From Jenny Johnson via Ann Wills

Dear All, 

 UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance (UKFFFA) is an established national hub for all those fighting to stop fluoridation. It is an invaluable resource with probably most, if not all, of what people need to know for the upcoming battle. Their website is www.ukfffa.org.uk . I’ve been in touch with Joy Warren (UKFFFA's co leader) whom I know well. It's great that she has also contacted the Good Law Project on the grounds of human rights & civil liberties. If anyone is interested in following up, that would be good. They are a small organisation at the moment, but doing big things. So we may have to wait a while for a response - but the more people who contact them about fluoridation, the better. They’re having a massive political impact already on calling power to account. The website is: www.goodlawproject.org The Green Party is the only political party officially opposed to fluoridation. This may be of interest in the coming elections. Kind regards to all, Jenny - Forwarded by Ann

From Ann Wills

 (Thanks to George Pinnell for sending this.  The harmful chemicals mentioned contain fluoride.)

-

The Guardian 25.3.21  “GOVERNMENT IS NOT TESTING DRINKING WATER FOR PFAS, WHICH STUDIES HAVE LINKED TO NUMEROUS HEALTH ISSUES”

Rachel Salvidge

The UK government is not testing drinking water for a group of toxic manmade chemicals linked to a range of diseases including cancers, while across the world people are falling sick & suing for hundreds of millions of dollars after finding the substances in their tap water.

Known as PFAS (per- & polyfluoroalkyl substances), or “forever chemicals” because they are designed never to break down in the environment, the substances are used for their water & grease-repellent properties in everything from cookware, clothing, furniture, carpets, packaging, coatings & firefighting foams.

When PFAS, of which there are 1,000, enter the environment, they accumulate in soil, water, animals & human blood.  Following a landmark legal case in USA, made famous by the Mark Ruffalo film Dark Waters, a huge epidemiological study was carried out that linked PFAS to high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer & pregnancy hypertension.

Separate studies make connections between PFAS & miscarriage, reduced birth weight, endocrine disruption, reduced sperm quality, delayed puberty, early menopause & reduced immune response to tetanus vaccination. Scientists found the substances can be passed from mother to baby via the placenta & breast milk.

On top of multiple class actions in USA, cases are being brought around the world.  In Australia, 2 towns adjacent to airbases using PFAS in firefighting foam have been warned not to drink their tap water, & in Italy industry is thought to have exposed 350,000 people to the toxic contaminant. It’s estimated that almost everyone in the world now has PFAS in their blood.

In England, the Environment Agency says PFAS is “ubiquitous in the environment”, particularly in its waters, making it unlikely that drinking water sources have escaped contamination. But unlike countries such as USA, where a nationwide testing scheme is under way, the UK government has so far only made plans to make plans to understand the levels of drinking water pollution.

Dept. for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) says it takes “the risks posed by PFAS chemicals very seriously, which is why we’re working at pace with regulators to better assess their presence in our natural environment & their sources.”  It says it is “developing its approach to managing risk from PFAS” but it is not testing drinking water.   Water companies do not routinely test for PFAS.  Instead, they are expected to “consider” just 2 restricted PFAS – PFOS & PFOA – in their risk assessments. According to Defra, there “have been no notifications of an event associated with elevated levels of PFOS or PFOA since 2005”.  In Scotland, only PFOA is risk-assessed.

Dr Ian Ross, the global PFAS practice lead at the consultancy Tetra Tech, says the huge number of potential PFAS sources – from airfields to industry, landfills & car washes – make risk assessment very difficult.  “Water companies may need to perform a detailed assessment of many catchments considering a multitude of PFAS sources before determining that water from each catchment is unlikely to supply PFAS-impacted water,” Ross said.  “This is more concerning now a new, lower, 10 nanogram/litre limit from the drinking water inspectorate has been introduced, which triggers consultation with health professionals.”

The industry group WaterUK said: “Companies in risk areas have monitoring in place to support the removal of PFAS, & other potentially harmful substances, to ensure drinking water is clean & safe.”

Even so, the Drinking Water Inspectorate has only set the 10ng/l limit for PFOS & PFOA, & there are no limits on the wider group of chemicals. In contrast, Denmark has a limit of 100ng/l for the total of 12 PFAS, with lower levels proposed for PFOS of 3ng/l; Sweden has set a 90ng/l for the sum of 11 PFAS; & Bavaria has regulated 13 individual PFAS to a range of limits between 0.1 micrograms (µg)/l & 10µg/l.

