(Illustrations added by Zen)
Fluoride has two sources. It can appear ‘naturally’ in water or it can appear as a toxic waste. Even where it does appear without any help from industry it can cause problems. This leaflet concentrates on some of the possible, if not probable explanations, as to why those industries who produce toxic fluoride wastes are in favour of water fluoridation.
The earliest problems associated with toxic wastes involved those businesses manufacturing aluminium with the resulting waste usually being sodium fluoride. In Britain today, the most frequently used toxic waste product used for fluoridation comes from the phosphate fertiliser industry. However, the principles are the same and what happened in the first half of the 20th century is just as relevant as to what is happening today.
In the 1930’s, the aluminium processing industry faced a serious threat to it’s existence – it’s toxic fluoride wastes were seriously polluting the environment and this resulted in some very expensive litigation settlements. According to George Waldbott’s book, Fluoridation, The Great Dilemma ( published 1978 ), the production of aluminium involves the following process;-
“During the smelting and reduction process, when bauxite ( aluminium oxide ) is dissolved and electrolyzed in molten cryolite, hydrogen fluoride and other volatile fluorides are released into the air, and sodium fluoride remains in the bath” ( source: Davenport, S. J., and Morris, G.G.: US Bureau of Mines. Circular 7687, US Department of the Interior, June 1954, page 8 ).
The latter cannot simply be dumped on the ground because it seriously pollutes grass and other forage. Indeed, in 1950 ALCOA’s ( the Aluminium Company of America ) plant in Vancouver, Washington, was fined for dumping fluorides into the Columbia River, and the airborne fluorides heavily contaminated the grass and forage, “which resulted in injury and death to cattle.” ( Reported by the Seattle Times, Dec.16, 1952 ).”
Waldbott continues with a number of incidents which resulted in damages being awarded against the ‘industry’. The first involved a trout and fish hatchery. “eggs were worthless” and did not hatch properly; the fish also exhibited malformations. “During the weeks after rains, the Meaders were hauling away about a ton of dead fish per day.” So how many hundreds or thousands of parts per million ( “ppm” ) of fluoride caused this? Fluoride levels were no more than between 0.5 and 4.7 ppm in the samples taken from the hatchery. I would take the opportunity at this to remind the reader that our Government want to add 1 ppm of fluoride to drinking water supplies. If you keep goldfish or other tropical fish, or ANY fish and are hoping to breed, then keep this in mind. Waldbott goes on to say that this was not just one in a series of a few incidents. More cases are mentioned which involved $100,000’s being paid in compensation with the total liability running potentially into $1,000,000’s ( or even $1,000,000,000’s ).
The big ‘fluoride problem’. Estimated total atmospheric inorganic fluoride emissions from major industries in the USA ( 1968 );-
Industry Tonnage per year
Steel Industry 40,1000
Combustion of coal 16,000
Ceramics industries 21,200
Nonferrous metal industries 4,000
Phosphate fertilizer & processing industries 18,700
Welding operations 2,700
Aluminium industry 16,000
Why the producers of toxic fluoride wastes had to find another route for their poisons ……
(A cross section of metatarsal bones from cows of same breed, size and age showing normal appearance on the left and severe osteofluorosis on the right ).
An advertisement for ALCOA’s sodium fluoride ‘drinking water supplement’ ).
…… and their solution to this problem was to get ordinary folk to consume it instead.
So how did the fluoride pollution industries get the American Government to turn around and support the disposal of toxic fluoride wastes via the public water supplies? Surely no administration, however evil or corrupt it may be, would endorse such a scheme – would they?
Perhaps if there were another agenda for fluoridation then things may just be different and another use for fluoride would certainly appeal to an unscrupulous Government. Supporting this contention are the well known unprincipled and clandestine experiments carried out on British and American subjects and involving LSD and radiation exposure ( just two examples ). So why not experiment with fluoride as well? This brings us up to the start of World War II and up until this point fluoridation was a non-starter. But during the war another use for fluoride was found and this resulted in a radical change of policy in the USA.
