New Study Finds COVID-19 DNA Linked to Moderna Patent Filed in 2016, Sparks Discussion on Lab Leak Theory

A team of international researchers, including from India, have found that the COVID-19 virus' contains a tiny chunk of DNA that matched the sequence patented by Moderna three years before the onset of the pandemic.

The findings, published in Frontiers in Virology, has raised new suspicion that the COVID-19 virus may have been tinkered within a lab, Daily Mail reported.

The scientists' team, including Akhil Varshney from Dr Shroff Charity Eye Hospital in New Delhi, showed a tiny snippet of a genetic material owned by Moderna in the virus's spike protein.

But records show that Moderna had filed the patent in February 2016 as part of its cancer research division, the report said.

In the study, the team compared COVID-19's makeup to millions of sequenced proteins on an online database.

The virus is made up of 30,000 letters of genetic code that carry the information it needs to spread, known as nucleotides.

It is the only coronavirus of its type to carry 12 unique letters that allow its spike protein to be activated by a common enzyme called furin, allowing it to spread between human cells with ease.

Analysis of the original COVID-19 genome found the virus shares a sequence of 19 specific letters with a genetic section owned by Moderna, which has a total of 3,300 nucleotides, the report said.

The patented sequence is part of a gene called MSH3 that affects how damaged cells repair themselves in the body.

Scientists have highlighted this pathway as a potential target for new cancer treatments.

Twelve of the shared letters make up the structure of COVID-19's furin cleavage site, with the rest being a match with nucleotides on a nearby part of the genome.

The researchers suggest the virus may have mutated to have a furin cleavage site during experiments on human cells in a lab.

"The matching code may have originally been introduced to the COVID-19 genome through infected human cells expressing the MSH3 gene," wrote Dr Balamurali Ambati, from the University of Oregon, in the study.

At the same time, the team also claimed that there is a one-in-three-trillion chance Moderna's sequence randomly appeared through natural evolution.

"We're talking about a very, very, very small piece made up of 19 nucleotides," Professor Lawrence Young, a virologist at Warwick University, was quoted as saying to Daily Mail.

"So it doesn't mean very much, to be frank, if you do these types of searches, you can always find matches.

"Sometimes these things happen fortuitously, sometimes it's the result of convergent evolution (when organisms evolve independently to have similar traits to adapt to their environment).

"It's a quirky observation, but I wouldn't call it a smoking gun because it's too small.

"It doesn't get us any further with the debate about whether COVID-19 was engineered," Young said.

A statement from the US drug maker Moderna is awaited, the report said.

**

The above article has been published from a wire agency with minimal modifications to the headline and text.

F.A.N.

 The Fluoride Action Network has sent Dr. Roy Woychik, current director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), a letter in response to one sent to him on February 7, 2022 letter by two officials from the American Dental Association (ADA) about the NTP's upcoming final draft of their fluoride neurotoxicity review.

READ PAUL CONNETT'S LETTER TO DR. WOYCHIK

FAN has also issued a press release, which we urge you to read and share on social media and with the news departments of your local media outlets.

READ AND SHARE FAN'S PRESS RELEASE

Pregnancy: Fluoride

 

Virendra Sharma Labour, Ealing, Southall

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment his Department has made of the potential for fluoride to cause foetal brain damage through the amniotic fluid of pregnant mothers.

Maria Caulfield The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care

There are a number of authoritative reviews which concur that there is no convincing evidence that water fluoridation is harmful to health, including causing foetal brain damage, at the levels seen in water fluoridation schemes in the United Kingdom.

Fluoride is present throughout the natural world including in water supplies and there are areas of the country where levels of fluoride in drinking water are naturally at similar levels to those seen in artificial fluoridation schemes. We are required to monitor the effects of water fluoridation schemes on the health of people living in those areas and to produce reports every four years. The next report is due to be published in March 2022.

F.A.N. News letter

 In a February 7, 2022, letter to Dr. Roy Woychik, current director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), two officials from the American Dental Association (ADA), Cesar Sabates (president), and Raymond Cohlmia (executive director) said that the ADA:

“is concerned about the National Toxicology Program’s forthcoming state-of-the-science report examining whether there is a causal relationship between fluoride exposure and potential neurodevelopmental and cognitive effects.”

