Fluoridated Water and Social Engineering
Russell Blaylock MD, a retired Board Certified Neurosurgeon and author has carefully documented the fact that there is an epidemic of neurological disorders in the Western world directly tied to a global eugenics / social engineering program.
I’m Dr Russell Blaylock, I’m a Board Certified Neurosurgeon. I am retired from active practice. Now I do primarily, theoretical research and neurosciences and spend most my time writing research articles / review articles on neuroscience projects, at the present time.
What I found interesting in all of this, when I first started looking at it, looking at the funding by the Rockefeller Foundation and many other foundations, like the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation and looking back into the history of it, I came accidentally upon a book by Dr Lily E. Kay (‘The Molecular Vision of Life’ 1993). She was doing a research project looking at the origins of molecular biology in the United States. And that was primarily my interest, was just reviewing the history of molecular biology, but to my surprise, much of the book describes what was called ‘The science of man project’ by the Rockefeller Foundation, and primarily, this in a period about 1910. Primarily what he (Rockefeller) was interested in, and his foundation board, was doing “social engineering”.
They were concerned that society was made up of a lot of people, they considered undesirables. Their definition of ‘undesirables’ was people that had lower IQ; people that have physical defects; people who had diseases, people who did not behave in a way that these group of elitists thought people should behave in society. So their idea was to use eugenics which was the primary science of the time to re-develop man / create a new type of person, and they coined the term ‘social engineering’.
Now course at that time we didn’t have DNA as a concept, so they were using rather crude genetics to bring this about in the very beginning. So what she shows is the Rockefeller Foundation was really putting a lot of money in this. And in order to do that, he thought, what I’ll do is, I’ll fund major universities and pick Caltech, as one of those major universities, and some in the East like Harvard and Johns Hopkins in Colombia, University of Chicago, as the primary centers where this type of study would be carried out, and how to re-engineer human beings to be in the form that they thought humans should be. And gradually as science began to become more sophisticated and eugenics began to get a really bad name, as the period of Adolph Hitler occurred, and you realise the Rockefeller eugenicists, before Hitler became well known in power, they were travelling to Germany and exchanging information on these eugenic programs. So a fair amount of this information came from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Of course after WW2, when the world found out there was a lot going on in eugenics, and the horror of eugenics, most of these programs were abandoned and the Rockefeller Foundation very quickly said to all their members, we must never use the name ‘eugenics’ any more, what we’ll talk about is ‘social engineering’ / ‘the new science of man’ / behaviourism’, so they had these keywords that meant basically the same type idea, that is, redesigning man and man’s behaviour and controlling it through elitest ideas, but they would do it through new science and establish major institutions in the United States. It would control medical education through his general education board, which was a very powerful foundation regulation of education in America. And so, he would appoint professors that would be directors of these programs. He groomed people who believed, like he did, that in fact, man should be redesigned. We needed the science of man to re-engineer human beings, but do it in a more scientific way than this crude eugenics program that he began with. And what that necessitated using was, what was called, molecular biology.
Well with the discovery of DNA, this became more sophisticated and that you can manipulate certain genes and change how the brain functions and of course they got into the neuroscience field itself and began to look at, how does the brain work, how can we change behaviour by altering brain function and this has led up to the present day when we have things like the decade of the brain with its intense study of the behavioural functions of the brain and how it works.
But if you look through her book, where she talks about the actual funding, their actual ideas, it’s the same theme that started back in 1910. That is, we’re going to recreate man in our image, what we think man should be: how people should think, what they should think, the limitations on their behaviour. It’s a true scientific social engineering of human beings.
Well, leading from that when we start looking at some of the programs that have sort of spurred out of this: you know the high-tech DNA manipulation / brain manipulation through electrodes, or through transmission outside of electrodes, to change human thinking. These are the more sophisticated programs that are a little bit more obvious, but then there are things that are less obvious, for instance, fluoridating water.
We look at the original justification for fluoridating the water back in 1945 when they picked a couple of cities: Grand Rapids, Michigan and Muskegon.
