-->
Protect Your Health Freedom by Staying Informed!    

Fluoride Could Destroy Our Country


Embed:
Information
Time: 3:29 Added: 10/14/2013
Views: 6637

Can fluoride have a long-term negative effect on our country? Watch what Dr. David Kennedy says about the potential damage to our nation because of fluoride related deaths. Also, do you benefit from fluoride in your water? Dr. Kennedy says no, unless you work in a fluoride related industry. Find out which countries and which businesses are benefiting from water fluoridation in this country!

Contributor(s): Kennedy, David DDS
Tags: cancer, water, fluoride
Transcript:
Interviewer: With all the information that we have, and we continue to get more, about fluoridation, why is it continuing? What is the supposed benefit there? 

Dr. David Kennedy: Well, the benefit is to industry, the large American industries, and the lie has gone on so long that now China, Japan, Mexico and Belgium sell us their hazardous waste. Well, why don't they put it in their own water? It's against the law in those countries. China has a whole program for removing fluoride from the water supply, so there's no way that they'd be adding it.

So it's basically making billions of dollars. Bill Hersy [sp] said there was a half a million tons of silica fluoride added to the public water supplies of the United States. A half a million tons. If you had one ton of silica fluoride, and had to pay for it to be disposed of, you'd be in the poor house, because it's terribly expensive.

But look what you lose. If you just said, "Oh, you can't use the water supply for that anymore," look what you'd lose. You'd lose phosphate fertilizer. That's the one that you put on the tomatoes and you have this tomato that's about as big as a basketball and it tastes like, maybe a basketball. No flavor at all. Phosphate makes the plant thirsty so Agribiz loves their phosphate, because they can go to the store and sell food for the cost of water. And so, the other thing you'd lose would be the nuclear materials that they use to extract. Well, we're not making any nuclear weapons. We're trying to destroy them. So we don't need our nuclear materials anymore. So it's a win-win situation.

You stop putting the stuff in the water. You stop having the cancers from the fluoride. You stop having the cancers from the arsenic. Because all of the products in the State of California stipulated in a lawsuit in Escondido that the products are contaminated with arsenic. So, what's the idea? Let's add some arsenic to the water? Well, it's good for the oncologist. We can treat more cancers that way. It's bad for the recipient. And we're killing babies. (inaudible), we talk about 18,000 dead American babies that would be alive if they were born in Sweden, or one of those other countries that don't fluoridate their water, and they don't vaccinate on the day of birth. The reason the infants are dying is because the silica fluoride is not fluoride. It is a very unnatural man-made product that sucks lead into the bodies of the babies. The vaccines with mercury, like the flu vaccine, or Rogame, put mercury in the baby.

Or the dentist decides to drill on mom's teeth, or the hygienist decides to polish the teeth while the woman is pregnant, that puts mercury in the baby, too.

So the silica fluoride puts lead in the baby. The dentist, or the vaccine manufacturers put mercury in the woman, or the fetus, and as a result, you end up with dead babies. I don't think that's appropriate. The industry does not care whether or not the infants in this country die, but if you take just a little look around, 18,000 means you lose your country. If you don't have a adequate birthrate to replace the existing population in your country, you don't have anybody to pay tax to pay, old guys Social Security. You don't have anybody to manufacture anything. You basically end up as a destroyed, has-been, once upon a time, country.

And the policies need to protect the most vulnerable in our society, not the richest.

comments powered by Disqus