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

UK Against Fluoridation

Wednesday, July 31, 2019



Sunday, July 28, 2019

Saturday, July 27, 2019

Dental fluoride policy in Japan

Sir, with regard to your recent content on toothpaste advertising,1there are two types of chemicals: controlled chemicals for our good health and reduced chemicals for our bad health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) clearly stated that widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries in the United States and other economically developed countries.2 The World Health Organisation (WHO) has also asserted that the use of fluoride is a major breakthrough in public health.3 However, in Japan, fluoride in drinking water is regulated to be less than 0.8 mg/l which is not able to decrease tooth decay. According to the latest information,4 we have 104,533 dentists in Japan which is greater than the number of convenience stores. The lay public in Japan does not understand the importance of using fluoride in drinking water. Although the WHO, CDC, and developed countries recognise the relationship between the use of fluoride and tooth decay, unfortunately the Japanese government has been neglecting it. I believe the Japanese government needs to care for their own people by using fluoride and should change their dental fluoride policy as soon as possible.


Friday, July 26, 2019

House of Lords

Moved by Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To move that this House takes note of the availability of National Health Servicedentistry services.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes Conservative 

................................What the Minister said on fluoridation was very good; she gave us some hope. As an Australian, I must say that Australians have had it for 60 years now, almost everywhere, except for those on a local river or rainwater tank. But it is important to keep it at the optimal level, not the maximum or anything else. That is why there has to be a good water authority that can take fluoride out, as well as put it in. That is essential; you do not want it to be uncontrolled.
I have repeatedly asked questions in the House about Manchester and Birmingham. The answer has always come back that there is no difference in the health pattern for cancer or any other condition, but the big difference is that Manchester has no fluoridated water and the worst possible teeth, and Birmingham has very good teeth, because it has had a fluoridation scheme for so long. People need to be aware of those few things. Interesting and relevant points have been made. I could not speak more highly of what my colleague said on that contract set-up. I ceased to have that a long time ago. I again thank all noble Lords who have contributed.
Motion agreed.

UK - Government consulting on water fluoridation and school toothbrushing scheme

The government has launched a new consultation on proposals to help people liver healthier, happier and longer lives.
Titled ‘Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s’, proposals include ways to improve the population’s oral health.
It suggests rolling out a school toothbrushing scheme in more pre-school and primary school settings across England.
‘Evidence suggests that these programmes have the ability to reduce tooth decay, mitigate inequalities and establish lifelong behaviour to improve oral health,’ the consultation says.
‘Half of all local authorities already have a version of the scheme in place.
‘But they are not always focused on the children that would benefit the most.
‘Next year, we’ll consult on proposals that will allow us to reach the most deprived three to five-year-olds in all areas of the country.
‘The aim would be to reach 30% by 2022.’

Water fluoridation

Water fluoridation is also mentioned in the consultation as a way of improving the nation’s oral health.
Proposals include removing funding barriers to encourage local areas to introduce fluoride into drinking water.
NHS England said it will actively seek partnerships with local authorities, and councils will be rewarded for their fluoridation efforts.
‘Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance present in most water supplies, though typically at levels too low to improve dental health,’ the consultation continues.
‘It has a protective effect on teeth that lessens the impact of diets high in sugar and poor oral hygiene.
‘Six million people in England (one in 10 of us) already drink fluoridated water because of where they live.
‘A further 400,000 live in areas where fluoride levels in water are already naturally elevated due to the surrounding geology.
‘There’s evidence that these areas have lower levels of dental disease than similar areas without fluoridation.
‘For five-year-olds living in the most deprived areas, the odds of tooth decay are reduced by a third.
‘Water fluoridation schemes such as this have been used for over 70 years internationally, and in England for over 55 years.
‘In its 2018 report, PHE concluded, that “water fluoridation is an effective and safe public health measure to reduce the frequency and severity of dental decay, and narrow differences in dental health between more and less deprived children and young people”.’

