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

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, July 31, 2020

F.A.N.

FAN Q&A: You Asked, We Answered!
Several weeks ago we asked our supporters to submit any questions they had on fluoridation, including on the TSCA lawsuit and recent trial.  We received a lot of questions from around the world, and in response FAN has produced two new series of Q&A videos providing answers and featuring FAN staff and Advisory Board members Paul Connett, Rick North, Chris Neurath, David Kennedy, and Stuart Cooper.
Click on the video below to access a playlist in which you can view the entire FAN Q&A TSCA Fluoride Trial video series in one location.  Here we answered questions about the potential rulings, outcomes, the science presented at trial, and what a victory could mean for US states and other countries.
Click on the video below to access a playlist in which you can view the entire FAN General Q&A video series in one location. Here we answered questions about transdermal absorption, reducing exposure, levels in beverage products, how to end the practice locally, and much more.
More Public Health Warnings About Fluoridation
A fantastic editorial was published in the journal Public Health Nursing last week entitled, "Water Fluoridation: When current research contradicts public practices."  The author of the opinion piece was Azita Amiri, PhD, RN, a nurse scientist and Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama's College of Nursing and a Bloomberg Fellow at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.  
The piece is packed with powerful quotes, hyperlinks to the studies cited, and makes a well-informed and convincing argument for public health authorities to re-assess their support of fluoridation due to the large amount of research showing harm and outdated science proponents continue to use to defend the practice.  Consider sharing it with nurses, nursing organizations, and elected officials in your area.  
A similar piece was recently published in the journal Pediatric Research by researcher Christine Till, PhD and her JAMA Pediatrics study co-author Rivka Green, entitled "The Evolving Science of Fluoride: When new evidence doesn't conform with existing beliefs.
Another recent development was the publication of Till's 2020 study on using fluoridated water to reconstitute infant formula and an associated lowering of IQ for the child was published in the Journal of Pediatrics in their column of "Current Best Evidence: Translating best evidence into best care."  
There is also a relatively new peer-reviewed study published in The British Journal of Psychiatry linking the low levels of aluminum and fluoride found in public drinking water due to their addition during water treatment "with deleterious effects on dementia risk."
Latest Fluoride News
-For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.
-To see the latest fluoride studies, please visit FAN’s Study Tracker.
Sincerely, 
Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

You must see this

You have to see this Paediatric Dentistry Webinar: Dental Health Policy - Sir Paul Beresford, MP. He says he gets one letter from Chile who he hopes the sender is now dead.
Does he ever follow the legal case brought by Prof Connett. People are waking up not to the benefits of fluoride but are waking up to the lies told by authorities. Who claim to know best.

Thursday, July 30, 2020

Monday, July 27, 2020

Moms

Fluoride Vs. Fluoride-Free Kids' Toothpaste: Which Is Better?

Natural toothpaste varieties are flocking the market, raising concerns over fluoride safety for babies and toddlers. Here's what you need to know........

.................Lack of fluoride in the body causes weak and brittle bones, decaying of tooth enamel, weakened connective tissues, cracks in the protective tissue that protects against the environment (epithelial tissue), as well as cause varicose veins among other health complications.

News to me!

Sunday, July 26, 2020

Friday, July 24, 2020

Research Gate

Could areas of high Fluoride ingestion be more susceptible to Coronavirus outbreaks?

The US Government Comparative Toxicogenomics database shows that Fluoride can inhibit Human immunity to viruses and pneumonia. Angiotensin I-Converting Enzyme (ACE), 2'-5'-Oligoadenylate Synthetase 1 (OAS1) and Intercellular Adhesion Molecule 1 (ICAM1) are included as susceptible epigenetic targets of the poison.
Wuhan is an area with high Fluoride exposure from atmospheric and groundwater pollution.
Are there more studies linking virus outbreaks or mutations with Fluoride?

When did using the word "shit" become the new normal way of talking?


Thursday, July 23, 2020

Maternal and fetal exposures to fluoride during mid-gestation among pregnant women in northern California

Conclusions

We found universal exposure to fluoride in pregnant women and to the fetus via the amniotic fluid. Fluoride concentrations in urine, serum, and amniotic fluid from women were positively correlated to public records of community water fluoridation. Community water fluoridation remains a major source of fluoride exposure for pregnant women living in Northern California.

