Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Australia's Big Fluoride Mistake by Cap'n Anna Bligh!

One has to admire a politician who sees a problem and takes decisive steps to remedy it. However, in the case of Queensland Premier Anna Bligh's decision to fluoridate Queensland, the last remaining part of Australia not fluoridated, one can only wonder if she bothered to read the following recent Open Letter to the Queensland Government from knowledgable and concerned medical professionals denouncing fluoridation as a failed policy. And if she did read it, how did she follow up her investigations on it? Where is the open and frank discussion of a hotly debated "health" policy? And given the overwhelming modern science showing the negative effects of fluoridation, as opposed to the mid-1900's "pseudo-science" proposing it is safe and effective, how could she possibly have enough faith in this toxic chemical to prescribe it to the whole population without any medical discussion whatsoever???!

Also, view my post on the effects of fluoridation on black ethnic (incl Aboriginal) groups and the higher incidence of cancer and related diseases in fluoridated areas.

http://www.smile.org.au/Images/Open%20Letter%20040830.pdf

OPEN LETTER
The Premier of Queensland
Queensland Minister for Health
Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Deputy Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Councillors, all Cities and Shires of Queensland


We wish to express our grave concerns regarding renewed proposals to fluoridate
Queensland’s water supplies. Fluoridation began at a time when asbestos lined our pipes,
when lead was added to petrol, and DDT was regarded as safe and effective. These
chemicals have now been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm


Research is now raising doubts about fluoridation’s effectiveness. Data compiled by the
World Health Organization shows tooth decay has declined at a similar rate in all
Western Countries, irrespective of each country’s water or salt fluoridation status.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm


New evidence for potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion
is also emerging. This evidence is summarised on the following web sites:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm


http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm


It is extraordinary that the same people who reject abundant global evidence about the
association between fluoride ingestion and organ damage (e.g. to bones, teeth, glands, or
immune system), embrace the questionable science used to support its benefits. They
ignore the many confounding possible influences in this research. This includes sugar
consumption (averaging 1 kg per week per person in Australia) much of which is hidden,
other nutritional influences, general dental hygiene, use of floss and movements in
population.


Recent studies by several eminent researchers strongly suggest that fluoride works
primarily by topical means through direct action on the surface of the teeth via
toothpaste, or gels used in dental treatments http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
see: XIII, 'topical versus systemic effects', (Centers for Disease Control {CDC}1999 and
2001). Ingestion of fluoride through drinking fluoridated water is not essential or
effective for caries reduction.


Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, BSc, (Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry,
University of Toronto and Past President of the Canadian Association for Dental
Research) apologised in 1999 for inadvertently misleading both his colleagues and dental
students in his support for fluoridation. Addressing them he concluded: “For the past 15
years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to
anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind” .
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1537.html


The fluoridating agent most commonly used is a hazardous contaminated industrial-grade
product from the phosphate fertilizer industry .
http://www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/overview.htm


We strongly reject the notion that placing a chronic poison in our water supplies is clever
preventive medicine.
We represent 1500 doctors, dentists, scientists and others working in the interests of
public health who are primarily interested in prevention and early intervention in disease
processes.
The question of fluoridation was considered with care, openness and good representation
by the Lord Mayor’s Task Force in 1997 which came down clearly against fluoridating
Brisbane’s water supply .
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-4/314-232.htm


It is astounding that this issue could again be raised in Queensland in an apparently coordinated
national campaign. No new evidence has been put forward to our knowledge
that would warrant a revision of the 1997 decision.


We will urge Queenslanders to study the evidence showing potential serious harm from
long-term fluoride ingestion and to inform their councillors and state members how they
feel about this matter.


Yours sincerely,
Dr Doug Everingham MBBS
1972-75 Australian Minister for Health
World Health Assembly 1975
National Delegation Leader
and Vice-President for Western Pacific WHO region


Dr Eric Davis
BDSc Dip. Clin. Nutr. FACNEM
Qld Chair ASOMAT, Past National President ASOMAT
(ASOMAT is the Australasian Society of Oral Medicine and Toxicology – a Dental
Practitioners’ Association)
(FACNEM is Fellowship of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental
Medicine - ACNEM)


Dr Gary Deed
MBBS (Qld) FACNEM
Qld Board Member ACNEM
Qld Chair and National Vice President AIMA (Australian Integrative Medicine
Association)
Chair, Diabetes Australia (Qld)


Dr Barry Ryan
MBBS (Qld) FACNEM
American Board Certified, Environmental Medicine
Member, Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Taskforce on Fluoride 1997


Dr Philip Stowell
MBBS (London) FACNEM
Qld Board Member FACNEM


Dr John Ryan
MBBS Qld FRACGP, DCH (Irel)
MSc Nutrition with Distinction (London)
FACNEM, FAMAC, MRCGP (UK)
Past Qld President ACNEM AMAC & AIMA
CMEC Member, Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Australia
Deputy Chair, Council, Australian College of Natural Medicine (ACNM)
Chair, Human Research Ethics Committee (ACNM)
Nea Cameron-Smith RN
Past Secretary, Australian College of Holistic Nurses


Dr Kris Mylonas
MBBS Qld FACNEM
Post-grad Dip.Acup BCTANT
Chair, Brisbane Bayside Division of General Practice Committee for
GP Health & Wellbeing
Chair, Brisbane Bayside Division of General Practice Committee for
Continuing Professional Education/Development


Shirley Strachan ND BHSc(Comp Med) MA(Hons)History Grad Dip(Mar Arch)
Mark Diesendorf BSc PhD
Adjunct Professor, Murdoch University
Director, Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd


Dr Robyn Cosford
Representing:
Australian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine
The Australian Integrative Medicine Association
Holistic Dental Association
Mona Vale NSW


Cr Lisa C Intemann BA(Hons) BAppSc DipSocSc
Community Development worker (thirty years)
Wauchope, NSW


Professor Ian Brighthope
MBBS (Melb) BAg FACNEM
Founding Director, President, Australian College of Nutritional & Environmental
Medicine (ACNEM)


Professor Noel Campbell
FACNEM FASID BDSc LDS
Melbourne VIC


Philip Robertson BHSc ND
Lecturer Natural Medicine, Dept Health Science
Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC


Dr Vicki Kotsirilos
MBBS (Monash) FACNEM DipHerbMed, CertAcup, DipHyp


Dr Bogdan Sikorski
Senior Toxicologist
Office of Complementary Medicines
Canberra ACT


Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith PhD (Law)
Coordinator National Toxics Network Inc.
Rivett ACT


Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto
Toronto Canada


Richard G Foulkes BA MD
Abbotsford British Columbia Canada


Ella Haley BSc PhD
Centre for Global and Social Analysis,
Athabasca University
Alberta Canada


Dr Robert C Dickson MD CCFP
Calgary Alberta Canada


Michelle Meyer ND
Member, Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors


Dr Rosalie Bertell PhD GNSH
Founder and immediate Past President
International Institute of Concern for Public Health www.iicph.org
Canada


Patrick Chapus
President, Association de Sauvegarde du Patrimonine et du Cadre de Vie de Solerieux
or (Association of Safeguard of the Inheritance and the Framework of Life of Solerieux
Solerieux, France


Professor Dr Leo Rebello
ND PhD DSc FFHom
Fellow of the European Medical Association
President, AIDS Alternativa International
World Peace Envoy, Bombay India.


Dr Philip Michael MB BCh BAO MICGP
Chairperson, Irish Doctors' Environmental Association
Ireland


Dr Elizabeth Cullen
MB BCh BAO MSc(Community Health)
Diploma in Pollution Control,
Irish Doctors Environmental Association, Ireland


Irish Dentists Opposed to Fluoridation (61 members) idof@eircom.net
(IDOF's primary aim is to highlight the undemocratic, unethical and unsafe nature of
fluoridation in Ireland)
Endorsed by Dr Don Mac Auley MDS (Dental Surgeon)


Dr Andrew Rynne
Medical Practitioner
Life long campaigner for civil liberty and free choice, writer and
Founder, Clane General Hospital, Co. Kildare
Kildare Ireland


Loty Zilberman MSc
Chemical engineer (Specialized in drug manufacture and toxicology)
Ghivataiim, Israel


Bruce Spittle MB ChB DPM FRANZCP
Dunedin New Zealand


Dr Michael E Godfrey
MBBS (London) FACAM FACNEM
President NZ Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Director, Bay of Plenty Environmental Health
Tauranga New Zealand


Tohru Murakami DDS PhD
Vice President, Japanese Society for Fluoride Research


Kenichi Narita DDS
Vice President, Japanese Society for Fluoride Research


Kenji Akiniwa DDS
Editor of the Journal of Japanese Society for Fluoride Research


Junji Kato MD PhD
Director of Miyachiyo Kato Clinic, Miyagi Pref, Japan
Member, Medwatcher Japan


Yoshihiro Satoh MD
3-2-6 Shintohna Naruse-Town Miyagi, Japan


Mageswari Sangaralingam
Research Officer
Consumers' Association of Penang
Penang Malaysia


Marie-Lou Roux
Executive Officer: Habitat Council
Cape Town, South Africa


George Cheng
Executive Director
Taiwan (Environmental) Watch Institute, Taiwan


Herlin Hsieh
Researcher
Taiwan (Environmental) Watch Institute, Taiwan


Dr C Vyvyan Howard MB ChB PhD FRCPath.
Developmental Toxico-Pathology Group
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology
The University of Liverpool
Liverpool UK


Paul Connett PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St Lawrence University
Canton, New York


Roger D Masters PhD
Research Professor and Nelson A. Rockefeller Professor of Government
Department of Government HB
Dartmouth College
Hanover NH USA


Robert J Carton PhD (Environmental Science)
Former Chief, Environmental Compliance US Army Medical Research and Materiel
Command Fort Detrick Maryland USA


Russell L Blaylock MD
Neurosurgeon and Neuroscientist
Advanced Nutritional Concepts
Past Clinical Assistant Professor of Neurosurgery, University of Mississippi Medical
Center, Visiting Professor of Biology Belhaven College
Jackson Mississippi USA
"This is to plea with you not to fluoridate your water supplies. I am a neurosurgeon and
neuroscientist who has studied the issue of effects of water fluoridation on the developing
brain as well as adult brain. Fluoridation of drinking water is a grave mistake and health
hazard."

