From A Wills

Sad to hear that 4th Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, a resolute opponent of fluoridation when he was in the House of Lords (but who retired from it in 2018 due to physical frailty), died on 16 June, aged 83. An obituary says he "combined a gentle, unassuming manner with strong convictions." (Thanks to Robert for sending this.) Another small way to fight fluoridation is to print out a small anti-fluoridation poster & pay to put it in a newsagent's window. This is fairly cheap. Some supermarkets have a Noticeboard in the store for customers to pin-up items. We could also put up a larger poster in our own front-window at home. There were some very striking ones printed for us some years ago, (maybe by NPWA?) but we may have to make our own now. Ann

F.A.N. Newsletter

 

We reached both of our mini-goals yesterday; surpassing both 300 donors and $24,000 by the midnight deadline.  Thank you!  Our current fundraising totals are $25,726 from 304 supporters.  If you haven't already, please consider making a donation, then watch the video we're sharing today to see just how important your contribution to an end to fluoridation will be for future generations.    How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donation: Online, using our secure server. Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to: Fluoride Action Network c/o Connett 104 Walnut Street Binghamton NY 13905 VIDEO: Fluoride/IQ Study Author Presents Findings One of the most important videos on fluoride and fluoridation -- at least over the past year or so -- is an hour-long presentation and Q&A from this past March, hosted by the Wisconsin Environmental Health Network.  The presentation is by Professor Christine Till, PhD on her landmark studies looking at fetal and infant fluoride exposure.  She is an award-winning researcher, adjunct scientist to the Neurosciences and Mental Health Program at SickKids, and associate professor of Psychology at York University. Dr. Till is lead author of several significant fluoride studies, including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019), the 2020 study, Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort, and the 2018 study, Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. (Click on the graphic to watch) Please share this video with neighbors and local decision makers.  Even the most skeptical ought to find it informative and difficult to refute.   Thank you, Stuart Cooper Campaign Director Fluoride Action Network See all FAN bulletins online Make A Tax Deductible Donation Today!

Fluoride Action Network  Binghamton, New York  info@fluoridealert.org

Most likely it was chlorine you could smell.

Fluoridation complicates restaurants

 I’m the executive chef of a local restaurant with 21 years in the restaurant industry and take pride in serving delicious, wholesome and – above all – safe food.

A recent letter to the editor said that water fluoridation was good for community health. I don’t believe that anything could be further from the truth and think that people should understand just what would be added to their water.

If Spokane fluoridates, it would most likely add fluorosilicic acid (FSA), an industrial by-product from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Many fluoridating cities import this from China.

As hard as it may be to believe, FSA is so corrosive that it must be disposed of in a hazardous waste facility or used for industry if it’s not sold to cities for fluoridation. It’s a matter of public record that it may contain lead, arsenic and other heavy metals. The EPA has determined that there are no safe levels of lead and arsenic – both can cause brain damage.

In my restaurant, I use water for cooking, soups, coffee and tea, and cleaning. I would be facing a dilemma. I would most likely have to spend thousands of dollars for a filtering system to keep the fluoride out or live with the reality that the food I’m serving could very well be harming the health of my customers. Also staying hydrated in a hot kitchen is crucial for my team.

This isn’t right. Please, Spokane City Council members, put an end to this move to fluoridate now.

Jacob Ford

Spokane

F.A.N. Newsletter

 Before we get to our response to the CDC's Karen Hacker, a few words about an exciting day in our fundraiser.

As a result of a challenge from one of our Super Angels, we were set the task of either reaching a total of 300 donors OR a total of $24,000 by midnight tonight. It was exciting on this end watching a ding-dong battle between the number of donors and number of dollars as to which would get there first. The numbers were greatly enhanced by some heroic efforts by Regina Imburglio from Dallas, Texas who mobilized friends, family, and colleagues added a staggering 50 names to our total. The end result is that our current totals stand at $23,721 from 288 supporters. That means today we will trigger the $1000 pledge with either another 12 donors or another $279. With your help either is doable and sometime today we should be halfway to our goal of $50,000 from 500 supporters. Donation details are below.

CDC's Response To Our Letter And Our Reply Back To The CDC Director

Dr. Karen Hacker, Director of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC responded to the letter sent to CDC Director, Dr. Walensky.  Dr. Hacker's response can be accessed here.

Our response to Dr. Hacker was sent yesterday, June 13, with input from many of the 112 professionals who had written the original letter to Dr. Walensky.  It can be accessed here.

