Fluoride Fight: The forced drugging of society

Disquiet Reservations
Source: Corbett Report and Global Research TV

Scientific studies have linked fluoridation of the water supply to lowered IQs, increased risk of cancer, and bone disease, amongst other conditions. So why do we still fluoridate? As researchers like Anthony Gucciardi warn, fluoridation may in fact only be the thin edge of the wedge when it comes to forced medication of the population. This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV.

The 5 Most Repeated Health Myths That Medical Doctors Have No Intention on Abandoning

Prevent Disease
by Marco Torres

There are more health myths propagated by the media and conventional medicine today than there ever have been throughout history. In large part, this is due to a lack of public education and a broadening of the corporate powers who promote myths to achieve very specific and malicious goals all in the name of profit.

MYTH #1
Conventional medicine and the healthcare system helps sick people.

Perhaps the biggest health myth today is the public's misconception that mainstream medicine and the healthcare system helps sick people. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The freedom of people to choose natural healing, alternative medicine and methods of disease prevention could soon be threatened by corporate lobbyists who will do anything to protect their wealth at the expense of your health.

Promoters of conventional medicine claim that all the drug studies, approvals, surgical procedures, all other treatments are based on scientific evidence. But is it really science? What passes for "science" today is a collection of health myths, half-truths, intellectual dishonesty and fraudulent reporting to help serve higher interests. Science is not really science anymore. 90 percent of all diseases (cancer, diabetes, depression, heart disease, etc.) are easily preventable through diet, nutrition, sunlight and exercise.

None of these solutions are ever promoted by conventional medicine because they make no money. No pharmaceuticals actually cure or resolve the underlying causes of disease. Even "successful" drugs only manage symptoms, usually at the cost of interfering with other physiological functions that will cause side effects down the road. There is no such thing as a drug without a side effect.

There is no financial incentive for anyone in today's system of medicine (drug companies, hospitals, doctors, etc.) to actually make patients well. Profits are found in continued sickness, not wellness or prevention.

Almost all the "prevention" programs you see today (such as free mammograms or other screening programs) are nothing more than patient recruitment schemes designed to increase revenue and sickness. They use free screenings to scare people into agreeing to unnecessary treatments that only lead to further disease. Mammography is a very good example. Chemotherapy is another.

Nobody has any interest in your health except you. No corporation, no doctor, and no government has any desire to actually make you well. This has served the short-term financial interests of higher powers in the west very well. The only healthy, aware, critically thinking individuals are all 100% free of pharmaceuticals and processed foods.

MYTH #2
Vaccines prevent diseases and increase immunity.

The term "immunization", often substituted for vaccination, is false and should be legally challenged. Medical research has well established that the direct injection of foreign proteins and other toxic material (particularly known immune-sensitising poisons such as mercury) makes the recipient more, not less, easily affected by what he/she encounters in the future. This means they do the opposite of immunize, commonly even preventing immunity from developing after natural exposure.

The actual frequency of health problems has been estimated by authorities to be possibly up to 100 times, or more, greater than that reported by government agencies. That difference is due to the lack of enforcement or incentive for doctors to report adverse effects. With the anti-vaccination movements now exposing the truth on the internet, the medical community is now on high alert, defending their claims and being told by vaccine manufacturers that they must never let their patients (or parents) think that the risks could outweigh the benefits, when in reality, it is precisely the opposite that is true.

The benefit risk ratio is an important decision in anyone deciding whether to vaccinate or not. Contrary to popular belief and marketing, childhood diseases in a developed country are not as dangerous as we are led to believe. Catching a particular disease does not mean you will die from it. Vaccines were actually introduced at a time when diseases had already declined to a low risk level. This fact is proven, scientifically.

The main advances in combating disease over the last 200 years have been better food and clean drinking water...not vaccines. Improved sanitation, less overcrowded and better living conditions also contribute. This is also borne out in published peer reviewed research which prove that vaccine did not save us.

All vaccines contain sterility agents, neurotoxins, immunotoxins, and carcinogenic compounds. Some examples include formaldehyde, a carcinogen found in almost every vaccine, neurotoxins such as monosodium glutamate, potassium chloride, thimerosal, sterility agents such as Triton X-100, octoxynol-10, polysorbate 80, and immuntoxins such as neomycin, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium deoxycholate to name a few of many.

It is no coincidence that the more educated you are, the less chance you will vaccinate which contradicts the misconceptions of many health professionals who profess that parents don't vaccinate because they are under-educated, poor or misinformed. Those who become fully informed of the dangers of vaccines never see them in the same light again, as their motives then become clear.

