CDC's Support for Water Fluoridation Based on Flimsy, Insufficient Data
Last April, the CDC responded to an FOIA request asking for the names and job descriptions of all parties at the CDC who have had input into the agency's decision to support water fluoridation.i
As it turns out, ever since the mid-1970s, when fluoridation activities transferred from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to the CDC under the directorship of William Bock, dental health professionals have been the sole body of experts directing the agency's stance on water fluoridation. Glaringly absent from this list are ... well, any health expert outside the Oral Health Division. Apparently, no toxicologist has ever been directly involved in the decision process, nor any minority health professionals, or experts on internal medicine or diabetes, for example.
This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation?
While the CDC officially claims that "extensive research conducted over the past 60 years has shown that fluoridation of public water supplies is safe and effective for all community residents,"ii this claim appears to have the flimsiest of foundations.
According to a 2006 report from the National Research Council,iii extensive amounts of research are inconclusive, or still missing and need to be conducted to evaluate the whole-body impact of fluoride …
Not only that, but their scientific review also identified research suggesting a variety of harmful effects, from skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures, and, potentially, even cancer. With that in mind, how can the CDC claim that "extensive research" has concluded water fluoridation is safe for ALL community residents, without differentiation between infants and adults, the sick or the healthy? Not to mention, how can the CDC accurately claim that water fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the last century?
Water Fluoridation Blamed on Communist Conspiracy
The other widely used propaganda piece noted in the video is from Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove. In the film, General Jack D. Ripper tries to stop a Communist conspiracy to harm Americans with fluoridated water, and at one point states:
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face?"
Of course, water fluoridation was not a communist plot -- it was started by the U.S. Public Health Service. But the film pokes fun at the John Birch Society, an extreme right wing group that happened to be anti-fluoridation. So, of course, anyone at the time who dared speak out against fluoridation was also ruled to be a fanatic, a radical or just a lunatic – even when they could point to legitimate science to back up their claims. This stigma has, unfortunately, stuck through the decades, although now the walls are beginning to crumble.
Fluoride Harms Go "Mainstream"
Earlier this year, the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted 253-23 in favor of mandating infant fluoride warnings on all water bills in fluoridated communities (the bill will now go to the Senate). According to the text of the bill, the warning would read, in part:
"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, if your child under the age of 6 months is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water, there may be an increased chance of dental fluorosis."
But dental fluorosis is not "just cosmetic." It can also be an indication that other tissues, such as your bones and internal organs, including your brain, have been overexposed to fluoride as well. There are more than 100 published studies illustrating fluoride's harm to the brain,iv plus 25 published studies directly linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children! Fluoride is a toxic agent that is biologically active in the human body where it accumulates in sensitive tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes and produces a number of serious adverse health effects—including neurological and endocrine dysfunctions.
Adding insult to injury, even promoters of fluoridation now admit that fluoride's predominant action is on the surface of the tooth (although even this is now questionable) and not from inside the body – so why are so many Americans still being forced to swallow it? Swallowing fluoride provides little or no benefit to your teeth!
Even China does NOT allow water fluoridation because it's too toxic and causes damage, according to their studies. Instead, the waste product from their phosphate fertilizer industry is shipped to the United States, where we add it to our water supply! This is a very important point: the fluoride added to your water is NOT even pharmaceutical grade.
It's a toxic industrial waste product, which is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The story gets even more convoluted, as now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission show that the original motivation for promoting fluoride and water fluoridation in the United States was to protect the bomb-, aluminum-, and other fluoride-polluting industries from liability. In the early days some of the sodium fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies in the U.S. came from Alcoa.
A couple of years later, they switched to the even more hazardous waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry. But none of the studies on fluoride actually used the far more toxic and contaminated hydrofluorosilicic acid that is presently added to the water supply. Rather, they use pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, which while harmful, is not quite as bad as what's being used for water fluoridation. So, the health hazards are likely FAR worse than any study has so far discerned.
The Propaganda Supporting Fluoride and Why They Are Lies
Reply With Quote
. And reverse osmosis is usually so slow that it is used "out of line", with a storage tank.
Bookmarks