The Dangers of The Deadly Poison, Known As ... 'Fluoride.'


   ~   My Challange, To The  Skeptical/Doubting Public   ~ 
If ANYONE Can “Debunk” The Contents Presented On This Webpage ...
I WILL REMOVE It From The Internet!
And NOW ...
The Myth AND LIE(s) About Fluoridated Water
Think Fluoride In Your Drinking Water,
Is Good For You And Your Teeth?

You'd Better, THINK AGAIN ...

               Professor Paul Connett: “YOUR Toxic Tap Water”           

 November 9, 2010
Dr. Paul Connett, PhD - Talks With Alex Jones About Fluoridation of Drinking Water: (mp3)
Alex talks with Paul Connett, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University. Mr. Connett has voiced his concern over the dangers posed by fluoride and the very poor science underpinning its supposed efficacy in 'protecting children's teeth.'

Actual studies, (like the ones done, by the National Institute of Dental Research) on 39,000 children, show NO Significant Difference In The Number of Cavities, on Those Who Drank Fluoridated Water, vs. Those Who Didn't, Proves, (In fact) That Fluoride CAN, Give You "Dental Fluorosis" a sophisticated name, for Brown, Pitted Teeth.

In 1954, the Christian Science Monitor surveyed all 81 Nobel Prize winners in the fields of chemistry, medicine and physiology on their opinion regarding water fluoridation. Seventy-nine percent, failed to endorse water fluoridation.

Fluoride Poisoning & Cancer:
Fluoride can give you a lot of other things too, namely cancer
, including osteosarcoma in children.

Qualified scientists in numerous laboratory tests have found that fluoride in water, even 1.0 part per million, (the amount typically used in water fluoridation)
is a carcinogen and mutagen

Fluoridation of water causes 20,000 plus
cancer deaths
per year in the U.S.

Other Poisoning Maladies:
If you're pregnant, fluoride may increase your chances of having a child with Down's syndrome

If you're a senior, it will make you more likely to have hip fractures.

If you're a virile guy, it could make you infertile as it tends, (according to a study in India) to cause
testicular damage

A little fluoride goes a long way, because it accumulates in the bones, teeth, in our food chain and within the environment.

Fluoridated Water Often Contains Other Highly Toxic Materials:
The fluoride that is most likely added to your water supply, is really hydrofluorosilicic acid
in a "hazardous waste liquor" which also contains lead, mercury, beryllium, radioactive material, arsenic and other pollutants.

The Cover-up:
"Fluoridation is an attempt by industry to camouflage their deadliest pollutant, with government officials and Madison Avenue advertisers beating the drums. The fluoridation empire is like a castle built on quicksand." says Gladys Caldwell, author, "
Fluoridation and Truth Decay
," 1974.

As far back as April of 1950 in the Journal of the American Dental Association, (Vol. 40:440) a study by G. J. Cox and H.C. Hodge, "
Toxicity of Fluorides in Relation to Their Use in Dentistry
", made it clear that fluoride is a poison: "Some of the basic and necessary metabolic processes in the cell are stopped by concentrations of fluorides such as those found in acute poisoning. These changes are comparable to those seen in high-grade anoxia (lack of sufficient oxygen in the body tissues) and are the basis for describing fluorides as general protoplasmic poisons."

Historically, Fluorides WERE Used -- For Mind Control:
Research scientist, Charles Elliot Perkins, (sent by the U.S. Government to take charge of I.G. Farben chemical plants in Germany following WWII) discovered that;
"The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination, control and loss of liberty." In his report to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research in October of 1954, he said, "Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him."

This is why Fluorides are a key ingredient of PROZAC and many other psychiatric drugs ... PROZAC, scientific name Fluoxetine, is 94% fluoride. 

                                                                        The Fluoride Deception -
                                                           Interview With Christopher Bryson (28:31)    
  In the above video, Christopher Bryson, (an award-winning journalist and former producer at the BBC) discusses the findings of his new book, "The Flouride Deception." EARLY REVIEWS of The Fluoride Deception: "Bryson marshals an impressive amount of research to demonstrate fluoride's harm, the ties between leading fluoride researchers and the corporations who funded and benefited from their research, and what he says is the duplicity with which fluoridation was sold to the people. The result is a compelling challenge to the reigning dental orthodoxy, which should provoke renewed scientific scrutiny and public debate."

FLUORIDE in Toothpaste -- POISON! Reading Labels: What IS In Your Mouth?! 
 Have you ever read the small print on your toothpaste box or tube? If it's one of the much advertised brands containing fluoride, one may encounter an ominous warning. It would seem that swallowing a bit more than a little bit of the toothpaste produces a medical crisis. We are told that immediate help should be sought from medical professionals or a poison control center ... Or perhaps your toothpaste fine print merely gives the following odd advice: If you are over six years old, cover the brush with the toothpaste. Someone under six should put only a pea sized amount on the toothbrush and should be supervised by an adult, to avoid swallowing. This begs many questions: (for example) what should a six year old do? Why should one not swallow a 'pea sized amount' of this material? What's the threat? Now ... consider the situation. Us trusting, (gullible folk) have been trained, to buy a poisonous product and, then, encouraged to put this poisonous product into our mouths, -- Three Times a Day. The trick is, NOT to swallow it?! The producers of this toxic poison, is to escape legal sanction, by including a vague warning, with governmental, puerile advice. But 'they' depend (for their continuing profits) on us, not reading the fine print ... A fine point is, the poison also sedates us. Fluoride's a major component of Prozac. Brilliant! Read On ... 
* Obama's Science 'Czar' John P. Holdren - Poisoning The Water Supply (Google It!)

                 Dr. Russell Blaylock: “Fluoride’s Deadly Secret”            

Dr. Russell Blaylock M.D., (From Tupelo, MS.) Is A Retired Neurosurgeon and Author,
whose trailblazing research has tirelessly documented the fact, that there is an epidemic of
neurological disorders in the western world. These are directly connected to toxins in our environment,
and how this relates to the larger criminal, global eugenics program, behind 'population reduction.'
In this interview, Dr. Blaylock reveals how 'depopulation' programs, (forged by the Rockefeller foundation,
in association with the Nazis
were the basis of modern day eugenics, like fluoride poisoning and vaccinations.

FACT: Fluoride IS a DEADLY POISON, That CAUSES Birth Defects, Brain Damage, And CANCER!FACT: Fluoride IS Deadly! IT CAUSES CANCER!

