(NaturalNews) The following article is, in essence, my testimony delivered to the Hawaii Senate Health Committee in 2008. It contains facts that anyone can use to oppose water flouridation wherever you live. The good news is that once again we have been successful in keeping fluoride out of our water supply.
I would like to pose some hypothetical questions:
What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride was not "safe and effective" at all, but was actually a carcinogenic industrial waste?
What would you do if you learned that the sugar lobby's answer to cavity reduction is more fluoride rather than less sugar in the diet?
What would you think if you suddenly found out that fluoride doesn't stop tooth decay at all, but actually causes teeth to rot and crumble, and by the same mechanism also causes osteoporosis?
What would you do if you found out that a myriad of research and reports from China, showing that fluoride ingestion causes interference with brain development, had been purposely withheld from the people in the U.S.?
What would you do if you suddenly found out that fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood, depresses thyroid activity, promotes the development of bone cancer, causes premature aging of the human body, and is used in rat poison, and that the contents of a family size tube of overpriced, huge profit margined fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 25 pound child?
And after you found out all this, would it surprise you that federal health agencies have known these facts for years, but have been controlled by the political interests of the nuclear arms, aluminum, and phosphate manufacturers to keep it a secret?
Why would they do that? So that a toxic industrial waste could be passed off on the public as a nutrient with necessary health benefits, to the tune of $10 billion a year or more going in the pockets of these industries rather then they having to spend that amount to dispose of it properly as a toxic waste.
Next, we have to look at the people that are for and against this assault upon our health.
Those against this horror movie are everyday people. Accountants, retired engineers, chemistry professors, teachers, acupuncturists, dentists, believe it or not, the Union of Scientists at the EPA, and a host of others from all walks of life. And, all of them come armed with peer-reviewed scientific literature to back up what they have to say.
Those in favor of this horror movie, with lots of credentials, are the majority of dentists, the public health officials and many people in various government positions. And what do they come armed with? Speculation and years of repeating, like good little lemmings, that fluoride is "safe and effective". If it were so safe and effective to ingest, why would the CDC say that fluoride's effectiveness is on the surface of the tooth and only after it comes into the mouth?
Anyway, let's take a look at some of these individuals with, "credentials".
Dr. Mark Greer, Dental Chief, Hawaii Dept. of Health
Back in the year 2000, Dr. Greer, on Hawaii Public Radio, made the statement that fluoride is safe because there were toxicology tests done on it that verified this. Sounds great doesn't it? There's one problem though – only in 2006, by the National Research Council, were toxicology tests done on the fluoride substances that are added to the water supply with the conclusion that fluoride was indeed toxic and dangerous to health. Their finding? Anything more than 1.2 ppm is toxic! Also, after trying unsuccessfully twice to obtain a copy of Dr. Greer's alleged report substantiating his toxicology assertion, I had to go through the Attorney General's office to obtain the report under the Freedom of Information Act. It's funny though that the several hundred page report that I received from Dr. Greer contained nothing about toxicology testing. I guess he thought I would never read such a long, boring report. But, when you know that a person is a liar, you leave nothing to chance.
So, the question that arises is, why would a man in Dr. Greer's position deliberately lie? Does his brainwashed desire to fluoridate the water supply take precedence over his integrity? Apparently and unbelievably, so!
Dr. Chester Douglass, Dental School Head, Harvard University
In late 2005 or early 2006, one of Dr. Douglass' dental doctorate students, Elise Bassin, prepared a thesis on fluoride. Dr. Douglass then released her thesis with one minor modification. He eliminated the part in the thesis where Bassin proved that fluoride causes bone cancer in adolescent boys. Boy oh boy, why would Dr. Douglass deliberately eliminate that part? I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass's being on the payroll of the Colgate-Palmolive Company had anything to do with it? Then, Harvard did their own in-house investigation of Dr. Douglass' actions and exonerated him. I wonder if the fact that Dr. Douglass's donation of $1 million to Harvard had any influence in that decision?
Dr. Bruce Anderson, former Director of Health, State of Hawaii
Back in 2004 or 2005 there was a hearing to determine whether or not the MCL (maximum contaminant level) of fluoride should be raised from 2ppm to 4ppm in Hawaii. Despite testimony by the public and many employees of the water department against such a raise, Dr. Anderson, public servant that he was, upped the level anyway.
Consider this: mother's milk contains .005 – .01 ppm of fluoride. The question you have to ask yourself is, who is right, God or the politicians?