The EU recently revised its drinking water directive, reducing the acceptable level to 100ng/l for 20 types of PFAS & 500 ng/l for all PFAS substances. The directive came into force in January & member states have 2 years to adopt it.  It is not clear whether the UK will follow suit.  Defra said it will “consider the effect of the changes made to the directive” but made no commitment to adopt it.

Dr Paul Johnston, from Greenpeace’s research laboratory at Exeter University, said: “We’re literally flying blind on this as a nation,” adding that the government had “had plenty of heads up on this from what has been going on in the US”.   He said: “It’s quite baffling why it hasn’t actually been done in a systematic way, if only to validate the risk assessments … you need to be able to back it up with real-world analysis.”

Why you need to know about PFAS, the chemicals in pizza boxes & rainwear

Dr Julie Schneider, of the chemicals charity Chem Trust, said: “People have the right to know if the water from their tap is contaminated with these harmful chemicals. We urgently need a full assessment of PFAS contamination in drinking water in UK.  Continuous exposure to PFAS may lead to long-term adverse health effects, & drinking water is recognised as one of the main sources of our exposure to PFAS.”   An outright ban on all non-essential uses of PFAS is under discussion among EU countries, but there are no signs that the UK intends to take the same tack. “Every year of delay in regulating these chemicals means an increasing level of exposure due to their extreme persistence & capacity to accumulate in the water & the wider environment,” said Schneider.

Ann

Babies Exposed to Higher Levels of Fluoride Score Lower on IQ Tests

 A new systematic review of all published studies evaluating the potential neurotoxicity of fluoride found the chemical is a “cognitive developmental hazard to humans.”

The debate on the fluoridation of drinking water — one of the most polarized, long-running, and high-decibel controversies in public health — has been reignited as new studies find that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain.

Last week, the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a systematic review of all published studies evaluating the potential neurotoxicity of fluoride; the benefits of fluoride with respect to reducing tooth decay were not addressed. A committee of the National Academy of Science, Medicine, and Engineering will review it this fall. This comprehensive report scrutinized hundreds of human and animal studies on the impact of fluoride on brain and cognitive function.

Most, but not all, of the high-quality studies evaluated fluoride concentrations that were about twice the level added to drinking water or higher. However, when considering all the evidence, their conclusion was “fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive developmental hazard to humans.”.....................

F.A.N. Newsletter

 When Casey Hannan stated--during a March 17th lobby day training webinar for members of the American Association for Dental Research and the Friends of National Institute for Dental and Cranial Research--that studies reporting the lowering of IQ occurred at much higher levels of fluoride than occur with fluoridated water, it was embarrassing.  It was also a stark example of how indefensible falsehoods about fluoride's neurotoxicity are used from the top-down to mislead dentists, state and federal health officials, and policy makers who repeat and act upon them without verifying their accuracy.

Hannan’s exact words:

"the bottom line is that the NIEHS published studies and others published around the world were looking at levels which are much higher than the recommended 0.7 mg/liter that the U.S. has" (see his answer to a question at 36 minutes)

This statement was clearly embarrassing for those who know the science. For example, the key studies by Bashash (2017 & 2018), Green (2019) and Till (2020) were either done in fluoridated communities at 0.7 ppm, or in the case of Bashash at equivalent doses (received from other sources).  Two additional studies, one in California (Uyghurturk, 2020) and the other in Canada (Till, 2018) found women living in fluoridated communities had urinary fluoride levels significantly higher than those living in non-fluoridated communities and their levels were equal to those causing harm in these other studies.

In fact, the National Toxicology Program recently classified 27 different human brain/fluoride studies as high quality (low risk of bias).  Of the 27 studies, 25 found statistically significant adverse neurotoxic effects and only 2 found no significant effect.  None found a beneficial effect.  Of the 25 finding adverse effects, 11 found effects below 0.7 mg/L and 4 found effects below 1.5 mg/L.

So the real question – especially for the new Biden administration – was Hannan’s statement embarrassing for the CDC itself?

After all, Hannan is the director of only small division at the CDC – the Oral Health Division. This division has two key missions: to promote water fluoridation and fund construction of its infrastructure. And hand-in-glove with the American Dental Association, it has been doing that for decades.  The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond).   

But what the CDC doesn’t do is carefully follow any health effects that may accrue from this practice. That science it leaves to other agencies. Nor does this 30 strong division have any specialists in toxicology and risk assessment capable of doing so. However, the 30,000 strong CDC has many specialists that could be following this practice and the health risks it may pose, but apparently none have been appointed to do so.

That is the real embarrassment for the CDC i.e. promoting the benefits of a practice without careful consideration of its risks. 