NZ - Fluoridated Southland Children Record High Levels Of Tooth Decay

Around 30 per cent of children in fluoridated Otago-Southland communities have tooth decay – the same as the unfluoridated Southland communities and Canterbury. It is the same for 5 year olds and Year 8 children.
The children with cavities had an average of 3.7 teeth that were either decayed, already pulled out or repaired with a filling – that’s 20 per cent of their 20 baby teeth. The unfluoridated children had similar levels – again, 3.7 in Southland, and around 4.1 in Canterbury. Not 6 as recently reported by Martin Lee of the Canterbury DHB.
These are “raw” figures (for 2015 and 2016), not adjusted for socioeconomic status or ethnicity.
The following chart shows the total rates of decay in the three groups. As we can see, there is no material difference:
The lack of any significant difference in these figures has led to renewed pleas to end fluoridation as ineffective, and for fluoridation proponents like Marin Lee and the Ministry of Health to stop misleading the public with false propaganda.
This plea also recognises the recent research showing children in fluoridated communities suffer the same brain damage as was being caused by leaded petrol when it was banned.
“Fluoridation reduces IQ, not tooth decay, is the clear message from the latest research and data” says Mark Atkin of Fluoride-free NZ.

HOW TO KEEP CHILDREN’S TEETH AND BRAINS HEALTHY

- Do not drink use fluoridated water during pregnancy
- If you are bottle-feeding your baby, make sure you use unfluoridated water
- Brush teeth twice a day: don’t just spit the toothpaste out – rinsing away the fluoride is essential to protect the child’s brain
- Use no-fluoride toothpaste: be careful when shopping as fluoride levels in adult toothpaste poses a health risk to your child
- Start brushing your child’s teeth from when the first baby teeth come through – and once they can do it themselves supervise them until they are 7 or 8 years old.
- The bugs that cause tooth decay love things like biscuits, fruit juice, dried fruit, fruit puree and sugar sweetened soft drinks – these shouldn’t be in-between meal snacks for children.
- DO NOT EVER leave your baby with a bottle in its mouth (even with milk) when it goes to sleep. It will cause irreparable decay like the picture above – nothing can stop it or fix it.
Instead of eating at set times during the day, children have become grazers, Christchurch’s Community Dental Service clinical director, Martin Lee, said.

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

Tuesday, July 21, 2020

Is Baby Fluoridated Water Safe?

When your baby is ready for water, there is another source that parents might find in the baby aisle: fluoridated water for babies. Is it safe?

Monday, July 20, 2020

2 hours ago - Common sense: Anti-fluoridation campaigner John Lusk says a community poll on water fluoridation is the right thing to do. The community will have its say on ...

Saturday, July 18, 2020

Facebook


Dr. Caitlin Czezowski
·
Imagine what fluoride does to us if it can break down concrete

Its widely accepted that too much fluoride can cause fluorosis of your teeth (white streaks all the way to brown spots on teeth.)

What most dentist don't tell us is that fluoride actually alters our enamel, making it more brittle. Enamel is suppose to be the strong external part of our teeth.

When our teeth are forming, if fluoride is present it causes the enamel to become mottled due to the fact it now contains fluorapatite. When fluorapatite is present it causes enamel to become more brittle and therefore more prone to chipping, cracking and tooth decay.

It's these reasons that I choose to to:
- Use fluoride free Toothpaste
- Drink filtered water
- Opt out of fluoride trays at the dentist
- Purchasing hygiene products that use filtered water

It's is also important to note for women that are pregnant, as fluoride can cross the placental barrier. So limiting your fluoride consumption during pregnancy is important.

Friday, July 17, 2020

NZ - Canterbury children record high levels of tooth decay

Nearly 20 per cent of Canterbury’s 5-year-olds have tooth decay, prompting dental experts to call for a radical rethink of the way New Zealand provides oral health care.

The children with cavities had an average of six teeth that were either decayed, already pulled out or repaired with a filling – that’s 30 per cent of their 20 baby teeth.

The appalling figures have led to renewed pleas to fluoridate Christchurch’s water and for “grazing” eating habits to change.

Instead of eating at set times during the day, children have become grazers, Christchurch’s Community Dental Service clinical director, Martin Lee, said.

“We are not sheep, and we’re not eating grass. Frequent food consumption is a big problem when it comes to tooth decay.”

The figures, published in the New Zealand Medical Journal on Friday, suggest New Zealand has an ongoing paediatric health crisis, the report’s authors say.

