THE FLUORIDE DEBATE: CENSORSHIP Plus CONCLUSION

[Guest guest]

CENSORSHIP

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/censorship.html

 

Why would so many health organizations be promoting fluoridation if it were

not " safe and effective? "

 

Follow the Money

After Oscar Ewing, Chief Counsel of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)

became head of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) in 1947, he

offered the American Dental Association strong inducements to back fluoridation.

To this day the ADA is paid well for endorsements of fluoride products. Grants

are awarded to produce studies that will show fluoride is safe. Scientists

whose research shows negative effects from fluoride often find it difficult to

get their findings published. (See 0-6: " The Difficulty of Research on

Fluoridation " , Natick Fluoridation Study Committee Report, 9/27/97).

 

" Dr. Phyllis Mullenix says she lost her job at Harvard's Forsyth (Dental)

Research Institute in 1994 after she insisted on publishing research results

showing that fluoride adversely affected brain function in test animals.

Mullenix

had spent 12 years at Forsyth's toxicology department, eleven of them as its

chairman. " (See 0-7: " Vigorously brushing aside reports of fluoride's dangers, "

The Boston Sunday Globe, Apr. 4, 1999).

 

" There is clear evidence that promoters have stacked the deck, suppressed

evidence, and victimized or smeared those who speak out against the practice "

(of

fluoridation). (David R. Hill, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, The University of

Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4, Aug. 1997.) Such tactics would not

be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.

 

 

" No school, college or independent medical research institution dares to be

critical of fluoridation because they receive Public Health research grants.

Likewise, no big food, beverage or drug company will dare speak critically of

fluoride because they are under the supervision of Food and Drug Administration,

a branch of US PHS. " (Fluoridation and Censorship by H. Petraborg, MD,

9/30/64.)

 

The USPHS spends millions promoting fluoridation with public funds and have

influenced health trade organizations to " come on board " without performing any

research of their own. They simply parrot each other's endorsement. Admission

that they are mistaken would result in loss of face and legal liability, much

like the tobacco industry.

 

By presenting the results of the original fluoridation experiments

incorrectly, the public and many health organizations were led to believe there

was a

65% reduction in tooth decay with fluoridation. The Health Department's own

statistics, when read correctly, prove that there is only a delay in decay, and

that dental bills are actually higher, due to dental fluorosis.

(See Opponent's Response to Question 4

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question04.htm l and Question 41

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question41.html ).

 

The Washington Bureau editor of AGD Impact, the monthly publication of the

Academy of General Dentistry, wrote in 1999 that " supporters of fluoridation

have had an unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides

in

a negative light, " and that organized dentistry " has lost its objectivity -

the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to

reach a sensible conclusion. "

 

According to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics,

" Dentists' non-participation (in fluoridation promotion) is overt neglect of

professional responsibility. " In recent years, several dentists who have

testified on the anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state

dental

officers.

 

Download " THE FLUORIDE DEBATE " a response to the ADA's Booklet " Fluoridation

Facts " .

at

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/Download/fluoridedebate.pdf

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/conclusion.html

 

Seldom has an issue come before the public that affects our personal health

(and our personal freedom) as much as does this one. When the " smoke and

mirrors " of the proponents of fluoridation are cleared away by scientific

evidence,

it is plain that there is no justification for putting this toxic substance in

our water supply.

 

" Esteemed Voices have, for 50 years, warned the American public that water

fluoridation has dangerous long-term consequences to health. " (See 43-3: List of

128 leading authorities who are opposed to fluoridation, Maureen Jones, San

Jose Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, Telephone (408) 297-8487).

 

Following are some of their quotes:

 

" I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs.

Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effect on a long-range

basis. Any attempt to use the water this way is deplorable. " Charles Gordon

Heyd,

M.D., Past President, American Medical Association.

 

On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, Ph.D., a former EPA scientist made this

statement: " FLUORIDATION IS THE GREATEST CASE OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD OF THIS

CENTURY,

IF NOT OF ALL TIME. "

 

Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D., Microbiology, discoverer of the antibiotic

streptomycin, was of the same opinion. His statement was: " fluoridation ... it

is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been

perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. "

 

David R. Hill, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary,

Alberta, Canada, in Aug. 1997, stated: " My own conclusion is that there are, at

best,

real unresolved and serious questions about the safety and benefits of water

fluoridation and related uses of fluoride. The most recent evidence suggests

it is not particularly beneficial, and certainly not safe. The most charitable

interpretation that one can put on the situation is that old habits die hard,

and the medical/dental establishment is slow to adapt to the realities of

modern research, and is fearful of losing both face and law suits if they admit

they made a mistake. "

 

For too many decades we heard from scientists who worked for the cigarette

companies that cigarettes were not addictive, even in the face of mounting

evidence of harm. No one died from smoking one cigarette, one pack, or one

carton.

But after twenty years, cancers started to " mysteriously " appear. We were told

these deaths were unrelated to smoking.

 

Now, the American Cancer Society states that, " During 1995, approximately 2.1

million people in developed countries died as a result of smoking. " Tobacco

use is responsible for nearly one in five deaths in the U.S. Scientists were

wrong about tobacco; tobacco was not safe and neither is fluoride.

 

The powerful financial interests behind fluoridation have managed to keep the

public from knowing the truth by controlling the media. Here is the

opportunity for those who have the courage to speak out and let the truth be

known to

do a real service for the public, who in the majority of cases have not even

been given a choice in the matter.

 

Those opposed to fluoridation have but one thing to gain — water that is free

of medication, a medication that has been proven time and again not to work

for the purpose intended, and is harmful to many.

 

It is time to bring the evidence out in a free and open discussion, where

reason and facts are the guidelines, rather than emotion and politics. To ignore

the issue is to let others make the decision for us. It has been said that:

" All bad men need is for good men to do nothing. " Please help spread the true

facts on this issue.

Download The Fluoride Debate as a .pdf

http://www.fluoridedebate.com/Download/fluoridedebate.pdf

 

--

 

What is a .pdf? It is an electronic file that is an e-book version of this

website. Please be sure to have Adobe Acrobat's Plug-in installed for your

internet browser so that you may view it.

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

 

--

 

NOTICE

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web

site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes

of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research

under the " fair use " provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may

not

be distributed further, except for " fair use " non-profit educational

purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.