Grand Rapids was going to be fluoridated and Muskegon was not, and they were going to compare and use the idea that fluoride was preventing cavities. So even before the study had been completed, they announced that it was a grand success and that fluoridated water produced a 30 to 60% reduction in cavities.
What they didn’t say was that in the un-fluoridated city, there was a very similar drop in the instance of cavities as well. And in fact, throughout the entire world, we began to see in the developed world a tremendous fall in the incidence of dental cavities that had nothing to do with fluoride. What it had to do with was increase intake of calcium, mainly through cheese consumption and better diets, better oral hygiene, and a number of studies proved that. One of which was conducted by the US Public Health Service.
It was one of largest American studies at the time. They looked at 39,000 school children in which they looked at the effect of fluoridation versus non-fluoridation and they found it had no beneficial effect at all. Well they hid that document, so scientists couldn’t examine it, and the public and the media would never see it.
Well a Dr Yamin Hyannis, who was a chemist, filed a Freedom of Information lawsuit, had it released and then he saw why they wanted to hide it. That’s because it clearly demonstrated fluoride did not reduce cavities.
Since that time, there have been a number of studies, one of which included eight countries, another which included all studies on fluoride / independent studies on fluoride and dental cavities for the past 30 years. Another study included 400,000 children in India. All of these studies showed the same thing, adding fluoride to water did not reduce cavities at all. And in fact, several of the studies showed it increased cavities. And it did so because it weakened the dental layer of the tooth and made it more prone to becoming a cavity.
So now that we’ve established, and it’s admitted by the National Science Foundation study which was recently completed, that fluoridating water does not reduce cavities, there is no modern evidence whatsoever that fluoridating water reduces cavities at all. So you have to ask the question, why are they still fluoridating the water?
Now European countries have caught on very quickly. None of them fluoridate their water, apart from Britain, which fluoridates about 60% of its water and there is enforced fluoridation in Ireland. But the mainland European countries do not fluoridate water, do not allow it, but in the United States we still have the federal government and inclusion with the American Dental Association going to various cities, even small cities, using their pressure / their money / taxpayer money to try to force local city councils to fluoridate their water.
In the State of California, in fact, they’ve ordered the fluoridation of all waters in every city and village over 10,000 inhabitants, whether they vote to not fluoridate their water or not.
So you have to ask the question, well now that scientifically we’ve proven fluoridating water has no effect on reducing cavities, why is the federal government spending so much money and effort to force fluoridation on the rest of the water supply, and even insisting that bottle water be fluoridated, that no one would have access to un-fluoridated water, except the elite.
The Effect of Fluoridation
Well, if we look at the scientific studies and what is the effect of fluoridation?
Well we know about fluoridating water, through a number of studies, some of which were ordered by the federal government in the South in the earlier day, increases cancer risk.
Burke and Yamin Hyannis, two scientists, did one of the largest cancer studies in relation to fluoridating the water supply. They looked at all cities – 10 cities in the eastern part of the United States and they shared that in fluoridated cities as compared to un-fluoridated cities, there was a 10% increase in cancer.
This was a criticised study, so they repeated it, and they did all cities, east of the Mississippi, above 10,000 population, comparing fluoridated and un-fluoridated water. Now what they did, they compared the cancer statistics before fluoridation, and then 13-17 years after fluoridation. Again, they found there was a 10% increase in cancer death incidence in the cities that had been fluoridated.
Now when you say, cancer death, that means people died of cancer, you can appreciate there could be a lot more people who developed cancer who didn’t die, so the actual cancer incidence was much higher.
This study was so impressive to some members of Congress, they ordered a study of this link to cancer through the Patel Research Institute. This study showed that it produced a number of types of cancer, one which was a very rare liver cancer and it significantly increased the growth of cancer in people who already had cancer.
Well despite these studies, they are still fluoridating water. They found out it increased fractures, not only in the elderly, but in younger women, and it increased hip fractures in older men, to a greater extent than the women.
