It's The Water, Stupid
It's The Water, Stupid
You and your friends and family need to start going independent on water
Warning: This article is too long to fully display in an email and will be cut-off at the bottom. Click here to view it in-browser.
If you’ve ever been perplexed by the mind boggling levels of stupidity the public display, look no further than the water. In 1992, 62% of all US water had fluoride in it, and by 2006, 69% did:
Often, advocates for poisoning the water will parrot the lie it’s for the ‘health’ of teeth, this is despite the fact a study even as early as 1987 in Nature had shown the reduction in tooth decay also occurs in unfluoridated areas, meaning it couldn’t be attributed to fluoridation:
Large temporal [time-associated] reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.
An excess of ‘consumed’ fluoride causes Fluorosis, where teeth ironically become stained and damaged, harming teeth, damaging bones and causing kidney damage. Quoting “Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition (Second Edition)”:
Fluorosis is a disease that is characterized by ‘mottled teeth,’ and high intakes of fluoride are probably related to the appearance of kidney problems, leading to decalcification of the bones due to the flouride-sequestering quantities of Ca2+ that are essential for the correct development of the bones.
Essentially, fluoride ‘yoinks’ Calcium ions (Ca2+), which leads to the weakening of the superstructure of bones which depend upon Calcium. It is utter insanity to suggest this system in any way “helps” teeth. In “Pathobiology of Human Disease”, it remarks that high fluoride leads to:
[…] enamel with lower mineral content and increased porosity. […]
In teeth, which would mean weaker, less structurally sound teeth, and thus worse health in teeth.
Fluoride is so toxic, that in order to avoid lawsuits, companies will often fine print a warning label on the back of fluoridated toothpaste, telling people to both minimise swallowing and/or to contact a medical professional if they consume more:
Fullfact.org takes a rather smug view and remarks how if you give your child a litre of water, it is akin to 4 to 6 pea sized swallowings (which just shows how toxic the water is):
So in the UK you would need to brush your teeth four to six times a day (with a pea-sized amount, and swallow all that toothpaste) to consume the same amount of fluoride as in a litre of tap water (if it was fluoridated to the maximum amount.)
Why minimise swallowing if it is safe? Why have the warning labels on toothpaste but then force children to drink it in their water anyway? Even articles by dentists note fluoride application is topical (translation: put directly on the teeth, not swallowed).
The toxicity is also self-evident: if you try to keep undiluted toothpaste in your mouth, you will find the toothpaste starts to chemically ‘burn’ your mouth as it is caustic. That’s the Sodium Fluoride in your toothpaste burning your mouth.
Imagine trying to swallow that toxic mix and allowing it to sit in your stomach and bowels - and yet they want you to drink it everyday in your water in greater quantities.
Fluoride Leads To Retardation
This is meant in the professional context (“the fact of making the development or progress of something slower”). It has been well documented that fluoride inhibits the mental development of children.
In the study “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico”, it came to the conclusion that early pre-exposure to unborn children (‘prenatal’) resulted in cognitive decline by the ages of 4, and 6-12:
[…] higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 y
In a study based in China, called “Fluoride exposure and intelligence in school-age children: evidence from different windows of exposure susceptibility”, which infers in their conclusion, the earlier the exposure to fluoride, the more brain damage it does:
[…] Prenatal and childhood excessive fluoride exposures may impair the intelligence development of school children. Furthermore, children with prenatal fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than children who were not prenatally exposed […]
Another meta-study review, “Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review”, remarks in their results across 14 studies, likewise show mental, cognitive deficits in children who consumed more fluoride:
Fourteen recent cross-sectional studies from endemic areas with naturally high fluoride concentrations in groundwater supported the previous findings of cognitive deficits in children with elevated fluoride exposures.
A Harvard study reached a similar conclusion, where they remarked in a meta-study that all studies bar one shows a correlation between high fluoride and cognitive damage:
[…] all but one study suggested that high fluoride content in water may negatively affect cognitive development. […]
Which is extremely damning, but Harvard even goes on to quantify the level of damage to intelligence in the form of IQ points (which The Daily Beagle doesn’t consider an accurate metric on intellect but we’re reporting it anyway):
The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.*
7 IQ points, depending on where the subtraction fell, could be anywhere from below average intelligence (100 IQ - 7 IQ = 93 IQ, or below average), to shaving off the mental acuity advantage of a genius (115 IQ - 7 IQ = 108 IQ, or just slightly above average).