It is the end of World War II and the Allies ( read Americans ) have control of the German I G Farben factories and all of it’s technologies. Enter American Charles Eliot Perkins ( “Perkins” ). Perkins, so the story goes, was a researcher in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology. He and other scientists were put in charge of the Farben industries shortly after the cessation of hostilities but it was Perkins who was informed that the German General Staff adopted the plan of using sodium fluoride to make prisoners-of-war more docile and easier to manipulate and control. There is no surviving evidence to suggest the Germans did actually do this though it was well within their doctrine to carry out such a practice. It is also claimed that the ultimate intention of the Nazis was to fluoridate every country that they occupied and this story, which the Pushers are desperate to ridicule, has gained credibility in recent years for a number of reasons.
So what did Perkins do with the information given to him? Like most other scientists who fear for their job, their future or even their lives, he could have kept quiet. Not Perkins. Even as early as the 1940’s to 1950’s Perkins realised that fluoride could have an undesirable effect on a certain part of the brain – the hippocampus. Before he died, he urged those who would follow him not to let the anti-fluoride cause fail.
This was done in part in 1987 by someone known as Harley Rivers Dickinson ( An Australian Liberal MP ) who raised the issue of fluoridation and its sinister implications in an “Address in Reply to the Governor’s speech in Parliament.” The ‘Address’ forms part of a document compiled by Ian E Stephens and is appropriately entitled the ‘Dickinson Statement’ ( the “Statement” ). The main thrust of the Address was as follows;-
“At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there he was told of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotisizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners-of-war to make them stupid and docile.” ( Reference: [Australian ] Victorian Hansard of 12th August 1987 ).
The Statement adds to this;- “… Farben was a German chemical manufacturing concern that supplied Chlorine Gas used by Germany during the first World War, but the eventual creation of the huge Farben Cartel began in 1924 when American bankers began to arrange foreign loans in what Professor Carroll Quigley terms ‘The Dawes Plan’, “largely a J P Morgan production.” ( J P Morgan: one of the Wall Street élite – Author ). In 1928, Henry Ford merged his German assets with Farben to be followed by the American Standard Oil Company who, in concert with Farben, developed the coal to oil hydrogenation process. In a letter to Roosevelt from Berlin in the early thirties, American Ambassador in Germany, William Dodd, said: “At the present, more than a hundred American corporations have subsidiaries here or co-operative understandings. The DuPonts have their allies in Germany that are aiding in the armament business. Their chief ally is the Farben company, a part of the Government which gives 200,000 Marks a year to one propaganda organization operating on American opinion. Standard Oil Company… sent $2 million here in December 1933 and has made $500,000 a year helping Germans make Ersatz gas ( to convert coal to gasoline ) for war purposes; but Standard Oil cannot take any of its earnings out of the country except in goods. The International Harvester president told me their business here rose 33% per year but they could not take anything out. Even our airplane people have secret arrangements with Krupps. General Motors and Ford do enormous business here through their subsidiaries and take no profits out.”
The Farben assets in America were controlled by a holding company, American IG Farben which listed on its Board of Directors, Edsel Ford, President of the Ford Motor Company, Chas E Mitchell, President of Rockefeller’s National City Bank of New York, Walter Teagle, President of Standard Oil in New York, Paul Warburg, Chairman of the Federal Reserve and brother of Max Warburg, financier of Germany’s war effort, and Herman Metz, a Director of the Bank of Manhattan, controlled by the Warburgs.”
The Statement says of ALCOA;- “In 1939, ALCOA, then probably the world’s largest producer of sodium fluoride, transferred its technology to Germany ( the Alted Agreement ). The Dow Chemical Company transmitted it’s experience and technology in that same period.” Other Cartel companies mentioned in the Statement include the names of Kellogg and Proctor & Gambol ( of Crest toothpaste fame ).
NB. None of the Americans that sat on the Board of AIG Farben were prosecuted after the war though three “non-Americans” were tried and convicted as war criminals.
