Using her FBI intellligence analyst skills, Melissa Gallico identifies fluoride as the root cause of acne in many individuals whose physicians are ignorant of the connection in her new book, "How Toxic Water Is Affecting Your Health and What You Can Do About It." which is carefully scientifically referenced.
A video interview of Melissa can be seen here
She shares her personal 20-year struggle with severe cystic acne which finally disappeared after she pinpointed fluoride as the protagonist in her story.
Usual acne suspects - from diet to dirty pillowcases, hormones or genetics have not been able to explain the majority of acne cases or why chronic acne is on the rise.
She explalins how her travels around the world and her intelligence work helped her identify exactly what was causing her treatment resistent flare ups - fluoridated water, foods, dental products, and the systemic build up of chilhood fluoride treatments were the culprits.
Evidence that individuals can be allergic to or hypersensitive of fluoride has existed since the begining of the last century; but is mostly ignored or unknown by those who promote water fluoridation.
Fluoride hypersensitivity (some would call a toxic reaction) manifests as skin conditions in some. It's rarely diagnosed by physicians or dentists who have never been trained to look for it.
Acne sufferers have already written Melissa telling her their skin eruptions disappeared after excluding fluoride from their diets.
More examples:
Here are two women in a video speaking about their own fluoride reactions before a legislative body in 2013.
A 1975 article in JAMA Dermatology links fluoridated toothpaste to acne
‘The Physicians Desk Reference (1979) indicates fluoride may cause a variety of symptoms such as skin eruptions, eczema, gastric distress, headache, weakness, etc. in hypersensitive individuals.”
A 1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels purposely added to water supplies.
Rash is described as a side effect of fluoride supplements
A video interview of Melissa can be seen here
She shares her personal 20-year struggle with severe cystic acne which finally disappeared after she pinpointed fluoride as the protagonist in her story.
Usual acne suspects - from diet to dirty pillowcases, hormones or genetics have not been able to explain the majority of acne cases or why chronic acne is on the rise.
She explalins how her travels around the world and her intelligence work helped her identify exactly what was causing her treatment resistent flare ups - fluoridated water, foods, dental products, and the systemic build up of chilhood fluoride treatments were the culprits.
Evidence that individuals can be allergic to or hypersensitive of fluoride has existed since the begining of the last century; but is mostly ignored or unknown by those who promote water fluoridation.
Fluoride hypersensitivity (some would call a toxic reaction) manifests as skin conditions in some. It's rarely diagnosed by physicians or dentists who have never been trained to look for it.
Acne sufferers have already written Melissa telling her their skin eruptions disappeared after excluding fluoride from their diets.
More examples:
Here are two women in a video speaking about their own fluoride reactions before a legislative body in 2013.
A 1975 article in JAMA Dermatology links fluoridated toothpaste to acne
‘The Physicians Desk Reference (1979) indicates fluoride may cause a variety of symptoms such as skin eruptions, eczema, gastric distress, headache, weakness, etc. in hypersensitive individuals.”
A 1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels purposely added to water supplies.
When water fluoridation ceased in Kuopio, Finland, researchers wrote "the significant decrease in the
number of other skin rashes [after fluoridation stopped] leaves
room for speculation, seeming to favor
the view that a small segment of the
population may have some kind of intolerance
to fluoride." [Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1997].
A kidney patients painful skin condition disappeared after her water supplier stopped fluoridating.
More evidence of fluoride hypersensitivity is here
In the face of conclusive evidence that fluoride is not safe for all, why is fluoridation protected today?
Melissa describes fluoridation as a brand protected and promoted by the same strategies big corporations use to influence consumers as described in the book “Primalbranding: Create Zealots for Your Brand, Your Company, and Your Future,” by expert, Patrick Hanlon He identifies seven primal branding elements that inspire fans to rabid addiction: the creation story, the leader, the creed, rituals, icons, sacred words, and pagans.
Like the little boy who shouted the obvious to the naked emperor, Melissa exposes community water fluoridation as unscientific and unsafe. It’s more like a religion created and promoted by believers, PR, money and powerful special interest groups.
She explains that fluoridation believers serve both as evangelists and defenders. When the brand is threatened they protest as if they are the ones under attack. Believers who express doubt are excommunicated and exiled to the opposing camp.
A current example of that – an internet public health dentist listserv exists to facilitate group discussions on dental issues. When a prominent public health dentist who is also a published fluoride researcher and university professor brought up doubts about fluoridation, he was banished from the listserv along with anyone else who dared question fluoride in any way.
The same fate awaits the respectful science-savvy who get blocked on twitter, facebook and uninvited or escorted out of meetings if they dare doubt fluoride. It happened to me And it happened to Dan Stockin
After all, as Melissa shows the reader, fluoride is the whole foundation upon which modern dentistry is built. If the cornerstone is pulled out, the whole system may crumble. Americans’ health is not organized dentistry’s priority.
