Indian Children Blinded, Crippled By Fluoride In Water

Growing awareness of mass medication of public with deadly neurotoxin leads to establishment backlash

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The controversy over adding sodium fluoride to water supplies in both the U.S. and the UK is intensifying as two separate stories out of India reveal that children are being blinded and crippled partly as a result of the neurotoxin being artificially added to drinking water.

In the Indian village of Gaudiyan, well over half of the population have bone deformities, making them physically handicapped. Children are born normally but after they start drinking the fluoridated water, they begin to develop crippling defects in their hands and feet.

“Due to the excess fluoride content in drinking water, the calcium intake is not absorbed in the body, causing disabilities and deformities,” said Dr Amit Shukla, a neurophysician.

“Sijara, a 35-year-old woman who is also afflicted, said the problem started around 30 years ago and gradually gripped the entire village,” reports Express India. “Now, you hardly find a person without the deformities. People in the village die at a relatively young age,” added Sijara whose three sons also have physical deformities.”

Government doctors have denied that fluoridation of drinking water is to blame, but have refused to test the water, insisting such tests are “not necessary”.

Meanwhile, in the village of Pavagada, 180 km from Bangalore, children are going blind after being diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract — a condition wherein the eye lens are damaged.

“Alarmed by the pattern in eye diseases among children in Pavagada taluk and the increasing cases of blindness, Narayana Netralaya, in collaboration with Narayana Hrudalaya and Shree Sharada Devi Eye hospital and Research Centre in Pavagada, has begun one of the largest studies on eye disorders involving 29,800 children,” reports the Times of India in a piece entitled, Blinded by tradition and fluoride in water.

The doctors attribute the child blindness to two factors – consanguineous marriages and the “fluoride content” of the drinking water.

Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.

Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute study found that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.

A 2008 Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerged of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

“Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

The Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin. Most Americans already drink artificially fluoridated water.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.

Growing opposition to fluoridation of water supplies in light of this evidence is contributing to a scaling back of water fluoridation programs, with voters in places like Mount Pleasant calling for the amount added to be reduced.

With awareness about sodium fluoride on the increase, the establishment is now moving to demonize anyone who raises the issue as a dangerous lunatic. In an official press release today, the Fluoride Action Network slams “recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.”

As we wrote earlier this month, Keith Olbermann sardonically attacked Nevada primary winner Sharron Angle for speaking out against water fluoridation, “because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Amidst his sophomoric jibes, Olbermann failed to explain why, if fluoride isn’t a poison as he claims, the word “toxic” is written on the packaging of bags of sodium fluoride that are dumped into the water supply of many Americans.

Sodium fluoride is a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers are required by law to include the following text on their products, “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

“FAN’s website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” states the press release. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

Watch a lecture on sodium fluoride presented by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D below.

FACTS ABOUT FLUORIDE

- Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

- Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

- USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950’s that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to “Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”

- The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)

- 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.

- In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

- In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

- Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

Click here to find out if your water supply is poisoned with deadly fluoride.

Preserve Internet Freedom: Oppose Cybersecurity Legislation & Presidential Kill-switch

John Birch Society

“To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and other laws to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the United States.”  These are the words used to describe the latest cybersecurity bill, S. 3480 “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010,” introduced on June 10 and cosponsored by Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Tom Carper (D-Del.)

Not content with establishing a gigantic framework for the federal government to control private sector Internet companies and those who use the World Wide Web, the new legislation, under the cosponsors’ claims of building a “public/private partnership” to increase “economic security, national security and public safety,” there is a most disturbing allocation of authority to the Executive Branch.

Emergency response authority would be granted to the President to protect critical infrastructure if any level of cyber vulnerability is detected by the federal government. Congress is supposed to be notified in advance of the exercise of the emergency powers and any emergency measures are also supposed to be the least disruptive as possible, expiring in 30 days unless re-extended. But a President could keep extending the measures indefinitely.

There are several acknowledgements given to international partners of the United States, and international agreements as well. If a declaration of emergency is declared by the President, then the Director of the Office of Cyber Security has the authority to coordinate responses with certain international partners to protect the critical infrastructure, and even international standards may be relied upon for use as cyber guidelines.