~  YouTube Video Search: “FLUORIDE”  ~

* Olbermann Slams 'Tea Party' Senate Candidate, For Voting Against Water Fluoridation
 It's Considered ‘Crazy’ To Say Sodium Fluoride Is Poison ... Even Though, It's A Proven FACT, That It IS.

  The “hope and change” America has since experienced, has clearly alleviated such worries in Keith’s mind, and he now considers the same concerns stupid and laughable. This is a clear example of how the phony left/right political paradigm works. For eight years Olbermann campaigned against the increasing tyranny Americans were subject to. Despite the fact that none of the freedom stripping legislation enacted under Bush has been repealed by the Obama administration, everything is seemingly fine, now that the Democrats are back in power. Olbermann also described as farcical Angle’s views that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and her concern that oil should not be nationalized in the wake of the BP disaster. Olbermann saved his best attempted smear for last, however, chuckling his way through the sentence: “Ms. Angle also voted against fluoridizing (WHAT'S THAT? Did You Mean ‘Fluoridation Of?’) the water, because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.” What a crazy kook, to think that Sodium Fluoride, the stuff that comes in containers and bags, with a skull and cross-bones, labeled a “TOXIC,” Class-4 “Hazardous Material,” is a poison!


 Please NOTE: We're NOT Talking About ‘Calcium Fluoride’ ...
(Which is naturally occurring and NOT added to water, because it's INSOLUABLE).

How “extremist” it is, to believe that a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry, a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972, is a poison – stupid Sharron Angle. Stupid crazy Sharron Angle – she must be some kind of racist for thinking that.

* Scientific Study Finds Fluoride ‘Horror Stories’ Factual
The establishment media will have to find a new tactic with which to ridicule those who oppose the fluoridation of water, after a major new Scientific report concluded; “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerges of the poison's link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain athe thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ. “Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reports Scientific American's Dan Fagin.
            (Fluoride Alert's YouTube Channel)
* FLUORIDE ALERT: (Wednesday, June 23, 2010)
Indian Children Blinded, Crippled By 'Fluoride' In Drinking Water
The controversy over adding 'sodium fluoride' to water supplies, in both the U.S. and the UK is intensifying, as two separate stories out of India, reveal that children are being blinded and crippled -- partly, as a result of the neurotoxin being artificially added to drinking water. Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception, includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will ...
                                                            FACT: Fluoride IS Deadly! IT CAUSES CANCER!


Fluoride Poisoning (9 min - 59 sec)
The Senior Vice President of The EPA Headquarters Union,
Discusses The Dangers of Fluoride In Municipal (Public) Drinking Water.
Read an Interview With Dr. Hirzy, Concerning The NTP's Fluoride Cancer Study
 Read Dr. Hirzy's June 2000 Testimony To The U.S. Senate
 Fighting The Scientifically Designed, FLUORIDE POISONING of 'We The People!'

Who's Behind The Fluoridation of Our Water Systems?
Special interest groups ... Some, who wish to turn Americans into apathetic, stupefied, submissive and docile citizens in order to further their own sinister agendas
. Then, (as an added benefit) there are some, who found a convenient way to dump a Hazardous material, Industrial Waste Product.

Do YOU Want To Ingest an Industrial Waste Product?
Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association said:
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-term basis. Any attempt to use water this way, is deplorable."

“I say this in all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist,
who has spent nearly 20 years of research into the chemistry,
biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorides.
Any Person Who Drinks Artificially Fluoridated Water
For A Period of One Year or More,
~ Charles Elliot Perkins ~


Call Your Representatives, Contact Your Water Department,
Don't Just Sit There In a Stupor,
Guzzling Your Fluoride Ridden Tap (or Bottled) Water,
While Being Told By “Officials” and The “Mainstream” Media,
That The Fluoride In Your Water Is “Good For You!”
We DON'T Need Government 'Medicating' Us, DO WE?

Send an Online Message/Letter To Congress,
In Support of Calling For The End To Water Fluoridation!

Click HERE, To Answer The Question;
IS There FLUORIDE In YOUR Water Supply?

Check Out THIS “Bold-faced” LIE, From This Website
, That Promotes Fluoride Use:
“Fluoride is a
natural compound that protects teeth from cavities.
Many communities in Canada, add fluoride to the local water supply.
It's also in toothpaste and mouthwashes.”
  On November 9, 2006, the nation's leading fluoride advocate, the American Dental Association (ADA), issued an alert advising parents to avoid fluoridated water when reconstituting infant formula. According to the ADA, babies consuming fluoridated water are at high risk for developing dental fluorosis (a tooth defect that can result in staining and sometimes corrosion of enamel). The advice, however, has gone largely unheeded. Nursery Water, the nation's leading fluoridated water for babies still markets its product nationwide at Wal-Mart and other major retailers.
* Fluoride & the Poisoning of America's Water, Dr. Jim Medlock DDS (by D.M. Cooper)
* The Dangers of Fluoride In Drinking Water - Google Search
* Dentists Against Fluoride - Google Search
* 50 Reasons To Oppose Fluoridation
* Fluoride - Google Video

* European Countries Banning the Use of Fluoride
“Any serious student of the fluoride issue will rapidly find that the science underpinning the widespread introduction of drinking water fluoridation, with the claim that it reduces dental decay, appears decidedly thin and shaky. There are relatively few countries in the world that use fluoridation. In many countries, it's against the law to contemplate the mass medication of a whole population with a substance, that everyone admits, has the potential to be toxic at certain levels.- Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola.Com -

As Mike Adams explains, all dentists, doctors and government health 'authorities,' who actually promote the fluoridation of public water supplies are nothing less than clinically insane. (Go HERE, To Learn MORE!)

 10 Facts About Sodium Fluoride
            (Mirrored From “Fluoride Action Network
| Printer-Friendly Version)

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water's quality and safety - which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and '50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis - a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).

