TOOTH loss could predict when you will die, according to new research.

LONG IN THE TOOTH 

How the number of TEETH you’ve lost can determine how long you will live

Research found people who had lost five or more teeth by the age of 65 were also more likely to suffer from other serious health issues

BY ANDREA DOWNEY

30th January 2017, 4:31 pm

TOOTH loss could predict when you will die, according to new research.

Those who have a full set of teeth when they are 74-years-old are more likely to reach 100, scientists say.

I'm 82 take no medicines and fit as can be expected for my age and through a poor upbringing I lost all mine in my twenties. Oh well it is in the Sun newspaper.

Big Sugar and Coke Conspiracy

By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance

• Researchers have known since the 1960s that your body metabolizes different types of carbohydrates, like glucose and fructose, in different ways
• Despite this, nutritionists and public health organizations continue to claim that obesity and other metabolic issues are simply a matter of consuming more calories than you burn off
• Evidence show that sugar exerts harmful metabolic effects and appears to be addictive, leading some experts to suggest that elimination, not moderation, is the best option

In case you haven't seen it.

Steven Slott have you ever seen this video and if so did you not have even the slightest feeling of doubt in your conviction that you are right?

How to Prevent Your Dog From Ingesting Too Much Fluoride

To prevent excessive fluoride exposure, the EWG recommends dog owners purchase pet foods that don’t contain bone meal and other animal byproducts. It also suggests that the government should set fluoride limits in pet food that protect both puppies and large breeds most at risk for bone cancer.

Dr. Michael W. Fox, an internationally recognized veterinarian and former vice-president of both the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International, also suggests providing pets with fluoride-free water.³

An example is reverse-osmosis treated water. Brita-type water filters don’t remove fluoride, so it’s important to look for a filter that does.

Most spring and bottled waters contain only small amounts of fluoride, but I recommend you call the bottler and ask how much fluoride is in their water to insure a low intake. Distilled water is fluoride-free.

If you prepare a homemade diet for your pet and add bone meal, it’s important that it not contain fluoride (or lead). Ethical bone meal producers will test for contaminants, including fluoride, so if you’re using bone meal in recipes, contact your source and ask to see their quality control documents for fluoride.

Dr. Fox suggests substituting with fossilized oyster shell, dolomite or a chelated or non-chelated synthesized or refined calcium supplement like calcium citrate, ascorbate, stearate or gluconate. I have seen excellent purity with tri and dicalcium phosphate blended with magnesium (basically a bone meal equivalent).

Dr. Fox also makes the point that bones from longer-lived food animals such as dairy cows, laying hens and breeding stock probably contain higher levels of fluoride than shorter-lived animals like chickens, calves and lambs. In his article “Fluoride in Pet Food – A Serious Health Risk for Both Dogs and Cats?” Dr. Fox writes:
“Fluorides accumulate in the body of farmed animals over time from such sources as phosphate fertilizers, phosphate supplements, bone meal and fish meal supplements and pesticide and industrial-pollution-contaminated pastures and animal feed. The bones, fins, gills and scales of fish are often high in fluoride.”⁴
Dr. Fox recommends raw feeders avoid ground bone from older animals like beef cattle and adult sheep.

Additional Tips

• If you cook your pet’s food, avoid Teflon-coated pans as they may increase the fluoride levels in the food.
• Avoid cooking with fluoridated water, as it simply concentrates fluoride in the food.
• Don’t use toothpaste or oral rinses intended for humans to brush your dog’s teeth. Dental health products made for pets are fluoride-free.

Madison Star Moon - Fluoride Melts Concrete Yet Not Harmful if Swallowed

Borax Cures and Health Benefits | How To Make Borax Solution

How to Prevent Your Dog From Ingesting Too Much Fluoride

...............................To prevent excessive fluoride exposure, the EWG recommends dog owners purchase pet foods that don’t contain bone meal and other animal byproducts. It also suggests that the government should set fluoride limits in pet food that protect both puppies and large breeds most at risk for bone cancer.

Dr. Michael W. Fox, an internationally recognized veterinarian and former vice-president of both the Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International, also suggests providing pets with fluoride-free water.³

An example is reverse-osmosis treated water. Brita-type water filters don’t remove fluoride, so it’s important to look for a filter that does.

