Our public health dentists, in their official propaganda for fluoridation of our water supplies, are making curious remarks. One is reported to be saying that “so far as he knows the people in Waterbury who are opposed to it have to authority for their opinions except their own prejudices.” Another terms the reasoning of the opposition “phantom arguments.”.
Is it possible that these officials are not aware of the sound and uncorrupted opposition to this scheme that has met it in various parts of the country? That already two fluoridin installations at least, have been ordered removed? That the American Medical Association is suing official stooges in California who were induced to say publicly that that organization had endorsed the scheme? That state has forbidden fluorides in water except when bottled for individual use when desired?.
Why is it that public job holders are the pushers of it, instead of mere civilians? Why do they go around influencing groups who have opportunity to hear but one side of the proposition? And w3here did the scheme originate? This mornings news tells it all. In Washington. It is an introduction to official medicine and robotism.
For the enlightenment of these innocent campaigners and their hearers, here, in addition to the information in the Yale Medical Library mentioned in my letter to The American of Nov. 21, is a digest of reports from some authorities on the subject. First, that of Dr. Nutritional Biochemical Laboratories at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and special lecturer a the Forsythe Dental Infirmary in Boston. He is an authority on potentially poisonous substances on human beings and an authority on poisonous substances taken by them. He says:.
1. Fluorine is a toxic element. The amount effective in water supplies interferes with important processes of the body.
2. Fluorine mottles the teeth, permanently.
3. It is difficult to maintain fluorine content high enough to prevent tooth decay and low enough to prevent mottling.
4. Food contents of different areas very, therefore uncertain intake.
5. Fluorine is not necessary for healthy tooth formation. The spectograph shows many healthy teeth have to fluorine.
6. Local application to teeth creates enamel but it is “truly pathological and does not prevent decay”.
7-8. People in high fluoride areas may have less tooth decay but laboratory studies prove that other factors were responsible in the low areas, not the lack of fluorides.
9. But a small fraction of fluorides reach the teeth, it passes through the body and a significant amount is deposited in the bones where it interferes with bony growth.
10. If fluoride must be used it should be applied directly to the teeth to avoid the many dangers of fluoridized water.
11. Any effective use of fluorides whatever have been in children; the population should not be exposed to these dangers.
12. -The United States Public Health Service is conducting a 10-year survey (it has now jumped backward to three) of the effects of fluorides in water supplies. It is advisable to wait.
Other items: Report of the Biochemical Institute, University of Texas 10ppm (on nice) showed definite acceleration of tumor development. Also eggs treated in this manner showed consistent increase in death rate compared with controls using untreated water.
Also: “Individuals differ much in their biochemistry, in some instances as much as several hundred per cent. Precaution should be used in introducing a compound so poisonous as to be used for rat poison.
Furthermore; The legal aspects of this use will be challenged (end of quotes).
Except a bit from Underhills and Koppyanis Toxicology, published by Blaikston; “The fluoride commonly used is the sodium fluoride. It is used in roach powders and a number of poisonings have occurred through ingestion mistakenly or with suicidal intent. The systemic effects resemble those of oxalates and perhaps the cause is the same, namely, the formation of insoluble calcium compounds. Its excretion by the kidneys is difficult. Its late action may be neuralgias, heart weakness, dropsies, inflammation of veins, albuminuria”.
Now then, if fluoriding is pushed over in the face of these facts, we have a right to ask whether there is some ulterior motive in this propaganda, recalling that the Federal Government and on down want officialized medicine and dentistry. If, on the other hand the attempted pushover fails, mere civilians should keep their eyes and ears open for “What next?”.
Royal E.S.Hayes, M.D.
Waterbury, Nov. 29, 1951.
Here, the matter has been referred to the Waterbury Medical Society, really a wise move, because the Society can, if it will, represent and advise the public in such a matter whereas bureaucrats only represent their higher ups. Let us hope the W.M.S. may go in a body down to the Yale Medical Library and take a good long look at “Allen” and “Hering”.
Here are some news items in my possession:
An increasing number of towns which had their water treated with fluoride are having it taken out. Stevens Point officials, Wisconsin, who ordered fluoridation discontinued, offer help from their experience to prevent other communities from getting it.
Health officials in certain sections of the country where the fluorides occur naturally are trying to remove them. They have discovered that even in high dilution they are a protoplasmic poison difficult of elimination and having cumulative effects over a period of time.
Five towns which have had the fluorides in their water five years or more have from twenty-five to fifty-eight more dentists than towns of the same size which do not have them. In Stratford, Conn., which has fluorides in its water, 15 percent of the children have mottled teeth.
A larger number of children in certain areas of Ohio which has fluoride in the water are suffering from permanent defects of the teeth. There are indications that the entire skeletal system is also affected. Dental fluorosis, once acquired, is a permanent defect. Mottled teeth do not hold fillings well. All admit that fluoriding mottles teeth. The practice is considered dangerous by The Consumers Research Organization. The State of California has made it illegal to put fluorides in public water supplies. It prohibits its use except from bottles for individual use f directed by physicians.
Unlike chlorine which has a disagreeable taste and smell, fluorine is tasteless. It can be used without being detected. This is probably why it was selected for experimentation. Even certified authority should not be trusted with it, especially as their determination to put it over is so great.
The campaign for fluoridation is being pushed by interested officials and their helpers. Their personal interest is so great that they are trying to push the scheme even in places where the water supplies have the fluorides naturally in them.
The Citizens Medical Reference Bureau presents many facts as to the conspiracy of the U.S. Public Health Service to force a national program of fluoridation, thus absorbing the rights of local communities.
The American Medical Association is reported to have endorsed the U.S. Public Health Service in its effort but it is certain officials of the Association, not the mass of practitioners. Many are opposed to it and many object to having drugs forced on their patients not of their own prescribing.
The proposition violates the ten basic principles of experimentation set forth by the International Tribunal of the Nuremburg war crimes. Number one of these is that the consent of the one to be experimented with must be obtained without duress of any kind, that he must have the mental and legal capacity to give his consent and must be permitted to withdraw from the experiment at any time. All ten principles are being violated by adoption of fluoridation and even by advocating it.
Lawsuits for liability are certain to follow the adoption of this procedure, according to experts who have made a study of it.
The Federal Food and Drug Act declares it unlawful to place a non-nutritive or deleterious substance in food or drink, punishable by 5000 fine and imprisonment or both. Basic Federal law forbids voting on this subject.
There is a mass of other objections to this scheme.Dr. E.H. Bronner of Los Angles, a research chemist of established standing and having built three American chemical plants and licensed many patents, states, “Fluoridation of drinking water is pure insanity!.
American Homeopathy Doctor.
Rabe graduated from the New York Homeopathic Medical College and trained under Timothy Field Allen and William Tod Helmuth.
Rabe was President of the International Hahnemannian Association, editor in chief of the Homeopathic Recorder, and he wrote Medical Therapeutics for daily reference. Rabe was Dean and Professor of Homeopathic Therapeutics at the New York Homeopathic Medical College.