Friday 19 July 2024

The Fluoride Deception

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson documents a powerful connection between big corporations, the military, and the historic reassurances of fluoride safety provided by the government.

The Fluoride Deception reads like a thriller, but one supported by two hundred pages of source notes, years of investigative reporting, scores of scientist interviews, and archival research in places such as the newly opened files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission. 

The book is nothing less than an exhumation of one of the great secret narratives of the industrial era: how a grim workplace poison and the most damaging environmental pollutant of the cold war was added to our drinking water and toothpaste.


 

Thursday 18 July 2024

Fluoridation: The Fraud of the Century

Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it.


 
Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.

They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2

The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3

On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4

The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5

Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5

The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6

From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.

Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.

Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”

Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7

EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8

There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9

Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.

Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.

A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14

The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!

Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16

When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!

Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).

On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not – look at how many years millions of people were fooled by the tobacco industry!


References

  1. George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
  2. R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
  3. San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
  4. Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
  5. “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
  6. San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
  7. Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
  8. J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
  9. Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
  10. “The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
  11. The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
  12. K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
  13. National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
  14. Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
  15. Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
  16. Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.

 https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/health-issues/fluoridation-the-fraud-of-the-century

Wednesday 17 July 2024

Warning - Fluoride In Your Water

Fluoridation of water is promoted as a health measure when the science indicates multiple toxicities. In this interview Dr Sam Bailey speaks with one of the unsung New Zealand heroes, Kane Titchener who has volunteered his time to combat the authorities’ attempts to poison our water supplies.

videos/interviews/warning-fluoride-in-your-water/


In this video he discusses:

    The relationship of fluoridation to vaccination
    The effects of fluoride on the brain and IQ
    Why your typical doctor or dentist doesn’t know much about fluoride
    How to protect yourself against fluoride toxicity
    What kind of toothpaste is best for your family


Tuesday 16 July 2024

Fluoride has been implicated in all of these diseases


Blind Spots; Body temperature disturbances; Breast Cancer; Cachexia (wasting away); Candidasis; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Cataracts; Change in blood pressure(=/-); Chest pain; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Collagen breakdown; Cold Shivers; Coma; Concentration Inability; Constipation; Convulsions; Crying easily for no apparent reason; Death; Decrease in Testosterone; Dementia; Demyelinizing Diseases; Dental Abnormalities; Dental Arch smaller; Dental Crowding; Dental enamel more porous; Dental Fluorosis (Mottling of teeth); Delayed Eruption of teeth; Depression; Diabetes Insipidus; Diabetes Mellitus; Diarrhea; Dizziness; Down Syndrome; Dry Mouth; Dyspepsia; Dystrophy; Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty; Eczema; Edema; Epilepsy; Eosinophilia; Excessive Sleepiness; Eye, ear and nose disorders; Fatigue; Fearfulness; Fever; Fibromyalgia; Fibrosarcoma; Fibrosis; Fingernails:Lines/Grooves; Fingernails:Brittle; Forgetfulness; Gallstones; Gastro-disturbances; Gastric Ulcers; Giant Cell Formation; Gingivitis; Goiter; Growth Disturbances; Headache; Hearing Loss; Heart Disorders; Heart Failure; Heart Palpitations; Hepatitis; Hemorrhage; Hives; Hoarseness; Hyperparathyroidism; Hypertension; Hypoplasia; Immunosuppression; Impotence; Incoherence; Infertility; Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Inner Ear Disorders; Irritability; Joint Pains; Kidney Failure; Lack of Energy; Lack of Co-ordination; Loss of Appetite; Loss of Consciousness; Loss of IQ; Loss of Spermatogenesis; Low Birth Weight; Lung Cancer; Lupus; Magnesium Deficiency; Memory Loss; Mental Confusion; Migraine; Mouth Sores; Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Pain, Wasting, Cramps, Stiffness, Weakness; Muscoskeletal Disease; Nausea; Osteoarthritis; Osteoporosis; Osteosarcoma; Optic Neuritis; Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Otosclerosis; Parkinson’s Disease; Pins & Needles; Polydipsia; Polyneuropathy; Polyurea; Pyelocystitis; Premature Delivery; Pruritis (Itchy Skin); Pulminary Edema; Recurring Colds; Respiratory Complications; Restlessness; Retinitis; Rhinitis; Schizophrenia; Sceroderma; Skin Pigmentation; Secondary teeth erupt later; Sensitive to light; Seizures; Shortness of Breath; SIDS; Sinus Infections; Skeletal Changes; Sleep Disorders; Slipped Epiphysis; Sluggishness; Skin Irritations; Spondylitis, ankylosing; Stillbirths; Swallowing Difficulties; Swelling in Face; Telangiectasia; Testicular Growth/Alteration; Thirst; Thrombosis; Thyroid Cancer; Tinnitus; Tingling Sensations; Visual disturbances; Ulcerative Colitis; Urticaria; Uterine Bleeding; Uterine Cancer; Vaginal Bleeding; Vas Deferens Alterations; Vertigo; Vitiligo; Weak Pulse; Weight Disturbances; Zinc Deficiency.


