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

UK Against Fluoridation

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Australia - Letter | Look at the recent history of fluoride in Lithgow

I HAVE been visiting Oberon over the last month attending meetings with the people in Oberon who oppose fluoridation. Similar resistance was expressed in Lithgow at the time of putting fluoride into the drinking water in 2012. I detail the events that happened in Lithgow as it is in the local area with many similarities to Oberon.
At the time before fluoridation in Lithgow, the people had the benefit of having NSW Health dental clinicians carry out controlled investigation into the health of 653 children. The findings were very revealing, to say the least.
Before fluoridation, there existed in 27 per cent of the children the condition of "fluorosis", which all authorities admit is a symptom of too much systematically ingested fluoride. Additionally, the estimations revealed in the published bulletin of NSW Health in 2010 for the DMFT (Damaged, Missing and Filled Teeth) oral health of children in Lithgow both in primary teeth and permanent teeth, were "better that the state average". Repeat: this is before fluoride in Lithgow compared to 40 years of fluoridation in most of NSW.
Consequently, to the health authorities it mattered not that adding even more fluoride to the children would increase "fluorosis", ultimately causing more oral and other health issues. Note: dentists increased in Lithgow after fluoridation.
One must ask, why did these children need more fluoride? And why did the dentists and health representatives years before claim that the Lithgow children had very bad teeth? I note that this is now happening in Oberon, and without the benefit of clinical studies. However, other studies done in our local area have revealed very little difference in the DMFT. 
Examples of Bathurst and Orange and Lithgow reveal that the discussion centres around the amount of decay in just one tooth; the difference is expressed in that one tooth. For example, no fluoride before 2012 for Lithgow was 0.6 DMFT and for Bathurst and Orange it was 0.29 and 0.33 respectively.
What is to be observed is that the decay in the fluoridated towns is still there. It was only reduced by half in one tooth. That is why dentists will claim they have reduced the decay by 50 per cent and that decay in unfluoridated areas is double. But they talk about the reduction of decay in one tooth. The NSW public health bulletin also states the DMFT is 0.88, with western Sydney at 1.7 (two teeth) and fluoridated for 40-plus years in most cases.
Decay in one tooth soon changes, in adults, to 15 or so teeth, and onto old age some will lose all their teeth at 75 on. So much for the power of fluoride as a remedy. 
This brings us to the other sources of this same poison and being a poison, the dose consumed should be closely monitored. In the case of fluoride, this is not investigated, so if you drink more water, you get more poison. But it is not isolated to water, it is in your food, in anaesthetics, egg powder, in all black teas, green teas, white teas, and in large amounts in instant tea, meat, all of which will be more than you are getting in the water.
So, the smart authorities will claim that there is no harm from levels in the water. This avoids the computation of other sources, of which I have stated, contains more fluoride than in the water and being a poison, no one knows how much, or why it is not being studied and included.
This is a matter of dire importance. I believe the products are not properly certified for human consumption; there are no toxicology or clinical trials ever done on this poison. Fluoride is a remarkable industrial chemical. It has hundreds of uses with more being discovered every year. Farmers use many types of fluoride, steel, glass and ceramic use fluoride, welders use fluoride on rods and pastes, paint can have fluoride, plastics can contain fluoride, and they can all end up in the human body in the form of an ion in blood and bone, brain and kidney, thyroid and eyes, with more being used every year.
Australian authorities have limited ubiquity data, and no health studies on Australian people for fluoride. No wonder there are those who question the use of fluoride. The authorities should be looking at synergistic interactions of fluoride and aluminium, another product that has not had toxicology study or clinical trial in the US or Australia. This synergy is said to have implications to Alzheimer’s disease, presently without remedy or reason.

