- Hesh Goldstein
Under a bandaid is always a sore. Could government, universities, public health officials and professionals be festering under the fluoridation bandaid as well? The Fraud and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers For Deceit Control and Procrastination (CDC) always espouse the benefits of ingesting fluoride. At this point we all know that when these agencies support something that Big Business is involved in, it`s always about insuring the money trail is not being broken. But is there hypocrisy on the part of the CDC?
Reference the CDC`s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of August 17, 2001/Volume 50/No. RR-14 on "Recommendations for using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States". On Page 4, fourth paragraph, it says: "The laboratory and epidemiological research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride`s predominant effect is post eruptive and topical...". Just so we are clear, what they are saying is that fluoride is effective when the tooth comes into the mouth and on the surface of the tooth. It says nothing, anywhere, about ingestion. Also, bear in mind, it is not the job of the FDA or the CDC to do toxicology testing. In fact, the only independent toxicology testing done was by the National Research Council in 2007. They found that over 1.2 ppm was toxic. The NRC also found that fluoride interfered with kidney function. As a result, the National Kidney Foundation withdrew their support of fluoridation. Reality: people are getting 8 ppm daily by eating and drinking what has been produced from fluoridated areas.
At Harvard Univ. several years ago, a doctoral student, Elise Bassin, reported in her thesis that there was a correlation between fluoride and bone cancer in adolescent boys. When her thesis was released by Dr. Chester Douglass, the head of the Harvard Dental School, that correlation was omitted. This was discovered by Ms. Bassin a year after her thesis was released and she blew the whistle. So, Harvard investigated the actions of Dr. Douglass. While that investigation was going on Dr. Douglass donated $1 million to Harvard. He was found innocent of any wrong doing. Oh yeah, Douglass is on the payroll of Colgate/Palmolive also.
In the year 2000, on "The Talk Of The Town" radio show in Hawaii, the Hawaii Dept of Health Dental Chief, Dr. Mark Greer, said that the toxicology reports proved fluoride to be safe and effective. How is it possible that Dr. Greer referred to a toxicology report that never existed? In a fluoride hearing at the Hawaii State Capitol a couple of years later, a statement was made during testimony that Dr. Greer should have been President of the Liar`s Club. That statement should have opened a defamation of character lawsuit. It did not. Why? Because Dr. Greer would have been forced to present the toxicology report that never existed.
Why are dentists so in favor of fluoridation? One, they are brainwashed into believing this throughout Dental school, and two, they will not accept the low payment by Medicare and Medicaid for treating the "financially impaired". Ignorantly advocating fluoridation relieves their guilt.
So, a toxic waste generates corporate income. Yet, if this waste was dumped into the natural waters, it would be in violation of the Clean Water Act. But, if it passes through our bodies first, it`s ok.
Ya gotta love corruption!