.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Thursday, October 02, 2014

New FOIAs Accelerate Fluoridegate Scandal

Click on image to enlarge

Time for sensible talking on fluoride is now

First published  in News
NO ONE can deny the passion behind the debate over whether fluoride should be added to the water in Southampton and other parts of Hampshire.
This paper has followed the debate for almost a decade. Today we report on the latest developments, which include the fact that one in ten children in Southampton face serious dental decay and 400 youngsters need to have teeth removed each year in the city.
And yet it is hard not to be concerned over the arrogance of Public Health England, who are making the decision on the issue of fluoride in drinking water when, as we again reveal, they have ignored requests from the leader ofHampshire County Council for updates on their plans.
For a public body to simply turn its face away from the elected representatives of the people of the county is beyond arrogance, it shows a shocking lack of respect and gives us an insight into the workings of this body.
This paper has often said it neither supports not objects to the introduction of fluoride into drinking water. We hope for an open and sensible debate on this issue.
But when one side acts in such a manner, it isn’t hard to understand why so many people believe they are not accountable enough for their actions and mistrust their motives.
The time for sensible talking is now.

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

Hampshire civic chiefs say fluoride questions ignored

 Hampshire County Council leader Roy Perry claims the organisation behind the scheme – Public Health England (PHE) – has not replied to his questions since the beginning of the year.

Cllr Roy Perry. 
CIVIC chiefs in Hampshire have accused health bosses of ignoring them over the future of plans to add fluoride to the tap water of 200,000 people in the county.
by , Political reporter
Now he is demanding a final decision on the future of the controversial project, which was aimed at improving the poor dental health of children, so residents are not left in limbo.
 It comes as a PHE report revealed that one in ten three-year-olds in Southampton has tooth decay.
The Daily Echo can also reveal that more than 400 children in Southampton are sent to hospital to have teeth pulled out every year as a result of tooth decay.
The saga over plans to introduce fluoride into the water of 200,000 residents’ households in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Netley, Rownhams and Totton has rumbled on for more than a decade.
The Strategic Health Authority (SHA) for Central England – which proposed the plans – said the measure would improve dental health in the region, but it has been bitterly opposed by campaigners who have warned of potential health risks and say residents were not properly consulted about its introduction.
The SHA was scrapped last April and replaced by PHE, which announced that it would continue with the scheme. But Southampton City Council and Hampshire County Council believe a failure to complete paperwork between the two health bodies – something the PHE has admitted – means the scheme does not even exist technically.
 They also say they believe local authorities will have the final say on whether the scheme goes ahead – and the leaders of both councils have said they would not force it upon residents due to the level of opposition.
 That was first announced last July, and it was revealed in January that it was likely that a court battle would decide the fate of the scheme.
Cllr Perry says the county council is proposing that a judge decide the fate of the scheme in private sessions in a bid to save taxpayers the cost of an expensive legal fight. But, he says, PHE has not replied to numerous attempts to contact it about settling the dispute since January. He said: “The council has been contacting PHE over several months now and we’re simply not getting a reply. “Fundamentally we believe that if there wasn’t an agreed scheme for fluoridation back in April last year, then there is no scheme that PHE has that it can proceed with.

“PHE has neither confirmed nor rejected that but it simply doesn’t reply on the issue. “It is an organisation funded by the taxpayer that is not treating residents with due respect by not answering. All we want is a clear answer.”

He said he was prepared to take the matter to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt if he continues to be ignored.

A spokesman for PHE said: “No decision has yet been taken and PHE is committed to working constructively with both local authorities.”
The renewal of the furore over fluoridation comes as PHE released a report on tooth decay levels among three-year-olds across the UK.
Throughout the country 12 per cent of youngsters surveyed had tooth decay – compared to 10.5 per cent in Southampton and 4.6 per cent in Hampshire, which was the lowest rate in the south-east.
PHE has said that fluoride can be used to effectively combat tooth decay in children, while the body has urged parents to reduce both the amount and the frequency of sugary foods and drinks given to their children.
In Southampton, city council health chief Cllr Dave Shields, pictured left, said that 414 youngsters aged 16 or younger had teeth removed at city hospitals last year due to tooth decay, at a cost of £231,000 to taxpayers.
He said: “Not only is this a traumatic experience for children so young, it is largely avoidable. I would urge parents to avoid giving their children too many sugary snacks and drinks which are a known cause of tooth decay.
“The best defence against decay is to ensure children brush their teeth twice a day using a fluoride toothpaste. “Despite our oral health programmes, many children are missing out, which is why whole-population approaches are recommended for areas such as ours.
“Over the last 20 years about 10,000 Southampton children have had dental extractions under a general anaesthetic at great cost to the NHS.”