Allan Jones, Lithgow

Canada - Keep fluoride out of drinking water

  • Windsor Star
  • Re: Health unit wants return of fluoridation, by Doug Schmidt, June 7.
    There have been a great number of studies done on the effects of fluoridation of drinking water. Many are conducted by labs paid for by fluoride lobbyists and dental lobbyists. These are less than impartial studies.
    A 2007 review by the British Medical Journal stated that “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation,” which is currently standard for all drugs. This alone should stop any further use of this policy of a blanket drug program until further independent and randomized studies are complete.
    The effects on teeth can be proven minimally beneficial. On the other side of the coin, fluoride as a neurotoxin has also been proven to affect the brain to a degree.
    We as a society can continue to brush our teeth and stay more vigilant in our fight to keep our teeth clean. But a damaged brain is a damaged brain, something this writer is not willing to chance. So, until fluoride has been vigorously and thoroughly tested as per any other drug, please keep it out of my water. Darrel Lauzon, Amherstburg

    Saturday, June 23, 2018

    Curious Flexitarian
    Published on 22 Jun 2018
    On this episode of The Curious Flexitarian Podcast we explore the danger of fluoride and some classic solutions to starting our morning without absorbing toxic chemicals into our blood stream first thing in the morning.

    Opinion: Children's teeth are paying the price for the cancellation of fluoridation in Calgary

    By June Dabbagh, Leagh Harfield, Wendy Street-Wadey and Juliet Guichon
    As the school year draws to an end, it is time to consider how Calgary has been treating its children lately. In one respect, the answer is not well at all.
    Calgary city council decided in 2011 to cease adjusting the fluoride levels in Calgary water. Three of us are dental specialists, and can attest to the devastating consequences.
    Consider, for example, Sammy’s case. On a Saturday, his mother called a dental office reporting that the eight-year-old boy was irritable, feverish and crying constantly. The mother wanted an appointment for Monday morning, but we opened the office to see him. He was not well. An infection in his tooth had crept upward to his eye, such that his lower eyelid was closing.
    This is a medical emergency. Once in the eye, a dental infection can travel rapidly to the brain and, if untreated, cause death. One of us went with his mother to Rockyview Hospital. Sammy was immediately given intravenous antibiotics and admitted. The next day, he was transferred to the Children’s Hospital for continued care.
    Such systemic infections caused by dental infections are not unusual these days. In fact, we have had to change how we practice dentistry. When we had fluoridation, we would watch a small soft spot or cavity; we would wait to see whether it grew before drilling and filling. Now, we must pounce on the problem because, in the six months until the next appointment, that small, soft spot will likely become a huge hole in the tooth.
    Consider another scenario. We now routinely see children whose primary and permanent molars are already decayed and require fillings as soon as the teeth erupt through the gums. When the dental decay is too severe, the infected teeth must be extracted. In very young children, such work must often be done under general anesthetic, which bears its own risks for kids and can be a horrible experience for the children and their parents.
    Consequently, the child might need orthodontic care over a seven- to nine-year period to recreate a bite and to maximize the effectiveness of the remaining teeth. Prior to fluoridation cessation, we saw children in this state almost always from communities surrounding Calgary that did not have water fluoridation. Sadly, now Calgary children are losing teeth they will need throughout their adult lives.
    Calgary children are not the only ones suffering. Adults need fluoridation too, especially seniors.
    Fluoride is a mineral and occurs naturally in Calgary drinking water at 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million. It strengthens tooth structure, prevents decay and even reverses some decay. To be therapeutic, the fluoride level needs to be at 0.7 parts per million. At this level, fluoride remains safe and effective.
    This fact is settled science, confirmed most recently in massive systematic reviews by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Irish Government Food Safety Authority. Indeed, 5,600 studies support adding fluoride to the 0.7 level.
    Experts at the Public Health Agency of Canada, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization recommend fluoridation; so do hundreds of leading global health and dental organizations, thereby attesting to its safety and efficacy.
    Almost all U.S. cities fluoridate their water, as do major international cities. Incidentally, almost 90 per cent of NHL cities fluoridate their water.
    It is time to recognize what we see every single day. Allowing the levels of fluoride in our drinking water to fall below 0.7 parts per million is a terrible mistake that hurts people: you, your children and your grandchildren, every day.
    When children’s teeth are rotting, they can’t eat, sleep or develop normally. They have trouble concentrating in school and don’t want to play. Summer will not be much fun for kids with dental pain.
    City councillors, please make reinstating water fluoridation a priority.
    June Dabbagh and Wendy Street-Wadey are Calgary dentists. Leagh Harfield is a Calgary orthodontist. Juliet Guichon is a University of Calgary bioethicist.

