Posts Tagged ‘america’

Dear President Elect Donald J Trump, the Trump family and the new Trump administration,

Congratulations on your momentous landslide victory in the 2016 presidential election.  Against all odds your team has out-maneuvered the most powerful and corrupt political and media establishment which has had heretofore an iron grip on the minds of the public.  You experienced first hand the collusion, dirty tricks and uniformity of action against a rising populist sentiment in America.

You intimately witnessed how the DC propaganda machine is able to manipulate large swaths of the electorate to believe a false narrative, and I’m sure you have been frustrated by the gullibility of many voters to do so.

Now that you have won the election battle I note that you have quickly begun the transition process and all the ensuing machinations of “assuming office.”  Before you know it, your cabinet positions will be filled and you will have to set about fulfilling your campaign promises, which to use your own words is to “make America Great again.”

Surely I know that every brand of politico, lobbyist, industrialist and well meaning citizen are pitching their ideas to you and your team – lord knows there is a lengthy list of things to do in order to begin to reverse course, and everyone seems to have their own ideas about how best to achieve that.   From monetary to foreign policy, it is all a great big beautiful mess and you have taken on the unenviable role of trying to fix it.

Easier said than done, I know!

But the key question is, how does one prioritize which issue to tackle first? 

As a builder you know well that in any new construction the most important step is to construct a solid foundation first and foremost.  The rest of the process is only made possible by having a level and properly supported foundation.  In cases of renovation, sometimes you must repair the foundation in order to revive a property that has fallen into disrepair.

Similarly, the outward manifestation of society’s behavioral ethics, intellectual achievement and moral direction as a whole is built upon the foundation of our “group intelligence quotient” which is simply the average intelligence quotient of a civilization’s individual constituents.

One should expect that the more enlightened a society is, the more ethical and constructive they will be.

In business and in life I am sure you have discovered yourself that low IQ is directly related to project delays, corruption, back stabbing, financial mishandling, mistakes, confusion, unnecessary aggression, dishonor and every other negative attribute of human being.  This is self evident because any enlightened individual or society with a high intelligence would realize the diminishing returns of such behavior patterns and immediately reorient them for their own self interest.

In light of this revelation, it becomes apparent that your success depends less on your own personal persuasiveness, cunning or intelligence but much more heavily on the reciprocal intelligence level of the rest of the individuals who constitute the civilization you are attempting to uplift.

Consequently in order to effectively and comprehensively deal with such myriad political quandaries one must first address the foundational problems of society (Group IQ), before attempting to fix any of the dependent structures for them to have proper and sustainable support.

Otherwise, the incalcitrant minds of a dumbed down electorate will not be able to properly perceive the truth and will revert back to debased, unengaged, selfish and programmed behavior patterns.  Under such psychological conditions the public will still be easy for the corporate media to manipulate and it will be difficult at best to get anything of great magnitude done.

Luckily there is a feasible, remarkably fast and effective way for a new administration such as your own to boost America’s group intelligence from the top-down, which will greatly open the hearts and minds of everyone involved and subsequently accelerate the collective intellectual and emotional evolution needed for you to properly address the major policy issues which have come to characterize American apathy, degeneracy and serfdom in the last few decades.

Coincidentally such a singular fix easily fits into your existing contract with the American voter, under Section 2.7:

SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure.

Source: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/

While there are many issues with our water supply and other environmental infrastructure perhaps the most influential on the group IQ of our nation is the well known state health policy of “Public water Fluoridation.”

Over 70% of American municipalities make a regular practice of spending millions of dollars purchasing untested, hazardous waste byproducts of the fertilizer industry and distributing the IQ reducing agent through their public water supply. (See: Harvard study Impact of Fluoride on Neurological Development in Children)

Consequently, America has seen an average intelligence quotient stunted over the same period of time it should have been growing due to improved living standards, which is undoubtedly influenced by this persistent and largely unobstructed policy. (See: Are we becoming more STUPID?)

The amount of value this one policy has destroyed is impossible to evaluate, because it has unquestionably prevented significant economic production including inventions, innovations and interpersonal acumen that we can only imagine but not measure in real terms.