Dismay

The British Dental Association (BDA) has expressed its dismay at the eleventh-hour publication of the Prevention Green paper.
The BDA has described the publication as a ‘fire sale’, and challenged the incoming government not to turn its back on evidence-based policy making.
‘A green paper setting out big ideas to finally put prevention into practice now looks more like a fire sale,’ BDA chair, Mick Armstrong, said.
‘The tragedy is this document contains numerous tried-and-tested policies, which could save children from pain and our NHS millions in treatment costs.
‘In the rush to avoid the charge of “nanny statism” the first casualty cannot be evidence-based policymaking.
‘Health professionals will look to the next government to show leadership, and will not let this process be swept under the carpet.’
_____________________________________________________
" lessens the impact of diets high in sugar and poor oral hygiene."
Improve the diet is the answer as diabetes and ill health will still be rampant 
Why the obsession on teeth?

Thursday, July 25, 2019

WDDTY

WDDTY  Aug 2019 “STATINS AREN’T WORKING FOR 50% OF PATIENTS”
Statins aren’t reducing the so-called ‘bad’ cholesterol to healthy levels in 50% of patients.  Researchers from Nottingham Uni, measured the effectiveness of statins in 165,000 patients.  They discovered that half - 84,609 people - did not get a big decline in their LDL cholesterol.   Even after taking the drug every day for 2 years, many still had levels similar to before they started the treatment.  (Heart, 2019 Apr 15.)
… AND INCREASE THE RISK OF A SHINGLES ATTACK”
Cholesterol-lowering statins can trigger the painful viral infection - shingles (herpes zoster), especially in the elderly.  A research team from Wenzhou Medical Uni reviewed previously published medical studies involving over 2 million people. One possibility, the researchers say is linked to the discovery that statins can cause diabetes, & shingles is far more common in diabetics. (BMJ Open, 2019;9 ) 
Ann

I've stopped taking my 4 lots of tablets including statins. Acid reflux and burning of the oesophagus the biggest reason. 
A consultant I told said that won't kill you a stroke will. If he woke up during the night with acid dripping into his lungs he might not be so dismissive of the harm done.
Bill

Reader letter: Prenatal fluoride exposure is not safe

On April 11th, the article “Fluoride to return to Windsor-area tap water after Tecumseh Vote” included bold claims regarding the safety of community water fluoridation, from Tecumseh Mayor Gary McNamara and Dr. Wajid Ahmed of the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit.
Mayor McNamara:  “… I’m proud how council did their homework on this and based their decision on good science…. The reality is the science is solid and peer-reviewed.”
Dr. Ahmed: “… we stay up to date on all research and areas we work with…One research paper does not negate longstanding research that dates back 73 years that shows fluoride is safe.”
Science strongly indicates that fluoride can cause harm to babies in the womb at exposures experienced by mothers-to-be in fluoridated cities.
Recent high quality, U.S. government-funded studies found that fluoride exposure during pregnancy is associated with lower IQs and increased ADHD symptoms. The maternal fluoride exposures in these studies were very similar to those recently reported for Canadian fluoridated cities.
These studies were conducted by an international team of researchers from Dalla Lana School of Public Health at University of Toronto (where I earned my Master’s degree in Biostatistics), Harvard School of Public Health, National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, etc. They add to a body of over 50 published studies finding a relationship between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in humans.
I therefore sought, via Freedom of Information requests to their institutions, the primary, peer-reviewed studies relied upon by these two gentlemen in making such confidently dismissive claims.
The response?  “No responsive studies“.
Fluoride is recognized as a developmental neurotoxin and there are no studies indicating that prenatal fluoride exposure is safe with respect to childhood IQ or ADHD symptoms
Christine Massey, Brampton

Is Fluoride Harmful or Beneficial?



Is Fluoride Harmful or Beneficial?
July 24th, 2019|Articles|0 Comments
Read Time: 6 minutes

Fluoride has great clinical benefits for teeth. Scientists determined in the early 1900’s that there was a link between communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply and lower levels of tooth decay. That led to the widespread fluoridation of water. Any dentist will tell you that fluoride is beneficial for the teeth. Now slow down. Just because I said fluoride was beneficial for teeth doesn’t mean it’s beneficial for you! I didn’t say fluoride was beneficial for the rest of the body. Fluoride is very harmful to the rest of the body.

