Fluoride guinea pig fears
UNSURPRISINGLY Mrs Darnell (Daily Echo, 15 August) fears that fluoride deals have been done to a prearranged plan and that we are about to be made guinea pigs for its effects.
Without doubt, many think the same. It is especially disturbing since the guinea piggery has already been done in those areas which have had fluoride forced upon them for the last half-century - whose residents ought to be pressing for consideration of their own concerns and demanding the cessation of this tampering with their most vital of all supplies.
In 2000 the BMA Complete Family Health Guide claimed: 'where fluoride is added to the water to reduce tooth decay, the concentration is too low to cause fluorosis'.
That same year, the York Review identified a significant incidence of fluorosis in fluoridated areas. In 2003 the Department of Health, in its official reassurance to the public, stated that fluorosis 'may be aesthetically unacceptable but can be removed by routine dental treatment'.
That information was modified in later pronouncements, curiously omitting to mention that the treatment is costly and not available on the National Health.
Odd that the Health Service is happy to cause the problem, but not to rectify it. This year the DH resorts to the barefaced lie that fluoridation is 'without any ill effects'.
How dare the Government authorise, the health service promote, and the water industry comply with, the addition of a
chemical known to cause dental discoloration. How dare they count as trivial this indication that other effects on the body need to be investigated thoroughly. How dare they dismiss the visible effects as 'merely cosmetic', and pretend that it is of no importance. G PAYNE, Southampton
31 Aug 2011
30 Aug 2011
HAF Notice of meetings
Sept 2011A public talk and question time with one of the world’s leading experts on fluoridation Professor Paul Connett PhD Director of the Fluoride Action Network Emeritus Professor of Chemistry St Lawrence University, New York Saturday 10th September 2.30 - 4.30pm at the Solent University Conference Centre Above Bar St, Southampton. Please print, deliver and display where ever you can as we need as many people to attend as possible.
On the following Wednesday 14th September we again need as many people as possible to attend a Public Demonstration at the Southampton City Council Meeting.
Assemble 1pm in Guildhall Square and then attend the Council meeting in the Guildhall at 2pm.
HAF will be presenting the petition calling for the Council to withdraw its endorsement of water fluoridation
On the following Wednesday 14th September we again need as many people as possible to attend a Public Demonstration at the Southampton City Council Meeting.
Assemble 1pm in Guildhall Square and then attend the Council meeting in the Guildhall at 2pm.
HAF will be presenting the petition calling for the Council to withdraw its endorsement of water fluoridation
29 Aug 2011
Some fruit drinks have no fruit in them
Fruit drinks marketed with tall claims of providing hydration to children contain as little as 5 per cent fruit, while some others have none at all, health experts have claimed.
And to make matters worse, many are loaded with added sugar.
The experts found Ribena squash promotes its vitamin C content without making clear that 90 per cent of the vitamin content is artificially added to the drink because it contains such a small amount of fruit juice.
..........The report, called Soft Drinks, Hard Sell, comes after the soft drinks industry reported its highest growth rate in seven years in 2010, with UK consumption reaching 14.6billion litres annually.
"Our survey found some truly misleading marketing blatantly used to drive sales and increase children's soft drinks consumption, which contributes to tooth decay and the UK's record rates of childhood obesity," the Daily Mail quoted The Children's Food Campaign's Clare Panjwani, who wrote the report, as saying.
And to make matters worse, many are loaded with added sugar.
The experts found Ribena squash promotes its vitamin C content without making clear that 90 per cent of the vitamin content is artificially added to the drink because it contains such a small amount of fruit juice.
..........The report, called Soft Drinks, Hard Sell, comes after the soft drinks industry reported its highest growth rate in seven years in 2010, with UK consumption reaching 14.6billion litres annually.
"Our survey found some truly misleading marketing blatantly used to drive sales and increase children's soft drinks consumption, which contributes to tooth decay and the UK's record rates of childhood obesity," the Daily Mail quoted The Children's Food Campaign's Clare Panjwani, who wrote the report, as saying.
27 Aug 2011
Daily Echo - Letter - Telling the tooth about fluoride paint
Telling the tooth about fluoride paint
THE Daily Telegraph reported on August 19 that the number of children having fluoride painted on their teeth has risen by 55 per cent in a year. NHS dentists carried this out on 850,000 children in England.
It is less controversial than putting fluoride into the water supply and is targeted at individuals instead of forcing everyone to drink it in tap water. Fluoride applied to teeth is effective, unlike drinking fluoridated water. Ian
Packington, Science Adviser of the National Pure Water Association (who is highly qualified) writes that fluoride varnishes do work if they are applied correctly and reapplied as necessary. They prevent decay in molar fissures, etc, before a filling becomes necessary. Once the fluoride varnish has dried, it is effectively 'sealed in' and fluoride leakage into the saliva and into the body of the child is limited and acceptable.
This is very different to drinking water fluoridation in the UK which uses impure fluoride -hexafluorosilicic acid - from the scrubbings of phosphate fertiliser factories.
This is deliberately tipped into public water supplies of people of all ages - who have not given their informed consent.
Ian writes that researcher Dr. Robert Weaver showed clearly that drinking naturally fluoridated water does not reduce tooth decay, in his comparisons between South Shields (1.25 ppm) & North Shields/Tyneside (0.25 ppm.)
A WILLS, address supplied.
I AM writing to complain about fluoride being introduced into the water.
I like many others do not want it added to our water supply. If they do I will have a solicitor waiting to sue the council for ignoring my human rights.
Why don't they supply schoolchildren with sweets or chewing gum that have fluoride added?
I do not need it for my teeth and I certainly do not want it entering my body in any shape or form.
So beware, I will sue if you go ahead with this.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
THE Daily Telegraph reported on August 19 that the number of children having fluoride painted on their teeth has risen by 55 per cent in a year. NHS dentists carried this out on 850,000 children in England.
It is less controversial than putting fluoride into the water supply and is targeted at individuals instead of forcing everyone to drink it in tap water. Fluoride applied to teeth is effective, unlike drinking fluoridated water. Ian
Packington, Science Adviser of the National Pure Water Association (who is highly qualified) writes that fluoride varnishes do work if they are applied correctly and reapplied as necessary. They prevent decay in molar fissures, etc, before a filling becomes necessary. Once the fluoride varnish has dried, it is effectively 'sealed in' and fluoride leakage into the saliva and into the body of the child is limited and acceptable.
This is very different to drinking water fluoridation in the UK which uses impure fluoride -hexafluorosilicic acid - from the scrubbings of phosphate fertiliser factories.
This is deliberately tipped into public water supplies of people of all ages - who have not given their informed consent.
Ian writes that researcher Dr. Robert Weaver showed clearly that drinking naturally fluoridated water does not reduce tooth decay, in his comparisons between South Shields (1.25 ppm) & North Shields/Tyneside (0.25 ppm.)
