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

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, June 30, 2017

The Cancer Conspiracy - How The Establishment Profits From Cancer with Ty Bollinger

House of Lords

Photo of Lord RibeiroLord Ribeiro Conservative  2:45 pm, 29th June 2017

My Lords, the election was announced two weeks after the publication of the Select Committee report on The Long-term Sustainability of the NHS and Adult Social Care, thus denying the House the opportunity for an early debate on the report. It became clear during the evidence taking that social care was impacting on the performance of the NHS. The ageing population presents the greatest challenge to the nation and, between 2015 and 2035, the number aged over 75 is projected to increase by 70%.
The gracious Speech identifies the need to improve the social care system and to put it on a more secure financial footing. The committee considered the funding options for social care and looked for examples around the world. In Japan, citizens aged 40 and over pay income-related premiums along with public health insurance premiums. Germany has a similar system, where the principle is that the costs are shared between the employer and the employee, similar to the workplace pension scheme in the UK. We should encourage those who can afford it to make provision for their long-term care and, in particular, social care, and not continue with a system that looks to the state to always pick up the tab. The Minister may wish to say something in relation to the consultation. As recommendation 23 of our report says:
“The Government should also implement as quickly as practicable, and no later than the first session of the next Parliament, new mechanisms which will make it easier for people to save and pay for their own care. The Government should, in the development of its forthcoming green paper on the future of social care, give serious consideration to the introduction of an insurance-based scheme which would start in middle age to cover care costs”.
These are important questions that need to be dealt with and answers provided.
Public health and prevention gets little press in the world of high-tech medicine, but a recent analysis by the Faculty of Dental Surgery at the Royal College of Surgeons should give cause for concern. It shows that there has been a 24% rise in the number of tooth extractions performed on children under the age of four in hospitals in England during the last decade. This is the first time such a long-term study has been done for children under four. Professor Nigel Hunt, the dean of the dental faculty, appealed to parents and the Government to take stronger action over the effects of sugar on our children’s teeth. He noted that the average five year-old eats his or her own weight in sugar in a year. The sugar tax, much derided by the food industry as a nanny-state tax, was introduced in the Budget this year to combat childhood obesity and tooth decay. The Chancellor described it as one tax which will actually reduce revenue. It seems that the threat of the tax and the Government’s legislation on the soft drinks industry levy, due for implementation in April 2018, has already altered behaviour and the food industry is reformulating its products and reducing the sugar content. I hope that the Minister will say more about this and what plans they have to restrict sugar and promote the use of fluoridationnationally to reverse dental caries and prevent obesity and type 2 diabetes.
On health, the only planned piece of legislation that I came across in the gracious Speech is the draft patient safety Bill, mentioned by the Minister in his opening speech. In July 2015, the Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, announced the creation of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch, or HSIB, modelled on the successful Air Accident Investigation Branch used by the airline industry. The no-blame culture which that has cultivated has encouraged and led to a learning culture which has significantly reduced air accidents. The Secretary of State hoped that the HSIB would do the same for health but, despite starting in April this year, it lacks legal powers. In order to encourage staff to share information more freely with HSIB, it needs a safe space which prohibits the disclosure of information. People have challenged this, but if we want NHS staff to speak freely, we need to give them that opportunity to do so without the risk of litigation.
The current ministerial directions for HSIB do not make provision to override existing legislation, which would allow organisations such as the police, coroners and other professional regulators a power to compel disclosure of information. The HSIB’s chief investigator, Keith Conradi, recently came here to the House to give a briefing on what it is doing and has asked for primary legislation to secure HSIB’s independence. I know that my noble friend the Minister was at the meeting when that presentation was given. Can he say what the timeline is likely to be for the draft patient safety Bill, mindful that we now have a two-year Parliament? When can we expect the HSIB to have the same legal powers as the police and coroners?

Write to Lord Ribeiro

*How To Stop Gum Disease* From Killing You

Alaska - Ballot Propositions: Ban fluoride?

A petition to ban fluoride from the Petersburg water system has nearly all the signatures required to find a spot on the ballot in October.

Holly Winje, who is leading the effort, said 270 people have signed a petition that would remove the ion fluoride --- which is often used to fight tooth decay --- from the water in Petersburg. Winje needs 283 signatures to hit the mark.

Winje has always been against fluoride, but she decided to spark the petition after having a child. She defended it by comparing fluoride to mercury and arsenic.

“I hope I don’t sound like a crazy person,” Winje s...


