( -0983 ) Fluoridegage Documentary Up-Res - Fluoride In Drinking Water Was Officially Associated With Elevated Cancer Risk - In Other Places It Aired But U.S MSM Hid It

( -0983 ) Fluoride In Drinking Water Was Officially Associated With Elevated Cancer Risk - In Other Places It Aired But U.S MSM News Shows Left It Out

43:00 is the timestamp where the connection between lead in your plumbing and fluoride in the water supply is revealed.
Just before that the susceptibility of black children, Hispanic children and white children is differentiated.

INCLUDES a rare old Alex Jones clip about how people allow fluoride in their water; a news clip on how the fluoride additive used in water supplies (in it's same formulation) melts concrete; and SNL clip making fun of RFK Jr standing up to the poisoners who add fluoride to your children's drinking water; plus the complete Up-Res of the Fluoridegate documentary with enhanced audio.

fluoride, drinking water, baby formula, water plants, FDA, cancer, fluorosis, conspiracy, aluminum, neurotoxin, arthritis, heart disease, Dr Strangelove, SNL, toxic, biohazard, leak

TRANSCRIPTION:

Now Dr. Berke, your research shows that if all of the United States had been fluoridated,
it would mean about 70,000 extra deaths because of cancer per annum.
Those are remarkable, impressive and in fact rather disquieting figures.
Could you shortly describe your research in this field and what results did you get from
it?
Yes, the 70,000 of course would represent one-fifth of all the cancer deaths in the
United States, twice as many from breast cancer in women and twice as many as from lung cancer
in man.
To our studies involved comparing the deaths of all persons in the ten largest fluoridated
cities of the United States with the ten largest non-fluoridated cities in the United States
year by year.
And we obtained a very remarkable curve, which you can see here perhaps.
Here is the fluoridated and here is the non-fluoridated set of ten cities each.
Here is where the fluoridation started and before this time both sets of cities were
identical.
But no sooner had fluoridation started than this curve began to go up, the deaths began
to increase so that this effect occurs very promptly within one, two or five years.
Now this is conclusive evidence that fluoride kills because of cancer.
It is one of the most conclusive bits of scientific and biological evidence that I have come across
in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.
Would this then in your opinion be the end of fluoride in water, in drinking water?
It should be the end and in the United States it should so be the end by federal law known
as the Delaney Amendment, which says that anything found to induce cancer in man or
animals cannot be legally put into the food or drink of man or animals.
And so, and this is all less than one year old, so that it entirely changes any previous
ideas of fluoridation that anyone may have had because this is the first real indication
of an important effect.
Now in this country of course the state of the, the dental state of the Union, the way
people's teeth look is incredible indeed.
Would you say that stopping fluor had other effects than increasing the dental problems
in this country?
Well I would rather look at it that it would certainly help the cancer death situation
in this country, which I'm sure most people would agree is far more important than a temporary
benefit to teeth in adolescent children.
This you see amounts to public murder on a grand scale.
It is a public crime it would be to put fluoride in the drinking water of people.
Now the children of this cameraman and mine sir, take fluor.
Should we stop this immediately?
Well in my opinion if they were my children they would not take it anymore.
I can only recommend for myself but I would suggest to you that they stop it.
Is there a difference in having fluor in drinking water or administering little fluor pills
for children?
Well of course the little fluor pills are a much smaller proposition than drinking gallons
of water per day of per week as well as taking a bath in it and washing your automobile in
it and watering your lawns.
That's a very massive thing compared to brushing teeth with fluoridated toothpaste.
But our work is immediately concerned with drinking water.
What happens to toothpaste?
I'm quite willing to let the future studies go into that in more detail.
There is of course you talk about murder sir, an ethical aspect to all this, a law aspect,
an aspect of people's inhumanity to people.
What is your idea about how should this be implemented in our society?
The ethical aspects of administering poison as it were to people?
Well I think this aspect, this murder aspect clearly indicates a very strong unethical
aspect to forcing people to kill themselves.
I am not anti-government.
I am anti-parasite, anti-corruption.
200 years from now me and you will be remembered if this planet is still around.
If they win it will be destroyed.
Or there will be some hellish technocracy emerged.
And all of you are going to pay for your ignorance.
You're going to pay for your sluggishness.
You're going to pay for your lack of vision.
You're going to pay for being a slave.
You're going to be treated like one.
And your handlers aren't going to be very nice.
They're going to cram drugs down your throat.
They're going to dumb down your children.
They're going to regulate you into absolute abject slavery.
These slobs are going to go through unbelievable...
I have all these crazy ideas.
I have this syringe full of active measles virus.
I just want to stab somebody with it.
I'm having these insane ideas.
What if we took all the fluoride out of the drinking water?
What would that do to people's teeth?
Fluoride?
What's that?
Oh look, a monkey.
Do you want to go kill it and eat it?
No, not that.
A hazmat cruise from all across our area responded to a chemical leak this afternoon in Rock
Island.
The chemical was so strong that it was burning through the concrete there.
News 8's Christy Mergenthal has the latest.
It was just before one o'clock Thursday afternoon when hazmat crews were called to the Rock
Island water treatment plant for a chemical spill coming from this tanker truck.
It's a corrosive agent that the water treatment plant uses and there was an overflow that
caused spillage out from the building onto this driveway behind me.
As plant employees evacuated, crews began suiting up, working quickly to stop the leak
that had begun eating through concrete.
They stopped the leak using some earthen berms with dirt, sand and some commercial boom equipment
and had it contained pretty much to this facility within a short amount of time.
The chemical hydrofluorosacillic acid is used to add fluoride to the plant's water.
Although it poses a burn risk to skin, those living nearby were in no immediate danger.
There's no inhalation hazard at all, so there was no need for us to evacuate any residents
around the area.
After several hours, crews were able to clean up the leak, allowing operations to return
to normal.
They had to cordon off the area obviously, but as far as the treatment of the water and
the amount of water being used by the public, there was no effect on that at all.
Thank you, Kristi.
