America is now in the transition from tap to bottled water as the primary source of drinking water. When the transition is complete – to date only 50% of Americans drink bottled water (Source: Green Nature) – then and only then will the government abandon its highly contentious policy of tap water fluoridation.

Some Extracts on Fluoridated Salt & Bottled Water
by Kevin Mulgur GalalaeWe have removed links to make for smoother reading.
We have left some references in but recommend
 that you read the  full text⇒ HERE


     Water fluoridation was not and could not be used in Europe’s German-speaking countries, the reason being that its use was still fresh in the memory of many of its citizens who had personally witnessed and had been a party in how the Nazis employed it against Jews in the ghettoes and in concentration camps. These countries (i.e. Germany and Austria), along with Poland, where many of the largest concentration camps had been located, had to find a different method of delivering fluoride into their citizens on a continuous basis and in quantities large enough to depress their fertility.


They also had to wait long enough for the memory of fluoridated water’s ugly purpose to fade away along with the death of the older generation. That is why salt fluoridation did not begin in Germany and Austria until 1991. And that is why Switzerland waited until 1955 before it put fluoride into the salt of only one Canton, the Canton of Zurich, and at a low concentration of 90 mg per kg of salt. Having gaged the public’s reaction, the government mustered the courage in 1970 to up the fluoride content to 250 mg per kg of salt in the canton of Waadt and a few years later, in 1974, also in the Canton of Glarus. By then, nearly 30 years had passed since the end of World War II, many of the old timers were dead and the new generation of chemists and scientists were deprived of knowledge about fluoride’s insidious history as a mass infertility drug.

It is also likely that fluoridated salt was secretly employed throughout the country long before its use was openly declared. A recent publication by current insiders of the mass fluoridation/fertilization program mentions “key studies” and “pilot projects” in Finland (in 1952), Hungary (in 1966) and Colombia (between 1964-1972) that were never openly declared and were conducted without the knowledge and consent of the affected populace, who was used as guinea pigs.

Even China experimented on its children (and China has so far, at least to my knowledge, refused to fluoridate its people), though on a much smaller scale and for only a period of three years in the city of Wuhan as part of a controlled study from 1988 to 1991.

It is therefore conceivable that Switzerland first used F-salt in secret to make the population pliant before openly legalizing its use. Fluoride is known to affect the brain in ways that make human beings submissive. The mind-altering power of sodium fluoride has earned it the nickname the ‘obedience drug’.

It is noteworthy and certainly no coincidence that the first European countries chosen for salt fluoridation – Finland, Hungary and Switzerland – did not have any concentration camps during the war and therefore no direct experience with fluoride as a toxic substance used to control Jews. It is also noteworthy that the Swiss first tested F-salt not on their own people, but on the Fins starting in 1952 and on Hungarians at about the same time judging by their TFR curves, which never had a chance to register a post-war baby boom, unlike Switzerland which did.

One has to also understand that just after the war dental care was not a priority and dentistry was in its infancy. It is ludicrous to think that international studies should have been funded for the sole purpose of combatting carries when Europe needed to reconstruct its devastated infrastructure and bombed factories and when people were going to bed hungry. Caries were not a priority then and they are not a priority now for governments. Population control however was a priority for the entire international community and that is why the fluoridated salt trials were funded across multiple European nations in the 50s.

Switzerland was least affected by the Nazi scourge due to its neutrality and the preservation of its sovereignty during World War II. Its people were least likely to know about the secret purpose of fluoridation. The academic community would have been aware of it through the diffusion of research published in the German language and that was likely to exist in university libraries but that was undoubtedly removed by the government. Switzerland was therefore the only German-speaking country that could test and introduce salt fluoridation with the least resistance from the populace.

Before salt fluoridation could be introduced, however, the Swiss government would have removed all scientific papers about fluoride and sterility and all historical records from its libraries and institutions. That process was completed in a few years following the end of the war and in 1955 the government was ready to begin the slow and gradual process of conditioning its people to think of fluoridated salt in positive terms as a substance good for dental health.

