Fluoride Discussion

[puffpuffpass]

I've moved the fluoride related posts from the codeine thread in AusDD here so that the discussion can continue - foots.

I can see how it could effect the cwe, being an acid and an s7 poison:
:
Chemical identity of ingredients Proportion of ingredients CAS Number for ingredients
Fluorosilicic acid 22 % (wt/wt) 16961-83-4
Hydrofluoric acid 0·5 % (wt/wt) 7664-39-3
Water Remainder

Sorry should have sourced:
http://www.csbp.com.au/Media/MSDS/AN/MSDS_Fluorosilicic_Acid.aspx
CSBP Limited
Kwinana Beach Road, KWINANA Western Australia 6167
FLUOROSILICIC ACID IS CORROSIVE ON CONTACT AND POISONOUS BY INGESTION AND
INHALATION OF ITS VAPOUR. FIRST AID ATTENTION MUST BE GIVEN AS URGENTLY AS
POSSIBLE AS OUTLINED BELOW. ALL SUSPECTED FLUOROSILICIC ACID BURNS SHOULD
RECEIVE MEDICAL ATTENTION. TRAINING ON HANDLING FLUOROSILICIC ACID
INCIDENTS USING THIS MSDS SHOULD BE PROVIDED BEFORE ANY FLUOROSILICIC ACID
HANDLING OR USE COMMENCES.

 

[tyrael]

^ ...that's all you picked up from my posts on the subject?...

footscrazy , one of the most intelligent and eloquent posts I've read on BL in a while!!

Chemical identity of ingredients Proportion of ingredients CAS Number for ingredients
Fluorosilicic acid 22 % (wt/wt) 16961-83-4
Hydrofluoric acid 0·5 % (wt/wt) 7664-39-3
Water Remainder

Oh, a scientist (or "scientist"?) speaking at a conference of which the sole purpose is to speak only against fluoridation (/water additions)? That's reliable!

The anti-fluoridation movement has been constantly in the background purporting false or ill-conducted studies again fluoridation ever since the 1940's. (reliable, well-conducted, scientific, many many) Studies since have proven the safety, effectiveness and necessity of water fluoridation and the prevention of tooth decay - especially in certain countries and SESs*. Reports/studies out of the CDC, FDA, WHO, TGA (etc.) shows the same result (oh, I forget though, they're in on the conspiracy! -_- oops!) The continued (current day) use however (afaik, and I haven't read real recent studies) can be debatable (with the advent of newer technologies/oral health care and education/products).

* This is not to say anything regarding any ethical or political aspects (read: whether it should be done or not, the science unequivocally proves the benefits of fluoridation and the reduction in tooth decay)

 

[puffpuffpass]

In the early days the did toxicity studies on pharmaceutical grade not the industrial grade they use. I personally know an old kiwi about 45 who's teeth have gotten bad since moving from there, he agrees with me.

 

[tyrael]

In the early days the did toxicity studies on pharmaceutical grade not the industrial grade they use. I personally know an old kiwi about 45 who's teeth have gotten bad since moving from there, he agrees with me.

Anecdotal evidence...must be true.

I think a post elsewhere answers this better then I would....

The introduction of the phrase "pharmaceutical grade" here is a red herring. Most items we ingest are not pharmaceutical grade. The sugar you put in your coffee isn't pharmaceutical grade, and nor is the coffee itself. Why should the water be? The standard here should be "food grade", and the water coming from the tap (certainly in first world countries) is rigorously monitored and controlled. Once the chemicals coming in are dissolved to 1 ppm (see other answer), the "small residues" are going to be diluted even further, making the issue of industrial versus food grade inputs irrelevant. It is the output that matters.

I'm able to post responses from elsewhere, and they still be applicable, because it's the same repeated, conspiracy-driven arguments used all across the Internet.

 

[puffpuffpass]

I shouldn't be forced to drink all these toxic substances whether they say in the dosage/procedure makes it non-toxic means nothing to me. When was the last time the government was honest.

 

[tyrael]

I shouldn't be forced to drink all these toxic substances whether they say in the dosage/procedure makes it non-toxic means nothing to me. When was the last time the government was honest.

Which is your prerogative! And no one is stopping you from making the choice not to. No one's forcing tap water down your throat! Yet your opinion doesn't change science (evidence-based) fact that for the majority (particularly fluoridation of tap water) benefits from this intervention.

