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

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, March 31, 2018

UK - Children in county are failing to see their dentist

MORE than 10,000 children in Herefordshire did not see their dentist last year, which experts say has contributed to the nationwide problem of childhood tooth decay.

Public Health England recommends regular trips to the dentist to stop children needing tooth extractions. Yet in Herefordshire 15,221 children did not visit the dentist at least once in 2017, putting them at risk of rotten teeth and gum disease.

Figures from NHS Digital show that just 57.7% of youngsters, 20,751 in total, had an annual check up.The importance of regular trips to the dentist is highlighted by the fact that in England the most common reason for under 18s to attend hospital is for multiple rotten teeth extractions. This is where decay is so advanced dentists are unable to treat it at their surgeries.

The numbers highlight the crisis with tooth decay, and the British Dental Association has said that the low number of check ups could contribute to this. NHS statistics show that in the 2012/13 financial year there were 36,883 extractions where at least two teeth had to be removed, but by 2016/17 this had risen to 42,911.

As well as regular dental visits, PHE also says cutting down the amount of sugary drinks children consume and brushing teeth twice a day with fluoride toothpaste can reduce decay.

The BDA has urged the government to learn from the dedicated national programmes in Wales and Scotland that have used school outreach and public information to secure successes against childhood tooth decay. Chairman Mick Armstrong said: "These stubbornly low attendance figures offer real cause for concern. There is no room for complacency when tooth decay remains the number one reason for child hospital admissions.

"Getting kids brushing and seeing a dentist shouldn't be optional extras. Sadly parents are being left without guidance, while politicians seem content keeping costs down and patients away. "In Wales and Scotland we're seeing record breaking improvements in decay, backed up by public information and outreach in schools and nurseries. England needs more than token efforts.

"Getting kids in the habit of attending is key to life-long oral health, and under 18s should be seeing their dentist at least every 12 months." In Herefordshire the number of children going to the dentist has gone down. In 2016 80 more youngsters had an annual dental check up than last year.

The figures show adults are not setting a good example for children. Last year 49.7% of adults in Herefordshire visited the dentist once in the last 24 months. A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman commented: "We are determined to reduce the number of children having teeth extracted because of tooth decay, that's why we're introducing a sugar tax on soft drinks with the most added sugar, which comes into effect next month.

"Access to dental services continues to increase nationally - in 2017, 6.9 million children were seen by a dentist representing 58.2% of the child population."

USA - Water bills, fluoride and city government: Pure water is priceless

Water bills, fluoride and city government: Pure water is priceless

Water bills, fluoride and city government; what do these three things have in common? More than you would think.
There are a few important things happening in our local city governments. Licking is raising the water rates, amounting to a five percent increase to the average homeowner (expect a bill in the amount $11.20 per month for 1,000 gallons). The rate increase is necessary to make repairs to our existing infrastructure, including water distribution improvements, emergency back up and protection, replacing the school water tower that is too low to be effective, and placement of a new well. These improvements will ensure an uninterrupted supply of pure drinking water in the years to come, with built-in back up systems.
I’m personally proud of Licking, and Salem as well, where this column also appears. I’m proud because the city councils of these two towns have steadfastly resisted the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid (‎F6H2Si) to the municipal water supply. That would appear to be the obvious choice, but many communities have succumbed to the pressure to fluoridate for various reasons. For one, ‎F6H2Si (pH 1.2 – stomach acid territory) has been touted to be the same as natural calcium fluoride CaF2, found in nature with a slightly alkaline pH of 7.3.
What difference does a molecule make? A lot. CaF2 is classified as “not dangerous,” although reacting it with sulfuric acid produces toxic hydrofluoric acid. Much of the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to local drinking water supplies is industrial waste, found in the scrubbers of aluminum factories.
In the past two years, the rules have changed on getting hydrofluorosilicic acid, aka “fluoride,” out of your drinking water. Prior to passage of HB1717, “the fluoride protection bill,” the chemical could be removed overnight with just a vote from the City Council. Since the bill has passed, towns must give 90 days notice to the DNR, enabling them to bring significant pressure to bear on the decision. (Note that no such requirement is needed if you want to add fluoride.) A few years ago, the town of Sullivan was offered $25,000 to keep F6H2Si in their water, an offer they wisely declined.
Two clusters of people in Texas County are still receiving hydrofluorosilicic acid in their drinking water, the cities of Houston and Cabool. Houston will be having a public hearing on the issue at 5:30 p.m., prior to the City Council meeting, April 16. In order to assist the public regarding the science of fluoridation, The Licking News has reached out to the pre-eminent authority on the issue, Dr. Paul Connett.
Dr. Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. From 1983, until he retired in May 2006, Paul taught chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, where he specialized in Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology. He has been involved in researching fluoride’s toxicity and the fluoridation debate for 22 years, and helped found the Fluoride Action Network. He has given invited presentations on the dangers of fluoridation in Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the UK and the US. This has included invited presentations in 2003 to both the US EPA and the US National Research Council.
Dr. Connett has agreed to come to Texas County for the important public meeting on water fluoridation. Public conferences are being arranged for April 14 and 15, enabling citizens to be fully informed prior to the public meeting. Everyone is invited to attend. Details will be published in the upcoming weeks.

