Poison is Treatment: The Campaign to Fluoridate
America
by Prof. James F. Tracy
Global
Research, June 23, 2012
|
James F. Tracy is Associate Professor of
Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. He is an affiliate of Project
Censored and blogs at memorygap.org.
| |
"The wide scale US acceptance of fluoride-related compounds in drinking water
and a wide variety of consumer products over the past half century is a textbook
case of social engineering orchestrated by Sigmund Freud's nephew and the
“father of public relations” Edward L. Bernays. The episode is instructive, for
it suggests the tremendous capacity of powerful interests to reshape the social
environment, thereby prompting individuals to unwarily think and act in ways
that are often harmful to themselves and their loved ones. The example is
especially pertinent today as Western governments withhold data and utilize
propaganda techniques to suppress knowledge of new technologies and
life-threatening disasters such as the still-unfolding nuclear breakdown in
Fukushima...
"...carefully coordinated plan that sought to shield major aluminum and steel
producers from the countless liabilities caused by the substantial fluorine
pollution their plants generated. This pollution increased alongside stepped-up
military aircraft and armaments manufacture during World War Two. The steel
factories in California and Utah, and aluminum producing plants in Washington
and Oregon, generated fluorine-saturated air that inevitably poisoned livestock,
crops, and farming families.
"In the postwar era $30 million in damage suits were filed in
Provo, Utah alone, with metal manufacturers paying $4.5 million to settle out of
court. Thus American industrial interests were the chief forces behind water
fluoridation, not because of greed or altruism, but rather through fear of
continued and potentially increased pollution liability as the Second World War
drew to a close and the Cold War began. This was the conclusion of Dr. F. B.
Exner, a steadfast public health advocate and opponent of water fluoridation,
who observed that at the turn of the century:
“the very existence of the smelter industry, both in Germany and Great Britain, was threatened by successful suits for fluorine damage and by burdensome laws and regulations. Today that same threat hangs over the bulk of American big-industry; and fluoridation offers both camouflage and scapegoat. Hence the relentless and uncompromising drive for universal fluoridation.”[6]
"...Dr. Exner observed, 'that someone would analyze tissues in both high and low
fluoride areas and find that fluorine poisoning is common [in those residing in
high areas]. But if every community can be fluoridated there will be no
fluorine-free areas for comparison.'[8]
"One such approach to prompting public opinion involved correspondence from the
city’s Health Department to the presidents of the NBC and CBS television
networks, informing them 'that debating fluoridation is like presenting two
sides for anti-Catholicism or anti-Semitism and therefore not in the public
interest.' Another method involved laying the groundwork for making fluoridation
a household term with a scientific patina...
"In 1957 the Committee to Protect Our Children’s Teeth suddenly emerged to tout
fluoridation with several celebrity figures on its roster,...
"The American Journal of Public Health noted how the pamphlet [Our Children's Teeth] contained
no new information on water fluoridation, but was rather “designed for
presentation to the New York City Board of Estimate as a distillate of expert
opinion” from scientists and officials involved in promoting fluoride.
"Curious of how the lists were compiled Exner personally wrote
each of the chemists listed in the publication to inquire 'whether he had signed
or whether he believed the statement true.' Some denied signing. Some had signed
without reading. Some had signed knowing the statement to be false but because
they thought fluoridation so desirable that any means were
justified.”[15]
Exner further found that of the 360 “chemists” and “authorities on nutrition”
listed in the brochure, 201 worked for 87 institutions including universities
that received over $151 million in grants. In the late 1950s a majority of such
grants originated from the foremost proponent of water fluoridation--the Public
Health Service. Another major recipient of PHS funding was the American Dental
Association (ADA). Exner's research and data proved to be especially valuable in
lawsuits brought against the industry and fluoridation proponents. In 1978,
shortly after his death, all of his files were lost in an unusual fire.[16]
"...In 1983 when an unusual PHS-assembled [Public Health Service] panel consisting of less induced
scientists discovered that the government’s own research upholding fluoride’s
safety was almost non-existent, a recommendation of caution was handed down
emphasizing particular attention to children's exposure.
"Surgeon General C. Everett Koop’s office issued its official
report a month later omitting the committee’s most significant opinions and
recommendations. The panel members 'expressed surprise at their report's
conclusions: They never received copies of the final—altered—version.'
Countering the committee’s advice that drinking water should contain no more
than 1.4-2.4 parts per million (ppm) for children under 10, the government
inserted a statement asserting: 'There exists no directly applicable scientific
documentation of adverse medical effects of fluoride below 8 ppm.' Based on
Koop’s final doctored report the Environmental Protection Agency raised the
amount of allowable fluoride in drinking water from 2 to 4 ppm for children and
adults.[21]...
"Today sodium fluoride per se is used in less than 10% of fluoridated water
systems. In its place are the fluoride variants sodium silica fluoride or
fluorisilic acid, more commonly known as silicofluorides (SIFs). In 2001
researchers found that SIFs may cause a higher absorption of lead in children
and decrease cholinesterase, an enzyme necessary for the regulation of
neurotransmitters. Neither the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and
Drug Administration, or any other regulatory agency to date has researched the
long term internal effects of consuming fluorisilic acid, a by product of the
phosphate fertilizer industry that is now the predominant stand-in for sodium
fluoride given its relative low-cost.[22]
"The case of water fluoridation provides a compelling example of a plan to
deceive and propagandize the masses. A full decade before President Eisenhower's
warning of 'a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions,' the
fluoridation of America's water supplies was already in full play with the
hidden foreknowledge among those in high places that such a campaign would
almost certainly lead to the endangerment of public health for many generations
to come.
"...The practice is sustained to a significant degree by the widely held myth
Bernays designed and brought forth, by affirmative medical and regulatory
authorities, and perhaps above all by a routinely unskeptical and compliant
press..."
No comments:
Post a Comment