This is the San Francisco City Hall contributing to the misjudgment of so many who still jump on the Pink Ribbon Campaigns.  According to Breast Cancer Action, an organization that is making actual changes to the carcinogenic ingredients used in our lives, we are being distracted by all of this pink fundraising.  They call it gaslighting and in an article by the nonprofit's executive director, Karuna Jaggar, it is clear that this is a serious deception.

Jaggar expains gaslighting as a "deliberate psychological manipulation that causes someone to question their own sanity while making them feel dependent on the perpetrator of that harm."  "It's clear that pink-ribbon culture is sanctioned gaslighting, celebrated during its very own pink month."  

"We are told to fight like a girl and kick cancer's ass," says Jaggar.   She explains the dangers of the lighthearted manner in which we are told to "save the tatas" and "save second base" while provocative pictures of sexy breasts are the focus.  It's deceptive and creating a culture of normalcy.  Cancer is not normal and it is being given to us while we march merrily in the streets.

​Jaggar notes repeatedly hearing, "is anyone still dying from breast cancer anymore?"  The answer explained by Breast Cancer Action is YES!.  The unbelievable fact is that the numbers have not been persuades to change in nearly 30 years with millions in fundraising and pink frills.  The fact that women of color are more likely to die remains the same.  The truth that traditional treatment continues to cause permanent effects also has not changed.

I have a long standing policy, (post my pink ribbon days), that says Do Not Buy Pink Ribbon Products.  In fact, the policy comes with an annual letter writing campaign to corporations that use pink ribbons to sell products.  

Breast Cancer Action agrees with the less than generous position of most companies that use pink ribbons to sell to fearful women.  They claim many companies are using pink ribbons to distract us from other PR and marketing issues.  They call out the NFL with their cheerleaders in pink after claims of sexual assault and their economic exploitation of the same women who's uniforms were pink this October.

Curing cancer begins with removing the cancer causing elements in your life.  It means knowing that permissive government regulations allow multiple carcinogens into your daily world by the hundreds each day.  Add those poisonous products and consumables to the challenges of a toxic world and BOOM, you are a time bomb.

Organizations like Breast Cancer Action are about identifying and uncovering the causes of cancer from the most basic of starting points.  They are vigilant about reporting the hormone disruptors and toxic levels of personal care products.  They are going after manufacturers and asking them to make formula changes that reduce your chances of cancer.  They are hitting the source of the problem without fanfare or parades.  They believe in the Search for the Cause, Not Just the Cure.  When you consider how you will fight cancer, look for the wisdom of those organizations that have you as their foremost concern

                       

        The dilemma over fluoride safety
                is secondary to the fact
         that it is categorized as a drug
                         by the FDA.

              This means the public is
               being drugged in mass.  

                  That can't be right.

Below is a copy of the letter I wrote to my municipal water board.  You may feel free to copy and send it to yours.  Instead of stirring up the same old question of "is  fluoride safe or unsafe" I've brought up some issues that are hard to dispute.  

Bottom line...The FDA classifies fluoride as an "unapproved drug," even though it has been used for 60 years.  We know the position of the Center for Disease Control is that systemic use of fluoride does no good and that only a topical treatment shows any signs of improving dental health.  We also know that there are changes to the body when fluoride is used.  How then did this happen?   Somewhere in my soul, it feels like greed is involved.

Copy of my letter to my water district:

This short fact sheet gives an overview of my concerns and those of others who question the efficacy, the dangers and the “why” of adding fluoride to our water supply.  It is time to re-examine that decision.

Of course there is science on all sides of this issue that will conflict, but we must question the policy.  Without getting into the arguable science, I have listed a few points that don’t require opinion.  Should you like more scientific data, I am happy to provide it.

Fluoride Facts;

1.  Fluoride is added to the water, not for the purpose of improving water quality, but rather for the alleged purpose of preventing tooth decay.  The FDA qualifies the use of fluoride for this purpose as a drug.  

We are therefore drugging unsuspecting users without informed consent.  This is not legal.  Many are exposed against their will.  Filtering drinking water is not the answer as showering and other uses are exposing humans to the drug.

 2. The use of fluoride is not universally accepted.  Most of Western Europe has refused fluoride because of the controversy surrounding it and the concept of mass drugging.

3.  If in fact fluoridation was a positive influence, water is not the correct method for dosing.  People consume water based on need of the water itself and without regard to the amount of the drug being consumed.  

It is easy to see that the amount of fluoride taken into a body cannot be regulated via the municipal water supply.  We must be able to calculate the amount of fluoride that is absorbed during showering via the skin or through crop watering which is impossible for a user.  We must also consider a bottle fed infant that ingests levels of fluoride equal to those of an adult.  There is no research to warn what the outcome of this might be in the future.

4.  According to fluoridealert.com, fluoride is not an essential nutrient and no disease or tooth decay is caused by the lack of fluoride.  They also state that fluoride interferes with many enzymes and biological processes in the body.  They quote many studies that prove fluoride interferes with the body’s biochemistry in fundamental ways.

5.  In 60 years of forced fluoridation there are still no studies to prove efficacy or safety and still the  FDA classifies it as an “unapproved new drug.”  This should make the addition of fluoride without consent a criminal act.  

Although rather unscientific, I would also say that not one dentist has gone out of business because of fluoridated water.   There is no apparent threat to the dental industry and no data that proves dwindling numbers of patients.

6.  In 2001 the CDC concluded that the benefits of fluoride were topical and not systemic.  With this in mind, why are we risking what could be a horrific outcome?

7.  Studies of those fluoridated in comparison to those not fluoridated, show that each group has similar dental health in my research.  Even the NIH has studied fluoride and determined that there is no significant relationship between tooth decay and fluoride among children.

8.  Research shows that tooth decay does not increase when fluoridation is discontinued.

9.  Many resources agree that the studies that brought us fluoridation were flawed.  There is consistent evidence of potential harm and many resources, including the National Research Council, believe it may damage the brain.

10. Thirty-three independent studies from countries other than the USA report that exposure to fluoride will lower IQ.  Other studies focus on damage to the pineal gland, thyroid function, arthritis, bone density loss, kidney damage, bone cancer and infertility with fluoride contamination.

Is this not enough to ask yourself why we continue this practice?
I am asking this Board to reconsider our use of fluoride in the water supply and to ask that we begin purchasing non-fluoridated water. 

                        When you have the option of
                                  keeping baby safe 

​                                       Why Not?
                                                          

There was a recent study reported that is attempting to link PTSD in war situations to genetics.  Of course anything is possible, but I had to think this fringes on the ridiculous.  War is a horrifying experience on so many levels that genetics seems to be the last of the possibilities.

A completely overlooked area of possibility is the influence of lead from weapon use.  Lead is known to cause reactions that are very similar to PTSD with or without the experience of war.  In fact, a known side effect of lead contamination is rage which can manifest in many ways that resemble PTSD.

If you consider that the military still uses mercury in dentistry, still feeds soldiers food contaminated with GMO poisons and pesticides and gives little support in the area of mental health, it seems reasonable that the combination of these elements would offer symptoms that strongly mimic what is known as PTSD.

An interesting and practical study would be to test soldiers with PTSD for mercury and lead levels.   It seems a very basic first step.