The propaganda for poisoning Wichitans and the world is increasing.
This week we received another mailing from the group that deceptively calls itself “wichitans for healthy teeth.”
On the front of their post card they say: “Toothpaste isn’t enough.”
Rather, they should say, “Toothpaste is already too much!”
Why do they not tell the truth concerning what Fluoride really does to our teeth? Why do they not tell what it does to our nervous system, liver, reproductive organs, and cells?
Here is the back side of their post card:
What exactly is new about kids who eat sugar and drink carbonated high fructose corn syrup and are bombarded with sugar and acidic substances developing cavities? Moreover, why do they lie about the effectiveness of fluoride in drinking water? Furthermore, why do they not tell how fluoride leaches calcium and makes teeth brittle?
Who are these people, anyway?
Why are they so determined to persuade communities to buy poison to spread throughout the entire community through the drinking water supply?
Why do they completely ignore, deliberately ignore what is demonstrated in this illustration?
With all of these communities becoming aware of the hazardous nature of fluoride in the drinking water so that they are rejecting fluoridization, why is this group trying to coerce us and other communities to poison ourselves?
Who are these people, anyway?
Who are they REALLY?
Who is behind this push to add horrifically toxic substances to our water supply?
Moreover, why do they not address the causes of tooth decay? Why do they not address the acids in colas and other carbonated drinks? Why do they not address the sugars of various kinds that promote not only tooth decay but also other health problems?
Why are they investing so much money into this agenda? Moreover, where do they get this money?
Should not these questions raise a few eyebrows and neck hairs?
Rather than accepting this propaganda unchallenged, check out these sites:
Fluoride Free Kansas
and
Fluoride Action Network..
See what honest people and genuine researchers are exposing regarding fluoride.
If you are interested, I have posted on this previously at
Fluoride for Us?
Fluoride & Arthritis
- - - - - - - - - -
Additionally you may want to consider this personal experience.
- - - - - - - - - -
A few years ago I was experiencing crumbling of my teeth. Every few months I would have an alarming experience as I ate my supper. While chewing my food I would experience a sensation that felt like biting into a small piece of chalk. What felt like chalk was actually a piece of tooth that had crumbled.
When I learned that fluoride causes the teeth to become brittle, I stopped using fluoride. I stopped rinsing. I stopped using toothpaste. I began brushing with just water or with a generic version of Listerine.
Shortly thereafter the hygienists and dentists began telling me how strong my teeth were and how heathy my gums were. When I told them my new practice, they chastised me.
Recently, one hygienist responded, “Oh, no! Don’t do that?”
I asked, “Why not? You just told me that it is working!”
She could not give an answer but responded, “Well, you’re not using baking soda, are you?”
When I asked why not, she responded, “Because it is too abrasive.”
I then asked, “Do you mean to tell me that baking soda, which dissolves in water, is more abrasive than diatomaceous earth?”
She asked, “What’s that?”
I informed her, “It’s what is added to toothpaste as the abrasive for cleaning teeth. It is the exoskeletons of diatoms, which pile up as diatomaceous earth that is collected and used in toothpaste as an abrasive. Today it is usually labeled as hydrated silica.”
“Oh,” she exclaimed, “well, you still shouldn’t use baking soda.”
Since she was becoming agitated already, I decided not to challenge her by asking her about the polishing compound that she had just used on my teeth with her high speed polisher. I wanted to remind her what that compound is, namely, pumice!
People really would do well to begin questioning the wisdom and validity of the advice being given by the ADA trained automatons. They promote the use of highly toxic substances without concern for the dangers and without even knowing what they are or do. They urge these things for young children, who are affected in their developmental years with consequences that will affect them throughout their lives.
Now they are wanting to put these into the water supply as well, so that not only a few minutes of exposure to absorption occur, but 24 hour saturation occurs through ingestion of a toxin that even the toothpaste labels warn not to allow in the small quantities in toothpaste.
6 comments:
I'm actually pleased to find your post about this matter. I'm from Europe but I work and live in San Jose, CA. I found this had remained the largest city in US that still had no fluoridated water -after recently Portland, OR voted NO!- but I also have found the 'district recently approved fluoridation of the water' according to the water company webpage.
As a father of a 15 month old I recently started to become increasingly concerned about this subject, especially when her pediatrician prescribed vitamin + fluor supplements. Our pediatrician also suggested we should introduce her to brushing to prevent cavities from breast feeding, etc.
