Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ

[Anti Federalist]

I know this is a cross post, but I think it deserves a little more exposure.

Turns out the anti fluoride "kooks" have been right all along.

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/24/idUS127920+24-Jul-2012+PRN20120724

NEW YORK, July 24, 2012

Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.

Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."

Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.

Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.

Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.

"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.

Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)

More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com

http://www.fluoridation.webs.com

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.



Link to the posted study:

Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=5C98A897B69464FD44D 98698EE9FC4A1?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Feh p.1104912

[FrankRep]

Fluoridation Revisited (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html)


Murray N. Rothbard | Lew Rockwell.com
Essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.


Yes, I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of "right-wing kooks and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy cried "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation's water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids' thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation's socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the "right-wing kook" image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official "15-year" study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: "Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?" [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own "scientific study," by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by "popular demand" for fluoridation; as we shall see, the "popular demand" was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation's establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation "creeping socialism" and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation "in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan." (Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970312598/lewrockwell/), Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation's reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as "universal fluoridation."

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies' teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as "spurious."

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government's own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding "equivocal evidence" that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of "a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages," especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in "non-fluoridated" counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were "spurious." Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, "value-free" commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of "world-class experts" to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride's safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children's skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might "modify" the findings, since "the report deals with sensitive political issues." Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel's most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government's alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no "scientific documentation" of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even "low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly." JAMA concluded that "it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation."

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that "no evidence" was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that "further studies are required." But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: "The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water." Presumably, they did not conclude that "optimal" meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government's study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing "equivocal" about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus's warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand's most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country's top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist "promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists."

WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth's crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, "Mr. Pittsburgh," and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people's teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA's research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that "the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved." Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid's teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation's water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that "fluoride is fluoride" becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process "ALCOA-socialism." The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies (http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html) by Donald W. Miller, MD.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html

[green73]

Conspiracy theorist!

[RickyJ]

Can we expect mass lawsuits against the government now?

I hope so, not that it would accomplish much, it just needs to be done so more people know the truth.

[angelatc]

I don't doubt this is true, but the whole point of publishing it in a journal is that so other scientists can try to duplicate the results. Cold fusion was also published in a scientific journal, but that doesn't mean it exists.

This isn't a Reuters story. This is a press release. This is a link to the abstract. (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=5C98A897B69464FD44D 98698EE9FC4A1?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Feh p.1104912)

[heavenlyboy34]

Isn't flouride rather poisonous in gas form (like chlorine)? If so, it's a pretty bad thing to be showering with. :eek:

[angelatc]

Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.

"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.

Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)




This junk writing style irritates me. They mix their comments and unproven assertions in with the actual science. The study didn't make all those claims, but to the casual reader, it looks like the study says a lot more than it really did.

The actual scientists say more research is needed, and use the word "may" in relation to the findings of the study. The people with an agenda speak in absolutes.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't doubt this is true, but the whole point of publishing it in a journal is that so other scientists can try to duplicate the results. Cold fusion was also published in a scientific journal, but that doesn't mean it exists.

This isn't a Reuters story. This is a press release. This is a link to the abstract. (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=5C98A897B69464FD44D 98698EE9FC4A1?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Feh p.1104912)

Yes, understood, it's a press release, that's why I posted a link to the reasearch paper.

And sure, let the research continue.

But I think it's pretty clear at this point that it should not be being added to water supplies, wholesale.

If people want fluoride, they can get all they want in mouthwashes and toothpastes.

Stop drugging the water supply.

[Anti Federalist]

Isn't flouride rather poisonous in gas form (like chlorine)? If so, it's a pretty bad thing to be showering with. :eek:

Fluorine is a poisonous gas.

Fluoride is a common name for pretty much all the salts formed by fluorine reactions with a base.

[kathy88]

Oh snap.

[Anti Federalist]

This junk writing style irritates me. They mix their comments and unproven assertions in with the actual science. The study didn't make all those claims, but to the casual reader, it looks like the study says a lot more than it really did.

The actual scientists say more research is needed, and use the word "may" in relation to the findings of the study. The people with an agenda speak in absolutes.

Can we agree that the government should not be adding this, very likely, harmful chemical to the water supply?

[Nickels]

does the study actually say "flouride causes lower IQ" or "flouridation lowers one's IQ"?

[Anti Federalist]

does the study actually say "flouride causes lower IQ" or "flouridation lowers one's IQ"?

The study found this, after being normed for other factors:

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas,"

[Nickels]

The study found this, after being normed for other factors:

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas,"

you've heard of "correlation don't mean causation" right?

[pcosmar]

you've heard of "correlation don't mean causation" right?

Grew up in a Fluoridated area did ya?

[heavenlyboy34]

you've heard of "correlation don't mean causation" right?
If you read the sentence before the one you bolded, you'd notice "The study found this, after being normed for other factors". IOW, the authors have not just established correlation, but likely causation.

[mad cow]

It also contaminates your precious bodily fluids.

[donnay]

Fluoride & the Pineal Gland
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/pineal/

http://www.fluoridealert.org/cmstemplates/fan/images/pineal.gif

Summation - Fluoride & Pineal Gland:

Up until the 1990s, no research had ever been conducted to determine the impact of fluoride on the pineal gland - a small gland located between the two hemispheres of the brain that regulates the production of the hormone melatonin. Melatonin is a hormone that helps regulate the onset of puberty and helps protect the body from cell damage caused by free radicals.

It is now known - thanks to the meticulous research of Dr. Jennifer Luke from the University of Surrey in England - that the pineal gland is the primary target of fluoride accumulation within the body.

The soft tissue of the adult pineal gland contains more fluoride than any other soft tissue in the body - a level of fluoride (~300 ppm) capable of inhibiting enzymes.

The pineal gland also contains hard tissue (hyroxyapatite crystals), and this hard tissue accumulates more fluoride (up to 21,000 ppm) than any other hard tissue in the body (e.g. teeth and bone).

After finding that the pineal gland is a major target for fluoride accumulation in humans, Dr. Luke conducted animal experiments to determine if the accumulated fluoride could impact the functioning of the gland - particulalry the gland's regulation of melatonin.

Luke found that animals treated with fluoride had lower levels of circulating melatonin, as reflected by reduced levels of melatonin metabolites in the animals' urine. This reduced level of circulating melatonin was accompanied - as might be expected - by an earlier onset of puberty in the fluoride-treated female animals.

Luke summarized her human and animal findings as follows:

"In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further investigation."

Online Papers - Fluoride & the Pineal Gland:

FULL TEXT - html: Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35:125-128.

FULL TEXT- pdf: • Luke J. (1997). PhD Thesis: The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland (298 pages)

EXCERPT - html: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford.



Articles of Interest - Fluoride & the Pineal Gland:

Fluoride & the Pineal Gland: Study Published in Caries Research IFIN Bulletin, March 2001

Fluoride & Oxidative Stress: Yet more evidence FAN Science Watch September 30, 2004

Summation - Fluoride & Pineal Gland: (back to top)

“The single animal study of pineal function indicates that fluoride exposure results in altered melatonin production and altered timing of sexual maturity. Whether fluoride affects pineal function in humans remains to be demonstrated. The two studies of menarcheal age in humans show the possibility of earlier menarche in some individuals exposed to fluoride, but no definitive statement can be made. Recent information on the role of the pineal organ in humans suggests that any agent that affects pineal function could affect human health in a variety of ways, including effects on sexual maturation, calcium metabolism, parathyroid function, postmenopausal osteoporosis, cancer, and psychiatric disease.”
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p221-22.

"In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further investigation."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 177.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Never Studied before 1990s: (back to top)

"It is remarkable that the pineal gland has never been analysed separately for F because it has several features which suggest that it could accumulate F. It has the highest calcium concentration of any normal soft tissue in the body because it calcifies physiologically in the form of hydroxyapatite (HA). It has a high metabolic activity coupled with a very profuse blood supply: two factors favouring the deposition of F in mineralizing tissues. The fact that the pineal is outside the blood-brain barrier suggests that pineal HA could sequester F from the bloodstream if it has the same strong affinity for F as HA in the other mineralizing tissues. The intensity of the toxic effects of most drugs depends upon their concentration at the site of action. The mineralizing tissues (bone and teeth) accumulate high concentrations of F and are the first to show toxic reactions to F. Hence, their reactions to F have been especially well studied. If F accumulates in the pineal gland, then this points to a gap in our knowledge about whether or not F affects pineal physiology. It was the lack of knowledge in this area that prompted my study."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 1-2.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Accumulation of Fluoride in Soft Tissue of Pineal Gland: (back to top)

"After half a century of the prophylactic use of fluorides in dentistry, we now know that fluoride readily accumulates in the human pineal gland. In fact, the aged pineal contains more fluoride than any other normal soft tissue. The concentration of fluoride in the pineal was significantly higher (p <0.001) than in corresponding muscle, i.e., 296 ± 257 vs. 0.5± 0.4 mg/kg (wet weight) respectively."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 167.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Accumulation of Fluoride in Calcified Tissue of Pineal Gland: (back to top)

"In terms of mineralized tissue, the mean fluoride concentration in the pineal calcification was equivalent to that in severely fluorosed bone and more than four times higher than in corresponding bone ash, i.e., 8,900 ± 7,700 vs. 2,040 ± 1,100 mg/kg, respectively. The calcification in two of the 11 pineals analysed in this study contained extremely high levels of fluoride: 21,800 and 20,500 mg/kg."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 167.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Analagous to Dental Fluorosis? (back to top)

"Fluoride is now introduced at a much earlier stage of human development than ever before and consequently alters the normal fluoride-pharmacokinetics in infants. But can one dramatically increase the normal fluoride-intake to infants and get away with it? The safety of the use of fluorides ultimately rests on the assumption that the developing enamel organ is most sensitive to the toxic effects of fluoride. The results from this study suggest that the pinealocytes may be as susceptible to fluoride as the developing enamel organ."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 176.

"Alongside the calcification in the developing enamel organ, calcification is also occurring in the child's pineal. It is a normal physiological process. A complex series of enzymatic reactions within the pinealocytes converts the essential amino acid, tryptophan, to a whole family of indoles. The main pineal hormone is melatonin (MT)... If F accumulates in the pineal gland during early childhood, it could affect pineal indole metabolism in much the same way that high local concentrations of F in enamel organ and bone affect the metabolism of ameloblasts and osteoblasts."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 5.

"Any adverse physiological effects of fluoride depend upon the concentration at various tissue sites. Can pinealocytes function normally in close proximity to high concentrations of fluoride? One would predict that a high local fluoride concentration would affect pinealocyte function in an analogous way that a high local fluoride concentration affects: i) bone cells, since histological changes have been observed in bone with 2,000 mg F/kg (Baud et al, 1978); ii) ameloblasts, since dental fluorosis develops following fluoride concentrations of 0.2 mg F/kg in the developing enamel organ (Bawden et al, 1992). The consequences are disturbances in the functions of bone and enamel, i.e., changes in structure (poorly mineralized bone and enamel). If the pineal accumulates fluoride at an earlier age than in previous decades, one would anticipate that a high local concentration of fluoride within the pineal would affect the functions of the pineal, i.e., the synthesis of hormonal products, specifically melatonin... The controlled animal study carried out in this study produce compelling evidence that fluoride inhibits pineal melatonin output during pubertal development in the gerbil."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 168-169.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Earlier Puberty in Animals: (back to top)

"The section on the effects of fluoride on the physiological signs of sexual maturity in the gerbil was a preliminary, pilot study. There were not enough subjects to make any firm conclusions so an interpretation of the data is conjectural. However, the results do suggest that the HF (High-Fluoride) females had an accelerated onset of puberty as judged by several indices of pubertal development in rodents. At 7 weeks, the HF females were significantly heavier than the LF females (p < 0.004); as heavy as the HF males and LF males. The ventral gland in the HF female developed significantly earlier than in the LF female (p < 0.004). Vaginal opening occurred earlier in the HF female than in the LF female (p <0.03)."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 173-174.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Earlier Puberty in Humans? (back to top)

"The first step in assessing a health risk by a substance to humans is the identification of its harmful effects on animals. A health risk to humans is assessed using results from human epidemiological studies in conjunction with results from animal studies. The Newburgh-Kingston Study (Schlesinger et al, 1956) showed an earlier age of first menarche in girls living in the fluoridated Newburgh than in unfluoridated Kingston. The current animal study indicates that fluoride is associated with an earlier onset of puberty in female gerbils. Furthermore, more research was recommended on the effects of fluoride on animal and human reproduction (USPHS, 1991). This project has contributed new knowledge in this area."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 177.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Mechanism of Action: (back to top)

"The most plausible hypothesis for the observed significant decrease in the rate of urinary aMT6s excretion by the HF (High-Fluoride) group is that fluoride affects the pineal's ability to synthesize melatonin during pubertal development in the gerbil. Fluoride may affect the enzymatic conversion of tryptophan to melatonin. Although melatonin was the hormone investigated in this project, fluoride may also affect the synthesis of melatonin precursors, (e.g., serotonin), or other pineal products, (e.g., 5-methoxytryptamine). This would depend on the position(s) of the susceptible enzyme(s). For some unknown reason, pineal calcification starts intracellularly. Calcium has been demonstrated in pinealocyte mitochondria. Therefore, it may be a mitochondrial enzyme that is sensitive to the effects of fluoride, e.g., tryptophan-5-hydroxylase. Alternatively, fluoride may affect pinealocyte enzymes which require a divalent co-enzyme because such enzymes are particularly sensitive to fluoride."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 172-173.

Fluoride & Pineal Gland - Discussion: (back to top)

"Fluoride is now introduced at a much earlier stage of human development than ever before and consequently alters the normal fluoride-pharmacokinetics in infants.

But can one dramatically increase the normal fluoride-intake to infants and get away with it? The safety of the use of fluorides ultimately rests on the assumption that the developing enamel organ is most sensitive to the toxic effects of fluoride. The results from this study suggest that the pinealocytes may be as susceptible to fluoride as the developing enamel organ. The possibility of a species difference between humans and gerbils does not allow the extrapolation of the gerbil data to humans. However, if increased plasma-fluoride levels cause a decline in the levels of circulating melatonin during early human development, significant physiological consequences may have already occurred. Changes in plasma melatonin concentrations are serious functional disturbances because melatonin has many functions in the organism. The pinealogists have not completely unravelled the mechanisms by which the pineal gland performs its tasks in the brain. The neurochemical phenomenon elicited by melatonin in CNS are unclear.

The first step in assessing a health risk by a substance to humans is the identification of its harmful effects on animals. A health risk to humans is assessed using results from human epidemiological studies in conjunction with results from animal studies. The Newburgh-Kingston Study (Schlesinger et al, 1956) showed an earlier age of first menarche in girls living in the fluoridated Newburgh than in unfluoridated Kingston. The current animal study indicates that fluoride is associated with an earlier onset of puberty in female gerbils. Furthermore, more research was recommended on the effects of fluoride on animal and human reproduction (USPHS, 1991). This project has contributed new knowledge in this area.

I do not intend to discuss the relative merits of the claims made by the anti-fluoridationists that chronic ingestion of low levels of fluoride has harmful effects on human health, i.e., increases the risk of cancer, affects the immune system, and hastens the aging process. These claims could be associated with the effects of fluoride on the pineal because the gland has been linked to oncogenesis, immunocompetence, and, in recent years, to the process of aging.

In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further investigation."
SOURCE: Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 176-177.

[Nickels]

Grew up in a Fluoridated area did ya?

I sure did. Got something better to say?

[brandon]

I'll take some nice strong pearly whites over a couple IQ points any day!

[LibForestPaul]

What perks my interest is this is an open access journal published by none other than the NIH - .gov in other words.

I guess when the $$$ is gone, cavities just don't matter that much.

[Nickels]

LMAO.

Aside from the fact the authors of this paper are Chinese, (who cares, as long as they work in the US).

Look at their supplemental material.
All their data was gathered from China, India and Mexico.
No Africa, no Europe. You might even have a better argument if you looked only at US.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912.s001

This is Choi's page. (intro on her paper)
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi.html

And I have no idea how a paper that cites http://www.fluoridealert.org/chinese/ as a reference can make it through peer review.

[pcosmar]

I sure did. Got something better to say?

Nope.

This study only adds weight to what a great many have said for years..

Poison ain't good for ya.

;)

[donnay]

I sure did. Got something better to say?

You should know what you are drinking them.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/02/22/fluoride-warning.jpg#sodium%20fluoride

[donnay]

I'll take some nice strong pearly whites over a couple IQ points any day!

Hydrogen Peroxide and baking soda will whiten your teeth.

[Nickels]

You should know what you are drinking them.

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/02/22/fluoride-warning.jpg#sodium%20fluoride

does the idea of "dosage" completely escape your mind?

[donnay]

What perks my interest is this is an open access journal published by none other than the NIH - .gov in other words.

I guess when the $$$ is gone, cavities just don't matter that much.

There is no empirical evidence that sodium fluoride prevents tooth decay


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kSdlFv2Mtw

Tap water is rat poison - LIQUID FLUORIDE !!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC4Ajprx0O4
Dentist Speaks Out Against Fluoride
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EX7ymTnBiww
Fluoride Deception Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo
Material Safety Data Sheet on Fluoride Alex Jones Show
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tThVOHTciog
Toxic Fluoride Dangers EXPOSED
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmuPtI2MK98

Fluoride, or Hydrofluorosilic acid (H 2 SiF 6 ), is not naturally occurring but is a waste by-product derived from the industrial manufacture of aluminium, zinc, uranium, aerosols, insecticides, fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals.
It is also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972 ranking in toxicity above lead and just below arsenic.
Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).
American toothpastes containing fluoride are by law obliged to state, '"WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."
Links: Flouride damages reproductive system of rats:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20568470



Molecular Mechanisms of Fluoride Toxicity:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650267

Genotoxic effects of sodium fluoride:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19748546

Fluoride increases lead concentrations in blood:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782

Fluoride and hair loss:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20049553

Reproductive and developmental toxicity:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19755147

Hitler used fluoride in the water to induce docility reference: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" written by Joseph Borkin
Other References:
1. He H, Chen ZS, Liu XM, The effects of fluoride on the human embryo, Chinese Journal of Control of Epidemic Diseases, 1989, 4, 136-137.
2. Cheng YX, IQ of children in areas of high fluorine content, Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases, Supplement 1991.

[pcosmar]

LMAO.

Aside from the fact the authors of this paper are Chinese, (who cares, as long as they work in the US).

Look at their supplemental material.
All their data was gathered from China, India and Mexico.
No Africa, no Europe. You might even have a better argument if you looked only at US.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.1104912.s001

This is Choi's page. (intro on her paper)
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi.html


And I have no idea how a paper that cites http://www.fluoridealert.org/chinese/ as a reference can make it through peer review.
Where does your Fluoride come from?
http://www.wcvb.com/Chinese-Fluoride-In-Mass-Water-Raises-Concern/-/9849586/11295748/-/121dwejz/-/index.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/029477_fluoride_China.html

[donnay]

does the idea of "dosage" completely escape your mind?


That's the point, if they are dumping in your water, how much of a dosage are you getting? You drink five 8 ounce glasses a day? How does five 8 ounce glasses affect a six year old? When you shower, how much are you absorbing and breathing?

Have you ever read the back of a toothpaste box?

http://www.wholehousewaterfilternow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/senso-warnings.jpg

[Nickels]

Where does your Fluoride come from?
http://www.wcvb.com/Chinese-Fluoride-In-Mass-Water-Raises-Concern/-/9849586/11295748/-/121dwejz/-/index.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/029477_fluoride_China.html

the concern in those links is that something coming from China wasn't properly inspected. not anti-flouride per se, I am aware that naturalnews.com is a conspiracy fearmongering website.

[donnay]

the concern in those links is that something coming from China wasn't properly inspected. not anti-flouride per se, I am aware that naturalnews.com is a conspiracy fearmongering website.


And it's clear you are the poster boy for Fluoridation lowers IQ.

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dZPOJ4p1DM&feature=related

[pcosmar]

the concern in those links is that something coming from China wasn't properly inspected. not anti-flouride per se, I am aware that naturalnews.com is a conspiracy fearmongering website.

You are aware?

I doubt that,,, but there are several other news stories from several cities and a variety of news sites carrying it.

There have been a multitude of Doctors that have advised against this particular poison.

And China itself,, that supplies a large portion of the worlds Fluoride,, had a water treatment program for years,, but discontinued it.
China does not presently fluoridate the water supply.

[Nickels]

That's the point, if they are dumping in your water, how much of a dosage are you getting? You drink five 8 ounce glasses a day? How does five 8 ounce glasses affect a six year old? When you shower, how much are you absorbing and breathing?

Have you ever read the back of a toothpaste box?

http://www.wholehousewaterfilternow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/senso-warnings.jpg

toothpaste isn't intended for eating. Nobody claims it is. Keeping anything that may be swallowed out of reach of children under 6 is a good idea.

I've read back of soap boxes too, I guess if soap boxes don't say "external use only" "do not swallow" I must feel safe eating it?

[Nickels]

And it's clear you are the poster boy for Fluoridation lowers IQ.

Anybody who disagrees with you either works for the establishment or has lower IQ than you.

At least we know the people poisoning my water just wants to lower my IQ, not kill me. Because that would've been so much easier and faster.

[pcosmar]

At least we know the people poisoning my water just wants to lower my IQ, not kill me. Because that would've been so much easier and faster.

:confused:

Ok
:cool:

[donnay]

toothpaste isn't intended for eating. Nobody claims it is. Keeping anything that may be swallowed out of reach of children under 6 is a good idea.

I've read back of soap boxes too, I guess if soap boxes don't say "external use only" "do not swallow" I must feel safe eating it?


So how much is a six year getting in five 8 ounce glasses of fluoridated water a day?

[heavenlyboy34]

Anybody who disagrees with you either works for the establishment or has lower IQ than you.

At least we know the people poisoning my water just wants to lower my IQ, not kill me. Because that would've been so much easier and faster.
Live, dumb slaves are more useful than dead ones, I imagine. /shrugs

[donnay]

Anybody who disagrees with you either works for the establishment or has lower IQ than you.

At least we know the people poisoning my water just wants to lower my IQ, not kill me. Because that would've been so much easier and faster.


You don't not have to agree with me, which you haven't, thus far, so why break a perfectly good track record?

You have no idea what the people who want to lower your IQ want to do with you. But there is no sense trying to explain it, because you cannot seem to grasp it all, anyway.


Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, MD was asked: "if elected President, would you allow the CDC, DHHS, or any federal agency to use tax dollars to promote water fluoridation?"

Dr. Paul responded:

"The federal government should have zero...nothing to do with the promotion of fluoridation unless its on a military base...and hopefully there they would do the right thing. So no, federal fluoride promotion shouldn't exist, they shouldn't be telling you or anyone else what should happen because even though it was well intended at the time--I remember that I thought it was a bad principle because in a way it was massive treatment--and at the time everybody accepted the idea that fluoride was great and that you would never get a cavity and there was no downside, now there is a big question, that's why you don't want government doing these kinds of things. You or I should decide, someone should give us bottled water with fluoride, or we should have the ability to buy water with fluoride, but we should not have the federal government promoting fluoridation...sometimes their right, most of the time their wrong. They shouldn't have the authority to do this. Especially with the information out there now about fluoride, I would do my best to stop federal involvement with state and local fluoride decisions."

Ron Paul is a physician trained in obstetrics and gynecology and has been a U.S. Congressman representing the Houston area of Texas for over 20 years. He has run for President twice before, and has multiple best selling books.

[Nickels]

You have no idea what the people who want to lower your IQ want to do with you. But there is no sense trying to explain it, because you cannot seem to grasp it all, anyway.


I learned your argumentation technique. Call the other person stupid or low IQ, so whenver asked to explain your side, the answer is "I'm not going to waste my time trying to explain it to you because you're not going to get it anyway, so I win already".

[Nickels]

Live, dumb slaves are more useful than dead ones, I imagine. /shrugs

you may be right, so they have a different agenda than the depopulators, right?

[Nickels]

So how much is a six year getting in five 8 ounce glasses of fluoridated water a day?

.7 mg/L (or .7 ppm)
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cwf_qa.htm#2
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html


1 fluid oz = .03 liter
1 liter = 3.333
40 oz = 1.2 liter
1.2 L x .7 mg/L = .84 mg per day. (or twice that, if the flouridation is 1.2 ppm)

That's assuming none of it is flushed out when urinating, sweating, pooping.

[Weston White]

toothpaste isn't intended for eating. Nobody claims it is. Keeping anything that may be swallowed out of reach of children under 6 is a good idea.

I've read back of soap boxes too, I guess if soap boxes don't say "external use only" "do not swallow" I must feel safe eating it?

And where exactly do you spit your fluoridated toothpaste out when finished? ...Think about that for a few moments -and don’t worry take your time realizing the correct answer.

Also, as to your other comment, governments have already tried directly culling their populations, and historically it has been found that such overt and blatant tactics only works for a very short period of time, e.g., less than a decade. Besides that turning the populace into unattractive, gibbering, obese, low-grade imbeciles is much more effective in the long run and has the additional benefit of promoting national revenue streams.

[Kluge]

I am generally wary of "conspiracy theory" claims, but I installed an RO filter to avoid giving my newborn fluoridated water. I don't particularly like the idea of drinking it either when I can brush my teeth, floss and gargle with fluoride products if I choose.

It's ridiculous to add it to water supplies.

[Nickels]

And where exactly do you spit your fluoridated toothpaste out when finished? ...Think about that for a few moments -and don’t worry take your time realizing the correct answer.


in the sink, are you suggesting that I drink the sewage back?



Also, as to your other comment, governments have already tried directly culling their populations, and historically it has been found that such overt and blatant tactics only works for a very short period of time, e.g., less than a decade.


What's a recent one?



Besides that turning the populace into unattractive, gibbering, obese, low-grade imbeciles is much more effective in the long run and has the additional benefit of promoting national revenue streams.

sounds like you have a problem with people who are unattractive obese imbeciles, so what do we do to them? you obviously don't want them benefiting the people who made them that way.

[heavenlyboy34]

you may be right, so they have a different agenda than the depopulators, right?
From what I've observed, yes. They maintain the government schools for similar reasons-keep the underclasses just smart enough to operate the machinery but too ignorant to realize how they are being manipulated by the regime and TPTB.

[Weston White]

in the sink, are you suggesting that I drink the sewage back?



What's a recent one?



sounds like you have a problem with people who are unattractive obese imbeciles, so what do we do to them? you obviously don't want them benefiting the people who made them that way.

You really need to just take your entire post back to the drawing board; an epic fail on your behalf.

[donnay]

.7 mg/L (or .7 ppm)
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cwf_qa.htm#2
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/pre_pub_frn_fluoride.html


1 fluid oz = .03 liter
1 liter = 3.333
40 oz = 1.2 liter
1.2 L x .7 mg/L = .84 mg per day. (or twice that, if the flouridation is 1.2 ppm)

That's assuming none of it is flushed out when urinating, sweating, pooping.


Total Intake

It is well established that it is TOTAL fluoride intake from ALL sources which must be considered for any adverse health effect evaluation.40,41,42 This includes intake by ingestion, inhalation and absorption through the skin. In 1971, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated: "In the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the individual must be considered."41 Exposure to airborne fluorides from many diverse manufacturing processes--pesticide applications, phosphate fertilizer production, aluminum smelting, uranium enrichment facilities, coal-burning and nuclear power plants, incinerators, glass etching, petroleum refining and vehicle emissions--can be considerable.

In addition, many people consume fluorine-based medications such as Prozac, which greatly adds to fluoride's anti-thyroid effects. ALL fluoride compounds--organic and inorganic--have been shown to exert anti-thyroid effects, often potentiating fluoride effects many fold.43

Household exposures to fluorides can occur with the use of Teflon pans, fluorine-based products, insecticides sprays and even residual airborne fluorides from fluoridated drinking water. Decision-makers at 3M Corporation recently announced a phase-out of Scotchgard products after discovering that the product's primary ingredient--a fluorinated compound called perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS)--was found in all tested blood bank examinations.44 3M's research showed that the substance had strong tendencies to persist and bioaccumulate in animal and human tissue.

In 1991 the US Public Health Service issued a report stating that the range in total daily fluoride intake from water, dental products, beverages and food items exceeded 6.5 milligrams daily.42 Thus, the total intake from those sources alone already greatly exceeds the levels known to cause the third stage of skeletal fluorosis.

Besides fluoridated water and toothpaste, many foods contain high levels of flouride compounds due to pesticide applications. One of the worse offenders is grapes.45 Grape juice was found to contain more than 6.8 ppm fluoride. The EPA estimates total fluoride intake from pesticide residues on food and fluoridated drinking water alone to be 0.095 mg/kg/day, meaning a person weighing 70 kg takes in more than 6.65 mg per day.45b Soy infant formula is high in both fluoride and aluminum, far surpassing the "optimal" dose46,47 and has been shown to be a risk factor in dental fluorosis.48
Tea

In their drive to fluoridate the public water supplies, dental health officials continue to pretend that no other sources of fluoride exist. This notion becomes absurd when one looks at the fluoride content in tea. Tea is very high in fluoride because tea leaves accumulate more fluoride (from pollution of soil and air) than any other edible plant.49,50,51 It is well established that fluoride in tea gets absorbed by the body in a manner similar to the fluoride in drinking water.49,52

Fluoride content in tea has risen dramatically over the last 20 years due to industry contamination. Recent analyses have revealed a fluoride content of 17.25 mg per teabag or cup in black tea, and a whopping 22 mg of soluble fluoride ions per teabag or cup in green tea. Aluminum content was also high--over 8 mg. Normal steeping time is five minutes. The longer a tea bag steeped, the more fluoride and aluminum were released. After ten minutes, the measurable amounts of fluoride and aluminum almost doubled.53

A website by a pro-fluoridation infant medical group states that a cup of black tea contains 7.8 mgs of fluoride54 which is the equivalent amount of fluoride from 7.8 litres of water in an area fluoridated at 1ppm. Some British and African studies from the 1990s showed a daily fluoride intake of between 5.8 mgs and 9 mgs a day from tea alone.55, 56, 57 Tea has been found to be a primary cause of dental fluorosis in many international studies.58-70

In Britain, over three-quarters of the population over the age of ten years consumes three cups of tea per day.71Yet the UK government and the British Dental Association are currently contemplating fluoridation of public water supplies! In Ireland, average tea consumption is four cups per day and the drinking water is heavily fluoridated.

Next to water, tea is the most widely consumed beverage in the world. Tea can be found in almost 80 percent of all US households and on any given day, nearly 127 million people--half of all Americans--drink tea.71

The high content of both aluminum and fluoride in tea is cause for great concern as aluminum greatly potentiates fluoride's effects on G protein activation,72 the on/off switches involved in cell communication and of absolute necessity in thyroid hormone function and regulation.
Fluoride and the Thyroid

The recent re-discovery of hundreds of papers dealing with the use of fluorides in effective anti-thyroid medication poses many questions demanding answers.73,74 The enamel defects observed in hypothyroidism are identical to "dental fluorosis." Endemic fluorosis areas have been shown to be the same as those affected with iodine deficiency, considered to be the world's single most important and preventable cause of mental retardation,75 affecting 740 million people a year. Iodine deficiency causes brain disorders, cretinism, miscarriages and goiter, among many other diseases. Synthroid, the drug most commonly prescribed for hypothyroidism, became the top selling drug in the US in 1999, according to Scott-Levin's Source Prescription Audit, clearly indicating that hypothyroidism is a major health problem. Many more millions are thought to have undiagnosed thyroid problems.
Environment

Every year hundreds and thousands of tons of fluorides are emitted by industry. Industrial emissions of fluoride compounds produce elevated concentrations in the atmosphere. Hydrogen fluoride can exist as a particle, dissolving in clouds, fog, rain, dew, or snow. In clouds and moist air it will travel along the air currents until it is deposited as wet acid deposition (acid rain, acid fog, etc.) In waterways it readily mixes with water.

Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), emitted by the electric power industry, is now among six greenhouse gases specifically targeted by the international community, through the Kyoto protocol, for emission reductions to control global warming. The others are carbon dioxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), methane and nitrous oxide (N2O).

SF6 is about 23,900 times more destructive, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide over the course of 100 years. EPA estimates that some seven-million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE) escaped from electric power systems in 1996 alone. The concentration of SF6 in the atmosphere has reportedly increased by two orders of magnitude since 1970. Atmospheric models have indicated that the lifetime of an SF6 molecule in the atmosphere may be over 3000 years.76

The ever-increasing fluoride levels in food, water and air pose a great threat to human health and to the environment as evidenced by the endemic of fluorosis worldwide. It is of utmost urgency that public health officials cease promoting fluoride as beneficial to our health and address instead the issue of its toxicity.


Read more... (http://www.westonaprice.org/environmental-toxins/fluoride-worse-than-we-thought)

[Weston White]

Conspiracy theorist!

But a badge of honor upon my chest!

[Nickels]

You really need to just take your entire post back to the drawing board; an epic fail on your behalf.

why, because you don't know how to respond?

[jmdrake]

Good to see you posting again Frank!


Fluoridation Revisited (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html)


Murray N. Rothbard | Lew Rockwell.com
Essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.


Yes, I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of "right-wing kooks and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy cried "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation's water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids' thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation's socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the "right-wing kook" image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official "15-year" study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: "Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?" [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own "scientific study," by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by "popular demand" for fluoridation; as we shall see, the "popular demand" was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation's establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation "creeping socialism" and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation "in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan." (Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970312598/lewrockwell/), Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation's reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as "universal fluoridation."

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies' teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as "spurious."

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government's own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding "equivocal evidence" that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of "a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages," especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in "non-fluoridated" counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were "spurious." Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, "value-free" commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of "world-class experts" to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride's safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children's skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might "modify" the findings, since "the report deals with sensitive political issues." Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel's most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government's alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no "scientific documentation" of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even "low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly." JAMA concluded that "it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation."

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that "no evidence" was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that "further studies are required." But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: "The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water." Presumably, they did not conclude that "optimal" meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government's study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing "equivocal" about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus's warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand's most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country's top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist "promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists."

WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth's crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, "Mr. Pittsburgh," and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people's teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA's research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that "the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved." Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid's teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation's water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that "fluoride is fluoride" becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process "ALCOA-socialism." The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies (http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html) by Donald W. Miller, MD.


SOURCE:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html

[jmdrake]

I don't doubt this is true, but the whole point of publishing it in a journal is that so other scientists can try to duplicate the results. Cold fusion was also published in a scientific journal, but that doesn't mean it exists.

This isn't a Reuters story. This is a press release. This is a link to the abstract. (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=5C98A897B69464FD44D 98698EE9FC4A1?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Feh p.1104912)

Cold fusion has been successfully duplicated many times now.

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/annual-convention-chemists-warm-cold-fusion

You can test it out yourself.

http://jlnlabs.online.fr/cfr/

[Anti Federalist]

you've heard of "correlation don't mean causation" right?

Yes, all the time, everytime someone does not like what some statistics might show.

Nothing causes everything.

[Danke]

I am generally wary of "conspiracy theory" claims, but I installed an RO filter to avoid giving my newborn fluoridated water. I don't particularly like the idea of drinking it either when I can brush my teeth, floss and gargle with fluoride products if I choose.

It's ridiculous to add it to water supplies.

huh huh, wut?

[Anti Federalist]

does the idea of "dosage" completely escape your mind?

What right do you or anybody else have to "dose" my water supply with chemicals I do not want?

City tap water should contain as clean as possible water, period.

You want to take fluoride for dental health, be my guest.

You have no right to force it on me.

[Eagles' Wings]

the concern in those links is that something coming from China wasn't properly inspected. not anti-flouride per se, I am aware that naturalnews.com is a conspiracy fearmongering website.I do not experience fear when I read Natural News, Mercola, NIVC, etc. I am not anti-conventional medicine, however, I am pro-education. There is so much to learn and cutting oneself off from all "alternative" information is naive. Medicine in the 11th century was completing based on herbs, plants, humours, seasons, temperaments. We have come a long way since then, but it is still valuable.

NEW BOOK

"God's Hotel" by Dr. Victoria Sweet

Based on the medicine taught by 11th century healer, Hildegarde of Bingen. A must read for anyone entering medicine. Written by a medical doctor.

[jmdrake]

What right do you or anybody else have to "dose" my water supply with chemicals I do not want?

City tap water should contain as clean as possible water, period.

You want to take fluoride for dental health, be my guest.

You have no right to force it on me.

+rep. Sad that we have to spend so much time explaining simple liberty concepts on a liberty forum.

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk3P89Lbi1k&feature=player_embedded#!


Why is America so brainwashed by the corporate media? Why do we care more about American Idol and sports games than being poisoned with mercury in our vaccinations and sodium fluoride in our water supply? America needs to wake up and get the facts about our chemical manipulation before it's too late.

http://geraldcelentechannel.blogspot.com/2012/07/fluoride-hard-to-swallow-truth.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TrendsForecastsAndPropheciesB log+%28Trends+Forecasts+and+Prophecies+Blog%29

[Danke]

"You conspiracy freaks!" -RonRules

[Kluge]

huh huh, wut?

I used a reverse osmosis filter to avoid giving her (and us) fluoride in the drinking water because the city water was fluoridated, but I do use fluoridated toothpaste.

[Eagles' Wings]

Oh, before "someone" over reacts out about the word healer, Hildegarde devoted her life to caring for the medical needs of the poor in Germany. She was a Catholic nun who ran the infirmary at their monastary. She cared for the whole person. She developed a treatment plan that in considered miraculous. The book, God's Hotel, has a waiting list of over 200 people at our local library. I ordered it from Amazon. The author is Doctor Victoria Sweet.

[Danke]

I used a reverse osmosis filter to avoid giving her (and us) fluoride in the drinking water because the city water was fluoridated, but I do use fluoridated toothpaste.

I can't understand...

OK, I'll stop.

Good to know our future overlord will be "smart."

[Kluge]

I can't understand...

OK, I'll stop.

Good to know our future overlord will be "smart."

That's all you need to know. You're in good hands.

[Danke]

That's all you need to know. You're in good hands.

I always believe in back up plans. Any spares in the future?

[Kluge]

I always believe in back up plans. Any spares in the future?

She's your only option for now...any spares will be a fluke.

[Danke]

She's your only option for now...any spares will be a fluke.

:(

We could start a chip-in.

[Nickels]

What right do you or anybody else have to "dose" my water supply with chemicals I do not want?


Not forcing you to use any water. Not "your water" supply.



City tap water should contain as clean as possible water, period.


Agreed.



You want to take fluoride for dental health, be my guest.

You have no right to force it on me.
I don't.

[Kluge]

:(

We could start a chip-in.

That ain't gonna help.

[Nickels]

Why is America so brainwashed by the corporate media?


If I don't share your 'skepticism' and 'truth' I can only be 'brainwashed by the corporate media', right?



Why do we care more about American Idol and sports games than being poisoned with mercury in our vaccinations and sodium fluoride in our water supply?


I don't care about TV. I do care about intoxication and poisoning, but that doesn't mean I am paranoid about vaccines or water supply like you are.



America needs to wake up and get the facts about our chemical manipulation before it's too late.


what will too late look like?

[donnay]

If I don't share your 'skepticism' and 'truth' I can only be 'brainwashed by the corporate media', right?

Skepticism keeps one on their toes--helps them to critically think. I will not blindly trust what the corporate controlled media tells me, or agencies within government, like a good little knave. As a general rule, if government tells me something is good for me, I usually do just the opposite, and research it myself.



I don't care about TV. I do care about intoxication and poisoning, but that doesn't mean I am paranoid about vaccines or water supply like you are.

My suspicions are not baseless. You may seem to think so, and that is your call.


what will too late look like?

Hmm...when our rights are completely ignored and taken and we are living under a totalitarian police state. We are almost there.

[Anti Federalist]

Not forcing you to use any water. Not "your water" supply.

Uhhh, yes I am, in most parts of the country you are prohibited by law to use other water sources, even if you have a functioning well, when city water is available.

And telling me to just smell and not have running water is not an acceptable answer.

Keep added chemicals out of the water supply.

Period.

[Weston White]

why, because you don't know how to respond?

lolol You troll, aptly apply this response upon yourself.

[RonRules]

Should I get in here and sort this out for y'all?

[NewRightLibertarian]

Should I get in here and sort this out for y'all?

Nah, since you will just do everything you can to enforce the scientific consensus. You should probably just shut your mouth considering what you represent

[Anti Federalist]

Should I get in here and sort this out for y'all?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24112929.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/24112929.jpg
The Willie Wonka meme seems to fit about every occasion. I am impress! :toady:

[Nickels]

Nah, since you will just do everything you can to enforce the scientific consensus. You should probably just shut your mouth considering what you represent

LOL

[Weston White]

Should I get in here and sort this out for y'all?

Yup, and apparently you are in good company, being that both Stalin and Hitler just so happened to agree with your very perspective; however, the millions upon millions of lives that they had collectively stolen beg to differ. Well at least their victim’s teeth looked healthy and nice right?

Health & safety tip #1: Sodium fluoride consumption results in causing dental fluorosis.

Health & safety tip #2: A myriad of studies have now linked sodium fluoride to: (1) a reduction in intelligence, (2) cancer and tumor growths, (3) bone decay (skeletal fluorosis), and (4) reduced functionality of the thyroid gland.

Health & safety tip #3: Most all SSRI' use fluorine (fluorite/fluorspar) as a major ingredient, fluorine is a derivative of sodium fluoride (and no, this ingredient is not being included as a bonus to aid in better dental hygiene for the patient using the prescription).

Health & safety tip #4: Industrial waste is manufactured into a compound (i.e., a concoction) that is then marketed to the public as a poison given the label ‘sodium fluoride’.

Health & safety tip #5: The piping and fasteners within the fluoride mixing room of water treatment plants regularly corrodes and requires replacing due to the composite chemicals dissolving through the metals.

Health & safety tip #6: Sodium fluoride is a key ingredient in rodent pesticides and other such poisons.


The more you know...

[The Free Hornet]

you've heard of "correlation don't mean causation" right?




Correlation (http://xkcd.com/552/)

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/correlation.png

[KingRobbStark]

No wonder I'm a genius. I got it all figured out.

[FrankRep]

People are so damn clueless sometimes.


Fluoridation is good public health policy (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/myview/072912vueTauxe)


John Tauxe - Santa Fe New Mexican
July 28, 2012



Like City Councillor Peter Ives, I grew up in a town that did not have the benefit of fluoridated water. The poor condition of my teeth, with fillings or worse in nearly every one, are a testament not so much to poor dental hygiene or care (I had the benefit of great dental care), but to the lack of fluoride to improve the mineralogy of their enamel.

I have followed the decision of the Santa Fe City Council, now at least temporarily rescinded, to abandon water fluoridation with dismay. Fluoridation was kept out of the water supply of my childhood by none other than the John Birch Society, she did indeed see it as a communist plot. How ironic that the schizophrenic Santa Fe fringe (anti-radio? chemtrails? anti-public health?) acts much like the John Birch Society did.

In today’s hypocritical culture, where it is somehow acceptable or even fashionable to adopt anti-science stances while taking full advantage of the benefits that science has provided to society, it pains those of us who work to improve humanity’s lot to watch it unravel before our eyes.

Here’s the science, whether you like it or not: Tooth enamel contains a mineral called apatite (funny, I know), and this occurs in three forms: hydroxyapatite (with an OH- hydroxyl group in it), chlorapatite (with a Cl-) and fluorapatite (with an F-). As it turns out, the hydroxyapatite is soft and prone to damage like cavity-formation. Chlorapatite is somewhat less prone, and the fluorapatite is hard, and cavity-resistant. The OH-, Cl-, and F- can replace each other, and F- will push out the OH- and Cl-, but it must be present in order to do so. As long as there is fluoride around, the teeth will naturally take up the F- to make fluorapatite in the tooth enamel. It’s simple, and it is working with nature to improve the condition of everyone’s teeth. Growing teeth of children can benefit the most. This goes for pets, too!