Fluoride and the Body
Dentists only talk about teeth, but the body is just not one part. It is made up of many parts. Fluoride is extremely negative to the body overall and it’s not the only time science looks at the benefit of something clinically without looking at the overall negative effects. Something that is currently in the new is the harms of taking aspirin to prevent a heart attack. Many older Americans are taking daily aspirin thinking it will prevent a heart attack, but it comes with high risks such as increased bleeding risk, stroke, and damage to the stomach. The body is like a Swiss Watch. Just because something can have clinical benefits for one part of the body doesn’t mean that it’s okay for the rest of the body.

Ever wonder why it says call poison control if swallowed on the side of your tube of Crest or Colgate? It’s because ingesting fluoride can make you sick, poison you, or even in high enough amounts potentially kill you. Now you would have to eat a lot of it but what happens if I smash your toe just a little every day? What happens over the course of 5-10 years? That toe is going to be in rough shape. The thing about fluoride in our water supply is it is added for the clinical benefit based on how much water the average person drinks. What if you drink more than average and what about all the other ways you are exposed to fluoride? There are numerous.

How is Fluoride Harmful?
Fluoride is slowly impacting us over long-term exposure. Fluoride has a negative impact on neurological development. We know in high levels it can cause neurotoxicity for adults and in rodents leads to memory issues. Studies have linked it to low IQ and have demonstrated that it can impact the cognitive development of children (1) (2) (3) Fluoride has been linked to thyroid problems and one study found that hypothyroidism was almost twice as likely in areas with fluoridated drinking water compared to those without fluoridation. (4) Fluoride has been linked to certain cancers like uterine, bladder and osteosarcoma. (5)

Fluoride is a toxic chemical, like lead or arsenic, and high toxicity can contribute to a variety of concerns like autism and ADHD. Remember … what happens if you smash your toe a little bit every day? Your toe will look worse and worse over time from a little bit of smashing. In the same respect, you may be slowly poisoning yourself with fluoride.

What Can I Do to Lower My Exposure to Fluoride?
Upgrade your toothpaste to a non-fluoride option like Schmidt’s.
Get a good water filter. A whole-house system is a great option. An activated carbon filter will not remove fluoride but there are still options for those who can’t invest in the whole-house system. A Berkey Filter attachment can remove 95% of fluoride from your water.
Find a natural dentist and make sure to pass on the fluoride treatments.
Avoid Teflon and upgrade your cookware.
Choose organic produce especially grapes, which are often treated with a fluoride pesticide called cryolite. Grapes regularly show up on the Dirty Dozen.
Avoid Fluoride’s Harmful Effects
So, is fluoride harmful or beneficial? If you are just looking at your teeth it might be considered beneficial. If you look at the body as a whole, or Swiss Watch, then you see that the risks are not worth the benefits.

Written by Dr. Patrick Flynn

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Fed (up) with poison!

