Science and Alternative Facts: About fluoridation, false dilemmas and fake news

Science and Alternative Facts: About fluoridation, false dilemmas and fake news
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Karen Spencer
March 22, 2017

Undeterred by mounting evidence proving the dangers of fluoride, power, prestige, and paychecks continue to motivate fluoridationists.

Despite the fact that the prestigious international 2015 Cochrane panel, like the 2000 York panel, found the fluoridation literature to be of abysmally poor quality, at high risk of bias, and with no evidence of safety…

Despite the fact that those panels had low confidence in a very small dental benefit that translates to maybe some children, not all, having one fewer cavity during childhood…

Despite the fact that there is robust evidence that fluoridation worsens the symptoms of inflammatory diseases, disrupts thyroid function, endangers the health of kidney patients, accelerates destruction of water pipes and in so doing increases lead in the water, and is linked to increased learning disabilities…

Despite the fact that fluoridation is a false dilemma, that the only scientifically proved dental benefit is from topical use of fluoridated toothpastes, rinses, and varnishes and that any who still want to consume it can do so cheaply without fluoride being added to municipal water…

Despite all this, fluoridationists have mounted a marketing campaign to promote fluoridation mandates based on a hundred year old dental myth.

Incongruously, at the center of this scheme is the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Fluoridation is a profitable business for some, and over the years too much organizational prestige and too many paychecks have become inextricably linked with fluoridation promotion in the network of government regulatory agencies. Consequently, our tax dollars are being used to create marketing materials that incentivize states to fluoridate using Medicaid monies in a move that most harms the health of the very population Medicaid is supposed to serve. Lobbyists are presenting these materials to state politicians while public relations experts are planting pro-fluoridation articles in the press.

Fluoridationist organizations also have apparently created curriculum targeting college students that encourage students lobby for fluoridation based on the disinformation in marketing materials. Moreover, citation cartels are manufacturing fraudulent reports and studies that misrepresent both historical and scientific fact. These unprincipled papers are widely promoted by vested interests in popular press using biased language. They are aided by self-important bloggers with decidedly prejudiced points of view. Talk about anti-science and dishonest media.

This astroturfing effort is further supported by an organized troop of trolls who overwhelm social media with vitriol that dismisses arguments, denies science, denigrates opponents, distracts the public, and disrupts conversation about the real health risks of fluoridation policy to consumers.

Consider this:

1.     Fluoridation is linked to preterm births and preeclampsia possibly due to “placental fluorosis”

2.     Fluoridation depresses thyroid hormones, which in the fetuses of pregnant women, bottle-fed infants, and young children can result in permanent cognitive-behavioral deficits, i.e. it rewires the brain to cause learning disabilities

3.     Fluoridated water can inflame rashes like eczema and psoriasis, making even bathing painful for the afflicted who include both the very young and the elderly

4.     Fluoridation policy has caused permanent dental damage to approximately half our adolescents, with higher rates and worse severity among the poor and non-white populations. Many of these disfigured teeth will require veneers and crowns with age

5.     Fluoride concentrations in the water have little relationship to dose which is determined by individual consumption over time based on age, size and health status

6.     Fluoride is only partially excreted by kidneys. In a healthy adult, 50% of fluoride consumed is stored primarily in the bones where it replaces calcium. These bones become more brittle over the years. Fluoride also causes inflammation and the symptoms of arthritis. Retention is higher during childhood, old age, and periods of ill health

7.     Fluoride is an enzyme poison that has profound impact on cellular function

8.     Fluoridation chemicals are mostly corrosive, acidic, and contaminated waste products harvested from industry smokestacks. Despite any seals of approval from the NSF, a contracted service which tests a sample about once every 3 years, the contents in the bags of chemicals added to our water supplies every day are a witches’ brew of toxins that cause sinister chemical reactions when they come in contact with metal

9.     Fluoridation policy has been rejected by EPA scientists since the 1980s as unsafe, although EPA management continues to allow the practice through legal doublespeak that only focuses on politically set contaminant threshold levels (MCL/MCLG)

10.  Fluoride contaminant thresholds set by the EPA were found to be not protective of human health in 2006 by the National Research Council who also advised that at that time they could find no science that proved fluoride in drinking water was safe at any concentration. That panel of experts also stated that it was reasonable to anticipate adverse effects from fluoride consumption among vulnerable populations at much lower water concentrations. Those ill effects would include gastrointestinal disease, endocrine disorders, kidney damage, and skeletal deterioration. The EPA has failed to take action.

