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

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, February 27, 2021

What is needed is a contra infographic 




Thursday, February 25, 2021

Australia - To fluoride or not to fluoride - that is the question and our deputy mayor says it must be asked

 
The highly contentious issue of water fluoridation hit council's meeting agenda again last week, with council re-affirming to conduct a community poll on the issue at the September 4 local government elections.

Council's decision caused backlash from fluoridation supporters including the Australian Dental Association NSW whose president came out swinging on grounds that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 40 per cent.

Statistics like that are such furphies the president should be ashamed.

In actual terms, water fluoridation can these days only be shown to produce an average of one less tooth surface decayed per child's mouth.

That's not whole teeth, but tooth surfaces, and hardly something to get enthused about, or justify forcing councils to add fluoride to public water supplies.

Water fluoridation was adopted as national policy around 2004, and has been pursued as entrenched policy since then to the detriment of the emerging science.

It is a magical idea whose days must surely soon end due to growing evidence of potential harm to general health from consuming fluoride, especially for the foetus and bottle-fed infants.

Fluoride toothpaste is a whole other thing, which is supported by some measurable evidence of benefit and doesn't involve actually swallowing the stuff.

What's needed is a genuinely independent review of fluoridation. A community poll giving people the arguments for and against, and asking their opinion, should be part of the process. Yes or No: Would you prefer council to stop adding fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) to the public water supply?

Council was previously advised a community poll on fluoridation is allowed, so it's curious why there is now such an official fuss about us doing that.

Cr Lisa Intemann's views are not necessarily council's.

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Edward Priestley has pointed out that in the 2nd to last paragraph of George Pinnell’s email on govt. fluoridation plans it says:-

“This removes the burden from local authorities and will allow the Department of Health and Social Care to streamline processes and take responsibility for proposing any new fluoridation schemes, which will continue to be subject to public consultation.   Central government will also become responsible for the associated work, such as the cost of consultations, feasibility studies, and the capital and revenue costs associated with any new and existing schemes.”

(My comment:  I hope they really mean that about public consultation, as it may provide a glimmer of hope?    Also, as England is heavily in debt due to Covid - how can they afford very expensive fluoridation!   Ann

We know what their consultations are like, your opinion has no weight. Only the dental professional pro fluoride input is taken seriously. 

The video of the last consultation   

Bill



 

 To see all four videos go to Hampshire Against fluoridation http://hafvideos.blogspot.com/

F.A.N. Newsletter


New study finds fluoride lowers IQ at exposures similar to artificially fluoridated water and genetics can cause heightened vulnerability

The latest epidemiological study finding an association between fluoride exposures and reduced IQ in children was at exposures in the same range as occur in areas with artificial water fluoridation.  The study by Zhao et al (2021), conducted in China in a large group of 567 children, found substantially lower IQ scores amongst those with greater fluoride exposure.  Child urine fluoride levels of 1.5 mg/L were estimated to have a -6.5 IQ points* loss compared to children with urine fluoride levels of 0.5 mg/L.

The average urine fluoride concentration in the study was 1.0 mg/L, which is only slightly higher than the average 0.7 mg/L urine fluoride levels found in studies of people residing in artificially fluoridated parts of Canada and the US, and substantially less than the maximum levels [Green 2019, Uyghurturk 2020].  In the Canadian study fluoridated water averaged 0.6 mg/L and in the US study it averaged 0.7 mg/L


The new Zhao et al study clearly supports FAN’s own recent dose-response assessment of over a dozen higher quality studies of fluoride and IQ, which found a consistent statistically significant loss of IQ even at exposures of 0.7 mg/L and below.


This new study is also important because it confirms findings from two previous studies which found that people with some specific genetic variations affecting neurodevelopment are especially susceptible to loss of IQ from fluoride exposure.  Those previous papers were by Zhang et al (2015) and Cui et al (2018), and they found 5-fold and 4-fold greater loss of IQ for people with specific variants in two genes.  The new paper extends the findings by looking at four different genes simultaneously, and evaluating the interactions between the genes and between fluoride and IQ.  All four genes are known to affect neurodevelopment, acting through the neurotransmitter and hormone dopamine, according to Zhao et al.  The study found that certain combinations of variants in the four genes produced much greater susceptibility to loss of IQ from fluoride exposure, similar to what had been found in the single gene studies of Zhang and Cui, but revealing a more complicated relationship that depends on interactions between several genes.