Well a hip fracture in someone over 65 has a high mortality rate. So it’s a good way, if you wanted to, to increase the mortality in the elderly and get them out of the way, which is in discussion today.
We know that it has profound effects on the brain. One of the most impressive studies was done by Dr Phyllis Molyneux, who was a highly regarded neuro-toxicologist, someone who studies the toxicity of different elements of the brain. Well she was drafted into doing this when she worked for the Forsyth Dental Research Institute, and she had never worked with fluoride, didn’t know a lot about it.
Now I know this first-hand because I’ve interviewed her and talked with her and I know her. And she said, when she first was to going to do the research project, to see if fluoridating water had any effect on the brain’s function, she thought it would be negative. She didn’t think fluoride would have any adverse effects on the brain. She did one of the largest studies that’s been done on animals to see the effect of fluoridating water on the brain function and she used a very innovative modern technique.
In this technique she used computers to see the behaviour of animal so that it was totally objective. There was no subjective influence by the researcher themselves. That had never been done before, and all this was high-tech equipment.
She completed her study and to her surprise, the fluoride produced two main effects:
- If you fed the fluoride to a pregnant animal, the offspring then became hyperactive; in other words, like ADHD.
- If you gave the fluoride after birth, the animal became very lethargic, sort of like a couch potato – they didn’t really want to do anything / they became very apathetic.
So this was a very clear effect with objective computerised evaluation of the behaviour of these animals. She used over 500 animals. She completed this research and she also measured the fluoride levels in the animal’s brain and found some very interesting things: that fluoride tends to accumulate in the part of the brain that controls behaviour, particularly the hippocampus and the other limbic areas of the brain.
She brought this research to the National Institutes of Health. They asked her to present it and the results of her research.
Well at the same time after she wrote up her research, she presented it to one of the most prestigious journals to be published and they didn’t know it.
So she presented it to the National Institute of Health and their response was very cold. And she said when she was walking through the National Institutes of Health, all the walls were adorned with big posters proclaiming the effectiveness of fluoridation of water and promoting the fluoridation of water, and she said, this isn’t a very objective audience I’m speaking to. Well they were very hostile and very cold to her during her presentation and didn’t even ask questions. So when she got back to her Institute, they asked her about sending this to a journal to be published and they wanted the name of the journal. Well she wouldn’t tell them because she knew they would try and stop the publication and try to influence the journal not to publish it. So she wouldn’t tell them.
And it was published, much to their dismay and anger, and a wide audience of scientists began to look at this research, which for the first time, proved that fluoride added to water in concentrations that humans are exposed to, was producing profound changes in the brain and altering behaviour of young animals exposed to it.
We have to realise at the time, women were adding fluoridated water to reconstitute the baby food. Well over half of babies get reconstituted baby food, not breast fed. So this was tens of millions of babies were being exposed to concentrations of fluoride that were used in this experiment.
Well, after they found that this had been published, they fired her. And the Forsyth Dental Research Institute in fact, about that time, had gotten 1/4 million dollar grant from the Colgate company that fluoridates their toothpaste.
So she was fired from her job, she’s never gotten another federal grant, and she is one of the top neuro-toxicologists in the world. She created this innovative new system.
Well she went back to her lab to get the rats brains so that she could continue researching on her own. It turns out, they had flooded the lab claiming there was a break in the water pipe. It destroyed her computer system and they killed all the rats and incinerated them, so there was no tissue left to do any studies on.
All of these things look rather suspicious, so you know you have to come to your own conclusion.
We know that there’s numerous health effects of adding fluoride to water. We know fluoride bio-accumulates in human body, that means it just keeps getting higher and higher concentrations, the more you drink the water.
If you want produce the highest concentration of a mineral you don’t put it in the food you put it in the water because people drink a lot of water, particularly in warmer climates. So that produces the highest level bio-accumulation, and that’s what we were seeing.
