- Check out the group blog here 
Most people don’t realise that 50% of fluoride ingested is stored in the bones and soft tissue. Accumulation of fluoride can cause a disease called skeletal fluorosis. The first symptoms of skeletal fluorosis are identical to osteoarthritis.
It
is completely unknown how many people in New Zealand are suffering from
skeletal fluorosis, rather than arthritis, because doctors are not
aware this could happen here so testing is never done.
What
we do know is that the U.S. Government’s Institute of Medicine, Dietary
Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and
Fluoride.(1997), have estimated “The development of skeletal fluorosis
and its severity is directly related to the level and duration of
exposure. Most epidemiological research has indicated that an intake of
at least 10 mg/day for 10 or more years is needed to produce clinical
signs of the milder forms of the condition”.
In 2013,
the Hamilton City Council held a Tribunal Hearing on Fluoridation. One
of the expert speakers promoting fluoridation was former chief oral
health advisor, and now Medical Director for Health New Zealand, Dr
Robin Whyman.
Dr Whyman explained to the councillors
“You then swallow the fluoride and it comes down into the blood supply.
Some of it is actually moves across to bone, we don’t disagree with that
at all, and some of it will go to soft tissue.” But rather than
stopping there and discussing what this means for bone health, and the
health of our entire bodies, Dr Whyman, a dentist, moved on to talk
about dental health.
Because fluoride accumulates,
less exposure over longer periods can achieve the same result as high
exposure over a shorter period. The intake established by the Institute
of Medicine, 10 mg a day for 10 years, may be roughly the same as 5mg a
day for 20 years or 2.5 mg a day for 40 years and so on. The Institute
of Medicine say “Stage 1 skeletal fluorosis is characterized by
occasional stiffness or pain in joints and some osteosclerosis of the
pelvis and vertebra.”
Could your bone or joint pain be
caused by fluoride accumulating in your bones? Try avoiding all forms
of fluoride. See Sources of Fluoride and New Zealand study on Fluoride
and Tea.
“If I was an arthritic individual, I would be
eliminating every source of fluoride exposure I could think of”. Phyllis
Mullinex, PhD.
Watch short video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwLAcR85iG4
https://fluoridefree.org.nz/bone-pain-joint-pain.../
In other words, nobody is buying their insects. People are REJECTING the globalist agenda.
And
last week another Swedish company called Mycorena also went bankrupt.
They got $27.8 million in investments to produce 3D printed fake meat
made out of mycelium.
It is clear that even in liberal Sweden, people do not want to eat fake food.
Go woke, go broke.
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.
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 industries!
George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A
Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22,
1991.
R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial
Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL)
EPA/NSF Standard 60.
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.
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.
“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.
San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation
Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board
of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
“The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.
https://www.westonaprice.org/.../fluoridation-the.../...
1. Promoters say fluoride works on the outside of the teeth but then say everyone must have it in their drinking water.
2.
Even though fluoridation chemicals are added to the water supply for a
claimed therapeutic purpose, they are exempt from the Medicines Act.
Fluoride pills, fluoride toothpaste and fluoride mouthwashes are not
exempt.
3.Fluoridation chemicals are too toxic to be allowed
to be released into the air so are captured in the smokestacks of the
phosphate fertiliser industry. This highly toxic substance cannot be
disposed of in streams, rivers or the sea but can be added to the public
water supply with the claim that it reduces dental decay, so ultimately
ends up in streams, rivers and the sea anyway (except what is retained
in people’s bones and soft tissue).
4.All medications have an
established safe dosage (i.e. mg per kilo per day) and are prescribed
accordingly. But this isn't the case for the highly toxic fluoridation
chemicals. Dose varies depending on how much water someone drinks
regardless of age, weight, health status, dental health or even if they
have teeth.
5.Fluoridation forces bottle fed babies to
consume 200 times more than they would have received through breast milk
because the mother's body screens out just about all fluoride. It is
logical to assume that there must be a good reason for this.
6.
A tube of fluoride toothpaste comes with a warning not to swallow, yet
the fluoridation chemicals are added to water for everyone to consume.
7.Fluoride
is added to water under the guise of reducing dental decay in some
children yet everyone is forced to consume it with the claim that it may
help someone else’s teeth.
8. Fluoridation allows the
Government to do to everyone what a doctor cannot do to an individual
patient – prescribe medication without informed consent.
9. We are told the dose is too small to cause harm to anyone but large enough to be of benefit to everyone.
The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our
Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it
There
By Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck, MD, PhD, & H.S. Micklem, DPhil
Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010
On
the label of every tube of fluoride toothpaste is a statement which
reads, “Drug Facts: Active Ingredient—Sodium Fluoride … Keep out of
reach of children under six years of age. If more than used for brushing
is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control
Center right away.” The amount recommended for brushing is about the
size of a pea. This pea-sized dab contains about the same amount of
fluoride as one glass of water in areas that fluoridate the water. Do
you drink the recommended eight glasses of water per day? Do you call
the Poison Control Center when you do?
The insanity of
intentional water fluoridation is examined from every angle in this
book. International law forbids dumping fluoride waste into the sea but
it is accepted in American drinking water. As stated in the toothpaste
disclaimer above, the FDA officially considers fluoride to be a drug.
This drug has never been approved by the FDA. Contaminating drinking
water with fluoride can be most charitably characterized as an
experiment which violates the Nuremburg Code prohibiting experimental
human treatment without informed consent. China, India, Japan and most
of Europe do not fluoridate their water.