Children with susceptible gene variants harmed most

The genetic variations are naturally occurring and each variant typically exists in a sizable proportion of the population, so these are not rare genetic conditions associated only with certain rare diseases.  The technical term for these variants are Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms or SNPs.

This is the first time multiple gene effects have been looked at with fluoride neurotoxicity, but the findings are not unexpected because similar multiple-gene interactions have been found to effect loss of IQ from the neurotoxin mercury.  A large cohort study in England found that children with a combination of the most susceptible variants of genes lost a stunning 25 IQ points from higher mercury exposures, whereas the overall average loss of IQ for all children with all combinations of variants was too small to even detect [Grandjean 2013 video by IAOMT, Julvez & Grandjean 2013, Julvez et al 2013].  If a similar genetic dependence of susceptibility to fluoride exists, this may explain why in some fluoride neurotoxicity studies a few individual subjects showed much greater effects than the average.  The Bashash 2018 and the Green 2019 studies considered these extreme cases as possible outliers, but found that even excluding them did not alter the finding that the remaining subjects still showed clear associations between fluoride and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.

The implications for public health policy of genetic variation in vulnerability to fluoride are substantial [Julvez & Grandjean 2013].  An exposure level that might produce a relatively small adverse effect on most people could be causing a very great adverse effect on a genetically susceptible subset of the population.  Regulations to prevent harm must be tailored to the most vulnerable, not the average, because there is no practical way to know in advance who is most susceptible and water fluoridation is mass-medication that cannot accommodate individual variations in response.


Chris Neurath

Research Director

Fluoride Action Network

Saturday, February 20, 2021

From Ann Wills

George Pinnell gives below official details of the recent legislative proposals for fluoridation. Keep scrolling down. Thank you George for doing this.  Ann.  

--

From: George Pinnell. 

Sent: 20 February 2021

Dear All,

Searching on the above reference should take you to the full document. The Department of Health & Social Care's legislative proposals for a Health and Care Bill CP 381 Published 11 February 2021. 2.3 Integration and Innovationworking together to improve health and social care for all Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care by Command.

I have extracted the specific references to fluoridation for ease of reference to make it easier for you to lobby your MP & local councils with the relevant information.

Good luck. George.

 

These legislative measures are intended to support improvements already under way in the NHS. They should be seen in the context of those broader reforms. And they are by no means the full extent of this government’s ambition for the nation’s health. We will also bring forward changes in social care, public health and mental health. We also remain committed to the sustainable improvement of adult social care and will bring forward proposals this year. The targeted public health interventions we have outlined here in relation to obesity and fluoridation, sit alongside our proposals for the future design of the public health system, including the creation of the National Institute for Health Protection (NIHP). We are also bringing forward legislation to bring the Mental Health Act up to date, as set out in our white paper last month.

For public health, alongside the population health element of our ‘triple aim’, we intend to bring forward measures to: make it easier to secure rapid change updates in NHS England public health functions; help tackle obesity by introducing further restrictions on the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar foods; as well as a new power for Ministers to alter certain food labelling requirements. In addition, we will be streamlining the process for the fluoridation of water in England by moving responsibilities for doing so from local authorities to central government.

Additional proposals – public health:

1.    Public Health power of direction

2.    Obesity

3.    Fluoridation

On public health we will bring forward measures to: make it easier for the Secretary of State to direct NHS England to take on specific public health functions ; help tackle obesity by introducing further restrictions on the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar foods; as well as a new power for ministers to alter certain food labelling requirements. This will ensure consumers can be supported to make more informed, healthier choices about their food and drink purchases. In addition, we will be streamlining the process for the fluoridation of water in England by moving the responsibilities for doing so, including consultation responsibilities, from local authorities to central government. These public health measures will complement and augment the efforts of ICSs to make real inroads in improving population health in their areas, helping to tackle inequalities and ‘level-up’ across communities.

Public health

1.    Public Health power of direction

2.    Obesity

3.    Fluoridation

Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance that has been shown to improve oral health. We will work to streamline the process for initiating proposals for new schemes for fluoridation of water in England by moving the responsibilities for doing so from local authorities to central government.


Water fluoridation

Water Fluoridation is clinically proven to improve oral health and reduce oral health inequalities. It has a protective effect which reduces the impact of a high sugar diet or poor oral hygiene. Around 10% of the population of England currently receive fluoridated water. In the most deprived areas fluoridation of water has been shown to reduce tooth decay in 5-year olds by a third.

