The Vaccine-Autism Urban Myth
February 6, 2007 by Kristina Chew, PhD
Filed under Health
If there has been a more harmful urban legend circulating in our society than the vaccine-autism link, it is hard to know what it might be.
Writes Arthur Caplan, Emanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, where he co-directs the Ethics and Vaccines Project, in an op-ed in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Despite no scientific proof to the contrary—-”thimerosal has been removed from vaccines in this and other countries for many years, with no obvious impact on the incidence of autism“—it seems that a connection between vaccines and autism has become entrenched in the public consciousness; has become the stuff of urban myth. Caplan cites more than a few examples of how anti-vaccine advocates have had an impact on public health, and not necessarily for the better:
When one of my students recently conducted a pilot study of attitudes about the new cervical-cancer vaccine, fears about autism were prominent among the reasons many respondents gave for being wary of the vaccine. Friends of mine continue to tell me of parents in Lafayette Hill, Voorhees, Greenville and Downingtown who won’t have their children vaccinated because of the risk of autism. States continue to allow parents to opt out of vaccines on “philosophical” grounds – perhaps the only arena in American public life where “secular philosophy” is given legal standing in public policy. And even some young health-care workers report that they don’t get important vaccines that would protect them, their families and their vulnerable patients against death because of worries about autism and vaccines.
Not science, but distrust—of “medicine, science, government and experts, a distrust that has little to do with scientific studies or expert opinions”—fuels anti-vaccine fervor. A just-published study by Stanford researchers highlights the disconnect between what science journalists report about autism (environmental causes for autism comprise 48% of their reporting) and what scientists actually study (brain and behavior research accounts for 41% of their research).
It is the extent of this “disconnect”—-between scientific evidence confuting a vaccine-autism link on the one hand, and a continued “populist” belief that “vaccines caused my child to become autistic“—-that puzzles and yet intrigues me. Can it be that the “establishment” of scientists have sequestered themselves so far away up in the gleaming ivory tower white of their research labs that they simply cannot hear the stories of parents who again and again offer the simple evidence of their eyes: One day my child was normal. The next day, after the vaccine, he was not?
That said, I will offer up a bit of my own experience which is, I know a vaccine did not cause my son Charlie to be “become” autistic. Indeed, I think he was as he is from the time he was conceived: Charlie has always been Charlie. Just as Charlie was being diagnosed with autism in July of 1999, Jim and I started to read website after website about a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. We wracked our memories, I checked the journal I have kept from the time I was expecting Charlie, we went over and over the medical records: No.
And yet, when Charlie turned five, we decided not to have him vaccinated. (Despite Jim’s too-obvious statement: “It can’t make him autistic. He already is.”) For an hour I held a sweaty, miserable, screaming, writhing Charlie in my lap as a nurse tried to draw enough blood out of him to have his titres checked. After exchanging some emails messages with other parents, Jim and I wrote a letter seeking a religious exemption against having Charlie vaccinated and even today as I recall the wording of that letter, the lines from the Bible quoted, I know I signed without believing what was on that piece of paper.
“Vaccine” and “autism” had become for me—have become in the public psyche—not merely linked. These two words, which have nothing intrinisically to do with each other, have become equated, and because of coincidence, of a correlation that seems to contain a clue to causation: An 18-month-old child receives her or his immunizations. An 18-month-old child is noticed to not be playing in varied ways, or interacting, or speaking. The parents know they have “done everything” to ensure their child’s health and development, have followed the advice of the pediatrician exactingly, and then some, so it must be some external agent, some mysterious force, that has caused this terrible change in a child. And—-because so much seemed to go wrong when the doctor’s advice and instructions were first followed—the parent, now with not only a “diseased” child but one with hard-to-control behaviors, turns away from traditional medicine and seeks answers elsewhere.
I think, that is, it is possible to understand why so many parents believe in a vaccine-autism link. What I am trying still to understand, is how to dispute such a link; as Professor Caplan’s op-ed suggests, appeals to the evidence of science have yet to be effective.