To be able to compare the efficiency of fluoridated salt with that of fluoridated water and draw scientific parallels based on actual data derived from human subjects, the city of Basel was artificially fluoridated starting in 1962. The fluoridation of Basel’s water was stopped in 2003 after it had served its purpose as a source of valuable comparative data. The parallel and partial use of salt and water fluoridation was unique to Switzerland as that is where the salt alternative to water fluoridation was invented, most thoroughly tested and perfected.

Statistical evidence in support of the notion that the countries which housed Nazi concentration camps were spared both water and salt fluoridation for at least two decades after the war comes from Poland. Population statistics from Germany and Austria are not useful due to the fact that their male populations had been decimated in the war and along with them the total fertility rate of both countries. Neither Austria nor Germany needed population control measures, as 25% of their women remained unmarried and childless after the war for dearth of male partners. What they needed is the opposite, population increases, which they achieved through large waves of immigration from Turkey, the Balkan region and the Iberian Peninsula.

A demographic analysis of Poland, however, reveals that between 1957 and 1970 its population grew faster than that of any other country in Europe as it maintained the healthiest fertility rate in Europe at a TFR above 3. Poland is also the only country in Europe whose population grew by 59% between 1946 and 1988 (adding 14 million people) and that maintained a trend of population growth until the 1990s. Last, it is one of only two European countries – the other being Romania – who’s TFR remained above replacement level until the last decade of the 20th century.

Poland’s post-war demographic profile with its uncharacteristically healthy population growth and fertility rates is unique due to the fact that it escaped water and salt fluoridation longer than any other country in Europe. All that changed during the period of transition from communism to capitalism in the 1980s. The most rapid fall in Poland’s TFR began in 1993 and coincides with the time when Western products (undoubtedly fluoride-rich) flooded the internal market as the country opened up to the West once communism fell. By 2002, Poland’s TFR was at the level of 1.25, where it has remained since, and is among the lowest in Europe.

Demographers are scratching their heads as to how Poland’s TFR could have declined in a decade to the low level it took Western Europe 27 years to reach 64 and are at a loss to explain this mystery. The answer, however, is simple; it is through the systemic use of fluoride in products ranging from salt, sugar, milk, mineral water, alcoholic drinks and dental care. But those few who know it invariably decide it is too dangerous to speak up and more prudent and in their own best interest to use their knowledge to seek well-paid positions within the well-funded international institutions in charge of the depopulation agenda.

Poland’s remaining honest scientists do the best they can to alert their countrymen of the high levels of fluoride in food and beverages that are now manufactured at home according to EU standards or that come into the country from other parts of Europe through the open market. They have recorded high fluoride contents in supplements and isotonic drinks, infants’ and children’s drinks, and in alcoholic beverages. Unfortunately, few people are listening to their warnings and fewer still bother reading research papers.

Another telling example of what happens to a country’s birth and fertility rates when it does not consistently follow the fluoridation policy is Romania.
In 1960 or a couple of years earlier, Romania began fluoridating its water and like all other communist countries it did not bother telling its citizens or asking for their permission. As a result, the country’s TFR went from 3 children per woman to 2.04, thus to replacement level, by 1965.

The country’s dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu, changed course and stopped the fluoridation of the public water either for patriotic reasons or most probably to use demography as a means of extorting favorable aid, loans and trading conditions from the West and especially the United States.
It may very well be that he used the threat of exposing the global depopulation agenda as leverage. In 1966, he stopped fluoridation and introduced a series of pro-natalist measures such as making divorce difficult and giving material incentives to couples who had three or more children. Within five years of stopping water fluoridation and encouraging births Romania’s TFR went back up to 3 children per woman and stayed there throughout the late 70s and early 80s. The effect was so immediate and drastic that the number of live births rose from 273,687 in 1966 to 527,764 in 1967, an increase of 92.8%.