Vinod Barot
MSc PhD DIS (India) MEng(USA) CCEP(Canada)Technical Director
Sanitary District of Hammond
Hammond IN USA


W Robert Heterick AB MSc PhD (Clinical Psychology)
Witchita KS USA


David Kennedy DDS
Past President, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
Former Brisbane Lord Mayor’s Taskforce Consultant on Fluoride 1997
San Diego CA USA


Mae Woo DDS
Montana USA


Samuel E Epstein MD
Professor Emeritus Environmental & Occupational Medicine
Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition
University of Illinois at Chicago
School of Public Health
Chicago Illinois USA


Christopher Bryson
Investigative Journalist, Author "The Fluoride Deception"
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/books/8233/8233books.html (book review)
New York USA


Firuzeh Mahmoudi MSc MPA (Environmental)
Health Care Without Harm
International Coordinator
Berkley CA USA


Bruce Randall
Longmeadow Water & Sewer Commission Chairman, ex-oficio
Longmeadow Massachusetts USA


Jeanine Trevillyan MD
Texarkana Arkansas USA


Tony Tweedale MS(Environmental Studies)
Secretary, Montana Coalition for Health, Environmental & Economic Rights
Missoula MT USA


Dr Neil Carman
BS (Plant Biology), MS(Plant Biology), PhD(Phytochemistry)
Environmental scientist
Sierra Club Lone Star Chapter
Austin, TX 78702


Raymond R White PhD(Stanford Biological Sciences 1973)
56 City College of San Francisco
San Francisco CA USA


Susan Augustoni
Licensed Certified Nutritionist
Superior Colorado USA


Phillip M Allen MD PhD & June Allen MEd
Enviro-Health Concerns (pro bono publico)
Wichita KS USA


Michael F Dolan PhD
Research Professor
Department of Geosciences
UMASS
Amherst MA 01003 USA
Wichita KS USA


Albert W Burgstahler PhD
Emeritus Professor of Chemistry
University of Kansas Lawrence Kansas USA
Endorsed by Dr John Ryan Bridgeman Downs, Queensland, Australia

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Donegal citizens surveyed and above the maximum safe fluoride levels!

The majority of people surveyed in Donegal
are above the safe fluoride intake level!

This article is from the VOICE IRELAND website - for a free list of 50 bottled waters available in Ireland and their fluoride and mineral contents, please send an email to euesireland@eircom.net.



Seven out of ten people in Co Donegal are getting too much fluoride, says VOICE campaigner Robert Pocock. His comments are backed up by results from a survey involving volunteers from three different fluoridated areas of County Donegal, who monitored their urinary fluoride intake over a 24-hour period.

The survey was carried out by Clane GP, Dr Andrew Rynne who engaged an EU accredited pathology laboratory to obtain the results. Urine samples from Inishowen, Letterkenny and Stranorlar were obtained from people aged between 19 and 68 and evenly split between men and women. 72% of the subjects tested in Co Donegal were at or above the safe intake of fluoride. (1) The safe level was based on the UK Food Standard Agency guideline value based on daily fluoride intake related to body weight. The proportion at or above the safe limit in largely unfluoridated UK is 20%, suggesting that the addition of fluoride to Irish drinking water is completely unjustifiable.

“Of the 32 subjects who volunteered, only nine tested within a safe intake” said Dr Rynne. “This confirms the suspicion that the fluoridation of Irish drinking water is the major contributor to fluoride over-exposure. Several subjects are many times over the stated safe intake.”

These results highlight the negligence of the Health Minister Mary Harney who after over two years in office has still failed to investigate fluoride exposure in the population. In the light of this evidence from three different parts of Co Donegal, her recently introduced Regulation (S.I.42,2007) reducing the fluoride concentration by a small amount on July 1st 2007, is a totally inadequate response to the problem of fluoride over-exposure. (2)
Pocock added “Donegal councillors should now instruct the eleven public water supplies (3) that dose the drinking water of 75,000 people in Donegal with fluoride, not only to turn down the fluoride taps but to turn them off completely. Neither the new Pollen Dam supply that came on stream recently nor the Killybegs supply, where local fishermen refused years ago to allow their fish to be processed with this toxic chemical, are fluoridated. In view of this alarming new evidence, all of Donegal people exposed to fluoridated water supplies are at a risk”.

The national implications of this evidence is alarming since 73% of the population (3 million) are served with fluoridated drinking water, indicating that over two million people could be getting above the safe daily intake of fluoride. (4)There is also plenty of other supporting evidence such as the recent oral health survey revealing that one in three fifteen year-olds have dental fluorosis. (5) This is caused by excessive fluoride during the tooth-forming years. Other recent advice from the American Dental Assocation warns parents not to use fluoridated tap water in infant formula because of the risk of fluorosis. (6)

Since there is no cure or treatment for fluorosis, only prevention, it is obvious that the Health Minister must immediately turn off the fluoride taps across the country.


For more info contact Robert Pocock of Voice Ireland on 086 811 3071

NOTES

(1) The UK Food Standards Agency has defined under 0.05mg Fluoride per kg body weight per day as the safe intake. The UK National Diet & Nutrition survey (2003) revealed that 20% of the population (19 - 64 yr olds) are above this safe level. While only six million people in England have fluoridated drinking water, Scotland, Wales and N.Ireland have all rejected it.

(2) www.voiceireland.org

(3) Fluoridated Public Water Supplies in Co Donegal.
Area Population Area Population Area Population
Buncrana 3,500 Gortahork 4,200 Rosses
Bundoran 6,000 Inishowen E 5,050 Regional 8,000
Cranford 839 Letterkenny 17,000
River Eske 4,500 Lough Mourne17,000
Creeslough 4,000 Milford 4,000

Source EPA The Quality of Drinking Water in Ireland, 2005

(4) www.voiceireland.org Ministers New Regulations Nonsensical.
(5) www.fluoridealert.org/dental-fluorosis.html
(6) North South Survey of Children’s Oral Health in Ireland, 2002 p58-59

Saturday, October 06, 2007

Black Ethnic People Suffer Most from Fluoridation!

Dental Association Disputes Report on Blacks Harmed by Fluorides

This Report mirrors what I am finding in the stats about American Cancer Rates from the CDC - that higher level Fluoridated States have much higher rates of Cancer Deaths for Blacks than lower level fluoridated States - I will continue to research this over the next few weeks and publish further in due course. I am sure this statistic will apply to Aboriginie people, as well.

Story Created: Oct 2, 2007 at 4:21 PM MDT
BELOW IS A VERBATIM PRESS RELEASE FROM THE LILLIE CENTER, INC. THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION SAYS THE CENTER IS NOT AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE FOR INFORMATION. THE ADA SAYS FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION ON FLOURIDE, GO TO ADA.ORG.The Lillie Center, Inc. Press Release:Fluoride, the controversial chemical added to city water supplies to help prevent cavities, now has three strikes against it in having harmful effects in African Americans. Strike number one: A blue ribbon panel of scientists has identified kidney patients and diabetics as being especially susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides. Blacks suffer disproportionate amounts of kidney disease and diabetes in America. Strike number two: Information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows blacks disproportionately at risk for disfiguring teeth damage from fluoride, compared to whites. And strike number three: The American Dental Association and the CDC are now suggesting that parents of newborns may wish to consider using unfluoridated water when mixing infant milk formula for their babies -- but they offer no outreach to tell black parents this information, and no funds to pay for minority and other low-income families to purchase other sources of water.“I know the facts are embarrassing and potentially even lawsuit material against CDC, but it’s not morally right that CDC is not telling African Americans of their multiple, intersecting risks for harm from fluoride,” says Daniel Stockin, a public health professional of The Lillie Center, Inc., a firm working to educate Americans about harm from ingested fluorides. “How does CDC continue to say that fluoridated water is safe and effective ‘for all’? Do African Americans not count?” he asks.Stockin points to disturbing information in a report last year from the National Research Council that acknowledged diabetics and kidney patients to be “susceptible subpopulations” that are especially vulnerable to harmful effects from fluoride ingestion. According to the National Kidney Foundation, blacks comprise 28.4% of kidney failure patients, but number only 13% of the U.S. population. The American Diabetes Association states that African Americans are 1.8 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites. Increased risk from fluoride for kidney patients and diabetics logically points towards increased risk for blacks, Stockin says. Stockin also asks why a chart showing disproportionate harm to African Americans from moderate and severe dental fluorosis, a staining and pitting of teeth indicative of overexposure to fluoride as a child, is buried at the very back of a review published by CDC and has not been shared with the black community.
(See http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm.)
He also notes that CDC this year quietly added information on a little-noticed web page that mothers of newborns may wish to use unfluoridated water when mixing powdered infant milk formula. ( http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm#1 ) CDC has not issued a press release about the subject. “Millions of parents in minority, low-income, and limited-English communities are affected by CDC’s change in policy, but these families have neither the facts about fluoride nor the funds to pay for unfluoridated bottled water or an expensive home water fluoride removal system,” Stockin says.The bad news about fluoride adds to a growing swell of sentiment against use of the chemical. The influential Canadian city of Quebec has voted to stop water fluoridation. In looking at fluoridation, Alaska’s Juneau Empire newspaper recently wrote, “What about people who are more sensitive to the damaging effects of fluoride than the general population?” Eleven unions in EPA, representing 7,000 EPA lab workers, scientists, and others have called for the immediate nationwide halt to fluoridation. There are petitions now to end fluoridation, and a call for congressional hearings (http://www.fluorideaction.net). So why does CDC continue to promote fluoridation? Why has CDC not responded to the ethics charges its ethics committees received in August concerning fluoridation? And why aren’t black communities being told of their increased risk for harm from fluorides? “Fair questions,” Stockin says. “And disturbing.”

