Ann Wills

Daily Mail 18.4.22   “EPILEPSY DRUG THAT DEFORMS BABIES STILL GIVEN TO WOMEN” by Victoria Allen, Science Correspondent.

Pills for epilepsy that can cause autism, spina bifida & deformities in babies are still being prescribed by NHS to pregnant women. The drug, sodium valproate, is believed to have caused abnormalities in some 20,000 babies.  The scandal has been compared to morning-sickness drug thalidomide, which caused over 20,000 babies to be born with missing & short limbs from 1957-1962.   2 years after a damning report on sodium valproate (S.V), a Sunday Times investigation revealed the drug is still being given to patients, without warning labels.  Latest NHS figures show 247 pregnant women were prescribed S.V between April 2018 & Sept 2021.  It’s estimated that up to 40% of children exposed to S.V in the womb can have difficulties with learning, attention, language & social skills.   Catherine McNamara, asked about the safety of continuing to take S.V when she was pregnant with her 4^th child after 2 of her older children were born with learning difficulties & autism, which she feared was linked to the drug.  She said “My GP said just keep taking the tablets & don’t worry, as did my consultant.”  Her son was born in 2012 with deformed hands, misaligned hips, scoliosis & a shoulder bone that hadn’t fused.  She found when he was 5 days old that this was linked to S.V. “It’s very hard knowing my children’s problems could have been prevented.”   Families are calling for compensation as regulators knew the risks of sodium valproate in pregnancy from 1973, but it wasn’t until 2015 that clear warnings were published.

Ann  

From A Wills

 

From Fluoride Action Network. Fluoridation Weekly Review No. 8, April 12, 2022    Compiled & edited by Mike Dolan, PhD.

Fluoride’s Neurotoxic Effect

A further examination of an expanded database for the ELEMENT mother-child cohort study, that had previously shown a link between prenatal fluoride exposure & reduced intelligence, extends that finding by following the children across three successive IQ tests conducted at ages 4, 5 & 6-12 years.  The researchers found that the children’s prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with a consistent loss of IQ across the entire age range that averaged about -4 IQ points per 1 mg/L increase in maternal urine fluoride.  This is the first study to follow children longitudinally over three consecutive periods with IQ tests administered at each age range.

The study also broke down the IQ scores by sub-scales to distinguish between “non-verbal” & “verbal” intelligence, & found a greater loss of non-verbal
intelligence, averaging about -5 points per 1 mg/L maternal urine fluoride:

“The negative association between prenatal fluoride exposure & longitudinal IQ was driven by decrements in non-verbal intelligence … suggesting that visual-spatial & perceptual reasoning abilities may be more impacted by prenatal fluoride exposure as compared to verbal abilities.”

The study results are summarized in this figure based on the original paper:

The pregnant women studied for this report had levels off fluoride in their urine that were comparable to those found in women drinking fluoridated water.

Another mother-child cohort study in Canada also found prenatal exposure to fluoride from drinking water lowered children’s intelligence.

The investigators, from several Mexican & Canadian, US, & Mexican universities, concluded their report writing,

“prenatal exposure to fluoride is associated with sustained impacts on IQ. Non-verbal abilities may be more susceptible to impairment from prenatal fluoride exposure as compared to verbal abilities. These results were found among mother-child pairs living in a region of Mexico in which fluoride is added to salt. These findings contribute to the growing body of evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, and indicate a need to develop recommendations for pregnant women.”

Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935122003206
On FAN: https://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/41882/

---

Health Service Considers Fluoridating Scottish Cities

Over a million people in Glasgow, Scotland & neighbouring towns could be subject to water fluoridation under a new NHS scheme, according to a report on the STV News website.    “NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, which covers 1.2 million people in Glasgow & five other council areas surrounding the city, says it is actively considering ways to introduce the mineral into the region’s water supply,” according to the report.   The drive to implement fluoridation in Scotland is supported by UK government, but the Scottish National Party said it has no plans to support the policy if it is re-elected.   NHS Grampian said it had no plans to seek fluoridation.

Scotland is noteworthy for having rejected fluoridation in 1983 following its High Court decision that was the longest & most expensive case in its legal history. Of the four countries that make up United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), only England has any artificial fluoridation, & only for about 10% of its population.

Source: https://news.stv.tv/west-central/fluoride-could-be-added-to-tap-water-used-by-more-than-a-million-scots
On FAN: article from The Times, https://fluoridealert.org/news/dentists-want-fluoride-added-to-scottish-tap-water/

British Government Report Shows Water Fluoridation Linked To Increased Risk Of Hip Fracture

A new report by the British government’s Office of Health Improvement & Disparities that reports no link between exposure to water fluoridation schemes & risk of hip fracture actually contains data that show there is an increased risk.

The March 21 report, Water Fluoridation: Health monitoring report for England 2022, asserts,

“Taking wider research & the previous health monitoring reports into account, no convincing evidence was found of higher rates of hip fracture in areas with higher fluoride concentrations, or in areas with a fluoridation scheme in place.”

However, in the depths of the report which include the compiled data for England, the authors conclude,

“Considering public water supplies where fluoride was adjusted as part of a fluoridation scheme during the period 2006 to 2015, crude incidence was 7% higher compared to areas where there was no scheme & mean fluoride was below 0.2mg/l.”

