FLUORIDE INDUSTRY BUSTED!

[Guest guest]

FLUORIDE INDUSTRY BUSTED!

 

http://blog.healthliesexposed.com/?postid=5

Industry and Government Collusion Turn Consumers Into Toxic Waste

Dumps

 

CRUSADOR investigative reporter Pam Killeen interviews Paul Connett,

PhD., a specialist in Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, and

Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New

York.

 

 

Dr. Paul Connett is relentless in his mission to stop the use of

fluoride. He is concerned that consumers are simply not doing enough

to stop cities from adding fluoride to municipal water supplies.

Those who question the safety and efficacy of fluoride have done

things such as filtered their water or switched to un-fluoridated

toothpaste. But, is this truly enough? Those who are informed about

the dangers of fluoride may be protected, but what about the

uninformed?

 

Many elite scientists, such as Dr. Connett, have voiced their

legitimate concerns about fluoride. It seems, however, that their

voices go unheard by groups like the Center for Disease Control

(CDC) or the American Dental Association (ADA). With so many

scientists questioning the safety of fluoride, what has happened to

the Precautionary Principle, " if in doubt, leave it out? " According

to Dr. Connett, even the CDC won't debate him on this issue and yet

they are supposed to be protecting us. The collusion between

science, government and industry is most apparent when examining the

fluoride industry. As you read Dr. Connett's comments and study his

website www.fluoridealert.org, you will be amazed to learn about the

empty science that has been used to justify the use of fluoride in

society. The fluoride industry is just another example of how

industry has turned consumers into human waste disposals. Be sure to

read this gripping interview to find out what you can do to help

stop the fluoridation of city water.

 

Pam: There are several environmental issues on the table right now.

Why did you become interested in fluoride?

 

Dr. Connett: I began studying the subject of fluoridated water about

9 years ago. When I learned how toxic the substance was, I realized

that people needed to be educated about the risks of fluoridation.

One of the facts I found most striking was how low the level of

fluoride was in mother's milk – it averages about 0.008 ppm. When

you add fluoride to drinking water at 1ppm you are giving bottle fed

babies over100 times the levels nature intended. This is a risky

business and you are asking for trouble. In 1950, when they began

fluoridating water, not one single trial had been completed which

proved the safety or effectiveness of fluoride. It was not

scientific in 1950 and it's not scientific today. They tell people

that it's safe and effective when they can't even back up their

claims. They cannot even defend it in a rational debate even when

they are challenged to do so by the US EPA. They're putting a known

toxin into our drinking water. It's absolutely pathetic that the CDC

(Center for Disease Control) is promoting and propagandizing

fluoridation. The CDC pushed out a report in 1999 claiming that

fluoridation was one of the top 10 public health achievements of the

20th century. All of the countries that support fluoridation also

tout this claim (Canada, US, NZ, England, Ireland, Australia). They

all quote this bloody CDC report! When you really look at it, it's

based upon junk science (see www.fluorideACTION.net/CDC.htm ).

Absolute junk! As far as the health issues are concerned, they were

years out of date. The report that came out in 1999 only cited one

reference that showed fluoride was safe and this was a study that

came out in 1993. Six years out of date. I can't believe it.

Taxpayers' money went into this fraud! One would think that the CDC

should be on top of good science. After all, they're supposed to be

working in our best interests…right?!

 

Pam: As a Professor of Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, can

you tell us about the dangers of fluoride?

 

Dr. Connett: This toxic substance has a very small, if any, margin

of safety. In a public water system, you can't control the dose

because you can't control how much water people drink or the

fluoride they get from other sources. Also, the fluoride that they

put in the water is not pharmaceutical grade fluoride, which is what

is used for testing purposes. What they put in the water supply is

an industrial waste product. It comes from the wet scrubbers of the

phosphate fertilizer industry. In other words, they're capturing air

pollution (hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrachloride) which, for

about a hundred years, decimated local vegetation and farm animals.