This is not a communist plot. It is a tactic used to improve public health. We need to brush our teeth with fluoride toothpaste, use a fluoride rinse and drink water from a public water supply that has adequate fluoride. Avoid drinking water from bottled water companies that have no standards for their products and are truly laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.

John Tauxe is a civil engineer who works to improve public health and the environment. He lives in Los Alamos.

[Kluge]

People are so damn clueless sometimes.


Fluoridation is good public health policy (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/myview/072912vueTauxe)


John Tauxe - Santa Fe New Mexican
July 28, 2012



Like City Councillor Peter Ives, I grew up in a town that did not have the benefit of fluoridated water. The poor condition of my teeth, with fillings or worse in nearly every one, are a testament not so much to poor dental hygiene or care (I had the benefit of great dental care), but to the lack of fluoride to improve the mineralogy of their enamel.

I have followed the decision of the Santa Fe City Council, now at least temporarily rescinded, to abandon water fluoridation with dismay. Fluoridation was kept out of the water supply of my childhood by none other than the John Birch Society, she did indeed see it as a communist plot. How ironic that the schizophrenic Santa Fe fringe (anti-radio? chemtrails? anti-public health?) acts much like the John Birch Society did.

In today’s hypocritical culture, where it is somehow acceptable or even fashionable to adopt anti-science stances while taking full advantage of the benefits that science has provided to society, it pains those of us who work to improve humanity’s lot to watch it unravel before our eyes.

Here’s the science, whether you like it or not: Tooth enamel contains a mineral called apatite (funny, I know), and this occurs in three forms: hydroxyapatite (with an OH- hydroxyl group in it), chlorapatite (with a Cl-) and fluorapatite (with an F-). As it turns out, the hydroxyapatite is soft and prone to damage like cavity-formation. Chlorapatite is somewhat less prone, and the fluorapatite is hard, and cavity-resistant. The OH-, Cl-, and F- can replace each other, and F- will push out the OH- and Cl-, but it must be present in order to do so. As long as there is fluoride around, the teeth will naturally take up the F- to make fluorapatite in the tooth enamel. It’s simple, and it is working with nature to improve the condition of everyone’s teeth. Growing teeth of children can benefit the most. This goes for pets, too!

This is not a communist plot. It is a tactic used to improve public health. We need to brush our teeth with fluoride toothpaste, use a fluoride rinse and drink water from a public water supply that has adequate fluoride. Avoid drinking water from bottled water companies that have no standards for their products and are truly laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.

John Tauxe is a civil engineer who works to improve public health and the environment. He lives in Los Alamos.

Pfffffffffft. I grew up on non-fluoridated water and guess what? I got fluoride treatments at the dentist twice a year--you know, that crap that the dentist puts in a tray and you sit there for about two minutes squishing it around your teeth, then you spit it out?

I've had some fillings, but very few and my brother has never had a single one.

Perhaps Tauxe has not considered that his crappy teeth are due to genetics.

[donnay]

Pfffffffffft. I grew up on non-fluoridated water and guess what? I got fluoride treatments at the dentist twice a year--you know, that crap that the dentist puts in a tray and you sit there for about two minutes squishing it around your teeth, then you spit it out?

I've had some fillings, but very few and my brother has never had a single one.

Perhaps Tauxe has not considered that his crappy teeth are due to genetics.

The thing that always alarms me about sodium fluoride treatments like that is, how much of that poison entered your blood stream sublingually?

I remember as a kid taking that sodium fluoride (http://www.rxlist.com/acidul-drug.htm) (red) tablet they gave us in school. After taking that I would get an excruciating headache. I think it is criminal what they forced on us in the public schools!

[heavenlyboy34]

The thing that always alarms me about sodium fluoride treatments like that is, how much of that poison entered your blood stream sublingually?

I remember as a kid taking that sodium fluoride (http://www.rxlist.com/acidul-drug.htm) (red) tablet they gave us in school. After taking that I would get an excruciating headache. I think it is criminal what they forced on us in the public schools!
Why would they give you such a tablet in school? That never happened to me. /curious

[donnay]

Why would they give you such a tablet in school? That never happened to me. /curious

This was in elementary school. This was a once a year health screening.


http://www.cc.cnyric.org/nurse/forms/FluorideProgramOverview2010.pdf


Oh and let me add; this is before parental consent was offered. When my mom found out about this she hit the ceiling. This is also a time when PTA's were powerful and she made her case at the meeting and got people to back her. She got people to understand that if she wanted her child medicated it would be upon her consent not someone else!

[Nickels]

I remember as a kid taking that sodium fluoride (http://www.rxlist.com/acidul-drug.htm) (red) tablet they gave us in school. After taking that I would get an excruciating headache. I think it is criminal what they forced on us in the public schools!

the fact you hate the government so much today means that pill obviously worked, right?

[donnay]

the fact you hate the government so much today means that pill obviously worked, right?

Definitely. It lowers everyone's IQ. Imagine my potential had I not taken that poison at such an impressionable age. [Sarcasm OFF]

[Anti Federalist]

Why would they give you such a tablet in school? That never happened to me. /curious

We're older than you, HB.

I recall taking these red dyed fluoride pills as well.

[Appalachia]

Maybe this is why Ron Paul drinks Fiji Water.

[Dublin4Paul]

Well, I'm quite glad I live in a county that has rejected the fluoridation of water since 1991 (the year of my birth coincidentally). I know this isn't any kind of scientific evidence for anything, but I've yet to ever have a single cavity or any dental-health related issue, either. Seems like anyone should be against fluoride in their water: at "best" it probably does nothing substantial for you, really. At worst, it makes you a moron.

[FrankRep]

Kotin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?8569-Kotin), the Moderator, gave me negative rep points for being Anti-Fluoridation.


I'm stating this publicly. I don't appreciate your abuse of power.

(If I send him a private message, he'll ban me no doubt.)


http://i50.tinypic.com/2n87cp3.jpg

[malkusm]

Haven't read this thread, but a question I'm honestly curious about: Why is a Harvard study valid when it agrees with your position (water fluoridation), but is invalid when it disagrees with your position (global warming)?

I realize you come to your own conclusions but I find it a little odd that we would be so quick to tout a study from Harvard when we are skeptical of Harvard studies elsewhere.

[twoggle]

People are so damn clueless sometimes.
Fluoridation is good public health policy (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/myview/072912vueTauxe)

I am surprised that there are engineers who are still promoting fluoridation. Even 12 years ago, the scientists and engineers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters voted unanimously to urge an end to fluoridation due toxicity risks and lacks of benefits (based on the largest, worldwide studies). They discussed the research in the following document:
http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm

About 15 years ago, I was fortunate to be able to see a presentation by a Neurotoxicologist who was the first researcher to study the effects of fluoride on the brain and brain development. She had been asked to conduct this study at the request of one of the founders of the Society of Toxicology (Dr. Harold C. Hodge). Research publication was: "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats," Mullenix, et al., Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 17(2); 169-177, 1995. You can see this researcher and other scientists discuss some of the more recent research related to fluoride toxicology in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY
[Note: Video starts slow, but gets better towards the middle and end, IMO]

Here are a few quotes from this researcher (from 1998):
=================
"Our 1995 paper in Neurotoxicology and Teratology was the first laboratory study to demonstrate in vivo that central nervous system (CNS) function was vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depended on the age at exposure and that fluoride accumulated in brain tissues. The behavioral changes common to weanling and adult exposures were different from those after prenatal exposure. Whereas prenatal exposure dispersed many behaviors as seen in drug-induced hyperactivity, weanling and adult exposures led to behavior- specific changes more related to cognitive deficits. Brain histology was not examined in this study, but we suggested that the effects on behavior were consistent with interrupted hippocampal development (a brain region generally linked with memory).
....
"We concluded that the rat study flagged potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans. Confident as we were, the data were only one piece of the puzzle, the overall picture was still emerging. Soon thereafter we learned of two epidemiological studies (Fluoride, 1995-1996) from China showing IQ deficits in children over-exposed to fluoride via drinking water or soot from burning coal. A recent review (International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1994) listed case reports of CNS effects in humans excessively exposed to fluoride, information that spans almost 60 years. A common theme appeared in the reported effects: impaired memory and concentration, lethargy, headache, depression and confusion. The same theme was echoed in once classified reports about workers from the Manhatten Project. In all, our rat data seem to fit a consistent picture.

"Information linking fluoride and CNS dysfunction continues in 1998.

"A recent study in Brain Research demonstrated that chronic exposure to fluoride in drinking water of rats compromised neuronal (hippocampal) and cerebrovascular integrity (blood brain barrier) and increased aluminum concentrations in brain tissues.

"Masters and Coplan have reported (International Journal of Environmental Studies, in press) that silicofluorides in fluoridated drinking water increased levels of lead in children's blood, a risk factor that predicts higher crime rates, ADD and learning disabilities.

"Luke at the International Society for Fluoride Research (ISFR) meeting in August reported that fluoride accumulated in the human pineal gland, as much or more so than in bones and teeth, and the pineal gland's melatonin biosynthesis pathway is affected by fluoride.

"Also at the ISFR meeting, I reported that the fluorinated steroid (dexamethasone) disrupts behavior in rats to a greater degree than does the nonfluorinated steroid (prednisolone). This finding matched results just completed in a study of children receiving steroids as a part of their treatment for childhood leukemia. Dexamethasone, compared to prednisolone, further reduced IQ, specifically impairing reading comprehension, arithmetic calculation and short-term working memory."
=================

Fortunately, people are starting to pay attention to the research. Here is a short interview with Dr. Hardy Limeback who was the President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research:

http://ffo-olf.org/expertRecants.html

I believe that within 10 years most municipalities will have stopped water fluoridation.
That way, people can choose to do what they want with their bodies.

[jmdrake]

Kotin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?8569-Kotin), the Moderator, gave me negative rep points for being Anti-Fluoridation.


I'm stating this publicly. I don't appreciate your abuse of power.

(If I send him a private message, he'll ban me no doubt.)


http://i50.tinypic.com/2n87cp3.jpg

Well I would +rep you to balance it out but... You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FrankRep again.

[Dr.3D]

Well I would +rep you to balance it out but... You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FrankRep again.
Same here, and the the reason is the same I can't do it. I did however attempt to post to the already closed thread and spent about 10 minutes on a reply only to have the thread closed before I could press the "Post Quick Reply" button. So I gave neg rep to the person who closed it.

Edit: I guess I was premature and petty in my neg rep and I'll do what I can to fix it in the future.

[angelatc]

Yes, understood, it's a press release, that's why I posted a link to the reasearch paper.

And sure, let the research continue.

But I think it's pretty clear at this point that it should not be being added to water supplies, wholesale.

If people want fluoride, they can get all they want in mouthwashes and toothpastes.

Stop drugging the water supply.

That's the thing. I don't care if it makes rainbows and kittens fly out my butt - I shouldn't have the right to make you drink it.


Our township recently got the fluoride removed from the water supply relatively easily. (We're on a well so it wasn't my fight.) But the wailing that the townies put up was something....

[angelatc]

Well I would +rep you to balance it out but... You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FrankRep again.

I got it. I was just came back to this thread for that reason.

[heavenlyboy34]

I got it. I was just came back to this thread for that reason.
Love it when you write with a hillbilly accent. :D:toady::toady:

[Dr.3D]

I got it. I was just came back to this thread for that reason.
Thanks for doing what we couldn't.

[angelatc]

We're older than you, HB.

I recall taking these red dyed fluoride pills as well.

The only red pill I remember taking was one that reacted with plaque so I could see where I was missing when brushing.

http://www.howtocleanthings.com/images/teeth-3.jpg

[AgentOrange]

I am surprised that anyone is arguing *for* the fluorination of all water supply. I am not anti-fluoride, I believe it is good--in the right amounts. But putting any drug in the water supply, in which different people are getting varying amounts, and even possibly overdosing on--how can anyone think this is a good idea? Fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, in fluoridinated bottle water, in some vitamin/mineral combos. I see no benefit, and a lot potential problems, in adding it to public water supplies. *if* there is some public benefit to ensuring everyone has access to fluoride (and I'm just playing devil's advocate here)--but if there were such a benefit, I'd rather see the government give fluoride vouchers to those who want them, instead of fluoridinating all public water supplies (which other's have mentioned, they may be forced to use by local legislation)

[Nickels]

Haven't read this thread, but a question I'm honestly curious about: Why is a Harvard study valid when it agrees with your position (water fluoridation), but is invalid when it disagrees with your position (global warming)?

I realize you come to your own conclusions but I find it a little odd that we would be so quick to tout a study from Harvard when we are skeptical of Harvard studies elsewhere.

Exactly.

I've pointed out these facts :
1) they are Chinese researchers (although they work in Harvard right now)
2) their data is from China, India, Mexico
3) Like you said, how come people are willing to yell "correlation don't mean causation" when it comes to global warming, but not here, or with autism vaccines?
4) The study does not say IQ is lowered by flouride, or that flouride causes lower IQ.
5) I bet you these same people will deny that IQ is even a real thing if we were to talk about The Bell Curve, or IQ & Wealth of Nations.

[angelatc]

Pfffffffffft. I grew up on non-fluoridated water and guess what? I got fluoride treatments at the dentist twice a year--you know, that crap that the dentist puts in a tray and you sit there for about two minutes squishing it around your teeth, then you spit it out?

I've had some fillings, but very few and my brother has never had a single one.

Perhaps Tauxe has not considered that his crappy teeth are due to genetics.

What he is saying doesn't negate the subject of the OP. Perhaps fluoride does make teeth healthier. But if it also makes us stupid, well, I should get to make the decision on the trade off.

[angelatc]

Exactly.

I've pointed out these facts :
1) they are Chinese researchers (although they work in Harvard right now)
2) their data is from China, India, Mexico
3) Like you said, how come people are willing to yell "correlation don't mean causation" when it comes to global warming, but not here, or with autism vaccines?
4) The study does not say IQ is lowered by flouride, or that flouride causes lower IQ.
5) I bet you these same people will deny that IQ is even a real thing if we were to talk about The Bell Curve, or IQ & Wealth of Nations.

There's no study that indicates that vaccines cause autism, but I like the way you tossed that in there.

The researchers didn't conclude anything. They only said that this was something that needed to be studied further. You have to be absolutely closed to science in order to say that it can't be true because they're biased. Of course they're biased. We're all biased. The point of science is to sort through all that and get to the facts.

[Anti Federalist]

Kotin (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?8569-Kotin), the Moderator, gave me negative rep points for being Anti-Fluoridation.


I'm stating this publicly. I don't appreciate your abuse of power.

(If I send him a private message, he'll ban me no doubt.)


http://i50.tinypic.com/2n87cp3.jpg

Was it for this post?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?384603-Harvard-Study-Finds-Fluoride-Lowers-IQ&p=4556999&viewfull=1#post4556999

If so, I could see how a quick read might mistake you as supporting the writer's ideas.

I wouldn't get my panties knotted up about it, Kotin is pretty consistently in favor of health freedom.

[Anti Federalist]

By all means, walt, lets talk about the Bell Curve.

But first, are you in favor of adding medical chemicals to the water supply?


Exactly.

I've pointed out these facts :
1) they are Chinese researchers (although they work in Harvard right now)
2) their data is from China, India, Mexico
3) Like you said, how come people are willing to yell "correlation don't mean causation" when it comes to global warming, but not here, or with autism vaccines?
4) The study does not say IQ is lowered by flouride, or that flouride causes lower IQ.
5) I bet you these same people will deny that IQ is even a real thing if we were to talk about The Bell Curve, or IQ & Wealth of Nations.

[FrankRep]

Was it for this post?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?384603-Harvard-Study-Finds-Fluoride-Lowers-IQ&p=4556999&viewfull=1#post4556999

If so, I could see how a quick read might mistake you as supporting the writer's ideas.

Kotin explicitly knows now that I'm anti-Fluoridation. Will he remove the erroneous neg rep?

... Or even say sorry?

[Anti Federalist]

Kotin explicitly knows now that I'm anti-Fluoridation. Will he remove the erroneous neg rep?

... Or even say sorry?

I dunno, I can't speak for the man.

Was that the post in question?

[donnay]

Haven't read this thread, but a question I'm honestly curious about: Why is a Harvard study valid when it agrees with your position (water fluoridation), but is invalid when it disagrees with your position (global warming)?

I realize you come to your own conclusions but I find it a little odd that we would be so quick to tout a study from Harvard when we are skeptical of Harvard studies elsewhere.


Why is the Harvard Study posted? Because Harvard Studies are certainly not in favor of alternative health methods, and for them to come to these conclusions should make people take notice. Fluoridating the water is forced medication--any way you slice it.

[FrankRep]

I dunno, I can't speak for the man.

Was that the post in question?

Yes, that is the post in question.

This is the weird response from Kotin:

Moderators giving Neg rep points for silly reasons?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?384657-Moderators-giving-Neg-rep-points-for-silly-reasons&p=4557267&viewfull=1#post4557267

====

It actually seemed like you were shilling for fluoride.. But neg rep stands anyway since you love to hate on muslims and others who you don't like so much..

No abuse of power.. Maybe if I banned you or infracted you for tht post.. You were banned previously for responding to an infraction with "fuck you"

Get a life frank.
===


I don't hate muslims, that is a falsehood, and plus that's a silly reason to not fix the problem.

[Weston White]

Exactly.

I've pointed out these facts :
1) they are Chinese researchers (although they work in Harvard right now)
2) their data is from China, India, Mexico
3) Like you said, how come people are willing to yell "correlation don't mean causation" when it comes to global warming, but not here, or with autism vaccines?
4) The study does not say IQ is lowered by flouride, or that flouride causes lower IQ.
5) I bet you these same people will deny that IQ is even a real thing if we were to talk about The Bell Curve, or IQ & Wealth of Nations.

Regardless, there are twenty-three (23) other such studies in the last several decades, so take your pick and have an absolute ball. Go nuts you!

P.S. You are a naughty, naughty, naughty liar and a very bad one at that (Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [pages 4-5] (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action;jsessionid=910598E9AB 72A4F7A5965EEC4515F127?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2F ehp.1104912&representation=PDF)):


"Results: ... Thus, children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low fluoride areas. ...

Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on
children’s neurodevelopment. ..."

[Nickels]

There's no study that indicates that vaccines cause autism, but I like the way you tossed that in there.


Yes, there is one. It's discredited, but people buy it. It's called the Wakefield study.



The researchers didn't conclude anything.


They don't have to, alarmists will do that for us.



They only said that this was something that needed to be studied further.


As should any scientific study. But don't spoil the party for conclusion jumpers.



You have to be absolutely closed to science in order to say that it can't be true because they're biased. Of course they're biased. We're all biased. The point of science is to sort through all that and get to the facts.

Well, if you say "we're all biased" to a conspiracy theorist, he'll say "Ok, so then I should trust my own bias against a scientist, because scientism is an evil conspiracy by the NWO and big pharma to poison and enslave me, I'd rather be ignorant and biased and happy than to believe things I don't want or endanger myself by entrusting the evil profiteers"

[Danke]

Haven't read this thread, but a question I'm honestly curious about: Why is a Harvard study valid when it agrees with your position (water fluoridation), but is invalid when it disagrees with your position (global warming)?

I realize you come to your own conclusions but I find it a little odd that we would be so quick to tout a study from Harvard when we are skeptical of Harvard studies elsewhere.

Why does the government do somethings quite well, and totally fucks up others?

Or how come I get some great stuff from Target, and other products are crap?

Life is so hard sometimes to understand.

[Nickels]

Regardless, there are twenty-three (23) other such studies in the last several decades, so take your pick and have an absolute ball. Go nuts you!

P.S. You are a naughty, naughty, naughty liar and a very bad one at that (Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis [pages 4-5] (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action;jsessionid=910598E9AB 72A4F7A5965EEC4515F127?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2F ehp.1104912&representation=PDF)):

you know what 'supports the possibility means'? i means it absolutely happened, of course!

[Nickels]

Why does the government do somethings quite well, and totally fucks up others?

Or how come I get some great stuff from Target, and other products are crap?

Life is so hard sometimes to understand.

I wasn't expecting to hear that here, I thought people here believed the government always and can only fuck up things.

[Danke]

I wasn't expecting to hear that here, I thought people here believed the government always and can only fuck up things.

I didn't say most efficiently, Josh_LA.

[Nickels]

I didn't say most efficiently, Josh_LA.

you didn't say that, you did say "quite well" which is a lot better than fucking up (and good enough for me). what's Josh_LA?

[Weston White]

What he is saying doesn't negate the subject of the OP. Perhaps fluoride does make teeth healthier. But if it also makes us stupid, well, I should get to make the decision on the trade off.

Perhaps, albeit only topically, not internally, however; ingestion will ultimately result in only causing both dental and skeletal fluorosis, along with bringing about a host of other health concerns. Several decades of water fluoridation has proven to be ineffective, and the premise for such no longer holds true, being that the advent of social welfare programs have since enable families to afford the purchasing of toothpaste (which was an utterly ludicrous premise to begin with).

The faulty premise of mandating water fluoridation is resolved by the blatant fact that there is virtually a dentist office on every street corner throughout America (e.g., 1:12 to 1:1,000 per capita; for example, Beverly Hills, CA, with a population of 34,000 lists 2,787 dentists and surely anybody living there can afford all the hygiene products their heart desires).

[Weston White]

you know what 'supports the possibility means'? i means it absolutely happened, of course!

Your reply fails to change the fact that you are blatant deceiver. As has now been well shown.

[Nickels]

The faulty premise of mandating water fluoridation is resolved by the blatant fact that there is virtually a dentist office on every street corner throughout America (e.g., 1:12 to 1:1,000 per capita; for example, Beverly Hills, CA, with a population of 34,000 lists 2,787 dentists and surely anybody living there can afford all the hygiene products their heart desires).

last time I checked we didn't have universal dental care. But that will change soon. Dental checkups are relatively cheap if not free, especially children. What good are dentists if parents don't take them. Why did you use BH as an example? What else should we model after Bevelry Hills?