Most spring and bottled waters contain only small amounts of fluoride, but I recommend you call the bottler and ask how much fluoride is in their water to insure a low intake. Distilled water is fluoride-free.

If you prepare a homemade diet for your pet and add bone meal, it’s important that it not contain fluoride (or lead). Ethical bone meal producers will test for contaminants, including fluoride, so if you’re using bone meal in recipes, contact your source and ask to see their quality control documents for fluoride.

Dr. Fox suggests substituting with fossilized oyster shell, dolomite or a chelated or non-chelated synthesized or refined calcium supplement like calcium citrate, ascorbate, stearate or gluconate. I have seen excellent purity with tri and dicalcium phosphate blended with magnesium (basically a bone meal equivalent).

Dr. Fox also makes the point that bones from longer-lived food animals such as dairy cows, laying hens and breeding stock probably contain higher levels of fluoride than shorter-lived animals like chickens, calves and lambs. In his article “Fluoride in Pet Food – A Serious Health Risk for Both Dogs and Cats?” Dr. Fox writes:
“Fluorides accumulate in the body of farmed animals over time from such sources as phosphate fertilizers, phosphate supplements, bone meal and fish meal supplements and pesticide and industrial-pollution-contaminated pastures and animal feed. The bones, fins, gills and scales of fish are often high in fluoride.”⁴
Dr. Fox recommends raw feeders avoid ground bone from older animals like beef cattle and adult sheep.

Additional Tips

• If you cook your pet’s food, avoid Teflon-coated pans as they may increase the fluoride levels in the food.
• Avoid cooking with fluoridated water, as it simply concentrates fluoride in the food.
• Don’t use toothpaste or oral rinses intended for humans to brush your dog’s teeth. Dental health products made for pets are fluoride-free.

By Dr. Karen Becker

ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR: VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM; A CONSPIRACY TO KEEP POISONS IN VACCINES

To be in the Trump government to head panel to look into it.

Water Fluoridation, A Depopulation Agenda RT

Fluoridated Water & Arthritis

Anti-fluoride protesters used signs that said “Hear Us!” as part of a silent protest at the Jan. 3 Buda City Council meeting. (photo by Moses Leos III)

The saga involving the reintroduction of fluoride into the Buda public water system took an unexpected turn last week as city officials opted to hold on the matter in order to gather more public feedback.

Buda City Manager Kenneth Williams Thursday announced the scheduled fluoridation of the city’s water supply was put on hold, according to a press release.
The reasoning for the administrative decision was based on feedback received from Buda City Council members and the public.

However, the decision to hold on the fluoridation is not final and is temporarily in place “until the city council may revisit and make a more permanent decision,” according to the release................

THYROID AND FLUORIDE: IS YOUR TOOTHPASTE KILLING YOUR THYROID?

Many people probably don’t think twice about the toothpaste they use to brush their teeth. Keeping your teeth clean and healthy is a good thing. But did you know that there is an ingredient in toothpaste that can harm your health? Contrary to popular belief, fluoride is not as good for you as you thought.............................

Australia - End the mandated practice of adding industrial waste to public water supplies.

Fluoride Free WA is calling on the Western Australian Government to immediately cease the practice of artificial water fluoridation in Western Australia.

USA - Letter: Get fluoride out of town water

I’m sure every one of us has been told at some time or another that fluoride is a mineral that is good for teeth and that that question was settled in the 1940s. However, there has never been a time when all scientists, dentists and doctors agreed on this. As a matter of fact, UNICEF wrote in 1999 that “… for decades we have believed that fluoride in small doses has no adverse effects on health. …. But more and more scientists are seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride even in small amounts.” Since then, hundreds of additional studies have proven that consuming fluoridated water is unsafe and ineffective.

So what exactly is this stuff we are adding to our water? Fluoridation chemicals originate as the byproducts of industry. The largest U.S. seller is Mosaic. You may remember hearing of them in the news in the past couple of years. First for a $2 billion fine from the EPA for pollution, and more recently for that huge Florida sinkhole that is pouring not only polluted waste into the Florida aquifer but water that is radioactive. But Manchester does not buy from Mosaic. We get our fluoridation chemicals from China. Pollution in China from factories that produce fluoridation chemicals is so out of control that citizens wear surgical masks.

