[Nazi] German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass control that was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population of any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies … the real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth … The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.1 Charles Eliot Perkins, a U.S. chemist sent to reconstruct the I.G. Farben chemical empire after World War II, also said that, “. . . Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluorine will in time gradually reduce the individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotizing this area of brain tissue, and make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him . . . I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years’ research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of’ ‘fluorine’ . . . Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically.”2

Don’t forget that fluoride is in toothpaste. Fluoride is not put in toothpaste for children, so why is it put in toothpaste for adults? Make sure to use a toothpaste without fluoride, no matter what your age is. Another product that contains fluoride is the antidepressant Prozac, whose scientific name is fluoxetine, and is 94% fluoride. Many other psychotropic drugs also contain fluoride.2

Just think — every time you drink fluoridated water, you are drinking a medication that is only available by prescription, and is illegal if obtained any other way. Does this mean the government is guilty of prescribing medication without a license?

A BRIEF HISTORY OF FLUORIDATION IN THE WATER —

The need for fluoridation in the water was sold to the American public because of the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged five to nine. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! Yet, the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

When medication is prescribed, it is done according to the patient’s size, age, and general health condition. Adding fluoride to the water gives the same dose to everyone, and is necessarily proportionate to the amount of water one drinks. This means that someone who drinks ten glasses of water a day receives ten times the fluoride dose of a person who drinks only one glass. Anyone over nine years old receives no benefits from their compulsory medication, yet they imbibe fluorides proportionately to their water intake.

The studies that showed kids aged five to nine may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, also showed that the same kids at ages nine to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 years of age the cavity benefits disappear. The possible effect of reducing cavities in five to nine year olds is only short-term, but there are lifelong detrimental health affects from flouridation.

Government officials have long known that fluoride has a significantly increased impact on the health of blacks compared to whites, but still continue pushing the necessity of fluoridation for everyone. When the former mayor of Atlanta was working with Georgia lawmakers to repeal the state’s mandatory fluoridation program, he sent letters to legislators stating that, “African Americans are disproportionately affected by dental fluorosis and have a greater burden due to higher rates of kidney disease and diabetes (concern about the impact of fluoride and kidney function).” A health department e-mail was released about the concern, and although it was mostly redacted, what remained was still revealing. “Per CDC data, blacks did have higher levels of dental fluorosis than whites (58% vs 36%) based on 1999-2004 NHANES [National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey] data . . . In a 2005 MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report], CDC acknowledged this difference and stated that it is unclear why it exists and that further research is needed.” So the CDC is clueless as to why there is a disproportionate amount of damage to the black community, but insists the experiment must continue. “On a positive note, CDC data also show that in 1986-1987 blacks had more untreated tooth decay,” the e-mail added. Who could possibly view that as “positive”? Oh yeah, the government.

According to government documents outlining the disproportionate damage to blacks, when the federal government initially endorsed involuntary mass-medication of the public with fluoride in 1950, the “safe level” based on those findings has now been wildly exceeded. One study cited by the group from Augusta, Georgia, found that 17 percent of black children suffered from moderate to severe fluorosis.

As evidence of harm continues to grow, minority leaders have started lashing out at fluoridation. “The Hispanic community is no longer going to be silent on this issue,” said the League of United Latin American Citizens, after the national organization passed a resolution blasting forced medication and the disproportionate harm unleashed on minorities by fluoride. Water fluoridation, the League said, “is about forcing us to be medicated through our drinking water without our consent or full disclosure of the risks.” Numerous black community leaders have also condemned water fluoridation. Black pastors have been speaking out in growing numbers, too. “Fluoridation takes away people’s choice — many people can’t afford unfluoridated bottled water or a home water fluoride removal system,” explained the president of the Coalition of African American Pastors.

In 2014, information obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, reveal that the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the predecessor of the Health and Human Services Department, knew exactly what it was doing when it said that fluoride was safe and reduced cavities in children, and should be added to the water supply. Today, dental fluorosis has reached unprecedented levels among all Americans — with blacks continuing to suffer the most. According to another set of recently released documents obtained using FOIA, well over one third of white children in America were diagnosed with the condition in a 1999-2004 national survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). By contrast, a shocking 58 percent of black children in the United States suffered from dental fluorosis in that period, according to the CDC survey. Now, fluoride is labeled a “neurotoxin” by perhaps the world’s most prestigious medical journal and myriad experts.