During the 1980s the country was in economic dire straits and there was not enough food to go around, as Romania was in the midst of a national effort to pay back its debt to the West. The TFR suffered and fell naturally to 2.6 during the late 80s and early 90s. The regime fell in 1989, Ceausescu was executed and water fluoridation was reintroduced probably within a year or two (and once again without the people’s permission) as part and parcel of Romania’s harmonization with the West and undoubtedly as a precondition of its acceptance into the European Union. Consequently, Romania’s TFR fell from 2.6 to 1.5 by 1995 and reached a lowest-low fertility rate of 1.28 in 2005.

The adjacent graph illustrates how wildly Romania’s TFR rate fluctuated between 1950 and 1980 forming two peaks and then dropping suddenly in 1990 and bottoming out at 1.3 by 2000. No other European country exhibits this TFR profile because Romania was the only one to deviate from the international depopulation agenda by abandoning and then reinstating fluoridation.

It turns out that growing up in Romania under Europe’s most feared dictator, as I did, was a gift in terms of reproductive and intellectual health. Romanians, I suspect, will re-evaluate Ceausescu’s legacy and thank him for saving their children from mass sterilization with fluoride and its negative side-effects in respect to intelligence, DNA integrity, and general health.

It is because Romania was spared fluoridation that in 1965 its rate of natural population increase of 6 per 1,000 was considerably higher than that of say the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) at 3 per 1,000 and Hungary’s 2.4 per 1,000. In 1984, even as the country was starving, Romania compared even more favorably with a rate of natural increase of 3.9 per 1,000 as opposed to East Germany’s 0.4 and Hungary’s 2 per 1,000. East Germany’s population had been faithfully controlled with water fluoridation by the Soviets and the country’s pliant leadership, and Hungary’s population suffered the indignity of being experimented on with fluoridated salt from Switzerland during the 60s and 70s, which is why its TFR fell below replacement level in 1965, the earliest of any European country and at about the same time as Japan’s, which, of course, was forced by the United States to fluoridate its water as soon as the war ended.

While scientists are screaming in the wind about the toxic, sterilizing and mutagenic effects of water and salt fluoridation, national and international authorities are pursuing their sterilization agenda undeterred, safe in the knowledge that once fluoridation is introduced in any given country the people’s will to resist is destroyed along with their ability to procreate.

They have already taken the most important steps to advance salt fluoridation as the foremost method of global sterilization by creating the necessary legal architecture to ensure its easy global implementation.

1.) To advance the development of fluoridated salt in the Americas, a key decision to proceed was taken in Medellin, Colombia, in 1977 at the First International Symposium on Salt Fluoridation, where the results of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported Colombia trial were reviewed in the presence of representatives from the U.S. Public Health Service, the University of Zurich, and the Chief Engineer of the Swiss Rhine Saltworks.

2.) The successful 1964 to 1972 trials in Colombia, which compared the advantages of fluoridated salt versus fluoridated water, opened the door to fluoridated salt at country level. As a result, salt fluoridation has increased steadily since 1986 and Colombia, Costa Rica, Jamaica, Mexico and Uruguay have acquired more than 20 years of experience and coverage up to 98%.

3.) Belize, Bolivia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela have active programs and five additional Latin American countries are in the process of implementing salt fluoridation.

4.) In countries with weak democratic frameworks and lack of respect for the rule of law, fluoridated salt is forced on the people without public programs but most effectively. Mexico, for instance, has an estimated 90 million people on fluoridated salt and 20 million on fluoridated water (Secretaria de Salud, Mexico, 2011). Bolivia at 40% and Cuba at 60% salt fluoridation are two other examples and both countries are under regimes that purport to be populist not elitist. The depopulation agenda, however, knows no ideological divide because the politicians who decide to turn on their own people are richly rewarded by the international community and given a lifelong seat at the global governance table.