Fluoridation policy is politics pretending to be science. It protects corporate health not consumer health. Fluoridationists are motivated by power, prestige, and paychecks. They ignore actual science and the voices of thousands of dentists, doctors, toxicologists, research scientists, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and civil rights leaders who have concluded that although there may be benefit to brushing your teeth with the stuff if you have no medical contraindications, spit, don’t swallow.

A few expert quotes

Dentist: “If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)

Doctor: “Right now we have 1 in 6 children in the U.S. with neurodevelopmental brain disease, including ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, low IQ and behavioral disorders, and 1 in 8 women who will develop thyroid disease. These two epidemics tell us that chemicals like fluoride and lead, both developmental neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors, have no place in our public water.” – Angela Hind, MD (2015)

Toxicologist: Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis and mutagenicity and other effects.” – Dr. Wm. Marcus, EPA Senior Scientist (1998)

Researchers: “Consequently, although the World Health Organization continues to support F schemes for caries prevention despite a lack of scientific proof, the F schemes are not able to improve the crystal quality but rather contribute adversely to affect tooth development and increases the risk of developing postmenopausal osteoporosis.” – Mitsuo Kakei, Masayoshi Yoshikawa and Hiroyuki Mishima (2016)

EnvironmentalistLove Canal taught us the lesson that health, environment, and justice are inextricably linked. We oppose water fluoridation as it harms our health, it harms the environment, and is a textbook case of environmental justice harm affecting low income and families of color.” – Lois Gibbs, founder Center for Health, Environment & Justice,  Nobel Peace Prize nominee (2015)

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com

New Zealand Government Preparing To Drown Whole Country In Fluorides

: DOSSIER COMPLET SUR LE FLUOR ET FLUORIDE DE SODIUM DANGER ...
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 16, 2017

The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?

From The NZHerald, 3/13/16—my comments are in CAPS:

“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.”

“The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).” [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES—A TAKEOVER.]

“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.”

“In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION—A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]

“’The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.”

“’It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]

“Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.”

“At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]

My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies. The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.

The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.

I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.

For the edification of New Zealand’s feds, who believe “the science is settled” and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”—written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”

“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”

“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”

“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”

“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”

“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”

“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require 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.”

That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.

So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.

Quite clear.

The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.

The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.

They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news

fakenews

Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 15, 2017

Occasionally, I reprint this article. I wrote it some years ago, during research on toxic chemicals pervading the landscape. I used to send the piece to mainstream reporters, but I eventually gave that up as a bad bet.

They’re dedicated to fake news…and now they’re losing control over public consciousness. Losing badly. Independent media are in the ascendance, and rightly so.


In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths, and he told me to be careful I was reading a correct copy of his piece. (You can find it—“Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” at fluoridealert.org.)

Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: studying the water is not enough; toxic fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide).

I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, launched to build the first A-bomb.

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”

The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

But records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.

More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.

The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.

Footnote: In Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, General Ripper is fleshed out as a crazy right-wing fanatic. He’s ready and willing to start a nuclear war. How odd. Apparently unknown to the Strangelove script writers, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the program that created atomic bombs in the first place.

Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Science and Alternative Facts: About fluoridation, false dilemmas and fake news

Science and Alternative Facts: About fluoridation, false dilemmas and fake news
Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Karen Spencer
March 15, 2017

Undeterred by mounting evidence proving the dangers of fluoride, power, prestige, and paychecks continue to motivate fluoridationists.