Cllr Perry will speak at a public meeting organised by Hampshire Against Fluoridation on Saturday, which will take place from 2-4pm in the lecture theatreat Southampton Solent University’s Conference Centre in Above Bar.


Research Reveals Link Between Calcification of the Brain and Alzheimer’s Disease
A new study looks at intracranial calcifications in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. After noticing that the brain’s primary structures were negatively affected by calcification, namely the pineal gland, habenula, choroids plexus, superior sagittal sinus, basal ganglia, falx, dura mater, andtentorium cerebelli, as well as the petroclinoid ligaments, a promising new hypothesis was formed.
Removing calcification from the brain could treat the disease.
Alzheimer’s patients had highly calcified pineal glands, as do two-thirds of the adult population, anda likely cause of this calcification is fluoride.
“Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans.” (National Research Council 2006).

The Guardian view on the state of children’s teeth

A new report shows tooth decay in young children is much lower in areas where there is fluoride in the public water supply: is it time to make fluoridation national policy rather than leaving it to local authorities?
Fluoridation of public water supplies could reduce tooth decay in children, dentists say. 

Photograph: Alamy
Child at dentist
An unhappy consequence of the perennial wrangling over the funding of frontline health provision is that public health appears to be the Cinderella service. Its crises creep up surreptitiously and often go unaddressed. Such appears to have been the case with the health of the nation’s teeth.
study of 50,000 three-year-olds by Public Health England finds they are having large numbers of teeth extracted because of decay caused by drinking fruit juice and squash from bottles and feeding cups. A disturbing 12% have some tooth decay, but Public Health England also found that in some parts of the UK the proportion rises to a third. PHE, quite sensibly, warns parents against giving children sugary drinks or sweetening baby meals to make them more palatable. It also advocates vigilance against sugary medicines and adherence to the most effective practices for tooth-brushing.
PHE can raise the alarm and evangelise best practice but inevitably parents must take the lead. The state’s relationship with the citizen in matters of health will always depend on partnership. Still, one can reasonably question whether the state is playing its proper part in the debate about our dental health. In its response to the study, the British Dental Health Foundation focused on sugary drinks, but more pointedly on the question of fluoridation.
Dr Nigel Carter, the association’s chief executive, said fluoride in toothpaste has reduced tooth decay in England by up to 50%, but the detail is important. “Levels of dental decay have fallen in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas in the UK, with the greatest reductions seen in fluoridated areas, yet only 12% of the population have fluoridated water.” The association speaks of a “clear need for water fluoridation”. But there is nothing approaching that clarity in the government’s approach to the issue. Under the Water Act 2003, local authorities decide whether or not to add fluoride to the water. Many are reluctant to push ahead in the face of claims, wholly unproven, linking fluoridation to cancer, Down’s syndrome, infant mortality and, less seriously, mottled teeth. There are strong passions, with fluoridation condemned by opponents as “indiscriminate mass medication”.
And yet the government’s stance, on an issue it has been wrestling with since the first significant UK fluoridation scheme was launched in Birmingham half a century ago, is that the proven benefits clearly outweigh unsubstantiated risks. “Reviews have found that water fluoridation contributes to reduced decay levels,” says the Department of Health. Willingness to shift responsibility to local authorities could be seen as virtuous devolution. But if the result is a lottery of regional standards, ministers need to think in terms of a consistent national health policy. Time for them to grip the credible science and present a coherent case to the country.
Nanny knows best.

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

One in 8 three-year-olds has rotting teeth... and fruit juice is to blame:

Parents warned organic drinks and smoothies can contain as much sugar as a glass of coke

