WAPF WELLINGTON TOP 5 MOST POPULAR BLOG POSTS THIS MONTH (Scroll down to see the latest posts)

Saturday, 29 March 2025

Fluoride image gallery

  
We live in a society so dumbed down and mind programmed that most of the NZ population actually believe that fluoride, a toxic chemical waste product, is "good for their teeth"
 
The reason this carcinogenic neurotoxin is put in the water supply by globalist governments is because it helps to make people stupid enough to believe that drinking poison is good for them. 
 
The newly updated Fluoride Gallery has over 100 images highlighting the toxicity of fluoride.

 
 

Wednesday, 26 March 2025

Food 101 – Some eating basics

 To see the full length version of this post go to the "PAGES" menu in the  right corner or click on this link:



From avoiding trans fats to drinking clean water, we tried to line up the basics. We all have to start somewhere, and while some people who know their stuff are probably going to think this is all a bit simplistic, the aim here is to get people who don’t know their stuff to start paying more attention.

Thursday, 20 March 2025

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.

Wednesday, 19 March 2025

The Mucusless Diet

An early example of a bad diet was the “mucusless diet,” formulated by a German “professor” Arnold Ehret and published in a 1922 book called Mucusless Diet Healing System: Scientific Method of Eating Your Way to Health. Unfortunately, we don’t know the long-term effects of the diet on its inventor because Ehret died after falling on a curb and hitting his head two weeks after writing the book.

According to Ehret, “Every disease, no matter what name it is known by Medical Science, is Constipation. A clogging up of the entire pipe system of the human body. Any special symptom is therefore merely an extraordinary local constipation by more accumulated mucus at this particular place. Special accumulation points are the tongue, the stomach and particularly the entire digestive tract.” He preached that fruit was the perfect food and along with leafy vegetables was enough to sustain a human being in good health. He also advocated fasting, starting with a two- or three-day fast, and promoted longer fasts (up to forty days) once the body was used to going without food.

Like many other practitioners in the early 20th century, Ehret was fixated on the bowels—his contemporary John Harvey Kellogg, for example, believed that three bowel movements per day were a sign of good health. “The average person has as much as ten pounds of un-eliminated feces in the bowels continually, poisoning the blood stream and the entire system,” wrote Ehret. “Think of it! My ‘Mucus Theory’ and ‘Mucusless Diet Healing System’ stand unshaken; it has proven the most successful ‘Compensation-Action’ so-called cure against every kind of disease. By its systematic application thousands of declared-incurable patients could be saved.”

Whereas conventional doctors of the time—also often fixated on the bowels–treated “clogged bowels” with arsenic preparations, Ehret advocated a strict vegan diet—which may have unclogged those stroppy bowels in the short term, but would starve you if you stuck to it, especially if you also engaged in punishing fasts.

Only fruit and leafy green vegetables were allowed. “All other foods of civilization, without exception, are mucus and acid forming, and therefore are harmful.” Apparently, Ehret’s “scientific” approach failed to realize that our mucous membranes are there for a purpose. . . to produce mucus.

Ehret railed against the “heavy breakfast,” calling it “the worst and by far the most unhealthy habit. No solid food should be eaten in the early morning at all if you desire to secure the best results.” He also warned against taking liquids with foods.  “If accustomed to tea or coffee, wait a short while after you have eaten before drinking. Soups should be avoided with meals, as the more liquid taken the more difficult for proper digestion. If a warm drink is desired, for instance, as a breakfast drink during the winter time, make a broth by cooking for a long time different kinds of vegetables, such as spinach, onions, carrots, cabbages, etc., and DRINK THE JUICE ONLY.”

Unfortunately, the mucusless diet did not die with its inventor, but took on a life of its own.  Reprinted in 1953, his book is still out there urging a starvation diet as a way to bodily purity.  The most famous recent advocate for the diet was Apple CEO Steve Jobs who, for the better part of his life, consumed only fruits and vegetables until his death from pancreatic cancer in 2011. 

When Ashton Kutcher, who played the character of Jobs in the eponymous film, tried to follow the mucusless diet, he lost eighteen pounds but he ended up in the emergency room as his insulin levels fluctuated out of control.