The two key planks of our response were:

1) A request for a meeting between Dr. Karen Hacker and her advisors and Drs. Linda Birnbaum, Philippe Grandjean, Bruce Lanphear, Chrisitne Till and Chris Neurath.

2) Correcting the disinformation that the human studies on neurotoxicity were somehow weaker at levels of fluoride in water below 1.5 ppm than those studies conducted above 1.5 ppm. This is a convenient fiction for those who promote fluoridation, but it is simply false. To underline this we provided details on Grandjean's BMD analysis (published on JUne 8th) which found that a level of 0.2 ppm fluoride in a pregnant's woman's urine would be enough to lower the IQ of her offspring by one I Q point. The average level of fluoride in pregnant women's urine in fluoridated communities in USA and Canada is four to five times higher than this and would thus predict an average 4 to 5 IQ point loss.  The five experts who have agreed to participate in this meeting, if Hacker accepts, have a combined knowledge on fluoride's neurotoxicity (and other neurotoxic substances) greater than anyone in our regulatory agencies.

We urge you to read and share these two letters because they promise to become milestones in the 75 year debate between science and politics on this issue

Thank you,

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Is Fluoride in Drinking Water Healthy for Kids?

 EWG recommends breastfeeding if possible for at least the first 12 months of life. However, while there are valid reasons a family might need to use formula, infants who drink formula are at greatest risk of a common side effect.

Parents have plenty of reasons to worry about safe drinking water these days. From lead and disinfection byproducts to perchlorate and atrazine, heavy metals and toxic chemicals in water systems harm health and the environment.

And for decades, municipal utilities have added another chemical to drinking water: fluoride. But research shows that adding fluoride to drinking water, rather than toothpaste, is not the most effective way to combat tooth decay. And there is growing evidence that ingesting too much fluoride can be harmful.

The primary health concern is dental enamel fluorosis, and the most vulnerable are newborn babies who drink formula. And a groundbreaking new study found that exposure to fluoride during pregnancy can harm IQ and cognitive development in children.

Thanks to their low cost and convenience, powder and liquid concentrate formulas are popular with parents and other caregivers. About a quarter of infants born in the U.S. each year drink formula from birth. By the age of 3 months, 2.7 million American infants, or two-thirds of the age group, drink some amount of formula.

But when these formulas are mixed with fluoridated water, babies up to six months old drink considerably more fluoride than other age groups. At three months, formula-fed babies may drink as much as 10 times the tap water that adults drink, based on their body weight.

This overexposure can lead to dental fluorosis, which causes white lines, spots, staining or pitting to form on teeth and may weaken teeth as they emerge from the gums.

In 2011, responding to a lawsuit by EWG and other advocacy groups, the Department of Health and Human Services recommended that water utilities reduce the amount of fluoride added to water to 0.7 ppm – down from the previous federal recommendation allowing up to 1.2 ppm fluoride in drinking water. This new recommendation took effect in 2015.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention state that if infant formula is mixed with fluoridated water, the baby’s teeth might be have dental fluorosis, which appears as white spot markings on the teeth.

EWG recommends that parents take steps to limit the amount of fluoride their babies drink. Only reverse osmosis filters remove fluoride, so if your tap water is fluoridated, you could consider using a bottled water brand that contains no added fluoride. For more information about drinking water quality, visit EWG’s Tap Water Database.

Talk to your dentist and pediatrician if your baby shows signs of dental fluorosis or if you’re concerned about the amount of fluoride your family is consuming. Note that fluoride can come from multiple sources. As babies begin eating solid foods and reduce their formula intake, their exposure to fluoride goes down, but the chance of developing fluorosis continues until teeth have fully developed, around age 8.

As children get older, they can use fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash to strengthen teeth with less risk of overexposure. Use non-fluoridated toothpaste for children until they can reliably rinse and spit out toothpaste. Usually this happens between 2 and 3 years old. Once they begin using fluoride-containing toothpaste, choose a child-specific brand that has slightly lower concentrations of fluoride. Adults should supervise tooth-brushing to ensure that kids don’t swallow toothpaste.

F.A.N. Newsletter

 The Fluoride Action Network has received a reply to our May 3rd letter signed by over 100 professionals to the US Centers for Disease Control asking for an objective internal review of the fetal and infant neurotoxicity science (see original letter).  The CDC's email reply arrived on June 17th, only days after we targeted CDC staff and members of Congress using our automated email campaign.  Over the course of a week we flooded the CDC staff and Congressional offices with 1,600 emails. Thank you to those who participated in this campaign.  After the CDC ignored us for a month, your efforts appear to have forced the start of a long-overdue dialogue between the CDC and the public on this important issue. 