5.) Worldwide, the number of countries involved in salt fluoridation approximates those with adjusted water fluoride levels; a success owed to considerably easier implementation procedures, making it more economical than water fluoridation.

6.) The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued an opinion related to the tolerable upper intake level of fluoride and its Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and

allergens has calculated upper fluoride levels for children as well as for pregnant and lactating women, thus opening the door for the commercial use of fluoridated salt.

7.) The Fortified Food and Claims Regulations of the European Union (EU, 2006) has approved the mineral fluoride (both as sodium and potassium fluoride) as a food additive and set the Europe-wide legal basis and precedent of salt fortification with fluorides, which supersedes the existing national voluntary regulations for the enrichment of foods with minerals and vitamins.

8.) Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food safety Authority (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutritions and Allergies) was asked to provide a scientific opinion on the substantiation of health claims in relation to fluoride’s effectiveness in the “maintenance of tooth mineralization”. The Panel did as told and declared fluoride as a well-recognized nutrient.

9.) The WHO has made the worldwide improvement of oral health (and its underside mass sterilization) a priority action area. At the Sixtieth World Health Assembly in May 2007, the WHO urged the 193 member states to implement an action plan for promotion and integrated disease prevention (WHO-WHA 60:17, 2007): “For those countries without access to optimal levels of fluoride, and which have not yet established systematic fluoridation programs, to consider the development and implementation of fluoridation programs, giving priority to equitable strategies such as the automatic administration of fluoride, for example, in drinking-water, salt or milk, and to the provision of affordable fluoride toothpaste.”

10.) The WHO issued an expert consultation report extolling the virtues of salt as the perfect delivery for fluoridation for tooth fortification.75

11.) The Pan American Health Organization/WHO published the results of the salt fluoridation program in the Americas with guidelines for legislation and implementation so that others may follow suit.76

12.) To facilitate its easy and global distribution, salt fluoridation is to be linked to existing iodization schemes. That way, “the ability to include fluoride in domestic salt exists related to fluoride and maintenance of tooth mineralization pursuant to Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006”; The EFSA Journal 2009; 7(9): 1212 (ID 275, 276) and 2010; 8(10): 1797 (ID 338, 4238).

Oral health: action plan for promotion and integrated disease prevention, 23 May 2007, Geneva, Switzerland.

75 World Health Organization (WHO), Salt as a vehicle for fortification. Report of a WHO Expert Consultation, Luxembourg 21-22 March 2007, Geneva 2008,

The use of salt fluoridation to prevent dental caries. Pan American Health Organization (Scientific and Technical Publication No. 615), Washington D.C. 2005.

77 Petersen P. E., World Health Organization global policy for improvement of oral health – World Health Assembly 2007.

within the provisions of the health statutes and regulations in many countries and permit ready initiation without many of the problems and barriers associated with water fluoridation. Internationally, the addition of fluoride to domestic salt has been included in the revised Codex Alimentarius 150, and is expected that further information will be included in future revisions.

13.) To aid the depopulation agenda fluoridated salt is to be recorded in the “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) category in U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulations.

14.) In May 2000, at the 8th World Salt Symposium (“Salt 2000”), executives of the salt industry met with leaders of governments, NGOs and international organizations to discuss how to better collaborate on extending the reach of fluoridated and iodized salt.

The advantages of fluoridated salt are summarized by its promoters as follows:

“Politically, it is relatively easy to offer free choice to the consumer to purchase salt with or without fluoride: this does not result in anti-fluoride activities, since it provides freedom of choice, is an accepted vehicle, and a better quality product. From a public health perspective, high market share, or better universal use of fluoridated salt, will always be preferable. Lower socio-economic strata tend to make consistently less use of possibilities of prevention, and the majority reached only under conditions of universal or near-universal usage. However, where free choice is involved, the use of fluoridated salt must be promoted continually to have a community effect.”