This writer hopes that children, from teenagers upwards, read these articles and proceed to familiarize themselves with the ongoing research. The new developments in research, tests and testing equipment as well as the development of new fields in science are fascinating. Very soon scientists will be able to follow metabolic processes “live”. This may be for short periods because a human being cannot be tied to an experiment for days let alone months and years; but science will develop alternatives – as it has been done with living cells. These are fields of study that are extremely edifying and productive as careers.
To return to the situation with regard to toxins in our food, water and the environment, it must be admitted that it is very hazardous and complex too.
Hazardous because current research shows their highly disruptive effects on health even when the exposure is in concentrations of just parts per million or parts per billion in some cases. Do you realize or can you visualize what this very high dilution or very low concentration is? One part per billion is one cup of a substance diluted in one billion cups or 250 ml in 250 million liters. Doesn’t it give you goosepimples? If the substance was dyed blood red, the diluted solution will not show any color. It does not require an education in rocket science to realize how anatomic processes, seriously disrupted several times a day, can result in cumulative effects and lead to chronic disease. The simplest and the most commonly understood process is the oxidative damage leading to cell damage, alteration of DNA function and ultimate mutations that result in cancerous tumors.
Complex because there are many chemicals now in common use in foods, beverages, cosmetics, cleaning products, cooking utensils etc. Almost all of them have not been tested adequately for safety. They never will be. Their use is not regulated or may be regulated only after a serious public health episode. The extent of use of these chemicals is in the hands of the people who put them in the products they produce and promote with misleading slogans. Their only interest is their profit; that drives the deceptive claims of efficacy, effectiveness and safety for their products. These claims are supposed to be based on science, but real science, independent science, exposes the hollowness of, and the self-interest in, these claims. It is not too off the mark to state that these claims are based on ignorance and self-interest and the supporting science they refer to belong to the Jurassic period. This happened in Sri Lanka in regard to the herbicide RoundUp/Glyphosate.
The only practical and effective way consumers can fight back against these health hazards is through informing themselves and taking appropriate decisions such as avoiding products that they deem could be hazardous to health. Let it be your choice. Litigation is meaningless because the consumer can lose too much in time, money and loss of productive work. If litigation becomes necessary, it might be best handed over to a suitable organisation.
Fluoridation of water has been abandoned in most developing countries because there is no proof that fluoride prevents the formation of dental cavities. Ninety seven percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate water, Date compiled by the World Health Organization show that nations that do not fluoridate show the exact same reduction in dental cavities as the U.S. where fluoridation is widespread. Other countries resorting to fluoridation are Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries. This information is for Sri Lankans resident in those countries as well for Sri Lankans in the North Central Province. It is hoped that they will stop drinking water from wells and that they will be so advised clearly by every type of media.
“Estimation of the amount of fluoride ingested from all environmental and dietary sources is important so that rational and scientifically sound decisions can be made when guidelines for the use of fluorides are reviewed periodically and modified.” (Journal of Dental Research 1992)
Fluoride is an industrial compound. It is classified as a drug too; as such it should be subject to prescription. But it is freely added by non-medical people to water in a “one dose fits all” scenario. As such, adults, children and even infants are equally exposed to it. This is even though relatively new science shows that developing brains and bodies are adversely affected. This is a clear pointer to the uncertainty connected to the use of fluoride. Likewise, the conclusion of a 2015 study of fluoride exposure from water, toothpaste, foods and fluoride “supplements” was “It’s doubtful that parents or clinicians could adequately track children’s fluoride intake and compare it to the recommended level, rendering the concept of an “optimal” or target intake relatively moot.”
Fluoride is both an Endocrine Disruptor and a Neurotoxin
Fluoride — like many other poisons — was originally declared safe based on dosage. Now we know that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and a neurotoxin. It affects the body and brain – especially developing bodies and brains.
Children who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive very high doses, and may be affected for life due to this early exposure. Knowledge of how it does so is very important for parents and mothers-to-be. Powdered milk for infants should not be dissolved in fluoridated water and drinks imported from fluoridating countries should not be given to toddlers. Not taking such care could expose a child to a hundred times the so-called safe fluoride exposure.
Fluoride is a neurotoxin for developing brains. It impacts short-term and working memory, and lowers IQ in children. It has been implicated as a contributing factor in the rising rates of ADHD (Attention-Deficit Hyperactive Disorder). Research has linked severe dental fluorosis in children with impaired cognition and lower IQ.
Mothers-to-be should be aware that fluoride can cross the placenta and affect the fetus, as a neurotoxin, as an endocrine disruptor and in bone formation.
Fluoride and cavity prevention
Does fluoride prevent dental cavities? Modern science raises a lot of uncertainties about this belief. The real effect seems to be far lower than the officially touted level of 25% effectiveness. Actually, three studies have led to the conclusion that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth. High exposure causes fluorosis.
This does not affect us but what about fluoridated toothpaste? That could affect us. We use it twice a day in an area covered by very soft tissue – tissue that can be readily penetrated by chemicals. We accidentally swallow some toothpaste too. If fluoride is banned by the USFDA for some uses how has the USFDA permitted its use in toothpaste? This is an incomprehensible situation.
Parents who develop qualms about using fluoridated toothpaste could use ayurvedic preparations or home-made ones, or even toothpaste without fluoride.
Note that sesame oil hardens gums and a kind of arecanut, dried and ground, is used in ayurvedic preparations as a medicinal and abrasive component. However, children will dislike it.
Note also that toothpastes may contain one or more of three other chemical poisons – triclosan, parabens and sodium lauryl sulphate not to mention anti-bacterials, coloring matter and thickeners.
Fluoride in drugs and anesthetics
There are several fluoride containing organic drugs. These include Prozac and Paxil, both of which are used for psychiatric disorders. Both medications work as SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors). They essentially increase the amount of serotonin in the brain to exert antidepressant effects. This is another intervention aimed at the middle of a process – not at the root cause. Some scientists wonder whether the drugs damage the pineal gland because fluorides do that.
Organic here means a compound with a chain of carbon atoms. It is surmised that these are safe drugs as the carbon-fluoride bond is strong enough to prevent breaking to form a fluoride ion, as would an inorganic fluoride compound. At the same time it is admitted that there are organic fluorides that do ionize. As such, here too there is uncertainty about the safety of fluorides.
The drugs mentioned are Ciprofloxacine, Niflumic acid, Flecainide, and Voriconazole.
Fluorinated anesthetics mentioned are isoflurane and sevoflurane. These may not be cause for concern because most people do not undergo surgery and those who do rarely do so several times. Confine yourself to essential surgery only.