And they should be! The science, including at least four studies funded by U.S. government agencies, overwhelmingly shows that fluoride can lower IQ  (Bashash, 2017, Green, 2019) and increase symptoms of ADHD (Bashash, 2018), when exposed to fluoride during fetal development and when bottle-fed with formula made up with fluoridated water (Till, 2020).

We wholeheartedly agree with the ADA when it asks for “the NTP to base its coming report of fluoride on scientific evidence.” Unfortunately, the Fluoride Action Network and the American Dental Association disagree about what constitutes science.

Perhaps the last genuinely scientific statement from the ADA on the risks posed by fluoridation came in a 1944 editorial in their journal, when they wrote,

 “We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 ppm of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteoporosis, and we cannot run the risk of producing such systemic disturbances in applying what at present is a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurement in children. In the light of our present knowledge or lack of knowledge of the chemistry of the subject, the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good,” Journal of the American Dental Association, Oct 1, 1944

Such honest concerns about the toxicity of fluoride disappeared in 1950 when the ADA quickly followed the US Public Health Service’s endorsement of water fluoridation. These endorsements were made without any significant study of short- or long- term health effects being published (The Case Against Fluoride, Chelsea Green, 2010). Since then this well-heeled lobbying body has promoted fluoridation and the wide use of fluoride in dental products. For over 70 years it has consistently and vigorously denied any evidence of harm on any tissue except the teeth, where they acknowledge that fluoride causes enamel damage called dental fluorosis.

Now with the scientific demise of its safety claims in sight, this ADA letter to the NTP is a last-ditch effort to use their PR skills to shift the focus from fluoride’s dangers to the infant brain back to the benefits to the teeth.

The ADA's letter to Dr. Woychik states:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has hailed community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century and noted it is an inexpensive way to reduce tooth decay by at least 25% in the population.

It would be a shame to distract from over 75 years of public health success over a simple matter of communicating the science, which is often more nuanced than a sound bite can convey,”

Specifically, the ADA does not want the NTP to draw the obvious conclusions from the science that they are reviewing, namely that a) fluoride is neurotoxic for children and b) it is neurotoxic for both the fetus and infants at the levels used in fluoridation programs.

In their letter to Woychik, they try to muddy the waters by suggesting that a peer review by a panel formed by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) dismissed such findings, which they did not. 

The ADA claims that “NASEM noted that NTP failed to provide adequate scientific evidence for its conclusion" that fluoride is a neurotoxicant. This is incorrect. The NASEM called on the NTP to explain its methodology and findings with greater clarity and transparency (a procedural matter), which is distinct from NASEM stating that the underlying science does not support fluoride being a neurotoxicant (a substantive matter).  Importantly, the NASEM committee explicitly stated they did not independently evaluate the underlying scientific evidence and they were not charged with reaching a conclusion as to the hazard rating the NTP should give to fluoride. 

All this pertains to one fact and one fact only, the conclusion by the NTP in both drafts:

"NTP concludes that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans..."

...and not the science that generated that conclusion. For a careful review of what NASEM actually said about the NTP draft reviews see FAN’s s analysis.

For those who know the track record of the ADA’s promotion of water fluoridation, it is ironic that it is demanding “science” from the NTP. The contrast in scientific integrity between the two bodies could not be more evident. On the one hand, the ADA dismissed the relevance of the most rigorous epidemiological study on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain within a few minutes of its publication in September 2017, erroneously claiming it was not relevant to the USA, whereas on the other hand, the NTP has been meticulously reviewing all the human and animal studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity for over 5 years.

The lack of scientific integrity with the ADA’s promotion of water fluoridation is nothing new.

Their standard approach for decades has been to find a reason to dismiss any study that reports an inkling of harm from the practice of water fluoridation. They simply work backwards from their “belief system” that fluoridation is “safe and effective” no matter how strong the evidence of harm maybe.

