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

UK Against Fluoridation

Monday, February 29, 2016


tooth-ExtractionOver the past four years, England’s hospitals have had to remove thousands of young children’s decayed teeth.

Analysis by the Press Association shows a steady climb in the numbers of children aged 10 and under needing one or more teeth taken out in.

More boys than girls needed teeth out as inpatients in 2014/15. There were over 14,000 cases among children aged five and under needing teeth removed.

Overall, there have been 128,558 episodes of care for children aged 10 and under needing one or more teeth out since 2011.

The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) data shows there were 14,445 cases among children aged five and under from April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015.

Among those aged six to 10, there were a further 19,336 cases.Overall in 2014/15, there were 33,781 cases. This is up from 32,741 in 2013/14 and 31,275 in 2012/13. There were also 30,761 cases in 2011/12. Professor Nigel Hunt, Dean of the Faculty of Dental Surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons, said: “An almost 10% (9.81%) increase in the number of children being admitted to hospital for tooth extraction due to decay over a four-year period is unacceptable.

“Not only is tooth decay distressing to children and parents, it has serious social and financial implications. The need for tooth extraction continues to be the number one reason why five to nine-year-old children are admitted to hospital. “This issue urgently needs to be addressed, especially since 90% of tooth decay is preventable. “The problem is partly one of improving oral health education. “The Government and dental professionals need to work together to raise awareness of the impact of sugar on tooth decay and improve children’s access to NHS dental services.

“Around 40% of children still do not visit the dentist each year. Regular visits to the dentist encourage good oral health and provide rapid diagnosis and treatment to prevent children from being hospitalised due to tooth decay.”
In 2014/15, some 15,800 episodes of care were for girls aged 10 and under, while 17,981 were for boys. London had the most children needing hospital admission as an inpatient for tooth decay in 2014/15, with 8,362 cases.

In the North West, there were 6,672 cases, and 6,413 in Yorkshire and the Humber.

The North East experienced 1,679 cases, while the East Midlands had 1,320 and the West Midlands 1,707. There were 1,328 cases in the East of England, 3,042 in the South East and 3,255 in the South West. The worst hotspots were Sheffield, followed by Doncaster, Rotherham and Liverpool.

Sara Hurley, chief dental officer at NHS England, said: “It’s really disappointing that even though people understand the impact of a sugary diet so many children have advanced tooth decay – a highly preventable disease.
“In England, children and young people drink more sugary soft drinks than anywhere else in Europe and we are also creating a legacy of obesity and significant health problems. If we are to get serious about tackling this then prevention is the key.
“As well as supporting parents and carers to reduce sugar in their children’s diet and ensuring regular tooth brushing with a fluoride toothpaste, parents are advised to bring their young children to dental practices as soon as the first tooth appears. “With regular visits for advice, prevention and earlier intervention we can avoid the need for general anaesthetic for the removal of teeth that are beyond repair.”

Shadow public health minister Andrew Gwynne, said: “These disturbing figures show how badly the Tories are letting down children’s health in England. “The Government should be standing up for parents, particularly those living in more deprived communities, and helping them to tackle tooth decay. Instead, their responsibility deal has failed and children’s health has suffered as a result.

“Ministers need to wake up to the scale of this challenge and start taking action to prevent children living unhealthier lives than their parents.”


This video looks at the dangers of fluoride in Australia's water supply; a practice effecting 90% of the Australian population. Australia is in a minority of countries around the world which still engages in this draconian practice. If you live in Victoria you can sign the change.org petition below.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Two New Mexico Cities End Fluoridation Hurray!

Bit out of date - Albuquerque, New Mexico 500,000 April 11, 2012

Fluoride in Auckland's water reduced

Anti-fluoride lobby group Fluoride Free NZ questioned why Watercare had not notified the public about the drop, calling the move "clandestine" in a press release. Photo / iStockAuckland's water provider has quietly reduced its target for fluoride levels in the region's drinking water.
But it denies the move was clandestine.

Watercare has reduced its target fluoride levels from 0.85 parts per million to 0.7ppm.

The Ministry of Health recommends fluoride content for drinking water in the range of 0.7-1.0ppm and must not exceed 1.5ppm -- the acceptable maximum level.

A Watercare spokeswoman said the 0.15ppm drop was part of a continuing effort by the organisation to follow best practice standards. She said this, "combined with recent international reports, resulted in an operational adjustment of the fluoride target".

In April last year, the US Department of Health and Human Services updated its Public Health Service recommendation for the optimal fluoride level in drinking water to prevent tooth decay to 0.7ppm.

Anti-fluoride lobby group Fluoride Free NZ questioned why Watercare had not notified the public about the drop, calling the move "clandestine" in a press release. The group said the new level was quietly revealed in a Watercare report last month "without announcement or fanfare from Watercare or Auckland Council".

Fluoride Free NZ spokeswoman Mary Byrne questioned why the public had not been directly notified. "They're giving it [fluoride] to people without their consent and without their knowledge, mostly. I mean look at this, they're lowering it and they're not bothering to tell anybody....

Anti-fluoridationist’s flawed attacks on Calgary study - according to Open Parachute


