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

UK Against Fluoridation

Thursday, January 19, 2017

USA - Proctor’s chance to end fluoridation


Rutland Herald | January 19, 2017
Proctor residents will have a chance to vote on fluoridation at their annual floor meeting Monday, March 6, provided the selectmen put the item on the agenda.
Monday, Jan. 23, is the meeting at which selectmen will make the decision on the town meeting agenda.
Those of us fighting fluoridation in Rutland would obviously like to see Proctor end this misguided practice of mass medication, but it’s not our fight.
Rutland, Proctor and Poultney are the only towns in Rutland County with fluoridated water supplies. A vote to end fluoridation in Proctor would be a good step toward making Rutland County fluoride free.
The recent news that Harry Chen is not seeking reappointment as health commissioner offers a glimmer of hope that fluoridation might get a new look, though it’s doubtful given the federal influence over state health policy.
With water issues an increasingly top-of-mind concern in discussions of health and the environment, perhaps the state will step up to the plate on fluoridation.
But there’s no reason Proctor needs to wait for Vermont government to acknowledge the obvious: Fluoridation is an obsolete and misguided public health measure. What say, Proctor?
Extensive critiques of Dr. Chen’s and Vermont dentists’ misleading and inaccurate statements on fluoridation may be found at rutlandfluorideaction.org, my website.

JACK CROWTHER
Rutland

Premature births a factor in cognitive deficits observed in areas of endemic fluorosis?


Posted on January 19, 2017 | Leave a comment
Could the increased incidence of premature births explain cognitive deficits observed in areas of endemic fluorosis? Image credit: New Kids-Center.

premature
Anti-fluoridation activists are soon likely to be promoting a new paper reporting a study which found a relationship between maternal (in utero) exposure to fluoride and cognitive development delay in infants. Of course, they will be unlikely to mention the study occurred in an area of endemic fluorosis where drinking water fluoride concentrations are much higher than used in community water fluoridation (CWF). They are also unlikely to mention the possible role of premature births in cognitive development delay observed in the study.

Open Parachute kindly draws our attention to this publication.

The paper is:
Valdez Jiménez, L., López Guzmán, O. D., Cervantes Flores, M., Costilla-Salazar, R., Calderón Hernández, J., Alcaraz Contreras, Y., & Rocha-Amador, D. O. (2017). In utero exposure to fluoride and cognitive development delay in infants . Neurotoxicology

Wednesday, January 18, 2017



Nice to see more and more young people take up the cause to stop fluoridation.

USA - Writer responds to Austad’s fluoride column

In pro-fluoride fashion Steve Austad’s column in last week’s paper is the typical bait and switch I have become accustomed to in the last year and a half.

Insinuating that what is put in our water is natural or if anyone has a problem with fluoride they have to be a conspiracy theorist and using words like “scare mongers,” (when the fluoride pushers are the real fear mongers insisting everyone’s teeth are going to rot out of our heads without ingesting this reactive chemical).

I would like to state that I was not even born in 1964, nor have I ever seen the film that he referred to, nor have I ever been a conspiracy theorist. But I have heard of the movie while being heckled by the city attorney when I was trying to speak to the mayor after a city council meeting.

It was only a short time ago, just like many of you, I believed that fluoride was only beneficial to me. It was only after having a severe reaction to a fluoride-laced medication in the spring of 2015 that I started becoming aware of the dangers of fluoride.

After having this adverse side effect I now know my body reacts when I ingest industrial fluoride. Since then I found that previously I have had reactions to seven different medications that contain fluoride, but no one had noticed. Also several family members and members of our community react to and are affected by this chemical.

How can it be in this day and age that the people who need the information (doctors and health professionals) are not getting the information?

The FDA just released a new warning about more fluoride-laced drugs: anesthetics and sedation drugs affecting young children and pregnant women. Their concern is about the development of children’s brains.

Sounds very familiar to me, but then again my memory might be better than some, since I have to avoid the chemical, unlike other people who ingest it in everything they eat and drink.

It has been my personal experience in the past year and a half that some doctors, pharmacists, or even the FDA are unaware of fluoride being in some of the medication. When looking up your medication search chemical formula of your medication.

In his column, Mr. Austad talks out of both sides of his mouth. He refers to natural fluoride (calcium fluoride) insinuating this is what’s added to our water to make it “optimal for helping prevent tooth decay without worry about side effects.”

