The Fluoride Debate

1.       Introduction

·         The fluoridation of public water supplies completely bypassed public decision.

·         The public by and large accepted the decision.

·         Because local governments and all the health authorities simultaneously rolled over to endorse the decision and slogans such as safe and effective were repeated (just like the Covid Vaccine).

·         Those who were sceptical were in the minority, therefore easier to dismiss and mock as conspiracy theorists.

2.       Empty Endorsements

·         Just as with the National Dietary Guidelines, all you will ever hear is that government health initiatives “are based on scientific research” and “backed by scientific evidence.” In a world where someone with common sense knows facts can be manipulated, it would seem more important to actually cite specific studies and explain the methodology. But this is kryptonite to propagandists.

3.       The Research

·         Fluoridists will cite the 6000 studies that show its benefits but these studies only examine teeth. No one is disputing the benefit of fluoride on TEETH. It is the rest of the body anti-fluoridists are concerned about.

·         Tooth Decay rates are the same in countries with and without fluoridation. See WHO’s own data at fluoride alert.org.

·         The studies done to lauch fluoridation were heavily flawed. According to Dr Hubert Arnold a statistician they are “especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, ad just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.”

·         Studies that do show harm are attacked for where they were undertaken. That would be easily fixed by replicating studies in the west but they won’t fund studies looking for harm. If you don’t look, you don’t find! Dentist Howard Farron challenges Paul Connets studies in this manner. There’s never been a single randomized clinical trial to demonstrate fluoride’s effectiveness or safety.

·         When the trusty, reputable health authorities go against the narrative, they are ignored!

Ø  The National Research Council said in a 2006 review, with 506 pages and supported by 1100 references, that took 3 and half years to produce, that “we've gone with the status quo for too long, when we looked at the studies done, we found many questions unsettled and less information than what we should have considering how long this has been going on." This was largely ignored by promoters (ADA, CDC, NIH, etc.)

Ø  World expert on dental fluorosis Pam Dembeston “we can certainly see the way fluoride impacts the way proteins interact with mineralized tissue, so what effect is it having elsewhere at the cellular level? Fluoride is very powerful and needs to treated respectfully.”

Ø  And in 2012, in the Environmental Health Perspectives, published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Harvard scientists also concluded that fluoride should be a high research priority. But nothing has been done.

Ø  "The evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming.” Dr. Hardy Limeback Former President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.

Ø  . "In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Headquarters Union of Scientists and Professionals (2001

Ø  Nobel Laureate in Medicine/Physiology Dr. Arvid Carlsson  says "Fluoridation goes against all principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete" as well as “with all these professional bodies saying how wonderful it is, isn’t it interesting Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, Portugal and Greece have not fluoridated? Don’t they have professional bodies over there? Don’t they read this astounding literature over here in the U.S” and “one wonders what an increase in exposure to fluoride, such as occurs in infant bottled fed (fluoridated) water diluted preparations, may mean for the development of the brain and other organs”

4.       Potential Harm

·         Since fluoridation began in the 50’s, there’s been little to no monitoring of levels in the bone, blood and urine.

·         We only excrete 50-60% of fluoride…the rest accumulates. Largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland. Infants and children excrete much leass meaning their little bones absorb as much as 80%. Hey and wouldn’t you know it?

·         The uptick in bone diseases like osteoarrthritis is astounding. And wouldn’t you know it the symptoms of osteoarthritis are identical to the first symptoms of fluoride poisoning (skeletal fluorosis). As of 2002, 1 in 3 americans have some form of arthritis.

·         Plus, an American study showed one affect is greater uptake of aluminum in the brain, which is a key factor in Alzheimer’s patients. Yet decades later, no follow up.

·         The body is not a tooth.

·         Fluoride has shown to be beneficial when applied topically not systemically, there is literally no reason to be ingesting it. The potential benefits are topical but the potential risks are systemic. So let people freely do that! Don’t force everyone to put it all throughout the rest of their body.

5.       False Comparison to Actual Nutrients

·         Fluoridists will compare fluoride in water to putting iodine in salt to get rid of goiter, or Vit D in milk for rickets. This is a false comparison because those are well established nutrients. There is no evidence that fluoride is a nutrient.

6.       Fluoride is Natural

·         It exists in nature at levels of .1mg/L. Fluoridated water multiplies this by 7.  