Tuesday, July 23, 2019

F.A.N. Newsletter

The dental-lobby, along with proponents of fluoridation on the Calgary City Council, worked to pass a resolution in February directing the University of Calgary’s O’Brien Institute for Public Health to conduct a review of fluoridation and present their findings to the council on July 24th.  However, their strategy fell apart this weekend after the O’Brien Institute published their report, in part highlighting the neurotoxic risk posed to the fetus by fluoride.  Yesterday, the City Council voted 13-1 to cancel O’Brien’s Wednesday presentation.
Section Two of the O'Brien report deals with the potential harms of fluoridation, with a portion dedicated to neurotoxicity, including discussion of some of the more recent studies.  They point to the 2017 Bashash Mother-Offspring study that found that certain levels of fluoride in a pregnant woman's urine will lower the child’s IQ.  They also commented on a second study from Bashash et al. 2018, which found that higher urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy was associated with attention hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age.
But maybe more important than these acknowledgements, they point out that criticism from the pro-fluoridation lobby of these two studies was baseless and inaccurate: 
One widely-stated stated caveat/criticism for these two ELEMENT studies just described is that the levels of urinary fluoride measured in pregnant Mexican women may not be relevant to Canada. This criticism is, however, addressed by a recent Canadian study…this study reveals that the maternal urinary fluoride levels for women in communities with water fluoridation is comparable to that of Mexican women in the ELEMENT cohort. The amount of black tea consumed may further increase the exposure to fluoride. [p. 20]
The O’Brien report also mentions a soon-to-be published Canadian IQ study, based onthis graduate thesisthat re-affirms fluoride exposure during pregnancy lowers IQ at the levels found in “optimally” fluoridated communities.  
Summing it all up, the O’Brien Institute writes:
…there is some new emerging evidence that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be harmful to the brain development of children, with important studies having been published subsequent to the review of this evidence by the National Research Council in the U.S. in 2006...The new emerging studies in this domain need to be tracked very closely, and carefully evaluated as they appear.  [p. 21]
These acknowledgements and conclusions are incredibly damning for the fluoridation-lobby, who have relied heavily upon the mantras that the science is settled, that no studies have found harm, and that no mainstream public health organizations have questioned fluoridation’s safety.  
No reasonable parent would trade less than one cavity saved for a lifetime of cognitive impairment for their child.  We can easily fix a cavity, but we cannot fix damage done to the brain. 
We suspect that several factors may have contributed to the O’Brien report providing an honest assessment of the neurotoxicity data. 
  • First, they were specifically asked by the city council to be objective.
  • Second, local organizers Safe Water Calgary leveraged this request to get the O’Brien Institute to interview some of our experts who highlighted these studies: Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, Robert Dickson, MD, and Paul Connett, PhD.
  • Third, in 2018 a Canadian national survey of urine fluoride levels in pregnant women (Till et al.) was performed in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.  It discovered similar fluoride levels to those found to reduce IQ in the Bashash studies, making the IQ research nearly impossible for Canadians to ignore.
  • And fourth, local organizers and FAN professionals publicly emphasized the importance of the neurotoxicity studies, sharing this data with councilors.
Aside from also reporting that an increase in dental fluorosis is another side-effect residents ought to expect from initiating fluoridation, the O'Brien report was still heavily biased in favor of the practice.  We expected this, considering that the O’Brien Institute has a long and public history of endorsing fluoridation. They also stated publicly that the Institute's conclusions would rely heavily on the deeply flawed and biased fluoridation review conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).   
Safe Water Calgary, along with members of the Fluoride Action Network and a team of international health and scientific experts, generated a Statement in Opposition to Artificial Water Fluoridation responding to CADTH’s claims, sharing it with councilors, the O’Brien Institute, and local media.
In response to O’Brien’s report, Canada’s top dental researcher and fluoride expert Dr. Hardy Limeback, has been tweeting his analysis of the O'Brien report to Calgary Council, which our friends at Fluoride Free Peel have compiled on their site.  It’s also definitely worth a look.
Fluoride Free New Zealand issued an excellent press release on the O'Brien Institute's report, particularly as it excerpted many of their statements in the report.
Cancellation of Presentation and Public Hearing
To make matters worse for proponents of fluoridation, the city council voted 13-1 yesterday to cancel O’Brien’s Wednesday presentation and the ensuing public hearing.  Councilors suggested they reschedule the hearing this fall, after the budget is resolved. Calgary is currently facing a severe budget crisis that will require councilors to cut $60 million dollars in spending this week, some of which will come out of fire and police budgets.  The City's Administration further torpedoed plans to initiate fluoridation in their recommendation to council, stating:
Given the current conversation related to budget reductions, Administration has not recommended any future work towards new services, including conducting feasibility studies or developing implementation plans (eitherrelated to water fluoridation or other dental health initiatives). 
With $60 million in cuts being made to critical services, the $20-million price tag for fluoridation is a non-starter, as it ought to be.  Councilors recognized this, prioritizing firefighters, police, schools, and transportation infrastructure over the profits of the fertilizer industry and distributors supplying the chemical.
We expect that the dental associations and American Fluoridation Society will attempt to lobby behind the scenes to amend the O’Brien report and re-ignite the debate this fall.  However, Safe Water Calgary and FAN will build upon our momentum to ensure the public won't forget the harm posed by fluoridation, no matter how much time some councilors give proponents to re-group or work to revise history.
Please stay tuned, as we plan to provide additional coverage of the fluoridation battle in Calgary, including a bulletin taking an in-depth view of our response to the CADTH review, as well as a new video that includes news of how the fluoridation-lobby is actively working to silence Calgary professionals who speak out in opposition to the practice.
Sincerely, 
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director:
Fluoride Action Network

