No Matter Who Wins Today, Health Loses

No matter who wins the election on Nov. 8, the fact remains that critical health issues will almost certainly be left unaddressed by the incoming president. We’ve seen this repeatedly for decades. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans will do anything about the proliferation of chemical pollutants or Frankenfoods.

By James Spounias

No matter who is elected Nov. 8 to the presidency of the United States, one thing is certain: Vitally important health-related issues are ignored by the major candidates and the establishment press, which is controlled by six corporations.

Having researched health topics for 31 years, this writer remains astonished at the wide gap between the known harms and risks of specific environmental health assaults and the lack of media coverage and interest among the American population, especially in light of the prevalence of so-called alternative media outlets.


Establishment propaganda is so pervasive that the public’s idea of discussion is merely repeating sound bites provided by talking heads who are placed in positions of authority by the elite.

Emigrate While You Still Can! Learn More . . .

One would think that our nation’s health would be forefront, given the fact that in 2015, healthcare costs were 17.5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or $3.2 trillion, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Instead, the conversation on healthcare is limited to the wrongly framed question of how to pay for it, rather than how Americans got so sick. The controlled dialectic, parroted by left and right, centers on sophomoric rhetoric about whether healthcare should be “socialist” or “free market” when, in reality, our system is corporatist—run by profit-driven private interests in league with state and federal government, having law and police power enforcement to protect their business interests against competition, in a racket second only to the Federal Reserve banking system.

What is completely ignored is the bigger picture of how America came to be so ill that hundreds of thousands of people die per year. Heart disease and cancer are the top two causes of death, responsible for 614,348 and 591,699 annual deaths respectively. Another 251,454 deaths occur by medical mistake, making this the third leading cause of death in America, according to researchers from Johns Hopkins University.

Death by medical mistake is virtually ignored by all in the establishment media and most of the alternative press.

From cradle to grave, Americans suffer from diseases, many of which are brought on by known environmental assaults. The establishment even admitted that “to a large extent, babies are born pre-polluted,” as reported previously in AMERICAN FREE PRESS.

In addition, there are many diseases affecting the elderly, such as cognitive impairment, that are reported to have no known cause.


While the establishment ducks the question of causation of many diseases, focusing instead on high-priced, patented pharmaceuticals and high-tech medicine provided only by the corporate elite, a handful of activists have doggedly pointed out the known dangers affecting us daily, without any of the reportage let alone repeated news-cycle coverage given to many completely unimportant, non-news events.


One of the most pervasive yet underreported hazards facing Americans is the fluoridation of water. Dismissed by the establishment as the province of kooks, fluoridation was black-washed by disinformation movie-maker Stanley Kubrick who, in his 1964 film “Dr. Strangelove” portrayed Gen. Jack D. Ripper as a raving nut who warned about exposed fluoride as a “communist conspiracy.”

The most recent assessment of how many Americans are exposed to fluoride was done in 2012 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which reported that 74.6% of the U.S. population received fluoridated water, 67.1% of them through community water systems. This means that, of the 2012 population of 313,914,040 people, a stunningly significant 234,179,873 Americans were subjected to fluoride. Why is fluoride relevant in 2016?

In 1983, John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D., a formidable scientist this writer had the pleasure of hearing speak in 1981, authored Fluoride: The Aging Factor, which made a compelling case that fluoride, purported to help reduce dental cavities, is a dangerous, cancer-causing neurotoxin that should be banned from our water supply.


Dean Burk, Ph.D., co-discoverer of biotin, found fluoride completely unacceptable. He made the point: “Everything causes cancer? Perhaps. Conceivably even a single electron at the other side of the universe.

The real question is, how likely is any one particular cause? In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.” Yiamouyiannis wrote: “Substances like fluoride, which cause genetic damage, are called mutagenic substances, and it is well-accepted fact that substances which are mutagenic also tend to be carcinogenic, or cancer producing. In fact, this is exactly what has been found with regard to fluoride.”