The reply did not come from Dr. Walensky, but Dr. Karen Hacker, the Director of the CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.  The good news is that Dr. Hacker is in a position above the Oral Health Director, Casey Hannan.  We are moving forward: a dialogue has been initiated and their misinformation is being corrected. In addition, leading neurotoxicity researchers have agreed -- if it can be arranged -- to meet Dr. Hacker on a Zoom call to provide firsthand information on their research into this issue.

We will be sharing the CDC's reply along with our response letter in a couple of days, once it has been reviewed by our 112 signers and sent to Dr. Hacker.  We want the public to see both letters at the same time so it's clear how the actual science and CDC talking points contradict one another.  Please stay tuned.         

We Reached Our Mini-Goal

Exciting news! Right in the knick of time we reached the $19,000 mini-goal set by our Super Angel, triggering her $1,000 donation, bringing our new total to $20,010 from 212 supporters on our way to reaching our goal of $50,000 from 500 donors.  Thank you to all who have donated.  Your contributions will directly support our landmark legal efforts, our critical website upgrade, and our unrelenting educational and advocacy work.  

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905
 

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

From Ann Wills

“Contaminated blood inquiry: The school where dozens of pupils died” BBC News 21.6.21 (slightly shortened) A public inquiry will this week hear from students & parents after more than 120 pupils at a school for disabled children were caught up in what’s been called the worst treatment disaster in NHS history. 

 From 1974 to 1987, those children were offered treatment for haemophilia at Treloar's College. At least 72 died after being given a medical drug contaminated with HIV & viral hepatitis. "We've lost so many friends from Treloar's & it's absolutely heartbreaking," said Richard Warwick, a pupil at the Hampshire school in 1970s, who was later diagnosed with HIV. On Monday the inquiry into the use of infected blood began taking evidence from people connected to the school. 

Former headmaster, Alec Macpherson, is one of those due to answer questions. "It caused those boys a lot of anxiety & a lot of upset," he told the BBC. · 

 Why the NHS gave thousands HIV-contaminated blood · The secret in my blood · Liz Hooper: The woman who lost two husbands to the scandal Lord Mayor's Treloar's College was a boarding school for physically disabled children with an NHS haemophilia centre on site, run by a medical team. By mid-1970s, a new treatment for haemophilia, known as factor VIII/IX, became available. Blood plasma used to make the drug was imported for the NHS from overseas, most notably USA. Batches were widely contaminated with hepatitis A, B, C & later HIV, infecting thousands of haemophiliacs across UK. 

 Ade Goodyear joined Treloar's in 1980 at the age of 10. Like dozens of other boys at the school, he was given factor VIII to help control his bleeding. He received treatment for haemophilia, along with his two older brothers. 

"With one of my very first shots, I got hepatitis & was placed in isolation for two weeks," he said. In 1985 he was taken into a small office with a group of boys to be told he had tested positive for HIV - then a newly discovered virus with no known treatment & a short life expectancy. "The doctor was upset & pointed at us & said, you have it, & you haven't. And I was back in science by 1.50pm. 

 I didn't even get the afternoon off," he said. Ade's two older brothers died after treatment with factor VIII - Jason from Aids in 1997 & Gary from health problems linked to hepatitis C in 2015. Just 32 of the 122 haemophiliacs who attended the school from 1974 to 1987 are still alive. Most died after contracting HIV or viral hepatitis. It's hoped the public inquiry will answer questions about what happened at Treloar's & the NHS haemophiliac centre run from the site. 

 Families want to know why they were not told about the potential risks of Factor VIII earlier & why it took many years until the drug was heat-treated to kill viruses & other contaminants.

F.A.N.

 One of our Super Angels challenged us to reach $19,000 by midnight tonight. If we do this she will donate $1,000 to bring our total to $20,000.  We are currently at a total of $17,317, so we need another $1,683. It is doable. Can you help?

Please ignore, if you have already donated.  Many thanks for being part of the incredible team that is bringing truth to power and making emerging science available to all.

