All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 6, 2010 - InfoWars Special Reports
58:51
20101206_SpecialReport_Alex
Source
| Copy link to current segment Download episode

Time Text
Everything you ever wanted to know about fluoride is covered in this exclusive PrisonPlanet.TV interview with Dr. Paul Conant, co-author of The Case Against Fluoride.
He covers the history of fluoridation, the collusion of major industries to put certified toxic waste into your drinking water, why the government agencies refuse to conduct scientific studies, and how he and others across North America are trying to end this barbaric practice.
You will never look at tap water the same way again.
Hello, my name is Paul Connett, Professor Paul Connett.
I taught chemistry for 23 years at St.
Lawrence University in Canton, New York.
My speciality was environmental chemistry and toxicology.
Before that, I got my PhD in chemistry from Dartmouth and my undergraduate degree from Cambridge University in England.
For 25 years, I was very much involved with waste management.
14 years ago, my wife persuaded me to get involved in the fluoridation debate.
I didn't want to because I was very busy with the teaching chemistry and waste management.
But my wife is very persuasive.
And I looked at it.
Up to that point, I thought the people opposed to fluoridation were a bunch of wackos.
But when I started reading the literature, I was shocked and embarrassed.
Embarrassed because I'd been persuaded that people opposed to fluoridation were a little strange.
And shocked because some of the information there is extremely disturbing.
For about a hundred years, we know we're slow learners.
For about a hundred years, the phosphate fertilizer industry, which takes phosphate rock and heats it up with sulfuric acid to make soluble phosphate for fertilizers.
The rock is not soluble, and to use it as fertilizer, you've got to make it into a soluble product.
They heated up the sulfuric acid and that drives off two gases, hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride.
These two gases decimated the vegetation in the areas of these plants.
They crippled cattle.
The cattle came down with skeletal fluorosis.
We have pictures of this, videotapes of this.
And in Florida, it damaged the citrus groves in the close proximity of the plants.
So after a hundred years, they said, whoops-a-daisy, I think we should remove those toxic gases.
So they put a wet scrubber in, and all it consisted of was a spray of water.
And that spray of water converts these toxic gases into a solution called hexafluorosilicic acid.
And now Kafka takes over.
I think the most important thing to recognize about fluoride is that it's extremely toxic.
It is very active biologically, interfering with many basic biochemical processes.
Enzymes, G-proteins, hydrogen bonds and so on.
So it shouldn't surprise us that there's a wide range of health effects that are attributed to fluoride.
But the bottom line is that fluoride is extremely active biologically, that the first opponents of fluoridation going back to the 1950s were biochemists, including scientists like James Sumner, who won a Nobel Prize for enzyme chemistry.
And incidentally, there is no doubt that fluoride damages health because millions of people in India, China and parts of Africa have had their health ruined by fluoride.
The people have been crippled by fluoride and many other health effects.
The argument As far as fluoridation is concerned, is there an adequate margin of safety between the doses which cause this known harm, and incidentally, documented in this report by the National Research Council, published in 2006, here in a fairly independent balanced panel, looked at the literature for three years,
And in this 507 page report and 1100 references indicated that the EPA safe drinking water standard for fluoride is 4 parts per million, it's not safe, it's not protective of health and needs to be lowered.
But before I get into the health effects, let me explain my first concern, which remains my top concern.
The level of fluoride in mother's breast milk, baby's first meal, is extremely low.
It's 0.004 parts per million.
That means a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community in the United States, where we fluoridate the water at one part per million, is getting 250 times higher dose of fluoride than a breast-fed baby.
And that is extremely disturbing.
This is a hazardous waste.
No question about it.
It's not only hexafluorosilicic acid, but it's a lot of crap that Neil was talking about.
It's got lead and arsenic and mercury and radioactive isotopes, Moby Tracer mounts.
They can't dump that into the sea by international law.
They can't dump it locally because it's too concentrated, but wait for it.
If someone buys it from them, you take away the label, hazardous waste, and it becomes a product.
Becomes a product.
And who's going to buy this stuff from them?
Oh, our water department!
So the water departments buy this hazardous waste, it becomes a product, and now they put it in our drinking water.
And now, let me go through the list of health concerns.
Some of them are more certain than others.
Let me begin with the certain one.
Dental fluorosis.
Fluoride causes a discoloration, mottling of the tooth enamel.
When this practice began in 1945, the promoters of fluoridation thought they could limit dental fluorosis to 10% of the children in its very mild form.
And the very mild form has little specks of white opaque patches on the cusp of the teeth, up to 25%.
And they thought that only dentists would notice this.
And was an acceptable trade-off with what they thought would be a lowering of tooth decay.
Well, in November of 2010, the Center for Disease Control told us that children aged 12 to 15 in the United States, 41% of them now have dental phorosis.
