Public Health ‘Experts’ Effectively Say: “Take Your Fluoride and Shut Up”
“Millions will get fluoride added to their tap water in biggest expansion of controversial scheme since the 1980s”, was the Daily Mail headline last week announcing that government terrorism is alive and well.
Government terrorism? Surely he goes too far, I hear you say. How are we to take these alt-media writers seriously if they insist on engaging in such overblown rhetoric?
Let’s examine if my statement really is hyperbolic.
The word “controversial” is usually the first clue in any MSM article that they’re writing about government terrorism. “Controversial” is the euphemism for criminality. When you see that word being bandied about to describe the antics of the sociopaths in government, your antennae should be twitching.
Tony Blair’s decision to send British troops to Iraq to help the US murder a million Iraqis on the strength of a bald-faced lie about weapons of mass destruction? ‘Controversial’. Spraying the atmosphere, and in fact the entire biosphere, with toxic chemicals, supposedly to block out the sun, the giver of all life on Earth? ‘Controversial’.
They’re now asking you to believe that the government wants to save you from the dentist’s drill. It’s not credible, not least because Big Brother’s concern for your dental health comes against the backdrop of his routine spraying of the atmosphere with aluminium-coated fiberglass and plastic, light-scattering particulates containing aluminium, barium, strontium, titanium, manganese, polymer fibres, surfactant chemicals, and graphene. Oh, and don’t forget Big Brother is now presiding over post ‘pandemic’ excess death of 11% above that expected for under-25s and for 25-49 year olds, and 15% for 50-64 year olds.
Why pandemic in quote marks? Because excess death was negligible to nil before the ‘vaccine’ juggernaut rolled across the planet. The death spike which many, but by no means all, countries in Europe and America suffered in April 2020 correlated with the murderous midazolam and ventilator protocols inflicted on patients – protocols that resulted in a 90% death rate in New York hospitals.
Meanwhile, Big Brother vehemently denies the obvious correlation between vaccination rates and excess death, and refuses to investigate it. He insists that the hastily concocted ‘vaccines’ that billions were coerced into taking have absolutely nothing to do with the upsurge in dicky hearts or turbo cancers.
All of this is terrorism. Whether it’s WMD alarmism, ‘pandemic’ alarmism or climate alarmism, we see government deployment of fear as a tool of coercion or manipulation to implement policies that end up manifesting far worse outcomes than the bogeyman they’re terrorising you with. Now, water fluoridation may be “controversial”, but is it terrorism? Well, the government spin doctors would have you believe that after five years of trying to “level up” the North, the kids there still have bad teeth. So the government’s “long-term ambition is to bring fluoride to more of the country with a 'particular focus' on deprived areas.” But if fluoride is a toxin, as many informed experts believe it is, then let’s face it – the government is, yet again, terrorising the citizenry. And they’re focussing this toxin on deprived areas! Whoever’s in charge of optics on this latest government terror campaign has not thought this through.
Rather than addressing the growing number of food banks that poverty stricken families are relying on, or addressing the dearth of NHS dentists, our overlords would have us believe that pumping fluoride into the water to save on dental bills is the answer to poverty. That’s how you level up a country, after you’ve flattened it with the lockdowns, ruinous Net Zero policies to fight carbon dioxide, and fanning the flames of conflict in Ukraine and the Middle East to send energy prices through the roof. If you doubt that healthy gnashers have a primary role to play in macroeconomic stability, your overlords are telling you to think again.
Are there any benefits to fluoride? Is it toxic? Does the answer to either of those questions matter?
But maybe, just maybe, Big Brother has got it right this time! Maybe fluoride really will preserve our teeth, enabling us to bite into large, crunchy apples well into our 90s with gusto and without the aid of dentures. Before we discuss some ‘controversial’ (yes, the MSM also uses that word to impugn integrity) evidence that casts a pall over Big Brother’s confidence in fluoride, let’s be clear on one thing. Whether the government is right or wrong about fluoride’s benefits or toxicity has no bearing whatsoever on the immorality of forced medication. If the Daily Mail knew this, and if it weren’t an obedient lap-dog in the fascist plutocratic-government nexus, its headline might read:
“Millions will get force medicated through their tap water in biggest expansion of criminally negligent scheme since 1980s.”