    Dozens of comments...........................................

    Friday, June 22, 2018

    NZ - Letters: Fluoride - the right to choose

    Darrell Grace (Letters; June 14) claims that water fluoridation has benefits.

    Mary Byrne (Letters; June 17) makes clear how Darrell Grace is wrong with his claims about tooth decay statistics.

    Examples from the 2015-16 NZ Dental School Statistics include children from non-fluoridated Christchurch and Nelson-Marlborough with less tooth decay than those from fluoridated Auckland and Counties Manukau; and non-fluoridated New Plymouth had less tooth decay than fluoridated Hawera.

    Even the World Health Organisation statistics demonstrate there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not, with a general trend of decline in overall rates of decay in developed countries.

    The studies Mr Grace alludes to are not the ones that point out that hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) is toxic [NZ Hazchem Class 6 (acutely toxic ) 7 (dangerous poison) & 8 (corrosive)]. HFA is also laced with a range of other heavy metals including aluminium, arsenic, lead, mercury and uranium, and fluoride is classed as more toxic than lead.

    In the United States, fluoride toothpaste is not recommended for babies and children under three years.

    At the end of the day, it is about choice. It is unfair to those who don't wish to drink fluoridated water to be forced to buy water.



    Thursday, June 21, 2018

    Preventing Cancer with Ellen Connett, Managing Director of the Flouride Action Network and FlourideAlert.org http://fluoridealert.org/

    Paul Connett, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, gives a detailed presentation on the potential harmful effects of water fluoridation on residents of New Zealand.

    Wednesday, June 20, 2018

    F.A.N. Newsletter

    In a recent article the New York Times (NYT) made a very embarrassing mistake. Specifically, it cited a videotape that repeated a serious mistake on the toxicity of fluoride that was corrected 6 years ago.
    The mistake made in the video was the claim that an important meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies carried out by a team from Harvard University (Choi et al., 2012) - comparing the IQ between children from villages with high fluoride exposure and villages with low-exposure- reported an average loss of 0.45 of an IQ point. In reality, the Harvard researchers reported a loss of 0.45 of one standard deviation, which amounted to a loss of 7 IQ points. A huge difference. A loss of half an IQ point might be insignificant, but a loss of 7 IQ points would be very serious at the population level. Such a loss would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by at least 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
    Under any other circumstances this would be a very embarrassing mistake but on the matter of fluoridation the NYT is not embarrassed easily.  For example, in 2015 the senior science editor wrote an email in connection with fluoridation:
    “… I understand that you disagree, but I think it’s fair to say
    that most members of the science staff of The New York Times
    consider this debate to have been decided – in fluoride’s favor –
    about 50 years ago.”
    Donald McNeil Jr., Science Correspondent, New York Times
    April 2, 2015 email. Subject: READERS MAIL
    See copy of email at 4:35 minutes into Our Daily Dose
    It is quite possible that Donald McNeil’s pro-fluoridation position here has something to do with the fact that his father wrote a history of water fluoridation that was decidedly pro-fluoridation (The Fight for Fluoridation, Donald McNeil, Oxford University Press, 1957). Be that as it may, McNeil should know that such a statement is preposterous. Science is never “settled.” This situation is what Thomas Huxley described as the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” 
    In the case of water fluoridation there are dozens of ugly facts that slay the hypothesis and the much repeated mantra that "fluoridation is safe and effective."  These include 53 studies that associate a lowering of IQ with exposure to fluoride (http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/).  From the fluoridation promoters' perspective, the "ugliest" of these "facts" came last year in the form of a rigorous US government-funded study that found an association between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered IQ in their children at 4 and 6-12 years of age (Bashash et al., 2017).
    New York Times continues to ignore recent IQ studies
    The worrying thing here is not so much this recent “clanger” from the NYT but rather the fact that the editors of this paper made a decision that these important findings from 2017 (and repeated in 2018 by Thomas et al.) were not “fit to be published.”  
    This, despite the fact that this multi-million-dollar research effort was carried out over 12 years, and involved researchers from many leading US, Canadian and Mexican institutions and Universities, with over 50 published papers on other neurotoxic chemicals between them, and that it was published in the world’s leading environmental health journal (Environmental Health Perspectives).
    Failure of the New York Times means that pregnant women are not being warned to avoid fluoride
    FAN is doing its best to warn people about these important findings but sadly, without the attention of important outlets like the NYT, pregnant women in the US and other fluoridated countries will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.
    FAN writes letter on June 3rd to the New York Times requesting correction
    Letter to the Editor:
    A recent NY Times article (5/28/2018) linked to an outdated video, which made a serious mistake about fluoride science, should be corrected.
    The speaker in the video claims a Harvard University meta-analysis of 27 fluoride/IQ studies reported an average difference of 0.45 IQ points.  In reality, the Harvard researchers reported a loss of 0.45 of one standard deviation, which amounts to a loss of 7 IQ points. A huge difference.  
    A loss of 7 IQ points would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by at least 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
    We are also disappointed that the Times failed to report recent findings of a rigorous US-government funded study conducted by a team of highly experienced researchers (Bashash, 2017 and Thomas, 2018) that essentially confirmed the Harvard review's concerns. In this latest study, a loss of 6 IQ points in children was associated with exposure to women during pregnancy of levels of fluoride commonly experienced by adults in artificially fluoridated communities.
    Without the attention to such important science, by such news outlets as the NY Times, pregnant women in the USA will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.
    Paul Connett, PhD
    FAN has also written a letter to the video host