A WILLS, address supplied.
I AM writing to complain about fluoride being introduced into the water.
I like many others do not want it added to our water supply. If they do I will have a solicitor waiting to sue the council for ignoring my human rights.
Why don't they supply schoolchildren with sweets or chewing gum that have fluoride added?
I do not need it for my teeth and I certainly do not want it entering my body in any shape or form.
So beware, I will sue if you go ahead with this.
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
26 Aug 2011
Echo letter
Not a voting subject
WHILE I welcome Mr Willotts' comments (Letters, August 17) on putting fluoride in the water, I would point out that by asking for a referendum he is effectively saying that whatever the majority want they can have.
While this sort of vote is useful with other things of community concern, where the issue is of mass medication without consent I take issue with it. Admittedly the 'anti' side would almost definitely win - that is obvious by the number of letters appearing in the Echo - it is still, nonetheless, asking other people to decide on whether you take medication or not and should, therefore, not be the subject of a referendum. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
WHILE I welcome Mr Willotts' comments (Letters, August 17) on putting fluoride in the water, I would point out that by asking for a referendum he is effectively saying that whatever the majority want they can have.
While this sort of vote is useful with other things of community concern, where the issue is of mass medication without consent I take issue with it. Admittedly the 'anti' side would almost definitely win - that is obvious by the number of letters appearing in the Echo - it is still, nonetheless, asking other people to decide on whether you take medication or not and should, therefore, not be the subject of a referendum. NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED.
Kentucky is fluoridated - $1.2 million program to help 25,000 kids in E. Ky. fight tooth decay
$1.2 million program to help 25,000 kids in E. Ky. fight tooth decay
By Beth Musgrave
About 25,000 school children in 16 Eastern Kentucky counties will receive a free fluoride tooth-varnish treatment this school year in an effort to improve the region's high rate of child tooth decay.
A $1 million grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission will pay for most of the program, which will provide the fluoride varnish treatment to children in first through fifth grades in selected schools in Bell, Breathitt, Clay, Elliott, Floyd, Harlan, Jackson, Knott, Knox, Lee, Magoffin, Menifee, Owsley, Perry, Russell and Wolfe counties. The state will pay about $250,000 for the program.
Gov. Steve Beshear, speaking at a news conference at the University of Kentucky Dental School, said the program is the latest effort of an initiative he created in 2009 called Healthy Smiles Kentucky.
"We know that children learn best when they are healthy," Beshear said. "We also know that dental health is a key component of overall health."
In 2001, research showed that half of Kentucky's children had decay in their primary teeth and that nearly half of children ages 2, 3 and 4 had untreated dental problems...
Kentucky is fluoridated
By Beth Musgrave
About 25,000 school children in 16 Eastern Kentucky counties will receive a free fluoride tooth-varnish treatment this school year in an effort to improve the region's high rate of child tooth decay.
A $1 million grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission will pay for most of the program, which will provide the fluoride varnish treatment to children in first through fifth grades in selected schools in Bell, Breathitt, Clay, Elliott, Floyd, Harlan, Jackson, Knott, Knox, Lee, Magoffin, Menifee, Owsley, Perry, Russell and Wolfe counties. The state will pay about $250,000 for the program.
Gov. Steve Beshear, speaking at a news conference at the University of Kentucky Dental School, said the program is the latest effort of an initiative he created in 2009 called Healthy Smiles Kentucky.
"We know that children learn best when they are healthy," Beshear said. "We also know that dental health is a key component of overall health."
In 2001, research showed that half of Kentucky's children had decay in their primary teeth and that nearly half of children ages 2, 3 and 4 had untreated dental problems...
Kentucky is fluoridated
USA - 14 Conspiracy Theories That the Media Now Admits Are Conspiracy Facts
14 Conspiracy Theories That the Media Now Admits Are Conspiracy Facts
End of the American Dream
#7 Fluoride Is Harmful
Incredibly, the federal government is finally admitting that high levels of fluoride in our drinking water can be harmful. In fact, the feds have reduced the "recommended amount" of fluoride in our drinking water for the first time in 50 years.
We probably won't see them ban fluoride any time soon, but for them to even acknowledge a problem with fluoride is a major step. In a recent article on CNN, it was reported that the federal government is now saying that high levels of fluoride in the water have now officially been linked with fluorosis....
The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis – a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children's teeth.
End of the American Dream
#7 Fluoride Is Harmful
Incredibly, the federal government is finally admitting that high levels of fluoride in our drinking water can be harmful. In fact, the feds have reduced the "recommended amount" of fluoride in our drinking water for the first time in 50 years.
We probably won't see them ban fluoride any time soon, but for them to even acknowledge a problem with fluoride is a major step. In a recent article on CNN, it was reported that the federal government is now saying that high levels of fluoride in the water have now officially been linked with fluorosis....
The Department of Health and Human Services and Environmental Protection Agency are proposing the change because of an increase in fluorosis – a condition that causes spotting and streaking on children's teeth.
25 Aug 2011
Parental advice on limiting children's sugar
Parental advice on limiting children's sugar
Children will only ever develop a 'sweet tooth' on the basis of what their mum and dad have given them as treats, according to parental advice from the British Dental Health Foundation.
Dr Nigel Carter, chief executive of the charity, advised: "If your child has a drink in between meals, it is best to give them water or milk instead of sugary or acidic drinks, which can cause decay."
"If you are going to give them sugary drinks, such as squash, ensure it is diluted 10:1 parts," he added.
Offering further parental advice, Dr Carter said that savoury foods, such as cheese, are a better way of rewarding good behaviour, as they will not cause tooth decay like sugary treats..............
Children will only ever develop a 'sweet tooth' on the basis of what their mum and dad have given them as treats, according to parental advice from the British Dental Health Foundation.
Dr Nigel Carter, chief executive of the charity, advised: "If your child has a drink in between meals, it is best to give them water or milk instead of sugary or acidic drinks, which can cause decay."
"If you are going to give them sugary drinks, such as squash, ensure it is diluted 10:1 parts," he added.
Offering further parental advice, Dr Carter said that savoury foods, such as cheese, are a better way of rewarding good behaviour, as they will not cause tooth decay like sugary treats..............
24 Aug 2011
22 Aug 2011
USA - In fluoridated Georgia
In fluoridated Georgia (Atlanta & Woodstock) 4,000 people show up to get dental care - extractions, root canals, fillings, etc. Americans continue to be dentist-deficient and fluoride overdosed:NYSCOFmsnbc.com Video Player
Pediatricians advise parents of young children that they should manage cavity prevention as they would battle any chronic illness
ABCDisease
By Neena Santija
....While cavities are on the decline in the general population, they are a fact of life for increasing numbers of young children, according to the Centers for Disease Control. They affect 10 percent of 2-year-olds and over half of 5-year-olds, causing everything from minor toothaches to missed school days to complications that require major surgery. But dentists say few people realize that cavities are symptoms of dental caries, the most common chronic disease in children today, according to the CDC.
