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

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Harvard Professor: Fluoride Toxic to Children, Linked to Autism


Practically overnight, fluoride joined the likes of lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene and other chemicals known to damage brain tissue, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).


"In light of the new classification of fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin, adding more fluoride to American's already excessive intake no longer has any conceivable justification. We should follow the evidence and try to reduce fluoride intake, not increase it," said Paul Connett, PhD, FAN executive director.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
In the March 2014 journal Lancet Neurology, the highly prevalent chemical was reclassified as a developmental neurotoxin by medical authorities.

The authors, Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine write, "A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations."


The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels of less than four milligrams per liter, which falls under the allowable level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Developmental neurotoxins, which are capable of causing widespread brain disorders such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and learning disabilities, often cause untreatable and permanent damage.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, "Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries."

To help protect children's brain development, the authors say it's extremely important to control the use of such harmful chemicals. In the study, they have proposed mandatory testing of these chemicals and request an immediate formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity.

"Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain," Grandjean says. "The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us."

"In light of the new classification of fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin, adding more fluoride to American's already excessive intake no longer has any conceivable justification. We should follow the evidence and try to reduce fluoride intake, not increase it," said Paul Connett, PhD, FAN executive director, in a prepared statement.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report roughly 276 million Americans consume fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC's vigorous advocacy to maintain and elevate those consumption numbers.

Yet the CDC's own evidence reveals Americans already show symptoms of fluoride-overexposure and reports that 41 percent of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical sign that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also indicates these markers in the U.S. are not decreasing over time, but are increasing.

Connett asks, "Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake? Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children's brains."

Visit EcoWatch’s FOOD and HEALTH pages for more related news on this topic.

Friday, June 29, 2018

F.A.N. Newsletter

Some of our readers were puzzled yesterday by FAN NZ broadcasting the Supreme Court verdict on fluoridation as a victory rather than a defeat. After all the Supreme court ruled against the plaintiffs (New Health New Zealand) in their efforts to prevent South Taranaki from fluoridating its water. 

Let me explain, in my view, this is a classic case of losing a battle but winning the war.
In this case, the war is over the ethics of fluoridation. For opponents of fluoridation, this practice violates the individual's right to medical or human treatment. For proponents the counter-argument has been that fluoride is not a medicine and fluoridation is not a medical treatment. Proponents further argue that even if fluoride was a medicine people are not forced to drink the fluoridated water.
In the following two paragraphs (99 and 100) in the Supreme court ruling it is clear that the judges side with opponents on this matter and this finding will have huge ramifications worldwide. In other words it is a huge victory for us. Meanwhile, proponents will celebrate their local victory.
[99]
Applying this approach, we find that fluoridation of drinking water is the provision of medical treatment. It involves the provision of a pharmacologically active substance for the purpose of treating those who ingest it for dental decay. We agree with the Courts below that people who live or work in areas where fluoridation occurs have no practical option but to ingest the fluoride added to the water. So
the treatment is compulsory. While drinking water from a tap is not an activity that would normally be classified as undergoing medical treatment, we do not consider that ingesting fluoride added to water can be said to be qualitatively different from ingesting a fluoride tablet provided by a health practitioner. 
[100]

We conclude that fluoridation of drinking water requires those drinking the water to undergo medical treatment in circumstances where they are unable to refuse to do so. Subject to s5, therefore, s11 of the Bill of Rights Act is engaged.
To see how that local victory was won you will have to read the paragraphs 101 - 144 in the ruling. But basically, they argue that the individual right to informed consent to medication (section 11 of the NZ Bill or Rights) may in certain circumstances be over-ridden by the interests of the larger community (see section 5). However, the judges somewhat undermined these arguments by earlier acknowledging in paragraph 10 that the benefits of fluoridation are largely topical, and as such allowing individuals the right to informed consent in this case would not deprive the rest of society of fluoride's perceived benefits since there is universal access to fluoridated toothpaste.
Another important point is that when the issue was being heard the US-government funded study by Bashash et al., 2017 had not been published. Had the judges known about this important and rigorous study, it is questionable whether they would they have felt it was in the interests of the larger community to support a practice which would lower the IQ of its children?