A deviation of 15 points means it could even go so far as removing 15 IQ points off a person. A genius intellect would become average. An average intellect would have developmental disabilities.
The Harvard study’s remarks don’t stop there, they continue, remarking even a slight exposure is likely toxic to the brain:
Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain.
Arriving at the fatal conclusion that high fluoride area children have lower IQ scores than low fluoride areas:
Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas.
If this wasn’t bad enough, the EPA lists Sodium Fluoride as a pesticide. In the 1995 study “Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats”, it echoes similarly to the pre-birth (‘prenatal’) harms for rats, quoting part of the discussion (paragraph normalised):
[…] the most obvious hypothesis is that the effects relied on transient peaks in maternal plasma fluoride levels, fluoride passing the placenta, and fluoride penetrating the blood-brain barrier of the fetus. Fluoride has been reported to pass the placenta in rats (45), and on GD 17-19 the blood-brain barrier is immature and readily penetrable (52).
Plenty of evidence that it causes harms, then.
Misleading Counter-Arguments
There are often misleading counter-arguments, one where pro-fluoridation proponents are forced to censor opposing critique under the flimsy guise of ‘unreliable sources’ whilst ironically being an unreliable source themselves:
Likewise, the NHS inaccurately and misleadingly describes “Fluoride” as “a naturally occurring mineral”, however this misleadingly conflates different types of fluoride. In terms of analogy, it would be like saying ‘naturally occurring metals’ without specifying which type of metals.
As the CDC itself is forced to admit:
Fluorides are properly defined as binary compounds or salts of fluorine and another element. […]
That means, for the NHS (and others) statement to be accurate, it needs to specify which type of binary compound it is paired with, when referring to the term ‘fluoride’ for their statements to be accurate.
As the “Encyclopedia of the Alkaline Earth Compounds” notes, naturally occurring fluoride is known as “calcium fluoride” (CaF2), or “Fluorite”. It is found in Fluorspar, and is what Telfon’s fluorine coating is made from.
Calcium fluoride was discovered naturally occurring in the water of Bauxite, Arkansas’s warm spring (the warm spring is relevant to the volcanoes part later).
The finding was by chemist Harry Van Churchill (shortened: H. V. Churchill) in the study “THE OCCURRENCE OF FLUORIDES IN SOME WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES” written in September 1931, in which he comments:
[…] Only those salts which contain both calcium and fluoride show the characteristic band indicated by the limiting lines in the cases of the spectra of calcium fluoride and that of a mixture of calcium oxide and aluminum fluoride […]
Essentially acknowledging the only naturally occurring “fluoride” in water is calcium fluoride.
This isn’t what is put intentionally into toothpaste or drinking water however. Referring to the CDC’s statement again, only sodium fluoride readily dissolves in water:
[…] Sodium fluoride readily dissolves in water, but calcium fluoride does not. […]
This means calcium fluoride - the naturally occurring fluoride - does not appear in the water in any meaningful quantities, except when heated, such as volcanoes you can’t drink from, which undoes the argument of ‘naturally occurring fluoride in the water’.
Quoting the CDC itself again, they remark, besides Sodium Fluoride:
[…] Other fluoride compounds that are commonly used for water fluoridation are fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate […]
Neither of which are naturally occurring calcium fluoride.
In terms of fluorosilicic acid, as the CDC itself is forced to admit on another page, the fluorosilicic acid is synthetically (artificially) produced, with emphasis added on the artificial process (notice it involves heating, again):
Most fluoride additives used in the United States are produced from phosphorite rock. Phosphorite contains calcium phosphate mixed with limestone (calcium carbonates) minerals and apatite—a mineral with high phosphate and fluoride content. It is refluxed (heated) with sulfuric acid to produce a phosphoric acid-gypsum (calcium sulfate-CaSO4) slurry. The phosphoric and fluoride gases that are released in the process are then separated. The fluoride gas is captured and used to create fluorosilicic acid.
Notice the wording? “Refluxed”, “heated”, “separated”, “captured”, “create”. Even the form the fluoride is released in, is a gas rather than in a liquid, and has to be turned into an acid liquid. These aren’t natural processes. It is entirely synthetic.