Despite the fact that the prestigious international 2015 Cochrane panel, like the 2000 York panel, found the fluoridation literature to be of abysmally poor quality, at high risk of bias, and with no evidence of safety…

Despite the fact that those panels had low confidence in a very small dental benefit that translates to maybe some children, not all, having one fewer cavity during childhood…

Despite the fact that there is robust evidence that fluoridation worsens the symptoms of inflammatory diseases, disrupts thyroid function, endangers the health of kidney patients, accelerates destruction of water pipes and in so doing increases lead in the water, and is linked to increased learning disabilities…

Despite the fact that fluoridation is a false dilemma, that the only scientifically proved dental benefit is from topical use of fluoridated toothpastes, rinses, and varnishes and that any who still want to consume it can do so cheaply without fluoride being added to municipal water…

Despite all this, fluoridationists have mounted a marketing campaign to promote fluoridation mandates based on a hundred year old dental myth.

Incongruously, at the center of this scheme is the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Fluoridation is a profitable business for some, and over the years too much organizational prestige and too many paychecks have become inextricably linked with fluoridation promotion in the network of government regulatory agencies. Consequently, our tax dollars are being used to create marketing materials that incentivize states to fluoridate using Medicaid monies in a move that most harms the health of the very population Medicaid is supposed to serve. Lobbyists are presenting these materials to state politicians while public relations experts are planting pro-fluoridation articles in the press.

Fluoridationist organizations also have apparently created curriculum targeting college students that encourage students lobby for fluoridation based on the disinformation in marketing materials. Moreover, citation cartels are manufacturing fraudulent reports and studies that misrepresent both historical and scientific fact. These unprincipled papers are widely promoted by vested interests in popular press using biased language. They are aided by self-important bloggers with decidedly prejudiced points of view. Talk about anti-science and dishonest media.

This astroturfing effort is further supported by an organized troop of trolls who overwhelm social media with vitriol that dismisses arguments, denies science, denigrates opponents, distracts the public, and disrupts conversation about the real health risks of fluoridation policy to consumers.

Consider this:

1.     Fluoridation is linked to preterm births and preeclampsia possibly due to “placental fluorosis”

2.     Fluoridation depresses thyroid hormones, which in the fetuses of pregnant women, bottle-fed infants, and young children can result in permanent cognitive-behavioral deficits, i.e. it rewires the brain to cause learning disabilities

3.     Fluoridated water can inflame rashes like eczema and psoriasis, making even bathing painful for the afflicted who include both the very young and the elderly

4.     Fluoridation policy has caused permanent dental damage to approximately half our adolescents, with higher rates and worse severity among the poor and non-white populations. Many of these disfigured teeth will require veneers and crowns with age

5.     Fluoride concentrations in the water have little relationship to dose which is determined by individual consumption over time based on age, size and health status

6.     Fluoride is only partially excreted by kidneys. In a healthy adult, 50% of fluoride consumed is stored primarily in the bones where it replaces calcium. These bones become more brittle over the years. Fluoride also causes inflammation and the symptoms of arthritis. Retention is higher during childhood, old age, and periods of ill health

7.     Fluoride is an enzyme poison that has profound impact on cellular function

8.     Fluoridation chemicals are mostly corrosive, acidic, and contaminated waste products harvested from industry smokestacks. Despite any seals of approval from the NSF, a contracted service which tests a sample about once every 3 years, the contents in the bags of chemicals added to our water supplies every day are a witches’ brew of toxins that cause sinister chemical reactions when they come in contact with metal

9.     Fluoridation policy has been rejected by EPA scientists since the 1980s as unsafe, although EPA management continues to allow the practice through legal doublespeak that only focuses on politically set contaminant threshold levels (MCL/MCLG)

10.  Fluoride contaminant thresholds set by the EPA were found to be not protective of human health in 2006 by the National Research Council who also advised that at that time they could find no science that proved fluoride in drinking water was safe at any concentration. That panel of experts also stated that it was reasonable to anticipate adverse effects from fluoride consumption among vulnerable populations at much lower water concentrations. Those ill effects would include gastrointestinal disease, endocrine disorders, kidney damage, and skeletal deterioration. The EPA has failed to take action.