But he leaves out the part about what is used in water fluoridation is not natural but actually comes from the smoke stakes of the phosphate fertilizer plants (if he is even aware).

Then he goes on to insist there is no possibility for anyone to have any of the side effects that he listed to be associated with fluoride.

I know before you can say it, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. Maybe Mr. Austad can explain why a neighboring community had to purchase a $3 million reverse osmosis system to remove the cancer-causing PFOA and PFOS, which are fluoride by-products.

Mr. Austad says the recommended addition of fluoride reach up to 1.5 ppm. As I said some people need to get up with new science.

In April 2015 the federal government lowered the recommended level of fluoride in our drinking water for the first time in more than 50 years. The new guidelines state the level should not exceed 0.7 parts per million.

He goes on to say there are thousands of studies on water fluoridation. It is my understanding there are not many creditable studies.

I wonder if Mr. Austad was aware of the EPA union of scientist which formed so that the scientist could speak out against water fluoridation or maybe the CDC SPIDER Scientist Preserving Integrity, Diligence and Ethics in Research which formed just recently so the scientist could express concerns of the agency being influenced and shaped by outside parties and rogue interest becoming the norm.

The CDC may say water fluoridation is one of the great achievements of the 20th century, but 21st century science is proving water fluoridation to be something much different than an achievement.

I think Dr. John Colquhoun, former chief dental officer of New Zealand got it right: “I now realize what my colleagues and I were doing was what history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact, especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.”

It does not take a scientist to figure out the difference of fluoride and vitamins. The first difference is there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency.

Also, you can choose to avoid enriched milk or wheat if you wish to do so, but it is almost impossible to avoid water (water is in almost everything and we do have to bathe).

Why stop with fluoride though? Why not add some real vitamins to our water? Calcium is good for our bones and teeth, Zinc is good for the immune system, and what about Magnesium? I’m just joking. I do not want to add anything that is unnecessary to our water system.

Fluoride is the only additive that’s purpose is other than purification and is classified by the FDA as a drug, which is added to our water for the purpose to “possibly” prevent a disease. Then Mr. Austad brings up lead and asbestos. It only took 40 or 50 years to get the government to admit that these chemicals were harming us and for them to stop exposing us to these toxic substances. The government has already admitted to fluoride harming us in the manner of dental fluorosis. This is why the CDC lowered the level of fluoride in 2015.

I would think that, at some point, some of these fluoride pushers would start to wonder why people living in poverty still have the worst oral health. If fluoride works so good, those people are eating more processed foods (which contain the most fluoride) and drinking the tap water because they cannot afford bottled water. If fluoride works so well, you should ask yourself, why do people still have bad oral health?

It is my understanding that, if people would actually look at the old science versus new science of the 21st century, they would also become anti-fluoridationists. Maybe Mr. Austad is unaware of people like myself, some of my family, and others across the country and around the world that react when we are exposed to or ingest industrial fluorides.

Maybe some of the educated people on the subject of fluoride need to learn how to use the internet.

Melissa Thrower

Arab

Pat McNair from Fluoride Free NZ

If anyone is thinking of sending a written submission to the NZ Government, we would urge you concentrate on arguing against the changes in the decision-making responsibilities RATHER than just arguing against fluoridation.

The reason for this is that the Select Committee will be deciding on this ALONE. So we need to convince them NOT to give the responsibility to the DHBs - and they need to hear why that is not a good idea. This is not a time to be educating them about fluoridation. If your submission only covers your concerns about fluoridation you will be wasting your time as it is not the issue here at the moment.

Some background: the proposed legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows a very narrow scope for the DHBs to evaluate the subject - as they will only be ALLOWED to compare the dental health in the community against the cost of fluoridation.

They are being advised to only consider the 2009 Oral Health Survey rather than to study much more comprehensive data. They are not given ANY leeway to consider the overall health effects.

So basically they are only allowed to look at COST and not at HEALTH.

The DHBs will be hamstrung. This is what most people don't realise. Under the law the DHBs will not be able to advise against fluoridation - even if 90% or more of the population does not want it - or even if they did evaluate other health effects (neurotoxicity for example) - and deemed the risks not worth the benefits.

