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

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, January 31, 2020

Not available to EU

Story image for fluoride from York Dispatch

PHOTOS: West Manchester Twp. supervisors hold special ...

York Dispatch-14 hours ago
The authority submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection in November requesting permission to discontinue adding fluoride to water ...


USA - Authority to reconsider fluoride removal plan

Shiloh Water Authority to reconsider fluoride removal plan

The Shiloh Water Authority board is expected in late February to reconsider its push to remove fluoride from West Manchester Township residents' drinking water, officials said Thursday. 
The authority's board first approved the plan in February 2019. Its move has raised the ire of the township's board of supervisors.
The authority board's decision to reconsider the issue, scheduled for Feb. 26, came after negotiations with local supervisors and discussions with officials from the state Department of Environmental Protection, said Jim Bentzel, the chairman of Shiloh's board.............

Associations of fluoride exposure with sex steroid hormones


Associations of fluoride exposure with sex steroid hormones among U.S. children and adolescents, NHANES 2013-2016.
Posted by admin | Jan 30, 2020

Fluoride mediated disruption of sex steroid hormones has been demonstrated in animals. However, evidence from humans was limited and contradictory, especially for children and adolescents. Based on data of the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) 2013-2016, a total of 3392 subjects aged 6-19 years were analyzed in this cross-sectional study. Both plasma and water fluoride levels were quantified electrometrically using the ion-specific electrode. Sex steroid hormones of total testosterone, estradiol and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) were tested in serum. Percent changes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in sex steroid hormones associated with tertiles of fluoride levels (setting the first as reference) were estimated using adjusted linear regression models by stratification of gender and age. Compared with subjects at the first tertile of plasma fluoride, percent changes (95% CIs) in testosterone were -8.08% (-17.36%, 2.25%) and -21.65% (-30.44%, -11.75%) for the second and third tertiles, respectively (P <0.001). Male adolescents at the third tertile of plasma fluoride had decreased levels of testosterone (percent change = -21.09%, 95% CIs = -36.61% to -1.77%). Similar inverse associations were also found when investigating the relationships between plasma fluoride and estradiol. Besides, the data indicated decreased levels of SHBG associated with water and plasma fluoride among the male adolescents (percent change of the third tertile = -9.39%, 95% CIs = -17.25% to -0.78%) and female children (percent change of the second tertile = -10.78%, 95% CIs = -17.55% to -3.45%), respectively. The data indicated gender- and age-specific inverse associations of fluoride in plasma and water with sex steroid hormones of total testosterone, estradiol and SHBG in U.S. children and adolescents. Prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm the causality.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Thursday, January 30, 2020

Two years after fluoride spill exceeded federal limits, CFPUA resumes adding chemical at Richardson Plant

NEW HANOVER COUNTY — Nearly two years ago, 30,000 customers of the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority awoke to robocalls and an all-caps email subject line “DO NOT DRINK THE WATER.”
The email and phone calls, sent just after 6 a.m. on April 25, 2018, told residents serviced by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) Richardson Nano Groundwater Treatment Plant not to drink or cook with water due to an “overabundance of fluoride,” and included the warning that “failure to follow this advisory could result in illness.”...........................

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

They never give up trying to force fluoride down our throats

MPs urge dentists to back move for water fluoridation

Jo Churchill MP called on dentists and dental professionals to back water fluoridation at the inaugural Conservative Dentists meeting last night.
The meeting was a chance for dentists and those in the profession to discuss future dental care for children.
‘Water fluoridation is the quickest and easiest way to improve our oral health,’ Jo Churchill, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, said.
‘But we would really like your (the dental profession’s) help.
‘We need dentists to talk to their patients about the benefits of water fluoridation.
‘We need to move the dial, so the next generation can benefit from great oral health.’

A ‘unique opportunity’ for water fluoridation

Along with Ms Churchill, Sara Hurley and Sir Paul Beresford MP also made a plea for dentists to back fluoridation.
Ms Hurley also highlighted the disconnect with medical colleagues, explaining we need to put the mouth back in the body.
She pointed out if you invest in the smile, you invest in better overall health, and GPs don’t always understand this.
‘We’ve had some successes,’ Sir Paul Beresford MP, Conservative MP for Mole Valley and practising dentist, concluded.
But at the moment there’s an atmosphere that we can push through water fluoridation in this government.
‘We have a unique opportunity.
‘Let’s grab it.’