The Calgary/Edmonton study does not have the limitations of most fluoridation cessation studies – in particular, a comparison community was used and the more sensitive and appropriate tooth surface-level data was used rather than tooth-level data. The period between the first assessment and cessation is an admitted limitation but certainly does not indicate the omission of data or hiding data as anti-fluoridationists are claiming. There was just no intermediate data available.
The resort to speculative extrapolation of tooth-level data for only Calgary is disingenuous as it ignores the low sensitivity of that data and the influence of other factors compensated for by the use of Edmonton as a comparison community.
Anti-fluoridation campaigners often make ready use of older cessation studies which showed no effect – despite the obvious limitation. In particular, they often use studies where no comparison community was included and ignore completely the other factors involved such as changes in dental health provisions or social health policies such as replacing fluoridation with mouth rinse campaigns.
It is, therefore, ironic for them to come out fighting in an attempt to discredit a study which has fewer limitations than the ones they rely on. Worse, to accuse researchers of purposely omitting data – or even of scientific fraud. The real reason for these attacks on honest researchers is that the data just does not fit the anti-fluoridation agenda and therefore, in their eyes, must be discredited.
Oh, and beware of such activists using the word “independent’ to describe a researcher. It inevitably indicates someone with allegiances to their campaign. Someone who can be relied on to give the appropriate quote to be used in their press releases.
OP dismisses anyone with no professional qualification in science and now he attacks the chairman of the York Report for stating he was independent.
Steve Slott 
Thanks, Ken. The FAN minions have predictably begun spewing Sheldon’s opinions on Calgary all over the internet. It’s truly a shame to see someone such as Sheldon so damage his credibility by aligning himself with the dubious antifluoridationist faction FAN.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
"spewing Sheldon's opinions"  Steve's got a way with words. 

For UK Councils Against Fluoridation opinion on Calgary/Edmonton study  go to http://www.ukcaf.org/calgary_f_stampede.html

Saturday, February 27, 2016


FEB. 26, 2016, 7:00 PM
Editor’s note: This commentary is by Kathleen Krevetski, of Rutland City, who is a registered nurse and a longtime volunteer grassroots community activist.

On Tuesday, March 1, voters in Rutland City and Proctor will decide whether or not to continue water fluoridation. There are grassroots efforts to remove the chemical fluorosilicic acid from our drinking water. Then we can move on.

Fluoridationists led by the American Dental Association wrongly call this manmade chemical natural. Fluorosilicic acid, is a hazardous waste harvested from the smokestacks of the fertilizer industry and never meant for human consumption. How fluorosilicic acid is metabolized in the body is very different from calcium fluoride found naturally in our ecosystem. Many of us, including Vermont dentists, were not aware that this water contaminant was being used to fluoridate water. Calling fluorosilicic acid fluoride appears to be an attempt to whitewash this toxic chemical as safe for public consumption.

Public drinking water is a basic human right and the FDA calls fluoride a drug. To drug our municipal water with a hazardous waste product to benefit “poor children” when kidney patients, children, diabetics, seniors and the chronically ill are “susceptible sub populations” (EPA quote) who are vulnerable to harm from ingesting this poison. We should never have allowed a drug in our drinking water in unregulated dosage without informed consent. The EPA has acknowledged that fluoride does not work by putting it in our water. Both sides in this debate promote fluoridated toothpaste, good diet and dental hygiene, and regular visits to the dentists............

Published on 26 Feb 2016
In April of 2014 the city of Flint Michigan suffered from toxic water when a group of Emergency Managers were appointed by Governor Rick Snyder and decided to change Flint's water supply from the treated Detroit Water and Sewerage Department to the polluted Flint River in an attempt to save money. The River is contaminated with many heavy metals from years of industrial dumping. This decision has resulted in the poisoning of Flint's population. This disaster is still going on . But before we get into that, lets look back into America's long history with hazardous materials. Follow me down.

Sodium Fluoride was being used to kill vermin, but soon people realized its toxic effects on humans. In 1933 the Department of Agriculture released a study about fluoride's toxicity. The study blamed ALCOA as a major environmental offender. Soon after the report was released ALCOA bought out all the farmers surrounding their factory and its hazardous waste.

In 1944 the Manhattan project was using fluoride as well. Fluoride is the key ingredient to enrich Uranium, which is the key ingredient in making atomic and nuclear weapons. The harmful effects of the project's industrial waste were concealed from workers and the public.

The Newburgh-Kingston Caries Fluorine study was taken in 1945 and compares two cities in New York. One fluoridated and one not. It concludes that the fluoridated city had less tooth decay. However Author Christopher Bryson unearthed a number of documents from the Manhattan Project proving that the study was a fabrication. It was created to combat suspicion surround the toxic nuclear waste from the industries necessary for the production of atomic and nuclear weapons, and especially to combat suspicion around the aluminum industry and its hazardous byproduct, fluoride.

January 25, 1945. Grand Rapids, Michigan. Residents of Grand Rapids became the Manhattan Project's experimental guinea pigs when 107 barrels of fluoride were dumped into their water supply.

The Journal of the American Dental Association released an article written by Peter Dale in 1948. It concluded that fluoride did not prevent cavities. Wallstreet Attorney Oscar R. Ewing who worked for ALCOA, made the announcement that the United States Public Health Service now favored national water fluoridation.

This hazardous material is being used to keep the average tap water drinking citizen mind controlled and sick. Industry controls the entire spectrum of fluoride, heavy metals, GMOs and other toxins.

Many countries around the world have outlawed Fluoride in their drinking water: China, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Hungry, and Japan have all concluded that fluoride is toxic and ineffective against tooth decay. In fact 98% of Europe does not fluoridate and there are heavy restrictions on GMOs.

Fluoridation has forced civilians into a complacent consumer mindset which enslaves and turns us into cogs of the atomic and nuclear war machine.

Flint, Michigan. 2016.

Flint is the epitome of an industrial town seething with toxins from years of dumping into the Flint River by companies like GM and Dao Chemical. When the decision was made to switch the drinking water to the polluted flint river, tap water turned brown, emitted a foul oder, and people started getting sick.

It wasn't until January 5, 2015 that Governor Rick Synder declared a state of emergency. On January 12, the national guard stepped in to distribute bottled water. By this time though, Flint citizens had already been ingesting, bathing, cooking, and cleaning in the sludge. One home's +fluoride+ level registered 12,200 parts per billion. 5 ppb calls for concern. 5,000 ppb is considered toxic waste.

There are so many cases which prove that your government has corporate interests in mind first and that they are willing to do anything to satisfy their greed. Thousands have suffered mutations and genetic diseases from Nuclear Waste. Sites like Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Three Mile island, Fallujah and Bagdad, are just a few of sites on a long list of industrial imperialism and chemical warfare being carried out by the elite.

