(Truthstream Media.com) With renewed interest by activists, scientists and concerned citizens in removing fluoride from municipal water supplies across the country, it is useful to remember that fluoridation has always been controversial.
Even as use of the chemical was being introduced as a “benefit to teeth”, many people of the day were already armed with information to put them on guard and make them outraged at the ill conceived and perhaps nefarious scheme thrust upon the population.
The following is not an exhaustive account of the battle against fluoride, which has affected the long-term health of nearly everyone in the United States and much of the Western world whether they know it or not, but these newspaper clippings hold some interesting clues and fragments that to piece together more or less how this monstrosity came to be in spite of the fact that many people were sharply against it – and with good reason.
Much of the history of water fluoridation has been documented in detailed works including Dr. Paul Connett’s The Case against Fluoride and Christopher Bryson’s The Fluoride Deception.
Remember, water is used for much more than just drinking – it is obviously also used for bathing, cooking, cleaning, gardening, irrigation, swimming and industrial processes such as cooling as well.
It permeates our lives, and fluoride has created an ongoing source of background contamination that is uniquely added to our environment deliberately under false pretenses.
In short, the convenient disposal of fluoride waste by-products from the aluminum, fertilizer and nuclear industries into the general water supply was sold on the rather ridiculous pretext that it was for the “benefit of teeth”, particularly children. This is the crux of how the measure was pushed, but that push came with plenty of controversy.
As you can see from these 1954 letters to the editor in the Oregon Statesman, many people grasped that fluoridation of the water supply amounted to forced medication, which many people dreaded after learning about the dangers of this cumulative poison. Instead, as two of these letters argued, families in favor of fluoride treatments were already free to pick some up at the drug store at a relatively inexpensive price, and leave everyone else’s children out of it:
“If you are in favor of trying out this scheme, by all means do so. That is your privilege. The thing for you to do is to get the stuff at the drugstore and try it out on your own children, or still better, on your own body. There is no law against committing slow suicide if you think that a diluted dose of fluorine won’t hurt you if a stronger one will kill… you have no right to ram anything down the other fellow’s throat against his will. The majority rule should have its limitations, and I for one just don’t like the idea of having to eat or drink out of the ballot-box, if you catch the point,” writes one Hugo Mayerhoefer of Salem, Oregon.
As his letter notes, there was an incident of “mass murder” in an Oregon prison, after an inmate allegedly poisoned the eggs of several hundred prisoners with sodium fluoride, killing 47.
It is shocking that these events have not been part of any modern debate about one of the most dangerous public health decisions that have been thrust upon the people in the last century.
Fluoridated Water is NOT for Teeth, Because Most Water is Not for Drinking
Yet, there were even advocates for fluoridating the milk supply (in addition to the water supply) after a tacit admission that adding fluoride to water is highly ineffective.
Why? Most of it misses it’s target (as Melissa Melton has already poignantly made clear in her earlier video):
“There are definite disadvantages in fluoridating the water supply. Only about one quart in 500 is used for drinking so it can directly affect dental health. And children, who need fluorides most, drink only one quart in 2,500 of the supply.”
Scientists Warn About Dangers of Fluoride
The City of Austin abandoned plans to fluoride the water in 1951 (before it later approved fluoride by ballot initiative in 1971) based on the warnings of two biochemists from the University of Texas. Dr. Alfred Taylor, from the University of Texas Biochemical Institute
“Dr. Alfred Taylor of the University of Texas Biochemical Institute warned cities to hold up use of the chemical until research on possible adverse effects in completed.”
Taylor said that the preliminary results showed reason for concern about adverse effects, the Associated Press reported in the Pampa Daily News, July 19, 1951.
“We are studying the question not only from the possible relation to cancer, but also other physiological effects,” Dr. Alfred Taylor said.
His warning were rebuffed state health officials who said there was “no grounds for fear,” calling “use of the chemical ‘ the greatest measure in dental health history’ – familiar and regurgitated propaganda indeed.
As later studies have revealed in crystal clear vision, the public was deceived about fluoride. Proper safety studies were not conducted, warning signs were deliberately swept under the rug, and the evidence of the impact of cumulative toxins was buried in the general mind.
In the May 27, 1969 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette, Elizabeth Elkund told of how she wrote to the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) and received back a multitude of information, but none of it even touched upon the observable effects of sodium fluoride on other parts of the body — because NO studies had been done on anything other than teeth.
Elkund noted that most people were arguing that fluoride is already naturally in the water anyway, but what they didn’t realize is that is calcium fluoride — not the same thing as artificial sodium fluoride which actually robs the body of calcium.
She also said that the issue isn’t drinking it once or twice but the cumulative toxicity that builds up over time as the kidneys cannot expel the excess fluoride, building up to dangerous proportions and aggravating chronic illnesses.
Perhaps the most shocking thing she revealed from the studies received from HEW was the fact that in one major study they admittedly pooled the urine samples — mixed them all together! So there would effectively be no way to draw any meaningful conclusions from it, and yet the government reported it as fact.
“If a private doctor engaged in such a practice with his patients, many of his patients would probably end up six feet underground. Imagine what could happen if tests on persons with diabetes were made in this manner,” she wrote.