Sodium fluorosilicate, also known as sodium hexafluorosilicate, occurs in the mineral form of “malladrite”, which also does not naturally occur in water as it is only found naturally in lava deposits of an active volcano. Ignoring the challenging danger of a volcano, there aren’t that many active volcanoes you could hypothetically harvest from, meaning the primary source of ‘sodium fluorosilicate’ will be synthetic.
This completely destroys any misinformation that tries to argue the vaguely worded “fluoride” used to poison water occurs ‘naturally’. Calcium fluoride is the only naturally occurring form likely to appear in water, and it can only be found near volcanoes and springs, and is not used in intentional fluoridation. The other forms are either in lava - which no-one can drink - or in a synthetically generated gaseous form - which isn’t natural.
As the CDC goes on to admit, hydrogen fluorides are released into the atmosphere from, of all things:
[…] volcanoes, power plants, and other high temperature processes […]
Notice the vague wording of “high temperature processes”? People’s water does not come from volcanoes, and such eruptions are a rare event. But notice they tack in a non-natural source, “power plants” and “other high temperature processes”?
But don’t be waylaid by the ‘naturally occurring’ arguments. Cyanide is naturally occurring too, it doesn’t make the toxic substance safe even if it was.
The Daily Beagle’s point here is the pro-fluoridation lobby will maliciously conflate different types of fluoride together in order to mislead you and making an appeal to nature when one doesn’t exist. The part that is worth considering from the CDC’s commentary is this line (Fluorine is a variation of Fluoride):
Fluorine cannot be destroyed in the environment; it can only change its form […]
This becomes a big problem later down the line.
Who Is Pushing For This?
Despite our best efforts, The Daily Beagle couldn’t find any reliable source for the popular claim Nazi Germany tried to push fluoridation on the people to make them docile (there may be reliable sources out there, just we haven’t found them).
The unlikelihood Nazi Germany used this, is reinforced by the fact that the NIDCR claims that Grand Rapids, Michigan was the first in the world to adopt fluoridation in 1945:
In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.
This would, of course imply that it had not been adopted anywhere else, including Nazi Germany, given it was the same year they were defeated. Certainly, speculation on reasoning is rampant: dentists wanting to ruin teeth so they keep themselves in work, globalists wanting to dumb down the population, they’re all possibilities.
However The Daily Beagle has found a much more compelling theory as to who and why, and most people will likely agree.
As you’ll recall from the earlier CDC remarks, they said two things of importance, that hydrogen fluoride is from:
[…] volcanoes, power plants, and other high temperature processes […]
and that
Fluorine cannot be destroyed in the environment; it can only change its form […]
The aforementioned rock Fluorspar that contains calcium fluoride notes there’s only a limited number of synthetic sources. USGS data on Fluorspar shows there are synthetic sources from the waste of ‘enrichment of uranium’, ‘petroleum’ and ‘stainless steel’:
Synthetic fluorspar may be produced from neutralization of waste in the enrichment of uranium, petroleum alkylation, and stainless steel pickling; however, undesirable impurities constrain use. Primary aluminum producers recycle HF and fluorides from smelting operations.
Notice that keyword, “waste”? Suddenly the CDC’s complaint about flourine not being able to be destroyed comes back to bite. As the USGS data notes, it is produced as a waste product for the enrichment of uranium.
That waste has to go somewhere, because Sodium Fluoride is toxic to the environment. Ironically, the recommended method of disposal? Well, as the NIH notes, converting it into calcium fluoride:
A suggested disposal method converts the soluble fluoride ions to insoluble calcium fluoride ... a naturally occurring mineral (fluorspar) which can safely be added to a landfill. […]
It then becomes a:
[…] compact sludge is disposed of on special waste dumps. […]
That’s right, they’re basically admitting calcium fluoride is less toxic than sodium fluoride by implication. Notice the words regarding the calcium fluoride ‘fluorspar’ they remark it can ‘safely be added to a landfill’. But not sodium fluoride.
This isn’t just the NIH either, they’re quoting the unwieldy-titled: “United Nations. Treatment and Disposal Methods for Waste Chemicals (IRPTC File). Data Profile Series No. 5. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Environmental Programme, Dec. 1985. 279.”. Meaning this is international standard procedure.