 

Monday 15 July 2024

Another Study Designed To Find No Effect

 Australian study of fluoridation neurotoxicity: Streetlight Effect Fallacy

Researchers looked in the wrong place. Couldn’t find IQ loss that other studies found.

 

Insensitive And Unreliable Measures Of Neurotoxicity

A just-published Australian study claims to have found no link between fluoridation and harm to children’s developing brains but didn’t use any IQ tests [Do 2022].  Instead, it used parent questionnaires of child behaviors which have been found to be relatively insensitive to detecting harm from fluoride and other neurotoxic chemicals.

The study’s lead author, dentist Dr. Loc Do of Queensland University, Australia, used two parent questionnaires to see if he could detect the same neurotoxic effects in Australian children that numerous other studies have found in Canada, Mexico, China, and elsewhere.  But those studies all used standard IQ-type tests.  Do’s study instead used a Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), which is not a measure of intelligence or cognitive ability but is “a 25-item brief behavioral screening tool that measures children’s behaviors, emotions, and relationships.”  For example, it asks parents whether their child can be described as “Kind”, “Lies”, “Bullied”, “Shares”, “Unhappy”, “Helps”, “Clingy”, and other items having little relationship to IQ [Ribeiro Santiago 2021].

 

Other Weaknesses: Ecological, Didn’t Account For All Fluoride Sources, Inadequate Control Of Confounders

Do’s study summary for his grant claimed his study would provide “high quality evidence” on fluoridation and intellectual development.  However, it has additional important shortcomings compared to recent studies that found adverse neurotoxic effects.  Do’s study, instead of using an individual-level measure of fluoride exposure, used a group-level measure (also called an ecological measure), and only tried to account for fluoride from fluoridated water, rather than all sources.  This is an important weakness compared to the best studies, which either used the biomarker of urine fluoride concentration which reflects fluoride exposure from all sources, or used combined estimates of fluoride intake from drinking water and tea [Goodman 2022, Cantoral 2021, Farmus 2021, Wang 2021, Yu 2021, Zhao 2021, Till 2020, Wang 2019, Green 2019, Riddell 2019, Bashash 2018, Bashash 2017, Valdez-Jimenez 2017]. Tea has been found to be the second largest source of fluoride exposure after fluoridated water, even in a country with much lower tea consumption than Australia [Helte 2021].  The inability to account for all sources of fluoride exposure in the Do study likely further reduced the study’s ability to detect an effect of fluoride.

Another weakness of the Do study is its lack of control for potentially important confounders, which other recent studies did control for, including: lead, mercury, arsenic, PFOA, parent IQ, HOME score, gestational age, birth weight, parity, marriage status, smoking, alcohol use of mother, and Body Mass Index (BMI).

Cites Food & Pharma Industry Front-Group’s Bogus Review

More evidence of the author’s bias is found in the Do paper introduction that cites a very biased German review that concludes fluoride has no association with neurotoxicity [Guth 2020].  This is a favorite review of fluoridation defenders.  But the authors of that review are closely associated with a front-group for food and pharmaceutical interests that has a history of claiming chemical food additives, genetically modified foods, and even endocrine disrupting chemicals are no problem [USRightToKnow 2022, CorporateEuropeObservatory 2012, TestBioTech 2012]. We’ll have more on those authors and their links with industry in a future bulletin.

