DID GOVERNMENT APPROVE CITIZENS AS TOXIC WASTE SITES?

It has been a long established joke about not drinking the water in Third World countries. Now it is here in America that the water has been declared unsafe to drink, and it is no joke. Whereas the greatest problem with water in the underdeveloped nations is usually such as amoebic dysentery, serious but reversible, in the U.S. it is rat poison one gets in the drinking water--and it is no accident.

Extensive studies, ignored with a yawn by those who believe they are being served well by the media and various dental associations, have shown that the consumption of fluoride in drinking water and prescription doses is extremely harmful and deleterious in a number of ways.

Reputable researchers from such as Harvard and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and numerable other research investigators, have shown that fluoridation of drinking water can result in brain and other physiological damage producing such abnormalities as:

The list goes on of primary and ancillary defects and damage caused by the addition of a substance used in rat poison.

In a 1997 copyrighted article once seriously considered for publication by The New York Times Magazine, investigative reporter Joel Griffiths followed a convoluted trail of once-secret documents stretching as far back as the Manhattan Project. In a subsequent article entitled, "Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb" Griffiths collaborated with journalist Christopher Bryson to piece together not only the origin of water fluoridation, but its secret rationale and the insidious reasoning behind the introduction into the drinking water of two-thirds of American cities of what is nothing more than a toxic waste product.

Griffiths told The WINDS that The New York Times Magazine had shown great interest in his original article to the point of suggesting specific rewrites resulting even in the submission of a final working draft. Then, according to Griffiths, their interested suddenly disappeared. Later when Bryson joined with Griffiths the two journalists had a similar experience with The Christian Science Monitor who had actually accepted their final co-authored work for publication but never put it in print and finally canceled.

The authors, who have worked for such as the BBC, New York Public Television, The Christian Science Monitor and others, boldly introduced their work by stating, "The following article exposes the biggest ongoing medical experiment ever carried out by the United States government on an unsuspecting population," and continues with meticulously verified sources derived largely from documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. ***

"One of the most toxic chemicals known," they claim, "fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S. atomic bomb program -- both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal." Other revelations include:

"Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide 'evidence useful in litigation' against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the U.S. A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show."

Dr. John R. Lee, MD[2], was chairman of the Environmental Health Committee of his local medical association in Marin County, California when he came head-to-head with the fluoride issue. According to Dr. Lee, the county had continually pushed water fluoridation on the local ballot until it passed by a slim one per cent.

"The medical society was receiving a lot of phone calls from people who were wondering what the truth was about the benefit, or lack of benefit, of fluoride. As a result, they turned it over to the Environmental Health Committee."

Dr. Lee was the perfect, unbiased investigator because, "Up until then," he told The WINDS, "I didn't know anything about fluoride, so our committee got the scientific references from both sides of the issue. We studied the references that led to more references--and we tracked it all down and found that the fluoride literature is mostly hogwash.

"Then," he continues, "we asked the medical society if we could do a study to determine how much fluoride there already was in the food--because in Canada they had been monitoring that and found that there was a lot of fluoride in their food chain due to, among other things, processing with fluoridated water.

"Our study of the food that children eat determined that there was plenty of fluoride in it and there was really no reason to add more to the water because it already exceeded what the public health department determined was the maximum daily dose.

"That's when I became aware of what was going on and went to testify at the State Board of Health. It was amazing to see these guys come out with their references that really aren't references--statements taken out of someone else's paper that wasn't based on anything--a kind of circular, self-referencing research. ["Joe said it so now I can quote Joe, even though Joe was just quoting me."] They would take statements made in textbooks that were published before there was any fluoridation and food was not being processed with fluoridated water--and they would just change the dates. We found all these tricks being played with the data. It was then that I discovered that it was not a scientific dispute but dishonest trickery. It was all a sham."

When The WINDS asked Dr. Lee why, according to his research into the controversy, he thought there was so much political force driving the fluoridation movement, the physician/scientist said, "It's a toxic waste product of many types of industry; for instance, glass production, phosphate fertilizer production and many others. They would have no way to dispose of the tons of fluoride waste they produce unless they could find some use for it, so they made up this story about it being good for dental health. Then they can pass it through everyone's bodies and into the sewer." [A novel approach to toxic waste disposal--just feed it to the people and let their bodies "detoxify" it]. "It is a well coordinated effort," Dr. Lee added, "to keep it from being declared for what it is--a toxic waste."