Christchurch’s Community Dental Service clinical director, Martin Lee, says the existing system has failed to prevent tooth decay in children.
JOSEPH JOHNSON/STUFF
Christchurch’s Community Dental Service clinical director, Martin Lee, says the existing system has failed to prevent tooth decay in children.
Lee – and Canterbury and Otago universities health sciences academics Philip Schluter​ and Jesse Kokaua​ – collected data from 10,766 Canterbury 5-year-olds in 2018 and 2019.

Of those, 18.4 per cent had cavities, but the figures were much worse in Māori (26.2 per cent) and Pacific children (40 per cent). Pacific and Māori children were also 2.6 and 2.2 times more likely to have had at least one tooth extracted.

The perception that baby teeth do not matter because they fall out anyway is not helping the situation, the study says.

Children with cavities experience pain, swelling, reduced quality of life, have problems eating, and have speech development difficulties that affect learning and playing. They are also away from school and pre-school more often.

Play Video
STUFF
Parents' confusion about kids' toothpaste will lead to more tooth decay, dentists warn. (Video first published in February 2019)
The study says Canterbury’s high rates could partly be attributable to the lack of fluoride in the water.

Studies of this nature have not been done in other parts of the country so it is not possible to compare figures to other regions.

The authors are calling for change in the way oral health care is provided in New Zealand.

“Our current system is perhaps unintentionally designed for oral health services to perpetually chase its tail.”

They say the existing system, which involves children visiting a dental clinic once a year, has not succeeded so far.

Every child in New Zealand receives a free dental check each year, but it is not preventing decay. (File photo)
DAVID UNWIN/STUFF
Every child in New Zealand receives a free dental check each year, but it is not preventing decay. (File photo)
“Instead, a radical rethinking and reframing of oral health care is needed.”

Lee said New Zealand had the best system in the world for repairing decayed teeth, but the solution was not having to do that in the first place.

“The solutions to these problems are not in dental clinics, it’s only going to work if it happens in everyone’s house.”

Lee wants to see dental checks in early childhood centres, and wants those centres to introduce daily tooth brushing.

Scotland introduced a pre-school brushing programme 17 years ago and the amount of money it spends on child dental care has since dropped 50 per cent, Lee said.

MORE FROM
TINA LAW • CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL REPORTER
tina.law@stuff.co.nz
However, convincing the Canterbury District Health Board, which is scrambling under a budget deficit, for extra money for something that will save money in five years time is “really hard to pull off”, Lee said.

He knew of two pre-schools in Christchurch who had children brush their teeth each day.

“We think that is what we need to do, but what we also need to do is engage much better with whānau.”

Lee wanted the Government to push ahead with a law to pass the power to fluoridate from local body councils to district health boards.

Christchurch is the only metropolitan centre in New Zealand not to have fluoride in its water.

“If you have fluoride and tooth brushing and start looking at food you can get some real changes.”

HOW TO KEEP CHILDREN’S TEETH HEALTHY

- Brush twice a day: just spit the toothpaste out – rinsing it away washes the fluoride down the drain (and the fish don’t need it because seawater already has fluoride in it).

- Use fluoride toothpaste: be careful when shopping as some well-known brands don’t have any fluoride.

- Start brushing your child’s teeth from when the first baby teeth come through – and once they can do it themselves supervise them until they are 7 or 8 years old.

- The bugs that cause tooth decay love things like biscuits, fruit juice, dried fruit, fruit puree and sugar sweetened soft drinks – these shouldn’t be in-between meal snacks for children.

How Much Fluorine Is Too Much?

How Much Fluorine Is Too Much?
How Much Fluorine Is Too Much?Dairy cows grazing clover/ryegrass pasture on a Massey University production farm. Credit: James Hanly

For most of us, our closest encounter with the element fluorine is likely to be our toothpaste or a municipal water supply with added fluoride.

But excess fluorine can be a problem. For example, high levels of fluorine in the soil can hurt plants. Fluorine in soils may also affect microbes and other organisms higher along the food chain.

A new study explored whether soil fluorine levels in New Zealand are high enough to hurt a specific microbe called Rhizobium.

Rhizobium bacteria live in root nodules of legume plants, like beans and lentils. These bacteria “fix” atmospheric nitrogen, making the nutrients into a form the host plant can use. Nitrogen fixation by Rhizobia means farmers need to use less nitrogen fertilizer. That can save significant costs.