·         And this fluoride that exists in nature is not the same as what is being put in the water supply. You’ve seen the false equivalency of fluoride to nutrients. Now observe the false equivalency of fluoride in the water to the fluoride found in nature.

·         Sodium fluoride is a purified form of fluoride that is chemically identical to what’s found in nature. Now forget about that because the most commonly used form of fluoride in our supply is Fluorosilicic Acid. This bad boy is an industrial waste product derived from scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. And Fluorosilicic Acid contains “impurities” such as arsenic a known carcinogen with absolutely no safe level which means the use of these industrial grade fluoridating chemicals will inevitably increase cancer rates.

·         When you look into this for yourself, and finally accept that its possible that humans can be bad, you will see through the language used like “the EPA sets limits for contaminants like arsenic” and “these compounds are well below the safety limits.” Not only are they confirming that the carcinogens are there, they are distracting you from the fact that there ARE NO SAFE AMOUNTS.

·         It is poor medical practice to use the water supply to medicate. You cannot control the dose, or who gets it. No doctor would recommend any drug at any dose like this. It is forced medication without informed consent. If you want an indication of healthy fluoride levels, look at mother’s milk, it is found at a level of 0.004.

7.       Follow the Money

·         Once upon a time, the phosphate fertilizer industry used to make phosphate fertilizer. And this led to some nasty byproducts such as Fluorosilicic Acid. And this contained not only fluoride but arsenic, lean and cadmium. This is what’s known as hazardous material, toxic waste if you will. Now the regulatory costs of disposal for this kind of waste can be very expensive but if not paid, there would be legal consequences for pollution.

·         Now that’s part one of the story complete. Take a break. Part 2. When the concept of water fluoridation was introduced, it provided a convenient way for phosphate fertilizer companies to dispose of this industrial waste by selling it to municipal water systems. What was once a liability, became an asset! Oh but you say of course they treat this hazardous material and make it safe for us! But as mentioned, when you go down the rabbit hole for yourself, all you will find is admissions that they cannot fully filter out carcinogens that have no safe limit.

8.       Conclusion:

·         If it’s so bad, how could it get through like this? Are you aware of how doctors are taught? It’s a memorization game, they are loaded with tons and tons of data to learn and remember. It’s not a system that easily lets itself be questioned. First you need students paying attention, and then you need them to spot things that kind of don’t make sense, and then you need them to be of a certain character where they will question the authority. And maintain the scepticism and pull a bunch of money out of their wigwam to fund research that no one wants done. Students do exactly what the rest of the public does, they accept what they’re told by authorities. There’s no reason to pretend this isn’t the case, it’s not a bad thing! It’s not students fault or the public.  

·         This shouldn’t be one of those issues that are hard to talk about or change your mind on. It’s a well regarded idea that humans are capable of lying. And being self-interested at the expense of others. No one is saying authorities harm us for the fun of it! It’s all just money! It always is, how absurd would it be to deny?! As soon as you see a money trail the jig should be up! Where exactly is the insurmountable premise that scpetics fail to accept? I’ll tell you. It’s in human psychology. Humans have brains that want to keep us safe and comfortable and happy. But unfortunately its entirely possible that the truth can sometimes be uncomfortable and sad.

·         To solidify the point that they do not care because there is money: apart from all the experts I’ve already cited as pointing to red flags that should have been adressed decades ago, retired toxicologist Paul Connet and colleagues, wrote a book ‘The Case Against Fluoride’ documenting all the arguments with reference to the literature, after years of approaching the relevant peopple, no attempt to respond scientifically.

·         If you want a pre-runner of the bad science and the bad ethics of fluoride look at what the ADA has done to defend mercury amalgams for 170 years. ADA was taken to task in California for testimony on behalf of mercury amalgams, they actually said we only give advice and cannot be held responsible for any damage that comes from this advice, we are a trade association not a medical body.

·         If Dr Connet is right, then we have irreversibly damaged the brains of the next generation, once that’s determined to be true like lead in gasoline, (which Connet was also involved in) he says you think we would have learnt a lesson from it.

9.       Sources

·         Eric Berg

·         Paul Connet Debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ys5qGpZj80EHYPERLINK

·         Paul Connet’s Website Fluoridealert.org   50-reasons.pdf