Do’s Advocacy For Fluoridation Reveals Bias

Finally, the choice to publish Do’s paper in the fluoridation-friendly Journal of Dental Research (JDR) instead of a journal specializing in neurotoxicity or environmental health, is further evidence the Do study is biased to avoid finding an adverse effect that might threaten fluoridation.  JDR is sponsored by the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), which has had a long-standing official position supporting fluoridation and claiming it is “safe and effective”.  In fact, the latest update of the IADR Position Statement on fluoridation was written by Dr. Do and has outdated and misleading information about adverse effects [IADR 2021].

The Streetlight Effect Fallacy may explain how this Australian study failed to find harm to the brain from fluoridation, but another proverb summarizes what appears to be the attitude of the researchers, and of all fluoridation defenders who are trying to deny the strong scientific evidence that fluoride harms brains: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil… about fluoridation.

Other Weaknesses: Ecological, Didn’t Account For All Fluoride Sources, Inadequate Control Of Confounders

Do’s study summary for his grant claimed his study would provide “high quality evidence” on fluoridation and intellectual development.  However, it has additional important shortcomings compared to recent studies that found adverse neurotoxic effects.  Do’s study, instead of using an individual-level measure of fluoride exposure, used a group-level measure (also called an ecological measure), and only tried to account for fluoride from fluoridated water, rather than all sources.  This is an important weakness compared to the best studies, which either used the biomarker of urine fluoride concentration which reflects fluoride exposure from all sources, or used combined estimates of fluoride intake from drinking water and tea [Goodman 2022, Cantoral 2021, Farmus 2021, Wang 2021, Yu 2021, Zhao 2021, Till 2020, Wang 2019, Green 2019, Riddell 2019, Bashash 2018, Bashash 2017, Valdez-Jimenez 2017]. Tea has been found to be the second largest source of fluoride exposure after fluoridated water, even in a country with much lower tea consumption than Australia [Helte 2021].  The inability to account for all sources of fluoride exposure in the Do study likely further reduced the study’s ability to detect an effect of fluoride.

Another weakness of the Do study is its lack of control for potentially important confounders, which other recent studies did control for, including: lead, mercury, arsenic, PFOA, parent IQ, HOME score, gestational age, birth weight, parity, marriage status, smoking, alcohol use of mother, and Body Mass Index (BMI).

Cites Food & Pharma Industry Front-Group’s Bogus Review

More evidence of the author’s bias is found in the Do paper introduction that cites a very biased German review that concludes fluoride has no association with neurotoxicity [Guth 2020].  This is a favorite review of fluoridation defenders.  But the authors of that review are closely associated with a front-group for food and pharmaceutical interests that has a history of claiming chemical food additives, genetically modified foods, and even endocrine disrupting chemicals are no problem [USRightToKnow 2022, CorporateEuropeObservatory 2012, TestBioTech 2012]. We’ll have more on those authors and their links with industry in a future bulletin.

Do’s Advocacy For Fluoridation Reveals Bias

Finally, the choice to publish Do’s paper in the fluoridation-friendly Journal of Dental Research (JDR) instead of a journal specializing in neurotoxicity or environmental health, is further evidence the Do study is biased to avoid finding an adverse effect that might threaten fluoridation.  JDR is sponsored by the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), which has had a long-standing official position supporting fluoridation and claiming it is “safe and effective”.  In fact, the latest update of the IADR Position Statement on fluoridation was written by Dr. Do and has outdated and misleading information about adverse effects [IADR 2021].

The Streetlight Effect Fallacy may explain how this Australian study failed to find harm to the brain from fluoridation, but another proverb summarizes what appears to be the attitude of the researchers, and of all fluoridation defenders who are trying to deny the strong scientific evidence that fluoride harms brains: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil… about fluoridation.


 

Sunday 14 July 2024

Only in New Zealand

No countries in Europe are still poisoning their citizens with fluoride.
 
 
Fluoridation has been rejected in just about every country in the world. Yet, here in New Zealand, the globalist "government" is extending fluoridation across the entire country.
 
No country in continental Europe has fluoridation. Some countries in Europe did start fluoridation many years ago but have all since stopped. The last place to stop was the Basque region in Spain.
 
The UK (10%) and Ireland (70%) are the only European countries that still fluoridate. Only eight, out of a total of 197, countries in the world have more than 50% of the population on fluoridated water.
 