5) There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone's tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm's way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)

b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals - fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride - used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent study from the University of North Carolina found that FSA can - in combination with chlorinated compounds - leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)

8) Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries. While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it's added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council's review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride . Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate of dental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea. (To access's references, click here)

                                                                      Are You, POISONING YOUR Kids?!
Did you know, that for years, fluoride was classified as a 'toxic waste' in the United States? In fact, (not too long ago) its only approved uses were, as an insecticide as well as RAT POISON! ... And that's just how your body treats it -- As a Poison. Plenty of studies have been done over the years - and the results are, (indeed)  frightening. Fluoridation's been linked to immune system alteration, musculo-skeletal harm, genetic damage, thyroid dysfunction, and cancer, (Just to name a few). More and MORE studies, are showing that ingesting fluoride, has absolutely NO bearing, on Preventing Tooth Decay. And NOW, the American Dental Association, is advising that parents NOT give fluoridated water to babies - BECAUSE IT DOES -- CAUSE BRAIN DAMAGE!
 Contrary To What YOUR 'Dentist' May Tell You, You DON'T NEED, TOXIC, POISONOUS, Fluoride, To Have Healthy Teeth ...  

                                                                                          “America: Retardation, By Fluoride and Aspartane 
                                                                                   (Nice Little Presentation on “Agenda 21” Is Featured Here As Well ...)

                                     Click HERE, To Visit 'Sapphire Eyes' Productions!
                                                   “FIRE WATER: Australia's Industrial Fluoridation Disgrace”              
   This “Sapphire Eyes” Productions documentary, Exposes The Systematic, Deliberate, Industrial Waste Poisoning, of Australia's Municipal Drinking Water Supply. Produced and directed by Jaya Chela Drolma, (researched and written by Daniel Zalec) this hard-hitting film, exposes the fraud of 'mandatory' water fluoridation, perpetrated upon the people of Australia. 'Fire Water' proves once and for all, that toxic industrial waste, IS indeed, being used to 'fluoridate' Australia's drinking water supplies ... Forcibly and, WITHOUT The People's CONSENT. However, the people and their communities across the nation, ARE fighting back, harder than ever before, as they learn the shocking truth about the dangers of fluoridation. 'Fire Water' is a groundbreaking collation, of a wide variety of Australian perspectives on water fluoridation. From politicians, to doctors, to sufferers, this film goes to the heart of the issues -- The chemicals, the ethics, the science and the lack of accountability and, (more importantly) the criminality of of the poisoners. A 'Must See' Film, if you care about your health, the health of the environment, as well as the future well-being, of your children and grandchildren. Watch It, Download It, Share It. Get Involved! 
CHECK-OUT The Interviews, (and Much More) FREE, At: FireWaterFilm.Com
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed in this documentary and related interviews, are the views of the individuals involved, and may not necessarily represent the views of Sapphire Eyes Productions, its employees, affiliates or associates.
                                                                     Please Support “Sapphire Eyes” Productions, By Purchasing The DVD, HERE!  
                                  FACT: Fluoride IS a DEADLY POISON, That CAUSES Birth Defects, Brain Damage, And CANCER!
                                                                                                                               “FIRE WATER” By 'Peter & The Sentinels' (Excellent Music Video!)

           The Truth About Fluoride, Hits Australian Mainsream Media  
        Fluoride IS a DEADLY Poison!

   “The suppression of truth, has long been among the highest priorities, for the 'upper echelons' of power and authority. The minority elite, that clings to it's power, by the criminal manipulation of the masses, using a multitude of clever, omnipresent cocktail of lies, deception, mass-produced ignorance, along with carefully engineered and ingrained propaganda. The destruction of truth, IS an essential method of control ... It's a formula, that's worked with unmitigated success for the 'elite' throughout history, whether the shadows of power stretch from ancient pyramids, marble temples, castles, mansions, or the very halls of world governments.” - Manuel Valenzuela

Drinking Water Fluoridation:
Controling The Minds of The Masses
Despite damning evidence on fluoride toxicity, bureaucracies and multinationals
continue to pollute our drinking water and mess with our physical and mental health.
From an article in Nexus Magazine August/September 95
Extracted with permission from his 1987 self-published booklet The Dickinson Statement: A Mind-Boggling Thesis.

This story has a beginning, it has a middle but it has no ending. The 'ending' will undoubtedly be written in countless hospital records, on tiny gravestones, in the bones of the crippled and on the hearts of the bereaved. Even so, the true cause of the 'ending' will never be advertised. One record that slipped past the establishment net is duplicated herein but, believe it or not, the existence of this 'death certificate' has been denied, in writing and to overseas scientific inquiry, by Australian administrators.

What follows is but a fractional part of the 'middle' of a story that began before the turn of the century and which was provoked by a statement contained in an "Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament," as recorded in Victorian Hansard of 12 August 1987, by Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon. Hence the title.

The relevant Hansard abstract is reproduced herewith. It is emphasized that the writer imputes Mr. Dickinson with no other responsibility for the contents of this thesis than being the parliamentary 'trigger' which motivated it and the researched data which it contains.

"At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany.

"While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff.

"This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. "Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile."

In a book written by Dr Hans Moolenburgh of Haarlem, Holland, called Fluoride - The Freedom Fight, the author describes the ultimately successful endeavors to free the Dutch people from
water fluoridation. (Those endeavors included the only properly conducted double-blind study ever done anywhere in the world into the effects of tap water.)

One brief passage is headed "Perkins", and a reproduction of that section gives sufficient confirmation, by a remote and independent source, of the "Dickenson Statement" as printed in Hansard, to reinforce the need for additional investigation into this one 'behaviour control' aspect of the 'fluoride debate' and relate it to 1987. (The entire "Perkins" paragraph is reproduced below.)

Elsewhere in this book, Dr Moolenburgh also relates how that first "Perkins" anecdote was confirmed in differing ways and from reliable independent sources.

"When 1971 was drawing to a close, I received a paper containing a strange story. This story was to haunt us repeatedly throughout the long, drawn-out battle. It was a story resembling science fiction - bizarre and unbelievable. There are those who warned me not to even mention this story, and I can appreciate why. On the other hand, the task of an historian is not to relate things as they should have happened, but as they actually did happen."

The Perkins saga was different from other fluoride stories.

"The story of industries hoodwinking the public into buying a pollutant as a medicine is simply 'whodunnit'. Grotesque though it may sound, it is no more that 'the consumer fraud of this polluted century' (as described in Fluoridation and Truth Decay by Gladys Caldwell). But the story I now read was different: it gave one the cold shivers. It told of a chemical engineer, Mr. Perkins, who related how immediately after the Second World War he was one the Americans put into the well-known I.G.Farben Company in Germany. There he discovered that I.G.Farben had developed plans during the war to fluoridate the occupied countries, because it had been found that fluoridation caused slight damage to specific parts of the brain. This damage had a very particular effect. It mad it more difficult for the person affected to defend his freedom. He became more docile towards authority.

"Scientists in the camps of both opponents and proponents of fluoride have always dismissed this story as mere poppycock, but it had a life of its own and reared its head time and again. It fed the suspicions of many people that 'there was more to fluoridation than meets the eye'.

"As far as I know, there is no one who has done any serious research into whether the fluoridated person is really more docile, easier to rule, more impressed by authority than the non-fluoridated one. There is, though, one peculiar thing: every Dutch doctor has a medical reference book for 1984. One of the chapters is entitled "Tranquillisers". Looking at the "minor Tranquillisers" I find twenty-four substances: their chemical formulae do not show any connection with fluoride. However, there is also a heading , "major Tranquillisers". Of those there are twenty-seven, and seven of them are a fluoride compound. One of these is Semap. It is one of the strongest anti-psychotic substances we know. This means that twenty-five per cent of the major Tranquillisers are connected with fluoride. I do not draw any conclusions. The only thing one can say at this point is, with Alice: 'curiouser and curiouser!'"

Actually there is little that is novel in the concept of controlling the minds and manners of the multitude by chemical/dietary means. That it was practised by Hitler's regime is made the more credible when we know that
as far back as 1938, the US Government, and ally to boot, and the government of a democratic Christian country, was considering the transformation of American citizens and others into 'zombies' by a number of proposed techniques. The US Army searched for "the perfect incapacitating agent", according to General Fellenz, "to put in the enemy's water supply". Included in the drugs tested were the hallucinogenic LSD and the amnesiac BZ (10 times more potent than LSD), and a "schizophrenic agent called bulbocapine".

The "Rockefeller Report" to the United States President on CIA activities said:
"The drug program was part of a much larger CIA program to study possible means of controlling human behavior."

One drug which received special attention in the 'fifties and early 'sixties, under the cryptonym of MK-ULTRA, was suxamethonium chloride (listed under a number of product names including Anectine), a halogenated anti-cholinergic agent with all the symptomatic side-effects up to and including cardiac arrest ascribed to these agents in the medical literature.

Please retain the term "anti-cholinergic agent" in mind , for owing to the health implications attendant on this particular anti-metabolic activity, it figures repeatedly in this thesis.

Note: An adviser to the US Government on hypnotism or psychological behaviour control, Dr George Estabrooks, later became Chairman, Department of Psychology, Colgate University. Internationally, Colgate was and remains the most ardent producer and advocate for the fluorination of a domestic product - fluoridated toothpaste.

Now, should the reader's mind be already boggled to the point of disbelief, there are two facts which, if known about and/or remembered, may instill sufficient confidence in that which is even more 'boggling' and is yet to come.

Bromine (or bromide) tea was administered to the enlisted men during the First and second World Wars.

The halogen (bromine) ingredients was said to quell the libido of the men and thus limit likely forays into the 'dens of iniquity' and the acquisition of venereal disease.

The second fact is that, today, all Australian military establishments provide their own halogenated (fluoridated) water for the troops resident therein, for the official reason that the element is good for developing teeth.

Either we have a very immature military force, all under that of twelve years when the mythical effect of fluoride ceases to exist, or else there is another more obscure, less altruistic reason for this drug 'treatment' of the troops.

Later on in this text we will recall certain happenings relative to ex-trainees from those establishments and the paradoxical effects of fluorides on behaviour of the human being.

The Parliamentary "Dickenson Statement" refers to "the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany".

It has been said by Anthony C. Sutton in his book, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler: "Without the capital supplied by Wall Street, there would have been no I. G. Farben in the first place, and almost certainly no Adolph Hitler and World War II."

Interssen Gemeinschaft Farben (Interessen Gemeinschaft der Deutschen Teerfarbeninduistrie, or, simply, I.G. Farben) was a German chemical manufacturing concern that supplied the chlorine gas used by Germany during the First World War, but the eventual creation of the huge I.G.Farben cartel began in 1924 when American bankers began to arrange foreign loans in what Professor Carroll Quigley terms "the Dawes Plan", "largely a J.P. Morgan production"/

In 1928 Henry Ford merged his German assets with I.G. Farben, to be followed by the American Standard Oil Company (the Rockefellers) who, in concert with I.G.Farben, developed the coal-to-oil hydrogenation process.

In a letter to Roosevelt from Berlin in the early 'thirties, the US Ambassador in Germany, William Dodd, said:
"At the present moment, more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or cooperative understandings.

"The DuPonts have their allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the I.G. Farben Company, a part of the government which gives 200,000 marks a year to one propaganda organization operating on American opinion.

"Standard Oil Company ... sent US$500,000 a year helping Germans make ersatz [a substitute] gas [the hydrogenation process of converting coal to gasoline] for war purposes; but Standard Oil cannot take any of its earnings out of the country except in goods.

"The International Harvester Company president told me their business here rose 33% a year [arms manufacture, I believe], they could take nothing out.

"Even our airplanes people have secret arrangements with Krupps.

"General Motors Company and Ford do enormous business here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out."


The I.G. Farben assets in America were controlled by a holding company, American I.G. Farben, which listed on its Board of Directors: Edsel Ford, President of the Ford Motor Company; Chas. E. Mitchell, President of Rockefeller's National City Bank of New York; Walter Teagle, President of Standard Oil of New York; Paul Warburg, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and brother of Max Warburg, financier of Germany's war effort; and Herman Metz, a Director of the Bank of Manhattan, controlled by the Warburgs.

It is an interesting fact of history that three other members of the Board of American I.G. Farben were tried and convicted as German "war criminals" for their "crimes against humanity" during World War II, while serving on the I.G. Farben Board of Governors. None of the Americans who sat on the same board as those convicted, was ever tried as a "war criminal".

Throughout the entire second World War conflict, not one bomb fell on the I.G. Farben headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany, allegedly as a consequence of Allied orders.

In 1938, I.G. Farben borrowed 500 tons of tetra-ethyl lead, the gasoline additive, from Standard Oil.

During 1939, the year Germany invaded Austria and Poland, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey loaned I.G. Farben US$20,000,000 worth of high-grade gasoline.

In 1939 the American Aluminum Company (Alcoa), then probably the world's largest producer of sodium fluoride, transferred its technology to Germany (the Alted Agreement). The Dow Chemical Company transmitted its experience and technology in that same period.

Germany's two largest tank manufacturers were Opel, a subsidiary of General Motors (J.P. Morgan), and the German subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company.