If soil fluorine levels become high enough to hurt Rhizobia, it could impact the legume crops the bacteria help support. In addition, pastures for grazing livestock often contain clover, another legume. High fluorine levels could harm Rhizobia living in clover root nodules. Ultimately, that could impact the livestock that eat the clover.

But there are a lot of unknowns about fluorine and its specific effects on microbes. “No one has investigated the potential impact of fluorine on Rhizobia,” says Christopher Anderson, a researcher at Massey University in New Zealand.

In the study, Anderson and colleagues found that high levels of fluorine are toxic to Rhizobia and white clover. In laboratory studies, fluorine levels above 100 mg per liter hampered Rhizobia growth. High fluorine concentrations also led to changes in the shape and metabolic activity of the bacteria. These high fluorine levels also impacted white clover. At fluorine concentrations above 100 mg per liter, white clover seedlings did not survive.

Fortunately, there’s some good news as well. The concentration of fluorine at which it is toxic is much greater than the concentration the researchers found in New Zealand soils.

“This means that there is no problem, right now, of fluorine levels in soil affecting Rhizobia in New Zealand’s soils,” says Anderson.

This finding gives confidence to agencies in New Zealand that are tasked with ensuring sustainable farming systems. “Without our research, they would still be in the dark,” says Anderson.

Rhizobia – and one of the host plants, white clover – are key parts of the New Zealand way of animal husbandry.

“In New Zealand, we are fortunate that we can grow grass year-round,” says Anderson. “Our livestock are kept on pasture all year.”

Rhizobium bacteria associated with clover fixes nitrogen from the atmosphere. When clover plants die, they break down in the soil. The fixed nitrogen becomes available to other plants.

“So, we don’t need to apply as much synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, such as urea, to our pastures with clover” says Anderson.

But farmers need to apply other fertilizers to New Zealand’s pastures, including phosphorus fertilizers. That’s where concerns about fluorine levels come in.

Fluorine is a fairly common element in Earth’s crust. It is concentrated in some materials, like phosphate rocks. These rocks are the main ingredient in many fertilizers with phosphorus. In areas where phosphorus fertilizers are applied year after year, fluorine can accumulate in soils over time. This accumulated fluorine can become a soil contaminant.

“But in some cases, biological systems are very tolerant of contaminants,” says Anderson.

Anderson aims to determine fluorine levels at which it is toxic to animals. “In particular we would like to look at earthworms,” says Anderson. “Earthworms are very useful ecological indicators.”

Researchers also want to look at grazing animals, which can eat a considerable amount of soil. When animals ingest too much fluorine, they can develop fluorosis. That can cause bone, teeth, and kidney problems.

“We have to make sure the science is looking after all aspects of the pastoral system – soil, microorganisms, plants, and animals,” says Anderson.

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Monday, July 13, 2020

Effect of fluoride on endocrine tissues and their secretory functions - review

The effects of fluoride on endocrine tissues has not been sufficiently explored to date. The current body of knowledge suggest significant effects of that mineral on reducing sex hormone levels, which may consequently impair fertility and disrupt puberty. The majority of studies confirm that sodium fluoride increases TSH levels and decreases the concentrations of T3 and T4 produced by the thyroid. Moreover, a correlation was observed between NaF and increased secretion of PTH by the parathyroid glands, without a significant impact on body calcium levels. Probably, fluoride may exert adverse effects on insulin levels, impairing pancreatic function and resulting in abnormal glucose tolerance. Observations also include decreased levels of cortisol secreted by the adrenal glands. In light of the few existing studies, the mechanism of fluoride toxicity on the endocrine system has been described.

Saturday, July 11, 2020

Effect of fluoride on endocrine tissues and their secretory functions - .chemosphere.2020.127565

Marta Skórka-Majewicz; Marta Goschorska; Wojciech Żwierełło; Irena Baranowska-Bosiacka; Daniel Styburski; Patrycja Kapczuk; Izabela Gutowska



The effects of fluoride on endocrine tissues has not been sufficiently explored to date. The current body of knowledge suggest significant effects of that mineral on reducing sex hormone levels, which may consequently impair fertility and disrupt puberty. The majority of studies confirm that sodium fluoride increases TSH levels and decreases the concentrations of T3 and T4 produced by the thyroid. Moreover, a correlation was observed between NaF and increased secretion of PTH by the parathyroid glands, without a significant impact on body calcium levels. Probably, fluoride may exert adverse effects on insulin levels, impairing pancreatic function and resulting in abnormal glucose tolerance. Observations also include decreased levels of cortisol secreted by the adrenal glands. In light of the few existing studies, the mechanism of fluoride toxicity on the endocrine system has been described.
更新日期:2020-07-10

