examine how the world works, you will find where there is big money involved, that money rules over human health and the environment most of the time and I will show this to you, here.
I can give you other examples, but will provide you below, with one clear case where scientist were paid to provide an outcome to benefit the sugar industry at the expense of our health.
As early as the 1960s, the sugar industry knew- because of research that had been done- that there was a possibility sugar played a role in heart disease. And they never said a word, in fact, they blamed fat.
According to newly uncovered documents, in the 1960s the sugar industry began funding research to cast doubt on sugar’s role in heart disease, mainly by pointing the finger at fat instead. A recently published analysis based on correspondence between a sugar trade group and researchers from Harvard University clearly demonstrates how food and beverage makers actively shape the public’s understanding of nutrition for their own financial gain.
In 1964, the group now known as the Sugar Association internally discussed a campaign to address “negative attitudes toward sugar” after studies began emerging linking sugar with heart disease, according to documents dug up from public archives. The following year the group approved “Project 226,” which entailed paying Harvard researchers today’s equivalent of $48,900 US for an article reviewing the scientific literature, supplying materials they wanted reviewed, and receiving drafts of the article. The resulting article published in 1967 concluded there was “no doubt” that reducing cholesterol and saturated fat was the only dietary intervention needed to prevent heart disease. The researchers overstated the consistency of the literature on fat and cholesterol, while downplaying studies on sugar, according to the analysis.Here is one more.
Here we have wireless phone industry skewing information to make phones appear to be safe.
Can we always trust doctors and dentist endorsements?
Here we have a commercial where doctors are actually endorsing cigarettes.
Dentists recommend smoking – Bad Science
How many decades did we hear from the scientists who worked for industry that cigarettes weren’t addictive, even in the face of mounting research.
No one died after smoking one cigarette, or one pack, or one carton but after twenty years, cancers started to “mysteriously” appear. We were told these deaths were unrelated to smoking. New science revealed the mystery
The American Cancer Society states the “During 1995, approximately 2.1 million people in developed countries died as a result of smoking. Tobacco use is responsible for nearly one in five deaths in the United States. But it was 100% safe just a few years ago.
In the 1950’s, 19,293 dentists advised us that smoking was o.k. – we’re professionals, trust us. Earlier scientists for the government approved DDT was safe and effective. Around that same time water fluoridation was also said to be safe.
Mainstream scientists were wrong about tobacco and DDT.
Scientists and government agencies approved a variety of chemicals and drugs and told us they were extensively tested and were safe.
They include asbestos, DDT (pesticide), PCB (industrial chemical ), Lead (paint and gasoline additive), MTBE (gasoline additive), Dioxin (pesticide), Agent Orange (defoliant), Dalkon shield (contraceptive), Thalidomide (pregnancy anti nausea drug).
You be the judge as to how safe fluoride it is for your children and families – that’s the only sensible thing to do, after all, you betting their long term health.
Here is a cigarette commercial where they lie by omission. They say that it has no adverse effects, but fail to mention lungs in their commercial and we all know cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Just like cigarette smoking then, people are told today that fluoride is good for you yet there is no science prove it. The best that they can come up with these days is their Dissociation theory, which I will cover in a later post.
Here you have CEO’s of different cigarette corporations spinning their common narrative, just like certain government officials spinning “Fluoride is Safe and effective”, yet coming up with no science to back up their claims. They will deny anything presented to them as unsupported facts. These people are professionals at the art of spinning nonsense and creating doubt in the minds of most people who have done little research for themselves.
So how can we trust doctors and dentist, when even they, have shown that they can and do get duped into believing lies, which have caused them to harm themselves and others, by saying these products were in fact safe.
Why is that? That is something most of us are guilt of. Trusting and beLIEving blindly what we have been told, without questioning it or researching it for ourselves to even see if it is true or not.
Bottom line “to beLIEve is to not know”. You just took someone’s word that it was true without checking that it was in fact true. So when you are done here, you should do your own research to confirm for yourself what you feel to be true. That is your responsibility.
How much time have dentist actually spent learning about water fluoridation?
Here is another dentist who finally took the time to do his own research and like many others, found he had been deceived and took up the cause to end water fluoridation.
I Graduated from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Dentistry 1972. I began my practice of general dentistry in Tulsa OK in 1972. I used fluoride and mercury in my dental practice until I woke up to the fluoride fraud in the early 1980’s and the mercury deception in 1991.