Since 2013, local authorities have had the power to propose, and consult on, new fluoridation schemes, variations to existing schemes, and to terminate existing schemes. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has responsibility for approving any proposals submitted by local authorities. Local authorities have reported several difficulties with this process including the fact that local authority boundaries are not co-terminous with water flows, which requires the involvement of several authorities in these schemes, in a way which is complex and burdensome. In addition, local authorities are responsible for the oversight of revenue and costs associated with new proposals, including feasibility studies and consultations, while having no direct financial benefit from any gains in oral health.

In light of these challenges, we are proposing to give Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to directly introduce, vary or terminate water fluoridation schemes. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care already has the existing power to decide on whether proposals for water fluoridation should be approved and responsibility for the administration of schemes.

This removes the burden from local authorities and will allow the Department of Health and Social Care to streamline processes and take responsibility for proposing any new fluoridation schemes, which will continue to be subject to public consultation. Central government will also become responsible for the associated work, such as the cost of consultations, feasibility studies, and the capital and revenue costs associated with any new and existing schemes.

As is the case now, once a scheme is agreed, the agreements held with the water companies will continue to be held centrally. 

Friday, February 19, 2021

Fluoride exposure and duration and quality of sleep in a Canadian population-based sample

Background

Fluoride from dietary and environmental sources may concentrate in calcium-containing regions of the body such as the pineal gland. The pineal gland synthesizes melatonin, a hormone that regulates the sleep-wake cycle. We examined associations between fluoride exposure and sleep outcomes among older adolescents and adults in Canada.

Methods

We used population-based data from Cycle 3 (2012–2013) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. Participants were aged 16 to 79 years and 32% lived in communities supplied with fluoridated municipal water. Urinary fluoride concentrations were measured in spot samples and adjusted for specific gravity (UFSGn = 1303) and water fluoride concentrations were measured in tap water samples among those who reported drinking tap water (n = 1016). We used multinomial and ordered logistic regression analyses (using both unweighted and survey-weighted data) to examine associations of fluoride exposure with self-reported sleep outcomes, including sleep duration, frequency of sleep problems, and daytime sleepiness. Covariates included age, sex, ethnicity, body mass index, chronic health conditions, and household income.

Results

Median (IQR) UFSG concentration was 0.67 (0.63) mg/L. Median (IQR) water fluoride concentration was 0.58 (0.27) mg/L among participants living in communities supplied with fluoridated municipal water and 0.01 (0.06) mg/L among those living in non-fluoridated communities. A 0.5 mg/L higher water fluoride level was associated with 34% higher relative risk of reporting sleeping less than the recommended duration for age [unweighted: RRR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.73; p = .026]; the relative risk was higher, though less precise, using survey-weighted data [RRR = 1.96, 95% CI: 0.99, 3.87; p = .05]. UFSG was not significantly associated with sleep duration. Water fluoride and UFSG concentration were not significantly associated with frequency of sleep problems or daytime sleepiness.

Conclusions

Fluoride exposure may contribute to sleeping less than the recommended duration among older adolescents and adults in Canada.

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

More Evidence that Fluoride Lowers IQ: Will the CDC Keep Ignoring It?

 

Time for action

Why does the CDC continue to promote water fluoridation, “one of the most widely rejected health interventions in the world”? Although systemic exposure to fluoride benefits no one, the blanket “one dose fits all” water fluoridation policy clung to by the U.S. disproportionately endangers babies—the most vulnerable members of the population.

The Canadian authors are unequivocal in recommending that women lower their fluoride ingestion during pregnancy, while pointing out that there is “no benefit of systemic exposure to fluoride during pregnancy for the prevention of caries in offspring” anyway. Commenting on the Canadian results and the availability of topical fluoride, a dental expert at the University of California-San Francisco likewise stated to CNN, “[M]y bias, given the findings of this and other studies, is to focus on the delivery of fluoride through strategies that do not require the fluoride to be ingested.”

At present, more Americans drink fluoridated water than in all other countries combined. In western Europe, where tooth decay rates have been steadily declining without water fluoridation, there appears to be far less appetite for taking risks with children’s neurodevelopment. Children’s Health Defense believes that American children deserve independent and honest regulators willing to actively protect children from toxic exposures, instead of captured agencies that prevaricate and allow themselves to be guided by “shameful deception, fraud and corporate interference.” Commenting that he will henceforth be advising pregnant friends and family not to drink fluoridated water, JAMA editor-in-chief Christakis says, “We can’t tell them to wait years for another study.”