Canada - Fluoridation report presentation postponed

Calgary City council is again considering fluoride in Calgary's tap water after studies show more cavities in Calgary children
The presentation and review of a 40-page report on community water fluoridation has been postponed until the fall.
The study, completed by the U of C’s O’Brien Institute for Public Health, was completed last week and was set to be presented at the community and protective services committee meeting on Wednesday.
During their regular council meeting Monday, Coun. Diane Colley-Urquhart’s motion to postpone the report’s presentation until the fall was supported by all but one of her colleagues on council.
“Council has to be extremely focused on the issues and that doesn’t include fluoride at this time,” she said, referencing the Green Line LRT expansion$60 million in budget cuts and the new events centre. “This report is not coming with any recommendations . . . If we need one, two, three days in the fall where we have a public meeting on fluoride that’s fine, but I want us to take all the time we can with these other things right now.”
The report, which was tasked with looking at existing community water fluoridation research from around the world, outlined the potential benefits and harms of the program.
Potential benefits listed in the report include:
  • 44 per cent reduction in cavities and dental decay in baby teeth.
  • 37 per cent reduction in cavities in children’s permanent teeth.
  • 35 per cent reduction in cavities and decay in adults.
  • 50 per cent lower hospital admissions for surgical treatment of tooth decay.
Potential harms included:
  • Consistent evidence that fluoride causes fluorosis.
  • Possible minor effects on thyroid function.
  • More evidence needed for effect of fluoride on cognition but evidence is evolving rapidly. Harvard study conducted in China and Iran reported an association between high fluoride exposure, up to 11.5 mg/l, and lower IQ scores.
  • New emerging studies that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be harmful to the brain development of babies.
The report went on to rank effectiveness of preventive programs for tooth decay, listing community water fluoridation as most effective:
  1. Community water fluoridation
  2. Sealant program
  3. Tooth brushing
  4. Fluoride varnish
  5. Fluoride gel
  6. Fluoride mouth rinses
  7. Salt fluoridation