And not only the very mild, But the mild, which impacts up to 50% of the tooth surface, moderate, which impacts up to 100% of the tooth surface, and severe, where you not only have the whole surface impacted, but indentations, chipping of the teeth, and so on.
And 3.6% of children aged 12 to 15 in the United States have either moderate or severe dental fluorosis.
So that trade-off between lowering tooth decay and producing dental fluorosis but holding it only to 10% clearly was a failure.
We have four times more dental fluorosis as intended and as desired.
Our attitude is that when you see this dental fluorosis, it means the child has been overexposed to fluoride, and the question is what other tissues have been affected.
So let's start with the bone, because the teeth are a window into the bone.
In fact, the teeth actually grow out of the jaw, the jaw bone.
And by the time the permanent teeth have come out, the jaw bone has been loaded up with fluoride.
And so, if you can see the damage to the growing tooth cells, what did the fluoride do to the growing bone cells during this 8, 9, 10 period?
In fact, the first study that was published on this in 1955 indicated that the children in the fluoridated community, which was Newburgh, New York, had twice as much cortical bone defects as the children in the non-fluoridated community.
Now the cortical bone is the outside layer of the bone, and that's the layer, it's a lamellar structure, and that part of the bone is meant to protect against fractures.
And so the concern then is whether we're increasing bone fractures in children.
Well, we had to wait until 2001 before someone investigated this.
Researchers in Mexico found a linear correlation as the severity of dental fluorosis went up.
Meaning the amount of fluoride the child had been exposed to before the permanent teeth had erupted.
As that went up, so did bone fractures in the children.
And it was quite striking.
When you go from no dental fluorosis to very mild dental fluorosis, it doubled.
The bone fractures doubled.
Very mild to mild, doubled again.
Mild to moderate, doubled again.
The next concern about bone is that the first symptoms of bone poisoning in an adult are just like arthritis.
Stiff joints, pains in the joints, pains in the bone.
In the United States, we have one in three adults now with some form of arthritis.
And if you ask a doctor what's causing it, they will say, well, we don't really know, but we think it's got something to do with aging.
Well, what also parallels aging, of course, is the number of years you spent in a fluoridated community.
10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, 50 years, eventually 60, 70, and so on.
The next concern is, as the fluoride continues to build up in the bone, and I should say that up to 50% of all the fluoride that we take in each day accumulates in the bone.
The fluoride is bioaccumulative.
The bones get more brittle.
And another major concern is increased hip fractures in adults.
The studies done in China, as documented in this National Research Council report, and we further elaborated in our book, The Case Against Fluoride, indicates that levels as low as 3 mg per day That's 3 litres of fluoridated water per day may increase hip fractures in the elderly.
Now, my major concern is not the bones, although I think that's significant.
My major concern is the brain, because when the baby is born, the blood-brain barrier is not fully formed.
We think the blood-brain barrier keeps fluoride out of the brain most of the time, but for the first half year of the baby's life, the fluoride can get into the brain.
And this is not the time, in my view, and the view of many other scientists, that a baby should be exposed to fluoride at 250 times the level in mother's milk.
There have now been over a hundred animal studies which show that fluoride damages the brain.
There have also been 23 IQ studies, most of them from China, but one from India, one from Iran, and one from Mexico, which show an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children.
And I actually visited the villages where one of these studies was done.
It was a very good study.
They controlled for lead, they controlled for iodine, Most of the two villages were almost identical, except for the fact that their well water was different.
And the author of this study estimated that the IQ would be lowered at 1.9 parts per million.
and that offers no adequate margin of safety for children drinking water at one parts per million
when you consider the massive range of sensitivity to any toxic effect.
And the fact that once you put fluoride in the water, you can't control the dose.
Another concern which many of us have had for many years is fluoride's impact on the thyroid gland.
For between the 30s and the 50s, doctors in Argentina, France, and Germany
were giving patients with hyperthyroidism, overactive thyroid gland, sodium fluoride tablets
to lower thyroid function.
And the doses that they were using were between 2.5 and 4.5 milligrams per day, which is exceeded by many people drinking fluoridated water.
For example, the Institute of Medicine actually advises people to drink 3 liters of water a day.
So clearly then they would be in the range for lowered thyroid function.
And once again, as in many of these other issues, the fluoridating countries, including the United States, are simply not doing the studies.
They're not investigating to see if there's a relationship between fluoridation and lowered IQ, fluoridation and arthritis, fluoridation and hyperthyroidism.
Key health studies have not been done in fluoridated countries.
If you don't look, you don't find.
They would like to imply, because they don't see anything, there's nothing wrong.
But if they're not looking, they won't find.
You often hear the promoters say things like, Oh, we've been doing this for 60 years.
If there's any problem, we would know about it by now.
Oh, no, you wouldn't, unless you were doing the studies.
Another issue that came out in 1997 was a researcher in England found that fluoride accumulated in the human pineal gland.
And the pineal gland is a little gland between the two parts of the brain, the two hemispheres of the brain.
