The history of corporate malfeasance follows a familiar pattern that can become a reliable guide to making decisions about products to buy, what to put into your body, basically how to live your life
A healthy skepticism goes a long way, and science becomes a religion when you are bullied into "believing " something without being given evidence or the chance to question it
The latest revelations in Hollywood regarding Harvey Weinstein and his sexual harassment escapades are also an example of this type of pattern - the abuse (or the crime) had been going on FOR YEARS, and many people knew about it, but for whatever reason ( and there are many), individuals chose to stay mum, and the same thing happens in corporations regarding
The story of fluoride has some of these elements, and some that are unique TO IT
But essentially the story is the same and the story always goes...
...that someone always knows...
The basic pattern of a major industrial, food, or pharmaceutical scandal includes the following:
- A lot of money is at stake
- People's reputations are at stake, and they can't admit that they bought in so deeply to a lie
- Government regulatory agencies are complicit, either through sheer incompetence, or just plain direct collusion
- The offending industry has a research think tank that masquerades as an independent, unbiased research institute whose findings amazingly support everything the industry advocates and helps them defeat lawsuits and enact legislation protecting their interests; hell, allows them to even change the common and scientific consensuses of the biological necessity of some of their products! For instance promoters or fluoride would like people to consider fluoride to be an "essential nutrient"
- A myth has been injected into the realm of "common knowledge" and is now considered bona fide fact; to question it is to seem insane
- Multiple distractions, distracting from the main theme of the offending chemical's specific crimes. In the case of fluoride, people know nothing if its' extreme reactivity, its uses in industry, its uses in creating the atomic bomb, its environmental destruction and adverse health effects to the people who had to work with it being downplayed by industry.
- The studies that promote the offending substance are "good", while the ones which demonstrate an adverse effect are "bad"; you have no idea how many times I have heard that, and you are expected to just abide by this arbitrary assessment of what is "junk science"
- People's lack of knowledge about the past inhibits them from forming conclusions that would make them immune to industry propaganda;"history" is written by the winners, in more than one arena
Tobacco is our most famous case of industry knowing that its product was dangerous, even as it was purveyed to the innocent masses with ads featuring DOCTORS and movie stars enjoying their puffs and assuring us that it was perfectly safe to do so. It's a fascinating journey to read industry exposes, and how industry's players ( I will refer to any food, pharmaceutical, chemical, basically corporate interest, as "industry") sometimes overlap into different fields, and how they use the same methods to enact their scams (later on in the book The Fluoride Deception , some of whose pages are featured above, the role of Dr. Robert Kehoe will be explored, and how he helped push leaded gasoline as well as fluoridation in water, touting and pushing the "health benefits" of both additives; today it is illegal to have lead in your gasoline).
And today we mostly agree that smoking is bad for your health...
I don't remember when exactly I began questioning fluoride, but I haven't been using fluoridated toothpaste for decades now, and I avoid city tap water like the plague (okay, I'll drink it in a restaurant, because you have no choice there, or in a premed beverage, because those people have no qualms, but tap water is usually uber disgusting without lemon and ice). I just turned forty, and I don't have any cavities, so not bad for decades avoiding fluoride as much as possible ( I also lived in two European countries for three years and drank THEIR WATER which was good tasting and fabulous). I have also never visited a dentist in my entire life.
I was given the book "The Fluoride Deception" by the at-the-time executive head of the environmental organization who once employed me. The author of the book had sent her a copy, and she gave it to me because she saw my interest in the subject matter ( I had given a presentation about it during our "briefing time" that we had everyday before we began calling people for donations to our cause).
I find it ironic that we received this book given that it states that fluoride pollution is a much greater threat than one of the usual named culprits, the rotten egg stink-nugget sulfur dioxide, a chemical we were constantly railing against in our campaigns
There are books that purport to offer an unbiased examination of both sides of the fluoride controversy, but we can already detect the true pro-fluoridation bias in one of these books:
Denmark is one of many European countries that does not fluoridate its water. You might be surprised to learn that the majority of European countries don't do it. Kaj Roholm was from Denmark. He was the leading scientist in his time who studied fluoride's effects on the body, and he unequivocally stated that it was useless and detrimental. You will notice in this book's version of the influence of his work, Kaj Roholm is "recognized for the careful foundation he laid for their specialty" (fluoride toxicologists), a very vague assertion of his influence, but ultimately his "original values have been revised" . Then they go on to mention the admiration had for him by Harold Hodge, the man who tricked the poor woman at the beginning of this article to test her cutting edge neurotoxicology technology on fluoride, thinking it would just be a a modest, unassuming test run, because "we all know" fluoride is an inoffensive substance and just fine for your brain...
The authors explain the lack of difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non fluoridated countries is the pervasiveness of fluoridated products and what they call "a halo effect" (which by the way, I looked up the expression, and it means a cognitive bias, so, um. YEAH)
You can't prove this. When the old bones of the ancient citizens of Rome were unearthed, ( and this was in a National Geographic article I saw a long time ago), the researchers marveled at how good their teeth were! Straight and intact! Quite the departure from the modern day tooth maladies that plague the majority of us. Was natural fluoride the reason? Or was it their diet, which wasn't processed in the way our food is processed today?
At any rate, even the authors of this book relent and state that forced fluoridation would be unnecessary if people were aggressive in using fluoridated products. They speak as though this should be a mandatory requirement. Why the fuck should I do that if I don't want to?
My god, is there no such thing as free will?
At any rate, these are just two books that go into the history and an analysis of the debate over fluoride. There are many more, and there are so many facets to this exciting saga, I heartily encourage people with a genuine interest in the subject to read both sides and carefully consider their arguments with common sense, and not just take what the CDC or the ADA or any establishment agencies have to say about it, because they are always in cahoots.
So I'm not really gonna end this with a sickeningly neutral "make up your mind", because while you should make up your own mind, I will say that I am of the non-fluoridation camp, and I firmly believe this camp of ideas to be one that is correct and the one that is the most embattled for its truthfulness and its threat to procure the downfall of a myth and an industry.
What I really should say is to keep the following thing in mind: like the rape victim who feels he/she is alone and that no one will believe them, when they do come forward, they usually find that the perpetrator has committed their crimes many times before, and "industry" tends to follow the same pattern.
Suggested further reading:
"The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America's Longest-Running Political Melodrama" by R Allan Freeze and Jay H Lehr
"The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson
"The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There" by Paul concert, PhD; James Beck; H S Micklem, DPhil
Go find your own pro fluoridation books
Children's books about "science" are always good
"Fluorine" by Heather Hasan
"Fluorine" by Tom Jackson
These two even mention fluorine's many industrial uses, like how it's used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons
Nara Andrugio loves collecting and eating different flavors of toothpaste and visiting what she calls "Deliverance Country"