 

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

Australia - ‘Populist and wildly subjective’: War over fluoride erupts between Port Macquarie councillors

 Councillors on the NSW mid-north coast are pushing for a public vote to remove fluoride from the public water supply. But dental experts and one council member have hit back, arguing community members should not be bombarded by “populist and wildly subjective opinions”.

The Port Macquarie-Hastings Council plans to launch a community poll later this year, alongside the local election, where residents can vote on whether or not fluoride should be filtered out of the drinking water. However, councillor Rob Turner is proposing instead of the poll, councillors discuss other less costly options for obtaining feedback from the community, providing they have been educated on the topic.

Mr Turner, who is a pharmacist, said there was plenty of evidence to support fluoridation of water, and it was not council’s role to “undermine” NSW Health. Even if the council does push forward with the community poll, which would cost upwards of $60,000 in taxpayer dollars, fluoride is compulsory.

Dental experts argue fluoride is essential in preventing tooth decay. “Under Section 6B of the Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies Act 1957, a water utility may not cease fluoridation unless the direction is revoked by NSW Health,” the health department said in a statement.

“A water utility ceasing fluoridation without the direction being revoked is guilty of an offence against this Act.”................

Tuesday, February 16, 2021

According to Fluoride Action Network, the NAS strengthens findings on fluoride's neurotoxicity

 NEW YORK, Feb. 16, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a non-profit group dedicated to education on fluoride's toxicity, finds that the National Academies of Sciences' (NAS) recent peer-review of the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) revised report, strengthens the NTP's conclusion that "fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans" lowering the IQ of children.

FAN agrees with the NAS that the NTP should place "more emphasis" on the "marked consistency" of the evidence:

"... 44 of the 46 studies ... indicate an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ. Those results highlight the marked consistency in the current epidemiologic literature on fluoride and childhood IQ."

FAN adds that its own analysis indicates 15 of the 17 highest quality lower-dose studies most relevant to water fluoridation demonstrated the same "marked consistency" as did higher-exposure studies. 

FAN agrees with the NAS that NTP should not make definitive statements about fluoride's effects at low doses until a "dose-response" analysis has been performed. This has been falsely interpreted by fluoridation defenders to imply that that lower doses are not neurotoxic!

In reality, the best human studies (Bashash 20172018; Green 2019; Till 2020have found neurotoxic harm to occur at current exposure levels for people living in fluoridated communities. When FAN and others have used the methods advocated by the NAS they predict a safe reference dose (RfD) which is extremely low. A pre-print study by Grandjean et al. report a very low safe reference dose needed to protect the fetus. FAN's analysis confirms their conclusion.

As far as exposure to the fetus or the bottle-fed infant is concerned, we believe, as with lead, there is "no safe level" for exposure to fluoride.

The NAS made numerous technical suggestions to improve the "clarity" of the document.  FAN agrees these would improve and strengthen the NTP report, but they are unlikely to alter the NTP's conclusion that fluoride is a "presumed" developmental neurotoxicant.

According to Paul Connett, FAN director, "There is enough scientific evidence to conclude that both pregnant women and parents' bottle-feeding infants, be warned to avoid fluoride. The only responsible thing now is for U.S. regulatory bodies to halt their support of water fluoridation. An immediate moratorium should be imposed so that no further damage is done to the mental development of children while further investigations are conducted."

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

Friday, February 12, 2021

Dental surgeons welcome new national powers for water fluoridation

11 Feb 2021

The Faculty of Dental Surgery and the Faculty of General Dental Practice UK have both welcomed proposals in the Government’s new Health and Care White Paper, published today, which will give the Health Secretary new powers around water fluoridation. [1]

Responding to the proposals, Mr Matthew Garrett, Dean of the Faculty of Dental Surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons of England said: 

“We welcome today’s announcement as an important step forward in our efforts to improve children’s oral health. Before the COVID-19 pandemic struck the UK, tooth decay was the leading cause of hospital admissions for five to nine year olds by some distance, despite being entirely preventable. The events of the last 12 months, which have reduced access to dental services for many, will only have made this crisis worse. Water fluoridation has been found by Public Heath England to be an effective and safe measure for preventing dental decay. These proposals will make it easier for fluoridation schemes to be implemented more widely, so that more children can benefit.”