Meanwhile, below are more details and arguments from FAN –NZ.
Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

Most of you will have heard that the Supreme Court made a Ruling on the Appeal by New Health New Zealand. This Appeal resulted in two judgments. The second one (NSC60) held that whether or not fluoridation chemicals should come under the regulations of the Medicines Act was moot, as Medsafe had been given an exemption for fluoridation chemicals if they are added to the drinking water.
The first one (NSC59) dealt with whether or not councils had a legal right to add fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water. Chief Justice Sian Elias said they didn't, but the other four judges thought they did. However, the important point for us is that all judges, except Judge William Young, ruled that fluoridation was a medical treatment, and that if a person lives or works in a fluoridated area it is compulsory medication and therefore it breached Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act. Section 11 - "Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment".
So why does this not make fluoridation illegal? The judges then went on to look at Section 5 which is about "Justified limitations" and says "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Section 4 is about "Other Enactments" which says that other laws override the Bill of Rights. But two of the judges argued that fluoridation was justified under Section 5. They say they are not able to weigh up the benefits and risks, so they rely on the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization, who say there are benefits and no risks. One judge ruled that this was a balancing that each decision maker had to make at the time, potentially taking local circumstances into account. But all three agreed the balancing question needed to be addressed.
So we are back to everyone, including the highest court of the land, allowing fluoridation because the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization say it's okay. This is in spite of the fact that most of the world does not practice fluoridation - even though the WHO says it is good - and the decision makers in the Ministry of Health are a handful of people who have been promoting fluoridation most of their professional careers, so are unlikely to change their mind.

Where does that leave us? The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that fluoridation is compulsory medical treatment means the proponents can never again spin the PR line that they are "just topping up the natural levels". Hallelujah! Thank you New Health New Zealand for initiating this great leap forward. It also leaves us where we were before, in that we need hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to understand this issue - so the few policy advisors within the Ministry of Health can no longer wield such great power so irresponsibly

Thursday, June 28, 2018

Answers needed to the fluoride conundrum

Answers needed to the fluoride conundrum

LAST week, there were two letters to the editor responding to the suggestion that ‘‘fluoride be added to the entire water supply to kill bacteria’’ (ODT, 8.6.18).
Chlorine is added to water to kill bacteria. Fluoride is added to water to supposedly strengthen children’s teeth.
The following questions need to be answered:
1. Many countries (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Portugal, Holland etc) have ceased fluoridating water supplies. Why?
2. Many overseas universities have discounted the socalled ‘‘health’’ effects of adding fluoride to water supplies. Why do the many universitytrained orthodontists and medical professionals disagree with the efficacy of the addition of fluoride to town/country water supplies?
3. Where is the evidence showing ‘‘fluoride is good for the health of children and the elderly’’?
I understand that calcium is the antidote to fluoride and the corrosive effect of fluoride can cause osteoporosis (bone) and soft tissue complications (liver and kidneys) in the elderly.
Fluoride may be beneficial to children’s teeth when applied to the teeth by a professional orthodontist, but there is no health benefit associated with ingesting fluoride and fluorosis (yellow spotting of the teeth) is problematic with children
Water is the staff of life. But a water cocktail of poisons (including fluoride) will aid sickness and death.
Kathleen Moore Ret. Reg. Psych, Alexandra

UK - Study proposed over adding fluoride to water supply in Darlington or across Tees Valley

CALLS to add fluoride to the drinking water supply in a town where more than a third of children starting primary school have several decayed teeth have moved a step forward.

Darlington Borough Council’s children and young people’s scrutiny committee is set to recommend a technical appraisal, partly funded by NHS England, is carried out.

The study will would examine if the existing water distribution network is capable of supporting a Darlington fluoridation scheme or one which covered areas of the Tees Valley not already supplied with fluoridated water.

It will also look at the potential impact on neighbouring areas.

At present, the only water fluoridation schemes in England north of Lincolnshire cover parts of north Durham, Newcastle, Northumberland and Cumbria.

The move follows a large-scale study published in the Journal of Dental Research earlier this month which found areas where more than 75 per cent of residents had water fluoridation saw a 30 per cent less decay in children’s first teeth, and 12 per cent less decay in children’s permanent teeth.

The council would fund any water fluoridation programme.

Dr Mercola - What's Driving the Decline in IQ Scores?

Fluoride Exposure Linked to Lower IQ

The featured study didn’t look in-depth into the environmental exposures that could be affecting IQ but other studies have. In the U.S., two-thirds of Americans’ tap water contains fluoride, which is added under the guise of preventing cavities. Water fluoridation continues to occur in the majority of the U.S. even as research stacks up that fluoride is a neurotoxin that can harm brain function. Fluoride also leaches lead out of old pipes, which further magnifies its neurological risks.
A study of Mexican women and children, published in 2017, found that higher exposure to fluoride while in utero is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in childhood, both at the age of 4 and 6 to 12 years.3
While the children’s fluoride levels at ages 4 and 6 to 12 were not associated with their intelligence, the study found that exposure that occurs prenatally was linked to lower intelligence scores. In fact, women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence.
Specifically, each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women’s fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children’s General Cognitive Index (GCI) and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) scores, respectively. In 2012, Harvard researchers also revealed that children living in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas4 and suggested high fluoride exposure may have an adverse effect on children’s neurodevelopment.
Then, in 2014, a review in Lancet Neurology classified fluoride as one of only 11 chemicals "known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings,"5 alongside other known neurotoxins such as lead, methylmercury, arsenic and toluene. Among the proposed mechanisms of harm, studies have shown fluoride can:........................................