It's not protected by the blood-brain barrier.
It is a high perfusion rate of blood and it also is a calcifying tissue like the teeth and the bones.
And so this researcher hypothesized that fluoride would be attracted to this ...tissue, this little gland, like a magnet.
And sure enough, when she investigated, the average level of fluoride on these little calcium hydroxyapatite crystals was 9,000 parts per million, up to 21,000 parts per million.
Which means that this little gland has a higher concentration of fluoride than any other tissue in the body, including the bone.
This researcher, Jennifer Luke, also did animal studies, and in the animal studies, she found that fluoride lowered the production of melatonin, the hormone that this little gland makes, and incidentally, it only makes it at night, the hormone of darkness.
This pineal gland reacts to light.
Descartes called it the seat of the soul.
Not only did it lower melatonin levels in these animals, but also shorten the time to puberty, which is absolutely consistent.
Melatonin is thought to act like a biological clock, involved with timing, timing of puberty, timing of aging, timing of jet lag and sleeping patterns and so on.
It controls all kinds of things.
And what I think happens with the child at birth, the melatonin levels are high and with childhood they gradually lower and at a certain point the lowered melatonin levels trigger the production of the sex hormones leading to puberty.
Ironically, that first study that was published, which I already referred to in The Bones, also recorded that the young girls in the fluoridated community, Newburgh, were menstruating on average five months earlier than the young girls in the non-fluoridated community.
Now, they didn't think that was significant at the time.
Now with Jennifer Luke's work, it clearly takes on a new perspective.
Kids now are reaching puberty 7, 8, 9.
It has people very, very worried.
But once again, the fluoridating countries have made absolutely no effort to reproduce Jennifer Luke's work.
It's not difficult, they could have done it easily.
The Department of Health and Human Services has adopted to this, quote, sacred policy of fluoridation is to deny, deny, deny, Critique the methodologies, but don't attempt to reproduce the studies.
If you don't look, you don't find.
And they're using the absence of study as if it was the same as the absence of harm, which is absolutely ridiculous, utterly irresponsible.
So now they're giving every indication, particularly the Center of Disease Control that avidly promotes fluoridation around the United States and around the world for that matter.
The impression that they give is that it's more important now to protect this practice than to protect the health of the American people and our babies and our children.
It's almost as if the teeth Have become the most important tissue, the most important organ in the body.
Instead of our brains, instead of our thyroid glands, instead of our pineal glands, instead of our kidneys.
Obviously, we would like to get fluoride out of Austin, which would have national and international significance, if we could pull that off.
And you've got a lot of good people working to that end.
But it's not going to happen overnight.
It may take one or two years to get that.
In the interim, what we want, and what we asked the commissioners this morning, and asked the council members a couple of days ago, was please insists that the water department puts a warning notice to parents that they should not use fluoridated tap water to make up baby formula.
Then you have to ask the question, well, do the benefits outweigh the risks?
So we got all those risks that I went through.
We put those in one scale pan.
Now let's have a look at the benefits.
Well, first of all, you cannot find a difference in tooth decay today between fluoridated countries and non-fluoridated countries, between fluoridated states and non-fluoridated states, and a recent study in New York between fluoridated counties and non-fluoridated counties.
And the largest survey ever conducted in the United States in 1986-1987 by pro-fluoridation researchers working for the National Institute of Dental Research, they looked at 39,000 children in 84 communities.
And the biggest difference that they could find between children who'd lived all their lives in a fluoridated community compared to children who'd lived all their lives in a non-fluoridated community was a saving of 0.6, six-tenths of one tooth surface.
Not one tooth!
There are between 4 and 5 surfaces to a tooth, depending on whether you're talking about the cutting teeth or the rest of the teeth.
Between 4 and 5 surfaces to a tooth.
Altogether, by the time all the teeth have come out in a child's mouth, there are 128 tooth surfaces.
And we are saying that this huge experiment with the health of the American people is being justified on the basis of saving 0.6 of one tooth surface.
And that is the largest study conducted in the United States on benefits.
Fluoridation is one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.
That statement is cited nearly every day somewhere in the world.
And those people that are citing it don't realize that the paper on which it's based is junk science.
It was written by a dentist that had never written anything on fluoridation before and an economist.
Those two people have persuaded the world that fluoridation is one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.
What they should have told them, it's one of the greatest betrayals of the public's trust in the 20th century.
The argument which is the strongest argument, and has always been the strongest argument against fluoridation, and the one that Alex Jones knows so well, and that is that fluoridation is a violation of our informed consent to medicine.
And if you don't know what that is, go to their webpage of the American Medical Association.
They clearly explain what an informed consent requires.
It requires the doctor to tell the patient what the side effects might be, what the benefits are, and the patient is allowed to choose whether they take that medicine or not.
He cannot, or she cannot, force the patient to take that medicine.