Friday, March 30, 2018

More than half of Australians failing to brush their teeth twice a day | Poll


NEED TO BRUSH: Charles Sturt University’s dental and oral health clinic director Heather Cameron with her dental assistant Jess Gough. Photo: JUDE KEOGH BRUSH your teeth twice a day: That’s the advice we are all given when we go to the dentist as children but alarming statistics from a national survey have revealed that half of Australians aren’t doing it. 
According to Australia’s Oral Health Tracker, released last week, more than 90 per cent of adults have experienced decay in their permanent teeth while only 51 per cent of adults are brushing their teeth twice a day.
Charles Sturt University’s dental and oral health clinic director Heather Cameron said the findings were a major concern. 
“If we go back 20 years, there was indication that there was an improvement in oral health. I now think we are going backwards, which is concerning,” she said.
“I think it’s a combination of things such as education with the general public about what they need to be doing to look after their teeth. 
“People tend to have busy lives and tend to not make brushing a healthy habit.” 
Ms Cameron said brushing helps remove plaque and provides much-needed fluoride from the toothpaste. 
She also said a change in people’s diet had contributed to more tooth decay.
“That’s where we are seeing the biggest impact. It’s about the frequency in snacking between meals,” she said.
“People need to reduce the amount of snacks between meals because that impacts the amount of decay they have. The more often they’re eating the more likely they are to suffer from tooth decay.” 
Ms Cameron said the long-term effects of poor dental and oral health were not good. “People end up in pain as a result of tooth decay, which has an impact on their lives,” she said.
“There’s a relationship between oral health and general health, such as things like diabetes and cardiac issues. People need to be looking after their dental health to look after their general health.”
Healthy brushing habits can be formed by brushing once in the morning and once before going to bed. 
“Take that extra two minutes to just do it,” Ms Cameron said.
If you are worried about your dental health, call CSU on 1300 278 642 for an appointment at its Albury, Bathurst, Dubbo, Orange or Wagga Wagga clinic.

Fluoridated Australia. 