By international law, this captured liquid (hexafluorosilicic acid)

cannot be dumped into the sea but they are allowed to put it into

tanker trucks, send it all over the country, and dump it into our

drinking water! It's sheer madness. But the phosphate fertilizer

industry saves at least $100 million a year doing it. Money talks,

but I believe the biggest obstacle to halting this archaic practice

right now is the huge loss of credibility that the US Public Health

Service will sustain when the public realizes that they've been

lying through their teeth for several years.

 

Pam: In order to find the root of the problem, it's important

to " follow the money " . Have you examined who else is behind this

fluoride issue?

 

Dr. Connett: Chris Bryson, a former BBC correspondent, who wrote the

book, The Fluoride Deception, which took him 10 years to write,

contains over 100 pages of documentation. The book explains that

fluoridation was an industrial ploy to detoxify the image of

fluoride. They were facing massive lawsuits from local farmers and

workers. Farmers were worried about fluoride pollution damaging

their land and industry was worried about potential lawsuits from

workers exposed to fluoride in the workplace. Instead of saying that

fluoride was toxic, they created a campaign saying that fluoride was

good for you. This pulled the rug from under any potential lawsuit.

How can you say that fluoride is damaging peoples' health when the

US government is putting it into the drinking water? That's one well-

supported thesis. Incredibly, Bryson was able to show active

collusion between people from the US Public Health Service and the

Fluorine Lawyers Association, which were there to protect industry

from fluoride lawsuits. Why? It's ridiculous.

 

Pam: What other groups are supporting fluoridation?

 

Dr. Connett: A great deal of money goes into dental research based

upon fluoridation. As long as we have fluoridation, millions of

dollars are being put into dental research (fluorosis, tooth decay,

etc....). As long as dental researchers support the notion that

fluoride is good for teeth, the money will keep rolling in. If they

change their minds, their money supply will run out.

 

Pam: Is fluoride truly effective in the reduction of tooth decay?

 

Dr. Connett: As far as effectiveness is concerned, the CDC produced

a pathetic graph in their 1999 report, that if an undergraduate had

done for me, I would have failed them. This graph has a line showing

tooth decay declining for 12 year olds in the US from the 60's to

the 90's. On the same graph, they have the percentage of the

population in the US drinking fluoridated water -- that line is

shown going up. The notion was that tooth decay has been decreasing

while the percentage of people drinking fluoridated water has been

increasing. If they had spent 10 minutes researching the WHO (World

Health Organization) website, they would have discovered that tooth

decay for 12 year olds has been declining in practically every

industrialized country around the world. We have presented this

graphically at http://www.fluorideACTION.net/who-dmft.htm In these

graphs 14 of these countries are not fluoridated; four of them are.

The data shows that tooth decay is on the decline in every

industrialized country and it has nothing to do with fluoridation.

There are 2 conclusions you can derive from this CDC report: either

it's total incompetence or they totally misled the public, hoping

that people wouldn't spend the time to check their material.

 

Pam: Statistical manipulation seems to be quite prevalent amongst

the industry-sponsored data today.

 

Dr. Connett: You know, Pam, it's common sense – you don't have to

lie about anything that is good. It's very discouraging to see the

propaganda that is being used by companies like Monsanto who have

manipulated the data around PCB's, dioxins, aspartame and now

genetic engineering. Corporations shouldn't have to behave that way.

Universities and corporations don't have to fire scientists because

they don't find the results that they are looking for to push

certain products. Universities, government agencies and corporations

shouldn't have to avoid debates. If what they are promoting to the

public is good, they should be completely open and honest about it.

 

Pam: Can you tell us your thoughts about the conflicts of interest

which occur at the university level? Is there too much corporate

money going into the universities? Should this be stopped?