They will only be able to add up the dental decay in the area, calculate how much saving would be created by a 40% reduction (a totally incorrect but much quoted statistic) and compare that against the cost of fluoridation equipment and on-going cost of the chemicals.

The information given to the Select Committee to backup their claim of a 40% reduction comes from the Sapere Report which rests on the 2009 Oral Health Survey. This survey is the most unreliable piece of data they could use to ascertain the effectiveness of fluoridation - but it suits their agenda.

The two studies prior to that survey which looked at life-time exposure and compared children of the same age in the same area, found no difference in decay rates - but they did find a doubling of dental fluorosis.

Or they could use the NZ study published last year which showed no difference in decay rates for all non-Maori children. Even if fluoridation did reduce dental decay by a small amount for Maori children - that would still not be cost effective against the cost of fluoridation.

Or they could use the NZ School Dental Statistics which also shows no difference. Non-fluoridated areas often have better dental health than fluoridated ones because, really, the biggest predictor of dental health is socio economic.

So - we need to argue that the proposed legislation removes community input, does not allow for consideration of other adverse health effects, and does not steer the Select Committee or the DHBs towards looking at all the available data.

Cheers!

Tuesday, January 17, 2017

NZ Costly bill to fluoridate Christchurch's water, councillor says

Residents fill up at a fluoride-free tap in Hamilton, which has a fluoridated public drinking-water supply.Residents fill up at a fluoride-free tap in Hamilton, which has a fluoridated public drinking-water supply



Adding fluoride to Christchurch's drinking water could cost the city about $10 million, according to a preliminary estimate.
It has some questioning whether the health benefits of fluoridation outweigh the cost.

Councils decide whether to fluoridate their public drinking-water supplies, but a bill making its way through Parliament would hand that decision-making to District Health Boards (DHBs) – although councils would still have to foot the bill........



Ignore the Nazi part not proven. The BFS web page shows the areas fluoridated but good advice investigate it yourself.

Chance To Stop Fluoridation Nationwide

"Fluoride Free Hamilton" <fluoridefree@actrix.co.nz>
 Cc:
 Subject: Our Chance To Stop Fluoridation Nationwide

 Dear friends

 This is an URGENT call to ACTION. If there was ever a time we needed your help - it is now.

 As you probably are aware, legislation was introduced to NZ Parliament on the 17th November 2016.

 This Legislation will shift responsibility for fluoridation from the local councils and give it to the District Health Boards. It is designed to make it virtually impossible to stop fluoridation in currently fluoridated areas, or to keep it out of places that do not have it – even if they have said “no” to it in the past.

 Local Councils will be required to do as the Govt. dictates (through the DHBs) or face an initial fine of $200,000 and a further $10,000 per day of non-compliance.

 Download:
 http://fluoridefree.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Health-Fluoridation-of-Drinking-Water-Amendment-Bill.pdf

 Make your submission to object the bill:
 https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/51SCHE_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL71741_1/health-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill

 This Legislation does not allow for DHBs to consult with the community and it only allows the DHBs a very narrow scope of evaluation of the subject - as they will only be allowed to consider dental health in the community against the COST of fluoridation. They are being steered to only consider the 2009 Oral Health Survey, rather than much more comprehensive data. They are not given any leeway to consider overall HEALTH effects AT ALL.

 SUBMISSIONS CLOSE 2nd FEBRUARY

 As you will see from the transcript and related documents https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansDeb_20161206_20161206_16, and the video footage of the MPs that spoke at the first Reading https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjkzaxNPP0 (5th of December 2016) – National, Labour and the Greens support the Bill.

 The Labour Party even want to strengthen the legislation by making it mandated by Central Government, just in case a DHB tries to wriggle out of it. In a press release in December 2016, Labour also condemned the Maori Party for running a poll to find out what people think of fluoridation.

 You will also see that none of the speakers know very much about the subject (All 12 speakers can be found on this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjkzaxNPP0). Health Select Committee Chair, Simon O’Connor, mistakenly credits his good teeth on taking fluoride tablets as a child. Unbeknownst to him, the Ministry of Health no longer recommends fluoride tablets because it is now known that fluoride doesn��t work by swallowing and that fluoride tablets cause dental fluorosis!

 Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne, who introduced the Bill, in Parliament actually called us QUOTE “tin-foil hat wearing, UFO-abducted pseudo-scientists” END OF QUOTE. He can’t realise that he is insulting around half of the NZ population. Results from all referenda held in NZ show that people tend to vote status quo. As only half of the country is fluoridated (23 councils out of 67 - not “27 councils have rejected fluoridation” - as Peter Dunne incorrectly stated) which means that roughly half the population is opposed to fluoridation (or maybe more than half), so if a nationwide referendum was held tomorrow, we would have a good chance of winning.

 The NZ First Party thinks the issue should be decided by local referendum. The Greens supported the Bill “at first Reading stage” as they, too, have concerns about local decision-making – but the Greens as a party do think fluoridation is safe and effective. It shows that most of them must only have read the Ministry of Health propaganda.

 HOW TO STOP THE LEGISLATION

 The Government is giving until the 2nd of February for us to send in written feedback on the issue. The law allows everyone who gives feedback to have 10 minutes speaking time for individuals, and 15 minutes for organisations. At the Hamilton Tribunal in 2013, 1557 people put in a submission, 1385 opposed fluoridation and 130 people spoke at the hearing to support their submission. That required the councillors to listen to 3.5 days of oral submissions and the result was a 7 to 1 vote to stop fluoridation. Unfortunately, some Hamilton councillors, who had excused themselves from the Tribunal Hearing because of a conflict of interest, and did not bother to attend the Hearing as part of the audience, subsequently worked to overthrow that decision.

 Therefore, we urge everyone to give written feedback now, and to do their utmost to speak to that submission in person. Skype sessions can be arranged. We have been advised that It is best to keep feedback to only a page or two with around half a dozen really salient points. The Hearing will be in Wellington, which is likely to be in February or perhaps March 2017.

 WAYS TO GIVE FEEDBACK:

 If you don’t know what to say, a personal testimony is good, or attach an article already written (suggestions here http://fluoridefree.org.nz/information/resources/articles/), or list a few points, as suggested above.

   a.. Use the Online Form https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/51SCHE_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL71741_1/health-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill
   b.. Or send a hard copy to Health Select Committee, Parliament Buildings, Wellington.
 It is really good if you can also say you will speak to your submission. This can be done by Skype if you cannot make it to Wellington.

 Fluoride Free New Zealand will be providing a comprehensive written submission where we will explain the ineffectiveness and dangers of fluoridation and details of public dental health programmes operating overseas that actually do reduce dental decay.

 Please encourage your friends and family to help us now by sending feedback to the Committee and by informing everyone they know on the facts about fluoridation. The number of people that do this makes a difference! You can also help by posting respectful and informative comments on Facebook, liking posts and comments and joining the discussions, particularly on the Facebook pages of the Health Select Committee Members. See the list below.

 Remember, this is election year. We need to let politicians know we will not vote for them if they introduce this draconian legislation.

 HEALTH SELECT COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

 Simon O’Connor, Chairperson, National Party, Tāmaki
 email: simon.oconnor@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SimonOConnorMP/

 Barbara Kuriger, Deputy-Chairperson, National Party, Taranaki-King Country
 email: barbara.kuriger@national.org.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BarbaraKurigerMP/

 Jacqui Dean, Member, National Party, Waitaki
 email: waitaki.mp@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JacquiDeanMP/

 Julie Anne Genter, Member, Green Party, List
 email: julieanne.genter@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JulieAnneGenterMP/

 Annette King, Member, Labour Party, Rongotai
 email: a.king@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/annette.king.127
 https://www.facebook.com/annette.king.of.rongotai/

 Shane Reti, Member, National Party, Whangarei
 email: shane.reti@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/drshanereti/

 Scott Simpson, Member, National Party, Coromandel
 email: mpcoromandel@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/scottsimpsonmp/

 Barbara Stewart, Member, NZ First, List
 email: barbara.stewart@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/barbarastewartmp/

 Poto Williams, Member, Labour Party, Christchurch East
 email: poto.williams@parliament.govt.nz
 facebook: https://www.facebook.com/poto.williams.7/

 https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/51SCHE_SCF_00DBHOH_BILL71741_1/health-fluoridation-of-drinking-water-amendment-bill

PHE and Prof J Newton

J Epidemiol Community Health doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208649
  • PostScript
  • Letter