Consider this: that same National Research Council report came to the conclusion that fluoridated water should not be used in infant formula because of the danger of neurological damage and that kidney patients, diabetics, seniors and outdoor workers were susceptible populations especially vulnerable to harm from fluoride ingestion. Yet, many dentists, many of the States' Dental Associations and our Public Health officials have failed to pass on that message. Do you think that it might be hard for some people to admit they were wrong about something?
Before organized dentistry became fluoride fixated, a 1950 Connecticut study, before fluoridation, clearly linked more fruit and vegetable consumption and less sugar consumption to fewer cavities. Did you know that a 20-ounce bottle of soda contains 14 teaspoons of sugar and a 7-11 "Big Gulp" contains 56 teaspoons of sugar? If there were any more than that the sugar would too heavy and settle to the bottom. But, I guess the dentists' answer to that situation would be if the soda were made with fluoridated water, cavities could be prevented. Riiiiiiight!
After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans via public water supplies, virtually 100% via the food supply and fluoridated dental products (a multi-billion dollar international business), up to a half of U.S. schoolchildren sport fluoride overdose symptoms as dental fluorosis – white, yellow or brown, and sometimes pitted teeth (1). But, tooth decay is still a national epidemic, especially among the low-income people who can't find dentists willing or able to fix their rotting teeth. And why are the dentists not willing or able to treat these low-income people? Because the amount that Medicaid pays is too low.
Dental Health Aide Therapists (DHATs) could be a solution to the oral health crisis. DHATs are to dentists what Physician's Assistants and Nurse Practitioners are to physicians. DHATs
work successfully throughout the world and can drill, fill and pull teeth in the mouths and geographic areas where dentists will not or cannot go, more cheaply and as effectively (2).
Sounds really good doesn't it? The problem is that the American Dental Society and the Alaska Dental Society are suing to stop DHATs from supplying much needed dental care in Alaska where dentists cannot be enticed to live or work for love or money (3). Defying organized dentistry, the first U.S. DHAT School just opened in Alaska to train more DHATs (3).
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was an established neurotoxicologist whose research proved fluoride to be a neurotoxin affecting the central nervous system. Her work was not only dismissed when she published it in 1995, but it also ended her career. What's ironic is that one of her mentors, Dr. Harold Hodge, who served as the chief toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, aka the Atomic Energy Commission, was instrumental in selling fluoride to the public. As her work progressed and she reported her findings to Hodge, he shrugged them off. It wasn't until much later that
Mullenix learned that Hodge had conducted his own research 50 years earlier and had discovered then the connection between fluoride and its ill effects on the central nervous system.
Many of the early opponents to water fluoridation recognized that fluoride was a critical component in uranium and aluminum production and a necessity in the making of the "bomb". Common sense told them that adding the waste product of a chemical that can cut through steel
is bound to have some adverse health effects. Despite their best efforts, a massive PR campaign was waged and won and fluoride was shoved into public drinking water supplies and into dental curriculums -a neat and tidy solution to the expensive problem of what to do with toxic waste. And, much of the research supporting fluoridation came from industry-funded studies. How objective!
The National Research Council advises that more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, immune deficiencies, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions, arthritis-like conditions, and more.
Peer reviewed studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficiencies, thyroid dysfunction, gum disease, kidney, tooth and bone damage and symptoms characteristic of Alzheimer's disease. In fact, medical reports from India have indicated that arthritic type symptoms have disappeared when test subjects stopped using fluoridated toothpaste.
So, why do the dental associations and public health officials still cling to the idea that fluoridation is good?
Dental school indoctrination?
Embarrassment that they have been wrong all along?
Possible liability associated with all the deleterious health effects people have suffered from fluoride being thrust upon them against their will?
I guess it's more convenient to carry on with the idea that fluoridation is beneficial than to lose face!
So, here we are again having yet another debate about fluoridation. And again the "uncredentialed" come in with references to peer-reviewed studies and the "credentialed" come in with, "it's been proven safe and effective", unsubstantiated speculation.
In 1961, when Dwight D. Eisenhower left the Presidency, he warned the American people to be aware of the rapidly growing power of the military-industrial complex. He surely knew then how deeply entrenched the connections between industry and military affairs had become. Have we learned from this some 40 odd years later? Not by my standards we haven't.
Please, for heaven's sake, keep our drinking water pure and don't use it as a vehicle to deliver a highly toxic medication recommended by credentialed individuals with no integrity.
Consider this: under the Pure Water Drinking Act it is illegal to dump fluoride in the lakes, streams and oceans. But, for some weird reason, it's ok for fluoride to do this if it passes through a water faucet and a person's body first.
How's that for theater of the absurd?