Well, Dr Yamin Yanis did some studies and looked at the different tissues in the body, and found out the highest accumulations were in the thyroid gland. It had been known that one way to reduce thyroid function was to put fluoride in water, that it produced a significant hypothyroidism or low function of the thyroid gland.
Now not only does that produce lethargy, apathy, weakness, tiredness in adults, but if you do it in pregnant women, the babies are born with low IQs and they never recover.
So even mild reduction in thyroid function in pregnant women has now been shown to produce significant neuro behavioural problems in their off-spring.
So we’ve got some rather profound problems with fluoridation that are now well documented from laboratories all over the world without any question.
For instance, one of them Dr Varner did in Europe. And what he did was look at .5 ppm (parts per million), which is half of what is put in water, and found significant death of neurons in the brain and damage to the blood vessels that supply blood to the brain. He is a highly regarded researcher and it was published in a very prestigious neurological journal.
So we have all these studies proving that this is a very hazardous thing to do:
- it produces behavioural changes, many of which we’re seeing in the populations that are drinking fluoridated water.
- we know it bio-accumulates and gets worse over time.
- we know that it’s absorbed into the plants and the foods and the concentration in the foods is rising significantly.
Yet we have a government which is still pushing as hard as they can, using taxpayer money, to get all the water supply in the United States fluoridated.
So I leave it to the audience to think for themselves, what could possibly be the justification for doing such a thing?
If you’ve demonstrated it doesn’t reach its objective: that is reducing cavities, which everybody now has admitted, even the ADA – American Dental Association – has had to admit it. Why is it still being added to the water? If it has these profound health effects, why is it still being added to the water?
And even the ADA had to admit recently that it is harmful to the baby’s brain and they put out a warning. Now this is just on the government site and on their own site,
“women should not re-constitute their baby food with tap water that’s fluoridated.”
Well, you don’t see that as a headline in your newspaper; you don’t see it on most major news TV lead stories, which would reach most women. It is just sort of kept under the cover so they can say, we did put out the warning, we just didn’t make it a widespread warning.
So a lot of women are still reconstituting their baby’s infant formula with fluoridated tap water that even ADA now admits is harmful to their baby’s brain.
So if we start looking at some of the other things that are being done in society, for instance, the use of aspartame, the widespread use of aspartame, which has also been proven to be a brain toxin, without any question. It’s also linked to an increase incidence of cancer to any reasonable objective mind, studies prove it.
When you look at the effects of MSG monosodium glutamate and other food additives that are excitotoxins on brain and behaviour.
When we look at the effects on reproduction of these things. For instance, fluoride reduces reproduction. It influences sperm mobility, sperm production and testosterone level in males and it bio-accumulates in these organs and gradually reduces the ability to reproduce.
When we look at aluminium and lead, all of these things that are ending up in our water, food that are being given as food additives, we’re seeing some common effects: they have behavioural facts, they reproductive effects and they have effects on health, like cancer and degenerative brain disorders. And it’s well demonstrated in the scientific literature.
The question you have is, why are the regulatory agencies not approaching this? Why are they still allowing this, when there is compelling evidence that it’s harmful? Just to be on the safe side, you would think, when millions of people are exposed to this every day, they would at least warn the public that it has effects on your reproduction, it has effects on your risk of cancer, it has effects on your brain function / your cognitive function / your memory / learning. It has effects on the development of the brain of the child, when all these things are known and in the scientific literature and peer review journal, why is the truth being kept in the dark.
And so, just answer that question yourself without saying, well, they’re doing it on purpose.
You have to say, well, either doing it on purpose or they’re the most incredibly stupid and confident people in the world and they don’t deserve to be in positions of power and should be removed from positions of power, and people with good cognitive sense replace them.
There’s only two choices you have in this debate. Either they’re incredibly stupid and incompetent or they’re criminal and doing it on purpose for a reason which goes back to the Rockefeller design of human engineering. (25:00)
Please Note: At this point Dr Russell Blaylock goes on to talk about other eugenics / social engineering programs going on, like the vaccination program etc.