this is a weblog
Sunday, January 04, 2004
6:06 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/worldline.html
http://www.raven1.net/uncom.htm
http://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm
http://www.xat.org/xat/history1.html
FLUORIDES AND THE A BOMB
JANUARY 4, 2004. Here is a piece I wrote sometime back. The fluoride-A bomb connection…a boggler uncovered by two reporters who were blocked from getting their work published in the mainstream:
In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be avoided. But they didn’t avoid it.
Their ensuing article, FLUORIDE, TEETH, AND THE ATOMIC BOMB, has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths recently, and he told me to be careful I was using a correct copy of his piece.
Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water versus communities with unfluoridated water miss a major point: Fluorides are EVERYWHERE---they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide)---because fluorine is very active and binds with all sorts of other substances. Therefore, there is an extremely wide public exposure to fluorides.
I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.
As of 1997, two thirds of public drinking water in the US was fluoridated.
US public health officials maintain that fluorides at low doses are safe and prevent cavities.
Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, which was launched to build the first A-bomb.
Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”
The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.
Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ against defense contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”
So A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.
The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret OP called “Program H.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.
Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.
Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.
Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, the former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”
Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.
But Griffiths/Bryson have uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the T [uranium] is the causative factor.”
The memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren Warren was being asked to give his okay to animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.
But any records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.
In 1944, it was considered essential to move ahead with this work, but in the 1990s, Phyllis Mullenix was turned down cold.
Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.
Who was brought in to advise Mullenix about 50 years later at the Forsytth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.
Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge. Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries?
Getting the idea here?. Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies It’s all about national security. Lie, cheat, injure people---it’s for the best.
AND THE COVER-UP CONTINUES AS WE SPEAK, AS MORE PEOPLE ARE BEING INJURED BY THE TOXICITY OF FLUORIDES.
More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were being destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies.
The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified. Of lawsuits. And possible revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.
Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.
The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem. Secrets could be exposed. The A-bomb program could be derailed if people found out how toxic the fluoride component was.
The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.
Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”
Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”
Perhaps you remember the film, Dr. Strangelove. The scene in which the mad Army man rails about the destruction the fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, this character is portrayed as some kind of “far right-wing fanatic.” How ironic that he and all other military crazies in the movie are, in fact, ready and willing to start a nuclear war. Ironic because, unknown to the Strangelove script writer, fluorides were VERY toxic AND were an integral part of the very program that created atomic bombs.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
A BRAVE PROFESSOR
JANUARY 4, 2004. The letter below was sent from a teacher at the University of California, Davis, to a proponent of water fluoridation in 1980. It was just sent to me.
This teacher is a man after my own heart. He had organized an anti-fraud group on campus to examine, statistically, a whole range of scientific studies on various subjects---and he obviously found, along with his students, a massive amount of deception and blundering.
The tone of the letter is particularly appealing, because it stakes out a high ground rarely occupied by academics: it punctures the arrogance of professionals who think they can get away with sheer baloney and in the process endanger the health of the public.
The teacher also suggests that colleges everywhere should establish such groups, because a surprising amount of what is laughingly called science needs probing investigation that is truly impartial and does not bow to credentials and degrees and blatant PR.
The teacher also remarks on how easy it is to uncover fraud. If we had a nation full of academics like this man, media would not be able to get away with parroting the official pronouncements of researchers who are obviously protecting commercial interests with lies.
Enjoy.
University of California, Davis
Department of Mathematics
Davis, California, 95616
May 28, 1980
Dr. Ernest Newbrun
Medical Sciences Bldg. 653
San Francisco, CA 94132
Dear Dr. Newbrun:
Thank you for your telephone inquiry about my course on statistical frauds, and "The Statistical Frauds Group". It was given in The Experimental College at this campus for a number of years. In the course of time, "The Statistical Frauds Group" arose from it.
The course and the Group have been dormant for a couple of years, but after my retirement in July 1980, I may revive them. There does seem to be some demand.
We investigated all manner of questionable statements and activities, some qualitative, but most of them quantitative. We conducted interviews and collected published matter, and analyzed all these, using standard statistical procedures.