Perhaps more concerning than the deleterious effect of water fluoridation on our average intelligence is the well known problems it causes with our thyroid health.  The purpose of your thyroid gland is to make, store, and release thyroid hormones into your blood. These hormones, which are also referred to as T3 (liothyronine) and T4 (levothyroxine), affect almost every cell in your body, and help control your body’s functions (including emotions, reproduction, and intelligence!).

We all know how unbalanced hormones can make people act crazy, and this is precisely what is happening when our society ingests tap water on a regular basis that is laced with the halogen Fluoride.  The thyroid absorbs the fluoride, instead of the iodine it needs and is consequently prohibited from serving it’s proper function in the biology of our people. (See: Clinical Studies on Fluoride’s effect on the Thyroid)

Despite the unfortunate fact that most people are still living under the self interested mantra of the state dental lobby that “Water fluoridation is a significant public health achievement,” many of them are nevertheless acutely aware that our water infrastructure is not altogether safe – with the Flint lead crisis and other recent controversies the public temperament towards the public water authorities has never been more open to change.

Fortunately, we can capitalize on the fact that public water fluoridation and overexposure to lead are in fact closely related since the addition of fluorosilicates to the city water infrastructure is admittedly known to have a corrosive effects on brass joints that results in the leeching of lead into the tap water and blood stream of America (See: Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts.)

With this one issue a Trump administration has the opportunity to do immense foundational repair to the underlying intellectual and bio-physiological deficits which make enlightened thought patterns a scarcity in the halls of government and elsewhere.  In my estimation there isn’t a single issue that could more effectively change the overall psychological ether in this country than reversing this long standing attack on the literal operating system of the American people.

Reversing public water fluoridation would immediately result in a softening of our hearts and a sharpening of our minds which would accelerate our opening to enlightened transcendental ideas that can give birth to a new epoch of political, socio-economic and legal reforms.

Here are my specific recommendations on how a Trump administration could maximize their use of the office to influence this situation and change the overall calculus with respect to the state sacrament of public water fluoridation.

  1. Use of the Bully Pulpit: Hold a  press conference at the White House and outline the legal, financial, moral, and scientific reasons why the people should demand their municipalities change the policy.
  2. Leverage the Appointee Power of the POTUS seat; recommend the senate approve a new commissioner of the FDA who will enforce existing drug laws which prohibit the prescription of a medical agents without the proper medical license and informed consent.

The FDA’s definition of a Drug/Medication is; “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”  [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)].  The only stated purpose of public water fluoridation is to PREVENT tooth decay, which is considered a disease of the tooth. Under current FDA law, city council members are therefore criminally liable for continuing public water fluoridation, but no court will ever hear the case because they too are inculcated by the effective fluoridation propaganda of the dental lobbies and misguided state health representatives – the FDA commissioner should put all participating municipalities on notice to come into compliance with the existing FDA laws or face commercial liability for any damages that can be argued in a court.  When activist law firms see the opening to make money via class action lawsuits that hold weight, the city councils will come into compliance very quickly.

3. Use the Health and Human Service Apparatus: In this video presentation I cover the little known history of our Department of Health and Human Service agency which has its roots in a secret biological weapon research arm of the Department of War.  It was later in the 1950’s that the HHS apparatus began to work with renown propagandist Edward Bernays and the Democratic Rockefeller operative and proginitor of the Research Triangle Park Oscar Ewing to implement a nation wide PR campaign that lead to a national public fluoridation policy.  Use your appointee power and executive action to either cut funding to the HHS or embed citizen patriots there who understand the historical role the HHS has had in attacking American health so that they can use the levers of power to turn the spigots off.

4. Re-examine the Environmental Protection Agency’s role in the perpetuation of the public water fluoridation scheme.  In my two part interview with long time EPA toxicologist and fluoride activist William Hirzy, who blew the whistle and testified before congress on this issue in the early 2000s, he explains how the EPA is responsible for covering up the health dangers in order to maintain the status quo.  In my personal experience I have found some cities will rely on the EPA’s allowable environmental fluoride concentration level to suggest that the amount the city adds to the water is therefore safe, but when confronted with scientific evidence to the contrary the EPA says that they don’t regulate municipal water supplies. We need to stop the onion of bureaucracy and inter-agency collusion which leads to a perpetuation of our most pressing problems.

Mr. Trump, if you are for real, then please give consideration to taking these 4 straightforward recommendations to make a monolithic change that will have the largest return on investment of any single tenant in your 100 Day contract with voters.