First thing that struck me was they would prescribe fluor drops for baby, and when I went to the local store to get her a small brush I found they sell fluoride-free toothpaste for children. I asked why and found about the new FDA warning for tooth paste "Keep out of the reach of children under 6 years of age" as swallowing it in excess could pose a poisoning risk. I guessed this would relate to the amounts ingested but even if we were talking about the same substance and use I was finding this contradictory to say the least, so I went back home and tried to inform myself to get some insight about it.
Obviously this led me to the vast information available out there about fluorides, water fluoridation and to discussions like the ones being held here.
I tried to go through some studies, even being an engineer with unrelated degrees, I found too much information out there, mostly contradictory, and ended up confused. Again, and *only* using common sense, I came up with the following questions I made myself:
First, and most important, I found Fluoride described in some places as a cumulative (to our body) chemical in large amounts would be toxic and poisonous. [In fact the FDA warning on toothpaste talks about "poisoning"]. With that in mind, I asked myself can they consider it safe to provide it on the water supply? or to give it to a baby in form of drops?
The answer: I found multitude of pro-fluoridation support studies and also detractors. It still shocks me both come from (supposedly) reputable people in the field (researchers, doctors..) > well, then, common sense is telling me that either money/political factors must have a strong role in that -as it is usually the case in the history of human kind. This is a similar debate to the one on the GMO foods, which I find many opinions supporting without considering both economic factors and common sense.
Being European I know for fact that typically European laws and regulations are further more restrictive than their equivalent in the US, specifically in what related to food matters. I believe that gives me other perspective to look at what is being done in other countries in EU vs. what is being done in the US regarding water fluoridation, to avoid the 'majority/minority' statements being discussed here by others -in fact, when it comes to food, I guess we all agree that sadly, the food habits of the 'majority' of (North) America are not the most healthy and I believe we all will agree about we should strive to change this for the better by educating people to a healthier eating habits as well.
I was shocked again, to find a number of advanced countries in Europe have stopped water fluoridation or even banned fluoride based products at all.
(continued...) Also another thing that I found very interesting is that how the matter is looked at in English speaking countries vs. others that are not.
I read an interesting paper from John Colquhoun, a governement official in charge of Dental health at Auckland, largest city in New Zealand ("Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation") where he states how he went from a fluoride pro-activist to a detractor, based on findings and observations he made during his career.
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.com
I would urge ALL of us to read it, since it comes from a person that had views on BOTH SIDES. I'm not sure whether that may change anybody's mind.
In my case, and again just using one of the few elements of judgment that I have, which is common sense, and not knowing how will it be in the next 50-100 years, I would prefer authorities not to enforce on me fluoride through our water supplies, and let us all deal with it at individual level. I don't understand not I can't accept objections based on low income households not being able, since they will have to spend millions of $ to adequate the existing San Jose, California water facilities to provide fluoride, which could be spent in a more rational way favoring those in the need for dental treatments.
Again, and just using common sense, to pour fluoride in the water supply and not being able to properly control its concentration in an accurate way (as it won't be, rest assured, I have seen that for may years a decade ago while living in Ireland, where they had continuous issues with the water supply having large amounts of it while I was not being aware about this issue at the time) seems like a very coarse measure to just control dental issues, It actually seems to me a bit like 'trying to kill fleas with cannon balls" as we say back at home, Don't you think?
Dear Friend,
The link that you supplied should be:
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm
I do agree that using a neurotoxin to combat tooth decay is absurd. It is indeed like trying to kill fleas still on the dog using cannon balls, as the fleas will survive but the dog will be severely injured or killed.
My undergraduate degree is Animal Science/Pre-veterinary medicine. I was blessed to have been exposed to much of the false science of the ADA and AMA many years ago, as well as the many false practices and applications in the agriculture industry.
"Industry" really is the code word that unveils the real problem in the so-called health industry. It is not founded upon concern for health, but upon business. The promotion of the use and ingestion of fluoride is very GOOD for the health industry. It creates many opportunities for business and profit.
I am very glad to hear that you are trying to protect your daughter against these abuses.
Any pediatrician prescribing poison to be fed to a baby should be avoided. Actually, should be prosecuted.
Sadly, even though doctors have to study organic chemistry and biochemistry, etc., very few actually ever apply what they have learned to their actual practices. If they did, no truly caring doctor/dentist would even consider fluoride or the many other toxic substances that they prescribe and encourage people to use. Certainly they would investigate these things thoroughly themselves, using common sense, as you suggested.
But that takes time and effort and cuts into the income that they can make by simply following the AMA and ADA and FDA business model.
So, keep studying and learning all that you can, and apply to your family's health practice the good sense God has given to you.
Here is a video of interest on this subject:
"Dr. Russell Blaylock: Fluoride and Mercury"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPF3dwmWPj8
Post a Comment