This could cause one to wonder if the public were not already aware of the dangers of radioactive plutonium waste, what means the government would use to dispose of it.

Dr. Lee's argument carries considerable credibility in light of the revelations proceeding from Griffiths' and Bryson's research into the previously classified documents. That research shows, as mentioned previously, that the idea of fluoride being good for people's teeth originated with the atomic bomb's Manhattan Project. That "fact" that fluoride was beneficial constituted the government's cardinal defense against lawsuits stemming from an environmental contamination that took place from the Du Pont chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey in 1944. "The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan Project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb."

It should be noted here that, without exception, all scientists interviewed during the course of researching this article agreed upon one overwhelming motivation for the government's vigorous promotion of water fluoridation and other dental applications of fluoride--though they've known since the mid 30's of the highly toxic nature of the substance. That unanimous opinion was that it ultimately posed a very tidy solution to the disposal of a very nasty toxic waste. One EPA scientist quoted previously, Dr. William Hirzy, went so far as to conjecture that the red ink that would be produced by the fertilizer industry alone, if it were required to properly dispose of fluoride as a waste product, would exceed $100 million a year. As the legendary New York City Police Detective, Frank Serpico, was once warned, "With that kind of money you don't [mess] around."

The WINDS has obtained a copy of a letter dated March, 1983 on EPA letterhead, written by then U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, Rebecca Hanmer. In that document Ms. Hanmer frankly admits that:

Keeping in mind that the EPA considers a spill of more than twenty-five pounds of common table salt an environmental hazard or "incident", in fairness it must be asked, first, is fluoride really effective in reducing tooth decay and, secondly, at the same time is it safe for drinking water?

The answer to the first question: not according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

A TRAIL OF CASUALTIES

The political and financial forces surrounding the fluoride industry, according to Dr. Lee and others, are vicious and unrelenting in their assaults upon anyone daring to place themselves at odds with it. Dr. Lee briefly outlined cases with which he is personally acquainted where reputable doctors and scientists have had their careers either ruined or severely crippled as the result of trying to introduce truth into this darkness-shrouded global enterprise. Cases in point:

THE DARK ODYSSEY OF DR. PHYLLIS MULLENIX

While conducting interviews and gathering the data contained in this writing, this office was repeatedly referred by EPA scientists, university professors and physicians to Dr. Mullenix's research at the Forsyth Dental Institute as a primary and seminal source of reliable scientific research on fluoride toxicity.

The Forsyth Dental Center is a highly respected research institution established in 1910 for the purpose of providing free dental care for the children of Boston. It is the largest and, considered by many, the most highly respected dental research institution in the world. All Harvard dental students are required to take a portion of their training at Forsyth.

It is interesting to note that the, then, director of the institute, Dr. Jack Hein, who was responsible for her assignment to fluoride toxicology studies was, according to Mullenix, instrumental in some of the original research that led to the introduction of fluoride into toothpaste while he was working for Colgate.

"I wasn't too excited about studying fluoride," Mullenix told this reporter, "because, quite frankly, it was 'good for your teeth' and all that, and I thought the studies would be basically just another control and I had no interest in fluoride." However, because it was part of what she was hired to do, she said, and because she had just astounded the institute by achieving the unattainable--securing a grant from the National Cancer Institute to study the neurotoxicity of the treatments used for childhood leukemia--she decided to incorporate the fluoride studies into that research milieu. In fact, Mullenix claimed, "I was in the top four per cent in the country" for such funding. "The institute was tickled pink, but I really had no idea what a quagmire I was getting into."

For her toxicology studies Dr. Mullenix designed a computer pattern recognition system that has been described by other scientists as nothing short of elegant in its ability to study fluoride's effects on the neuromotor functions of rats.

THE "MIRACLE OF FLUORIDE" -or- A DIRTY INDUSTRY?

"By about 1990 I had gathered enough data from the test and control animals," Mullenix continues, "to realize that fluoride doesn't look clean." When she reviewed that data she realized that something was seriously affecting her test animals. They had all (except the control group) been administered doses of fluoride sufficient to bring their blood levels up to the same as those that had caused dental fluorosis [a brittleness and staining of the teeth] in thousands of children. Up to this point, Mullenix explained, fluorosis was widely thought to be the only effect of excessive fluoridation.

