This page was last updated on Tuesday, 14 October, 2014.

Briefing on the Forced Administration of Fluoride in Public Water Supplies

Mr. SK  O'Neal on 14 October, 2014


The thesis that the government is so concerned about our tooth health that is has chosen to mandate a very expensive programme to fluoridate our water supply is specious at best, and is commonly recognized by many who study fluoride chemistry and the unadvertised roots of international policies now governing the agendas of federal agencies, as an insidious process of population engineering and control, and, as implied by some analysts, a subtle and deliberate act of heinous genocide under a skin of duplicity not unlike arsenic poisoning.    Although a fully bibligraphed treatment of the subject is feasible, such is a very long study with tentacles embedded in every facet of our society, so please allow me to offer the following specific considerations al la carte in this more urgent format:

A)   Tooth enamel vs other tissue - the proposition that tooth enamel is deemed structurally reactive to sodium fluoride and related compounds while simultaneously neglecting involvement with all other body tissues orders of magnitude more reactive to fluorine, is technically insolvent, if not reckless.  Arguments repeated by health professionals based upon the comparatively low toxicity of sodium fluoride are rendered moot by this absolute differential in tissue incorporation, and leave unanswered the complex chemistry of, for instance, common ion effect and many complex metabolic phosphate avenues that might produce organophosphate and other non-orthomolecular fluoride involved toxic compounds inside the body under chronic long term exposure.  

B)  In "Truth About the Wunderwaffe,' Igor Witkowski's discussion of Nazi organophosphate poison gas agents clearly indicates that of the three organophosphate poison gases made during WWII, one carries a cyanide bond and the two others carry, in the corresponding position, a fluoride atom, all other bonds being hydrocarbon to the central phosphorus.  Major insecticides and modern nerve agents are organophosphates incorporating fluorine. 

C)  fluorine, Chlorine and Bromine are Iodine antagonists.  Our population is chronically iodine deficient, with a common denominator of thyroid insufficiency and its associated disorders.  Bromine, instituted for use in our grains and flours, chlorine compounds used in public water, and now fluorine, in highly variable doses, all compromise thyroid iodine metabolism, and are potentially the root of many endocrine (hormonal) imbalances and diseases.  fluorine, the the most electronegative of the halogens, is uncommon in the biochemical arena of living organisms as it tends to be bound up in minerals and when made chemically available to living tissue becomes excessively reactive and, as mentioned particularly antagonistic to the essential metabolic halogen, iodine. 

D)  The Third Reich used fluorine compounds to passify (chemically lobotomize) prisoners.  Arguably, these compounds were more active forms than sodium fluoride and in higher dose rates, but chronic long term exposure to fluoride compounds can approach these total exposures, and with indeterminate results.  One analysis of fluoride bioavailability indicates that due to temperature and aerosolisation, showering in fluoridated water poses an even larger body burden of fluorine than drinking it, and greatly increases the variability/uncertainty of fluorine intake (dose) to the body.  

E)  Some psychotropic drugs, including Prozac, for instance, are fluoride compounds.  In general, it is arguable that fluorine is neuroactive, and in item B above, clearly in some circumstances at least, neurotoxic.
It is also notable, per video discussion (cf John Moore 2010), the warnings on toothpaste to contact poison control if swallowed (due to the sodium fluoride content).

F)  A primary use for fluorine in the last century was as yellowcake (uranium hexafluoride) used to separate weapons grade uranium from natural uranium.  Presumably large quantities of the residual fluorine compounds still exist, and some sources suggest that dispensation through the water supplies is an avenue to discharge these toxic waste inventories.  The least generous position, but one that has considerable basis of research, suggests that fluorine administered through public water supplies is part of a global population reduction programme in keeping with the Cobden Club recommendations to the United Nations Security Council to curb population growth, arguably an implicitly genocidal process.  Such considerations offer corporate motivations for the occult dispensation of fluoride waste.

G) Lithium has also been proposed as a forced supplement to water supplies.  Lithium carbonate has a long history as a primary medication for bipolar disorder, and is psychotropic compound to be considered in context with sodium fluoride.  Lithium also carries significant kidney toxicity that is ameliorated by single large doses of lithium carbonate in lieu of divided doses throughout the day so that the kidneys may clear the salt for a period of time and recover.  Application in public water supplies implies a chronic ultimately divided exposure.  Appearance of such a an application of lithium to the water supplies increases the scope of evidence of the intended philosophy of forced medication through the water supply (and by other routes as well?).  