 

Dr. Connett: One of the worst offenders on that is Harvard. With the

Harvard name on the top of your paper you can literally get away

with murder. Not all, but a number of prestigious scientists at

Harvard have whitewashed toxics for industry. There is a lot of

evidence that shows that when industry funds studies, the results go

in one way and when it's not industry funded the results go in a

different way. There is a very clear relationship between who's

funding the study and the outcome you get. A recent Harvard study

was released showing that if young boys (between the ages of 6-8)

are exposed to fluoride in their drinking water, they have a

significant increased chance of developing osteosarcoma, a

frequently fatal bone cancer. Elise Bassin received her PhD for

doing this very important study. Her advisor, Harvard Professor

Chester Douglass has attempted to cover-up her work. Just one year

after he had signed her thesis he told an audience in England that

there was no such relationship. It is a complete coincidence of

course that he happens to be the editor for Colgate's " Oral Health

Report " ! Even though the research was done in 2001, the public has

only just learned about it. For those who believe that fluoride is

beneficial, I would like to ask them this: " How many teeth would you

have to save to justify even one child dying from bone cancer, or

lowering their IQ, or causing hip fractures in the elderly? "

 

Pam: Based upon Dr. Bassin's research, I understand that there's

been some progress to stop fluoridation. Eleven EPA employee unions

representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals

of the Civil Service have called for a moratorium on drinking water

fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA

management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing

cancer in people.

 

Dr. Connett: Yes, this has received major newspaper coverage around

the country and we are asking people to sign an Online petition in

support of their dramatic initiative. We desperately need the

promoters of this practice to testify and be cross-examined by

Congress under oath. Every signature on this petition takes us a

little closer to achieving that important goal. If your readers want

to help, they can go and sign on and write a little comment of their

own at: http://www.powalliance.org/petition

 

Pam: What should the public do to help bring integrity back to the

scientific community?

 

Dr. Connett: The most important thing we can instill in our students

is to tell the truth. This is far more important than simply

learning the periodic table! If you're a scientist, and you don't

tell the truth, you're no longer a scientist. If a scientist

deliberately lies, by manipulating the data, he should be required

to give up his degree. If a student gets a PhD, he should know that

the degree is only valid as long as he tells the truth. There's no

science without truth. It's something else (public relations,

propaganda, politics, etc…). These lies are very dangerous for

public health policy. If public health policy is not supported by

honest science, then we're in deep, deep trouble. Not only because

we're not getting the right public policy, but because there will be

a complete lack of trust when people find out the truth. We need to

trust these agencies (CDC, NIH, etc...). If the CDC tells us we need

to worry about something, we may completely ignore them because

we've become so immune to their lies. If they lie about

fluoridation, then they're probably lying about other things. We

need to cut the cancer of dishonest science out of public health

policy.

 

Pam: The issue of fluoridation has become so controversial. It seems

there's no room for debate.

 

Dr. Connett: Even in academic circles scientists don't seem to like

controversy. They are not used to challenging authority. This is

sad. If we can't handle controversy in the US, then there's no

democracy. Democracy is about handling controversy. They shouldn't

accept the brainwashing of one side, because it's the status quo.

They need to examine both sides with an open mind. That's what

education is supposed to be all about. We're not doing this. It is

almost as if we have gone back to a time before Galileo and the US

Surgeon General has become a new Pope!

 

Pam: Where else do you find this type of corruption and collusion?

 

Dr. Connett: Consumers need to also be aware that the EPA is

allowing Dow to use sulfuryl fluoride as a fumigant on foodstuffs.

That's going to jack up fluoride levels in our food. The proposed

limit of fluoride on powdered eggs is 900 ppm. This is sheer lunacy.

On a tube of toothpaste (1000 ppm) you re told if a kid swallows

more than a pea size amount that they should be taken to a poison

center.

 

Pam: How many pea-sized portions of powdered egg go into an omelette

or a cake?