Ian Mills, Dean of the Faculty of General Dental Practice UK, added:

“Tooth decay is the most prevalent disease in England, and the provision of water which is either naturally or artificially fluoridated to 1 part per million is effective in reducing its incidence and severity. There is also clear evidence that it is a cost-effective approach which reduces the number of children admitted to hospital for tooth extractions, and that it offers the greatest benefit in more deprived areas which suffer from poorer oral health and wider health inequalities.  However only one in ten households in England currently receive tap water containing the recommended level of fluoride, and we support the proposals announced today, which would help reduce the barriers to offering fluoridated water to other communities which could benefit.”

The Government’s Health and Care White Paper (p.61) proposes giving the, “Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to directly introduce, vary or terminate water fluoridation schemes. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care already has the existing power to decide on whether proposals for water fluoridation should be approved and responsibility for the administration of schemes. This removes the burden from local authorities and will allow the Department of Health and Social Care to streamline processes and take responsibility for proposing any new fluoridation schemes, which will continue to be subject to public consultation. Central government will also become responsible for the associated work, such as the cost of consultations, feasibility studies, and the capital and revenue costs associated with any new and existing schemes.” 


Subject to consultation like the last time but then they disregard the feedback - they know best. They have everybody trained now like Pavlov's dogs. Vaccines will be compulsory next all for your own and the community's good.

House of Commons

 

Photo of Matthew HancockMatthew Hancock Secretary of State for Health and Social Care  11:40 am, 11th February 2021

Mr Speaker, I come to the House today to set out our White Paper on the future of health and care. The past year has been the most challenging in the NHS’s proud 72-year history. The health and care system as a whole has risen in the face of great difficulties. Throughout, people have done incredible things and worked in novel and remarkable ways to deliver for patients, and we in this House salute them all—not just the nurse who may have had to care for two, three or four times as many patients as he would in normal times, and not just the surgeon who may have been called to treat patients beyond her normal specialism, but the managers across health and care who have come together in teams, as part of a health family, at local and national level; the public health experts, who have been needed more than ever before; and the local authority staff who have embraced change to deliver for their residents—and from all, a sense of teamwork that has been inspiring to see.

As a citizen, I care deeply for the whole health and care family, the values they stand for and the security they represent. They are there for us at the best of times, and they are there for us at the worst of times. As Health Secretary, I see it as my role sometimes to challenge but most of all to support the health and care family in their defining mission of improving the health of the nation and caring for those most in need.

I come before the House to present a White Paper based firmly on those values, which I believe are values that our whole nation holds dear. The White Paper is built on more than two years of work with the NHS, local councils and the public. At its heart, this White Paper enables greater integration, reduces bureaucracy and supports the way that the NHS and social care work when they work at their best—together. It strengthens accountability to this House and, crucially, it takes the lessons we have learned in this pandemic about how the system can rise to meet huge challenges and frames a legislative basis to support that effort. My job as Health Secretary is to make the system work for those who work in the system—to free up, to empower and to harness the mission-driven capability of team health and care. The goal of this White Paper is to allow that to happen.

Before turning to the core measures, I want to answer two questions that I know have been on people’s minds. First, are these changes needed? Even before the pandemic, it was clear that reform was needed to update the law, to improve how the NHS operates and to reduce bureaucracy. Local government and the NHS have told us that they want to work together to improve health outcomes for residents. Clinicians have told us that they want to do more than just treat conditions; they want to address the factors that determine people’s health and prevent illness in the first place. All parts of the system told us that they want to embrace modern technology, to innovate, to join up, to share data, to serve people and, ultimately, to be trusted to get on and do all that so that they can improve patient care and save lives. We have listened, and these changes reflect what our health and care family have been asking for, building on the NHS’s own long-term plan.

The second question is, why now, as we tackle the biggest public health emergency in modern history? The response to covid-19 has accelerated the pace of collaboration across health and social care, showing what we can do when we work together flexibly, adopting new technology focused on the needs of the patient and setting aside bureaucratic rules. The pandemic has also brought home the importance of preventing ill health in the first place by tackling obesity and taking steps such as fluoridation that will improve the health of the nation. The pandemic has made the changes in this White Paper more, not less, urgent, and it is our role in Parliament to make the legislative changes that are needed. There is no better time than now.

I turn to the measures in detail. The first set of measures promote integration between different parts of the health and care system and put the focus of health funding on the health of the population, not just the health of patients. Health and care have always been part of the same ecosystem. Given an ageing population with more complex needs, that has never been more true, and these proposals will make it easier for clinicians, carers and public health experts to achieve what they already work hard to do: operate seamlessly across health and care, without being split into artificial silos that keep them apart.

The new approach is based on the concept of population health. A statutory integrated care system will be responsible in each part of England for the funding to support the health of their area. They will not just provide for the treatments that are needed, but support people to stay healthy in the first place. In some parts of the country, ICSs are already showing the way, and they will be accountable for outcomes of the health of the population and be held to account by the Care Quality Commission. Our goal is to integrate decision-making at a local level between the NHS and local authorities as much as is practically possible, and ensure decisions about local health can be taken as locally as possible.

Next, we will use legislation to remove bureaucracy that makes sensible decision making harder, freeing up the system to innovate and to embrace technology as a better platform to support staff and patient care. Our proposals preserve the division between funding decisions and provision of care, which has been the cornerstone of efforts to ensure the best value for taxpayers for more than 30 years. However, we are setting out a more joined-up approach built on collaborative relationships, so that more strategic decisions can be taken to shape health and care for decades to come. At its heart, it is about population health, using the collective resources of the local system, the NHS, local authorities, the voluntary sector and others to improve the health of the area.

Finally, the White Paper will ensure a system that is accountable. Ministers have rightly always been accountable to this House for the performance of the NHS, and always will be. Clinical decisions should always be independent, but when the NHS is the public’s top domestic priority—over £140 billion of taxpayers’ money is spent on it each year—and when the quality of our healthcare matters to every single citizen and every one of our constituents, the NHS must be accountable to Ministers; Ministers accountable to Parliament; and Parliament accountable to the people we all serve. Medical matters are matters for Ministers. The White Paper provides a statutory basis for unified national leadership of the NHS, merging three bodies that legally oversee the NHS into one as NHS England. NHS England will have clinical and day-to-day operational independence, but the Secretary of State will be empowered to set direction for the NHS and intervene where necessary. This White Paper can give the public confidence that the system will truly work together to respond to their needs.

These legislative measures support reforms already under way in the NHS, and should be seen in the context of those broader reforms. They are by no means the full extent of our ambition for the nation’s health. As we continue to tackle this pandemic, we will also bring forward changes in social care, public health, and mental health services. We are committed to the reform of adult social care, and will bring forward proposals this year. The public health interventions outlined in this White Paper sit alongside our proposals to strengthen the public health system, including the creation of the National Institute for Health Protection, and last month we committed in our mental health White Paper to bringing forward legislation to update the Mental Health Act 1983 for the 21st century.

This landmark White Paper builds on what colleagues in health and care have told us, and we will continue that engagement in the weeks ahead, but it builds on more than that: it builds on this party’s commitment to the NHS from the very beginning. Eagle-eyed visitors to my office in Victoria Street will have noticed the portrait of Sir Henry Willink, who published from this Dispatch Box in 1944 the White Paper that set out plans for a National Health Service, which was later implemented by post-war Governments.

Throughout its proud 72-year history, successive Governments have believed in our health and social care system and strengthened it for their times. I believe the NHS is the finest health service in the world. I believe in the values that underpin it: that we all share responsibility for the health of one another. Its extraordinary feats this past year are unsurpassed even in its own proud history. Once again, we must support the NHS and the whole health and care system with a legislative framework that is fit for our times and fit for the future. We need a more integrated, more innovative and more responsive system, harnessing the best of modern technology and supporting the vocation and dedication of those who work in it. This White Paper is the next step in that noble endeavour, and I commend this statement to the House.

Thursday, February 11, 2021

From Ann Wills

Daily Mail 10.2.20  “HACKER’S BID TO POISON TOWN’S WATER SUPPLY”

A computer hacker tried to poison a US town’s water supply.  He gained remote access to the computer system controlling a treatment plant for Oldsmar, Florida, & raised the amount of sodium hydroxide from 100 to 11,100 ppm - before an eagle-eyed employee stopped it.  The caustic chemical - used in small amounts to control water acidity - was raised to “dangerous levels” but was reversed quickly.  Police said the 13,591 population was never in peril.  Experts say remote access to industrial control systems for tap water has become more common.

(My comment:  this could presumably happen with fluoride, so how secure are such systems!)