What could possibly go wrong on a diet of only fruits and vegetables? Malnutrition, low blood sugar, osteoporosis, dementia, anger and mood swings (Jobs was famous for this), to name but a few. The diet certainly will not prevent cancer, as proven by the example of the late Apple CEO. 

 https://nourishingtraditions.com/weird-diets/

Saturday, 15 March 2025

Fluoride: A Toxic Waste Product

JULY 2024 WAS THE FIRST EVER FLUORIDE FREE NZ FLUORIDE AWARE MONTH 

Here in New Zealand, fluoride is still being added to the water supply by our globalist rulers, in order to make us sick, docile, and stupid.

To publicise what is going on we did a fluoride related post every day in July 2024, and shared them all on social media. This page is a compilation of those posts from last year.

Our 31 of our daily posts from July last year are all HERE


This is not  going to be the end of exposing the scandal of poisoning NZ ratepayers with a neorotoxin - let's keep this fight going, it is just as lethal as the "vaccinations" our corrupt health systems are poisoning children with.

  ·
☠️ Fluoride: A Toxic Waste Product ☠️

 
Hydrofluorosilcic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Why are we allowing this hazardous waste in our drinking water? It's time to demand an end to this abomination.


📢 Get Involved:  Follow our Facebook pages:

 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064287175469

 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561786023353

Which countries poison their citizens with Fluoride?

After decades of pro-fluoride propaganda in the New Zealand media, there are a lot of people here who still think that fluoridation is widespread. But outside of America, the practice is rare. In most countries it is illegal.

· Approximately 4% of the world’s population are being poisoned with a fluoridated water supply.

· There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the USA than the rest of the world combined.


https://fluoridefree.org.nz/who-would-have-believed.../...

 

Monday, 10 March 2025

Fluoridation is not about children’s teeth

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 industries!

References


    George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
    R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
    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.
    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.
    “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.
    San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
    Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
    J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
    Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
    “The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
    The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
    K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
    National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
    Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
    Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
    Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.



Saturday, 8 March 2025

When did we first name the imaginary virus?

WHEN DID WE FIRST START CALLING THE IMAGINARY VIRUS “COVID”?

 At some point we were programmed to switch from calling “CORONA VIRUS” to “COVID” (Certificate Of Vaccination ID). I think that was in 2021. In 2020 we were calling the imaginary “virus” "Corona" like a Mexican beer. And prior to 2020 we were calling these imaginary viruses all sorts of things but mainly “SARS” or just “The Flu”

Looking back through some of my old blog posts I stumbled upon this one, which I think highlights that even back in February 2020 a lot of us were fully aware that it was all fake.

https://steemit.com/teamnz/@frot/iscoronavirusalljustyetanotherpsyop-9wok1fp7h7


IS CORONA VIRUS ALL JUST YET ANOTHER PSYOP?

Corona virus – biggest psyop so far this year

This looks like a big psyop to me. I’ve been doing my best to keep my pie hole shut about Corona virus. Punters love to freak out about whatever fudporn the Illuminati overlords decide to dish up this month, and I can’t be bothered swapping lub with them,

(Lub – the bit of spit that comes out of ones mouth when talking to another person. “When Travis was chatting to Dolly, a massive lub exited his mouth and entered Dolly’s own mouth”)

2020 is already too much and it’s only February. Last month the end was nigh because of “global warming” (Aussie was having a lot of fires that were being lit by arsonists for some strange reason), then it was nigh because of WW3 (there was an Iranian general that was supposed to have been killed, but all those stories are so last month now), and this month it’s nigh because of yet another virus… The new virus story has been done to death – they always bring that one out when they have a gap in the calendar.


Yesterday one of my friends in America asked about Corona virus:
Q. Let me know if you personally know of anyone who personally knows of anyone who contracted Corona Virus.