The problem isn’t just that fluoride is a poison. It’s also corrosive and accelerates the destruction of town infrastructure and plumbing. Many studies since 1999 have proved that children living in fluoridated towns have higher lead levels in their blood and tissue. Many more prove that children in fluoridated towns also are more likely to have learning disabilities, you know the things that increase the school budgets. Both the school water tests in Manchester and Gloucester have found lead levels in some faucets above the EPA guidelines, not that any lead is safe nor do we know what’s in any glass of water from any faucet on any given day. However, we do know that fluoride in drinking water increases the amount of lead absorbed into body and brain.

Right now, there is a petition in front of the EPA from six organizations concerning the EPA’s authority under the Toxic Control Substances Act (TSCA). It includes about 300 studies proving that fluoridation damages brains. I for one am not holding my breath on the EPA action on this. In 2006, the National Research Council told the EPA that their contaminant level for fluoride was not protective of human health, and the EPA has done nothing. In 2005, 7,000 scientists in 11 EPA unions petitioned the EPA to change the contaminant level to zero, and they did nothing. In the 1990s, EPA scientists documented fluoride is carcinogenic, and the EPA edited the report.

Nobody is going to take care of us, but us. I for one do not want toxic pollution from China that damages pipes, bodies and brains added to my water supply. Do you? Tell our selectmen to get the fluoride out of our water!

Jessica McGovern

Manchester

Israel - Fluoride in water

Jerusalem Post26 Jan 2017
How are Israel’s people affected by the content and quality of their water?
One of the very first moves of former health minister Yael German – an act considered by many to be her most important accomplishment – was to remove the fluoride from our water supply due to the abundant research showing that it has dangerous effects on our brains and throughout our bodies.
One of the first things that Ya’acov Litzman, our present health minister, did was to add fluoride to our water – due to its alleged health benefits. One can only assume that he concluded that fluoridated water’s alleged benefits far outweigh any risk.
As our entire population is dependent on the quality of our country’s water, this highly controversial topic deserves serious investigation.
ELIYAHU HOLLEY
Mevaseret Zion

After 72 years of Fluoridation, Uncertainty Persists

NEW YORK, Jan. 25, 2017 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- While pushing through a country-wide fluoridation mandate last year, Israel's policy-makers and public health officials ignored or denied valid evidence, produced by experts in their fields and respected science groups, showing that fluoridation science has not been settled according to researchers in the Journal of Risk Research, August 2016. The same is true of US fluoridationists, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

January 25, 2017, is the 72nd anniversary of water fluoridation - the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies intending to reduce tooth decay.

The Israel researchers, Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz report that "In this study, we argue that the policy makers themselves …[carry] out what they accuse others [fluoridation opposers] of doing. They share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation." From the beginning, respected US scientists and physicians criticized fluoridation but were ignored (i.e., Waldbott). Voices of opposition were suppressed since the early days, according to Chemical and Engineering News.

Criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV. In fact, US public health bureaucrats ignore their own published evidence of fluoride's potential harm i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials.For example, three expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed "that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation," they report.They add, "A Cochrane systematic review (2015) "concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [discolored teeth]."

Lawyer Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, "The truth is that fluoridation is a dark blot on scientific integrity. We should be eulogizing fluoridation not honoring it."Today's PR gurus coach fluoridationists to avoid mentioning risks because then "opponents are likely to win." (slide 18)

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882, nyscof@aol.com
http://www.FluorideAction.Net

Advice for those exposed to fluoridation.

Citizens Petition for Fluoride Vote

Alaska - Fluoride advisory vote

If it gets enough Assembly support, April's city ballot could also include an advisory question: Should fluoride be used in city water?
Assemblywoman Amy Demboski, sponsor of the proposal, has said that while she personally supports water fluoridation, she thinks people should have a chance to voice their opinions.
As an advisory question, the outcome of the vote wouldn't change city law, but it could influence future Assembly actions.
Dustin Darden, the lead sponsor of the fluoride petitions, said Monday he "absolutely" supported Demboski's move. He said he didn't necessarily expect fluoride opponents to quit collecting signatures for two separate petitions related to fluoride that are currently circulating, however.