Fluoridation policy is politics pretending to be science. It protects corporate health not consumer health. Fluoridationists are motivated by power, prestige, and paychecks. They ignore actual science and the voices of thousands of dentists, doctors, toxicologists, research scientists, consumer advocates, environmentalists, and civil rights leaders who have concluded that although there may be benefit to brushing your teeth with the stuff if you have no medical contraindications, spit, don’t swallow.

A few expert quotes

Dentist: “If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)

Doctor: “Right now we have 1 in 6 children in the U.S. with neurodevelopmental brain disease, including ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorders, low IQ and behavioral disorders, and 1 in 8 women who will develop thyroid disease. These two epidemics tell us that chemicals like fluoride and lead, both developmental neurotoxins and endocrine disruptors, have no place in our public water.” – Angela Hind, MD (2015)

Toxicologist: Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis and mutagenicity and other effects.” – Dr. Wm. Marcus, EPA Senior Scientist (1998)

Researchers: “Consequently, although the World Health Organization continues to support F schemes for caries prevention despite a lack of scientific proof, the F schemes are not able to improve the crystal quality but rather contribute adversely to affect tooth development and increases the risk of developing postmenopausal osteoporosis.” – Mitsuo Kakei, Masayoshi Yoshikawa and Hiroyuki Mishima (2016)

EnvironmentalistLove Canal taught us the lesson that health, environment, and justice are inextricably linked. We oppose water fluoridation as it harms our health, it harms the environment, and is a textbook case of environmental justice harm affecting low income and families of color.” – Lois Gibbs, founder Center for Health, Environment & Justice,  Nobel Peace Prize nominee (2015)

Read More At: GreenMedInfo.com
_________________________________________________________________