Saturday, July 20, 2019

Time to listen to Pro-flouridation agencies raising alarms

Saturday, 20 July 2019, 12:54 pm

The O’Brien Institute for Public Health at Calgary University has just released their report on fluoridation. This institute has, up to now, been staunchly in favour of fluoridation. However, yesterday, with regards to fluoride’s effect on the brain, they say “The new emerging studies in this domain need to be tracked very closely, and carefully evaluated as they appear. We expect that health agencies at local, national, and international levels will confer and compare notes as they iteratively review, and re-review, this evidence”.
It certainly sounds like alarm bells have been ringing at the O’Brien Institute and a far cry from “the science is settled”.
Their report covers the major research that has been undertaken in this area which is showing fluoride exposure linked to cognitive impairment. “Of great relevance to the evolving evidence in this domain, another MIREC [Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Studies] study focusing on cognition also examined the association between fluoride exposure and childhood IQ”. This study was carried out in fluoridated Canada and links increased fluoride exposure during pregnancy to lowered IQ in their offspring.
In other words, the O'Brien Institute is telling us that there is a Canadian study in the works that has essentially reproduced the Bashash study findings from 2017: the more fluoride a pregnant woman is exposed to the lower the IQ of her baby. This must be the torpedo that sinks this battleship.
It is hard to imagine a parent that would willingly sacrifice some of their child’s IQ for the possibility of saving a filling or two over a lifetime. Brain function affects every part of our lives. Obviously, our work opportunities and income, but also our relationships and our ability to look after ourselves. The cost to society is also huge. A drop of 5 IQ points across the population, halves the number of geniuses and increases by 50% the number of mentally impaired.
Our health authorities have to accept that there is now science that tells us that fluoride is harming children’s brains and they have to put that above any possible reduction in dental decay and above the embarrassment of admitting they were wrong. They must act to protect the children.
Most of the world does not fluoridate their water supply, including Japan and 98% of Europe. Dental decay rates in these countries is just as good, if not better, than the rates in New Zealand. Countries such as Scotland, are implementing dental health programmes that primarily involve school tooth brushing schemes that have seen a huge reduction in dental decay rates, and a halving of the number of general anaesthetics for severe decay. Apart from the reduced suffering, this is saving millions of pounds every year. A school tooth brushing scheme in Kaitaia has found the same astonishing results. There is no need to force harmful fluoridation chemicals on the entire population.
Currently, 22 councils out of 67 have any fluoridation amounting to around 50% of the population. There is a Bill in Parliament awaiting Second Reading, that aims to shift decision making to the district health boards. This would effectively make fluoridation mandatory as the DHBs are required to carry out MoH policy and the councils would be required to do what the DHB dictates.
It is time to kick not only the Mandatory Fluoridation Bill down the road, but fluoridation itself. The science is clear – fluoride is neurotoxic and should not be added to our water.

Friday, July 19, 2019

Australia - Queensland

KIDS’ TEETH ROTTING WITHOUT FLUORIDE, DOCTORS SAY

Doctors are pushing the Queensland Government to mandate water fluoridation in the Far North, following law changes at the federal level.

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Australia - Doctors raise concerns over fluoride

DOCTORS are urging the Palaszczuk Government to stop stalling and act decisively on water fluoridation with new federal laws confirming state and territory governments are responsible for the public health measure.
The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) last week made legislative changes to clarify that national regulation was not required and that fluoride in drinking water was a proven, safe and effective method for state and territory governments to prevent tooth decay.
Australian Medical Association (AMA) Queensland President Dr Dilip Dhupelia said Queensland had the worst oral health in the country with nearly one third of the state missing out on fluoridated drinking water.
"The Premier, the Minister for Health and Ambulance Services, the Queensland Chief Health Officer and Chief Dental Officer have all supported fluoridation,” Dr Dhupelia said.
"There is no further reason for the government to delay reintroducing laws mandating all local governments to fluoridate their drinking water supplies.
"The young and the elderly are suffering the most with the government's own statistics revealing 43% of children aged 5-6 and 55% of those aged 5-14 experience dental decay, with the figure rising to 70% for indigenous children.
"In addition, dentists report increasing rates of decay amongst the elderly, particularly in residential aged care homes where many have lost the ability to manage their dental hygiene and are forced to have all their teeth removed.”
"The Palaszczuk Government needs to stop stalling on this issue and act decisively.”