Caries is caused by a transmissible bacteria that produces acids in the mouth when we eat anything with carbohydrates, including sugary or starchy foods. Those acids dissolve the teeth, and without good oral health practices, they can lead to tooth decay - cavities. But cavities are preventable if the underlying caries is managed.
“Because it’s chronic, and because it’s a condition that is caused by bacteria, you can actually, as a patient, stop the disease process if you know what to do,’’ said Dr. Man Wai Ng, a pediatric dentist at Children’s Hospital Boston. “And you can actually prevent it from starting.’’
Ali and Jeannette Wicks-Lim weren’t aware of that when they brought their toddler, Mason, to the dentist for the first time after noticing signs of decay on one of his upper teeth. “I think it had almost started to look chipped,’’ Ali Wicks-Lim said.
They were shocked to find he had eight cavities. They never gave him candy or soda, and they brushed his teeth twice a day....
Mason may not have been eating sugary snacks, but he was eating crackers throughout the day. Because he wasn’t brushing his teeth after each snack, the constant presence of carbohydrates in his mouth fueled the bacteria and acid production.
By Neena Santija
....While cavities are on the decline in the general population, they are a fact of life for increasing numbers of young children, according to the Centers for Disease Control. They affect 10 percent of 2-year-olds and over half of 5-year-olds, causing everything from minor toothaches to missed school days to complications that require major surgery. But dentists say few people realize that cavities are symptoms of dental caries, the most common chronic disease in children today, according to the CDC.
Caries is caused by a transmissible bacteria that produces acids in the mouth when we eat anything with carbohydrates, including sugary or starchy foods. Those acids dissolve the teeth, and without good oral health practices, they can lead to tooth decay - cavities. But cavities are preventable if the underlying caries is managed.
“Because it’s chronic, and because it’s a condition that is caused by bacteria, you can actually, as a patient, stop the disease process if you know what to do,’’ said Dr. Man Wai Ng, a pediatric dentist at Children’s Hospital Boston. “And you can actually prevent it from starting.’’
Ali and Jeannette Wicks-Lim weren’t aware of that when they brought their toddler, Mason, to the dentist for the first time after noticing signs of decay on one of his upper teeth. “I think it had almost started to look chipped,’’ Ali Wicks-Lim said.
They were shocked to find he had eight cavities. They never gave him candy or soda, and they brushed his teeth twice a day....
Mason may not have been eating sugary snacks, but he was eating crackers throughout the day. Because he wasn’t brushing his teeth after each snack, the constant presence of carbohydrates in his mouth fueled the bacteria and acid production.
21 Aug 2011
90 Year-Old Powerful Natural Cancer Therapy You've Probably Never Heard Of
If you have the time it is very interesting.
Kidneys and Fluoride Revisited #4
My local city council needs to know that fluoridating water has serious implications to people's health. In my case, my kidneys have suffered markedly because of fluoride.
Based on the rate of kidney decline I'd been experiencing, if I hadn't gotten off all sources of fluoride 16 months ago, in 4 months I'd be starting kidney dialysis. Fluoridated water damages low functioning kidneys and even can cause kidney disease.
20 Aug 2011
Daily Echo - So many unanswered fluoride questions ...
So many unanswered fluoride questions ...
FOLLOWING the Southern Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) recent admission in the Daily Echo on August 8 that they do not know the areas that will receive fluoridated water or the costs involved, we thought
people would like further examples of their ignorance.
We are particularly concerned about the rise in the fluoride concentration when water is boiled and re-boiled which happens in many cooking processes.
Here are the answers to some of the questions we put to the SHA in a letter:
Q. If I reboil water in a kettle how much will the fluoride concentration increase by?
A. The SHA does not have information on this and is therefore unable to answer this question.
Q. Will boiling vegetables in fluoridated water increase my fluoride intake?
A. It is likely there will be an increase in fluoride.
Q. What is the ppm of fluoride in a standard cup of tea made using fluoridated water?
A. The SHA does not have information on this and is therefore unable to answer this question. Please note however, that tea does contain fluoride but different brands contain varying amounts.
Q. What is the bioaccumulation rate of fluoride ingested by drinking water?
A. The SHA does not have information on this and is therefore unable to answer this question.
This last question is extremely important as fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor and therefore effects many bodily functions especially the thyroid.
We have written to our local councillors, MPs and to the PM and although sympathetic, they say they are powerless to stop the SHA - democracy indeed!
DR & MRS WILLIAMS,
Lordswood, Southampton.
• I HOPE the article (Daily Echo, August 8) on fluoride will be read by the SHA with an open mind. They are so bent on making us guinea pigs I think they could not have studied in detail the affect physically. It's not only drinking it, its bathing and some people have skin complaints. Others have to drink plenty (aren't we all supposed to) for very serious health reasons, won't they be overdosed?
How will overdose affect us? It is not just about teeth and isn't it about time parents took responsibility? Children don't do water! As a last resort cannot they be taught teeth hygiene at nursery school?
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
FOLLOWING the Southern Central Strategic Health Authority's (SHA) recent admission in the Daily Echo on August 8 that they do not know the areas that will receive fluoridated water or the costs involved, we thought
people would like further examples of their ignorance.
We are particularly concerned about the rise in the fluoride concentration when water is boiled and re-boiled which happens in many cooking processes.
Here are the answers to some of the questions we put to the SHA in a letter:
Q. If I reboil water in a kettle how much will the fluoride concentration increase by?
A. The SHA does not have information on this and is therefore unable to answer this question.
Q. Will boiling vegetables in fluoridated water increase my fluoride intake?
A. It is likely there will be an increase in fluoride.
Q. What is the ppm of fluoride in a standard cup of tea made using fluoridated water?
A. The SHA does not have information on this and is therefore unable to answer this question. Please note however, that tea does contain fluoride but different brands contain varying amounts.
Q. What is the bioaccumulation rate of fluoride ingested by drinking water?
A. The SHA does not have information on this and is therefore unable to answer this question.
This last question is extremely important as fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor and therefore effects many bodily functions especially the thyroid.
We have written to our local councillors, MPs and to the PM and although sympathetic, they say they are powerless to stop the SHA - democracy indeed!
DR & MRS WILLIAMS,
Lordswood, Southampton.
• I HOPE the article (Daily Echo, August 8) on fluoride will be read by the SHA with an open mind. They are so bent on making us guinea pigs I think they could not have studied in detail the affect physically. It's not only drinking it, its bathing and some people have skin complaints. Others have to drink plenty (aren't we all supposed to) for very serious health reasons, won't they be overdosed?