In the case of the landmark Bashash mother-offspring study (Bashash, 2017) mentioned above, the ADA’s claim that it was not relevant to the USA was based on the fact that Mexico does not fluoridate its water. This is what the ADA issued in its press release, distributed within a few minutes of the publication of the Bashash study:

"...the findings are not applicable to the U.S. …because it is unknown how the subjects of the study ingested the fluoride – whether through salt, water, or both – no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects of community water fluoridation in the U.S..” – ADA News Release 9/19/17

This is a not a science-based conclusion. The relationship between mothers’ exposure and lowered IQ in their offspring in this study was based on mothers’ urinary fluoride levels which is independent of its source (whether it be in salt, food, water, or dentifrice). Thus, this study can be used to compare IQ loss related to fluoride exposure in any country or community in which urinary fluoride levels are measured. Indeed, within a year of the Bashash-2017 study being published, a Canadian study (Till, 2018, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)) found that the average urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women in fluoridated communities in Canada were almost identical to the levels in the Bashash-2017 study (0.91 versus 0.87 ppm). A year later another NIEHS-funded mother-offspring study essentially replicated the Bashash findings in Canadian cities (Green et al., 2019).

In short, the ADA does not specialize in science but in propaganda. Its inaccurate and misleading pronouncements are made in order to protect the practice of fluoridation it has advocated for seven decades.

Meanwhile, the scientific evidence that the NTP has collected is damning as far as water fluoridation is concerned and the ADA knows it.

In its draft review, of the over 150 human studies on fluoride and cognition it reviewed, the NTP identified 29 high quality (which they define as "low risk of bias") human IQ studies of which 27 found a lowering of IQ associated with fluoride exposure and only two that did not. Moreover, of these 27 studies 18 were performed at fluoride water levels at, or less than, 1.5 ppm and of these 13 were conducted at 0.7 ppm or equivalent exposures. This data has been summarized graphically by FAN in Figure 1.

Figure 1: FAN’s summary of the data from the studies ranked of High Quality by the NTP in their draft review (NTP, 2021). This is based upon a poster (Neurath et al.) presented to the ISEE conference in 2021.

Currently the USA recommends fluoridation at 0.7 ppm. 1.5 ppm is relevant because you need a margin of safety of at least 2 to protect all children drinking water at 0.7 ppm. Even that is not sufficiently protective. Normally, the EPA uses a margin of safety factor of 10 to account for the full range of sensitivity in a large population to any toxic substance.

We believe that the task of the NTP is to make these findings clear and visible. Traditionally the NTP does not perform risk assessments. However, this data will clearly make it easy for the appropriate agency to do one.

Summary:

For any rational, independent observer the weight of evidence is clearly in favor of ending the practice of water fluoridation forthwith, since strong evidence of harm in high quality U.S. government-funded (and other) studies has found harm to the developing brain at the very levels at which water is fluoridated.

Unfortunately, the ADA is so biased in this matter that they are willing to use their lobbying power to continue this outdated and dangerous practice, regardless of the costs to the mental development of the nation’s children. 

FAN has a clear scientific interest in this issue. We have investigated the issue of fluoride’s neurotoxicity for over 20 years. In 2016, our findings prompted us to a) petition the EPA under TSCA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to the drinking water (our case is currently in Federal court) and b) request that the NTP review this literature.  

Our concerns about fluoride’s toxicity and our opposition to water fluoridation has always been science-based and we wish to see the best science prevail, wherever that takes us.  In this respect, the NTP’s mission of assessing fluoride’s neurotoxicity should be blind to any perceived benefits fluoride may have for teeth.

However, beyond FAN’s concerns about fluoridation, we believe that it is in the national interest that the NTP be seen by the public to be upholding the highest scientific standards in their reviews.  In our view it is absolutely essential that the NTP uphold its scientific integrity in this matter and publish its report without bending to any special interests to change or modify its findings no matter how powerful those special interests might be whether it be from die-hard supporters of fluoridation at the ADA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).

We dread the time that the country is doomed to steer its way through scientific controversies without the rudder of honest science. The NTP should be that rudder in issues of toxicology. In our view, if the NTP succumbs to such pressures it removes any rational foundation for its existence.

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

PS - Later today we will be issuing a press release on this issue which will include a link to a letter from Paul Connett to Dr. Roy Woychik. We will make these available to our readers on Wednesday.