NZ - It's time to stop kicking the fluoride question down the road


Peter Dunne introduced the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill when he was Associate Health Minister. Peter Dunne introduced the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill when he was Associate Health Minister.
OPINION: Some bulky items, a capital gains tax, less punitive approaches to criminal justice and substantive welfare reform, seem to have been held up at the courier in Jacinda Ardern's much-vaunted year of delivery.
But if you thought transformative politics was a tough gig, spare a thought for dental surgeons around Aotearoa who find themselves in the unenviable position of operating on children barely old enough to talk.
We could be sending fewer kids to the dentist in the first place though and perhaps it's the low-hanging legislative fruit left to spoil which should be of bigger concern to Labour.
Take for example the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill, introduced by Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne and backed by former Minister of Health Jonathan Coleman. Its genesis was an uptick in skirmishes in The Great New Zealand Fluoride Wars (1954 – Present).
Much to the dismay of the Ministry of Health, New Plymouth had been pillaged and Hamilton lost then recaptured. Faced with a polarised electorate and uncompromising positions, councils across New Zealand reached a consensus of their own: such decisions should be transferred back to central government.
Among their justifications was the peculiar situation where the Ministry of Health was lobbying District Health Boards to lobby individual councils to implement fluoridation programmes when central government could simply legislate a nationwide rollout.
The bill had one simple purpose: removing such decisions from councils mostly ill-equipped to interpret the voluminous amounts of dense scientific literature on the subject.
By handing the matter to DHBs, the National-led Government had found a way to 'keep it local' while the Ministry of Health was more likely to get what it had advocated all along – fluoridation across all urban areas where it was feasible to do so.
Local government bodies were elated, and when Coleman tacked on a further $12 million towards assisting councils' transition to fluoridation, it seemed a decades-old debate would finally be shelved alongside the other conspiracy theories of the 20th century.
Dunne sponsored the bill. It was presented to the house in late 2016, and Labour MPs lined up to voice their support. Among them, Poto Williams and Jenny Salesa spoke of how oral health statistics provided "sobering reading", particularly the levels of preventable tooth decay prevalent among the disadvantaged in their communities.
David Parker stepped up to ask why the Government was "kicking the issue down the road" by relying on DHBs, suggesting National "lacked the political courage" to protect the interests of the population by reverting control to central government.
Nonetheless, Parker fell in with his colleagues and signalled to the house that Labour would be supporting the bill.
By the end of the session, not only had Labour, National and the Māori Party voted for the legislation, but those often diametrically opposed, the Green Party and the self-proclaimed libertarian ACT. With only NZ First offering any resistance, the bill was dispatched to the health select committee.
But while the wheels of representative democracy began to turn, so did the cogs in our judicial system. South Taranaki District Council (STDC) successfully defended its right to fluoridate in the Appeal Court and later in the Supreme Court. But in a political
climate where public participation in local government elections is frighteningly low, and emotions on specific issues run high, it cannot be guaranteed that councils will always move in step with Health Ministry advice.
Around this time we had an election. Dunne retired and the incoming Labour-led government had two options: junk the bill and revert to the preference of Parker et al or continue it under the sponsorship of new Minister David Clark. Labour chose to keep the bill, and it sits untouched, bobbing up and down in the government's scheduled items of business.
One rationale for these delays might be that it is not worth the political capital at a time suggestions are being tossed around regarding the long-term future of DHBs.
But that would be of little comfort to dental professionals at the coalface, particularly as disparities in fluoridation coverage and the downstream consequences are no respecter of politics.
Rather frustratingly, the bill in its current form is unlikely to be a deal-breaker for the Labour – NZ First coalition so the latter could simply continue its opposition while the former used MMP the way it was intended, putting the heat back on National to help get this piece of legislation out for delivery.
It's time to stop kicking the issue down the road.

Luke Oldfield is the Campaign Manager for science-based advocacy group Making Sense of Fluoride.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
About time fluoridation was banned world wide.