Friday 19 July 2024

The Fluoride Deception

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson documents a powerful connection between big corporations, the military, and the historic reassurances of fluoride safety provided by the government.

The Fluoride Deception reads like a thriller, but one supported by two hundred pages of source notes, years of investigative reporting, scores of scientist interviews, and archival research in places such as the newly opened files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission. 

The book is nothing less than an exhumation of one of the great secret narratives of the industrial era: how a grim workplace poison and the most damaging environmental pollutant of the cold war was added to our drinking water and toothpaste.


 

 

Thursday 18 July 2024

Fluoridation: The Fraud of the Century

Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it.


 
Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.

They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2

The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3

On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4

The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5

Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5

The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6

From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.

Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.

Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”

Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7

EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8

There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9

Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.

Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.

A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14

The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!

Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16

When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!

Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).

On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not – look at how many years millions of people were fooled by the tobacco industry!


References

  1. George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
  2. R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
  3. San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
  4. Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
  5. “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
  6. San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
  7. Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
  8. J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
  9. Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
  10. “The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
  11. The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
  12. K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
  13. National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
  14. Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
  15. Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
  16. Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.

 https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/health-issues/fluoridation-the-fraud-of-the-century

Wednesday 17 July 2024

Warning - Fluoride In Your Water

NZ's own Dr Sam is one of the best natural health presenters on the entire internet, and now that she has millions of followers she is being heavily censored, because unlike all the gatekeeper shill doctors in the so called "alternative health" movement, she is actually calling out all the bullshit (including germ theory)👍 


Fluoridation of water is promoted as a health measure when the science indicates multiple toxicities. In this interview Dr Sam Bailey speaks with one of the unsung New Zealand heroes, Kane Titchener who has volunteered his time to combat the authorities’ attempts to poison our water supplies.


https://drsambailey.com/.../warning-fluoride-in-your-water/


In this video he discusses:
    The relationship of fluoridation to vaccination
    The effects of fluoride on the brain and IQ
    Why your typical doctor or dentist doesn’t know much about fluoride
    How to protect yourself against fluoride toxicity
    What kind of toothpaste is best for your family



Tuesday 16 July 2024

Fluoride has been implicated in all of these diseases



Blind Spots; Body temperature disturbances; Breast Cancer; Cachexia (wasting away); Candidasis; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Cataracts; Change in blood pressure(=/-); Chest pain; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Collagen breakdown; Cold Shivers; Coma; Concentration Inability; Constipation; Convulsions; Crying easily for no apparent reason; Death; Decrease in Testosterone; Dementia; Demyelinizing Diseases; Dental Abnormalities; Dental Arch smaller; Dental Crowding; Dental enamel more porous; Dental Fluorosis (Mottling of teeth); Delayed Eruption of teeth; Depression; Diabetes Insipidus; Diabetes Mellitus; Diarrhea; Dizziness; Down Syndrome; Dry Mouth; Dyspepsia; Dystrophy; Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty; Eczema; Edema; Epilepsy; Eosinophilia; Excessive Sleepiness; Eye, ear and nose disorders; Fatigue; Fearfulness; Fever; Fibromyalgia; Fibrosarcoma; Fibrosis; Fingernails:Lines/Grooves; Fingernails:Brittle; Forgetfulness; Gallstones; Gastro-disturbances; Gastric Ulcers; Giant Cell Formation; Gingivitis; Goiter; Growth Disturbances; Headache; Hearing Loss; Heart Disorders; Heart Failure; Heart Palpitations; Hepatitis; Hemorrhage; Hives; Hoarseness; Hyperparathyroidism; Hypertension; Hypoplasia; Immunosuppression; Impotence; Incoherence; Infertility; Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Inner Ear Disorders; Irritability; Joint Pains; Kidney Failure; Lack of Energy; Lack of Co-ordination; Loss of Appetite; Loss of Consciousness; Loss of IQ; Loss of Spermatogenesis; Low Birth Weight; Lung Cancer; Lupus; Magnesium Deficiency; Memory Loss; Mental Confusion; Migraine; Mouth Sores; Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Pain, Wasting, Cramps, Stiffness, Weakness; Muscoskeletal Disease; Nausea; Osteoarthritis; Osteoporosis; Osteosarcoma; Optic Neuritis; Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Otosclerosis; Parkinson’s Disease; Pins & Needles; Polydipsia; Polyneuropathy; Polyurea; Pyelocystitis; Premature Delivery; Pruritis (Itchy Skin); Pulminary Edema; Recurring Colds; Respiratory Complications; Restlessness; Retinitis; Rhinitis; Schizophrenia; Sceroderma; Skin Pigmentation; Secondary teeth erupt later; Sensitive to light; Seizures; Shortness of Breath; SIDS; Sinus Infections; Skeletal Changes; Sleep Disorders; Slipped Epiphysis; Sluggishness; Skin Irritations; Spondylitis, ankylosing; Stillbirths; Swallowing Difficulties; Swelling in Face; Telangiectasia; Testicular Growth/Alteration; Thirst; Thrombosis; Thyroid Cancer; Tinnitus; Tingling Sensations; Visual disturbances; Ulcerative Colitis; Urticaria; Uterine Bleeding; Uterine Cancer; Vaginal Bleeding; Vas Deferens Alterations; Vertigo; Vitiligo; Weak Pulse; Weight Disturbances; Zinc Deficiency.