The end of fluoridation is in sight

Story at-a-glance
  • A collection of some of the strongest fluoride studies in history have recently been published, showing that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk and hazard to all, but to the fetus and infants in particular
  • After a four-year process, a landmark fluoridation trial was held in federal court, and fluoridation’s neurotoxic risk to vulnerable subpopulations was confirmed, along with the U.S. EPA’s failure to take action to protect citizens from these risks
  • The judge has urged the parties to discuss the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, after which the judge will present his final ruling
  • While FAN is taking the lead in court, at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours
  • New educational and advocacy tools are available so you can take action to end fluoridation in your community or state, to immediately protect the most vulnerable
Water fluoridation is one of the biggest public health failures of the 20th century. Despite solid scientific evidence of harm, politics and public relations have kept the practice alive.
Proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), have spent millions of dollars on promotion and public relations to sell fluoridation using half-truths, convincing talking points, and diversions.
But fluoridation is also one of the most widely rejected health interventions on Earth, with 95% of the world’s population consuming water from systems that are not fluoridated.
For the past decade, the trend has moved in the direction of communities ending the practice, not starting it. And now, due to an abundance of new research, a landmark lawsuit and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of the Fluoride Action Network and its supporters like you, the practice could be on the brink of extinction.
The Evidence of Harm Is Too Great To Be Ignored
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 is permanent and cannot be undone later in life.
The evidence of neurotoxic harm from water fluoridation has been mounting at an unprecedented rate in recent years, and has quickly become the most urgent reason to end the practice as soon as possible. A cavity can easily be filled, but damage to a child’s brain is permanent.
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, 65 human studies linking moderately high fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence, three human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development, and seven Mother-Offspring studies linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy to reduced IQ in offspring.
Over the past year, we’ve also seen unprecedented new science from Canada and the USA showing fluoride harms the developing brain from exposures due primarily to artificial water fluoridation at the “optimal level.” Several of these high-quality studies were funded by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (formerly the National Institutes of Health).
Strongest Studies Published Over the Past Year
Seven studies published in 2019 and 2020 are among the strongest yet, and are obviously relevant to water fluoridation as they were conducted in communities with what the ADA considers the “optimal level” of fluoride in drinking water. These include:
  1. Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s journal on Pediatrics. It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.
  2. Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International. It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.
  3. Till 2020 — published in Environment International. It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.
  4. Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health. It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019 and Bashash et al, 2017.
  5. Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health. It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.
  6. Malin 2019 — published in Environment International. It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The CDC funded this study.
The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. In fact, the level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.
recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean, MD, DMSc, also concluded that:
“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.”
It should come as no surprise then, that a draft systematic review published in 2020 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.
The review identified 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, but did not include the three most recent neurotoxicity-related studies from the York University group (Till 2019; Riddell 2019), or the study showing that women in the U.S. had levels of fluoride in urine high enough to cause damage to the brain of the fetus (Uyghurturk 2020).
While the draft NTP review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. This fact was recently echoed in a letter published in Pediatric Research by the co-authors of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study, which said:
“Over the past 75 years, health authorities have declared that community water fluoridation-a practice that reaches over 400 million worldwide-is safe. Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent.
When a Canadian study reported that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women was associated with lower IQ scores in young children, critics attacked the methodology of the study and discounted the significance of the results.
Health authorities continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe, despite four well-conducted studies over the last 3 years consistently linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in offspring …
The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs impedes the response to early warnings about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride, especially for the fetus and infant for whom there is no benefit.”
FAN Leads the Fight Against Neurotoxins
Since 2000, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has been committed to reducing exposure to fluoride, and even with all of the science firmly on our side, we couldn’t wait for legislators and public health officials to cast aside their entrenched dogma in favor of fluoridation and catch up on the science. Instead, we initiated the legal process to end the practice that today affects more than 200 million Americans.
A little-known provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gave us our opportunity. It offers citizens a way to circumvent the corruption and force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit or limit the use of toxic substances.
Watchdog groups no longer have to convince the EPA of unreasonable risk; they can now have an objective judge decide based on an independent review of the evidence.
We are also laying the foundation for future TSCA challenges by citizens and environmental groups. For example, because of Judge Edward Chen’s ruling to deny the EPA’s motion to dismiss our case, TSCA law will now be interpreted to allow the EPA to be petitioned to regulate single uses of substances, rather all uses, which was the EPA’s position. This change will make it easier for activists to force the EPA to review the risks of specific chemicals used commercially.
While it has been four years since this effort began in November of 2016 — when the Fluoride Action Network, together with a coalition of nonprofits and individual citizens, presented a petition to the EPA to end the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public’s drinking water — it has actually taken 20 years of effort by FAN to bring us to this point.