How will overdose affect us? It is not just about teeth and isn't it about time parents took responsibility? Children don't do water! As a last resort cannot they be taught teeth hygiene at nursery school?
NAME & ADDRESS SUPPLIED
19 Aug 2011
Shake up pours cold water on fluoride plans
Shake up pours cold water on fluoride plans
19th Aug 2011
A senior MP has held talks with health ministers amid growing fears that a looming shake-up will make it harder to add fluoride to tap water in more parts of England.
Sir Paul Beresford, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry, said he had put a 'robust' case that the changes will set back the campaign, despite the promise of huge benefits for children's teeth.
The concern flows from the flagship Health and Social Care Bill, which will axe the ten strategic health authorities (SHAs) next year, as the government wages war on NHS 'bureaucracy'.
Responsibility for public health matters – including fluoridation – will then pass to local authorities, which are expected to be far more reluctant to act.
In the recent example of attempts to fluoridate in the Southampton area, most councils in Hampshire came out against adding the chemical to tap water supplies.
Sir Paul said: 'I had a meeting at the department of health because there are real concerns that the changes in the Bill will fluoridation less likely in the future.
'I would like ministers to listen to those concerns and think again about making local councils responsible before the legislation returns to the Commons.'
That return is just weeks away, because the Health Bill is – controversially – due to be pushed through the Commons in just two days, on September 6 and 7.
The legislation was expected to face months of delay – after David Cameron was forced to set up a review group and promise 'significant changes', amid a fierce public backlash.
But, despite the almost unprecedented step of returning the Bill to its committee stage, scores of amendments were debated in the days before the start of the summer recess – clearing the way for the Bill's final Commons stages next month.
Ministers have accepted that the new role for local councils offers 'hope' to opponents of fluoridation, even while extolling the benefits of the chemical.
In May, health minister Anne Milton told MPs that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in the proportion of children without tooth decay, 'on the best available evidence'.
Meanwhile, Southampton is to get its water supply fluoridated – despite the local protests – after a High Court judge rejected a final appeal against the decision not to allow a judicial review.
It means South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) can move ahead with the scheme, which will affect nearly 200,000 people in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Other health authorities had put their own fluoridation schemes on hold, pending the outcome of the Hampshire case.
19th Aug 2011
A senior MP has held talks with health ministers amid growing fears that a looming shake-up will make it harder to add fluoride to tap water in more parts of England.
Sir Paul Beresford, the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for dentistry, said he had put a 'robust' case that the changes will set back the campaign, despite the promise of huge benefits for children's teeth.
The concern flows from the flagship Health and Social Care Bill, which will axe the ten strategic health authorities (SHAs) next year, as the government wages war on NHS 'bureaucracy'.
Responsibility for public health matters – including fluoridation – will then pass to local authorities, which are expected to be far more reluctant to act.
In the recent example of attempts to fluoridate in the Southampton area, most councils in Hampshire came out against adding the chemical to tap water supplies.
Sir Paul said: 'I had a meeting at the department of health because there are real concerns that the changes in the Bill will fluoridation less likely in the future.
'I would like ministers to listen to those concerns and think again about making local councils responsible before the legislation returns to the Commons.'
That return is just weeks away, because the Health Bill is – controversially – due to be pushed through the Commons in just two days, on September 6 and 7.
The legislation was expected to face months of delay – after David Cameron was forced to set up a review group and promise 'significant changes', amid a fierce public backlash.
But, despite the almost unprecedented step of returning the Bill to its committee stage, scores of amendments were debated in the days before the start of the summer recess – clearing the way for the Bill's final Commons stages next month.
Ministers have accepted that the new role for local councils offers 'hope' to opponents of fluoridation, even while extolling the benefits of the chemical.
In May, health minister Anne Milton told MPs that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in the proportion of children without tooth decay, 'on the best available evidence'.
Meanwhile, Southampton is to get its water supply fluoridated – despite the local protests – after a High Court judge rejected a final appeal against the decision not to allow a judicial review.
It means South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) can move ahead with the scheme, which will affect nearly 200,000 people in parts of Southampton, Eastleigh, Totton, Netley and Rownhams.
Other health authorities had put their own fluoridation schemes on hold, pending the outcome of the Hampshire case.
Hip fractures reaching 'epidemic' proportions
Hip fractures reaching 'epidemic' proportions
Consultant Surgeon Tim Chesser and elderly care specialist Professor Cameron Swift warn the number of hip fracture cases in the UK are set to rise.
The warning comes as a Government watchdog revealed that the NHS is treating elderly patients with broken hips as a "low priority" by failing to give them prompt and high-quality treatment that could extend their lives.
Half of those with hip fractures currently have to wait 36 hours in hospital, in pain and in fear, before undergoing surgery and in many cases junior doctors carry out their operations rather than more experienced staff, it is claimed.
Consultant Surgeon Tim Chesser and elderly care specialist Professor Cameron Swift warn the number of hip fracture cases in the UK are set to rise.
The warning comes as a Government watchdog revealed that the NHS is treating elderly patients with broken hips as a "low priority" by failing to give them prompt and high-quality treatment that could extend their lives.
Half of those with hip fractures currently have to wait 36 hours in hospital, in pain and in fear, before undergoing surgery and in many cases junior doctors carry out their operations rather than more experienced staff, it is claimed.
55 per cent rise in children having fluoride varnish treatment
55 per cent rise in children having fluoride varnish treatment
The number of children having fluoride painted onto their teeth in a bid to tackle tooth decay has risen by 55 per cent in a year.
By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent
Official figures show NHS dentists in England carried out almost 850,000 fluoride varnish treatments on young people in 2010-11, representing 8 per cent of all child treatments.
The number of such treatments for adults also rose by 22 per cent, to 335,000, data from the NHS Information Centre show.
Fluoride varnish, now backed by the Department of Health as safe and effective for all children, is increasingly being used by dentists as a longer-lasting form of protection against tooth decay than toothbrushing.
It is also less controversial than putting fluoride, which protects tooth enamel from the bacteria in plaque, into the water supply.
The number of children having fluoride painted onto their teeth in a bid to tackle tooth decay has risen by 55 per cent in a year.
By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent
Official figures show NHS dentists in England carried out almost 850,000 fluoride varnish treatments on young people in 2010-11, representing 8 per cent of all child treatments.
The number of such treatments for adults also rose by 22 per cent, to 335,000, data from the NHS Information Centre show.
Fluoride varnish, now backed by the Department of Health as safe and effective for all children, is increasingly being used by dentists as a longer-lasting form of protection against tooth decay than toothbrushing.
It is also less controversial than putting fluoride, which protects tooth enamel from the bacteria in plaque, into the water supply.