    Dear Dr. Carroll,
    In 2014, you made a YouTube video entitled “Fluoride in the Water Isn’t Going to Hurt You.”
    In the video, you stated that a Harvard meta-analysis found that higher fluoride levels in 27 studies, on average, lowered the IQ’s of children by about one half an IQ point. Actually, the study said that it was about half a standard deviation, equating to about seven IQ points (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/).  This was a major error, leading to anyone watching your video to underestimate how serious fluoride in water can be. Since that study, many others have found that fluoride may lower IQ’s, including last year’s major NIH-funded study led by the University of Toronto (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/) (and including at least one researcher from your own Indiana University) that linked higher fluoride levels in pregnant women to lower IQ’s in their children.  
    Recently, the New York Times ran an article linking to your video, further compounding this misunderstanding.
    I have a simple request. Would you please, in the very near future, either correct your YouTube video or, if that’s not possible, remove it entirely from the internet as soon as possible? Please let me know.
    Meanwhile, would you also inform the NY Times - who relied on your video - of this error.
    Thank you,
    Paul Connett, PhD
    Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network
    We have received no reply and no correction from either the New York Times or Carroll. Thus, the lie (fluoridation is safe) persists and other than FAN no one is warning pregnant women to avoid fluoride. 

    Paul Connett, PhD
    Executive Director
    Fluoride Action Network

    Tuesday, June 19, 2018

    Monday, June 18, 2018

    From Ann Wills

    D. Mail 18.6.18 “LET’S GO TO WAR ON NHS WASTE” by John Stevens & Sophie Borland.
    For all its virtues, the NHS remains wasteful of taxpayers’ cash.  Without fundamental change no amount of money put into it will be enough.
    For instance:  £18million a year spent by the NHS on new crutches & walking frames when old equipment could be easily recycled.
    £640 million a year spent on management consultants to advise hospitals how to spend less money.
    £90,000 paid to a ‘turnaround director’ for just 3 months work last year.
    £300million a year on prescribing medicines that are never used by patients.
    £1.6billion a year paying compensation for clinical negligence pay-outs for medical mistakes, much of which goes into lawyers’ pockets.
    £26 million a year on prescriptions for gluten-free food even though patients can buy them from supermarkets.
    David Green of ‘Civitas’ think-tank says the NHS is paying Boots £3,220 for a mouthwash for cancer patients to use that can cost £93.
    The NHS is paying Boots £1,579 for a pot of moisturiser that other pharmacies obtained for under £2.
    In 2016-17 some £2.9billion was spent on agency doctors & nurses, instead of employing a stable workforce.