In a meticulous and engrossing investigation of the history of water fluoridation, more of which later, Christopher Bryson notes that:
“adding to water a chemical so toxic that it was once used as rat poison was a uniquely American idea and is, increasingly, a lone American practice. Most European countries do not add fluoride to their water. Several nations have long since discontinued the practice, doubting its safety and worth”.[i] [emphasis added]
Indeed, 97% of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Here’s what the authorities in some of those countries had to say about that decision:
Austria – “Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” [Emphasis added]
Belgium – “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” [Emphasis added]
Denmark – “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated”. [Emphasis added]
Finland – “Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town… (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force-feeding” was also mentioned.” [Emphasis added]
So, toxicity and forced medication were clearly cited as the driving factors in spurning water fluoridation.
Fluoride is not a nutrient by any definition of the term. I highly recommend watching this video presentation by Dr Paul Connett to appreciate exactly why. It is not essential to any aspect of health in the human body, including teeth. The significance of this is that there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. As Dr Connett explains, “no essential physiological role has been demonstrated for fluoride…there is no sensible reason to swallow fluoride”. The CDC acknowledged that the fluoride content of a tooth has little bearing on whether or not the tooth will develop a cavity.
Emphasising that it is not a nutrient, a 2007 review in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) stated that “fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway.” In professional medical terms, the review was clearly not supportive of water fluoridation. That word “controversial” appeared in both the opening and summary statements of the BMJ review. The review strongly hinted that, assuming there were any benefits to administering it, fluoride should legally be classed as a medicinal product with obvious informed consent implications – full disclosure of potential harms along with an unqualified right to refuse treatment. But how do you refuse treatment when it’s pumped, without your consent, into your drinking water supply?
The most credible optimistic conclusion about water fluoridation comes from a 2015 Cochrane review which concluded that:
“There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.”
There are never any grounds for mass medication, but that conclusion certainly doesn’t provide anything like decent cover for the aspiring petit Mengeles running public health today. There is, however, much evidence for its toxicity.
Paul Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a PhD in chemistry from Dartmouth College. From 1983 to 2006, he taught chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, where he specialized in Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. He has been campaigning with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) against water fluoridation since 2000. When he started his campaign, his research revealed that at least 12 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry and Medicine were either opposed to fluoridation or expressed reservations about it at or around the time that the water fluoridation movement was gaining momentum in the US in the 1940s/50s/60s. Biochemist and Nobel laureate Dr James Sumner at Cornell University, remarked:
“Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances...We use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body”. [Emphasis added]
These expert biochemists have not yet been proven wrong, and in fact the clamour against water fluoridation is growing. In Oct 2022, the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) published a draft review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity concluding that:
“fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans. This conclusion is based on a consistent pattern of findings in human studies across several different populations showing that higher fluoride exposure is associated with decreased IQ or other cognitive impairments in children.”
This is not news to the FAN, which has been drawing attention to fluoride’s neurotoxicity, citing 76 human IQ studies linking lowered IQ with fluoride exposure.
Fluoride is a toxin and the only defence that its proponents have left is that its harm is dose dependent. They then argue that keeping the concentration in the water below a certain level mitigates high dosing, which is complete nonsense because the dose depends on how much water you drink and not the concentration of fluoride in the water. Part of toxicology 101 is that concentration and dose are not the same thing.
In this presentation, Dr Connett highlights a study demonstrating that a dose of 1.4mg/day lowers IQ by 5 IQ points at the population level. IQ follows a normal distribution in the population, displaying the Bell curve. At either end of the curve are small proportions of people with abnormally high and low IQs. A 5-point drop in the whole population halves the number of ‘geniuses’ at the high end and doubles the number of people with mental disabilities at the low end. Dr Connett’s devastating socio-economic commentary on this: “The last children who need their IQ lowered are children from low income families. They’ve already got so many strikes against them in their lives compared to other more advantaged kids.”