She’s done her research.Olivia Munn isn’t a sucker for a fad. Especially when it comes to health and beauty, which she emphatically insists go hand in hand. She’ll Google, consult with the pros in a myriad of specialities from Eastern to Western practices, and beyond, and then Google some more before committing to anything. And it’s worked for her: She swears cutting out fluoride is the reason she doesn’t have acne, that there’s a multi-night masking routine that blurs out her sunspots, and that she’ll never do one particularly extreme procedure again........
She will dig (and dig!) for answers:
“I talk to a lot of people. I talk to a lot of acupuncturists, healers, and doctors. You can’t get enough knowledge when it comes to learning what’s right about something that has been talked about for so long. Everybody has a different way to do skincare. For example, I’m really big on no fluoride. Fluoride is not good for you. And anybody who tells you it’s good for you (the government) is not telling the truth. You look at countries that don’t have fluoride in their system, [we] don’t have better teeth [than they do]. Everybody has better teeth in general because we’ve gotten better with dental hygiene.”
Why cutting fluoride was the best thing she did for her skin:
“Do you ever get chin acne, as a woman? Well, if you look up online, ‘female chin acne and fluoride,’ you’ll see that when we drink fluoride or have it in our toothpaste, something happens with our hormones during that certain time of the month where women start to get acne. Two summers ago, I stopped all fluoride (tap water and ingesting it) and the chin acne stopped.”

Thursday, June 29, 2017

WDRB 41 Louisville News

Australia - Health debate continues: ‘I’m really unhappy about making a decision’

Representatives from NSW Health have presented to council on the issue of water fluoridation just days before a National Health and Medical Research Council evaluation of evidence is due to be released.
On Wednesday, NSW Health’s Dr Ben Scalley and Dr John Skinner put forward their case to councillors for the use of fluoride as a public health intervention measure.
“It’s not only cost effective, it’s cost saving,” Dr Skinner told councillors.

They estimated the cost per household of the additional fluoride to water supplies across Bega Valley at $10 a year, with estimated savings of between five and 20 dollars to the community for every dollar invested. Bega and Tathra water has been fluoridated since 1963.

“Water fluoridation does not cause any negative health outcomes,” Dr Scalley said. He said papers showing negative health effects were “quick and dirty” ways of looking at “a large range of outcomes”, that contains “doubtful research” that did not delve into “confounding” factors.Cr Jo Dodds said she saw “insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion”, while Cr Kristy McBain questioned why council must make the decision.

Cr Mitchell Nadin and Cr Sharon Tapscott questioned the absence of local studies.“I’m really unhappy about making a decision without that [local] data,” Cr Tapscott said.Cr Cathy Griff questioned the absence of the latest NHMRC data from the presentation.Former epidemiologist Rob Slazenger, who was at the forum, said he has received data on Bega fluoridation dating back to 2001 from the department, and claims some data is missing.“We are going to go through it with a fine toothed comb,” he said.Bermagui’s Anthony Herford was concerned money was being invested in fluoride, instead of fixing the Brogo water catchment issue.

“We’re always concerned, because if we have a storm we have to boil water or it could be shutdown, which means we don’t have a healthy water supply,” Mr Herford said.

Australia - Fluoride move ‘not binding’

The Kentish Council wants state legislation changed to allow councils to run elector polls about fluoride in drinking water.
The Local Government Association of Tasmania general meeting agenda for July includes a motion from Kentish seeking LGAT support for that.
The motion said changing the Fluoridation Act as suggested would allow Tasmanians to “participate in information sharing and debate” and “state their informed position” about fluoridation through a referendum.
Kentish said supporters of the practice said it promoted healthy teeth and gums, but opponents believed fluoride regularly consumed over extended periods could lead to a range of health issues.
The Health Department  said the National Health and Medical Research Council strongly recommended fluoridation of drinking water as an effective, safe way to prevent dental cavities.
Apart from a generally mild problem with the appearance of teeth, the department said scientific evidence refuted other alleged negative outcomes from fluoridation listed by Kentish.
The department said an elector poll was not a referendum.
It said an elector poll would not bind a council, let alone a water authority, which must comply with a minister’s decision to fluoridate.
The minister is advised by a fluoridation committee, appointed by the minister.
Acting director of public health Scott McKeown said: “In 2007, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the peak Australian health research body, commissioned a systematic review of fluoridation.”
“This review involved collating and interpreting a large amount of high quality scientific evidence.
“This review concluded that fluoridation of drinking water is the most cost effective and safe way to protect the teeth of children in our community from decay.”
He said the NHMRC this year would release  an updated statement on the effectiveness and safety of drinking water fluoridation.
“The safety of water fluoridation has been confirmed by the World Health Organization, the World Dental Federation and the International Association of Dental Research,” he said.
“The benefit of water fluoridation also continues to be endorsed by other health organisations, such as Osteoporosis Australia, Arthritis Australia, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Australian Academy of Science, and a majority of Australian academic research.”
He said legislation required TasWater to add fluoride to its drinking water supplies.
“This takes place in a very controlled way and involves a rigorous quality assurance and monitoring program, including daily measurements to ensure the fluoride levels remain in the safe optimum range.
“This range is based on the health values as contained within the NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.”

Wednesday, June 28, 2017

The Toxic Truth About Fluoride Health Dangers What You Forgot And ACCEPT

Tuesday, June 27, 2017

Monday, June 26, 2017

Chemicals are in Our Water, Food, Air and Furniture

Posted on June 24, 2017 by Soren Dreier
Author: University of California

When her kids were young, Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., MPH, knew more than most people about environmental toxics. After all, she was a senior scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But even she never dreamed, as she rocked her children to sleep at night, that the plastic baby bottles she used to feed them contained toxic chemicals that could leach into the warm milk.