USA - Fluoridation raises important questions
Fluoridation raises important questions
Published: Thursday, August 18, 2011
A recent look at cost, effectiveness and side effects of fluoridating drinking water supplies evokes memories of the fluoridation wars of the 1950s and '60s.
While we hope it doesn't result in total elimination of a proven tooth-decay preventive, we acknowledge that elimination indeed might be the result.
Mount Clemens' City Commission voted recently to stop fluoridating the city's water supply as soon as it uses up its remaining supply of the fluoride compound. Although many pushed for elimination on grounds that it is or may be harmful, one commissioner cited elimination of the $40,000 annual cost.
Fluoride is present naturally in most ground water. Cities, starting with Grand Rapids in 1945, began adding it to water systems after it was shown that it substantially reduces tooth decay. A range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million was considered suitable; Detroit began adding it to the regional water system at the rate of 1 part per million in the mid-1960s.
It was controversial then, as in most communities. Proposals to fluoridate were put on many ballots, and defeated often. High concentrations of fluoride were known to cause mottling and pitting of teeth and were suspected in bone ailments as well.
Opponents of fluoridation say the presence of fluoride in toothpaste and some foods and bottled water now justify eliminating it from water supplies.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and American Dental Association continue to promote its use, and few challenge fluoride's effectiveness in preventing tooth decay.
Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed decreasing the amount of fluoride to drinking water to 0.7 parts per million, the lower limit of the current range.
The Department cites the increasing amount of fluoride from toothpaste and other sources along with an increasing amount of mostly low-level pitting of teeth in adolescents and evidence that there is no decay prevention from concentrations over 0.7 parts per million.......
Why is the SCSHA going to put 1ppm in the water?
Published: Thursday, August 18, 2011
A recent look at cost, effectiveness and side effects of fluoridating drinking water supplies evokes memories of the fluoridation wars of the 1950s and '60s.
While we hope it doesn't result in total elimination of a proven tooth-decay preventive, we acknowledge that elimination indeed might be the result.
Mount Clemens' City Commission voted recently to stop fluoridating the city's water supply as soon as it uses up its remaining supply of the fluoride compound. Although many pushed for elimination on grounds that it is or may be harmful, one commissioner cited elimination of the $40,000 annual cost.
Fluoride is present naturally in most ground water. Cities, starting with Grand Rapids in 1945, began adding it to water systems after it was shown that it substantially reduces tooth decay. A range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million was considered suitable; Detroit began adding it to the regional water system at the rate of 1 part per million in the mid-1960s.
It was controversial then, as in most communities. Proposals to fluoridate were put on many ballots, and defeated often. High concentrations of fluoride were known to cause mottling and pitting of teeth and were suspected in bone ailments as well.
Opponents of fluoridation say the presence of fluoride in toothpaste and some foods and bottled water now justify eliminating it from water supplies.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and American Dental Association continue to promote its use, and few challenge fluoride's effectiveness in preventing tooth decay.
Nevertheless, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has proposed decreasing the amount of fluoride to drinking water to 0.7 parts per million, the lower limit of the current range.
The Department cites the increasing amount of fluoride from toothpaste and other sources along with an increasing amount of mostly low-level pitting of teeth in adolescents and evidence that there is no decay prevention from concentrations over 0.7 parts per million.......
Why is the SCSHA going to put 1ppm in the water?
Lymington Times - Wafer firm admits NHS fluoride plan may miss out some areas
Wafer firm admits NHS fluoride plan may miss out some areas
THE planned fluoridation of Southampton's waiter supply, which will affect around 8,000 Totton residents, may not reach all of the intended areas of the scheme, it has emerged.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval in 2009 for the chemical to be added to the city's supply after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
But in a letter responding to.a query about dosing stations, a senior customer relations adviser at Southern Water wrote: "Depending upon the location of this dosing system it is most likely that not all the areas identified in the schemes of the feasibility study .will actually receive a fluoridated supply."
The controversial scheme had been on hold for two years pending the outcome of a judicial review challenge to the SHA's decision to back the plans, but High Court judges backed the authority.
Before the SHA board voted unanimously in February 2009 to approve the scheme, a feasibility report suggested fluoride could be added at two dosing stations —- an existing water plant at Otterbourne and a new station in Rownhams:
A spokeswoman for the SHA told the 'A&T' it was continuing with its plan to add the chemical to the supply by 2013.
She added: "The SHA has formally requested that Southern Water increases the fluoride content of the water that it supplies to premises
within the area covered by the proposed scheme.
"The , SHA is working with Southern Water on developing an implementation plan which will be shared with key stakeholders.
"We are still working on the timetable [and it] is our aim to complete implementation in 2013 — however, we do not yet have a specific implementation date.
"The actual location of the dosing system has yet to be finalised and that will determine the precise areas that will receive fluoridated water.
"The board unanimously decided that the health benefits outweigh all of the arguments against water fluoridation for the population described in the consultation and remains confident with this decision.
THE planned fluoridation of Southampton's waiter supply, which will affect around 8,000 Totton residents, may not reach all of the intended areas of the scheme, it has emerged.
The South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) gave its approval in 2009 for the chemical to be added to the city's supply after the local primary care trust said it was needed to combat child tooth decay.
But in a letter responding to.a query about dosing stations, a senior customer relations adviser at Southern Water wrote: "Depending upon the location of this dosing system it is most likely that not all the areas identified in the schemes of the feasibility study .will actually receive a fluoridated supply."
The controversial scheme had been on hold for two years pending the outcome of a judicial review challenge to the SHA's decision to back the plans, but High Court judges backed the authority.
Before the SHA board voted unanimously in February 2009 to approve the scheme, a feasibility report suggested fluoride could be added at two dosing stations —- an existing water plant at Otterbourne and a new station in Rownhams:
A spokeswoman for the SHA told the 'A&T' it was continuing with its plan to add the chemical to the supply by 2013.
She added: "The SHA has formally requested that Southern Water increases the fluoride content of the water that it supplies to premises
within the area covered by the proposed scheme.
"The , SHA is working with Southern Water on developing an implementation plan which will be shared with key stakeholders.
"We are still working on the timetable [and it] is our aim to complete implementation in 2013 — however, we do not yet have a specific implementation date.
"The actual location of the dosing system has yet to be finalised and that will determine the precise areas that will receive fluoridated water.
"The board unanimously decided that the health benefits outweigh all of the arguments against water fluoridation for the population described in the consultation and remains confident with this decision.
18 Aug 2011
Daily Echo - letter
In my view by Mrs Kinchington
Why is this being forced upon us?
SO water bosses have admitted that fluoride will not be delivered to all the areas expected under the Scheme planned for Hampshire, so it may not reach these poorer areas that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) are supposed to be aiming at then ('Fluoride: Children with worst teeth may not get it', Daily Echo, August 8).