And who are the public health fluoride fanatics targeting in the initial stages of their mass medication revival? People in deprived areas. You have to ask: is it deliberate? This is how we ‘level up’ in the UK.
So, how did we get here? A history of the fluoride deception.
The history of water fluoridation has been documented by ex-BBC award winning investigative journalist Christopher Bryson, in his book The Fluoride Deception, and that history is far more sinister than simple medical or scientific error. Bryson convincingly argues that “the fluoride story is similar to the fables about lead, tobacco, and asbestos, in which medical accomplices helped industry to hide the truth about these substances for generations.”[ii]
In the early 20th century, and before the start of WWII, fluoride had become an essential component in key manufacturing processes. It was used extensively in metal smelting, brickworks, glass and enamel makers and fertiliser manufacturing. Scientists who worked closely with fluoride had become well aware of the danger it posed to human and animal health; it was leaving a trail of human and animal suffering wherever it had been used and recklessly dumped by industry.[iii]
One such scientist and medical doctor was Kajeli Roholm, who went on to become Copenhagen's Deputy Health Commissioner in the late 1930s. He singled out the aluminium industry as a prime transgressor, and in 1937 published a monumental 364-page study, Fluorine Intoxication, which was a warning to the industry to pay attention to factory conditions and the effects of fluoride on workers.[iv]
In 1933, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published an exhaustive review of the new medical information about fluoride's harmful effects. By 1935, scandals and occupational injury lawsuits targeting American industrialists were piling up. Bryson’s research revealed that “sympathetic citizen juries were regularly awarding millions of dollars to injured workers, provoking a full-blown financial emergency for several leading industrial corporations – and panic among their insurers.”[v] Enter the Mellon Institute, a scientific research organisation funded by…you guessed it – big industrial corporations. Its mission: to whitewash fluoride by alchemising its reputation for being a toxin into a health product – modern man’s answer to tooth decay.
This wasn’t the only industrial toxin makeover orchestrated by Mellon. It spearheaded a grand corporate strategy to “get dominion over basic science, wrestle control of health information from labour groups, and in turn, reinvest that medical expertise in the hands of industry-anointed specialists.”
An incestuous fraternity of corporate research labs stood ready to meet the objective articulated by the Mellon Institute. Francis Frary, the chief scientist for the aluminium manufacturer Alcoa, was a member of that elite fraternity. In September 1935, he approached the Mellon Institute with the suggestion that they explore the possibility that fluoride could promote good teeth. With that, fluoride’s makeover had begun, and by 1937 the amazing ‘discovery’ that fluoride could protect teeth was circulating in the scientific literature.
Charles Kettering, vice president and director of research at General Motors (GM), seemed an unlikely candidate for expressing an interest in dental health. And yet six months after the publication of data on toxic fluoride levels in workers involved in the manufacture of refrigerant gas at a GM subsidiary, Kettering met with the American Dental Association and quickly became a member of the ADA's Advisory Committee on Research in Dental Caries.[vi]
Up until September 1939, US health authorities had sought only to remove fluoride from water. As America’s industrial war machine sprang to life, Gerald Cox, a researcher at the Mellon Institute, radically turned this problem on its head by suggesting to the American Water Works Association that America should now consider adding fluoride to the public water supply. He told the Water Works Association:
"The present trend toward complete removal of fluorine from water and food may need some reversal.” [vii]
And so the process of turning a toxic pollutant from an industry cost into an industry income stream had begun.