Back then, in the late 1990s, it wasn’t widely known that the chemicals used in plastic sippy cups and baby bottles can potentially disrupt child development by interfering with the hormone system. That, in turn, could alter the functionality of their reproductive systems or increase their risk of disease later in their lives.

“When I had babies, I did many of the things we now tell people not to do,” says Woodruff, who for the past decade has been the director of UC San Francisco’s Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE). Also a professor in the University’s Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, she earned her doctorate in 1991 from a joint UCSF-Berkeley program in bioengineering and then completed a postgraduate fellowship at UCSF.

Woodruff’s children have since grown into physically healthy teenagers, but many children are not as lucky. Unregulated chemicals are increasing in use and are prevalent in products Americans use every day. Woodruff is concerned by the concurrent rise in many health conditions, like certain cancers or childhood diseases, and the fact that the environment is likely to play a role in those conditions.

What motivates her is the belief that we need to know more about these toxics so we can reduce our exposure to the worst of them and protect ourselves and our children from their harmful effects. (Woodruff points out that the word “toxics” as a noun means any poisonous substances, from either chemical or biological sources, whereas “toxins” are poisons only from biological sources, either plant or animal.)

The PRHE is dedicated to identifying, measuring and preventing exposure to environmental contaminants that affect human reproduction and development. Its work weaves together science, medicine, policy and advocacy.

For example, research over the past 10 years by UCSF scientists and others has showed that bisphenol A (BPA) – an industrial chemical used since the 1950s to harden plastics in baby bottles, toys and other products – is found in the blood of those exposed to items made with BPA and that it can harm the endocrine systems of fetuses and infants..............................

Cholesterol-lowering drugs may accelerate onset of Parkinson’s disease, according to researchers

New recommendations for pediatric oral health care

The American Dental Association is now recommending fluoride toothpaste be used on children’s teeth as soon as they emerge.
Dental decay is the most common chronic childhood disease. More than 16 million children in the United States alone suffer from untreated tooth decay, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As more and more children develop cavities, new advice is being offered to those who care for young children’s emerging and established teeth.
The American Dental Association’s Council on Scientific Affairs has updated its dental care guidelines for caregivers. While it was once recommended to use water only or a nonfluoride toothpaste to clean teeth of the very young, the CSA now recommends the use of fluoride toothpaste even for young children, saying parents and other caregivers should brush their kids’ teeth with fluoride toothpaste as soon as the first tooth comes in........

It isn't a disease it is too much sugar in the diet. 

The Many Dental Triggers of Hashimoto’s

According to functional medicine, the gut is at the center of autoimmune disease. This is why there’s often a focus on symptoms of intestinal permeability (leaky gut) and other digestive distress as possible indicators of autoimmunity.
What most people don’t realize, though, is that the gut isn’t just the stomach and intestines but the mouth, too. When we consider the many potential triggers of autoimmune thyroid disease, we have to think about our mouths—especially the teeth and gums.
An abscess, infection, root canal, dental surgery, dental X-ray, fluoridation procedure, amalgam fillings…all are possible igniters of autoimmune disease. Could an unknown or unaddressed dental issue have triggered your thyroid condition?
I recommend beginning to think about your dental timeline to see if you can trace any decline in your health to a dental procedure. In the meantime, let’s look at some of the potential dental triggers of Hashimoto’s and how you might address them so that complete healing can happen.....................................

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Water fluoridation BS alert

How to Brush Your Teeth Properly - For Kids

USA - LETTER: Fluoridating water is outdated, ineffective

The dust has settled a bit since the 3-2 vote to apply to the DEP for a permit to add fluoride to our public water supply. I do think that proponents of fluoride have the best intentions. I will say that good intentions don't always translate into favorable results. Two of the board members stated their trust in the medical establishment guided their decision. 
I remember in my undergraduate studies in philosophy and learning about criterion for truth. One of the major criterion that people have in determining truth is trust in authority and I get that, but let's look at current events.
Thirteen people die every day in Pennsylvania because of an opioid epidemic. Four out of five opioid addictions started with a prescription for this drug. There was a paradigm shift in the mid-1990s and the consensus in the medical community was there was a lot of pain that was untreated. We were told opioids were cheap (true), effective (true) and not addictive. This crisis grew directly out of scientifically approved medical care. This is possibly the greatest health care crisis we face today and it has been inflicted by the medical community.
Indiscriminate dispensing of antibiotics has spawned super bugs that cannot be treated by traditional methods because these organisms have adapted and grown resistant. This is a major United States health care crisis. It is iatrogenic. According to Johns Hopkins University website (and many other sources), preventable medical errors are the third leading cause of death in our country.
I am not equating fluoride to damage seen in the above cases, but I am saying there is evidence of harm that has been ignored because of belief in authority by water board members. Dr. Raymond Leung asked who do we trust — the AMA or others in opposition to fluoride. Has the medical community earned the trust of the American people? I do not think that they have.
According to research by anti-fluoride activist Rick North of Oregon, since 2014 seven out of eight Pennsylvania communities that were fluoridated have voted to remove fluoride and Johnstown is discussing its removal. This is an outdated, dangerous and ineffective practice.