There are many products you can buy that de-fluoridate water and detoxify the body from heavy metals. If you have any experience with these, let me know in the comments. Do you drink fluoridated water? If not where do you get your water from? Does anybody have any first hand accounts of symptoms of fluorosis or lead poisoning? Please leave your answers in the comments below and until next time ... keep digging

Very weird but informative.

Friday, February 26, 2016

Fluoride Alert

Last week, a "study" was published that claims ending fluoridation caused a dramatic spike in cavities in the city of Calgary, Alberta. The study, authored by a pro-fluoridation scientist, has fueled an aggressive lobbying and public relations blitzkrieg throughout Canada, with the aim of reversing Canada's wise and steady trend away from fluoridation. The study is now being cited here in the U.S. as well.
Incredibly, however, the study OMITTED critical data that directly contradicts the study's conclusion. The omitted data shows very clearly that the cavity increase in Calgary began BEFORE fluoridation ended, and -- more importantly -- that ending fluoridation had NO EFFECT on the cavity trend.
To help visualize this, we have put together the following figure which shows the omitted tooth decay data from Calgary's three oral health surveys. As can be seen, the increase in tooth decay was occurring well before fluoridated ended, and it continued to occur at the same rate when fluoridation ended (in May 2011).
Yesterday, FAN issued a press release detailing the findings of our investigation, which I have included below.
As part of our investigation, I wrote to Dr. Trevor Sheldon, a renowned scientist who specializes in evaluating the effectiveness of medical treatments. Dr. Sheldon is the Dean of the Hull York Medical School and is familiar with the fluoridation issue, as he was one of the scientists who authored the British Government's systematic fluoridation review (York Review), which found that -- despite over 5 decades of fluoridating water -- there has yet to be a single high-quality study to prove the benefits.
In my letter to Dr. Sheldon, I asked him if he could provide us his expert appraisal of this new pro-fluoridation study -- which he very generously agreed to do. Dr. Sheldon is not a partisan in the fluoridation debate; he has not taken a position on the issue, one way or the other. In his analysis, however, Dr. Sheldon demolishes the Canadian study, laying bare its myriad problems, including the big elephant in the room -- i.e., that the omitted data shows no apparent increase in cavities after fluoridation ended.
Dr. Sheldon's expert conclusion is that the Calgary study does "not provide a valid assessment of the effect of fluoridation cessation." You can read Dr. Sheldon's entire statement on our website here.
In addition to Dr. Sheldon's statement, I have put together a short presentation which explains, in step-by-step fashion, how and why the omitted data undermines the conclusion of the Canadian study. I have posted this presentation to the FAN website, both as a powerpoint file, and as a pdf file.
Based on the blitzkrieg we have seen this past week, I expect that the pro-fluoridation forces will continue to use this new "study" as a hammer to pressure local officials into supporting fluoridation. It is imperative, therefore, that we let our local and state officials know the other side of the story -- the side that the media has thus far been unwilling to tell.
Michael Connett
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network
FAN Press Release:
Calgary Fluoride Study Fatally Flawed; Key Data Omitted
A recently published study concludes that tooth decay rates in Calgary, Alberta, have increased because of the city's decision to scrap its fluoridation program. But the study omits data showing that the spike in decay mostly occurred when fluoride was still in the water and used methods that a leading scientist says do "not provide a valid assessment," reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
In recent years, dozens of Canadian communities, including Calgary, have stopped fluoridating water, citing concerns about safety, effectiveness, and cost. The number of Canadians drinking fluoridated water has plummeted by over 30% since 2005.
Now a new study is fueling a lobbying blitzkrieg, with calls for Calgary and other non-fluoridated Canadian cities to resume fluoridation, based on claims that Calgary children suffered a dramatic spike in cavities in the three years following fluoridation's end in 2011.
The study, however, is riddled with problems, and is "not a valid assessment of the effect of fluoridation cessation," says Dr. Trevor Sheldon, Dean of Hull York Medical School and scientist who specializes in studying the effectiveness of health care interventions, including fluoridation.
The study determined Calgary's pre-cessation cavity rate based solely on a survey conducted 6 years prior to fluoridation ceasing, even though a much more comprehensive survey was conducted just 1 year prior to fluoridation ending.
The omitted survey, conducted in 2009/10, shows that most of Calgary's increase in tooth decay occurred while Calgary was still adding fluoride to its water. As Sheldon explains, the omitted data "shows a higher average annual rate of increase in [tooth decay] in the period before cessation (7%) than in the period which includes years after cessation in Calgary (5%)."
Says Sheldon, "this is contrary to what one would expect if fluoridation cessation was the primary driver of increases in caries over the period." 
The increase in cavities seen in Calgary is not unusual, but part of a larger trend. Tooth decay in baby teeth has been on the rise since the 1990s throughout North America, including in fluoridated cities like Edmonton.
"To imply that ending fluoridation is the cause of Calgary's increased decay while omitting data which shows that most of the decay occurred when fluoride was still in the water, raises serious questions about the study's credibility," says attorney and FAN Executive Director, Michael Connett. "The aggressive, orchestrated way this study has been rolled out to pressure city councilors to resume fluoridation raises the specter of a politically motivated study."
The lead author of the study, Lindsay McLaren, is not an independent scientist on the fluoridation controversy.

McLaren currently serves as a member of the Alberta Health Services' Community Water Fluoridation committee, has written pro-fluoridation commentaries, and, in 2013, spearheaded a successful effort to convince the Alberta Public Health Association to begin lobbying for fluoridation.

Should I Give My Kid Fluoride?