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

NZ - Supreme Court upholds council's right to fluoridate water

The council has been in a long-running legal battle with anti-fluoridation campaigners New Health New Zealand since its 2012 decision to fluoridate the water.
The group has fought the council's decision through the courts beginning with a judicial review in the High Court.
The High Court ruled in favour of the council and that was upheld by the Court of Appeal.
Both those courts ruled that the South Taranaki District Council had statutory authority to fluoridate the Patea and Waverley water supplies, and that fluoridation was not a medical treatment.
They also found that if fluoridating the water engaged the Bill of Rights right to refuse medical treatment, fluoridation of water was a justified limit on that right.
A second appeal was also before the Supreme Court relating to whether the two compounds added to water supplies for fluoridation, hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) and sodium silicofluoride (SSF), were medicines in terms of the Medicines Act 1981.
At a hearing last year the council's lawyer told the Supreme Court medical evidence showed there was a high level of tooth decay in Waverley and Patea, and fluoridating the water supply was a proportionate way of dealing with that.
However, New Health New Zealand said fluoridating town water supplies breached residents' right to refuse medical treatment.
In today's decision four out of the five Supreme Court judges have dismissed New Health New Zealand's appeal, ruling Taranaki District Council can fluoridate local water supplies, as it has a duty under the Health Act to protect and improve public health in its region.
Justices William Young, Glazebrook, O'Regan and Ellen France found that power was not constrained by the Bill of Rights.
"On our approach, that is because the authorising provisions limit the ... right [to refuse medical treatment] only to an extent that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
In her part of the decision Justice Glazebrook said, "I accept that dental decay is a condition that a local authority would be entitled to consider injurious to public health."
"Thus, there would be a specific power under ... the Health Act to 'cause all proper steps to be taken to secure … the removal of the condition'."
Justice William Young accepted people living in areas with fluoridated water would find it difficult to avoid drinking it.
However, he had reservations over whether that meant legally those people were being denied the right to refuse to drink it.
Regarding the question of whether fluoridation involved medical treatment, he said the more routine an activity was, the less likely it was to be thought to involve medical treatment.
"It would be odd [for example] to regard a parent who rubs sunscreen onto a child or brushes that child's teeth as providing medical treatment."
"It has never been suggested that the supply of naturally fluoridated water involves medical treatment. I do not see why the supply of fluoridated water which is materially the same in chemical composition as naturally fluoridated water should be regarded differently."
However in a dissenting judgement, Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias ruled there was no basis to interpret the Local Government or Health Act as giving authority for local bodies to add fluoride to water.
"The power relied upon in supporting an implied [ability] to add fluoride to water supplied by the council is contained in a [section of the Health Act] which authorises a local authority to take 'all proper steps … to secure the abatement' of any 'nuisance' or any 'condition likely to be injurious to health' ... in the district," Justice Elias said.
"Lack of fluoride cannot be described as a 'nuisance', a term defined ... by reference to conditions likely to be injurious to health, such as through accumulation of rubbish or through the condition of drains or watercourses."
Justice Elias said if Parliament wanted to empower local authorities to add fluoride to reticulated water for public health purposes, it could do so.
She said she would therefore have allowed New Health New Zealand's appeal and made a declaration that the council has no power to add fluoride to the water it supplies.
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed New Health New Zealand's appeal regarding changes to the Medicine Act, which declared fluoridating agents were not medicines.
It also ordered the organisation must pay $20,000 costs to the South Taranaki District Council.

NZ - Fluoride to return to Hastings water supply after a two year absence

Fluoride is due to make a return to Hastings drinking water from August, following a two year absence due to the Havelock North gastro outbreak.

Hawke's Bay DHB was keen to see fluoride return to the supply and in a paper going before the board today staff said "community fluoridation remains an ongoing and serious concern as it has been absent from the Hastings District Council supply since August 2016 and no clear timeframe for its reinstatement has been announced by Hastings District Council".

It said "Reinstatement is a high priority for Maori and Pacific oral health".

Hastings was the first place in New Zealand to have fluoride added to its urban water as a means of preventing tooth decay, in 1954, but the water supply has been fluoride-free since the Havelock North gastro-outbreak....................