[Nickels]

Your reply fails to change the fact that you are blatant deceiver. As has now been well shown.

what did I lie about?

[Weston White]

There's no study that indicates that vaccines cause autism, but I like the way you tossed that in there.

The researchers didn't conclude anything. They only said that this was something that needed to be studied further. You have to be absolutely closed to science in order to say that it can't be true because they're biased. Of course they're biased. We're all biased. The point of science is to sort through all that and get to the facts.

Yes there are, you just refuse to accept or acknowledge them because they do not have the backing of whatever fill-in-the-blank University. Besides that the numbers speak loud and clear all on their own, i.e., the ratio between Amish children and non-Amish children that get vaccinated and are later diagnosed with autism is 1:66 (per 10,000 vaccinated), while virtually zero non-vaccinated Amish children get diagnosed with autism (further noting that Amish children are much less prone to suffer from asthma and allergies). As well there are very clear links being established between triple-jab injections and direly bludgeoning, life altering health consequences. for example:

http://www.whale.to/a/vosi.html
http://www.whale.to/a/offit5.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/olmsted-on-autism-1-in-10000-amish.html

And "needed to be studied further" is code for cease this activity for now or continue it to your own detriment.

[Weston White]

what did I lie about?

You know:


"4) The study does not say IQ is lowered by flouride, or that flouride causes lower IQ."

[Nickels]

while virtually zero non-vaccinated Amish children get diagnosed with autism

how often are Amish even diagnosed at all??

[Weston White]

last time I checked we didn't have universal dental care. But that will change soon. Dental checkups are relatively cheap if not free, especially children. What good are dentists if parents don't take them. Why did you use BH as an example? What else should we model after Bevelry Hills?

It is called Medicare and Medicaid you ninny. And if you cannot figure out the relevancy of those numbers and why I referenced Beverly Hills, then I am not sure why you are even here debating anything, let alone water fluoridation.

[Weston White]

how often are Amish even diagnosed at all??

You do of course realize that the Amish have what they call "family doctors", and that the Amish are an intelligent and knowledgeable people, right?

[Revolution9]

People are so damn clueless sometimes.


Fluoridation is good public health policy (http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Opinion/myview/072912vueTauxe)


John Tauxe - Santa Fe New Mexican
July 28, 2012


Like City Councillor Peter Ives, I grew up in a town that did not have the benefit of fluoridated water. The poor condition of my teeth, with fillings or worse in nearly every one, are a testament not so much to poor dental hygiene or care (I had the benefit of great dental care), but to the lack of fluoride to improve the mineralogy of their enamel.

I have followed the decision of the Santa Fe City Council, now at least temporarily rescinded, to abandon water fluoridation with dismay. Fluoridation was kept out of the water supply of my childhood by none other than the John Birch Society, she did indeed see it as a communist plot. How ironic that the schizophrenic Santa Fe fringe (anti-radio? chemtrails? anti-public health?) acts much like the John Birch Society did.

In today’s hypocritical culture, where it is somehow acceptable or even fashionable to adopt anti-science stances while taking full advantage of the benefits that science has provided to society, it pains those of us who work to improve humanity’s lot to watch it unravel before our eyes.

Here’s the science, whether you like it or not: Tooth enamel contains a mineral called apatite (funny, I know), and this occurs in three forms: hydroxyapatite (with an OH- hydroxyl group in it), chlorapatite (with a Cl-) and fluorapatite (with an F-). As it turns out, the hydroxyapatite is soft and prone to damage like cavity-formation. Chlorapatite is somewhat less prone, and the fluorapatite is hard, and cavity-resistant. The OH-, Cl-, and F- can replace each other, and F- will push out the OH- and Cl-, but it must be present in order to do so. As long as there is fluoride around, the teeth will naturally take up the F- to make fluorapatite in the tooth enamel. It’s simple, and it is working with nature to improve the condition of everyone’s teeth. Growing teeth of children can benefit the most. This goes for pets, too!

This is not a communist plot. It is a tactic used to improve public health. We need to brush our teeth with fluoride toothpaste, use a fluoride rinse and drink water from a public water supply that has adequate fluoride. Avoid drinking water from bottled water companies that have no standards for their products and are truly laughing all the way to the bank at our expense.

John Tauxe is a civil engineer who works to improve public health and the environment. He lives in Los Alamos.


He can put fluoride in his water if he wants it. Damn whiners. Wanna force everybody to do harm to themselves so that they can do so with ignorance.

Rev9

[heavenlyboy34]

He can put fluoride in his water if he wants it. Damn whiners. Wanna force everybody to do harm to themselves so that they can do so with ignorance.

Rev9
Ah, the classical Republican (the philosophy, not the party) Ideal. ;)

[Revolution9]

The two states that first had fluoride in their water supplies are now the sates with the most people with the fewest teeth in their head. Ain't too hard to figure out. The problem with mineralizing your teeth is they will fracture along the lines of cleavage of the mineral formed and lead to cavities quicker due to breaching of the enamel.

Rev9

[Nickels]

You do of course realize that the Amish have what they call "family doctors", and that the Amish are an intelligent and knowledgeable people, right?

Actually I don't. Are they doctors by Amish standards or did they go to AMA medical schools with American (I mean, English) issued licenses? I don't doubt they are intelligent people, knowledgeable, I don't know. I also know they are a relatively narrow genetic pool, so if autism has any genetic causes, it can be skewed for them.

[Nickels]

It is called Medicare and Medicaid you ninny. And if you cannot figure out the relevancy of those numbers and why I referenced Beverly Hills, then I am not sure why you are even here debating anything, let alone water fluoridation.

So basically you're not complaining about medicare & medicaid, you're recognizing they actually promote health, or at least, dental health. Albeit costlier than water fluoridation and personal responsibility. No, I cannot figure out why you reference Beverly Hills, can you tell me?

[Danke]

you didn't say that, you did say "quite well" which is a lot better than fucking up (and good enough for me). what's Josh_LA?

They bomb the shit out of people, well. But not necessarily cost effective, Walt.

[donnay]

So basically you're not complaining about medicare & medicaid, you're recognizing they actually promote health, or at least, dental health. Albeit costlier than water fluoridation and personal responsibility. No, I cannot figure out why you reference Beverly Hills, can you tell me?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3JTUGEyre9JC0j1OqhybW3eL_waUSx ufR93yzhsDPUoVJe6VA

[angelatc]

Yes there are, you just refuse to accept or acknowledge them because they do not have the backing of whatever fill-in-the-blank University. Besides that the numbers speak loud and clear all on their own, i.e., the ratio between Amish children and non-Amish children that get vaccinated and are later diagnosed with autism is 1:66 (per 10,000 vaccinated), while virtually zero non-vaccinated Amish children get diagnosed with autism (further noting that Amish children are much less prone to suffer from asthma and allergies). As well there are very clear links being established between triple-jab injections and direly bludgeoning, life altering health consequences. for example:

http://www.whale.to/a/vosi.html
http://www.whale.to/a/offit5.html
http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/04/olmsted-on-autism-1-in-10000-amish.html

And "needed to be studied further" is code for cease this activity for now or continue it to your own detriment.

Sigh. Much like Ron Paul, real scientists rarely speak in absolutes. It's the hysterical lunatics that do that.

Where were those studies published? Did the person who did them allow other experts to examine his methods? Were other researchers able to duplicate his results? Since we started giving kids vaccines 50 years ago, why is the rate of autism only beginning to skyrocket? (Were those 1400 kids the same batch that they picked up off the internet in the other study? Sorry, but that's not scientific in the least.)

I'm ignoring the Amish nonsense, because their lifestyles are so different that it's beyond ridiculous to assert that the only difference is vaccines. It could easily be air conditioning or exposure to cell phone using that logic.

[Nickels]

They bomb the shit out of people, well. But not necessarily cost effective, Walt.

Walt? I would agree bombing people isn't cost effective, but you're calling me Walt Disney because of that?

[Nickels]

I'm ignoring the Amish nonsense, because their lifestyles are so different that it's beyond ridiculous to assert that the only difference is vaccines. It could easily be air conditioning or exposure to cell phone using that logic.

Let's go through the list of things Amish DON'T DO, before we blame their (alleged) lack of autism on lack of vaccines.

[Danke]

Walt? I would agree bombing people isn't cost effective, but you're calling me Walt Disney because of that?

Sorry Opatron.

[angelatc]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT3JTUGEyre9JC0j1OqhybW3eL_waUSx ufR93yzhsDPUoVJe6VA

Of course we can. There's a button on the door that pops out when the door is open. When the button is pushed, the circuit is open and the bulb gets no power. When the door is open, the circuit is closed and the light bulb gets power.

[angelatc]

Let's go through the list of things Amish DON'T DO, before we blame their (alleged) lack of autism on lack of vaccines.

Could easily be that God likes them the best.

[donnay]

Sigh. Much like Ron Paul, real scientists rarely speak in absolutes. It's the hysterical lunatics that do that.

Where were those studies published? Did the person who did them allow other experts to examine his methods? Were other researchers able to duplicate his results? Since we started giving kids vaccines 50 years ago, why is the rate of autism only beginning to skyrocket? (Were those 1400 kids the same batch that they picked up off the internet in the other study? Sorry, but that's not scientific in the least.)

I'm ignoring the Amish nonsense, because their lifestyles are so different that it's beyond ridiculous to assert that the only difference is vaccines. It could easily be air conditioning or exposure to cell phone using that logic.


Because 50 years ago children were not getting an average of 36 plus vaccines before they attended school, that is why.

[angelatc]

Actually I don't. Are they doctors by Amish standards or did they go to AMA medical schools with American (I mean, English) issued licenses? I don't doubt they are intelligent people, knowledgeable, I don't know. I also know they are a relatively narrow genetic pool, so if autism has any genetic causes, it can be skewed for them.

YOu'll love this. A quick Google search indicates that the Amish actually vaccinate their kids.

My guess is that the Amish are too busy and therefore less likely to actually believe in autism as anything except a set of behaviors that 20th century medicine decided were no longer acceptable.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of course we can. There's a button on the door that pops out when the door is open. When the button is pushed, the circuit is open and the bulb gets no power. When the door is open, the circuit is closed and the light bulb gets power.
There you go again, spoiling the fun with facts!!1! ;)

[ronpaulfollower999]

Wish I would have had this study last year when I did my paper on fluoride. Still got an A though. :cool:

[angelatc]

Because 50 years ago children were not getting an average of 36 plus vaccines before they attended school, that is why.
\
Nope, the timeline doesn't match up.

[donnay]

Let's go through the list of things Amish DON'T DO, before we blame their (alleged) lack of autism on lack of vaccines.

The Amish Don't Get Autism but They Do Get Bio-Terrorism

by Thomas Corriher (http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/295-the-amish-dont-get-autism-but-they-do-get-bio-terrorism.html)

People outside the alternative health community are often confused by the lack of autism in the Amish people. The Amish do not experience autism, or any of the other learning disabilities that plague our technological society. The Amish live in a society that consists of outdated technologies and ideals, by contemporary standards. Their diet consists of eating organic, fresh, locally-grown produce, and of course, they do not follow the established vaccination routines. To the dismay of the mainstream media and the medical establishment, this has resulted in a healthier people, that are void of all of our chronic diseases. Heart disease, cancer, and diabetes are virtually non-existent in Amish villages. Equally non-existent are modern, chemically-engineered medicines, enhanced (chemically-engineered) foods, G.M.O. foods, and of course, vaccines. How is it that those who are without the "miracles" of modern orthodox medicine are healthier? The truth about health, medicine, and how they both relate to the Amish is becoming an embarrassment to some rather powerful people.

There have been 3 (yes three) verified cases of autism in the Amish, and at least two of those children were vaccinated. No information is available for the third. The strong correlation between vaccinations and autism is absolutely undeniable, unless you work for the medical establishment, the government, or Big Media. Proponents of the status-quo claim that the Amish obviously have a special super gene that makes them immune to autism. They pathetically try to rationalize that autism is some type of genetic failure (i.e. God's fault), which attacks a brain based on religious affiliation. We're tentatively expecting a space alien theory next, in a similar vein to the aliens theory used to attack those who believe in a Creator. This is truly is F.D.A. and A.M.A. science in all its shining glory. Vaccine proponents are willing to espouse any ridiculous explanation, so long as they do not have to accept that their entire industry of vaccinations is causing chronic disease, leaving autism for 1 in every 100 children now.

Beware When The G' Man Comes Knocking

The Amish are constantly harassed by health officials, who attempt to convince them to vaccinate their children. Whilst most Amish still refuse to vaccinate, a small minority are beginning to succumb to the scare tactics. This continues despite the fact that health officials actually have no legal right to visit peoples' homes and harass them into accepting these poisons. As more of the Amish vaccinate, the autism rates in their community will rise. Fortunately, the majority of the Amish still contend that vaccinations are against God's will, which interestingly enough, does indeed seem to be bringing about blessings on their children.

Many of the viruses which children are vaccinated against are no longer circulating. However, fear tactics by the media have led frightened parents to vaccinate their children against these viruses anyway. One of those viruses is polio. Dr. Sherri Tenpenny reported that the most recent case seen in the Western Hemisphere was in Peru, in 1991. The World Health Organization (W.H.O.) declared the Western hemisphere free of Polio in 1994. Such inconvenient figures are not cited by the mainstream media, doctors, or the American Medical Association.

On October 14, 2005, the media swung into action after the vaccine-strain of the polio virus was found in the stools of four Amish children. The media initially declined to mention that the polio virus was the chemically-inactivated version, which is only found inside the oral polio vaccine. Of course, this discovery was exploited to terrorize parents who avoid vaccines, and to recreate the disease hysteria that existed in the first half of the 20th century.

Big Business: Intentionally Creating a Paralyzing Pandemic

The horrors of polio were greatly exaggerated by the allopathic establishment's across-the-board removal of tonsils, which is the only organ that produces polio antibodies. Coincidentally, around the same time, the newly-created F.D.A. began suppressing the use of silver in medicines, which were the only substances known to kill viruses (like polio). Finally, 'the solution' that industry desired, namely a vaccine, was released at the time that the epidemic was naturally ending, so that the industry's vaccine could be given credit. All of this was orchestrated to manipulate the masses into buying into vaccines, radiation, and chemistry for health.

"During the polio epidemics, it was found that people who had their tonsils removed were 3 - 5 times more likely to develop paralysis… There were many at that time that suggested that polio was an iatrogenic disease [caused by the medical establishment] … we caused thousands of cases of paralysis. We did not cause the polio, but we converted people who would have recovered from a viral illness into people with a paralytic illness.”

― Dr. Mark Donohoe

With vaccinations, we convert people who may have had natural immune-strengthening infections like the flu, or chickenpox into people who have life-changing disorders like autism. None of the Amish children who had polio in their stools experienced paralysis, or any other horrific symptoms. That fortunate conclusion to their infections is likely the result of them lacking the 'miracles' of allopathic medicine.

We must wonder how four Amish children who live in an isolated community managed to become exposed to the unique chemically-inactivated vaccine strain of the polio virus. It is more than likely that such a thing was intentional, especially when the harassment by local health officials is considered. In addition, the vaccine strain that was discovered had not been used for five years, due to the possibility of it causing paralysis. After all, if some Amish children were to get sickened by the polio virus, the Amish may all rush to get their children vaccinated, and the science of vaccinations is proven with a wink and a nod.

The manner in which this was reported is very telling. For instance, if the vaccine strain of the polio virus was found in a normal child, would the media have made the story into front page news? Would it even have been reported? The Washington Post explained that both state and federal officials had informed them of the story. Misleading titles such as, "Polio Outbreak Occurs Among Amish Families In Minnesota" were then used to manipulate resistant parents with bio-terrorism.

When the Amish are simply left alone, to live free of chemical toxins found in our medicines and foods, they are not plagued with diseases, learning disabilities, or autism. They are categorically more intelligent, with the exception of advanced (college-level) writing skills, which is explainable by the fact that English is not their primary language. Could it be those same Amish 'super genes' at work again? Society could learn greatly from their example, if we would only stop poisoning ourselves, and our children on a routine basis.

Addendum and Comments about the Information War

Opposition websites often claim that vaccination is normal in the Amish community, and so is autism. These are lies. While there may be some small Amish groups which do vaccinate, and thus have autism; neither is normal. The United Press, in conjunction with Generation Rescue, published a story about the rates of autism in an Amish community in Pennsylvania. Reporter Dan Olmsted went searching for the autistic Amish. Statistically, there should have been around 130 Amish in the community he examined. Dan discovered 3 cases (that's three). The first was an adopted Chinese girl, who had suffered through all of her vaccinations on the same day. The second developed symptoms within 24 hours after getting vaccinated, and there was no information about the third case. The reporter even spoke with the local allopathic (orthodox) doctor, who the Amish sometimes visit whenever herbs and supplements do not suffice (for instance, broken bones). The doctor admitted that he had never seen autism in the community.

Dr. Max Wiznitzer of University Hospitals in Cleveland is an expert witness for the government, and he fights against families who file for compensation in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. He made a mistake when he admitted that autism rates in the Amish community are somewhere around 1 in 10,000. The rate for the rest of us is now about 1 in 95, and growing rapidly. That means that our children are over 100 times more likely to get autism, and this does not take into account that the numbers are skewed against the Amish, since a tiny portion of their children are actually vaccinated now.

We will be waiting for real outbreaks of autism in the unvaccinated Amish. If you're still unsure about the cause of autism, and are looking for studies; read How To Cure Autism and The Time Bomb of Mercury Poisoning. Studies which attempt to disprove the link between autism and vaccination have all been funded by the pharmaceutical complex. Truly independent studies have repeatedly shown the clear relationship. In fact, no vaccine has ever undergone any independent, controlled, double-blind studies to determine safety and effectiveness. Seriously. Read the studies yourself, research extensively, and do the right thing. Opt out of vaccinations with a religious or philosophical exemption to defend your child. The public schools cannot legally turn you away if you do that, so learn your rights, and use them! Do it, or someday your own children will curse you for not doing the right thing.

Since we wrote this article, we have made a lot of enemies. People do not want to believe that the guilt for the epidemic lies with them, especially in the case of parents and doctors. Doctors have been the quietest group of readers, and this could be related to the fact that about half of them refuse routine vaccines themselves, due to "safety and efficacy reasons", according to the C.D.C.. It is just too rich. Although, we have heard from plenty of non-doctor "experts", and as expressed in the article, they are cunning manipulators, who have come to view us as a threat. I believe that evil is the appropriate word to describe them. The marketing astroturfers have certainly made their rounds in vain efforts to manipulate us. They never give their true information, so we do not know which percentage of them are with Big Medica, Big Pharma, or the U.S. Government. They always use throw-away e-mail addresses from places like Yahoo! and Google. We've learned to spot them a mile away. We have also discovered that people valuing truth do not hide from investigation, as if they were cockroaches running from the light.

The hateful e-mails we received are intended to persuade us into removing this article. Our opponents generally give links to blogs which make gratuitous statements, whilst offering no sources, or merely additional links to new websites which run anonymously. (We ain't as stupid as they be thinking.) We have yet to be disputed by any evidence that was not paid for by a pharmaceutical company, or that had the backing of 3rd party, independent, credible, and verifiable sources. All of their "evidence" has been fully lacking in credibility. Science and medicine are not remade by the comments on Joanna's blogspot blog. Call us crazy if you like.

We know the difference between credible research and studies, and we are getting stuff that is just being pulled straight out of their rears and presented as gold nuggets; like some feat of alchemy. No matter how well we do our jobs uncovering and exposing the corruption, they remain too arrogant to do anything other than underestimate our intelligence. It is actually comical at times. You will notice that like other credible sources, we sign our names to our work and take responsibility for it. We also reveal our useful and verifiable independent sources of information whenever it is prudent to do so.

[donnay]

\
Nope, the timeline doesn't match up.

Huh?

[Kluge]

YOu'll love this. A quick Google search indicates that the Amish actually vaccinate their kids.

My guess is that the Amish are too busy and therefore less likely to actually believe in autism as anything except a set of behaviors that 20th century medicine decided were no longer acceptable.

Their kids actually work and are occupied with real life rather than being so self-involved.

[Nickels]

YOu'll love this. A quick Google search indicates that the Amish actually vaccinate their kids.

http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000863065/polls_polls_surprised_baby_2_xlarge.jpeg

Thanks.



My guess is that the Amish are too busy and therefore less likely to actually believe in autism as anything except a set of behaviors that 20th century medicine decided were no longer acceptable.

That's why I asked if they were diagnosed with the same standards, if one wants to claim they don't have autistic children (and also keep in mind their narrow gene pool).

[Nickels]

Their kids actually work and are occupied with real life rather than being so self-involved.

are you applauding anti-industrial, anti-social, tribalist behavior?

[angelatc]

I swear, having half a brain is fucking painful. How can anybody in their right mind post, much less write, an article that talks about the AMish not vaccinnating while including tidbits like this:


On October 14, 2005, the media swung into action after the vaccine-strain of the polio virus was found in the stools of four Amish children. The media initially declined to mention that the polio virus was the chemically-inactivated version, which is only found inside the oral polio vaccine..

Which is a lie. Looking back at the stories, it is mentioned that the type of polio found was the type that would be found in the OPV type of vaccine, but that hasn't been used in America since 1999.



All previous outbreaks of poliomyelitis caused by VDVP were in undervaccinated communities in underdeveloped countries. The outbreak in Minnesota underscores the need to maintain high vaccination coverage: until OPV is replaced with IPV globally, circulating VDPVs pose a threat to unimmunized individuals. The outbreak is a harbinger of what could occur in countries where immunization with OPV is halted after the eradication of poliomyelitis. As the number of susceptible newborns increases, circulating VDVPs could spark an outbreak of poliomyelitis. Another reason for switching to IPV rather than stopping (http://www.virology.ws/2009/02/26/dreaming-inactivated-poliovirus-vaccine/) immunization altogether.