Alex Jnes

Alex Jones: 'No Amount Of Fluoride In The Water' Can Stop Donald Trump

Yesterday, InfoWars broadcaster Alex Jones continued to sing the praises of Donald Trump, who in turn has complimented the conspiracy theory radio host.
Jones told his audience that Trump takes his cues from InfoWars, claiming that Trump molded his position on issues such as the resettlement of Syrian refugees, the Federal Reserve and the Bush administration’s handling of the September 11 terrorist attacks based on feedback from him and others.
Trump, Jones said, is “riding a wave” of anti-government anger “and no amount of armored vehicles, no amount of propaganda, no amount of fluoride in the water, no amount of the brainwashing of the children in public schools is going to reverse this sentiment that’s only going to intensify.”
“Trump is the manifestation of the human will to suck air into its lungs and to be strong and healthy, to be strong and free,” he said.

Auckland Quietly Tapers Down Fluoride Levels in Tap Water

Auckland City Council_New Zealand_2012_PDnsnbc : Watercare, the water supplier of Auckland Council has quietly gone about reducing the level of fluoride in the tap water of New Zealand’s largest city. The controversial initiative was taken without much of an announcement or fanfare. Instead, the information was merely included in an Information Report prepared by Watercare for Auckland Council after the November Auckland Council Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting.
The reduced fluoride target matches the United States’ Government’s Department of Human and Health Services (DHHS) 2015 directive of a maximum target level of 0.7ppm, notes Mary Byrne,  National coordinator and media spokesperson in a press release. Byrne stresses that Watercare recordsshow that Auckland Council has routinely been overdosing, well above even the MoH recommended level, sometimes as high as 1.2ppm...................


calgary_fluoride_study.smallA short appraisal of recent studies on fluoridation cessation in Alberta, Canada Two recent papers by McLaren et al1, 2 report on a set of linked studies conducted in Alberta, to assess the impact of the cessation of water fluoridation in Calgary on both the levels of caries in children and its distribution by socio-economic group. There have been a few cessation studies reported in the literature and they are of poor quality. A recent systematic review of the evaluation of water fluoridation published last year by the Cochrane Collaboration found that “There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels.” Cessation studies can provide a useful way of evaluating the impact of interventions, particularly if there is little long term carry-over effect of the intervention. Longer term follow up of these children would give a more reliable estimate as any carryover effects are reduced. However, as with studies measuring the introduction of water fluoridation, they need to be well designed and conducted in order to yield valid results. There are many risks of bias in introduction/withdrawal studies. The most robust study design would be a randomised controlled trial where areas are randomly allocated to start/cease water fluoridation. This ensures that comparator areas are more likley to be comparable.
This study only compares two big cities (Calgary – cessation; Edmonton – continue fluoridation). Though they are in the same Canadian province, they are unlikely to be comparable either at baseline or at follow up and are likely to have changed significantly and in different ways over the 9 year period studied. This is a major risk of bias. The researchers try to deal with this by comparing the level of caries in young children before the period of water cessation with the levels a few years after cessation. In other words, they compare the change in caries within each city over time. They then compare the changes between the two cities. They find that the rate of caries has increased in both cities, but more so in Calgary.
They then cautiously attribute that difference to the cessation of fluoridation. This attribution is not justified for several reasons: 1) The baseline levels of caries used are from a survey conducted in 2004/5. That is 6-7 years before the water fluoridation scheme was withdrawn in Calgary (2011). This assumes that there is no change in caries levels in each of the two 2 cities (more importantly no differential change) in that 6-7 year period and that the levels in 2004 (used as the baseline data in the study) are good proxies for the levels in 2011 when fluoridation ceased in Calgary.

This is a heroic assumption which is unlikely to be justified as over the period from 2004 to 2013 there has been a significant increase in caries in both groups. A key question is the extent to which the reported increase in caries in Calgary over and above that in Edmonton is due to cessation. If this is the case then one would expect the increase in caries to accelerate in the latter period of the study (after 2011). The paper only reports the change over the whole 9-year period. However, in their second paper (Table 1)2 the authors present data from a 2009 survey in Calgary which is closer to the time of cessation. Frustratingly they present analysis at the level of the tooth (deft) rather than tooth surfaces (defs) which is used in the first paper.1 This prevents direct comparison but one can assess whether the data they present (Table 1 of the second paper) gives a clue as to trends in caries in the last 4 years of the study period compared to the whole 9 years and whether these trends indicate an acceleration in the increase in caries in the later period as one would expect. They show that between 2009/10 and 2013/14 the mean number of decayed, extracted or filled primary teeth (deft) increased from 2.22 to 2.69 (a 21% relative increase). This represents a 5.3% average annual increase assuming the increase was linear). In paper 1, they report an increase in defs from 2004/5 to 2013/14 from 2.6 to 6.4 defs (a 146% relative increase); this represents a 16% average annual increase. This analysis suggests that the average annual increases in caries were significantly higher over the whole 9 years than in the final 4 years. This is contrary to what one would expect if fluoridation cessation was the primary driver of increases in caries over the period. In order to get an idea of the rate of increase in caries at tooth level between the 2004 and 2009 surveys one can use data reported by Alberta Health Services (www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/programs/ps-1042857-coh-gensurvey.pdf).