 

Dr. Connett: Another example is the sugar industry. The year before

the US endorsed fluoridation (1950), the sugar industry said that

they needed to find a way to reduce tooth decay without reducing

sugar consumption. Fluoride was a magic bullet for the sugar

industry. The biggest health effect of fluoridation is that it gives

the " green light " to parents for their kids to eat as much sugar as

they want. They use fluoride to mask the problems surrounding sugar.

Now, of course, we also see an epidemic with obesity. This obesity

may well be a consequence of fluoride's ability to lower the

activity of the thyroid gland.

 

Pam: We are being bombarded with distractions so that the truth is

hidden. Dr. Weston A. Price traveled around the world in the 1920's

in order to discover the ideal diet. As a dentist, he began to see

the deterioration in teeth after North Americans began consuming

more sugar or processed foods. In primitive cultures where people

didn't have access to sugar or processed foods, they had beautiful

teeth and dental structure and enjoyed excellent health. He

discovered that crooked teeth, overbites, underbites, cavities

really only become a problem in cultures that consumed sugar or

processed foods.

 

Dr. Connett: Dr. Price discovered the nutritional truth surrounding

the real cause of tooth decay and disease. Fluoride has distracted

people from the truth – that they should rely on dietary changes to

improve their teeth.

 

Pam: You've made it your mission to stop fluoridation

internationally. I commend you for your hard work.

 

Dr. Connett: I'd stake my whole scientific reputation on being right

on the fluoride issue – that it's neither effective nor safe. It's a

silly, dangerous policy. It's frustrating not being able to have a

healthy, rational discourse, exchange arguments in public so that

people can hear both sides. Denying this debate is ridiculous. I

have forgotten who said, " A beautiful theory can be destroyed by an

ugly fact " but in the case of fluoridation, there are too many ugly

facts. Accepting the doctrine of fluoridation is like religious

fanaticism.

 

Pam: This same type of fanaticism has not only brought us fluoride,

but mercury, GMO's, etc…It seems that some scientists are desperate

to hold on to their findings. It reminds me of the saying " publish

or perish " . We all need to ask more questions about the credibility

and the motives of a lot of the research being released.

 

Dr. Connett: There is a big difference between being clever and

being wise. We reward cleverness -and that's what fluoride is - it's

clever but it's not wise. The same can be said for genetic

engineering - it's clever but it's not wise.

 

Pam: So it's really up to grassroots movements to help bring this

information forward. It's going to take a concerted effort from

enthusiastic and concerned scientists and activists to help turn

this situation around.

 

Dr. Connett: We've got to simplify these issues so that the public

better understands them. We also must stress the importance about

being honest. People can no longer be blasé about dishonesty and

lying in science or government. There are so many awful things

happening now I think that things are losing their shock value. It

seems as though people are getting used to the lies. Civil servants

are supposed to be giving the most accurate, honest information to

the decision-makers. We expect the civil servants to be working in

the public's best interest, but they're not. They're spinning as

much as the politicians. That's very clear in the case of

fluoridation and the CDC.

 

Pam: I hope that one day you'll be able to have a healthy debate

with the CDC on this subject. Thank you for all of your hard work.

Any last comments?

 

Dr. Connett: We simply can't avoid the problem by thinking we can

filter out fluoride. Some filtration systems, such as reverse

osmosis, will help remove fluoride, but people who live in poverty

cannot afford bottled water or filters. People who live in poverty

are at risk and need protection. Before I die, I want to see

fluoride removed from our water so that we can all be protected from

its damaging effects. Meanwhile, my dearest hope is that we can

force the proponents to testify under oath and be cross-examined at

a Congressional hearing but that's going to take a lot of pressure

on Congress and a lot of names on the Online petition.

 

Please be sure to support Dr. Connett, by signing this very

important Online petition:

http://www.powalliance.org/petition

 

Pam Killeen can be reached at Pam. You can view Pam's

website at www.PamKilleen.com