"The more direct route would be an absolute vote," said Darden, who said an advisory vote would be second best.But he added: "We'll take the advisory vote, because it gets it out to the open quicker."

Stop Giving Fluoride Toothpaste to Children

What Will Happen If EVERY MORNING DRINK A GLASS OF HOT WATER ON AN EMPTY STOMACH

I don't like the computer voice but maybe of interest.

The EPA Is Being Pressured To Prohibit The Addition Of Fluoride Into Public Drinking Water

Submitted by Alexa Erickson via Collective Evolution,

Long ago fluoride was thought to promote good oral health, and so it made its way into our drinking water and toothpastes. Today, it seems it’s everywhere, and yet, it’s not even known to actually prevent the buildup of harmful oral bacteria. However, it is known to be toxic, with long-term ingestion linked to brain, heart, and bone issues, among other things.

A few years a go, a  ground breaking publication in one of the top main-stream medical journals added six fluoride into its classification of neurotoxicants. You can read more about that here.

But if the facts are all there, why in the world is fluoride still so present? Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is among a coalition of environmental, medical, and health groups who think we deserve better, and are now urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water supplies.

The petition presented to the EPA includes over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation that show the detriments of water fluoridation to human health. It explains that “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects; with certain subpopulations standing at elevated risk of harm, including infants, young children, elderly populations and those with dietary deficiencies, renal impairment and/or genetic predispositions.”

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA is allowed to forbid the use of a chemical that may possess risks to the general public, as well as vulnerable populations. The petition takes notes of this, urging the EPA to use their authority on this matter to put water fluoridation to a halt once and for all. The documents reveal their own Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment, which shows that neurotoxicity is a hazard of fluoride exposure, and the reference dose needed to protect against such a neurotoxicity is “incompatible with the doses now ingested by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas.”

“Since there is little benefit in swallowing fluoride, there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom,” the petition goes on to say.

The EPA requested that the evidence be reviewed by the National Research Council, and even they concluded in 2006 that fluoride can interfere with brain function. There has been an overwhelming amount of research revealing the dangers of fluoride on human exposure, including research published in Lancet Neurology classifying fluoride as one of 12 chemicals known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in humans. Harvard researchers also revealed in 2012 that children exposed to fluoride in drinking water had lower IQs.

All of this makes the decision to remove it from our drinking water a no-brainer.

“The existence of so many human studies on fluoride neurotoxicity highlights the urgent need for a diligent risk assessment, per EPA’s Guidelines, to ensure that the general public, and sensitive subpopulations, are not ingesting neurotoxic levels,” the petition says. And I know I’m not the only one to agree.

Fluoridation has nothing to do with lowered IQ or obesity has it Steven Slott?

Israeli Fluoridation Promoters Whitewash Scientific Uncertainty

(It Happens in the US, Also)

Israeli fluoridation proponents misled legislators and the public about the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation in order to preserve a country-wide fluoridation mandate, reports two Israeli researchers in the Journal of Risk Research (August 2016) after they reviewed government documents and newspaper reports.

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz report that “In this study, we argue that the policy makers themselves …[carry] out what they accuse others [fluoridation opposers] of doing. They share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, touted by fluoridationists as a conclusively-proven safe and effective tooth decay preventive, is shown to be the opposite in many scientific reports and government documents. Fluoridation has been doubted by respected scientists and physicians since its US birth, in 1945.

“Despite the uncertainty surrounding the questions of [fluoridation] safety and efficacy, [Israeli] health policy-makers and health officials not only characterize the science regarding fluoridation as providing ‘certainty,’ but use decisive and definitive terms, such as ‘unequivocal’ and ‘undisputed,’ to stress that ‘certainty,’” report Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz.

This Israeli research team doesn’t come out for or against fluoridation but says, despite claims to the contrary, uncertainty does exist. They argue that the public can handle the truth and make appropriate decisions based on all information, both positive and negative towards fluoridation.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials who mandated fluoridation in Israel.