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

F.A.N. Newsletter

**Calgary Herald Fluoridation Poll Question: Please click on link and VOTE NO!**

Earlier this year, the Fluoride Action Network’s (FAN) Director, chemist and Professor Emeritus Paul Connett, PhD, travelled to New Zealand to combat a proposal in the Parliament that could create a de-facto nationwide fluoridation mandate.  The proposal under consideration would strip local governments and residents of the authority to make decisions regarding fluoridation of their drinking water.  Instead, local Boards of Health would be granted the ability to force communities to fluoridate, regardless of resident opposition.
Dr. Connett made presentations before many communities on his trip, with his last being a presentation given in the NZ parliamentary building.  He detailed the potential harmful effects of water fluoridation, including the most recent research and scientific findings.
Now you can watch and share this presentation, entitled Major U.S. Government-Funded Brain Study Should End Fluoridation Worldwide, which includes power-point slides and graphics throughout the video.  This valuable tool was filmed and edited by FAN’s Outreach and Education Director, Jay Sanders, who did an impressive job capturing Paul’s message to decision-makers everywhere: 

(Click on graphic to watch video)
According to Paul, "Jay filmed this in a professional studio and with his excellent formatting and editing skills, I think this is one of my best presentations on video. It is right up to date and for someone new to the issue it is very clear and well documented. The first 40 minutes deal with fluoride's neurotoxicity and after a short intermission the rest deals with the more familiar common sense and ethical arguments against fluoridation. 
Please share this video with decision-makers, have it shown on local public TV channels, share it on your social media pages, hold a neighborhood House Party, BBQ, or Coffee Social with a screening of this video.

Stay tuned! Jay will be creating shorter videos using footage from this presentation that we will share in future bulletins and on our social media pages.  
Texas Republican Party Adds Banning Fluoridation to Platform
Members of the Texas Republican party met in San Antonio earlier this month to hold their state convention and update their platform.  During the event, the party adopted a new platform “principle” on fluoridation:
245. Fluoride in Water Supply: The Republican Party of Texas supports banning the fluoridation of the Texas water supply.
Local fluoride-free organizers, led by Regina Imburgia, educated local decision-makers and members of the GOP’s “Platform Committee” prior to the meeting, urging the members to review the latest science and take a stance in opposition to the practice.  According to Regina, the resolution passed with approximately 80% of the votes.

The Texas GOP’s official opposition to fluoridation is another example of the diversity of support for our movement.   From Ralph Nader, the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2000, to Libertarians like Dr. Ron Paul, to Democrats and Republicans at every level of government, and everything in between in countries with multi-party systems.  Opposition to fluoridation is clearly an issue we can all proudly find agreement on.  
Latest Fluoride News:
-Franklin General Authority Votes to Terminate Fluoride Services (Pennsylvania)
-Ogdensburg Considering Changes to How it Fluoridates Water (New York)
-Houston Council Tables Decision on Fluoridation Ballot Wording (Missouri)
-Fluoridation: Call for a Moratorium (Rhode Island)
-Several Sides Sink Teeth into Debate Over Fluoride in Windsor-Essex (Ontario)
-Oberon: Council Says No to Health Study Before Fluoridation Vote (Australia)
-Teeth Bared as Fluoride-Free Campaign Heats Up (Australia)
-Fluoridation Chemicals Headed for Quirindi Drinking Water (Australia)
-Liverpool Plains Shire Council will Investigate Adding Fluoride to Water (U.K.)
-Children’s Fluoride Exposure Linked to Later Life Disease (U.S.A.)
-The Fumigant Sulfuryl Fluoride Intensifies the Greenhouse Effect (International)

For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.

Sincerely,
 
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
 

Question of the Day: Should Calgary's drinking water be fluoridated?

The decision to remove fluoride from Calgary’s drinking water has long been a point of debate.
The discussions were reignited this weekend after two dentists, an orthodontist and a bioethicist wrote an opinion piece in the Calgary Herald claiming the absence of fluoride is having “devastating consequences.”
“It is time to recognize what we see every single day. Allowing the levels of fluoride in our drinking water to fall below 0.7 parts per million is a terrible mistake that hurts people: you, your children and your grandchildren, every day,” they wrote.
Now, we want to know what you think. Take the poll and expand on your answer in the comments section below................................

Click title to see comments and poll

Why Our Drinking Water Is Killing Us

The dangers of fluoridated water.
   
"Water Fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply to reduce tooth decay", according to wikipedia.org. Fluoride happens to be the chemical compound that we find in our toothpaste, processed foods and in our public water supply. Fluoridation became an official policy of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1951 and by 1960, water fluoridation had became widely used in the United States, reaching about 50 million people. According Dr. Joseph Mercola, "If fluoride is really the panacea for dental disease that it's been portrayed as, then why is that the United States is one of the only developed countries that fluoridates their citizen's drinking water?" Dr. Mercola continues to say, "It's not because the other countries aren't aware of fluoride's supposed 'miracle' powers for your teeth..it's because they fully realize that adding a known poison to your population's water supply is probably not a good idea."