Daily Mail 6.2.21  “MINISTERS BID TO TAKE CONTROL OF HEALTH SERVICE”

Govt. ministers are seeking powers to take control of swathes of the NHS.  They want to be able to put fluoride in water…  (letters@dailymail.co.uk)

“The Times”  6.2.21  “MINISTERS TO SEIZE CONTROL OF THE NHS IN THE BIGGEST HEALTH REFORM FOR A DECADE”

At present only councils can add fluoride to water.  Ministers want fluoridation extended nationwide, to cut tooth decay.     (letters@thetimes.co.uk)

We wrote to our MP, Boris Johnson, stating many points against fluoridation but received a pro-fluoride letter back on 10.2.21.  He said 2 PHE reports in 2014 & 2018 & a Green Paper in July 2019,  said fluoridation is safe & effective.  The letter ignored the points we’d made.   Officials seem set on fluoridation.   Could you think about writing a letter to the press & your MP etc?    This is our letter:-

We're concerned about plans to fluoridate tap water as it removes freedom of choice.  The chemical used is fluorosilicic acid - toxic waste from phosphate fertiliser factory chimney scrubbers.   It's more poisonous than lead & only slightly less so than arsenic.  The fluoride used is registered as a Class 2 poison by 1972 Poisons Act.   It’s NOT pharmaceutical grade, unlike that in toothpaste.   Fluoridation is wasteful & expensive as only around 1% of tap water is drunk.  Most is used by industry & for washing, toilet flushing, laundry, watering gardens etc.   So, 99% of taxpayers’ money spent on fluoridation is money down the drain! 

Fluoride causes dental fluorosis - permanent white or brown mottling of children's teeth & has led to some needing veneers.  The WHO said no new fluoridation schemes should be begun until total fluoride intake has been measured.  We receive fluoride from industrial pollution, pesticides, tranquillisers & other medical drugs. Many people's body levels of fluoride are above WHO safety limits.    In Lanarkshire, tooth decay has been greatly reduced by the “ChildSmile” scheme where young children clean their teeth properly each day in school.  Medication should be given individually according to weight, gender & general health - not given en-masse with no control over dosage received.  It’s unethical to fluoridate everyone regardless of need, health or choice & is against medical ethics.  

Ann 


 

Wednesday, February 10, 2021

F.A.N. Newsletter

Sorry Chiefs fans, but the Buccaneer’s quarterback knows what it takes to win.  And fluoride-free water is one of his advantages; so instead of getting mad, campaign to remove fluoride from Kansas City’s drinking water.

Tom Brady, the star veteran quarterback of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers (formerly of the New England Patriots) and now 7-time Super Bowl winner, authored a book in 2019 on staying healthy in which he mentions fluoride in water.  At age 43, his athletic achievements are considered unprecedented.  In Brady’s book about how he stays healthy and in peak physical and mental form long after most younger athletes have faded, a key factor is keeping well hydrated while avoiding fluoridated water.

In chapter seven of his NYT Bestselling book (The TB12 Method: How to Achieve A Lifetime of Sustained Peak Performance), while discussing the importance of hydration, Brady acknowledges the risks of ingesting fluoride, advising readers to remove it from tap water by filtration.

He writes:

“Tap water is water that comes from a municipal source. Depending on where you live, most sources of tap water contain fluoride, chlorine, and, in some cases, lead. Excessive amounts of both fluoride and chlorine have now been linked to a number of health risks. Drink tap water only if you filter it first, which gets rid of many impurities. Even when you use tap water for steaming vegetables, it’s better to filter it first.” [page 208] 

The advice to avoid fluoridated water has a sound scientific backing, for those who are trying keep their bodies from the aches and stiffness that often accompanies aging.  A 2006 report from the prestigious National Academies of Sciences NRC committee on fluoride found that there is evidence that excessive fluoride intake may cause the pre-clinical stages of skeletal fluorosis.  

Fluoride builds up in the bones over a lifetime of intake, and may lead to the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, which are stiffness and pain in muscles, joints, and bones.  These symptoms mimic arthritis, but no adequate studies have been done to determine how much a lifetime of drinking fluoridated water may be contributing to this widespread disease in many older people. The NRC 2006 report did conclude, however, that there was sufficient scientific evidence for there to be a concern for increased risk of bone fractures from the weakening effect of fluoride on bone.  The NRC even recommended that EPA reduce its allowable standard for fluoride in drinking water because of this risk, yet even 14 years later the EPA has failed to even consider that recommendation.