Like a Bond villain

What the Moderna share price reveals about vaccines

 Pre-pandemic, Moderna was a $9 billion company. But by the time Covid had spread around the world the biotech company’s value grew to $35 billion. Then came the advent of the vaccines, of which Moderna was one of the leading manufacturers, and the company’s net worth soared to an eye-popping $195 billion in September of 2021.

Given the large numbers of countries recommending boosters, one might expect the Moderna share price to keep rising. But, strangely, the opposite has happened. Since the end of November 2021, the company’s share price has actually been declining dramatically, falling from $368 to $147 at the time of writing.

Why might this be? And what does it tell us about the vaccines more generally?

I sat down with Louis Gave, a financial analyst and co-founder of Gavekal, a financial services firm based in Hong Kong. Gave noted that the markets had been ahead of politicians and even epidemiologists on the Omicron variant in terms of its lethality, but also evidently they had determined that vaccines were not the ‘silver bullet’ solution they were initially sold as. What may be taboo to say in political circles is more bluntly put when people are betting their money on the outcome.

Thanks to Louis for an enlightening conversation.

 

 Juicy Scoop™ w 

Heather McDonald 71.5K subscribers Raw footage of me fainting on stage. This occurred on Saturday 2/5/22 at the Tempe Improv during my stand up show at about 8:00 PM. I am recovering at home and suffered a skull fracture. Thank you for your prayers and wishes!

Daily Mail

 

EU medical watchdog probes link between Pfizer and Moderna's Covid vaccines and irregular periods after tens of thousands of women report menstrual changes after jab

The European Medicines Agency's drug safety committee is investigating both cases of heavy bleeding and missed periods following vaccination.

• 2.3k comments
• 
  

Life insurance deaths up 40% - Dr. Robert Malone’s chilling analysis

 Life Insurance Industry Sounds the Alarm

• by Justus R. Hope, MD and Robert Malone, MD

According to the CEO of OneAmerica, a national life insurance corporation headquartered in Indiana, deaths are up 40% in the third quarter of 2021. These deaths are primarily non-COVID deaths among workers aged 18 through 64.

Scott Davidson sounded the alarm in a business conference call to his industry brethren.

https://odysee.com/@jqrcoad:5/2022-01-04-11-28-21:a

nce-ceo-says-deaths-are-up-40-among-people-ages-18-64/article_71473b12-6b1e-11ec-8641-5b2c06725e2c.html

Dr. Robert Malone, chief architect of the mRNA vaccine technology commented on these findings in a TrialSite News Op-Ed which came from his Substack article. It is republished below.

https://trialsitenews.com/what-if-the-largest-experiment-on-human-beings-in-history-is-a-failure/

What if the largest experiment in human history is a failure?

~ By Dr. Robert Malone

A seasoned stock analyst colleague texted me a link today, and when I clicked it open, I could hardly believe what I was reading.  What a headline.  “Indiana life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64”.  This headline is a nuclear truth bomb masquerading as an insurance agent’s dry manila envelope full of actuarial tables.

People frequently write to Jill and myself. People we have never met.  They call, they arrive at the farm by appointment or unannounced, they fill our email in boxes with their inquiries. They all want something; time, attention, an interview.  Many want to tell us about their fear, illness, nightmares, or (what often seems like) outright paranoid conspiracies.  And then, over time, these fears and “conspiracies” keep getting confirmed.  As Jan Jekielek (a senior editor with The Epoch Times) recently said to me, it is getting harder and harder to tell which ones are mere conspiracy theories and which are true reality. 

One farm visitor told me of his foreshadowing massive numbers of deaths within three years consequent to the genetic vaccines, and that this was all about the “Great Reset” and the depopulation agenda of the World Economic Forum (WEF).  I tried to reassure him that, in my opinion, this was highly unlikely- while privately thinking about how easily people fall into this type of conspiracy ideation, and how I need to be careful to avoid going there when confronting so many public health decisions that appear either incompetent or nefarious. 

At the time, I only knew of the WEF as the host of a big annual party in Davos, Switzerland where the uber rich and the hoi oligoi of the Western nations went to watch Ted talks, drink the best wine, see and be seen.  Silly me.  What a long, strange trip this has been.  I doubt that even Hunter S. Thompson could have imagined it in his most drug and booze addled state.  Suffice to say, I nominate Ralph Steadman as official illustrator of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.  

Or a resurrected Hieronymus Bosch.

But I am wandering from a point that I am afraid to clearly state. 

It is starting to look to me like the largest experiment on human beings in recorded history has failed.  And, if this rather dry report from a senior Indiana life insurance executive holds true, then Reiner Fuellmich’s “Crimes against Humanity” push for convening new Nuremberg trials starts to look a lot less quixotic and a lot more prophetic.

Here is what lit me up in this report from The Center Square contributor Margaret Menge.

“The head of Indianapolis-based insurance company OneAmerica said the death rate is up a stunning 40% from pre-pandemic levels among working-age people.
“We are seeing, right now, the highest death rates we have seen in the history of this business – not just at OneAmerica,” the company’s CEO Scott Davison said during an online news conference this week. “The data is consistent across every player in that business.”

OneAmerica is a $100 billion insurance company that has had its headquarters in Indianapolis since 1877. The company has approximately 2,400 employees and sells life insurance, including group life insurance to employers in the state.
Davison said the increase in deaths represents “huge, huge numbers,” and that’s it’s not elderly people who are dying, but “primarily working-age people 18 to 64” who are the employees of companies that have group life insurance plans through OneAmerica.

“And what we saw just in third quarter, we’re seeing it continue into fourth quarter, is that death rates are up 40% over what they were pre-pandemic,” he said.
“Just to give you an idea of how bad that is, a three-sigma or a one-in-200-year catastrophe would be 10% increase over pre-pandemic,” he said. “So 40% is just unheard of.””

So, what is driving this unprecedented surge in all-cause mortality?

“Most of the claims for deaths being filed are not classified as COVID-19 deaths, Davison said. "What the data is showing to us is that the deaths that are being reported as COVID deaths greatly understate the actual death losses among working-age people from the pandemic. It may not all be COVID on their death certificate, but deaths are up just huge, huge numbers.”

Take a moment to read the entire article.  Now.  Then let’s continue on, assuming that you have.

AT A MINIMUM, based on my reading, one has to conclude that if this report holds and is confirmed by others in the dry world of life insurance actuaries, we have both a huge human tragedy and a profound public policy failure of the US Government and US HHS system to serve and protect the citizens that pay for this “service.” 

IF this holds true, then the genetic vaccines so aggressively promoted have failed, and the clear federal campaign to prevent early treatment with lifesaving drugs has contributed to a massive, avoidable loss of life. 

AT WORST, this report implies that the federal workplace vaccine mandates have driven what appear to be a true crime against humanity. Massive loss of life in (presumably) workers that have been forced to accept a toxic vaccine at higher frequency relative to the general population of Indiana.

FURTHERMORE, we have also been living through the most massive, globally coordinated propaganda and censorship campaign in the history of the human race. All major mass media and the social media technology companies have coordinated to stifle and suppress any discussion of the risks of the genetic vaccines AND/OR alternative early treatments.  

IF this report holds true, there must be accountability.  We are not just talking about running over the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States and grinding it into the mud with an army of artificial intelligence-powered heavy infantry. This article reads like a dry description of an avoidable mass casualty event caused by a mandated experimental medical procedure.

One for which all opportunities for the victims to have become self-informed about the potential risks have been methodically erased from both the internet and public awareness by an international corrupt cabal operating under the flag of the “Trusted News Initiative”. George Orwell must be spinning in his grave.

I hope I am wrong.  I fear I am right.

Access to NHS Dentistry - House of Commons

 Click title to see debate

Peter Aldous Conservative, Waveney

While there are particular problems in rural, coastal and more peripheral locations, which it is difficult to get dentists to move to, it is clear from looking around the Chamber today that the problem is not confined to such areas and is an issue in metropolitan areas as well. Sir Robert Francis, chair of Healthwatch England, has commented:

“Every part of the country is facing a dental care crisis, with NHS dentistry at risk of vanishing into the void.”