Another question, what exact substances are being added? (saved for fluoride/chlorine of course as this is already well known and transparent)

 

[puffpuffpass]

Its not like I have the option to drink clean water, I kind of am forced to drink it.

Nearly 10 years ago, Belgium banned the sale of all non-prescription fluoride supplements citing well-documented research indicating that ingested fluoride has "considerable potential" for physical and neurological harm, with little evidence of cavity prevention. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, has not found fluoride supplements to be safe or effective, according to the National Institute of Health, which lists a laundry list of fluoride's effects, including:

More http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/03/fluoride-show-no-benefits.aspx

--------

What is perhaps most surprising is that the harmful effects of fluoride have been known by conventional medical organizations for over half a century. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated in their September 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes. And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated:

"Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good."

 

[tyrael]

There exists home water treatments!

You're making my point of me there! You (supposedly) have three sources citing that fluoride supplements aren't safe/effective, and yet you refused to ingest fluoride via the tap water? So you're disputing the fact that fluoride is beneficial to dental health? Alternatively, you'd prefer (if you believe what you've posted) to not to " be forced to drink all these toxic substances " and yet still quite happy to take fluoride supplements, which in your own posts you say, aren't safe or effective?

So you don't want to ingest fluoride via tap water, nor want to take supplements because they're (apparently) unsafe, so basically you're against fluoride entirely? (never known someone to get so against a single compound)

 

[puffpuffpass]

Where did I say id be happy to take fluoride supplements...

Another question, what exact substances are being added? (saved for fluoride/chlorine of course as this is already well known and transparent)

http://youtu.be/XfiCP3HYxFg?t=20m22s

 

[tyrael]

....he U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), meanwhile, has not found fluoride supplements to be safe or effective,...."

Link?

From the FDA site:

.... FDA reviewed the sources and cited statements in their context and in light of existing authorized health claims and current science. The following three statements are considered authoritative for purposes of this notification.

Recommendation for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the U.S. (Centers for Disease Control, 2001):

"Widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries (i.e., tooth decay) in the United States and other economically developed countries. When used appropriately, fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and controlling dental caries. All U.S. residents are likely exposed to some degree of fluoride, which is available from multiple sources." (Summary section, page 1)

"Continue and extend fluoridation of community drinking water: Community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive way to prevent dental caries. This modality benefits persons in all age groups and of all SES, ...." (Recommendation section, page 24)

Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General (2000):

"Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing dental caries in both children and adults. Water fluoridation benefits all residents served by community water supplies regardless of their social or economic status. Professional and individual measures, including the use of fluoride mouth rinses, gels, dentifrices, and dietary supplements and the application of dental sealants, are additional means of preventing dental caries." (Executive summary)

Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (Public Health Service, 1991):

"Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoride areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident." (Conclusions section, page 87)

--------

....For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated in their September 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes....

....And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated:...

Again, source?

Where did I say id be happy to take fluoride supplements..

Oh my bad. I assumed since you were putting "evidence" against it, you yourself wouldn't ingest them!

 

[puffpuffpass]

Link?

http://www.robertgammal.com/PDFs/SciFactsFluoride.pdf

 

[tyrael]

http://www.robertgammal.com/PDFs/SciFactsFluoride.pdf

Ah of course, from a website plastered with anti-this, anti-that propaganda. Definitely a reliable source!

^^^ Even the site's creator's aren't confident in the information provided! Utters confidence!


Obviously I myself haven't gone through each study so I can't determine the validity, any biases, proper experimental procedures, etc. However I too can posts links (from proven, reputable, well known organisations and scientists);

http://www.fda.gov/Food/LabelingNutrition/LabelClaims/FDAModernizationActFDAMAClaims/ucm073602.htm
http://www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/publications/fluoride_drinking_water_full.pdf
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water
http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002482
http://www.who.int/oral_health/media/en/orh_cdoe_319to321.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_1.pdf

The Internet is a wonderful place, any one can post any thing!

 

[puffpuffpass]

The sources r legit google them...


Funny how most (all?) your sources come from the government....

 

[tyrael]

...Funny how most (all?) your sources come from the government....

