What's up, I'm going to be the only one who's in the world. What's up, I'm going to be the only one who's in the world. See you tomorrow. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome once again to the show. I'm going to be the only one who's in the world. I'm going to be the only one who's in the world. Fluoride drops given to parents by doctors to give to their small children who are preschool, and many other things. You're going to find out that there's going to be a lot of deception and a lot of cover-up involved with this subject. Fluoride in the water supply and anything else actually is extremely, extremely dangerous. So pay attention to this. This is a tape done by Darlene Sherell in December of 1992. It has facts. It has scientific information. It quotes papers. I mean, if you listen to this and you write down the references, you can go out and find these things in any major library. And what you're going to find is going to amaze you and it's going to make you very, very angry. And if you've participated in heaping fluoride upon your children and upon yourselves, for that matter, you're going to be very sorry that you ever did that without looking into it. Folks, the message of this show is I don't care whether you believe what you hear on this show or not. In fact, I advise you not to believe anything that you hear, whether it's on this show, Tom Valentine, Chuck Carter, Larry King, Dan Rather. I don't care who it is. Charlie Rose from the President of the United States. It doesn't matter. You had better not believe it unless you go out and you dig up and do the research yourself. Because the deception running rampant in the world today designed to destroy us and to bring about a new world order is so deep that you cannot even begin to imagine until you open your ears, open your eyes, open your mind and begin to look for yourself and stop trusting people to tell you the truth. Because nine times out of ten, they never do. Make sure you're listening tomorrow night for our IRS program. I'm still amazed over the damage control efforts by Tom Valentine and the IRS whistleblowers last Wednesday night. It didn't work, folks. And when you hear what we're going to put out on this show tomorrow night, you're going to see that that was just a bullshit smokescreen. We are really causing some damage out there. We must be or they wouldn't go to such efforts as they're going to to try to get you to stop listening to the information that you get on the hour of the time. You notice they mentioned Phil Marsh's name several times, but they never backed up anything that they said with any facts whatsoever. None. None. They didn't quote from any laws. They didn't quote from the IRS rigs. They did not do anything but provide a bullshit smokescreen for all of you out there who might be just sheeple enough to believe what you heard. Well, you listen to this show, folks. We'll quote the IRS rigs. We'll quote the law. We're going to give you the straight skinny and show you that the IRS is an illegal, privately owned corporation that is not collecting taxes but is collecting tribute. And that tribute goes out of this country to help destroy this country. And don't you believe for one second that the IRS whistleblowers organization is really on your side? Because if they really knew the law and they were really blowing the whistle, they wouldn't be telling you that you'll go to jail if you try to obey the law. And the law says that income tax is voluntary. In fact, the law says that it's illegal 19 ways under the Constitution. So stay tuned tomorrow night. In the meantime, listen to this show tonight. And I think you're going to be amazed and very much angered by what you're going to hear. But don't believe what you hear. You write down the references and you go check out the facts yourselves. I've got to shut up before my voice turns off again completely. I'll see you at the end of the show, folks. Whether you know next to nothing or a great deal about good subjects, whether you approve of water fluoridation or are dead set against it, you might find what I'm about to say interesting. Those of you who want to prevent or stop water fluoridation in your community may find my comments valuable. Those who are in favor of fluoridation may want to listen for other reasons. In either case, I believe you'll find my words easy to follow, uncomplicated, and not at all illogical or irrelevant to your own personal interests. The rationale for our belief in the safety of most things, whether it's sunshine, vitamins, food additives, alcohol, drugs, or even most traits elements like copper, lead, or lithium, is based on amount, on the level of our exposure. However, the rationale for belief in the benefit or safety of water fluoridation depends on many firmly entrenched and closely guarded prejudices, which have been nurtured over the years by experts. The American Dental Association, American Medical Association, the Surgeon General, the United States Public Health Service, the National Academy of Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency, your county and state health department, your city council, your dentist, physician, and probably even your next door neighbor will all tell you that water fluoridation is a good idea. Those who claim to know will explain that the amount of fluoride we receive with optimal fluoridation, about one part per million in the water supply, is so small it can do no harm. Dozens of pro-fluoridation pamphlets, books, and magazine articles are available. Most have extensive references to the scientific journals or famous name authors with oppressive credentials. The most widely circulated example is the American Dental Association pamphlet called Fluoridation Facts. I've received this pamphlet from my state and county health department, from the Center for Disease Control, from the American Dental Association itself, from dentists, and even from my congressmen. It has a question and answer format in a large bibliography. On page 13 of Fluoridation Facts, you'll find the following statement. The possibility of adverse health effects from continuous low-level consumption of fluoride over long periods has been studied by the National Academy of Sciences. The Academy found that the daily intake required to produce symptoms of chronic toxicity after years of consumption is 20 to 80 milligrams or more depending upon body weight. These 20 to 80 milligram figures appear in nearly all pro-fluoridation materials which discuss safety. Obviously, if harm requires 20 to 80 milligrams or more for many years, then our present total daily dosage of only 5 milligrams or so can't do much harm. The 20 to 80 milligram figures are the basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's current drinking water standards. They're mentioned on page 45 of the U.S. Public Health Service's 1991 Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks. And when the National Academy of Sciences determined our current recommended dietary allowances, these were the figures they considered accurate. But suppose these figures are not accurate. Suppose they were cooked up by a scientist with a purpose. Suppose for just a moment here that I will be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the 20 to 80 milligram figures are false. That not even one legitimate study exists concerning the safety of either natural or artificial water fluoridation. Suppose there's a very good reason to believe your own personal daily fluoride intake is having a detrimental effect on you. In 1970, the World Health Organization published a book called Fluorides in Human Health. On page 239 and 240, you'll find a discussion of skeletal fluorosis in India caused by 2 to 8 milligrams of fluoride per day. According to this book, the symptoms are often misdiagnosed as rheumatoid or osteoarthritis. 2 to 8 milligrams a day is just about what the experts say we've been getting in a typical U.S. diet for a goodly number of years. When I saw these pages in 1976, the figures 2 to 8 caught my attention. 2 to 8 is a long way from 20 to 80. Why the discrepancy? Where did the 20 to 80 milligrams come from? No one seemed to know. But the 20 to 80 version could be found in dozens of books and journal articles. In June of 1989, I began writing letters to the National Academy of Sciences, quoting the portion of the ADA pamphlet I just read to you, and asking simply, Where did the 20 to 80 milligram figures come from? 14 months later, after some pressure from Senator Bob Graham of Florida, Dr. Paul R. Thomas of the Food and Nutrition Board at the Institute of Medicine at NAS, wrote to tell me the ADA's use of the 20 to 80 milligram figures came from their statement on page 238 of the RDA report, and that their reference was a 1971 publication by the National Academy of Sciences called fluoride. With his letter of August 10, Dr. Thomas sent a segment from that book calling my attention to page 211. He also sent the portion by Krishnamachari in the fifth edition of Traped Elements in Human and Animal Nutrition, edited by Waldron Mertz, United States Department of Agriculture, and dated 1987. This article, he said, was also used in the most recent RDA report, but did not show the 20 to 80 milligram figures. Since fluoride, the National Academy of Sciences book of 1971 was a review and not a study. I wrote again, asking for the reference. Where did the 20 to 80 milligram figures come from? I wrote. On August 24, 1990, Dr. Thomas wrote again, identifying Roeholm's Flooring Intoxication, a book published in 1937, and the original work cited by Hodge in the NAS Review of 1971. It took me some time to discover that the 20 to 80 milligram figures do not appear anywhere in Roeholm's book. I wrote again. I wrote again. And once again, with some pressure from Senator Graham's office, Dr. Thomas replied on March 18, 1991. He cited Hodge and Smith, 1965, and the World Health Organization, 1970. The book I mentioned earlier is having the figures 2 to 8 milligrams. I found that in 1965, Hodge had cited himself as reference. Additionally, Dr. Thomas was calling my attention to the 1991 U.S. Public Health Service Review of Fluorides, which listed as reference for the 20 to 80 milligram figures, the NAS, Hodge 1979, World Health, and NAS in the ninth edition of the RDAs. We were going round and round here. When I looked at Hodge 1979, I found new figures. Now Hodge was saying that 10 to over 25 milligrams daily would lead to crippling, not 20 to 80 as he had said earlier, repeatedly. Hodge also said in that 1979 article regarding modeled enamel, quote, no safe established daily intake exists, unquote. Even at the optimum, he explained, some children will develop cosmetically damaging extensive white areas or brown stains on the teeth. By collecting all of Hodge's work, by that I mean each article in which he cites his own previous article, I managed to find the source for the 20 to 80 milligram figures. And I began to see water chloridation in a whole new light. Hodge said 20 to 80 milligrams came from Roholm. Dr. Thomas said he couldn't find a copy of Roholm at NAS. He believes Hodge was correct and so apparently did practically everyone else. But in order to come up with the 20 to 80 milligram dosage according to body weight, you have to first pick some range in weight from the thin short man to the tall chubby ones, say. And the tall chubby ones, who according to Hodge adjusted 80 milligrams or more of horrid daily, had to weigh 503 to 880 pounds. Now let me say that again. The only dosage figure in Roholm's book is 0.2 to 0.35 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. The National Academy of Sciences quotes Hodge, who in turn claimed to have taken the figures from Roholm's work. This is the only original source material cited by Hodge or the Academy. But if any of Roholm's workers received as much as 80 milligrams of fluoride daily as Hodge claimed, then their weight would have to be between 503 and 880 pounds. Obviously, Hodge cooked the books. He inflated the dosage figures as well as the exposure times to the crippling stage of skeletal fluorosis. And unless you're willing to tell me you can envision those tall chubby 880 pounders doing hard physical labor, mining creolite in Denmark in the 1920s and 30s, then you can't tell me the 20 to 80 milligram figures are valid. And if they aren't valid, then the very foundation for our drinking water regulation is gone. The argument for safety, based on a wide margin between typical dietary fluoride levels and the doses known to produce serious arthritic symptoms in just a few years, is also gone. There is no margin of safety. Many years ago, I searched the literature for myself, pulling the bound volumes of the major medical, dental, public health, environmental, and industrial health journals from the shelves at the Science Library at Michigan State University. Many of them go back beyond 1930, but 1930 was the starting place as I worked my way forward, feeding nickels into the coffee machine until I had over a thousand articles. Many times, one would leak to another, and another, and another. I read the changing opinions about fluoride as it worked its way from rat poison and toxic industrial waste to a valued nutrient. All this came about, incidentally, because I had been interested in nutrition and pharmacology for several years and had managed to cure my own allergies and arthritis to cure changes in my diet. I had a copy of Goodman and Gilman's 1970 edition of the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics and looked up fluoride one day out of curiosity. Curiosity born of a statement made to me by Mrs. Martha Johnson, a little old lady in Lansing, Michigan, who knew she was right but had great difficulty convincing others. She had a whole shopping bag full of papers, but I must admit I thought she was eccentric at best. Nonetheless, I looked in Goodman and Gilman and found a discussion of water fluoridation. They described the effects of one part per million on children's teeth as affecting 10 to 15 percent and limited to the earliest slight whitening effect, which can only be detected under strong light by the trained eye. The effect of two parts per million, however, could be disastrous and involve nearly all exposed children. I recognized this indicator of a drug effect rather than one of a harmless nutrient. Questions came to mind, such as, is fluoride absorbed from food? What is the effect of cooking food in fluoridated water? Is excess fluoride eliminated by the kidney? Are there any other recognized toxic effects? And if so, how much fluoride would it take to produce signs of chronic toxicity? How much fluoride could I find in my diet? I began writing letters to the health department in Michigan and received answers which mentioned specific documents to support them. I received several pamphlets, one of which told me my diet probably contained 2 to 5 milligrams of fluoride daily. I was told that fluoride is not absorbed from food and that healthy kidneys excrete any excess. I was assured that hundreds of safety studies had proven that my concerns were without foundation. According to the experts in Michigan, there was a disease called skeletal fluorosis which occurred in India, where the water supplies contained from 11 to 100 parts per million fluoride. But no cases had ever been reported here in the United States. I might have been reassured, except that each claim was accompanied by a reference to the scientific literature, which I had no trouble finding at Michigan State University. In every case, the journal article cited contains far different information. The journal regarding the water supply in India said the highest level reported was 16 parts per million, not 11 to 100. I found several case reports, one involving a man who lived in an area having only 1.2 parts per million fluoride in the water. And when I mentioned this example published in Radiology in 1943, the health department replied that the journal article has shown 1.2 parts per million in the May issue, but was corrected to 12 parts per million in June. When I took the radiology article of May and the erratum note of June to show the expert he had it backwards, he refused to believe his own eyes. He showed me his fluoride Bible, a collection of abstracts from the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati, published in 1963. Some time later, after I had obtained a copy of his book called The Role of Fluoride in Public Health, and copied the original articles represented by the abstracts, I went back to the health department with several dozen examples showing that their statements to me, although in agreement with the Kettering abstracts, were not in agreement with the journal articles available in the library. He looked at a view, saw the movement of decimals and changes in study methods, and said to me, quote, Look lady, if the abstracts don't agree with the originals, there must be something wrong with the originals, unquote. Publication of his Bible, The Book of Abstracts, was funded by the National Institute of Dental Research. The Kettering Lab produced the abstracts at the request of several sponsors, whose concern was the effect of industrial exposure to fluoride. They include the Aluminum Company of America, Alcoa, Aluminum Company of Canada, American Petroleum Institute, Columbia Geneva Steel Company, DuPont, Harsha Chemicals, Kaiser Aluminum, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, Reynolds Metals Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Universal Oil Products Company. Kettering's advisory editorial board for the 1963 abstracts included Edward Largen, industrial hygienist for Reynolds Metals Company, McClure, Zipkin and Russell of the National Institute of Dental Research, Schlesinger, New York State Health Department, and Smith, who was Hodge's co-author. Fluoridation as a Public Health Measure, 1954, was also funded by industry. Fluorine and Dental Health, 1942 and 1959, and Dental Carries and Fluorine, 1946. All these books cite the same authors, Hodge, Smith, Cox, Largen, Schlesinger, McClure, and Dean. Kettering Lab abstracts and the reviews they had spawned, not the research papers published in the various medical, dental, industrial, and public health journals, became the accepted source of information on fluoride toxicity. As a result, all of the groups who prepared government-sponsored documents have perpetuated misinformation. In addition, Kettering's contract stipulated that the corporation could withhold publication of results unfavorable to its interests. Kettering Lab authors have also published information in the scientific journals which delayed recognition of the more subtle effects of childhood lead poisoning, using language and arguments similar to those used to claim safety with fluoride. You can find one example in the journal Oil Facts for July-August, 1962. It was this material which convinced the governor's office in Michigan to order a review to determine the current amount of fluoride in typical diets. The panel chairman, William Taylor, began his task of whitewash with a catch-22. All material to be considered by the panel must pass through his hands first. I was not allowed to submit entire articles photocopied at Michigan State University Library because they were too bulky. I was not allowed to submit portions, excerpts, or summaries because they were not complete and would be taken out of context. I was not allowed to speak with either the chairman or any panel member or communicate my concerns in any way, except that they were aware I had claimed there had been a change reported in dietary levels of fluoride, from 0.2 to 0.3 milligrams a day in non-fluoridated areas in the early 1940s, to as much as 3.4 milligrams a day from food alone in 1974, even in areas having only about half the optimum level of fluoride in the water supply. The panel concluded, in favor of fluoridation, that the reports were inconsequential because methods had improved over the years in analysis of samples, making the old figures suspect. I then went to the Toxic Substance Control Commission, explaining that in the 1940s the reports included figures with 3 or 4 decimals, such as 1.103, and that although technology had improved to the point which measures in several more decimals, the difference between 1.103 and 1.103675 was meaningless. The increase in dosage was on the order of 1 to 5, whole numbers, not fractions. Their chief toxicologist, Dr. Norman Zimmerman, agreed with me and produced a report in May of 1981 called the Need for the Determination of the Extent of Total Fluoride Exposure in Community Assessment of the Value of Water Fluoridation. He suggested communities which are presently fluoridating should determine the resultant total daily dose, and communities considering fluoridation first do the same to avoid the possibility of overdose. He noted that according to the currently available literature, the total could be as much as 5.7 times the fluoride in the water. The people of Michigan can now vote to refuse water fluoridation. Michigan was the first state to repeal its mandatory fluoridation law, but they are still under the influence of the same political pressure and misguided scientific opinions which govern many city council actions. Very few have access to the truth or even think about it. The argument most often heard in favor of fluoridation is that the benefits outweigh any possible risks. We know the dental health statistics do not support that view. They show virtually no benefit from fluoridation today. We are asked to disregard the many recent studies showing an increase in both osteoporosis and bone cancer in the fluoridated areas. We are told, like small children, that everything can harm us when we get too much, whether it's sunshine, vitamins, lead, or fluoride. Everything can be harmful, they say, while you could drown in your own bathtub. We are educated to believe that by controlling the amount of fluoride in water, we are controlling the amount in our diet. And so, if you applied the same argument to calories, a person could control his weight by simply switching to diet soda. Ignoring the steak and french fries, the butter and sour cream, and rich desserts, any thinking person can recognize the absurdity, if you would just think. Those of us who have investigated the original studies of Cox, McClure, and Dean, know full well that fluoridation came about through less than scientific means. Cox's study on rats shows the rats that got more fluoride had more cavities. Dean ignored most of the available data, picking only the towns which would support his purpose. McClure not only pulled his urine samples in batches of 30, but also controlled the samples to assure his results. The Newberg-Kingston Pediatric Study excluded all children with health problems and ignored a finding of bone changes which suggested osteogenic sarcoma. In Bartlett, Texas, the death rate was more than double that in neighboring cameras. But researchers confined themselves to an examination of x-rays, and even then, they had no knowledge of the actual use by residents of the local water supply. X-rays of children's wrists and hands, height and weight charts, have been offered as proof of safety, as well as curiously adjusted mortality statistics. If you search the literature, volume by volume, in all the major public health, medical, dental, environmental, and industrial health journals as far back as 1930 as I did years ago, you will not be able to locate even one scientific study of people exposed to as much as one milligram of fluoride daily, which would have been capable of identifying those who displayed or complained of the symptoms we now know can be caused by excess fluoride. The evidence for safety depends on a belief that mortality statistics are an adequate early warning sign. If you examine the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May 1978, you will see that the death rates for all causes of death but accidents were higher in the fluoridated cities. The author, in order to support his own predetermined conclusion, was forced to adjust his statistics as follows. In one group, the non-fluoridated, the average length of formal education was 12 years. In the other, the fluoridated, where there were more deaths per capita from all forms of chronic disease, the average length of formal education was only 11 and one-half years. The rationale used to explain away the fluoride-related deaths was that contrary to popular belief, one's chances of getting or dying from cancer depend not so much on dietary habits or lifestyle, not on working with cancer-producing chemicals, not on breathing the toxic fumes associated with polluted air, but on differences which we might best describe as graduating from high school. It seems absurd, but the very best arguments against water fluoridation have been made by those who promote it. The question that needed an answer, at least for me, was why? How could this happen? I said earlier that my view of this issue changed when I finally found Hodges' source material for the 20-80 mg figures. I discovered the circumstances and put myself in his place. Those of you who've studied this issue are aware that scientists didn't discover the relationship between fluoride and mottled enamel until 1931. Shortly thereafter, dozens of articles appeared in the professional literature describing the various degrees of damage to the appearance and durability of fluorose teeth. Methods of removing brown stain were presented. Reports appeared describing areas where the teeth of children became so brittle they had to be replaced by dentures by the time they were in their early twenties. Signs were posted at wells and public drinking water sources warning parents not to use the high fluoride water for their children. The trend was to remove fluoride. Many physicians began to question the possible unseen effects of fluoride on the rest of the body. By that time, we were very much aware of the costly damage to livestock and crops downwind of fluoride-emitting snow stacks. Numerous lawsuits had been brought against aluminum, steel, fertilizer, and brick industries. Removing fluoride from community water supplies. Protecting workers from job-related illness. Well, folks, we've got to take a short break. Don't go anywhere, because we'll be right back after this short pause. ...was becoming a costly proposition. If the American public continued to gain an awareness of the potential problem, if they listened to the fears being expressed by several physicians and insisted on zero tolerance, our development as a nation, indeed our survival, would have been threatened. In the 1987 article sent to me by Dr. Thomas of the National Academy of Sciences, chronic fluoride poisoning is described as follows. Quote, The early clinical picture of fluoride toxicity is predominantly symptomatic. Arthralgia, malaise, weakness, and joint stiffness, particularly in the lower limbs and the spine, are among the early features. In industrial exposure, ocular symptoms and headache also occur. In the established skeletal phase of the disease, symptoms and signs of bone and joint involvement are evident both clinically and radiologically. Pain is a cardinal feature due to arthritic lesions and due secondary peripheral nerve involvement. Unquote. According to this book, crippling cases have been reported not only by Rojo, but by many others over the years. In the United Kingdom, France, Morocco, Norway, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Poland, India, China, Canada, Ceylon, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, as well as the United States. They number in the millions in India alone, often in areas having less than two parts per million in the water supply and no special industrial exposures. If the American public had been able to see this 1987 article 50 years ago, the word fluoridation would not be in our vocabulary today. The trend to remove fluoride would have continued. The high arthritis rate in Bartlett, Texas, might not have been attributed simply to the age of the residents. Dozens of industries would have faced impossible costs. Zero tolerance for fluoride would have meant no aluminum, steel, glass, ceramics, rocket propellants, and refrigerants. No phosphate fertilizers or bricks. No electricity from coal-fired power plants. And at a very crucial time, no mining and processing of uranium. In 1951, when physicians and dentists were complaining about the reckless use of fluoride in some U.S. cities, the National Academy of Sciences formed a panel to determine the relative risks and benefits of water fluoridation. The panel chairman, Kenneth Maxey, was consultant to the Secretary of War and editor for one of the leading industrial health journals. Panel member, Frances Hayroth, was assistant director of the Kettering Laboratory at the University of Cincinnati. Kettering's business was producing abstracts of the scientific literature on fluoride. These abstracts laundered the original studies changing dosage figures and study methods in an effort to protect industry. The Academy's decision was based largely on the work of Dean, Cox, and McClure. McClure had reported that his fluoride balance studies furnished evidence that the human body eliminates the major portion of food and water-borne fluoride. However, McClure's method left a lot to be desired. He not only pooled the urine samples in batches of 30 before analysis, but also controlled the fluoride content to be certain that each sample contained the same amount of fluoride rather than the same amount of urine. He stated in his paper, quote, the rule followed was to have preferably 50 to 100 micrograms of total fluoride in the analytical sample, unquote. The committee discounted the relevance of fluoride from other dietary sources saying, quote, the quantity of fluoride ingested in food is a relatively unimportant variable. The average diet contained 0.2 to 0.3 milligram daily, unquote. In their summary, they stated, quote, there is no reason to believe that prolonged ingestion of drinking water with the mean concentration below the level causing mottled enamel will have an adverse physiological effect, unquote. And in conclusion, this committee recommends fluoridation. In the spring of 1953, the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council appointed a subcommittee to study the problem of providing an optimum amount of fluoride in the American diet, including the water supply. Panel members included several fluoridation proponents. Panel fluoridation proponents. F.A. Arnold, director of the National Institute of Dental Research and Harold C. Hodge, Ph.D. In a letter dated May 25, 1954, Hodge gave his testimony against the Wehr Bill, H.R. 2341, which would have prohibited water fluoridation. Hodge explained he had been a consultant to several industrial companies since 1937, had been involved with the Manhattan Project since the spring of 1943, and present at the Bikini Test in July 46. Hodge began his work with the Atomic Energy Commission in January of 1947, studying the toxicity of fluorine, uranium, beryllium, and other elements and compounds of special interest to the AEC. At the time of his testimony, he was also chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee on the Fluidation of Water Supplies of the State of New York Department of Health, and chairman of the Committee on Toxicology of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technology of the National Research Council. As part of the letter, Hodge included his chart of fluoride effects showing that crippling fluorosis is caused by daily doses of 20 to 80 milligrams or more of fluoride for 10 to 20 years. The chart also appears in Hodge's subcommittee report, which became publication 294, National Research Council, November 1953. Hodge attributes these 20 to 80 milligrams figures to Roehl and gives mortality statistics as evidence for safety. According to these public documents, the nation relied on the advice of Kenneth Massey, who represented National Security and Defense, Hodge, who represented the Atomic Energy Commission, K. Roth, who represented the major fluoride-polluting industries, and Arnold, who represented the National Institute of Dental Research, whose purpose was the study and promotion of fluoridation. They assumed and based their endorsement on the erroneous belief that fluoridation would not contribute enough fluoride to exceed a total daily dose above one or two milligrams. They accepted McClure's phony balance studies. They accepted Dean's selection of data. They compromised, as we all do, when it is necessary. They accepted the history of the National Academy of Sciences and all the others, have been obligated to defend their actions ever since. It seems to me that any reasonably intelligent person who encounters the many newspaper and magazine articles discussing the infighting at EPA over fluoride, or the firing of whistleblower William Marcus, who said fluoridation is a cancer risk, should consider the implications. We've all been exposed to other similar scandals involving government cover-ups. Isn't it obvious that if our government agencies have been working with the nuclear industry to cover up the problems in Hanford, Washington, or the problems with lead poisoning, or asbestos, or prescription drugs, then they could do the same with fluoridation. Find a calculator or just a pencil and a scrap of paper. And let's look at those dosage figures again. Not for the 880-pound man described by Hodge in 1953, but for you. Roe Holmes figures were .2 to .35 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. You'll find them at page 319 of his book. There are 2.2 pounds in a kilogram. So first, take your weight in pounds and divide by 2.2 to get your weight in kilograms. Now let's use a midpoint between .2 and .35, an average of .275. Multiply your weight in kilograms by .275. You can also simply divide your weight in pounds by 8. The answer will be the same. Now you have the daily dose of fluoride capable of producing crippling skeletal fluorosis in a person of your size in 10 to 20 years. If you weigh 120 pounds, that figure is 15 milligrams a day. With every additional 40 pounds, you can add another 5 milligrams. We're in agreement here with the Hodge 1979 reference used by the Public Health Service in the 1991 review. The trouble is that just as I might have been misled by the health department experts in Michigan many years ago, you need to pay very close attention. It's always wise to take a good look at claims made by people trying to sell you something or proof of point. Crippling skeletal fluorosis doesn't happen overnight. Just as obesity doesn't result from just one session of overeating. It takes time. Rawl Holmes workers reached the first stage of the disease in only 2 1⁄2 years. This is called Phase 1. After 4 1⁄2 years, Phase 2. And after 11 years, Phase 3. These time spans are shown in the table on page 211 of the National Academy of Sciences' 1971 book called Fluoride. The symptoms were described by the U.S. Public Health Service on page 46 of their 1991 review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks. Let me read them to you here. Phase 1. Phase 1. Scoradic pain, stiffness of joints, osteosclerosis of pelvis and vertebral columns. Phase 2. Chronic joint pain, arcoidic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, increased osteosclerosis of the campylus bones, with or without osteoporosis of long bones. Phase 3. Phase 3. Crippling fluorosis. Limitation of joint movement, calcification of ligaments, the neck and vertical columns, crippling deformities of the spine and major joints, muscle wasting, and neurological defects with compression of the spinal cord. Since the effect of fluoride is cumulative, you can easily determine the effect of smaller doses over longer periods of time. Something like overeating just a little bit every day for several years. The National Academy of Sciences states on page 372 of their 1977 book, Drinking Water and Health, quote, a retention of 2 milligrams a day would mean that an average individual would experience skeletal fluorosis after 40 years, based on an accumulation of 10,000 parts per million in bone ash, unquote. That's Phase 3. And since people with healthy kidneys can excrete only about half their total daily dosage of fluoride, a retention of 2 milligrams means an intake of about 4 milligrams. 96 to 98% of dietary fluoride is absorbed. So we're not just talking about fluoridated water, but everything you eat and drink, wherever you live. But what about the other symptoms? The ones that appear before Phase 3. After you've divided your weight in pounds by 8 to get your daily dose to produce crippling, let's divide that dose again to see how long it would take to produce Phase 1 and 2, with about 5 milligrams a day, a conservative estimate based on typical diet in the studies done in the 1970s and reported by the American Medical Association. If your weight is 120 pounds, your dose is 15 milligrams for less than 3 years to produce Phase 1. With only 5 milligrams, one-third of 15, you could expect Phase 1 to take 3 times as long, less than 9 years. In 18 years or less, you have Phase 2. And in 36 years or less, Phase 3. This is the part of the story you don't hear. Crippling skeletal fluorosis Phase 3 is the only condition our drinking water standards consider. These are the only symptoms of chronic toxicity the American Dental Association referred to when they quoted the National Academy of Sciences figures of 20 to 80 milligrams. And the 20-milligram figure applies to a person weighing 160 pounds who can expect to reach the first two arthritic phases of chronic chloride poisoning in less than 5 years. So, what it really means for a person weighing 160 pounds is 20 milligrams for 11 years. And that's the same as 5 milligrams for 4 times as long. So, a person with kidney disease, the risk would be much greater because he'd retain morpholurine. Hodge revised his figures in 1979 from 20 to 80 milligrams for 10 to 20 years down to 10 to 25 milligrams or more for the same length of time. But although the United States Public Health Service listed Hodge 79 as one of the references for the 1991 review, they either chose to ignore it or used an abstract without ever looking at the original. If the American Dental and Medical Associations, EPA, World Health Organization, National Academy of Sciences, your physician and dentist and city councilmen or county commissioners have all been deceived regarding the amount of chloride it takes to produce signs of chronic toxicity, the earlier arthritic stages of the disease as well as the crippling end stage, then their belief in the safety of water fluoridation is based on a misunderstanding. Fluoridation was meant to provide a supplement to bring the daily dose up to about 1 milligram a day. By the early 1970s, people were getting 5 times that amount. Sane people don't supplement an overdose. The symptoms of chronic fluoride poisoning are experienced by all who live long enough, wherever they live. This has always been true because fluoride is one of the most clinical of the Earth's elements. According to the Arthritis Foundation, 97% of us complain of the symptoms of Phase 1 and 2 skeletal fluorosis by retirement age. However, no effort has ever been made in this country to determine how many cases of arthritis are actually caused by excess fluoride. Fluorosis is not even a reportable disease. And when physicians suspect the fluoride polluting industry is the cause of whole towns complaining of arthritis, they risk ridicule or even loss of their license for voicing an opinion. College professors fail to attain tenure. Researchers lose bad opportunities. Editors are fired. Brilliant biochemists, medical doctors, and even dentists have been liable for daring to question the wisdom of water fluoridation. It's no wonder so many people are operating with blinders. The U.S. Postal Service is now considering a commemorative stamp to celebrate 50 years of water fluoridation. In a letter dated November 24, 1992, Carol Patton, RN, spoke to the issue with her usual eloquence. Let me read it for you. This is addressed to the Citizen Stamp Advisory Committee in Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. Rosenthal, the U.S. Postal Service is now considering a new drug. Recent scientific evidence is fast proving that fluoridation is causing serious health risks in terms of increased fracture rates, cancer, and other adverse effects. In addition, a national survey by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research and corroborative studies from other countries show tooth decay rates unrelated to fluoridation. Please recognize fluoride for what it is. A major industrial pollutant of which 655,000 tons annually are dumped and spewed into our water and air. Industry is getting away with murder under the guise of a public health program. Dr. William Marcus, a high-ranking EPA scientist, was recently fired for having the courage to whistleblow the scientific fraud operating in this contentious and political issue. In light of this, a commemorative stamp for fluoridation is not only inappropriate but highly decisive. Surely, you must agree. Sincerely. I believe, based on mountains of scientific evidence, that fluoride is one of the most toxic substances known to man. That it interferes with the normal production and mineralization of collagen. Lowers our ability to deal with disease-causing bacteria and viruses. Causes allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, as well as gastrointestinal problems, headache, and chronic fatigue. And a reduced ability to recognize and repair the genetic damage which leads to cancer. I do not know if zero dietary fluoride would lead to an increased incidence of dental decay. But if it did, it would be impossible to achieve anyway. Because we can't eat, drink, or even breathe without getting more than our true need for this substance. No one should be required to be exposed to more than one-half part-per-million fluoride in his drinking water. Regardless of income or ability or even desire to purchase expensive alternates. The real tragedy, of course, is that we've allowed the same expediency that permitted fluoridation to enter into all phases of medical science. We've allowed a massive suppression of information, which delays our success in treating or preventing many, if not all, forms of chronic disease. Because politics has taken a stranglehold on scientific advance. Our government regulatory agencies, EPA, Food and Drug, Public Health, etc. Have all played the role of a fox guarding the chicken. And this little chicken has had about enough of it. I hope you've enjoyed listening to this tape. Perhaps you've learned something. If you can, I hope you'll make a copy and share it with others. Thanks for listening. Well, there you have it, folks. Darlene Shirell and the results of many years of her own research. Now, she gave you all the particular references. She told you where she found the information. She named the specific reports and the people and the government agencies that she dealt with. I don't want you to believe what you heard here. I want you to get off your butts and go out and find this information again yourself. Confirm it. And it shouldn't take you years because she just gave it all to you right now. When she started, she didn't know anything about where she was going or where to get it or even what it was. So there's no excuse if you don't do it. If you're living in an area where your water is fluoridated, you must do this for your own health and for the health of your children and their children to come. Now, if you don't, and you all die horrible, crippled deaths, and if you all suffer from what they call the Wilkes-Barre syndrome, the chronic fatigue, which you just heard is caused by fluoridation, then I don't want to hear one single whimper out of any of you at all. I don't want to hear you whimper. I don't want to hear you cry. Go do it for your sake, for the sake of your children, for the sake of the nation. I wonder what in the world would they want to do this for? Why did it start around 1930? Well, folks, if you do the research like I've done, you'll find that Stalin used fluoridation in the water supply of the Gulag Archipelago to pacify the millions of prisoners in the labor camps. You see, it makes you tired. It gives you malaise. It makes you so you don't care about anything else. It cripples your teeth and the skeletal structure of the body over a period of years. And people who are so affected are no threat to the power structure or to the elite or the prison guards or anybody else. They're just thankful to get from one day to the next. And that's exactly the way many of you out there have been feeling for years who live in areas where your water is fluoridated and you're just tired all the time. You don't care about anything. You're depressed and you don't know why. Well, folks, this isn't the only reason, but it's one of them. And if you don't believe it, like I said, get out there and dig out the information. Find it for yourself. You're going to find that they have intentionally falsified the data. When you go back to the references that they give in the reports that they give to committees and cities and states and government agencies that are considering fluoridation of water or whether or not to fluoridate water, you'll find that in the reports they give to these committees, the data has been falsified. If you go to the references where they supposedly got the data, you'll find that the real data is much different from what's listed in these brochures and reports on fluoridation. Now, folks, let me say this one more time. We have not been invaded by the evil empire or some foreign country or any army. What is destroying America is stupid Americans. You see, folks, if you have a good business and you hire a bunch of people to take care of that business and you come every day and you supervise them and you watch and you do the books, if you're a good business person, you're going to have a good business. But you try going on vacation permanently. Don't come back and check anything. Don't call. Don't find out what's going on. Don't check anything that anyone tells you. When you come back, folks, you not only won't have a business, there won't be any stock on the shelves. There won't be a cash register. Chances are the building will be gone. The parking lot will have been dug up. And there'll be something entirely different there, owned by someone else who doesn't know anything about you whatsoever. And that's exactly what's happening in our government. You see, when the cat's away, the mice will play. We know that there are people in this world who want to take it all away from us. So why do we let them? When you leave a power vacuum, someone will step in and fill it. If you leave your wallet exposed on a countertop somewhere, someone will take it. If you're lucky, they'll be honest. But 99 times out of 100, they will not be honest. And you'll never see your wallet again. Americans, for the most part, are stupid. They are sheeple. And our country is being taken away from us right under our very noses because we are stupid and because we are sheeple. The purpose of this program, folks, is to wake you up. I don't want you to believe anything that you hear on this program or on any other program or that you read in any book or newspaper. What I want to do is stimulate you to begin to look for the truth yourself. To begin to investigate yourself. Do not accept what you're told unless you can find that it's true yourself or that it's false yourself. There was another sheeple last week who called in on the Tom Valentine show on Monday or Tuesday night, I forget which, who wanted Tom Valentine to tell him whether or not it was true that the United Nations didn't take over this country because there's 30,000 United Nations troops in this country. And he cited that he had heard it on the program that follows Tom Valentine, which is my program. Not only is this a person, a sheeple, who cannot listen and investigate and determine the truth for himself, but he misquoted this show because never in the history of this show have I ever, ever said that there was any United Nations troops in this country. Period. I did say that George Bush gave a speech to the United Nations offering Fort Dix for the training of United Nations troops. So not only was this person a sheeple, but he's doubly stupid. He can't even quote where he heard the information. And I'm telling you now, he didn't hear it here. This show is for intelligent, free-thinking people and no one else. If you don't fit that bill, don't listen to this show ever. Until tomorrow night, folks, and tomorrow night's a doozy, good night. And God bless each and every one of you...." "...Exa product," stand which is useful for today. Finally they've given us the beauty of Ernest, followers of Raleigh, whom Tiffany and Chicken Night parcels were run Ochdo. Deutscharos are the food site. Many books don't fully be shared. And we suddenly've used to be close to sachets, who will be family and their farmers are Niye. Heyogoche is serious. They call all good dr � diye andplatzes who are unable to decress. He has proper knowledge in Russia now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.