    Sunday, June 17, 2018

    Daily Mail - Vulnerable children are forced to wait more than six months to have teeth removed

    Vulnerable children are forced to wait more than six months to have teeth removed as levels of tooth decay soar

    • Number of children waiting more than half a year for dental care has risen 52%
    • Labour has blasted the deterioration in youngsters' dental care as 'unacceptable'
    • New figures follow Freedom of Information Act requests sent to NHS trust
    Vulnerable children are waiting for months in agony to have their teeth fixed in a 'totally unacceptable' deterioration in youngsters' dental care, Labour said.

    The number of children have to wait more than half a year for hospital dental treatment has risen 52 per cent, the party revealed.

    A further 1,498 youngsters were forced to wait longer than six months in 2017.

    Labour also found a 15 per cent increase over three year in the number of children on waiting lists for dental operations under general anaesthetic............

    Saturday, June 16, 2018

    Daily Mail

    Sickening truth about how much sugar children are eating: We asked three girls to keep a food diary, the results horrified their mums

    • Studies show children and teenagers consume more sugar than they should
    • FEMAIL asked three mums to help their daughters keep a food diary for a week
    • Jessica, 12, consumed 490g sugar weekly, the recommended allowance is 210g
    • Jessica's mum Claire Lilley, 43, vowed to avoid processed foods to lower intake
    • A dietitian revealed the seemingly healthy foods that are filled with sugar  
    • Sugary treats lie at the heart of family time these days. From after-school snacks to birthday parties with lots of chocolate, biscuits and sweets, sugar is loaded with messages of reward and enjoyment.
      Add to that the hidden sugars in convenience foods and the treats children choose for themselves at school, and even parents with the best of intentions will find it hard to monitor just how much of the sweet stuff their children eat. 
      According to a recent survey, children aged four to ten consume twice as much sugar as they should — equivalent to 20 chocolate chip cookies a day. Teenagers, meanwhile, eat three times as much as they ought. Children aged seven to ten years should eat no more than 24g (equivalent to six sugar cubes) of added sugar a day and over-11s are limited to 30g (seven cubes).
      We asked three mums to help their daughters keep an honest sugar diary for just a week, and dietitian Tanya Thomas to asses them. The results are startling. Is it time you asked yourself just how much sugar YOUR child or grandchild is eating…?

    Friday, June 15, 2018

    Department of Health and Social Care written question – answered on 14th

    Steve McCabeSteve McCabe Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak
    Photo of Steve McCabeTo ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, pursuant to the Answer of the 27 April 2018 to Question 137414, what information his Department holds on preventative dental health programmes delivered at local authority level.

     Steve BrineSteve Brine
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care
    Photo of Steve Brine
    In May 2018, Public Health England (PHE) published a stocktake which reported on oral health improvement programmes, commissioned by local authorities targeting zero to five years old in England.

    Of the 95% of local authorities who responded, the majority (77%) are commissioning oral health improvement programmes for zero to five year olds.

    The most commonly commissioned programmes are as follows: training for the wider professional workforce (71%); healthy food and drink policies (57%); supervised tooth brushing in early years and school settings (51%); targeted provision of toothbrushes and toothpaste (46%); integration of oral health into targeted home visits by health and social care workers (44%); local or national government policies used to improve oral health (30%); community fluoridevarnish programmes (24%); community water fluoridation (14%) and peer support workers supporting oral health improvement (5%). Further information is available at the following link:


    The Department does not hold information on oral health improvement programmes targeting any other age groups.

    Australia - Liverpool Plains Shire Council will investigate adding fluoride to its regional water supply

    iverpool Plains Shire Council (LPSC) will consider fluoridation of the local water supply.
    Council has resolved to begin an investigation process, which will involve extensive community consultation. 
    It comes after NSW Health contacted the council urging it to consider fluoridation of the regional water supply and offering it’s support to do so, including the provision of design consultants for fluoride systems and a 100 per cent capital cost subsidy. .............

    Wednesday, June 13, 2018


    This article looks at the emerging evidence between fluoride and acne and whether this widespread toxin could be the cause of your cystic breakouts. *SPOILER ALERT* If you’re living in Australia, USA, New Zealand, Hong King or Singapore then the answer is most likely YES!

    fluoride & acne: is fluoroderma causing your cystic breakouts?