For example, three expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation,” they report.

They add, “A Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis.” Dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) occurs when too much fluoride is ingested while teeth are forming.

Critics of Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir Raz’s conclusion claim that dental fluorosis is “often not even considered to be undesirable.” However, writing in the New York State Dental Journal, Dincer reports “Such changes in the tooth’s appearance can affect the child’s self-esteem…”

Furthermore, fluorosis has created a lucrative new market for dentists - covering up fluorosed teeth as these before and after dentist photos show.

More distressing is that today’s fluoridationists attempt to pick apart any study not faithful to fluoridation, (including this Journal of Risk Research article) but they never dissect any study glorifying fluoridation – even though the early fluoridation experiments, conducted in several cities, have been thoroughly discredited scientifically but still form the basis for the entire fluoridation program world-wide.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz write, “Even in the rare instances in which scientific sources such as the YORK and the NRC reports are mentioned, the reports are cited selectively, eliminating the uncertainty they expressed…the bottom line emerging from all three is that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation.”

“Despite this uncertainty, [Israeli] dental health policy-makers and health officials continue to communicate it as a safe and effective intervention, and actively promote policies to implement it,” they report.

These Israel researchers are not alone in their criticism. From the outset, fluoridation was criticized in the US by respected scientists and physicians, (i.e., Waldbott, Rorty). It persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; ScientificAmerican; Chemical & Engineering News. In fact, US public health bureaucrats have a habit of ignoring their own evidence that’s even mildly critical of fluoridation i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health............

More Nazi misinformation but regardless fluoride is a danger to the body as the man says.

Young, old, learned and aware people everywhere are becoming awake. Thanks to the Internet.

Way out but I watch Alex Jones and President Trump listens to him and even appeared on his show. Maybe Alex will be instrumental in stopping fluoridation.

Water Fluoridation Chemicals Now Officially Linked to Brain Harm & Cognitive Deficits

By Alanna Ketler

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.

Science is now a lot more sophisticated than it was at that time, and the proper laboratory tools and technologies are now available to more accurately examine the brain in greater detail. The petition reveals evidence of broad changes to the brain due to water fluoridation such as: IQ deficits, neuroanatomical and chemical effects, and the dire concerns of the effects on the developing fetal brain.

“In times past when fluoridation was instituted, science only had the scalpel or basic X-ray technology, and we simply weren’t able to assess the brain in the way technology can today,” states MAF leadership.........................

Should you worry about fluoride in your kombucha?.

Is there fluoride in your kombucha? Yes, but here's what you can do about it (and why you really don't need to worry).1

In recent weeks, I’ve received a flurry of questions all asking the same thing, “I’ve read there’s fluoride in kombucha. Should I be worried?”

There certainly is fluoride in your kombucha, because there’s fluoride in your tea (there’s also fluoride in your wine and your black pepper). It’s difficult to say just how much fluoride is in your kombucha, because the quantity of fluoride in your brew depends heavily on the quality of your water, the quality of your tea, and other factors surrounding how you brew your kombucha, as you’ll read below.

Should you worry about fluoride in kombucha?

Fluoride that accumulates in tea (and, therefore, your kombucha) is calcium fluoride, a form that is different from the type of fluoride added to municipal water. While your body does need fluoride in small amounts, it is possible to consume too much and there have been cases of fluorosis occurring among people who drink excessive amounts of strong, cheap tea (read more here).

Fortunately, those cases are very rare and are easily mitigated by consuming modest to moderate amounts of high-quality tea and kombucha made from high-quality tea. Remember, further, that kombucha is made from weak tea, rather than strong, so there will be less fluoride in kombucha than a strong tea of the same volume, as explained in the Big Book of Kombucha...............

I've never heard of kombucha before.

After blatantly lying about vaccines and fluoride, AP declares it will join Facebook effort to censor “fake news”

The Associated Press won’t report on the vaccine court, which grants unlimited liability to vaccine manufacturers when their products do harm to people. This kangaroo court has paid billions of dollars to families damaged by vaccines, mainly to keep them quiet. Meanwhile, dangerous vaccine science continues to be peddled and sold. And the AP just continues on with the same beloved narrative that all vaccines are safe and effective. The AP is often caught repeating vaccine industry lies. For instance, the AP often claim that mercury has been “phased out” of all vaccines. However, ICP-MS lab tests confirm that there are 51 parts per million of mercury in a flu vaccine which is over 25,000 times the EPA’s maximum allowable concentration of mercury in drinking water. The CDC even admits that mercury hasn’t been completely removed, but the AP is the standard bearer of news, so why doubt them, right?

