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

UK Against Fluoridation

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.
CHRIS KNAPP

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
Durango

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

WDDTY

Image


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
Gloucester

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.”

West Yorkshire

50 Years Ago - 1967

Arrangements for the fluoridation of Addingham's water supplies are now taking place despite strong protests made by the Parish Council and an Anti-Fluoride committee. The County Council in reiterating its decision in favour of fluoridation is pursuing the matter with the various water undertakers, the Parish Council was told at its monthly meeting on Monday night.

USA - Group forms to counter local fluoride vote

By LISA WHALEY
For a concerned group of regional health professionals, Jonesborough’s fluoride issues did not end with the Board of Mayor and Aldermen’s Feb. 13 vote to discontinue adding the substance to their local drinking water.
In fact, for these doctors, dentists and public health administrators, it has actually been just the beginning.
“The health department was contacted by so many individuals who were interested in the issue,” explained Dr. David Kirschke, regional medical director for the Northeast Tennessee Regional Health Department. “We didn’t look to form a group but it just sort of happened.”......

USA - When will we wake up about the dangers of fluoride?

This week is National Fluoride Awareness Week. Like I really need another reason to write about fluoride!Did you know that there is a new study that quantifies fluoride's potential to lower the IQ in children? More than 50 studies have been done on humans and 100 studies on animals that prove that fluoride is a neurotoxin. This has prompted the U.S. government to provide new funding to conduct new studies about how poisonous fluoride is.We now have to ask ourselves whether we want to err on the side of caution or continue to add this established neurotoxin to our drinking water. 
What if we find out that it is bad?
Imagine this. What if a bunch of chiropractors were to propose adding vitamin C to the water? Studies are showing that it has all kind of benefits for everyone to help improve their health.
You might think that we are crazy!
But think of what kind of evaluation process that would be demanded to add anything else to the water. Think of the studies and all of the safety and environmental issues that would need to be addressed. Do you think that it would ever be possible to add vitamin C to the drinking water? I highly doubt it. Then why are we taking the chance of continuing to put this toxin when new studies are indicating that it may be dangerous?How long did it take to finally realize that cigarettes were dangerous?
A lawsuit has been filed with the EPA with over 2,500 pages of studies which provide details of damage to health.In 1992, a politician named John Kelly petitioned the FDA, EPA, American Dental Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Dental Pediatrics to provide studies which substantiate the use and safety of fluoride. To this date, none of those organizations have produced any studies.
The FDA lists fluoride as an unapproved drug. The EPA is prohibited from adding this poison to the water. The issue is that water fluoridation is unregulated. No one measures who gets what and no group assumes any responsibility for what damages may occur.
If these current studies do demonstrate that fluoride has had damaging effects, will the towns of Aspen and Snowmass Village assume any responsibility? It seems highly unlikely.
Fluoride is a mitochondrial poison. This means that it affects every cell in the body. It also is the reason that other diseases such as cancers, thyroid diseases, obesity, dementia, diabetes, obesity and other illnesses are being associated with fluoride.
Fluoride is given to us without our individual consent. No doctor would be able to provide a drug under those circumstances.
Time is running out.
What will it take to stop this insanity until these questions are answered? Do we just continue this irresponsible act because it has been done for so long?
Just some drink for thought.
Tom Lankering Basalt

Dr Mercola


Friday, June 16, 2017

FAN Newsletter

Fluoride Awareness Week
 
The Fluoride Action Network has teamed up with Dr. Joseph Mercola and Mercola.com to bring you our 7th Annual Fluoride Awareness Week (June 11-18).  Dr. Mercola has been featuring articles on his website and social media sites discussing the risks associated with fluoride and the need for ending artificial water fluoridation worldwide, and will continue to do so through Sunday, June 18th.
Mercola kicked off Awareness week with an article, Movement to Remove Fluoride From Water Supplies Continues, featuring several new videos, including an interview with FAN’s interim Director, Bill Osmunson, DDS, as well as a short awareness week promo featuring Dr. Mercola, and a presentation by Paul Connett, PhD, on FAN’s petition to the EPA.
On June 13th, Mercola published, Unprecedented Lawsuit Could End Water Fluoridation in US Based on Neurotoxicity Studies, in which I featured our lawsuit with the EPA, the petition that triggered it, the latest information regarding fluoride neurotoxicity research, and proof that our movement is making significant progress. 