What this means once we have deciphered the code and learned to read between the lines is that salt fluoridation is politically easy to implement as people are free to use it or not. However, it is only effective as a population control tool if the vast majority of the salt on the market is fluoridated and it can then be sold at lower prices than non-fluoridated salt. THE POOR AND THE UNEDUCATED WHO DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE PURPOSE OF FLUORIDATED SALT WILL BUY IT AS IT IS CHEAPER, UNIVERSALLY AVAILABLE AND HEAVILY PROMOTED.
Those intelligent enough to know how to protect themselves and their children, will seek out and buy only non-fluoridated salt and in this way, the leadership reckons, the genetic lines of the smart survive while the genetic lines of the dumb die out within three or four generations.

The beauty of fluoridated salt is that it does not have the bad rap of fluoridated water. People have not learned to mistrust it yet because no public campaigns against it have set a precedent and the few individuals with the scientific knowledge to ascertain its ill-effects can simply avoid buying it and do not have to go through the trouble of educating the public and organizing campaigns and referenda. They look after their own families and forget about the rest of the population.

When the water in the well is poisoned, however, they cannot do that, as everyone is forced to drink from it.

Human beings have a visceral reaction to tampered toxic water since nothing is more vital to life or more elemental than clean drinking water. The same cannot be said about salt and that is why it makes such a great delivery vehicle for mass infertility medication.

Even better, it is consumers not governments that pay for fluoridated salt and therefore for being secretly medicated. While water fluoridation has to be paid for with public money, fluoridated salt is an essential food item consumers pay for out of their own pockets.

CONCLUSION: Fluoridation salt and water programs are the extrinsic methods of choice for population reduction in the last and most difficult phase of the Bayesian curve, TFR 3 to TFR 2, and for discreetly and without political cost keeping the TFR indefinitely at well below replacement level. It works because it is covert and facilitates the survival of intelligent individuals and the demise of the stupid. It is deemed necessary because the ideal family size for most cultures is 3 children, which is above replacement level fertility and can no longer be accepted at a time when the global population is already too large, half of humanity is starving and the Earth has passed its environmental tipping point.


Bottled water is a much more effective and non-wasteful way of getting people to ingest enough fluoride to lower fertility. It also has the advantage, like salt fluoridation, of transferring the cost of sterilization to the consumer and freeing the government from the financial burden of mass medicating the people to infertility.

The method has been used successfully by Italy and Spain, which is why they are also the first countries in Southern Europe to reach replacement level fertility (in 1977 and 1982 respectively) and shortly after also lowest-low fertility (i.e. a total fertility rate below 1.3 children per woman), which both countries reached in 1993.

Italians lead the Europeans in per capita bottled water consumption at 187 liters per person per year and Spaniards are not far behind and in fifth place at 124 liters. Both countries have Europe’s most mature markets for bottled mineral water consumption (next to France), which is why they will have chosen this method to deliver fluoride into their citizens.

Bottled mineral water tests done on Spanish product show extremely high levels in five brands and levels above 2 ppm in many others. Many Italian brands also show elevated fluoride contents, as do several other European waters.

In fact, the European countries with the highest consumption of bottled mineral water – Italy (at 187 liters per person per year), Belgium (148 L), Luxembourg (148 L), Germany (134 L), France (132 L), Spain (124 L), Hungary (111 L), Switzerland (108 L), Slovenia (107 L), Croatia (101 L), Czech Republic (92 L) and Austria (91 L) are also the countries that have reached low fertility rates and many even lowest-low fertility rates faster than most other European countries. Few, however, have admitted to using fluoridated tap water or fluoridated salt, which leads me to believe that they have all used bottled mineral water to various degrees either as a primary, secondary or complementary method of delivering fluoride into people’s bodies. Belgium, France and Luxembourg have eased up on the fluoridation of bottled/tap water and on the extent of salt fluoridation as soon as they dipped below replacement level and that is why their TFR rates have bounced back somewhat to just below replacement level in the first decade of the 21st century.