Building the world's first atomic bomb required gargantuan amounts of fluoride. Scientist and historian Eric Banks points out that most historians have focused on the physics of the atomic bomb, chronicling how the atom was split. The vast contribution of chemical engineers to the Manhattan Project – and the radical debut of the powerful chemical element, fluoride, onto the global stage – has largely been ignored. Crucially, there were numerous documented instances of fluoride exposure causing serious injury and death to bomb researchers.[viii] Worries that disclosure of these deaths would compromise the atomic bomb project led to secrecy, but fear soon gripped wartime fluoride workers across the U.S., and with good reason.[ix]
Failure by senior managers to disclose safety risks, compounded by outright lies, continued during the WWII bomb project and well into the Cold War period. [x] Equally disturbing, though unsurprising, is Bryson’s reporting that:
“some 15,000 pounds of fluorides were being disposed of each month in the nearby Miami River [Ohio]… And as late as the mid-1980s, thirty years after it began operation, the gaseous diffusion plant at Portsmouth, Ohio, was still dumping 15.6 tons of fluorides each year into the atmosphere."[xi]
To be sure, there are many villains in the piece, but one name deserving of special mention is that of Dr. Harold Carpenter Hodge. In 1943, in anticipation of lawsuits from injured military employees, Hodge was charged by the military with studying fluoride toxicity. A researcher who worked with Hodge in the early years of the cold war observed that the toxicology studies conducted were so comprehensive that, were it not for the Manhattan Project, we would not know anywhere near as much as we do about the physiological effects of fluoride.[xii] Hodge’s remit was to ensure that lawsuits brought against the bomb-making military industrial complex were successfully thwarted to ensure that bomb research and manufacturing could continue unimpeded. This he did with aplomb.
A 1945 study that was influential in convincing Americans that fluoride was the answer to healthy teeth was conducted in Newburgh, New York. In April 1944, Time Magazine proudly announced: “Last week came news that fluorine is to be tried out with whole towns as guinea pigs”. Biological samples were routinely taken from study subjects to answer the question of whether fluoride was causing harm. The study was closely monitored by the bomb research scientists and served as another grossly unethical cold war human experiment.
The study results, published in 1956 in the Journal of the American Dental Association, concluded that "small concentrations" of fluoride were safe. What is not so well known is that the biological proof for that conclusion was delivered by Dr Hodge, based on work performed at the bomb researchers’ flagship laboratory – the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project.[xiii] This glaring conflict of interest alone should have been sufficient to nix the study’s findings.
Hodge led the promotion of water fluoridation in the 1940s and 1950s and was the US's leading fluoride researcher who trained a generation of dental school deans in the 1950s and 1960s. He was also the senior wartime toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, where he helped choreograph notorious human radiation experiments in which hospital patients were injected with plutonium and uranium – without their knowledge or consent – in order to study the toxicity of those chemicals in humans.[xiv]
If today’s Big Pharma spin doctors could travel back in time to lend their bomb-making colleagues a helpful PR phrase, we might have learnt that Hodge and his intrepid scientists were working at “the speed of science”. They had a bomb to make, and certain niceties like asking ‘volunteers’ if they wanted to take a plutonium shot for team USA, had to be overlooked.
The critical question then is: did Hodge and the Rochester bomb scientists suppress or censor adverse health findings from the Newburgh study? Well, Bryson found no direct evidence of scientific fraud in this particular study, but he narrates outrageous instances of scientific fraud by Hodge’s research lab in other fluoride studies conducted around that time. A dental study of fluoride exposed workers at a chemical company in Cleveland is instructive. In the study that Hodge’s team of creative scientists worked on, an actual finding of literally toothless workers was airbrushed out of the published study, which noted merely that the fluoride workers had fewer cavities than did unexposed workers.[xv]
To understand the crux of the fluoride deception, one must answer two simple questions. How important was fluoride to industry and the military industrial complex? And, to what lengths would the establishment go to defend itself against attacks on fluoride that might jeopardise its unfettered use?
The answer to the first question is provided by the US government’s Paley Commission, which was tasked by President Truman in 1950 with studying the United States’ mineral reserves and vulnerabilities to having imports cut off in wartime. The commission reported that:
“[Fluoride]…is an essential component of enormously vital industries whose dollar value is measured in billions and upon which the whole national industrial structure increasingly depends…Without this little known mineral such industrial giants as aluminum, steel, and chemicals would be most severely affected. Little or no aluminum could be produced; steel production would be reduced substantially; the output and quality of important chemical products such as refrigerants, propellants for insecticides, and plastics would be significantly cut down.” [xvi]
Or, as the vice president of the nation’s largest fluorspar producer put it: fluoride is “as vital to our national life as a spark plug to a motor car.”