The 197-page bill that creates a super-sized bureaucratic agency with incredible power over private enterprise and private information sources and means of communication containing all sorts of hidden dictates is just another in a list of similar bills that keeps coming to the fore. The Senate Commerce Committee had previously approved a bill in March cosponsored by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.) that also contained a presidential “kill-switch” provision.

Whether it’s S. 3480, the Lieberman/Collins/Carper caper that gets the nod, or the Rockefeller/Snowe job, S. 773, the American people need to loudly and strongly voice their opposition to government monitoring and control of this country’s Information Technology systems and the infrastructure these systems run on.

The U.S. already possesses a very healthy and capable private IT security industry. Government interference would only destroy private protection initiatives and efforts, and allow faulty security and intelligence agencies and the Executive Branch to hold sway over the liberties of the people. Help stop this unconstitutional power grab and oppose any government intervention or interference in the private communications network by contacting your representatives in Washington D.C. as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Your friends at the John Birch Society

Employer health care costs to jump 9% in 2011

“NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Companies that offer health plans will see their costs jump 9% in 2011, and most employees will pay higher deductibles as a result, said a report released Monday.

Employers will try to offset cost increases by requiring their workers to shell out more cash before coverage kicks in, according to a survey of 700 employers by PricewaterhouseCoopers.”

How shocking! The “healthcare reform” made anyone who did not purchase healthcare, a criminal. Yes check the bill, it has nothing to do with “giving people” health insurance, it has everything to do with “forcing people to buy” health insurance. If you don’t buy it, you face fines and jail time. This is nothing like your car insurance, which you don’t have to buy if you don’t drive! This is literally a tax on anyone who is alive in this country.

Now, if I’ve managed to set it up, so that you have to buy something from me, or else you go to prison…. Guess how much that something is going to cost? AS MUCH AS I CAN GET FROM YOU! Whatever you have, thats how much it costs, and I want the same amount every month or it’s off to prison where I’ll work you like a slave anyway.

Don’t be a sucker

Bridge legislation takes a wrong turn on tolls

In response to the editorial last Sunday, “Take down the barriers to building a new bridge”: Politicians are often criticized for not reading bills, but after being called a “shill” by the Free Press, I think that criticism may also apply to the media.

The editorial is correct that not a single Republican voted for HB 4961, the bill MDOT wrote to authorize the Detroit River International Crossing bridge. However, our votes were not simply against DRIC, but because we did read the bill and rightly concluded HB 4961 is simply about MDOT finding a creative way to take away current legislative authority for approving tolling throughout our state.

The bill would hand sweeping new powers to MDOT to allow it to impose fees directly on taxpayers with no other checks and balances, via a new mechanism known as a public-private partnership, or P3.

In general, P3s work like this: The government leases a public asset, like a road, to a private company. The state gets a large upfront payment, and the private company gets to charge tolls to try to recoup that money and make a profit.

These projects have had mixed results and mixed acceptance. Once very popular in Texas, public backlash has resulted in a halt to P3 use. A recent bankruptcy of a California P3 cost the federal government $170 million.

Whether tolling is done by MDOT or a private contractor, taxpayers want someone who has been elected by the people to determine where to use them. In cases where tolling for profit is being done by a private contractor, you want to keep accountability even more stringent.

HB 4961 allows for ownership to go to a new tolling authority that would become an “instrumentality of government,” which, according to the bill, could include public bodies from not just Michigan but also other states, other countries and even certain Canadian corporations. If toll rates go through the roof, to whom are taxpayers to go? The Legislature will be powerless.

Keep in mind that this bill would not only authorize the DRIC, but “any new or existing domestic or international highway, lane, road, bridge, tunnel, overpass, ramp, interchange, ferry, airport, vehicle parking facility, vehicle transportation facility, port facility, locks facility, rail facility, intermodal or other public transit facility.”

Given the strong importance of private property rights, we want more clarity on when the bill could allow for the taking of private property from one owner to be turned over and given to the profit of another.

Regardless of the Free Press support for the DRIC, authorizing it through a bill like HB 4961 is the wrong way to go.

Paul Opsommer

State representative, 93rd District, DeWitt

Related:

TEXANS UNITING FOR REFORM & FREEDOM (TURF)

Fine of $50,000 + prison for refusing to export to Israel

This was linked from Reddit today:

http://www.bis.doc.gov/complianceandenforcement/antiboycottcompliance.htm

“The penalties imposed for each “knowing” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 or five times the value of the exports involved, whichever is greater, and imprisonment of up to five years. During periods when the EAR are continued in effect by an Executive Order issued pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the criminal penalties for each “willful” violation can be a fine of up to $50,000 and imprisonment for up to ten years.”