  • In some English regions as many as a third of children have rotten teeth
  • Leicester has the most, with 34 per cent of three-year-olds suffering 
  • Experts urge families to restrict children to milk and water 
  • Middle-class parents who buy expensive organic juices in the belief they are healthier have been warned they can contain as much sugar as a glass of coke. 
    One health official observed: ‘Posh sugar is no better than any other sugar.’
    Earlier this year health officials urged the public to cut their sugar intake to between five and seven teaspoons a day to prevent rising levels of obesity and rotting teeth.
    A 200ml glass of organic apple juice contains 20 grams of sugar – nearly five teaspoons – only slightly less than the same amount of coke, which has 22 grams.
    Experts, including the chief medical officer Dame Sally Davies, have called for a tax to be slapped on sugary drinks to deter the public from buying them.
    In the first study of its kind, officials at Public Health England – a Government agency – examined the teeth of a sample of 53,640 three-year-olds at nursery schools. 
    They found an average of 12 per cent – one in eight – had tooth decay ranging from small holes, needing fillings or having teeth extracted. 
    If the trend is repeated across England, then nearly 85,000 three-year-olds have rotten teeth.
    Leicester has the highest rates, with 34 per cent of three-year-olds having rotten teeth. Others included the relatively affluent boroughs of Hillingdon, West London, at 25 per cent, and Charnwood in Leicestershire at 29 per cent.
    Sandra White, director of dental health for Public Health England, said: ‘The biggest culprit is fruit juice. Organic apple juice sounds healthy on the packet, but actually it’s packed with sugar

Monday, September 29, 2014

Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats.

Martín-Pardillos A1Sosa C2Millán Á3Sorribas V4.


Public water fluoridation is a common policy for improving dental health. Fluoride replaces the hydroxyls of hydroxyapatite, thereby improving the strength of tooth enamel, but this process can also occur in other active calcifications. This paper studies the effects of water fluoridation during the course of vascular calcification in renal disease. The effect of fluoride was studied in vitro and in vivo. Rat aortic smooth muscle cells were calcified with 2mM Pi for 5 days. Fluoride concentrations of 5-10 μM--similar to those found in people who drink fluoridated water--partially prevented calcification, death, and osteogene expression in vitro. The anticalcifying mechanism was independent of cell activity, matrix Gla protein, and fetuin A expressions, and it exhibited an IC50 of 8.7 μM fluoride. In vivo, however, fluoridation of drinking water at 1.5mg/L (concentration recommended by the WHO) and 15 mg/L dramatically increased the incipient aortic calcification observed in rats with experimental chronic kidney disease (CKD, 5/6-nephrectomy), fed a Pi-rich fodder (1.2% Pi). Fluoride further declined the remaining renal function of the CKD animals, an effect that most likely overwhelmed the positive effect of fluoride on calcification in vitro. Ultrastructural analysis revealed that fluoride did not modify the Ca/P atomic ratio, but it was incorporated into the lattice of in vivo deposits. Fluoride also converted the crystallization pattern from plate to rode-like structures. In conclusion, while fluoride prevents calcification in vitro, the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant

Sunday, September 28, 2014

Dentists warn of plastic in brand of toothpast

Published on 27 Sep 2014
By Jaie Avila

SAN ANTONIO - Dentists are sounding warning about a very popular brand of tooth paste, and what it may be leaving behind in your gums. The Trouble Shooters started investigating several weeks ago after getting complaints from dentists and patients.

When Jennifer Martinez went in for a teeth cleaning recently the hygienist spotted something strange on her gums and teeth: tiny blue specks. Jennifer remembered seeing them when she would floss at home.

‚“Specks of blue throughout all of my teeth, every time i would floss i would see blue specks,‚ Martinez said.

Jennifer knew the tiny sparkles were coming from the toothpaste she used, Crest 3-D White, one of Proctor

Professor of Chemistry Paul Connett on how fluoride lowers IQ of children

Harvard Research finds link between fluoridated water, ADHD and mental disorders

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Andover Advertiser - Question the need for added fluoride

POWERFUL American lobbyists are playing tough and dirty to keep fluoridation.
Hold that thought, and think of PHE’s aggressive tactics.
Fluoridation is politically toxic and utterly without merit or logic.
It’s dangerous, indiscriminate mass medication turning the public water supply into a delivery system for an illegal poison.
It’s a violation of human rights on an epic scale and an equally epic vote loser, so why has it become this manic imperative?
Could the answer be the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – a deal with frightening ramifications as revealed when 38 Degrees campaigners visited Andover.
To quote 38 Degrees: “If it goes through it could permanently privatise the NHS [and] put the profits of big business ahead of our environment.
Leaks on the deal suggest it will: allow companies to sue governments if they make decisions affecting big business profits; stop future governments from rolling back privatisation of our public services, like the NHS; relax the rules which protect consumers, our environment, our welfare and health services, to much weaker levels seen in the US”.
While the NHS struggles with rising costs and a chronically ill and aging nation private health and pharmaceutical companies salivate at the prospect of making billions out of illness.
So when a government deliberately sets out to inflict on its people toxic industrial waste via the water supply knowing it’s a carcinogenic neurotoxin linked to cancers and thyroid, kidney, brittle bone and brain diseases – fully aware that it fails in its primary function because it causes dental fluorosis – ignoring the fact it has no licence for human consumption and is banned under EU law – you know there’s more to it than blind stupidity.
Under TTIP benefits to the fluoride polluting industries are assured.
Meanwhile corporate profits multiply with the NHS supplying profiteers with a fluoridated, chronically ailing population that will no longer be a burden on the Government, but will be an ongoing and increasing source of revenue to the health and pharmaceutical industries.
Is the link between fluoridation, the NHS and TTIP farfetched?
You decide.
Jennifer Godschall Johnson, Balksbury Hill, Upper Clatford