Fluorspar is the mineral ore from which most industrial fluoride is produced, which segues into the answer to the second question. Fluoride stockpiles had fallen dangerously low. Projections of the military industrial complex’s fluoride requirements through to 1975 led Paley’s group to conclude that: “If the United States were compelled to rely on natural fluorspar alone, serious obstacles to growth and security would emerge”.[xvii] There was, however, a magic bullet.
Florida had one of the world’s largest supplies of natural phosphate, the key component in the production of superphosphate fertiliser. And natural phosphate contained 3-4 percent fluoride. This fluoride was polluting the air as a by-product of the fertiliser manufacturing process (19 tonnes in 1957 alone), but if this waste could be trapped as silicofluoride, America’s fluoride supply problem would be solved. There was just one snag. It was too costly to trap the toxic emissions. As a Paley Commission analyst put it: “The phosphate industry is primarily interested in super-phosphate, and fluorine recovery is a very minor matter.”[xviii] Clearly an incentive was needed.
The ingeniously diabolical solution: the government would pay the fertiliser industry to put a portion of that fluoride waste into fluoridating the public water supply while the rest went towards boosting industrial supplies of fluoride. The fertiliser industry was now compensated for the cost of capturing the toxic fluoride waste and industry got an inexhaustible supply of fluoride.[xix] Everybody won, except of course the public who ended up paying to drink a toxin. Which of course raises the question: how did they get the public to pay for its own demise? The way they always do – by using a two-step playbook of scientific fraud and public relations. The methods behind the covid scam weren’t invented in 2020.
Up until 1950 – the year of the Paley Commission study and the US entry into the Korean War – the US Public Health Service (PHS) had been opposed to water fluoridation. It abruptly reversed its position, using the Newburgh New York study, the origins of which were manifestly suspicious, to justify its flip-flop. That study was a safety trial – designed to last for ten years to research potential side effects of drinking fluoridated water. When the PHS announced its about-face in 1950, the safety study was only half complete. What’s more, a water fluoridation war was now raging and its opponents were winning.
Fluoride was being put to the vote in towns across the US and by December 1955, the PHS reported that out of 231 communities voting on fluoridation, 127 (55%) had rejected it. Six months later, another 53 votes had taken place, with 45 rejections of fluoridation.[xx]
Enter Edward Bernays, the father of modern propaganda. When Bernays was tasked by the tobacco industry in the early 20th century with breaking the taboo against women smoking cigarettes, cancer sticks got repurposed in the female psyche as torches of freedom. With one ingenious stroke of the marketing pen, the tobacco industry doubled its market overnight…and women won the right to lung cancer.
Bernays also persuaded Americans to add fluoride to water. Bryson recounts a 1993 interview with Bernays before he died, in which Bernays was candid about his role in promoting water fluoridation:
“I do recall doing that,” he said softly during another interview at his home in 1993. Although Bernays was then 102 years old, his memory was good. Selling fluoride was child’s play, Bernays explained. The PR wizard specialized in promoting new ideas and products to the public by stressing a claimed public-health benefit. He understood that citizens had an often unconscious trust in medical authority. “You can get practically any idea accepted,” Bernays told me, chuckling. “If doctors are in favor, the public is willing to accept it, because a doctor is an authority to most people, regardless of how much he knows, or doesn’t know. . . . By the law of averages, you can usually find an individual in any field who will be willing to accept new ideas, and the new ideas then infiltrate the others who haven’t accepted it.” [xxi]
Back to the present
If Chris Bryson, the Fluoride Action Network, the Fluoride Free Alliance UK and the thousands of people who support them know that fluoride is a toxin and that most people have been deceived into thinking otherwise, I do not believe that the people who decided that we must be force medicated are ignorant of the facts. I’m not talking about the order followers who implement these policies or the idiots in parliament who would rubber stamp a bill to mandate eating cow dung if the uniparty whips told them to. I’m talking about the people at the top who decided this is a good idea and whispered it in the ear of the servile order followers. They know. They read because they have to be prepared to fight against the truth when it emerges.