Investigators tonight still haven't given an official estimate on just how much of that
chemical spilled out.
And then, Drake.
Yes, dear?
Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?
Well, yeah, I can't say I have, Jack.
Vodka, that's what they drink, isn't it?
Never water?
Well, I believe that's what they drink, Jack, yes.
On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.
Oh, yes, I can't quite see what you're getting at, Jack.
Water, that's what I'm getting at, water.
And then, Drake, water is the source of all life.
Seven-tenths of this earth's surface is water.
Why do you realize that 70% of you is water?
And as human beings, you and I need fresh, pure water to replenish our precious bodily
fluids.
Are you beginning to understand?
Yes.
Mandrake, have you never wondered why I drink only distilled water or rainwater and only
pure grain alcohol?
Well, it did occur to me, Jack, yes.
Have you ever heard of a thing called fluoridation, fluoridation of water?
Yes, I have heard of that, Jack, yes.
Well, do you know what it is?
No.
No, I don't know what it is now.
Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist
plot we have ever had to face?
As a result of fluoridation, our children will be healthier and happier.
No fluoridation without representation!
No fluoridation without representation!
No fluoridation without representation!
Infidels, keep it out!
Infidels, keep it out!
And now, Anotha Venugopal.
My whole class decided to look into fluoride because we wanted to learn everything we could
about it.
At first, I was a bit indifferent about fluoridated water, sad to say.
Over the year, though, I discovered more about fluoride and now jump at almost every opportunity
to argue against its presence in our water.
I found that fluoride has been linked to osteoporosis, birth defects, dental fluorosis, skeletal
fluorosis, possibly leading to lower IQ levels, and more.
No fluoridation without representation!
A gulp of fluoride water a day does not keep the doctors away.
These are the words etched into some of the buttons children from my class have created.
You may be wearing one of them now.
These pretty pieces of political artwork symbolize only a small part of the work we have been
doing after a long effort to discover the answer to whether or not fluoride should be
added to our water.
Using research, creating surveys, conducting science experiments on how fluoridated water
affects plants, eggshells, chicken bones, and more to find out the truth about sodium
and fluorosilicate.
We are now number 42, and some of the data I looked at on the infant mortality list, in
other words, 41 countries at least have infants that live at a higher rate than they do in
the United States.
And we used to be in the top three for longevity.
If you look at the infant mortality rate of the top four countries, which includes Sweden,
Finland, I think Singapore, and some others, and you subtract that level from the death
rate in the United States, they're roughly one-third the death rate of what we see in
the United States.
And if you consider our total population, almost 18,000 babies a year die in the United
States that would not die if we had the infant death rate of Sweden.
You know, you bring up an interesting point about the fluoridation without representation.
I mean, I'm talking about the health problems with this now, but on a greater level, this
is forced medication of the public because the government says so.
What's next?
They don't think we're happy enough, so they put some Xanax in our water supply because
they're allowed to because as a government, it's outrageous.
And everyone you hear supporting this down the road is going to be someone working for
the government or some industry that's supported by the government or a group.
They have these fancy names, but they're all supported by either the drug industry or by
the government when you hear from them.
Water fluoridation is not a conspiracy.
It's a policy.
It's a policy that's protected by the United States EPA and the FDA.
It's a policy that is promoted by the Center for Disease Control, the United States Public
Health Service, the American Dental Association, and the American Medical Association.
They're using hazardous waste and adding it to our water supply because they've got a
lot of it to get rid of.
There's no reason for it.
It doesn't do anything to improve the health of this country, and I believe it's destroying
the fabric of our nation.
In April of 1985, I was in the hallway of the East Tower at Waterside Mall in Washington,
and a friend of mine who was writing the fluoride and drinking water standard stopped me.
And he was really, really frustrated because he was being told that he wanted to set the
standard at two milligrams per liter.
He thought that was easily justified, but they told him they didn't want it to.
They wanted it for.
He was called to the director's office and told that what he was going to do.
So he had to go back and alter the scientific document to support a higher number.
So it was originally intended to be half of what it is now.
I found out after much investigation, it actually should be much lower.
We will get to talk later about, I hope, about the National Academy of Sciences report.
When he told me this, that he was being forced to lie, basically, I got really, really interested
and I thought, you know, this is something we need to run up the flagpole and draw people's
attention to, and maybe we can get a change of climate in the agency.
To do something about this, we started writing letters to the administrator.
It totally ignored us, never got responses to anything.
It was as if we didn't even exist.
We became aware once we heard that the agency wanted to set the drinking water standard
at four ppm, we started digging into this.
We went to look at the criteria document that was to be the agency's scientific justification
for that and found out a couple of things.
One, that it was written by a contractor, it wasn't done by EPA staff people.
They had ignored quite a bit of the data on some critical toxicity points, not only the
high incidence of dental fluorosis that would occur, but also mutagenicity and there were
some indications of carcinogenicity that were just not showing up in the criteria document.
Dr. Carton and I went to see the head of the drinking water office at that time and asked
that the people who wrote that criteria document come and give a seminar, very much like Dr.
Yamiannis had given us one, and to justify the conclusions that were in the criteria
document.
And the drinking water office said, "Oh, no, we're not going to do that."
There was a notice and comment period and that's all closed and this is a closed issue,
we're not going to get into that.
And so that started the long train of suspicion which continues to this very day about what
EPA's complicity is in the national program for water fluorination.
One of the things that developed out of this finding that the agency wasn't going to really
take a hard look at the science, we were contacted by the Natural Resources Defense Council which
had a lawsuit against EPA involving this drinking water standard and they asked if we would
write an amicus curiae brief to enter into that lawsuit.
And they said, "If you guys will write the science part, we'll take care of the legal
part."
And we said, "Well, absolutely."
And so Dr. Carton did basically all of the scientific writing in connection with that
amicus brief.
Worked with the lady, Nora Chorover was the woman responsible for writing it.
She was absolutely brilliant and I worked with her to put together the amicus brief
which really very simply detailed the fact that the agency had not determined what dose
people should be getting that would be safe.