This isn’t just a loosh harvest. Something is going on
(Loosh – energy produced by human suffering that other entities use to feed from)


My reply: Yesterday I was on the biggest Inter-islander ferry – it’s the middle of tourist season in NZ and it was packed with tourists – no masks to be seen, and when anyone sneezed nobody gave a toss, if that infectious disease story was for real everyone on every ferry or plane this month would have it.  (Boy did I fail to predicting how completely conned the kiwi sheeple were about to be!)


What is new about the corona virus psyop is that it is being promoted more on the “alt media” more than the MSM – I haven’t been saying anything online because I don’t know where to start – it’s utterly fake from end to end!

No I not only don’t know anyone personally – I’ve also never seen proof of any real person having it – like any false flag shooting – just try getting a name and background checking it
This story is so weak its legs might just fall off faster than WW3 – remember Swine Flu?


In the late summer of 2009, the Swine Flu epidemic was hyped to the sky by the CDC [and the World Health Organization]. The CDC was calling for all Americans to take the Swine Flu vaccine.

The problem was, the CDC was concealing a scandal: None of the cases they had counted as Swine Flu was, in fact, Swine Flu or any sort of flu at all…
https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/2020/01/25/new-china-virus-swine-flu-hoax-history-matters/

Thursday, 6 March 2025

How to create a pandemic

It was great to see that Dr Sam got some exposure in a mainstream Aussie paper last year:

 https://canberradaily.com.au/how-to-create-a-pandemic/


In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared that there was a “pandemic” of a new disease called ‘COVID-19’. However, there was a critical problem from the start. On 7 July that year, the historically well-respected Cochrane group published a systematic review to determine how doctors were supposed to diagnose the “new” disease in either the office or hospital setting. The conclusion of the review was staggering because it stated that:    
Dr Sam Bailey

“based on currently available data, neither absence nor presence of signs or symptoms are accurate enough to rule in or rule out disease.”

This meant that the traditional diagnostic techniques – taking a careful history and examining the patient – were useless in determining whether a person had the alleged new disease. Perhaps not surprisingly, something very odd was seen the following month when the WHO published its official COVID-19 case definition stating that a confirmed case was:

“a person with laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 infection, irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms.”

In other words, a loop of circular reasoning was created in which a case was defined by a test and this test defined a case. It was a monumental sleight of hand that disconnected the concept of disease from the case definition.

Indeed, during the COVID-19 era, many aspects of time-honoured medical practice were flipped on their head. When I was a medical student 20 years ago, a large part of our training was dedicated to the art of making a diagnosis. We were cautioned that while there was an ever-increasing number of “diagnostic” tests available, the most important part was listening to the person in front of you and carefully examining them. After that, the doctor may elect to perform tests to provide confirmatory evidence for the suspected diagnosis or at least use a test to help differentiate between competing “differential” diagnoses.

We also need to take pause here to consider the WHO’s insertion of, “irrespective of clinical signs and symptoms” into the case definition. Most people would assume that a pandemic would involve a huge number of sick people – that is, the counted cases have an actual disease. However, the confirmed ‘COVID-19’ case definition did not require anyone to be sick, it simply required them to have a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, or in subsequent years, a positive rapid antigen test (RAT).

While many governments and media platforms promoted the alleged impressive cumulative death numbers during the COVID-19 era, for most of us, it was a different experience. It was clear that the vast majority of “cases” were indistinguishable from the usual colds and flu we had always seen. In Australia, influenza apparently all but disappeared in 2021 and was suspiciously replaced by an almost equivalent number of COVID-19 cases as I explained in a 2022 presentation.

A huge proportion of asymptomatic cases caused the COVID numbers to soar even higher, particularly when governments started distributing RATs. Other independent researchers also concluded that the nature of the “pandemic” boiled down to one of testing, not one of a new disease.

“Even the mainstream media had difficulty hiding the fact that asymptomatic cases were the majority of the positive cases as well as the fact that the more testing that was done, the more cases that would ultimately be ‘found.’…If the tests went away, so, too, did the ‘pandemic’.”

On first glance, it may appear incredible that there could be an officially-declared pandemic without any global increase in sick people. However, it can be understood by taking into account a high-level deception that took place in 2009. That was the year the WHO unilaterally redefiined the definition of ‘pandemic’ and the words, “with enormous numbers of deaths and illness” were suddenly excluded from the existing meaning.

