The Weaponisation of Fluoride – LN24

Fluoridation was first advanced in the United States at the end of the second world war. Proponents argued that fluoride in water and toothpaste would help to protect teeth and prevent decay. It was a time of scientific experimentation, especially for chemical companies who won the favour of the government for their role in weapons production in wars. Unfortunately, a lot of what was produced by those companies, including even herbicides, has been proven to be harmful to health, while intentionally pushed for human consumption. Well, we have to address this further in light of the weaponisation of fluoride.
FLUORIDE’S CONCEALED ROLE IN ATOMIC BOMBS AND THE MANHATTAN PROJECT
And now onto our main discussion, and we ought to begin with some historical context, relating to the role that fluoride played in the making of stomach bombs and the Manhattan Project, with Oppenheimer. In essence, fluoride has a little-known role in The Manhattan Project, where scientists actually needed both uranium AND fluoride to build the bomb; in particular fluoride was used to enrich the uranium in order to build the bombs. To explain why this is jarring and utterly diabolical, I’d have to paint a picture of the first atomic bomb that came from the manhattan project. This would be the uranium bomb that detonated over Hiroshima, in Japan, on the 6th of August 1945; and it had an explosive yield equal to 15,000 tonnes of TNT. It razed and burnt around 70 percent of all buildings in the city and caused over 140,000 deaths by the end of 1945, along with increased rates of cancer and chronic disease among the survivors. All of this was from one bomb. Here’s captured video evidence from victims, and I should state that in light of the images depicted here, viewer’s discretion is certainly advised.
So, fluoride toxicology studies from the research during the Manhattan Project research, which often took the form of experiments performed on unknowing human subjects, were actually covered up. This is in part why when we talk about the atomic bomb (even years after the information about the Manhattan Project became public), we often speak of uranium, and not so much the role of fluoride. But, in addition to that, for years, scientists lied about their results, while government policy blocked publications. HOWEVER, it was clear that the Public Health Service approached this research data not as something to inform the public with, but something that was potentially detrimental to their promotion of water fluoridation. Think about it: if you knew that one of the most destructive weapons ever made contained fluoride, you would not want it in your water, or milk, or cookware. And so, the so-called public health officials keep this crucial fact from the public.
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FLUORIDATION OF WATER AND DENTAL SUBSTANCES
Then there is also the context of how water fluoridation started. In essence, community, or artificial, water fluoridation—which is the addition of a fluoride compound (usually hexafluoro-silicic acid) to public drinking water supplies—is a controversial public health intervention; the benefits and harms of which have been debated since its introduction in the USA in the 1950. Discovered by Henri Mossan in 1886, fluorine (F) is a corrosive pale yellow gas. It is highly reactive, participating in reactions with virtually all organic and inorganic substances. Consequently, fluorine is usually found in soil, air, food, and water as fluorides.
And here’s where it gets interesting: fluorine remained a laboratory curiosity until 1940, when nuclear energy requirements stimulated commercial production. In industrial settings, fluorine and its compounds are used in producing uranium, plastics, ceramics, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. In addition, fluoro chloro-hydrocarbons are used in refrigeration and aerosol propellant applications. Then, the impact of fluorine on human teeth was recognised in 1909 in Colorado, United States, when two dental surgeons, being Frederick McKay and Grant Black, launched an investigation into the causes of mottled enamel (also known as the “Colorado brown stain”) in their practice area. Further studies by McKay, Kempf, and Churchill on water samples in areas in Idaho and Arkansas in 1931 confirmed the link between mottled enamel and high water fluoride levels.
But, in the same period, from 1931, Dr Trendley Dean, who was the Head of the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health, began investigating the epidemiology of fluorosis. After a decade’s study, Dean and his team found that water containing fluoride at a concentration of 1.0 part per million (ppm) appeared to offer some caries protection while minimising the extent of dental fluorosis. However, early studies on the impact of fluoridation on dental caries undertaken by Dean and his colleagues in a Chicago neighbourhood and 12 other cities in four states were qualified.
Furthermore, additional multisite studies commenced in 1945 to determine impacts of fluoridated water on dental caries prevention and health also appeared to demonstrate a positive effect of water fluoridation—with claims of a reduction of dental caries by up to 60% among almost 30,000 schoolchildren in Grand Rapids, MI, USA. However, these findings have been criticised for major methodological flaws, including data cherry-picking and selection bias. Notwithstanding this and before the final results of these studies were known, the US Public Health Service adopted the 1 ppm dose and supported the widespread introduction of community water fluoridation schemes in 1950. And all of this is to say that: not only were the adverse effects of fluoride already evident to many, but pseudoscience, encapsulated in bad studies that were riddled with flawed methodologies, became the basis for the wide-spread use of fluoride. In addition, it’s not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride that has been used for the longest time!
PEOPLE WERE MANIPULATED INTO ACCEPTING FLOURIDE IN THE WATER
Now, it is easy to assume that the acceptance of fluoride in society is ONLY due to broad uninformed acceptance of its claimed benefits. However, that is actually a part of the story. You’d recall that we mentioned earlier that fluoride toxicology studies from the Manhattan Project research took the form of experiments performed on unknowing human subjects. Well, similarly, large numbers of people were actually manipulated into accepting fluoride poisoning, and the weaponisation of psychology by Edward Bernays was a big part of it.
For some context, Edward Bernays, whose uncle was Sigmund Freud, is credited with fathering the field of public relations (which is often in reference to propaganda, rather than mere optics). His methods were often to shift massive cultural trends in order to make his products or ideas more appealing. He presumed, based on his uncle’s work, that consumers were never actually reasonable but driven rather by powerful subconscious forces. These forces could be manipulated, and the result might be anything from increased cigarette sales to majority support of a war. But, Edward Bernays did NOT just want to sell people a product or an idea, he wanted to change the very fabric of society around then, so that the product (or idea) became from a person’s new perspective, the most obvious choice – even if the choice he was presenting was objectively bad.