Obviously, fluoride isn't the beneficial product that citizens of the United States have been led to believe. Naturally, many people trust in their government and don't believe a chemical that is harmful to people would be distributed into the general population. However, it's one thing to be unaware of the poison you are putting into your body, but it's completely different to be aware of this poison and not take action. According to mercola.com, "Many assume consuming fluoride is only an issue that involves your dental health." But according to a 500 scientific page review, fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can affect your bones, brain, thyroid gland, pineal gland and even your blood sugar levels.

So a chemical compound that was just intended to prevent tooth decay has many extremely harsh side effects. I remember when I was a kid, my mother always told me not to ever swallow toothpaste because I could get very sick. Back then, I didn't understand the consequences with consuming fluoride.

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) reported: "Fluorosilicic acid is the most contaminated chemical added to public water supplies, and many impose additional risks to those presented by natural fluorides. These risks include a possible cancer hazard from the acid's elevated arsenic content and a possible neurotoxic hazard from the acid's ability -under some conditions -to increase the erosion of lead from old pipes." So fluorosilicic acid can certainly be labeled a great treat to humankind. Simply put, this chemical can lead to cancer and provides toxins to the brain. The question is, why is something so harmful still in our drinking water? Energyfanatics.com states, "Fluorisilic acid is a waste product of phosphate fertilizer industry and is heavily contaminated with toxins and heavy metals (including the cancerous arsenic, lead and cadmium) and radioactive materials. The website continues to state, "Dr.J. William Hirzy, EPA scientist, is reported to have said, 'If the stuff gets out into the air, it's a pollutant; If it gets into the river, it's a pollutant; if it gets into a lake, it's a pollutant; but if it goes right straight in your drinking water system, it's not a pollutant. That's amazing!'"

Like Odyssey on Facebook
So a product that pollutes the bodies of water on earth and contains cancerous elements is allowed in our public drinking water. Water is essential for human survival and your body needs it to function properly. The body is made up of seventy percent water so the water you put in your body will basically determine your overall health.

"There have been over 34 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage," according to the Institute for Vibrant Living, including lower IQ in children. Studies have also shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems including dementia, arthritis, bone fractures, increased tumor and cancer rate, disrupted immune system, bone cancer, genetic damage and so on. Cancer and arthritis are conditions that affect a good percentage of Americans on a daily basis. The fact that our drinking water contains elements that lead to cancer and countless other problems American citizens face on a daily basis is a disrespect to the integrity of people everywhere.

I see countless commercials regarding cancer research and the ongoing fight against cancer, but none of them ever mentioned that our drinking water contributes to the cancer our loved ones face everyday. I can imagine that the average person would never dream that the same water that's suppose to help them is slowing leading them to their own demise. It isn't easy information to swallow. Furthermore, if we wish to eradicate the diseases that plague our human condition, we have to stop putting harmful fluoride in our basic essentials of living. We all have the choice to take action, or do nothing. Fluoride is obviously a threat to human health and needs to be removed.

Monday, June 25, 2018

Canada - Reader Letter: Keep fluoride out of drinking water

Re: Health unit wants return of fluoridation, by Doug Schmidt, June 7.

There have been a great number of studies done on the effects of fluoridation of drinking water, Many are conducted by labs paid for by fluoride lobbyists and dental lobbyists. These are less than impartial studies.

A 2007 review by the British Medical Journal stated that “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation,” which is currently standard for all drugs. This alone should stop any further use of this policy of a blanket drug program until further independent and randomized studies are complete.

The effects on teeth can be proven minimally beneficial. On the other side of the coin fluoride as a neurotoxin has also been proven to affect the brain to a degree.

We as a society can continue to brush our teeth and stay more vigilant in our fight to keep our teeth clean. But a damaged brain is a damaged brain, something this writer is not willing to chance. So, until fluoride has been vigorously and thoroughly tested as per any other drug, please keep it out of my water. I like my water clear, clean, cool, and chemical free.

Darrel Lauzon, Amherstburg

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Australia - Letter | Look at the recent history of fluoride in Lithgow