I believe there are five issues that need to be tackled to address the problem. First, a secure, long-term funding stream must be provided. Secondly, we need to step up the recruitment and retention of dental professionals. Thirdly, it is vital that work on the new NHS dental contract, which has been being developed for more than a decade, is completed as soon as practically possible. Fourthly, it is important to highlight the role that water fluoridation can play. Finally, there is a need for greater accountability and for dentistry to have a voice in the emerging integrated care boards and partnerships.

Dr Mercola 

I’m sure you’re aware of the massive catastrophe we have with children under 5 dropping ill like flies from COVID, as this is the justification Pfizer is using to get an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) so they can jab these defenseless and innocent children. No? Me, neither.

Despite conclusive evidence that young children have virtually no risk of severe complications or death from COVID-19, Pfizer is hustling to get our infants and toddlers injected with their experimental gene transfer technology.

February 1, 2022, Pfizer/BioNTech asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to grant emergency use authorization (EUA) for their COVID shot to babies and children aged 6 months through 4 years.1,2,3

In mid-December 2021, Pfizer admitted that two injections, at one-tenth the adult dose, failed to produce an adequate immune response in 2- to 4-year-olds. They’re now experimenting to see if three doses will produce adequate results in that age group. In the meantime, the EUA will be for a two-dose regimen, with the possibility of extending it to a third dose.

From Ann Wills

 Thanks to George Pinnell who has found the article where Boris promises to ditch the “nanny state” rules.  

 

It was in Sunday Express, 6.2.22  “BORIS AGREES TO DITCH ‘LEFTY’ POLICIES IN SECRET SURVIVAL DEAL WITH TORY MPs”

…….. Finally, he has agreed to replace “lefty” policies, including prioritising a green agenda & ‘nanny state’ rules, with ones which will promote a “stronger union of the United Kingdom, the economic recovery post-pandemic, & making people richer.”  According to an insider these are the policies “the Prime Minister wants to fight the next election.”

-

I’ll write to Sunday Express “Letters” on fluoridation being very much a ‘nanny-state’ measure.  Ann

F.A.N. Newsletter

 

On Tuesday, we circulated a video of the whole of the House of Lords short debate on the fluoridation amendments to the Health and Care Bill, held on Monday Jan 31, 2022. Today, we have pulled out 5 excerpts which we think are important.

First is the opening of Lord Reay's brilliant summary of the dangers posed by fluoride to the developing brain.

Next is Baroness Joan Walmsley's very poorly researched put-down of Reay's statement. We provided the details in our last bulletin but it is worth repeating.  She attempted to dismiss the four studies that Reay cited (Bashash, 2017, 2018; Green 2019 and Till, 2020) with a PHE report published in 2018 which only had one dismissive paragraph on IQ, which cited two supporting references that were published 3 and 4 years before any of Reay's cited studies! If any two statements epitomised the frustrations of this public debate over many decades it is these. One attempts to mobilize the science, the other dismisses the science using "authority." Power might make right in war and in parliament but it shouldn't do so in science.

The next clip features Lord Mike Storey providing a '"down to earth" strategy used in Liverpool for a decade focusing on education targeted to low-income families, which has proved very successful - as well as being much safer for their children. 

We return next to Lord Reay for his description of the Childmile program in Scotland (also mentioned by lord Storey). He asked if the British government would roll out a similar strategy in the UK as an ALTERNATIVE to fluoridation. 

Lord Earl Howe gave the government's disappointing reply to Reay's positive suggestion. He said any community could offer such a program, but what was implicit in his statement, but left unsaid, was that they could do this in ADDITION to having fluoridation forced upon them! His reply reminded me of our long (and largely successful) struggle to stop the building of municipal waste incinerators in North America. We offered a program of reuse, recycling and composting as an alternative to the dangerous practice of burning waste.. The industry's response was "integrated waste management"  meaning that - incineration and recycling could be run side by side. In other words, they completely and deliberately missed the point, we were offering our strategy as an alternative to the dangers of incineration, not as a way of improving incineration. In the same way as Lord Reay's was offering the Childsmile program as an alternative to the dangers of fluoridating the water supply. Lord Howe's response is called co-option of your opponent's ideas. Hopefully the British public will not be fooled by this tactic.

Meanwhile, we urge our British readers to use these video clips to educate their friends, colleagues, the media and local decision-makers to oppose this effort to introduce mandatory fluoridation into the UK.