When I was enrolling Charlie in the school district in the town we now live in back in May, I discovered that a letter stating our “religious grounds” for objecting to his being vaccinated was not going to be accepted without having to take things much farther. We were desperate, not because we have an autistic child, but because we needed to make sure that Charlie was in a school placement as his old school was closing, and the fear he underwent when we kept him out of school in November of 2005 seemed to us much worse than any threated from a vaccine. Late last spring, Charlie received the shots he had not had at the age of 5. He looked at the nurse sticking the needle in his arm, maybe winced a bit. There was no crying and we walked out to the car, and that was that.
Perhaps if more stories of how “a vaccine didn’t cause my child’s autism” were heard, we could start to tease apart the vaccine-autism link and show what strange bedfellows these two have been all along.
“Yes, the alphabet soup type organisations like the EPA, CDC, NIH, FDA, NCI, CIA, UN, WHO, UNESCO etc all part of the same crime syndicate involved in nefarious activities across the globe. Their benevolent image is just a facade to disguise their real purpose…”
Well, there we go. A full conspiracy theory based on organizations who may not even like each other (like the CIA and the U.N.). That’s a common enough classic, I suppose.
But this is the real kicker.
“Vaccines and fluoride are both used for mind control purposes, hence the aluminium, mercury and formaldehyde in vaccines. Even just the (false) claim that vaccines prevent diseases or that fluoride prevent tooth decay are forms of mind control. In fact, as the saying goes, fluoride promotes truth decay.”
Umm… don’t the prior two claims quite frankly make the third impossible? On the other hand, I’ve never heard the saying (up til now) that “fluoride promotes truth decay”. But I’m just being mind controlled by my vaccinations, aren’t I? Insular logic, no?
Cliff
Well, ingesting fluoride in large doses (a LOT) is bad for your bones, and I hear it harms your teeth as well. However, if you brush your teeth with toothpaste containing a very small dose of it… Aside from doses of fluoride in water being very low, there’s no flouride in our water (in this country), since 1973, and before that only a few regions did some trials with it.
Of course, my healthy teeth mean I must be a mindless drone, not to mention that I never had measles or polio, so don’t listen to me. Or maybe our government is lying to us, and there has been fluoride in our water for years, and they pump our vaccines full of mercury and formaldehyde because they like the extra costs of keeping the population ill.
This comment thread is like watching an episode of Lost.
“Yes, the alphabet soup type organisations like the EPA, CDC, NIH, FDA, NCI, CIA, UN, WHO, UNESCO etc all part of the same crime syndicate involved in nefarious activities across the globe. Their benevolent image is just a facade to disguise their real purpose.
Check out the youtube video “The biggest secret part 7: AIDS, vaccines and fluoride”. ”
This thread has officially jumped the shark.
“Well, ingesting fluoride in large doses (a LOT) is bad for your bones, and I hear it harms your teeth as well. However, if you brush your teeth with toothpaste containing a very small dose of it… ”
You don’t seem to realise that fluoride is highly carcinogenic, that is is absorbed through the mucous membranes of your mouth everytime you brush your teeth and that there is enough fluoride in an average tube of toothpaste to kill two small children if they were to ingest its contents!
“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.”–Dean Burke, Former Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute, US Congressional Records of 21 July 1976
Colgate fluoride toothpaste carries this warning: “Not for children under the age of 7″ and the Colgate website one which says: “If more toothpaste than needed for brushing is swallowed, contact a poison centre immediately.”
Fluoride is also used as a rat- and cockroach poison and is the active ingredient in the nerve gas Sarin, which was used in the Tokyo subway attacks which killed a number of people, as well as in 1080 poison used to kill millions of opossums in New Zealand every year.
The same poison is put in public water supplies at tax-payer expense in a number of countries. Water fluoridation is in fact a profitable way of solving the problem of toxic industrial waste disposal posed by fluoride. Water fluoridation allows it to be dispersed via the public’s kidneys.