In addition to testifying at an EPA hearing opposing the fluoridation of public drinking water, I have worked with some communities in their opposition to the fluoridation of their drinking water.
I have also worked with communities experiencing pollution problems to educate those folks as to how the Establishment has altered, distorted and misrepresented the science in order to redefine Webster’s definition of the word “safe.” This redefining is done to assist Corporate America in conning the pubic (That’s you) into believing that some very hazardous chemicals are “without any adverse health effects” and are therefore “safe” when in fact they are not “safe” as “safe” really doesn’t mean “safe” anymore.
This Fluoride Fraud section will explain how we have all been duped by the American Dental Association, the United States Public Health Service and Corporate America in their attempt to have us believe that fluorine, a very reactive and extremely toxic chemical, when added to the public’s drinking water supply will somehow reduce tooth decay and is somehow “safe” for us to consume.
I am giving you two different PDF’s to read. One is a short version that I wrote several years ago and it will give you a snapshot story of this Fluoride Fraud and some insight as to how this fluoride fraud has been imposed on all of us by the greedy ones. The longer version will give you considerable more information. Due to the length of this longer version the PDF does take longer to download. Be patient!
All dentists have been to dental school and basically followed the same curricula. One subject conspicuously absent from our training has been that of water fluoridation. The result is that dentists have neither a historical nor a scientific understanding of it. Furthermore, the ADA does not want us to learn about it in any depth, because if we did, we’d realize what an unscientific and tragic mistake it has been.
There’s no course called Fluoridation 101 in dental school. We were taught only a smidgen about fluoridation, mostly the early skewed and flawed reports from the late 1940s and beyond. Any fluoride science before 1940 was omitted. However, I’ve found that when dentists learn the historical fluoride science from 1900 to 1940, they usually cease their support of water fluoridation.
Jim Maxey, DDS
by Darlene Sherrell
Just in time for Children’s Dental Health Month, (February 1997) the Reader’s Digest published HOW HONEST ARE DENTISTS?, by William Ecenbarger, winner of the George Polk Award for Investigative Journalism. The article revealed that in 28 states dentists examined the same set of x-rays and the same set of pearly whites, and then recommended widely differing treatments, with price tags to match: $500.00 to $29,850.00. They didn’t seem to know what to do or how much to charge for doing it. “I got 50 opinions,” Ecenbarger writes, “and I am not comforted.”
This article, however, barely scratches the surface with regard to dishonesty. For decades, the American Dental Association has worked hand in glove with industry to cover up the toxic properties of fluoride, causing untold pain and suffering among an unsuspecting population urged to trust their dentists, trust their government, trust their political leaders, no matter what……
Who is Darlene Sherrell?
The Detroit News headline for March 28, 1978 read, “State study to find out if we’re fluoride OD’s. The article quoted Craig Ruff, an aide to Governor Milliken: “It’s a good example of what one citizen on a white horse can do.” On the previous day, in the capitol, the State Journal quoted Dr. Maurice Reizen, Director of the Michigan Department of Public Health, who said “There is nobody more knowledgable or dedicated on this subject than Darlene Sherrell.”
In a recent talk, she described herself as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen. I have often been asked questions about my credentials . . . my background . . . my qualification to speak or write about fluoride . . . my right, so to speak, to disagree with a dentist or physician.
In 1976, while living in Lansing, Michigan, I met our local typical little old lady in tennis shoes, carrying a large paper shopping bag full of tattered newspaper clippings and copies of magazine articles about fluoride. She told me fluoride caused cancer and was put into our water to keep us docile. I was 35, she was in her mid- 60s, and I immediately classified her as a nutcase.
Then, one day, I got curious and looked in my pharmacology book to see what I could find about fluoride. What I found changed my life.
I learned that when the drinking water contained about one part per million of fluoride, 10 to 15 percent of the children would show a faint change in the appearance of their teeth called dental fluorosis; but with 2 or 3 parts per million, nearly all will be affected by this first and only visible sign of fluoride poisoning. I also learned that fluoride is the key ingredient in a widely used cancer drug called 5-FU. The cells die because fluorine enters into one of the molecules in DNA — the genetic material.