For instance, that women were targeted as consumers at all was due largely to Bernays’ influence. Up until he was contracted by Virginia Slims, it was unsociable or, even in some states, unlawful for women to smoke. But Bernays saw an opportunity in growing support for the suffragette movement. When a womens’ march was scheduled in New York, he encouraged a group of its participants to light up at the same moment, a moment when his hired newspaper photographers were in position with cameras ready. The result was what he had the papers describe as “torches of freedom.” And a great deal of hesitation on the part of potential female buyers, as well as any red tape which their state governments had established were forsaken.
Well, in the case of fluoride, spin doctors like Edward Bernays exploited the tenuous link between dental hygiene and fluoridation to create markets to stimulate fluoride production and to prove the “safety” of fluoride compounds, thereby heading off lawsuits by factory workers and others poisoned by industrial fluoride pollution.
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE PROVING THAT FLUORIDE WAS EVER GOOD FOR CONSUMPTION?
Meanwhile, there has never been any conclusive evidence that fluoride was good for human or animal consumption. In fact, animal studies have shown other neurological effects, including impaired memory, reduced ability to learn, and even mild forms of brain damage. With potential health risks like that, you would think that the evidence of fluoride’s benefits must be pretty solid. …Well, you might want to think again.
There is no solid proof that drinking fluoride actually improves dental health! In a 1989 study, data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research found that children who live in areas where the water supplies are fluoridated have tooth decay rates nearly identical to those who live in non-fluoridated areas. While tooth decay has declined in the US since fluoridation was introduced, countries which do not add fluoride to their water have seen the same rate of decline in tooth decay. This data implies that factors other than fluoridated water are contributing to the overall improvement of dental health worldwide. In fact, there has never been a controlled, randomized trial to demonstrate the effectiveness or safety of fluoridation, despite over 60 years of consumption in public water supplies. A 2009 study, funded by the NIH, was surprisingly the first to look at individual exposure to fluoride (as opposed to simply living in a fluoridated community). They found no correlation whatsoever between fluoride ingestion and tooth decay.
What there is evidence of, however, is the detrimental effect of fluoride on teeth, and even on the environment when it occurs from spillages. But, this was hidden because scientist sold to corporate interests.
FLUORIDE IS ALSO A CARCINOGEN AND A POLLUTANT
Now, in the last few decades, however, an abundance of medical research has emerged that shows much more profound potential dangers, leading to an ongoing legal battle to end this practice. Fluoride is essentially toxic to the human body. While human kidneys are able to filter out 50-60% of the fluoride a person consumes, the rest is stored in the body and has been observed to build up over time in certain areas. One organ that is particularly susceptible to fluoride build-up is the pineal gland — the part of our brain responsible for regulating sleep AND reproductive hormones.
And I should state at this point that it stopped being coincidental years ago that a number of the harmful interventions from the medical industry tend to have severe ramifications for the reproductive health of people: from fluoride, to the tetanus shot, to the COVID jab as well – especially when you recall our discussion on journalist Naomi Wolf’s book titled ‘Pfizer Papers, Looking at Pfizer’s crimes against humanity’! Therefore, there is no doubt that the malthusian inspired depopulation agenda is also a driving influence behind fluoridation! In fact, this is further evidenced by the fact that they knew about the links between surges in cancer and fluoride years ago, BUT persisted in using fluoride.
Fluoride is not only a carcinogen, but it also harms brain function. For instance, over 30 independent studies have linked fluoride to a reduction in childhood IQ: A 2018 study published in Occupational & Environmental Medicine found that, for every increase of 1 milligram per liter of fluoride in a pregnant women’s urine, their offspring averaged 2.4 points lower IQ scores at age 1-3 years old. This follows a 2017 study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) showing in utero fluoride levels associated with lower IQ in 6-12 year-olds.
In addition, the classification of fluoride as a pollutant rather than as a nutrient or medicine is a useful starting point for analysing the adverse effect of fluoride. No fluoride deficiency disease has ever been documented for humans. Indeed, the basis for setting an “adequate intake” of fluoride rests on the alleged ability of ingested fluoride to prevent tooth decay. However, since it is now known that the effect of fluoride is topical, the notion of an “adequate daily intake” is flawed. In fact, one of the key concerns about water fluoridation is the inability to control an individual’s dose of ingested fluoride which brings into question the concept of the “optimal dose.” Since the 1980s numerous studies have identified that adults and children are exceeding these agreed limits, contributing to a rapid rise in dental fluorosis—which is the first sign of fluoride toxicity.
THERE IS NO SAFE APPRECIABLE LEVEL OF FLUORIDE INTAKE
This to say that the inability to control individual dose renders the notion of an “optimum concentration” obsolete. In the USA, a study in Iowa found that 90% of 3-month-olds consumed over their recommended upper limits, with some babies ingesting over 6 mg of fluoride daily, above what the Environmental Protection Agency and the WHO say is safe to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis. Another study in the UK of fluoride levels found in tea concluded that “… fluoride concentrations can exceed the recommended DRI of 4 mg/day…, in certain tea commodities, under the minimal brewing time of 2 min…”. This study used non-fluoridated water but supports earlier findings by a researchers known as Koblar (and company) who report that the adequate intake of fluoride from a 70 kg adult consuming five cups of tea daily ranges from 25 to 210% depending upon tea brand and whether the water is fluoridated. But, here is Retired National Toxicology Program (NTP) Director, Linda Birnbaum, discusses why she believes water fluoridation is outdated due to emerging evidence of the risk of developmental neurotoxicity and a demonstrable lack of efficacy.