MYTH #3
We must all focus on lowering bad cholesterol.

Perhaps one of the biggest health myths propagated in western culture and certainly in the United States, is the misuse of an invented term "bad cholesterol" by the media and medical community. Moreover, a scientifically-naive public has been conned into a fraudulent correlation between elevated cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Cholesterol has not been shown to actually cause CVD. To the contrary, cholesterol is vital to our survival, and trying to artificially lower it can have detrimental effects, particularly as we age.

We have become a culture so obsessed with eating foods low in cholesterol and fat that many health experts are now questioning the consequences. Could we really maintain a dietary lifestyle that was so foreign to many of our ancestral populations without any ill effects on our health? Many researchers are now concluding that the answer to that question is "NO." Current data is now suggesting that lower cholesterol levels predate the development of cancer.

The 'noddy-science' offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help 'reduce cholesterol'. Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a 'typical ordinary' product might cost. But is this apparent 'blanket need' to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy?

The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same. Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the 'transporters' (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body's delivery logistics to work effectively.

Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being 'delivered' around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.

MYTH #4
Medical screening and treatments prevent death.

Even though the medical community advocates for regular screenings for those with illnesses, they may bring little benefit and may actually pose harm to your health. This applies to almost every type of medical screening for cancer and several other diseases. Medical screening carries an immense risk in itself, not only due to the damage inflicted by screening techniques on the human body, but by the very nature of medical follow-up protocols. These protocols usually encourage patients to enter deeper into more invasive techniques, which further cripple health and lead to a very high percentage of fatalities.

In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

A prostate (PSA) blood test looks for prostate-specific antigen, a protein produced by the prostate gland. High levels are supposedly associated with prostate cancer. The problem is that the association isn't always correct, and when it is, the prostate cancer isn't necessarily deadly. Only about 3 percent of all men die from prostate cancer. The PSA test usually leads to overdiagnosis -- biopsies and treatment in which the side effects are impotence and incontinence. Repeated biopsies may spread cancer cells into the track formed by the needle, or by spilling cancerous cells directly into the bloodstream or lympathic system.

News coverage of many diseases focus too much on treatments and not enough on prevention, a trend that could prove risky in the long run for most people who don't understand how to take care of their health.

The biggest single type of story we usually hear about on the news involves treatment, and narratives lend themselves much better to that kind of story. Stories about prevention, about people exercising and eating right, just don’t make great copy. If our current treatment approach to health continues, hundreds of years from now, mankind may look back at today’s “modern medicine” and think: “How could they have been so primitive in ideology and so wrong? What lack of humanitarianism in government allowed the medical industries to kill people with economically driven false beliefs and ideas? Why didn’t government stop them? Who were the people in charge of protecting those citizens?

Preventive education demands increased funding for research into new dietary, physical activity, behavioural, socioeconomic, environmental and medical approaches for the prevention of chronic disease. Children who grow into teenagers and then adults require more accountability for their own well-being through health conscious decisions which are motivated by proper practical and theoretical applications. They need to know that treatment modalities and pharmaceutical applications may not save their health in the future.

Substantial political and financial contributions are also imperative to invest in prevention more effectively to regulate revisions and mandate policies which affect the governing bodies of health and education. Any procrastination or failure to resolve these matters in the next decade will only lead to the further deterioration of human health and healthcare systems. Proper leadership and effective communication regarding these preventive measures may still reverse screening/treatment trends and consequently reverse this thinking to ultimately promote a healthier aging population.

MYTH #5
Fluoride prevents tooth decay.

Water fluoridation is a hoax. Drinking any amount of fluoride is dangerous to your health and has NEVER been proven to prevent tooth decay. It's actually the biggest scientific fraud ever to be promoted by national and international Governments. Fluoride has been linked to osteoporosis, cancer, auto-immune diseases, and even very small concentrations can disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%.

The fluoride added to our water is a waste product of aluminum and phosphate fertilizer processing. And it’s not even calcium fluoride that appears naturally in water, but sodium fluoride, which is a whole different thing--and loaded with bad news.

In fact, sodium fluoride has no good news. Except for a few suspect reports by the people selling the stuff, study after research study proves that sodium fluoride does not protect our teeth, and it does a number on our bones. And on other body parts, too, including our thyroid gland.

- Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.

- Drinking fluoridated water will double the number of hip fractures for both older men and women.