The water destined for bottling can be easily “enhanced” without the people’s knowledge by injecting fluoride at source into the aquifer or spring. Once in the water, given Europe’s policy of prohibiting the alteration of spring water’s natural composition it will end up in a bottle and the consumer will ingest a high amount of fluoride without knowing its true source.

The high level of political corruption and the involvement of the Mafia in the illegal dumping of toxic waste into the environment make this a plausible explanation as to why Italy, which is the seat of the Catholic Church and a very religious country as well as traditional and family oriented, should have such a chronically low fertility rate.

The secret project to fluoridate Italy’s water – either directly or by illegally dumping fluoride-rich toxic waste across the country – may well be the beginning of the close relationship between organized crime and the political establishment in Italy and explains better than anything else why the Mafia is impossible to eradicate. The bond that keeps them united is their common task of keeping the Italian people intoxicated and infertile. How else is one to explain the Triangle of Death in Sicily where millions of tons of toxic waste have been dumped by the Mafia, or the 5000 illegal or uncontrolled dump sites throughout Italy.

Italy is the only country in the world where the criminal element of society is in charge of disposing of the nation’s toxic waste and can make a €20 billion profit in the process. It also owns an estimated 30% of the country’s waste disposal companies, including those that deal with toxic waste. Anywhere else this would have been stopped before it began. In Italy however, the Mafia and the political class are tied at the hip by the water fluoridation project.

Of course, the collusion between corporations and governments elsewhere is no less criminal than the collusion between the Mafia and Italian politicians, as they too dispose their toxic waste by dumping it into our drinking water, but they do it in a legalistic and overt way, whereas the Italian solution is a purely illegal and covert one. The goal however is the same, our sterilization and the side benefit of profiting from it.

Between 1965 and 1985, Spain experienced a dramatic reduction in its birth rate, from 21 to 13 per thousand, a drop of approximately 38%. In 1975, with an estimated base population of 35 million, the country recorded about 675,000 live births, but in 1985, with an estimated population of 38 million, Spain had only about 475,000 live births; that is one-third fewer. I contend that Spain has widely fluoridated the tap water without telling its citizens and that it still does so to a far greater extent than the 10% fluoridation area it currently declares. Spain also has some of the highest concentrations of fluoride in several brands of its bottled mineral water, concentrations that are downright toxic (Aguas Verdes, 15.1 ppm; Imperial, 7.8 ppm; Malavella, 7.7 ppm; San Narciso, 7.7 ppm; Vichy Catalan, 7.3 ppm).

Interestingly, the most intensely fluoridated area of Spain and the only one whose public water is fully fluoridated is the Basque country. That is no accident, but an intentional policy on the part of the Spanish government to firstly lower the numbers of the Basque people by rendering them infertile and secondly medicating them into obedience and submission and thus preventing them from pursuing separatism.

Judging by the fact that the Basque region has been quiet since water fluoridation was introduced and that most if not all Basque attacks on Spanish political targets were orchestrated by Basques living and operating from France, one can conclude that the fluoridation policy is working as planned.

Iran is one of the few countries in the world that is proceeding with the fluoridation of its tap and bottled water, and the only country in the world (as far as I know) that is also adding fluoride to baby formula and powder milk, all at the same time. No wonder the country achieved the fastest drop in fertility rate in history going from 6 children per woman in 1990 to 2 in 2010!

Iranian scientists are doing their best to tell people how to de-fluoridate the water through various methods: agricultural waste rice husk, electro-coagulation using iron and aluminum electrodes, adsorption with Sargassum algal biomass, coagulation with Moringa Oleifera seed extract, adsorption by modified Fly Ash, partial freezing, adsorption by pumice, defluoridation by acid-modified clinoptilolite, adsorption using barley husks and barley husk ash, nanofiltration membranes, application of modified wheat straw, defluoridation with waste aluminum fillings. adsorption by granular ferric hydroxide, defluoridation by polyaluminum chloride, and by alum coagulant.