In addition to deliberate frauds, errors in judgment or method were examined. Often it was difficult to detect if there was a deliberate fraud. We looked over statements by manufacturers or purveyors of consumer goods. But a very copious source was papers in medical research journals. Particularly good examples of blatant statistical misconduct were found in the Public Health Service reports.
The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.
Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.
By the way, a study by John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burke on possible connection between cancer and waterborne fluoride was fairly tightly reasoned. The statistical procedures were standard, and much better applied than in much of the Public Health work.
As I pointed out in a letter published in the proceedings of a congressional committee investigating the above connection, the real point is that direct chemical and controlled experimental research by unbiased uncommitted agencies is urgently indicated.
Clearly fluoridation should be discontinued everywhere until definitive results on safety are obtained.
In this connection, a great source of entertainment to the Group was the ferocity with which the [fluoride] researchers attacked any criticism. Invariably they violated in their own work the very principles they insisted on in others' work.
The Group found that corrections for age, race, etc. were applied in a most perfunctory and indiscriminate manner, without regard to whether they appertained to the given situation. The Group found over and over that new, unbiased, research was almost impossible to instigate.
The old "Frauds Group" should be revived and reorganized. If funds are forthcoming, I may consider the undertaking. Every campus should have an invulnerable group that punches holes in stuffed shirts and lets the air out.
If I may help further, please let me know.
Sincerely,
(Signed)
Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D.
JON RAPPOPORT www.nomorefakenews.com
THE VISIBLE VERSUS THE INVISIBLE IN SCIENCE
JANUARY 2, 2004. If a phalanx of bugs attacks a man on the street and starts chewing up his leg, the cause and the effect are both visible. In that case, it really doesn’t matter what you think or speculate about or hypothesize. It’s all there in front of you.
However, in science, when researchers say there are entities which are too small to see with present technology, what matters are explanation and prediction.
Can you explain observable phenomena by invoking the invisible entities, and more important, can you PREDICT very specific events which will happen---events which are important and not trivial?
Until about 30 years ago, scientists everywhere understood these things. But culture changes, and these days many professionals more concerned with credit-card debt and car payments have lost the thread.
This is what I’m saying about the PRION. One can speculate all one wants to about what MAY have caused cows to fall down and die and what may have caused humans to do the same. Speculation is fine. But when the prion cannot be seen with an electron microscope, the burning question is, WHAT CAN YOU DO WITH THE PRION CONCEPT TO PREDICT VERY USEFUL THINGS?
And the answer so far is NOTHING.
So prion science is quite properly relabeled prion hypothesis, prion speculation. One does not go around awarding Nobel Prizes to people in that field.
Unless one wants to indulge in disinformation or groveling before gods not seen.
Do not be fooled by the various intricate ways in which researchers try to prove that the prion exists. All their indirect inferences may be interesting and even clever, but the issue comes back to the same point: if they’re right, what they can really do with the concept of the prion? Can they predict meaningful events, especially events which will lead them closer to a cure for whatever is really ailing the cows and the few humans said to be infected by a version of mad cow? Can they do it?
So far the answer is NO.
You may use words like ingenious and brilliant and deeply insightful, if you want to, to describe the work of Stanley Prusiner and his prion colleagues. But don’t think all those accolades add up to SCIENCE. They don’t. Prusiner et al are still sloshing around in undergrowth and swamp trying to dig up something. If they want to keep digging, fine. But public, press and professional adulation are misplaced, if what you care about is RESULTS.
This ain’t science fiction.
And PLEASE. Don’t get back to me with tales about how asserting the existence of the prion has helped researchers get a grip on which cows are sick and which are healthy. That’s just pure jive.
Cow falls down. Cow can’t get up. Cow has holes in brain. Those are a few of the things that tell people which cows are sick. Not a thought about a prion somewhere.
So it is now, so it was always. In science, IF YOU ASSERT THAT AN INVISIBLE THING EXISTS, YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOU CAN MAKE USEFUL PREDICTIONS ON THE BASIS OF THAT INVISIBLE ENTITY. OTHERWISE YOU’RE STILL LOOKING, LIKE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
If there are science Nobel winners out there who have an active brain cell or two, and I know of at least one who does (Kary Mullis), I strongly suggest they draft a letter to the Prize committee and state the obvious. The award of a Prize to Prusiner demeans what they have accomplished.