~
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) About
Fluoride In Drinking Water Think Fluoride In Your Drinking Water, Is Good For You And Your Teeth? GUESS AGAIN
...
Actual
studies, (like the one done by the National Institute of Dental Research) on 39,000 children, show no significant difference
in number of cavities on those who drank fluoridated water, vs. those who didn't. In fact, fluoride can give you "dental fluorosis" a sophisticated
name for brown, pitted teeth.
OTHER
FACTS: 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.
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."
PROZAC: 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 this 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 harmfulness, 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."
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 the material? What is 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. And the trick is not to swallow it. The producers of the poison get to escape legal sanction by including
a vague warning and puerile advice. But they depend for their continuing profits on us not reading the fine print. A fine
point is that the poison also sedates us. Fluoride is a major component of Prozac. Brilliant! Read On ...
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 and labeled “TOXIC,”
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.
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 ...
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.
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, WillNEVER AGAIN, BE THE SAME PERSON.” ~ Charles Elliot Perkins ~
IT'S
TIME FOR YOU, TO WAKE-UP and SNAP OUT OF IT! 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'TNeed Government
'Medicating' Us, DO WE? GET MAD -- SPEAK OUT! Send an Online Message/Letter To Congress, In Support of Calling For The End To Water Fluoridation!
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.”
* 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 -
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
fluoridealert.org's references, click here)
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.
"PERKINS" "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!'"
INDUCED APATHY 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 CARTEL 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' ...
FOUNDATIONS
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.
SO WHAT? 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? _________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Washington, D.C. 20460 MAR 30 1983
OFFICE OF WATER
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 601-576-7500 john.justice@msdh.state.ms.us
From: Dan Case PO Box 133 Collinsville, MS. 39325-0133 601-527-5326 DanCasesCorner@aol.com 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.
PLEASE, TAKE THE STEPS
NECESSARY, TO REMOVE THIS POINONOUS, DEADLY, CHEMICAL COMPOUND,
KNOWN AS; “SODIUM FLUORIDE” -- FROM THE COLLINSVILLE,
MISSISSIPPI WATER SUPPLY.
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. http://www.casescorner.com/id12.html
Sincerely, Dan Case PO Box 133 Collinsville, MS. 39325-0133
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.
“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 GreatestEnemy of TheState.” ~ Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels ~
(Nazi Propaganda Minister, and Adolf Hitler's Successor as Chancellor of Germany.)
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 
4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the 
6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride's benefits
come from 
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 
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 