    About a year ago I was browsing the internet looking for research and evidence that certain toothpastes could trigger, or at least aggravate, flare ups of perioral dermatitis. I had no idea that this research session would totally change my opinion on some of the key causes of acne!
    During this research session I came across a website called The Cellulite Investigation, a blog written by author and ex-FBI Investigator (you know the research on this site is going to be insanely detailed and evidence-based if an FBI investigator is behind it), by Melissa Gallico. What started as an investigation into why Melissa struggled with cellulite, led to the pioneering discovery that excess fluoride exposure clogs up the lymphatic system and causes hormone imbalances that can trigger cystic acne. Melissa actually discovered so much information on the topic that wasn’t really accessible she decided to write a book on the fluoride/acne connection called ‘The Hidden Cause of Acne‘.
    Fluoride & Acne: Is Fluoroderma causing your cystic breakouts? | This article looks at the emerging evidence between iodine, fluoride and acne and whether this widespread toxin could be the cause of your cystic breakouts.

    fluoride & acne: what is fluoride?

    Fluoride is one of five halogens in the periodic table which include chlorine, bromine, fluorine, iodine and astatine. The only two halogens that are essential to the human body are chlorine (for stomach acid) and iodine (for thyroid health).
    But isn’t fluoride vital for healthy teeth?! Well, that’s what we’re led to believe…but there is still huge debate whether fluoride actually prevents tooth decay or not… yet there IS a tonne of evidence to suggest that even small amounts of fluoride can cause harm to our health. So if tooth decay is a concern for you, I would focus on cutting back on cavity-causing sugar rather than relying on fluoride to keep your teeth healthy!............................................

    Tuesday, June 12, 2018

    West Cumbria water is fluoridated but there is a hiatus now while a £300m pipeline is being built. With more evidence of fluoride's downside, such as the effect on IQ after the Bashash 2017 study, can it be stopped? With Paul Carr (Cumbria), Dr Paul Connett, Joy Warren, Prof Stephen Peckham et al. Anti-fluoride campaigners meeting, Bedford, May 2018.

    Jordan Sather - The Fluoride Lie - BitChute

    Monday, June 11, 2018

    Sunday, June 10, 2018

    Dr.John Bergman : Recognising Neurological Damage

    NSW - Say NO to Fluoridation in Oberon

    I'm not a doctor, dentist or scientist, but I don't need to be to read into the massive controversy surrounding water fluoridation.  Our beautiful town of Oberon has been under character attack by dental industry representatives, the corporate media and their slick, well-financed propaganda over the last two months. Our people, and in particular our hard-won independent Council, are being brow beaten by them and a small group of overly enthusiastic local supporters who live mostly out of town and on tank. 
    Professional opinions and anecdotes are not peer reviewed scientific survey data, and the pro-fluoride proponents pedal undocumented statistics about our town's specific dental problems, while completely ignoring and ridiculing the international scientific push to end this clearly outdated and dangerous policy.  The ongoing cumulative threat to human health from sodium fluoride is obvious for those having done their due diligence on the vast amount of up to date literature available.  Industrial Grade Sodium Fluoride is a poisonous waste product from the aluminum phosphate fertilizer industry, not natural calcium fluoride as the media and pro-fluoride proponents say it is.  Depending on the type, it contains lead, arsenic, mercury, aluminium, cadmium and over 20 other industrial contaminants that the pro-fluoride say are 'safe'.  Ask them - Where does it come from and what else is in it? 
    Oberon fought against a lying state government that tried to amalgamate us before, and we WON.  They think our voice is small, they think we're stupid and will just swallow what we're told by the holier than holy ADA and NHMRC.  Join with me Oberon and other awakened souls to show this industry that it's propaganda is falling on deaf ears - time for change.  Lets keep it out.  Truth always prevails.  96% (and climbing) of the world don't fluoridate (Including 93% of Europe) - let's help make it 100%. 
    Don't take my word for it either - Go to www.fluoridealert.org to assist in your own personal awakening to this diabolical political agenda.  See here Dr Andrew Harms, former President of the ADA South Australia, now speaking out against fluoridation.  
    I don't think signing the poll by outsiders will help but the more people know the better

    Saturday, June 09, 2018

    From Cynthia - printed in the Times and Star (Workington/Cockemouth) in Cumbria, yesterday Friday 8th June

    Click to enlarge

    UK - More than 100 of Dorset's children have tooth extracted in hospital due to decay

    NEARLY 50 children per week had a tooth removed in hospital in the South West due to preventable decay, figures show.