In the years since the NRC 2006 report, the adverse health effect of developmental neurotoxicity from prenatal and early infancy exposure to fluoride has overshadowed the risks of harm to the musculoskeletal system.  Recent rapidly emerging science has provided strong evidence that fluoride harms the developing brain leading to effects like reduced IQ.  The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is wrapping up a 5-year long systematic review of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity and has concluded the evidence is clear that fluoride reduces IQ in children.  FAN has addressed the lingering debate about whether doses from drinking fluoridated water cause neurotoxic harm.  FAN has shown the scientific evidence for developmental neurotoxicity is as strong at lower doses as it is at higher doses.

Few people have the athlete genes and astounding discipline to come close to Tom Brady’s accomplishments, but everyone, at all ages, can benefit from his practice of avoiding fluoridated water.  Pregnant mothers should avoid it.  Infants should never have formula made up with fluoridated water.  Older people should avoid it because it probably puts them at higher risk of weakened bones and arthritis-like symptoms.  All ages should avoid it because it builds up over a lifetime in the bones.

Brady does not mention that many types of filters will not remove fluoride, but for those avoiding fluoride it is important to use filters demonstrated to remove fluoride.

Additional quotes from Brady on health:

-"Our bodies become toxic when we ingest toxic chemicals." [page 224]

-"I chose to eat organic foods." [page 218]

-"Whenever the media claims any of the dietary methods that I pursue are new age or even quackery, I tell them that some of the biggest advertisers on television and in the stadiums I played in are marketing all the wrong things." [page 224]

-"Let food be thy medicine." [page 219]

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper & Chris Neurath

Fluoride Action Network 

Monday, February 08, 2021

Fluoridation debate revival in Port Macquarie prompts State Government warning

The New South Wales Minister for Local Government has warned councils to be careful with taxpayer's money after the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council accepted plans to ask voters if fluoride should be removed from the town's water supply. 

The council voted 4–3 in favour of the poll in March 2020, but it was postponed to September this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The cost of the poll is around $60,000.

Fluoride in water across the state is mandated by NSW Health.

The minister, Shelley Hancock, said she was dubious about where the idea for the fluoride poll came from, or why.

"Clearly council has made that decision and they're entitled to do that. They're independent bodies," she said.

"But it's a surprising decision to have been made given that there is no other council that I'm aware of even contemplating such a move.

"It's really something that's become entrenched in our community to have fluoridated water for the obvious benefits."..................

Sunday, February 07, 2021

Daily Mail

The day anthrax was released in a tunnel on the Northern Line - by scientists from Porton Down... and as ex-MP NORMAN BAKER reveals, it's far from the only time they've used Britons as guinea pigs for experiments


On July 26, 1963, passengers boarded a Northern Line tube train at Morden in South London heading for the City. Their short journey to work, perhaps to London Bridge or Bank, seemed the same as any other day. But it was far from ordinary. 

What those passengers did not know – could not know – was they were an unwitting cast of extras in a secret experiment conducted by government scientists from Porton Down, headquarters for the country’s military research since 1916...................

Governments are not always benevolent to their own people




 

Saturday, February 06, 2021

From Ann

 Daily Telegraph 6.2.21  “HOSPITAL SCANDAL NEEDS HILLSBOROUGH-STYLE INQUESTS”

The families of hospital patients who died after suffering neglect & receiving ‘dangerous’ levels of powerful painkillers have called for Hillsborough-style inquests into their deaths.  456 people had their lives cut short & another 200 were ‘probably’ given drugs without medical justification at Gosport War Memorial Hospital between 1987 & 2001.  Lawyers for 5 families have now submitted a request for judge-led hearings into the deaths of their loved ones, after an independent review found there was a “disregard for human life” at the Hampshire hospital.  The Gosport Independent Panel report, published in 2018, revealed how patients viewed as a “nuisance” were given opiates via syringe drivers, often resulting in their deaths within days.  Some were given medication by Dr Jane Barton, who was found guilty by General Medical Council of failing in her care towards 12 patients.  The Attorney General is carrying out a review of the application after lawyers representing families, said wide-ranging inquests were needed.  Among those calling for inquests is the family of Dulcie Middleton, 86, who died in 2001.  Her daughter said “Nobody should go into hospital & end up in the state she did.  She was neglected & suffered terrible treatment.”


No one person could, not without other staff knowing, do this.

Not all NHS care is benevolent