They can advise you, but they can't force you.
That right has been taken away from 180 million Americans.
And what is happening now is whole communities, local governments, state governments, in some countries, federal governments, are doing to the whole community what an individual doctor can do to not one single patient, force them to take medication.
Since 1945, the water supply has never been used to deliver medicine.
Because once you put a medicine in the water supply, you can't control the dose.
Because you can't control how much water people drink.
It also goes to everybody who can't control who gets it.
It goes to the very young, the very old, the people who are sick, the people who have poor kidney function, people who have poor nutrition.
Now, there are some crazy doctors out there who are suggesting that we put lithium in the water supply to reduce suicides, and statins to reduce heart problems and so on.
I don't think they're getting much traction, but the very fact that they're trying is worrying.
Once again, you can't control the dose, and things like lithium have a very narrow range of sensitivity, so you can easily expose people to too much.
In fact, before fluoridation, they did have an experiment where they put iodine in the water and they had to stop immediately because some people were coming down with hyperthyroidism.
Too much iodine, not too little, but too much.
So, it's very rare that you can have a drug that you can say to people, take as much as you want.
Go into your pharmacy and say, is there any drug that you don't have to control the dose?
Is there any drug that you can give to anybody in the population regardless of their health, nutritional status or age?
Is there any drug that you can give that has no individual supervision?
Is there any drug that you can give that doesn't have the Food and Drug Administration collecting side effect data?
And the answer to all those questions from a pharmacist is no, no, no and no!
It's a lousy practice.
It should never have started.
It should be ended as soon as possible.
And whilst we're at it, that we should get banned off the face of the earth!
These ridiculous products, which is so-called nursery water, designed to give to babies, and they put fluoride in it!
So if you give your baby this, you're giving that baby 250 times more fluoride than that baby would get from mother's milk.
You are, in essence, saying that Mother Nature screwed up on baby's first meal, if you use this.
Secondly, the Center of Disease Control in 1999 conceded that the major benefits of fluoride, if they exist, is topical.
It works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body.
So this is totally useless.
This is designed for the baby before their teeth have erupted.
It doesn't touch their teeth.
There's no topical benefit.
There's only harm.
There's only harm.
It's utterly irresponsible and I don't understand why it is that the Food and Drug Administration is not stepping in to ban this.
This is unacceptable.
Let me tell you another absurdity.
This is like Monty Python.
Because the Food and Drug Administration has never regulated fluoride for ingestion, even though it's the most prescribed drug in American history.
The FDA does regulate toothpaste.
And if you look at the back of a tube of toothpaste, fluoridated toothpaste, it says, only use a small pea-sized amount.
And then it says, this is the FDA warning, if more than recommended amounts of toothpaste are accidentally swallowed, then get medical help or contact a poison control center.
Well, let's do a little bit of arithmetic.
A pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste contains about one quarter of a milligram of fluoride.
Now, we fluoridate at one part per million.
That's one milligram per litre.
A quarter of a milligram of fluoride would be in a quarter litre of water, or 250 millilitres, or one large glass of water.
Okay, Monty Python, come in.
Oh, I think you should put a notice over the tap.
Don't swallow this water!
And if you drink more than one glass of water, contact the poison centre immediately.
It is incredible!
It's laughable!
I have a theory.
I haven't tested it.
But I suspect that the individuals at the FDA that put that warning on the back of a tube of toothpaste Probably outraged that they'd never been allowed to regulate fluoridated water for obvious reasons.
That they weren't able to protect the health of the American people.
And I suspect that they put that label on the toothpaste to sabotage the fluoridation program.
A pea-sized amount of toothpaste is equal to a quarter of a milligram of fluoride, which is equal to one glass of water.
In 2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency asked the National Research Council to review its safe drinking water standard for water, which is four parts per million.
After three years, a balance panel produced this 507-page report with 1,100 references.
I was one of the only anti-fluoridation scientists that testified before this panel.
They gave me 45 minutes immediately after the scent of a disease control.
And I'm happy to say that much of what's in this report vindicates what I've been telling communities for the previous 13 years or so.
So they advise the EPA that this four parts per million standard was not safe and that they needed to lower it.
And they recommended that the EPA determine a new standard which would require a health risk assessment.
Well, if you join the dots, they did all the work for the EPA here, if you join the dots and looked at the lowest levels which cause known harmful effects and apply an adequate margin of safety, the new safe drinking water standard goal, that's the science-based goal, would be less than one part per million.
And that would end fluoridation, just like that.
Why then, after four and a half years, has the EPA not joined these dots?
Well, the answer is simple.
They could easily do it.
You could do it in a day or two.
Robert Carton, a former EPA risk assessment specialist at the EPA, within a few weeks had written an article saying the new MCLG based upon this should be zero.
But after four and a half years, the EPA has not done this.
Why?
Because they know that if they come back with an MCLG less than one part per million, it will scuttle the fluoridation program.