Mineral water bottlers are helping the populace escape fluoridation by inflating the levels of fluoride they write on the labels. But the government knows this and subjects them to constant checks. Of the 88 papers submitted for the 2012 international conference on fluoride, 31 of them are from Iran.
The subjects they discuss are very revealing:

(1) measurements of fluoride in bottled mineral water,
(2) simple de-fluoridation methods, and
(3) measurements of naturally occurring fluoride in aquifers as well as artificially enhanced fluoride in city waters. Judging by the overwhelming dominance of Iranian scientific papers at the 2012 world conference, which is to be held in September in the city of Krakow, Poland, one can only conclude that water fluoridation is a national obsession and has the government’s highest priority in Iran.

Iranian scientists invariably find the levels of fluoride in bottled water to be below the government dictated “ideal” level of 0.7–1.2 mg/L and below the “national permissible values”. One can be certain that once a manufacturer is found deficient in this respect, a squad of Iranian secret service agents will descend on the company and supervise the bottling process to ensure compliance. That is how the government ensures no one escapes the sterilizing effect of fluoridation.

As for children who have the misfortune of being born in these times and not be breastfed by their mothers, they are being eliminated from the procreation chain by baby formula that contains levels of fluoride three to four times above the WHO limit, which in itself ensures lowered fertility in adults let alone babies. A study done by Iranian scientists that is to be presented in September 2012 at the upcoming conference on fluoride in Poland has found the following:

“High concentration of Fluoride (F) in powder milk (formula-milk) can have adverse health effects on the body. The fluoride concentration of powder milk was analyzed in Iran in 2010. Twelve commercial brands of highly-consumed powder milk were selected to analyze fluoride content using a standard fluoride ionselective electrode (ISC). Three samples with different production dates from each brand were selected. The mean ±SD fluoride concentration in all the samples was 1.73±0.3 mg F/kg. The minimum and maximum F content in powder milk brands Humana2 and Humana3 were 1.32±0.1 and 2.36±0.3 mg F/g, respectively. The study revealed that there was no significant difference in fluoride concentration of the samples that belonged to various dates. Humana3 had high fluoride concentration (with an average of 2.36±0.3 mg F/g), which might be a risk factor for dental fluorosis, especially when mixed with water high in high F.”

What is most interesting about their findings beyond the toxic concentrations of fluoride in baby formula is that all samples regardless of date contained the same high amounts of fluoride. This can only mean that the process by which fluoride ends up in baby formula is not accidental but controlled and intentional.

These desperate and draconian mass sterilization measures indicate that Iran is in a demographic conundrum and is trying to preempt a resource crisis. This emergency is exacerbated by Western imposed sanctions which, like all other sanctions ever imposed, are punishing the innocents and actually helping the leadership achieve its demographic goals. – It most certainly will not stop Iran from building nuclear bombs.

The United States is attempting to get people to accept the fluoridation of bottled water and at least one brand, Dasani, has been introduced to the market recently. But since fluoride levels do not have to be indicated on the label, the government and its corporate allies in the sterilization program are free to add as much fluoride in bottled water as they wish and as is necessary to render the American people infertile.

Despite an overload of fluoride through contaminated food and fluoridated tap water there is no respite from it even for the most vulnerable members of society, our children. In fact, children in North America are being targeted with fluoridated bottled water marketed specifically for them by “trusted” food giants such as Danone, which owns the Dannon water brand.

America is now in the transition from tap to bottle water as the primary source of drinking water. When the transition is complete – to date only 50% of Americans drink bottled water (Source: Green Nature) – then and only then will the government abandon its highly contentious policy of tap water fluoridation. At that point, the depopulation agenda will be pursued solely through fluoridated bottled water, soft drinks (and probably also milk and milk products) without the people’s knowledge. This will pose few logistical problems, as the American bottled water market and bottling facilities are heavily consolidated among four corporate giants – Nestle, Danone, Pepsi-Co and Coca-Cola.