Conservative Dentists

The Conservative Dentists event launched due to a lack of representation for dentists within any political part.
The aim of the group is to form a bridge between the dental and political worlds.
Delegates had the opportunity to raise issues with MPs and highlight the issues concerning them within dentistry.
‘Many of the values of the Conservative Party align with dentists,’ Sejal Bhansali, chair of the Conservative Dentists group, said.
‘Namely we take personal responsibility, we are innovative, business minded, entrepreneurial and believe in education.
‘Oral health is incredibly important and there is strong evidence to link oral diseases, with a number of systemic disease.
‘Oral diseases are 99% preventable.
‘Yet it is the third most expensive health condition behind diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
‘We think early intervention is important for children’s health.
‘That is when we form most of our habits.’

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Water fluoridation championed in Parliament

A House of Commons debate recently included water fluoridation. Michael Watson reports back from the debate.
Fluoridation is by far and away the best proven method to reduce tooth decay among children.
That’s according to Sir Paul Beresford MP who spoke in a recent House of Commons debate.
Sir Paul, the Conservative MP for Mole Valley and a dentist, was speaking in the debate on the Queen’s Speech on 16 January 16.
He said that government proposals could include legislation to enable water fluoridation.
He identified a couple of problems with the current fluoridation legislation.
The government is leaving local authorities to ‘instigate and compel companies to fluoridate their water supplies’.
Although there is no financial advantage for them to do this, the savings to the NHS would be considerable.

Brave steps

The second problem with the current legislation, Sir Paul said, was that few local authority boundaries are coterminous with the boundaries of the water companies.
This therefore makes ‘direction and implementation complex’.
The sensible answer was for legislation to apply nationwide, which would mean including it in the Queen’s Speech.
But he said it would take a brave government, with he hoped opposition support, to include and implement that.

Anti-fluoridation activists

This month marks the 75th anniversary of the first water fluoridation project in Grand Rapids USA.
It is also over 50 years since introducing it in the West Midlands.
Yet, despite these successes, there remain a group of dedicated anti-fluoridation activists.
They most recently prevented the measure coming to Southampton.
Sir Paul warned in his speech that whenever he spoke about fluoridation: ‘The green ink letters fly and broomsticks whizz around my house as people complain’.
However, he pointed out, it works for child dental health care: ‘Which is deplorable in this country’.
For decades, he said, the statistics have been absolutely appalling.
He could remember: ‘Looking at little kids in east London with appalling mouths – broken-down teeth, abscesses – who were crying and having sleepless nights, and referring them to hospital for a general anaesthetic.’
And today, he said, the statistics remain terrible.
Last year, more than 45,000 children and young people aged up to 19 were admitted to hospital due to tooth decay.
They included 26,000 five to nine-year-olds, making tooth decay the leading cause of hospital admissions for that age group.
He told MPs: ‘Last year, there were more than 40,000 hospital operations and extractions for children and young people.
‘That is 160 a day.
‘It is a complete waste of money.
‘It is completely preventable and it is occupying space in our National Health Service.’

Supporting water fluoridation

Sir Paul’s speech adds to the impetus provided by the National Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) Network, set up last year ‘to update stakeholders and to highlight the significant benefits’ that this measure delivers.
Local authorities and policy makers are starting to look more seriously at water fluoridation.
With several making enquiries and undertaking feasibility studies.
Several organisations have written to Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, as part of the consultation around the Prevention Green Paper, highlighting the role that targeted fluoridation could play as part of a comprehensive oral health strategy.
Also last year, the national conference of LDCs, which supports community water fluoridation in areas of need, passed a motion unanimously applauding those local authorities taking forward water fluoridation.
Simon Hearnshaw, a dentist who works for Health Education England, and who put forward the motion, said: ‘To have this kind of unanimous response from dentists highlights just how strongly we all support fluoridation of water and want to see the oral health of our young patients improve’.

