patrick.net

I found this excellent documentary about the dangers of flouridated water that everyone should watch:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/OcHNYenN7OY

Videos going into detail on the impact on human intelligence, from the ingestion of fluoride in tapwater and many other sources --

On lowering intelligence...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/6U9l4YolGJA

On developmental/behavioral problems...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/w5iobtWOjyI

On thyroid disorders...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/7XWREK-X-aY&feature=related

On causing hypothyroidism...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/UkJuWLMaoG0

Doctor exposes fluoride as poison...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/xP7IPDfC3yg

Borrowed from this web site...
http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/?p=1425

Fluoride Facts and Myths

Fluoride is a multi-system poison. The Natural Solutions Foundation strongly opposes compulsory drugging through its addtion to the water systems of communities. We believe that this is both medically reckless and unconstitutional.

The Natural Solutions Foundation’s strongly anti-fluoride position for infants and children is now echoed by the American Dental Association (ADA) which says that children under 1 year should not be exposed to fluoride.

Although the US supported fluoride in infant formula during the 2006 Codex Committee on Nutritiona and Foods for Special Dietary Uses meeting in Chiang Mai, Thailand which dealt with infant formula and other special purpose foods, using data provided by the Natural Solutions Foundation, South Africa pushed the restriction on fluoride in healthy infants’ formula through, despite strong US objection.

Long a proponent of fluoridation of children’s teeth, the ADA joins the Natural Solutions Foundation in pointing out the dangers of the now-debunked toxin in infant’s bodies.

Rather than deal with the expense of safe disposal, the mining industry created the false belief that fluoride should be added to water, toothpaste, supplements, etc. That way, mining companies make a profit instead of taking a loss on fluoride which is expensive to dispose of according to EPA regulations. Despite propaganda to the contrary, fluoride has no known place in human metabolism and increases disease in those exposed to it. It is toxic to the brain, kidneys, bones, teeth, causes bone and other cancers at levels far lower than those permitted in water and has no known positive impact on human health despite oft-repeated but deeply flawed research claims to the contrary. Recent re-evaluation of the original research and other data make it clear that fluoride in any amount is a cumulative biological poison.

Although the United States has sought to add Fluoride to infant formula in the US and internationally, the World Health Organization recommends that infant formula be prepared in water which has no fluoride. Fluoridating water supplies means that infants will necessarily be exposed to amounts of fluoride which are toxic to them. “Little is known of the particular susceptibility of infants to fluoride but what we do know makes it clear that infant formula should be mixed with fluoride free water because fluoride is so toxic to them. Since infants are generally more sensitive to toxins than adults, banning it from formula is the only sensitive alternative,” according to Rima E. Laibow, MD, Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation (http://www.HealthFreedomUSA.org).

Despite its wide acceptance as a water and food additive, and even as a “nutritional supplement,” fluoride is actually a dangerous metabolic poison with permanent effects at levels much lower than 1 part per million (ppm). Exposure is cumulative since fluoride is a bio-accumulator which remains in the body and can cause cancer, kidney failure, bone disease, including bone cancers, structural damage to bone and teeth, thyroid poisoning, pineal gland calcification, reproductive failure, synergistic increases in lead poisoning when both are present, endocrine disruption leading to diabetes, other cancers and decreases in the availability of essential nutrients like magnesium.

In addition to water, the FDA allows sodium aluminum fluoride (cryolite) to be sprayed on more than 30 fruits and vegetables at up to 7 ppm. The USDA set a 1.2 ppm limit for arsenic and fluoride pesticides in 1933 since they are equally toxic. While arsenic sprays have been phased out, fluoride ones are increasingly popular and now can be used not only on food but on food storage areas as well. Current FDA water fluoridation standards allow up to 4 ppm and assure on-going fluoride contamination for most Americans.

Industry pressure is strong to increase the amount of fluoride we ingest: DOW Chemical uses extremely high fluoride tolerances on a wide number of common foods including 98 ppm for wheat germ, 40 ppm for wheat bran, 31 ppm for rice bran, 30 ppm for some nuts, 28 ppm for corn meal, 26 ppm for corn flour, 25 ppm for millet, wild rice, sorghum and wheat grains and 17 ppm for oat grain.

