Fluoride FAQs
No. It is now well established that fluoride is
not an essential nutrient. This means that no human disease – including
tooth decay
– will result from a “deficiency” of fluoride. Fluoridating water
supplies is therefore different than adding iodine to salt. Unlike
fluoride, iodine
is an essential nutrient (the body
needs iodine to ensure the proper functioning of the thyroid gland). No such necessity exists for fluoride.
The main
chemicals
used to fluoridate drinking water are known as “silicofluorides” (i.e.,
hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate). Silicofluorides are
not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are
unprocessed industrial by-products of the
phosphate fertilizer industry. Since these silicofluorides undergo no purification procedures, they can contain elevated levels of
arsenic
— moreso than any other water treatment chemical. In addition, recent
research suggests that the addition of silicofluorides to water is a
risk factor for elevated
lead exposure, particularly among residents who live in homes with old pipes.
All water treatment chemicals, with the exception
of fluoride, are added to make drinking water safe and pleasant to
consume. Fluoride is the only chemical added to treat people who consume
the water, rather than the water itself. Fluoridating water supplies
can thus fairly be described as a form of
mass medication, which is why most European countries have
rejected the practice.
Most
developed nations in the world have rejected fluoridation, including
97% of western Europe.
The United States, which fluoridates more than 70% of its water
supplies, is an exception to this rule. According to the British
Fluoridation Society, there are more people drinking artificially
fluoridated water in the United States than
all other countries combined.
Water fluoridation has been a big lie told to us by the big corporations that run our government. The love of money seems to be the root of the fluoridation problem. I started to become suspicious of water fluoridation after I came to the realization that our government tell big fibs all the time. The big fib that shocked me was the official story of 9/11. After looking into events of 9/11 I was shocked to see how events unfolded if you followed the money. Here is some of that story.
ReplyDeleteForget for one moment everything you’ve been told about September 11, 2001. 9/11 was a crime.
And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: follow the money. This is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail.
For those with limited bandwidth, CLICK HERE to download a smaller, lower file size version of this episode.
For those interested in audio quality, CLICK HERE for the highest-quality version of this episode (WARNING: very large download).
Transcript
Forget for one moment everything you’ve been told about September 11, 2001. Instead let’s ask ourselves one question: What was 9/11? A terrorist atrocity? An attack on America? The first salvo in a new war? “A day that changed everything”?
The question may seem simple, but how we answer it is of vital importance. It determines how we proceed with our investigation of that day. And once you strip away the emotional rhetoric and the fear-inducing imagery, we’re left with a simple truth: 9/11 was a crime. And as with any crime, there is one overriding imperative that detectives must follow to identify the perpetrators: follow the money.
This is an investigation of the 9/11 money trail.
The 9/11 Heist
In 1998, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey agreed to privatize the World Trade Center, the complex of office towers in Lower Manhattan that they had owned and operated since their construction in 1973. In April 2001 an agreement was reached with a consortium of investors led by Silverstein Properties and on July 24th, 2001 Larry Silverstein, who already owned World Trade Center Building 7, signed a 99 year lease for the Twin Towers and Buildings 4 and 5.
ReplyDeleteThe lease was for $3.2 billion, and was financed by a bridge loan from GMAC, the commercial mortgage arm of General Motors, as well as $111 million from Lloyd Goldman and Joseph Cayre, individual real estate investors. Silverstein Properties only put down $14 million of its own money.
The deal was unusual in a variety of ways. Although the Port Authority carried only $1.5 billion of insurance coverage on the WTC complex, which earlier that year had been valued at $1.2 billion, Silverstein had insisted on doubling that amount, insuring the buildings for $3.55 billion. Silverstein’s insurance broker struggled to put that much coverage in place and ultimately had tosplit it among 25 dealers. The negotiations were so involved that only temporary contracts were in place for the insurance at the time the lease was signed and by September the contracts were still being finalized.
Silverstein’s group was also explicitly given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed, and even to expand the amount of retail space on the site if rebuilding did take place.
ReplyDeleteWithin hours of the destruction of the Twin Towers on September 11th, Silverstein was on the phone to his lawyers, trying to determine if his insurance policies could “construe the attacks as two separate, insurable incidents rather than one.” Silverstein spent years in the courts attempting to win $7.1 billion from his $3.55 billion insurance policy and in 2007 walked away with $4.55 billion, the largest single insurance settlement ever. As soon as the deal was announced Silverstein sued United and American Airlines for a further $3.5 billion for their “negligence” in the 9/11 attacks, a claim that was struck down by the courts but is still on appeal.
Perhaps even more outrageously, in a secret deal in 2003, the Port Authority agreed to pay back 80% of their initial equity in the lease, but allowed the Silverstein group to maintain control of the site. The deal gave Silverstein, Goldman and Cayre $98 million of the $125 million they put down on the lease, and a further $130 million in insurance proceeds that were earmarked for the site’s rebuilding.
In the end, Silverstein profited from the 9/11 attacks to the tune of $4.55 billion and counting.
But that’s the 9/11 insurance heist you saw. There was a much deeper, more complex, and well-hidden heist that was taking place behind closed doors on September 11, 2001, deep in the heart of the World Trade Center itself.
Marsh & McLennan is a diversified risk, insurance and professional services firm with over $13 billion in annual revenue and 57,000 employees. In September of 2001, 2000 of those employees worked in Marsh’s offices in the World Trade Center. Marsh occupied floors 93 to 100 of the North Tower, the exact area of the impact and explosion.
In the year prior to 9/11, Marsh had contracted with SilverStream software to create an electronic connection between Marsh and its clients for the purpose of creating “paperless transactions.” SilverStream had already built internet-based transactional and trading platforms for Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Banker’s Trust, Alex Brown, Morgan Stanley and other financial services firms that were later involved in 9/11, but this new project was unlike anything that had been attempted before.
Richard Andrew Grove, the salesperson who handled the Marsh & McLennan project for SilverStream, explains.
You can read the rest of the article here. LoveofMoney
ReplyDelete