Monday, January 27, 2020



Marijus Ambraziunas is a Holistic dentist (Biological dentist), member of IAOMTUK community. Following the latest safety procedures and detoxification practices. Dr Marijus has been working with patients, who have been suffering with chronic health conditions, and in most cases – they had dental issues.

Saturday, January 25, 2020

F.A.N. Newsletter

The American Dental Association (ADA) is celebrating the 75th year of water fluoridation.  This public health experiment began in Grand Rapids, Michigan on January 25th, 1945.  According to Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, “The fact that this practice has continued for 75 years is reason to lament not celebrate and in this bulletin we explain why.”
The ADA ignores both the ethics and poor science of fluoridation
Zealous promoters of Fluoridation (like the ADA) not only continue to ignore the ethical arguments but also ignore the very solid scientific evidence (including US government funded studies) that show that fluoride can damage the fetus and the infant. Instead of carefully analyzing these studies the ADA and its allies continue to repeat the mantra that water fluoridation is “safe and effective.”
Fluoridation is the biggest public health failure of the Twentieth Century
Politics and public relations, not science keeps fluoridation alive.  Fluoridation proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), spend millions on advertising and public relations to sell us fluoridation using half-truths, talking points and diversions. Dentists at the CDC claim that fluoridation is ‘one of the top public health achievements of the twentieth century,’ in reality it is one of greatest public health failures (some would say betrayals) of the twentieth century.
Fluoridation is unethical
The Fluoride Action Network and others have shown that the practice of adding fluoridation chemicals to the public’s drinking water is not safe for all residents, harming vulnerable subpopulations while also taking money away from more effective, safe, and less controversial oral health strategies.  Unlike all other water treatment processes, fluoridation does not treat the water itself, but the person consuming it.  It deprives the individual of his or her right to informed consent to treatment.  It is delivered to everyone regardless of age, health, or nutritional status, without individual oversight by a doctor and without control of dose since people drink different amounts of water.
The highest doses of fluoride are going to the fetus and going to bottle-fed babies. 
Dental fluorosis reaching epidemic proportions
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 41% of adolescents in the U.S. now have visible signs of overexposure to fluoride, called dental fluorosis.  Fluorosis is permanently damaged tooth enamel (white spots or pitted and stained enamel) caused by excessive fluoride intake during childhood, and appears to be an indicator of wider systemic damage. Fluoridated water is the primary source of fluoride for these individuals.
Damage to the brain
The Fluoride Action Network provides a large health database showing that fluoride can damage virtually all tissues in the body. All tissues are important but the most important organ to protect during fetal and infant development is the brain. Damage occurring to this organ during these early stages of life are permanent and cannot be undone later in life. A large body of government-funded research now indicates that fluoride is neurotoxic and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities.  Experts in the field have likened the size of the effect to that from lead.
This includes over 200 animal studies showing that prolonged exposure to varying levels of fluoride can damage the brain, 64 human studies linking moderately high fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence, 3 human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development, and 7 Mother-Offspring studies linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy to reduced IQ in offspring.
The recent draft systematic review by the National Toxicology Program of human studies of fluoride's neurotoxicity concluded that fluoride was a “presumed” neurotoxin based on the large number, quality, and consistency of brain studies.
A 2006 report by the National Research Council called fluoride an endocrine disruptor, and a number of recent studies indicate that exposure to fluoridated water lowers thyroid function, particularly in women.  Recent studies have also linked fluoridated water to kidney and liver impairment, as well as sleep apnea for adolescents.
Fluoridation is not necessary
The CDC Oral Health Division has acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits is primarily topical (CDC, 1999), not systemic, meaning there is no reason to swallow it.  There is also no shortage of fluoride already available in many inexpensive over the counter and prescribed forms.
Fluoridation is one of the most widely rejected health interventions in the world.
Over 95% of the world’s population is fluoridation-free. WHO data indicates no difference in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. Despite 7 decades of fluoridation reaching a record number of Americans, official reports indicate that a tooth decay crisis exists in the U.S.
The risks associated with fluoridation clearly outweigh the benefits.
To ignore the significant potential harm and continue fluoridation would be a huge disservice to our children, especially when there are more effective programs to reduce dental inequities that communities can choose to implement, such as school sealant and education programs, increases to Medicaid reimbursement rates, and expansion of the use of mid-level dental providers.
Fluoridation is a waste of money
Fluoridation is a waste of money on many fronts. CDC’s PR claim that, for each $1 invested in fluoridation $38 is saved in dental costs, has been shown to be false by independent scientists. The analysis from the CDC Oral Health Division ignored the costs of treating dental fluorosis and the costs of other harm. The loss of IQ points leads to a HUGE loss in earning ability and over a large population amounts to a loss of billions of dollars.
Continued promotion will cause an ever-increasing loss of the public’s trust in the agencies that are meant to protect them.
Continuing this practice in the absence of sound science – and investing millions of dollars in PR to cover up that fact – will further erode the public’s trust in public health programs.  Right now the only thing being protected is a failed policy and the reputation of those who refuse to accept that this program has been a massive failure both ethically and scientifically.
Sincerely, 
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