Leading scientists have called for a ban on all fluoride usage in light of its devastating impact on health and a recent evaluation of the data upon which fluoridation was initially approved by the FDA for municipal water supplies was deeply and fraudulently distorted when presented to the FDA and the public since toxic results were not revealed in the group receiving fluoridated water.

Vaccines often contain fluoride as an adjuvant or immune system irritant to provoke the immune system into producing more antibodies with fewer antigens since antigens are the expensive part of vaccines. Since vaccines also frequently contain aluminum hydroxide, the synergistic toxicity of the two toxins is significantly more than the toxicity of either toxic metal alone at the same dosage. This problem is repeated in municipal water supplies since fluoride is added for its alleged dental health benefits while aluminum salts are added to “polish” the water and give it an appealing gleaming appearance.

Fluoride as an additive has a dark past: it was first added to water in the Soviet Gulag (prison system) since it is a neurological poison and made political and other difficult prisoners complacent and therefore easier to manage. It was added to the water supplies of the Nazi death and slave labor camps for the same reason. Fluoride is widely used as an additive although the scientific evidence upon which its use rests is either fraudulent or flawed. Long a staple of water treatment, sodium fluoride has been replaced by other, even more toxic fluoride compounds like sulfuryl fluoride which has never been tested in water supplies nor approved for use in them.

The New York State Attorney General has expressed support for banning this dangerous but widely used pesticide. Fluoride contamination from either natural sources or its addition to liquids and products used by children results in dental fluorosis, a permanent mottling of teeth which is both cosmetic and structural, and similar structural damage to bone associated with increased fractures, osteoporosis (bone loss) and demineralization of bone. IQ loss and other neurological damage is due both to the fluoride itself and the dangerous interaction of fluoride with lead since fluoride renders lead even more toxic to the brain. Fluoride without lead leads to loss of higher cognitive functions including decision-making and IQ.

Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

Taken from http://www.arthritistrust.org/Articles/Sodium%20Fluoride%20The%20Obedience%20Drug.pdf (PDF document)...

According to the documentation of the Australian Ian E. Stephen (1987), both Germans and Russians used fluoridation because they had discovered that it made their prisoners “stupid and docile” (Fluoride, Well Mind Association, January 1994). Eustace Mullins in 'Murder by Injection' (Mullins, Eustace, Murder by Injection, National Council for Medical Research, VA, 1988), claimed that the originators of fluoridation in the United States were informed about the Soviet uses of fluoride salts to induce sheeplike, obedient, unthinking behavior, not only in prisoners, but in the general population at large.

This “human” experiment was not original. Apparently, the
obedience drug-like effect was borrowed from animal studies that showed that breeders of intractable bulls had routinely used sodium fluoride to successfully tranquilize bulls for easier handling. Since the 1940s, the prison camps in the Gulag Archipelago in the Soviet Union were experimental laboratories for discovering just how much sodium fluoride was necessary for producing an easily managed, obedient human population.

Using Dr. Murray’s figures, it only takes a concentration of 1
part per million of fluoride to significantly impair acetylcholine synthesis in the body. In Salem, Oregon, the water supply has .4 parts per million, considerably under the 1-4 parts per million considered effective to prevent tooth decay through sugar-sucking adolescence.

But at 1-4 parts per million (toothpaste, fruits and vegetables, shower absorbtion through skin, etc.), declining Scholastic Apptitude Test (SAT) scores, the stupidity of senators who can’t balance check books or national budgets, and the tyranny of dullness that controls our political and regulatory agencies’ thinking takes on an insidious dimension.

It was in the 1940s that sodium fluoride first began to be added
to the U.S. water supply. If we can believe Mullins, U.S. bureaucrats not only knew about the Soviet use of fluoride, but envied what it did for controlling a population’s behavior.

Ian E. Stephen's "FLUORIDATION Mind Control of the Masses" (1987) may be read at...
http://www.whale.to/b/stephen.html

In a letter abstracted from Fluoridation and Lawlessness (published by the Committee for Mental Health and National Security) to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on 2nd October 1954, a Charles Eliot Perkins, scientist and author of Washington DC, and one must assume, that same Charles Eliot Perkins of the "Dickinson Statement" to the Victorian Parliament, said this (and the words of the last two lines of the second paragraph cannot be overemphasised):

"We are told by the fanatical ideologists who are advocating the fluoridation of the water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the gullibility of the public and the cupidity of public officials that is responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country.