Source: http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2007/10/05/blacks-disproportionately-harmed-by-fluorides-and-fluoridated-water/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.2news.tv%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2F10188561.html&frame=true

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

CDC - Tainted Protector of U.S. Fluoride Polluters

Dan Stockin Charges CDC with Ethics Violations re: Fluoride
The Lillie center takes on The CDC!!!! (on Fluoride)


August 13, 2007

The Tainted Protector of America's Health that is the CDC is finally coming under fire for it's biased promotion of the industrial toxic waste dumping that is fluoridation. Look back to my blog post that searched for {and found} information on the CDC site which was hidden away, but which showed that fluoridation was A) not effective against caries and B) probably a major carcinogenic effector.

If you want the spreadsheet where I compare the caries and cancer rates across the U.S. against the fluoridation rates (according to the CDC's own figures) then send me an email to euesireland@eircom.net.

Dear All,
Last Thursday, the same day as the Fluoride Action Network released theProfessionals' Statement calling for end to fluoridation worldwide, theLillie Center was making a thrust into the belly of the beast: ­ the CDC -that continues to promote fluoridation despite the growing evidence of harm and little evidence of benefit. In a press release issued this morning, the Lillie Center announced that it had filed ethics charges against the CDC's Oral Health Division and CDC's director Julie Gerberding for their failure to follow the ethical code produced by the CDC and promoted by them around the country. The charge specifically focuses on their failure to warn the public, especially vulnerable sub-groups, of the dangers posed by fluoridated water ­ -dangers which were clearly articulated in the NRC (2006) review of fluoride's toxicity as well as concerns raised by the US Department of Agriculture about the total dose of fluoride people are getting today from a variety of sources, including the food supply. According to the complaint, "the unethical actions of Oral Health Division manager William Maas and CDC Director Julie Gerberding are --serious and egregious in not disseminating findings of the National Research Council that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and seniors are especially susceptible to harm from fluoride." The spokesperson for the Lillie Center, Dan Stockin stated that, "We have provided very specific examples of statements and actions by Doctors Maas and Gerberding that show blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of ethics in public health. CDC is striving mightily to defend its policy supporting water fluoridation to prevent cavities, but the facts about harm from fluoride are now coming from highly respected organizations like theNational Research Council." The Lillie Center used the Professionals' Statement as supporting material in its arguments. Below is their press release and the full statement with attachments can be reviewed at http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.ethics.complaint.aug.13.2007.pdf
I urge readers to forward a copy of this press release to local news outlets.
Paul Connett
The Lillie Center, Inc.P.O. Box 839 Ellijay GA 30540Ph: 706.669.0786 // Fax: 706.635.8170 Email: stockin2@yahoo.com or dan@thelilliecenter.com

NEWS RELEASE -- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: 706-669-0786
Formal Complaint Charges CDC Oral Health Division with Ethics Violations
August 13, 2007 ­
A joint meeting of two ethics committees for the Centers for Disease Control has received a detailed formal complaint alleging a series of unethical activities by the CDC Oral Health Division and the CDC Director. The complaint points to a quote by a highly placed CDC official that the public health ethics code CDC espouses is not being internally applied within CDC itself. The complaint specifically questions why CDC's own data on disproportionate harm from ingested fluoride in minority groups is not being communicated to these communities, and points to new, state of the art National Research Council information showing certain groups to be especially susceptible to harm from fluoride.The charges were presented to CDC's joint ethics panel on August 9th by Daniel Stockin, a public health professional of The Lillie Center, Inc., a private sector firm. In a separate development, news surfaced on the same day that 600 doctors, dentists, and other professionals have signed a petition calling for a halt to water fluoridation and for congressional hearings on fluoridation (see: www.FluorideAction.net).According to the complaint, the unethical actions of Oral Health Division manager William Maas and CDC Director Julie Gerberding are "serious and egregious" in not disseminating findings of the National Research Council that kidney patients, diabetics, infants, and seniors are especiallysusceptible to harm from fluoride. The complaint contains photos of a condition called dental fluorosis, a staining and pitting of teeth indicative of overexposure to fluoride that is disproportionately present in African Americans and perhaps Mexican Americans, compared to Caucasians."This is an explosive and deeply disturbing issue," states Stockin. "We have provided very specific examples of statements and actions by Dr.'s Maas and Gerberding that show blatant disregard for the most fundamental principles of ethics in public health. CDC is striving mightily to defend its policy supporting water fluoridation to prevent cavities, but the facts about harm from fluoride are now coming from highly respected organizations like theNational Research Council.""People with kidney disease or on dialysis should see this complaint and the report by the National Research Council on fluoride," Stockin says, "And if you happen to be a member of the population with diabetes or HIV, you will be amazed how the NRC report contains important information you should know about -- but that CDC has elected not to openly share with the public because it runs at odds with putting fluoride in drinking water." The ethics complaint and the 600 professionals' statement are the latest in a string of blows to the conventional wisdom that fluoride and water fluoridation are safe. In 2005, frustrated by EPA administrators' lack of response to mounting evidence of harm from fluoride, eleven unions within the EPA representing 7,000 lab workers, scientists, and others publicly called for the immediate halt to fluoridation based on concerns about fluoride-caused bone cancer. In 2006, the American Dental Association quietly stated on its web site that mothers of newborns might wish to consider using unfluoridated water when mixing powdered infant milk formula. CDC this year similarly changed its policy about use of fluoridated water for mixing formula, but did so only on its web site, not issuing even a press release to alert millions of parents to the news. The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has recently developed software to begin to assess the quantity of fluoride Americans are ingesting, citing concern that cumulative fluoride intake could lead to a painful bone and joint condition called "skeletal fluorosis." The new, detailed list of alleged unethical actions by CDC in protecting its long-held policy is likely to spur groups and legislators across the country to join in the call for an official ethics inquiry into CDC's actions. Were CDC officials willing to sacrifice the health of Americans in order to prevent embarrassment to the agency and themselves? Stockin points to supporting materials in the ethics complaint that offer little wiggle room for discomfited CDC officials. "At-risk groups have a moral right to be told the whole story about fluoride," Stockin says. "Get ready for their lawsuits. The world is not flat, and fluoride is not safe," he says.The full text of the ethics complaint with its attachments can be accessed at:http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.ethics.complaint.aug.13.2007.pdf .Daniel Stockin of The Lillie Center may be contacted at (706)-669-0786

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Into the Phosphate Valley Rode the 600....

Slowly but surely the world MAY be coming to its senses regarding fluoride in drinking water...but no doubt the vested interests of the dentists' brigade and the fluoride manufacturers will try to find a way to refute the irrefutable!




End Fluoridation, Say 600 Physicians, Dentists, Scientists, and Environmentalists
NEW YORK, Aug. 9 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- In a statement released
today, over 600 professionals are urging Congress to stop water
fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new
scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay,
is ineffective and has serious health risks.
(http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)
Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious
2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride's
toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA
headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the
Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and
environmental professionals, worldwide.
Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine,
says, "Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's
really obsolete."
Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network
(FAN), announced that an Online Action Petition to Congress in support of
the Professionals' Statement will soon be available at FAN's web site,
http://www.fluorideaction.org/.
"The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of
fluoride's health risks," says Connett. "Government officials who continue
to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring
the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report," he added.
An Assistant NY State Attorney General calls the report "the most
up-to- date expert authority on the health effects of fluoride exposure."
The Professionals' Statement also references:
-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula
NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC's concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is
topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride
over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between
fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and
bone cancer.
-- The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated
industrial waste and have never been FDA-approved for human ingestion.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a
Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for
three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, "It is time for the US to
recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor
benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end
as turning off a valve at the water plant."
CONTACTS:
Dr. Paul Connett
+1-802-338-5577
paul@fluoridealert.org

Monday, July 30, 2007

AUSTRALIANS FIGHT BACK AGAINST ENFORCED FLUORIDATION!

I have often wondered in the past why the Australian Government was so completely gung-ho about fluoridation...even when the evidence shows that their longest and most fluoridated regions (which include all the Aboriginal areas) have HIGHER rates of dental caries than other regions! I think the article below gives a very strong clue as to who is pouring the money into the pro-fluoride campaign down under!!!

THESE 12 REASONS ALSO APPLY TO THE HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID USED FOR FLUORIDATION PURPOSES IN IRELAND AND THE U.S.