The scientist's first hint that she may not be navigating friendly waters came when she was ordered to present her findings to the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) [a division of NIH, the National Institute of Health]. "That's when the 'fun' started," she said, "I had no idea what I was getting into. I walked into the main corridors there and all over the walls was 'The Miracle of Fluoride'. That was my first real kick-in-the-pants as to what was actually going on." The NIH display, she said, actually made fun of and ridiculed those that were against fluoridation. "I thought, 'Oh great!' Here's the main NIH hospital talking about the 'Miracle of Fluoride' and I'm giving a seminar to the NIDR telling them that fluoride is neurotoxic!"

What Dr. Mullenix presented at the seminar that, in reality, sounded the death knell of her career was that:

"The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in children. That's one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence."

At a meeting with dental industry representatives immediately following her presentation, Mullenix was bluntly asked if she was saying that their company's products were lowering the I.Q. of children? "And I told them, 'basically, yes.'"

The documents obtained by authors Griffiths and Bryson seem to add yet another voice of corroboration to the reduced intelligence effects of fluoride. "New epidemiological evidence from China adds support," the writers claim, "showing a correlation between low dose fluoride exposure and diminished I.Q. in children."

Then in 1994, after refining her research and findings, Dr. Mullenix presented her results to the Journal of Neurotoxicology and Teratology [5], considered probably the world's most respected publication in that field. Three days after she joyfully announced to the Forsyth Institute that she had been accepted for publication by the journal, she was dismissed from her position. What followed was a complete evaporation of all grants and funding for any of Mullenix's research. What that means in the left-brain world of scientific research, which is fueled by grants of government and corporate capital, is the equivalent to an academic burial. Her letter of dismissal from the Forsyth Institute stated as their reason for that action that her work was not "dentally related." [Fluoride research--not dentally related?] The institute's director stated, according to Mullenix, "they didn't consider the safety or the toxicity of fluoride as being their kind of science." Of course, a logical question begs itself at this last statement: why was Dr. Mullenix assigned the study of fluoride toxicity in the first place if it was not "their kind of science"?

Subsequently, she was continually hounded by both Forsyth and the NIH as to the identity of the journal in which her research was to be published. She told The WINDS that she refused to disclose that information because she knew the purpose of this continual interrogation was so that they could attempt to quash its publication.

Almost immediately following her dismissal, Dr. Mullenix said, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate company. Coincidence or reward?

Her findings clearly detailed the developmental effects of fluoride, pre- and postnatal. Doses administered before birth produced marked hyperactivity in offspring. Postnatal administration caused the infant rats to exhibit what Dr. Mullenix calls the "couch potato syndrome"--a malaise or absence of initiative and activity. One need only observe the numerous children being dosed with Ritalin as treatment for their hyperactivity to draw logical correlations.

Following her dismissal, the scientist's equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?

Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children's Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment and no money--what for? "The people at Children's Hospital, for heaven's sake, came right out and said they were scared because they knew how important the fluoride issue was," Mullenix said. "Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering funds for the institution if I published that information." It has become clear to such as Dr. Mullenix et al, that money, not truth, drives science--even at the expense of the health and lives of the nation's citizens.

"I got into science because it was fun," she said, "and I would like to go back and do further studies, but I no longer have any faith in the integrity of the system. I find research is utterly controlled." If one harbors any doubt that large sums of corporate money and political clout can really provide sufficient influence to induce scientists and respected physicians to endorse potentially harmful treatment for their patients, consider the results published in a January 8th article of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM)[6]. The Journal revealed their survey of doctors in favor of, and against, a particular drug that has been proven harmful (in this case calcium blockers shown to significantly increase the risk of breast cancer in older women). "Our results," the Journal said, "demonstrate a strong association between authors' published positions on the safety of calcium-channel antagonists and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers."

When The WINDS asked Dr. Mullenix where she planned to take her research, she said that she is not hopeful that any place exists that isn't "afraid of fluoride or printing the truth."

The end result of the dark odyssey of Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and her journey through the nightmare of the fluoride industry is, essentially, a ruined career of a brilliant scientist because her's was not "their kind of science".

PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

It has become evident, as the result of the once-secret documents obtained by Griffiths and Bryson that Dr. Mullenix's research was not the first to discover the dangers of fluoride. "The original secret version -- obtained by these reporters -- of a 1948 study published by Program F [the code name given fluoride studies] scientists in the Journal of the American Dental Association shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) -- considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies -- for reasons of national security." One would necessarily have to ask what the perceived threat was to national security if fluoride was found to be toxic by the American Dental Association. Did they perhaps perceive a potential threat as proceeding from the American people?