 

CAPTAIN CHUMP GOES NEXT LEVEL

This was a really crap psyop. As usual everything that is being shown to us is part of the illusion, but at least back in the days of 911 these psyops were relatively well done - to this day researchers can't agree on whether there were zero or two planes on 911!

(I still go with two planes flown by remote control and three controlled demolitions using explosives, with no terrorists and no energy weapons, but I lost interest in 911 in 2006 after five years of talking about it)

But the trump "shooting" was not well done and whatever really happened there would have been no real bullets fired, so all the discussion is really just a distraction - it is one of the predicted fake events, and like bird flu we knew it was going to happen in some form before the US selection on Nov 5 (note that date) - they couldn't be more obvious with stuff

 
Just when I thought "THE NARRATIVE" couldn't get any stupider, the Americans come up with a new deal breaker! 


Has Trump now taken things right off the scale?


But the memes are hilarious and the tatts are spectacular...



 


The scary part is that there are people who actually believe this circus show is real...


Now just in case anyone thinks that I'm pro Biden because I keep mocking Trump:


Monday 15 July 2024

Another Study Designed To Find No Effect

 Australian study of fluoridation neurotoxicity: Streetlight Effect Fallacy

Researchers looked in the wrong place. Couldn’t find IQ loss that other studies found.

 

Insensitive And Unreliable Measures Of Neurotoxicity

A just-published Australian study claims to have found no link between fluoridation and harm to children’s developing brains but didn’t use any IQ tests [Do 2022].  Instead, it used parent questionnaires of child behaviors which have been found to be relatively insensitive to detecting harm from fluoride and other neurotoxic chemicals.

The study’s lead author, dentist Dr. Loc Do of Queensland University, Australia, used two parent questionnaires to see if he could detect the same neurotoxic effects in Australian children that numerous other studies have found in Canada, Mexico, China, and elsewhere.  But those studies all used standard IQ-type tests.  Do’s study instead used a Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), which is not a measure of intelligence or cognitive ability but is “a 25-item brief behavioral screening tool that measures children’s behaviors, emotions, and relationships.”  For example, it asks parents whether their child can be described as “Kind”, “Lies”, “Bullied”, “Shares”, “Unhappy”, “Helps”, “Clingy”, and other items having little relationship to IQ [Ribeiro Santiago 2021].

 

Other Weaknesses: Ecological, Didn’t Account For All Fluoride Sources, Inadequate Control Of Confounders

Do’s study summary for his grant claimed his study would provide “high quality evidence” on fluoridation and intellectual development.  However, it has additional important shortcomings compared to recent studies that found adverse neurotoxic effects.  Do’s study, instead of using an individual-level measure of fluoride exposure, used a group-level measure (also called an ecological measure), and only tried to account for fluoride from fluoridated water, rather than all sources.  This is an important weakness compared to the best studies, which either used the biomarker of urine fluoride concentration which reflects fluoride exposure from all sources, or used combined estimates of fluoride intake from drinking water and tea [Goodman 2022, Cantoral 2021, Farmus 2021, Wang 2021, Yu 2021, Zhao 2021, Till 2020, Wang 2019, Green 2019, Riddell 2019, Bashash 2018, Bashash 2017, Valdez-Jimenez 2017]. Tea has been found to be the second largest source of fluoride exposure after fluoridated water, even in a country with much lower tea consumption than Australia [Helte 2021].  The inability to account for all sources of fluoride exposure in the Do study likely further reduced the study’s ability to detect an effect of fluoride.

