FLUORIDE: How WRONG Can Health Agencies Be?

Excerpted from Vaccines & Vaccinations: The Need for Congressional Investigation,
Co-editors: Catherine J Frompovich and Laraine C Abbey-Katzev.
Entire free pdf available by email request to: cfj@catherinejfrompovich.com


FLUORIDE: How WRONG Can Health Agencies Be? Fluoride is a 50-year example!

Well, on Friday, Jan 7th, federal health officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) finally admitted that American’s are getting too much fluoride, and for the first time in nearly 50 years, reduced the recommended level from 1.2 parts per million to 0.7. That’s a reduction of nearly 50%! (http://www.askdrgarland.com/?p=3749)


The following article appeared on KFSN-TV/DT’s website Friday, Jan. 7, 2011: (http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news…)


Fluoride levels too high in water, feds urge reduction

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans Friday [Jan. 7, 2011] to lower the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in nearly 50 years, based on a fresh review of the science. One reason behind the change: About 2 out of 5 adolescents have tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride, a government study found recently. In extreme cases, teeth can be pitted by the mineral – though many cases are so mild only dentists notice it. The problem is generally considered cosmetic and not a reason for serious concern.

The splotchy tooth condition, fluorosis, is unexpectedly common in youngsters ages 12 through 15 and appears to have grown more common since the 1980s, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But there are also growing worries about more serious dangers from fluoride. The Environmental Protection Agency released two new reviews of research on fluoride Friday. One of the studies found that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures and crippling bone abnormalities. The fluoridated water standard since 1962 has been a range of 0.7 parts per million for warmer climates where people used to drink more water to 1.2 parts per million in cooler regions. The new proposal from HHS would set the recommended level at just 0.7. Meanwhile, the EPA said it is reviewing whether to lower the maximum allowable level of fluoride in drinking water from the current 4 parts per million.

According to a recent CDC report, nearly 23 percent of children ages 12 to 15 had fluorosis in a study done in 1986-87. That rose to 41 percent in a study that covered 1999 through 2004.

In addition, in 2005, the heads of 11 EPA unions, including ones representing the agency’s scientists, pleaded with the EPA to reduce the  permissible level of fluoride in water to zero, citing research suggesting it can cause cancer. [Emphasis added]

In Europe, fluoride is rarely added to water supplies. In Britain, only about 10 percent of the population has fluoridated water. It has been a controversial issue there, with critics arguing people shouldn’t be forced to have “medical treatment” forced on them.

For more information about the CDC’s position on fluoride, visit (http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/)

One of the ‘hidden’ facts about fluoride that is added to municipal drinking waters is this: It is an industrial waste product! Sodium fluoride [NaF], according to Wikipedia, … is prepared by neutralizing hydrofluoric acid or hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), byproducts of the production of superphosphate fertilizer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoride)

When fluoride orginally was added to municipal drinking water systems fifty years ago, it was an aluminum industry waste product. Dr. P.H. Phillips, biochemist, University of Wisconsin “Fluoride is an accumulative poison which accumulates in the skeletal structures, including the teeth, when the body is exposed to small daily intakes of this element. …it is like lead accumulation in the bone until saturation occurs and then lead poisoning sets in.”

Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons. (http://www.fluoridation.com/quotes.htm)


What does the January 7, 2011 CDC decision about fluoridating municipal water supplies teach us?

The rationale and reasoning for this article on fluoride in a monograph on vaccines is this: To prove that government agencies make mistakes either unknowingly, willingly, or whatever—AND humans pay the price for those misjudgments.

Similar mistakes are being made with vaccines, only the problems are much greater and growing exponentially while there is an organized media campaign to keep health consumers in the dark about the health hazards associated with vaccines and their toxic adjuvants, excipients, and growth medium.


Commentary by co-editor Catherine J Frompovich

Finally, and after almost sixty years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledged the need to reduce fluoride and the harm that ‘supplementing’ municipal water supplies with fluoride—a protoplasmic poison—is doing to children’s teeth, let alone overall health. What does that tell us? First, fluoridation is causing more harm to several generations now, and, second, those who really should know the facts and science surrounding health issues are totally out to lunch, in my humble opinion.

So, how can anyone believe government health agencies and the science they offer, particularly the U.S. FDA, when it comes to vaccine information that is being forced upon healthcare consumers with increasingly frightening mandates?

Just consider what the U.S. Supreme Court declared on February 22, 2011. In a six to two vote—Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor cast the dissenting votes with Justice Kagan recused—SCOTUS [Supreme Court of the United States] reiterated the protection from lawsuits for vaccine/vaccination damage done to children and others that has shielded pharmaceutical companies and vaccine makers since 1986 when Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660), which should be rescinded and not reinforced because it’s what I would call a ‘bastardization’ of U.S. tort law.

The American Academy of Pediatrics, which represents 60,000 doctors, hailed the ruling. President O. Marion Burton said the decision “protects children by strengthening our national immunization system and ensuring that vaccines will continue to prevent the spread of infectious diseases in this country.” (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-22…)

Personally, I beg to disagree with the American Academy of Pediatrics, who ought to know better and not parrot pharmaceutical companies’ often-contrived pseudo-science when it comes to studies they pay for, produce, and usually publish in supposed peer-review journals that they own. What a hoax is being pulled off in the name of medicine and pharmaceutical science! And yet, there is no one in Congress, government health agencies, or law—except two women on the U.S. Supreme Court—who has the integrity and moral ethics to stand up for what is legally correct and place financial responsibility where it should be: Vaccine makers who make billions of dollars annually from vaccines that damage, kill, and ruin families of infants, toddlers, teens, adults, and senior citizens.

I truly believe the time has come for healthcare consumers to take to the streets in protest against a most insidious public health plan that is destroying more lives than protecting, since most vaccinated persons actually contract the disease for which they are vaccinated. That statement is dramatically proven in numerous charts within the monograph in the following chapters: Death, Disability & Vaccines Ineffectiveness With Validation From Peer Review Journals Charts & Graphs (pg.55) and Charts Illustrating Vaccine/Vaccination Ineffectiveness Globally (pg. 61), which can be downloaded on the VacTruth page for Vaccines & Vaccines: The Need for Congressional Investigation.

Isn’t it about time that we stood up for what is RIGHT?


(Photograph credited to Lel4and)

About the author


Jeffry John Aufderheide is the father of a child injured as a result of vaccination. As editor of the website www.vactruth.com he promotes well-educated pediatricians, informed consent, and full disclosure and accountability of adverse reactions to vaccines.