Saturday, June 24, 2017

Published on 23 Jun 2017
Interview with Professor Paul Connett of Fluoride Action Network who visited Ireland in June 2017 to raise awareness about the outdated practice of water fluoridation. www.fluorideactionnetwork.org

Canada - It remains unclear where Council stands on fluoridation

Mayor Rennie Harper will not say if she is for or against water fluoridationDuring a regular council meeting on June 12, Mayor Rennie Harper says she raised her hand in favour of the proposed referendum. This was not noted as the motion was defeated in what appeared to be an all out consensus. In previous coverage, the Journal reported that all of Council was opposed to the referendum but Mayor Harper says she raised her hand in favour of it.

The question remains, why did Mayor Harper vote this way?

“The reason I’m in favour of the referendum is because fluoride issues have been notoriously controversial. People want to talk about them and make up their mind about them and I think having a referendum gives the public a chance to actually think about whether or not they want fluoride and [that way] it’s not a decision that’s made by me, or Council,” she said.

Harper says she had no idea how Nipawin councillors were going to vote and was surprised by the results.

“It took me a little unaware,” she said.

One thing that is not clear is where the Mayor sits on the issue. During an interview with the Journal the Mayor refused to say where she stands on the proposed fluoridation of town water.

“Actually I’m not going to answer that. I think it’s a personal issue for everybody and I don’t think that I will answer that,” she said. Harper says timing-wise a referendum would have made sense.

“The fact that we’re having a by-election on September 20th means that this topic is very timely because we have a public vote anyway, so to have a referendum would make total sense,” she said.

So, how did this issue come about, and why is Council now considering water fluoridation?

“Early in the year we received a letter from the medical health officers in the province and of course it’s probably on their mind because we are building a water treatment facility and other communities have agreed to Fluoridation, Tisdale and Melfort for example. It came to a public works standing committee meeting, and the conversation was, that we need to do some investigation, so we invited the public health officer to attend and all the councillors were in the meeting, except one. We had a presentation and from there we considered it,” explained the Mayor.

For now the decision has come back to Council for more discussion, but Mayor Harper can’t say where the councillors sit on the issue.
“No, I would not predict that.Because there will not be a referendum what we will do is have a public presentation on fluoridation from the public health folks. I’m taking it pretty seriously,” she said.

Dozens, maybe hundreds of people in the town of Nipawin buy bottled water, filter their water using reverse osmosis, or use a Brita filter system. It would seem that not many people in town drink their tap water. So, who would be helped by the fluoridation of water? Harper thinks fluoridation could help low income families and seniors even though it is unclear how many people in town drink their tap water.

“There are lots of statistics, lots of information from the World Health Organization. Especially for children in low income families, it does help kids. It reduces the amount of dental surgeries and if you ever been in health care and been involved with a dental surgery it’s a horrendous thing. It assists seniors in maintaining dental health because access to dental health for low income seniors is not always that great. It’s a population issue”.

“We are having a new water treatment plant, they may not be drinking our tap water today for some reason but they certainly may later. I don’t know whether we would be a study, perhaps now is not the time for doing a study”.

CAO Barry Elliot does not think doing a study is worth the while.

“The public health probably have far more detailed information and again, we can choose to have a fluoride treatment when we go for our checkups, we can choose to use fluoride in our toothpastes, all those sorts of things”.

In the meantime Council will be mulling over the information. A public information session on fluoridation will be organized at a later date.

Benefits of Fluoride in Drinking Water Explained. Archive film 98318

How times have changed but they still think they know best or what is best for them.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Dr David Kennedy On The Dangers Of Fluoride & Mercury