And we went through all of the logical arguments about how much people drink, what is the lowest
effect level and all the things that they really hadn't determined.
They avoided trying to give real specific information in the regulations so that they couldn't be
held accountable.
But the judges, the three judges, the District Court of District of Columbia refused to allow
it in court.
If we'd been allowed in court, that standard would have been dead in the water because
we knew what the story was and we represented the experts at the agency who the agency had
to call upon to justify their standards.
So if they ever had to call upon our own people, they would never have been able to justify
the standard.
So the court wouldn't allow it because they didn't want to have that conflict, I guess.
And by doing so, of course, the truth never got out.
Well, EPA is fighting really hard to avoid getting in the way of the Department of Health
and Human Services national program for water fluoridation.
They want to play the good federal soldier.
And they don't want to take the political heat that would certainly come down on them
if they came out and said, you know, the appropriate standard for fluoride is considerably less
than one part per million.
If EPA did that, that would be the end of the national program for water fluoridation
because you couldn't have the premier environmental agency saying one thing and the Department
of Health and Human Services saying something else.
Instead, what you got was EPA coming up with this phony four parts per million level, the
so-called maximum contaminant level goal, as it's now called, as a health-based standard.
And so now the proponents of water fluoridation since 1985-86 have been able to go around
the country saying, well, look, EPA says four parts per million is perfectly safe.
There's not a problem with that.
So what's the big deal by putting, you know, adjusting your level to one part per million?
And so EPA is staying on the good side of the federal structure by doing that kind of
thing.
Time to mention Dr. Bill Marcus because he was the chief toxicologist for the Office
of Drinking Water who found out the government did a cancer study on fluoride and he found
out that the raw data did not fit the conclusions in the report and he called for an investigation
and a reopening of it.
And he gave it to me and I said, do you mind if I leak this to the press?
He said, no.
And so I did and he got fired, which I'm really sorry about it.
I'm really glad he did it, but sorry that the pain and suffering he's gone through.
He went through two and a half years without a job as a result.
My job was to give my management the facts.
Their job was to decide what they were going to do about it.
And that's the way it stood.
My memorandum was scooped up by one of my colleagues, Rob Carton, who was on a committee that the
agency put together to review fluoride and it then involved all the program offices,
not just the Office of Drinking Water.
And he released that memo to the public and explained what it meant to Roberta Baskins.
And I'm sitting home one night and there it is appearing on the screen.
My TV set, my memorandum.
And that's where all the problems began for me personally.
Everyone agrees, including the American Dental Association, the National Academies of Science,
the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, that the dose of fluoride
a baby receives on fluoridated tap water formula exceeds the amount known to cause harm.
Why is that okay?
Why are we allowing that?
Meet the whistleblowers and the scientists that will tell you what's going on and will
tell you how to stop it.
Whistleblowing is very simple.
It's people who expose wrongdoing in the government or big companies that can harm the public
interest.
Someone blows the whistle on environmental violations, chemicals that could cause public
health risks, ripoff of taxpayer money.
You may remember some of the more famous whistleblowers like Sharon Watkins, who knew that Enron
was engaged in fraudulent activity.
Fred Whitehurst from the FBI crime lab, forensic fraud, et cetera.
They're people who put their lives and careers and jobs at risk to tell the truth.
In about 1994, Dr. Marcus came to my office.
He was about to be fired from the EPA, although he was an absolutely distinguished and longstanding
scientist with unparalleled reputation and credentials.
He showed me a memo he wrote on the fluoride issue that indicated that fluoride could have
severe adverse health effects on people.
He had recommended additional research be conducted within the agency to make sure that
the amount of fluoride that was added to drinking water was safe.
He showed me other documents that indicated that the agency was very upset with him for
this recommendation and in fact had initiated its campaign to fire him.
This document was properly prepared within context of his job as a senior science advisor,
meaning the highest level scientist within EPA who's non-supervisory.
He's like the guru scientist you go to for the tough issues.
Dr. Marcus reviewed the literature, reviewed the materials before him and set forth basic
scientific facts in this document to his supervisors and said, "We need to study this matter because
if fluoride does pose a health risk, we have to monitor how much we put in the drinking
water or if we should put in any at all."
The agency decided that I did it on purpose and wanted to change public policy as an individual
rather than going through the agency's procedures, which was totally untrue.
They decided that rather than deal with me on a scientific basis, they would find an
excuse to fire me.
The inspector general went to great lengths to fabricate material to show that I was doing
terrible things.
They fabricated a time card and claimed that I had stolen time.
The inspector general was called in by the agency to try to develop a case against Dr.
Marcus.
It was an underhanded play.
The IG should be investigating companies and polluters, not scientists, but they came
in and ran an investigation that was a sham.
We subpoenaed the inspector general.
We knew the investigation was a sham.
They called the investigator, the chief investigator in for maternity leave.
She admitted as we deposed her, she opened up the file, she carefully reviewed each document
and then put notes and other information into the shredder and destroyed them forever.
Consequently, the role of industry in conspiring to destroy Dr. Marcus' career was covered
up because we believe that this wasn't just an EPA attack.
It was EPA doing the bidding of powerful, special interests.
The agency actually fired Dr. Marcus, its senior science advisor, its only board certified
toxicologist.
They fired him and we took it to trial, a full scale trial for a number of weeks in
front of a Department of Labor judge.
He heard both sides and ruled down the line for Dr. Marcus.
His memo was legally protected.
The agency retaliated against him because he wrote a memo criticizing fluoride and calling
for more research.
His termination was reversed.
He was reinstated with back pay and damages for his loss of reputation.
He received all attorney's fees and costs.
The decision was upheld on appeal and he was returned to work to the agency as its senior
science advisor.
The outcome was that I won my case because it was shown that all the charges they had
made were untrue.
The exception of one, which was that I used the wrong pronoun and when I had been giving
testimony to help people who were injured by large corporations, I had used the term
"we" when referring to EPA's activities instead of EPA.
That should have been the end of it.
They should have stopped harassing Dr. Marcus and started listening to their board certified
senior science advisor.