It took the development of our extensive website in the early days. It took the creation of our comprehensive health database (larger than any government had put together on fluoride’s toxicity).
It took countless submissions to government agencies and the translation of many Chinese neurotoxicity studies and much more. And, after much delay due to government shut downs and Covid-19, our day in court finally arrived.
Trial of the Century
The trial began with an opening statement from the attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Connett. He made the succinct but powerful case that fluoride presents a hazard (threat to the brain); that this hazard is a risk at the doses experienced in fluoridated communities; and that it is an unreasonable risk.
The EPA, represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice, argued that establishing fluoride as a neurotoxic hazard requires a systematic review, which they claimed FAN’s experts didn’t perform.
They also argued that the evidence showing harm from fluoride at the levels found in communities that practice fluoridation wasn’t strong enough to yield action from the EPA. Both of these claims would be disproven by FAN’s experts and attorney during the trial.
This was followed by three days of testimony from FAN’s expert witnesses, all independent and leading scientists whose world-class expertise includes fluoride, neurotoxicity and risk assessments, and whose expertise the EPA has relied on in the past on other toxicants like lead and mercury. The witnesses included (click on links to see their declarations and resumes):
Their testimony was followed by the EPA’s witnesses, two of which were experts-for-hire from the corporate consulting firm Exponent, and one was a risk assessment expert from the EPA.
It was revealed that the EPA paid Exponent approximately $350,000 for their testimony, which was focused primarily on claiming that there was insufficient evidence of harm — something they’re known for doing in every trial, no matter who they’re representing or how strong the science is.
One of their witnesses, Dr. Ellen Chang, has a long history of defending and producing systematic reviews for corporate polluters, including for DOW Chemical’s Agent Orange, Monsanto’s glyphosate, 3M’s PFOAs, and pesticides from Syngenta and Croplife. She also worked for the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, and the Manganese Interest Group.
Several paragraphs here couldn’t possibly do the in-depth proceedings of the trial justice, or highlight all of the shocking and incredible statements that were made. I would urge you to read our detailed summaries for each of the trial days.
I would also urge you to visit our TSCA trial overview page, where you can find the basic facts, a timeline of all actions and rulings, links to all of the submissions made by FAN, links to all of the media coverage, and links to the studies we relied upon to make our case. You can also visit our Twitter page, where we provided live tweet coverage of days 3 through 7.
The Judge’s Reaction
After seven days of trial and closing statements from both parties, the judge held off on making a final ruling, but he did make it fairly obvious that he was convinced that FAN fluoride was a neurotoxin and likely posed an unreasonable risk. He said that the EPA had failed to properly assess that risk, and illegitimately turned down FAN’s 2016 petition for TSCA action.
The judge urged the parties to spend the next few weeks discussing the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, and leave his final ruling until that is complete. Both parties expressed doubt that such an arrangement would be fruitful, but ultimately agreed to move forward with it and update the court on their progress in the beginning of August.
We Expect the EPA Could Continue to Delay
We don’t expect the overzealous proponents of the fluoridation, including the EPA, CDC and ADA, to roll over without using every avenue possible to save their credibility by protecting fluoridation. They’ve already proven time and again, they have deep pockets and no shame.
Proponents don’t seem to realize that 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.
While FAN is taking the lead in court, at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours.
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.
Before the trial the EPA had already intimated that they could appeal a ruling in our favor, and that even if we win the appeal the rulemaking process to end fluoridation’s neurotoxic harm could take up to three years. This would mean tens of thousands more children permanently harmed by fluoridation.
This is why, regardless of the ultimate verdict, FAN will continue to need your support. We have forged this precedent-setting path together. Your support, contributions and sharing of our cause and legal case have played a critical role in making this happen, and we thank you. Whether we win or lose this trial, our important education efforts will have to continue.
Please consider investing in an end to fluoridation by making a tax-deductible donation to our work.
Also, please consider signing-up to receive FAN’s email bulletins and following us on FacebookTwitterYouTube and Instagram. We will keep you informed about the latest fluoride research and news, plus give you opportunities help influence fluoride policy in your area and throughout the world.
New Tools and Resources to Educate Leaders About Neurotoxicity
While FAN is taking the lead in court at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours. To make the task easier, we have created a number of new educational materials.
First, is our handout on neurotoxicity. We have both a color version along with a black and white version for cheaper bulk printing, as well as a list of the references for this handout that you can combine to make a nice double-sided handout if you so choose. You can also check out our other handouts here.
Second, FAN’s Research Director, Chris Neurath, filmed a Zoom webinar in which he presented detailed evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.
He described the rapidly accumulating peer-reviewed science showing that fluoride lowers the IQ of children and increases their risk of neurobehavioral problems like ADHD. He put those studies into perspective in ways we can all understand.
This video a powerful tool for campaigners and parents looking to learn the science and to share it with decision-makers. Neurath’s presentation is about 50 minutes and includes a 30-minute question and answer session that took place at the end. Click here to access the PowerPoint slides used in this presentation.
Help educate your state-level decision makers about the neurotoxic harm caused by water fluoridation. Use our simple automated email system to send Neurath’s presentation to your state legislators and urge them to introduce a bill next session to end the practice throughout your state: Educate Your Legislators NOW.
FAN has also produced a new video series entitled, “Four Game-Changing Studies,” explaining the science behind fluoridation’s neurotoxicity in four short videos featuring Paul Connett, Ph.D. The shorter format makes the content easier to share on social media and easier for local authorities to digest incrementally.
For full references please use source link below.
(Source: mercola.com; July 7, 2020; https://tinyurl.com/ybbzb6ng)