Also interesting that the last two polio outbreaks in the US were in undervaccinated Amish communities. The 1979 outbreak is what convinced the smart, knowledgeable Amish people that vaccines were indeed important for the health of the community.

[green73]

Fluoridation Revisited (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html)

by Murray N. Rothbard

[Kluge]

are you applauding anti-industrial, anti-social, tribalist behavior?

I'm applauding people who live their lives with minimal government intervention. Perhaps that's the same thing.

[angelatc]

Their kids actually work and are occupied with real life rather than being so self-involved.

I hate antedotal evidence, but http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm ...


T
he idea that the Amish do not vaccinate their children is untrue," says Dr. Kevin Strauss, MD, a pediatrician at the CSC. "We run a weekly vaccination clinic and it's very busy." He says Amish vaccinations rates are lower than the general population's, but younger Amish are more likely to be vaccinated than older generations.
Strauss also sees plenty of Amish children showing symptoms of autism.

"Autism isn't a diagnosis - it's a description of behavior. We see autistic behaviors along with seizure disorders or mental retardation or a genetic disorder, where the autism is part of a more complicated clinical spectrum." Fragile X syndrome and Retts is also common among the clinic's patients.


Strauss said the clinic treats "syndromic autism", where autism as part of a more complicated clinical spectrum that can include mental retardation, chromosomal abnormalities, unusual facial features, and short stature, as well as Fragile X syndrome.

"We see quite a few Amish children with Fragile X," he said.
...Strauss says he doesn't see "idiopathic autism" at the clinic, which he defines as children with average or above average IQs who display autistic behavior.

"My personal experience is we don't see a lot of Amish children with idiopathic autism. It doesn't mean they don't exist, only that we aren't seeing them at the clinic."


He says a child in the general population is more likely to have autism detected early and to receive a diagnosis than an Amish child. "Amish child may not be referred to an MD or psychologist because the child is managed in the community, where they have special teachers," he says. "We know autism when we see it, but we don't go actively into the Amish community and screen for ASD."

[angelatc]

I'm applauding people who live their lives with minimal government intervention. Perhaps that's the same thing.

I'd go live that life in a heartbeat if they'd have me. Unfortunately, I can't quite bring myself to become religious, so that's one strike before I even ask.

[Kluge]

I hate antedotal evidence, but http://autism.about.com/b/2008/04/23/do-the-amish-vaccinate-indeed-they-do-and-their-autism-rates-may-be-lower.htm ...

Interesting.

[Kluge]

I'd go live that life in a heartbeat if they'd have me. Unfortunately, I can't quite bring myself to become religious, so that's one strike before I even ask.

Same here. I have enough of an issue with how religious people are out here relative to where I'm from.

I could deal with Quakers pretty easily, but the Baptist stuff, not so much.

[Nickels]

I'm applauding people who live their lives with minimal government intervention. Perhaps that's the same thing.

not quite the same thing, although I think that's the only way in modern society to avoid government. It's people who think they want both the technology and convenience of the modern world AND the "freedom" Amish have, they will have trouble getting what they want.

[Nickels]

I'd go live that life in a heartbeat if they'd have me. Unfortunately, I can't quite bring myself to become religious, so that's one strike before I even ask.

there are alternatives like these
http://www.dancingrabbit.org/

[Kluge]

not quite the same thing, although I think that's the only way in modern society to avoid government. It's people who think they want both the technology and convenience of the modern world AND the "freedom" Amish have, they will have trouble getting what they want.

No doubt about that.

[angelatc]

Huh?

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/myth-amish-don-t-have-autism

(http://www.opposingviews.com/i/myth-amish-don-t-have-autism)
The latest report from the Center for Disease Control estimates the rate of ASD is 1 in 91 children (Kogan, 2009), up from 1 in 150 in 2007.

I suppose you're going to claim that the infant vaccine schedule unilaterally changed dramatically during some random two year period 3 - 5 years prior.

This wasn't posted in the conspiracy websites, so I guess you haven't read it, but there's apparently enough autism in the Amish community to warrant a real study :
http://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper7336.html

A key fact:

From September 2008 to October 2009, 1899 Amish children were screened in the two Amish communities. A total of 25 children screened positive for ASD on either the SCQ or the DSM-IV-TR checklist.



Which means that man who is claiming that there have only been 3 documented cases is lying.

[Weston White]

Sigh. Much like Ron Paul, real scientists rarely speak in absolutes. It's the hysterical lunatics that do that.

Where were those studies published? Did the person who did them allow other experts to examine his methods? Were other researchers able to duplicate his results? Since we started giving kids vaccines 50 years ago, why is the rate of autism only beginning to skyrocket? (Were those 1400 kids the same batch that they picked up off the internet in the other study? Sorry, but that's not scientific in the least.)

I'm ignoring the Amish nonsense, because their lifestyles are so different that it's beyond ridiculous to assert that the only difference is vaccines. It could easily be air conditioning or exposure to cell phone using that logic.

Or it could just as well be the air we breathe, or the water we drink, or from watching to much television, couldn't it now? Still you are entirely incorrect; such is a very valid comparison, while also providing correlation.

[angelatc]

Same here. I have enough of an issue with how religious people are out here relative to where I'm from.

I could deal with Quakers pretty easily, but the Baptist stuff, not so much.

It's not that. I can "deal with it," but I dont feel it. People of faith have...well, faith. I don't.

[Kluge]

It's not that. I can "deal with it," but I dont feel it. People of faith have...well, faith. I don't.

Ever read "My Confessions" by Tolstoy? It was a turning point for me.

[Nickels]

I suppose you're going to claim that the infant vaccine schedule unilaterally changed dramatically during some random two year period 3 - 5 years prior.


Not random. Ron Paul didn't get elected. Bankers fucked up the economy. Both of these are great probably causes for autism.

[angelatc]

Or it could just as well be the air we breathe, or the water we drink, or from watching to much television, couldn't it now? Still you are entirely incorrect; such is a very valid comparison, while also providing correlation.

It isn't a conclusion by any stretch though, which is how it was presented. That's what real scientists do - they notice something, run a few tests to see if their observations were accurate, then they publish it with the expectations that other scientists will examine their methods and their data. Those other scientists look at it, run a few more tests, publish, and so on and so on.

I am not a scientist, but I imagine that human nature being what it is that scientists probably at least somewhat enjoy proving some of their colleagues wrong.

I guess that's what gets me. The scientists I have known want to make that discovery that cures cancer, or Alzheimers, or even the common cold. They're upbeat, positive, curious people. The antivaxxers are emotionally attached to their positions.

[angelatc]

Ever read "My Confessions" by Tolstoy? It was a turning point for me.

No! I shall look to download it ASAP!

[green73]

Rothbard gives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard85.html) Fluoridation's nefarious history.


Yes, I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of "right-wing kooks and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy cried "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation's water supply.




First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!



The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.



(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.



What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.



(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.



(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?



(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids' thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?



(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation's socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.



Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.



During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?



Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the "right-wing kook" image?



THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION



The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official "15-year" study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: "Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?" [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own "scientific study," by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by "popular demand" for fluoridation; as we shall see, the "popular demand" was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.



A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation's establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.



The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation "creeping socialism" and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.



As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation "in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan." (Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of Water," Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970312598/lewrockwell/), Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.



In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.



Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.



After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation's reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as "universal fluoridation."



DOUBTS CUMULATE



Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies' teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as "spurious."



Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government's own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.



Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding "equivocal evidence" that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of "a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages," especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in "non-fluoridated" counties.



In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were "spurious." Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, "value-free" commission.



The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of "world-class experts" to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride's safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children's skeletons, and potential heart damage.



The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might "modify" the findings, since "the report deals with sensitive political issues." Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel's most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government's alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no "scientific documentation" of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.



In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even "low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly." JAMA concluded that "it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation."



Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that "no evidence" was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that "further studies are required." But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: "The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water." Presumably, they did not conclude that "optimal" meant zero.



Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government's study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing "equivocal" about his conclusion.



Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus's warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.



Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand's most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country's top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.



As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist "promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists."



WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?



Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.



Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth's crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?



The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, "Mr. Pittsburgh," and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.



In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people's teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA's research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that "the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved." Instant science!



The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.



During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid's teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation's water.



One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that "fluoride is fluoride" becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.



Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.



There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process "ALCOA-socialism." The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

[Kluge]

No! I shall look to download it ASAP!

For Tolstoy it's a short read, but to sum up--I came to a different conclusion than Leo who was turned away from being religious by the elites, I realized that I just didn't "feel" it like he did--even though I hoped for a different outcome.

http://www.classicallibrary.org/tolstoy/confession/3.htm

I realized many things about myself after reading this.

[green73]

Fluoride Follies (http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller17.html)
by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD

The federal government's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) are holding a symposium in Chicago this week titled: "National Fluoridation Symposium 2005: Celebrating 60 Years of Water Fluoridation" (July 13—16). The CDC ranks fluoridation of community drinking water as one of the ten most significant public health achievements of the 20th century. No speaker at this symposium will dare question the safety or efficacy of fluoride. That is now a given and has become dogma. But like in 1968 when protests against the Vietnam War were held in the Windy City outside the Democratic National Convention, this week protesters (http://www.fluoridealert.org/press/chicago.html) have assembled in Chicago to fight fluoridation.

Fluoridation of community drinking water began in Grand Rapids, Michigan on January 12, 1945. It was the brainchild of two people who worked for Andrew W. Mellon, founder of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), Drs. H. Trendley Dean and Gerald J. Cox. Mellon was US Treasury Secretary, which made him (at that time, in 1930) head of the Public Health Service (PHS). He had Dean, a researcher at the PHS, study the effects of naturally fluoridated water on teeth. Dean confirmed that fluoride causes mottling (discoloration) of teeth, and he hypothesized that it also prevents cavities. Cox, a researcher at the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh, was urged to study the effect of fluoride on tooth-decay in rats. Determining that it had a beneficial effect, he proposed, in late 1939, that the US should fluoridate its public water supply.

Fluorine is a halogen, like chlorine and iodine. It is the smallest and most reactive element in the halogen family (elements with 7 electrons in their outer shell). Fluorine exists in nature attached to other elements as the negatively charged ion fluoride, most notably to hydrogen, calcium, sodium, aluminum, sulfur, and silicon. Sodium fluoride, a by-product of aluminum smelting, initially was used to fluoridate water. Silicofluorides (fluoride combined with silicon), wastes of phosphate fertilizer production, are now used almost exclusively for fluoridation. Fluorine is also present in compounds called organofluorines, where fluorine atoms (not fluoride anions) are tightly bound to carbon. Teflon (poly-tetra-fluoro-ethylene), Gore-Tex, and many drugs, Prozac (fluoxetine), Cipro (ciprofloxacin), and Baycol (cerivastatin) among them, are organofluorines.

Doctors and public health officials did not think sodium fluoride, used commercially as a rat and bug poison, fungicide, and wood preservative, should be put in public water. The Journal of the American Dental Association said (in 1936), "Fluoride at the 1 ppm [part per million] concentration is as toxic as arsenic and lead… There is an increasing volume of evidence of the injurious effects of fluorine, especially the chronic intoxication resulting from the ingestion of minute amounts of fluorine over long periods of time." And the Journal of the American Medical Association" noted (in its September 18, 1943 issue), "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes." But, as Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson reveal in "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb (http://www.fluoridation.com/atomicbomb.htm)," and Bryson in his book The Fluoride Deception (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583225269/lewrockwell/), officials in the Manhattan Project persuaded health policy makers and medical and dental leaders, in the interests of national security, to do an about-face and join the fluoridation bandwagon.

Vast amounts of fluoride were required to build the atom bomb. Fluoride combines with uranium to form the gas uranium hexafluoride, which, when passed through a semi permeable membrane, separates bomb-grade, fissionable uranium-235 from the much more abundant and stable uranium-238. This done, fluoride is released into the environment as waste. (During the Cold War millions of tons of fluoride were used in the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons.) Also, large amounts of fluoride were generated in producing aluminum required for warplanes.

With several instances already on record of fluoride causing damage to crops, livestock, and people downwind from industrial plants, government and industry, lead by officials running the Manhattan Project, sought to put a new, friendlier face on fluoride. This would dampen public concerns over fluoride emissions and help forestall potentially crippling litigation. Instead of being seen as the poison it is, people should view fluoride as a nutrient, which gives smiling children shiny teeth, as epitomized in the jingle that calls fluoride "nature's way to prevent tooth decay."

It worked. Early epidemiological studies showed a 50 to 70 percent reduction in dental cavities in children who drank fluoridated water. These studies, however, were poorly designed. None were blinded, so dentists examining children for caries would know which kind of water they were drinking. Data gathering methods were shoddy. By today's evidence-based medicine standards these studies do not provide reliable evidence that fluoride does indeed prevent cavities.
Based on these studies and its promotion, municipalities across the country started adding fluoride to their water supply. Within 15 years a majority of Americans were washing their clothes, watering their vegetable gardens, bathing with, and drinking fluoridated water.

On its 60th anniversary proponents still have not proved that the hypothesis fluoride [put in public water] prevents cavities and is perfectly safe is true. The first part of the hypothesis, at least, has biological plausibility. Fluoride prevents cavities by combining with calcium in dental enamel to form fluoroapetite, which increases the resistance of teeth to acid demineralization. And fluoride inactivates bacteria that damage teeth by interfering with their enzymes. But biological plausibility alone is not sufficient to prove efficacy. Epidemiological evidence is required to do that. A debate open to well-informed opponents of fluoridation, if the CDC and ADA ever agreed to hold one, would show that existing epidemiological evidence does not prove that fluoride prevents cavities.

In evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews (meta-analyses) are considered to be the best, most "scientific" evidence. A systematic review of water fluoridation studies (http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm), published in the British Medical Journal in 2000, found, as the chair (http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/sheldon_letter.html) of the Advisory Group that commissioned the review puts it, "The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of [dental] fluorosis." He adds, "The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy." The case for fluoride does not stand up to careful evidence-based scrutiny.

Evidence that "fluoride [put in public water] does not prevent cavities and is not safe" (the null hypothesis) is more convincing. If a court of law held a trial on fluoride's safety and efficacy, the anti-fluoridationists would win. The judgment in their favor would most likely be beyond a reasonable doubt, or at least on a more likely than not basis. In a courtroom the pro-fluoridationists would not be permitted to employ ad hominem attacks that focus on the character of the opposing witness instead of the evidence, and dogmatic assertions on the safety and efficacy of fluoride would be subject to cross examination.

Proponents of fluoridation will not willingly admit they are wrong. As Tolstoy puts it, "Most men can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, have proudly taught to others, and have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives."

There are exceptions. Two prominent leaders of the pro-fluoridation movement willingly admitted publicly (in 1997 and 2000) that they were wrong. One was the late John Colquhoun, DDS, Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand and chair of that country's Fluoridation Promotion Committee. He reviewed New Zealand's dental statistics in an effort to convince skeptics that fluoridation was beneficial and found that tooth decay rates were the same in fluoridated and nonfluoridated places, which prompted him to re-examine the classic fluoridation studies. He recanted his support for it in "Why I Changed my Mind About Water Fluoridation (http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm)" (Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 1997;41:29—44). The other is Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, Head of Preventive Dentistry at University of Toronto. His reasons are given in "Why I am Now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water (http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm)." Another former pro-fluoridationist that is fighting fluoride (http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/politics/lead20s.htm) in Canada, and elsewhere, is Richard G. Foulkes, MD, a health care administrator and former assistant professor in the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology at the University of British Columbia.

Chlorine is added to water to kill bacteria. Chlorination (begun in 1908) has eradicated typhoid fever and cholera, two water-borne diseases that used to kill thousands of Americans each year. Chlorine is a disinfectant. Fluoride is a medication, which the state requires all people to consume because government officials believe it is good for a segment of the population. The putative benefit of this medication is for children age 5 to 12 (when enamel for their permanent teeth is being formed). This age group drinks 0.01 percent of the water people use.

This is how the CDC justifies (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm) compulsory fluoridation: "Although other fluoride-containing products are available [e.g., toothpaste], water fluoridation remains the more equitable and cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to all members of most communities, regardless of age, educational attainment, or income level." Fluoridation, therefore, addresses social inequalities and fosters social justice. It provides fluoride to poor families without their having to buy (fluoride) toothpaste and make their children brush their teeth with it. The common good takes priority over individual freedom to choose to not take this medication. This communitarian ethic increasingly governs US public health policy. One of the goals of the government's Healthy People 2010 (http://www.healthypeople.gov/) initiative (Objective 21-9) is to "increase the proportion of the U.S. population served by community water systems with optimally fluoridated water [the target: 75 percent]."

Murray Rothbard (in an article (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch59.html) written in 1992) describes water fluoridation as "ALCOA-socialism," arising from "an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the state." It is a legacy of war, with its call for aluminum and enriched uranium, and the New Deal.

Fluoridation is an especially destructive type of socialism because fluoride is a poison. It is the 13th most common element and one of the most toxic elements in the earth's crust. It is an insidious poison that produces serious multisystem effects on a long-term basis.

Fluoride disrupts enzymes (by altering their hydrogen bonds) and prevents them from doing their job of making proteins, collagen in particular, the structural protein for bone and teeth, ligaments, tendons, and muscles. It damages DNA repair enzymes and inhibits the enzyme acetylcholinesterase in the brain, which is involved in transmitting signals along nerve cells. All cells in the body depend on enzymes. Consequently, fluoride can have widespread deleterious effects in multiple organ systems. One researcher has uncovered 113 ailments (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0006F9CP8/qid=1121302309/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9145831-9189568?v=glance&s=books) that fluoride is said to cause.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/teeth.jpg
The first visible sign of fluoride poisoning is dental fluorosis (http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/DF_blears.html). It begins as small white specks in the enamel that then turn into spots, become confluent, and, in its most severe stage, turn brown. Dental fluorosis of varying degree affects 20 to 80 percent of children who grow up drinking fluoridated water. Moderate to severe changes, with brown mottling, occurs in 3 percent (http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/DF_blears.html) of children. Dental fluorosis is an indicator of fluoride toxicity in other parts of the body. Like in growing teeth, fluoride accumulates in the brain. One manifestation of "brain fluorosis" in children could be this: Researchers (in China) (http://www.slweb.org/zhao1996.html) have found that children living in an area where the water has high fluoride content (4.12 ppm) have IQ scores that are 6 to 12 points lower than children living in a low fluoride district (the difference in IQ scores, at p <0.02, is statistically significant).

Fluoride has a particular affinity for calcium and thus for bone; and it poisons bones the same way it does teeth. The average American living in a fluoridated community now ingests 8 mg of fluoride a day. Unlike teeth where the enamel, once formed, remains static, 10 percent of bone tissue is broken down and replaced annually, giving fluoride an opportunity to steadily accumulate year-after-year in bones. People who consume 10—25 mg of fluoride a day over 10 to 20 years, or 2mg/day over 40 years, will develop skeletal fluorosis. The first manifestations of this disease, before there are any changes on x-ray, are joint pains and arthritic symptoms, which are indistinguishable from osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis; muscle weakness; chronic fatigue; and gastrointestinal disorders. In the next stage, osteoporosis develops and bones become more brittle and weak, making them prone to fracture. (The third and final stage, crippling fluorosis, occurs mainly in India where the natural fluoride content of the water is high.)

There is an epidemic of arthritis, osteoporosis, hip fractures, and chronic fatigue syndrome in the United States. Could fluoride be causing this epidemic? It turns out that even people who live in nonfluoridated areas consume a lot of fluoride, on average 4 mg/day. It is in toothpaste; in fruit juices, soda pop, tea, and processed foods; and, unfortunately, in California wines, whose grapes are sprayed with the pesticide cyrolite (sodium aluminum fluoride). American physicians know little or nothing about skeletal fluorosis, and the early, arthritic stages of this disease mimic other bone and joint diseases. It is a hypothesis worth testing.

Studies show that the rates of bone cancer are substantially higher in fluoridated areas, particularly in boys. Other cancers, of the head and neck, GI tract, pancreas, and lungs, have a 10 percent higher incidence. Fluoride affects the thyroid gland and causes hypothyroidism, which is also an increasingly frequent disorder in the US. Other studies show that high levels of fluoride in drinking water are associated with birth defects and early infant mortality.

Fluoride also damages the brain, both directly and indirectly. Rats given fluoridated water at a dose of 4 ppm develop symptoms resembling attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. High concentrations of fluoride accumulate in the pineal gland, which produces serotonin and melatonin. Young girls who drink fluoridated water reach puberty six months earlier than those who drink unfluoridated water, which is thought to be a result of reduced melatonin production. People with Alzheimer's disease have high levels of aluminum in their brains. Fluoride combines with aluminum in drinking water and takes it through the blood-brain barrier into the brain. Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, a neurosurgeon, spells out in chilling detail the danger fluoride poses to one's brain and health in general in his book Health and Nutrition Secrets that can Save Your Life (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0929173422/lewrockwell/)(2002).

Try to avoid fluoride, in all its guises. It is not an element the body needs or requires, even in trace amounts. There are no known naturally occurring compounds of fluorine in the human body (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716743396/ref=pd_sbs_b_1/104-9145831-9189568?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance).

Live in a nonfluoridated community. If that is not possible, drink distilled water or tap water passed through a filter that can remove fluoride (a third method using an activated alumina absorbent is not practical because of its expense). Regular activated carbon filters do not work because the diameter of a fluoride anion (0.064 nm) is smaller than the pore size of the filter. It requires a reverse osmosis filter. (Living in a fluoridated area, my family uses a table top reverse osmosis filter that we purchased online (http://yourwaterneeds.com/DW_CTSerie.asp).) Distilled water has been given a bad rap by some health writers, which is not deserved (see "Blowing the Lid off Distilled Water Myths (http://www.durastill.com/myths.html)"). Distillation units are relatively inexpensive.