HOW DID WE GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY?

Fluoride has long been recognized as one of the most toxic elements found on earth. Fluorides are byproducts of many industrial processes, being emitted in the air and water, and probably the major source of this byproduct is the aluminum industry. By the 1920s and 1930s, fluoride was increasingly being subjected to lawsuits and regulations. By 1938, the aluminum industry was gearing up for World War II. Now the industry had a problem of what to do with fluoride, the poisonous byproduct of aluminum.

Time for propaganda (damage control) to change the public perception of a toxic substance. At the time, the Public Health Service was under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and the Treasury Secretary, from 1921-1932, was billionaire Andrew W. Mellon, head of the powerful Mellon interests, and financier of the founder of the Aluminum Corporation of America (ALCOA) (a CFR corp), the dominant firm in the aluminum industry.

In 1931, the PHS sent a dentist out west to study the effect of concentrations of naturally fluoridated water on people’s teeth. The dentist found that towns high in natural fluoride seemed to have fewer cavities. This news sent various Mellon scientists into action. The Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s research lab in Pittsburgh, sponsored a study in which a biochemist fluoridated some lab rats, decided that cavities in those rats had been reduced, and immediately concluded that “the case [that fluoride reduces cavities] should be regarded as proved.” In 1939, the dentist made the first public proposal for mandatory fluoridation of water. He travelled nationwide urging fluoridation. Meanwhile, other ALCOA-funded scientists trumpeted the alleged safety of fluorides, in particular the Kettering Laboratory of the University of Cincinnati.

During World War II, damage claims for fluoride emissions piled up as expected, in proportion to the great expansion of aluminum production during the war. But attention from these claims was diverted when, just before the end of the war, the PHS began to push hard for compulsory fluoridation of water. Thus the drive for compulsory fluoridation of water accomplished two goals at once: It transformed the image of fluoride from a curse to a blessing that will strengthen every kid’s teeth, and it provided a steady and substantial monetary demand for fluorides to dump annually into the nation’s water. As the saying goes, the love of money is the root of evil.

It is interesting to note that fluorine in naturally fluoridated water comes in the form of calcium fluoride, yet the substance dumped into the water supply is instead sodium fluoride. The Establishment defense that “fluoride is fluoride” becomes unconvincing when we consider two points: (a) calcium is notoriously good for bones and teeth, so the anti-cavity effect in naturally fluoridated water might well be due to the calcium and not the fluorine; and (b) sodium fluoride happens to be the major by-product of the manufacture of aluminum.

During the 1940s and ’50s, when the successful push for fluoridation was underway, fluoridation proponents touted the controlled experiment of two neighboring small cities in upstate New York, Newburgh and Kingston, that had very similar demographics. Newburgh had been fluoridated and Kingston had not, and the powerful pro-fluoridation establishment trumpeted the fact that ten years later, dental cavities in five- to nine-year-old kids in Newburgh were considerably lower than in Kingston (originally, the rates of every disease had been about the same in the two places). However, fluoride opponents pointed out the disquieting fact that, after ten years, both the cancer and the heart disease rates were now significantly higher in Newburgh. How did the Establishment treat this criticism? By dismissing it as irrelevant, as kooky scare tactics.

The official drive for fluoridation began abruptly just before the end of World War II, pushed by the U.S. Public Health Service. In 1945, the federal government selected two Michigan cities to conduct an official “15-year” study; one city, Grand Rapids, was fluoridated, a control city was left unfluoridated. Yet, before five years were up, the government stopped its own “scientific study” by fluoridating the water in the control city in Michigan, claiming that its action was caused by “popular demand” for fluoridation. In reality, the “popular demand” was generated by the government and the Establishment itself. As early as 1946, under the federal campaign, six American cities fluoridated their water, and 87 more joined the bandwagon by 1950.

In stopping the study, the government completely ignored the results of their experiment, which were devastating. The results, which for the first time focused on the chemical’s effects on the black community, revealed that blacks were far more susceptible to dental fluorosis than whites. An internal 1962 memorandum from a Public Health Service “sanitary engineer director” with the “Division of Dental Public Health and Resources,” stated that “negroes in Grand Rapids had twice as much fluorosis than others.” The condition, which is caused by fluoride consumption, produces a wide range of problems. In moderate to severe cases, it damages tooth enamel to such an extent that teeth can literally fall apart. In the memo, the sanitary engineer director expressed concerns over “opponents” of forcible fluoridation using the data to fight back against the mass-medication plot then under way across much of the nation. He also asked whether the explosive findings about fluoride’s effects on blacks would change the “optimum fluoride levels” for communities “with a larger number of negroes” such as DeKalb County in Georgia. Despite being aware of the damage, no changes were made, and officials never took steps to educate black Americans about their increased risks of dental fluorosis.