‘Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water’: comments on the authors' response to earlier criticism

Open Access
  1. Nicholas Young3
+Author Affiliations
  1. 1Department of Chief Knowledge OfficerPublic Health EnglandLondon, UK
  2. 2Department of South West Knowledge and Intelligence TeamPublic Health EnglandBristol, UK
  3. 3Department of Knowledge and Intelligence TeamPublic Health EnglandBristol, UK
  1. Correspondence toProfessor John N Newton, Department of Chief Knowledge Officer, Public Health England, PHE, Wellington House 135-155 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UG, UK; john.newton@phe.gov.uk
  • Received 14 November 2016
  • Accepted 18 November 2016
  • Published Online First 16 January 2017
Academic debate is healthy and helps us to clarify the evidence base for the interested reader. However, it is unusual for a peer-reviewed paper in a reputable journal to receive quite as much criticism as that which greeted publication of the paper by Peckham et al on fluoride and hypothyroidism.1 Two highly critical commentaries were published at the time.2 ,3 A subsequent review article4 in the Journal of Evidence-based Dental Practice concluded that “this study is an ecologic one that has several significant flaws, making it almost meaningless with regard to assessing any possible association between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism.”
Published criticisms included lack of a coherent basis for a prior hypothesis, unbalanced citing of the literature, failure to allow for potential confounding, inadequate recognition of the limitations of ecological studies, imprecise measurement of exposure and outcomes, and over interpretation of the results to infer causation. Statistical aspects of the study were particularly heavily criticised by Warren et al4 for lack of transparency in reporting, the use of arbitrary categorical cut points to analyse a continuous variable, and by us3 for some apparently anomalous results in relation to deprivation.
The authors have now responded to the criticism and readers can draw their own conclusions as to the adequacy of that response.
The quote from the NRC report is a helpful clarification, but extensive discussion in that report of the weaknesses of the evidence base is still not acknowledged. The relevant studies are mainly correlation studies in rural developing world communities with limited data on intermediate end points and recognised methodological weaknesses. These studies have little, if any, relevance to exposures due to water fluoridation schemes in the UK. Also, Peckham et al accept that hypothyroidism has multiple immediate causes (auto-immune, surgical etc) but do not acknowledge that this makes any unifying hypothesis of association with fluoride exposure intrinsically implausible.
We continue to believe that confounding has been inadequately considered. Age and sex may have been partly accounted for but only at aggregate level not at individual level (the ecological fallacy). The data presented in figures 1s and 2s are poorly explained and are not clearly attributable to, and indeed postdate, the reference cited. The figures appear to show different distributions of iodine intake in ‘fluoridated’ compared to ‘non-fluoridated’ regions, which if anything suggests that iodine exposure may indeed be an important confounder. However, having examined the source we do not understand how the National Diet and Nutrition Survey can be analysed by ‘fluoridated and non-flouridated SHA areas’ or for women aged over 40 years, since it does not use such an age range and is not sufficiently precise to allow small-area aggregation (fluoridation does not occur at SHA level). Peckham et al are mistaken, we refer in our commentary to a different article by Vanderpump5 to the one cited by Grimes. Other potential confounders mentioned in the NRC report such as selenium, calcium and aluminium are not considered, let alone a myriad of unknown and unmeasured variables related to population or health service factors.
On the comparisons made, there is still no information on how the two city areas were defined or why other areas were excluded. It seems the journal peer reviewer recommended a categorical approach instead of the analysis of continuous variables. Without seeing the review in question it is hard to comment further, except to say that it would appear to us to be poor advice. No explanation is given as to why tertiles of deprivation and hypothyroidism, respectively, were combined into binary outcomes differently. The justification for the fluoride exposure category seems to be related to therapeutic efficacy which was not the subject of the study. As has been pointed out what we need to be confident about the analysis is a clear descriptive table to help us to understand the data not a few coefficients presented as outcomes.
We were fascinated to discover that the direction of association between deprivation and hypothyroidism switched direction in their model after adjustment for proportion aged over 40 years (OR changed from 0.49 to 1.7). Although good to know that it was not an error, discovery of such a statistical quirk in the model (which we believe is an extreme example of Simpson's paradox6) raises more questions than it provides answers about the relevance and validity of the model for the hypothesis being examined.
Returning to the question of interpretation, we do not agree that an association has been demonstrated let alone a causal one. Peckham et al quote a recent Irish review7—this is what it has to say in conclusion about their study: “There are three reasons for assigning a low-quality rating. First, the study design assigned was incorrect. Second, the control for confounding was incomplete. Third, the authors infer a causal relationship rather than a theoretical relationship.”
It is a fact that a question has been raised if not answered by this study. Rather than continue to debate with its authors we plan to repeat the analysis ourselves using more conventional statistical methods. In the meantime, it is unfortunate that this article and its claims remain in the literature despite its weaknesses. The BMJ website shows that it has achieved an Altimetric score at the time of writing of 357 with extensive activity in North America whereas the critical commentaries have scores of just 14 and 16 with no US coverage.
Water fluoridation is a well-established and highly effective public health intervention with a safety record that spans many decades. It is important that the public and policymakers receive clear and measured advice on its safety and effectiveness based on the best available science.
Prof J Newton "Chief Knowledge Officer" who did his best to bring fluoridation to Southampton, who said the York review supported water fluoridation. Did it ? see below.