This weekend, Mercola.com will feature the film “Our Daily Dose,” in a third article, and will continue to share numerous posts and archived articles on fluoride and fluoridation on their Facebook and Twitter pages.  You can also follow the action on FAN's Facebook and Twitter pages.

The Mercola team has developed two infographics with the help of FAN that we urge you to share on social media and with people new to the issue:
 
Mercola Makes Donation Pledge
Dr. Mercola made the following statement at the launch of awareness week:
 
This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! So I am stepping up the challenge. I'm proud to announce for the seventh year in a row now, a portion of sales up to 25,000 will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.
 
To this end, Mercola has launched a promotional deal for his online store. He will donate proceeds from his sales during awareness week—up to $25,000--to FAN.  He is also urging supporters to donate directly to FAN to maximize the impact of your contribution.
If you support FAN's ongoing work to raise public awareness about the hazards of fluoride and end fluoridation, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution this week. We’d like to set a mini-fundraising goal of $10,000 by midnight on Sunday, June 18th.  Will you help us reach this goal?

To make a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network, a project of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, you can either:
    Donate online using our secure server.  If you should experience difficulty in donating at our secure server, please call Network For Good at 1-888-284-7978 and press option 3 to make your donation over the phone.
    Or by check – please make checks payable to Fluoride Action Network and send to: FAN, c/o Connett, 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton NY 13905
FAN would like to thank Dr. Mercola and his staff for their continued support and generosity in raising awareness of the risks from overexposure to fluoride.  Through his efforts, literally hundreds of thousands of people are taught the truth each year about this important issue. 
Latest Fluoride Free Victories
Piedmont, Alabama -- City leaders decisively rejected the fluoridation-lobby by voting down their proposal to add fluoride chemicals to the public drinking water of the town’s 5,000 residents. Leaders cited "personal choice" as a reason for their decision.
Hichinbrook Shire, Australia – The community in North Queensland has ended fluoridation for its 12,500+ residents after a 4-3 vote by the Shire Council, joining a growing list of communities in the region rejecting the practice.  Taxpayers were being billed over $140,000 annually since 2013 to add the hazardous waste to the water supply.
Middletown, Maryland -- After considerable discussion and deliberation, and with input from town residents, the Burgess and Commissioners voted to end fluoridation for its 5,000 residents.  According to the meeting minutes, water treatment operators showed commissioners photos of calcium carbonate build-up problems in the reservoir water pipes.  Operators said, “This calcification issue represents significant work and expense that is directly related to the injection of fluoride. The Water Fluoridation Manual from AWWA and several other Water Treatment Professional’s support our findings.” Photos on Page 27.
VIDEO: Sugar, Fluoride, and Lowered IQ

A new video interview with FAN Senior Advisor and co-author of “The Case Against Fluoride,” Paul Connett, PhD, is available for viewing on our website.  The video entitled, Sugar, Fluoride, and Lowered IQ explores the connection between the sugar industry, their manipulation of public health research, and the promotion of fluoride and fluoridation at the cost of lowered IQ.
This new video on sugar is just a portion of the longer interview with Conscience Media in Bedford, England entitled, The Fluoride Deception: Interview with Professor Paul Connett.
While in the U.K., Paul met with members of the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance in Bedford, considered by locals to be the heart of the UK's battleground against water fluoridation.  Though fluoridated in 1970, residents of Bedford have successfully campaigned to keep fluoride chemicals out of their drinking water for the past seven years, and will remain vigilant to keep it out.  During their meeting in April, an 11-minute campaign video was filmed, featuring Paul Connett, with a global call to action in the fight against artificial water fluoridation.
Latest Fluoride News

For more fluoride related media, please visit FAN’s News Archive.

 
Sincerely,

Stuart CooperCampaign Director
Fluoride Action Network