7 hours ago - Sodium fluoride (NaF) is a man-made “forever” chemical (it does not break down in the environment) — as opposed to calcium fluoride, found naturally in small ...

Unable to view prevented by EU rules.

Friday, January 24, 2020

More Studies Show Fluoride Affects Brain and Disrupts Sleep By Joseph Mercola

While water fluoridation was never adopted or has been eliminated in many areas around the world, including most of western Europe,1 many U.S. water systems2 still add fluoride chemicals such as fluorosilicic acid3 (also known as hydrofluorosilicic acid) to their municipal water supplies.

As detailed in Christopher Bryson’s book, “The Fluoride Deception,”4 water fluoridation as a public health measure (ostensibly to improve dental health) was invented by brilliant schemers who needed a way to get rid of toxic industrial waste.

They duped politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements, and sold them on a “public health” idea in which humans are essentially used to filter this poison through their bodies, while the vast majority simply goes down the drain.

Since the inception of water fluoridation in 1945, fluorosilicic acid suppliers have been making hundreds of millions of dollars each year5 selling a hazardous industrial waste for use as a water additive rather than having to pay for toxic waste disposal.
“Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,6 a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University, notes:

“Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”

Fluoride Is a Neurotoxic Endocrine Disruptor..............

Thursday, January 23, 2020

From Ann Wills

The Guardian,  22 Jan 2020  “US drinking water contamination with ‘forever chemicals’ far worse than scientists thought”

PFAS, resistant to breaking down in the environment, have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight & other health problems.  The contamination of US drinking water with man-made “forever chemicals” is far worse than previously estimated with some of the highest levels found in Miami, Philadelphia & New Orleans, said a report on Wednesday by an environmental watchdog group. The chemicals, resistant to breaking down in the environment, are known as perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS (containing fluoride.)  Some have been linked to cancers, liver damage, low birth weight & other health problems. The findings here by Environmental Working Group (EWG) show the group’s previous estimate in 2018, based on unpublished US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data, that 110 million Americans may be contaminated with PFAS, could be far too low. “It’s nearly impossible to avoid contaminated drinking water from these chemicals,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG & co-author of the report. The chemicals were used in products like Teflon & Scotchguard & in firefighting foam.  Some are used in other products & industrial processes, & their replacements also pose risks.  Of tap water samples taken by EWG from 44 sites in 31 states & Washington DC, only one location, Meridian, Mississippi, which relies on 700ft (215m) deep wells, had no detectable PFAS.  Only Seattle & Tuscaloosa, Alabama, had levels below 1 part per trillion (PPT), the limit EWG recommends.
EWG found that on average 6 to 7 PFAS compounds were found at the tested sites, & the effects on health of the mixtures are little understood. “Everyone’s really exposed to a toxic soup of these PFAS chemicals,” Andrews said.   In 34 places EWG’s tests found PFAS contamination had not been publicly reported by the EPA or state environmental agencies.   EPA has known since at least 2001 about the problem of PFAS in drinking water but has so far failed to set an enforceable, nationwide legal limit.  The EPA said early last year it would begin the process to set limits on 2 of the chemicals, PFOA & PFOS.    The EPA said it has helped states & communities address PFAS & that it is working to put limits on the 2 main chemicals but did not give a timeline.  In 2018 a draft report from an office of US Department of Health & Human Services said the risk level for exposure to the chemicals should be up to 10 times lower than the 70 PPT threshold the EPA recommends. The White House &  EPA had tried to stop the report being published.
-
Ann