Even with the purchase of oil from non-German sources, the major supplier of oil was still the Farben cartel. The I.G. Farben cartel a monopoly on German gasoline production. Just under one half of the Germans' high-octane gasoline in 1945 was produced directly by I.G. Farben, and most of the balance by its affiliated companies.

So, in 1941 when cylinders of Zyklon B, the deadly cyanide-based extermination gas made by I.G. Farben, were lethally unvalved on inmates of Auschwitz, Bitterfeld, Walfen, Hoechst, Agfa, Ludwigshafen and Buchenwald, there were more than substantial links between huge American technology and German manufacturers.

Two questions must be asked here: (a) Was I.G. Farben associated with the formulation of Sarin and/or Soman, the German-developed fluorinated nerve gases that made Zyklon B little more than an underarm deodorant by comparison?; and (b) What of I.G. Farben today?

The answer to (a) is an unequivocal yes! As for (b), I.G. Farben signed cartel agreements with such companies as Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), Borden , Carnation, General Mill, M.W. Kellogg Co., Nestlé and Pet Milk, and I. G. Farben either owns outright, has had a substantial interest in or has had other cartel agreements with Owl Drug, Parke-Davis and Co., Bayer and Co., Whitehall Laboratories, Chef-Boy-Ar-Dee Foods, Bristol Meyers and Squibb and Sons. The list goes on and on and on and includes Proctor and Gamble who 'domesticated' the word "fluoride" with official encouragement in 1958, being the originators of the infamous "Crest" fluoridated toothpaste campaign.

The only reference to "Farben" traceable in a limited search of modern literature was in 25th Edition of Martindale, under "F.B.A. Pharmaceutical Limited; Products of Farbenfabriken Bayer".

All corporate traces of the Hugh I.G. cartel have been absorbed by the hundreds, if not thousands, of one-time cartel members, but the 'malady lingers on' ...

In Australia, the Dental Health and Research Foundation which has such names as Colgate, Kellogg and the ex-I.G. Farben associates listed among its governors and contributors has been irreverently but accurate dubbed "the fluoride mafia". Closely allied with this Sydney University 'foundation' into the halogen fluoride, its benefits and its hazards, have never been made available despite numerous appeals. An ABC science show's examination of the scientific integrity of Foundation 41 may explain the elusive (or is the word illusory?) data.

America is literally bursting at the seams with such foundations, were The Rockefeller Foundation, The Carnegie Foundation and The Ford Foundation. It is necessary to mention these specifically because they were the first foundations to make grants in the population (control) field, and the Carnegie family merged with the Mellon family Institute to create the Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh in 1967.

The Mellon family were the founders of the original Mellon Institute whence came the "amazing (but totally fallacious) sodium fluoride/dental caries prevention discovery" - the discovery that literally turned 'garbage into gold'. The Mellon family also founded the American Aluminum Company (Alcoa), the largest producer of the waste toxin, sodium fluoride, which, up to this point of 'caries discovery', had relatively little known commercial or industrial value, was an environmental hazard of great public concern, and was very costly in terms of safe disposal.

So we retrace our steps to the "Dickenson Statement" in Hansard and Chas Eliot Perkins ...

In a letter abstracted from Fluoridation and Lawlessness (published by the Committee for Mental Health and National Security) to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on 2nd October 1954, a Charles Eliot Perkins, scientist and author of Washington, DC, and, one must assume, the same Charles Eliot Perkins of the "Dickenson Statement" to the Victorian Parliament, said this (and the words of the last two lines of the second paragraph cannot be overemphasised): "We are told by the fanatical ideologists who are advocating the fluoridation of the water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the gullibility of the public and the cupidity of public officials that is responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country.

"However - and I want to make this very definite and positive - the real reason behind
water fluoridation not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason, there are many ways in which it could be done which are much easier, cheaper and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty ...

"When the Nazis, under Hitler, decided to go into Poland ... the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans and personnel and the scheme of mass control through
water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communise the world ...


"I say this in all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the chemistry, Bo-chemistry, physiology and pathology and pathology of fluorine: any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically."

Mr. Perkins does not involve America, American institutions or individuals in his assertions, but when Major George Racy Jordan was in charge of the massive 'lend-lease airlift' operations from Great Falls, Montana, to Russia via Alaska, he queried the transshipment of considerable amounts of
sodium fluoride via Fairbanks, Alaska, to Russia. He was told "frankly" that it was to put into the drinking water, in the prisoner-of-war camps, to take away their will to resist.

The published knowledge that sodium fluoride was known for this mind - and behaviour - changing potential was available at the start of this century, as witness such entries as "Fluoricum Acidum" (Encyclopedia of Pure 'Materia Medica', vol. ix, p. 333).

America has long been interested in behaviour and mind control by chemical means. Americans who were at once financiers, industrialists and population - control advocates were intimately involved with Germany where chemical extermination and chemical behaviour control by, inter alia, sodium fluoride, were placed into practice. America transferred this knowledge and material, inter alia, to Russia during its 'lend-lease' co-operation. An American major producer of aluminum was the world's major source of sodium fluoride. American 'education and research' funded by (a) the major sodium fluoride producer, and (b) a 'foundation' involved in population control, was the origin of 'the dental caries prevention myth' associated with sodium fluoride.

A predominantly American company was the first to exploit this concept in dentifrice production, and American 'medical research' figured largely in the 'fluorination' processes that converted the negative embarrassment of mounting industrial waste to huge positive profit increases - processes that other countries hastened to emulate; processes which include the enormous outlet for fluorides in the fluoridation of water supplies.

Although fertiliser production has not been a part of this thesis, the following 'connections' with this point should be made. The manufacturing processes for synthetic dyes, explosives and fertiliser are almost chemically synonymous, and I.G. Farben was expert in all production phases of these 'necessities'. Sodium silico-fluoride was a waste constituent from the refining of phosphate rock, until a 'use' could be found or created for the waste.

A letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) throws the spotlight on the unique 'waste disposal via the public kidney' concept that was created.

The question raised by the Hansard "Dickinson Statement", and perhaps aggravated by this dissertation and data, is this: Was the Australian Government, in 1962-3 when it illegally (Australian Constitution, Section 51 [xxiiiA]) introduced "fluoridation of water supplies" to Australia, aware of its grotesque actions and of the grave results? The 'shonky' method of introducing, plus legal and official correspondence at that time, indicates in the affirmative.

Was the Crisp Royal Commission, when it 'found' in favour in fluoridation, and, incidentally, in favour of the major polluter and producer of fluoride in Tasmania (Electrolytic Zinc Corp., Risdon, Hobart), aware of the consequences of any such favourable findings? Conditions then and since mingle with some incredible documented coincidences, and unbelievable but documented official behavior, including that of premiers and health ministers, and the paucity of current State parliamentary investigations into fluorine-based environment problems, to convince the most skeptical that it was.

Was the Victorian Premier (Sir Rupert Hamer, who was later to publicly declare the dictatorial credo, "It was always tempting to override the people and impose a new order"), aware of these background facts when he instituted indemnified water fluoridation legislation and a subsequent fraudulently conceived and executed cover-up "inquiry"? (Ballarat Courier, 6 October 1982) Irrespective of the obviously familial supplier advantages, it seems certain that he was certain that he was so aware. Widespread publicity regarding subsequent alleged complex land company fraud transactions would seemingly underwrite the existence of the necessary character attributes to perform as implied.

Are the lies, denials, fabrications and evasions evident in Geelong with two fluoride pollution sources (aluminum smelting and fertilizer production), and Portland with ditto sources, no more than "job protection" and "rate protection" scares as is claimed, or is there a deeper, wider federal or international instructional background behind the unmonitored pollution, with the health detriment there from and the 'secrecy legislation' invoked for the Victorian aluminum industry?

[Was] Mrs. Thatcher's astronomical expenditure of United Kingdom revenue on a fluoridation campaign in Northern Ireland a matronly concern for the youngsters' teeth, or perhaps an attempt to sedate the people and render them subservient to her autocratic dictates? Remember this. Mrs. Thatcher has a background of academic chemistry and would be far from ignorant of the tranquilizing effects of the halogens and their halides.

Similarly, her legal and political shenanigans (that is the only word to describe her behavior) in the England fluoridation scene offer many avenues for questioning of her motives.

Are the lies, fabrications, omissions, evasions and official hysteria in the federal government and bureaucracy at the very mention of fluorides,
fluoride pollution or water fluoridation, also common to the state governments and bureaucracies, and repeatedly backed up by the most lunatic science (as witness, the ministerially approved and internationally derided propaganda from the National Health and Medical Research Council), royal and vice-regal intransigence, a frightening exhibition of this grim foreknowledge, all of which has abundant documentary support, or simply no more than dastardly coincidence?
Washington, D.C. 20460

MAR 30 1983


Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D.
363 Walnut Street
Newtonville, Mass. 02160

Dear Dr. Russell:
Thank you for you letter of March 9, 1983, in regard to the fluoridation of drinking water.
The information available to the Environmental Protection Agency is that fluoridation is a safe and effective means for reducing the occurrence of dental caries. The fluoridation process has been endorsed by several Presidents of the United States and by several Surgeons General, including the current Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop. A copy of Dr. Koop's statement on fluoridation is enclosed.

Water treatment chemicals, including fluosilicic acid, have been evaluated for their potential for contributing to the contamination of drinking water. The Water Treatment Chemicals Codex, published by the National Academy of Sciences, prescribes the purity requirement for fluosilicic acid and other fluoridation chemicals.

In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertiliser manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them. I hope this information adequately responds to your concern.
Sincerely yours,
Rebecca Hanmer
Deputy Assistant, Administrator for Water

(Note: Dr. C.E. Koop's original 1983 "statement on fluoridation" mysteriously has disappeared, and has been replaced by this (suspect) "statement" From Dr. Koop in Nov. 2000, San Antonio Express-News, where, Dr. Koop's one paragraph 'statement' says; "My opinion on fluoridation has not changed. I am in favor of fluoridation now." ... What an odd way to make a statement concerning this issue. -- What does Koop mean, "In favor of fluoridation NOW?")
To: John Justice
Mississippi State Dept. of Health

Dental and Oral Health
570 East Woodrow Wilson
PO Box 1700
Jackson, MS.  39215-1700

From: Dan Case
PO Box 133
Collinsville, MS. 39325-0133

Sent: 6/24/2008 4:28:56 AM CDT

  John Justice, I recently spoke to the head of the Collinsville, Mississippi Water Assn. And requested that the Fluoride be removed from our water supply. He informed me, that I would need to contact you, regarding this issue. I AM NOW CONTACTING YOU, (for the second time) REGARDING THIS ISSUE.


   I, (Dan Case - A Collinsville Water Association Customer) was Informed, that you, John Justice, appeared in Collinsville in 2006, and 'sold' the residents of Collinsville, the “Benefits of Fluoride.” John Justice, Who represents The Mississippi State Dept. of Health, (Dental and Oral Health) For The Great State of Mississippi, offered to pay for the installation and subsequent upkeep of the industrial byproduct, known as “Sodium Fluoride.” And Who agreed to be “responsible” for providing the shipment of, The installation of and the 'upkeep' of, the chemical substance known as “Sodium Fluoride.” or Fluorine -- Also known as: "Fluorine, F, Atomic number: 9 " (by it's Periodic Table of Elements no.) A KNOWN CARCINOGENIC, that was deployed into the Collinsville Water Supply, March, 22, 2006, Knowing FULL well, that THERE ARE, NO KNOWN BENEFITS TO THE APPLICATION OF FLUORIDE TO HUMANS ... IT IS, (IN FACT), RAT POISON ... IT IS, A KNOWN CARCINOGENIC, A POISON, IN ANY DOSE.

  I am told, that; “Sodium Fluoride.” (Even small doses) -- Fluoride isn't harmful," and that; "It's good for your teeth." This Statement Is Patently UNTRUE. In fact, during clinical studies, (done by the National Institute of Dental Research) on 39,000 children, there wasn't ANY significant difference in the number of cavities of those who drank fluoridated water, vs. those who didn't. IN FACT,  you can get 'Dental fluorosis,' (a sophisticated name for brown, pitted teeth) and Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) from ingesting Fluoride. It is now an established fact that fluoride ingestion over a period of time does, (in fact) affect the structure and function of cells, tissues, organs and systems, within the human body, resulting in a variety of clinical manifestations.
  For example:
1) Aches and pain in the joints, i.e. neck, back, hip, shoulder and knee without visible signs of fluid accumulation
2) Non-ulcer dyspepsia such as nausea, vomiting, pain in the stomach, bloated feeling or gas formation in the stomach, constipation followed by diarrhea
3) Polyuria (frequent urination) and polydipsia (excessive thirst)
4) Muscle weakness, fatigue, anemia with low hemoglobin level
5) Complaints of repeated abortions/still birth
6) Complaints of male infertility with abnormality in sperm morphology, oligospermia (spermatozoa deficiency in the semen), azoospermia (spermatozoa absence in the semen) and low testosterone levels.
Fluoridation positively correlates to cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, colon, rectum, hepato-bilary and urinary organs and bone cancer in males. A 1990 National Toxicology Program (NTP) study, supplied a detailed description of the toxicology of fluoride, not only in terms of osteosarcoma, but also lesions in the oral mucosa, thyroid gland, skin and uterus. Such a broad spectrum association has never been observed for any particular known carcinogen before, but it's reasonable for fluoride, because of its strong electronegative nature.