Fluoridated toothpaste is a public relations exercise designed to get people to associate fluoride with dental care.
I strongly recommend that that people repeat the following words before going to sleep every night, to overcome this programming:
“Fluoride is rat poison! Floride is rat poison!”
Hopefully the words will spring to mind again as you squeeze the ratpoison-laced toothpaste onto your toothbrush in the morning, and deter you from sticking it in your mouth!
“This thread has officially jumped the shark”
Could you explain this turn of phrase to this non-native English spreaker, Emily? I have heard about the cow jumping over the moon, but never about the thread jumping the shark!
“maybe our government is lying to us”
Indeed.
How can you tell when a politician is lying?
Whenever his or her lips move!
It follows that whenever the government tells us that something is good for us, it must be bad for us, and that when it tells us that something is bad for us, it must be good for us. Keep this in mind, Norah, and you will never go wrong.
“They pump our vaccines full of mercury and formaldehyde because they like the extra costs of keeping the population ill”.
That should say “…..because they like to keep the population ill.”
Have you ever asked yourself why the government puts one of the most toxic and carcinogenic chemicals in our drinking water, and
why it promotes the injection of vaccines which contain highly neurotoxic substances like mercury and aluminum?
I’m going to start to call this “chemical essentialist syndrome”, because the argument is basically “if it involves something that, in any context, might be dangerous, it is always dangerous”.
Cliff
This might be of interest, not because of the fluoride “issue” specifically, but because of the summing up of uses of logical fallacies and selective (and sometimes blatant) misrepresentation to rather effectively put forth a persuasive message. Being recent, there is discussion of the contribution of the internet.
From PubMed
Armfield, J.M. (2007). When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 4:25.
http://tinyurl.com/5s6gnm
Interestingly enough many of the examples have shown up both on this thread and the other on the MMR.
“Interestingly enough many of the examples have shown up both on this thread and the other on the MMR.”
Colorfully, and in spades (especially the bamboozling effect).
Fake scientific/logical arguments in terms of fluoride. A very good read indeed.
Oh, oh, oh! Soliciting an opinion, if I may…
Do you think what we have been seeing falls under “unsubstantiated opinion” or “outright fraud”? Maybe both? Hmm…
Cliff
I had never heard the expression “fluoride promotes truth decay”, so I googled it and there were zero hits.
I guess that proves Google is part of the vast conspiracy too, filtering out crucial elements of the fluoride induced mind control scheme to keep everyone ignorant.
Google must be part of the vast conspiracy or your internet connection is lacking, good search came back with 2367 hits.
This is what I found:
“fluoride promotes tooth decay” 2 hits
fluoride promotes tooth decay 162,000 hits
fluoride promotes truth decay 42,000 hits
“fluoride promotes truth decay” 0 hits
Thanks to Regan for the link to this PubMed paper:
Armfield, J.M. (2007). When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature. Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 4:25.
http://tinyurl.com/5s6gnm
If it wasn’t for the fact that I am quite used to the lies told in connection with vaccination and fluoridation, I would probably have vomited all over my keyboard!
The following words are enough to trigger the gagging reflex:
“Fluoridation opponents employ multiple techniques to try and undermine the
scientifically established effectiveness of water fluoridation.”
Scientifically established??? When??? By whom???
The truth is that the EPA scientists in the USA who have carried out the toxicology studies concerning fluoride have protested their management’s politically and commercially motivated stance that “fluoride is safe and effective” (sound familiar?) for years now.
They even threatened to take their management to court for making claims designed to mislead the public.
Even quite a number of Nobel Prize winners are outspoken opponents of water fluoridation.
It is somehow rather fitting that the PubMed paper should concern New Zealand, because after the New Zealand government had introduced water fluoridation by stealth and deceit after world war 2, the Auckland so-called Department of Health sent its Principal Dental Officer Dr John Colquhoun on a world tour to document the supposed benefits of fluoridation.