The actual estimates of caries rates are not comparable to those reported in the study due to statistical weighting used and other factors, but one can look at the changes over time in this data set. The estimate of deft in 3 2004/5 for children in grade 2 (Table 2.1 page 5) was 1.53 and in 2009/10 was 2.06 (35% relative increase); an average annual increase of 7% over the five years prior to cessation. This analysis shows a higher average annual rate of increase in deft in the period before cessation (7%) than in the period which includes years after cessation in Calgary (5%). If the conclusions of the McLaren study are valid one would instead expect an acceleration in the increased rate of caries over the later period compared to the earlier one, not the reverse. This just demonstrates how difficult it is to infer anything causal from these sorts of study designs where one compares just 2 time points especially when the background prevalence of what one is measuring is changing over time for a variety of reasons. 2) Even if the levels of caries at the time of cessation were the same in 2011 as in 2004, this study would still be at risk of bias as it would assume that changes in the population composition of Edmonton and Calagary (especially those with young children) had remained constant or had changed in the same way over the period. These are dynamic cities that have seen considerable population change in that period and so this assumption is unlikely to be valid. We know from Table 2 that the levels of caries of those who were lifeling residents at the time of the 2013/14 survey was lower than in the general population of children of the same age (a difference 1.2 and 1.1 defs of all tooth surfaces and 1.1 and 0.8 defs for smooth surfaces for Calgary and Edmonton respectively). This just hints at the effect of population shifts, which are bound to have been even greater since 2004/5. 3)
The Cochrane review of evaluations of the effectiveness of water fluoridation3 reported that they: “found all studies to be at high risk of bias for confounding. We considered confounding factors for this outcome to be sugar consumption/dietary habits, SES, ethnicity and the use of other fluoride sources. We would have judged studies to be at low risk of confounding bias only if they had successfully controlled for all factors.” This study also fails to adjust for these confounding factors. 4) The sampling of children in the 2004 study was different between Calgary and Edmonton and this was different from that used in 2013/14 raising 4 questions about this biasing the results (though it is not clear in what way this bias would operate). 5) The study did not blind outcome assessors. Those measuring caries in the 2013/14 survey knew which children they were examining and this can introduce bias. The raters were well trained but unconscious measurement bias is well reported in medical research and can only be combated by blinded assessment. This is difficult to do but a few other studies have tried to combat it by using radiographs in order to blind assessors. This or other approaches could have been done in a sample of children to check for bias. 6) Measurement of exposure to fluoride would indicate whether there are differences between the cities. Such measurements (i.e., fingernail clippings) were taken but not reported in the paper. Unfortunately only a very small sample was used for this but it should still be reported. 7) The authors did not report on any changes in the prevalence of fluorosis in the population. 3 In a presentation to Public Health Ontario in 2014, the lead author stated that fluorosis data were being collected.4 8) The second paper tried to assess the effect of cessation on the socio-economic distribution of caries. a. The authors incorrectly argue that previous papers have shown that water fluoridation reduces disparities. The Cochrane Systematic review3 “found insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces differences in tooth decay levels between children from poorer and more affluent backgrounds.” b. The study suffers from similar potential biases as the other study comparing levels with Edmonton. Here though they do not even have comparative data in other cities which have continued fluoridation. Thus this study is even weaker than the one referred to above. One cannot attribute cause and effect in a before/after study of this kind. c. It is hampered by the much lower sample size in the 2009 survey (557) than the 2013/14 survey (3230) it has less statistical power to show differences between the socioeconomic group as statistically significant. 5 The authors then use the fact that there are statistically significant differences between social groups in the later period but not the earlier one to support the view that cessation has increased inequalities. But actually this is partially due to the much larger sample size. The test of the interactions by year (the main test of change) is not statistically significant (Table 3 last column) but this is downplayed in the paper. d.

This paper is further undermined by the much lower response rate (57% in the 2013/14 survey than the original 2009 survey (81%), which may have introduced changes in the type of children included so biasing the results (though not clear in which direction). In summary Fluoridation of water generates controversy and there is uncertainty about potential benefits and harms, therefore we need robust evaluations.5 Whilst it is important to look at the impact of withdrawal of water fluoridation, the study design used by McLaren et al, means that the results are not able to cast much light on the effects of cessation of fluoridation, particularly because of the increasing background rates of caries in Alberta, the effect of population changes and the long time period between the baseline and 2014 survey. In the absence of a randomised controlled trial one should look at trends in caries over time and use methods such as interrupted time series analysis using rates of caries at several time points before and after the cessation point (though this depends on data availability). In addition one should study more than two comparator populations, incorporating data on several populations where cessation occurred and several where it was continued, selected randomly to prevent biased choices (they report that over 30 communities have opted to discontinue fluoridation so this may be possible).
The validity of the measurement of caries should have been checked by using radiographs and blind assessment to ensure that there was not observer bias. Data on exposure to fluoride should have been presented to see what change in levels was observed over the time period or at least between the two cities at the time of the follow-up survey, although this would be limited due to the very small sample of children in whom exposure was measured. 6 The authors themselves discuss several of the weaknesses of the study but their conclusion, that the findings “were consistent with an adverse effect of fluoridation cessation” is too strong. The danger is that people will take this at face value, ignore the very real weaknesses and over-interpret these studies, something of a feature in the water fluoridation debate from all sides of the argument.5 In conclusion I do not think these studies provide a valid assessment of the effect of fluoridation cessation on the levels or distribution of caries in these populations. More rigorous well-funded studies are still required to reduce the uncertainty. One of the most interesting and perhaps unexpected findings from the study though, is that caries levels are higher in both cities than recorded several years ago despite water fluoridation. This implies that even if water fluoridation is effective in reducing caries, it is not sufficient to combat poor oral health in this province

Trevor A Sheldon DSc FMedSci
Dean of the Hull York Medical School
Professor of Health Services Research and Policy
University of York, Heslington, York, UK YO10 5DD Tel: (01904) 321749 E-mail: trevor.sheldon@hyms.ac.uk

Thursday, February 25, 2016

Danger poison

Canada - Who should decide on fluoride?