What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found Originally released : 28 October 2003 
A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). In 1999, the Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water. The review specifically looked at the effects on dental caries/decay, social inequalities and any harmful effects. The review was published on the CRD Fluoridation Review website and in the BMJ in October 2000. 
We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full. We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). 
The quality of this evidence was poor. An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this. 
The full report is available via the CRD website. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/crdreport18.pdf

Monday, January 16, 2017



USA - Fluoride: we should err on side of caution

I recently became interested in water fluoridation after listening to a guest on “Coast to Coast” radio. He spoke of problems associated with over-mineralization of arteries and the pineal gland, i.e., the “third eye.”
He recommended drinking distilled water – two months on, two months off – to draw the excess minerals out.
Since then, I read in The Source Field by David Wilcock that fluoridation contributes to over-calcification of the pineal gland, which can even be seen on brain MRIs.
This condition is associated with depression, diminished awareness potential and neurological problems.
I would vote to err on the side of caution when considering the addition of chemicals to our drinking water.
Beth Estelle
Durango

Sunday, January 15, 2017

NEXT STORY WATER FLUORIDATION CHEMICALS NOW OFFICIALLY LINKED TO BRAIN HARM & COGNITIVE DEFICITS

A few weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was served with a Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) petition, from a coalition of environmental, medical, and health groups, including national non-profit Moms Against Fluoridation (MAF). This notice is calling on the agency to completely ban the addition of artificial fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies due to an astounding amount of evidence that proves the risks that the consumption of such chemicals pose to the brain.
The TSCA Petition includes over 2500 pages of scientific documents to support its claims that drinking water that has been fluoridated has the potential to cause profound harmful effects on the brain. These effects were not yet understood years ago when communities began adding fluoride and other chemicals to the municipal drinking water supply...................
............Did you know that the majority of Europe has rejected water fluroidation? That alone should make you question- why? Someone once brought up an interesting point, they say fluoride is good for our teeth, so they add it in unregulated amounts to our drinking water. If they really cared that much for our health, wouldn’t they be adding essential vitamins and minerals as well? Do they really care about the health of our teeth. Something to consider.
No longer can this crucial research go unnoticed and ignored. The evidence is there, how can they even reject this petition? It’s all there. Only time will tell how this situation is handled. The EPA has 90 days to respond.
If you would like to view the petition you can do so here:
Thank you so much for all of the hard work to all those diligent and dedicated people who were involved in putting this research together and presenting this petition. This is so important, and it would appear that there is nothing they can say now and water fluoridation will hopefully become a thing of the past, that we look back and say, “What were we thinking? How could we have ever thought that was a good idea to begin with? “
To learn more check out the following:



Dr. Lee talks about studies showing fluoridation ineffective. He also has a fascinating story about the first attempt to pass a state-wide mandatory fluoridation law in California. A young Jerry Brrown, governor at that time, asked a specially formed commission to give him one (out of the supposed hundreds) safety study on fluoridation. The fluoridationists could not produce even one safety study. The special commission
dissolved in chaos and that was the end of that attempt at a state-wide mandatory fluoridation law. But Jerry Brown stopped being governor for a while, and a state -wide mandatory bill was passed the legislature in 1995. Jerry Brown is once again the governor, and much of the state now has fluoridation because it cannot be stopped or voted out by citzens due to the state mandatory law.