Professionals support Edgartown fluoridation

To the editor:On April 12, 2018, at the annual town election the voters of Edgartown will decide whether the town public water supply should be fluoridated.
Fluoride, a naturally occurring mineral, is useful for preventing dental caries, also called cavities or tooth decay. Dental caries is the most prevalent infectious disease of childhood.  It is five times more prevalent than asthma. As almost everyone knows, it causes pain and is difficult and expensive to treat. Fluoride in drinking water will reduce dental caries by 20 to 45 percent, even in the presence of other sources of fluoride such as toothpaste.
The safety of community water fluoridation has been proven by careful review of scientists in the United States for 70 years. In 1945 the U. S. Public Health Service adjusted the fluoride, in the City of Grand Rapids, Michigan, from a naturally occurring trace level to 1 part fluoride per million parts of water. Shortly thereafter, two other U.S. cities  and 1 Canadian city were artificially fluoridated, with 3 nearby and similarly sized cities not fluoridated, in carefully controlled trials. These controlled studies of the usefulness and safety of community water fluoridation continue to this present day, so that currently 210 million Americans are benefiting by drinking fluoridated water.
The vast majority of physicians, dentists and other health professionals endorse the safety and value of this important public health measure. Unwavering support for water fluoridation from medical and dental organizations include the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, the National Head Start Association, the National Down’s Syndrome Society, the World Health Organization, and every U. S. Surgeon General, and every President of the United States since and including President John F. Kennedy.
We, the undersigned, urge Edgartown voters to attend the annual town election on April 12, 2018 and answer ballot question #6: “Shall the public water supply for domestic use in the Town of Edgartown be fluoridated?” with a vote of “YES.”
Bruce E. Golden, DDS
On behalf of, Melanie Miller, DDS, Karen Gear, DDS, Garrett Orazem, DMD, Brian S. Cullen, DMD, David S. Samuels, DMD, Robert W. Herman, DMD, Debra George, DMD, Nina Giambro, DDS, Christopher Trailer, DMD, Glenn Harris, DMD, Helene F. Schaeffer, DDS, Richard J. McNulty,DMD, Sharam Karimi, DMD, Sanford Nadelstein, DDS, Barry Resnick, DDS, Steven Nagy, DMD, Elliot Kronstein, DDS, Sonya M. Stevens, MD, Barbara Krause, MD, Karen Williams, MD, Henry Neider, MD, Gerry Yukevich, MD, Julia Stunkel, MD, John Lamb, MD, David A. Kolb, MD, Pieter Pil, MD, PhD, Beth Donnelly, MD, Elizabeth Finnegan, MD, Hugh F. Harwood, MD, Ben Thomas, MD, Judy Jones, DPN, FNR-BC, Marion Santos, MSN, RN, Sarah Kuh, MPH, Director, Vineyard Health Care Access/ Vineyard Smiles, Michaeleen Cook, RDH, Donna Vought, RDH, Denise Schepici, President/CEO Martha’s Vineyard Hospital, Louis W. Sullivan, MD, former US Secretary of Health and Human Service, and Dukes County Health Council
Very impressive list hope those opposed to fluoridation  can put up  a strong argument against .

Thursday, March 29, 2018

F.A.N.Newsletter

First, an update on our fundraiser. We have received $40,540 from 234 supporters since March 1st. This is simply a fabulous reaction to our goal of raising $75,000 by May 31st. Thank you to everyone who has donated.
We are hoping that we will get a total of 1,000 donors to be a part of “our” lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. If you want to be part of this team effort to end the most misguided public health practice of the 20th century, you can do so with a donation of any amount. How to donate
You can donate either:
  • Online at our secure server.

  • Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:
    Fluoride Action Network
    c/o Connett
    104 Walnut Street
    Binghamton NY 13905