Another weakness of the Do study is its lack of control for potentially important confounders, which other recent studies did control for, including: lead, mercury, arsenic, PFOA, parent IQ, HOME score, gestational age, birth weight, parity, marriage status, smoking, alcohol use of mother, and Body Mass Index (BMI).

Cites Food & Pharma Industry Front-Group’s Bogus Review

More evidence of the author’s bias is found in the Do paper introduction that cites a very biased German review that concludes fluoride has no association with neurotoxicity [Guth 2020].  This is a favorite review of fluoridation defenders.  But the authors of that review are closely associated with a front-group for food and pharmaceutical interests that has a history of claiming chemical food additives, genetically modified foods, and even endocrine disrupting chemicals are no problem [USRightToKnow 2022, CorporateEuropeObservatory 2012, TestBioTech 2012]. We’ll have more on those authors and their links with industry in a future bulletin.

Do’s Advocacy For Fluoridation Reveals Bias

Finally, the choice to publish Do’s paper in the fluoridation-friendly Journal of Dental Research (JDR) instead of a journal specializing in neurotoxicity or environmental health, is further evidence the Do study is biased to avoid finding an adverse effect that might threaten fluoridation.  JDR is sponsored by the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), which has had a long-standing official position supporting fluoridation and claiming it is “safe and effective”.  In fact, the latest update of the IADR Position Statement on fluoridation was written by Dr. Do and has outdated and misleading information about adverse effects [IADR 2021].

The Streetlight Effect Fallacy may explain how this Australian study failed to find harm to the brain from fluoridation, but another proverb summarizes what appears to be the attitude of the researchers, and of all fluoridation defenders who are trying to deny the strong scientific evidence that fluoride harms brains: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil… about fluoridation.

Other Weaknesses: Ecological, Didn’t Account For All Fluoride Sources, Inadequate Control Of Confounders

Do’s study summary for his grant claimed his study would provide “high quality evidence” on fluoridation and intellectual development.  However, it has additional important shortcomings compared to recent studies that found adverse neurotoxic effects.  Do’s study, instead of using an individual-level measure of fluoride exposure, used a group-level measure (also called an ecological measure), and only tried to account for fluoride from fluoridated water, rather than all sources.  This is an important weakness compared to the best studies, which either used the biomarker of urine fluoride concentration which reflects fluoride exposure from all sources, or used combined estimates of fluoride intake from drinking water and tea [Goodman 2022, Cantoral 2021, Farmus 2021, Wang 2021, Yu 2021, Zhao 2021, Till 2020, Wang 2019, Green 2019, Riddell 2019, Bashash 2018, Bashash 2017, Valdez-Jimenez 2017]. Tea has been found to be the second largest source of fluoride exposure after fluoridated water, even in a country with much lower tea consumption than Australia [Helte 2021].  The inability to account for all sources of fluoride exposure in the Do study likely further reduced the study’s ability to detect an effect of fluoride.

Another weakness of the Do study is its lack of control for potentially important confounders, which other recent studies did control for, including: lead, mercury, arsenic, PFOA, parent IQ, HOME score, gestational age, birth weight, parity, marriage status, smoking, alcohol use of mother, and Body Mass Index (BMI).

Cites Food & Pharma Industry Front-Group’s Bogus Review

More evidence of the author’s bias is found in the Do paper introduction that cites a very biased German review that concludes fluoride has no association with neurotoxicity [Guth 2020].  This is a favorite review of fluoridation defenders.  But the authors of that review are closely associated with a front-group for food and pharmaceutical interests that has a history of claiming chemical food additives, genetically modified foods, and even endocrine disrupting chemicals are no problem [USRightToKnow 2022, CorporateEuropeObservatory 2012, TestBioTech 2012]. We’ll have more on those authors and their links with industry in a future bulletin.

Do’s Advocacy For Fluoridation Reveals Bias

Finally, the choice to publish Do’s paper in the fluoridation-friendly Journal of Dental Research (JDR) instead of a journal specializing in neurotoxicity or environmental health, is further evidence the Do study is biased to avoid finding an adverse effect that might threaten fluoridation.  JDR is sponsored by the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), which has had a long-standing official position supporting fluoridation and claiming it is “safe and effective”.  In fact, the latest update of the IADR Position Statement on fluoridation was written by Dr. Do and has outdated and misleading information about adverse effects [IADR 2021].