And they didn't do this because they've got the Department of Health and Human Services breathing down their necks.
They didn't do it.
And so, just like industry, it's delay, delay, delay in this case.
Now, the EPA scientists on the other hand, that's the administrators, okay?
The administrators, the people at the top have made that decision.
But the rank-and-file EPA scientists are opposed to fluoridation.
The EPA scientists know that when that EPA standard of four parts per million was determined in 1986, the deck was rigged.
They knew it.
They knew it was a false standard.
It was set at four parts per million for political reasons.
Not only to protect the fluoridation program, but also to save states like South Carolina spending a fortune removing natural fluoride.
So it was artificially set too high at four parts per million.
The unions that represent these EPA scientists both in Washington and throughout the different regions have on several occasions called for an end to water fluoridation.
One of the things that the EPA scientists were able to secure ...is a supply of bottled water for their offices in Washington, D.C.
So even though every citizen in Washington, D.C.
is drinking fluoridated tap water, the EPA personnel in their headquarters are drinking bottled water, free of fluoride.
We're seeing in this issue, along with other public health issues, a typical behavior of industry.
When a report is issued by independent scientists indicating that something causes health problems, whether it's lead in gasoline or solvents or something causes health problems, a few months later another study will come out with paid Scientists, scientists paid by the tobacco industry or the chemical industry or the pharmaceutical industry or somebody will come out with a study which is exactly opposite to that.
Now we had an outrageous example of that fairly recently when having, there was a furor about the fact that we were injecting or the CDC was having people, doctors inject Kids with vaccines containing thimerosal.
Thimerosal is organic mercury and it's absolute lunacy to inject into a baby's bloodstream organic mercury, which we know is a powerful neurotoxin.
It caused Minamata disease, and the EPA and others are forever trying to regulate mercury emissions from power stations, crematoria, medical waste incinerators, trash incinerators, because of their concern that the mercury will go into the sediments of lakes, be converted into organic mercury, bioconcentrate up the aquatic food chain so that the large fish Should not be eaten by pregnant women, because we're concerned about the organic mercury going into the fetus, the newborn baby, into the baby.
And yet, here we are injecting organic mercury directly into a baby's bloodstream.
Well, obviously when people found out about that, there was fury.
And what happened?
A short while ago, they published a study that said, whoops, we think that organic mercury is good for a baby's brain.
Absolute poppycock.
Utter nonsense.
But we've seen the same thing with fluoride.
There were studies which shows that fluoride increased hip fracture in the elderly.
So they came back with studies which shows that fluoride actually protected the bones against hip fracture.
We had a study which shows that osteosarcoma was increasing in fluoridated communities and they came back with a study which says fluoridated water actually protects Sex against osteosarcoma.
That was actually made a front page article in the American Dental Association.
Guess what?
Do they have a conflict of interest?
Or what?
Front page of the American Dental Association.
It's quite sickening and I don't think that fluoridation is necessarily the most important issue.
I think I can think of other environmental issues and other health issues which are more important.
But this one is as easy as turning off a tap, the spigot in the waterworks.
And the other reason why this is an important issue which goes beyond fluoridation, it is a separation between honest science and public health policy.
And that's not healthy.
You don't have science when you don't have truth.
So the moment someone fudges, that someone doesn't tell the truth, they're no longer scientists, their degrees should be taken away from them.
And the moment you don't have honest science supporting public health policy, you are sowing seeds For a public distrust of the agencies that are protecting our health, protecting the environment.
And I for one do not look forward to the day when the majority of the public do not trust the health agencies in this country.
And if they didn't trust their governments, oh boy, is this euthanasia?
Are they trying to get rid of us?
Are they trying to limit the world's population?
Are they using this as an excuse?
We have to be able to trust our government health agencies.
And the longer they persist in this nonsense of putting thimerosal into babies' bloodstream and forcing fluoridated water upon us, less and less trust will be there.
Fluoridation emerged in the 1940s.
And at that time, there were many industries that were facing lawsuits for fluoride pollution.
In fact, in the 1930s, the Department of Agriculture said that fluoride has caused more damage to agriculture than any other pollutant.
So many lawsuits were confronted by the aluminum industry, the steel industry, ceramics, brickworks, oil industry.
And the nuclear industry, because the Manhattan Project, the development of the nuclear bomb was taking place in the 40s.
It's part of the World War II effort and then the Cold War.
And to extract uranium, you need a huge quantity of fluoride.
To make uranium hexafluoride, which is a gas which you then can use to separate the isotopes, the lighter isotope from the heavier isotope, the fissionable uranium from the non-fissionable uranium.
Huge buildings were used in Oak Ridge, Tennessee to do that.
But in the process of generating this uranium hexafluoride, there was a lot of fluoride pollution in the area.
And one of the places this pollution took place was in deep water near the boundary of Delaware and New Jersey.