One
of the first studies claiming the safety of fluoride was done by Cox
and Hodge. Cox worked for the giant aluminum company Alcoa. At that time
fluoride was a major waste product of aluminum processing. It must have
seemed like a wondrous miracle when Cox discovered that this toxic
waste was safe and effective for preventing tooth decay when added to
the water supply. The real miracle is that so many people apparently
believe this. Hodge worked on the Manhattan Project supervising
experiments on unsuspecting patients who were injected with uranium and
plutonium. These guys have all the credibility of those famous leading
scholars named Larry, Curly and Moe. If you believe the studies and
health advice of Cox and Hodge, you might want to consider cutting back
on eating those old lead-based paint chips.
Many other studies
are reviewed, such as those of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, who not only had no
conflict of interest with the commercial entities involved but in fact
suffered professionally for daring to suggest that fluoride might be
problematic.
John Colquhoun of New Zealand promoted fluoride
enthusiastically around the country for years. After traveling the world
to survey the effects of fluoride, he realized he was quite wrong.
Colquhoun was a man of rare courage and integrity, and spent the rest of
his life trying to undo the damage he had done.
When
the National Research Council came out with a report—over five hundred
pages long—unfavorable to fluoride, the American Dental Association took
less than one day to dismiss it. The Centers for Disease Control
rejected it six days later. The director of Quackwatch called fluoride
opponents “poison-mongers.” The irony piles pretty high when you
consider that most opponents are unpaid and do much of this on their own
dime, they have nothing to monger or sell, and are trying to remove the
poison, not add it.
Toward the end of the book the authors pull
out one of my all-time favorite quotes from the late Michael Crichton.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is
already settled….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely
because they broke with the consensus. . . There is no such thing as
consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science,
it isn’t consensus.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2011.
In May 2023, the U.S. Government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a 6 year scientific review of fluoride and IQ. The Review contained a monograph and a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found lower IQ with fluoride exposure, demonstrating remarkable consistency. Of the 19 studies rated higher quality, 18 found lowering of IQ.
The
NTP authors said: “We have no basis on which to state that our findings
are not relevant to some children or pregnant women in the United
States” and that “Several of the highest quality studies showing lower
IQs in children were done in fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas…many urinary
fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming
water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.”
In New Zealand water
is fluoridated at a higher level than in the U.S. and Canada. The
maximum for fluoridation in those countries is 0.7 ppm (i.e. 0.7 mg/L).
The New Zealand Ministry of Health recommends that water be fluoridated
in a range between 0.7 and 1ppm. Most councils aim for the median of
0.85ppm but testing results from councils around the country has found
that many of them are often fluoridating above 0.85ppm. This is a
significant increase compared with the North American countries and
therefore we can expect that the loss of IQ in New Zealand children is
likely to be worse.
The evidence is growing stronger. Even since the NTP review was originally completed, there have been more U.S. Government funded studies published which have found harm to the developing brain.
The NTP goes on to say “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.
This means that every year in New Zealand thousands of babies have their brain development impaired directly as a result of fluoridation
Fluoride added to water makes circus animals calm and prisoners docile. Now we know the reason. A search for “fluoride” and “testosterone” turns up dozens of studies showing adverse effects, such as “Effects of sodium fluoride and sulfur dioxide on sperm motility and serum testosterone in male rats,” “Sodium fluoride disrupts testosterone biosynthesis by affecting the steroidogenic pathway in TM3 Leydig cells” and “Fluoride toxicity in the male reproductive system.”
It’s mostly Chinese researchers who are looking at this problem. A group from Shanxi, China, led by Jiahai Zhang investigated what happened to rats when given sodium fluoride in their drinking water (and also exposed to sulfur dioxide in the air) for eight consecutive weeks. Exposure to fluoride with sulfur dioxide but also to fluoride alone adversely affected testis tissue and serum testosterone levels in rats.
Addition of fluoride—a toxic waste—to drinking water should be banned worldwide, but of course there is resistance, because then the industries producing it (such as the fertilizer industry) would have to engage in the expensive process of cleaning it up.
In 2014 the Chief Science Advisor and the NZ Royal Society produced a report on fluoridation. Their conclusion on fluoride and IQ contained a blatant lie.
Everyone in New Zealand should be aware of this deception.
Watch video at 11 minutes in to see visual presentation of this lie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5WwNKP0WRI&t=655s
https://fluoridefree.org.nz/fluoridation-in-new-zealand.../
Sometimes people ask for an easy MTF chcklist. This is an easy list for scoring a suspected MTF (Male To Female). Apart from #1 none of these markers are conclusive. We are not usually shown examples of #1 but occasionally we actually are, eg. "Lady Gaga" or "Big Mike".
# 1. HAVING A PENIS
#2. HAVING A BROW RIDGE
#3. HAVING AN ADAM’S APPLE
#4. A MALE Q-ANGLE
#5. SHOULDERS WIDER THAN HIPS
#6. A MALE FINGER RATIO
#7.LARGE HANDS AND FEET
#8.ULTRA LOW BODY FAT
#9. FAKING A PREGNANCY
#10. AN ADONIS BELT
#11. HAVING MALE BUTTOCKS SHAPE
#12 EXCESSIVELY RAPID AGING AND MASCULINIZATION
SOME OTHER BIOLOGICAL RED FLAGS
I decided to stop this list at a dozen, but there are quite a few other features of note. Here are the next six:
NO BACK CURVE, VERY TALL OVERALL HEIGHT, A BIG SQUARE JAW, MALE COLLAR BONES (CLAVICLES), BIG EARS, AND LARGE FACIAL FEATURES.
In "real life" scores above five are rare, but in certain circles, such as European Royalty, Hollywood actresses, American politics, globalist elites, top 20 pop stars, and certain women's pro sports (such as tennis, basketball & boxing), high scores are standard.
American "first ladies" are the most notorious of all categories, because with NO EXCEPTIONS, every American first lady scores above five (yes including Melania Trump)
.jpg)