Thank you for your time,

Corey Sturmer

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

Advertisements

Editor’s Note: For those of you reading this who currently live in the “Triangle area” of Raleigh, Durham & Chapel Hill North Carolina, I implore you to pay special attention to the historical context presented in this 1993 article by Murray Rothbard. Why? Because one of the main characters highlighted in Rothbard’s excellent essay on the history of water fluoridation in the United States has a particular relevance to your current circumstance, which should not go unnoticed.

Specifically I refer to one, Oscar Ewing, who you will find not only played a critical role in the nationalization of community water fluoridation, but eventually retired to Chapel Hill, NC where he busied himself buying the land which later became Research Triangle Park.  This is a vast subject which deserves its own examination independently of the fluoride issue, one which I intend to dissect at a later time.

by Murray N. Rothbard

This essay originally appeared in the January 1993 issue of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

Yes, I confess: I’m a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of “right-wing kooks and fanatics.” It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry “cancer” even more absurdly than the boy cried “Wolf,” who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation’s water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

(1) Compulsory mass medication is medically evil, as well as socialistic. It is starkly clear that one key to any medication is control of the dose; different people, at different stages of risk, need individual dosages tailored to their needs. And yet with water compulsorily fluoridated, the dose applies to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks.

What is the medical justification for a guy who drinks ten glasses of water a day receiving ten times the fluorine dose of a guy who drinks only one glass? The whole process is monstrous as well as idiotic.

(2) Adults, in fact children over nine, get no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

(3) Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9?

(4) Any parents who want to give their kids the dubious benefits of fluoridation can do so individually: by giving their kids fluoride pills, with doses regulated instead of haphazardly proportionate to the kids’ thirst; and/or, as we all know, they can brush their teeth with fluoride-added toothpaste. How about freedom of individual choice?

(5) Let us not omit the long-suffering taxpayer, who has to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation’s socialized water supply every year. The days of private water companies, once flourishing in the U.S., are long gone, although the market, in recent years, has popped up in the form of increasingly popular private bottled water even though far more expensive than socialized free water.

Nothing loony or kooky about any of these arguments, is there? So much for the general case pro and con fluoridation. When we get to the specific ills of fluoridation, the case against becomes even more overpowering, as well as grisly.

During the 1940s and 50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, the pro-forces touted the controlled experiment of Newburgh and Kingston, two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, with much the same demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation Establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in kids 5 to 9 in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). OK, but the antis raised the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics. Oh?

Why were these and later problems and charges ignored and overridden, and why the rush to judgment to inflict fluoridation on America? Who was behind this drive, and how did the opponents acquire the “right-wing kook” image?

THE DRIVE FOR FLUORIDATION

The official drive began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service, then in the Treasury Department. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official “15-year” study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. (I am indebted to a recent revisionist article on fluoridation by the medical writer Joel Griffiths, in the left-wing muckraking journal Covert Action Information Bulletin: “Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy?” [Fall 1992], pp. 26–28, 63–66.) Yet, before five years were up, the government killed its own “scientific study,” by fluoridating the water in the second city in Michigan. Why? Under the excuse that its action was caused by “popular demand” for fluoridation; as we shall see, the “popular demand” was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. Indeed, as early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left’s backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation’s central organization of “anti-Communist liberals” (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). Ewing mobilized not only the respectable left but also the Establishment Center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation’s establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the “father of public relations.” Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called “The Original Spin Doctor” in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator’s 100th birthday in late 1991. The fact that right-wing groups such as the John Birch Society correctly called fluoridation “creeping socialism” and blamed Soviet Communism as the source of the fluoridation campaign (no, not Bolsheviks, guys: but a Menshevik-State Capitalist alliance, see below) was used by the Bernaysians to discredit all the opposition.

As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed opponents of fluoridation “in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.” (Bette Hileman, “Fluoridation of Water,” Chemical and Engineering News 66 [August 1, 1988], p. 37; quoted in Griffiths, p. 63) In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the “mechanism which controls the public mind,” which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…” And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, “either with or without their conscious cooperation,” will “automatically influence” the members of such groups.

In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that “it is wholesome to eat bacon.” For, Bernays added, he “knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians.” (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add “dentists” to the equation, and substitute “fluoride” for “bacon,” and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles.