Critics of the use of fluoride cite studies that show fluoride is a neurotoxin, which has “the ability to interfere with functions of the brain,” according to the National Research Council, which also noted that in numerous studies, even scant amounts of added fluoride are correlated to lower IQ scores in children.

Fluoride is also implicated in compromised reproductive capacity, by way of lowering circulating testosterone in men, in numerous studies and can lead to early onset of puberty in children. Researchers observed that fluoride impairs normal thyroid function and it’s no wonder that six years ago, the second most prescribed drug was Synthroid, which is designed to treat an underactive thyroid.

Another area of concern is the way fluoride affects bone health. Hotly denied by the medical establishment, fluoride critics point out that fluoride disrupts proper bone formation.

In children, this is most apparent with dental fluorosis, where white spots and streaks, as well as cloudy splotches and brown stains are prevalent, caused by “too much” fluoride. According to, Dr. John Colquhoun said, “Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child’s body can damage the toothforming cells, then other harm also is likely.”

Researchers cite studies that suggest fluoride exposure is linked to increases in hip fractures in the elderly and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer that often affects young people. Much of the world rejects the use of fluoride. This is especially true in western Europe, where 97% of the population doesn’t ingest fluoride, according to

Fluoride is one of many examples of the cronyism replete in America, whereby private interests use the government to mandate (and pay for) a questionable substance on the pretense of protecting public health.


When one considers the wide gamut of environmental ills plaguing America—genetically

modified organisms, genetically engineered mosquitos, pesticides, herbicides, electromagnetic radiation brought by unregulated cell phone towers and devices, Wi-Fi, smart meters, hydrogenated vegetable oils, high-fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, as well as the loads of chemicals found in processed foods and drinks—it’s no wonder America is plagued with poor health.

Given the amount of money that is involved here, there’s little chance the light of truth will break through the establishment media and political system, which have a vested interest in the status quo.

This is why we must press on and continue to expose these dangers.

James Spounias is the president of Carotec Inc., originally founded by renowned radio show host and alternative health expert Tom Valentine.

3 Comments on No Matter Who Wins Today, Health Loses

  1. Fluoride is highly toxic and a cumulative poison, like lead, arsenic, and mercury. I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.

    It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that the US, Australia, and Ireland, which have had high rates of forced-fluoridation for decades, also have high rates of joint problems, and poor health outcomes in general.

  2. James Spounias – I would like to request that you take a very close look at the actual evidence you believe supports the anti-F opinions.

    The Scientific Facts that support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure are remarkably consistent.

    The World Health Organization (WHO) is just one of the more than 100 science and health organizations that recognize the public health benefits of drinking water fluoridation for reducing dental decay.
    ~> ada(dot)org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium

    The WHO released a report, Fluoride and Oral Health, earlier this year which contained an extensive history and review of the benefits and risks of exposure to fluoride ions. Some of the conclusions relevant to community water fluoridation are listed.

    => At the 2007 WHO World Health Assembly, a resolution was passed that universal access to fluoride for caries prevention was to be part of the basic right to human health. There are three basic fluoride delivery methods for caries prevention; community based (fluoridated water, salt and milk), professionally administered (fluoride gels, varnishes) and selfadministered (toothpastes and mouth-rinses).

    => Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.

    => More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.

    => The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.
    ~> who(dot)int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

    Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has been researching it for more than 60 years, and released its latest findings in September 2016.
    “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”
    ~> scimex(dot)org/__data/assets/file/0017/106523/16399-NHMRC-Fluoride-Information.pdf

    Conclusions of the WHO report are particularly important because fluoridation opponents (FOs) regularly claim to use WHO data in an attempt to show, “most western countries do not fluoridate their water and yet their tooth decay rates have declined at the same rate as the U.S. and other fluoridated countries.” thereby implying fluoridation is ineffective.

    If the FOs’ interpretation of WHO data was even remotely accurate, how could the conclusions published in the 2016 report, “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation” possibly be reached? Answer, the WHO data has been edited, interpreted and distorted to fit the anti-F agenda.

  3. “The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” –

    Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)

Comments are closed.