Second Thoughts about Fluoride

The Scientific American study "Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid -- the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism."

The report also notes that "a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ."

"Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics," writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old "Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis... than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state," writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride's link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including recently the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

"New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma - bone cancer - between the ages of 10 and 19," according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government's classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children's liver and kidney functions.


- Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it's also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

- Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

- USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950's that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to "Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient."

- The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)

- 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country's water supply.

- In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject's will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

- In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

- Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

more from prison planet

Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several European countries

Germany: "Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).
France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of 'chemicals for drinking water treatment']. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l'Environment, August 25, 2000).
Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-belgium.htm

Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn't the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L'Environment, May 3, 2000).
Finland: "We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-finland.htm

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual's right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.)
Denmark: "We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999). www.fluoridation.com/c-denmark.htm

Norway: "In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-norway.htm

Sweden: "Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden...New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket -- National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-sweden.htm

Netherlands: "From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-netherlands.htm

Northern Ireland: "The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).
Austria: "Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000). www.fluoridation.com/c-austria.htm

Czech Republic:"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered as follows:

(a) uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

(b) unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

(c) unethical ("forced medication")

(d) toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).
thanks to "jesuitsdidit"

Watch the movies
The Fluoride Deception
Why Fluoridation should be stopped

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]


  1. Very interesting! Now it would even be more interesting to find out who profits from the fluoridation. To go back to the roots: why do people think that they need a caries prevention which is more effective? Because they've got more caries than they had before. This is not a result of bad dental hygiene but of too much sugar in the food, which seems to be more problematic in some countries than in others: (my guess: UK, US). Who profits from a lot of sugar in the food? The 'sugar producing industry'. These are the first to profit (and from them those who offer products for diabetics and artificial sweeteners). So instead of eliminating the real cause the british government tries to keep the sugar industry happy and eliminates just the symptoms (we know this scheme from the traditional medicine). I wouldn't wonder if the next thing they want to add to water would be something supporting a diet or preventing diabetes. The next ones who profit from the fluoridation are those who produce the fluor: the chemical industry/ pharma industry. (Fluor is actually a waste product of the aluminum and steel production. Since the disposal of fluor waste in rivers caused many fishes to die, it is forbidden and the industry has to recycle the fluor otherwise: http://www.narasan.at/en/berichte/jod.html)
    They seem to have a nice lobby in the UK and the US. And thus the third party profiting from the deal: the corrupt politicians and the physicians who support them.

  2. Im more inclined towards a far more sinister hypothesis of eugenics and dumming down the sheep, in the same way that many vaccines contain mercury.

  3. The difference between our opinions is, that I think that simple greed = human weakness causes people to act like this. This kind of egoism stems from the old mechanistical world view which taught us to see everything around us as independent parts which neither connect nor interact. Separation versus unity. Individuality versus eco-system. You think it is caused by a conspiracy of people who want money, profit, wealth, power. People who think they could separate themselves from the rest (their slaves). That doesn't change the proven fact that we are interdependent/ connected with each other. Conspiracies need collaborators as well as greedy managers or corrupt politicians do. Which difference does it make for us if it is a conspiracy? Wouldn't the consequences for us be the same? So why should we bother to distinguish between conspiracy or non-conspiracy? (Oh, of course, the idea of conspiracy sells much better and attracts more interest among people spoilt by the media, expecting great stories and a big show.) If that helps to change things, the outcome justifies the means. Thus I can accept the idea of a conspiracy as long as it isn't used to blame the wrong people or to create hate, and as long as it finds solutions.

  4. know thy enemy or ewe might end up as a slaughtered lamb. Baaaa

  5. Yes, our worst enemy sits inside us - it's our ego which loves to blame it on others. As long as one can not accept that, he won't come any closer to the absolute truth. Even quantum physics has proven that the observer defines the observed. So everything depends on the point of view and is relative to space and time, except light. Our ego acts as a lense through which we see the world, it defines which part of it we want to see, which part of the light spectrum we are able to see and which aprt of the world we want to understand. So if you search enlightenment or truth, get first rid of the filters - of the ego.

  6. "So everything depends on the point of view and is relative to space and time, except light"
    Quantum physics doest say this; entanglement theory... easier check out this podcast: http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/lmctaggart.htm

  7. The speed of light is absolute, that is what I was saying. For the rest of quantum physics I rather stick to the sources than to interpretations.

  8. Your stating classical physics and not Quantum, there are thousands of peer reviewed experiments that corroborate Quantum physics. Einstein called this spooky action at distance, if you want a shorter proof check this link. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mF5olvQVcA

    "For several years she (McTaggart) immersed herself in quantum physics and pored through hundreds of scientific papers to decoding what was often impenetrable work. In many cases she had to pester the scientists to explain aspects of physics in order to check facts and interpretations. Lynne concludes that her work paints a picture of an interconnected universe and a new scientific theory which makes sense of 'supernatural 'phenomena. McTaggart discussed her new work on the science of intention, and how it relates to healing and consciousness. Living beings are receivers and transmitters of information, and thoughts have a physical reality to them, like currents of light, she stated. While there have been some methodological problems in a number of studies that tried to measure the effectiveness of prayer, other experiments have shown that mental intention or healing is effective 50-80% of the time, she reported."

    The speed of light is only absolute in classical physics and classical physics does not depict reality. Watch some Nassim Haramien, his rouge valley presentation and a peer reviewed bona fide scientist. How do you attempt to explain the placebo effect? or homoeopathic meds?

  9. I wonder how this discussion went from the idea of a conspiracy theory to Lynn Mc Taeggart and Nassim Haramein, but I don't mind hearing about them. As far as I know none of them tries to refute the theory of relativity or the principles of quantum physics. I know that belief has got positive effects on healing, and I wrote about it on my blog. Why should I try to explain the placebo effect or homeopathic medicine? When I studied naturopathy I learnt a lot about the principles of homeopathy, but I neither want to prove nor to refute it. I'm well aware that the speed of light is only absolute because no observer can travel faster than light. Einstein didn't like the theory of Quantum Physics because he believed only in local action (=no support for entanglement)Physics based on Newtons mechanics depicts only a part of reality. Humans will never be able to explain the immense infinity of the universe, because their perception and understanding is limited. I think the approach from Nassim Haramein is very interesting, but at the moment I try to find some answers following the thoughts of Arthur Young, David Bohm (holomovement) and Stanislav Grof.

  10. We have drifted off topic a little but if you can handle non locality and intention as proposed by the leading quantum free thinkers then conspiracy theories make much more sense and become very "doable" on a global scale.
    There you go - we brought it back on topic!
    love light and good entanglements to ewe, opps you,

  11. I don't need quantum physics to imagine a conspiracy theory, nor can I see how quantum physics proves yours.

  12. Ok, you don't like my humour,I will try a classical stance then:

    Two atoms were walking across a road when one of them said, "I think I lost an electron!" "Really!" the other replied, "Are you sure?" "Yes, I 'm absolutely positive."

  13. Ok,looking at David Bohm's model considering implicate and explicate order I understand that we create our own reality (explicate is what we are conscious of/ what science accepts = the relative truth), so if you want to believe in a conspiracy theory, then there will be one, which doesn't mean that it exists as well for me. Because you create your reality, I create mine and in my reality yours is just a fantasy. As long as you don't bring a proof that convinces me, there won't be any conspiracy in my world. I consider you a sheep following your belief and you consider me a sheep following mine. Fine, we are all sheep then - without exeption - humanity is nothing but a flock of sheep caught in the chain of causalities. (The 'First Cause' would be the only exeption, because it didn't react).