US Says Too Much Fluoride in Water (and the Real Story)by Robert Wenzel, Economic Policy Journal
Jan. 07, 2011
German Officials Respond to Migrant's Axe Attack by Calling for 'Mandatory Islam Classes'
Newspaper Fashion Writer: Melania's White Dress is "Scary" Racist
French TV: Muslims Are The Real Victims of Nice Attack
Finland: Man Thrown in Prison For Using "Excessive Self-Defense" Against Home Invaders
Obama's Half-Brother: I'm Voting Trump!
Drudge Report is running with this AP report on fluoride. In part, it says:
Fluoride in drinking water — credited with dramatically cutting cavities and tooth decay — may now be too much of a good thing. Getting too much of it causes spots on some kids' teeth.Huh, if they only knew half the real story.
The real truth is that, at best, there is very mixed scientific evidence about fluoride in the first place. The positive story on fluoride was promoted by paid state-of-the-art propagandists in league with government interventionists and big business..
Murray Rothbard wrote in 1993:
Studies have shown that while kids 5 to 9 may have their cavities reduced by fluoridation, said kids ages 9 to 12 have more cavities, so that after 12 the cavity benefits disappear. So that, at best, the question boils down to: are we to subject ourselves to the possible dangers of fluoridation solely to save dentists the irritation of dealing with squirming kids aged 5 to 9...But after that initial sketchy study, more negative reports surfaced about fluoride. Rothbard again:
Even coming into question is the long-sacred idea that fluoridated water at least lowers cavities in children five to nine. Various top pro-fluoridationists highly touted for their expertise were suddenly and bitterly condemned when further study led them to the conclusion that the dental benefits are really negligible. New Zealand's most prominent pro-fluoridationist was the country's top dental officer, Dr. John Colquhoun.Here's Rothbard on who designed the positive fluoride camapign (my emphasis):
A key figure in the successful drive for fluoridation was Oscar R. Ewing, who was appointed by President Truman in 1947 as head of the Federal Security Agency, which encompassed the Public Health Service (PHS), and which later blossomed into our beloved Cabinet office of Health, Education, and Welfare. One reason for the left's backing of fluoridation – in addition to its being socialized medicine and mass medication, for them a good in itself – was that Ewing was a certified Truman Fair Dealer and leftist, and avowed proponent of socialized medicine, a high official in the then-powerful Americans for Democratic Action, the nation's central organization of "anti-Communist liberals" (read: Social Democrats or Mensheviks).
The mobilization, the national clamor for fluoridation, and the stamping of opponents with the right-wing kook image, was all generated by the public relations man hired by Oscar Ewing to direct the drive. For Ewing hired none other than Edward L. Bernays, the man with the dubious honor of being called the "father of public relations." Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was called "The Original Spin Doctor" in an admiring article in the Washington Post on the occasion of the old manipulator's 100th birthday in late 1991...In his 1928 book Propaganda, Bernays laid bare the devices he would use: Speaking of the "mechanism which controls the public mind," which people like himself could manipulate, Bernays added that "Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country...our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of..." And the process of manipulating leaders of groups, "either with or without their conscious cooperation," will "automatically influence" the members of such groups.
In describing his practices as PR man for Beech-Nut Bacon, Bernays tells how he would suggest to physicians to say publicly that "it is wholesome to eat bacon." For, Bernays added, he "knows as a mathematical certainty that large numbers of persons will follow the advice of their doctors because he (the PR man) understands the psychological relationship of dependence of men on their physicians." (Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda [New York: Liveright, 1928], pp. 9, 18, 49, 53. Quoted in Griffiths, p.63) Add "dentists" to the equation, and substitute "fluoride" for "bacon," and we have the essence of the Bernays propaganda campaign.So who was behind the big fluoridation drive in the first place? Rothbard writes:
Since the case for compulsory fluoridation is so flimsy, and the case against so overwhelming, the final step is to ask: why? Why did the Public Health Service get involved in the first place? How did this thing get started? Here we must keep our eye on the pivotal role of Oscar R. Ewing, for Ewing was far more than just a social democrat Fair Dealer.Bottom line: Rothbard pointed out more than 25 years ago, the fluoride scam. Spots on kids teeth are likely the least of the problems that fluoride causes. The entire fluoride push was about the politically connected basically poisoning public water, for their gain.
A word to the wise: Drink private sector bottled water.
Robert Wenzel is the editor & publisher of the Economic Policy Journal.