Uses, Dangers & Side Effects of Fluoride in Water & Toothpaste [2020 Update]


Fluoride has always been a controversial topic in the world of dentistry, and as a dentist, I’m going to make a bold statement that may surprise you:
I don’t think you need fluoride.
That’s right—contrary to what the CDCAmerican Dental Association and Academy of Pediatrics say, fluoride is not the miracle of dental health it was sold to be..............

Wednesday, January 22, 2020

Associations of fluoride exposure with sex steroid hormones among U.S. children and adolescents, NHANES 2013–2016

Abstract

Fluoride mediated disruption of sex steroid hormones has been demonstrated in animals. However, evidence from humans was limited and contradictory, especially for children and adolescents. Based on data of the National Health and Nutrition Survey (NHANES) 2013–2016, a total of 3392 subjects aged 6–19 years were analyzed in this cross-sectional study. Both plasma and water fluoride levels were quantified electrometrically using the ion-specific electrode. Sex steroid hormones of total testosterone, estradiol and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) were tested in serum. Percent changes and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in sex steroid hormones associated with tertiles of fluoride levels (setting the first as reference) were estimated using adjusted linear regression models by stratification of gender and age. Compared with subjects at the first tertile of plasma fluoride, percent changes (95% CIs) in testosterone were −8.08% (−17.36%, 2.25%) and −21.65% (−30.44%, −11.75%) for the second and third tertiles, respectively (P trend <0.001). Male adolescents at the third tertile of plasma fluoride had decreased levels of testosterone (percent change = −21.09%, 95% CIs = −36.61% to −1.77%). Similar inverse associations were also found when investigating the relationships between plasma fluoride and estradiol. Besides, the data indicated decreased levels of SHBG associated with water and plasma fluoride among the male adolescents (percent change of the third tertile = −9.39%, 95% CIs = −17.25% to −0.78%) and female children (percent change of the second tertile = −10.78%, 95% CIs = −17.55% to −3.45%), respectively. The data indicated gender- and age-specific inverse associations of fluoride in plasma and water with sex steroid hormones of total testosterone, estradiol and SHBG in U.S. children and adolescents. Prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm the causality.
Of course! 

Tuesday, January 21, 2020



Not about fluoride

Daily Mail

Anti-vaxxer's VERY sneaky move: Rogue group tries to change name to the Informed Medical Options Party ahead state elections - but doctors have a more suitable name in mind

  • The Involuntary Medication Objectors Party have applied to change their name 
  • Wants to be called the Informed Medical Options Party
  • The Australian Medical Association is pushing to stop the name change
The Involuntary Medication Objectors (Vaccination/Fluoride) Party (IMOP) have applied for a name change to the Australian Electoral CommissionA fringe political group lobbying against vaccination and fluoride is attempting to change their name to the Informed Medical Options Party ahead of an upcoming state election. 
The Involuntary Medication Objectors (Vaccination/Fluoride) Party have applied to the Australian Electoral Commission for a name change.
The Australian Medical Association has slammed the move as 'fraudulent' amid fears it could mislead voters at the 2021 West Australian poll.
'IMOP believes that the medical freedoms of Australians are at risk like never before in history,' their website reads.
'IMOP will protect the rights of Australians to refuse any medical procedure or product, without being subjected to any form of coercion.' 

Not sneaky, they are informed.

