By Michael Barbee - UK
NOTE: Along the same vein, since fluoride is a poisonous by-product of aluminum, it's important to know the dangers of aluminum, too. Most every under-arm deodorant contains aluminum. Rubbing or spraying on the very thin and soft under-arm skin allows it to be easily absorbed into the body. Autopsies on Alzheimers victims have repeatedly shown high concentrations of aluminum in the brain tissue. You can find deodorants at your local health-food store that do NOT contain aluminum.
Cooking with aluminum is dangerous because the aluminum sluffs off into the food, and is again absorbed into the system. It is said that the aluminum leaching into the food changes the molecular structure of the food (like microwave ovens do).
Drinking or eating from food or soda, etc. canned in aluminum should also be avoided. Glass bottles are best. It appears that the aluminum we ingest or absorb via the skin is retained just as the fluoride is retained.
-- Jackie --
June 17th, 2004
Dangers of Flouride in Water
By Michael Barbee
How about the small amount of fluoride compounds added to water supplies to bring the total fluoride content to about one part per million in order to prevent tooth decay? Too little to do any harm?
First, fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth, on par with arsenic and lead. It has no proven biological use inside the human body (teeth included). There is no minimum daily requirement for fluoride. And second, it is a cumulative poison. Only about half of what we consume is excreted.
The other half collects in the teeth and bones, making them dense, but brittle. Those little white spots visible on the teeth of many children are called dental fluorosis, a condition which not only predisposes them to decay, but also provides a sign that systemic fluoride poisoning is taking place. Dental fluorosis appears to serve as a red flag for future bone fractures as well.
The neurotoxic nature of fluoride is also linked to motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and learning disabilities. In the year 2000, a group of Boston physicians concluded:
"Studies in animals and human populations suggest that fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain."
An interesting question is: How did we get tricked into poisoning ourselves in the first place? Fluoride was crucial to the H-bomb makers. It was needed to help process uranium; tons of it were needed.
During the mid-1940s the DuPont Corporation supplied the U. S. militarys Manhattan Project with the fluoride it required. There was a big problem, however. The area in New Jersey surrounding the DuPont plant was being contaminated by toxic fluoride emissions. People were made ill, cattle and horses were crippled, and crops were either contaminated or completely wiped out.
In preparation for an impending court battle--and to head off any negative publicity which might negatively impact the fluoride/bomb production--the Manhattan Project authorized the military to conduct its own fluoride studies. Not only did they want information which would help diffuse the farmers anger, but they also needed to know to what extent the fluoride workers were being damaged from fluoride exposure.
Some of the lab studies were performed at Strong Memorial Hospital, the same facility which injected toxic, radioactive plutonium into unsuspecting human guinea pigs.
Research from that time showed that fluoride had a negative impact on the central nervous system. This corroborates recent research showing the same thing--to the extent that the IQs of children in fluoridated areas are lower than normal. Other information and studies from the 1940s are apparently still "classified " or have 'disappeared '.
The aluminium industry was also eager to get the fluoride bandwagon rolling. They had been marketing their fluoride waste as a rat poison and insecticide and were looking for a larger market. Therefore, a ten-year test was planned to prove to the public that fluoride in water would reduce the incidence of cavities. Before the test was completed as planned, and despite the fact that there was no clear evidence that fluoride was either safe or effective, water fluoridation was declared a triumph for public health.
Today, when fluorides safety is questioned, people with legitimate concerns are often treated with disdain. They are told that fluoride in "optimal" amounts is safe--the studies say so. The promoters and defenders of this toxin need to be asked: "What studies?"
When old and/or faulty research (by todays standards) is tossed out, including that from other countries like England's recent York Review (of fluoridation) in which important data was omitted or misinterpreted, there remain no reliable studies confirming the safety of water fluoridation. None. Zero. Not even are there any double-blind studies showing fluorides effectiveness. There are, however, over 500 peer-reviewed studies showing adverse effects from fluoride.
Hardy Limebeck, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto, once belonged to a group of dental professionals giving talks to promote the benefits of water fluoridation. He was one of Canadas primary promoters of public fluoridation--until he began to take a closer look at the research. Now he states:
"For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind."
"Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental association."
Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong.
Author: Michael Barbee
Excerpted from "Politically Incorrect Nutrition" by Michael Barbee (Vital Health Publishing)
Back to Health/Medical | Sweet Liberty Issues page | Home