The Fluoride Deception

Seeing through the fog” is very similar to the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, sadness, and acceptance. As each portion of the Establishment’s façade is discovered and analyzed, emotional reactions run high, which is to be expected. The history of water fluoridation is no different.



Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her job as head of the toxicology department at Forsyth Dental Center for publishing a scientific study that suggested that fluoride caused central nervous system disorders in rats. She initially wasn’t even interested in fluoride, but was encouraged to experiment with it at the urging of her fellow colleague Dr. Harold Hodge, a scientist who had worked on the Manhattan Project. Hodge had always suspected, but hadn’t yet confirmed Mullenix’s findings, since he had experimented with fluoride during the ‘40s and ‘50s, knowing full well some of fluoride’s negative physiological effects on humans. This didn’t stop him from advocating for indiscriminately forced water fluoridation based on data that he later, albeit quietly, repudiated in 1979.

Philip Sadtler was a chemist who during the ‘40s and ‘50s assisted farmers and plant workers by proving that fluoride harmed them. It has since become publicly acknowledged that fluoride is a toxic byproduct of uranium extraction. This pollutant is then dumped into the water supply in order to reduce costs for aluminum companies and their cohorts. However, these corporatists enjoy the protection of the State when certain government organs such as the Public Health Service and the Environmental Protection Agency claim that the workers’ physical aliments (such as bony outgrowths) are due to “hard work” instead of systemic poisoning.

Christopher Bryson’s expose is quite excellent by documenting the various incidents that mark the history of American water fluoridation; however, I was disappointed that it suffered from virtually non-existent brainstorming on potential solutions or even temporary expedients. The closest Bryson gets to that is when he implies that it may be possible to turn the tide of government policy against fluoridation by getting better scientists appointed to the National Research Council’s fluoride panel. This council was created under the National Academy of Science’s congressional charter as an Act of Congress to provide “independent advice to the government on matters related to science and technology.”

The problem here though is that the Center for Science in the Public Interest proved that “nearly one out of every five scientists appointed to an NAS panel has direct financial ties to companies or industry groups with a direct stake in the outcome of the study. And about half of the panels examined had some scientists with readily identifiable biases who were not offset by scientists with alternative points of view.” Of course, the Center for Consumer Freedom launched the website in an attempt to discredit the NAS’ conflicts of interest (the CCF is funded by the Big Food corporatists). I bet that Edward Bernays would be proud of CCF, since as the father of public relations, one of his more well-known propaganda campaigns was the promotion of public water fluoridation.

Contemporary anti-fluoridation activists also, like Bryson, suffer from ineffective methodology. The best that the Fluoride Action Network and Fluoride Free Austin can do (besides attempting to persuade their fellow citizen serfs about fluoride toxicity utilizing a plethora of techniques) is to write their Congressman or otherwise beg, petition, and plead with statists who don’t give a flying fuck about anyone’s heath or safety. Working within the system is about as effective as debating with people who disagree with you on fundamental principles.

For those who are ignorant of fluoride toxicity and the government’s historical complicity in both protecting the corporatists as well as enforcing mass drugging via public water supplies, this book is a relatively easy read. Otherwise, for those who are already familiar with this legitimate problem, it’s completely useless in terms of actual problem-solving.

This entry was posted in Literature Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s