AP caught lying about fluoride, vaccines, global warming

In much the same way they promote vaccine industry lies, the Associated Press will continue to promote the addition of fluoride byproduct chemicals to municipal water supplies. Even though multiple studies, including one from Harvard, linked fluoridated water to lower IQ and all sorts of health problems, the AP is supposed to be obeyed on the issue of fluoride safety. One AP story criticized a St. Louis community after the municipality stopped adding fluoride chemicals to the water supply. The AP story also failed to distinguish naturally occurring fluoride and the toxic fluoride byproducts that are actually added to the water supply – hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium hexafluorosilicate.

The Associated Press promotes exactly what its masters want. When it comes to the news, there is no truth; there is billions of dollars worth of monetary interests on the line and people in power to protect. In this story, the AP tried to push the global warming narrative with a fake picture and caption, but were forced to retract it when the narrative was exposed...................

Industrial air pollution including fluoride produced thick unhealthy smog. This Canadian TV production shows how Canada had no air pollution regulations at that time, while the United States had started implementing these regulations. After pollution controls were put in place and heavy industry declined in the United States we have much cleaner air today. The film also shows fluoride pollution from a phosphate fertilizer plant damaging crops, livestock, and a farmer's health. That phosphate plant installed polution scrubbers and provided scrubber liquor which due to it's high fluoride content was added to drinking water for fluoridation in Canadian cities.


Scary old video. His forecast was not right fortunately Although I remember being covered from the fall out from the old QE liner's funnels in Southampton couldn't happen now.

Citizens Petition for Fluoride Vote

NZ - Fluoride in water

The Government seems determined to impose de-facto water fluoridation on the whole country with the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. This bill proposes transferring the responsibility for water fluoridation from local authorities to district health boards.
Once enacted the public will have no say whether they want fluoride in their water or not. The huge costs of implementing water fluoridation will fall on ratepayers.
Information requested from Christchurch City Council staff by councillor Vicki Buck estimated the cost of fluoridation to be around $10.5 million, with an ongoing cost of about $500,000 a year.
Dr Simon Thornley of Auckland Regional Public Health Service and Dr Rob Beaglehole, public health dentist and veteran anti-sugar campaigner, have correctly identified sugar as the most important determinant of rotten teeth.
It’s a great pity that the Ministry of Health put so much faith in water fluoridation, which doesn’t seem to work, instead of listening to health professionals who have correctly identified the cause of the problem.
MIKE WOODS Paraparaumu

USA - Buda delays putting fluoride in water after getting feedback

By Andy Jechow

BUDA, Texas (KXAN) — After receiving feedback from Buda City Council members and citizens, City Manager Kenneth Williams has put the city’s scheduled fluoridation on hold.

The city said the decision is not final and the hold will be in place until the City Council revisits the move and makes a more permanent decision.

At the request of Mayor Todd Ruge, the city will hold a public hearing on the fluoridation of the water supply during the Feb. 7 City Council meeting. Officials say, in any case, the fluoridation will not go into effect before the hearing.

Fluoride had been in the surface water portion of Buda’s water supply from 2002 up until November 2015 when the Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority stopped fluoridating at the San Marcos treatment plant.

Since 2015, Buda has worked with the Texas Fluoridation program (TFP) to design and install a fluoridation system to reintroduce fluoride into their water...............

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.

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

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!

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

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

1. John N Newton1, 
2. Julia Verne2, 
3. Mark Dancox2, 
4. Nicholas Young3

+Author Affiliations

1. ¹Department of Chief Knowledge Officer, Public Health England, London, UK
2. ²Department of South West Knowledge and Intelligence Team, Public Health England, Bristol, UK
3. ³Department of Knowledge and Intelligence Team, Public Health England, Bristol, 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