  I'm certain that the citizens of Collinsville, Mississippi, did just fine, (prior the addition of sodium Fluoride) introduced to the municipal water supply, on March, 22, 2006, and so, I don't see any reason that this POISONOUS and DEADLY chemical compound, should remain in our Municipal/Drinking water supply. Numerous Qualified scientists, agree, that Any amount of Fluoride, (in our water supply, because it's good for everyone's teeth). Poses a criminal offense to the public health. "Ingesting fluoride does NOT reduce tooth decay, but HAS caused a massive increase in disfiguring dental fluorosis." Says The NYS Coalition, Opposed to Municipal Water Supply, (Public) Fluoridation, (NYSCOF) which consists of scientists, physicians, dentists, legislators, lawyers, environmentalists, university professors, other professionals, and concerned citizens who volunteer their efforts to inform the public about fluoride/fluoridation's scientifically supported harmful dental, systemic and cumulative effects, to balance the usually pro-fluoridation opinion that's reported by mainstream media.
The FACT That; The Fluoridation of municipal water, causes over 20,000 cancer deaths per year in the United States, should be more than enough reason to seriously reconsider it's removal. Your refusal to remove this deadly chemical, only leads to two logical questions ... Knowing the state must know the dangers of Fluoride, what is the TRUE ulterior motive behind the state's unwillingness to remove it, as well as; what was the REAL reason for it's introduction and subsequent deployment in the first place?! Please study the information I have amassed regarding this issue, and get back to me as soon as possible. If you continue to ignore my request, other measures may be taken, to rectify this VERY IMPORTANT issue.

Dan Case
PO Box 133
Collinsville, MS.



MR. JOHN JUSTICE, (MS. State Dept. of Health - Dental and Oral Health) NEVER RETURNED A PNONE CALL.

50 Reasons To Oppose Fluoridation
Dr. Paul Connett - Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University, NY. 13617
315-229-5853   -
Fluoride IS a DEADLY Poison!  Abstract Water fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluoride to the water supply to produce a final concentration of fluoride of 1 part per million in an effort to prevent tooth decay. Trials first began in the US in 1945, but before any of these trials were complete, the practice was endorsed by the US Public Health Service in 1950. Since then fluoridation has been enthusiastically and universally promoted by US health officials as being a "safe and effective" for fighting tooth decay. However, even though most countries worldwide have not succumbed to America's enthusiasm for this practice, their teeth are just as good, if not better, than those countries that have. The "50 Reasons" offered in this article for opposing fluoridation are based on a thorough review of the scientific literature, as regards both the risks and benefits of being exposed to the fluoride ion. Documentation is offered which indicates that the benefits of ingested fluoride have been exaggerated, while the numerous risks have been downplayed or ignored. Introduction This document, titled "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation," has an interesting history. In October 2000, Dr. Hardy Limeback and I were invited by Ireland’s Ministry of Health and Children to present our concerns about water fluoridation to a panel called the "Fluoridation Forum. We accepted. Ireland is the only country in Europe which has mandatory fluoridation and currently, over 70% of the Irish population is drinking fluoridated water. When fluoridation opponents in Ireland heard that we had agreed to testify they were furious. They believed that this forum had been set up by the government merely to appear to deal with growing discontent about fluoridation. Opponents believed that most of the Forum panel members had been hand picked to "whitewash" fluoridation, and by testifying, Dr. Limeback and I would give an illusion of legitimacy to an illegitimately established process and any product it produced. We were in a dilemma. Although we also suspected that the opponents were correct in thinking the Forum was merely a rubber stamp for government policy, we both had a strong desire to bring the best science available to the panel. Had we chosen not to appear, proponents could have argued that there was no valid, scientific case to be made against fluoridation. In the face of fierce opposition we proceeded to testify. In my testimony, however, I explained that many citizens felt the forum was "fixed." Then I offered the panel a challenge that could demonstrate to the Irish people and to us that the panel was truly going to perform an objective review of the issue. I presented the "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" and asked the panel to prepare a written, scientifically documented response and to make it publicly available. Initially, the panel agreed and set up a sub-committee to do this. Forum minutes over the next year indicate several exchanges about how much progress was being made with the task. However, shortly before the Forum report was completed, it was announced that the panel didn't have time to complete its answers. The cover excuse was that most of the 50 reasons were actually addressed in their 296 page report. This was blatantly untrue. Subsequently, a group of 11 scientists, including Dr. Limeback and myself, issued a detailed critique of the Forum's report which can be accessed at It now has been three and a half years since the "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation" was presented to the Fluoridation Forum, and even though the Irish Minister of Health and Children, Mr. Michael Martin, has been questioned about this document in the Irish parliament, there still has been no formal answer to the questions. Meanwhile, citizens in other fluoridated countries (e.g. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) have asked their own local, state and federal health officials to respond to the "50 Reasons" document also, to no avail.

The 50 Reasons To Oppose Fluoridation
(updated April 12, 2004)

1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM
1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.

2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health Organization in Appendix 1, and the time trends presented graphically at The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating, are presented in Appendix 2.)

3) Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over
39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman
1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded: "The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).

4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased 2 (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).

5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.

6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).

7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride's benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don't have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. (His editorial appears in Appendix 3.)

8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride supplement designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).

9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).

10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride. While the mechanism by which the enamel is damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the growing teeth (Dan Besten 1999), or through fluoride's interference with G-protein signaling mechanisms (Matsuo 1996). In a study in Mexico, Alarcon- Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in children.

11) The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers' milk (0.005 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.

13) Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding (Emsley 1981) and inhibits numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978).

14) When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with Gproteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminumfluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka and Patocka 1999, Li 2003).

15) Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993 and Mihashi 1996). Recent studies have also found a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997 and Joseph 2000).

16) Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals which are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn't otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998).

17) Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits which are characteristic of Alzheimers disease (Varner 1998).

18) Aluminum fluoride was recently nominated by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for testing by the National Toxicology Program. According to EPA and NIEHS, aluminum fluoride currently has a "high health research priority" due to its "known neurotoxicity" (BNA, 2000). If fluoride is added to water which contains aluminum, than aluminum fluoride complexes will form.

19) Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or "couch potato" syndrome). More recent animal experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the brain (Wang 1997; Guan 1998; Varner 1998; Zhao 1998; Zhang 1999; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002, 2003; Long 2002; Shivarajashankara 2002a, b; Shashi 2003 and Zhai 2003) and impact learning and behavior (Paul 1998; Zhang 1999, 2001; Sun 2000; Ekambaram 2001; Bhatnagar 2002).

20) Five studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with fluoride exposure (Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Li 1995; 3 Zhao 1996; Lu 2000; and Xiang 2003a, b). One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency.

21) Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997).

22) In the first half of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid-depressing medication which could, in turn, serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent problems related to this disorder. Such problems include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease. It bears noting that according to the Department of Health and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps the dose (2.3 - 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the human thyroid (Galletti & Joyet 1958). This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism in the United States (in 1999, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid, which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid). In Russia, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water.

23) Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a fluorideinduced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed" (Hileman 1988). Few if any studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis - CDC, 2002) is related to our growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. The causes of most forms of arthritis (e.g. osteoarthritis) are unknown.

24) In some studies, when high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). The cumulative doses used in these trials are exceeded by the lifetime cumulative doses being experienced by many people living in fluoridated communities.

25) Nineteen studies (three unpublished, including one abstract) since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of fluoride in water and hip fracture among the elderly. Eleven of these studies found an association, eight did not. One study found a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence (All 19 of these studies are referenced as a group in the reference section).

26) The only government-sanctioned animal study to investigate if fluoride causes cancer, found a dose-dependent increase in cancer in the target organ (bone) of the fluoride-treated (male) rats (NTP 1990). The initial review of this study also reported an increase in liver and oral cancers, however, all non-bone cancers were later downgraded – with a questionable rationale - by a government-review panel (Marcus 1990). In light of the importance of this study, EPA Professional Headquarters Union has requested that Congress establish an independent review to examine the study's results (Hirzy 2000).

27) A review of national cancer data in the US by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed a significantly higher rate of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover 1991). While the NCI concluded that fluoridation was not the cause, no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found bone cancer rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies have failed to find this relationship (Mahoney 1991; Freni 1992).

28) Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system - it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a, b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002 and Zakrzewska 2002). Whilestudies conducted at the FDA have failed to find reproductive effects in rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), an epidemiological study from the US has found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 or more ppm fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), and 2 studies have found a reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996 and Barot 1998).

29) The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored. There has never been a comprehensive analysis of the fluoride levels in the bones, blood, or urine of the American people or the citizens of other fluoridated countries. Based on the sparse data that has become available, however, it is increasingly evident that some people in the population – particularly people with kidney disease - are accumulating fluoride levels that have been associated with harm to both animals and humans, particularly harm to bone (see Connett 2004).

30) Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. This is because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996 and Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999 and Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), teas (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues on food (Stannard 1991 and Burgstahler 1997).

31) Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication. This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation (see appendix 2). 4 As one doctor aptly stated, "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life, because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion."

32) While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from central government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way -- does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it's against that neighbor's will)?

33) Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967, Waldbott 1978 and Moolenburg 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Can we as a society force these people to ingest fluoride?

34) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977 and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects; these include: the elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function. Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?

35) Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While being at heightened risk, poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures (e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).

36) Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for poor families. The real "Oral Health Crisis" that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

37) Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at preventing one of the most serious oral health problems facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay, otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992 and Shiboski 2003).

38) The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000, see Appendix 3 for commentary).

39) The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed.

40) Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999). This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).

41) Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more fluoride today than we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the "optimal" fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same level deemed optimal in 1945! (Marier & Rose 1977; Levy 1999; Rozier 1999 and Fomon 2000).

42) The chemicals used to fluoridate water in the US are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).

43) These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure. These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.

44) Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children's blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.

45) Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance -- just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult. Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.

46) Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation (see appendix 4).

47) The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson: "I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history...Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication - of the type 1 tablet 5-3 times a day - to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).

48) While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics' view" (See appendix 5). In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that "the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues" (Martin 1991).

49) Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Most recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain; and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoridecancer study (Bryson 2004). Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.

50) The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999). According to the Union’s Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy: "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all - that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."


  When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings, if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it's called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened. It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's mouth? For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.”
  Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at:
A more systematic presentation of fluoride’s toxic effects, can be found at:
(The Information Above, Is From PDF Document:

“The Truth That Makes Men Free Is, For The Most Part,
The Truth, Which Men Prefer NOT To Hear.”

~ Herbert Agar ~

“Educate and Inform, The Whole Mass of The People ...
They Are The Only Sure Reliance, For The Preservation of Our Liberty.”
~ Thomas Jefferson ~

The Hidden Agenda: The Fluoride Deception (1 hr - 8 min)
DR. Monteith goes over the history of fluoride, its use, its dangers and its promotion over time.
Why is something that is rejected by so many nations, promoted here in the USA?
Watch this shocking video and Learn about the Hidden Agenda behind the use of Fluoride,
who's behind it and the real purpose behind its use.


Sodium Flouride IS DEADLY POISON!

FACT: Fluoride IS a DEADLY POISON, That CAUSES Birth Defects, Brain Damage, And CANCER!Reich Minister of Propaganda in Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. NWO's Grim Reaper, With Child
“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 Becomes The Greatest Enemy of The State.
~ Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels ~ 
(Nazi Propaganda Minister, and Adolf Hitler's Successor as Chancellor of Germany.)

Click HERE, To Subscribe To: CC.C's (FREE) 'News, None-The-Less' Newsletters!             CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH? Click HERE To Listen To The 'T-Rex' of Political Talk Radio ... It's The Alex Jones Show, From The GCN Radio Network!
TheHeartlandUSA.ComGo HERE, To Visit The Heartland USA Store!

'Mr. Natural' Sezz ...Go HERE, To Drop Me An E-mail On This Issue ... Questions Concerning Poisonous Fluoride In The Drinking Water? Click HERE, To E-Mail Dan @ CC.C