The EPA did not fix the problem.
They didn't suspend or fire the employees who had engaged in illegal retaliation.
They remained in place.
So when he was returned to work, the same managers who fired him in the same chain of
command was in place to continue harassing him.
So we had to file a second lawsuit to force them to stop the harassment.
And guess what?
We had a full trial on the merits and we won the second lawsuit.
I do not know why the agency did what it did to Dr. Marcus.
But I do represent whistleblowers and I can tell you they went after Dr. Marcus with a
vengeance, a vengeance.
He was a board certified toxicologist with years of seniority.
One of the most respected toxicologists in the agency with an international reputation.
And when he wrote that memo, they went after him like he was an enemy of the state.
They just hammered and hammered and hammered.
And they went way over the line by destroying evidence, obstructing justice.
And even after we won the first case and was ordered reinstated, they went after him like
again.
And even though there were two court rulings finding retaliation, they never touched or
disciplined those agency officials involved.
This case marks a black mark on the EPA and raises fundamental issues about scientific
freedom and about fluoride and why this agency went against one of its most respected scientists
on that issue.
They went after Bill Marcus with a vengeance because he knows the answer to the toxicological
question.
Fluoride causes cancer.
And they had to shut him up because it would destroy their policy.
So what are these people doing?
They're breaking their oath of office in order to protect a policy.
Shredding documents, committing perjury, forgery, witness tampering in order to protect a policy
because it's part of a national security program to protect fluoride.
They think they're protecting their nation.
Instead, they're destroying it.
At the Environmental Protection Agency, we were given a mandate under the Safe Drinking
Water Act to look at different compounds and determine what the safe level was in drinking
water.
Through the course of time, fluoride was one of the ones chosen.
And as the senior scientist at the Office of Drinking Water at the time, to me, fluoride
was just another one of these compounds.
It came to our attention that there was a large study which showed that rats got cancer
of the bone and they got a very unusual cancer of the liver.
Now that was extremely surprising.
First of all, to produce cancer of the bone in rodents is never seen because the time
that you have between the birth and death of a rodent is only three and a half, four
years and it usually takes longer than that to produce a cancer in bone.
The cancer of the liver was extremely rare, also shown to occur, and the fact that it
happened meant that it was significant.
Just doesn't happen.
I wrote this memo in which I explained that I thought fluoride was a carcinogen and that
we had as much evidence with the animal studies to show that it was a carcinogen than we had
with any of the other compounds and therefore should be treated as such.
Keep it out!
Infant out!
Yes, hello.
I'm Dr. Yolanda White.
I'm a pediatrician, so I protect the health, safety, and well-being of children.
So many kids have dental fluorosis now, which is a sign of chronic fluoride overexposure
and toxicity.
Those white stains in the teeth, they reflect a reduced mineral content.
And it's not just children who are affected, everyone is affected, but even affects the
unborn child because fluoride can cross the placenta and it can cross the blood-brain
barrier.
And when it does that, it can lower IQ and even affect other neurodevelopmental outcomes.
So this is very serious.
I became interested in the issue of disproportionate harm to minorities from fluoridation for
several reasons.
First of all, as a public health professional, I had done some minority health work in my
career.
I also saw in a publication called "Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" from the CDC,
in 2005 they had some information that they shared.
Buried in the back of this study that they published was a little table and it showed
that black Americans and Hispanics had disproportionate amounts of dental fluorosis.
And I was intrigued by this and disturbed by it actually.
There's many different health effects that show up from fluoride.
I think Dr. Yamiana said there's something like 30 enzyme systems that are affected,
but the most obvious one is the dental fluorosis.
Surgeon General of the Public Health Service was asked to give advice on the subject, so
he formed a committee on non-dental effects.
He had one on dental effects and one on non-dental effects.
When they met, they discussed dental fluorosis and said that you'd have to have rocks in
your head to allow your own kids to get dental fluorosis.
And as a result, when they put their report out, they did call it an adverse health effect.
Well, the report never made it to the public.
It went up the line and someone altered it and changed the language in the report.
And they changed many other things too, which I don't have time to go into.
But the most important one is that they changed the dental fluorosis statement from an adverse
health effect to a cosmetic effect.
And there's a writer by the name of Dan Grossman, an investigative journalist, who looked into
this and found out that the people on the committee had no knowledge of the fact that
it had been changed.
They were never asked to agree to it.
So it basically does not represent as it says it does.
It doesn't represent the real deliberations of the committee.
In 1998, in the Wall Street Journal, the Center for Disease Control acknowledged that 22%
of the children already had dental fluorosis.
Now, more than a decade later, they've doubled the number of children with dental fluorosis
and a lot of it severe and a lot of it in the African American and Hispanic communities.
What is it about dental fluorosis that you don't understand?
It's an adverse health effect and they need to stop causing it.
In Atlanta, Georgia, a number of civil rights leaders have stepped up to the plate to fight
silico fluoride in the drinking water.
It's a civil rights issue.
You have injury to their children, they're fighting it because they don't want their
children to be injured by silico fluoride any longer.
First of all, I had very little knowledge about fluoride in the drinking water.
As most people in the African American community, we are not familiar with this.
Most are still not familiar.
But a friend of mine named Laura Seidel, who's very much involved with Captain Planet and
many of the environmental issues around the country, called me and asked me would I meet
with a man named Daniel Stockton and another person from the Lilly Center.
So myself and Ambassador Andy Young met with them and we looked at much of the information.
We looked at what fluoride was doing to the teeth.
We heard a lot of the information about this particular ingredient in our water and in
our toothpaste.
So consequently, we began to do a little more research on it and we wanted to know how did
it disproportionately impact on the people that we're called to serve in the African
American community.
As a public health person, I knew that the black community and Hispanics and other minorities
are disproportionately harmed by kidney disease and diabetes.
Yet those were two of the populations that the National Research Council said were susceptible
subgroups, particularly vulnerable to harm from fluoride.
Then on top of it, I found, of course, and we've all known this, and a lot of folks in
public health know that minority communities often have a poorer nutritional status.