The authors further go on to note:  “The association between presence of a fluoridation scheme & hip fractures varied by age. When deprivation & sex are taken into account, there was evidence of an increased incidence rate of admissions for hip fracture in those aged 50 to 79 years.”

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report-for-england-2022
Report on FAN: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/uk.water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report.2022.pdf

---

© Fluoride Action Network 2022. All Rights Reserved.

From A Wills

 

Log In

Join the BDA

​Water fluoridation: Public consultation launched 

11 April 2022

In order to inform that legislation, the Department of Health and Social Care has launched a public consultation seeking views on how it proposes to consult on future water fluoridation schemes. The consultation will run from 8 April to 3 June. We will be responding as an organisation, but responses are also welcomed from individuals.

Subject to its passage through Parliament, the Health and Care Bill will transfer the power to initiate, vary or terminate water fluoridation schemes from local authorities to the Secretary of State. There will also be a legal duty on the Secretary of State to undertake a formal public consultation on future water fluoridation proposals. Secondary legislation that will be brought forward later in the year will set out the consultation process.   Once feedback is considered the Government will publish a response.   You may also wish to be aware that the latest Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report was published on 21 March 2022 and is available here. 

• About us

Fluoride: Drinking Water: mySociety

 

Written Answers - Department of Health and Social Care: Dental Services: Children

4 Apr 2022

Matt Vickers: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what assessment he has made of the effect of fluoridation on children’s oral health.

Written Answers - Department of Health and Social Care: Fluoride: Drinking Water

4 Apr 2022

Julian Sturdy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what plans his Department has to undertake (a) public consultation and (b) impact assessments before the authorisation of future fluoridation schemes.

UK to be fluoridated this year

 

‘The Skeptic.’   How the Medical Establishment Covers Up the Harms of Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water.   By Robert Carnaghan.   April 2022. 

The addition of a fluoride, such as hexafluorosilicic acid or disodium hexafluorosilicate, to public water supplies has been recommended in a joint statement by the four Chief Medical Officers of UK. The Government’s Health and Care Bill, which has reached its final stages in Parliament, includes a small section to facilitate water fluoridation, which is now expected to be spread throughout the UK.    Although water is already fluoridated in a few parts of UK (mainly Birmingham), for nearly 40 years no new schemes have been implemented since local opposition managed to defeat them all.  The Govt is determined to impose its wishes. 

For about 70 years it’s been claimed that fluoridation reduces dental decay.  Although there is abundant evidence showing that fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, the proponents of fluoridation have long had the advantage of far greater funding than the sceptics.   The original trials were studied by Dr Philip Sutton in Australia who graduated with honours in Dental Science.  Asked to examine the trials, he found they were of low quality, full of errors & omissions.    In Austria, Rudolf Ziegelbecker studied the original fluoridation trials & found they did not show what had been claimed.  Prof Erich Naumann, Director of German Federal Health Office, said of him: “Your results have been accepted everywhere in Germany with the greatest interest & have increased the grave doubts against drinking water fluoridation.”  Prof Naumann added: “It is regrettable that the existing data on water fluoridation had not been examined earlier using mathematical-statistical methods. Otherwise the myth of drinking water fluoridation would have already dissolved into air long ago.”

When the UK pilot studies started, it was officially stated that they should include “full medical & dental examinations at all ages”, but no medical examinations were done, & neither short-term nor long-term possible harms were explored. This lack of concern continues, with a general failure in fluoridated countries to monitor fluoride exposure or side effects.   In 2000, a major report by Centre for Reviews & Dissemination at University of York concluded that, despite many studies over 50 years, “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide”.  Even among the 26 better studies on fluoridation & tooth decay, not one was evaluated as “high quality, with bias unlikely”.

In 2015, a Cochrane review added: “There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.”   When Israel ended fluoridation in 2014-15, partly because of health concerns, its Ministry of Health pointed out that WHO data indicated no significant difference in the level of tooth decay between countries that fluoridate & those that do not fluoridate.    A trial in Hastings in New Zealand was widely reported as a classic case of the benefit of fluoridation.   However, when New Zealand passed freedom-of-information legislation, two university researchers were able to access the original records, which revealed that the published results were fraudulent.   One of those involved in running the trials was asked for an explanation but he did not even try to justify the published results.  Not only is there a great absence of good quality evidence that fluoridation significantly reduces tooth decay, there has, especially in recent years, been growing evidence that it is harmful. 

In 2006, a major report by U.S National Research Council said that fluoride exposure is plausibly associated with neurotoxicity, gastrointestinal problems, endocrine problems & other ailments.  It was also unable to rule out an increased risk of cancer & Down’s Syndrome.  In 2017, a team of experts in Chile, supported by Medical College of Chile, concluded that fluoridation is ineffectual & harmful.  Fluoride occurs naturally in a few water supplies - but so does arsenic.  A recent Swedish study shows an increased prevalence of hip fracture in post-menopausal women associated with long-term exposure to natural fluoride at levels in water in the same range as used in parts of  UK for artificial fluoridation.

(My comment:  There are a few more very revealing paragraphs, but it’s getting rather long, so to see it all click on:

 https://dailysceptic.org/2022/04/01/how-the-medical-establishment-covers-up-the-harms-of-adding-fluoride-to-drinking-water/ 

-

Info on:  Fluoride Free Alliance U.K    Fluoride Action Network  &  Stop Fluoridation U.K

Forwarded by Ann.