I HAVE been visiting Oberon over the last month attending meetings with the people in Oberon who oppose fluoridation. Similar resistance was expressed in Lithgow at the time of putting fluoride into the drinking water in 2012. I detail the events that happened in Lithgow as it is in the local area with many similarities to Oberon.
At the time before fluoridation in Lithgow, the people had the benefit of having NSW Health dental clinicians carry out controlled investigation into the health of 653 children. The findings were very revealing, to say the least.
Before fluoridation, there existed in 27 per cent of the children the condition of "fluorosis", which all authorities admit is a symptom of too much systematically ingested fluoride. Additionally, the estimations revealed in the published bulletin of NSW Health in 2010 for the DMFT (Damaged, Missing and Filled Teeth) oral health of children in Lithgow both in primary teeth and permanent teeth, were "better that the state average". Repeat: this is before fluoride in Lithgow compared to 40 years of fluoridation in most of NSW.
Consequently, to the health authorities it mattered not that adding even more fluoride to the children would increase "fluorosis", ultimately causing more oral and other health issues. Note: dentists increased in Lithgow after fluoridation.
One must ask, why did these children need more fluoride? And why did the dentists and health representatives years before claim that the Lithgow children had very bad teeth? I note that this is now happening in Oberon, and without the benefit of clinical studies. However, other studies done in our local area have revealed very little difference in the DMFT. 
Examples of Bathurst and Orange and Lithgow reveal that the discussion centres around the amount of decay in just one tooth; the difference is expressed in that one tooth. For example, no fluoride before 2012 for Lithgow was 0.6 DMFT and for Bathurst and Orange it was 0.29 and 0.33 respectively.
What is to be observed is that the decay in the fluoridated towns is still there. It was only reduced by half in one tooth. That is why dentists will claim they have reduced the decay by 50 per cent and that decay in unfluoridated areas is double. But they talk about the reduction of decay in one tooth. The NSW public health bulletin also states the DMFT is 0.88, with western Sydney at 1.7 (two teeth) and fluoridated for 40-plus years in most cases.
Decay in one tooth soon changes, in adults, to 15 or so teeth, and onto old age some will lose all their teeth at 75 on. So much for the power of fluoride as a remedy. 
This brings us to the other sources of this same poison and being a poison, the dose consumed should be closely monitored. In the case of fluoride, this is not investigated, so if you drink more water, you get more poison. But it is not isolated to water, it is in your food, in anaesthetics, egg powder, in all black teas, green teas, white teas, and in large amounts in instant tea, meat, all of which will be more than you are getting in the water.
So, the smart authorities will claim that there is no harm from levels in the water. This avoids the computation of other sources, of which I have stated, contains more fluoride than in the water and being a poison, no one knows how much, or why it is not being studied and included.
This is a matter of dire importance. I believe the products are not properly certified for human consumption; there are no toxicology or clinical trials ever done on this poison. Fluoride is a remarkable industrial chemical. It has hundreds of uses with more being discovered every year. Farmers use many types of fluoride, steel, glass and ceramic use fluoride, welders use fluoride on rods and pastes, paint can have fluoride, plastics can contain fluoride, and they can all end up in the human body in the form of an ion in blood and bone, brain and kidney, thyroid and eyes, with more being used every year.
Australian authorities have limited ubiquity data, and no health studies on Australian people for fluoride. No wonder there are those who question the use of fluoride. The authorities should be looking at synergistic interactions of fluoride and aluminium, another product that has not had toxicology study or clinical trial in the US or Australia. This synergy is said to have implications to Alzheimer’s disease, presently without remedy or reason.

Allan Jones, Lithgow

Canada - Keep fluoride out of drinking water

  • Windsor Star
  • Re: Health unit wants return of fluoridation, by Doug Schmidt, June 7.
    There have been a great number of studies done on the effects of fluoridation of drinking water. Many are conducted by labs paid for by fluoride lobbyists and dental lobbyists. These are less than impartial studies.
    A 2007 review by the British Medical Journal stated that “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation,” which is currently standard for all drugs. This alone should stop any further use of this policy of a blanket drug program until further independent and randomized studies are complete.
    The effects on teeth can be proven minimally beneficial. On the other side of the coin, fluoride as a neurotoxin has also been proven to affect the brain to a degree.
    We as a society can continue to brush our teeth and stay more vigilant in our fight to keep our teeth clean. But a damaged brain is a damaged brain, something this writer is not willing to chance. So, until fluoride has been vigorously and thoroughly tested as per any other drug, please keep it out of my water. Darrel Lauzon, Amherstburg

    Saturday, June 23, 2018




    Curious Flexitarian
    Published on 22 Jun 2018
    On this episode of The Curious Flexitarian Podcast we explore the danger of fluoride and some classic solutions to starting our morning without absorbing toxic chemicals into our blood stream first thing in the morning.

    Opinion: Children's teeth are paying the price for the cancellation of fluoridation in Calgary