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up – the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation’s reservoirs were fluoridated. There are still benighted areas of the country left however (California is less than 16 percent fluoridated) and the goal of the federal government and its PHS remains as “universal fluoridation.”

DOUBTS CUMULATE

Despite the blitzkrieg victory, however, doubts have surfaced and gathered in the scientific community. Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which, in people, accumulates in teeth and bone – perhaps strengthening kiddies’ teeth; but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides – brittleness and cancer – began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newbergh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as “spurious.”

Oddly enough, despite the 1956 study and carcinogenic evidence popping up since the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own beloved animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. Finally, in 1975, biochemist John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Berk, a retired official of the federal government’s own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked Congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests.

Talk about foot-dragging! Incredibly, it took the NCI twelve years to finish its tests, finding “equivocal evidence” that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the U.S., and found nationwide evidence of “a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages,” especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in “non-fluoridated” counties.

In more detailed studies, for areas of Washington state and Iowa, NCI found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but had decreased by 4 percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Sounds pretty conclusive to me, but the NCI set some fancy statisticians to work on the data, to conclude that these findings, too, were “spurious.” Dispute over this report drove the federal government to one of its favorite ploys in virtually every area: the allegedly expert, bipartisan, “value-free” commission.

The government had already done the commission bit in 1983, when disturbing studies on fluoridation drove our old friend the PHS to form a commission of “world-class experts” to review safety data on fluorides in water. Interestingly, the panel found to its grave concern that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride’s safety scarcely existed. The 1983 panel recommended caution on fluoride exposure for children. Interestingly, the panel strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children’s skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the panel, Jay R. Shapiro of the National Institute of Health, warned the members, however, that the PHS might “modify” the findings, since “the report deals with sensitive political issues.” Sure enough, when Surgeon General Everett Koop released the official report a month later, the federal government had thrown out the panel’s most important conclusions and recommendations, without consulting the panel. Indeed, the panel never received copies of the final, doctored, version. The government’s alterations were all in a pro-fluoride direction, claiming that there was no “scientific documentation” of any problems at fluoride levels below 8 parts per million.

In addition to the bone cancer studies for the late 1980s, evidence is piling up that fluorides lead to bone fractures. In the past two years, no less than eight epidemiological studies have indicated the fluoridation has increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Indeed, since 1957, the bone fracture rate among male youth has increased sharply in the United States, and the U.S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even “low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.” JAMA concluded that “it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation.”

Clearly, it was high time for another federal commission. During 1990–91, a new commission, chaired by veteran PHS official and long-time pro-fluoridationist Frank E. Young, predictably concluded that “no evidence” was found associating fluoride and cancer. On bone fractures, the commission blandly stated that “further studies are required.” But no further studies or soul-searching were needed for its conclusion: “The U.S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water.” Presumably, they did not conclude that “optimal” meant zero.

Despite the Young whitewash, doubts are piling up even within the federal government. James Huff, a director of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded in 1992 that animals in the government’s study developed cancer, especially bone cancer from being given fluoride – and there was nothing “equivocal” about his conclusion.

Various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have turned to anti-fluoridation toxicologist William Marcus’s warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other disease. Marcus mentions, too, that an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department (a state where only 15 percent of the population is fluoridated) shows that the bone cancer rate among young males is no less than six times higher in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated areas.

Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand’s most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country’s top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.

As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, Colquhoun decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation. To his shock, he found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part than in the fluoridated part of New Zealand. The national health department refused to allow Colquhoun to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top pro-fluoridationist in British Columbia, Canada, Richard G. Foulkes, concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. Foulkes was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist “promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists.”

WHY THE FLUORIDATION DRIVE?

Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found in the earth’s crust. Fluorides are by-products of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this by-product is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluorine was increasingly being subject to lawsuits and regulations. In particular, by 1938 the important, relatively new aluminum industry was being placed on a wartime footing. What to do if its major by-product is a dangerous poison?