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Thank you, 

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

F.A.N. Newsletter

 In response to the abundance of new research showing harm from fluoridation, the success thus far with our landmark federal lawsuit, the growing chorus of concern from the scientific community, and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN and local campaigners, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled-down on their efforts to expand the practice further.  One has to assume that this is an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on brink of extinction, and to drown out the science with an extensive PR campaign.

Presently, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates.  In the UK, the fluoridation-lobby alongside the Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, are urging the Government to take the authority over fluoridation decision away from local councils so Secretary Hancock can unilaterally mandate it throughout the country.  While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March. FAN remains vigilant, and is tracking the proposal while coordinating with local residents to mount an opposition effort.  

In New Zealand, the Government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016, but lacked enough support for passage at the time.  As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils—where they reside presently–to District Health Boards.  The current Government has recently amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the Director-General of Health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield.  Communities that refuse to comply will be fined $200,000 up front along with an additional $10,000 per day thereafter.

Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs.  While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ, the proposal appears to be moving forward. 

The bill passed its Second Reading on Wednesday, supported by all parties.  Due to it having been amended since introduction in 2016, it went back to committee on Friday where citizens had an opportunity to provide testimony.  

Learn more in this new video from FAN:

 

This "teaser video" was recorded from a live webinar given on June 12, 2021, produced by Fluoride Free NZ and FAN.  It featured FAN's Director, Paul Connett, PhD, FAN's Science Director, Chris Neurath, and FAN's attorney, Michael Connett, joined by coordinators with Fluoride Free NZ.  Dr. Connett's 25-minute presentation from the webinar on the latest science showing harm from fluoridation can be viewed and shared below:  

The full 90-minute webinar can be viewed here:

Fundraising Update

Thank you to all who have made a donation to our work.  Your financial support will go towards preparing for a second phase of the TSCA trial, a much needed upgrade to our website, and our continued advocacy and education efforts at a time when our opponents are doubling their efforts to distract from the avalanche of studies showing harm. 

With your help, we have raised $16,802 from 181 donors on our way to reaching our goal of $50,000 from 500 donors.  We have more exciting news!  Our "Super Angel" has added another challenge.  She will add another $1,000 if we can reach $19,000 by midnight on Monday.  Will you help us achieve this goal? 

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

We greatly appreciate your continued support and efforts to end water fluoridation throughout the world.  

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

Department of Health and Social Care written question – answered on 17th

Julian Lewis Chair, Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, with reference to his oral contribution of 7 June 2021, Official Report 685, what progress his Department has made towards publishing on a daily basis the number of patients in hospital with covid-19 who have previously had (a) one, (b) two and (c) no injections of vaccine; and if he will publish a similar analysis of the daily number of covid-19 fatalities. 

Jo Churchill The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer this question within the usual time period. An answer is being prepared and will be provided as soon as it is available.

F.A.N.

The graphic below is a link to FAN's media release on Grandjean's new benchmark dose analysis. Please forward it to your local media's news department or any journalist contacts you may have.  Also share it on social media and link to it in letters to the Editor or to your local decision makers.  You can also access the PR Newswire version of our release here.

Meanwhile, in our fundraiser our supporters produced a magnificent response to our appeal to get 7 more donors in order to reach a mini-goal of 80 donors by midnight June 14. You did that in spades - we received over 60 donations totaling nearly $5000. Thank you so much!

Our current totals stand at $13,476 from 161 donors on our way to reaching our goal of $50,000 from 500 donors. Our “Super Angel" has done it again!  Thrilled by the results of her last pledge, she will double the next $1,000 donated today.

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

We greatly appreciate your continued support and efforts to end water fluoridation throughout the world.  

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

 

Water Fluoridation Gains Support on Twitter

BFS chair Barry Cockcroft couldn't persuade Southampton people on the benefits of fluoridation despite the NHS spending nearly a £million. But they don't give up.

I don't believe in fluoridation or their vaccines. 

Bill

Positive attitudes toward water fluoridation are growing on Twitter, where the number of supporters has grown from zero to 19% in five years, according to the British Fluoridation Society (BFS). However, the BFS said, opposition has remained constant on Facebook.

Researchers compared identical studies analyzing social media accounts on Twitter and Facebook from 2015 and 2021 examining the public’s perception of water fluoridation as expressed on social media. Accounts were divided into supportive, anti, or neutral groups.

The BFS noted that libertarians oppose the addition of fluoride and other chemicals such as chlorine that prevent disease like cholera and typhoid to drinking water supplies. Most healthcare organizations, particularly dental groups, support universal measures designed to improve health, the BFS continued.