A recent study published in the Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology journal compared tooth decay rates of Grade 2 students in Calgary and Edmonton. Fluoridation of municipal drinking water ended in Calgary in 2011, but fluoride is still added to the water in Edmonton.
The study found the rate of tooth decay from 2004 to 2014 increased in both cities but the rate of tooth decay was worse in Calgary. The results of this study has renewed the debate on whether fluoride should be added to the drinking water or not. CTV News reported comments from a Calgary dentist, Dr. Leonard Smith who stated that “The fact that our city had chosen to remove fluoride has been one of the most anti-public health measures ever in the city of Calgary.”
This statement highlights an important point in this debate. The decision on fluoride in our water is a public health issue. Therefore the decision should be made by Alberta Health Services and not municipal councils.
The town of Okotoks stopped adding fluoride to the municipal water supply in December 2012. I was in my first term on town council at the time and it was an incredibly difficult decision. We had medical professionals on one side of the debate telling us that the fluoride is good for teeth and does no harm.
We had medical professionals on the other side of the debate telling us that the fluoride creates brittle bones for seniors. Representatives from Alberta Health Services made presentations to council stating that we should keep the fluoride in the water.
On several occasions when I asked if Alberta Health Services would be making provincial policy changes to require fluoride in municipal drinking water their consistent answer was always, “No, this is a municipal decision, not a decision for Alberta Health Services.”
If they were 100 per cent positive that it is only good and does no harm, why wouldn’t they make it a requirement for towns and cities across the province?
Once the fluoride is added to the drinking water it is extremely difficult to take it out. If someone doesn’t want to ingest fluoride it is almost impossible for them to remove it from their water. If fluoride isn’t added to the water, people who want fluoride can use fluoride toothpaste and fluoride mouthwash relatively easily.
Since I am not a medical professional and Alberta Health Services will not make the decision, I thought it best to not have fluoride in the water and let people decide for themselves if they want to use fluoride as part of their oral hygiene routine.

One need not be a scientist to understand that it is immoral to medicate everyone with fluoride without permission. We should be the ones who should be deciding what we put into our bodies and not the federal government or the local government which is putting fluoride into our water. We should control our own destiny.
Those who desire fluoride are welcome to put it in their own glass of water, as much as they wish. Leave the rest of us out of it.
    • Avatar
      James Reeves
      There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. To suddenly proclaim this fluoride to be medication could not be any more ridiculous. No court of last resort has ever affirmed the "forced medication" nonsense in spite of antifluoridationists repeatedly wasting court time and resources trotting it in over the past decades.
      That you believe water flowing from your faucet somehow controls your "destiny" is indicative of a cognitive deficiency of your own, not a problem with water fluoridation.
      If you wish to placate your irrational phobia of fluoride in water, you are certainly free to obtain your water from a source with content which suits you. No one is forcing you to do anything in regard to fluoridation.
      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director 
      American Fluoridation Society
    Irrational phobia? That's a new one Steven.

    Down The Rabbit Hole w/ Popeye (02-17-2016) The Dangers of The Phosphate Mining Industry & Fluoride

    Wednesday, February 24, 2016

    Big Pharma greed is killing tens of thousands

    EXCLUSIVE: How Big Pharma greed is killing tens of thousands around the world: Patients are over-medicated and often given profitable drugs with 'little proven benefits,' leading doctors warn. 

    Queen's former doctor, Sir Richard Thompson, has backed new campaign.

    • Experts calling for urgent public enquiry into drugs firms' 'murky' practices. They say too much medicine is doing more harm than good worldwide. And claim many drugs such as statins are less effective than thought.
    Too much medicine is doing more harm than good - and costing hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, leading experts have warned. They maintain drugs companies are developing medicines they can profit from, rather than those which are likely to be the most beneficial

    The Queen's former doctor has called for an urgent public enquiry into drugs firms’ ‘murky’ practices.
    Sir Richard Thompson, former-president of the Royal College of Physicians and personal doctor to the Queen for 21 years, warned tonight that many medicines are less effective than thought.
    The physician is one of a group of six eminent doctors who today warn about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on drugs prescribing.
    The experts, led by NHS cardiologist Dr Aseem Malhotra, claim that too often patients are given useless – and sometimes harmful – drugs that they do not need.
    They maintain drugs companies are developing medicines they can profit from, rather than those which are likely to be the most beneficial.
    And they accuse the NHS of failing to stand up to the pharmaceutical giants.
    Too much medicine is doing more harm than good - and costing hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide, leading experts have warned. They maintain drugs companies are developing medicines they can profit from, rather than those which are likely to be the most beneficial.....

    The Girl Against Fluoride

    18 February at 12:38 ·
    On top of the fluoride chemicals added to our drinking water, the excess of the chemicals, known as trihalomethanes (THMs), has been present in many public water supplies for years, and is caused by chlorine, added to purify water, mixing with organic matter such as leaves, timber, and peat. Long-term exposure to THMs include an increased risk of certain cancers, such as bladder and colon; reproductive problems such as miscarriages, birth defects, and low birth rates; and damage to the heart, lungs, liver, kidney, and central nervous system. The effects are not just from drinking contaminated water; THMs can be absorbed from steam in the air and through the skin from showering and washing.
    Drinking water for 400,000 people is contaminated
    Drinking water for more than 400,000 people is contaminated with chemicals linked to cancer, but Irish Water has refused to directly inform those affected.

    Dallas Ends Water Fluoridation

    A lot of swearing.

    Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Chang

    Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Change in
    Postmenopausal Women: Animal Model of Fluoride-induced Osteoporosis
    Mitsuo Kakei1 Masayoshi Yoshikawa and Hiroyuki Mishima
    Carbonic anhydrase is a key enzyme for initiating the crystal nucleation, seen as “the central dark line” in the crystal structure in calcified hard tissues such as tooth enamel, dentin and bone. Both estrogen deficiency and fluoride exposure adversely affected the synthesis of this enzyme in the calcifying hard tissues. This led to the notion that fluoride exposure might increase the risk of developing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.

    Using ovariectomized rats, which represent an estrogen (Es)-deficient state, as an animal model of postmenopausal women, we examined the causal relationship between fluoride (F) exposure and risk of developing osteoporosis. Two groups of rats, an Es-deficient group and a non-Es-deficient group, were administered free drinking water containing F ions (1.0 mg/L). Two other groups, an Es-deficient group and a control-group, were administered tap water. Soft X-ray radiography demonstrated a significant increase of radiolucent areas in the calvaria of the combined Esdeficient
    plus F group compared to that in the other experimental groups. Electron microscopy revealed an increase of amorphous minerals in the radiolucent areas. Light microscopy demonstrated that combined effects evidently of Es-deficiency and administration of F caused deterioration of the rat tibia with a coarse pattern of trabecular architecture, suggesting that a decline in bone formation might be the primary cause of osteoporosis. Consequently, F exposure might accelerate osteoporotic changes in postmenopausal women even at a low dose.