Many people realised that there was something wrong with the COVID narratives being promulgated by governments and many media platforms. Unfortunately, the relentless fear-messaging convinced the majority that there was some degree of a “deadly pandemic” to be concerned about.

The stark reality is that there was no evidence COVID-19 was a new disease because as the official case definition specified, there were no required symptoms or signs for confirmed cases. This means that the only requirement to count cases were “positive” RAT or PCR tests. In other words, the “new” disease was only defined by some new tests. And positive tests did not need to have any relationship to what the individual was sick with or whether they were even sick at all.

Was COVID-19 the greatest scam of our lifetimes?

Dr Sam Bailey is a content creator, medical author and health educator from New Zealand. Her books include Virus Mania, Terrain Therapy and The Final Pandemic.

    Subscribe and follow her on Substack
    Access Drs Mark & Sam Bailey’s articles and videos at drsambailey.com
     Dr Sam Bailey
 

Wednesday, 5 March 2025

The Absurdities of Fluoridation

 

1. Promoters say fluoride works on the outside of the teeth but then say everyone must have it in their drinking water.


2. Even though fluoridation chemicals are added to the water supply for a claimed therapeutic purpose, they are exempt from the Medicines Act. Fluoride pills, fluoride toothpaste and fluoride mouthwashes are not exempt.


3.Fluoridation chemicals are too toxic to be allowed to be released into the air so are captured in the smokestacks of the phosphate fertiliser industry. This highly toxic substance cannot be disposed of in streams, rivers or the sea but can be added to the public water supply with the claim that it reduces dental decay, so ultimately ends up in streams, rivers and the sea anyway (except what is retained in people’s bones and soft tissue).

 
4.All medications have an established safe dosage (i.e. mg per kilo per day) and are prescribed accordingly. But this isn't the case for the highly toxic fluoridation chemicals. Dose varies depending on how much water someone drinks regardless of age, weight, health status, dental health or even if they have teeth. 


5.Fluoridation forces bottle fed babies to consume 200 times more than they would have received through breast milk because the mother's body screens out just about all fluoride. It is logical to assume that there must be a good reason for this.


6. A tube of fluoride toothpaste comes with a warning not to swallow, yet the fluoridation chemicals are added to water for everyone to consume. 


7.Fluoride is added to water under the guise of reducing dental decay in some children yet everyone is forced to consume it with the claim that it may help someone else’s teeth.


8. Fluoridation allows the Government to do to everyone what a doctor cannot do to an individual patient – prescribe medication without informed consent. 


9. We are told the dose is too small to cause harm to anyone but large enough to be of benefit to everyone.


Monday, 3 March 2025

The Continuing Decline of McDonald’s


Long-time Corbett Reporteers might recall my 2015 video, “Celebrate! McDonald’s is Dying!” where I detailed the many, many woes the fast “food” giant was dealing with at the time, including:

Since then, McCancer’s has been undergoing a sweeping “restructuring” that has seen many layers of lipstick slapped on their factory-farmed pig. This restructuring includes not only cosmetic changes (“All-day breakfasts and new value menus for everyone!”) but behind-the-scenes efforts to trim $500 million from the company’s operating expenses, including buyouts and layoffs at company headquarters and the re-franchising of 4,000 corporate “restaurants.”

The global giant’s influential PR machine has used sleight-of-hand and other tricks to make this restructuring look like a smash success. They used their cheerleaders at the Wall Street Journal to hype “stronger-than-expected” profit and sales figures and their boosters at US News & World Report to hype some highly-selective earnings comparisons suggesting that this “turnaround” is, to use the WSJ’s phrase, “sustainable.”

But one doesn’t have to scratch too hard to reveal the rusty reality beneath this PR paint job.

McPinkslime’s might have “beat expectations” for sales and profits, but beating diminished expectations is hardly a sign of booming business. Just look at the nuts and bolts of the Q3 2016 earnings report: Year-on-year revenue is down 2.9% and net income is down 2.6%. And keep in mind, those numbers are in comparison to the already-terrible 2015 figures.