So “fluoride” has, according to the pharmacology book, the ability to enter into our DNA and affect our molecules, as stated above. If that doesn’t concern you what will? What kind of genetic damage could this be doing to us and our children?
Fluoride: The Bizarre History – Full Documentary
by Darlene Sherrell
So I hope you have come to realise that our drinking water is far from being pristine, contrary to what we are led to believe.
In fact there are “contaminants” as USA Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls them, added to our drinking water, that are harmful to our health over an extended period of use.
The EPA identifies contaminants to regulate in drinking water to protect public health. The Agency sets regulatory limits for the amounts of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. These contaminant standards are required by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Here in Ontario, we use the EPA calculated safety standards for our Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
I will provide you with proof as we will cover the SDWA later.
In fact “FLUORIDE” is one of these contaminants as you will see.
Here are three definitions of the word contaminant.
con·tam·i·nantAn impurity; any extraneous material associated with a chemical, a pharmaceutical preparation, a physiologic principle, or an infectious agent.Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012
Contamination is the presence of an unwanted constituent, contaminant or impurity in a material, physical body, natural environment, workplace, etc.
Here is a screen shot from the EPA’s website. Fluoride as stated, is in fact listed as a “contaminant”. Also note under health effects is bone disease and mottled teeth. This is the first clue that it is not safe. I will cover these further as we go along .
I have also included from the list of contaminants ” Arsenic. Lead, Mercury, Radium” which are all part of the make up of “Hydrofluorosilicic Acid” that we spoke of above.
So we have a situation here where contaminants known to cause cancer and other health issue are being reintroduced to the water supply. Most would say they are such small amounts that they cannot have any effect on us. I say NONSENSE to that.
All of these, including all chemicals that find there way into the body, either by inhalation, absorption, ingestion or injection have a cumulative effect on the body over a lifetime. On young babies who have no natural immunity, these toxic chemicals can have devastating effects. The body can only purge so much of these toxic chemicals. One thing most people have failed to even consider is a process called synergistic toxicity.
The medical definition taken from several medical dictionaries is consistent. Fluoride causes mottled teeth and has not been denied. However it has been classified as a cosmetic effect. The MSDS clearly states “Severe fluorosis in children weakens tooth enamel resulting in surface pitting.“
the white, compact, and very hard substance covering and protecting the dentin of the crown of a tooth.
mottled enamel a chronic endemic form of hypoplasia of the dental enamel caused by drinking water with a high fluoride content when a child is in the time of tooth formation. It is characterized by defective calcification that gives a white chalky appearance to the enamel, which gradually undergoes brown discoloration. See also dental fluorosis.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 by Saunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
alterations in enamel structure often due to excessive fluoride ingestion during tooth formation; varies in appearance from small white opacities to yellow and black spotting.
Farlex Partner Medical Dictionary © Farlex 2012
mottled enamel n.
Discolored and spotted tooth enamel caused by excessive amounts of fluorides in drinking water.
The American Heritage® Medical Dictionary Copyright © 2007, 2004 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by . All rights reserved.
Alterations in enamel structure often due to excessive fluoride ingestion during tooth formation. Mottling may also be caused by tetracycline therapy during the first half of pregnancy or in children whose teeth are still developing.
Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing © Farlex 2012
Alterations in enamel structure often due to excessive fluoride ingestion during tooth formation.
Medical Dictionary for the Dental Professions © Farlex 2012
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochemistry) DDS — Dental Fluorosis: Permanent tooth scarring caused by fluoridation
Dental Fluorosis: Permanent tooth scarring caused by fluoridation
What is dental fluorosis?
Dental Fluorosis caused by water fluoridation is irreversible, disfiguring, psychologically damaging and costly to repair. In essence, it is medical assault on children.
When children are exposed to increased fluoride intake from birth to age 6 years, fluoride interferes with normal tooth development and their teeth develop dental defects on the enamel surfaces that vary from
- barely visible white lines or spots (very mild) to
- coalescing chalky white opaque areas (mild) to
- chalky enamel on all teeth that start to ‘pit’ and stain brown (moderate) to
- mottling of all teeth, with enamel pitting and staining (severe)
Researchers have often categorized the various severities of dental fluorosis with indices, two of which are shown in this composite diagram.
There have been several studies conducted in Canada to estimate fluorosis prevalence.