Summoned before his superiors on his return to deliver his findings, John truthfully told them that he had been unable to find any evidence of benefit, but only evidence of harm. There was a stony silence in the room. John was given the cold shoulder after that and he opted for early retirement rather than compromise his scientific integrity. He became the editor of the International Fluoride Journal and remained an outspoken opponent of fluoridation until his death a few years ago.
Using New Zealand’s official dental decay statistics, John was able to prove that there was little if any difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and unfluoridated New Zealand cities, and that the children in unfluoridated Christchurch actually had better teeth than the children in other, fluoridated cities, such as Dunedin.
Some years ago, Tauranga citizens rejected water fluoridation via a referendum. Tauranga dentists and dental nurses had apparently been under instructions to fill even minute cavities in children’s teeth, to convey the impression that decay rates were soaring without fluoride in the water – yet another example of fluoride causing truth decay!
Another such example can be found in fluoride’s connection to the Manhattan Atomic Bomb Project, where fluoride became such a serious health threat to workers that those in charge manufactured evidence to portray fluoride as harmless.
Tooth decay and infectious diseases seem minor health threats in comparison to the maniacs, the criminals and the psychopaths in government positions and in charge of “public health”. Stringing them up from lampposts is in my opinion far too good for them.
To: daedalus2u
Re:
“fluoride promotes tooth decay” 2 hits
fluoride promotes tooth decay 162,000 hits
fluoride promotes truth decay 42,000 hits
“fluoride promotes truth decay” 0 hits
Your information doesn’t make sense. I suspect that the fluoride in your water or toothpaste may have caused some brain decay over the years.
Did you know that only half of the fluoride ingested over a life time is eliminated from the body, and that the other half is stored in the bones and other parts of the body of the person ingesting it?
Cliff,
In reply to your question,
I don’t know, what do you think?
The discussion about fluoride overlooks a reality in the life of some autistic children—-the difficulty in teaching them to brush their teeth and otherwise take care of dental hygiene. Also, a lot of autistic children—-my son for sure included—-have great trouble going to the dentist. Not attending to necessary dental care can severely reduce quality of life issues.
“Even quite a number of Nobel Prize winners are outspoken opponents of water fluoridation.”
Yes. N=1.
(Erwin, one might be more disposed to look at this from a less skeptical point of view if you didn’t beat people quite so hard over the head with yours.)
“Not attending to necessary dental care can severely reduce quality of life issues”
Ironically, attending to dental care can severely reduce quality of life as well! There are however good news as well:
“The FDA has been successfully sued by Consumers for Dental Choice, forcing them to reclassify mercury amalgam fillings by June, 2009. This ends the decades-long conspiracy between the ADA and FDA to protect the mercury fillings racket which has enabled dentists to implant neurotoxic chemicals into the mouths of children, teens and pregnant women.We are about to win the war against mercury in dental care!
Natural News features an interview with Charles Brown from Consumers for Dental Choice. It exposes the fraud and criminality of top FDA decision makers who have conspired with the American Dental Association to poison our children and protect mercury filling profits. You have no idea just how evil modern dentistry has become, and how willing these people are to harm you and your children so that they can earn obscene profits!”
Natural News
Similarly, most people have no idea just how evil modern medicine has become, and how willing these people are to harm us and our children with useless vaccines, so that they can earn obscene profits.
One can only hope that the FDA and all the other alphabet soup organisations’ complicity in the vaccination racket and the mercury scandal will be similarly exposed in the not too distant future.
I recall that another Nobel winner seriously espoused the concept of panspermia. Hmmm….I think that was Francis Crick, yes?
Now THAT’s a derailment.
In response to Regan’s comment in reply to mine:
“Even quite a number of Nobel Prize winners are outspoken opponents of water fluoridation.”
Yes. N=1.
Google “14 Nobel Prize Winners who object to fluoridation”, then get back to me with your apology.
1. Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize in Medicine, Oct 2000 for his work on the brain. He also played a very prominent role in banning fluoridation in Sweden
2. Dr Giulio Natta, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1963; Chemical Eng., Director, Industrial Chemistry Research Center, Polytechnic Institute of Milan, Italy.
3. Dr Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1958 WHO’s Avisory Health Research Council, Received U.S. National Medal of Science, 1989. Former Chairman of the Cancer Panel of the National Academy of Science.
4. Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood, O.M., M.A., D.S., F.R.S., Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1956, University of Oxford
5. Nikolai Semenov, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1956, D. Sc., Director, Institute of Chemical Physics, Moscow,; professor, Leningrad Polytechnic Institute and of Moscow State University; member USSR Academy of Science, Chemical Society of England, and Royal Society of England
6. Hugo Theorell, M.D., Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1955, Director, Bio-Chemistry Department, Nobel Medical Institute, President, Swedish Medical Association. Stated hazards of fluoridation in a report to Swedish Medical Board.
7. W. Hess, Dr. Phil. Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine, 1949, Professor of physiology and former Director of Physiological Institute, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
8. Sir Robert Robinson, O.M., D. Sc., F.R.I.C., F.R.S., M.I.C.E., Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry, 1947, Director, Shell Chemical Company, Profesor of Chemistry, Oxford University
9. James B. Sumner, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1946, former Director of Enzyme Chemistry, Dpt. of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Cornell University
10. Prof Arturi Virtanen, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1945, Director, Biochemical Institute, Helsinki; president, Finnish State Academy of Sciences and Art.
11. Adolf F. J. Butenandt, D. Phil, Nobel Prize Chemistry, 1939, Dir. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry; professor of phisiological chemistry, Munich University
12. Corneille Jean Francis Heymans, M.D., Nobel Prize Winner Medicine 1938. Professor of Pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and toxicology and Director Heymans Institute of Pharmacology and Therapeutics
13. William P Murphy, M.D., D.Sc., Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1934. Lecturer in Medicine, 1934. Lecturer on Medicine, emeritus, Harvard Medical School; consultant in hematology, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Boston
14. Hans K.A.S. von Euler-Chelpin, Nobel Prize winner Chemistry, 1929, Stockholm University, President, Chemical Sociey, Dir. Inst. for Research in Organic Chemistry.
I’m sorry if I “beat people around the head with my views”! It’s just that from where I am looking at things, they are obviously asleep and need to be woken up!
Zero is also a number, as in a number of Nobel Prize winners believe XYZ.
Well, I stopped believing in any Nobel Prizes as meaning anything when Al Gore won over a woman who single handedly saved 2,500 children from the Germans during the Holocaust and even after being tortured she lived and returned as many children as she could to their parents.
Yeah, Al Gore is sure a better winner than her — NOT…. what a freaking joke.
“The discussion about fluoride overlooks a reality in the life of some autistic children—-the difficulty in teaching them to brush their teeth and otherwise take care of dental hygiene. Also, a lot of autistic children—-my son for sure included—-have great trouble going to the dentist. Not attending to necessary dental care can severely reduce quality of life issues.”
——————————
Kristina,
Seeing the amount of passion expended on this thread, it makes you wonder or wish that at least an equal amount of time was devoted to those questions of how to teach those skills and increasing access to dental care for those with specialized needs or lack of access due to inability to pay (In our area there is much easier access to low/free pay medical than dental).
Anyway, we’ve all (me too) gone pretty far afield of your original post. Sorry.
Just how many names does Mike post under? Mike, Liquid Zeolite, probiotics, now Erwin Alber?
In response to Regan’s comment in reply to mine:
“Even quite a number of Nobel Prize winners are outspoken opponents of water fluoridation.”
Yes. N=1.
Google “14 Nobel Prize Winners who object to fluoridation”.
1. Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize in Medicine, Oct 2000 for his work on the brain. He also played a very prominent role in banning fluoridation in Sweden
2. Dr Giulio Natta, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1963; Chemical Eng., Director, Industrial Chemistry Research Center, Polytechnic Institute of Milan, Italy.
3. Dr Joshua Lederberg, Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1958 WHO’s Avisory Health Research Council, Received U.S. National Medal of Science, 1989. Former Chairman of the Cancer Panel of the National Academy of Science.
4. Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood, O.M., M.A., D.S., F.R.S., Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1956, University of Oxford
5. Nikolai Semenov, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1956, D. Sc., Director, Institute of Chemical Physics, Moscow,; professor, Leningrad Polytechnic Institute and of Moscow State University; member USSR Academy of Science, Chemical Society of England, and Royal Society of England
6. Hugo Theorell, M.D., Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1955, Director, Bio-Chemistry Department, Nobel Medical Institute, President, Swedish Medical Association. Stated hazards of fluoridation in a report to Swedish Medical Board.
7. W. Hess, Dr. Phil. Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine, 1949, Professor of physiology and former Director of Physiological Institute, University of Zurich, Switzerland.
8. Sir Robert Robinson, O.M., D. Sc., F.R.I.C., F.R.S., M.I.C.E., Nobel Prize Winner in Chemistry, 1947, Director, Shell Chemical Company, Profesor of Chemistry, Oxford University
9. James B. Sumner, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1946, former Director of Enzyme Chemistry, Dpt. of Biochemistry and Nutrition, Cornell University
10. Prof Arturi Virtanen, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1945, Director, Biochemical Institute, Helsinki; president, Finnish State Academy of Sciences and Art.
11. Adolf F. J. Butenandt, D. Phil, Nobel Prize Chemistry, 1939, Dir. Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry; professor of phisiological chemistry, Munich University
12. Corneille Jean Francis Heymans, M.D., Nobel Prize Winner Medicine 1938. Professor of Pharmacology, pharmacodynamics and toxicology and Director Heymans Institute of Pharmacology and Therapeutics
13. William P Murphy, M.D., D.Sc., Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1934. Lecturer in Medicine, 1934. Lecturer on Medicine, emeritus, Harvard Medical School; consultant in hematology, Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Boston
14. Hans K.A.S. von Euler-Chelpin, Nobel Prize winner Chemistry, 1929, Stockholm University, President, Chemical Society, Dir. Inst. for Research in Organic Chemistry.
Regan, also check out:
http;//www.nofluoride.com/presentations/presentation.htm
This link features, among other information:
Scientist’s Position Papers
-14 Nobel Prize winners opposing fluoridation
-EPA professionals discuss why they oppose fluoridation.
-Dr. John Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland New Zealand and former advocate of fluoridation, documents why he changed his mind.
-Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of the University of Toronto’s School of Preventive Dentistry and former fluoridation advocate, documents his reasoning for now opposing fluoridation.
Dr Limeback has publicly apologised for unknowingly misleading the public about fluoridation for many years.
-Dr. Mullinix – discusses research she’s done demonstrating the negative health impact of fluoridation
-List of Top Medical Professionals and Scientists Warning of Fluoridation Dangers
-List of Doctors and Dentists objecting to water fluoridation
From Medical Journals
-AMA Letter – AMA states “not prepared to state fluoride is safe”
-Journal American Medical Assoc. – “Hip Fractures increased in areas with fluoridated water”
-Journal American Dental Assoc (JADA) – “optimal intake has yet to be determined”
-Amer. Journal of Epidemiology – “fluoride damages bones at levels added to public drinking water”
-Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health – “five major epidemiological studies show a high rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions.
-Dartmouth College -”fluoridation is associated with an increase of lead levels in children” – 280,000 children in the study.
-Canadian Dental Association warning that 35-60% of people in fluoridated communities will get dental fluorosis (mottling of the teeth), a sign of chronic fluoride poisoning. Half of ingested fluride accumulates in bones and in other parts of the body.