So when you add poor nutrition with added fluoride, the effect gets magnified of the
harm from fluoride.
We are chemical systems.
Toxins have such a huge effect on human behavior.
And it's really important to understand this because the silicofluorides increase the absorption
of the toxins.
Lead levels absorbed by blacks in the United States are higher than lead levels absorbed
by whites.
A survey of children's blood lead, that's called the National Health and Nutrition Evaluation
Survey, data set, counties over 500,000 population, big cities.
And if you look at this chart, you'll see that these are the blacks, these are Hispanics,
and these are whites.
And this is where there is no silicofluoride in the water, and this is where there's silicofluoride
in the water.
And you'll notice that there are two things that are going on.
First of all, the blacks have higher levels of lead than the whites, and where there's
silicofluoride, there's higher level.
But there's a third thing, which is the difference between these two graphs is bigger for blacks
than it is for whites.
Cholesterol, cardiovascular diseases, these are diseases which disproportionately impact
the African-American community.
A lot of times it's because of diet.
A lot of times it's because we get the information on health later than many other communities.
So this is when we want to be the headlight instead of the taillight when it comes to
the water that we drink.
So this is why, and particularly in the South, because it is so warm, the humidity is so
high, we tend to drink a lot of water.
And so we need the best level of safety in our drinking water as possible.
And don't forget, we also bathe with fluoridated water, and skin absorption studies have not
been done.
Fluoride is a toxin, and toxin is another word for poison.
And how do we know this?
Well, the CDC has a toxicology profile for fluoride.
And not only that, but the EPA also has established reference doses for fluoride, which is only
done for toxic substances.
I found this water.
There's some waters that are available out there today.
And for instance, this is a bottled water that is sold for use in preparing milk formula,
and for babies.
And the thing about it is, is that if you happen to be someone who can't afford to buy
this bottled water, perhaps you're a member of a minority community who has a lower household
income, what are you supposed to do?
Do you not count?
Do you not matter?
Does your babies not matter?
So I saw a whole series of issues, particularly about disproportionate harm to minority communities.
And this really pricked my conscience, and I couldn't be quiet about it.
And that's why we really began to reach out to members of the black community and Hispanic
community to talk about harm from fluoride.
Sometimes we're finding out that babies who drink formula that's been mixed with fluoridated
water, they're actually receiving the highest dose amongst all of us.
So therefore, they're at highest risk.
And this is while their bodies are still developing and still forming.
And this is despite the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement that warns against
fluoride in children under six months old.
Their dose of fluoride is so high that it exceeds the EPA's safe reference dose.
And so this is so alarming, especially being that there are no health or safety warnings
or advisories.
So parents don't even know that they have to protect their children.
I was asked by my supervisor to find out why children who are Hispanic and black have higher
levels of lead in their blood than white folks.
It turns out that there are alleles that control the amount of material that is absorbed, such
as lead, arsenic, heavy metals.
Black children have two alleles that increase the absorption rate.
Hispanic children have one allele that does and one that doesn't.
And Caucasian children have the slowest rate of absorption.
I found that extremely disturbing.
And I wrote several memorandas suggesting that the levels we were setting that were
acceptable of lead were unacceptable for blacks and for Hispanics because they would absorb
more given the same exposure.
And what a lot of people don't understand, because why would we know about this, is that
alloys in brass and bronze and things like this, some of our plumbing fixtures, these
plumbing fixtures have lead in them.
And sometimes our plumbing lines have lead in them.
So the fluoridated water, in some instances where there is the right chemistry in the
water, can actually pull lead into the water.
The fluorides can help pull lead into the water.
So maybe it's a little bit of lead, but the point is that any lead at all, this is something
your body doesn't need.
It's been stated to me that if we come out and speak about these issues in terms of fluoridated
water and the impact, that there might be people in higher positions that might become somewhat
angered, disgruntled.
People might say that they don't have all of the facts.
And I wouldn't argue with that.
We don't have all of the facts.
But they said that if you begin to speak out against this, a little heat might be put on
you.
And I said that if you can't stand the heat, you need to get out of the kitchen.
And I think that that's quite important that for those of us who are beginning to try to
understand this, that we raise the pertinent issues that can improve the lives of our children
and those that we're called to serve.
To understand how it is that lead or silico fluoride should affect behavior and change
the way we behave or think, you have to understand how the brain works just normally.
We know there are some people who have learning disabilities of particular kinds, and that
has to do with some part of that system really does not function normally.
But let me just talk about the basic pattern of the system.
You have these neurons or brain cells, and each one, when a current comes through or
an impulse comes through, when something is released across that membrane at the other
end of the receptor cell, it's called the receptor, it's the equivalent of putting a
plug in a wall plug, because when a chemical gets into this receptor, it fires the same
impulse that was coming down to that previous cell.
If you have some lead in there, it can block the transmission, like putting chewing gum
in a light socket.
Lead interferes with dopamine, which interferes with learning, and then you have effects on
brain size, and you have lifelong effects.
If these effects are worse for poor children than for rich children, and I've got statistics
since the case, because poor children have left calcium in their diet, lead and calcium
have both the same electronic charge, they're divining on cations, they have an electric
charge of two electrons.
So you have a particular place in a protein, and there's supposed to be a calcium there.
There's no calcium, the lead can stick there, change the shape of the protein, the protein
doesn't work.
So there are a number of different pathways.
I don't understand any of these fully, I may be wrong on one or more of them, but there
are so many different pathways by which lead and the use of silicofluoride harm young children.
We can't get rid of all the lead in the environment very easily, but we can easily get rid of
water in the silicofluoride in the glass the child drinks.
All we have to do is at the water company turn the knob off.
That's not very hard.
Why has the public health community, and why has the medical community and the fluoridation
supporting community, why have they not actively shared with minority communities the whole
story about fluorides?
If fluorides are so safe and good in Moms, Apple Pie and All American, then certainly
they would stand up to some kind of scrutiny and closer examination.