As you’re already guessing, this disposal all costs money. What if there was an easier and cheaper way to dispose of sodium fluoride, consequences be damned?
As it turns out, the previously mentioned chemist, Harry Van Churchill (alt. H. V. Churchill) was the chief chemist for a company called ALCOA, previously known as “Aluminum Company of America”, which then split into two companies: one called Alcoa Corporation (dealing with raw aluminium), and the other Arconic Inc (which processes aluminimum and other metals).
Quoting from the book “Public Health: The Development of a Discipline, Twentieth-Century Challenges, Volume 2”, on page 114, the page describes a dentist called F. L. Robertson, who was practicing in Bauxite, Arkansas, who discovered fluoride causing mottling of teeth, which another later peer-reviewed study confirms (parts omitted for brevity):
The prevalence of enamel mottling in optimal and low fluoride areas of the West Midlands was studied in March 1989 […] Significantly more mottling was found in the optimal fluoride area […]
At the time, F. L. Robertson tried to notify the United States Public Health Service (USPHS, alt. PHS), however there was a lack of response which…
[…] led Luther Branting, a superintendent of the Aluminium Company of America (ALCOA), the mining company in Bauxite, to contact McKay in 1927.
McKay here refers to Frederick McKay, a dentist in Colorado Springs, Colorado. McKay urged the PHS to do a survey of the mottling in teeth, but PHS covered it up in order to protect ALCOA:
McKay urged Grover Kempf, of the PHS Bureau of Child Hygiene, to conduct a survey of mottling among children in the Bauxite region. Although the survey was done, no results were released in order to protect the identity of both the community and ALCOA.
This secrecy infuriated McKay and he broke rank, releasing the results that confirmed 100 (not a typo) percent of people in ALCOA’s Bauxite mining town were suffering from mottling:
McKay broke rank and release the results in a paper he read at a meeting of the New York Section of the International Association for Dental Research in 1930. He confirmed that 100 percent of people living in Bauxite were afflicted with mottled tooth enamel.
This part the NIDCR conveniently omits. Quoting from the NIDCR’s story again (emphasis added):
McKay and Kempf published a report on their findings that reached the desk of ALCOA's chief chemist, H. V. Churchill, at company headquarters in Pennsylvania
As it so happens, Bauxite, Arkansas - where the calcium fluoride was discovered - was named after the mineral discovered there, Bauxite, which USGS describes as containing aluminium (emphasis added):
Bauxite is a naturally occurring, heterogeneous material composed primarily of one or more aluminum hydroxide minerals, plus various mixtures of silica, iron oxide, titania, aluminosilicate, and other impurities in minor or trace amounts […]
Thus ALCOA’s primary source for aluminium at the time would be Bauxite, found at… Bauxite, Arkansas. In-fact, going to one of their own pages they remark that:
Bauxite ore is the primary raw material that is refined into alumina and later sent to our smelters where it is processed into aluminum.
Indeed, even re-reading what H. V. Churchill had said, we suddenly see something click (emphasis added):
[…] spectra of calcium fluoride and that of a mixture of calcium oxide and aluminum fluoride […]
The fluoride was bound to the aluminium. And if we also review the earlier USGS data as well, it says (emphasis added again):
[…] Primary aluminum producers recycle HF and fluorides from smelting operations. […]
HF stands for ‘hydrofluoric acid’. So basically, fluoride is a waste byproduct of the aluminium industry.
As it so happens, ALCOA’s own chief chemist Churchill was the one to shift focus and point blame on the calcium fluoride, neglecting to highlight the aluminium fluoride or the fact that sodium fluoride is a waste byproduct of aluminium manufacturing processes, of which the only ‘safe’ means of disposal is to convert it into none other than… calcium fluoride.
The very same calcium fluoride the CDC notes does not dissolve readily into water - so how on earth did it achieve such vast quantities in the water near where ALCOA were mining in Bauxite, Arkansas? Pollution, obviously, but how do they get away with it?
Simple: Convince Government Your Waste Is A Product
This isn’t some far-fetched idea either. In September 12, 2012, the Portland, Oregon City Council unanimously passed Ordinance No. 185612, which authorised and directed the Portland Water Bureau to begin fluoridating drinking water.