Jay Sanders, our Education and Outreach Director--who isolated and edited these videos for us--has also created a YouTube playlist so you can share them all using a single link: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEmxCN7TG9j2sm9LtvhVdn9EI-r5bcbQ7

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

Alex Jones revealed that the virus was manufactured, funded by Fauci in Wuhan early 2020.

Dr Mercola

 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• The COVID pandemic is rife with cover-ups, starting with China intentionally allowing the outbreak to spread by saying there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission
• In 2019, Dr. Anthony Fauci and a former director of the U.S. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) hinted at a pandemic being a perfect excuse for transitioning from conventional vaccine manufacturing into experimental mRNA technology that would otherwise take decades to bring to market
• Two of the biggest cover-ups have been the persistent denials of SARS-CoV-2 being the result of gain-of-function research, and that the pandemic was the result of a lab leak (whether accidental or intentional)
• Cover-ups have created irrational narratives, which in turn have resulted in a number of irrational beliefs and behaviors, including the excessive dependence on plastic sheathing, plastic barriers, single-directional walking directives, the idea that natural herd immunity doesn’t exist but asymptomatic spread does, and the belief that lockdowns lower infection rates
• One of the most persistent irrational beliefs spawned during this pandemic is that masks prevent the spread of the virus. A recent U.K. Department of Education report found no evidence that universal mask wearing in schools reduced absences due to illness, and therefore should not be mandated

F.A.N. Newsletter

 The UK House of Lords spent just over an hour debating amendments to two clauses (147 and 148) in the Health and Care Bill that would take authority for fluoridation away from local authorities and give it to the central government.  It is currently at the committee stage in the House of Lords, which involves examination of the Bill's details and various sections by members, and offers an opportunity for amendments to be made. 

FAN has isolated video of the debate and we are sharing it below in full. It's important that the world witness not only the articulate case against fluoridation offered by Lord Reay and other opponents of the measure, but also--in contrast--the danger posed by those who are only half-educated on an issue and rely upon appeals to emotion and "authority" rather than science-based analysis. Also take note of their condescending--and borderline tyrannical--attitude towards constituents when they talk about local opposition leading to no expansion of fluoridation in the UK over the past 40 years. Instead of respecting this opposition, they claim the public isn't capable of making the correct decision, and therefore the national government must step in and "help them" by force.   

Speakers in the video:

0:00 - Lord Philip Hunt (Pro-F)
7:38 - Baroness Lindsay Northover (Pro-F)
12:26 - Lord Reay (Opposed)
25:47 - Procedural Break
27:07 - Baroness Natalie Bennett (Opposed)
32:35 - Lord George Young (Pro-F)
34:56 - Lord Mike Storey (Opposed)
38:00 - Baroness Joan Walmsley (Pro-F)
46:00 - Baroness Gillian Merron (Pro-F)
52:00 - Lord Earl Howe (Pro-F)
1:04:33 - Questions

The Good News: No other national legislative body in recent times has heard such a concise and scientifically accurate and up-to-date presentation on the dangers posed by water fluoridation as that delivered by Lord Reay. Others added powerful arguments including Baroness Bennett (Green party) who was concerned that introducing nationwide mandatory fluoridation would further lower trust in tap water, increase the number of plastic bottles going into the environment and further erode trust in the government on health issues.  Lord Storey, explained that Liverpool had rejected fluoridation in the early 2000s and introduced an educational program which had proved more effective than fluoridation. He said:

When I was leader of the council in Liverpool, all political parties together—I have to tell my colleagues—decided against fluoridation, so we took the view that perhaps there was a different way of doing it. We were setting up the network of children’s centres in the early 2000s. We therefore made dental health in the nought to five age group one of the highest priorities in the city council’s strategic plan. We also issued additional guidance to our primary schools, asking them to make encouraging better dental health a higher priority. As a result, 10 years later in 2013, the British Dental Association’s 10-yearly survey showed that a reduction of 28% in caries had been achieved in Liverpool’s schools. The targeted approach achieved an outcome double that identified in the York review as the average caries reduction from fluoridation.

The Bad News: Several of the peers who spoke in favor of fluoridation are not on top of the latest science of fluoride’s dangers. Their ignorance is understandable perhaps, but not the arrogant way they dismissed Lord Reay’s well-researched testimony.