-Populations who are sensitive to the effects of fluoride
-Annals of Allergy – study showing allergies to fluoride.
-Delta Dental, a large California insurance company promotes and funds fluoridation but refuses to pay for dental work due to fluoridation damage.
Here is a little fluoridation history:
Decades ago, the aluminum industry was sued for millions for the damage the fluoride emitted from smokestacks inflicted on crops, forests, animals and people.
To solve this problem, some bright but scrupulous people hit on the idea of promoting fluoride added to public drinking water supplies as a preventative for tooth decay, thus enabling them to get rid of this highly toxic and highly carcinogenic industrial waste product at a profit!
The Mellon family owning the aluminum industry spent huge amounts of money to promote their criminal scheme/scam to governments and dentists. Marketing fluoride toothpaste is an integral part of this brain-washing exercise, to promote the (completely erroneous) idea that fluoride is good for teeth.
Last year, Colgate donated 1000 tubes of fluoride toothpaste to all 6 and 7-year-old school children at the school in Bangkok where I teach English. Theit motto is obviously: “Get them early!”
The fluoride is obtained by hosing down the accumulated deposits from factory chimneys of the aluminum and fertiliser industry where it collects on the scrubbers.
Being contaminated with lead, cadmium, arsenic and even radioactive elements, this industrial grade fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is unfit for human consumption, yet added to our drinking water! If a pharmacist were to stock and sell it, he would be fined and lose his license!
Fluoridation is mass medication and mass poisoning of the public.
As things are, corrupt and criminal governments, who get election campaign contributions and other backhanders from big business, allow and even promote crimes against the public good such as fluoriation and vaccination, under the pretext of promoting public health.
As Alan Watt – cuttingthroughthematrix – points out: “The psychopaths at the top impose a psychopathic culture on the rest of us”. I maintain that hanging them from lampposts is too good for them.
http;//www.nofluoride.com/presentations/presentation.htm
This link features a fascinating account by Dr John Colquhoun about why he changed his mind about fluoridation. It includes a graph which clearly shows that neither fluoridated toothpaste nor water fluoridation made any difference to declining tooth decay rates.
The similarity between this graph and the many graphs based on offifcial statistics showing that vaccines had no influence whatsoever on declining infectious disease mortality rates is striking.
Sorry, this should of course have said:
“…some bright but UNscrupulous people hit on the idea of promoting fluoride added to public drinking water supplies as a preventative for tooth decay…”
google ‘nteu280.org’ to access the EPA’s scientists’ website.
The EPA scientists start their statement on fluoride with the following:
Silicofluorides: unrefined industrial waste
91% of Americans ingesting artificially fluoridated water are consuming silicofluorides1. This is a class of fluoridation chemicals that includes hydrofluosilicic acid and its salt form, sodium fluorosilicate. These chemicals are collected from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The scrubber liquors contain contaminants such as arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, and radioactive particles2, are legally regulated as toxic waste, and are prohibited from direct dispersal into the environment. Upon being sold (unrefined) to municipalities as fluoridating agents, these same substances are then considered a “product”, allowing them to be dispensed through fluoridated municipal water systems to the very same ecosystems to which they could not be released directly. Sodium fluoride, used in the remaining municipalities, is also an industrial waste product that contains hazardous contaminants.
Scarcity of environmental impact studies
This is of deep concern to us. Studies that do exist indicate damage to salmon and to plant ecosystems.3a It is significant that Canada’s water quality guideline to protect freshwater life is 0.12 ppm (parts per million). 3b
99.97% of fluoridated water is released directly into the environment at around 1ppm
This water is NOT used for drinking or cooking.4
I never believed the myth I looked at it and ar worst believed that it aggravated an already existing condition. I wish more people would just look at the facts and use so not so common anymore sense!! great job!
Dear Sir,
Vaccines contain ethyl mercury, which is non-toxic and bio-degradeable. I pointed this out to the herbalist Wendy Wilson, but needless to say I received no reply!