The time had come for damage control; even better, to reverse the public image of this menacing substance. The Public Health Service, remember was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and treasury secretary all during the 1920s and until 1931 was none other than billionaire Andrew J. Mellon, founder and head of the powerful Mellon interests, “Mr. Pittsburgh,” and founder and virtual ruler of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist named H. Trendley Dean to the West to study the effects of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people’s teeth. Dean found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news galvanized various Mellon scientists into action. In particular, the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced and immediately concluded that “the case (that fluoride reduces cavities) should be regarded as proved.” Instant science!

The following year, 1939, Cox, the ALCOA scientist working for a company beset by fluoride damage claims, made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. Cox proceeded to stump the country urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted, when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals in one shot: it transformed the image of fluorine from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid’s teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation’s water.

One interesting footnote to this story is that whereas fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, the substance dumped into every locality is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that “fluoride is fluoride” becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

Which brings us to Oscar R. Ewing. Ewing arrived in Washington in 1946, shortly after the initial PHS push began, arriving there as long-time counsel, now chief counsel, for ALCOA, making what was then an astronomical legal fee of $750,000 a year (something like $7,000,000 a year in present dollars). A year later, Ewing took charge of the Federal Security Agency, which included the PHS, and waged the successful national drive for water fluoridation. After a few years, having succeeded in his campaign, Ewing stepped down from public service, and returned to private life, including his chief counselship of the Aluminum Corporation of America.

There is an instructive lesson in this little saga, a lesson how and why the Welfare State came to America. It came as an alliance of three major forces: ideological social democrats, ambitious technocratic bureaucrats, and Big Businessmen seeking privileges from the State. In the fluoridation saga, we might call the whole process “ALCOA-socialism.” The Welfare State redounds to the welfare not of most of society but of these particular venal and exploitative groups.

Ed.: See also, from 2005, Fluoride Follies by Donald W. Miller, MD.

Activists linked through http://www.infowars.com took the assertion of their personal sovereignty to their local government demanding an end to water fluoridation.  In North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park (Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill), these individuals have spent over a year and a half standing for liberty.  This is their Saga.

http://www.infowars.com/operation-paul-revere-film-contest-100000/

http://planet.infowars.com/groups/greater-raleigh-resistance/

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com
http://www.raleighagainstfluoride.com
http://fluoridefreechapelhill.wordpress.com

What’s The Buzz?

Youtube:

Chris Brown 

Amazing documentary. It shines the light on exactly how incompetent government really is.

Rich Poythress

Hope you guys win. This is Paul Revere in action. Thank You!

swbjamz

Great job on this work you are doing. Thank you. Someone needs to get this stopped, and you guys have thrown yourself in the cogs on the machine. True patriots. Thank you again. I could never say it enough. Thank you.

well done sir….wish i had been in town during the latest meet up.

r/conspiracy:

1regularjoe

Only a few minutes into the documentary at this time, but wanted to comment on the scene from the water treatment plant where the foreman explains what the ‘4-0-0’ sign on the fluoride tank means, and just states that the 4 means ‘it’s corrosive.’ I wanted more specifics so I looked up that rating…

The ‘Blue’ rating of 4, according to the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association), details the following warning:

“Materials which upon very limited exposure could cause death or major residual injury even though prompt medical treatment is given, including those which are too dangerous to be approached without specialized protective equipment.” This degree should include:

  • Materials which can penetrate ordinary rubber protective clothing;
  • Materials which under normal conditions or under fire conditions give off gases which are extremely hazardous (i.e., toxic or corrosive) through inhalation or through contact with or absorption through the skin.

Source: NFPA Health Rating System

1regularjoe

I’ve finished watching your documentary. WELL DONE, SIR!

Years ago I did a great deal of research on this topic and honestly didn’t expect to learn anything from your video. I was wrong.

It was clear, concise, extremely informative, well thought out and edited. There were none of the things that ‘turn me off’ to a documentary, such overt use of propaganda via ominous music and images.

I would gladly and readily recommend this video to anyone wanting information on water fluoridation!

Bravo!

r/freedomearth:

Fleming_007

Simpleton’s observation: why doesn’t any member of a City Council jump right up asa you mention public health concern, like any person in his right mind would do if their own family was at immediate risk? Because it is rethorical until they drop dead in front of their eyes?? I can see how this has become a journey to personal sovereignty because you keep on standing your ground while experiencing the insanity of the system that only works towards the detriment of the people, in any way. The greatest respect for you, I wouldn’t dare go there!