- Infertility in women was found to increase with water fluoridation. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists reported a close correlation between decreasing total fertility rates in women between ages of 10 and 49, and increasing fluoride levels. - Fluoride has never been found to effectively reducing tooth decay by any notable margin. No causation or even correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries in any study.

- Fluoride also attacks the pineal gland. The pineal controls our inner clock, provides good sleep, works with our adrenal glands to handle stress, keeps the thymus gland fed and cared for, and communicates 24/7 with the rest of the endocrine system about how things are going. Fluoride calcifies our pineal gland into a non-functioning rock.

- The government classifies sodium fluoride as environmentally hazardous waste. Anybody handling it must wear HazMat protective gear. Dumping it into rivers is a crime.

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 defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.

It seems that the healthiest people on the planet right now are those that have deviated from the norms of conventional medical quackery, and have migrated towards natural health. The proof is in the pudding. Find the healthiest 5 people you know and you'll find they typically don't subscribe to the health myths promoted by mainstream medicine. Your longevity and aging gracefully depends on it.

An Inconvenient Tooth - Fluoride Documentary

An Inconvenient Tooth is a documentary film about fluoride. It was released September 6th, 2012 at the city hall in Portland, Oregon. 

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

Market Watch


PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.

Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."

Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.

Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.

Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.

"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness. New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.

Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk.

New Study: Fluoride Can Damage the Brain - Avoid Use in Children

PRNewswire, June 21, 2011

"The prolonged ingestion of fluoride may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system," concludes a review of studies by researchers Valdez-Jimenez, et al. published in Neurologia (June 2011), reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain's physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

The research team reports, "It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride."

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that "A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ."

Full story

Dr. Russell Blaylock: Fluoride and Mercury

In his interview with Cori Brackett, neurologist Dr. Russell Blaylock describes how the scientific literature on the dangers of fluoride has changed over time to assist with generating profits for manufacturers. When asked for another example, Blaylock details the cover-ups involving mercury.

An Overwhelming Number of Scientific Studies Conclude that Cavity Levels are Falling Worldwide: Even in Countries Which Don't Fluoridate Water

Washington's Blog, Jan.13, 2011

Everyone agrees that the number of cavities have plummeted in the U.S. over the last couple of decades, after water fluoridation was introduced (that is why health officials call water fluoridation "one of the ten greatest public health accomplishments of the last century").

That proves that water fluoridation fights cavities, right?

It would, of course, if the cavity levels have not also plummeted in countries which do not fluoridate their water.

Full story

An Untested Type of Fluoride is Used in the Overwhelming Majority of U.S. Water Supplies

Washington's Blog, Jan. 9, 2011

Dartmouth University wrote in 2001:

In a recent article in the journal NeuroToxicology, a research team led by Roger D. Masters, Dartmouth College Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus, reports evidence that public drinking water treated with sodium silicofluoride or fluosilicic acid, known as silicofluorides (SiFs), is linked to higher uptake of lead in children.

Sodium fluoride, first added to public drinking water in 1945, is now used in less than 10% of fluoridation systems nationwide, according to the Center for Disease Control's (CDC) 1992 Fluoridation Census. Instead, SiF's are now used to treat drinking water delivered to 140 million people. While sodium fluoride was tested on animals and approved for human consumption, the same cannot be said for SiFs.

Also requiring further examination is German research that shows SiFs inhibit cholinesterase, an enzyme that plays an important role in regulating neurotransmitters. "If SiFs are cholinesterase inhibitors, this means that SiFs have effects like the chemical agents linked to Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and other puzzling conditions that plague millions of Americans," said Masters. "We need a better understanding of how SiFs behave chemically and physiologically."

The USGS also noted in a 2000 report:

Fluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry and is not manufactured for itself alone ...

In other words, even though neither the EPA or any other government agency has studied the effects of long-term ingestion of fluorosilicic acid, it is being used instead of sodium fluoride because it is cheaper.

Full story

Cheap Fluoride from China Leaves Unknown, Insoluble Residue in Municipal Water Systems

War On You: Breaking Alternative News
Via: The Daily News (Newburyport)

Desmarais said while soluble sodium fluoride has traditionally proved easy to dissolve and add to the water supply, in recent years he’s found that 40 percent of the product they’ve been buying will not dissolve, and he doesn’t know why. Desmarais has sent the material out for testing on two separate occasions, but had no luck in determining what it contained. He has sent it back to the supplier and had a better quality product delivered following the complaint. But the next delivery presents with the same problem, he said.

Never mind the fluoride toxicity issue. We all know about that. But wtf is this bonus material?