USA - Water authority hears opposing sides on flouride

Resident Mark Jurich shows a chart with statistics from the World Health Organization that shows there is no difference in the rate of tooth decay among countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not. (Jim Thompson/Albuquerque Journal)
Does resuming the practice of adding fluoride to Albuquerque’s community water supply aid in the prevention of tooth decay or lead to a host of other health problems?
Public comments offered Wednesday before the board of the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority were pretty much split between those opinions, and members of the water authority gave no clue how they will rule on the issue Aug. 23.
About 70 people showed up for the Wednesday evening meeting, and more than 25 of them were given two minutes to share their thoughts.
Among the speakers were a number of dentists, hygienists and representatives of dental and public health organizations. They were in agreement that supplementing the water supply with fluoride ought to resume.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance found in many water supplies, including Albuquerque’s. In the early 1970s, voters approved a referendum to supplement the fluoride levels and bring it up to what was then a national standard. In 2011, the water authority suspended the addition of fluoride pending new recommendations on optimal levels from the federal government. In 2015, that new standard was determined to be 0.7 milligrams per liter.
Building a facility to add fluoride to the water supply would cost about $250,000, and yearly operating and maintenance cost would be $250,000.
Ron Romero, former state dental director, said both tooth sealants and fluoride are important tools in fighting dental decay. Citing statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention compiled in 2012, about the time Albuquerque ceased adding fluoride to water, 75 percent of the U.S. population on public water was using fluoridated water. That included 44 of the largest cities in the country.
The cost of fluoridating Albuquerque’s water supply would be about 20 cents per person per year, he said, and for every $1 invested in fluoride, $30 is saved in dental bills.
Patrick Manzanaras, a graduate student in public health studying at New Mexico State University, said he spent the past decade doing outreach in rural communities and reservations throughout New Mexico.
“In that time I worked with communities that did not have fluoride in their water systems, and those that did,” he said. “What was clear was that there was an elevated incidence of tooth decay in those communities that did not have fluoride in their water systems, and a decreased incidence in those communities that did have access to fluoridated water.”
Tom Schripsema, a dentist and executive director of the New Mexico Dental Association, said fluoridation of water is safe, effective and affordable, and the practice is endorsed not only by his organization, but by the CDC, the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association and many more.
“We use evidence-based medicine, and that’s the standard by which we provide care,” he said. “The evidence shows overwhelmingly and consistently that it does prevent tooth decay and does not cause any health problems.”
The surface of a tooth is constantly dissolving and being re-mineralized, and fluoride aids in that re-mineralization process, he said.
However, not everyone was buying into the reported benefits of fluoride.
Albuquerque resident Debra Sapunar cited a March 2014 report in the Lancet medical journal that classified fluoride as a neurotoxin.
“This is the same category as arsenic, lead and mercury,” she said. “There is no way to control the amount of fluoride each citizen will get. We drink, bathe and eat food and beverages prepared in the fluoridated water” and mix baby formula with it. She also cited a recent national survey conducted by the CDC that said 40 percent of American teenagers exhibit visible signs of fluoride overexposure.
Another speaker, Mark Jurich, held up a chart using WHO statistics from 22 countries, some of which fluoridate their water and some that do not. Jurich said the chart shows there is no difference in the incidence rate of tooth decay among those countries.
“The assertion that there is any benefit to adding fluoride to the water is simply not statistically valid,” he said.
Karla Koch, a doctor of Oriental medicine, also came armed with statistics from the CDC and the WHO that indicated fluoride was effective against tooth decay when applied topically to the tooth surface, but there was no evidence that it had any benefit from systemic absorption from drinking sources.
Rather than spending money on supplemental fluoridation, we should invest those funds in school nutrition programs, in-school hygienist visits and low cost community-based dental programs, Koch said.
Albuquerque dentist and New Mexico Dental Association representative, Joe Valles said systemic absorption of fluoride is necessary.
“When an embryo is forming, the buds that form teeth are also forming, and topical applications have no effect on that,” he said. “It’s the ingestion of fluoride that makes the enamel hard.”

USA - Warning: EPA Fighting to Keep Water Fluoridated

Why does it seem like the one time you want the government to do something, they aren’t interested?
Supposedly, the EPA exists in part to protect public health. So you might think they would want to get harmful chemicals out of the drinking supply, or at very least, prevent them from being added.
Yet despite mountains of evidence that fluoride is not only ineffective at preventing tooth decay when ingested but actually harmful to the human body, the EPA is still fighting to propagate public poisoning.
lawsuit has been filed against the EPA by various watchdog organizations dedicated to removing fluoride from public drinking supplies. They want to force the EPA to ban the intentional addition of fluoride into drinking water supplies.
The lawsuit lays out all the evidence amassed about the harmful effects of fluoride, as well as the evidence that it is not necessary or beneficial to be ingested. It states that it has been disproven that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay when ingested, as thought when it was first introduced into drinking supplies in 1940.
It is now universally recognized by dental researchers, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Oral Health Division, that fluoride’s primary benefit comes from topical application. Fluoride does not need to be swallowed, therefore, to prevent tooth decay.
Whereas fluoride’s benefit to teeth comes from topical contact, fluoride’s health risks come from ingestion.
From there the lawsuit establishes the evidence that drinking fluoridated water is causing fluorosis, the discoloration of teeth.
And then, of course, it gets to the evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin which causes significant harm to the brain, especially in children. They cite 300 studies which established the harm done by fluoride, 50 of which specifically found that exposure impairs cognitive functions. Fluoride exposure can cause a measurable drop in IQ and is considered among lead and mercury as a chemical toxic to the brain.
The lawsuit seeks to establish a court ruling on the toxicology of fluoride in order to meet current standards for an EPA ban on neurotoxins in drinking water. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the suit claims fluoride should fit into the category of what the EPA bans in order to protect public health.
Yet so far, government agencies have been reluctant to believe the numerous studies about the harm of fluoride. This case lays it all out plain as day for the eyes to see.
The ruling the organizations hope for is that they have presented enough evidence that the EPA must ban artificial fluoridation of water because of the unreasonable risk of injury to public health.
It is aggravating that the EPA has no problem being heavy handed on other issues like water run-off from farms, but won’t ban a chemical addition that is clearly not necessary, and very likely very dangerous.
Many believe fluoride is added to water in an intentional effort to dumb down the population and make them more docile and malleable for the government. But you don’t even have to believe that to agree that fluoridating water should be banned. Even without nefarious reasons for adding fluoride to water, the practice shows how hard it is to stop an ill-conceived government program once in motion.
For almost 80 years fluoride has been added to public drinking supplies based on science which is now disproven. It is the faulty belief that the government should always be doing something to “help” people that actually puts the public in harm’s way.
Not only has the government been poisoning the public for years, but they now fight tooth and nail to keep it that way.  Let’s hope the courts make a rare ruling against their colleagues in another government department.