"However - and I want to make this very definite and positive - 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 which 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 into Poland... 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 plan to Communize the world...

"I say this in all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the chemistry, bio-chemistry, 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."

Holy shit, the flouride conspiracy idiots have teamed up with anti-vaxxers and homeopaths?

I'm not sure what will happen with such a confluence of misinformation, junk science, and plain bullshit. The world might explode.

PROTECT OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!

I'm not sure whether I buy into this flouride conspiracy stuff. I am still waiting to hear from the birthers and truthers before I make a final decision.

What about the Taxthers.

I can no longer sit back and allow communist infiltration, communist indoctrination, communist subversion, and the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initially blocked the NTP from releasing the report, according to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

But a court order stemming from a lawsuit filed by Food and Water Watch against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forced the report’s release this week.

The NTP, an interagency program run by HHS that researches and reports on environmental toxins, conducted a six-year systematic review to assess scientific studies on fluoride exposure and potential neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects in humans.

The report, containing a monograph and a meta-analysis, went through two rounds of peer review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Comments from reviewers and HHS and NTP’s responses also were included in the report released Wednesday.

According to its website, the NTP “removed the hazardous classification of fluoride” in response to comments in the peer-review process. Yet, the report states:

“Our meta-analysis confirms results of previous meta-analyses and extends them by including newer, more precise studies with individual-level exposure measures.

“The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ …

“The results were robust to stratifications by risk of bias, gender, age group, outcome assessment, study location, exposure timing, and exposure type (including both drinking water and urinary fluoride).”

“These findings fly in the face of the empty, unscientific claims U.S. health officials have propagated for years, namely that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief litigation counsel. “It’s past time to eliminate this neurotoxin from our water supply.”

The controversial report will play a key role in determining the outcome of a lawsuit brought in 2017 by several nonprofits against the EPA to end fluoridation of drinking water, plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Connett told The Defender.

“We had to fight hard to have this report even made public,” Connett said. “They [CDC and HHS] buried this. If they had gotten their way, this report would have never even seen the light of day,” Connett said.

Since the trial began in 2020, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has been waiting for the NTP to complete a systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity before ruling on the case.

Groups like the American Dental Association publicly pressured the NTP to “exclude any neurotoxin claims” from the reports.

Connett said during the trial, the EPA repeatedly claimed that the plaintiffs’ allegations about toxicity could not be verified because there was no “systematic review.”

The documents released Wednesday fill that gap.

Connett said:

“So now what do we have? We have a systematic review by one of the pioneering, leading, most authoritative research groups on toxicology in the world.

“They just completed a systematic review that took them six years to complete, so if that’s not enough to demonstrate a hazard under the toxic substances control act, then how would any citizen group ever be able to meet the standard?”

The findings: fluoride and lowered IQ in children

According to the NTP report:

“The current bodies of experimental animal studies and human mechanistic evidence do not provide clarity on the association between fluoride exposure and cognitive or neurodevelopmental human health effects.”

Yet, the report’s summary contradicts this statement by summarizing the evidence informing this conclusion, stating that nearly all studies examined for this literature review found evidence of cognitive or developmental issues associated with fluoride.

According to the report, 8 of the 9 “high-quality studies examining cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes reported associations with fluoride exposure.”

Of the 19 high-quality studies assessing the association between fluoride and IQ in children, 18 reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. Forty-six of the 53 low-quality studies also found evidence of that association.

The meta-analysis also states:

“The body of evidence from studies on adults is also limited and provides low confidence that fluoride exposure is associated with adverse effects on adult cognition. There is, however, a large body of evidence on IQ effects in children.”

The monograph and meta-analysis found that fluoride exposure at levels equivalent to 1.5 mg/L is associated with lower IQ in children. The abstract concludes:

“This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure (e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride) is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”

Levels of fluoride found in drinking water in the U.S. are typically 0.7 mg/L, which is lower than the 1.5 mg/L levels found to be neurotoxic by the reports.

On that basis, HHS’ review of the reports recommended the NTP revise its assessment such that, “all conclusory statements in this document should be explicit that any findings from the included studies only apply to water fluoride concentrations above 1.5 mg/L.”