It all is getting too ridiculous for words. Also the SHA apparently doesn't even know how much it is all going to cost. Why not? They have had long enough to work it out. I do know that it will be a high cost to people's health if this goes into our water.
This scheme should never go ahead and should now be scrapped completely. Our water is our lifeline and the SHA should just leave well alone. They just seem to want to push this through not given a thought about our health. All they keep saying is that it is for children's teeth and they don't
even know how they are going to get it to the children that they are supposed to be aiming it at.
Can I ask if they have anything to go into the water for stress because a lot of people are suffering from stress because of this proposed scheme, and if this does go in what else will be treated through our water supply?
Also the SHA are using the word "treating". Well, in my view when you treat something it becomes a medicine and they have no right to make us all drink this fluoride for the sake of a few children's teeth that they can't even target.
If they are concerned about children's teeth then put cod Infer oil capsules and milk back into schools. When I was a kid every morning we took a cod liver oil capsule and half a pint of milk for strong teeth and bones. My teeth and many others are still good.
This scheme is flawed in a lot of ways and if this goes ahead it will surely go down as a scandalous waste of money and a sheer waste of time and a health hazard for all of Southampton and surrounding areas.
SHA, I'm afraid you haven't done your homework on fluoride. You just seem to want it in without a care what it does to the rest of our bodies.
We deserve to be heard and treated with respect so please hear and respect our wishes.
We the public do not want your fluoride.
Why is this being forced upon us?
SO water bosses have admitted that fluoride will not be delivered to all the areas expected under the Scheme planned for Hampshire, so it may not reach these poorer areas that the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) are supposed to be aiming at then ('Fluoride: Children with worst teeth may not get it', Daily Echo, August 8).
It all is getting too ridiculous for words. Also the SHA apparently doesn't even know how much it is all going to cost. Why not? They have had long enough to work it out. I do know that it will be a high cost to people's health if this goes into our water.
This scheme should never go ahead and should now be scrapped completely. Our water is our lifeline and the SHA should just leave well alone. They just seem to want to push this through not given a thought about our health. All they keep saying is that it is for children's teeth and they don't
even know how they are going to get it to the children that they are supposed to be aiming it at.
Can I ask if they have anything to go into the water for stress because a lot of people are suffering from stress because of this proposed scheme, and if this does go in what else will be treated through our water supply?
Also the SHA are using the word "treating". Well, in my view when you treat something it becomes a medicine and they have no right to make us all drink this fluoride for the sake of a few children's teeth that they can't even target.
If they are concerned about children's teeth then put cod Infer oil capsules and milk back into schools. When I was a kid every morning we took a cod liver oil capsule and half a pint of milk for strong teeth and bones. My teeth and many others are still good.
This scheme is flawed in a lot of ways and if this goes ahead it will surely go down as a scandalous waste of money and a sheer waste of time and a health hazard for all of Southampton and surrounding areas.
SHA, I'm afraid you haven't done your homework on fluoride. You just seem to want it in without a care what it does to the rest of our bodies.
We deserve to be heard and treated with respect so please hear and respect our wishes.
We the public do not want your fluoride.
FAN Newsletter
Last week we told you about the victory in Philomath, Oregon, where the city council voted 6-1 to end fluoridation after holding several public hearings and being criticized by members of the dental and medical community.
Well, the momentum continues to build as another North American community has ended the fluoridation of its drinking water. On Monday, the city council of Spring Hill, Tennessee unanimously rejected fluoridation due to the cost and concerns raised about the health risks associated with ingesting fluoride.
Lets keep the momentum building! Start an infant warning campaign in your community, or use this guide to begin organizing your own local campaign to end fluoridation.
Three Lawsuits in the Works
Three lawsuits have been filed recently in the U.S. that could have a major impact on the fluoridation debate.
The first lawsuit is in Clallam County, Washington. On April 28, Protect the Peninsula's Future, Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, and Eloise Kailin filed suit in superior court against the cities of Forks and Port Angeles, Washington, noting that the fluoride chemicals being used matched the definition for prescription drugs. The suit alleges that the cities lacked the necessary permits for dispensing these drugs. Plaintiffs requested that the practice be halted under search and seizure statutes until permits were obtained. The request was denied by the superior court, but a review by the State Supreme Court was requested and the court's review decision is currently pending.
The second lawsuit was filed by an individual, Patrick Reeners, of Gallatin, Tennessee on July 19, 2011 in the general sessions court of Sumner County. The suit is against the American Dental Association (ADA), and the complaint was served on the organization's President, Dr. Raymond Gist, DDS. The charge is fraud, false advertising and willful harm. Reeners believes the promotion of water fluoridation as "safe and effective" was never approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He believes the ADA makes this claim while failing to recognize and fairly report on harmful cumulative contributions of fluoride from multiple non-water sources of fluoride.
Reeners believes that fluoride is portrayed on the Association's website as a totally desirable and harmless means of preventing tooth decay. In particular, Reeners believes that the fluoride additive is promoted as if drinking water provided an appropriate dosage, which might be true if you could control total water consumption. However, people also ingest significant doses of fluoride from many other sources such as food, beverages, dental products, and medication. The suit alleges that the general public is ill-informed of the amounts of fluoride on or in most of these products. For example, brewed black tea reportedly tested at more than three parts per million (ppm) fluoride, three times the one ppm of fluoridated drinking water. White grape juice was reported at 2.7 ppm (EPA report #820-R-10-015 Dec. 2010, page 26).
The third lawsuit was filed on August 9th, 2011 by multiple individual plaintiffs on behalf of the general public interest. The suit was filed in the federal District Court, Southern District of California, against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which serves some 17 million consumers. The suit alleges willful misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and infringements on the consumer's constitutional right to be free of bodily intrusion without their consent. This lawsuit challenges the MWD's claims of safely and effectively reducing tooth decay while delivering a drug that has not been approved for MWD's claims for intended use. It alleges that MWD knowingly failed to inform the public and water recipients of the drug's unapproved status or give notice of evidence of significant potential harms from hydrofluorsilicic acid, which would require a full FDA review, approval process, and notice of any contraindications.
Plaintiffs point to the unique health effects of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which when compared to sodium fluoride, have a disproportionate toxic effect on children, and the fact that consumers are unable to prevent absorption of the chemical through their skin during baths and showers.
These three lawsuits insist on better protection of the public health by application of existing laws.
Well, the momentum continues to build as another North American community has ended the fluoridation of its drinking water. On Monday, the city council of Spring Hill, Tennessee unanimously rejected fluoridation due to the cost and concerns raised about the health risks associated with ingesting fluoride.
Lets keep the momentum building! Start an infant warning campaign in your community, or use this guide to begin organizing your own local campaign to end fluoridation.
Three Lawsuits in the Works
Three lawsuits have been filed recently in the U.S. that could have a major impact on the fluoridation debate.