Fluoride is readily absorbed through the skin (and inhaled). Two-thirds of the fluoride we take into our bodies using fluoridated public water comes from bathing and wearing clothes washed in it. Drinking fluoride-free water in a fluoridated district only reduces fluoride intake by about a third.

One of the greatest public health advances in the 21st century will be removing fluoride from public water supplies. This "important public health measure" is a Potemkin Village — an impressive façade that hides undesirable facts. In this village, the US Surgeon General, the Czar, in this case, tells visiting dignitaries that "Community water fluoridation benefits everyone," and "There is no credible evidence that fluoridation is harmful." This has given fluoride a protected pollutant status for 60 years when the stark fact is that this substance is slowly poisoning us.

In addition to being contaminated with trace amounts of arsenic, beryllium, mercury, and lead, silicofluorides (hexafluorosilicic acid [H2SiF6] and its sodium salt hexafluorosilicate [Na2SiF6]) carry lead through the intestine into the body. These are the compounds that, untested, now are used to fluoridate water. Lead interferes with the neurotransmitter dopamine, which controls impulsive and violent behavior; and studies show that lead pollution is linked to higher rates of violent crime. The average violent crime rate in US counties that have lead pollution is 56 percent higher when their drinking water is fluoridated, as reported in "A Moratorium on Silicofluoride Usage will Save $$Millions (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Espittle/381%201-5.pdf) (Fluoride 2005;38:1—5). School shootings occur ten times more frequently in fluoridated communities, as Jay Seavey points out in "Water Fluoridation and Crime in America (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Espittle/381%2011-22.pdf) (Fluoride 2005;38:11—22).

Antifluoridationists weaken their case by mistakenly putting florine-carbon organofluorines in the same category as fluoride anions, as Joel Kauffman, a chemist, points out (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf). The fluorine in these compounds is not dangerous (Teflon heated continuously at 500° F does not release any fluoride.) Policy makers will be better able to deal with fluoridation of water alone and ban it when organic (carbon-based) fluorine compounds are removed from consideration.
The day will come when fluoridation of community drinking water will suffer the same fate as blood letting. Used for over a millennium to treat disease, it was abandoned three centuries ago.

Recommended Reading:


"Water Fluoridation: a Review of Recent Research and Actions (http://www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf)," by Joel M. Kauffman, PhD. Published last month in the peer-reviewed Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, this well-considered, succinct, up-to-date review would be Exhibit A in a trial against fluoridation. The author brought to my attention the distinction between inorganic fluoride anion and organically carbon-bound fluorine. (J Am Phys Surg 2005;10:38—44.)
"Fluoridation of Water (http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm)," by Bette Hileman. Published in Chemical and Engineering News in 1988, this "Special Report" by an associate editor of the journal examines the fundamental issues and specifics of fluoridation, which scientists, policy makers, and the public must confront. It shows that the fluoride controversy is much more serious than most people at the time, including scientists, realized. This seminal article gives important examples of how data on fluoride's adverse effects are withheld from the public. (August 1, 1988 C&EN,p. 26—42, with links to the article's four sidebars and to 39 letters published in C&EN about it, including one from Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.)
"Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalistic Ploy (http://www.sonic.net/%7Ekryptox/history/covert.htm)," by Joel Griffiths. Originally published in Covert Action Quarterly in 1992, this article, with a photo of Capt. Jack Ripper in Dr. Strangelove saying, "Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?," is another classic on the subject.
Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves to Death? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0717132749/qid=1120593239/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0823625-3082238?v=glance&s=books)by Barry Groves (2001)This thoroughly researched and well written book refutes, one by one, answers the British Fluoridation Society told UK dentists to give to (32) questions people might ask them about Fluoride — questions like "Is fluoridated water safe?" and "Is it true that there is enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a small child?" (The BFS answer to the toothpaste one is: "Used sensibly, fluoride toothpaste presents no risks to children.")
"50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation (http://fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm)" by Paul Connett. There are, indeed, 50 reasons. Written by the Executive Director of the organization that held the protest in Chicago.
The Fluoride Deception (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583225269/qid=1120593555/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-0823625-3082238)by Christopher Bryson (2004) A good review of this book can be found here (http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/%7Espittle/372-55.htm). The author has thoroughly researched the subject and obtained previously unreleased documents on the wartime politics behind fluoridation. He pulls down its façade and lays bare this Potemkin Village.
"A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride (http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html)." A good compilation of references, arranged by subject. It is 55 pages long.

[Danke]

Whoa, tl'dr.

[Weston White]

YOu'll love this. A quick Google search indicates that the Amish actually vaccinate their kids.

My guess is that the Amish are too busy and therefore less likely to actually believe in autism as anything except a set of behaviors that 20th century medicine decided were no longer acceptable.

lolol So you didn't even bother to actually read that prior post I made before you replied to it with your usually sorted nonsense. Well that actually explains a lot now doesn't it!

A small hint: About one-half of the Amish appear to vaccinate their children; however, I bet that they largely only do the primary vaccinates and immunizations and not the unnecessary or otherwise useless dozens upon dozens of ones that the weak-minded American populace seek.

[green73]

Whoa, tl'dr.

pffft

[Danke]

pffft


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z8sdNH4110

[angelatc]

lolol So you didn't even bother to actually read that prior post I made before you replied to it with your usually sorted nonsense. Well that actually explains a lot now doesn't it!

A small hint: About one-half of the Amish appear to vaccinate their children; however, I bet that they largely only do the primary vaccinates and immunizations and not the unnecessary or otherwise useless dozens upon dozens of ones that the weak-minded American populace seek.

Heh. At least you've got the good sense to at least start to backtrack.

(And I think the word you were looking for is "sordid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sordid)," as in "...your usually sorted sordid nonsense." You're welcome.)

[Nickels]

however, I bet that they largely only do the primary vaccinates and immunizations and not the unnecessary or otherwise useless dozens upon dozens of ones that the weak-minded American populace seek.

you might be right. Good to know even a vaccine conspiracy theorist knows not all vaccines are the same.

[Anti Federalist]

All I want to know...

Who in this thread is in favor of the following:

1 - Drugging the water supply without consent of the users or "opt out" features.

2 - Forcibly medicating somebody against their will.

[Weston White]

Heh. At least you've got the good sense to at least start to backtrack.

(And I think the word you were looking for is "sordid (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sordid)," as in "...your usually sorted sordid nonsense." You're welcome.)

"Backtrack", I am not really sure what you mean by that. Because I am not backtracking on anything.

And no, I did not mean "sordid" as in selfish, mean, unethical, etc., I meant "sorted" as in something that is undistinguished or barely adequate, as in its character, quality, or nature, etc.

[Weston White]

Mmmmm, fluoride, now that is just so yummy to my tummy, right there! Mmmmmm, Mmmmmm, Goood!


http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/teeth.jpg

[Nickels]

All I want to know...

Who in this thread is in favor of the following:

1 - Drugging the water supply without consent of the users or "opt out" features.

2 - Forcibly medicating somebody against their will.

I'm in favor of 2 if it's in self defense or something like it.

[pcosmar]

All I want to know...

Who in this thread is in favor of the following:

1 - Drugging the water supply without consent of the users or "opt out" features.

2 - Forcibly medicating somebody against their will.

I do not, (you knew that, right?)

But ,,,
Why putting anti-depressants in our water supply is perfectly reasonable
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/why-putting-anti-depressants-in-our-water-supply-is-perfectly-reasonable/11613
Lithium in the Water Supply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E1DE1E39F930A25751C1A96F9C8B 63

Don't think for a minute they aren't thinking about it.

I'm glad I have a deep well.

[Revolution9]

I swear, having half a brain is fucking painful. How can anybody in their right mind post, much less write, an article that talks about the AMish not vaccinnating while including tidbits like this:



Which is a lie. Looking back at the stories, it is mentioned that the type of polio found was the type that would be found in the OPV type of vaccine, but that hasn't been used in America since 1999.


[/COLOR]

Also interesting that the last two polio outbreaks in the US were in undervaccinated Amish communities. The 1979 outbreak is what convinced the smart, knowledgeable Amish people that vaccines were indeed important for the health of the community.

Ya know. Yer being pretty snotty. I ain't getting involved in this because it is tail chasing and the vaccine side doesn't budge. I will say that in the past four days surfing here and there on various news sites that i have come across maybe 25-35 vaccine horror stories. All of these families cannot be lying about the devastation and the fact that the children were fine till they got the vaccine. Like I said prior..one of the shots I had at age 12 made amber colored sticky fluid come out of my ears and cause a rash of hard pimples anywhere it flowed on my skin. I assume my brain blood barrier ejected it as I have always been good at identifying what does not belong in my body and getting it out. I can imagine if this amber fluid got into my brain. I would probably have been lolling and drooling and unable to speak if the pain in my ears was any indication.

Rev9

[donnay]

My "huh?" response was with regards to my post addressing the fact that children, today, are receiving upwards of 36 plus vaccines as compared to 50 years ago.




\
Nope, the timeline doesn't match up.


Today in the U.S., the Center for Disease Control suggest the following vaccines be administered from 0 to 15 months:
· Hepatitis B
· Rotavirus
· Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis
· Haemophilus Influenzae type b (HIB)
· Pneumococcus (viral Pneumonia)
· Polio
· Influenza
· Measles, Mumps, and Rubella
· Varicella
· Hepatitis A
· Meningococcus (Meningitis)

Several of these require multiple shots over time, for a total minimum of 21 shots in your baby's first year of life. Just 30 years ago, in 1980, and with no real outbreaks of polio or any real deadly diseases, children were only given 3 shots for Polio, and 4 shots of the Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis vaccine; that's one-third the number of shots today's babies receive. Forty and fifty years ago children were not given vaccines until they were ready to enter into the first grade, usual the age of six.

Before the 1940s, autism was uncommon and extremely rare. Right around the middle of the 1940's the government started the vaccine program, and bingo, autism reared it's ugly head. It first started in the affluent and wealthier families because there were no free government programs readily available, as there are today. Again, most diseases were on a steady decline prior to vaccines. Between 1850 and 1940, diseases decreased 90% because of improved sanitation and hygienic practices that you scoffed about in my earlier posts--but those are the facts.



Which means that man who is claiming that there have only been 3 documented cases is lying.

Going back to the article that Thomas Corriher wrote:

Opposition websites often claim that vaccination is normal in the Amish community, and so is autism. These are lies. While there may be some small Amish groups which do vaccinate, and thus have autism; neither is normal. The United Press, in conjunction with Generation Rescue, published a story (http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/e.4.pdf) about the rates of autism in an Amish community in Pennsylvania. Reporter Dan Olmsted went searching for the autistic Amish. Statistically, there should have been around 130 Amish in the community he examined. Dan discovered 3 cases (that's three). The first was an adopted Chinese girl, who had suffered through all of her vaccinations on the same day. The second developed symptoms within 24 hours after getting vaccinated, and there was no information about the third case. The reporter even spoke with the local allopathic (orthodox) doctor, who the Amish sometimes visit whenever herbs and supplements do not suffice (for instance, broken bones). The doctor admitted that he had never seen autism in the community.


Thomas also wrote another excellent article: If Vaccines Are Safe, Then Why Did Congress Give Manufacturers Special Legal Immunity? Why Are They Above the Law? (http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/200-if-vaccines-are-safe-then-why-did-congress-give-them-legal-immunity-why-are-they-above-the-law.html) Why do you suppose congress gave special legal immunity to the vaccine makers?

[Nickels]

My "huh?" response was with regards to my post addressing the fact that children, today, are receiving upwards of 36 plus vaccines as compared to 50 years ago.



because OBVIOUSLY, the ONLY thing that differs from today and 1962 is 36 vaccines, right? Oh wait, we're in a water fluoridation thread, so there's that.

[donnay]

because OBVIOUSLY, the ONLY thing that differs from today and 1962 is 36 vaccines, right? Oh wait, we're in a water fluoridation thread, so there's that.

What's the difference--they're both toxic. Force medication is forced medication.

[Nickels]

What's the difference--there both toxic. Force medication is forced medication.

so it's possible vaccines cause low IQ and fluoridation causes autism?

[donnay]

so it's possible vaccines cause low IQ and fluoridation causes autism?

Both affect the brain--especially in a newborn whose brain is not quite fully developed.

[AmericasLastHope]

No need to put fluoride in the water supply, just put it in salt: http://www.gaia-health.com/articles51/000081-Fluoridated-Salt.shtml#.UBY37aD09xJ

[KingNothing]

I don't doubt this is true, but the whole point of publishing it in a journal is that so other scientists can try to duplicate the results. Cold fusion was also published in a scientific journal, but that doesn't mean it exists.

This isn't a Reuters story. This is a press release. This is a link to the abstract. (http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=5C98A897B69464FD44D 98698EE9FC4A1?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Feh p.1104912)


Don't go letting logic, intelligence and reason get in the way of dogmatic beliefs!

[KingNothing]

What's the difference--they're both toxic. Force medication is forced medication.

Right. Anything forced is bad, wrong, and silly.

Vaccines, if people are free to partake in their use, are an overwhelmingly positive thing for humanity. The numbers don't lie. Hating them is just foolish at this point.

[angelatc]

Thomas also wrote another excellent article: If Vaccines Are Safe, Then Why Did Congress Give Manufacturers Special Legal Immunity? Why Are They Above the Law? (http://healthwyze.org/index.php/component/content/article/200-if-vaccines-are-safe-then-why-did-congress-give-them-legal-immunity-why-are-they-above-the-law.html) Why do you suppose congress gave special legal immunity to the vaccine makers?

Because there's no need to actually prove damages in civil court, as the breast implant manufacturers found out. In front of a jury, medical facts are boring and confusing. Emotion trumps fact. Developing drugs for children is something that almost all manufacturers shy away from for that reason alone.

[angelatc]

Mmmmm, fluoride, now that is just so yummy to my tummy, right there! Mmmmmm, Mmmmmm, Goood!


http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/teeth.jpg


I suspect those pictures were taken in an area of the country where the naturally occurring fluoride in the water is too high for consumption. I lived in an area like that in Texas. The poor people in the neighborhood trailer park who were drinking water from the untreated water supply have teeth that looked like that, while the working class used bottled water for drinking and cooking.

Think of it as God mocking the "all natural anything is best!!!" position.

[angelatc]

Right. Anything forced is bad, wrong, and silly.

Vaccines, if people are free to partake in their use, are an overwhelmingly positive thing for humanity. The numbers don't lie. Hating them is just foolish at this point.

You can't reason with them. Remember that Marxist saying, that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth? That's what's happening here. The only reason I participate is that there are a lot of young people in these forums who have never lived in a world where children were routinely killed or maimed by these diseases, and those people might actually believe the nonsense.

[angelatc]

I do not, (you knew that, right?)

But ,,,
Why putting anti-depressants in our water supply is perfectly reasonable
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/science-scope/why-putting-anti-depressants-in-our-water-supply-is-perfectly-reasonable/11613
Lithium in the Water Supply
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E1DE1E39F930A25751C1A96F9C8B 63

Don't think for a minute they aren't thinking about it.

I'm glad I have a deep well.

Lithium is another chemical that occurs naturally in the water supply in some parts of the country.

[angelatc]

. Between 1850 and 1940, diseases decreased 90% because of improved sanitation and hygienic practices that you scoffed about in my earlier posts--but those are the facts.


They are not the facts. It's a theory, one that's easily disapproved. Improved hygiene doesn't explain that incidences of all the diseases dropped like a stone only when the vaccines were introduced, and not simultaneously. It also doesn't explain why the diseases drop in third world nations when aggressive vaccine programs are implemented. YOu've been shown this over and over, but since the facts don't fit your agenda, you simply refuse to acknowledge them.



Going back to the article that Thomas Corriher wrote:

[I]Opposition websites often claim that vaccination is normal in the Amish community, and so is autism. These are lies.

That's a lie.




The United Press, in conjunction with Generation Rescue, published a story (http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/e.4.pdf) about the rates of autism in an Amish community in Pennsylvania. Reporter Dan Olmsted went searching for the autistic Amish. Statistically, there should have been around 130 Amish in the community he examined. Dan discovered 3 cases (that's three). The first was an adopted Chinese girl, who had suffered through all of her vaccinations on the same day. The second developed symptoms within 24 hours after getting vaccinated, and there was no information about the third case. The reporter even spoke with the local allopathic (orthodox) doctor, who the Amish sometimes visit whenever herbs and supplements do not suffice (for instance, broken bones). [U]The doctor admitted that he had never seen autism in the community.


So I posted anecdotal evidence by a reporter who cites a doctor that claims he sees quite a bit of austim in a community, and you posted anecdotal evidence by a reporter who cites a doctor who claims he's seen none. But your reporter then went on to diagnose 3 cases himself? Because the doctor he talked to claims to have never seen any cases? That's just simply making things up. And since Mr. Olmstead has made quite a bit of money writing for the antivaxxers, I think it's fair to assume his bias is tilted in the direction of finding what he needs to find to please his book-buying audience.

In case you missed it, I also posted a link to a real study, not to be confused with a story. But since it doesn't fit your narrative, I can understand why you don't acknowledge it.

[angelatc]

Ya know. Yer being pretty snotty. I ain't getting involved in this because it is tail chasing and the vaccine side doesn't budge. I will say that in the past four days surfing here and there on various news sites that i have come across maybe 25-35 vaccine horror stories. All of these families cannot be lying about the devastation and the fact that the children were fine till they got the vaccine.

I don't think they're intentionally lying, but if all those people are right, they should be able to produce actual evidence. Rep Dan Burton in Indiana has a grandaughter that he swears became autistic after the vaccines. I started researching it then, and while my heart goes out to the family, I think he is wrong. And I am not buying into the theory that all the doctors and all the scientists and all the politicians in the world are willing participants in a scheme to intentionally poison children. That's fucking insane.




Like I said prior..one of the shots I had at age 12 made amber colored sticky fluid come out of my ears and cause a rash of hard pimples anywhere it flowed on my skin. I assume my brain blood barrier ejected it as I have always been good at identifying what does not belong in my body and getting it out. I can imagine if this amber fluid got into my brain. I would probably have been lolling and drooling and unable to speak if the pain in my ears was any indication.

Rev9

I don't doubt it, and I have no idea what it was. But that doesn't happen on a regular basis.

[KingNothing]

And I am not buying into the theory that all the doctors and all the scientists and all the politicians in the world are willing participants in a scheme to intentionally poison children. That's fucking insane.


You're just blind, maaaaaaaaaan! You're too afraid to accept the reality! Wake up, you sheep!


We're debating people who would be buying snake oil a few generations ago, and eschewing hygiene because the "medical establishment" was pushing it.

[donnay]

You can't reason with them. Remember that Marxist saying, that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth? That's what's happening here. The only reason I participate is that there are a lot of young people in these forums who have never lived in a world where children were routinely killed or maimed by these diseases, and those people might actually believe the nonsense.


LMAO! That's funny...first thing that came to mine when I saw your response was; "the pot calling the kettle black." It's interesting to note it wasn't a Marxist that said that it was Joseph Goebbels Nazi Propagandist:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

It is also interesting to point out that while Germany had Goebbels, America had Edward Bernay's (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Edward_Bernays). So while you incorrectly thought people were duped by Marxist, you have been duped by Edward Bernays propaganda.

Angela, there is a huge difference between sodium fluoride and natural fluoride. Sodium fluoride is man-made and is toxic waste and natural fluoride is umm naturally occurring in the earth. Fluoride in it's natural form is an essential trace element. The natural fluoride found in the teeth is called Apatite (calcium fluoro-chloro-hydroxyl phosphate). The man-made Sodium fluoride a chemical by-product of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. It has absolutely no nutritional value whatsoever. It was also used as a rat poisoning and worked rather well as that. The reason it killed rats, deader than a hammer, was because it attacked their central nervous system.

Let me introduce to you Dr. Phyllis Mullenix.

Her Bio:
DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training. She graduated from the Truman State University (Zoology -- magna cum laude). Her Postdoctoral Training was as a Research Fellow, Environmental Medicine, The John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore. In the 1980s, Dr. Mullenix was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center, a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School. She was invited to start Forsyth's Toxicology Department because of her expertise in neurotoxicology. She is presently a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children's Hospital Medical Center in Boston. Dr. Mullenix's academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.

The first test Dr. Mullenix was asked to perform at the Forsyth Dental Center was a test related to neurotoxicity of fluoride. The person who asked her to perform this test was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, one of the founders of the Society of Toxicology. Since that time, Dr. Mullenix has conducted additional research related to fluoride including one study which is about to be published. She is considered to be the world's foremost expert on the neurotoxicity of fluoride compounds.

Because of her expertise, Dr. Mullenix is very busy publishing research, presenting at conferences, and meeting a large number of other obligations. But she has generously offered to discuss the issue of pre-natal and post-natal fluoride neurotoxicity and its relationship to ADD/ADHD and other neurological conditions.

http://www.holisticmed.com/add/mullenix_bio.html


Here is an excerpt of an interview with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/mullenix-interview.htm

I. ACADEMIC BACKGROUND

Connett: We're talking with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, who in 1995, published a very important work on the neurotoxic effects of fluoride in rat studies. And Phyllis would you begin by telling us your background? What are your qualifications?

Mullenix: Well, I got my PhD in pharmacology from the University of Kansas back in 1975. From University of Kansas Medical Center I went to John Hopkins School of Public Health in Baltimore between 1975 and 1977. And then in 1977 I was hired to come to Boston and work at Harvard with Dr. Herbert Needleman on the lead project. And so, I started then in 1977 and I've been in the Boston area for the past 20 years.

I was at the Children's Hospital in Harvard Medical School in the Psychiatry Departments and Department of Neuropathology at the Harvard Med School between 1977 and 1982. Then [in] 1982 I left and went to the Forsythe Dental Center in Boston. I went first into the Department of Pharmacology and then in 1983 we established the first toxicology department in any dental research institution in the world, in 1983.

Connett: And, if I may interrupt, your task at that point, your brief as you understood it, was to examine the toxicological effects of the kind of materials that we're using in dentistry?