First time I've seen this video maybe quite old but very informative.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

get-attachment (368)

Read more: Vaccine pushers who promote mercury injections into children are ‘medical child molesters,’ warns heavy metals expert



Ignore the Nazi connection it was never proven. The prison connection a new one on me but a lot of USA military bases are. Which doesn't make sense if it makes people placid?



In this video, functional medicine expert and naturopathic physician Dr. Adam Tice explains: What is Fluoride? Where does it come from? Whose idea was this? What is the point? The official narrative deserves further questioning. Ingested sources include the water, toothpaste, shower, dentists. What are the biological effects? It is classified as a nerve toxin. Does it have Nazi roots? Does it affect the Third Eye? What are the solutions? Effects on the pineal gland and Third eye. Flouride plays a key role in LIMITING spiritual awakening and LIMITING one's ability expressing powers from the Cosmic Browsing Center also know as the 3rd Eye or Ajna Chakra.

Steven D. Slott

This opinion article has been submitted by the American Fluoridation Society.
OPINION -- In a recent anti fluoridation article in the Lund Report, Rick North expresses numerous misconceptions, misrepresentations, and errors. As is always the case, it takes far more time and space to properly address such misrepresentations, than it does to express them in the first place. The following is a detailed explanation of the fallacies of North's claims.
Petition
North refers to a petition which has been widely promoted on the internet by fluoridation opponents. This petition was signed by New York antifluoridationist faction, "Fluoride Action Network", the antifluoridationist group, "Mom's Against Fluoridation", the fringe activist group, "IAOMT", a fringe environmental group, and a consumer group..............

Click on title to go to article and read the many comments below his letter.



Friday, January 13, 2017

F.A.N. newsletter

**REGISTER TODAY for this month’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference that will be held this Saturday the 14th at 5pm (U.S. Eastern time).  The call will feature experts discussing and answering questions about filtering fluoride out of tap water, and fluoride levels in bottled water.  Click here to REGISTER.**
Momentum Builds with Coverage of EPA Petition
The Citizen's Petition to the EPA submitted by the Fluoride Action Network, together with a coalition of environmental and public health organizations, has continued to gain the attention of thousands as the result of recent media coverage.  The petition was first covered by Mercola.com on December 13th, and was shared over 9,000 times and has been viewed by more than 40,000 people.
This was followed by three separate articles published in Wisconsin featuring Brenda Staudenmaier, FAN’s point person in Wisconsin, a mother, and petitioner to the EPA.  The first article appeared in the Peshtigo Times on December 14th.  The second article appeared on the front page of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, a USA Today affiliate, on January 6th and has been shared over 1,500 times.  The third article was published in the Business News for Northeast Wisconsin on January 9th.  This coverage has received the attention of Green Bay city councilors, who are now re-thinking fluoridation.
On January 11th, Oregon’s leading source for health news, The Lund Report, published a guest article by Portland and Newport fluoride-free organizer Rick North.  We have re-printed the fabulous piece below and suggest reading and sharing it, since it’s a concise but comprehensive argument for an end to fluoridation.
Please also help us continue to educate thousands more by:
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network


The EPA Petition to End Water FluoridationBy: Rick North
The Lund Report -- January 11, 2017
The sheer weight of scientific evidence has far exceeded reasonable doubt, and it’s difficult to see how the EPA, or anyone else, can continue to believe that water fluoridation is safe

Six weeks ago, the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine and several others 
petitioned the EPA to ban fluoridation chemicals because they’re neurotoxic – they harm the brain.

The petition cites 196 peer-reviewed studies published over the last ten years, including over 2,500 pages of supporting documents. Out of 61 human studies, 57 found that fluoride caused harm, including behavioral problems and lowered IQ in children. Out of 115 animal studies, 112 found harm. Out of 17 cellular studies and three reviews, all found harm.

These eye-opening numbers may be a revelation to most of the health and medical community, but significant evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity has been building for years.

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences published Fluoride in Drinking Water, a 507-page review of over 1,000 studies that took three years to complete. Compiled by a blue-ribbon committee of 12 leading scientists, it’s considered the most comprehensive, authoritative resource ever written on the subject.