Additional evidence of this comes again from Hannan, representing the CDC in a letter to the Public Utilities Commission in Loveland, Colorado this past week, he said in a section entitled A Safe Intervention:

"Documented risks of community water fluoridation are limited to dental fluorosis, a change in dental enamel that is cosmetic in its most common form."

The title of the section by itself ought to be embarrassing for Hannan to write, because while under penalty of perjury during deposition for our TSCA trial he admitted the CDC has no safety data whatsoever on fluoride and the developing brain.  Also keep in mind that Rivka Green, co-author of the IQ study published in JAMA Pediatrics said in an interview widely available to the public that the data showed "there was no safe level" of fluoride exposure during pregnancy, and that "60-80%" of fluoride consumption for pregnant women in fluoridated communities "came from fluoridated water."

Hannan's baseless claim of no documented risks from fluoridation purposely hides recent human studies that found thyroid impairment (Peckham, 2015 & Malin, 2018), increased risk of ADHD (Riddell, 2019 / Bashash, 2018 / Malin, 2015), and sleeping disorders (Cunningham, 2021 / Malin 2019).  And this is just the very tip of the iceberg of the documented risks.

The CDC currently receives millions of taxpayers’ dollars and it is time that key U.S. Senators and Representative sitting on their respective appropriations committees question further funding of the CDC’s Oral Health Division until a group of specialists at the CDC be appointed to review fluoride’s impact on the brain and tissues other than the teeth. Meanwhile, not a penny more of taxpayers’ money should be wasted on promoting a practice that may be damaging the brains of our children.

I urge anyone who has any doubts about the urgency of this matter to read the OpEd by Drs. Linda Birnbaum (former head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Bruce Lanphear and Christine Till. The latter two are key authors of two of the neurotoxic studies identified above (Green, 2019 and Till 2020).

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

House of Lords

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Labour

My Lords, yesterday, the Minister said that the health of the nation had to change emphatically. The recent NHS White Paper, to which my noble friend Lord Rooker referred, actually promised a more direct government role in improving people’s health. For instance, as president of the British Fluoridation Society, I was delighted that the Government are now committed to fluoridating water supplies. Given that, would it not be a very important indicator if the Government were to announce very shortly that they are going to go ahead with this?

Lord Bethell The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

My Lords, the noble Lord blows my own words in my face very effectively indeed. He is entirely right—we are committed to preventive medicine in the round. Fluoridation is one graphic example of that and the use of folic acid to address neural tube defects is another good example. That is why we did the consultation in 2019 and are considering the responses, and it is why I have made the commitment to return to the House once we are able to give an update.

 

 Why do we have juries going by his tirade it should be left to experts.

F.A.N. Newsletter

Please read (again if need be) this Op-Ed written by leading neuroscience researchers Bruce Lanphear and Christine Till along with Dr. Linda Birnbaum (former head of the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences) and cry twice.

It’s Time To Protect Kids’ Developing Brains From Fluoride

Cry once for their message about how policy is being put ahead of science by our regulatory agencies and cry again because no mainstream media has responded to this urgent call to protect the mental development of our children.

If there is no one willing to warn pregnant women and parents who bottle-feed their babies to avoid fluoride, including fluoridated water what hope do we have in maintaining the public’s trust in any public health measure?

While the dental lobby may hang on to some fictional analysis which would argue that the benefits outweigh the risks, no thinking person would entertain the notion that any benefit to the teeth could possibly outweigh risks to the brain. After all, a decayed tooth can be fixed, a damaged brain cannot.

Paul Connett, PhD
Director

Fluoride Action Network 

Whangārei mayor slams move to 'mass medicate' council drinking water with fluoride

 Government moves towards ‘mass medicating’ council water supplies with fluoride have come under fire from Whangārei Mayor Sheryl Mai.

“People who drink water from the tap will be mass medicated [with fluoride] whether they want to be or not,” she said.

None of Northland’s 17 reticulated council water supplies across Whangārei District Council (WDC), Kaipara District Council (KDC) and Far North District Council (FNDC) is fluoridated.

Mai’s comments come as the Government last week stepped into the Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill debate, wanting to become the centralised decision-maker on the controversial mineral’s addition into New Zealand’s council drinking water supplies................................