    By June Dabbagh, Leagh Harfield, Wendy Street-Wadey and Juliet Guichon
    As the school year draws to an end, it is time to consider how Calgary has been treating its children lately. In one respect, the answer is not well at all.
    Calgary city council decided in 2011 to cease adjusting the fluoride levels in Calgary water. Three of us are dental specialists, and can attest to the devastating consequences.
    Consider, for example, Sammy’s case. On a Saturday, his mother called a dental office reporting that the eight-year-old boy was irritable, feverish and crying constantly. The mother wanted an appointment for Monday morning, but we opened the office to see him. He was not well. An infection in his tooth had crept upward to his eye, such that his lower eyelid was closing.
    This is a medical emergency. Once in the eye, a dental infection can travel rapidly to the brain and, if untreated, cause death. One of us went with his mother to Rockyview Hospital. Sammy was immediately given intravenous antibiotics and admitted. The next day, he was transferred to the Children’s Hospital for continued care.
    Such systemic infections caused by dental infections are not unusual these days. In fact, we have had to change how we practice dentistry. When we had fluoridation, we would watch a small soft spot or cavity; we would wait to see whether it grew before drilling and filling. Now, we must pounce on the problem because, in the six months until the next appointment, that small, soft spot will likely become a huge hole in the tooth.
    Consider another scenario. We now routinely see children whose primary and permanent molars are already decayed and require fillings as soon as the teeth erupt through the gums. When the dental decay is too severe, the infected teeth must be extracted. In very young children, such work must often be done under general anesthetic, which bears its own risks for kids and can be a horrible experience for the children and their parents.
    Consequently, the child might need orthodontic care over a seven- to nine-year period to recreate a bite and to maximize the effectiveness of the remaining teeth. Prior to fluoridation cessation, we saw children in this state almost always from communities surrounding Calgary that did not have water fluoridation. Sadly, now Calgary children are losing teeth they will need throughout their adult lives.
    Calgary children are not the only ones suffering. Adults need fluoridation too, especially seniors.
    Fluoride is a mineral and occurs naturally in Calgary drinking water at 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million. It strengthens tooth structure, prevents decay and even reverses some decay. To be therapeutic, the fluoride level needs to be at 0.7 parts per million. At this level, fluoride remains safe and effective.
    This fact is settled science, confirmed most recently in massive systematic reviews by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Irish Government Food Safety Authority. Indeed, 5,600 studies support adding fluoride to the 0.7 level.
    Experts at the Public Health Agency of Canada, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization recommend fluoridation; so do hundreds of leading global health and dental organizations, thereby attesting to its safety and efficacy.
    Almost all U.S. cities fluoridate their water, as do major international cities. Incidentally, almost 90 per cent of NHL cities fluoridate their water.
    It is time to recognize what we see every single day. Allowing the levels of fluoride in our drinking water to fall below 0.7 parts per million is a terrible mistake that hurts people: you, your children and your grandchildren, every day.
    When children’s teeth are rotting, they can’t eat, sleep or develop normally. They have trouble concentrating in school and don’t want to play. Summer will not be much fun for kids with dental pain.
    City councillors, please make reinstating water fluoridation a priority.
    June Dabbagh and Wendy Street-Wadey are Calgary dentists. Leagh Harfield is a Calgary orthodontist. Juliet Guichon is a University of Calgary bioethicist.

    Dozens of comments...........................................

    Friday, June 22, 2018

    NZ - Letters: Fluoride - the right to choose

    Darrell Grace (Letters; June 14) claims that water fluoridation has benefits.

    Mary Byrne (Letters; June 17) makes clear how Darrell Grace is wrong with his claims about tooth decay statistics.

    Examples from the 2015-16 NZ Dental School Statistics include children from non-fluoridated Christchurch and Nelson-Marlborough with less tooth decay than those from fluoridated Auckland and Counties Manukau; and non-fluoridated New Plymouth had less tooth decay than fluoridated Hawera.

    Even the World Health Organisation statistics demonstrate there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not, with a general trend of decline in overall rates of decay in developed countries.

    The studies Mr Grace alludes to are not the ones that point out that hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) is toxic [NZ Hazchem Class 6 (acutely toxic ) 7 (dangerous poison) & 8 (corrosive)]. HFA is also laced with a range of other heavy metals including aluminium, arsenic, lead, mercury and uranium, and fluoride is classed as more toxic than lead.

    In the United States, fluoride toothpaste is not recommended for babies and children under three years.

    At the end of the day, it is about choice. It is unfair to those who don't wish to drink fluoridated water to be forced to buy water.

    RICK BAUM

    Aramoho

    Thursday, June 21, 2018



    Preventing Cancer with Ellen Connett, Managing Director of the Flouride Action Network and FlourideAlert.org http://fluoridealert.org/



    Paul Connett, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, gives a detailed presentation on the potential harmful effects of water fluoridation on residents of New Zealand.