    Councillors debate reintroducing fluoride to Calgary tap water

    80% more cavities?

    Tuesday, February 23, 2016

    India - Fluorosis Cripples Life in Mayurbhanj Villages

    Fluorosis Cripples Life in Mayurbhanj Villages
    BALASORE: Ramdas Marandi's fluorosis is in such an advanced stage that he is unable to move around freely. Contraction of the spinal cord and constant ache in the joints is debilitating. Budharay Marandi, Marya Murmu and Chandramohan Tudu too have been experiencing similar symptoms, all of which are related to fluorosis.

    Other people of Hatasahi village under Bangriposi block of Mayurbhanj district, including children, have been suffering from mottled and discoloration of teeth and bone deformities while more than 100 in the village are suffering from kidney related ailments. Of them 36 have been treated at SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack.

    Apart from Hatasahi, which has a population of more than 1,000, residents of nearby villages like Joka, Gedarasahi, Kurkutia, Asanshikhad and Budhakhamari under Kusumabal and Budhakhamari panchayats are also suffering from such ailments.

    Even as high fluoride content in groundwater is suspected to be the prime reason behind the crippling disorder, a full-scale government action is yet to be taken to prevent the disease and check the fluoride content in drinking water.

    Former sarpanch Sahadev Naik said middle-aged and old have been experiencing pain and swelling in their joints while children are suffering from complications of teeth and short height. “Most of the tubewells in the locality pump out red coloured water,” he said.

    Doctors treating villagers suffering from kidney related ailments blamed drinking water and suspected high fluoride content as the reason..............

    Your Pineal Gland Could Be BLOCKED

    Fluoride Build UpYour Pineal Gland Could Be BLOCKED With Fluoride – Here’s How To Fix It Now!
    If you’ve gone to the dentist recently, you may remember them asking you to rinse with fluoride. Afterwards, you’re asked to avoid eating for a half hour. Have you ever wondered why? Or even what “fluoride” is?

    Fluoride is a toxin that naturally occurs in water. When used in dental offices, fluoride can combat some dental diseases. But we’re often told to avoid swallowing it as it can be harmful to the body in large doses. Of course, the amounts present in water are normally safe.

    Increased amounts of fluoride have been added to our drinking water since the 1940s to combat tooth decay. By 2008, more than 72% of the United States received fluoridated water. As great as it may sound, research has found that fluoride has negative effects on your health. Fluoride toxicity has been linked to thyroid disease, brain damage, and arthritis. Notably, fluoride toxicity has negative effects on your pineal gland.

    The Pineal Gland

    Your pineal gland handles many of your body’s health functions. Everything from the health of your heart, your brain, and mood are affected by your pineal gland. One of its most important roles is with your body’s sleep cycle. Found in your brain, this gland produces the hormone melatonin which affects how long and how well you sleep. When fluoride is built-up in the pineal gland, it can disturb your sleep and significantly reduce your thyroid functions. As a result, fluoride build-up can impact your whole body’s health!

    Fluoride Build-Up: What To Do

    The most important step in removing fluoride build-up is watching your iodine levels. Iodine is one of the minerals essential to healthy thyroid functions – and is also one mineral our bodies do not make. Iodine actually helps flush out fluoride in our bodies. Many studies have found that people with healthy iodine levels were at less risk with fluoride. In other words, a healthy thyroid leads to a healthy pineal gland.

    According to the World Health Organization, iodine deficiency is one of the main causes of brain damage. So there’s even more of a reason to keep up with your iodine consumption. The best sources of iodine are sea vegetables like seaweed and fish. One study linking thyroid health and breast cancer found that Japanese women who consumed seaweed daily were at less risk than their western counterparts. Thyroid experts recommend 1-3 mg of iodine daily to keep your pineal and thyroid glands healthy.

    By Jeremy Seifert

    Our Daily Dose is a 20-minute short film by Jeremy Seifert that lays out the real dangers of public water fluoridation.

    Hailed by the Centers for Disease Control as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century, water fluoridation is something most of us assume to be safe and effective. But new science has upended this assumption, revealing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor. The CDC tells us that drinking fluoride decreases tooth decay, at best, by 25%. That is one-half to one cavity per person over a lifetime. Is one less cavity worth risking a child’s long-term brain and thyroid health? It’s time to rethink this very old practice.

    In OUR DAILY DOSE, filmmaker Jeremy Seifert (GMO OMG) lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day. This is an eye-opening look at how we have less control over our health than we may have thought.

    Monday, February 22, 2016

    What Happened to Suzanne Somers – What She’s Doing Now Update

    What is Suzanne Somers Doing Now

    Somers has released multiple cookbooksAfter leaving Candid Camera, Somers began publishing books about diet and nutrition, publishing five books between 1999 and 2001. Also during that time period, she was diagnosed with breast cancer, and had a lumpectomy and follow-up radiation treatments. However, she declined to undergo chemotherapy, opting instead to take supplements of fermented mistletoe.
    This started her down her second revitalization of her career, this time as a proponent of alternative medicine. After her cancer went into remission in 2001, Somers started to explore prophylactic alternative medicines, most famously bioidentical hormone replacement therapy. In 2008, she was misdiagnosed with cancer, which led to her writing more books about her discussions with doctors. Between 2001 and 2015, Somers would write 15 books about her beliefs about alternative medicines, frequently appearing on shows like Oprah to promote them.

    Somers has released multiple cookbooks

    Legitimate medical authorities have continued to caution against Somers’ rhetoric, many thinking she may be doing more harm than good when she advocates that people reject actual medicine. Somers has been criticized, most notably, by the American Cancer Society, as well as Newsweek and Salon.com.
    Suzanne Somers is approaching 70 now, and has only shown an increased commitment to her beliefs about nutrition. Recently, she’s expanded her criticisms beyond cancer treatment to dealing with fluoride in drinking water and genetic modification of food crops. When she isn’t preaching the benefits of unproven beliefs, Somers continues to perform at various Las Vegas casinos.