But when I began to address minority health departments in government agencies, for instance
in the state of Tennessee, I was told that the minority health folks would not talk to
me anymore.
And then we began to approach this issue with the Centers for Disease Control and other
places around the country.
And over and over and over again, we found out that when we posed the question about
how do we reach out to the black community, how come the black community hasn't been told
the leaders of the black community, etc., we got silence or they changed the subject.
Even United States senators and representatives wouldn't pursue this subject.
It's just, it's one of those things that nobody wants to touch with a 10-foot pole because
the facts are minorities are disproportionately harmed by water fluoridation and other fluorides
from other sources.
We as a people must be concerned about the welfare and the health of all people.
There are certain issues that tend to get swept under the rug.
We've got to lift the rug, look at these issues for the good of the people.
One of those is fluoridated water and what's in water.
And we've got to in some way get all of the research necessary and remove it if it is
detrimental.
I tend to believe that it is harmful.
So if we're to make a difference, we've all got to come together.
We've got to come together as parents.
We've got to come together as clergy.
We got to come together as science.
We've got to come together as legislators and medical profession.
We've all got to come together.
And if we all can come together around this issue, we can find out where the truth is.
And if we can find out the truth, then we can make a difference.
And I think that that's what we're all called to do.
I think everybody in this, whether they're on one side or the other on the issue, we're
all concerned about how do we become a healthier people who can really have a beautiful smile
like this.
There is very little information that is made available to members of the minority communities.
And let's be honest about it.
There's perhaps less access to computers or maybe less access to the internet.
And maybe there's issues with second languages and primary languages.
So my concern was we're all Americans.
And it seems to me that all Americans deserve to hear the whole story about fluorides, not
just the benefits.
But what about how this affects members of the black community or Hispanics or American
Indians or Asians?
So we began to push the story.
And over and over again, we met with resistance.
The good news is, is the thing is cracking open now.
Members of the Hispanic community and the black community have been given this information
and they're waking up to it and saying, this is just not right.
What are the people in our community supposed to do who can't afford unfloridated water?
What are they supposed to do if they can't afford to fix their teeth from the damage
that fluoride causes to their teeth?
Some things just need to go away.
Fluoridation is one of them.
Severely vulnerable subset are people with kidney malfunctions.
The kidney that's not functioning properly will not remove fluoride from the bloodstream.
And the fluoride concentrations build up to dangerous levels.
In fact, there have been reports of, there have been some deaths.
There were some deaths in Chicago from use of tap water in hemodialysis.
People who are on hemodialysis because of kidney failure.
And normally they use distilled water in that hemodialysis system and they were using tap
water instead and basically killed several people in because of the fluoride exposure.
So chronic kidney disease is a real concern.
I first became interested in the issue of the impact of fluoridated water on kidney patients
when I came across a document from the National Kidney Foundation.
It's a pretty old document and I was concerned about the fact that the National Research
Council had said that kidney patients and diabetics were what they called susceptible
subpopulations that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.
So when I saw this paper from the Kidney Foundation and I knew that the National Research Council
had a lot more current information, I contacted the National Kidney Foundation and some other
folks also contacted NKF.
And it was a very interesting thing to watch as this whole thing unfolded because I visited
a dialysis center and I talked to physicians and I talked to kidney patients.
From the people I talked with, there was virtually no knowledge about the fact that kidney patients
are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.
And given the fact that one in nine American adults now have some form of chronic kidney
disease, one in nine, the numbers are staggering.
So I was concerned if you have that many people who are at risk for or who have kidney issues
and fluorides can affect either the kidney itself or because the kidneys don't work,
the fluorides can collect in the bones at a faster rate because the kidney function
is not there to excrete the fluoride.
This was very disturbing for me and so I also began to look, I was concerned about the fact
that certain other groups were at higher risk for kidney failure or chronic kidney disease.
So this is what kind of pulled us into the issue here at the Lilly Center about reaching
out to kidney patients because when we did look out for kidney patients, we found virtually
no knowledge in the kidney patient population or in the caregivers about the latest information
about harm from fluorides.
In spite of the science becoming more and more solid, irrefutable that fluoride causes real
problems such as osteosarcoma, it causes a loss of mental acuity and in combination with
lead is probably far worse than either alone.
No one is taking the responsibility to reevaluate what the levels of either should be in drinking
water.
I don't know exactly how I would attack that but it appears to me when the lead was looked
at that there was no level of which lead did not produce an adverse effect and I expect
the same is true of fluorides.
You would put them together, my guess is it isn't just additive, it's multiplicative,
but nobody is willing to do the study to determine what actually happens.
There are lots of reasons to believe it's occurring nationwide based on the LSAT studies
in which the children are doing more poorly now than they were in the 50s before fluoride
became much more widespread in its use.
And this is very, very bad because the number of children who become adults whose IQs are
above 120 is significantly reduced and that's a terrible loss to the country.
From a legal perspective there are a number of questions that come to mind.
One of them is the question of who holds the legal liability for the injuries that result
from fluoride exposure.
And obviously one of the obvious, in the legal context, defendants or one of the obvious
parties that holds liability are those water providers that have decided to put fluoride
into the water and expose the population to fluoride and therefore to the harmful effects
of fluoride.
Certainly the water providers are a potential defendant or a potential party with liability
in this context.
Some people think they can avoid the problem of fluoridated tap water by buying bottled
water and if you purchased this water you'd be right because it's really low in fluoride.
But if you read the label you'd never know that.
If you bought it in France where it's bottled they tell you how much mineral content of
fluoride they have.
In this country they tell you how much fat there is in it.
We have a ridiculous label system in this country.
And if you happen to buy this water it's the same as your fluoridated tap water but it
still tells you about the fat and the sugar.
We've got ridiculous labels but you can't avoid fluoride by just watching your lips
because aren't you going to go to a restaurant and have coffee?
Aren't you going to take a shower?
It goes right through your skin.
You can't avoid it and if you just protect your own lips the baby still ends up poisoned.
That's not appropriate I don't think.
Babies drink a tremendous amount of fluoride much more than was ever needed or ever recognized
as being to an advantage as far as tooth decay.
And I think the studies are showing that even that's questionable whether or not fluoride
reduces tooth decay at a significant amount to make it worthwhile for all the money we
put into paying people to put fluoride in our water.
There are a lot of advocacy groups, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association
that have publicly promoted the use of fluoride not just in dental products but also in community
water supplies.
And so those parties that may have been engaged in the promotion without discussion of the
negative harmful side effects and the risks associated, they may also face some criticism
and possibly legal liability ultimately for the harms that have come out of the use of
fluoride.
People who say that the fluoride in fluoridating water is safe absolutely do not know the science.
They don't even pay any attention to it because the science is totally against putting fluoride
you know at large in drinking water.
There's nothing published that would support this except their claims which are kind of
wild old and probably ill founded.
Not only is fluoride added to public water supplies but fluoride is also added to bottled
water and there are brands of bottled water that are marketed to children for the purpose
specifically of healthy teeth that have added fluoride in them.
And so you have children who are born and raised on this water with parents thinking
that it's a benefit to the child that may in fact be harming the child not just with
dental fluorosis from early life exposure but also some of these other effects that
we've seen the kidney damage and some of the other effects that may affect these people
not just as children but as also adults and throughout their lifetime.
So again we have bottled water providers that are now added to the mix and that may face
some potential liability for claims of damages related to fluoride exposure.
You can also look at the healthcare products industry for example Colgate-Palmolive you
got Colgate toothpaste that is clearly being marketed to children but this toothpaste has
a warning that it's poison but it does not have a warning about what the effects may
be.
So there's no warning about kidney damage there's no warning about dental fluorosis.
So certainly the healthcare products industry or the toothpaste manufacturers could also
be another party that has liability for these damages.
The question about whether the FDA has done any approval is an important aspect of it
and so the first part of the answer to that is no the FDA has never approved any fluoride
for ingestion for the purpose of reducing tooth decay and that's of any form and of
any kind including what we normally would think it was being drops or tablets that are
in vitamins that are typically utilized by prescription for children in non-fluoridated
communities so they've never approved it.
Fluoride ends up in your milk it ends up in the beer you drink the wine you drink every
fruit juice you take that's diluted and made from concentrate has fluoride so right now
what we have is a country that's being overdosed with fluoride because of the massive water
fluoridation that the cities have picked up by the inducement of the American Dental Association
with absolutely no positive benefit.
A major question has to do is well who's responsible for the accountability for the safety and
effectiveness or for the claims that are made of safety and effectiveness and then the normal
assumption is that somehow the EPA is responsible for the safety and effectiveness and that
they've done some kind of approval for it.
So the proponents of fluoridation would tell you that that's the sub that's the true authority
when in fact it's not at all.
In 1988 the EPA gave up all oversight responsibility for direct water additives that includes fluoride
but includes all of the direct water additives and they so from that to this point forward
there are no really truly what we call federal safety standards that have to do with direct
water additives at all.
So however even if they had done so the FDA has never given up the authority for making
a determination of safety and effectiveness and being allowed to make the claims.
The experiments can die and the guinea pigs were American children.
If you go to the countries that have the lowest infant death rate Sweden, Finland and Norway
and some of the others which don't have the real nice weather and that we have in the
United States of the housing etc. they don't allow fluoridation of water.
They don't allow mercury to be put in amalgam fillings.
They don't allow them aerosol or mercury to be put in the injections given to the baby
and they don't inject or vaccinate babies on the day of birth.
So we have a total failure in our government's ability to evaluate the health of our system
and we just go through and whatever the medical doctors want to do or whatever the dentist
want to do we support it even though it may be totally mindless from the scientific viewpoint.
This fluoridation propaganda film was made in the 1950s to deceive the American public.
What's this guy tell you what they're using in Florida?
"Sulfur dioxide and sodium fluoride are added after the water leaves the settling basin."
By the time they made this film they'd stopped using sodium fluoride and began to use hydrofluosilic
acid.
"The charcoal to remove odors and taste and the fluoride to reduce the amount of tooth decay."
Claiming fluoride reduces tooth decay makes it a drug.
The FDA has never approved any fluoride containing drug to be swallowed to reduce tooth decay.
"Here is water produced under the most exacting conditions containing a safe controlled amount
of sodium fluoride which will reduce tooth decay in our children."
The product that's typically added to the water under fluoridation programs is called
hydrofluosilic acid.
It's a very specific kind of fluoride and in fact what we find is that the majority
of people are confused because they think that they think of fluoride as the substance
that they either have in their toothpaste or that they might be added to water without
recognizing the full spectrum of fluorides that are out there that affect us virtually
every day.
So the hydrofluosilic acid is a very specific kind of fluoride that is utilized and it typically
comes from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
It used to be almost exclusively from there and that particular product actually comes
from the scrubber systems that are required by the Clean Air Act to make certain that
these same kind of fluoride product is not emitted into the air.
Water fluoridation is morally and ethically wrong.
We're not giving people informed consent.
It doesn't work if you swallow it.
It's hazardous waste in the public water supply.
It's an inexpensive way for industry to dispose of their waste product but it destroys the
nation.
It causes disproportionate harm.
Some people are injured more than others but all of us are being injured by a policy and
it won't stop until you make them because it's saving billions of dollars to the industry
that makes phosphate fertilizer in China, Japan, Mexico.
It's time for it to stop.
There's no argument about us having one of the highest infant death rates of the modern
world.
This problem is the problem that belongs to the United States Public Health Service, the
NIH, the FDA, the CDC, the EPA and every other health agency in the states that we exist
in.
Why are our children dying at such a high rate?
Why are our elderly dying at a faster rate and at younger ages than people in 28 other
countries when we supposedly have the best medical care in the world?
There's something dramatically wrong and I think what's dramatically wrong is the approval
of using things like mercury in fillings which have been eliminated in Sweden, fluoride in
the drinking water, the absurd use of extreme vaccination.
We have more than roughly four times the vaccines being given in the United States to prevent
death from infectious diseases of countries that have probably one third our infant death
rate.
If all of these things worked, if amalgams were so good, if fluoridation prevented caries,
if vaccines prevented death from infectious diseases and caused infants to live longer,
we would have one of the lowest infant death rates in the world and in contrast we have
one of the highest.
In a series of experiments in 1978, Schubert showed that if you take enough mercury to
kill one out of a hundred rats, one out of a hundred rats dies.
And if you took enough lead to kill one out of a hundred rats and diluted it by twenty
fold that none of the rats died.
But if you added the lead, an infinitesimal amount, one twentieth of an LD1 and the mercury
and LD1 together, you killed all the rats.
That makes mercury and lead together hugely synergistic.
Well when you put silico fluoride in the water supply, you're given the baby lead.
And when you have vaccines with mercury in them like the flu vaccine, you're given a
mercury.
So the water supplies of this country are contaminated with silico fluoride intentionally
by a government program.
That needs to stop.
It's poisoning the babies.
We have a program in this country called WIC, Women Infant and Children, that is supposed
to be telling mothers, indigent mothers, how to feed and protect and grow up a healthy
baby.
We've contacted them and asked them if they're telling mothers to not use tap water formula
and no they're not.
You know why?
Because it would affect the policy of fluoridation.
These women need to know they're poisoning their babies and instead the very people you're
paying to educate that woman are protecting a government policy.
That needs to change right now.
When children are born, they definitely have right to life.
And we have the highest infant death rate, that's from zero to 12 months of age, and
we have one of the highest infant death rates from one year to five years of age.
What are our children dying of?
And this should be something that everyone should be able to agree on and fight against.
We need to eliminate this and the causes.
And if you look at the major cause of death, poor nutrition and intake of toxins.
And we're seeing that at a full rate in this country.
We need to get into a major reevaluation of the ability of our health agencies to do their
job.
They're breaking us into government level, they're making people sick, our Medicare,
our care of children, the insurance costs, etc. are going through the ceiling.
And here we have our health agencies inflicting major levels of toxins on us.
And Congress does nothing about it.
We have to make this a major political issue, a major voting issue, and it's not a Democrat
or Republican issue.
It's an issue of how do you help American children live.
Exposing a child to chemicals in the first six years of life that will harm that child's
learning capability, self-control, and have effects on his brain function that are lifelong.
To permit that to happen when you know it's happening and not to interfere by stopping
the use of something like silicone fluoride, which makes it worse, is immoral.
It is evil to harm children by poisoning them in the first six years of life once you know
you're doing it.
It wasn't evil to start putting silicone fluoride in the water, getting rid of a toxic
chemical that was a side waste product from making weapons grade uranium, which just made
America win the Second World War and save literally hundreds of thousands of lives in
invading Japan.
I don't want to pretend that I can rewrite history.
The critical thing is that once you discover that there's something you can change at
relatively low cost that will help millions of human beings, you have an obligation to
do it.
If we don't end water fluoridation now, we're going to continue to put children in
harm's way.
We're also going to hurt pregnant women, senior citizens, individuals with other health conditions,
African Americans, other minority groups, poor populations, and other people who deserve
and who require fluoride free water and who cannot afford to purchase a high end reverse
osmosis water filtration system or other kind of water system that can help to reduce the
fluoride.
Also, we need to get to the root cause of cavities, which are sugars and starches left
on the teeth.
We need to improve access to dental care and make sure that dental visits occur every year
and dental cleanings occur twice a year.
This is how we control cavities.
It's not through fluoride.
We don't have a knowledgeable, scientific based government health program overall.
They're not looking at science because you cannot look at science and say it's okay to
put two of the most neurotoxic, cellular toxic compounds, elements, fluoride and mercury in
the body and say it's okay.
And they defend them.
Our FDA has bent over backwards defending the use of fluoride and mercury and they should
be the ones out checking.
Instead of that, it's citizens group who are activists who know a little bit of science
that do this.
And we really need to get some support and we need to get some support from Congress.
The real problem is Congress just seems unlikely to do this because the lobbyists from these
major corporations, the pharmaceutical firms, the fluoridation firms, the Dementium firms,
can go and pay money to Congress to keep them and have them ignore this problem.
We need to fight that.
We need to get a citizens activist group together to turn this over.
I can think of no better way to destroy a nation than to spread toxic substances far
and wide.
In the 70s, we learned just how bad lead was for it after we've been exposed for more than
50 years.
Now we're adding silico fluoride to the public drinking water and that sucks lead into the
bodies of the children.
We have babies that are dying.
10,900 more babies die annually in the first year of life than they should or would otherwise
if we protected the water supply.
Why?
We inject them on the day of birth with thimerosal, methylate, ethylmercury.
And then we put silico fluoride in the tap water formula that they drink, which sucks
lead into their bodies.
Remember the rats?
Well, what if you don't kill the rat?
Do you have children that can't learn to read and write, that have learning disorders?
Yes.
And you have damaged brains, but it's not just the children.
The adults suffer as well because your body has no known use for lead, fluoride, or mercury,
so it stores it in the bone if it can't get rid of it and that destroys your joints.
Why do you think we have all these joints being replaced in this country?
Is it our great medical system or is it because they're going bad because the bone is being
poisoned?
You can measure these elements in these diseased bones.
This isn't going to stop until you make them.
If you don't make them, they're going to keep doing it because it's making them billions
of dollars.
You got to step up to the plate and go to work and save your country from industry,
military, policies that are damaging the health of our nation.
We are supporting a bill that Peter Valung Jr. and several other council members proposed
last year.
It is asking that unnatural fluoride be prohibited from New York City's tap water supply.
There are many reasons why we support this bill.
The addition of fluoride in our water is unethical.
Nobody asks the citizens of New York City if they wanted fluoride in their tap water
before putting it in.
Fluoride's proposed purpose is to clean our teeth, meaning it is a medication.
We are being force-medicated.
This is why our class motto is "No fluorination without representation."
We are being medicated without being asked if we want it to be.
No fluorination without representation!