The huge increase in bottled water consumption is a new phenomenon that exploded from nearly 0% of the population drinking bottled water in 1990 to 50% by 2010. Most of that growth occurred between 1997 and 2008. Pepsi-Co Corporation began distribution of Aquafina in 1994. Coca-Cola responded with its own brand, Dasani, in 1999. Both of them followed the lead of their European counterparts, Nestle and Danone, who were already selling well-established mineral water brands such as Evian, Perrier and San Pellegrino mostly to upscale restaurants.

This astronomical growth can only be attributed to manipulation. The cost to achieve such a fundamental and rapid change in consumption pattern must have an underlying justification beyond the promise of future profits. It is my contention that the U.S., Canada and Mexico are setting the stage for abandoning the fluoridation of tap water and replacing it with fluoridated bottled water. They are doing this for two obvious reasons: one, getting consumers to pay for their medication with fluoride and, two, it has become too difficult for Canada and the U.S. to keep the policy of tap water fluoridation in place in the face of revolt from scientists working for the same government agencies responsible for forcing the fluoridation of municipal water on the people.

Governments are about to take advantage of the people’s increasingly negative reaction to fluoridated tap water and their reluctance to drink it. In fact, there is no reason why Mexico should not have already switched. Mexicans are the highest per capita consumers of bottled water in the world at 243 Liters per person.

The U.S. is soon to follow Mexico. Studies indicate that the foreign-born minorities the US government is most interested in sterilizing through fluoridated tap water are drinking bottled water in higher percentages than the already sterilized Caucasian population. Minorities and Hispanics drinking more bottled water than any other demographic, marketers taking notice, especially Hispanics mistrust the quality of the municipal water and despite their lower incomes are drinking primarily bottled water, which they consider healthier and safer. This shows they are more intelligent and therefore more aware than the Caucasian population whose intellect has been obviously severely damaged after 60 years of drinking fluoridated water. The U.S. government, however, is about to close the people’s freedom to choose between drinking clean or toxic water. America’s depopulationists are taking notice of current research that shows “African American and Latino parents are more likely to give their children mostly bottled water” and that minority children are “exclusively given bottled water 3 times more often than non-Latino white children.”

Soon all bottled water in the US will be like all tap water, fluoridated to cause sterility. The process has already started. In 2008, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) tested the quality of 10 major bottled water brands and found the same chemical contaminants as in tap water. In 2009, the EWG did a survey of 188 bottled water brands and found that only two make public “three basic facts about their products routinely disclosed by municipal water utilities: the water’s source, purification methods, and chemical pollutants remaining after treatment.” In 2010, the EWG repeated its survey and found “that 18% of bottled water brands still fail to reveal their water’s geographic source; 32% are mum on treatment methods and purity testing; and 13% publish “water quality” reports that lack any actual testing results” in addition to which “more than half of the 72 brands surveyed either made no improvements in transparency — or revealed even less in 2010 than in 2009.”

This apparent lack of oversight of the quality of bottled water is no accident but a deliberate legal loophole called the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, which grants bottle water companies complete latitude as to what information they divulge to customers. Further protection is offered by the agency in charge of bottled water, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which should theoretically have stricter safety rules than the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which regulates municipal water utilities. The fact that it does not is highly suspect especially since the FDA explicitly designated fluoride in 1975 as “not generally recognized as safe” and does not allow it to be added to food or over-the-counter dietary supplements.

The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), however, exempted fluoridated water from this ban so the depopulation agenda could proceed.

Repeated calls on Congress to impose strict labeling regulations that disclose the three basic facts described above and that would allow consumers to make informed decisions about what they drink have remained unheeded. This too is not the result of negligence on the part of America’s policymakers but a deliberate and calculated act meant to allow the depopulation agenda to be advanced on yet another front, bottled water.   –     Thanks Kevin