The first lawsuit is in Clallam County, Washington. On April 28, Protect the Peninsula's Future, Clallam County Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, and Eloise Kailin filed suit in superior court against the cities of Forks and Port Angeles, Washington, noting that the fluoride chemicals being used matched the definition for prescription drugs. The suit alleges that the cities lacked the necessary permits for dispensing these drugs. Plaintiffs requested that the practice be halted under search and seizure statutes until permits were obtained. The request was denied by the superior court, but a review by the State Supreme Court was requested and the court's review decision is currently pending.
The second lawsuit was filed by an individual, Patrick Reeners, of Gallatin, Tennessee on July 19, 2011 in the general sessions court of Sumner County. The suit is against the American Dental Association (ADA), and the complaint was served on the organization's President, Dr. Raymond Gist, DDS. The charge is fraud, false advertising and willful harm. Reeners believes the promotion of water fluoridation as "safe and effective" was never approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He believes the ADA makes this claim while failing to recognize and fairly report on harmful cumulative contributions of fluoride from multiple non-water sources of fluoride.
Reeners believes that fluoride is portrayed on the Association's website as a totally desirable and harmless means of preventing tooth decay. In particular, Reeners believes that the fluoride additive is promoted as if drinking water provided an appropriate dosage, which might be true if you could control total water consumption. However, people also ingest significant doses of fluoride from many other sources such as food, beverages, dental products, and medication. The suit alleges that the general public is ill-informed of the amounts of fluoride on or in most of these products. For example, brewed black tea reportedly tested at more than three parts per million (ppm) fluoride, three times the one ppm of fluoridated drinking water. White grape juice was reported at 2.7 ppm (EPA report #820-R-10-015 Dec. 2010, page 26).
The third lawsuit was filed on August 9th, 2011 by multiple individual plaintiffs on behalf of the general public interest. The suit was filed in the federal District Court, Southern District of California, against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), which serves some 17 million consumers. The suit alleges willful misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and infringements on the consumer's constitutional right to be free of bodily intrusion without their consent. This lawsuit challenges the MWD's claims of safely and effectively reducing tooth decay while delivering a drug that has not been approved for MWD's claims for intended use. It alleges that MWD knowingly failed to inform the public and water recipients of the drug's unapproved status or give notice of evidence of significant potential harms from hydrofluorsilicic acid, which would require a full FDA review, approval process, and notice of any contraindications.
Plaintiffs point to the unique health effects of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which when compared to sodium fluoride, have a disproportionate toxic effect on children, and the fact that consumers are unable to prevent absorption of the chemical through their skin during baths and showers.
These three lawsuits insist on better protection of the public health by application of existing laws.
17 Aug 2011
Daily Echo letters
Majority's wishes are being ignored
'WATER is life, don't let it kill you'.
We as responsible parents and citizens of Southampton have a duty to protect our children and families from the fluoride which the South Central Strategic Health Authority are determined to administer to our drinking water. Despite the great fluoride Daily Echo debate and the many letters of protest, they have ignored the wishes of the majority. My son will not be part of the
experiment. I will do all that I can to protect him and future generations. I call on MPs John Denham and Alan Whitehead, and also council leader Royston Smith, to demand a referendum. For their employers -3,600 professional people - cannot be wrong in calling for an end to artificial water fluoridation. AWILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.
• FLUORIDE is to be introduced into our water supply for what can only be medical reasons.
The medication of adults can only be done with informed consent. We do NOT give that consent.
Why dose a whole population with a toxic substance that will perhaps benefit only a few children?
The dental health of young children is the responsibility of their parents.
H & M COX, Chandler's Ford.
• IN reply to the article in the Daily Echo, August 8 - do NOT put fluoride in our water.
Why should we be forced to drink and pay for medication we do not want?
MRS M TOWNSEND, Southampton.
'WATER is life, don't let it kill you'.
We as responsible parents and citizens of Southampton have a duty to protect our children and families from the fluoride which the South Central Strategic Health Authority are determined to administer to our drinking water. Despite the great fluoride Daily Echo debate and the many letters of protest, they have ignored the wishes of the majority. My son will not be part of the
experiment. I will do all that I can to protect him and future generations. I call on MPs John Denham and Alan Whitehead, and also council leader Royston Smith, to demand a referendum. For their employers -3,600 professional people - cannot be wrong in calling for an end to artificial water fluoridation. AWILLOTT, Lordswood, Southampton.
• FLUORIDE is to be introduced into our water supply for what can only be medical reasons.
The medication of adults can only be done with informed consent. We do NOT give that consent.
Why dose a whole population with a toxic substance that will perhaps benefit only a few children?
The dental health of young children is the responsibility of their parents.
H & M COX, Chandler's Ford.
• IN reply to the article in the Daily Echo, August 8 - do NOT put fluoride in our water.
Why should we be forced to drink and pay for medication we do not want?
MRS M TOWNSEND, Southampton.
15 Aug 2011
Echo - So much for 'power to local people'
So much for 'power to local people'
AM I alone in thinking that we, the long suffering public and soon to be guinea pigs, have been wasting time and effort in the fluoride debate?
I am convinced that the outcome was already predetermined and "all roads would lead to Rome" and the government.
In September 20081 received a letter from the SHA acknowledging my response to their consultation and that all responses would be independently analysed by Bristol University and a final decision would follow in February 2009. (made of course by the SHA) No surprise at their perverse decision.
In July 2010, after writing many letters etc. to various sources, I wrote to Mrs Cameron in the vain.hope that being a mother herself and knowing the risks involved if babies were given fluoridated water, she might have a word with her husband, making him aware of local concerns.
The response from her office said she had no powers (as a private, unelected citizen) to intervene in government policy.
In June 20111 wrote to Southern Water expressing my disgust that as a private co. and knowing the legitimate concerns of their customers, they were going ahead with this unholy scheme.
They replied that under the Water Act 2003 the law required that if the SHA requested them to dose fluoride, then by law they must do so.
I then wrote to a local councillor at the Civic Centre and was informed that the SHA would be defunct in 2012 and it would be up to any new administration to "try and put matters right".
Now the government has extended the life of the SHA by 12 months. It begs the question: Why?
Has some behind the scenes deal been done with industry to enable the toxic waste hexafluorisilic acid to be disposed of via our water system?
So much for Mr Cameron's "power to local people" platitudes. Incidentally, it is interesting that some fluoride toothpastes advise that where fluoride is in the water, parents of children under six should consult a dentist before allowing them to use it!
What dangers lurk for the rest of us?
MRS M DARNELL, Southampton.
AM I alone in thinking that we, the long suffering public and soon to be guinea pigs, have been wasting time and effort in the fluoride debate?
I am convinced that the outcome was already predetermined and "all roads would lead to Rome" and the government.