As for the order followers, even if they are deluded about fluoride and sincerely believe it to be as beneficial as vitamin D, they know that forced medication is a violation of the long-held medical ethic of informed consent that requires both disclosure of risks and the choice to freely reject without negative consequences. And no-one has ever suggested making vitamin D available as part of a free NHS initiative – something that might really improve the general health of the nation at minimal cost. Again, I wouldn‘t want them to mandate vitamin D. They could make it available and allow you to freely choose, as opposed to literally shoving it down the nation’s throat, as is the case with water fluoridation.
My view is that if you decide to start a local campaign to stop water fluoridation, you don’t need to get bogged down in the science of fluoride to prove it’s a toxin. The water authorities’ responsibility is to deliver potable water, and fluoridation strays beyond that remit and into unethical and unlawful (violating human rights) mass medication. And it’s easy to prove that water is drinkable without fluoridation since 97% of Europe has been doing just fine without it for the better part of 40 years, and most of the UK has been enjoying clean, non-fluoridated water since the late 80s.
The Fluoride Action Network’s ongoing case in the US against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is attempting to prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin and should be regulated or banned. This is now an eight-year-long legal battle and what it proves to me is Natural Law – derived from the self-evident truth that you are sovereign over your body – does not apply in legal systems across the West. The parties are locked in a technical argument about whether fluoride is a toxin. This is an essential characteristic of The System. You can argue about whether the poison being administered might kill you, but it seems you don’t have an enforceable right to choose whether or not to be poisoned. You can periodically make petitions about the precise dimensions of your prison cell, but you can’t decide to entirely reject the cell.
In short, if we could enforce our inalienable right to choose what goes into our bodies, there would be no need to waste eight years of time and money arguing the technicalities of toxins. We could just say: “Shut up and shove your fluoride.”
It’s patently obvious that our overlords aren’t remotely interested in our health. As I stressed at the beginning of this piece, the move to revive water fluoridation is in keeping with the zeitgeist of a new era in which the mask is off – shamelessly forcing you to do things inimical to your health is the new face of ‘public health’. In the 1950s and 60s they had to gaslight you into thinking fluoride was good for you. They can’t be bothered to engage in a replay of that. It’s hard work, especially the second time around, when the science and history is now more widely understood. Now they’re just telling you to shut up and take your fluoride.
Resources:
The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson –
https://ia902609.us.archive.org/12/items/OnFluoride/Fluoride_deception.pdf
Toxicology 101 – Presentation by Dr Paul Connett (FAN Conference 2017)
https://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/toxicology-101-dr-paul-connett-fan-conference-2017/
Fluoride Action Network –
https://fluoridealert.org/
Fluoride Free Alliance UK –
https://www.ukfffa.org.uk/
Presentation Opposing an Extension to Durham County’s Water Fluoridation Programme –
Chris Bryson interview –
https://fluoridefree.org.nz/the-fluoride-deception/
[i] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Introduction, pg. XIX
[ii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Introduction, pg. XX
[iii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 3, pg. 33
[iv] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 3, pg. 35
[v] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 3, pg. 36
[vi] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 3, pg. 42
[vii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 3, pg. 44
[viii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 4, pg. 50
[ix] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 4, pg. 54
[x] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 4, pg. 59
[xi] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 4, pg. 64
[xii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 5, pg. 66
[xiii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 6, pg. 84
[xiv] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 7, pg. 92
[xv] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 6, pg. 89
[xvi] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 11, pg. 148
[xvii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 11, pg. 149
[xviii] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 11, pg. 150
[xix] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 11, pg. 150
[xx] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 11, pg. 155-6
[xxi] Christopher Bryson, The Fluoride Deception, Seven Stories Press, 2004, Ch 12, pg. 159
Another brilliant investigative piece of writing. One to share far and wide. Thanks, Rusere.
Fascinating, thank you. Do you know anything about the effect fluoride has on the pineal gland?