A key example came from Baroness Walmsley who said at the 40-minute mark that if she had to choose who to believe on fluoridation’s dangers between Public Health England (PHE) and Lord Reay she would choose PHE. 

Here is her exact quote:

The 2018 report from Public Health England made that clear and did not report adverse effects. In Clauses 147 and 148, the Government intend to ensure that the whole country has access to drinking water with at least 1 milligram per litre of water, the level believed to be most effective in reducing tooth decay without the unwanted effects mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and without waiting for local authorities to initiate schemes. I have to say that I believe Public Health England rather than the noble Lord.

It's a pity she had not carefully read the PHE statement from 2018. It only has one paragraph on fluoride’s impact on the brain, which is a superficial and outdated dismissal of fluoride’s possible effects. Most importantly, even though it was dated 2018 it failed to mention the game changing study of Bashash et al., 2017 which was pivotal to Lord Reay’s concerns.

Here is the totality of what PHE said about IQ and the two outdated (and biased) references that they cited.

“Intelligence Quotient (IQ) At the time the PHE working group were considering health outcomes, the evidence for an association between lower IQ and fluoride in water was considered weak (22, 24), and there were no quality routine datasets available for analysis. Therefore IQ was not considered a priority health outcome for inclusion

References:

22. Sutton M, Kiersey, R., Farragher, L., Long, J. Health Effects of Water fluoridation: An evidence review. . Health Research Board (Ireland); 2015.

24. Royal Society of New Zealand and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence. Wellington; 2014

The two outdated citations were actually inaccurate critiques of a 2012 meta-analysis of 27 studies from China and Iran by a team from Harvard (Choi et al., 2012). This Harvard review concluded that while they had concerns about the lack of information about confounding factors in several studies, the findings were remarkably consistent: 26 out of 27 studies found a lowering of IQ and the average was 7 points. Another weakness was that all the studies were ecological in design i.e. measurements of exposure and outcomes were based on community averages not individual measurements.

The NZ review from 2014 (reference 24) inaccurately reported that the meta-analysis showed an average loss of IQ of less than one point and therefore had little practical significance. But the loss was actually 7 IQ points - a big difference. The NZ mistake was repeated by the Irish review in 2015 (reference 22).

What made the Bashash 2017 study (ignored by PHE and dealt with in some detail by Lord Reay), such a game-changer was that it avoided these weaknesses in the Chinese studies. It was based on individual measurements of both the mothers’ fluoride exposure and their offsprings’ intelligence.  This 12-year US government-funded study was critically important to this debate – but apart from Lord Reay not many Lords seems to know (or care) about it; or the other 3 US-government’s studies discussed by Lord Reay.

The fact that the Baroness cited this 2018 Review as a way of dismissing concerns on fluoride’s impact is a reflection of the very poor job the government’s Policy Paper - which was given to parliamentarians - covered this issue.

Instead of investigating the science carefully and objectively, once again decision-makers are putting their faith in “authority” in citing PHE, 2018, as well as the Four Chief Medical officers of England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. These CMOs were equally poorly informed by the Policy Paper (see our detailed critique in our second letter to Boris Johnson).

Despite efforts by Vyvyan Howard, myself and the late Spedding Micklem to inform Boris Johnston (two letters); the Parliamentary Public Health committee and many individual Lords it would appear most were not listening to what the science actually has revealed and instead prefer to believe in the authority of Lord Hunt (Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society), the PHE and whoever wrote the Policy Paper. Is this a replay of the Church’s suppression of Galilieo? Several even cited beliefs and evidence they had relied on many years ago as if science never changes!

Sadly, the end result - if this Bill goes through with the nationwide fluoridation clauses intact - is that the UK will unnecessarily limit the future intellectual abilities of British children and the economic success of the country as a whole.

Listening to the government’s response to the Lord Reay’s by Lord Howe reminded me - based on my teaching in an English public school (i.e. fee-paying) - how brilliant the British upper classes are at giving you the proverbial shaft while at the same time persuading you that they are doing it in your own best interest!

We will return to our commentary in the next bulletin.

Paul Connett, PhD
Director