The NRC’s objectives were to assess if the maximum level of fluoride allowed in water, 4 parts per million (ppm), was safe (it determined it wasn’t) and assess fluoride’s toxicity in general, including its risk in relation to total exposure. It linked fluoride with known or possible health risks, including endocrine disruption, fluorosis, kidney and thyroid disease, diabetes and bone fractures, among others.

It was unequivocal on neurotoxicity: “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain . . .“ In addition to numerous animal studies, it cited five Chinese studies linking higher levels of fluoride in water with lowered IQ in children. The studies varied in quality and detail, but the NRC concluded “the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research . . .”

Following the NRC review, several scientists on the committee openly voiced their opposition to fluoridation. To quote just two, the late neurobehavioral science specialist Robert Isaacson, PhD, said “I had no fixed opinion on whether or not fluoride should be added to drinking water . . . The more I learned the more I became convinced that the addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake.” Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, both a scientist and former head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto, said “In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming.”

HARVARD META-ANALYSIS – 2012

This Harvard-funded meta-analysis led by Anna Choi, PhD and published in Environmental Health Perspectives found that children in China exposed to higher levels of fluoride tested lower for IQ in 26 out of 27 studies. The average difference was significant – 7 IQ points lower. Potential confounding causes such as lead and arsenic were noted in some studies, but controlled for in others, and the authors determined that “it seems unlikely that fluoride-attributed neurotoxicity could be due to other water contaminants.”

The higher fluoride villages had higher concentrations of fluoride in water than in the U.S., where artificial fluoridation is typically 0.7 ppm. Nine, however, had concentrations lower than 3 ppm and one high fluoride village had only 0.88 ppm.

The Harvard meta-analysis was further reinforced by a study published in The Lancet by Philippe Grandjean, MD and Philip Landrigan, MD. In 2006, their first review identified six chemicals as known developmental neurotoxins (harming the brains of children), including lead, arsenic and PCB’s. Their 2014 study named six more. Fluoride was one of them. These chemicals are especially dangerous because they can cause brain damage that is often untreatable and permanent, including behavioral problems and lower IQ.

The authors are world-renowned. Grandjean is a Harvard professor of environmental health, head of environmental medicine research at the University of Southern Denmark and toxicology advisor to the Danish National Board of Health. Landrigan is a professor at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine and previously worked for the Centers for Disease Control and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. He was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal of the US Public Health Service.

THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST

In the face of this compelling and continuously growing body of evidence, promoters still argue that fluoridating water is safe for everyone. This ignores three indisputable facts. First, standard toxicology (and the EPA’s own guidelines) requires consideration of individual variability by taking the lowest dose or level showing harm and dividing it by at least 10 to determine a safety level protecting more vulnerable subgroups in a population. This lowers the bar far below current fluoridation practices.

Dose is the second factor, because toxin levels are only half the equation determining risk. Children, for instance, typically consume more water per pound of body weight than adults. The EPA petition documented that some children drinking just two liters of 0.7 ppm fluoridated water a day were at risk of significantly lowered IQ. Other subpopulations, like kidney disease and diabetic patients, athletes and manual laborers also drink higher amounts of water, increasing their health risks.

Third, apologists ignore other sources of fluoride, including children’s all-too-familiar swallowing of fluoridated toothpaste. Environmental exposure is common, such as in pesticide residues and air pollution. Intel, for example, was fined $143,000 in 2014 for illegal fluoride emissions in Hillsboro, and industrial discharges of fluoride, even when legal, are widespread throughout the country. Finally, anything made with fluoridated water, such as soft drinks, baby formula and processed food, can add significantly to our toxic load.

Whatever phrase is used, “First do no harm,” “Better safe than sorry,” “The Precautionary Principle,” etc., most would agree that if there’s reasonable doubt if a substance is safe, the public shouldn’t be intentionally exposed to it.

Considering all the recent neurotoxicity studies – not to mention fluoride’s other NRC- identified health risks – the sheer weight of scientific evidence has far exceeded reasonable doubt. It’s difficult to see how the EPA, or anyone else, can continue to believe that water fluoridation is safe.

Rick North is a retired executive for several non-profits. He’s the former executive vice president (CEO) of the Oregon American Cancer Society and former project director for the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility.