Fluoridation The Scam Of The Century And What You Should Really Know About Fluoridation

Fluoridation The Scam Of The Century And What You Should Really Know About Fluoridation

Nobody told us where fluoride came from. All we knew is that it was a newly discovered chemical that would make our teeth extra hard and ward off cavities. When a free fluoride clinic was set up one summer in our school, all the kids in town lined up to have the bitter tasting stuff rubbed on their teeth. 

We were pretty gullible in those days. The period immediately following World War II was a time of scientific advancement. After the inventions of nylon, rayon, plastic and other marvelous products that replaced fabrics, rubber and steel during the war years, people were lulled into the belief that those balding men in white laboratory jackets could solve all of the problems of the world. The belief was so strong that we blindly accepted whatever a "scientist" told us. Nobody dreamed that we might be victims of fraud.

My father was part of the magic. He worked as a chemical engineer for a factory that made a variety of products out of wheat and corn starch (including the brain-killing excitotoxin monosodium glutamate). He provided well and I consequently made regular visits to a dentist every summer. I knew well the agony of the dentist drill. It was nothing like the advanced water-cooled high-speed equipment used by modern dentists. Repairing a cavity doomed us to what seemed like hours of white-knuckle torture under the glaring lights of the dental chair, while a man with plastic rimmed glasses and bad breath bored his way through teeth (and bone?). Once the drilling was done, the dentist filled the hole he made with a hot metallic material that burned when it went in, and left a bad taste in your mouth. 

Fluoride The Hard To Swallow Truth

We had a mom-and-pop grocery store in our neighborhood where kids could buy penny candy and a package of gum for a nickel. I made a lot of visits to that candy store.

Even though my mother made sure that I brushed my teeth daily, somehow I don't remember linking the candy I was eating to all of the cavities. When fluoride was introduced, it seemed like a child's dream come true.

I was disappointed, of course. I had just as many cavities in my teeth the following year.

When they started dumping fluoride in the local water supply, and adding it to the ingredients in our toothpaste, I thought that would surely solve my problem. It seemed reasonable to think that I didn't get a heavy enough dose of fluoride when I attended the free clinic. After all, if a little bit of fluoride was good for my teeth, it made sense that a lot more fluoride would be even better.

But alas, after years of drinking, scrubbing and consuming fluoride-laced products, we now learn that we've been scammed. This chemical is found to be totally ineffective in preventing tooth decay. Not only that, it seems to be directly linked to a variety of medical problems ranging from discolored teeth to bone disease and cancer.
In short, fluoride is a poison. 

Fluoride Causes Cancer!

This is not news to the medical world. The Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine have both reported greater incidence of hip fractures in fluoridated areas. The National Institute of Environmental and Health Services has linked fluoridation with cancer.

A book by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, titled "Fluoride, The Aging Factor," shows that the drug causes a premature aging process. He notes that in areas where fluoride is consumed in the drinking water, there are higher rates of bone disorders (skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis and arthritic pain) and people suffer from brown decaying teeth. 

"Fluoride is a poison!" Yiamouyiannis warns." The 1984 issue of Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products lists fluoride as more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic. It has been used as a pesticide for mice, rats and other small pests. A 10-pound infant could be killed by 1/100 of an ounce and a 100-pound adult could be killed by 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride. The Akron Regional Poison Center indicates that a 7-ounce tube of toothpaste contains 199 mg. of fluoride, more than enough to kill a 25-pound child." 

Yiamouyiannis writes that the acceleration of the aging process by fluoride occurs at the bio-chemical level by causing enzyme inhibition, collagen breakdown, genetic damage and disruption of the immune system.

"Fluoride interacts with the bonds which maintain the normal shape of proteins," he continues. "With distorted protein, the immune system attacks it's own protein, the body's own tissue." The visual and physical effects from prolonged exposure to fluoride include nausea, bloody vomit, faintness, stomach cramps, tremors, constipation, aching bones, stiffness, skin rash, weight loss and brown or black discoloration of the teeth. 

The Real Truth About Fluoride

The horror in this story is that fluoride was known as a deadly poison from the start. But if this was true, why would the U. S. government promote the sale of it to its own people, and later people all over the world? Would you believe the answer to this question is money?
There is compelling evidence that the program of water fluoridation began as a massive effort to cover up bad publicity from one of the most toxic materials to emerge from the government's secret nuclear weapons program. The idea was that if fluoride could be presented to the country as beneficial, then no one could sue the government for being harmed by it.