Authors of US-funded fluoride-IQ study strengthen their landmark findings
Introduction.
From the day it was published (Sept 19, 2017) the Fluoride Action Network has been drawing attention to the US-government funded (National Institutes of Health) Bashash et al. study. This 12- year mother-child study found a strong correlation between the levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy and lowered IQ in their offspring at 4 and 6-12 years of age.
Last week, at a conference on environmental epidemiology in Germany, members of this same research team announced additional findings that confirm and strengthen their original report (announced). Very young children, age 1-3 years, also show loss of IQ. In other words, their study now covers the ages of the offspring from one to twelve years. 
For the age of 1- 3 years, for every 1 mg/L increase in the urine fluoride level of their pregnant mothers, the children averaged 2.4 points lower IQ scores.  The finding was statistically significant and accounted for potential confounding factors.
Thomas et al., concluded “Our findings add to our team’s recently published report on prenatal fluoride and cognition at ages 4 and 6–12 years [the Bashash et al 2017 paper] by suggesting that higher in utero exposure to F has an adverse impact on offspring cognitive development that can be detected earlier, in the first three years of life.”
This finding adds strength to the rapidly accumulating evidence that a pregnant woman’s intake of fluoride similar to that from artificially fluoridated water can cause a large loss of IQ in the offspring.
The study was conducted in Mexico City and had over 400 mother-child pairs.  Fluoridated salt is the main source of fluoride exposure in Mexico City.  It is designed to give the same intake of fluoride as fluoridated water.  Mexico City drinking water fluoride is mostly low.  To get an estimate of total fluoride intake in the women and fluoride exposure to the fetus, the researchers measured the mother’s urine fluoride levels during pregnancy.  The levels were indeed in the same range as has been found in pregnant women in fluoridated New Zealand [Brough et al 2015] and in adults in other countries with fluoridated water.  There is no question that the intake of fluoride in this study is similar to and directly applicable to intakes in countries with artificial fluoridation.
Michael Connett, JD , who is heading up the Fluoride Action Network’s legal challenge calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substance and Control Act (TSCA) said that,
This new finding from NIH's fluoride/IQ study further strengthens the evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. The fluoride levels at issue in the study are within the range that pregnant women in the U.S. will receive, so the findings are clearly relevant to our ongoing case against the EPA.
Professor Paul Connett, re-appointed as director of the Fluoride Action Network,  hopes that this second paper will prompt the major media to cover this important landmark finding . According to Professor Connett,
"When you consider who funded this 12-year study (the NIH, the NIEHS and the EPA), the experience of the researchers,  the rigor with which study was conducted, and the seriousness of their findings, it is extraordinary that this study has yet to be covered by major news organizations like the NY Times, the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal."
According to Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign director, 
“If our political leaders are going to use the public's water supply to treat residents with fluoridation chemicals, than they have the responsibility to notify all citizens--especially pregnant women and parents--of known health risks and the necessary precautions to avoid harm.  When notified, the media also shares in this responsibility.  In this case, it has been left to not-for-profit watchdogs and whistleblowers like FAN."  
Thank you, 
Paul and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising Team

Additional Resources:
• The full TSCA petition submitted to EPA on Nov 22, 2016
• A shorter 8-page summary
• Follow the news reports here
• The Documents submitted into the court record
* The Timeline of the Lawsuit
See all FAN bulletins online

Dental Health UK Parliament

Photo of Steve BrineSteve Brine The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

In England local authorities are responsible for assessing oral health needs and improving the oral health of their local populations rather than the centralised approach in Scotland. Many local authorities have programmes in place that contain elements similar to those within the Childsmile programme, for example tooth brushing programmes and community fluoride varnish schemes.
Improving the oral health of young children in England is a Public Health England (PHE) priority. PHE’s Children’s Oral Health Improvement Programme Board brings together over 20 stakeholder organisations that all have key leadership roles for children and young people. Its work programme includes learning from other successful approaches including the Childsmile initiative in Scotland.
The Department for Education recognises the importance of healthy teeth - poor oral health can affect a child's ability to sleep, eat, speak, play and socialise with other children. Early Years Educator qualifications must cover the promotion of the health, safety and welfare of children. All early years’ providers have a responsibility to promote the health of children in their setting, set out in the Early Years Foundation Stage framework, good oral health can form a part of this and this may include supervised tooth brushing sessions. PHE has published a supervised tooth brushing toolkit to support the commissioning and delivery of these programmes. In addition early years providers have published a feasibility study of supervised tooth brushing in early years settings which concluded they were easily deliverable. The study is available at:
Information on the cost of assessing oral health needs, and individual supervised brushing programmes is not collected centrally. Local authorities are responsible for improving oral health, assessing oral health needs and if appropriate commissioning supervised brushing programmes including nurseries and school breakfast clubs.



Reported in 2013 but  I've never seen this before.

The dark side of fluoride explored – Part II

The dark side of fluoride explored – Part II

Dr Robert C Dickson is a community physician in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Photo supplied.
As a medical doctor, I find it heartening as I travel throughout New South Wales and Queensland to find so many enlightened and educated people on the contentious subject of artificial water fluoridation. Unfortunately, it appears that your medical, dental and public health entities have co-opted the argument, and continue to pressure for this practice.
Let’s take a closer look at where we are now, and where we can and should be going, with our dental and total health.