    Wednesday, June 20, 2018

    F.A.N. Newsletter

    In a recent article the New York Times (NYT) made a very embarrassing mistake. Specifically, it cited a videotape that repeated a serious mistake on the toxicity of fluoride that was corrected 6 years ago.
    The mistake made in the video was the claim that an important meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies carried out by a team from Harvard University (Choi et al., 2012) - comparing the IQ between children from villages with high fluoride exposure and villages with low-exposure- reported an average loss of 0.45 of an IQ point. In reality, the Harvard researchers reported a loss of 0.45 of one standard deviation, which amounted to a loss of 7 IQ points. A huge difference. A loss of half an IQ point might be insignificant, but a loss of 7 IQ points would be very serious at the population level. Such a loss would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by at least 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
    Under any other circumstances this would be a very embarrassing mistake but on the matter of fluoridation the NYT is not embarrassed easily.  For example, in 2015 the senior science editor wrote an email in connection with fluoridation:
    “… I understand that you disagree, but I think it’s fair to say
    that most members of the science staff of The New York Times
    consider this debate to have been decided – in fluoride’s favor –
    about 50 years ago.”
    Donald McNeil Jr., Science Correspondent, New York Times
    April 2, 2015 email. Subject: READERS MAIL
    See copy of email at 4:35 minutes into Our Daily Dose
    It is quite possible that Donald McNeil’s pro-fluoridation position here has something to do with the fact that his father wrote a history of water fluoridation that was decidedly pro-fluoridation (The Fight for Fluoridation, Donald McNeil, Oxford University Press, 1957). Be that as it may, McNeil should know that such a statement is preposterous. Science is never “settled.” This situation is what Thomas Huxley described as the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” 
    In the case of water fluoridation there are dozens of ugly facts that slay the hypothesis and the much repeated mantra that "fluoridation is safe and effective."  These include 53 studies that associate a lowering of IQ with exposure to fluoride (http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/).  From the fluoridation promoters' perspective, the "ugliest" of these "facts" came last year in the form of a rigorous US government-funded study that found an association between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered IQ in their children at 4 and 6-12 years of age (Bashash et al., 2017).
    New York Times continues to ignore recent IQ studies
    The worrying thing here is not so much this recent “clanger” from the NYT but rather the fact that the editors of this paper made a decision that these important findings from 2017 (and repeated in 2018 by Thomas et al.) were not “fit to be published.”  
    This, despite the fact that this multi-million-dollar research effort was carried out over 12 years, and involved researchers from many leading US, Canadian and Mexican institutions and Universities, with over 50 published papers on other neurotoxic chemicals between them, and that it was published in the world’s leading environmental health journal (Environmental Health Perspectives).
    Failure of the New York Times means that pregnant women are not being warned to avoid fluoride
    FAN is doing its best to warn people about these important findings but sadly, without the attention of important outlets like the NYT, pregnant women in the US and other fluoridated countries will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.
    FAN writes letter on June 3rd to the New York Times requesting correction
    Letter to the Editor:
    A recent NY Times article (5/28/2018) linked to an outdated video, which made a serious mistake about fluoride science, should be corrected.
    The speaker in the video claims a Harvard University meta-analysis of 27 fluoride/IQ studies reported an average difference of 0.45 IQ points.  In reality, the Harvard researchers reported a loss of 0.45 of one standard deviation, which amounts to a loss of 7 IQ points. A huge difference.  
    A loss of 7 IQ points would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by at least 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
    We are also disappointed that the Times failed to report recent findings of a rigorous US-government funded study conducted by a team of highly experienced researchers (Bashash, 2017 and Thomas, 2018) that essentially confirmed the Harvard review's concerns. In this latest study, a loss of 6 IQ points in children was associated with exposure to women during pregnancy of levels of fluoride commonly experienced by adults in artificially fluoridated communities.
    Without the attention to such important science, by such news outlets as the NY Times, pregnant women in the USA will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.
    Paul Connett, PhD
    FAN has also written a letter to the video host

    Dear Dr. Carroll,
    In 2014, you made a YouTube video entitled “Fluoride in the Water Isn’t Going to Hurt You.”
    In the video, you stated that a Harvard meta-analysis found that higher fluoride levels in 27 studies, on average, lowered the IQ’s of children by about one half an IQ point. Actually, the study said that it was about half a standard deviation, equating to about seven IQ points (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/).  This was a major error, leading to anyone watching your video to underestimate how serious fluoride in water can be. Since that study, many others have found that fluoride may lower IQ’s, including last year’s major NIH-funded study led by the University of Toronto (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/) (and including at least one researcher from your own Indiana University) that linked higher fluoride levels in pregnant women to lower IQ’s in their children.  
    Recently, the New York Times ran an article linking to your video, further compounding this misunderstanding.
    I have a simple request. Would you please, in the very near future, either correct your YouTube video or, if that’s not possible, remove it entirely from the internet as soon as possible? Please let me know.
    Meanwhile, would you also inform the NY Times - who relied on your video - of this error.
    Thank you,
     
    Paul Connett, PhD
    Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network
    We have received no reply and no correction from either the New York Times or Carroll. Thus, the lie (fluoridation is safe) persists and other than FAN no one is warning pregnant women to avoid fluoride. 
     
    Sincerely,
     

    Paul Connett, PhD
    Executive Director
    Fluoride Action Network