Mullenix: Yes, Dr. Hein, who was the director of the institute at the time, wrote a nice newspaper article that was in the Forsythe Dental Center news in the spring of 1984 which described who I was and why I was brought in to the department and that I was brought in to head up this department to look at the environmental impact and the toxicity of products that are used by dentists and the dental community. And in particular they specifically mentioned fluoride, mercury, nitrous oxide, and some of those things.

II. NEUROTOXICITY OF FLUORIDE

Connett: Ok. Could you briefly summarize your paper, and where was it published first of all?

Mullenix: My paper concerning the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats was published in the Neurotoxicology and Teratology journal. That's a peer reviewed journal... And that was published in 1995. It was submitted in 1994, but it was published, it appeared on the shelf, in '95.

Connett: After extensive peer review?

Mullenix: That's right. As a matter of fact, it went through extra reviewers because the editor at the time recognized that this was a controversial subject and that to be on the safe side he suggested that they send it to an extra reviewer... and they took a good deal of time with it, and did it right.

Connett: And what did you find?

Mullenix: The study basically found three things. First of all, that if you put sodium fluoride in the drinking water of young animals, that with time - meaning a period of weeks in a rat's lifetime - they would develop changes in their behavioral patterns. And that pattern change was a hypoactivity pattern. They became slower, 'couch potatoes' if you like. But it was definitely a hypoactivity pattern. And it had a specific pattern to it which was very, very strikingly similar to the pattern that I had seen in substances or drugs that they used to treat acute lymphocytic leukemia in children, which clinically cause IQ deficits. And when I saw that specific pattern... that I was getting when I exposed animals to radiation or chemotherapy and steroids... that was very striking.

So, that was one thing - in young animals that were exposed, they became hypoactive.

I also found that if I started the exposure at a little later age, I would get the same pattern, but I would get it at a blood level of fluoride that was lower, even, than the young animals. So it suggested that, in particular females, that the older animal was more susceptible to this fluoride in the drinking water.

And a part of this whole common theme - what's happening at different ages - we also did a prenatal study. Because I wanted to see if I could do one specific exposure in the prenatal situation giving a subcu[taneous] shot of sodium fluoride at a specific age where a certain part of the brain is developing, if the fetuses of this mother, when they grew up, if they had any type of permanent behavioral damage.

And we gave the subcu[taneous] injections to the mother, we gave no other fluoride exposure, and when those pups were born and when they grew up and we tested them, they had a permanent change. And their pattern was this very distinct changes that are compatible with hyperactivity.

Connett: Hyperactive.

Mullenix: Right.

Connett: So this is above, more active than usual?

Mullenix: That's right. And some people would say, well doesn't it seem a little odd that if you gave the prenatal exposure you get a hyperactivity, and if you give a post-natal exposure you get a hypoactivity? And I say not at all. That's not unusual at all because the stage of brain development in the prenatal situation is extremely different from that in the postnatal situation. So there are different regions of the brain that are developing, therefore you've got different regions of the brain that are going to be susceptible. So it is not at all uncommon to have the long term outcome be strikingly different.

Connett: And you also found that the fluoride accumulated in the brain tissue?

Mullenix: Yes. Besides the prenatal exposures and the postnatal, the third thing that we wanted to look at was - what were the levels of fluoride in the brain? We had gone back in the literature, and it was said, I think it was Gary Whitford's studies that had said... that fluoride did not get across the blood-brain barrier and get into the brain to any extent. But I had a problem with that study, because what they did was they took fluoride and they gave an IV injection and then 1 hour later they looked at the levels in the brain.

But that's a far different cry from how people really get fluoride, they get it, you know, orally and day-to-day. And so, looking at fluoride levels in brain tissue 1 hour after injecting an IV does not mimic the real world situation at all...

So we went in with our drinking-water exposure, took out the brains - we dissected the brains in these animals into seven different regions - and then analyzed each region for the fluoride content. Now what we found was that, absolutely no question, there was major accumulations of fluoride in all the regions of the brain, and that some areas looked like there were greater accumulations than others, that were sex-determinant. That was a very interesting piece of information.

Just the fact that we could any level of fluoride at all, when we weren't expecting the brain to accumulate any fluoride, was a very big surprise and very, very disturbing to some people, of all things, that fluoride was accumulating in the brain.

[Note: At this point in the interview, Connett asked Mullenix questions concerning her relationship with Jack Hein, the Director of Forsythe, & Harold Hodge, a prominent expert on fluoride toxicology who oversaw Mullenix's work. To read this portion of the interview, scroll down to Section V ("The Manhattan Project Connection") or click here.]

III. REACTION TO MULLENIX'S FINDINGS

Connett: Now, when you got these results, when it became apparent that fluoride, both prenatally and postnally, effected rat behavior, what kind of responses did you get from your institution and elsewhere?

Mullenix: Well, there was two separate types of responses.

First of all, when I went to Jack Hein [the Director of Forsythe], and I said, look I think there's a problem with this stuff and I explained the data and everything, Dr. Hein got very excited. He thought this was extremely important. And he said, I want you to fly down to the National Institute of Dental Research and tell them your results. Forsythe paid for my trip down there.

I went there. It was in September of 1990. I'll never forget it.

Jack Hein also went with me, and he presented this to Harold Loe, who was then the Director of the National Institute of Dental Research, and I was to give this seminar.

Well just prior to my seminar, I walked over to the main corridor of the National Institutes of Health, and I walked in and all on the walls of this main corridor was this story called "The Miracle of Fluoride", all over the walls. And it had newspaper articles and artifacts, everything, from back in the 1940s and '50s, which described and made fun of the anti-fluoridation movement at that time. It called the people crackpots and it made jokes, it had stories about little old ladies in tennis shoes, you know, screaming about communist plots and everything else. And I'm very upset at this point because I knew how they made fun of people, about anti-fluoridationists, and I'm getting ready to walk into the National Institute of Dental Research and tell them that I thought that fluoride was lowering the IQ of children.

Continued... (http://www.fluoridealert.org/mullenix-interview.htm)
_________________________________

The man-made sodium fluoride was first introduced to the American people compliments of the Aluminum Industry/Manhattan Project (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14949). <----If you will click on the link, I have provided, it gives you all the needed information .

[KingNothing]

The kookiest of conspiracy theorists love to bring up Edward Bernays, as if they're privy to secret information regarding the human mind that the rest of us are not. And that, really, is the most important prerequisite to fall into such delusions --- a belief that the person engulfed in the delusional conspiracy possesses some knowledge that the non-believers do not have. They're an enlightened shepherd. The rest of us are just sheep about to be eaten by wolves. Try to tell them that you've read everything they have, and taken it a step further by considering the sources of information, their biases, their methods, and their accuracy, and you're just blind, or you're too afraid to admit reality, or some such nonsense. That they may be delusional or practicing faulty logic never occurs to them, which is why these theories are so dangerous. They become raison d'etres, supported by faith, not reason. There's no coming back from that.

[donnay]

The kookiest of conspiracy theorists love to bring up Edward Bernays, as if they're privy to secret information regarding the human mind that the rest of us are not. And that, really, is the most important prerequisite to fall into such delusions --- a belief that the person engulfed in the delusional conspiracy possesses some knowledge that the non-believers do not have. They're an enlightened shepherd. The rest of us are just sheep about to be eaten by wolves. Try to tell them that you've read everything they have, and taken it a step further by considering the sources of information, their biases, their methods, and their accuracy, and you're just blind, or you're too afraid to admit reality, or some such nonsense. That they may be delusional or practicing faulty logic never occurs to them, which is why these theories are so dangerous. They become raison d'etres, supported by faith, not reason. There's no coming back from that.

If it is nonsense why have you fallen for the conspiracy? There is enough documented proof with regards to the Sodium Fluoride conspiracy yet you continue to pick-nits and derail the arguments. I brought up Edward Bernays, specifically, to point out to Angela that Goebbles was not a Marxist. Goebbles applies the same propaganda that Bernays did.

Bernays' was in fact the master of spin. You can deny that very fact, I certainly won't put a gun to your head to make you believe it. Do your own research. Nevertheless, it is what it is.


Do you have any response to the evidence Dr. Mullenix presented?

[Nickels]

LMAO! That's funny...first thing that came to mine when I saw your response was; "the pot calling the kettle black." It's interesting to note it wasn't a Marxist that said that it was Joseph Goebbels Nazi Propagandist:

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."

Actually you're both wrong. The quote was not from Goebbels, and I don't know who it's from (most likely made up)
http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html

[Nickels]

The kookiest of conspiracy theorists love to bring up Edward Bernays, as if they're privy to secret information regarding the human mind that the rest of us are not. And that, really, is the most important prerequisite to fall into such delusions --- a belief that the person engulfed in the delusional conspiracy possesses some knowledge that the non-believers do not have. They're an enlightened shepherd. The rest of us are just sheep about to be eaten by wolves. Try to tell them that you've read everything they have, and taken it a step further by considering the sources of information, their biases, their methods, and their accuracy, and you're just blind, or you're too afraid to admit reality, or some such nonsense. That they may be delusional or practicing faulty logic never occurs to them, which is why these theories are so dangerous. They become raison d'etres, supported by faith, not reason. There's no coming back from that.

Oh man, the idea that people can think freely for themselves rather than be obedient slaves of the state must really threaten you. How much is the state paying you to annoy them? [/sarcasm]

I do think there is hope for people who are always self proclaimed enlightened, at some point, if you keep asking them "What would it take to convince you you're wrong", they might actually stop and think. They might not turn over, but at least if they're able to tell you what will force them to change your mind, even if it's an impossible and ridiculous demand, you know they've given it a bit of thought.

[dannno]

you may be right, so they have a different agenda than the depopulators, right?

No, same agenda. First they have to make the people stupid and docile enough to accept their depopulation agenda.

What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that sodium fluoride is not the same as the fluoride that is found naturally in fresh drinking water. Sodium fluoride is industrial waste which is also marketed as rat poison. It is also commonly added to community drinking water supplies, but there are at least 2 or 3 types that they add. I wouldn't trust any of them, I think there is enough fluoride that occurs naturally in water and if somebody wants to increase the quantity they get then they can add it to their dental products.

[donnay]

Actually you're both wrong. The quote was not from Goebbels, and I don't know who it's from (most likely made up)
http://www.ihr.org/other/weber2011fakequotations.html

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_goebbels/

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

[Nickels]

No, same agenda. First they have to make the people stupid and docile enough to accept their depopulation agenda.


WOW, that's a long term plan, why risk taking so long and allow it to be foiled?



What I haven't seen mentioned yet is that sodium fluoride is not the same as the fluoride that is found naturally in fresh drinking water.


But F- anion is what it is, regardless of the counter ion being Na+ or anything else, isn't it? Unless you're telling me sodium ions are poisonous.

Are you the kind that'll tell me mercury is mercury regardless of whether it's thimerisol? Or sugar is sugar regardless if it's in honey or refined? Or CO2 is CO2 regardless of who outputted it?



Sodium fluoride is industrial waste which is also marketed as rat poison. It is also commonly added to community drinking water supplies, but there are at least 2 or 3 types that they add. I wouldn't trust any of them, I think there is enough fluoride that occurs naturally in water and if somebody wants to increase the quantity they get then they can add it to their dental products.

Wait, so there's such thing as "healthy and safe fluoride dosage"?

[Nickels]

http://thinkexist.com/quotes/joseph_goebbels/

http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html

first link provides no source for the quote, second link doesn't have the quote at all.

I went ahead and did more digging for you, but let me know if you have better sources.

http://www.goebbels.info/goebbels-goebbels.htm
Quotes "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." and "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." are widely and incorrectly attributed to Goebbels. It is probable that these are the paraphrases of the Goebbels' text "Churchill's Lie Factory" where he said: "The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik," 12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel

Here is the article
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb29.htm

[donnay]

first link provides no source for the quote, second link doesn't have the quote at all.


Your are going to have to do some research, I am too busy to spoon feed you today.

http://tribuneofthepeople.com/2012/06/22/so-sayeth-joseph-goebbels/

[Nickels]

Your are going to have to do some research, I am too busy to spoon feed you today.

Too bad, I did. But I can wait. I really want to know if there's a source for such a quote. But so far I've found :

1. People who claim he said it, can't find a source
2. People who claim there is no source, gave a probably paraphrase
3. Nobody has responded to those who say there is no such quote

You can simply admit you've given it your best, there's no crime in being wrong or mistaken. I know you didn't make up the quote, you just believed a popular myth.

[Nickels]

Your are going to have to do some research, I am too busy to spoon feed you today.

http://tribuneofthepeople.com/2012/06/22/so-sayeth-joseph-goebbels/

FAIL.
Still no source.

Do you know what a source is? A reference to the original, date, document, occasion or relevant information to which we can properly attribute a person saying something. The fact a source can't be found is amazing, because even today, people can be easily attributed by a fake media article (and the media article, often online article, because a source, even if a mistaken one).

[Anti Federalist]

Right. Anything forced is bad, wrong, and silly.

So, you would be in favor of a SWAT team coming to some peaceful refusnik's home, strapping them down and medicating them against their will.

That about it?

Heart disease and stroke kills many more people each year than infectious disease.

Are you in favor of health police doing the same thing and forcing broccoli down people's throats.

And of course, in both of these threads nobody touched the fact the medical establishment kills over 10 times as many people every year that murders do.

[Nickels]

So, you would be in favor of a SWAT team coming to some peaceful refusnik's home, strapping them down and medicating them against their will.


If that person threatens nobody but himself, then no.



That about it?

Heart disease and stroke kills many more people each year than infectious disease.


Yes.



Are you in favor of health police doing the same thing and forcing broccoli down people's throats.


Same answer, not unless it threatens other people.



And of course, in both of these threads nobody touched the fact the medical establishment kills over 10 times as many people every year that murders do.
How many lives does the medical establishment save, compared to murderers? How many deaths per doctor vs deaths per murderer?

[NewRightLibertarian]

And that, really, is the most important prerequisite to fall into such delusions --- a belief that the person engulfed in the delusional conspiracy possesses some knowledge that the non-believers do not have. They're an enlightened shepherd.

Nope, not enlightened. We're just not arrogant cowards who would rather embrace truth than stick our heads in the sand.

[Anti Federalist]

If that person threatens nobody but himself, then no.

Same answer, not unless it threatens other people.

Define "threaten".


How many lives does the medical establishment save, compared to murderers? How many deaths per doctor vs deaths per murderer?

I dunno.

Maybe somebody should study that.

200000 a year dead from medical errors and mistakes is pretty substantial, regardless.

I could find no good numbers of how many people "use" the medical system each year.

But, lets assume it's a number in the stratosphere, roughly 2/3 of the total US population.

That's a 1 percent death rate.

[Revolution9]

WOW, that's a long term plan, why risk taking so long and allow it to be foiled?



But F- anion is what it is, regardless of the counter ion being Na+ or anything else, isn't it? Unless you're telling me sodium ions are poisonous.

Yer not much of a chemist so maybe you should not speculate on that which you have little grasp of. Quite often the substitution of a halogen will change a substance from non-toxic or beneficial to sheer poison as well as substituting one of the halides with the same halogen.. Fluorine based compounds will snap your achilles tendon and calcify your pineal gland. All I need is one glass of fluoridated water to feel like I have paste under my skin and a mild flue.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

If that person threatens nobody but himself, then no.



Yes.



Same answer, not unless it threatens other people.


How many lives does the medical establishment save, compared to murderers? How many deaths per doctor vs deaths per murderer?

Yer pretty threatening to other people/. I say we hogtie you and shove some psychiatric compliance suppositories where they will immediately medicate the afflicted area.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

FAIL..

You fail for asking others to research what you should. There is tons of data out there. You will conveniently ignore it and continue your obtuse sidetracking BS.

Rev9

[dannno]

WOW, that's a long term plan, why risk taking so long and allow it to be foiled?


Patience is the key to victory. As they say in chess, if you don't have patience, don't pickup the game.




But F- anion is what it is, regardless of the counter ion being Na+ or anything else, isn't it? Unless you're telling me sodium ions are poisonous.

Are you the kind that'll tell me mercury is mercury regardless of whether it's thimerisol? Or sugar is sugar regardless if it's in honey or refined? Or CO2 is CO2 regardless of who outputted it?

I think that was my point.. refined sugar, raw sugar, honey and HFCS are all carbs, but some are more 'poisonous' than others.




Wait, so there's such thing as "healthy and safe fluoride dosage"?

It would be like saying there is a healthy and safe arsenic dosage. You're probably getting plenty from the environment, you don't need to supplement arsenic into your diet.

[twoggle]

It seems pretty obvious given the latest research as has been detailed in other posts and in my last post (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?384603-Harvard-Study-Finds-Fluoride-Lowers-IQ&p=4557258&viewfull=1#post4557258) that fluoride can cross the blood brain barrier and is neurotoxic. One of the studies used ~1 ppm of fluoride and found adverse changes in the brain. Is you haven't seen the unanimous statement from scientists and engineers at the EPA headquarters, I think it is worth reading:
http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm
as well as the video interviews of researchers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88pfVo3bZLY

In the 1950's, Dr. George Waldbott published several papers on the clinical manifestations of chronic fluoride toxicity and/or allergy. After examining nearly 200 cases, he found that the clinical symptoms were nearly identical to those experienced by people working at or residing near fluoride-emitting factories. Some of the symptoms included: headaches/migraines, arthritis, lower urinary tract disease, colitis, myopathy, joint pain, lethargy, back pain, diarrhea, pain and/or numbness in arms and legs, tingling/burning feeling, cramping, weakness, memory loss. The following papers were published in medical journals and detail some of the cases and double-blind tests that were conducted to confirm that sodium fluoride was the culprit:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/46980434/Fluoridation-A-Clinician-s-Experience-Waldbott-SMJ-1980
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/allergy/waldbott-1958.html

In the early 1970's, a double-blind study was conducted on the short-term effects of drinking sodium fluoride in water. The study was conducted by Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, 12 other physicians, a pharmacist and an attorney. Some of the adverse symptoms included: depression, visual distrurbances, headaches, joint pain and stomach/intestinal symptoms. Published in Fluoride, Volume 7:146-152, 1974. Shortly after this research was published, The Netherlands discontinued putting sodium fluoride in the water supply.

[pcosmar]

WOW, that's a long term plan, why risk taking so long and allow it to be foiled?


Are you familiar with Fabian Socialism.. Aside from the political arena,, they are also Social Engineers.
Slow and methodical is their MO. Incrementalism.

They have been working toward their goals since the 1800s.

Long term plans are what they do,, and do effectively.

[Weston White]

I suspect those pictures were taken in an area of the country where the naturally occurring fluoride in the water is too high for consumption. I lived in an area like that in Texas. The poor people in the neighborhood trailer park who were drinking water from the untreated water supply have teeth that looked like that, while the working class used bottled water for drinking and cooking.

Think of it as God mocking the "all natural anything is best!!!" position.

Sorry to say, but facts are not malleable. But by all means, go on and keep suspecting, whatever it is that you suspect.

[Weston White]

Lithium is another chemical that occurs naturally in the water supply in some parts of the country.

You know if all of these chemicals are naturally occurring (and conveniently so) then there is simply no valid reason, whatsoever, to forcibly distill them.

[KingNothing]

Nope, not enlightened. We're just not arrogant cowards who would rather embrace truth than stick our heads in the sand.


And there it is, like clockwork.

The rest of us just stick our heads in the sand. It has nothing to do with the total insanity of your position, or that it is built on half-truths and deception. No, no. I'm just a coward.

[KingNothing]

No, same agenda. First they have to make the people stupid and docile enough to accept their depopulation agenda.


Do you understand how absurd that premise is? WHY?! Why do they have to make people stupid and docile? What evidence is there that people are docile, anyway? This is complete and utter nonsense.

[KingNothing]

first link provides no source for the quote, second link doesn't have the quote at all.

I went ahead and did more digging for you, but let me know if you have better sources.

http://www.goebbels.info/goebbels-goebbels.htm
Quotes "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." and "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed." are widely and incorrectly attributed to Goebbels. It is probable that these are the paraphrases of the Goebbels' text "Churchill's Lie Factory" where he said: "The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik," 12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel

Here is the article
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb29.htm

Hey, don't go and let facts get in the way of the narrative that some lunatics might want to create!

[KingNothing]

So, you would be in favor of a SWAT team coming to some peaceful refusnik's home, strapping them down and medicating them against their will.

That about it?

Heart disease and stroke kills many more people each year than infectious disease.

Are you in favor of health police doing the same thing and forcing broccoli down people's throats.

And of course, in both of these threads nobody touched the fact the medical establishment kills over 10 times as many people every year that murders do.

So, what of my post in which I said "anything forced is bad, wrong and silly" makes you think that I would be in favor of any of those forced things, and not find them bad, wrong and silly?

Are you people really this insane? Really?

EDIT: Oh, and I do love the critique of the "medical establishment" thrown in there at the end for no rational reason, as if modern medicine has been a pox on our existence. ...does anyone here believe fluoridated water is necessary or inherently helpful? Does anyone here believe we should run to the emergency room and get poked and prodded and radiated and injected with chemicals any time we have an ache? You're tilting at windmills.

[KingNothing]

Chicago has fluoridated water. They must need to increase the dosage to calm that warzone down.
Philly has fluoridated water. Their sports fans throw snowballs at Santa and batteries at players. They must not have gotten the memo that they're supposed to be docile.
New York has fluoridated water. They're widely considered to be some of the rudest, most confrontational, people in America. Maybe they all drink milk instead of tap water.

What would it take for people to admit that fluoridated water is based on faulty science, and not a grand scheme to pacify, then exterminate, humanity? I imagine that many of you are relatively young. If, 40 or 50 years from now, you are on your deathbed and 98 percent of the population hasn't been exterminated, would you admit that you were wrong about the "globalist agenda" to kill us all?

[pcosmar]

Chicago has fluoridated water. They must need to increase the dosage to calm that warzone down.
Philly has fluoridated water. Their sports fans throw snowballs at Santa and batteries at players.
New York has fluoridated water. They're widely considered to be some of the rudest, most confrontational, people in America.