12 Reasons to reject Fluoridation!
For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930's and 40's, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste escaping from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA's owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn't poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant 'father of propaganda' Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that promoted fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation (DHERF) was founded in Australia in 1962. Its Governors, Members and donors comprised key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc.
The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense.
1. Only parents or individuals have the right to decide if they or their children take drugs. This point should end the debate on compulsory fluoridation. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration show fluoride isn't a food, nutrient or dietary supplement: "Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect *[e.g. water fluoridation] would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient." F.D.A. 1963).
2. Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth's crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons. The fluoride chemical used for fluoridation in Australia is untreated toxic waste captured inside fertiliser factory smokestacks.
3. Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. A patient's medical history, age, weight, sex, allergic reactions, other drugs taken and illnesses must be determined. After an adequate medical examination, scripts must be for a specific person, drug, duration and dose - never 'take some whenever you're thirsty'. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You have the right to refuse! There are 14 safety requirements which are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation.
4. The World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, reports sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] as, "... an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] ... [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water. ... The Commission of the European Communities (1978) requires that sodium silicofluoride be labelled as toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin or if swallowed." I.A.R.C. Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 27-4-82, p 250.
5. Fluoride deaths. In a 5 month court case of world experts in Pittsburgh 1978, scientists, led by Dr Burk, a US National Cancer Institute founder and its Chief Chemist for 35 years, proved fluoridation **kills 10,000 yearly (cancer), admitted by opponents under cross-examination. In Brisbane, 2 year old **Jason Burton died after taking 6 fluoride pills. His death certificate states, 'Fluoride poisoning'. In New York, 3 year old **William Kennerly died from a 'fluoride rinse' at a dentist. The Court awarded US$750,000.
6. Fluoridation is undemocratic. We've rejected fluoridation in over 90% of referendums with votes as high as 98% against. Now, referendums are denied us.
7. Fluoridation does not reduce decay. Few (4%) countries are fluoridated yet nearly all have decades of falling decay rates, including all 10 (unfluoridated) in west continental Europe. WHO (www.whocollab.od.mah.se)1. Also, decay was reducing decades before fluoridation, e.g. NZ school records since 1930 show steep decay reductions for 25-35 years before fluoridation.
8. Fluoride is so toxic it causes fluorosis, a disease of constant 'whole body' fluoride poisoning. Its first sign is chalky white mottling of teeth called dental fluorosis. Teeth can also fracture, pit or become dark brown. This irreversible, disfiguring tooth decay is the cellular break down of teeth. Australia's three major government fluoridation inquiries (Tas 1968, Vic 1979, ACT 89-91) all reported that up to 10% of children will get mottled teeth if water is fluoridated. In practice, mottling is as high as 48% (UK Govt. York Report, 2000). Dentists make $600-$1,200 per tooth to hide (cover) fluorosis.
9. Fluoridation aside, most other decay is due to a poor diet of lots of processed carbohydrates, e.g. we average 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. The only reason teeth get badly decayed is they weren't filled early enough as parents often can't pay the high costs charged by dentists (earning up to $500,000 a year).
10. Australian authorities often make mistakes. Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently, Vioxx, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren't compulsory. Fluoridation is!
11. If someone tried to force us to take a pill every time we drank a glass of water, we'd suggest they go where it's eternally hot. The only real difference with fluoridation is that the pill is dissolved in the water before they make us take it.
12. Among experts, the controversy rages over fluoridation. Regardless of who's right, if the safety of any drug is so hugely controversial, doesn't common sense demand it not be used at all? Certainly not forced on millions of people for their whole life!
If fluoridation is forced onto any State, deaths and tooth decay will increase (search 'fluoride deaths', 'dental fluorosis' on the internet) and the ecosystem, other life forms and our rights will suffer.

ACTION: 1. Copy this page - as is. 2. Form a team. 3. Letterbox your electorate. 4. Display on notice boards/shops. 5. Tell representatives of your will. For a digital copy, email nofluoridation@aanet.com.au© 2006 Dennis Stevenson (07) 5594 2023 can help with fluoridation interviews, debates, talks, humour, workshops and campaign plans.

Dennis is a former Parliamentarian and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly 'Fluoridation Inquiry' (1989-91). The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. Dennis put this evidence in a 177 page Dissenting Report, part of this major government report, but longer than the 131 page section which attempted to suppress the evidence.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

Everyday More Proof: Fluoride and Fluoridation Is NOT Safe and Effective!

New York - May 2007 - Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Fluoride chemicals are added to 2/3 of U.S. water supplies in an attempt to reduce tooth decay and is in virtually 100% of the food supply. Yet, the Centers for Disease Control reports cavities are rising in our most fluoridated generation - toddlers. (1a) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studiespublished from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridatedcommunities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention..." They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water... [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas... Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over- fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "...after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber. In 1999, researchers found that children in Connersville, Indiana, (2) consumed over recommended levels of fluoride even though their water supply wasn't fluoridated. Organised dentistry still successfully instigated fluoridation and the American Dental Association (3) bragged about it, carelessly putting more children at risk of developing dental fluorosis.
See also my earlier posts where I compare the cancer and dental caries against the fluoridation rates across the U.S. states. Some very surprising stats show up! Get it now (free, of course) at euesireland@eircom.net

References: 1) "Community Water Fluoridation and Caries Prevention: A Critical Review," Clinical Oral Investigations, by Giuseppe Pizzo & Maria R. Piscopo & Ignazio Pizzo & Giovanna Giuliana 2007 Feb 27; [Epub ahead of print] http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf 1a) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_248.pdf 2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10403089&dopt=Abstract 3) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/us_fluoridation.pdf http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.FluorideAction.Net http://www.FluorideResearch.Org Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/_________________New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof Fluoridation News Releases http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Fluoride: Lies,Brown Envelopes, Subterfuge and more Lies

Corruption Revealed Among Defenders of Fluoridation
REPRINTED FROM AN ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN:
THE INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF ORAL MEDICINE AND TOXICOLOGY JAN, 2007