The NTP responded:

“We do not agree with this comment. Our assessment considers fluoride exposures from all sources, not just water.

As discussed in the pre-publication 2022 NTP Monograph, because fluoride is also found in certain foods, dental products, some pharmaceuticals, and other sources, individual behaviors are likely an important determinant of actual exposures.”

Rick North, former CEO of the American Cancer Society’s Oregon division and Fluoride Action Network board member told The Defender that “people consume large amounts of fluoride through tea and other drinks and processed foods made with fluoridated water, not to mention pesticide ingestion and fluoride from air pollution.”

He also said that people’s fluoride exposure can depend on how much water they drink.

“Think about it,” North said. “Your level of risk depends upon, incredibly, how thirsty you are. That’s how absurd the entire premise of water fluoridation is,” he said.

The NTP confirmed that people exposed to levels of fluoride lower than 1.5 mg/L in the water system could have high levels of fluoride in their systems. It stated:

“Even in the optimally fluoridated cities [fluoridated at 0.7 mg/L] in Canada studied by Green et al. (2019), individual exposure levels, as documented by repeated urinary measurements, suggest widely varying total exposures from water combined with fluoride from other sources.”

It added, “our moderate confidence conclusion is primarily based on studies with total fluoride exposure that approximates or exceeds what is generally associated with consumption of optimally fluoridated water [0.7 mg/L] in the United States.”

“We have stressed in our monograph that our conclusions apply to total fluoride exposures rather than to exposures exclusively through drinking water.”

“What the NTP is pointing to here is that in some communities, where the dose of fluoride in the water is 0.7 mg/L, the NTP has found levels of fluoride found to be associated with lower IQ,” Connett told The Defender.

Also, different people have different risk levels, he said. Pregnant women and bottle-fed babies, for example, are some of the populations at highest risk.

On this point, the NTP responded to a different HHS critique, writing, “We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant people in the United States.”

“The margin of safety here just doesn’t exist — it is precariously small,” Connett said. He added that the lawsuit is “basically a risk assessment of fluoride.”

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which is the law at stake in the lawsuit, the EPA carries out risk assessments for potential toxins.

To do a risk assessment, the EPA first identifies a hazard and determines at what dose — what level of human exposure — that hazard harms human health.

Then the agency determines in a given case whether the margin between the existing hazard levels and the human exposure levels is unacceptably close, which would make a toxin pose a risk to human health.

Connett said that in EPA’s previous risk assessments for other chemicals, such as methylene chloride or bromopropane, evaluated according to the 2020 risk evaluation method that guides this case, the agency found the hazard level exceeds the human exposure level by much higher margins — “usually in a range of ten to 20 times higher,” yet it has deemed those chemicals to present an unreasonable risk to human health.

In other words, the substances were found to be toxic to humans at levels significantly lower than what people may be exposed to in regular use, yet the EPA determined them to be risks.

When it makes that determination, the EPA must then take steps to mitigate the risk.

That can also be the finding in this case. According to a pre-trial document, both sides in the case agreed to the “undisputed fact” that the “EPA does not require that human exposure levels exceed a known adverse effect level to make an unreasonable risk determination under TSCA.”

The NTP documents also raised flags about the implications of seemingly small neurotoxic effects:

“Research on other neurotoxicants has shown that subtle shifts in IQ at the population level can have a profound impact on the number of people who fall within the high and low ranges of the population’s IQ distribution.

“For example, a 5-point decrease in a population’s IQ would nearly double the number of people classified as intellectually disabled.”

Top HHS and CDC officials tried to ‘water down’ and block the report

In 2016, a group of six nonprofit organizations and several individuals petitioned the EPA to end fluoridation of drinking water in the U.S. based on evidence of health risks associated with fluoride, namely neurotoxicity.

The EPA rejected the petition.

In response, Food and Water Watch, Fluoride Action Network and others sued the EPA in 2017, seeking an end to water fluoridation.

The plaintiffs argued that water fluoridation violates the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act and that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.

They based their initial claims on dozens of studies and reviews demonstrating fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Studies have also linked fluoride to a variety of other health risks in both children and adults, and evidence shows it to be an endocrine disruptor.

The EPA denied water fluoridation causes harm. ...