Public Health England challenged on fluoride policy Friday, 26 September 2014

Public Health England challenged on fluoride policy Friday, 26 September 2014

At a meeting in London of South East Strategic Leaders on Thursday, addressed by Public Health England, Hampshire County Council Leader, Roy Perry challenged their spokesmen to 'come clean' on their fluoride policy.
Cllr Perry said the initial reaction of Dr Graham Bickler was that Public Health England regarded the issue of adding fluoride to public water supplyas now being up to local authorities, but he promised to make further
enquiries about the situation in Hampshire.
Commenting on the response, Cllr Perry said: "If that is indeed Public Health England's position it is very welcome. But is it their position? For months now, Hampshire has been trying to get a clear statement out of PHE to that effect and to date (26 Sept 2014) they have singularly failed to answer
our questions.
"It is not just the city of Southampton that is affected by the fluoride proposal. Hampshire communities all around the city could be impacted and I know the residents of Nursling and Rownhams that I represent do not consider they have been properly consulted.
"I hope my question to PHE will now get an answer and indeed the formal response will say it is up to the local authorities to determine whether or not fluoride should be added."

Hampshire County Council is of the view that contractual arrangements were not in place by 1 April last year (when Strategic Health Authorities were abolished and the responsibility for decision making on proposals,
transferred to upper tier and unitary local authorities). The County Council has been in discussions with PHE and Southampton City Council as to most appropriate way to settle the legal issues.

Press Release


September 2014

Public Debate on Water Fluoridation
Five years after the decision was made to artificially fluoridate local water, controversy and uncertainty still surround the plans. The region has been in a state of limbo for a number of years and the legal situation continues to be disputed.

Hampshire Against Fluoridation has organised a public debate1 so local people can put questions to decision-makers from Southampton and Hampshire Councils, find out about the current legal position and what is happening “behind the scenes”. All local MPs were invited as was the Director of Public Health for Southampton. The following panel members2 agreed to take part:

  • Councillor Dave Shields, Cabinet Member for Health, Southampton City Council
  • Councillor Roy Perry, Leader, Hampshire County Council
  • Councillor David Harrison, Hampshire County Council
  • Dr Julian Lewis, MP New Forest East
  • Keith Taylor MEP South East

The abolition of South Central Strategic Health Authority in 2013 was a key factor in putting the brakes on the scheme. As NO CONTRACTS were signed before their demise and no scheme finalised, plans to proceed cannot be continued by either Public Health England (PHE) or local councils without beginning the whole process again including a new feasibility study, costings and consultation.

As HAF has repeatedly pointed out, the legislation makes it clear that without a contract, NO SCHEME EXISTS and therefore PHE have no remit to implement one. HAF’s interpretation of the legislation concurs with that of Hampshire County Council (HCC) and Dr Julian Lewis MP, both of whom have corresponded with the Department of Health and PHE3. Legal arguments over interpretation of the regulations continue. This statement from HCC Leader Cllr Roy Perry in correspondence with HAF’s Bill Edmunds in June summarises the position of HCC: “We are currently in a process of legal argument with PHE and it would be inappropriate for me to say more at this point – other than we have not yet seen a legal argument in favour of the view that PHE can implement such a scheme4.

There has been a shift in PHE’s position and they now claim to be undecided. A recent Freedom of Information5 request from HAF Chair John Spottiswoode generated this reply from PHE: “If PHE (on behalf of the Secretary of State) was minded to proceed with this proposed fluoridation scheme….it could do so …. by virtue of s.87(1) of the Water Industry Act 1991….and Article 7(1) of the Health & Social Care Act 2012Given that no decision as to whether or not to proceedhas been made, PHE has not progressed the formal request to the water company to enter into arrangements”.

The region is still in limbo and will have to simply wait and see if PHE are “minded to proceed”.
Further opinions on the legality of the scheme will be made at the Public Meeting on 4th October.