In 1947, President Truman appointed Oscar R. Ewing, the chief counsel for ALCOA, to head the Federal Security Agency, which now included the Public Health Service (PHS). Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and an avowed proponent of socialized medicine. That is one reason for the Left’s backing of fluoridation. Ewing was also a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation’s central organization of “anti-communist liberals” (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks). He mobilized not only the respectable Left, but also the Establishment center. The powerful drive for compulsory fluoridation was spearheaded by the PHS, which soon mobilized the nation’s establishment organizations of dentists and physicians.

bernaysThe mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the demonization of fluoridation opponents, was all generated by the public relations man hired to direct the drive. Who was this public relations genius? None other than Edward L. Bernays, who had the dubious honor of being called the “father of public relations.” Bernays was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, known as the father of psychoanalysis.

In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays described how to change public percption. Speaking of the “mechanism which controls the public mind,” which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays explained, “Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country … our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.” And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, “either with or without their conscious cooperation,” will “automatically influence” the members of such groups. In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays related how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that “it is wholesome to eat bacon.” For, Bernays added, he “knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he [the PR man] understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians.” Add “dentists” to the equation, and substitute “fluoride” for “bacon,” and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.

Before the Bernays campaign, fluoride was largely known in the public mind as the chief ingredient of bug and rat poison; after the campaign, it was widely hailed as a safe provider of healthy teeth and gleaming smiles. As a retrospective scientific article pointed out about the fluoridation movement, one of its widely distributed dossiers listed as opponents of fluoridation “in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.”

After the 1950s, it was all mopping up — the fluoridation forces had triumphed, and two-thirds of the nation’s reservoirs were fluoridated. The goal of the federal government remains “universal fluoridation.”

THE DEBILITATING AND DEADLY AFFECTS OF FLUORIDE —

Fluoride is a non-biodegradable substance, which accumulates in teeth and bone, perhaps strengthening childrens teeth, but what about human bones? Two crucial bone problems of fluorides — brittleness and cancer — began to appear in studies, only to be systematically blocked by governmental agencies. As early as 1956, a federal study found nearly twice as many premalignant bone defects in young males in Newburgh as in unfluoridated Kingston; but this finding was quickly dismissed as “spurious.”

Despite the 1956 study, and the fact that carcinogenic evidence began popping up in the 1940s, the federal government never conducted its own animal carcinogenicity test on fluorides. In 1975, a biochemist in conjunction with a retired official of the federal government’s own National Cancer Institute (NCI), presented a paper before the annual meeting of the American Society of Biological Chemists. The paper reported a five to ten percent increase in total cancer rates in those U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water. The findings were disputed, but triggered congressional hearings two years later, where the government revealed to shocked congressmen that it had never tested fluoride for cancer. Congress ordered the NCI to conduct such tests. Incredibly, it took the NCI 12 years to finish its tests, finding “equivocal evidence” that fluoride causes bone cancer in male rats. Under further direction of Congress, the NCI studied cancer trends in the United States, and found nationwide evidence of “a rising rate of bone and joint cancer at all ages,” especially in youth, in counties that had fluoridated their water, but no such rise was seen in “non-fluoridated” counties.

The NCI conducted more detailed studies in parts of Washington state and Iowa, and found that from the 1970s to the 1980s bone cancer for males under 20 had increased by 70 percent in the fluoridated areas of these states, but decreased by four percent in the non-fluoridated areas. Again the NCI concluded that these findings were “spurious.” Dispute over this report caused the federal government to form an allegedly expert, bipartisan commission. Yet, a commission had already been used in 1983, when it found that most of the alleged evidence of fluoride’s safety scarcely existed. The commission had recommended caution on fluoridation, especially for fluoride exposure for children. The commission also strongly recommended that the fluoride content of drinking water be no greater than two parts per million for children up to nine, because of worries about the fluoride effect on children’s skeletons, and potential heart damage.