And farmers there had their peach orchards decimated by this fluoride and started legal action.
And there was no question that the Manhattan Project was very, very concerned about lawsuits from fluoride pollution.
No question at all.
They were also concerned about the damage to the concentration behavior of the workers because they suspected it was a neurotoxin.
The nuclear industry, the Manhattan Project, was involved in the designing of one of the key trials for fluoridation, the Newburgh-Kingston trial, which went from 1945 to 1955.
The chairman of the panel that designed this study was Harold Hodge, who was the chief toxicologist of the Manhattan Project.
And the Manhattan Project was collecting the data that they obtained.
The health effects on children, or quote, the non-health effects on children, was being collected on a daily basis and sent to Rochester.
And Harold Hodge, not only was the chief toxicologist of the Manhattan Project, but after 1950, became the number one Toxicologist promoting the idea that fluoridation was completely safe.
And there are pictures of him in front of a blackboard, writing on the blackboard, one part per million is safe.
And we have no reason to delay the fluoridation of the drinking water.
And I wonder how many people watching that TV commercial in the 1950s realized that this same man was part of the team that was injecting plutonium into the bloodstream of terminal patients without their knowledge and some of them weren't even terminal I mean such dastardly behavior we associate with the Nazis but this was done by the the team the Manhattan Project so those people who think there are no conspiracies in the world there is a documented conspiracy a conspiracy to inject into the bloodstream
One of the veterinarians who pioneered the study of fluorosis in animals was Dr. Lennart Crook, a professor of veterinary medicine at Cornell University.
Sadly, he died this year.
But before he died, he studied horses That were poisoned in Pagosa Springs, Colorado.
The horses of Kathy and Wayne Justice.
They have no children.
They poured love and affection on these horses you wouldn't believe.
They won 52 awards, medals, ribbons, whatever they give for quarter horses.
They won oodles of them.
And then, unbeknownst to them, their water was fluoridated in Pagosa Springs.
And the horses were drinking the water out of big tanks which were being fed by the municipal water supply.
And gradually, these horses developed the most dreadful conditions.
They were lame.
They had colic, which is very serious for a horse.
Their whole skin became changed.
There were all kinds of bloating and bubbling.
And eventually, eight of these horses died.
Four dogs died.
And during this whole process, they contacted Lennart Crook, who saw the pictures of the bones, the deformed hooves.
The teeth, and they sent him bones.
They actually dug up a horse, got its bones, sent him the bones, he analyzed them, and he said emphatically, based upon this information, the photographs, the history, and the fluoride measurements, and particularly the fluorosis of the teeth, there was no question that these horses had Fluoride poisoning and died from from fluoride.
We do not consider dentists and doctors the enemy here.
The enemy is the fact that they are not reading the literature.
The only crime that they commit is telling the people it's safe and effective when they haven't read the literature.
So it's a betrayal of trust from the top down, not from the bottom up.
And so the doctors, just as they are betrayed by the American Medical Association, and the dentists are betrayed by the American Dental Association, and both have been betrayed by the Health and Human Services, those doctors and dentists are betraying us.
But they're very much at the end of two chains of command.
And many of those bureaucrats in the middle do not challenge policy.
If you've ever worked in a bureaucracy, you know to challenge policy is to risk your pension and your promotion and everything else if you're perceived as a troublemaker.
So once these decisions are made at the top, that decision, that policy filters out all across the country to the people that carry it out.
Same with the American Water Works Association and all the water departments.
The same with the American Dental Association.
That feeds all its way down to all the local dental societies and dentists.
So it's the people at the top In the 70s, two scientists created a furore.
Dr. Dean, Dean Burke, who was most famous in biochemistry for the famous Lineweaver-Burke plot, and Dr. John Yamayanis, a biochemist who worked for Chemical Abstracts.
They got together and they looked at the cancer figures for 10 fluoridated cities and 10 non-fluoridated cities of a similar demography.
And they found there was a higher cancer rates in the fluoridated cities.
This generated a huge furor and there were many attempts to discredit the studies and falsely accuse them of not controlling for age, sex and so on.
Now, what, in the end, it did was to trigger animal studies.
The Congress, having listened to this furor, asked the National Toxicology Program to do animal studies.
And eventually, in 1990, those animal studies were published.
And not only did those animal studies find an increase in bone cancer, osteosarcoma, in the male rats, but also some other cancers, cancer of the liver and other tissues.
And then when these went to government peer review, a lot of the cancer cases were taken out, ruled out.
And this created considerable consternation from William Marcus, who was the Chief Toxicologist at the time of the Water Division.
And he blew the whistle on this.
He circulated memos.
What are you doing here?
You're downgrading these cancer studies.
We've got the guy that discovered one of these cancers looking at the slide and saying, this is this rare cancer.
And yet you've said it's not.
And they sacked him.
They fired him.
William Marcus.
They fired him.