Monday, January 20, 2020

Radio talk

On Tooth Talk’s first episode of 2020, Sarah and Peter celebrate the 75th anniversary of community water fluoridation by sitting down with Ms. Tooka Zokaie, the ADA’s Manager for Fluoridation & Preventive Health Activities. Ms. Zokaie talks about her role at the ADA and the benefits of community water fluoridation, as well as the science behind it. She also walks us through some of the myths and facts surrounding fluoride and dives deeper into the ADA’s other preventive health activities.

Safe and effective of course

Click title 


Saturday, January 18, 2020

Tooth decay in children - is it time to put the needle and drill away?

Nearly half of all British adults and just over one in five Australian adults fear the dentist. Research shows that having dental treatment as a child is a common reason for this fear in adulthood. This is not surprising given that most children's experience of the dentist involves injections followed by drilling. And who can forget the sound of a dentist's drill?
By taking advantage of recent advances in our understanding of tooth decay, we have investigated and developed new treatments that don't need injections or drilling. One of these is called the Hall technique. It involves placing a small stainless steel crown over affected baby teeth to seal in the decay.
Doing so seals in the bacteria that are causing the tooth to decay and stops them getting oxygen and sugar - which these bacteria need to survive. Once the crown is in place, the bacteria can no longer make acid - which dissolves tooth enamel and causes cavities - so the disease stops.
Our trials comparing sealing decay under these small metal caps with traditional tooth fillings show that the Hall technique has higher success rates, with 93% to 98% of children avoiding toothache or infection for two to five years. And children either prefer it or find it as easy to cope with as traditional drilling and filling, regardless of whether the treatment was provided in a dental clinic or a classroom, and regardless of whether the procedure was performed by a specialist dentist, general dentists or dental student.
study from the US found that the Hall technique was as effective as using specialist crowns that involved injections, drilling and removing decay. Also, studies in Germany, the UK and Sudan found it to be cheaper than traditional drilling and filling.
But what happens over time?
It's all very well treating a single tooth, but we wanted to know what happens when you treat a child's teeth over a long period. To do so, we compared three ways of managing decay in baby teeth in 1,058 children, aged three to seven, who already had tooth decay, and followed them up for three years.
The first way was the traditional approach: numbing the tooth with injections, removing dental decay with drills and putting a filling in the cavity. This was accompanied with preventative treatment, the dentist or dental therapist delivering toothbrushing and diet advice as well as applying high-fluoride varnish. The second way was using the Hall technique or placing a filling over decay without injections. This, too, was accompanied by preventative treatments. The third way was preventative treatment alone.
After three years, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups for pain, infection, quality of life or dental anxiety. All methods were acceptable to children, parents and dental professionals. However, when considering the slightly higher number of episodes of dental pain and infection in the prevention-alone group, and the overall cost of subsequent treatment, the sealing in with prevention strategy was the most cost-effective treatment.
A highly significant factor in the acceptability of all three types of treatments was the trust that children and parents had in their dentist. Having the same dentist throughout was also important.
Children and parents had positive experiences and reduced dental anxiety when their dentist listened, explained procedures and was gentle, caring and patient.
Highly prevalent disease
In 2015, untreated childhood tooth decay was the tenth most common health condition in the world, affecting 9% of children (573 million). In adult teeth, it was the most common, affecting 35% of the global population - almost 2.4 billion people.
Tooth decay is also a significant financial burden for healthcare services. Although it's difficult to get a cost for dental decay treatment alone, of the US$7.7 trillion global health expenditure in 2015, almost 5% (US$357 billion) was for dental diseases (including gum disease and other oral diseases). Yet the lack of treatment globally from the cost of untreated tooth decay is huge, with productivity losses in 2015 amounting to US$22.5 billion.
We found that over 40% of children with tooth decay, even when seen and treated by dentists, experienced pain or infection, or both. We also know that children who develop tooth decay before they start school are more likely than their peers to suffer tooth decay and its consequences in later life.
Preventing tooth decay in children and its consequences (toothache and abscesses) will reduce it having a negative effect on children's health, wellbeing and attainment. So it's crucial that the moment a child's first baby tooth appears, they are taken to see their dentist regularly and that good toothbrushing habits and healthy diets are adopted and encouraged at home.
Authors: Nicola Innes - Professor of Paediatric Dentistry, University of Dundee | Mark Robertson - Clinical Lecturer in Paediatric Dentistry, University of Dundee