After all, as Melissa shows the reader, fluoride is the whole foundation upon which modern dentistry is built. If the cornerstone is pulled out, the whole system may crumble. Americans’ health is not organized dentistry’s priority.
Fluoridation gives dentistry “political viability” was admitted in a 1981 Journal of the American Dental Association article. (“Fluoridation Election Victory: A Case Study for Dentistry in Effective Political Action”)
Fluoridation began with zealotry and little, if any, valid science.
After attending a 1941 meeting where fluoridation was suggested, Dentist John Frisch became “a man possessed.” “Fluoridation became practically a religion with him.” (The fight for fluoridation, McNeill)
Frisch wouldn’t let science shake his belief in fluoride. For example, university biochemists reported in 1947, in a series of experiments, that whole milk prevented more tooth decay than 1 part per million (ppm) fluoridated water.
Frisch exploded with wrath and called the conclusions ‘’hogwash from the biochemistry department.” Frisch accused the biochemists of fudging the data so they could keep their dairy grants coming in. Of course, now we know for sure that calcium-rich foods, such as milk, help prevent tooth decay. In fact, calcium is an essential nutrient while fluoride is not. And calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning. And naturally occurring fluoride, upon which the fluoridation program is based upon, is generally calcium fluoride.
Fluoridation came about in the early 1900’s when it was discovered that healthier wealthier residents living where the water was naturally fluoridated had discolored or mottled but decay-resistant teeth. Dentists pinpointed fluoride as the tooth discoloring culprit. They assumed fluoride was also the cavity preventive. They ignored that residents grew and ate their own nutritious foods, drank calcium rich water and could afford dental care. Just like now, dentists settle where people can afford them.
So, Frisch, to prove his belief that sodium fluoride worked the same as natural calcium fluoride, experimented on his own 7- and 9-year-old serving them 1.5 ppm sodium fluoridated drinking water. When the 7-year-old displayed faint mottled enamel that was all the proof he needed. Early fluoridationists concurred. He went on to influence many cities to start fluoridation on his non-scientific say-so.
Frisch used “satire, ridicule and tartness” while criticizing those opposed to fluoridation for denying children the “benefit” of fluoride just like today’s fluoridationists.
Another early fluoridationist, appropriately named Dr. Bull, put a positive spin on fluoridation and provided talking points for sticky questions – years before the first experimental fluoridation trials were planned to be completed – at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau in 1951.
Bull said: “Now, in regard to toxicity, I noticed that Dr. Bain used the term ‘adding sodium fluoride,’ we never do that. That is rat poison. You add fluoride…”
The first fluoridation experiments conducted on entire city popluations starting in 1945 were cut short prematurely - before the permanent teeth of those born into the experiments had even erupted. The belief in fluoridation was so deep, early fluoridationists couldn't wait for the science to catch up with their misguided but well-intended theories.
Modern day “Dr Bull’s” are paid PR-trained individuals and companies who teach pro-fluoridation spokesperson training to “cultish” followers who are instructed to avoid talking about fluoridation’s risks because that battle can’t be won.
Even Edward Bernays, the father of public relations got into the act, Melissa explains. In 1960, he counseled the NYS Health Commissioner to write to television executives to influence them to avoid fluoridation debates. Bernays’ campaign advice included sending government letters to influential newspaper editors and even dictionary and encyclopedia editors to leverage government influence to dominate the fluoridation narrative and marginalize opposition. In this way, pro fluoridationists manipulated the human tendency to defer to authority sources, such as doctors, dictionaries and the daily news.
It worked. In 1965 New York City began fluoridation over the objections of Arthur Ford, New York City’s water commissioner.
Fluoridationists appear to be an army protecting themselves, first and foremost. They claim fluoride science is settled, repeating the cult mantra, “safe and effective” even though, because of tooth toxicity, fluoride levels had to be lowered over the years in infant formula, twice in supplements, water supplies and amounts of toothpaste placed on brushes. Also, advice is given to avoid routine mixing of fluoridated water into infant formula. Fluoridation protectionists will rarely share this with the public preferring, instead, to protect fluoride.There is no dispute that too much fluoride is bad for teeth and bones. There’s also no dispute that large fluoride overdoses cause serious side effects. But consumers are rarely informed to tally daily fluoride intake, what’s too much and where it comes from. Fluoride isn’t revealed on food and beverage labels, unknown amounts are absorbed from dental products and consumed via the water supplies.
Fluoridation began with zealotry and little, if any, valid science.
After attending a 1941 meeting where fluoridation was suggested, Dentist John Frisch became “a man possessed.” “Fluoridation became practically a religion with him.” (The fight for fluoridation, McNeill)
Frisch wouldn’t let science shake his belief in fluoride. For example, university biochemists reported in 1947, in a series of experiments, that whole milk prevented more tooth decay than 1 part per million (ppm) fluoridated water.