Yup, it's a conspiracy and I'm just a tool of the medical industrial complex! -_-

http://thesoapboxrantings.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/embarrassing-conspiracy-theories-water.html
http://www.ada.org/sections/newsAndEvents/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf
http://theconversation.edu.au/how-fluoride-in-water-helps-prevent-tooth-decay-6933
http://www.skepdic.com/fluoridation
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fluoride/index.htm
http://fluorideinfo.org/fluoride_claims-vs-facts.html
http://www.ada.org.au/OralHealth/FLN/flfaqs.aspx


This is mighty off topic anyhow (to the OP). I've PM'd footsy to split the thread.

 

[Sonny Jim]

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal
* Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release.
Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:45am EDT
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

PR Newswire

NEW YORK, July 24, 2012

NEW YORK, July 24, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

"The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas," write Choi et al.

Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical "with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."

Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.

Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children's intelligence.

Choi et al. write, "Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children's neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.

"It's senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups," says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. "Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It's time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere," says Beeber.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, "It's apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."

Choi's team writes, "Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature."

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation's effectiveness (2). New York City Legislation is pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.

Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)

More information on fluoride's impact on the brain is here.

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 [email protected]

http://www.fluoridation.webs.com

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

 

[Sonny Jim]

Harvard Now Insists that Fluoride Only Lowers IQ Levels Outside the United States
Article
By Natural News | September 26, 2012 11:02 AM EST

Intense industry pressure to continue mass medicating Americans with fluoride chemicals via public water supplies has apparently influencedHarvard University researchers to backtrack on a recent study they conducted that verified fluoride chemicals lower IQ levels in children. We are now being told the absurd lie that fluoride is only detrimental to people in other countries, and that Americans need not worry about ingesting and bathing in the toxic brew here in the states.


Reuters

Many counties have stopped adding fluoride to their water supply, citing health risks the CDC says simply aren't there.
A recent pro-fluoride article published by the industry-backedWichita Eagle petitions Wichitans, who will soon vote on whether or not to fluoridate their local water supply, not to oppose the city's upcoming fluoride measure based on theHarvard study because the study's findings allegedly only apply to Chinese children. The piece encourages Wichitans to essentially ignore this and other science showing the dangers of fluoride, or at least pretend as though none of it applies to them.
And the reason these pro-fluoride fanatics are using to make the ridiculous claim that the Harvard study's findings do not apply in the U.S. is that the fluoride levels evaluated in Chinawere supposedly far higher than they typically are in domestic water supplies. Thus, consuming or bathing in fluoridated municipal water poses little risk, they say, so drink up!

But is this even true? The Harvard review, which was published in the journalEnvironmental Health Perspectives, includes a comparison of IQ levels among children living in a village with an average fluoride concentration of 0.36 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to the IQ levels of children in another village with a fluoride concentration of 2.47 mg/L. Clearly, neither of these levels is above the federal government's maximum allowable concentration of 4 mg/L. (http://www.prnewswire.com)
A 2.47 mg/L concentration of fluoride, which is considered "high," is hardly "ten times what we see here in the U.S.," an erroneous claim made by pro-fluoride fanatic Larry Hund, a Wichita-based pediatrician and leader of Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, the primary group in Wichita pushing for water fluoridation. Some U.S. cities, in fact, have fluoride levels that exceed the 2.47 mg/L level of fluoride evaluated in theHarvard study, which means it most definitely has relevance in the current debate over whether or not to fluoridate. (http://www.thenewamerican.com)
Even if you buy into the claim that the roughly 0.7 mg/L of fluoride that Wichita plans to add to its water supply is less than what was used in the Harvard fluoride study, there is still no solid evidence proving that even this lower level is safe. Since fluoride tends to accumulate in glands and tissue over time, any level of repeated exposure appears to be dangerous, not to mention the fact that the jury is still out about whether or not ingesting fluoride provides any legitimate oral health benefits whatsoever.

"The key takeaway for me in the (Harvard) study is, one, they didn't rule out the danger (of fluoride), and two, they said further research is necessary," said Don Landis, a spokesman for the group Wichitans Opposed to Fluoridation. "That's what we're saying; the science is not settled. No research is done on low-dosage fluoride, (and) the Harvard study is very valuable in pointing that out."

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/037313_fluoride_lower_IQ_Harvard.html#ixzz27aTNYfov

 

[puffpuffpass]

Hitler used fluoride in the concentration camp for the Jews, good sign there lol.

There is a bunch of study's out there for anyone who cares to know what they are drinking...