Fluoride to be removed from water in Battlefield

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Gaddafi's Prophecy, 2011 - "Europe will turn black"

Nothing to do with fluoride but we all ought to look at this video to see why we now have all the murderous assaults on us.

USA - Fluoride has no place in our drinking water – ClaireViadro

On Feb. 2, operational failures at OWASA increased fluoride levels to 8.4 times higher than normal. OWASA’s dangerous fiasco cost local businesses an estimated $3 million to $5 million.
The substance added to OWASA water is fluorosilicic acid, a toxic corrosive. Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) information on fluorosilicic acid recommends its use for “tanning of animal hides” and “hardening of cement.” MSDS toxicity indications state that “ingestion may cause burns of the gastrointestinal tract leading to vomiting, acidosis, bloody diarrhea, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, and shock,” along with circulatory system effects and death. Fluoride toothpastes contain warnings to get medical help or immediately contact Poison Control if toothpaste is swallowed.
Newsweek questioned the “outdated” scientific rationale for putting fluoride in drinking water in a 2015 summary of a Cochrane Collaboration review. Cochrane reviews are “the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies.” What was the review’s take-home message? “Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth” or baby teeth. A medical school dean stated that his prior pro-fluoridation viewpoint was “completely reversed” and he was “amazed by the lack of evidence.”
OWASA Board members dismiss the countless reports of fluoride’s neurotoxicity. A seminal 2014 article in Lancet Neurology (by brain development experts at Harvard and Mt. Sinai School of Medicine) unambiguously described fluoride as a human neurotoxicant that lowers children’s IQ and disrupts behavior. A 2015 article in Environmental Health that examined exposure to fluoridated water and subsequent attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (prevalence among U.S. children found significantly higher ADHD rates in states where a greater proportion of children drink fluoridated water. The authors comment on “the developing brain’s particular sensitivity to the neurotoxic effects of fluoride” and the “window of vulnerability” during “prenatal and early postnatal development.”
The OWASA board cites some health organizations’ support for water fluoridation but ignores the numerous high-level scientists and organizations who have spoken out against water fluoridation for decades. Top EPA scientists have stated that “a policy which makes the public water supply a vehicle for disseminating a toxic and prophylactically useless substance is wrong.”
Moreover, news reports surface almost daily about regulatory agencies that are functioning as “captured agencies” for industry. An Environmental Protection Agency deputy director buried evidence linking glyphosate (the key Roundup ingredient) to cancer, notwithstanding the World Health Organization’s determination that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. The New York Times reported that FDA spied on and dismissed five scientists who reported that Food and Drug Administration hid dangers associated with FDA-approved drugs and medical devices.
Ninety-seven percent of Western Europe wisely rejects water fluoridation. Many North American communities are doing the same. In North Carolina, where the state does not mandate water fluoridation, concerned citizens are calling attention to water fluoridations’ very real risks. After the horrors of World War II, the Nuremberg Code prohibited experimental human treatment without informed consent. Toxic fluorosilicic acid has no business being forcibly administered to the public – including pregnant women and vulnerable infants – via the water supply.
Claire Viadro, MPH, Ph.D., is a parent, public health professional, and OWASA customer.

USA - Continue to educate yourself on fluoride

Thank you to those involved in the effort to alert Durango citizens to the dangers of long term water fluoridation.
I would encourage all citizens, young and old, to check out discoveries about this long-standing practice in the past ten years. Information on the American Dental Association or Environmental Protection Agency websites does not reflect any of this new research.
Reputable studies, conducted by reputable scientists, have uncovered flaws both in the original research, and new findings that should be startling to health professionals and educators with an open mind for the truth.
It is time to ask important questions, like why are there so many developmental, behavioral, digestive and general health problems in our children?
Another huge spike in dental fluorosis has just been recorded in adolescents, from 41 percent in 2016 to 57 percent, indicating fluoride toxicity. At this rate all children will have fluoride toxicity in 25 years! We were promised never more than 10 percent. This is not right.
I encourage all citizens living in the city to filter their drinking water. Great resources for those wishing to learn more about fluoride are The Fluoride Deception (book or film), by Chris Bryson, an award-winning investigative reporter; the Fluoride Action Network website, nofluoride.com; and our website: cleanwaterdurango.org.
We feel education is the key to protecting our health. Because more new information is regularly uncovered about the dangers of fluoridation, we at clean Water Durango will not be deterred and will continue to move toward our goal of a fluoride-free city water supply.
James Forleo

Tuesday, June 20, 2017



Older people who are taking aspirin as a just-in-case preventative against heart disease might want to think again after new research has discovered the drug carries a far higher risk of fatal stomach bleeding than was previously thought.