Safety

In Canada, we tired of the constant barrage of ‘safe and effective’ so we asked Health Canada for safety studies. They refused. We then sought to find out about the studies they relied on for fluoridation under the Freedom of Information Act and, after 1.5 years, Health Canada got back to us and admitted that they had none. Not a single safety study was to be found!
The situation is similar here in Australia, as industry and government have no incentive or motivation to do extensive long-term studies when they can glibly throw out ‘trust us, it’s safe’ and move on to the next issue.
Babies in particular are subject to excessively high doses of fluoride when infant formula is made with fluoridated water. Mother Nature appears to have the upper hand here, as breast milk, the healthiest way on the planet to nurture babies, has as little as 1/200 the dose as does fluoridated water.

Toxicity

Swallowing fluoride is admitted to be mostly ineffective and that any effects are primarily topical, even by the heavily biased Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA.
Ingested, the volatile fluorine ion readily crosses the placental and blood-brain barriers, and has access to every cell, organ and body system. There are now more than1,000 studies showing potential harm. These include calcification of the ‘seat of the soul’ pineal gland in the brain, highly significant decrease in IQ of 4–7 points in kids, thyroid enzyme toxicity, heart and kidney damage, thickened but weakened bone, and increases in cancers such as sarcoma in young boys.
Of particular note is the marked increase in fluorosis, or damage to teeth themselves, mostly in children.
The promise that we would never see fluorosis levels anywhere near 10 per cent in fluoridated areas have been broken. Now, we are seeing white or brown mottling, and in severe cases broken and disfigured teeth, in ever increasing numbers. The extensive NHANES population study in the USA revealed an alarming 57 per cent of teens have varying degrees of fluorosis, which is also an indicator that damage is being done not only to teeth but to all body organs and systems.
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, comprising of dentists, researchers, MDs, and toxicologists, has come out very strongly against water fluoridation. A search of their papers and studies is edifying yet frightening.

Where we can, and should, go

Fluoridationists often pressure and advocate for public votes such as plebiscites and referendums on whether to fluoridate our otherwise safe water supplies. In most developed countries, health authorities have access to large sums of money to produce high-quality ads and promotional materials and are therefore confident that they can get their message out much more readily than grassroots-funded opponents. However, the vastly underfunded opposition has produced victories in hundreds of cities, communities and municipalities, of particular note my city of Calgary in Canada, and Portland in the USA.
The most important aspect of plebiscites is that we have no right to vote on whether or not to medicate our neighbours. The decision to mass medicate should be undertaken by those elected to make policy decisions.
In Calgary, in 2011, city councillors made a bold decision based not solely on science, as they are not scientists, but on the morality and ethics of mass medicating their entire constituency with a highly toxic chemical, without control of dose or dosage, without follow-up, and without informed consent.
What, then, can we do for our babies, children, the poorest and most vulnerable?
1. Stop all fluoridation, and use the monies currently allocated for fluoridation supplies and infrastructure to educate and provide basic dental services to vulnerable groups.
2. Institute programs based on the hugely successful ChildSmile program in Scotland. That country allows no water fluoridation, and has pioneered amazing programs since 2001 that have resulted in much healthier teeth in kids and teens, better overall oral health, and vastly improved total body health – decreased obesity, less diabetes and a host of other benefits.
3. Extensive education programs to elucidate all ages, from toddlers to the elderly, on the huge importance of brushing, diet, fresh fruits and veges, and a marked decrease in sugar consumption.
We can, and should, be improving the health of all our constituents, not just abdicating to highly contentious mass medication. We can do so much better!
♦ Robert C Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP, is a community physician in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and is the founder of Safe Water Calgary (www.safewatercalgary.com). He is currently travelling in eastern Australia.

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

Grand Junction wins state award for water Fluoridation

Story image for fluoride from KJCT8.com

Grand Junction wins state award for water Fluoridation

KJCT8.com-9 hours ago
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. (KKCO/KJCT)-- A local water treatment plant has gotten a big award by the state. The City of Grand Junction got the Colorado Award for Excellence in Water Fluoridation by the state. They were one of only 27 water systems in the state to win the award. Grand Junction maintained their daily levels ...

What about the other water treatment plants that are not maintaining the right levels?