They had to reinstate him a couple of years later when it was shown that he was sacked under forced pretenses.
But shortly after they found this increase in osteosarcoma in the male rats, they found an increase in osteosarcoma rates in the fluoridated communities in the United States compared to the non-fluoridated.
And then another study in New Jersey that found the same thing.
Once again, we've got the studies coming in which show that fluoridation protected against osteosarcoma and other studies that didn't find it.
The story kind of quietened down until 2001 where Elise Basson, a dentist, getting her doctorate at Harvard, did a very well-designed, robust study where she looked at Very important study.
sarcoma in young boys as a function of when they were exposed.
And she found that when they were exposed to fluoridated water in their sixth, seventh,
and eighth years, they had a five to seven-fold increased risk of developing osteosarcoma
by the age of 20.
Very important study.
However, nobody heard about it.
Her boss at Harvard, Chester Douglas, who is a consultant for Colgate and also a well-known
promoter of fluoridation, who produced that study in 1991 which said that actually fluoridation
is protective against osteosarcoma.
So it's interesting that the National Institute of Health chose this man to finance studies on osteosarcoma.
For the next three years after Basson had successfully defended her doctoral thesis, he had three opportunities, Douglas, to tell his peers, tell the scientific community, tell the public, that this finding had been found.
Now why was it important to do that?
Well, osteosarcoma is frequently fatal.
And so now you've got evidence that fluoridation may actually be killing people.
Not a lot of people.
It may be just a half a dozen in the whole country.
But nonetheless, if Basim was correct, fluoridation is killing a few people.
And how many teeth would you have to save to justify one child dying of osteosarcoma?
Well, Chester Douglas in 2002, one year after this discovery, went to England.
He talked to the British Fluoridation Society, which promotes fluoridation, and said, my work found no association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma.
Oops-a-daisy!
Somehow forgot to mention his graduate student's work, who had found the very opposite.
And when he wrote to the National Research Council, who asked him about his work, again he said, my work shows no relationship between fluoridation and osteosarcoma.
This time he put Abbasin's thesis as a footnote, so he's covering his rear end, except Except he didn't say that her thesis contradicted what he was telling the NRC.
Then, in 2006, Elise Basson published her thesis with three other co-authors in Cancer Causes and Control.
Peer-reviewed, published, study.
In the same issue of the journal, Chester Douglas put in a letter discounting her study, saying his larger study, eventually, his larger study would discount her findings and not to take them too seriously.
I've never heard of a professor doing that to a graduate student before, but be that as it may, he promised the study for the summer of 2006.
And we are still waiting.
It's now the fall of 2010, nearly the winter of 2010.
We are still waiting for Chester Godot Douglas.
We are waiting for Godot.
We are waiting for this study.
Meanwhile, the promoters of fluoridation in Australia, in New Zealand, In England, in Canada, in the United States, in Israel, are using this promise of a study to negate concern about osteosarcoma.
So much for their notion of what good science involves.
You can use a promise in a letter to offset a well-designed, peer-reviewed and published study.
And the U.S.
Public Health Service, incidentally, before any of these trials had been completed, and before there were any significant health studies published, endorsed fluoridation in 1950.
So it wasn't scientific then.
They didn't have the science.
So obviously there were political forces operating then.
And after the U.S.
Public Health Service endorsed it, then it came the American Dental Association, American Public Health Association, eventually the American Medical Association.
They all endorse fluoridation.
Again, without the science on the table.
Now, we mentioned some of the other things that happened in American history about this time.
And Chris Bryson has written a brilliant book called The Fluoride Deception.
And if you go to our webpage, you can see a 28-minute interview I have with Chris.
It's very powerful.
And basically, Chris's thesis, and he documents it very well, is there was collusion between the US Public Health Service and the Florey Lawyers Association.
Now, there's something else happened that Chris didn't talk about.
In 1949, the Sugar Lobby, the Sugar Research Foundation said, we need to find a way to reduce Tooth decay without reducing sugar consumption.
And then they poured millions of dollars into nutrition departments in Harvard, Michigan, and other places.
And the professors, one in particular, Dr. Fred Stair, did yeoman service for this food lobby, extolling the virtues of sugar.
That Coca-Cola was a nutritious drink.
This is coming from Harvard now.
Coca-Cola is a nutritious drink.
And fluoridation was obviously the best thing since sliced bread.
Not only good for children, but good for adults, protecting their bones.
So that was Sugar Moon.
Also at the same time, you have the Manhattan Project, where a huge amount of fluoride is being used to develop
the atomic bomb.
But also there were releases and they too were worried about lawsuits.
A very important factor here is that one of the emotive arguments used by promoters
for fluoridation is to convince the public that you have to fluoridate for equity.
We have to fluoridate so that we can get fluoridated water to everybody.
The high-income, middle-income, low-income, particularly low-income.
So they make a point that low-income children, children from low-income families really need fluoridated water.