Apparently it’s illegal in the US to refuse to export products to the genocidal, apartheid state of Israel.  I should have assumed, considering the deep infiltration of Zionists in our government and corporate media, but somehow this still came as a shock.

Michigan senators expected votes on HB 4961 toll privatization scam

How the Senate stands on DRIC (Detroit-Canada bridge expansion) and  HB 4961.
In the case of a tie, Lt. Gov Cherry would vote in favor:

Source: Gongwer interviews

Opsommer: Bill could create government sanctioned monopolies

From MI Rep Paul Opsommer

P3 LEGISLATION, DRIC BRIDGE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES SAYS OPSOMMER

“We run the risk of creating government sanctioned monopolies if we just turn existing infrastructure over to a concessionaire who then places tolls on it.
And if ownership is transferred to a mixed-government authority, we need to make sure those are Michigan-based governments. I do not want officials in Canada, Ohio, or Indiana setting our toll rates, exercising eminent domain, or making other decisions for our citizens.”

Read the entire article

Message from MI Rep Opsommer re: HB 4961 corporate toll giveaway

We should call this the Michigan Infrastructure Fire Sale Act (MIFS) or perhaps the Michigan Taxpayer Raping Act (M-TRAP).

Some background on this horrible piece of proposed legislation can be found here.

- – - – - -

Rep Opsommer sent this message earlier today:

No Vote Explanation for HB4961
What is No Vote Regarding: Passage
Date: 5/26/2010
Time: 7:02:28 PM

Rep. Opsommer, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

Legislative colleagues, simply put, this bill is about much more than just the DRIC. Much, much more. This is a vehicle bill that is attempting to use the DRIC as leverage for an unprecedented shift of power and authority from the legislative to the executive branch when it comes to the unilateral ability to be able to toll our citizens.

There is no reason it has to be this way.  We should be looking at the DRIC and PPP bills separately.  That is how we have done all the other toll bridges here in Michigan. But instead, it has been a conscious decision by MDOT to wrap the DRIC bridge up into broad public-private partnership legislation that would not only allow for the DRIC but would cause the Legislature to give up its authority to statutorily authorize tolling anywhere else in the state. I don’t know if this is because the governor wants to use the bill as leverage to keep Canada happy with the DRIC, or if she simply wants to have the unilateral ability to impose tolls on taxpayers with no other checks and balances, but either way it’s wrong.

I have a letter from the Attorney General’s office that shows that right now, today, MDOT can not toll a road or bridge or other infrastructure without legislative approval.  And you know what?  That is how it should be, and how we should keep it.

Whether tolling is done directly by MDOT or a private contractor, you want someone who has been elected by the people determining where to use that tool.  In fact, in cases where it is being done by a private contractor who is using toll rates not just to break even but also to create profits, I would think you would want to keep voter accountability even more. If toll rates go unfairly through the roof, who are taxpayers supposed to turn too? The Legislature will be powerless at that point; it would actually be players from outside of the state who would have the final word.

Besides taking away the tolling authority we already have, this bill is also too broad in terms of what it defines as a transportation facility.  Let me read to you the bill and how they define it:

“A public transportation facility means any NEW, or EXISTING, DOMESTIC, or INTERNATIONAL, highway, lane, road, bridge, tunnel, overpass, ramp, interchange, ferry, airport, vehicle parking facility, vehicle transportation facility, port facility, locks facility, rail facility, intermodal or other public transit facility, or any other equipment, rolling stock, site, or facility used in the transportation of persons, goods, substances, vehicles, information, or matter of any kind, and any building, structure, parking area, appurtenance, or other property necessary or DESIRABLE for the facility”