F.A.N. Newsletter

Before we get to the editorial below, here is a quick update on our fundraiser for our TSCA lawsuit against the US EPA. We have raised $38,765 from 221 donors. Thank you all for your magnificent response to our appeal. We are well on our way to our goal of $75,000 by May 31 – and if we achieve that our total will be tripled to $225,000
You can donate either:
 
• Online at our secure server.
 
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905
(and please provide us with your phone number or email address so that we can thank you quickly)
 
Warning to Moms2B: Avoid Fluoride.
 
Better safe than sorry
Before Ellen and I got involved with fighting fluoridation, we were heavily involved in fighting municipal waste incinerators. In fact, between 1985 and 1995 we helped communities stop over 300 incinerators being built in North America. One of the things we learned from that effort was that success was dependent on good grassroots organizing locally. Networking with groups on the state and national level was a great advantage on two fronts: the sharing of successful strategies and the knowing that one was not alone in the fight.

After a few years into the battle the message from Ellen to the grass-roots: The only ones to protect a community from health risks are those who live in it.  And Paul added: No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.  
It is that second statement that is relevant and important for our court case against the EPA. After we have shown that
a) fluoride is a hazard because of its neurotoxicity, and
b) it presents serious neurotoxic risks to children at current exposure levels from drinking fluoridated water.
We will have to show that these risks are unreasonable.

The major proponents of fluoridation like the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have conceded that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001). In other words, because you don’t have to swallow fluoride to get its purported benefits, you can more reasonably apply it directly to the surface of the teeth using fluoridated toothpaste. Some would argue that the most important thing is that children be taught to brush their teeth properly whether they use fluoridated or non-fluoridated toothpaste. If the latter is chosen then it is important that young children be supervised to prevent them swallowing the toothpaste and that toothpaste manufacturers be prohibited from using fruit flavors and packaging that actually encourages children to look at fluoridated toothpaste as candy.
Fluoridation promoters will have to argue a very difficult “risks versus benefit” case. They have to argue that the very meager (if any) benefit of swallowing fluoride (their assertions in this regard are theoretical. In 70 years there has never been a randomized control trial at the community or individual level that demonstrates that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay) can justify the risks of lowering the IQ of children when it is neither necessary nor rational to swallow fluoride at all. No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable. 
To make their task even more difficult, it is not a small risk we are talking about it is a very serious risk. Lowering a child’s intelligence is very serious – particularly at the population level.
The scientific evidence for that serious risk was strengthened even more on Sept 19, 2017, when a rigorous mother-child study was published (Bashash et al., 2017). This study, funded by the US-government, showed a strong correlation between the amount of fluoride mothers were exposed to during pregnancy and a lowered IQ in their offspring. Based on the data from this study typical fluoride exposure levels of pregnant women in USA has the potential to yield a lowering of up to six IQ points. At the population level such a shift in IQ would halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by about 50% the number of mentally handicapped children (IQ less than 70). See more information on the Bashash study at the end of this editorial
At the very least, this finding should trigger the Precautionary Principle. If in doubt take it out. Stop adding fluoride to our water now, if other rigorously-conducted studies come out later that refute the Bashash study then consider putting it back in. But to continue this practice with such evidence on the table is unthinkable. This 70-year experiment must end now.
Meanwhile, as far as pregnant woman are concerned we urge them to be safe rather than sorry. They can find better ways of fighting tooth decay after their children are born, but there are no ways of recovering any IQ points IF they are lost during pregnancy. That loss is irreversible and permanent and, in our view, if they are lost because of fluoride exposure, that loss is unnecessary.
We are still developing our campaign and we need your help. Our message: “Moms2B: Avoid Fluoride.” Better safe than sorry. Please send us your suggestions.
Thank you,

Paul and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising Team
References:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). 48(41): 933-940 October 22, 1999. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2001.Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. (MMWR). 50(RR14);1-42. August 17, 2001. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
See previous bulletins that discuss Bashash:

Additional Resources:
• The full TSCA petition submitted to EPA on Nov 22, 2016
• A shorter 8-page summary
• Follow the news reports here
• The Documents submitted into the court record
* The Timeline of the Lawsuit
See all FAN bulletins online