An article by Dr. Jackie Alan Giuliano in "Healing Our World" noted that reporters Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson discovered the truth about fluoride while researching hundreds of declassified documents about the Manhattan Project, America's secret atomic bomb development program.

They found that fluoride as a key chemical in atomic bomb production. Millions of tons were used during the Cold War period to manufacture high-grade uranium and plutonium.

"Fluoride was the top chemical hazard of the U.S. nuclear weapons program, not only for workers, but for those living in nearby communities as well," Giuliano wrote.

"The documents show that the first U.S. lawsuits levied against the atomic weapons program were over fluoride poisoning, not radiation damage. The documents reveal that the U.S. government secretly ordered atomic bomb scientists to create "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors who were being accused of injuring citizens with fluoride."

This secret work to head-off government lawsuits lead to a multi-billion dollar industry that has been poisoning our water supplies, our toothpaste, and our bodies ever since. Believe this or not, fluoride tablets are even available for children.

To escape the harmful effects of fluoride, Yiamouyiannis suggests that you seek non-fluoride toothpaste (but you may have to go to health stores to find it), and drink bottled water. Even using tap water to cook may expose you to fluoride.

Now that the truth about fluoride is out, why haven't towns and toothpaste companies stopped dumping this terrible poison in our water and toothpaste supplies? Don't expect that to happen. Remember, I said this is a multi-billion dollar industry. Nobody shuts down a money machine like that without a fight. 

Fluoridation: The scam of the century

This scam starts as follows: the CDC (Centers For Deceit Control and Procrastination) in their Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of August 17, 2001/Vol 50/ No. RR-14 entitled "Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, says on page 4, 5th paragraph, "that fluoride's predominant effect is after the tooth comes into the mouth and on the surface of the tooth".

The question posed to the CDC, the EPA, and the Public Health officials of "why then do we have to ingest it?" NEVER gets answered.

Then there's the issue of INFORMED CONSENT. Every doctor knows that they can't force any medication on an individual without their informed consent. The doctor has to tell the patient of the benefits and of any side effects of a prescribed medication. This puts the final decision to take or not take the medication in the hands of the patient. In addition, the patient has the right to question any treatment so as to make a better decision.

Fluoridation clearly violates this principle.

One of the arguments presented by those that push this crap is to say that no one is forced to drink the water. Yes, the fluoride comes to the tap but ultimately it's the individual's choice to open the tap and drink the water. Please stop laughing. This is their serious argument.

Another argument is that fluoride is not a drug but rather it is a nutrient. So when the question of since when is the toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry or the aluminum or steel industry a nutrient? They usually look at their watches and tell you that they hear their mother calling them and they have to go.

If it is indeed a nutrient why then do the CDC and the ADA (American Dimwit Association), the major pushers of fluoridation in the U.S., say that tooth decay is a "chronic infectious disease" and recommend fluoride to combat this disease? And why does the Fraud and Drug Administration call fluoride an "unapproved" drug? What a classic example of blatant hypocrisy and the anything goes mentality to make money for the pimp.

Earl Baldwin, a member of the British House of Lords and one of the advisory board members for the York Review, the UK sponsored review of fluoridation had this to say: "What physician do you know, who in his or her right mind, would treat someone he does not know and has never met, with a substance that's meant to do change in their bodies, with the advice: 'Take as much, or as little, as you like, but take it for a lifetime because it may help someone's teeth'?"

With fluoridation there is no control over who gets the "medication" or the dosage. What if someone is particularly sensitive to the substance? Tough! What if you're an athlete and drink a gallon of water a day? Tough!

When a person consumes a medication, say aspirin for example, isn't the dose for an infant or a child different that that for an adult? Obviously. With fluoride it's a one-fits-all mentality.

Let's say for a moment that the ingestion of fluoride is a good thing. Who gets more? Your body or your dishes when you wash them, your car when you wash it, your lawn when you water it, or the environment when you flush the toilet? You answer that one and then let me know if mandated fluoridation is a good thing or a bad thing.

le="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align: left;" /> Should you raise the issue of reduced tooth decay it has already be proven and documented that those living in unfluoridated communities have virtually the same rates of tooth decay as those living in fluoridated communities. But, there is one profound difference: those living in fluoridated communities have a much, much greater risk of dental fluorosis, which is symptomatic of the discoloration and eventual mottling of the teeth leading to a lifetime of cosmetic veneers or living with the disfiguration.