The study said "lowers IQ",, not anything about docile.

From your example cities,,
well..

[specsaregood]

//

[donnay]

On a sidenote, I find it interesting that one of the most socialist, blue states in the US (new jersey) is also the one with the least amount of flouridated public water supply.

As it stands now. But it's still a million plus people forced medicated.

New Jersey again considers fluoridating drinking water [Feb. 5, 2012]

States rankings for residents receiving flouridated water, by percent of population and total amount
State and rank Percent Total
1. Maryland 99.8 4,839,490
2. Kentucky 99.4 3,913,321
3. Minnesota 99 4,097,816
4. North Dakota 96 557,291
5. Georgia 96 9,275,167...
46. Montana 30 239,365
47. Louisiana 28 1,251,996
48. Oregon 27 838,902
49. New Jersey 14 1,120,552
50. Hawaii 11 139,344



Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008 Flouridation Statistics
http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/breaking/new-jersey-again-considers-fluoridating-drinking-water/article_86bcd6c8-5049-11e1-b3c6-0019bb2963f4.html


ETA: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2010stats.htm

[donnay]

Common Food Items Could Contain 180 Times More Fluoride Than Tap Water

Anthony Gucciardi
NaturalSociety (http://naturalsociety.com/common-food-items-could-contain-180-times-more-fluoride-than-tap-water/)
February 7, 2011

Fluoridated tap water and toothpaste are oftentimes considered the main sources of fluoride exposure, but it turns out that common food items could actually be largely contributing to your fluoride intake. According to fluoride expert Jeff Green, who has been actively protesting and studying the effects of fluoride on the body for other 15 years, one common food product contains up to 180 times more fluoride than your fluoridated tap water (http://naturalsociety.com/water-fluoridation-war-government-admit-dangers-experts-speak-ou/)!

According to Green, the culprit is non-organic food, but not just one kind. If you’re still eating conventionally-farmed food products, you may be unknowingly exposing yourself to extreme levels of fluoride. Green says this is made possible by fluoride going incognito within the food supply in a very concerning way:

“Cryolite is actually sodium aluminum fluoride… This sodium aluminum fluoride is especially effective at killing bugs,” Green says (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/04/jeff-green-on-fluoride-toxins-part-2.aspx). “It’s also very sticky, so when they spray it, it’s more likely to stick on your produce, unless you’re… really working at trying to get it off of it.”

Fluoride-Based Pesticide Contaminating Food Staples

While Green states that a large number of non-organic produce items can contain shocking levels of this fluoride-based pesticide, iceberg lettuce may be one of the largest offenders. In fact, iceberg lettuce can now be laced with a startling 180 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride – 180 times higher than the ‘recommended’ water fluoridation level. This ‘health’ food could actually be corroding your body with heavy levels of fluoride. But what other seemingly-healthy produce items contain high amounts of fluoride?

Citrus fruits are actually allowed to contain 95 ppm’s of sodium fluoride.
Potatoes can have as much as 22 ppm’s on the outside, and 2 ppm inside.
Raisins are allowed 55 ppm’s.

Fluoride has been linked to decreased IQ in children (http://naturalsociety.com/your-drinking-water-may-be-lowering-your-iq-giving-you-cancer/), and even the United States government is calling for lower levels of fluoride (http://naturalsociety.com/government-calls-for-lower-fluoride-levels-admits-it-harms-children/) to be added to United States water supplies. Perhaps the next big hurdle in the fight against fluoride will be within the food industry.

[Revolution9]

Hey, don't go and let facts get in the way of the narrative that some lunatics might want to create!

The fact is one glass of fluoridated water will give me a pasty skin feeling and a mild set of fluelike symptoms. No thanks., I don't want the "benefits" of modern scientific nanny-ism and its swaddling rags. It was a few years back implicated in crippling a number of high dollar race horses in Kentucky. Figured it out too late for the horses who had to be put down and out of their misery. Suck up all the fluoride you want. Don't expect everybody else to follow your behavior and certainly do not use your fears of a cavity to force this poison on the rest of us. As far as I know fluoride is not useful at all to biological enitites. They will not die from lack of fluorine in their diet like they would with chlorine such as in sodium chloride.. If there is knowledge opposing the view that fluorine is not needed and actually detrimental to biological entities then point it out because in 40+ years of reading medical literature I have NEVER come across it.


Rev9

[LibForestPaul]

toothpaste isn't intended for eating. Nobody claims it is. Keeping anything that may be swallowed out of reach of children under 6 is a good idea.

I've read back of soap boxes too, I guess if soap boxes don't say "external use only" "do not swallow" I must feel safe eating it?

you can put your soap wherever you want. just keep you damn mandates out of my frkn water, and your enforcers guns pointed away from my head.

[Weston White]

And there it is, like clockwork.

The rest of us just stick our heads in the sand. ... that it is built on half-truths and deception. No, no. I'm just a coward.

Finally, you have come to understand... And here I thought such was actually an impossible achievement for your type.

[Weston White]

Do you understand how absurd that premise is? WHY?! Why do they have to make people stupid and docile? What evidence is there that people are docile, anyway? This is complete and utter nonsense.

Simple, and this is by no means an exhaustive list:

1. So that the general populace looses its full potential for cognitive processing and cannot think for themselves.
2. So that they are devoid of lucidity, inspiration, and creativity.
3. So that they move away from or otherwise avoid the respect of religion.
4. So that they become wholly dependant upon their government for virtually everything.
5. So that they very easily become sick and succumb to illnesses, are always exhausted, and meanwhile both government and business uses the majority of them as cash cows that are always in need of the next new medicine, injection, or cancer treatment.
6. So that it becomes more difficult and less likely to reproduce.
7. So that people become less and less attractive to the opposite sex and thus less likely for family units to exist or remain united, or otherwise procreate, or to otherwise seek an abortion.
8. So that it becomes more and more likely that children that are successfully born will only go on to suffer lifelong mental and/or physical illnesses and will ultimately serve to further perpetuate the manufactured problem.
9. So that they are more prone to alcohol and drug dependency and as a consequence will serve to further justify the “war on drugs” and also to perpetuate the police state ticket writing checkpoints and metro police units.
10. So that the entire “system” becomes so overwhelmed and unsustainably burdened over passing time that there will start to be a massive call for government bureaucracies to take legislative action and remedy the existing epidemics through such means as sanctioned “death-panels”, health treatment concessions, mandated participation in vaccinations, prescriptions, inspections, and the like.

[Weston White]

Chicago has fluoridated water. They must need to increase the dosage to calm that warzone down.
Philly has fluoridated water. Their sports fans throw snowballs at Santa and batteries at players. They must not have gotten the memo that they're supposed to be docile.
New York has fluoridated water. They're widely considered to be some of the rudest, most confrontational, people in America. Maybe they all drink milk instead of tap water.

What would it take for people to admit that fluoridated water is based on faulty science, and not a grand scheme to pacify, then exterminate, humanity? I imagine that many of you are relatively young. If, 40 or 50 years from now, you are on your deathbed and 98 percent of the population hasn't been exterminated, would you admit that you were wrong about the "globalist agenda" to kill us all?

At greater doses fluoride will result in effecting docility, why, after all do you think fluoride compounds are a key ingredient in anti-depressants?

But of course people are going to fight with others that exist and directly impact them within their own environment; do you not think there are ceaseless fights and bickering in mental facilities between staff and patients? They will however, hold little to no concern with anything that is external to that, e.g., Congress could pass legislation forcing them to spend thousands a year on health care plans or otherwise incur a civil penalty and those individuals would hardly care to take notice; or the President could wage seven undeclared (yet congressionally funded) wars with foreign nations that pose no imminent threat to America, while both teaming up with America’s nemesis Al Qaeda to engage in those fights and using the U.S. Military to safeguard foreign drug trades, and those individuals would hardly care to take notice, etc.

[Revolution9]

Simple, and this is by no means an exhaustive list:

1. So that the general populace looses its full potential for cognitive processing and cannot think for themselves.
2. So that they are devoid of lucidity, inspiration, and creativity.
3. So that they move away from or otherwise avoid the respect of religion.
4. So that they become wholly dependant upon their government for virtually everything.
5. So that they very easily become sick and succumb to illnesses, are always exhausted, and meanwhile both government and business uses the majority of them as cash cows that are always in need of the next new medicine, injection, or cancer treatment.
6. So that it becomes more difficult and less likely to reproduce.
7. So that people become less and less attractive to the opposite sex and thus less likely for family units to exist or remain united, or otherwise procreate, or to otherwise seek an abortion.
8. So that it becomes more and more likely that children that are successfully born will only go on to suffer lifelong mental and/or physical illnesses and will ultimately serve to further perpetuate the manufactured problem.
9. So that they are more prone to alcohol and drug dependency and as a consequence will serve to further justify the “war on drugs” and also to perpetuate the police state ticket writing checkpoints and metro police units.
10. So that the entire “system” becomes so overwhelmed and unsustainably burdened over passing time that there will start to be a massive call for government bureaucracies to take legislative action and remedy the existing epidemics through such means as sanctioned “death-panels”, health treatment concessions, mandated participation in vaccinations, prescriptions, inspections, and the like.

And..I don't believe this breaks Godwins law but the Nazi's used it in internment/concentration camps to keep the inmates docile and that is where the biotech idiocy originates from.

Rev9

[NewRightLibertarian]

And there it is, like clockwork.

The rest of us just stick our heads in the sand. It has nothing to do with the total insanity of your position, or that it is built on half-truths and deception. No, no. I'm just a coward.

Yep, you're right. You are a coward.

[donnay]

Historical uses of Fluoride

http://lacasadelarcerojo.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/stalin1.jpg
*Comrade Stalin*

Death Toll - 66 million people Executed, Tortured, Starved, Frozen or Worked to Death in Gulags.
Job - Dictator and Murderous Megalomaniac.
Department - Soviet Russia
Fluoride race position 1st - First to introduce Fluoride into the water supply of Gulags (Concentration camps) in the 1930s.

http://wordincarnate.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/gulag-guard-tower.jpg
A frozen Siberian Gulag.

http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Politics/images-2/adolf-hitler.jpg
*Comrade Hitler*

Death Toll - 25 million people Murdered, Tortured, Starved to death & WWII casualties.
Job - Dictator and Murderous Megalomaniac.
Department - Greater Germany.
Fluoride race position 2nd - Hitler got some great ideas from Stalin, one of which was the use of Fluoride in Concentration and prisoner of war camps.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/othercamps/galleries/auschperiod/Auschwitz%20gate%201940.jpg
Auschwitz

Fluoride - Some interesting facts

"The first (Ed actually 2nd) occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission."

Ref : The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin

USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950's that in his post as U.S.Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to...

"Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their gulags (concentration camps), to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient."

Fluoride, or Hydrofluorosilic acid (H 2 SiF 6 ), is not naturally occurring but is a waste by-product derived from the industrial manufacture of aluminium, zinc, uranium, aerosols, insecticides, fertilizers, plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals.

It is also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972 ranking in toxicity above lead and just below arsenic.

Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

American toothpastes containing fluoride are by law obliged to state, '"WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."


http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Price-of-Too-Much-Fluoride&id=1134567


Sodium Fluoride - The Obedience Drug!

http://presselibreinternationale.com/fluor/_PDF/sodium_fluoride_obedience_drug.pdf

http://flickthefluoride.blogspot.com/2010/07/historical-uses-of-fluoride.html

[twoggle]

At greater doses fluoride will result in effecting docility, why, after all do you think fluoride compounds are a key ingredient in anti-depressants?

Good point about anti-depressants. I don't know with 100% certainty that fluoride makes people docile, but certainly anything that makes people more ill will probably leave them with less energy to take action in support of their freedoms.

Here is an excerpt from a review of the book: "Fluoride: The Freedom Fight" by Dr. Hans Moolenburgh:

"Other interesting research Findings are also recorded in 'Fluoride: The Freedom Fight.' In the fluoridated town of Aalsmeer, a flower grower who was raising pheasants observed peculiar birth defects among chicks of mother pheasants drinking fluoridated water, namely, an extra toe or a deformed beak. Moreover, these fluoridated chicks were also unusually tame; they made no attempt to flutter away on being touched, in contrast to non-fluoridated chicks.

"One of the scientists in the group, Dr. Mien, a neurologist, had done a dissertation on cholinesterase inhibition by fluoride and had prepared a presentation of it for the ISFR conference held in Holland in February, 1976. Dr. Mien's experiments had been conducted on blood outside the body. To finalize her research, however, it was imperative to determine the effect of fluoridated water on cholinesterase inside the body. With the discontinuation of fluoridation in Amersterdam following the Dutch High Court decision in 1973 to outlaw fluoridation, the constant stream of patients with side effects had dried up. To solve this problem, the majority of the doctors and their wives in the research group volunteered to become subjects for the study.

"The results were dramatic. 'A severe disruption of the cholinesterase function was demonstrated in each case. In a normal person cholinesterase shows a sort of slow, undulating pattern, but in the fluoridated individuals chaos prevailed. There was a definite inhibition of cholinesterase activity.' Since, in addition to its role in nerve impulses, cholinesterase is important in maintaining stability in membrane permeability, its inhibition by fluoridation could make 'the cell membrane more porous -- one more reason why we should take care.' In this way, fluoride could be behaving like 'a gatekeeper who welcomed dangerous substances into the cells.' Clearly this research showed that 'fluoridation has an effect on every cell of the body.' Does it also explain why the fluoridated pheasant chicks made no attempt to flutter out of the hand as did the non-fluoridated ones?

[Weston White]

Good point about anti-depressants. I don't know with 100% certainty that fluoride makes people docile, but certainly anything that makes people more ill will probably leave them with less energy to take action in support of their freedoms.

Perhaps a better word to use then, is indifferent?

[KingNothing]

They will however, hold little to no concern with anything that is external to that, e.g., Congress could pass legislation forcing them to spend thousands a year on health care plans or otherwise incur a civil penalty and those individuals would hardly care to take notice; or the President could wage seven undeclared (yet congressionally funded) wars with foreign nations that pose no imminent threat to America, while both teaming up with America’s nemesis Al Qaeda to engage in those fights and using the U.S. Military to safeguard foreign drug trades, and those individuals would hardly care to take notice, etc.

You think fluoridated water is why people don't care about those things? You're in for a rude awakening if we ever succeed in removing unnatural levels of fluoride from the water supply.


You people are completely delusional.

[pcosmar]

You people are completely delusional.

And you post that in the full light of documented historical evidence.

/speachless

[Dr.3D]

And you post that in the full light of documented historical evidence.


/speachless
Further proof of the effects of fluoride?

[KingNothing]

And you post that in the full light of documented historical evidence.

/speachless


Dude, people tolerated tyrants before they knew what fluoride was. You're delusional if you think fluoride in water is why people accept nefarious behavior from those in positions of power. It goes way, way deeper than that.

[specsaregood]

Dude, people tolerated tyrants before they knew what fluoride was. You're delusional if you think fluoride in water is why people accept nefarious behavior from those in positions of power. It goes way, way deeper than that.

Of course that doesn't matter. i would think we can agree that drugging the water supply is a bad idea.

[pcosmar]

Dude, people tolerated tyrants before they knew what fluoride was.

Dude,,people rebelled against the same,, dragged them out and disposed of them,,
And that was in an age before widespread education and communication.

New tool for a new time. Bread and circuses only work for a short time.

[donnay]

You think fluoridated water is why people don't care about those things? You're in for a rude awakening if we ever succeed in removing unnatural levels of fluoride from the water supply.


You people are completely delusional.

I wished we were wrong. But as years go by, with studies coming out of Harvard, no less, we are proven right. "Delusional" are the people that keep accepting the lies told over and over again. If you bothered to research on any of this you would see the people calling sodium fluoride a poison are far from delusional.

The History of Health

1938 German chemist Schrader discovers Sarin, 10 times more lethal than Tabun, which is made with various compounds including Sodium Fluoride, which is later dumped into planetary water supplies to placate the population.

1943 The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, states, "fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanism of such actions are obscure. The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine, fluorine compounds used as insecticidal sprays for fruits and vegetables (cryolite and barium fluoro- silicate) and the mining and conversion of phosphate rock to superphosphate, which is used as a fertilizer. That process alone releases approximately 25,000 tons of pure fluorine into the atmosphere annually."

1944 The city manager of Grand Rapids, Michigan announces that the Michigan State Department of Health is planning a long range experiment with fluoridated water and that Grand Rapids was selected as the location for the experiment. The city commission approves a motion to fluoridate on July 31, and decide it is to begin in January 1945, despite the warning issued three months earlier by the American Dental Association. Grand Rapids becomes the first city in the United States to conduct this experiment. It was to serve as the test city to be compared against un-fluoridated Muskegon for a period of ten years relative to tooth decay, at which time it would be determined whether or not fluoride was "safe and effective." Dr. H. Trendley Dean was put in charge of the project. The experiment was terminated early with the pronouncement that fluorides in public water supplies was "safe". See 1945.

1944 Oscar Ewing is put on the payroll of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), as an attorney, at an annual salary of $750,000. Within a few months, Ewing was made Federal Security Administrator, with the announcement that he was taking a big cut in salary. The US Public Health Service, then a division of the FSA, comes under the command of Ewing , and he begins to vigorously promote fluoridation nationwide. Ref: May 25-27 Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. A by-product of aluminum manufacture is toxic c. Ewings public relations strategist for the fluoride campaign was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward L. Bernays. Bernays conducts a public relations campaign to promote fluorine ingestion by applying Freudian theory to induce public acceptance. It was one of Bernays most successful campaigns.

1944 The Journal of the American Dental Association on October 1, 1944 warned that "We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 ppm of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteoporosis, and we cannot run the risk of producing such systemic disturbances in applying what at present is a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurement in children. In the light of our present knowledge or lack of knowledge of the chemistry of the subject, the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good."

1945 Newburgh, New York has their water supply fluoridated. Subsequent exams of the children by x-ray reveal that almost 14% have cortical defects in bone, compared to the nearby unfluoridated town of Kingston, where 7.5% have bone defects.

1945 As a result of government propaganda on fluorides, the ten year Michigan study was terminated after 1 year. The fluoride-free control city, Muskegon, was then fluoridated to conceal any differential between the two cities.

1951 The U.S. Public Health Service, with the cooperation of the American Dental Association, holds a meeting of state dental directors at which the methods for promotion of fluoridation are outlined. A concentration of 1.2 ppm was suggested, and state dental directors were instructed to lie to the public about the toxic effects of sodium fluoride. They were to deliberately misinform the public by relating the presence of "high-fluoride areas" to "less cancer and less polio" - an entire public relations campaign meant to convince the public to allow themselves to be medicated.

1952 The American Dental Association publishes an issue of its Journalinstructing its dentists not to discuss their personal opinions about fluoride.

1952 From 1952 to 1956, the cities on the "fluoridation list" began to fluoridate their water supplies. As the process of water fluoridation continued, the cancer death rate of the fluoridated cities began to far exceed the rate of the unfluoridated cities.

1952 US Representative Dr.A.L.Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals and Foods, stated, "I sometimes wonder if ALCOA Aluminum and its subsidiaries might not have a deep interest in getting rid of sodium fluoride, a toxic waste product of the aluminum industry. In this connection it is interesting to note that the person in charge of the public health, Oscar Ewing, is also an attorney for ALCOA."

1952 82nd Congress, 2nd Session, Hearings of the Select Committee to Investigate Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics. Dr. Miller "The US Dental Association made some examination and recommended to the farmers that fluorine not be added to the water of pregnant sows because it did something to the pigs that were unborn"

1953 Senator Charles Tobey, Jr enters an investigative report into the Congressional Record (Fitzgerald Report) which indicated that evidence existed of a conspiracy to suppress medical advances in the treatment of cancer in the 1950's.

RE: Fitzgerald Report:
http://altered-states.net/barry/rifelakhovskymedical/fitzgerald.htm
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/2007/04/03/1953_fitzgerald_report_suppressed_cancer_treatment s.htm
http://www.whale.to/p/tobey.html

1954 C.E.Perkins, I.G.Farben chemist, admits fluoride is to reduce resistance in people to authority.

http://www.relfe.com/history_1.html

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time." --Robert Carton, Ph.D. former US EPA scientist.

"We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic." --Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Over 4,000 Professionals Call for an End to Water Fluoridation
http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals-statement.html


http://www.whale.to/d/fluori53.jpg
http://www.whale.to/d/fluori54.jpg

http://www.whale.to/d/fluori55.jpg
http://www.whale.to/d/fluori56.jpg

http://www.whale.to/d/fluori57.jpg
http://www.whale.to/d/fluori58.jpg

[Zippyjuan]

The Harvard paper looked at some studies conducted in China. They did not conduct their own study. It is not clear if they controlled for other potential factors such as possible regional differences in education programs or other factors.

[pcosmar]

The Harvard paper looked at some studies conducted in China. They did not conduct their own study. It is not clear if they controlled for other potential factors such as possible regional differences in education programs or other factors.

And it is just one more in a stack of studies done in many places over many years that comes to the same conclusion.

This poison has more negative effects than any alleged benefits.

So what is your point?

[sailingaway]

Do you understand how absurd that premise is? WHY?! Why do they have to make people stupid and docile? What evidence is there that people are docile, anyway? This is complete and utter nonsense.

regardless, what right did they ever have to put it in our drinking supply?

Even in Europe, where it was thought to also be beneficial, they put it in salt, so you could add it or not. Here people had no choice.

I would have grown up with it anyhow, because my mother was absolutely sold on it (so was I until they stopped using it at dentist offices in CA recently as a matter of course in cleanings because it can cause problems). However, people should always have the right to choose for themselves.

[Nickels]

The Harvard paper looked at some studies conducted in China. They did not conduct their own study. It is not clear if they controlled for other potential factors such as possible regional differences in education programs or other factors.

But they made it through peer review, notice they even had Fluoridealert.org as their references in the paper. That's all that'll ever matter to conspiracy theorists. If the paper gets retracted, guess what they'll say? :)