The Medical Freedom Channel

It may sound ridiculous, but if you live in a city where the water is fluoridated, and you drink the water, you are actually drinking toxic waste. It’s amazing, but the label on the hydrofluosilicic acid widely used for fluoridation says: “Poison: Do Not Take Internally” – and then gives directions for water fluoridation!

Does fluoridation really help fight tooth decay? A 50-year study of two cities in New York State says … not so much. The two cities are Kingston, NY (un-fluoridated) and Newburg, NY (fluoridated). The study, published in 1998, showed no significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities. However, children in the fluoridated city showed significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis, a disease that shows up as dark spots on teeth and indicates a fluoride poisoning of the entire body.

For over half a century, “officials” have been telling us that fluoridation is both good for teeth and safe. However, there have been others claiming that it’s not so good for teeth, and definitely not safe. In 2005, eleven EPA employee unions wrote to both EPA Administers and Congress, asking that the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water be set to zero. They cited work done at Harvard College’s School of Dental Medicine by Dr. Elise Bassin, showing evidence for the carcinogenicity of fluoride in young boys.

This isn’t the first time the EPA scientists have brought up the subject of fluoridation to the powers that be. In 2000, Dr. William Herzy, representing the EPA union, testified before a Senate subcommittee on the subject. As he put it, “In 1997 we voted to appose fluoridation and our opposition has grown stronger as more adverse data on the practice has come in. In the interest of time, let me state our recommendations first. We ask that you order an independent review of the cancer bio-assay of sodium fluoride mandated in 1977 by Congress. Evidence for carcinogenicity in that assay was systematically downgraded by a special executive branch commission, appointed and run by the very agencies that Congress did not trust to run the bio-assay in the first place. That action saved fluoridation temporarily.”

In 1978, Pennsylvania judge John Flaherty presided over the case of Aitkenhead vs Borough of West View. The testimony filled 2800 transcript pages on the risks and benefits of fluoridation. The judge determined that fluoridation with sodium fluoride is extremely deleterious to the human body. Since then, Illinois Judge Ronald Neimann has said there are no credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data that would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means to promoting public health. In addition, Texas Judge Anthony Farris found that the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions and chronic toxicity.

Despite overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, governments at all levels insist on continuing the process. They consider it medication, although the EPA instead of the FDA regulates it. (This practice flies directly in the face of the Nuremberg Code that was put in place after the medical atrocities committed by Nazi Germany to prevent forced experimental medication.)

Why do governments do this? I can think of two reasons. First, nobody wants to admit that what has been being done for over 60 years has been wrong; it’s a matter of saving face. The other reason is much simpler: Follow the money.

The products used fluoridation are considered toxic wastes by the EPA, and as such, may not be dumped on the ground, or released into the air or into bodies of water (the sole exception: fluoridation). These products are waste products of the aluminum industry and the phosphate fertilizer industry. According to EPA regulations, it would cost thousands of dollars per truckload to neutralize and dispose of it. Between the savings from not having to dispose of these waste products, and the sale of them to municipalities, these industries are saving hundreds of millions of dollars. (One wonders how many of those dollars end up in political coffers.)

The information here is just the tip of the iceberg. If you’d like to learn more, and perhaps even try to do something about it, click here for a short video and links to more research.