Twenty years ago dental fluorosis was found in nearly 70% of the children in fluoridated communities (Ismail AI, Shoveller J, Langille D, MacInnis WA, McNally M. Should the drinking water of Truro, Nova Scotia, be fluoridated? Water fluoridation in the 1990s. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1993 Jun;21(3):118-25).
The prevalence of fluorosis was about 60% in Courtenay and Comox in BC but this declined significantly when fluoridation was halted (Clark DC, Shulman JD, Maupomé G, Levy SM. Changes in Dental Fluorosis Following the Cessation of Water Fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006 Jun;34(3):197-204)
In 1999, Dr. David Locker, now deceased, conducted a review of fluoridation for the Ontario Ministry of Health and the First Nations and Inuit Health Branch. He reported, “current studies support the view that dental fluorosis has increased in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. North American studies suggest rates of 20 to 75% in the former and 12 to 45% in the latter.” Read the rest of the article
Seriously, if you examine some of the teeth in the photo above, do they look like the kind of teeth that you would want or your children to have?
If you live in a fluoridated city your child’s risk increases.
Prominent researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride
by Barry Forbes, The Tribune, Mesa, AZ Sunday, December 5, 1999
“Why’d you do it, Doc? Why’d you toss the fluoride folks overboard?”
I had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D in Biochemistry, D.D.S., head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. (Whew.)
“Mottled and brittle teeth,” Dr. Limeback told me. “In Canada we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities. That includes my own practice.”
So why would dentist continue to endorse water fluoridation? Because they have been led to beLIEve it is safe and effective.
Educate your dentist and share this website with them.
“Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child’s body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely.” – Dr. John Colquhoun (1997).
Here is a good 3 minute video on youtube about Dental Fluorosis
Overdosed on Fluoride: The Dental Fluorosis Problem
Fluoride & Tooth Decay: Topical VS. Systemic Effects
When waterfluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride’s main benefit came from ingesting fluoride during the early years of life. This belief held sway for over 40 years.
However, it is now acknowledged by dental researchers to be incorrect. According to the Centres for Disease Control, fluoride’s predominant effect is topical (direct contact with teeth) and not systemic (from ingestion).
Hence, there is no need to ingest fluoride to derive its purported benefit for teeth.
As stated by the US Centres for Disease Control:
“[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children”
(CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940).
Also what showed up in the search for mottled teeth was a link to skeletal fluorosis.
Related to mottled tooth: Skeletal fluorosis
- Medical Dictionary
Related to skeletal fluorosis: Dental fluorosis
skeletal changes caused by long-term ingestion of excessive fluoride, including hyperostosis, osteopetrosis, and osteoporosis.
Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 9th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
A search of bone disease also brought up skeletal fluorosis. Here are a couple of articles that explain that in more details.
Many people have this idea that natural occurring fluoride is good for you. That is a false assumption. In countries where there are high amounts of natural occurring fluoride in the drinking water, it is causing serious crippling and deforming effects to young children.
This is severe skeletal fluorosis from drinking natural fluoride.
For people who have consumed excessive amounts of fluoride over a lifetime, the effects are somewhat different, but still debilitating.
Look around you, what do you see?
Older people suffering.
The evidence is clear that the risks of fluoride far outweigh any minor benefit to teeth. The precautionary principle needs to be applied. An increase in more severe skeletal fluorosis is due to erupt as older people enter the risk window. Water fluoridation should cease immediately and steps should be taken to reduce fluoride in food, drink, and dental products.
The People’s Republic of China Department of Endemic Disease Control has identified natural fluoride in drinking water as the source of significant crippling and paralysis in many communities. They have also identified dental fluorosis in children as a signal of which child will first become afflicted. Dental fluorosis has also been linked to not only damaged bones but damaged brains. While the worlds largest communist nation is reducing their population’s exposure to fluoride, US and its English speaking allies are forcing increased exposure to fluoride on their subjects through mandatory fluoridation.
According to safety thresholds for children established by
research and regulatory agencies in the United States,
babies in utero can be overexposed to fluoride.