The trouble with this is actually a pernicious document.
It's as far from equity as you could possibly get.
Because if you force low-income families to have it, or give it to low-income families, they can't afford to avoid it.
They can't afford bottled water for drinking and cooking.
They can't afford reverse osmosis.
And so they are trapped.
So the very people that you think you're being nice to, you're trapping.
The second thing is, we know very clearly from studies done in India and China, it's children with poor diets, that are most vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects.
Children who have low vitamin intake, low minerals like very much calcium, magnesium, and low protein, are very much more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than children with a good diet.
And unfortunately, you're more likely to find poor diets in low-income areas.
Now, on top of that, there's another factor, and this particularly affects black children.
Black children have a higher incidence of lactose intolerance.
They can't drink milk or eat dairy products, which means that they have a low calcium intake.
And we know, again from Indian studies, that calcium is, to a certain extent, a large excess of calcium is protective, to a certain extent, from fluoride toxicity.
So black children do not have, many black children do not have that benefit.
And one of the places that this has shown up from the very beginning is that the dental fluorosis rates in black children is higher than in white children.
and that the latest report from the Centers for Disease Control confirms that fact.
In fact, one of the highest cities in the United States for dental fluorosis is Atlanta, Georgia,
which has a very high percentage of black families.
The Bryson thesis is that this whole business of fluoridation was a way of changing the image
of the worst air pollutant in those days to this nice benign substance that was safe enough
to put on your teeth and put in your children's water and so on.
And they had the help of the most brilliant public relations expert of all time, Edward Bernays, the father of public relations and propaganda in the United States.
Absolutely incredible.
Engineering consent.
began with Edward Bernays.
So there are some of the things that were operating.
Now I want to throw you a little tidbit, and then I'll give it to Ray.
A little tidbit.
One of the research teams that found that fluoride caused dental fluorosis was H. V. Churchill.
He was the chief chemist for Alcoa, who produced a massive amount of fluoride pollution.
Okay, so then they found out that fluoride in water caused dental fluorosis.
He phoned, privately, dentists in some of the towns, in one in particular, Messina, which had alcoa plants, and found out that children there had dental fluorosis, even though the fluoride in the water was extremely low.
Now, I'm only throwing this out, this is pure speculation.
Pure speculation.
There's nothing worse for industry than to have a tell-tale biomarker of one of its toxic pollutants.
In lawsuits, it could be devastating.
If you, the lawyer, can show that this family, their children, have dental fluorosis, then you look around to see where the fluoride can come from, and if you're the only plant in the area that's producing fluoride pollution, you're in trouble.
And you're in even deep trouble if someone could show something even worse than dental fluorosis, which I think they all suspected, by the way.
Now, this is the speculation.
And please, you know, don't make too much of this.
But it is nasty, but rational for Alcoa and other fluoride pollutants to want to fluoridate the water To give as many children dental phorosis as they possibly could, so that nobody could identify their companies as a source of the pollution, as the source of dental phorosis, and any other health events that was to occur in the future.
That is total speculation.
But I ask you to entertain the possibility.
There's so many things wrong with fluoridation.
First, it's unethical.
You're forcing it on people that don't want it.
That violates their informed consent.
It's a lousy medical practice.
You can't control the dose.
You can't control who gets it and so on.
Thirdly, the evidence that it works is very, very weak indeed.
Most countries don't do it.
Their tooth decay is just as good, if not better, than ours.
There are many risks involved.
The chemicals that they're using are not pharmaceutical grade.
There are hazardous waste material which hasn't been subjected to thorough toxicological testing.
And what's more, it contains all kinds of contaminants from the same phosphate rock that they treat to get this material.
It contains lead, it contains arsenic, it contains other toxic metals.
It may even contain radioactive isotopes because they mine the same phosphate rock for uranium.
If we just focus on one contaminant, arsenic, this means that we are knowingly adding a known carcinogen to the water supply.
That's a no-no.
The MCLG for arsenic is zero.
The safe level for arsenic is zero.
So we shouldn't be adding any arsenic to the water supply, but that inevitably happens if you're using a hazardous waste product.
In the immediate term, we need to stop this nonsense of marketing fluoridated water, nursery water, for babies, when it cannot do them any good at all, and it can only do them harm.
Secondly, we need to get a warning to parents in their water bills not to use fluoridated tap water to make up formula.
Possibly also through the WIC program.
Because people living in apartments may not get a water bill, it may go to the landlord.
So we need to get it to the health clinics and the WIC program.
And finally, we need to demand a scientific response to our scientific arguments.
And let's give them a year.
If there has not been a scientific response, a thorough scientific response to this book within a year, that must be the signal for an overall demand from everybody.
Not just us, but everybody should be demanding an end to this most foolish of practices, which to me is the biggest betrayal of the public trust of anything that we did in the 20th century.
It's an anomaly that it continues.
▲
Export Selection