From Ann Wills

 

A Wills awills@willsfamily.org.uk via outbound.mailhop.org	15:54 (26 minutes ago)
to awills

You can send in a submission on fluoridation to “Health Select Committee”, (stating your objections to fluoridation.)  One of our members today kindly given me instructions below  & my husband helped.  But it needs to be done on 20^th March (today) or latest 21^st, from a Word file.  Sorry it’s so late but I’ve only just found details!  It must be under 3,000 words & can be very short.  Ann.  She writes:-

 

Your submission will need to be in a Word file on your computer because the prompts ask you to click on the file and then it automatically up-loads.  It might sound complicated but like everything else with computers, it takes longer to write out the instructions than it takes to actually do the job!!

 

1. Go on to Health and Social Care Select Committee website  

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/81/health-and-social-care-committee/

 

2. On the opening page it lists 8 current inquiries.  Scroll down to the box “Departments White Paper on health and social care”
3. Click on the green tick next to “Written evidence”
4. Click on the blue box “Read call for evidence before submitting”
5. Follow the prompts to make your submission

 

From Ann Wills

 Someone asked me for more reasons against fluoridation so she could write letters.  Here are some:-

 

The government want to fluoridate England’s whole water supply at great expense when only about 1% of water is drunk.  It’s claimed young children would benefit - yet they drink little water.   Most water is used by industry & for washing, bathing, watering gardens etc.  Water treatment plants can make mistakes as in Camelford, Cornwall, when a tanker driver put 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate (added to make water sparkle) in the wrong tank on 6 July 1988.   Many residents suffered Alzheimer’s from drinking the aluminium overdose & a resident died of this, aged only in her 50s.  Fluoride can cause mottling of teeth, leaving some needing veneers to hide this.   In Hooper Bay, Alaska in 1992, people died or suffered acute fluoride poisoning when there was a water fluoridation overdose.  USA parents were warned not to make up babies’ bottle feeds with fluoridated water because babies would get a fluoride overdose.  So US then reduced fluoride level allowed in tap water to 0.7parts per million which is much lower than the 1ppm which UK still allows!

Fluoride is a cumulative poison.  Nearly half the fluoride you ingest stays in your body.  Fluoride is an enzyme poison which inhibits important enzymes. It was widely used as rat poison.  Fluoride is excreted via the kidneys but older people have decreased excretion rates.  Fluoride depresses thyroid function & in the past fluoride was given to patients to lower their thyroid function.  A Canadian study at York University, Toronto, Canada, found fluoride causes lower IQ.  Research from Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University in China looked at 26 studies of 7,258 children & found high fluoride exposure in water is strongly linked to lower intelligence.  Other studies found this in 2019.   The fluoride added to water is 20 x more toxic than calcium fluoride, which occurs naturally.  In 1994 the WHO warned “Dental & public health administrations should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme to caries prevention.”   This was ignored & fluoride intakes are unknown.   People should give their “informed consent” to treatment - but there is none in fluoridation.  I have audio talks on this - one by scientist Prof. Paul Connett who has a Cambridge University degree.  The reasons against fluoridation go on & on & this is only a selection. 

Ann

Dr Verrall 'pleasantly surprised' at lack of drama surrounding new fluoride strategy

A proposal for Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield to be in charge of New Zealand's water fluoridation is hoped to get rid of the "patch-work" of different decisions around the country, instead bringing in a national approach.

NZ - Top dentist applauds Government's bill to give fluoride decision to Ashley Bloomfield instead of councils

 One of Taranaki’s top dentists says New Plymouth can get out of the ‘’dark ages of tooth decay’’ once the decision to add fluoride to the water is taken away from councils.

On Thursday, Associate Health Minister Dr Ayesha Verrall announced the Government was taking the control of water fluoridation away from councils and giving it to health director general Dr Ashley Bloomfield.

The Health (Fluoridation of Drinking Water) Amendment Bill initially proposed decision-making on fluoridation to shift from local authorities to District Health Boards, but an amendment will move that decision to the Director-General of Health.

The Bill was introduced into the House in 2016 and Verrall expected it to pass this year.

READ MORE:
* Water fluoridation powers to be taken off councils, giving control to Dr Ashley Bloomfield

The move has been welcomed by New Plymouth District councillor Gordon Brown, who says fluoride needs to be put back in the district’s water.

But former councillor Shaun Biesiek, who voted have fluoride removed 10 years ago, said nothing had changed and there was still no evidence that fluoride stopped tooth decay.

New Plymouth mayor Neil Holdom said it was ‘’entirely sensible given this was a public health matter”.

‘’And the Director General of Health is the appropriate person to make that decision.’’

If down the track New Plymouth has to put fluoride back in the water the equipment was there, and it would not be a significant cost, Holdom said.