    Fluoride Debate; Dr. Farida Saher, Pediatric Dentist

    Sun, Feb 21: We take a closer look at fluoride in drinking water as the debate resurfaces following the release of a new study. DentalCareforChildren.ca

    Cut the sugar out is the best advice. I've seen bad cases of fluorosis in non-fluoridated Southampton from swallowing fluoride tablets and having fluoride brushed on the teeth.

    The Truth about Fluoride! (The Pineal Gland, Drinking Water, & How to Protect Yourself)

    Sunday, February 21, 2016

    Edmonton Calgary Fluoride Cessation Study McLaren et al

    Saturday, February 20, 2016

    From: George Pinnell [mailto:georgepinnell@yahoo.co.uk]
    Sent: 19 February 2016
    Please sign and share this petition:

    Stop Chemical Water Fluoridation Toronto and Canada

    Stop Chemical Water Fluoridation Toronto and Canada
    95% of the world has rejected using the water supply to treat people with chemical fluoride. Water fluoridation violates our right to informed consent.

    View on www.endfluoridetoronto.com 

    Many thanks.

    I don't think these petitions do much good especially if people from out of the area are included. To represent a country's strong opinion you would need millions to sign not thousands but if you disagree please sign up.

    Andrew's comment from Toronto

    Now that they have proven that ingesting fluoride is good, can we just ingest a tiny bit of fluoride toothpaste, and not bother brushing with it?

    Colby Cosh: Calgary, Edmonton and fluoride: In the teeth of a rivalry

    When I heard that there was a new study showing that tooth decay has worsened amongst Calgary’s children since the city removed fluoride from its water supply in 2011, I hastened to have a look at the paper. That’s what I often do when there’s a new piece of research in the news. But this one offered the priceless bonus of an opportunity to poke fun at Calgary.

    The new study comparing oral health in Alberta's two largest cities is interesting, but also raises some new, very odd, issues.Calgary’s health officer urges council to rethink fluoride removal after study showing alarming spike in cavities for kids
    Calgary’s medical health officer says council should reconsider its “fundamentally” ideological decision to remove fluoride from the city’s drinking water supply in 2011, after a study showed childhood tooth decay rates here are increasing faster than in Edmonton.
    “I feared that this could happen, but I couldn’t say confidently back in 2011 that it was going to happen. But it’s clear,” said Dr. Richard Musto, Alberta Health Service’s lead medical officer for the Calgary Zone.
    “I’m sorry that so many children had to suffer from dental caries during this time period,” said Musto.
    The city council there seems to be about half clown at the best of times, and when it comes to child health, it’s worth remembering how the Calgary Flames jumped the queue for H1N1 flu vaccine in 2009, absconding with hundreds of doses from a star-struck clinic and having the paperwork fudged because hockey players are too important for socialized medicine. No, I am not one to resist a cheap shot at Calgary.

    One reason I am like this, of course, is that Calgary is a nicer city than Edmonton in several obvious ways. And, of course, the tooth decay study from the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology turns out to be a disappointment. Edmonton, which has kept the fluoride in its water, serves as the control in the study. The key finding is not that Calgary’s children have worse teeth than Edmonton’s as a consequence of the removal of the fluoride. It’s that their teeth were significantly better before, and they have now merely fallen to the same level as the less affluent, less educated Edmonton. Sigh.

    The study is not quite the hammerblow to Calgary’s fluoridation policy that you might have expected, or been encouraged to expect by the headlines. The authors of the study looked at data on the teeth of a cross-section of grade 2 public-school kids in both cities. There was a “pre” sample of kids observed in the school year 2004-05, and a “post” sample taken in 2013-14, when the Calgarian children would have had up to three years of exposure to unfluoridated water. Hygienists went around to schools and basically counted decayed, filled, and extracted teeth.

    The big change was that Calgary children had a lot less damage to their “primary” or baby teeth in ’04-’05. The two cities are now even; both got worse, but Calgary got … more worse. One notices, however, that the Calgary ’04-’05 sample is a lot smaller than the Edmonton one. The surveys were taken by hygienists hired by the old regional health boards, and Calgary’s approach was less aggressive. Only some schools were included in the sample, and the participation rate of the students in those schools was an unimpressive 60 per cent.

    There are other odd elements to the study. Some of the children in the surveys had gotten permanent teeth, and, for some reason, it was Edmonton’s children who had significantly better permanent teeth in the “pre” surveys. By this measure, Calgary’s kids actually improved marginally, relative to Edmonton, after fluoride was dropped.

    When recording the “post”-cessation data, the hygienists were able to check which children were lifelong local residents and drank mostly tap water at home. The hope of the researchers here must have been to zero in on the subset of children for whom fluoridated tap water would have the strongest effect. But that table in the paper is pretty boring, because the cities come out about the same. If fluoride helps, why would this be so?

    When you consider all the possible confounders at work in this study, its inferential power does not look overwhelming. This is some of the first careful research of its kind. The basis for the original introduction of fluoride was not too strong by present-day standards, and there are not yet a lot of “natural experiments” using communities that dared get rid of it.

    It may be important that the authors found one strong signal — the primary teeth of Calgary children got worse over time, relative to a neighbouring city of similar size and circumstances. But they are cagey with their language, saying things like “our findings were consistent with an adverse effect of fluoridation cessation.” They do not prove that there is such a long-term effect on permanent teeth; they guess (“one might expect”) that it should be so, and it is probably the right way to bet, but it will have to be demonstrated. (They also say the results are “robust to adjustment for” the sizable social and economic differences between the cities, but don’t show their work.)

    And meanwhile, why the hell are the primary teeth of children getting worse in both cities, even as sugar consumption trends downward?

    National Post