In keeping with the Introduction and inclusion of the considerations above, and the results of extended research such implies, I propose that sufficient uncertainty exists about the integrity, competence of execution of the public interest, and organic loyalty of government agencies, at all levels, as to demand summary suspension and disenfranchisement of all proposals for water supply fluoridation, as well as a full review of many other federal, state and international intrusions into the affairs of our people, as may carry the stain of poor stewardship and to possibly include treason.  Although such a consideration may seem obtuse to some, it is very much a verified phenomenon to others, resulting in a significant portion of our population who intelligently hold severe reservations regarding the status of government agency motives.  Historical evidence, apart from the myopic view that "our" government could never fall victim to such heinous crimes, shows that every prior powerful empire has fallen to corruption, notably including the Third Reich, that had considerable financial and technical ties with the United States through the Rockefeller, Harriman and Bush families, to name a few.  I.G. Farben, the Nazi chemical corporation that produced poison gas for the Reich, and as discussed by Carter Hydrick separated uranium at Auschwitz III, is closely tied with the philosophies of American chemical corporations today.  Even under the most gracious considerations, it is historically inadvisable for a population to trust or remain a passive element in the affairs of their government, and in the evolution of international corporations and their agendas who routinely lobby to obtain disproportionate favor towards programmes not necessarily motivated by serving of the public interest.     

To Wit: especially relevant examples, the prodigious failure in handling of Fukushima radiation assessment, the arguably criminal ineptness of the Ebola situation, and any tenable discussion of the Affordable Health Care Act - a Trojan Horse bill that precious few in Congress even read.  Although many governmental employees and individuals within contract agencies are, in their scope of compartmentalization of information, arguably acting in good faith and with the belief that they are serving the public interest, there exists now so much researched basis for public discontent as to reasonably postulate that they are dangerously naive, and in some cases, at minimum, may suffer a variety of natural human rationalization induced by the persuasive power of their paychecks.  As an example, nowhere has this phenomenon been more historically conspicuous than with the oven-tenders at Auschwitz, as with the Skinner experiments on human willingness to inflict pain under sanctioned authority.  A comprehensive treatment of agency policies and agendas, including for instance, a plethora of latent executive orders to seize control of every critical function of society, would fill volumes, but our lack of full consideration of these matters will be to our ultimate peril in a world and nation under so clear a pall of socially sanctioned corruption that no honest and informed person can any longer deny.

      i)  Our fundamental reserved rights not to receive forced medication, especially through air, water, food and other ubiquitous public functions, may be implied via a modern abstraction of organic constitutional rights.  In any instance of reasonable question, the right of those not wishing to receive such treatment through essential public services completely outweighs any portion of the publics' desire to receive them, or weight of marginal lack of concern incidentally favoring their use, particularly when the application is non-essential or can be obtained at personal convenience and discretion.  

      ii)  A fundamental right of citizens to not bear scientific or other burdens of proof in any argument posed for the public good or for any other intention, is implied by all constitutional provisions under the consideration of "shall not be infringed," or other vehicle of abrogation.  In essence, burden of proof must fall on those proposing to apply these ubiquitous programmes upon the people.

     iii)  In keeping with the intent of the Hatch Act provisions, any --appearance-- of impropriety via involvement of government employees and officials in activities that may foster conflict of interest, the arguments of i and ii above may be further supported by the argument that a plethora of conflict of interest exists

     iv)  It is conceivable that proposals might be made that those who do not wish to receive the fluoride are free to filter it at their homes. But this is, in addition to the arguments above regarding "forced medication," preposterous in light of the relative ease for those who choose to dose themselves with fluoride, and the relative difficulty, for instance, in avoiding exposure in restaurant water and food, and other public places. 



Without hesitation, I must insist that the absolute result of avoiding incorporation of fluoride in the water supply be effected.  Under the current collusion of political interests that have mandated the use of fluoride in the first place, the most practical solution for a city under 5000 in Arkansas is to either secure a new independent water source, even if it means issuing bonds to do so, or else to construct, at a presumably lower cost, a halogen filter and re-chlorination facility to restore (or improve) current standards in water quality and treatment.  I would regard the matter as an emergency, and also an opportunity for a town that draws its sustenance from tourism to make a name for itself in the interest of green and clean lifestyle.  Anything less is sheer hypocrisy, and carries the consequence of slow poisoning of its citizens.℠ (Right-side navigation page SSI insertion)