Dr David Antunovic, New Zealand Dental Association (NZDA) Taranaki Branch President, said the Director General of Health will have the resources to make decisions based on the real health benefits that community water fluoridation can provide.

‘’We can now exit the dark ages of unnecessary dental decay and join the renaissance of good oral health for all New Zealanders for life.”

The policy had the potential to lead to huge reductions in tooth decay, particularly for children, Antunovic said in an emailed statement.........................

From: George Pinnell

 From: George Pinnell  Sent:  16 March 2021.   Submit comments by next Tuesday.

 

Deadline 23.3.21.   I understand that we are able to submit evidence to the committee looking at the white paper.

"This inquiry will examine the proposals in the White Paper Integration and Innovation: working together to improve health and social care, and the extent to which the proposals will deliver integrated health and care services throughout England. The inquiry will also consider the extent to which the White Paper delivers the necessary long-term plans for social care and the health and social care workforce; and the proposals to confer additional powers on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care."

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/1068/departments-white-paper-on-health-and-social-care/

These links take you to the paper itself

This appears to be the best gov.uk URL currently – https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-improve-health-and-social-care-for-all/integration-and-innovation-working-together-to-improve-health-and-social-care-for-all-html-version   You might be interested in studying the menu items on the left-hand side. 

Integration and innovation: working together to improve health and social care for all (HTML version)

From Ann Wills

 Daily Mail 16.3.21  “15,000 DEATHS PROBED OVER ‘NHS OVERDOSES”

Police are studying 15,000 death certificates in a probe into whether hospital patients were given fatal overdoses of painkillers.  It will centre on the causes of deaths at “Gosport War Memorial Hospital” in Hampshire.   Officers will interview Dr Jane Barton who worked there for 12 years & who was found guilty of serious professional misconduct in 2010.  The investigation is managed by Kent & Essex Serious Crime Directorate – codenamed “Operation Magenta” - which began after an independent inquiry concluded that 456 patients died at the hospital after being given unnecessary opioids.

Ann  

The NHS is not always benevolent

When asked if the intention was to roll it out nationwide, Mr Hancock said: “Yes.”

 

Mr Hancock also said integration within the NHS and cutting bureaucracy will improve patient care.

He told the Health Select Committee: “There’s a lack of integration long, long bemoaned between the NHS and social care which over the last year we have managed to improve significantly, but still there are barriers in law preventing them working together as best they possibly could.

“Then, on busting bureaucracy, there’s currently barriers to giving high-quality patient care.”

Mr Hancock said this was due to the inability to share data “properly and appropriately” and clinicians spending too much time on bureaucratic work rather than patient care.

He also told the committee that the Government was proposing to take back the power to implement water fluoridation across the country.

Community water fluoridation in England is when fluoride has been added to bring it up to around 1mg of fluoride per litre of water which is a level found to reduce tooth decay levels, according to the NHS website.

Mr Hancock added: “There are very clear public health advantages to the fluoridation of water.

“It is very, very good for dental health.

“We are proposing to take responsibly back up to the national level.”

When asked if the intention was to roll it out nationwide, Mr Hancock said: “Yes.”

So God doesn't like fluoride then?

Australia - Councillor Lisa Intemann says community must make opinion clear on fluoride

 A COMMUNITY poll on water fluoridation will be held in conjunction with the September 4 local government elections.

The community will be asked: "Yes or no: would you prefer that council stop adding fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) to the public water supply?"

The fluoridation debate has been on the table for 30 years since the first poll was conducted in 1991. The contentious issue one that deputy mayor Lisa Intemann has been an active voice on since 2004 when the matter was brought to council.

Cr Intemann opposes water fluoridation, and welcomes a community poll to gauge public opinion on the matter which can then guide future discussions with NSW Health.

In August 2004, Port Macquarie-Hastings Council referred the decision on fluoridation to the state government. In September, the NSW Department of Health directed the council to fluoridate its drinking water supply.

Fluoridation began in the Hastings in February 2012 after construction and completion of the fluoridation plant, which was made possible with state government funding close to $1.8 million.

 Deupty mayor Lisa Intemann welcomes community feedback in a poll on fluoridation at the September 4 local government elections.

The NSW Department of Health subsequently directed the council to fluoridate its drinking water supply.

Member for Port Macquarie Leslie Williams and the Australian Dental Association has questioned the purpose of the community poll. Mrs Williams reaffirmed in Parliament last year she continues to support the position of NSW Health and the National Health and Medical Research Council on fluoridation.

"I grew up in Sydney but never really thought about fluoridation. It's not something much talked about," Cr Intemann said...........................................