Back in 2014, Fluoride Free New Zealand aired an advert on TV3 to present this information. The 30 second advert provided some of the reasons these countries have rejected fluoridation. https://youtube.com/watch?v=-F-0XoG4EzY

See Statements from European Health, Water and Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation. https://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/

Saturday 13 July 2024

Fluoride is not a nutrient in any way

It’s often said that what makes fluoridation so harmful is that they use a chemical called hydrofluorosilicic acid rather than naturally occurring fluoride. However, the fact is all fluoride is toxic, even naturally occurring fluoride.


Fluoride is not a nutrient in any way. It is not like calcium or magnesium; it is much more like lead or arsenic.

In some parts of Africa, China, India and other parts of the world, the underground fluoride supplies have high amounts of fluoride. This causes huge problems. The children and adults suffer from skeletal fluorosis which causes crippling bone problems.

It is expensive to remove fluoride as most filters do not remove it. To remove all fluoride a reverse osmosis or distillation system is needed although in rural India they are developing some low cost filtration systems using lime.

A website called India Water Portal contains a lot of really interesting information regarding the harms of excess fluoride. The images of children with deformities and adults bed-ridden is heart breaking. There are also articles about what people are doing to try and remove fluoride and even remedy skeletal fluorosis through avoidance of fluoride and a nutrient dense diet.

It is true, though, that naturally occurring fluoride is generally not as toxic as the chemical fluoride added to New Zealand waters. Naturally occurring fluoride normally comes with high levels of calcium or magnesium which it binds to and makes less toxic. Also, fluoride is cumulative and even “low” levels can cause skeletal fluorosis. The first stage of skeletal fluorosis is identical to arthritis and doctors in New Zealand are not aware that patients presenting with arthritic-like symptoms may, in fact, have skeletal fluorosis.

Demanding that councils add a toxic substance like fluoride purposedly to people’s water, is absolutely crazy if the Director-General of Health’s aim is to improve the health of New Zealanders. And it is cowardly and ignorant of any mayor or councillor not to stand up to this craziness and tell the Direct-General of Health that they will not take any part in poisoning the community.

 

Friday 12 July 2024

Fluoride is absorbed through the skin

Fluoride is also absorbed through the skin so unless you have full household filtration you are absorbing it every time you shower...

 

Some facts about fluoride

– Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

– 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however most New Zealander's are being forced to drink it and the NZ government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.

– In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

– In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

– Other sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.



Thursday 11 July 2024

Fluoride Stupidity & Population Control

Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It’s historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the insane but highly profitable idea of selling it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then forcing the public to DRINK it.


 
Fluoride is injected into our drinking water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink 0.5% of the total water supply, the remaining 99.5% literally goes down the drain as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical industry

Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient.

There are reports of aluminum in the brain being a causative factor in Alzheimer’s Disease, and evidence points towards fluoride’s strong affinity for aluminum and also its ability to “trick” the blood-brain barrier by looking like the hydrogen ion, and thus allowing chemical access to brain tissue.




Wednesday 10 July 2024

Winning the Fluoride Fight

James Corbett talks to Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ in the #FluorideLawsuit. They discuss the history of the lawsuit, what’s at stake, and how people who are concerned about the fluoridation of the water supply can get involved in the fight against this uncontrolled medical intervention.

Tuesday 9 July 2024

Fluoridated Toothpaste – Toxic and bad for teeth too

 Most toothpastes contain fluoride, supposedly to prevent tooth decay. Sadly, the majority of consumers fall for this con and poison themselves even further by applying it to their teeth.


The fluoride in toothpaste is not an organic trace mineral found in the ground. It’s an industrial waste chemical that has been deceivingly and incorrectly called “fluoride”. It is inorganic, very toxic, and more poisonous than lead.

Any amount of fluoride in water exceeding 2 ppm (parts per million) would be considered unsafe. But fluoridated toothpastes have been found to contain levels of up to 7000 ppm. Even the U.S. FDA now regards fluoride in toothpaste as a potential toxic drug.

One of the most common symptoms of excess fluoride is “dental fluorosis”. You will see chalky white patches on the teeth making teeth “spotty”. Enamels can also become more porous with use of fluoridated toothpaste leading to discoloration of the teeth and pitting of the enamel.