With every 3 cups of optimally fluoridated tap water a mother drinks,
If a baby weighing less than 6 pounds receives 0.3 mg of fluoride in one day, this dosage exceeds the Tolerable Upper Intake Level – beyond which “the risk of adverse effects increases.” (Institute of Medicine, 1997)
If a child 3 to 6 years old swallows more than 0.25 mg of fluoride in a pea-sized dab of toothpaste (the most that should be used for brushing says the American Dental Association), the label warns: “Get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” (FDA, 1997)
A team of researchers found substantial evidence that fluoride is a “developmental neurotoxicant.” (EPA Neurotoxicology Division, 2009)
Inform and hold accountable those responsible for adding fluoride to your drinking water. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. To knowingly overexpose babies in the womb to a developmental neurotoxicant is unforgivable. Insist on and litigate if necessary a pregnancy advisory for fluoridated tap water.
Parents have the right to know how much fluoride
their unborn child receives from fluoridated tap water.
September 20, 2017
Please watch the 3 minute video
about the major new study that concluded:
“Higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure)… were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6-12 years old.”
Today, 74 percent of Americans ( less than 30% of Canadians )on community water systems receive fluoridated water.1 Since 1945, it has been widely accepted in the U.S. that fluoride is “safe and effective” to prevent tooth decay. But is it really?
The 2015 documentary, “Fluoride: Poison on Tap,” seeks to expose what may be one of the longest-running and most successful deceptions known to mankind — adding industrial waste, in the form of fluoride, to public drinking water. You may be shocked at the lengths to which corporations, industry and government have gone to make this industrial waste product appear beneficial to your health.
You may be surprised to know the first American commercial use of fluoride, in the form of sodium fluoride, was to kill insects, lice, mice and other vermin. It was quite effective. In the 1930s, aluminum industry giant Alcoa was the largest producer of fluoride, releasing vapors into the atmosphere that crippled or killed farm animals and scorched crops and other vegetation. In those early years, many lawsuits were brought against Alcoa to recover damages from lost animals and crops.
Growing concerns about the seemingly negative effects of fluoride gas on human beings motivated the company to devise a means of recycling this potent industrial byproduct. The brainchild of water fluoridation was Gerald Cox, a researcher with the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh. He received a request to look at fluoride’s effects on teeth from Alcoa lab director Francis Frary, who was concerned about mounting lawsuits related to the fluoride pollution his plant produced.
Another motivation was the reality that disposing of fluoride waste from its aluminum plants was becoming increasingly costly for Alcoa. Previously, the Mellon Institute had been the leading defender of the asbestos industry, producing research showing asbestos was harmless and worker health problems were purportedly due to other causes. Using “science” as a smokescreen, the Mellon Institute was able to save the asbestos industry from financial catastrophe.
As a result of their success in using science to prop up the asbestos industry at that time, it makes sense Alcoa chose Cox and the Mellon Institute to craft a story around the perceived health benefits of fluoride. To ensure their success, Alcoa executives realized public opinion about fluoride had to be carefully and continuously manipulated.
In a bold move, they hired public relations pioneer Edward Bernays, who later became known as the “father of spin,” to head the U.S. water fluoridation campaign. Using psychological principles targeted at what he called, the “mass mind,” Bernays was quite successful in attracting public support for the widespread consumer use of fluoride.2
The Beginning of Water Fluoridation
By the 1950s and ’60s, when the practice of releasing fluoride vapors into the air was reined in due to the introduction of air pollution technology, fluoride had already been added to U.S. drinking water. In January 1945, the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first of thousands of U.S. municipalities to proudly add fluoride to its community water source, under the guise of preventing tooth decay.
As technology has advanced, fluoride acid, also known as hydrofluorosilicic acid, is now caught in wet scrubbers, which curtails air emissions. As such, companies like Cargill, Mosaic and Pencco are able to barrel up and sell fluoride to cities across the U.S. which, in turn, add this unrefined hazardous material to their community water supplies.3 You may be shocked to learn that the fluoride added to your water is not pharmaceutical grade.
Indeed, most of the fluoride added to municipal drinking water is simply an unrefined, highly toxic, industrial waste product. Some of the contaminants that accompany the fluoride added to your drinking………….