My colleagues, that is more than a mouthful.  It is literally anything that is not permanently nailed down in this state, and even then includes some of those things as well.  This is supposed to be a transportation bill?  Really? And it includes such things under the definition as a catchall phrase such as “matter of any kind”?  They should define it the other way, what are the things MDOT couldn’t define as a public transportation facility?  I’m not sure to be honest.  And to be clear, under their definition for all these things it includes not just new but also existing.  It includes domestic and out of state and international.  When it comes to condemnation, it also includes property not just necessary for the project, but also just merely desirable for the facility.  That even includes commercial uses like gas stations, restaurants, hotels, convention centers, and other things that would fall under the definition of being merely “desirable”.  So when a taxpayer has his or her private property taken away, and given to another private entity so that they can make a profit off of it, we can expect that the property may be taken away for a Speedway, or a McDonalds, or a Red Roof Inn, or a Kellogg Center type project that could all be part of any various toll bridge or toll road mixed projects.  Under the current bill these companies would not even have to pay property taxes.

My colleagues, when such a project gets plunked down in your back yard, if the Senate doesn’t stop it, you will have absolutely NO formal vote on that project.  You will have to tell your constituents that it is out of your hands.  Now, some people may like that.  I know where they have passed legislation like this in other states that the consultants actually sell that as a feature, that the legislature gets left of the hook. Well, Michigan legislators are better than that, and there is no way we should be allowing for that here.

Simply put, this takes away too much power from the legislature, power and oversight that it already has, and then also substantially broadens the power of what MDOT can do with that authority at the same time. And the real question is, what does that have to do with the DRIC?  Why not run bills like we have for the Blue Water bridge? The answer is quite simply that we could, and the only reason we aren’t is because the DRIC is being used as leverage to try to pass a bill that in its current form of robbing legislative power would have NO chance, a 0% chance, of passing out of this body on its own. No chance at all.

And why are we being pressured into feeling like we have to do this today?  Being pressured from sources from outside of Michigan? If it wasn’t for the fact that the main potential investor in all of this, the Ontario pension fund OMERS, was recently granted expanded powers by the Canadian government to provide investment management services I am not sure we would even be here. So when tolls are being paid in Michigan, tolls not just to break even mind you but also for profit, Michigan drivers could end up paying toll rates set to ensure that OMERS pensioners makes a high rate of return. We shouldn’t be making decisions on tolling Michigan taxpayers based off of the financial needs and a quest by a Canadian pension fund, the whole reason for the supposed $550 million dollar “loan” they are offering us in the first place, a loan that will have to be repaid by, you guessed it, Michigan tolling.

And now, there are reports that Ohio is getting involved, and has introduced a resolution supporting the DRIC.  Ohio?  Ohio is now going to tell us who MDOT should be allowed to toll?  Maybe we should also ask Indiana or Wisconsin what they think before we pass this bill as well. Maybe we should also check with Mexico to see where they want the NAFTA superhighway to go? At the end of the day, whose law is this anyway?  Well it is ours, or at least it should be.  Maybe some of you  just contracted out our legislative authority and laws as well.

To conclude, if we pass laws in Michigan that give MDOT unilateral tolling power in our state it should be because that is what the Michigan Legislature feels is right, not because of pressure from other states or countries.  And it should also not allow for “instrumentalities of government” from other countries and states to be able enter into contracts that could potentially determine the tolling rates and eminent domain location decisions taking place in Michigan.  Under this bill, new governmental authorities will be created, authorities that will be defined as an instrumentality of government that in some cases will include people from outside of this state.  The bill says that ownership of a project can in vested into these new creations. They will be the ones entering into the contracts.  People will be making decisions that don’t even live here and may not be citizens of our country, let alone our state.  These facilities should not just be publicly owned, but owned by the MICHIGAN public. Texas has put a moratorium on these based on their experience with Mexico for a reason, a moratorium that apparently we have not learned from or listened to.  For some reasons we appear to be in a race instead to be like California, which has little oversight and whose history on these projects is replete with problems. Even there, their law is nowhere near as broad as what has just passed out of the House.

I am also concerned that this bill will hamstring our local governments from being able to build roads.  In other states, like California, local government has had to first pay a penalty in order to build something simply because others might consider it as competition.  Can you imagine, paying someone else for the right to build on your own land? We are being sold that this is a panacea, that there is no risk to Michigan, and yet the bill passed today is nowhere near strong enough in ensuring that local governments won’t have to pay penalties like this in order to build in their own backyard or face injunctions to stop expansion or construction that is underway.

This version of the bill is the wrong way to go, and I vote resoundingly NO.