A paper provided by the Fluoride Action Network documents that some of the most influential epidemiologists of the twentieth century, defenders of water fluoridation, were extensively compromised by industry money. The original UK watchdog group article is available at this link.
The Doll-Hoover-Douglass connections.By Chris Neurath,Senior Science Researcher for FANA UK group has just revealed that the prominent epidemiologist, Sir Richard Doll, who died last year, received millions of dollars in consulting fees from chemical companies, asbestos companies, and other industries which create carcinogenic materials. Among other retainers he received $1000 a day (rising to $1500 a day) for over thirty years from Monsanto. Yet in scientific publications, as an expert witness, and before government authorities he often defended these chemicals against evidence they caused cancer.According to the UK based group injurywatch.co.uk in a sidebar entitled "Sir Richard Doll: the industry man?" they note: "In 1976, in spite of well-documented concerns on the risks of fluoridation of drinking water with industrial wastes, Doll declared that it was "unethical" not to do so."
Thus fluoride may have been the first suspected carcinogen that Doll protected. He defended water fluoridation in scientific papers, public statements, and court testimony. Fluoride has been a major pollutant from the aluminum, steel, chemical, atomic, and fertilizer industries. Fertilizer industry waste is the source of most fluoride used to fluoridate drinking water.Doll's connection with HooverDr. John Yiamouyiannis, in his book Fluoride, The Aging Factor, details what appears to have been a coordinated effort between American cancer epidemiologist, Dr. Robert Hoover, and Doll and Doll's co-worker Leo Kinlen, to publish seemingly independent, but in fact duplicate studies, finding no evidence of cancer risk from fluoridated water. Dr. Robert Hoover works at the National Cancer Institute, and is an officer in the Public Health Service Medical Corps.Correspondence, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Hoover sent Doll and Kinlen data and calculated results, and asked them to simply check the math and then publish the same results but under their names. When published, the Doll and Kinlen paper appeared to be an independent evaluation of the issue which corroborated Hoover's conclusion that there was no link between fluoridation and cancer. But in fact, it was simply a re-hash, with no independent data or new methods applied. Doll and Kinlen then sent the same data on to a third group of workers in the UK at the Royal Statistical Society and asked them to conduct yet another reiteration with the same data.This coordinated effort to make it look like three groups had independently arrived at the same finding was uncovered when it turned out that Hoover had made an error transcribing the population size of one of the study cities. The two UK papers repeated this error, proving they had not independently gathered any data. In their private correspondence, they admit this gaff, and also admit they conducted no new analyses but simply repeated the same calculations on the same erroneous data.In a letter from Hoover to Kinlen and Doll: "I am sorry for this error, particularly since it seems to have been perpetuated by yourselves and the Royal Statistical Society. I am a bit distressed also that neither you nor the Society checked some of the original numbers. When Professor Doll visited us, I believe I suggested that the numbers be checked against the original sources, since our reanalyses were done very hastily and under severe political pressure. In fact, I thought the Society had abstracted the data themselves, since I did not send them any of the original material. However, they must have obtained it elsewhere, as they have the erroneous number also." (Sept. 26, 1977)Of course, the Royal Statistical Society authors did receive it "elsewhere", from Doll and Kinlen. That's why it contained the same error in the data, exactly as it had been given to Doll and Kinlen by Hoover.This embarrassing episode for Robert Hoover back in the mid-1970s was not an isolated instance for him concerning the question of fluoride's carcinogenicity. In the early 1990s, right after a National Toxicology Program animal study found evidence that fluoride caused bone cancer, Hoover was again enlisted to defend against this alarming evidence. He did a new epidemiological analysis focused on bone cancers. His first method of analyzing the data returned disturbing positive results, especially for the US Public Health Service, his employer and the leading proponent of fluoridation in the US. In Hoover's comparison of changes in bone cancer rates for young males between fluoridated and non-fluoridated counties, the fluoridated counties experienced an 80% increase relative to the non-fluoridated county rates which decreased slightly.The Public Health Service then asked Hoover to conduct another analysis, using different methods to see if this association could be "confirmed". Hoover's second analysis methods were flawed. He compared rates of bone cancer in counties which were in different states and therefore not comparable. Also, Hoover had different mixes of counties occurring in the different exposure level categories. Essentially, he was comparing apples to oranges, so it was not surprising that he found no association between "duration of fluoridation" and bone cancer rates.The Hoover-Douglass connectionThe connection between Hoover and defense of fluoridation continues to the present day. Hoover was recently put in charge of the Harvard study of osteosarcoma and fluoride, taking over as Principal Investigator from Dr. Chester Douglass. Douglass has been accused of covering up his graduate student's study, which found a significant strong association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma, the most common form of bone cancer. Douglass happens to also be on the payroll of Colgate, a major seller of fluoridated toothpaste. Like Doll, Douglass appears to have a conflict of interest with industry.Douglass' student, Dr. Elise Bassin, eventually published her groundbreaking study with several Harvard co-authors but not Douglass.Hoover has kept out of the spotlight in this most recent episode, yet he has been co-author of reports and presentations which have perpetuated the cover-up of Bassin's results. These claimed no evidence of a link had been found in the Harvard osteosarcoma-fluoride study.Recently, the history of defending fluoride came full circle back to Doll. Doll's name is invoked in a letter to the editor from Douglass, responding to the publication of Bassin's findings. Douglass tries to justify the delay in publicizing Bassin's finding by citing Doll's experience after uncovering cigarette smoking as a cause of lung cancer in the 1950s. Douglass incorrectly states Doll chose to delay publication of his first findings until follow-up studies could confirm the link. Yet it was not Doll's choice to delay publication, it was the head of the UK Medical Research Council who urged delay, saying that Doll's startling new finding would be too disturbing in a country where over 3/4ths of men smoked.Perhaps things have not changed so much. In the US in 2006 is it "too disturbing" to publicize a scientific study which finds that fluoridation causes bone cancer, in a nation where 2/3rds of all people drink fluoridated water?Have Douglass and Hoover suppressed Bassin's findings? Where will their own analyses lead? Their study began in 1993 and today, 13 years later, they have yet to publish a single result of those studies. Yet they keep promising that they will publish soon, including results of more "sophisticated" analyses using bone biopsy specimens to determine fluoride exposure. Yet recent revelations indicate their bone specimen study has a severe design flaw, potentially fatal to its validity.The control bone samples were all obtained from cancer patients in the same hospitals as the osteosarcoma cases. But never mentioned publicly until this year was that all these cancer controls were bone-cancer patients, mostly with Ewing's sarcoma, the second most common form of bone cancer after osteosarcoma. If fluoride causes both these forms of bone cancer, which is distinctly possible because fluoride concentrates in bones, then using Ewing's sarcoma patients as controls would make as little sense as comparing levels of cigarette use between cases with one form of lung cancer and controls with a slightly different form of lung cancer. This is one of the worst choices of controls imaginable. Yet it is exactly what Hoover and Douglass have done. If their comparison of osteosarcoma to Ewing's sarcoma patients shows little difference in fluoride exposures, that will hardly be convincing evidence that fluoride does not cause bone cancer.US Public Health Service employees like Hoover defending fluoridation against scientific evidence of carcinogenicity may represent a new, insidious form of conflict of interest. It is not as obvious as industry funding a scientific researcher. Instead, a federal agency is the intermediary between industries' interests and questionable scientific studies. Behind the scenes efforts by polluting industries seem to have played an important role in the US PHS choosing to endorse and promote fluoridation, starting in 1950.Now we learn that Sir Richard Doll, a supposedly independent academic/government researcher, received millions of dollars from polluting industries. In the 1970s Robert Hoover of the National Cancer Institute worked closely behind the scenes with Doll to defend fluoride. Today Hoover is still apparently defending fluoride against scientific evidence. Hoover's colleague Douglass invokes Doll to justify delaying publication of an important new study which found a clear link between fluoride and osteosarcoma. Where does industry manipulation of science leave off and government collusion take over?Yiamouyiannis J (1986) Fluoride: The Aging Factor, Health Action Press, Delaware Ohio.Doll R, Kinlen L (1977) Fluoridation of water and cancer mortality in the USA, Lancet, pp 1300-1302.Newell, DJ (1977) Fluoridation of water supplies and cancer - a possible association? Applied Statistics, pp 125-135.-- cneurath@AmericanHealthStudies.org

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Vice President of EPA Testifies Against Fluoridation

As mentioned in a previous posting" Who watches the Watchers" on this site, here is the link to the Senate testimony...


Vice President of EPA's Scientist Union Testifies Against Fluoridation
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574
The testimony of Dr. William Hirzy, Vice President of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Headquarters Union, before the US Senate on June 29, 2000.

For a copy of Dr. Hirzy's written testimony, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/testimony.htm

Friday, June 08, 2007

Cuppa, Anyone?

Cuppa, Anyone?

I must admit that it doesn’t surprise me that a procedure as obnoxious as adding chemical waste to the drinking water supply comes from the desks of coffee-gulping Americans!

If the idea had been dreamed up in the marketing agencies of the U.K., India or Ireland, it would never have gotten off the ground. Why? Simply because those societies are tea drinking cultures and drank very little coffee during the 50’s when this monstrous idea was first mooted by the higher echelons in the aluminium, steel and nuclear industries. So what, you ask?

Because the tea-drinking cultures would have realised that because of the high levels of drinking teas, many people were already imbibing more than the recommended levels of natural fluoride through their cuppas in the morning , afternoon and evening already!

In fact, your average cup of tea holds fluoride at the rate of 6mg per litre, with green teas clocking in at up to 12 mg of fluoride! (Corrected from a previous post that said 6mg per cup). The Tolerable Upper Intake Level is 10 milligrams of fluoride daily (it was set that high in order to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis later on in life - which you also actually risk at only 8mg per day). Then include all the other sources of fluoride that the average person intakes from nearly all processed foods and drinks manufactured in water fluoridated areas.

The RECOMMENDED intake by the pro-fluoride lobby is 4mg per day!

SO…If you use fluoridated tapwater at 1PPM (or 1 mg/L) to make your cuppa, then boil the water (usual procedure) – that concentrates the fluoride which can then more easily be retained in the body, binds itself with aluminium and lead (both frequent in our pipes, and Aluminium is also used as an agent to clear the turbidity out of tapwater) AND if you happen to have used an aluminium kettle or pan to boil that water ( as was common up until stainless steel became more popular) that added further massive concentrations of aluminium to your simple cuppa. What was a relaxing tannic brew had now become (without your knowing or being warned about it) a satanic chemical hodge-podge!!!

50% of fluoride intake is retained in the body by adults, and 80% by children. People with Alzheimer’s Disease have much higher levels of aluminium in their brains than normal. So when Granny who led a good life and only drank tea suddenly goes ga-ga, which more Grannies than ever are doing as the population ages, well, maybe we should look again at whether the reported 14% less cavities in fluoridated countries (as claimed by the fluoride lobby) is really worth the heartbreak of Alzheimer’s, osteoporosis, fluorosis, bone cancers, thyroid malfunctions, heart disease and all the other negative side-effects!
P.S. If anyone can supply the full text of the Mayo Clinic report below, it would be greatly appreciated…

Fluoride-Related Bone Disease Associated With Habitual Tea Consumption
JULIE E. HALLANGER JOHNSON, MD; ANN E. KEARNS, MD, PHD; PATRICK M. DORAN, MD; TECK KIM KHOO, MD; ROBERT A. WERMERS, MD
Individual reprints of this article are not available. Address correspondence to Robert A. Wermers, MD, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, and Nutrition, College of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First St SW, Rochester, MN 55905 (e-mail: wermers.robert@mayo.edu).
Acquired osteosclerosis is a rare disorder of bone formation but an important consideration in adults with sclerotic bones or elevated bone density results. In such patients, malignancy, hepatitis C, and fluorosis should all be considered when making a diagnosis. We describe 4 patients evaluated at our Metabolic Bone Disease Clinic from May 1, 1997, to July 1, 2006, whose bone disorders resulted from chronic fluoride exposure due to excessive tea intake. Three of these patients had toxic serum fluoride levels (>15 ╬╝mol/L). Although the clinical presentation of the patients varied, all 4 had an unexpectedly elevated spine bone mineral density that was proportionately higher than the bone mineral density at the hip. Other clinical features included gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, and weight loss; lower extremity pain sometimes associated with stress fractures of the lower extremities; renal insufficiency; and elevated alkaline phosphatase levels. Readily available, tea often contains high levels of fluoride. Obsessive-compulsive drinking behaviours and renal insufficiency may predispose to excessive fluoride consumption and accumulation. The current cases show that fluoride-related bone disease is an important clinical consideration in patients with dense bones or gastrointestinal symptoms and a history of excessive tea consumption. Furthermore, fluoride excess should be considered in all patients with a history of excessive tea consumption, especially due to its insidious nature and nonspecific clinical presentation.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(6):719-724

Monday, June 04, 2007

Did you happen to think that Robinson's Apple and Blackcurrant drink might be Harmless for your baby/kids? Err, think again!