Frisch exploded with wrath and called the conclusions ‘’hogwash from the biochemistry department.” Frisch accused the biochemists of fudging the data so they could keep their dairy grants coming in. Of course, now we know for sure that calcium-rich foods, such as milk, help prevent tooth decay. In fact, calcium is an essential nutrient while fluoride is not. And calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning. And naturally occurring fluoride, upon which the fluoridation program is based upon, is generally calcium fluoride.
Fluoridation came about in the early 1900’s when it was discovered that healthier wealthier residents living where the water was naturally fluoridated had discolored or mottled but decay-resistant teeth. Dentists pinpointed fluoride as the tooth discoloring culprit. They assumed fluoride was also the cavity preventive. They ignored that residents grew and ate their own nutritious foods, drank calcium rich water and could afford dental care. Just like now, dentists settle where people can afford them.
So, Frisch, to prove his belief that sodium fluoride worked the same as natural calcium fluoride, experimented on his own 7- and 9-year-old serving them 1.5 ppm sodium fluoridated drinking water. When the 7-year-old displayed faint mottled enamel that was all the proof he needed. Early fluoridationists concurred. He went on to influence many cities to start fluoridation on his non-scientific say-so.
Frisch used “satire, ridicule and tartness” while criticizing those opposed to fluoridation for denying children the “benefit” of fluoride just like today’s fluoridationists.
Another early fluoridationist, appropriately named Dr. Bull, put a positive spin on fluoridation and provided talking points for sticky questions – years before the first experimental fluoridation trials were planned to be completed – at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau in 1951.
Bull said: “Now, in regard to toxicity, I noticed that Dr. Bain used the term ‘adding sodium fluoride,’ we never do that. That is rat poison. You add fluoride…”
The first fluoridation experiments conducted on entire city popluations starting in 1945 were cut short prematurely - before the permanent teeth of those born into the experiments had even erupted. The belief in fluoridation was so deep, early fluoridationists couldn't wait for the science to catch up with their misguided but well-intended theories.
Modern day “Dr Bull’s” are paid PR-trained individuals and companies who teach pro-fluoridation spokesperson training to “cultish” followers who are instructed to avoid talking about fluoridation’s risks because that battle can’t be won.
Even Edward Bernays, the father of public relations got into the act, Melissa explains. In 1960, he counseled the NYS Health Commissioner to write to television executives to influence them to avoid fluoridation debates. Bernays’ campaign advice included sending government letters to influential newspaper editors and even dictionary and encyclopedia editors to leverage government influence to dominate the fluoridation narrative and marginalize opposition. In this way, pro fluoridationists manipulated the human tendency to defer to authority sources, such as doctors, dictionaries and the daily news.
It worked. In 1965 New York City began fluoridation over the objections of Arthur Ford, New York City’s water commissioner.
Fluoridationists appear to be an army protecting themselves, first and foremost. They claim fluoride science is settled, repeating the cult mantra, “safe and effective” even though, because of tooth toxicity, fluoride levels had to be lowered over the years in infant formula, twice in supplements, water supplies and amounts of toothpaste placed on brushes. Also, advice is given to avoid routine mixing of fluoridated water into infant formula. Fluoridation protectionists will rarely share this with the public preferring, instead, to protect fluoride.There is no dispute that too much fluoride is bad for teeth and bones. There’s also no dispute that large fluoride overdoses cause serious side effects. But consumers are rarely informed to tally daily fluoride intake, what’s too much and where it comes from. Fluoride isn’t revealed on food and beverage labels, unknown amounts are absorbed from dental products and consumed via the water supplies.
In fact, according to a fluoride supplement insert, " Prolonged daily ingestion of excessive fluoride may result in varying degrees of dental fluorosis. Account for all daily sources of fluoride intake."
But few parents, if any, are counseled to keep track of children's total fluoride intake and where hidden fluoride resides and how much is too much.
***
Melissa has written a very informative and interesting book which is different from most on this subject. She engages the reader and has evidence to back up her conclusions. If you or your child has acne or other skin conditions and nothing has worked for you, you must read this book. It took Melissa 20 years to figure out for herself that fluoride caused her severe acne. You don't have to suffer that long.If you live in an area with fluoridated water, you should do all you can to get your local or state legislators and/or water departments to stop.
END
Melissa has written a very informative and interesting book which is different from most on this subject. She engages the reader and has evidence to back up her conclusions. If you or your child has acne or other skin conditions and nothing has worked for you, you must read this book. It took Melissa 20 years to figure out for herself that fluoride caused her severe acne. You don't have to suffer that long.If you live in an area with fluoridated water, you should do all you can to get your local or state legislators and/or water departments to stop.
END
Posts