Fluoride exposure in pregnancy can affect offspring’s IQ

A study in 512 mother-child pairs from 6 major cities in Canada found that exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lowered intelligent quotient (IQ) scores in their children at the age of 3 to 4 years.
About 41% of participants lived in communities supplied with fluoridated municipal water. Investigators matched participants’ postal codes with water treatment plan zones to estimate water fluoride concentration for each woman. Using a questionnaire, they determined mothers’ consumption of tap water, coffee, and tea during the first and third trimesters and measured maternal urinary fluoride (MUF) concentration in each trimester of pregnancy. They assessed children’s IQ when they were aged 3 or 4 years, using standardized tests.
As expected, median MUF concentration was significantly higher among women who lived in communities with fluoridated drinking water, as was their daily estimated fluoride intake, compared with those who did not live in such communities. Analyses showed that an estimated 1-mg increase in maternal fluoride intake was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score among both boys and girls. A 1-mg/L increase in MUF was associated with a 4.49-point lower IQ score in boys but not in girls (Green R, et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173[10]:940-948).
Thoughts from Dr. Farber
I do not like giving anti-fluoride spouters ammunition, but I have to follow science where it leads. The reviewers and editors were very brave to publish this controversial study. We will see if it is replicated down the road. The study looked only at pregnant women, so continue to give fluoride, a well-proven treatment, to your pediatric patients who need it.

NTP

Cover of NTP Research Report on Systematic Literature Review on the Effects of Fluoride on Learning and Memory in Animal Studies

NTP Research Report on Systematic Literature Review on the Effects of Fluoride on Learning and Memory in Animal Studies: Research Report 1 [Internet].

Conclusion

Very few studies assessed learning and memory effects in experimental animals (rats and mice) at exposure levels near 0.7 parts per million, the recommended level for community water fluoridation in the United States. At concentrations higher than 0.7 parts per million, this systematic review found a low to moderate level-of-evidence that suggests adverse effects on learning and memory in animal exposed to fluoride. The evidence is strongest (moderate level-of-evidence) in animals exposed as adults and weaker (low level-of-evidence) in animals exposed during development. Confidence in these findings was reduced primarily based on potential confounding of the learning and memory assessments by deficits in motor function or fear and risk of bias limitations. Additional research is needed, in particular to address potential effects on learning and memory following exposure during development to fluoride at levels nearer to 0.7 parts per million. NTP is conducting laboratory studies in rodents to fill data gaps identified by this systematic review of the animal studies. The findings from those studies will be included in a future systematic review to evaluate potential neurobehavioral effects from exposure to fluoride during development with consideration of human, experimental animal and mechanistic data.

Additional research is needed!  It always is who wants to be out of work?

Friday, January 17, 2020

What Does Fluoride Actually Do for Your Oral Health?

There's evidence on both sides of the fluoride debate that can help you arrive at your own conclusion about the safety & effectiveness of fluoride for oral health.

.....It’s easy to see compelling arguments on each side of the fluoride debate. Each patient has to do their own research and arrive at their own conclusions. However, everyone should agree that no matter your position of fluoride, good oral health is a must. Always make sure you:
  • Have a daily routine of brushing, flossing (consider a water flosser), and tongue scraping to keep bacteria from festering in your mouth.
  • Change your toothbrush every three months, or discard it for a new one even sooner if the bristles show significant signs of wear.
  • Monitor or modify your diet if necessary to ensure that your food and drink choices aren’t damaging your teeth.
  • Visit your dentist every six months for teeth cleaning and an oral health exam.