As if ruining your teeth isn't enough there has been credible documentation showing other debilitating effects. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix proved that fluoride had an adverse effect on the brain. As a result she was told that her work "was no longer relevant to dentistry" and fired. Peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects on the thyroid gland were ignored as were studies linking fluoride to damage of the pineal gland. The pineal gland is located between the two hemispheres of the brain and is responsible for the synthesis and secretion of melatonin. Melatonin affects jet lag, sleep patterns and aging and by the time old age hits, the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland is in very high concentrations.

But wait, there's more. There is also a profound connection between fluoride and bone damage. With symptoms almost identical to arthritis beginning with aching bones and joints. But the best cover-up had to come out of Harvard University. Elise Bassin, as part of her 2001 doctoral thesis for her dental degree, found a connection between fluoride and bone cancer in adolescent boys. When she submitted her finding to Dr. Chester Douglas, the head of Harvard's Dental School, he omitted that finding when releasing her thesis. Why would he do this? Maybe the fact that he was on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had something to do with it. Somehow, years later, Bassin's finding were found and released causing Harvard to do a complete investigation on Dr. Douglas. During the investigation Dr. Douglas made a $2 million donation to Harvard and was eventually exonerated.

One other finding was an adverse effect on the kidneys. It was found that fluoride can damage the kidneys at high levels and that someone with poor kidney function would have limitations clearing fluoride from the body making that person especially vulnerable to fluoride's other toxic effects.

With all this adversity is there any group, organization or government agency accepting any responsibility? No, No, No! One would think that of the entities heavily involved in fluoridation someone would take charge or accept liability. The American Dental Association does not. The CDC does not. The EPA does not. The FDA does not. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services does not. The National Sanitation Foundation does not. Yet, all these government agencies pass the buck to the National Sanitation Foundation who in turn accepts no liability for the safe levels or the safety of the chemicals it recommends. Pimps, hookers and tricks!

So what started out as an experimental program in 1945, without any health studies done whatsoever, turned out to be a "cash cow" for industries that previously had to dispose of this toxic waste to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

There is a book out there entitled, Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. The Precautionary Principle means that if there is uncertainty, yet credible scientific evidence or concern of threats to health, precautionary measures should be taken.

Applying the Precautionary Principle to fluoridation the following questions and answers arise:

1. Is the risk of harm plausible? Yes.
2. Is the evidence of harm supported by a number of peer-reviewed published studies? Yes.
3. Is the potential harm serious? Yes.
4. Are the effects reversible? Many are not.
5. Is the public being fully informed of the potential health risks? No.
6. Does the proposed intervention achieve the desired benefit? No.
7. How significant are the consequences if the practice is halted? Not very.
8. Are there alternatives? Yes.

Joel Tickner and Melissa Coffin, two scientists that examined the water fluoridation controversy in the context of The Precautionary Principle, raised the following questions in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice.

*Whether there are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply.
*Whether fluoride needs to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay.
*Whether tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with and without water fluoridation.
*Whether people are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply.
*Whether studies indicate fluoride's potential to cause a range of adverse systemic health effects.
*Whether, since fluoridation affects so many people, one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventative actions.

It should be noted that even if you are not living in a fluoridated community you are ingesting fluoride. When you eat foods and drink beverages that are not produced in your community you are likely ingesting substances that were produced with fluoridated water.

Despite the recommended ingestion of fluoride at 1.2 ppm, the reality is that people are ingesting fluoride at at least 8 ppm.

To solve the issue of tooth decay the proponents of fluoridation say more fluoride is necessary. The opponents of fluoridation say that more education is necessary. Education is needed about better diets, better dental habits and the dangers of sugar in relation to the teeth.

People with open minds need to get involved. Letters to Editors need to be written. City and state politicians need to be inundated with requests to discontinue the practice of water fluoridation. Pressure of non-reelection needs to be thrust upon them if they do not introduce bills to discontinue the practice.

Remember there are more tricks than pimps and hookers and we need to solidify to end this health damaging practice. The life you save and the health you restore may be your own.

Post and share and earn money take a look at the new "Facebook" social media site HERE

To join the new social media revolution for absolutely free and earn money daily click HERE 

Please read also this article about the vision board HERE

Please like our new Face Book Page HERE

Please read this article about another Google Hangout with Lawrence Tam and Ella Klaasen together

with the Elite Team Europe HERE 
Try Ipas2 The fully automated marketing system for free HERE