The photos that compare the cultures are shocking and tell a story that words cannot. The healthy people all boast large, bright white smiles, with straight teeth, with vigor and happiness. The modernized people show terribly formed dental arches, multiple carries and rot, and a host of other health problems including tuberculosis, high suicide rates from dental caries (the pain no doubt), mental health problems and depression, a changing of the facial features to be malformed, and various infections...


Of the healthy peoples with the more natural diet, Dr. Price found these commonalities:

all of them consumed a diet rich in fat from natural butter, seafood, cod liver or seal oil, or animal organs with the fat
none was a vegetarian society and some existed mostly on meats, like the Innu
the healthiest consumed a lot of meats, while the least healthy consumed a lot of agriculture crops
many consumed insects and their larva
all food was seasonal and local
sweets were used very rarely for festivals or eaten in moderation when available
raw protein was an important part of each diet: nuts, seeds, seafoods, natural cheese, eggs, milk, sprouted seeds, meats
sea plants or minerals were included in most diets
storage methods included: freezing, drying, earth storage, culturing, fermenting, sprouting, pickling
physical exercise was a part of life on a daily basis
pure air and sunlight were abundant
each group fasted or abstained certain times of the year as a natural way of life
all cultures consumed fermented foods each day
all young were breast fed, and children were spaced 3 yrs apart to facilitate this and protect the health of the mother. People who were anticipating conceiving or having a child were fed special foods (fats often) to support the baby’s growth.
all foods were consumed whole and unprocessed

.....

there were many old people, dispelling the myth that we live longer today. Early death was attributed to dangerous lifestyles, and the Aboriginals did not seem to suffer from heart disease or degenerative diseases at the rates we do now.

Hexafluorosilicic acid releases hydrogen fluoride when evaporated, so it has similar risks. It is corrosive and may cause fluoride poisoning; inhalation of the vapors may cause lung edema. Like hydrogen fluoride, it attacks glass and stoneware.[7]

Approximately 60% of US public drinking water systems are fluoridated. In Europe, where more objective scrutiny of the science has taken place, the practice has almost unanimously been rejected and yet according to statistics collected and published by the World Health Organization (WHO), their children's teeth are just as good, if not better, than those of American children

One intriguing and disturbing fact about fluoridation is that over 90% of the agent used in US fluoridation schemes is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, on which practically all toxicological testing has been performed, but industrial grade hexafluorosilicic acid obtained from the air pollution scrubbing systems of the superphosphate industry By law, this waste cannot be dumped into the sea but the EPA allows it to be diluted down with our public drinking water. The union representing scientists at the EPA headquarters in Washington, DC has gone on record as opposing this bizarre form of hazardous waste management (See www.fluoridealert.org)

Common misconceptions
It is often claimed by opponents of fluoridation that the aluminium and phosphate fertiliser industries have a vested interest in promoting water fluoridation. It is perhaps worthwhile addressing those claims here.
The phosphate fertiliser industry
Apatite is the raw material used in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, and Fluorine for the manufacture of fluorides for water fluoridation is recovered from this process. The manufacturing process of fluorosilicic acid for water fluoridation involves recovery of the product from a vapour phase, which ensures a high degree of purity. The product is therefore manufactured in tandem with the production of phosphoric acid, and can be described as a co-product. It would, however, be equally valid to describe phosphate fertilizers as coproducts of the manufacture of fluorosilicic acid, since each are valuable products.
The aluminium industry
The basis of the claims that the aluminium industry promotes fluoridation in order to dispose of its toxic waste seems to be based on a tenuous link more than 40 years ago in the USA. In the 1940s, The Aluminium Company of America
(ALCOA) acquired a chemical manufacturing plant which produced fluoride compounds by the method described above (not as a waste product of aluminium production). ALCOA was then using sodium fluoride as a catalyst in the aluminium smelting process, but soon replaced sodium fluoride with less costly fluoride compounds. ALCOA sold the chemical plant in the early 1950s; their last sales of sodium fluoride were in 1952. Nowadays, the aluminium industry is the largest user of fluoride compounds, and has no interest in promoting water fluoridation whatsoever

To check whether the fluoride added to water is the same as that which is naturally present, it was necessary to establish the extent to which the hexafluorosilicate ion (SiF62-) splits up to form fluoride ion (F¯) and silicic acid (Si(OH)4) – a process known as the dissociation reaction. The calculation covered the range of pH levels normally encountered in water supplies (a pH below 7 indicates acidity, a pH in excess of 7 indicates alkalinity), and the `worst case’ in terms of the relevant chemical reactions (by using the smallest value hydrolysis constant). The results showed
that, effectively, all of the hexafluorosilicate would dissolve to form free fluoride ion (F¯).
Next, the rate at which the dissociation reaction takes place was calculated to check whether the process of splitting will take place within the timescale relevant to water treatment and distribution (hours to days). The conclusion was that the process is complete by the time the water reaches the consumers tap.