BFS member Rebecca Linney launched the 2015 study as part of her dental degree to understand how campaigners were using social media. She said she was fascinated by the subject because she comes from Liverpool, where water is not fluoridated, but studied dentistry in Birmingham, which is fluoridated.

As both a Liverpool resident and practicing dentist, Linney said, she strongly believes that her local water supply should be fluoridated. In March 2021, she repeated the study to test whether there had been a change in perceptions.

According to her study, 19% of Twitter accounts featuring water fluoridation support the public health measure, whereas in 2015 there were no accounts supportive of water fluoridation at all. Also, the study found that:

• Facebook continues to be the platform where there is the most negativity around water fluoridation.
• The number of oppositional water fluoridation pages on Facebook has increased, but the number of oppositional water fluoridation groups has decreased.
• There are more pro-fluoridation events on Facebook.
• There are fewer Twitter accounts that could be described as uncategorized or neutral in relation to water fluoridation.

“I was particularly interested to see that there are more events supporting water fluoridation listed on Facebook, indicative of an upsurge of commitment to promoting water fluoridation,” Linney said.

“I can also see that there is now more support on Twitter thanks to the British Fluoridation Society, Public Health England, the Oral Health Foundation, and many other organizations using their accounts to post informative statements and links,” she said.

“This paper highlights how important it is to continue to communicate clear and scientific statements about water fluoridation. The fact is, unless we keep active on social media, opponents will fill that vacuum,” said BFS chair Barry Cockcroft. “This is a most valuable piece of work.”

The study, “A Comparison of the Public’s Perception of Water Fluoridation Based on Social Media Posts Between June 2015 and March 2021,” was published by the BFS.

Related Articles

OHF Applauds UK Government Plans to Remove Water Fluoridation Barriers

NSW ADA Praises and Condemns Local Water Fluoridation Decisions

WHO Calls for Action on Oral Health During World Health Assembly

Dr Mercola

 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• Canadian immunologist and vaccine researcher Byram Bridle, Ph.D., has gained access to Pfizer’s biodistribution study from the Japanese regulatory agency. The research, previously unseen, demonstrates a huge problem with all COVID-19 vaccines
• The assumption that vaccine developers have been working with is that the mRNA in the vaccines would primarily remain in and around the vaccination site. Pfizer’s data, however, show the mRNA and subsequent spike protein are widely distributed in the body within hours
• This is a serious problem, as the spike protein is a toxin shown to cause cardiovascular and neurological damage. It also has reproductive toxicity, and Pfizer’s biodistribution data show it accumulates in women’s ovaries
• Once in your blood circulation, the spike protein binds to platelet receptors and the cells that line your blood vessels. When that happens, it can cause platelets to clump together, resulting in blood clots, and/or cause abnormal bleeding
• Pfizer documents submitted to the European Medicines Agency also show the company failed to follow industry-standard quality management practices during preclinical toxicology studies and that key studies did not meet good laboratory practice standards

F.A.N. Newsletter

 A landmark study by Grandjean et al. has just been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impairs the brain development of the child, and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury, or arsenic.  The paper’s authors ultimately concluded that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2mg/L was enough to lower IQ by 1 point, that even this impact is likely underestimated, and:

“These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water-fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.” 

A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies.  A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California found a mean UF concentration of 0.74mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06mg/L.  Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in non-fluoridated communities.

Grandjean et al.'s study, published in Risk Analysis was a pooled benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the National Institutes of Health funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada.  These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low-levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children (Bashash, 2017; Thomas, 2018; Green, 2019; Till, 2020).

A Benchmark Dose is used to identify a dose (or concentration) that has a good probability of causing a pre-determined amount of harm. For this BMD analysis, the pre-determined harm was an average predicted IQ drop of 1 point.  What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a 1 IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended use of such a level.  It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000.  Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars earning ability each year.

Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose (RfD) to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm.  If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe”.  This is 35-times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control recommends for fluoridated communities. 

This paper is also incredibly important because the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the midst of finalizing their monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity for humans, and one of the main recommendations to the NTP from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine's peer review of the NTP's report was to conduct a BMD before any conclusions could be made about harm from fluoride concentrations lower than 1.5 ppm. NASEM wrote:

"Little or no conclusive information can be garnered from the revised monograph about the effects of fluoride at low exposure concentrations (less than 1.5 mg/mL). NTP therefore should make it clear that the monograph cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding low fluoride exposure concentrations, including those typically associated with drinking-water fluoridation. Drawing conclusions about the effects of low fluoride exposures (less than 1.5 mg/mL) would require a full dose–response assessment..."