REFERENCES

  1. Follin-Arbelet B, Moum B, Scand J. Fluoride: a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? Gastroenterol. 2016 May 19:1-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199224
  2. Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
  3. Butler JE, Satam M, Ekstrand J. Fluoride: an adjuvant for mucosal and systemic immunity. Immunol Lett. 1990 Dec;26(3):217-220. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
  4. Loftenius A, Andersson B, Butler J, Ekstrand J. Fluoride augments the mitogenic and antigenic response of human blood lymphocytes in vitro. Caries Res. 1999;33(2):148-155. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
  5. Fluoride and the skin. Fluoride. January 1977. Vol.10:1. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/101/files/FJ1977_v10_n1_p001-044.pdf
  6. Spitttle B. Allergy and hypersensitivity to fluoride. Fluoride. 1993; Volume 26; Pages 267-273. http://fluoridealert.org/studies/spittle-1993/
  7. Zhang S, Zhang X, Liu H, et al. Modifying effect of COMT gene polymorphism and a predictive role for proteomics analysis in children’s intelligence in endemic fluorosis area in Tianjin, China. Toxicol Sci. 2015 Apr;144(2):238-245. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
  8. Main D. Fluoridation may not prevent cavities, scientific review shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015. http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
  9. National Research Council. Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571
  10. Carton RJ. Review of 2006 USNRC report on fluoride in drinking water. Fluoride. 39(3)163-172. July-September 2006. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pd
  11. Diesendorf M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature. 07/1986; 322(6075):125-129. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19639179_The_Mystery_of_Declining_Tooth_Decay
  12. Gandhi D, Naoghare PK, Bafana A, Kannan K, Sivanesan S. Fluoride-induced oxidative and inflammatory stress in osteosarcoma cells: Does it affect bone development pathway? Biol Trace Elem Res. 2017 Jan;175(1):103-111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27234253
  13. Kakei M, Yoshikawa M, Mishima H. Fluoride exposure may accelerate the osteoporotic change in postmenopausal women: Animal model of fluoride-induced osteoporosis. Adv Tech Biol Med. 2016, 4:1. http://www.esciencecentral.org/journals/fluoride-exposure-may-accelerate-the-osteoporotic-change-in-postmenopausal-women-animal-model-of-fluorideinduced-osteoporosis-2379-1764-1000170.pdf
  14. Pain G. Fluoride is a developmental nephrotoxin – coming to a kidney near you. Technical Report. Researchgate. January 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313025968_Fluoride_is_a_developmental_Nephrotoxin_-_coming_to_a_Kidney_near_you
  15. Coplan MJ, Patch SC, Masters RD, Bachman MS. Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1032-1042. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17420053
  16. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714
  17. Sawan RM, Leite GA, Saraiva MC, et al. Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology. 2010 Apr 30;271(1-2):21-26. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782
  18. Malin AJ, Till C. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association. Environmental Health 2015;14:17. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract
  19. Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-166. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
  20. MacArthur JD. Placental fluorosis: Fluoride and preeclampsia. Townsend Lett. 2015;382:74-79. http://www.townsendletter.com/May2015/placental0515.html
  21. Gesser-Edelsburg A, Shir-Raz Y. Communicating risk for issues that involve ‘uncertainty bias’: What can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research. August 2016. Pages 1-22. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343
  22. Gutowskaa I, Baranowska-Bosiackab I, Goschorskab M, et al. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661-1668. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605
  23. Calgary fluoride study fatally flawed; Key data omitted. Fluoride Action Network. 25 Feb 2016. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/calgary-fluoride-study-fatally-flawed-key-data-omitted-300226151.html
  24. Fu X, Xie FN, Dong P, Xio Rl. High-dose fluoride impairs the properties of human embryonic stem cells via JNK signaling. PLoS ONE. 11(2):e014881957. February 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293797103_High-Dose_Fluoride_Impairs_the_Properties_of_Human_Embryonic_Stem_Cells_via_JNK_Signaling?origin=publication_list
  25. Perkin MR, Craven J, Logan K, et al. The association between domestic water hardness, chlorine and atopic dermatitis risk in early life: A population-based cross-sectional study. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. Published online April 28, 2016. http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(16)30187-7/abstract
  26. Jianjie C, Wenjuan X, Jinling C, et al. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicol. 2016 Feb;171:48-58. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26748264
  27. Kurdi MS. Chronic fluorosis: The disease and its anaesthetic implications. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016. 60:3;157-162. http://www.ijaweb.org/article.asp?issn=0019-5049;year=2016;volume=60;issue=3;spage=157;epage=162;aulast=Kurdi
  28. MacArthur, JD. Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix: Prenatal Fluoride and Premature Birth, Preeclampsia, Autism. 2016. http://www.johndmacarthur.com/reports/pregnancyfluoridedonotmix.html
  29. Isaacson RL. My fluoride position. 2007.  http://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~isaacson/fluoride.html
  30. A Plan to Transform the Empire’s State Medicaid Program. New York State Department of Health. 2016. http://www.health.ny.gov/health_care/medicaid/redesign/docs/mrtfinalreport.pdf
  31. Fluoridation advocacy: Pew’s contributions and lessons that emerge. Children’s Dental Health Project. July 2015. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf
  32. Brockovich E, Bowcock R, Kohn MD. Letter to the National Governors Association. April 27, 2016.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/brockovich-2016.pdf
  33. Brockovich E, Ingram WA, Matthews DP, et al. Letter to the Institute of Medicine. April 27, 2015.  https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf
  34. Young A. Letter to Nathan Deal et al. October 6, 2016. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016andrewjyoung/10/prweb13768202.htm
  35. Spencer K. Letter to Salem State University. September 7, 2016. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

 

EPA under pressure to dump fluoride from water supply

Image: EPA under pressure to dump fluoride from water supply

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 15, 2017

Fluoride is an ubiquitous chemical that has penetrated public water supplies across the United States. The CDC reports that about two-thirds of the population has fluoridated public water. And for those of us served by community water systems, that number climbs up to about 74 percent.

Historically, fluoride been added to water in the name of preventing tooth decay and cavities. However, it is now widely known that fluoride is not an essential nutrient in any sense, and therefore is not actually necessary to keep teeth healthy.