Jarrell water meeting heats up

Millions of Americans Poisoned by This Chemical: Where Is The EPA?

Tennessee city approves removing fluoride from water

Tennessee city approves removing fluoride from water

COLUMBIA, TN (AP) - A fourth Middle Tennessee city has decided to remove fluoride from the municipal water supply.
The Daily Herald (http://bit.ly/16LKOas) reports the Columbia Power and Water System board voted Wednesday on the measure after months of consideration.
The proposal had sparked opposition from health officials and dentists who argued that adding fluoride to the water is an easy way to help prevent tooth decay.
The utility board was mulling the proposal for a couple of reasons, including that fluoride provides no water purification benefit, but it cost $40,000 annually to add it to the supply.
Columbia City Council member Mike Greene, who sits on the board, voted to discontinue fluoridation. He said he grew up drinking well water without fluoride, and he still has all his teeth.

The role of fluoride has been a huge topic of controversy for quite some time. Today, I want to give you an overview of fluoride and how it can be connected to thyroid disease. No controversies, just research, and results! Afterward, I will give you some action steps to help manage your fluoride levels today.

No automatic alt text available.

USA - Letter: Doing the homework on fluoride

To the editor: 
“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” – European Food Safety Authority on DRV (2013)
In response to Richard C. Gardner’s letter (”In defense of Moulton, fluoride,” May 15) it is unfortunate the Times omitted the urls to two letters carbon-copied to Congressman Seth Moulton. They included more than 100 scientific citations. However, if Dr. Gardner had checked the online edition of my May 10 letter, he would have seen I included the urls in the comments.
I suggest Dr. Gardner should read Mundy et al. (2009, 2015) before commenting on neurotoxicity. The references to the EPA designation of fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant in its database are not the 2012 Choi et al. review unfairly attacked by dentists that he cites. Additionally, fluoride has always been designated as a poison in the U.S. government’s database of poisons and is not designated as a nutrient by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA calls fluoride an “unapproved drug.”
That a 15th century astrologer opined “the dose makes the poison” is not a defense of fluoridation policy. Modern toxicologists state that a poison is a poison irrespective of dose. Using municipal water supplies to deliver an uncontrollable and constant “dose” to the populace is the antithesis of modern pharmacology and precise medicine. In 1939, fluoride at 1 parts per million was considered a dangerous concentration. That was increased to 2.5 parts per million circa 1950, and to 4 parts per million in the mid 1980s. In 2006, the National Research Council advised the EPA that the 4 parts per million threshold was decidedly unsafe and that they could find no literature that defined any safe dose. The EPA has failed to act.
As to specific science items, let me start with a 1952 item with a lead author who is also a Dr. Gardner. “The fluoride concentration of placental tissue as related to fluoride content in drinking water” was published in Science. The authors found that women who drank fluoridated water at 1 part per million had a placental fluoride concentration of over 2 parts per million, but under 2.5 parts per million. They concluded there was no way to determine the fetal concentration but “At any rate, the placental concentrations are not of the magnitude to cause deleterious effects in the mother.” This post-hoc item is what passes as a safety study.
A coauthor of that 1952 study was Harold Hodge, DDS, a key figure in the fluoridation of water supplies endorsed by government in 1950. Another author was Reuben Feltman, DDS. Dr. Feltman published in a 1956 issue of the Dental Digest and a 1961 issue of the Journal of Dental Medicine. At least one percent of his test subjects comprised of pregnant women and children had an immediate and acute adverse reaction in this long-term controlled-dose study. Women received 0.825 milligrams a day and children under 2 received half that, while infants under 6 months born to mothers who received fluoride while pregnant received none. This is a lower dose than received by those of us drinking 0.7 parts per million fluoridated water, eating foods prepared with that water or treated with fluoridated pesticides, and using fluoridated toothpastes.
Feltman et al. also noted dental fluorosis in a few children in the moderate to severe categories. i.e. brown stains and pitted enamel. Approximately half of our adolescents have some level of dental fluorosis (evidence of fluoride poisoning during childhood), a condition associated with learning disabilities and kidney disease. In the past ten years, the moderate to severe incidence of dental fluorosis has increased from 4 percent to 23 percent.
In 1999, UNICEF wrote, “ ... for decades we have believed that fluoride in small doses has no adverse effects on health … But more and more scientists are seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride even in small amounts.” Three 2016 items published in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, Advanced Techniques in Biology & Medicine, and the Journal of Risk Research all found that fluoridation policy posed considerable risks and little if any benefit.
I have read hundreds of studies. Congressman Moulton hasn’t even read the letters delivered him beginning in 2015 let alone paid attention to the citations attached to those communiques. I commend the congressman for his work in many areas, but like Dr. Gardner, he is too lazy to do his science homework and prefers repeating talking points that protect a dental myth rather than admitting a medical mistake.
I’d be delighted to meet with Dr. Gardner or Congressman Moulton to discuss medical science and ethics after they read the letters with more than 100 attached citations which I will post in the online comments for this letter.  
Karen Spencer