Friday, July 10, 2020

Does it make sense Taiwan has only had 7 corona deaths and yet ask google and it can't find any report as to why.
I've changed from Google to Bing search engine and what a difference the first page is full of reports about Taiwan (see below)
Proves that Google shuts out anything they don't want you to see.
Think I may have to use Bing for fluoride as there seems very little to report compared to previous years.
Bill

Taiwan was the only nation with a correct coronavirus response

https://nypost.com/2020/04/25/taiwan-was-the-only-nation-with-a...

Majority of adults in Britain have rotten teeth, according to new study

50% UK adults have tooth decayMORE than half of adults in the UK have damaged or rotting teeth according to a dental hygiene company.
Spotlight Dental say that despite the introduction of sugar tax introduced in 2018, sugar consumption has continued to rise in the UK.
The country ranked in the bottom ten worldwide for sugar consumption, prompting concerns about the effect on our teeth.
According to the NHS, consuming too much sugar can have two main adverse effects; weight gain and tooth decay. 
Tooth decay on the rise in the UK is the biggest worry for dentists and Spotlight Oral Care founders, Lisa and Vanessa, who say it has become one of the biggest problems in recent years.................

Wednesday, July 08, 2020

From A Wills

A Wills awills@willsfamily.org.uk via outbound.mailhop.org 

16:27 (14 minutes ago)
to awills
Click heading below to read the article.  Ann
PRNewswire     They write, "Fluoride is not essential for growth and development, a cautious step could be avoidance of fluoridated products and water by women ...
----
By Prof Paul Connett of Cambridge University etc. in his tape “Your Toxic Tap Water.”  He said:
Fluoridated water affects the poorest communities the most - & they can’t afford bottled water or plumbed-in reverse osmosis water purifiers, so they are trapped.
Studies in India & China show that dental fluorosis from too much fluoride in water affects the poorest worst of all, especially black & some other ethnic groups because they are more likely to have a poorer diet with low vitamin & mineral intake - low magnesium, low calcium & low protein.  The USA “Center for Disease Control” state that black children also have higher rates of lactose intolerance to dairy products such as milk, so may be lower in vitamin D.  Black children have higher rates of dental fluorosis.  Atlanta, Georgia had the highest rate of dental fluorosis in USA at the time of his talk.
(My comment:  dark skins also absorb less vitamin D from the sun.   Officials claim they add the chemical fluoride to water to help the poor, but it has the reverse effect.)
Ann