Sodium Metabisulfite - the preservative used in this kiddies drink, along with the sweetener Aspartame (disguised as Phenylalanine, see post further below) !!!
From Wikipedia:
General
Other names
Sodium Pyrosulfite Sodium Disulfite
Molecular formula
Na2S2O5
Molar mass
190.1 g/mol
Appearance
white powder
CAS number
7681-57-4
Properties
Density and phase
1100 to 1200 kg/m³, solid
Solubility in water
65 g/100 ml (25 °C)
Melting point
>170 °C
Boiling point
Hazards
MSDS
External MSDS
EU classification


Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa)Infobox disclaimer and references

Structural formula of sodium metabisulfite
Sodium metabisulfite or sodium pyrosulfite (American spelling; English spelling is Sodium metabisulphite or sodium pyrosulphite) is an inorganic compound of chemical formula Na2S2O5. The name is sometimes referred to as disodium (metabisulfite, etc). It is used as a sterilizer and antioxidant/preservative.
Contents[hide]
1 Uses
1.1 Food additive
1.2 Sterilization / Cleaning agent
2 Packaging
3 Chemical properties
4 External links
//

[edit] Uses

[edit] Food additive
It is used as a food additive, mainly as a preservative and is sometimes identified as E223. As an additive, it may cause allergic reactions, particularly skin irritation, gastric irritation and asthma.


It is not recommended for consumption by children.

[edit] Sterilization / Cleaning agent
It is commonly used in homebrewing preparations to sanitize equipment. It is used as a cleaning agent for potable water reverse osmosis membranes in desalination systems. It is also used to remove chloramine from drinking water after treatment.

[edit] Packaging
It can be purchased in powdered form, and is also the primary ingredient in campden tablets. In solid form it ranges in color from white to slightly yellow.

[edit] Chemical properties
When mixed with water, sodium metabisulfite releases sulfur dioxide (SO2), a pungent, unpleasant smelling gas that can also cause breathing difficulties in some people. For this reason, sodium metabisulfite has fallen from common use in recent times, with agents such as hydrogen peroxide becoming more popular for effective and odorless sterlization of equipment.

How do you hide Aspartame in drinks? Just call it Phenylalanine!

Phenylalanine - Aspartame
Phenylalanine is a hidden danger to anyone consuming aspartame. Most consumers don't know that too much Phenylalanine is a neurotoxin and excites the neurons in the brain to the point of cellular death.
ADD/ADHD, emotional and behavioral disorders can all be triggered by too much Phenylalanine in the daily diet. If you are one in ten thousand people who are PKU or carry the PKU gene, Phenylalanine can cause irreversible brain damage and death, especially when used in high quantities or during pregnancy. Phenylalanine is 50% of aspartame, and to the degree humans consume diet products, Phenylalanine levels are reaching a dangerous peak.
It is important to learn about the ingredients within your foods, especially isolated amino acids like Phenylalanine. They are in combination within nature for a reason - they don't belong in isolated form for the healthy human diet.
Aspartame Information:
Aspartame Side Effects
Aspartame Case Histories
Artifical Sweeteners
Phenylalanine
Phenylketonuria
Aspartame Detoxifcation:
How to Detox
Read about SweetPoison

Phenylalanine - Aspartame
Nutrition fact about Phenylalanine in aspartame:
The 1976 Groliers encyclopedia states cancer cannot live without phenylalanine. Phenylalanine makes up 50% of aspartame.
Phenylalanine is one of the essential amino acids found in proteins, but I am one of the believers that amino acids should be eaten in combination, not in isolated form. Nature provides amino acids in combination; only man isolates them for processing purposes.
Phenylalanine is found naturally in foods such as eggs, milk, bananas, and meat. If you are PKU (Phenylketonuric) or sensitive to phenylalanine, you will react to the phenylalanine in aspartame. You may want to get a blood test to check for this condition. Over the past 20 years, humans have become more aware of PKU reactions because human beings began using isolated phenylalanine to the degree it is harmful to some individuals, many as aspartame side effects. My suggestion would be to research PKU and phenylalanine extensively. Phenylalanine can be very harmful to diabetics.
Read all food labels and avoid anything with isolated amino acids. You want to buy products with at least eight amino acids in combination.

Just a quick look at other beverages besides fluoridated water...

Caution: Some soft drinks may seriously harm your health

Expert links additive to cell damage
By Martin Hickman, Consumer Affairs Correspondent , The Independent
Published: 27 May 2007
A new health scare erupted over soft drinks last night amid evidence they may cause serious cell damage. Research from a British university suggests a common preservative found in drinks such as Fanta and Pepsi Max has the ability to switch off vital parts of DNA.
The problem - more usually associated with ageing and alcohol abuse - can eventually lead to cirrhosis of the liver and degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's.
The findings could have serious consequences for the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who consume fizzy drinks. They will also intensify the controversy about food additives, which have been linked to hyperactivity in children.
Concerns centre on the safety of E211, known as sodium benzoate, a preservative used for decades by the £74bn global carbonated drinks industry. Sodium benzoate derives from benzoic acid. It occurs naturally in berries, but is used in large quantities to prevent mould in soft drinks such as Sprite, Oasis and Dr Pepper. It is also added to pickles and sauces.
Sodium benzoate has already been the subject of concern about cancer because when mixed with the additive vitamin C in soft drinks, it causes benzene, a carcinogenic substance. A Food Standards Agency survey of benzene in drinks last year found high levels in four brands which were removed from sale.
Now, an expert in ageing at Sheffield University, who has been working on sodium benzoate since publishing a research paper in 1999, has decided to speak out about another danger. Professor Peter Piper, a professor of molecular biology and biotechnology, tested the impact of sodium benzoate on living yeast cells in his laboratory. What he found alarmed him: the benzoate was damaging an important area of DNA in the "power station" of cells known as the mitochondria.
He told The Independent on Sunday: "These chemicals have the ability to cause severe damage to DNA in the mitochondria to the point that they totally inactivate it: they knock it out altogether.
"The mitochondria consumes the oxygen to give you energy and if you damage it - as happens in a number if diseased states - then the cell starts to malfunction very seriously. And there is a whole array of diseases that are now being tied to damage to this DNA - Parkinson's and quite a lot of neuro-degenerative diseases, but above all the whole process of ageing."
The Food Standards Agency (FSA) backs the use of sodium benzoate in the UK and it has been approved by the European Union but last night, MPs called for it to investigate urgently.
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat chair of Parliament's all-party environment group said: "Many additives are relatively new and their long-term impact cannot be certain. This preservative clearly needs to be investigated further by the FSA."
A review of sodium benzoate by the World Health Organisation in 2000 concluded that it was safe, but it noted that the available science supporting its safety was "limited".
Professor Piper, whose work has been funded by a government research council, said tests conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration were out of date.
"The food industry will say these compounds have been tested and they are complete safe," he said. "By the criteria of modern safety testing, the safety tests were inadequate. Like all things, safety testing moves forward and you can conduct a much more rigorous safety test than you could 50 years ago."
He advised parents to think carefully about buying drinks with preservatives until the quantities in products were proved safe by new tests. "My concern is for children who are drinking large amounts," he said.
Coca-Cola and Britvic's Pepsi Max and Diet Pepsi all contain sodium benzoate. Their makers and the British Soft Drinks Association said they entrusted the safety of additives to the Government.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Now Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease!


Scientists report a link between dental fluorosis and periodontal disease in the June 2007 Indian Journal of Dental Research. (1) Dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown stained and/or pitted teeth - is a visual manifestation of fluoride overdose during childhood. Dental fluorosis afflicts from 1/3 to 1/2 of U.S. schoolchildren (and 40% of Irish schoolchildren), according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. (2) Inhabitants of the Davangere district of India were studied where natural water fluoride levels ranged from 1.5 to 3.0 parts-per-million (ppm) which is similar to fluoride levels allowed in U.S. water supplies (up to 4 ppm). The sample consisted of 1,029 subjects between 15- and 74-years-old. As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased. "The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas," write Vandana and Reddy. "Surprisingly, studies have not paid attention to the periodontal status in high-fluoride areas from a research perspective," the authors write. "In addition to inflammatory process, which remains common to high- and low-fluoride areas, the fluorosis-induced changes in hard and soft tissues of periodontium requires … attention to suspect fluoride as an etiological (environmental) agent for periodontal disease," the authors conclude. Two thirds of U.S. public water suppliers ( and 100% of Irish public water supplies ) purposely add fluoride chemicals (silicofluorides) in an attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.
Some U.S. communities have natural fluoride levels up to 4 ppm.. "How much longer do the American ( AND IRISH!)people have to be the guinea pigs in the U.S.'s fluoridation experiment," asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. The National Research Council advises more studies are required on fluoride's effects on reasoning ability, endocrine functions, the immune deficient, fertility, gastric response, bladder cancer, kidney and liver enzyme functions and more. (3) Studies already link fluoride to cancer, genetic defects, IQ deficits, thyroid dysfunction, kidney, tooth and bone damage. (3a) But government officials want even more studies before they condemn fluoridation. "Who will decide when fluoride's mounting risks outweigh its questionable benefits. The individual or the government?" asks Beeber. "Fluoridation leaves it in the hands of the government." "Fluoridation chemicals are in short supply these days," (5) says Beeber, "This would be a good time to gracefully bow out of water fluoridation." New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71584

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Fluoridation Doing More Harm Than Good, Studies Show

Article Date: 12 May 2007 - 1:00 PDT
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=70558'

Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1) Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studies published from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention…"They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth. Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans. Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found. "Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water… [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas… Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write. Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over-fluoridated, not under-fluoridated." "There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber. Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "…after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's group. "In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report. To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water. "Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber.
-- www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, IncPO Box 263Old Bethpage, NY 11804www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof http://www.fluorideaction.net/

Friday, May 11, 2007

Fluoride Shortage in U.S.