Monday, June 19, 2017

NZ - Mandatory Fluoridation

Health Ministry Confirms Bill Enables Mandatory Fluoridation

“The intent of the Bill is to enable the extension of fluoridated areas” says the Ministry’s document responding to submissions to Select Committee on the Fluoridation Bill.
“The Minister can require DHBs to consider fluoridation through the existing DHB accountability arrangements” it continues, and then reveals “The Ministry of Health is working with DHB representatives to develop a decision-tree to assist DHBs ... decision-making”.
Does anyone seriously think this “decision tree” will involve information sources other than the Ministry or other pro-fluoridation organizations?
Indeed, DHBs stated in submissions that they want the Ministry to tell it what the science says and give this to DHBs as a policy directive when making decisions. DHBs also supported the lack of any consultation requirements in making a decision.
DHBs submitted that their involvement would “enable a better balance between local decision-making and national policy than is currently being achieved”. Translation: We lost the scientific argument before the New Plymouth and Hamilton tribunals run by councils representing the people, so now we can enforce policy over science.
And if an area is already fluoridated, it can be forced to remain so simply by deliberate inaction by a DHB to consider the question.
If anyone was naïve enough to think this Bill was about anything other than mandatory fluoridation “by the back door”, this report dispels any such illusion.
The Ministry of Health tried to damage our health by keeping lead in petrol in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence it caused harm (recently reconfirmed), it lies to us in claiming that mercury amalgam fillings are safe when the science says otherwise and the rest of the world is moving to ban it, it tries to suppress natural remedies in favour of pharmaceutical palliatives, it refuses to allow doctors to prescribe known cancer cures, condemning thousands of NZers to a premature death, it lied to us when it said hydrogenated trans-fat margarine reduced heart disease when it actually increased it, as had been known for 40 years, it lies to us that over-vaccinating infants is perfectly safe in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that it can be harmful and even fatal, and it lies to us about fluoridation … the list goes on.
When will the NZ populace wake up and stop believing these liars? When will people realise the Ministry’s prime objective is to support the profits of pharmaceutical companies and other corporations; not promote our health.
If you will do nothing while they put toxic contaminated industrial waste fluoride in your water supply, what won’t you let them do to you and your children?

Saturday, June 17, 2017

Childsmile fun and games over the summer

editorial imageOur ‘summer of smiles’ is about to take place in dental clinics all over the Western Isles as Childsmile returns to the Western Isles.

‘Childsmile Week’ will be held from 3rd-29th July on Lewis, Harris, Uists and Barra, where children will be encouraged to visit dentists and dental care professionals, starting in the Western Isles Dental Centre and Barra Dental Clinic. ‘Childsmile Week’ has become a firm tradition in the summer as children flock to their local dental clinic to take part in the fun. With appointments specifically for kids, they will have the opportunity to get their teeth checked and enjoy the fun in the brightly decorated dental clinics.
Children will also have the opportunity to participate in games, dress up as a dentist or tooth fairy and enter competitions, whilst learning about the key messages of maintaining good oral health for the rest of their lives. Reception areas will be transformed into a summer wonderland with toys and games to play with. Every day there will be prizes which include electric toothbrushes and toys, with every child receiving a goody bag.
Colin Robertson, NHS Western Isles Interim Chief Administrative Dental Officer, commented “Children from all over the islands regularly attend and enjoy our summer ‘Childsmile Weeks’. There are many challenges in the dental care of young children and this preventative approach has proved enormously successful in the Western Isles. “Staff throughout all the Western Isles dental clinics have worked hard to carry out toothbrushing, fluoride varnishing and oral health interventions. There has been a measured decrease in cases of decay in children, with the Western Isles amongst the lowest rates in Scotland – well below the national average. This success demonstrates the hard work of the dental teams, schools, nurseries, and parents throughout the islands, and we look forward to another successful Childsmile Summer!” Parents are encouraged to book an appointment for their child during their local ‘Childsmile Week

Olivia Munn Calls This Common Beauty Ingredient 'Rat Poison'

Photo Credits: Getty Images
When high-profile celebrities reveal their best beauty secrets, it’s usually something pretty boring—for example, drinking tons of water and sleeping a full eight hours every night. However, if you ask Olivia Munn for the beauty advice she lives by, she’ll come right out and tell you the truth (remember her hyaluronic acid potato trick?). So, we sat down with the star to discuss her skin care tips, and unsurprisingly, she did not disappoint.
Munn, who’s partnering with Proactiv to launch its new system ProactivMD, revealed that before using Proactiv, she had relied on the old toothpaste-on-a-pimple trick to clear up blemishes. However, now she swears she’d never use toothpaste on a pimple, but not only because she’s found better-working products. According to Munn, after learning about the effects of fluoride in toothpaste, Munn has decided to steer clear of this ingredient in all its forms.
“If you look at what fluoride is, it's pretty much like rat poison,” she says. “There’s also a direct link that when we ingest fluoride we'll get chin acne, which is why I stopped [using fluoride] two summer ago and I haven’t had one pimple on my chin.”