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

UK Against Fluoridation

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.