The more one looks into the detrimental effects on the human body of fluoridating a water supply with sodium fluoride, you can see why the big public relation spin machine goes into full force for it’s the only way it can be sold to the general populace.
For on pure facts alone, no one in their right mind would ever consider such a practice
because the neuro-toxic effects of fluoride have been known about since the 1940’s and when names such as Edward Bernays appears in the promotion of the safety of fluoride, then that raises serious questions.
Because we all know the dangers and ill effects of smoking and it was Edward Bernays, the father of modern marketing, who initiated, organised and ran the promotions to get women to begin smoking in the late 1920’s,
so it wouldn’t surprise me if a campaign is started using pretty faces and celebrities, a standard marketing practice, to sell the populace on fluoride.
We also know of the toxic dangers of lead and arsenic and would never consider putting them anywhere near water supplies,
let alone in them because of their toxic nature and the detrimental effect that they have on the body. Yet fluoride as a substance is slightly more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic, yet the use of fluoride is deemed safe to put in our water supplies and into our bodies.
And if people had a choice of cleaning their teeth with toothpaste that had either lead or arsenic in them I’m sure they’d decline the offer, but with fluoride they happily do it. And just knowing that information alone, that fluoride is as toxic as lead and arsenic, is reason enough not to put fluoride anywhere near our water supplies and thus into our bodies.
The one thing the pro fluoride people never discuss or bring up is the going against the medical ethicacy of a mass treatment for a disease that is not immediately life threating and/or highly contagious, hmmm, I wonder why that would be?
Never let the facts get in the way of a good public relation spin machine