F.A.N. newsletter

We are going to trial in April. This will be the first time that any citizen group will go to trial under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA -pronounced like the opera Tosca!). TSCA was passed in 1976 by the U.S. Congress and is administered by the Environmental Protection agency (EPA).
The official name of the lawsuit is: Food and Water Watch et al v. EPA. As most of you know,  Michael Connett, JD, is the lead attorney who has directed this incredible effort from the beginning. He works with the law firm Waters Kraus & Paul in Los Angeles.
On December 30, the Court released an Order Denying Motions for Summary Judgment. This means that our case will go forward. Trial is scheduled to beginning on April 20 and will run for two weeks. Read this good article for a broader perspective: Judge Again Rejects EPA’s Motion To End Landmark TSCA Citizen Suit by Maria Hegstad of Inside EPA.
The Background:
PLAINTIFFS: On November 22, 2016, a coalition of non-profit groups (Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation, and others including individuals) submitted a Citizens’ Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA, requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water in order “to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride.”
DEFENDANTS: On February 27, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency denied the petition “primarily because EPA concluded that the petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”
THE LAWSUIT: After EPA denied the Petition, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of EPA’s determination with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. On December 17, 2017, the court issued an Order denying EPA’s Motion to Dismiss. The court noted,
“The purpose of citizen petitions is to ensure the EPA does not overlook unreasonable risks to health or the environment.” It cited a 1990 case, Env. Def. Fund v. Reilly, “Citizen participation is broadly permitted [under the TSCA] to ensure that bureaucratic lethargy does not prevent the appropriate administration of this vital authority.”
The Court stated,
The EPA’s interpretation [to dismiss the case] would undermine the purpose of Section 21 by permitting it to deny even a petition that successfully identifies an unreasonable risk of harm to health or to the environment … That a known unreasonable risk could be ignored by the EPA is contrary to the TSCA’s very purpose as well as the statute’s express command that the EPA “shall” promulgate regulations when “an” unreasonable risk is found.
The Court cited Rollins Env. Servs. (FS), Inc. v. St. James Parish, 775 F.2d 627, 632 (5th Cir. 1985):
The overall purpose of the Toxic Substances Control Act was to set in place a comprehensive, national scheme to protect humans and the environment from the dangers of toxic substances.
There have been over one hundred hours of depositions from experts for both sides, and multiple motions by the Defendants, Plaintiffs, and the Court – see the timeline. Approximately $400,000 has been raised to fund this lawsuit from the supporters of the Fluoride Action Network. All in all, it has been an incredible effort on all fronts, with everyone helping as much as they could.
In December 2017, the EPA petitioned the court to Limit Review to the Administrative Record . This meant that no new studies would be allowed into the case. The studies would be limited to those contained in the Nov 22, 2016, Petition.
On January 15, 2018, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) motion to limit review. The Court ruled:
The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record1, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.
Because of this ruling, many new studies were introduced into the case, including 14 new IQ studies. These IQ studies reported an association of fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children: Aravind 2016, Jin 2017, Valdez Jimenez 2017, Bashash 2017,  Razdan 2017,  Yu 2018, Pang 2018, Mustafa 2018, Induswe 2018, El Sehmawy 2018, Cui 2018, Wang 2019, Till 2019, and Green 2019. There are now 64 fluoride-IQ studies reporting a lowering of IQ, and 8 studies that found no effect.
During this same time period, three Mother-Offspring fluoride studies, funded by U.S. government agencies, were published. After 75 years of fluoridation in the U.S. and Canada, these studies represent the first time that either country investigated fluoride’s effect on the fetus. They did this by testing the urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women (Bashash  2017Till 2019, Green 2019) and performing cognitive tests with the offspring. The Till and Green studies reported significant IQ loss at fluoride levels found in women in fluoridated communities in Canada, while the Bashash study, performed in Mexico City, reported similar urinary fluoride levels. There have been 7 Mother-Offspring studies.
Here’s a little on the run up to the trial
November 15: A pre-trial hearing. Read more about this hearing: Federal Judge Asked to Let Fluoride-in-Water Case Go to Trial (1) published by Bloomberg News.
December 19: We submitted 425 Proposed Findings of Fact.
December 19: EPA submitted 31 Undisputed Facts; 2 Disputed Facts; and Legal Disputed Issues, in a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement.
Thank you for your continued support of our lawsuit and FAN's efforts to end fluoridation throughout the world.
Sincerely, 
Ellen Connett
Managing Director
Fluoride Action Network