Part 2 of the Statement looks at the roll of ‘Foundations’. “In Australia, the Dental Health & Research Foundation, which has such names as Colgate, Kellogg and other ex-Farben associates listed among it’s ‘governors and contributors’, has been irreverently but accurately dubbed “the Fluoride Mafia”. Closely allied with this Sydney University ‘Foundation’, in its printed promotional claims for fluorides and fluoridation, is ‘Foundation 41’. Unfortunately, the data of the “thorough investigations” said to have been carried out by the Foundation into fluoride, its benefits and its hazards, have never been made available, despite numerous appeals. A recent ABC Science Show’s examination of the scientific integrity of Foundation 41 may explain the elusive data. America is literally bursting at the seams with such Foundations, but amongst the earlier names were the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation and the Ford Foundation. It is necessary to mention these specifically because they were the first Foundations to make grants in the population ( control ) field and the Carnegie family merged with the Mellon family Institute to create the Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh in 1967.”
The Statement now returns to the ill-fêted Perkins. “In a letter abstracted from “Fluoridation and Lawlessness” ( published by the Committee for Mental Health and National Security ) to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin on October 2nd 1954, a Charles Eliot Perkins said;-
“We are told by fanatical ideologists who are advocating the fluoridation of the water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the gullibility of the public and the cupidity ( meaning covetousness – to desire or eagerly wish for ) of public officials that is responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country. However, and I want to make this very definite and very positive, the real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper and more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty… When the Nazis decided to go into Poland … the German General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans and personnel and the scheme of mass medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communize the world… I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly twenty years research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine. Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically.”
The Russian connection is further enhanced by the statement of Major George Racey Jordan who was in charge of the shipment of sodium fluoride to Russia from Great Falls, Montana, via Alaska. He queried the shipment of considerable amounts of sodium fluoride to Russia and was told “frankly” that it was put into the drinking water in the prisoner-of-war camps to take away their will to resist. As for the CIA, who ultimately come into this story, the Statement further adds that the ‘Rockefeller Report’ to the United States President on CIA activities said: “The drug program ( LSD, fluoride?, etc. – Author ) was part of a much larger CIA program to study possible means of controlling human behaviour ( Mk-Ultra? ).”
NB. An earlier part of the Statement revealed that an advisor to the American Government on “hypnotism” or psychological behaviour control, Dr George Estabrooks, later became Chairman of the Department of Psychology at COLGATE UNIVERSITY.
The Statement also lists all the fluoridated tranquillisers that were on the market at the time ( and no doubt some still are ). Perhaps it is just coincidence, but the first fluoridation trials were about to begin in the USA in 1945, the year *Operation Paperclip commenced ( *Operation Paperclip involved the movement of Nazi scientists to the USA ). Until 1945, the US Public Health Service ( “USPHS” ) had resisted fluoridation but that was all about to change, and rapidly so. The previous year, one Oscar Ewing was working for ALCOA as an attorney and on an annual salary of $750,000 – an awful lot of money in those days. Was Ewing happy working for ALCOA and receiving such a substantial wage? If so, why did he decide to leave ALCOA to become Federal Security Administrator in the American Government at a lower income. Ewing is reported to have said that “he wanted to serve his country”. Consider also that the USPHS, just prior to and possibly during, was part of the US Treasury at the time Ewing was employed. And who was the US Treasurer just prior to Ewing’s appointment? It was no other than Andrew Mellon, of ALCOA fame ( or should I say notoriety? ). It is more than a coincidence that in his position he could exert his influence over the reluctant USPHS and arrange for ‘favourable’ research into fluoride to compel the USPHS to reverse its decision. It has certainly been claimed on more than one occasion that past experiments into fluoridation were not well designed – clearly indicating that such research was biased. The scientists controlling the research programmes, instead of being unbiased, could be carefully selected to produce such favourable results and so the fluoride bandwagon began to roll. Therefore, appointments to influential positions under Ewing’s control became a reality. So why did the Government appoint him if he was going to use his position to further the cause of fluoridation? Perhaps President Roosevelt ( ‘Mr Wall Street’ and I G Farben investor ), also had an interest in fluoride’s ‘alternative use’.
Full Article continues HERE
[Hat tip: Jojo-Tx!]