Fluoride shortages abound throughout US

Friday, May 11, 2007

EVANSVILLE, INDIANA — A fluoride shortage has been reported in this city as well as other cities in the Midwest and along the East Coast, a May 11 Courier Press story reported.
In Evansville, fluoride has not been added to the water since last February, and the company that runs the city's treatment plant has not been able to get more.
The water quality manager for American Water Enterprises at Evansville, Mary Armacost, said the shortage is due to damages caused by Hurricane Katrina at fluoride processing facilities, according to the State Board of Health.
Armacost said in the story that everyone is facing the same problem, and the company has looked to many other vendors without luck. She said suppliers are no longer saying when supplies will be back to normal.
Another cause of the shortage is due to a slump in the phosphate mining industry.
Early this year, distributors in Florida were quoted as saying that fluoride had been in short supply for 18 months following the closing of one of the state's major mining companies and a production problem at another, as reported by WaterTech Online™.
The Florida distributors had also said the cost of the compound was skyrocketing due to demand and the fact that there weren't a lot of companies to produce it. A number of Florida water systems were forced to cease fluoridation earlier this year at least temporarily, due to the shortage.

Don't they realise that the fluoridation was really only for the convenience of industry anyway! If they don't produce it there is no need to dispose of the toxic waste in the public water supply. They should thank their lucky stars!

The Irish " Expert Body of Dentists" and Their Hypocrisy.

Dear Sir,
To pretend that the hydrofluorosilicic acid added to public water supplies is a common naturally occurring element is highly misleading and erroneous. It is in fact a hodge-podge of chemicals, a waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry! We are expected to believe the standard mantra repeated ad nauseam by the pro-fluoride lobby that 40, 50 or 60, (take your pick) years of fluoridation have proven it safe and efficacious. Why should we believe that? Well, let's have a look at some of that 50 years research, will we? York University (UK) had a review in 1999-2000 to assess the merits or otherwise of fluoridation. The Report was commissioned by the UK government who wanted to lay the anti-fluoride lobby's arguments to rest once and for all so that they could bring fluoridation into the UK en masse. The report looked at all the fluoride literature worldwide since the inception of fluoridation. Unfortunately for them and for the whole fluoride lobby, they found the following, and I quote: "We were UNABLE to discover ANY reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found SUGGESTED that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, BUT that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight DISBENEFIT to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the EXPENSE of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was POOR." My emphasis. OK, so the pro-fluoride evidence over 50 years was POOR. So we will discount it because an expert and independent and comprehensive university / government report has said so. What about since 2000? York say that up until October 2003 they still had not received any convincing research to change their minds. Nothing that I am aware of has come out in fluoride's defence since! http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm for what the York Report REALLY said!

The WHO support which Dr O'Hickey regularly quotes was based on "over 100 studies of fluoride over 50 years". These reports and studies have been minutely examined by Philip Sutton and published in Chemical & Engineering News in 1988,and have been PROVEN to be highly suspect: No controls, no allowance for bias, 34 didnt exist, 2 studies with data from more than 1 town were listed as 6, 7 case reports in different years from the same study were listed as 14, 20 were about something else, 51 were of poor scientific quality, 4 could not be verified and the last 19 were from fluoridated countries and did not show in a scientific manner that fluoridation was efficacious! Moreover, the WHO has always stated that "the TOTAL fluoride intake of the individual MUST ALWAYS be taken into account BEFORE adding more"! Just for a start, this nation has always had tea as its main beverage, unlike the US coffee culture, and the fact that tea already contains between 6-8mg/L of naturally occurring fluoride seems to have passed all the fluoride pushers by! Ireland is SIXTH in the European caries league BEHIND non-fluoridating countries and all countries have shown a similar caries reduction curve over the last 40 years - even without fluoridation!

Please send me any links to recent health research that shows the efficacy of dumping toxic waste into our drinking water, I would love to see it. On the other hand, the last 30 years have shown major links to damage of the health of fluoridated people. How many cavities avoided justify the death through osteosarcoma of a young boy? How many suffer from hypothyroidism, kidney trouble, broken hips, Alzheimer's Disease, fluorosis, brittle bones and general illness due to the attack hydrofluorosilicic acid and its attendant chemicals (including mercury, lead, arsenic, chromium, phosphate) wreak on the human immune system all because someone CLAIMS this helps kids teeth? There has NEVER been a long-term health survey on a fluoridated population ANYWHERE! Rather strange, isn't that?

Caries have reduced world wide over the past 30 years and faster in some non-fluoridated countries than in fluoridated ones. So where is the PROOF that these pro-fluoride people offer? I am sick and tired of hearing the generalisations based on old and discredited "research". Wasn't it only in the 70's that the lawyers, scientists and experts who worked for the tobacco companies claimed: There is your proof that smoking does not damage ones health or cause cancer - BECAUSE two or three hundred years of smoking proves it!!! Sounds like the same argument that the fluoride lobby are trying to pass off on us. Fluoride can't hurt us BECAUSE it hasn't shown up major health problems yet! As has been said - if you don't look for it, you won't find it! People should research the issue and make themselves aware of what may turn out to be a major health calamity in the (near) future. Fluoride attacks iodine and magnesium in the body, absolutely vital nutrients, along with enzymes, the body's neuro transmitters. Give me the word of a trained toxicologist(the major discipline which was NOT represented on the Irish "Expert Body of Dentists" researches)above that of a mere dentist, who has NO overview of the whole body, any day!

In the end, decisions that have long ranging implications on health should only be made when considering ALL the evidence gathered over a period of time and not just the same tired and discredited fluoride mantra that Dr. O'Hickey repeats ad nauseam. When will Dr O'Hickey admit that HE makes a lot of money by "pushing" fluoride to countries such as South Africa, and indeed , acting as a consultant to the WHO along with Prof. O'Mullane, also on the "Expert Body of Dentists"? He has a hypocritical nerve to regularly accuse anyone in the anti-fluoride lobby of making money from the fluoride debate, as he does so himself! EUES Ireland

Thursday, May 10, 2007

There's Both Eatin' and Drinkin' In It!

Although a FAN (Fluoride Action Network) fan, I think it would be beneficial to let people know that water fluoridation is not the only type of mass medication being practiced by some governments and that salt fluoridation now affects even more people than water fluoridation does! The following article is from the Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC) Canadian website in response to a FAN article, which you can link to at the end of this posting. Fluoride for food - food for thought.