Here's a great page with many different studies done on different parts of the body

Google is your friend...

 

[tyrael]

....why is someone like tyrael even taking this so personally as to defend fluoride LOL what the heck does he know about fluoride anyway, maybe if he actually read the stuff he criticises...but isn't that typical really.

Don't presume to know me, my qualifications or what I have or haven't read! Who's to believe your point of view Sonny Jim any more than mine?

My argument for fluoridation is based on 65+ years of evidence/proof of the requirement for healthy teeth. As I said before however, the ethical aspect or tbh even current requirement is debatable. This is an entirely new argument as 21 century advances means that for those in a situation where they're able to provide themselves with adequate dental hygiene/care, this may not be an issue. But believe it or not, there exists many people around the world who simple don't/aren't able to receive the minimal RDI for healthy teeth. You maybe in a position to have ready access to good dental care but many people - children, the disables, poor/low SES situations - don't!

(Just to clarify, I hope that no one would think so anyway however) Of course I don't think fluoride isn't at all toxic, of course it can be! I believe - from the scientific reports/studies I've read and my own studies - that the quantities found in water do more benefit then any (however little possible) damage!

So from your thinking - any fluoride being dangerous - the fact that there exists places where the natural level of fluoride (general belief of a safe level being ~1ppm) is much higher then even organisations like the WHO say are safe, and their Governments are reducing these levels and hence are actually providing a benefit? In which case, you wouldn't mind the Government "messing" with the water then?

Am I correct in assuming - since fluoride is so dangerous - you check the levels in your foodstuffs and dental products? Make sure you don't drink from natural wells (unless tested)?

You also realise that the studies you posted, the first one doesn't (afai could see) doesn't show the levels in which they are calling fluoride toxic (of course it's toxic at a certain level), and the second says that levels of 2.47mg/L (can be roughly converted to same as ppm) are dangerous and then claims (without evidence) that 0.7mg/L isn't safe, a parabola of roughly 3 and a half times that of.

Sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), LD50 PO in rats is 0.125 g/kg, 12.5 g for a 100 kg adult

The Merck Index, 12th edition

So, international organisations - WHO, CDC, FDA, TGA, World Health Assembly, World Dental Federation, AHMRC, ADA (American and Australian), and Public Health Association of Aus, are wrong? There exists just as many (if not more) (non-self interest) studies performed showing the efficacy, safety and benefits of water fluoridation. The same tired anti-fluoridation claims come and go in vogue and has been seen to ever since the 40s/50s. We've had 60+ years of worldwide, systematic/epidemiological reviews (+) showing the not only physical but economical benefits and no unequivocal evidence to show serious dangerous with the levels of fluoride in tap water. (like any medication/treatments) The beneficial outcomes out way any possible negative ones.

Safety of Water Fluoridation

Early investigations into the physiologic effects of fluoride in drinking water predated the first community field trials. Since 1950, opponents of water fluoridation have claimed it increased the risk for cancer, Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis and bone fracture, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, low intelligence, Alzheimer disease, allergic reactions, and other health conditions (24). The safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation have been re-evaluated frequently, and no credible evidence supports an association between fluoridation and any of these conditions (25).

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
CDC. Fluoridation census 1992. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, CDC, National Center for Prevention Services, Division of Oral Health, 1993.

I was going to quote specific sections of this (AHMRC's A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation) but multiple sections apply (and it's getting late).

I know recreational drug use is illegal but the anti-Government sentiment here can be ridiculous sometimes! -_- What it seems like to me, is that many people are anti-Government (possible due to their utter ridiculous handling of drugs in Aus - in my eyes justified) and this is being projected to a "down with the Government, everything they do is wrong/bad"-mentality somehow aligning with the anti-fluoridation movement.

 

[tyrael]

Hitler used fluoride in the concentration camp for the Jews, good sign there lol....

A joke right?

 

[puffpuffpass]

Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile.
Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.

First of all, it needs to be stated that the 'substance' referred to as 'Fluoride' is a misnomer - there is no such substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the prestigious CRC handbook, nor in the sacred 'bible' of the pharmaceutical industry - the illustrious 'Merck Index'. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine - and from the use of this gas in various industries such as aluminium manufacturing and the nuclear industry -certain toxic by-products are created which have 'captured' fluorine molecules. One such toxic, poisonous 'by-product' is called sodium Fluoride - which according to the Merck Index is primarily used as rat and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and as an "additive to drinking water". But sadly, there is much more to this sordid tale.

Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUORIDE) - (Yes, folks the same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a crowded Japanese subway train!).

Let me repeat: the truth the public needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less) than a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminium industries. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military NERVE GAS! Why, oh why then is it allowed to be added to the toothpastes and drinking water?

Historically, this substance was quite expensive for the worlds' premier chemical companies to dispose of - but in the 50's and 60's - Alcoa and the entire aluminum industry - with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste - SOMEHOW sold the FDA and our government on the insane (but highly profitable) idea of buying this poison at a 20,000% markup and then injecting it into our water supply as well as into the nation's toothpastes and dental rinse. Yes that's right folks, a 20,000% markup. Consider also that when sodium Fluoride is injected into our drinking water, its level is approximately 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink ½ of one percent of the total water supply, the hazardous chemical literally 'goes down the drain' and voila - the chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system - but we have also PAID them handsomely in the process!!

Independent scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package. There is increasing evidence that aluminium in the brain is a causative factor in Alzheimer's Disease, and evidence points towards sodium fluoride's strong affinity to 'bond' with this dangerous aluminium (remember it is a by-product of aluminium manufacturing) and also it has the ability to 'trick' the blood-brain barrier by imitating the hydrogen ion thus allowing this chemical access to brain tissue.

Honest scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on sodium fluoride's mega-bucks propaganda campaign have consistently been given a large dose of professional 'black-listing' and thus their valid points disputing the current vested interests never have received the ink they deserve in the national press. Just follow the money to find the 'control' and you will find prominent American families to be prominent 'players' in the scandal. In 1952 a slick PR campaign rammed the concept of 'fluoridation' through our Public Health departments and various dental organizations. This slick campaign was more akin to a highly emotional "beer salesman convention" instead of the objective, scientifically researched program that it should have been. It has continued in the same vein right up to the present day - and now sodium fluoride use has now become 'usual and customary'.

To illustrate the emotional vs. the scientific nature of this issue, just look at the response given by people (perhaps yourself included?) when the subject of fluoridation comes up. You need to ask yourself, "Is this particular response based on EMOTIONS born of TRADITION, or is it truly unbiased and based instead on thoroughly researched objectivity?" There is a tremendous amount of emotional, highly unscientific "know-it-all" emotions attached to the topic of 'sodium fluoride' usage - but I personally have yet to find even ONE objective, double blind study that even remotely links sodium fluoride to healthy teeth at ANY AGE. Instead, I hear and read such blather as "9 out of 10 DENTISTS recommend 'fluoride' toothpaste" etc. etc. etc. Let me reiterate: truly independent (unattached to moneyed vested interest groups) scientists who've spent a large portion of their lives studying and working with this subject have been hit with a surprising amount of unfair character assassinations from strong vested-interest groups who reap grand profits from the public's ignorance as well as from their illnesses. (Just follow the money!)

Do you have diabetes and/or kidney disease? There are reportedly more than 11 million Americans with diabetes. If it is true that diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these 11 million people are at much higher risk drinking fluoridated water because they will receive a much deadlier dose because of their need for higher than normal water consumption. Kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, which of course is the primary means in which fluoride (or any other toxic chemical) is eliminated from the body. Does it not make sense that these people shouldn't drink fluoridated water at all? Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where ill kidney patients on dialysis machines died because they ingested relatively small amounts of SODIUM FLUORIDE from unwittingly drinking the 'fluoridated' city water supply? Will adequate warnings be given to people with weak kidneys, or will the real cause of such deaths be 'covered up' in the name of 'domestic tranquility'?

Concerning the 'practice' of putting sodium fluoride into drinking water, where did this insanity begin and WHO tried it first? From personal research, the very first occurrence of purposefully putting sodium fluoride into drinking water was in the German ghettos and in Nazi Germany's infamous prison camps. The Gestapo you see had little concern about sodium fluoride's 'supposed' effect on children's teeth; instead, their reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to STERILIZE HUMANS and force the people in their concentration camps into calm, bovine, submission. (See for reference: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" written by Joseph Borkin.) Kind of shocking isn't it folks!! Ah, but it gets even better.

The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by the name of Charles Perkins. He writes:

"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation", to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the 1930's Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light lobotomy? --- Ott].

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communise the world."

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."