The chairman of the commission, an official of the National Institute of Health, warned the members that the PHS might “modify” the findings, since “the report deals with sensitive political issues.” One month later when the surgeon general released the official report, the federal government had deleted the commission’s most important conclusions and recommendations without consulting the commission. Instead, the report claimed there was no “scientific documentation” of any problems at fluoride levels below eight parts per million. The commission never received copies of the final, doctored, version of the report.

In the 1990’s, eight different epidemiological studies indicated that fluoridation had increased the rate of bone fractures in males and females of all ages. Since 1957, the bone fracture rate among young males has increased sharply in the U. S., and the U. S. hip fracture rate is now the highest in the world. In fact, a study in the traditionally pro-fluoride Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), August 12, 1992, found that even “low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly.” JAMA concluded that “it is now appropriate to revisit the issue of water fluoridation.” That was more than 20 years ago!

Obviously, it was time for more propaganda. During 1990-91, a new commission was created and chaired by a veteran PHS official who was a longtime advocate of fluoridation. Predictably the commission concluded that “no evidence” was found associating fluoride and cancer. The commission also stated that “further studies are required” on bone fractures. Even though they didn’t have all the information needed to do so, the commission made a conclusion: “The U. S. Public Health Service should continue to support optimal fluoridation of drinking water.”

In 1992, a director of the U. S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, concluded that animals in the government’s study developed cancer, especially bone cancer, from being given fluoride. Then, various scientists for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) turned anti-fluoridation, with a toxicologist warning that fluoride causes not just cancer, but also bone fractures, arthritis, and other diseases. The toxicologist mentioned an unreleased study by the New Jersey Health Department showing the bone cancer rate among young males was six times higher in fluoridated areas than in nonfluoridated areas. This was in a state where only 15 percent of the population was fluoridated.

Other countries have found similar findings in studies they conducted. In the early 1980s, New Zealand’s most prominent fluoride advocate was also the country’s top dental officer. As chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee, the dental officer decided to gather statistics to show doubters the great merits of fluoridation, but instead found that the percentage of children free of dental decay was higher in the non-fluoridated part of New Zealand than in the fluoridated part. The national health department refused to allow him to publish these findings, and kicked him out as dental director. Similarly, a top fluoride advocate in British Columbia concluded that fluoridation is not only dangerous, but that it is not even effective in reducing tooth decay. He was denounced by former colleagues as a propagandist “promoting the quackery of anti-fluoridationists.”

In 2005, a disturbing new study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health was released, that said fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, although there is no evidence of a link for girls. New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma, bone cancer, between the ages of 10 and 19.

The increased cancer risks, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the U. S. and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child’s development and the age of onset of bone cancer. Although osteosarcoma is rare and only accounts for about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs. The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organization. The group reports that it has assembled a “strong body of peer-reviewed evidence” and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the U. S. government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans. “This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,” said the group’s co-founder. “When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumors, you see the increase. We recognize the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,” he added, “but I’ve spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don’t have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.”

Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones, as well as the pineal gland in the brain. More than 90 per cent is absorbed into the bones. A senior lecturer in toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool reviewed the material saying, “At these ages the bones of boys are developing rapidly, “‘so if the bones are being put together abnormally because fluoride is altering the bone structure, they’re more likely to get cancer. It’s biologically plausible, and the epidemiological evidence seems pretty strong – it looks as if there’s a definite effect.”

There is currently no understanding as to why males seem to be affected rather than females.

In 2012, Harvard researchers published an explosive peer-reviewed study in a U. S. government science journal suggesting that children exposed to fluoride suffered dramatic decreases in IQ. “The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas,” according to the study, echoing claims by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that there is substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity associated with the chemical. “The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment.” Particularly at risk, the authors said, were pre-born children, who the researchers noted could suffer permanent harm from the neurotoxic chemical. “Fluoride readily crosses the placenta,” they observed. “Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature.”

This latest study is hardly the first to document the toxic effects of fluoride on the human brain. Even recently, after some two dozen studies documented the problem, scientists and experts spoke out about the dangers of fluoridation.

“In this study we found a significant dose-response relation between fluoride level in serum and children’s IQ,” observed the director of Fluoride Action Network, after a previous study was released showing the same effects. “This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest.”