While proponents of fluoride continue to say that it is “safe and effective,” detractors of fluoride say that there are several substantial issues with the substance’s addition to public water. And finally enough people have woken up to the dangers of fluoride to begin putting pressure on the EPA to put a halt to this controversial practice.

Fighting against fluoride

A coalition of environmental, medical, and health groups, along with Fluoride Action Network, are urging the EPA to end fluoridation of the public water supply. The coalition has presented the EPA with a petition, featuring some 2,500 pages of scientific documentation of fluoride’s ill effects on human health.

The document explains that “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects; with certain subpopulations standing at elevated risk of harm, including infants, young children, elderly populations, and those with dietary deficiencies, renal impairment and/or genetic predispositions.”

Beyond the negative health effects of fluoride, there is also a rather concerning, almost “Big Brother-esque” feel to public water fluoridation. The concept of the government practicing mass medication on the majority of the U.S. population is quite frightening, if you stop to think about. There is no way to obtain consent from every individual when it’s in the water supply and often, no way of escaping it. Furthermore, putting fluoride in the water prevents controlled dosage. Some people drink more than others, and there are plenty of other avenues of exposure besides water.

The EPA could put an end to mass fluoridation of the U.S. population, through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which grants them the ability to forbid the use of a chemical that puts public health at risk. Fluoride certainly fits the bill — the petition notes that the EPA’s own guidelines would encourage fluoride prohibition.

Collective Evolution explains that the petition states the EPA’s Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment reveals that fluoride can be neurotoxic, and that the “reference dose” needed to offer protection from such neurotoxicity is “incompatible with the doses now ingested by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas.”

The petition also notes that swallowing fluoride actually provides little to no benefits to humans, rendering the risk associated with fluoride consumption completely and entirely unnecessary. The petition also states “there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom.” (RELATED: Learn how to protect yourself from Fluoride poisoning)

Research shows fluoride is toxic

The EPA has reportedly requested that the National Resource Council (NRC) review the data. Back in 2006, the NRC concluded that fluoride can indeed inhibit brain function. Research published in the journal Lancet Neurology has even confirmed that fluoride is one of 12 substances known to cause developmental neurotoxicity. And in 2012, Harvard scientists concluded that children exposed to fluoridated drinking water had lower IQs.

Another pitfall of water fluoridation is the development of dental fluorosis. Mild fluorosis is characterized by white streaks on the teeth, while more severe cases feature brown stains, pitting, and broken enamel. This is the stuff they are putting in the water supposedly to protect teeth — and yet, it actually destroys them. The CDC reported in 2010 that 41 percent of children between the ages of 12 and 15 had some form of dental fluorosis. That alone should be enough to tell you (and the EPA) that fluoride doesn’t belong in the water supply.

Will the EPA finally be compelled to do their jobs and ban water fluoridation? Who knows.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

WaterOnline.com

Collective-Evolution.com

FluorideAlert.org

LiveScience.com

My second open letter to Steve Bannon, Trump’s inside man

QuestionEverything2
Source:NoMoreFakeNews.com
Jon Rappoport
November 21, 2016

Yesterday, I published my first open letter to Steve Bannon: Trump’s chief strategist, special counselor, and, yes, avowed enemy of major media and their fake news bubbles.

Here is a follow-up. Like the first, this one involves solutions aimed at improving life in America.

And believe me, I understand that Progressive vampires and their allied subalterns are very nervous about workable solutions, especially as they empower people to succeed beyond permanent dependence on government, The Universal Teat and Provider. So be it.

Steve,

Again, I remind you, there are millions and millions of people out there who aren’t polled or counted or factored into the algorithms of political calculations. Some of them voted for your man, some didn’t vote at all. All of them want a role in the political process, and if sufficiently motivated and encouraged, they will suddenly show up and support you with an energy that will knock you off your chair.

They are against the multitude of lies big government has been feeding them for decades—lies that come back to the basic issue of HEALTH.

Here is an introductory list of what these millions of Americans are burning about:

GMOs in the food supply (never proven to be safe, never proven to increase crop yields). Toxic pesticides drenching the food supply. The lacing of our water with toxic fluorides (forced medical treatment with no informed consent). Harmful vaccine after vaccine injected into our children, and the cooked studies that claim these substances are universally safe and effective (watch the film Vaxxed (trailer) for a window into the fraud). The pharmaceutical assault on the population with toxic and unnecessary drugs (killing, at minimum, 106,000 Americans every year, a million Americans per decade—see Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000).

Let’s start with those. There are more.

I assure you, Steve, people with stacks of evidence, beyond official pronouncements, could come forward and make a case for the destructive toxicity of these substances. They already have. The crazies in this situation are actually the corporate and media front men, who are parroting what sold-out scientists at the FDA, CDC, and other agencies are feeding them.

Ridding the country of poisons, to put it frankly, would certainly rank as a solution. Healthier adults and children, filled with energy, alert and alive? Isn’t this a fundamental?

Of course, I’m showing you a tall hill to climb here, given the ubiquitous special interests who have been squeezing America for so long. But I would point out that you and others have been taking the fight to the proponents of global warming and exposing them for the frauds they are. That’s a big hill, too.

The toxic items I listed above are on the same hill.

Part of the solution? Serious DOJ prosecutions against FDA and CDC personnel for fraud, reckless endangerment, and waste of enormous federal funds.

You want to see a massive silent majority explode in support of your administration? Carry out those prosecutions. Extend them to pharmaceutical executives who have knowingly foisted their highly destructive drugs on the population.

At this point you’ll be thinking you can’t go that far. It’s too much to take on. Well, you took on climate change because you saw the agenda involved torpedoing the economy. What I’m giving you here (massive and unending toxicity in various forms) torpedoes the right to life itself.

This isn’t some wild-eyed appeal from the fringe, Steve. As an independent reporter (one of many) who has been covering these issues for more than 30 years, I assure you there is a whole library of evidence to support the points I’ve sketched out here.

You’re an expert on corrupt media. I guarantee there is no greater media corruption than in the area of health and medicine. Those boys and girls are locked up tight. If they aren’t lying, they aren’t living. From what I can see, you take great pleasure in overturning apple carts. Here is the big one. Flip it over, and you’ll watch some of the weirdest and slimiest creatures on this green Earth come crawling out.

You want a real revolution? It’s there.

Talk to the mother of a child whose brain has been hit and damaged with a vaccine. Listen to her. Look in her eyes. This is the fire of truth no liar can contradict. This is devastation.

It’s time to do something about it, come hell or high water.

Whether it’s your time, Steve, is up to you.

PS: I attach a letter about the fluoridation of our water supplies. It’s self-explanatory. It’s a bombshell.

Here is what the EPA Union of Scientists (!) had to say about fluoridation:

Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation” —written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:

“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”

“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”

“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”

“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”

“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”

“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”

“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”

“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Fluoride Besides Being A Neurotoxin Can Cause Cancer

Image result for fluoride toxins
TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
August 26, 2016

“The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is ‘safe.’”
– Dr. Ludgwig Grosse, Chief of Cancer Research, U.S. Veterans Administration.

“This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”
– Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann (presided over litigation involving fluoridation)

Do you drink fluoridated water?  Not sure?  Better check, because more than 60% of water is fluoridated in America, and fluoride besides being a neurotoxin also can cause cancer.  That doesn’t even begin to get into the other toxins in water such as arsenic, PFASs and more.

For more information on Fluoride’s health issues please read:

Rethinking Fluoride Fluoridation – Over 25 Disturbing Quotes About The Neurotoxin Fluoride
Breakaway Guide To Fluoride

The video below elucidates on this issue rather well.  Please don’t take this for granted.

________________________________________________________________
Source: iHealthTube
August 26, 2016

Dr. David Kennedy discusses fluoride and a specific study that was done on animals. Find out what was revealed in the study and what was covered up. He also discusses the prescription form of fluoride and what red flags should be raised there, but aren’t. When it’s all said and done, find out why he says fluoride is a carcinogen and what that should concern you!