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
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
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
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.
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/
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
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
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 μmol/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
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 μmol/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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)