Now that this BMD analysis has been completed, and has established a loss of ONE IQ point associated with mother's fluoride urine level 0.2 ppm, which is well below the average urinary levels of pregnant women in fluoridated communities (in Canada and the USA and other fluoridated countries) it should put to an end to the false claims from fluoridation promoters (including the CDC's Oral Health Director) that neurocognitiive damage only occurs at concentrations above the fluoride levels used in fluoridation programs (0.7 to 1.2ppm).  The very best human studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity have actually been done in fluoridated communities at 0.7 ppm or below or equivalent doses as measured in mothers' urine (Bashash, 2017, Green, 2019 and Till, 2020). And it was the pooled date from these studies that was used in this important BMD analysis.

Michael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA has sent a copy of this BMD analysis to the Judge in our federal TSCA trial against the EPA. On August 20 the judge indicated he was waiting to see this analysis as well as the final version of the NTP review. 

Help Spread the Word!

Please help FAN share this landmark study.  We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision makers about this research.  It’s up to us!  We’ve sent it to the Court, and now we will start the process of sending it to the media, to elected officials at every level, and to public health and scientific professionals.

Please share this study with your own contacts and local policy makers. We will be putting out a press release in the coming days that you will also be able to share with your local media.

Fundraising Update

In the first several days we have raised $4,900 from 46 donors on our way to reaching our goal of $50,000 from 500 donors.  REMINDER: One of our “Super Angels" has pledged to give us another $1000 if we reach 80 donors by this Monday at midnight.  We are only 34 donors away from reaching this target.  Can you help us?

Thank you to all who have donated, as well as those who have worked countless hours to end fluoridation in your own community, state, or as part of our worldwide movement.  

How to Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:

• Online, using our secure server.
• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Mail your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

We greatly appreciate your continued support and efforts to end water fluoridation throughout the world.  

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

Water Fluoridation Gains Support on Twitter

 Positive attitudes toward water fluoridation are growing on Twitter, where the number of supporters has grown from zero to 19% in five years, according to the British Fluoridation Society (BFS). However, the BFS said, opposition has remained constant on Facebook.

Researchers compared identical studies analyzing social media accounts on Twitter and Facebook from 2015 and 2021 examining the public’s perception of water fluoridation as expressed on social media. Accounts were divided into supportive, anti, or neutral groups.

The BFS noted that libertarians oppose the addition of fluoride and other chemicals such as chlorine that prevent disease like cholera and typhoid to drinking water supplies. Most healthcare organizations, particularly dental groups, support universal measures designed to improve health, the BFS continued.

BFS member Rebecca Linney launched the 2015 study as part of her dental degree to understand how campaigners were using social media. She said she was fascinated by the subject because she comes from Liverpool, where water is not fluoridated, but studied dentistry in Birmingham, which is fluoridated.

As both a Liverpool resident and practicing dentist, Linney said, she strongly believes that her local water supply should be fluoridated. In March 2021, she repeated the study to test whether there had been a change in perceptions.

According to her study, 19% of Twitter accounts featuring water fluoridation support the public health measure, whereas in 2015 there were no accounts supportive of water fluoridation at all. Also, the study found that:

• Facebook continues to be the platform where there is the most negativity around water fluoridation.
• The number of oppositional water fluoridation pages on Facebook has increased, but the number of oppositional water fluoridation groups has decreased.
• There are more pro-fluoridation events on Facebook.
• There are fewer Twitter accounts that could be described as uncategorized or neutral in relation to water fluoridation.

“I was particularly interested to see that there are more events supporting water fluoridation listed on Facebook, indicative of an upsurge of commitment to promoting water fluoridation,” Linney said.

“I can also see that there is now more support on Twitter thanks to the British Fluoridation Society, Public Health England, the Oral Health Foundation, and many other organizations using their accounts to post informative statements and links,” she said.

“This paper highlights how important it is to continue to communicate clear and scientific statements about water fluoridation. The fact is, unless we keep active on social media, opponents will fill that vacuum,” said BFS chair Barry Cockcroft. “This is a most valuable piece of work.”

The study, “A Comparison of the Public’s Perception of Water Fluoridation Based on Social Media Posts Between June 2015 and March 2021,” was published by the BFS.