    Data published by Public Health England (PHE) reveals that 2,558 children in the region, seven children per day, were admitted to hospital for tooth extraction with cavities or decay recorded as the primary diagnosis in 2016/17.

    In Dorset, 114 children had a tooth removed in hospital due to decay in the same year. The highest number was recorded in West Dorset at 29 children, and second highest in Weymouth and Portland at 23 children.

    In January, the Dorset Echo reported that the county is above both the national and regional average for the number of children aged under five with dental problems.

    Data is taken from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) which record inpatient and day-case care in NHS hospitals in England. PHE has warned that some numbers could be underestimated, as some extractions are carried out by a local dental service in hospital, but not logged in official hospital data recordings.

    As the government’s Soft Drinks Industry Levy comes into effect, PHE’s Change4Life campaign is reminding parents that sugary drinks, including juice drinks, energy drinks, cola and other fizzy drinks, are one of the main sources of sugar in children’s diets.

    Nationally, a child in England has a tooth removed in hospital every 10 minutes due to preventable tooth decay, PHE says.

    Jane Horne, consultant in public health at Public Health Dorset, said: "In Dorset we have seen a fall in the numbers of children admitted to have a tooth removed since five years ago, but there are still more than a hundred children admitted for this every year.

    "We also look at how many five year old children are free from tooth decay; although we are similar to the rate for England, this still means that a significant proportion, around 25 per cent of children, do experience some decay.

    "A number of schemes, for example providing toothbrushes and toothpastes or supervising tooth brushing, run in different parts of Dorset. As a parent you can help by making sure your children eat and drink less sugary food and drinks, and brush their teeth twice a day with a fluoride toothpaste."

    PHE’s Change4Life campaign is encouraging parents to:

    Swap sugary drinks for lower or no sugar alternatives, including water and lower fat milks

    Limit fruit juice and smoothies to a total of 150ml per day and only consume with meals

    Ensure children brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste (once before bedtime and once during the day) and remind them to ‘spit not rinse’

    Stop giving your children sweets. You are not spoiling them you are harming them. It can be done I stopped my own family from giving my son sweets and at 45 he still has all of his own with one minor filling. 

    Darren Kaberna
    Published on 8 Jun 2018
    Are you practicing excellent clinical standards by providing your patients with the best care possible? As dental professionals we should all be practicing to the standard of care while striving to go over and beyond it. The definition of the standard of care is typically identified by the level at which the average, prudent provider in a given community would practice and is how similarly qualified practitioners would have managed a patient's care under the same or similar circumstances. The ADA says fluoride varnish applied in the office along with a prescription 5,000ppm used twice a day should be recommended for all patients that are moderate to high risk for dental caries. If you look at the ADA qualifications for a moderate and high-risk patient, you will see that it encompasses almost all of our patients. Are you dispensing fluoride to the standard of care?

    When we place a ‘watch’ on an incipient lesion, essentially, we are just watching it decay. Instead of placing a ‘watch’ on an incipient lesion we should be recommending an in-office varnish and prescription 5,000ppm toothpaste to be used twice a day in order to heal these areas. Patients with 1mm or more of recession are also considered high risk, so all of our perio patients should be on a fluoride regimen. This is the first time in dentistry that we actually have healing agents that will also prevent future decay. Share this exciting news with your patients!

    Being an excellent clinician requires that we be very honest with our patients and educate them about the healing benefits of a fluoride regimen. When we are honest with our patients it is very easy to help them to understand why a fluoride regimen is so important and get them to accept usage. Ask your patients if they’d like to have their teeth for chewing for the rest of their lives or if they’d like to outlive their teeth or have their teeth outlive them. I promise they’ll all say they’d like to have their teeth outlive them. Explain to your patients that decay does not heal itself but by having a fluoride varnish treatment along with brushing twice a day with a prescription 5,000ppm toothpaste they can actually heal and strengthen their teeth helping them to prevent further decay. Your patients will feel that you are truly concerned about them and the health of their teeth and you will be giving excellent care.

    5000 ppm !!!