Breasts know (also: Fluoridation is euphemism)

From: Todd Gastaldo (tgastaldo_at_earthlink.net)
Date: 02/25/05 

Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:18:02 GMT

BREASTS KNOW

Paul Connett, PhD quoted Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an infant and fetal pathologist
from the University of
Liverpool in the UK:
"Nature appears to have evolved a mechanism of minimizing the exposure
of infants to fluoride. Human breast milk only contains between 5 and 10
parts per billion of fluoride, while adult blood contains between 59 and 640
parts per billion. However chloride, a closely associated halogen ion that
is
essential for life, is present in breast milk at 360,000 parts per billion.
There must be an evolutionary selection pressure operating for this
selective exclusion of an otherwise highly diffusible anion." (Howard via
Connett via NYSCOF)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/4480fe15574092cb

FLUORIDATION IS EUPHEMISM

OPEN LETTER (archived at http://groups.google.com)

Paul Connett, PhD
Professor
Environmental Chemist
paul@fluoridealert.org

Paul,

Fluoridation is euphemism.

You spoke of "doses" - why not also use the word "chemotherapy"?

Fluoridation is mandatory low dose fluoride ion chemotherapy - a fact which
segues nicely into the fact that in most states it is a battery to medicate
without consent.

See the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision which we have
previously discussed. (THOR is quoted in "Breasts know," URL above.)

As we have also previously discussed, it is my opinion that the QUILES
decision - rubberstamped by the Florida Supreme Court - is a patent fraud
that perpetuates mandatory low dose fluoride ion chemotherapy
(fluoridation).

BOTTOMLINE: Mandatory low dose fluoride ion chemotherapy (fluoridation) is
an obvious battery - except in Florida - because of the fraudulent QUILES
decision - in my opinion.

See Breasts know: Fluoridation is hazardous waste activity
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/566a4977a0569365

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
todd@chiromotion.com

PS With this post, I am posting your "If fluoridation was really safe and
effective" piece to the usenet. I thought it quite good. I wish you'd
mentioned breastmilk though - and I think it is time to start saying
"mandatory low dose fluoride ion chemotherapy (fluoridation)" instead of
just saying "fluoridation"... I welcome your thoughts.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Paul Connett
  To: fan_bulletins@lists.fluoridealert.org
  Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:50 AM
  Subject: [FAN Bulletins] #165: If fluoridation was really safe and
effective...

  THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
  http://www.fluoridealert.org or http://www.fluorideACTION.net

  FAN CAMPAIGN Bulletin #165: If fluoridation was really safe and
effective...

  Feb 25, 2005,

  Dear All,

  As our readers well know, the phrase used ad nauseam by fluoridation
promoters is that the practice is "safe and effective." The following
checklist offers us insight as to promoters lack of honesty and integrity. I
hope that some of you might wish to use this - or a shortened version -in
campaign leaflets. I welcome your suggestions.

  Paul Connett

  If fluoridation was really safe and effective:

  They wouldn't have to force it on people;

  They wouldn't have to exaggerate the benefits or minimize the risks;

  They wouldn't have to rely on second hand "endorsements" but would use the
latest peer reviewed and published science;

  They would be able to defend it in open public debate;

  They would be able to answer all questions submitted to them in writing;

  They wouldn't have to do so much lobbying in secret;

  They wouldn't have to spend a fortune on PR;

  They wouldn't have to ridicule their opponents;

  They wouldn't have to intimidate members of their own profession,

  They would have defined what an appropriate margin of safety would be
between the toxic dose and the therapeutic dose, instead of simply
dismissing, erroneously, adverse effect studies as "only occurring at 'high'
doses";

  They would have insisted on quantifying the exposure of the population by
measuring the levels of fluoride in the urine, blood and bones of thousands
of citizens (they have had over 50 years to do this) and would compare these
levels with health impacts of concern such as osteoporosis, arthritis, hip
fractures in the elderly, and depressed thyroid function;

  They would use the severity of dental fluorosis as a biomarker of fluoride
over-exposure in children to check the possible relationship with lowering
of IQ, early onset of puberty, thyroid dysfunction, hyperactivity, and other
childhood behavioral problems;

  They would follow up in a systematic scientific fashion the many case
studies, anecdotal evidence and one 14 year long clinical trial, indicating
that about 1% of the population is particularly sensitive to fluoride;

  They would follow the recommendation of the World Health Organization
(WHO, 1984) and determine the current exposure to fluoride from existing
sources - easily done by checking dental fluorosis rates - before
introducing new water fluoridation programs;

  They would have many people voluntarily promoting it who are not paid to
do so or employed by the state or the dental profession;

  and

  They would be able to tell the truth at all times!

  They can do none of these things but they often get away with it, because:

  1) The public is distracted and too trusting of authority.

  2) The media has seldom done the most basic homework on this to find out
who is right and who is wrong and inform the public. When the Fourth Estate
fails to function it undermines democracy.

  3) Most environmental, health, and medical organizations that would
normally be involved in this issue are too frightened of "losing their
credibility" to get involved or speak out. When there are no watchdogs
challenging government policy, powerful lobbies get their way. As Edmund
Burke said several centuries ago, "Evil triumphs when enough good men do
nothing."

  The End Result:

  1) The role of honest science in determining public health policy is
threatened.

  2) The role of rational discussion in public affairs is threatened.

  3) Our health is threatened.

  4) Our freedoms are threatened.

  5) And another area of public life succumbs to a lack of integrity.

  _________________________________________________________