June 15, 2003
FAN’s “Swiss Cheese”
In the past few weeks we have received a flurry of mails, mainly from Europe and Canada, about the situation in Basel, Switzerland and the reports which have been circulated by the anti-fluoridation movement on this issue. It has become obvious that many anti-fluoridation campaigners are and have been misinformed.
Of particular concern to most were several bulletins by the International Fluoride Information Network (IFIN) and the present lead article on the newly revamped website by FAN, the global Fluoride Action Network. FAN distributes the IFIN bulletins, which are usually authored by Prof. Paul Connett, to other anti-fluoridation activists worldwide.
Please be informed that the lead item on the FAN website site entitled "Basel Switzerland Votes to Stop Water Fluoridation" (1) is very inaccurate, highly misleading, and has “as many holes as Swiss Cheese”.
Background
The FAN article refers to a report by the Commission on Health and Social Issues (GSK) which led to the cessation of water fluoridation in Basel. The report was written on Feb. 26, 2003 and passed on to the Great Council on March 19, 2003. The Council voted upon the matter on April 9th, 2003. The original GSK report has been placed on-line by the GSK (2) as well as the PFPC (3).
Unfortunately, throughout the FAN article key points of the GSK report are mis-represented.
A few examples:
[1] FAN:
"In March, the GSK presented their advice to end water fluoridation in a ten page report delivered to Parliament. The two main reasons supporting their recommendation were:
COMMENT: First of all, there were THREE main reasons given by the GSK, not two. They are listed further below. But for now, let's go to the next item, allegedly reason #1:
[2] FAN:
1) Lack of evidence that water fluoridation is more effective than other, less intrusive, means of reducing tooth decay.
As noted in GSK's report:
"No study or investigation can belay clearly that water fluoridation obtains better results as a measure to reduce tooth decay than other uses of fluoride."
COMMENT: Not only is this matter not reason "1)", but the GSK report does NOT say this. The sentence above shows up under reason #3:
"No study or investigation can show plainly and clearly that water fluoridation as a measure to protect against caries can achieve better results than other measures of BASE-FLUORIDATION."
This is a VERY important difference.
Base-fluoridation ("Basisfluoridierung") describes fluoride which is taken up by the masses via the oral/intestinal tract (systemic), while "Individualfluoridierung" (individual fluoridation) means local applications via toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, etc. Another associated term encountered in the document is the word "fl├Ąchendeckend" which means area-covering, i.e. both water fluoridation and salt fluoridation cover large population areas, thus are described as "area-covering". This is a very important aspect if we are to discuss "forced medication", but more on this later.
The fact is: what water fluoridation is being specifically compared to here is SALT fluoridation - another form of systemic fluoride intake by the masses and which is in place in virtually all of Switzerland, the first country to sell fluoridated salt in 1955, and where 85% of the population uses fluoridated salt. This aspect is clearly described in the GSK report [Point 4, Page 5].
It is hard to understand how this could have been misinterpreted as FAN’s own postings of newsarticles report on the fluoride-salt “ersatz” (4). It is further very hard to understand how an organization campaigning against systemic fluoride intake can show such ignorance.
Newspaper articles had been circulating on the Internet on this issue since March 20th, specifying the GSK position and its “political” motive - a day after the report was handed to the Great Council (i.e. Tagesblatt Bern, March 20, 2003).
[3] FAN:
"In 1999, the GSK had asked public dental clinics to investigate whether Basel had a lower rate of tooth decay than 'areas or cities with similar population structures, such as Zurich or St. Gall'. Four years later, these investigations had yet to be conducted, or if they were, the results were never presented."
COMMENT: The GSK did not ask such thing and should never be quoted as such, really. What the GSK DID ask for were studies which investigated if fluoride in water was any better than fluoride in salt, both being examples of "base- fluoridation" (Feb, 1999). Zurich and St. Gallen are BOTH fluoridated salt areas with "similar population structures", and were therefore proposed. (There are 11 unique ethnic communities). Zurich has used fluoridated salt since 1955.
NOTE: Numerous cantons in Switzerland fluoridate all salt destined for human consumption, thus fluoride is taken in from all processed foods, bakery products, in restaurants, cafeterias, canteens, etc. - in short, any food item with salt. In those areas, the daily intake of bread alone may already provide more than 1.2 mg per day of fluoride - per person (5). Such measures certainly are “forced mass-medication”, and worse than any water fluoridation, as now all foods made with such salt contain much more fluoride.
[4] FAN:
Adding to these doubts were recent findings showing that tooth decay had risen in Basel's children since 1996, coupled with an absence of any evidence showing Basel to have a lower rate of tooth decay than other Swiss cities (most of which have very low rates of tooth decay).
COMMENT:
This is also an incorrect and misleading statement. Again the impression is created that “other Swiss cities” are “un-fluoridated”, which is entirely untrue, as discussed above. It is further untrue that most other Swiss cities have very low rates of tooth decay.
The GSK reports on the position statement given by the Director of Public Dental Clinics, who said that caries had become clearly worse between 1996 and 2001 in Basel. Especially for seven-year-olds caries occurrence had actually doubled. The GSK report states this with special emphasis ("Verdopplung!"). However, a similar situation exists in Zurich, and a similar increase is seen in this age group. From the year 1992 to 2000, caries prevalence in 7-year-olds increased by 64% in Zurich (6). (Please note that nowhere in Switzerland can there be any “fluoride deficiency”. There are extensive school-brushing programs with fluoride toothpaste, almost all people use fluoride toothpastes (w/ organic fluoride compounds), fluoridated salt is used by 85 % of the population - yet there is such an alarming increase in caries?
[5] FAN:
According to extensive data collected by the World Health Organization and various national/regional surveys, unfluoridated countries in western Europe have experienced - without exception - the same general decline in tooth decay over the past 30 to 50 years, as that experienced in the US. As a result, children today in unfluoridated countries such as Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden have as low - or even lower - levels of tooth decay as US children.
This is sheer nonsense and it boggles the mind how anyone can speak of “unfluoridated countries” here, or even attempt to compare caries rates without any apparent knowledge on fluoride exposure and intake in these countries.
If the Netherlands are “unfluoridated” - how come Dutch public health officials in 1988 calculated total daily fluoride intake to be up to 6.0 mg of fluoride? Food was estimated to be the source of 80-85% of fluoride intake; intake from drinking-water was 0.03-0.68 mg/day and from toothpaste 0.2-0.3 mg (7). “For children, total intake via food and water is decreased because of lower consumption. Intake of food and water relative to body weight is higher, however, and is further increased by the swallowing of toothpaste or fluoride tablets (up to 3.5 mg of fluoride per day)” (8).
NOTE: For comparison - in 1991 the US PHS estimated daily fluoride intake of adults in “optimally” fluoridated areas of the US to be up to 6.6 mg/day (9).
In Germany, fluoridated salt has within a few years grabbed the major share of the market, driven by a PR campaign initiated by salt producers (13). Dentists have been lobbying to have regulations lifted to allow bakeries and large kitchens to use fluoridated salt. Test case has been the kitchen at the University of Heidelberg which has used fluoridated salt in its foods since 1999.
FAN has a special page alerting to “other sources of fluoride intake” (10). However, fluoridated salt is not mentioned at all.
THE GSK's THREE REASONS
1) No reason for Basel to be the "lone island" in Switzerland. As around Basel other methods of caries prophylaxis are in existence, and no unique benefit of fluoridated water could be identified, the GSK felt this "lone island" approach of water fluoridation was not justified. The GSK rejected the idea to “half the fluoridation” (fluoridate at 0.5 ppm), as had been proposed by Peter H. Miehl, the Director of the Public Dental Clinics. [It is noted in the report that fluoridated salt is available in Basel as well, posing another problem commonly described in the literature as “overlap”. Earlier there had been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" with distributors "sacrificing" sales, but now fluoridated salt was once again widely available.]
2) The second reason was that fluoridated water has a "Streuverlust" (scatterloss), meaning it is being scattered, not used for drinking or cooking, but ends up being wasted. The report states: "with fluoridated food salt, as is used in the rest of Switzerland for base-fluoridation, this scatter-loss and with it the unnecessary burden on the environment would be considerably less."
3) Here it is stated that the "island solution" as well as "scatterloss" could only be justified if there were no other alternative and comparable means to base-fluoridate available. It is here where it is stated that no study exists which can show that fluoridated water is better than other means of base-fluoridation - meaning fluoridated salt - NOT "other uses of fluoride" or “less intrusive measures”, as stated by FAN. It is here that the report also addresses the question of "personal freedom" and "forced medication" imposed upon by water fluoridation. This has been a political item since 1990 when a Basel couple sued because fluoride-free water was not available and the case made it to Supreme Court (Bundesgericht)[see Point 2, page 4 ].
SO - the GSK recommended to stop water fluoridation, and to use fluoridated salt instead. Has the government stopped “fluoridation”? No, it will chose another medium to fluoridate the people. The GSK report further states that the transition from fluoridated water to fluoridated salt should be accompanied by a one-time info-campaign, and that this could be done when water bills were being sent out by the IWB (Industrial Works Basel).
Please also note that elsewhere in the report [Point 6, page 7] it is stated that the IWB cannot sell its water to other cantons or countries because of the fluoride content. The GSK claims that it has not concerned itself with this aspect of the "Politikum of TWA" (fluoridated drinking water). One can see this point also stressed in the submission by Ziegelbecker from the day before the report was made (11).
The report further states that no longer fluoridating the water of Basel will save 200,000 francs a year. Fluoridated salt has no costs what-so-ever to the state.
NOTE:This fact is very advantageous for dental public health officials everywhere who, long aware of the political implications in water fluoridation, now quietly go about starting massive fluoridated salt programs. More on this below.
Fluoridated salt is no more expensive than other salt, and is actually sold under a slight subsidy, making its selling price just a bit lower than other salt (Yewe-Dyer, 2002). The "poor" family - which really doesn’t exist in Switzerland where 99% of the population is literate and the average income is above US $28,000 a year - will go for fluoride salt, the cheaper salt. Marketing is aggressive and has been very successful, aided greatly by salt producers - as in many other countries. Now even common recipes call specifically for fluoridated salt (12).
98% fluoridation- free?
Often encountered on FAN’s website is the statement that 98% of Europe is “unfluoridated”. Anyone who knows about the global drive to fluoridate salt supplies knows how wrong such a statement really is. “Fuzzy Math”? Perhaps one day soon FAN will wake up and take its mandate to “minimize fluoride exposure” seriously and actually pay a bit of attention to the remaining 98% NOT affected by water fluoridation programs, but other means of “base-fluoridation” and “mass-medication” programs?
While it was estimated in the 1990s that worldwide 230 million people received artificially fluoridated water (13), the number of people now affected by fluoridated salt programs greatly exceeds those affected by water fluoridation. 350 million people were added in 1996 alone when the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) launched a massive salt fluoridation program in Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela (14).
The project was part of a multi-year plan launched by PAHO in 1994 to “fluoridate the entire Region of the Americas”. The project was funded - once again - by a multi-year deal grant from Kellogg’s (15).
Since then many other countries have been added and many more are currently in the process. In Jamaica, Costa Rica and Columbia all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated (“universal” salt fluoridation).
Forced Medication?
Just like in water fluoridation - where it was presumed that people would drink 4 glasses of water every day and thus take in the “optimal” intake of 1 mg of fluoride/per day - salt was fluoridated at 250 ppm. Here it was presumed that “individual application” (meaning use of the salt shaker at the table - the “sprinkling over food”) would contribute 1 to 4 g of the daily total salt intake, thus a person would take in 1 mg of fluoride a day at 4 grams a day - the “optimal” dose of fluoride intake to “protect against caries”.
How dentists ever convinced public health policy makers that the same salt (also called “cooking salt”) wasn’t also used for all cooking, including breadmaking, soups, etc. is anyone’s guess.
Fluoridated salt - which also has plenty of contaminants (16) - has one quality much worse than fluoridated water: an individual's preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of salt you use today might not be enough for you a month from now when you will be adding a little bit more! Salt consumption has shot through the roof, and worldwide efforts are underway to reduce overall salt intake to 5 g/day. In Costa Rica - just as one example - all salt is fluoridated at 250 ppm and people consume on average 10 g of salt per day, ensuring a daily fluoride intake of 2.5 mg/day from this source alone.
“Fluoride-free by 2003”?
Not this way.
Bob Johannsen, Rainer Neuhaus & Andreas Schuld
Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (PFPC)Vancouver, BC, Canada
PFPC Website: http://www.bruha.com/pfpc
E-mail: pfpccanada@shaw.ca

To read FAN’s updated article see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/basel.htm