Tuesday, March 27, 2018



Published on 26 Mar 2018


Harvard study of 10 US cities without fluoride in the water, compared to 10 cities w fluoride confirms 50,000 Cancer deaths / year, lowers kids IQ by 19%. Stop fluoridating SF water. Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ By Dr. Joseph Mercola A recently-published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas. In a 32-page report that can be downloaded free of charge from Environmental Health Perspectives, the researchers said: A recent report from the U.S. National Research Council (NRC 2006) concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory ... To summarize the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on increased fluoride exposure in drinking water and neurodevelopmental delays. We specifically targeted studies carried out in rural China that have not been widely disseminated, thus complementing the studies that have been included in previous reviews and risk assessment reports ... Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence ... The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults ... Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls ... In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should formally evaluate dose-response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders. Studies Have Repeatedly Linked Fluoride to Reduced IQ and Brain Damage There are so many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your body, it’s truly remarkable that it’s NOT considered a scientific consensus by now. Despite the evidence against it, fluoride is still added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies. It amazes me that the medical (and dental) communities are so stubbornly resistant to connect the dots when it comes to the skyrocketing increase of cognitive decline in adults and behavioral issues in children (ADD, ADHD, depression and learning disabilities of all kinds). In fact, there have been more than 23 human studies and


Harvard researchers link fluoridated water to ADHD, autism and other childhood mental health disorders from NaturalNews on Vimeo.

Fluoride Lowers IQ in Children

Fluoride Lowers IQ in Children
A new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, one of the most highly respected environmental health publications in the world, found evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin in children. We have been discussing this health threat for many years and researchers continue to link fluoride exposure to health problems including thyroid disease, cognitive decline, and bone loss.

In this 12-year study with women and children, scientists set out to understand the effect that prenatal exposure to fluoride has on children. The results were alarming. The scientists concluded that for every 0.5mg/L increase in maternal urine fluoride, their offspring had approximately a 3.15 and 2.50 lower GCI and IQ scores, respectively, at ages 4 and 6 - 12.

The Fluoride-Iodine Battle


Fluoride is a toxin that interferes with the actions of iodine, a nutrient vital for proper brain development and intelligence. Fluoride and iodine have similar structures and can both bind to the same receptor sites in the body. Unfortunately, fluoride is bigger and heavier, and if present, will compete with iodine and win the battle.

There have been numerous studies showing the importance of iodine during pregnancy, not only for the role it plays in supporting the thyroid, but specifically for optimal cognitive development of offspring. It is important to understand that there is a window of time for optimal brain development, as neurological development is most influenced by thyroid-dependent iodine in the first half of pregnancy. Unfortunately, if iodine intake is not optimal during this critical time, neurological development may suffer irreversible consequences.

Iodine is often lacking from the typical American diet which is low in fresh, wild-caught seafood. That makes supplementing with iodine while pregnant or breastfeeding important to optimize inherent genetic potential for learning and cognitive ability.

What’s in Your Water?


Fluoride is hiding in more than just toothpaste and at the dentist’s office. Fluoride is added to the public water supply under the guise of preventing tooth decay. It can also be found in salt, milk, and the food supply. Regions with higher fluoridation have been found to have an increased risk of fluorosis and hypothyroidism. The negative effects of fluoride in the public water supply are real.

Make sure you drink only clean drinking water and protect your body from exposure. Reverse osmosis water filtration will remove fluoride and help reduce your exposure. Unfortunately, “activated carbon filters” like Brita and Pur do not remove fluoride. Fluoride filters will only remove about 90% of the fluoride from water. 

Also consider iodine supplementation to help protect your family. The quality of iodine will make a huge difference when it comes to optimizing cognitive potential. Iosol iodine, a water soluble and bioactive form of iodine, is the preferred form to use. It is far superior to iodized salt, potassium iodide, or kelp which can build up in the thyroid and cause inflammation. Place 1 drop in a small amount of water and drink daily, prior to and during pregnancy. 

Fortunately, there is a nationwide movement to remove fluoride from the water supply. Some communities have been successful in removing fluoride due to public demand. However, the majority of Americans still drink fluoridated water.

This is the scary reality we live in. Take steps to protect yourself and your children from the harmful effects of fluoride. When it comes to the health of your children, no step is too small.