And that “re-franchising” operation? It cost $130 million in pre-tax charges.

But don’t worry, everyone, they “beat expectations!” Pay no attention to the hemorrhaging corporation behind the curtain!

And now the latest sign of McDonteat’s global retreat (via Corbett Report member “BuddhaForce”): “McDonald’s gives up control of its China business in $2 billion deal.”

The story is fascinating enough in its own right, what with McDonteats throwing in the corporate towel on the largest and fastest-growing consumer market in the world. But the devil is, as always, in the details. Who is purchasing the majority stake in the company’s mainland operations? None other than The Carlyle Group and CITIC Group.

The Carlyle Group’s name will likely ring a bell as one of the largest swamp pits “private equity firms” in the world, and one with its fingers in many a pie, including, of course, 9/11.

CITIC Group, meanwhile, will be familiar to The Corbett Report faithful as a key player in “China and the New World Order,” a Chinese state-owned investment company that helped serve as the Rockefeller-Kissinger nexus between the Deng Xiaoping-era “capitalist roaders” and their western finance oligarch recolonizers.

That these two cesspools are converging on the giant turd of American fast food is fitting enough. The McDonaldization of China is proceeding apace, and the usual crew are there to profit from it.

But as to what this story says about the continuing decline of the once-mighty golden arches, there are two main takeaways to the story, one depressing and one positive.

On the depressing front, there is a simple reason for the across-the-board slowdown in fast food sales in recent years (despite the predictable attempts to overcomplicate the problem in clickbait-y listicle format). For once, the Wall Street Journal gets it right: It’s the economy, stupid. What greater rebuke to the easily-disprovable economic “recovery” nonsense of the Obama years could be possible than pointing out the simple fact that people are too worried about their economic future to splurge on a $5 value meal?

But on a positive note, we can take McFatfood’s woes as a sign that, try as they might with their considerable propaganda resources, the corporate chieftains can’t put their egg McMuffin back together again. People are fed up with fast food. And although some, concerned with cost, are turning to eating at home as the cheaper option, others are more concerned with what’s in their food, where it’s sourced from, how it’s being prepared and who is being paid for it. Who wants instant, nutritionless, food-like substitute rolled up in plastic and slapped down on a tray by surly, overworked servers (or, increasingly, robots) anyway?

For those interested in how they can take part in the real food revolution that will render the McFastfood economy obsolete, may I humbly offer this podcast on guerrilla gardeningBon appétit!

FROM JAMES CORBETT 

Sunday, 2 March 2025

Fluoride impairs brain development

Fluoride is lowering the IQ of all New Zealanders - that is the real reason it is being added to the water supply.

In May 2023, the U.S. Government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a 6 year scientific review of fluoride and IQ. The Review contained a monograph and a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found lower IQ with fluoride exposure, demonstrating remarkable consistency. Of the 19 studies rated higher quality, 18 found lowering of IQ.

The NTP authors said: “We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant women in the United States” and that “Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas…many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.”

In New Zealand water is fluoridated at a higher level than in the U.S. and Canada. The maximum for fluoridation in those countries is 0.7 ppm (i.e. 0.7 mg/L). The New Zealand Ministry of Health recommends that water be fluoridated in a range between 0.7 and 1ppm. Most councils aim for the median of 0.85ppm but testing results from councils around the country has found that many of them are often fluoridating above 0.85ppm. This is a significant increase compared with the North American countries and therefore we can expect that the loss of IQ in New Zealand children is likely to be worse.

The evidence is growing stronger. Even since the NTP review was originally completed, there have been more U.S. Government funded studies published which have found harm to the developing brain.

The NTP goes on to say “Research on other neurotoxicants has shown that subtle shifts in IQ at the population level can have a profound impact on the number of people who fall within the high and low ranges of the population’s IQ distribution. For example a 5-point decrease in a population’s IQ would nearly double the number of people classified as intellectually disabled.

This means that every year in New Zealand thousands of babies have their brain development impaired directly as a result of fluoridation