"...Up to eighty percent," the Griffiths/Bryson article continues, "in some cities -- now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure, according to the U.S. National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases)."

Dr. William Hirzy, an organic chemist and a senior scientist in Environmental Risk Assessment with EPA originally became involved in the fluoride issue "as a matter of professional ethics when one of the EPA scientists came to us and complained that he was being asked to write a Federal Register notice with which he has substantial ethical problems." The scientist protested that "the agency wants me to write this notice that says it's alright to have teeth that look like you've been chewing on rocks and tar balls. I have a real problem with that," he told Hirzy.

To issue a notice of intended regulation in the Federal Register means that after a specified period of time the notice essentially becomes law and is entered into either the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or the United States Code (USC). This process is a much used manner of creating law by circumventing the constitutional process of legislation. It becomes what is called "administrative law."

"At that time," Hirzy said, "EPA was revising its drinking water standards for fluoride and was about to issue a notice that four milligrams per liter was an acceptable level of fluoride for drinking water." The great problem with that, Hirzy explained, "indicated that a substantial number of people who were exposed to that concentration would have teeth suffering from severe dental fluorosis eroded, cracked and pitted and stained....The agency [EPA] was saying that it was not a health effect, it was only cosmetic. Frankly," Hirzy remonstrated, "it doesn't seem to be a very ethical stance for us to say that if your teeth don't work--if they're cracked and pitted and falling out--that it's not a health effect.

"The agency," Hirzy told The WINDS, "was taking that position because of the peculiar wording of the Safe Drinking Water Act which says that EPA has to set standards that protect against adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety." So they wanted to say, according to Dr. Hirzy, that "severe dental fluorosis is not an adverse health effect." If, in essence, you just say it is not an adverse health effect, you then effectively comply with the law by juggling the definition.

The great problem with the system, Hirzy explained, is that the EPA is not a constitutionally mandated organization and therefore cannot [or is not supposed to] make law but can only advise the executive branch of government. The dilemma arises when whatever administration is in office comes to the agency and says, "We want you to write that the science supports this particular decision, whatever it may be, that's where I draw the line and say 'no dice, we're not going to do that....You can't make us lie about the science.' It makes us complicit in deception. We do not want to have to invoke the Nuremberg defense," (i.e., I was just doing what I was told).

Hirzy said that the EPA, in fact, got away with imposing a standard that effectually ruins the teeth of very many who drink fluoridated water because, though "widely known to cause severe fluorosis at four milligrams per liter, that is the standard in effect to this day."

Of even more ominous portent, Hirzy said, is that, far from being merely cosmetic in effect, "what's going on in the teeth is a window to what's going on in the bones. What fluoride does in the hydroxy-epitite structure in teeth it does to the same structure in bone. It is well known now that fluoride produces faulty bone, more brittle, basically mimicking in the bone what is clearly visible in the teeth." A kind of artificial osteoporosis.

"It's an outrageous situation," the EPA scientist claims, when you have fluoridated household drinking water in such concentration that the agency must inform parents that they "should not be allowing their children to drink four milligrams per liter of fluoride, and if they have that in their water supply they should go to an alternative source." Does it not seem a little strange that the government authorizes the addition of a chemical to ostensibly help children's teeth and then tells parents not to allow their children to drink it? We are most certainly not in Kansas anymore, Toto!

So toxic is the fluoride added to drinking water that, according to Hirzy, if one were to take a dose of it about half the size of that "500 mg vitamin C tablet you take in the morning, you'd be dead long before the sun went down. When you're talking about something with that kind of potent toxicity," he says, "it's unrealistic to think that the only adverse effect it has is death. It must be doing something intracellularly to cause these effects."

As evidence that the government has known for over sixty years that fluoride is a health hazard, Hirzy quoted from an article, "clear back in 1934 in which the American Dental Association plainly treats the subject very matter-of-factly. It calls fluoride a general protoplasmic poison."

Robert Carton, Ph.D., twenty years with EPA and now employed as a scientist with the Army, claims that, on "July 7, 1997 the EPA scientists, engineers and attorneys who assess the scientific data for the Safe Drinking Water Act standards and other EPA regulations have gone on record against the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water.

Question: if the Environmental Protection Agency possesses the clout to virtually confiscate a man's land because some of it is a little soggy--calling it wetlands--why do they not exercise that power to enforce de-fluoridation of drinking water, which they have declared unsafe? Does money play any role in this?