Young children tend to apply lots toothpaste to their toothbrush, and then swallow plenty of it. (Swallowing half a tube of fluoride toothpaste in one go can be fatal)

Fluoride in the mouth is absorbed through our mucous lining and accumulates in our bodies just like fluoride that has been swallowed. The accumulated fluoride is carcinogenic and harmful to our metabolic systems. It leads to increased hip fractures, osteoporosis, arthritis and lowered brain function.

Another harmful ingredient in toothpaste is sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) – a foam building substance known to be cancer causing.

And in addition, virtually all toothpastes contain glycerine. Glycerine coats the teeth, so that they can’t remineralise to heal tooth decay

The basic requirements for remineralising teeth are:

A nutrient dense, whole food, Weston A Price type diet, including:

Bone broths & marrow
  Cod liver oil
  Butter oil, or lots of good quality butter
  Good quality animal foods
  Fermented foods
Fluoride free water

 A fluoride free, glycerine free tooth cleaner



Monday 8 July 2024

There Are Multiple Toxins Added To NZ Tap Water

 Tap water in NZ is toxic because it contains fluoride, chlorine, aluminium (alum), and in some cases (where there are old water pipes) asbestos as well

It’s not just drinking the tap water that’s a problem – bathing and showering in it leads to fluoride and chlorine absorption too.

A good household carbon filter will take out chlorine, asbestos, and aluminium, but it will not take out fluoride. This can be done, but it requires a much more expensive filtration system (around NZ$2000-4000) to sort out your water for bathing and showering.

Reverse osmosis filters and distillers will get most of the fluoride out for drinking, but they remove the good minerals too, and this may cause other problems.

If you are unable to obtain water free from a good source, and have to buy bottled water, keep in mind that some bottled water is just tap water that’s been filtered to get rid of the chlorine taste, while some bottled spring water is good quality.

In Wellington, clean drinking water is freely available directly from the Petone Aquifer

And there is another aquifer at the Dowse Art Museum taps in Lower Hutt

IMG_0643b

For smaller amounts, and they ask customers not to take more than 2L at a time so it's not the spot for filling up a few hundred liters of bottles, there is also an artesian fountain at the Moore Wilson's store corner of Tory & College Streets Wellington.


 





Sunday 7 July 2024

Fluoride causes behavioural problems in children

New US Study finds fluoridated water is causing behavioural problems in children
 

Pre-natal fluoride exposure has serious consequences for mental health, according to another major study just published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
 
According to Tracy Bastain, senior author of the study and an associate professor of clinical population and public health science “Our results showed that higher fluoride levels in mother’s urine were associated with significantly increased neurodevelopmental problems in their three-year-old children, especially for internalizing problems like depression and anxiety…These results are very concerning from a public health perspective, given that the majority of U.S. communities have fluoridated water.”
 
This was reported in Newsweek, which went on to say “In their study, Bastain and colleagues found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in maternal fluoride exposure was associated with a near-doubling increase in their child’s risk of developing neurobehavioral problems, including emotional reactivity, headaches, anxiety and symptoms linked to autism.”
 
And the Los Angeles Times reported on the study confirming fluoride exposure was associated with “an increased risk of neurobehavioral problems at age 3, including symptoms that characterize autism spectrum disorder. The association was seen among women who consumed fluoride in amounts that are considered typical in Los Angeles and across the country.”
 
The study was conducted on mother-child pairs in Los Angeles, and found significant increases in psychological problem scores for both internal (e.g. depression and anxiety) and external (e.g. autism) conditions.
 
This latest US study is the first study of its kind carried out in the US but is on top of a growing number of US Government-funded studies from Canada and Mexico. It also comes after a major six year review carried out by the US Government’s National Toxicology Program that reviewed all fluoride IQ studies and found that fluoride “with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure … is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”
 
This study suggests that fluoridation is likely to be one of the reasons New Zealand children are suffering from record levels of anxiety and depression.
 
The fluoridation level recommended by the NZ Ministry of Health is 0.85ppm (midrange between 0.7 and 1ppm). This is 21% higher than the maximum target of 0.7ppm in the USA.
US scientists are calling for a warning that pregnant women should avoid fluoridated water. In 2018 the NZ Supreme Court held that once fluoride was in the water it was almost impossible to avoid completely and is “compulsory medical treatment”.
 