Fluoride by itself is a cumulative poison and research has shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to wide-array of health problems including:
- Increased infertility and damage sperm
- Disruption of the Immune System
- Increased cancer and tumor rate
- Cell death (apoptosis) and genetic damage (premature aging)
- Inhibited formation of antibodies
- Inhibits more than 100 enzymes and inactivates 62 enzymes
- Osteosarcoma or bone cancer
- Reduced thyroid function
- Dental fluorosis a bio-marker for fluoride poisoning
- Skeletal fluorosis
- Bone Fracture
- Thyroid Disease
- Muscle Disorder
- Lethargy or Hyperactivity
- Disrupt Collagen Synthesis
- Increased Absorption of Lead
- It is an endocrine disruptor
- kidney damage
- calcifies the pineal gland (interfering with melatonin & seratonin)
- Brain damage (lower IQ, dementia and alzheimer’s
Fluoridation of a public water supply is an ethical offense against us all.
Here is a copy of the letter Submitted by: Dr. James Beck, MD, at the meeting SPC for Utilities and the Environment. City of Calgary Council Chambers. Wednesday January 26, 2011. Dr Beck was instrumental in the ending of water fluoridation in Calgary.
In 1957 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that fluoridation is “compulsory preventive medication”. The court’s ruling is significant because it legitimizes the common-sense conclusion that we are being medicated and it puts the matter clearly in the realm of medical ethics. Medical ethics in turn is embedded in human rights.
Here is how fluoridation violates the code of medical ethics. It is administration of a drug without control of dosage (controlling concentration in our water is not controlling dose or dosage). It is administration of a drug without informed consent of the recipient. It does not provide monitoring of the effects on the recipient. It is not possible for the recipient to stop receiving the drug (many can not get nonfluoridated water and none of us can avoid exposure from foods and drinks processed where tap water is fluoridated). The drug has not been shown to be safe for human consumption.
Fluoridation of a public water supply is not only an ethical offense against us all, it is clearly a more serious offense against those subgroups of our population which are particularly at risk of harm from fluoride. These groups include infants being fed with formula reconstituted with tap water, diabetics, persons deficient in iodine intake, persons with kidney disease, boys during the eight-year-old’s growth spurt, and others. It is an obligation of city councils and of Alberta Health Services to protect all, not just the average or just the majority.
Several councilors have rightly been concerned about the dental health of children of low-income families. It is said that fluoridation is of particular benefit to poor children. That has been investigated. It is found that the fluoridated poor groups have no better cavity experience than do the nonfluoridated poor groups. Furthermore, it is found that the prevalence of cavities increases as family income decreases. It’s not fluoride that would benefit poor children; it’s a higher standard of living, probably better diet and better oral hygiene.
Now what kind of ethical consciousness allows one to continue to apply a possibly harmful process to unwilling people until there is absolute proof that it is harmful? I have seen this backward approach to safety in government reports on fluoridation. It goes like this: this study that shows association of fluoridation with this harmful effect is not a perfect study; there are weaknesses; therefore we will continue the process until it is shown with certainty that it is harmful. And no further research is recommended; no responsibility to support a better study is accepted. In the presence of a small and dubious benefit such a conclusion, more than being irresponsible, is outlandish.
You don’t have the moral right to do this to us, to one million people. You should stop it now.
James S. Beck, M.D., Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics, University of Calgary
The questions is simple . Does the single possible benefit outweight all the known harm? Is the water fluoridation process even legal? The answer to both those questions is clearly “NO”.
So from the information above it was determined that:
– fluoride is described as a drug which violates our human rights and is mass medication without a controlled dosages
– that governments are putting toxic waste in our drinking water using it to circumvent environmental laws while still polluting rivers and lakes.
– the science is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports.
– deception is used to get people to promote and believe that fluoride is safe and effectice, when it is in fact neither.
I will provide further evidence in my blog that will reinforce the fact that water fluoridation is not safe, legal and nor is it effective as it is being promoted.
-Winston Churchill-“Men stumble over the truth from time to time, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened.”
Now I have a question for you.
At what point do you start to care enough to get involved?
“You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you did not know.”
— William Wilberforce
“If you choose to do nothing, nothing will happen”
It is going to take some effort to get this out of our water.
So please Contact me
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”George Orwell
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, unless your own reason and your own common sense agree.”Gautama Buddha
(quotation is a paraphrase of the original)
Fluoride Free Sudbury Fair Use Statement
The Fluoride Free Sudbury website contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance public understanding of medical, environmental, human rights, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is for educational purposes. For more information on the copyright law, please go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. We do not offer this material for sale, nor do we have the authority to grant permission for its reuse.