Dr. Carton informed this office that fluoride itself is not the only major hazard stemming from its introduction into city water supplies. "A very real danger lies in the fact that fluosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing. "There are a couple of places in the country," Dr. Carton said, "Seattle being one and Thermont, Maryland...that when they stopped adding fluoride to their water the lead levels dropped in half."

The problem with the data used to determine the safety of fluoride, Carton said, is that it is all based on the original figures presented by the chief scientist in charge of the Manhattan Project's fluoride safety, Dr. Harold Hodge. He falsified or "cooked the numbers," as Carton put it, to make his data fit what the government wanted.

In addition to the dental and skeletal damage caused by fluoride, Dr. Carton also cites research that claims that a specific antibody (immunoglobulin - IgM) that is missing from patients with certain types of brain tumors is also missing from the blood of those tested with elevated blood fluoride levels. This is leading many to theorize that such brain tumors are much more likely among individuals consuming fluoride compounds in their diet. Since most juice concentrates and food stuffs are processed with fluoridated water, such blood elevations are becoming much more common.

ENOUGH ALREADY? NOPE, THERE'S MORE--

In a study published last October in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences [7], Dr. Robert L. Isaacson makes a number of astounding revelations about this toxic waste in our water.

"Probably the most startling observation from our first experiment," Isaacson states, "was the high mortality rate in the group of animals that received the lowest dose of AlF 3 [aluminum fluoride]. Different groups of rats had been given one of three levels of AlF3 in double distilled drinking water: 0.5 ppm, 5 ppm, and 50 ppm starting at about four months of age. A fourth group received only the distilled water." The experiment lasted only 45 weeks but, Isaacson stated, "Eighty per cent of the rats in the [lowest concentration group] died before the end of the experiment" which was the highest mortality rate of all. "Not only did the rats in the lowest dose group die more often during the experiment, they looked poorly well before their deaths. Even the rats in the low dose group that managed to survive until the end of the 45 weeks looked to be in poor health. They had much thinner hair than those in the other groups and the exposed skin was bronzed, mottled and flaky. Their teeth and toe nails were excessively dark." Follow-up studies, the scientist said, "showed the same high level of mortality." The study goes on to say that, in subsequent research, low levels of the same kind of fluoride that is added to city drinking water "also allows the enhancement of brain levels of Al."

Another prominent finding by Isaacson's group was the significant reduction on the cells of the hippocampus, that part of the brain that acts like a central processing unit in a computer, telling other parts what to do and how to function. The hippocampus is the primary decision making part of the brain, damage to which causes the victim to become more submissive and less challenging to his environment. One could logically question if this is not a pivotal reason for the government's push for universal fluoridation.

In the brain of his low dose test animals, Isaacson observed a tangling of capillary blood vessels, reduced oxygen uptake along with the peculiar crystalline structures, all of which are identical to those found in Alzheimer's victims. Dr. Isaacson's research indicates that the Alzheimer's-like effects result from the transport of aluminum to the brain and the high death rates from the toxicity of the fluorine.

Aluminum has previously to this, of course, been implicated in Alzheimer's, but how is the link made between fluoridation of human drinking water and the presence of aluminum fluoride? According to Drs. Carton and Burgstahler, fluoride being the most electrochemically active of all the elements, it has a strong propensity to create metallic compounds with itself whenever fluoridated water comes into contact with such things as aluminum cooking vessels. Ergo: there is created aluminum fluoride from cooking with such vessels using fluoridated water and not incidentally, according to Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA scientist, aluminum is used in city water treatment.

"An incidental observation of possible importance must be mentioned," the research paper adds. "Pathologic changes were found in the kidneys of animals in both the AlF 3 and NaF [sodium fluoride] groups." If all this weren't enough, the research team observed a "general impairment in the immune capacities of the treated subjects." They also found that the death rate increased among those animals treated with the aluminum fluoride where stress was elevated due to a training regime.

The research clearly indicates that not only does the presence of fluoride reduce the body's ability to utilize oxygen and nutrients, but actively inhibits the system's ability to rid itself of waste. This creates an apparent synergistic assault upon the health by poisoning the body with its own toxic waste while impairing its effectiveness to use the nutrients that would help in the detoxification process.

In the face of overwhelming data proving that fluoride is not only not beneficial but extremely harmful; the reliable evidence that the government has known of this for over sixty years; the continuing press for fluoridation in the drinking water of American cities, makes all the more believable the portentous claim set forth in the Protocols:

William L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Letter.