 

Saturday 6 July 2024

Fluoridation causes an average 5% drop in children's IQ

A Major US Government Study on Fluoride Damage to the brain should have ended fluoridation in New Zealand.

To summarize the key finding: Children born to mothers drinking the standard levels of fluoride used in NZ would have on average a 5 POINT LOWER IQ than children not exposed to fluoride poisoning.
 
 
The study published by the US Government’s Environmental Health Perspectives found that children born to mothers exposed to fluoride while pregnant, had significantly lower IQ scores. This is particularly relevant to New Zealand where most of the population is currently subjected to fluoridation.
 
It measured fluoride in urine and found the average level of fluoride in urine was 0.9mg/L (mg/L = parts per million). To relate this to water fluoride concentration, a separate study found that pregnant women in an area with 0.4 to 0.8 ppm water fluoride only had slightly lower urine fluoride than the average participants in this study. The NZ Ministry of Health recommends fluoride chemicals be added to the water at 0.85ppm.
 
Pregnant women in New Zealand in fluoridated areas likely have similar levels of urine fluoride as those in the American study. Urine fluoride reflects total fluoride intake from all sources, not just fluoridated water. The paper also reports that in the USA, which is 70% fluoridated, urine fluoride ranges from about 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L.
 
The child of a mother who was drinking water with 0.85ppm fluoride would be predicted to have 5 lower IQ points than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero fluoride in it. This obviously has huge consequences for New Zealand children.
 
The Ministry of Health recommended 1ppm until the 1990s when it reduced to a range from 0.7ppm to 1ppm, with a target of 0.85ppm. The US Human and Health Services have directed a maximum of 0.7ppm for fluoridation.
 
This study was very carefully done by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures. It was funded by the US Government’s National Institute of Health and was a multi-million dollar study. This was the group’s first study of fluoride – their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury and other environmental neurotoxicants.
 
The study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect. It was able to largely rule out confounding effects by these other factors. The factors ruled out included lead, mercury, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.
 
This study offers confirmation of previous studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere. Some of those studies had higher fluoride exposures than are commonly found in fluoridating countries, but many did not. 
 
The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation was by Dunedin (NZ) dentist Jonathan Broadbent. That study found no association between water fluoridation and IQ and was trumpeted by fluoridation defenders. But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL fluoride intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with non-fluoridated water, since at least half of the children in the non-fluoridated area were given fluoride supplements. This left only a small proportion of the study children without substantial fluoride exposure. 
 
Nor did this study look at maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy, which could be the most vulnerable time of exposure.
 
The study authors were cautious in their conclusions, but the implications of this study are enormous. There have been 58 other human studies looking at fluoride exposure and harm to the brain – 51 of them have found an association.
 
 

Friday 5 July 2024

FLUORIDE CAUSES TOOTH DECAY

Reducing tooth decay is the excuse the globalist governments use when poisoning the water supply. That lie falls apart as soon as any real research is done.


 FLUORIDE CAUSES TOOTH DECAY


Fluorides and dental fluorosis are actually associated with increased tooth decay. The most comprehensive US review was carried out by the National Institute of Dental Research on 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years. It showed no significant differences in terms of DMF (decayed, missing and filled teeth).

What it did show was that high decay cities (66.5-87.5 percent) have 9.34 percent more decay in the children who drink fluoridated water. Furthermore, a 5.4 percent increase in students with decay was observed when 1 ppm fluoride was added to the water supply. Nine fluoridated cities with high decay had 10 percent more decay than nine equivalent non-fluoridated cities.

The world’s largest study on dental caries, which looked at 400,000 students, revealed that decay increased 27 percent with a 1ppm fluoride increase in drinking water. In Japan, fluoridation caused decay increases of 7 percent in 22,000 students,while in the US a decay increase of 43 percent occurred in 29,000 students when 1ppm fluoride was added to drinking water.

https://www.westonaprice.org/fluoride-worse-than-we-thought

 


Thursday 4 July 2024

NZ Foods are poisoned with fluoride

The European Court of Justice ruled in 2009 that fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods, so Europe could technically block foods imported from Australia, NZ, USA and Ireland at any time.