The Streetlight Effect Fallacy may explain how this Australian study failed to find harm to the brain from fluoridation, but another proverb summarizes what appears to be the attitude of the researchers, and of all fluoridation defenders who are trying to deny the strong scientific evidence that fluoride harms brains: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil… about fluoridation.

This TOOL is NZ prime minister


This week New Zealand's globalist puppet "Prime Minister" Christopher Luxon"
 
-Gave $16M of our taxes to the Ukraine WEF war
-Signed up for more taxes for WEF climate policies
-Sold our national assets to Blackrock
-Confirmed hes a Socialist plant for the WEF
-Claimed that Joe Biden was sharp
-Tried to lick Larry Fink's butthole...
 
 
And his "wife" looks like a tranny!
 

 

Sunday 14 July 2024

NZ is always at the cutting edge of moronic

No country in Europe is still poisoning it's citizens with fluoride.
 
 
Fluoridation has been rejected in just about every country in the world. Yet, here we are in New Zealand, the globalist "government" is extending fluoridation across the entire country.
 
No country in continental Europe has fluoridation. Some countries in Europe did start fluoridation many years ago but have all since stopped. The last place to stop was the Basque region in Spain.
 
The UK (10%) and Ireland (70%) are the only European countries that still fluoridate. Only eight, out of a total of 197, countries in the world have more than 50% of the population on fluoridated water.
 
Back in 2014, Fluoride Free New Zealand aired an advert on TV3 to present this information. The 30 second advert provided some of the reasons these countries have rejected fluoridation. https://youtube.com/watch?v=-F-0XoG4EzY

See Statements from European Health, Water and Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation. https://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/

Saturday 13 July 2024

Fluoride is not a nutrient in any way

It’s often said that what makes fluoridation so harmful is that they use a chemical called hydrofluorosilicic acid rather than naturally occurring fluoride. However, the fact is all fluoride is toxic, even naturally occurring fluoride.


Fluoride is not a nutrient in any way. It is not like calcium or magnesium; it is much more like lead or arsenic.

In some parts of Africa, China, India and other parts of the world, the underground fluoride supplies have high amounts of fluoride. This causes huge problems. The children and adults suffer from skeletal fluorosis which causes crippling bone problems.

It is expensive to remove fluoride as most filters do not remove it. To remove all fluoride a reverse osmosis or distillation system is needed although in rural India they are developing some low cost filtration systems using lime.

A website called India Water Portal contains a lot of really interesting information regarding the harms of excess fluoride. The images of children with deformities and adults bed-ridden is heart breaking. There are also articles about what people are doing to try and remove fluoride and even remedy skeletal fluorosis through avoidance of fluoride and a nutrient dense diet.

It is true, though, that naturally occurring fluoride is generally not as toxic as the chemical fluoride added to New Zealand waters. Naturally occurring fluoride normally comes with high levels of calcium or magnesium which it binds to and makes less toxic. Also, fluoride is cumulative and even “low” levels can cause skeletal fluorosis. The first stage of skeletal fluorosis is identical to arthritis and doctors in New Zealand are not aware that patients presenting with arthritic-like symptoms may, in fact, have skeletal fluorosis.

Demanding that councils add a toxic substance like fluoride purposedly to people’s water, is absolutely crazy if the Director-General of Health’s aim is to improve the health of New Zealanders. And it is cowardly and ignorant of any mayor or councillor not to stand up to this craziness and tell the Direct-General of Health that they will not take any part in poisoning the community.

 

THE WILLIAMS BROTHERS

People sometimes ask why I keep going on about tyrannies - back in the first term of Barry and Mike in America they said I was fruitloops for saying Big Mike was a man...
 
Now there are people saying I'm making it up that there are men playing women's pro sports. So let's start with the basics. This is a photo of the Williams "sisters" with their father. If you can't see what is going on here it's not me who is fruitloops!

Yes this photo has probably been photoshopped to increase their heights but they are still two big butch men and they look like it in thousands of photos along with every video of every tennis match they play in - if people can't see it, then maybe some photoshopping is necessary to get people to look at what is really going on in women's sport.

 
 And "her" "husband" might be taller but he/she has all the signs of an INVERT. Are the Illuminati laughing at all the normies who believe these works of fiction?