What they had failed to mention, however, is they all had met pro-fluoridation lobbyists in secret, as Oregon Live retorted:
Fluoride lobbyists reported meeting personally with all five members of the Portland City Council in July or August but only one of those initial meetings appears on public calendars -- under a vague heading -- leaving lingering questions about the effectiveness of the city's lobbying and reporting requirements.
So indeed, government officials were caught red handed conspiring in secret with fluoridation industry lobbyists and had, barely a month after meeting them, immediately voted to put fluoride in the water without consulting with the public. In response, the public passed a petition to reverse the corrupt ordinance.
The Portland City Counil members were lobbied by the shady “Upstream Public Health” who gave the council $9000, and despite lobbying in July, hadn’t registered as a lobbying group until August 16, in violation of lobbying rules.
They also previously worked with EcoTrust on other projects. Upstream Public Health’s website is a devoid, empty shell of a corporate website, with no accountability and no explanation of where they get their money from to throw around, and are likely just a shell, a tentacle of a wider plot.
Indeed, one of the Upstream Public Health lobbyists, Regan Gray, also worked for AFT-Oregon and Oregon Health Equity Alliance. Oregon Health Equity Alliance’s website is yet another blatant corporate shell of a website telling nothing.
AFT-Oregon, on the other hand, is massive. AFT stands for American Federation of Teachers, and you might of heard of them before. And unlike the other unknowns, their bias is explicit, in 2012 - the same year their proxy lobbyist pushed for fluoride in Portland, Oregon drinking waters - they wrote the nonsense that said:
Fluoridating all community waters systems is also essential, says Gehshan.
AFT-Oregon clearly doesn’t want to be associated as lobbying City Council members in secret, so they create multiple shallow lobbying proxies to avoid accountability for their actions. If a bunch of feckless school teachers are doing it, you can bet the industry is doing it on a much more sophisticated level.
Step 3: Profit
It is no secret that governments spend a lot of money buying the toxic waste product that is Sodium Flouride. A toxic product that would have cost the various industries so much more money to neutralise. Why neutralise a product when you can convince people who don’t do their homework to let you dump it freely into their water and make a profit too?
In the small country of New Zealand, in the even smaller area of Christchurch, it is estimated to cost the government there $63 million. That’s $63 million you get for selling a waste product that would have otherwise cost you time and money to safely neutralise and carefully store in “special waste dump” sites. Who wouldn’t want to convince a government to let them freely dump their toxins into the water?
So many overwhelming motives, and the best part is, there isn’t any competitive counter research from any ‘anti-fluoride’ industries, just parents who are concerned about a toxic product but don’t have the time or the money to research the topic at hand.
When refuted, all the fluoridators can ever do is keep barking the line about “tooth decay”, “tooth decay”, as if the considerations for forcing people to drink a toxin are so easily justified by the percent of cavities or number of teeth, as if that is somehow the sole cause, the be-all, end-all of what happens to teeth.
We’re in an era of excess sugar and carbohydrates, and rather than addressing the causes and origins of tooth decay (E.G. excess sugar and carbohydrates in everything), they’d artificially poison the water supply, mentally retard young children, pollute the environment and spend taxpayer’s hardearned cash in order to do so, just to maybe slightly reduce tooth decay?
It is incredibly one-dimensional, as if the only options are ‘stops tooth decay’ or ‘doesn’t stop tooth decay’. Even if we assume it somehow does work, even articles by dentists note fluoride application is topical (put directly on the teeth, not ingested), and does not need to be swallowed in order to work. Indeed, as the toothpaste warnings and mottled teeth show, it is inadvisable to swallow any type of fluoride, especially in young kids and pregnant women with unborn babies.
Often governments will parrot incorrect lines like ‘fluoride is naturally occurring’ without even researching the meaning of the statement or the origins of fluoride like we have. Really? Which type of fluoride? Where? Based on what study? Why does it even matter if it’s “naturally occurring”? Is naturally occurring lava less dangerous somehow?
If the public wish to avoid this health harming, IQ-dropping menace, it is time you started going independent on water.
If you like my work, be sure to support it by sharing the article link with other people, subscribing or even becoming a supporter. Thank you!
Great work here!!! 🙌