Numerous other studies, including a 2006 report by the U.S. National Academy of Science, have concluded that fluoride affects brain function and can cause other health problems. Most of the research so far, however, has been conducted abroad — much of it in countries without government fluoridation of public water supplies.

According to the authors of a Harvard School of Public Health study, “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.” The level of fluoride analyzed in most of the studies was less than four milligrams per liter. However, under U. S. EPA rules concerning water fluoridation, municipal governments are allowed to use more than the concentrations cited in the study, meaning American children could be suffering even more serious neurological complications from exposure to fluoride.  Exposure to substances such as fluoride can cause autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other learning disabilities. “Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries,” added the authors.

In a 2014 issue of The Lancet Neurology, the authors of the Harvard study noted that in 2006, they performed a systematic review that identified five industrial chemicals as “developmental neurotoxicants.” Those included lead, methyl mercury, arsenic, toluene, and polychlorinated biphenyls. Since then, they said, epidemiological studies had documented another six neurotoxicants: fluoride, manganese, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers.

According to a co-author of the Harvard study, “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain . . . The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.” There is “strong evidence” that exposure to those chemicals, which are found in a broad array of products, is linked to increases in brain development disorders, the authors said. Currently, one in six children are affected by those disorders.

Leading experts now say fluoride should be classified with other extremely dangerous substances. “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” noted a professor of environmental health at Harvard, and one of the authors of the study. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

Recently The Lancet, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, also classified fluoride as a harmful neurotoxin. “Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries,” explained the authors, citing fluoride as one of about a dozen dangerous “developmental neurotoxicants” that should be addressed.

In 2014, Israel became the latest country to ban the use of fluoride in the water supply. The decision by the Health Ministry was, of course, viewed positively and negatively. Israelis will still have the option of obtaining the chemical if they wish to ingest it — just not in the water supply, where everybody is forced to consume it at levels that may or may not be appropriate for each individual.

A supporter strongly urging the Israeli Health Ministry to take action was a professor emeritus of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto.  “I have looked at this from all angles and I have to conclude that fluoridated cities would save money on fluoridation costs, parents would save on costly dental bills treating dental fluorosis, dental decay rates would remain unchanged or even continue to decline (as has been demonstrated in many modern fluoridation cessation studies) and the health of city residents would improve when industrial waste products are no longer added to the drinking water,” the dentist wrote, referring to the source of most fluoride in public water supplies. “I find it absurd that the fluoride used to fluoridate drinking water is derived from industrial waste without purification, increasing carcinogenic heavy metal levels, such as arsenic and radionuclides, in the drinking water.”

In a British study published in 2015, scientists discovered that fluoride can cause depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles. A study was made of medical records in 98 percent of the general practices in part of England from 2012 – 2013. The scientists learned that hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) was 30 percent more likely to occur in areas that had the greatest fluoridation, because fluoride has been found to inhibit iodine, which is essential for a healthy thyroid that controls many important processes in the body.

Since adding fluoride to water supplies became widespread and generally accepted, it has opened the door to other life-threatening uses for water. The current White House “Science” Czar John Holdren (a CFR) believes that, “Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control,” he explained in his book Ecoscience, which also proposed forced abortions, abortions until the child is three years old, and a planetary regime to control resources. “To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements.” You just can’t make this stuff up!

Communities across the country are taking action to stop the forced mass-medication of the population with fluoridation. In 2013, for example, despite an extremely well-funded campaign to fluoridate public water in Portland, Oregon, voters overwhelmingly rejected the scheme for the fourth time since the 1950s. Since 2009, estimates suggest that over 125 communities across the Unites States have ended the controversial practice.  This is a fight that can be won!

The overwhelming majority of governments around the world have refused to force medicate the population with fluoride. Clearly, the U. S. government has known from the beginning of the fluoride experiments that there are no long-term benefits of fluoride use, but the devastating effects of substantially increased rates of cancer, and dramatically lowering the IQ of the population has a significantly greater impact on minorities compared to whites. Are these the actions a government would take against its own people, or are these the actions an infiltrated government that is trying to reduce the U. S. population and dumb it down so they will be easier to control would take?

Just remember that taxpayers have to pay for the hundreds of thousands of tons of fluorides poured into the nation’s socialized water supply every year. This means that you are paying the government to poison you, and lower your IQ!!

relatednwo

Source Materials:

Jim Marrs, The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy (Harper, 201

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *