RFK Jr Says Trump Plans To Remove Fluoride From American Drinking Water

The debate over the forced medication of the American population by the government is a long standing conflict. Today it is more important than ever after the draconian efforts of Democrats to create a path to forced covid vaccinations using economic coercion. The fight over experimental mRNA vaccines and vaccine passports has had an interesting side effect – The public is now motivated to question many other medical mandates and FDA standards with suspicious origins.

Water fluoridation is one of those standards.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr, now part of Donal Trump’s campaign dream team, is to be put in charge of US health initiatives should Trump win the election this week. Kennedy’s secondary career focus (beyond politics) has been exposing faulty medical establishment practices and food industry corruption. He was a stalwart opponent of covid mandates and forced vaccination attempts and it’s fair to say he is widely hated by the government funded medical elite and the media.

Kennedy announced this week that he has turned his sights on water fluoridation, and says Donald Trump plans to set policies in motion to end fluoridation if he returns to office.

On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water. Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. President…

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) November 2, 2024

Fluoridation of the US water supply has been a key battleground since it began in 1945. The practice was not widely accepted by the scientific community or the dental community back then, but that was before government manipulation of medical and scientific research through subsidies became a standard.

After a few decades of indoctrination in universities and the growing habit of the medical community to police its own when it comes to investigating certain subjects, very few researchers had the courage to publish evidence contrary to the narrative that fluoride in the water supply was anything other safe.

To question fluoride treatment is almost as taboo as questioning climate change if you are a scientist. It’s just not done, but that attitude is completely contrary to the scientific method. Try to study the subject online and most search engines will bury you in hundreds of “Fact Check” articles claiming that questioning fluoridation is pure conspiracy theory.

The early days of mass fluoride medication are as shady as any conspiracy could possibly be. Rumors of fluoride testing on unwilling subjects by the Third Reich and the Soviets abound, but there is little concrete evidence to confirm the claims that this was done to “control the population.” The Soviets did in fact pass a directive in the 1960s for mass fluoridation of the water supply, and this ended in the 1990s. The reason why is not officially admitted.

The theory was that the chemical caused docile behavior and reduced IQ, making the population easier for the elites to manage and control.

Here are the facts:

1) Fluoride (or sodium fluoride) is a toxic chemical byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industry often used in rat poison. It is also a cumulative agent, which means it continues to collect in the human body over time when ingested.

2) Initially, these industries pumped fluoride gases into the air, causing health concerns and lawsuits. This forced the manufacturers to capture the gases and reduce them down to a chemical sludge. This is then distilled into a powder which makes it easier to contain and transport. The problem was, the chemical was expensive to dispose of safely under environmental protocols.

3) Trace elements of natural fluoride already exist in many water supplies. In some places with higher fluoride content in ground water in the early 1900s, residents were found to suffer from a condition called “brown teeth”. Scientists also found that people with brown teeth also had lower instances of cavities. Eventually a correlation to fluoride was established by a man named Trendley H. Dean.

4) Dean, a dentist and scientist, ultimately led the charge for mass fluoridation in US cities. Another entity also lobbied the government for mass fluoridation: Aluminum giant Alcoa.

5) And here’s where it gets shady – Trendley Dean worked for the NIH and the Public Health Service, which was run by Andrew Mellon.

6) Wealthy elitist Andrew Mellon, a founder of ALCOA and one of its major stockholders, was the U.S. Treasury Secretary from 1921-1932, when the PHS was still a division of the Treasury Department. It was therefore Mellon’s PHS that ordered Dean to study fluoride in the first place. In other words, Mellon and Alcoa had Dean conjure up the very studies that would change fluoride from a toxic waste into a public health miracle.

7) This is yet another example of the revolving door between corporations and government health agencies.

8) Not only did industry magnates no longer have to pay for expensive chemical disposal for fluoride, they stood to make millions selling the poison to the government for water treatment. After that, the medical community (under Mellon) hyped up fluoridation as a magical cure for bad teeth.

9) Dozens of recent studies now confirm what many people suspected decades ago: Fluoride does in fact decrease IQ. Children are especially vulnerable. It is also proven to cause weaker bones, thyroid problems and a host of neurological issues. Several published articles have postulated that fluoride could be producing alterations in mitochondrial DNA; mitochondrial DNA has many implications in various mental disorders.

10) Federal Courts have ruled against the EPA in the forced fluoridation of water. They have ordered officials to take action over concerns about potential health risks from currently recommended levels of fluoride in the American drinking water supply.

11) Trendley Dean claimed that tooth decay was reduced by 60% in his studies on fluoride. More recent studies claim a more modest 15% to 25% reduction.

12) Around 70% of US communities fluoridate. Communities that have stopped fluoridation have not experienced a significant increase in dental decay.

Even if fluoride does have legitimate value as a treatment for tooth decay, this is ultimately irrelevant. The dangers involved in using the toxic chemical in public water far outweigh the potential benefits. The suspicious history of the practice also needs to be investigated. It is better to err on the side of caution and not lace our water supply with an industrial waste product.

Plenty of alternatives exist in our modern era for healthy teeth. Beyond that, the government should not be given authority to mass medicate the population. Politicians are not qualified enough or trustworthy enough to make such decisions. Ask yourself, is the government really that concerned about your teeth, or is something else going on?

Loading…

Originally Posted at; https://www.zerohedge.com//

zerohedge
Economics , News , Politics , Science
November 22, 2024
2 views

Utility Companies Are Not On Our Side

Authored by Linnea Leuken & H. Sterlin Burnett via RealClearPolitics,

When electric power was a novel idea and just beginning to be adopted in urban centers, the industry had a Wild West feel to it as multiple companies strung wires, opened power plants, and sold electricity on an unregulated market. Competition was fierce, but state and local governments concluded that the inefficiencies and redundancies endangered the public and imposed higher costs.

So states set up service territories with monopolistic or oligopolistic service providers, who were entrusted with providing reliable power and sufficient reserve for peak periods in return for being guaranteed a profit on rates proposed by the utilities but approved or set by newly established state public utility commissions (PUCs). These commissions were charged with ensuring public utilities served the general public universally within their territory, providing reliable service at reasonable rates.

Much has changed since then. Politicians began to supplant engineers to decide, based on self-interested calculations, what types of power should be favored and disfavored, and what types of appliances and modes of transportation Americans could use. As the 21st century dawned, a new consideration entered the picture: Climate change.

Under the banner of combatting global warming, utilities were at first encouraged and then coerced into adopting plans and policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions of carbon dioxide. The aim of providing reliable, affordable power – the rationale for the electric utilities’ monopolies in the first place – was supplanted by a controversial and partisan political goal. Initially, as states began to push renewable energy mandates, utilities fought back, arguing that prematurely closing reliable power plants, primarily coal-fueled, would increase energy costs, compromise grid reliability, and leave them with millions of dollars in stranded assets.

Politicians addressed those concerns with subsidies and tax credits for renewable power. In addition, they passed on the costs of the expanded grid to ratepayers and taxpayers. Effectively, elected officials and the PUCs, with a wink and a nod, indemnified utilities for power supply failures, allowing utilities to claim that aging grid infrastructure and climate change were to blame for failures rather than the increased percentage of intermittent power added to the grid at their direction.

Today, utilities have enthusiastically embraced the push for renewable (but less reliable) resources, primarily wind and solar. PUCs guarantee a high rate of return for all new power source (wind, solar, and battery) installations, which has resulted in the construction of ever more and bigger wind, solar, and battery facilities. The costlier, the more profitable – regardless of their compromised ability to provide reliable power or the cost impact on residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers.

A new report from The Heartland Institute demonstrates the significant financial incentives from government and financiers for utilities to turn away from affordable energy sources like natural gas and coal, and even nuclear, and instead aggressively pursue wind and solar in particular. All of this is done in the name of pursuing net zero emissions, which every single major utility company in the country boasts about on their corporate reports and websites. Reliability and affordability come secondary to the decarbonization agenda.

Dominion Energy is a good example, as they are one of the most aggressive movers on climate-focused policy. Dominion CEO Robert Blue speaks excitedly about government-forced transitions to a wind- and solar-dominated grid in interviews. During one interview with a renewable energy podcast, he said:

“[S]ometimes the government needs to focus on outcomes. We’re trying to address a climate crisis, and we are going to need to move quickly to do that.” In the same interview, he expressed enthusiasm about federal policy that would achieve a government-directed transition.

And why wouldn’t he? Dominion, like most utilities, is granted government tax credits and guarantees on returns for investing in large, expensive projects like offshore wind, the most expensive source of electric power. The bigger the project, the bigger the profit with guaranteed returns.

Also, onshore wind companies have received special “take limits” from the Fish and Wildlife Service to kill protected bald eagles and golden eagles, while prosecuting oil companies if birds are injured or killed on their sites.

Net zero policies are not the environmental panacea that climate change activists proclaim. Industrial-scale wind and solar use substantially more land than conventional energy resources, disrupting ecosystems and destroying wildlife habitats in the process.

And despite recent technological advances, wind and solar are still not dispatchable resources, meaning they cannot provide consistent power at all times needed. Refuting claims made by environmentalists and utilities that wind and solar are the cheapest sources of electric power, costs have risen steeply as the use of wind and solar has increased. Customers of Duke Energy in Kentucky, for example, are paying 78% higher rates in the wake of coal-fired plant closings.

Politicians and utilities are pushing for even more electrification for appliances and vehicles despite the fact that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission officials have repeatedly warned in recent years that adding more demand for electric power while replacing reliable power sources with intermittent renewables is destabilizing the power system.

It appears that the utilities prioritize short-term profits over grid reliability or keeping costs reasonable – and the government officials who are supposed to keep them in check are only encouraging them. It doesn’t need to be this way. The U.S. grid was not always this way. Only in recent years, with the obsessive pursuit of net zero, have rolling black and brownouts become so common.

Today, utility companies are sending lobbyists to conservative policymakers in order to convince them that the utilities have our best interests in mind. Their track record tells another story. Meanwhile, Americans have less reliable electricity at higher costs.

Linnea Lueken (llueken@heartland.org, X: @LinneaLueken) is a research fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 11/22/2024 – 06:30