In September 20081 received a letter from the SHA acknowledging my response to their consultation and that all responses would be independently analysed by Bristol University and a final decision would follow in February 2009. (made of course by the SHA) No surprise at their perverse decision.
In July 2010, after writing many letters etc. to various sources, I wrote to Mrs Cameron in the vain.hope that being a mother herself and knowing the risks involved if babies were given fluoridated water, she might have a word with her husband, making him aware of local concerns.
The response from her office said she had no powers (as a private, unelected citizen) to intervene in government policy.
In June 20111 wrote to Southern Water expressing my disgust that as a private co. and knowing the legitimate concerns of their customers, they were going ahead with this unholy scheme.
They replied that under the Water Act 2003 the law required that if the SHA requested them to dose fluoride, then by law they must do so.
I then wrote to a local councillor at the Civic Centre and was informed that the SHA would be defunct in 2012 and it would be up to any new administration to "try and put matters right".
Now the government has extended the life of the SHA by 12 months. It begs the question: Why?
Has some behind the scenes deal been done with industry to enable the toxic waste hexafluorisilic acid to be disposed of via our water system?
So much for Mr Cameron's "power to local people" platitudes. Incidentally, it is interesting that some fluoride toothpastes advise that where fluoride is in the water, parents of children under six should consult a dentist before allowing them to use it!
What dangers lurk for the rest of us?
MRS M DARNELL, Southampton.
14 Aug 2011
The Daily Activity Every Middle Aged Woman Should Beware of
By The Fluoride Action Network
It has been established that fluoride has the ability to alter your endocrine function, yet this fact is being ignored by the agencies and associations that continue to promote the practice of water fluoridation.
According to a 2006 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies1 , fluoride is "an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function."
This altered function can involve your thyroid, parathyroid, and pineal glands, as well as your adrenals, pancreas, and pituitary.
Your thyroid gland and its associated hormones are responsible for maintaining your body's overall metabolic rate, and for regulating normal growth and development. As all metabolically active cells require thyroid hormone for proper functioning, disruption of this system can have a wide range of effects on virtually every system of your body. Thyroid dysfunction is considered among the most prevalent of endocrine diseases in the United States........
It has been established that fluoride has the ability to alter your endocrine function, yet this fact is being ignored by the agencies and associations that continue to promote the practice of water fluoridation.
According to a 2006 report by the National Research Council of the National Academies1 , fluoride is "an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function."
This altered function can involve your thyroid, parathyroid, and pineal glands, as well as your adrenals, pancreas, and pituitary.
Your thyroid gland and its associated hormones are responsible for maintaining your body's overall metabolic rate, and for regulating normal growth and development. As all metabolically active cells require thyroid hormone for proper functioning, disruption of this system can have a wide range of effects on virtually every system of your body. Thyroid dysfunction is considered among the most prevalent of endocrine diseases in the United States........
12 Aug 2011
Letter from Paul Connett
I challenge those who believe that science is on the side of water fluoridation to read the book I co-authored with James Beck, MD, PhD and Spedding Micklem D.Phil, entitled "The Case Against Fluoride" (Chlesea Green, 2010).
For over 60 years this program has been promoted via endorsements from "authorities." Endorsements are no substitute for references to the primary scientific literature.
Sadly most scientists are not interested in the subject and most doctors and dentists are too busy treating patients to spend the time reading this literature. Instead, they simply rely on (and repeat) reassurances from their professional bodies. They also rely on pronouncements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On some issues this might be a safe thing to do, but NOT on fluoridation. There is only one small group at the CDC that is responsible for the fluoridation program and that is the Oral Health Division (recently downgraded to a branch). This consists of 30 employees and most of their qualifications are dental. Very few (if any) have any qualifications in toxicology or specialized branches of medicine. Not only are they not qualified to review the literature on the harm posed by fluoride but they also have a huge conflict of interest in the matter. Their job is to PROMOTE fluoridation not QUESTION it. Essentially they act like an adjunct of the American Dental Association.
This is what the American Dental Association had to say about professional responsibilities of dentists with respect to fluoridation in a white paper from 1979:
“Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non- participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility.” (American Dental Association, “White Paper on Fluoridation,” Council on Dental Health and Health Planning, 1979, http://fluoridealert.org/ada.white.paper.1979.html )
Very little has changed. Behind the scenes many dentists tell us that they are OK with the use of fluoride in topical treatments but do not feel it is right to force it on people via the public water supply. However, they are loathe to express this opinion in public because of peer pressures from their colleagues.
I urge readers to look at our book to learn more about the history and science of this issue. If they haven't got time for that spend 28 minutes watching the videotape "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" which can be accessed for free online at www.FluorideAlert.org
Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network
For over 60 years this program has been promoted via endorsements from "authorities." Endorsements are no substitute for references to the primary scientific literature.
Sadly most scientists are not interested in the subject and most doctors and dentists are too busy treating patients to spend the time reading this literature. Instead, they simply rely on (and repeat) reassurances from their professional bodies. They also rely on pronouncements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On some issues this might be a safe thing to do, but NOT on fluoridation. There is only one small group at the CDC that is responsible for the fluoridation program and that is the Oral Health Division (recently downgraded to a branch). This consists of 30 employees and most of their qualifications are dental. Very few (if any) have any qualifications in toxicology or specialized branches of medicine. Not only are they not qualified to review the literature on the harm posed by fluoride but they also have a huge conflict of interest in the matter. Their job is to PROMOTE fluoridation not QUESTION it. Essentially they act like an adjunct of the American Dental Association.
This is what the American Dental Association had to say about professional responsibilities of dentists with respect to fluoridation in a white paper from 1979:
“Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non- participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility.” (American Dental Association, “White Paper on Fluoridation,” Council on Dental Health and Health Planning, 1979, http://fluoridealert.org/ada.white.paper.1979.html )
Very little has changed. Behind the scenes many dentists tell us that they are OK with the use of fluoride in topical treatments but do not feel it is right to force it on people via the public water supply. However, they are loathe to express this opinion in public because of peer pressures from their colleagues.
I urge readers to look at our book to learn more about the history and science of this issue. If they haven't got time for that spend 28 minutes watching the videotape "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" which can be accessed for free online at www.FluorideAlert.org
Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network
11 Aug 2011
USA - Court case against fluoridation
Metropolitan Water District of SoCal Sued for Illegal Use of an Unapproved Drug to Fulfill Fluoridation Program
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) August 10, 2011
Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in the interest of millions of consumers, the California attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Foli v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. 3:2011cv01765 in the Southern District of California. The lawsuit cites that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.
In the legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9, 2011 in San Diego Federal District Court addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD's intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person's teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent. The lawsuit against MWD SoCal is entitled Foli, Brown, Aslanian & Blake vs. Metorpolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. '11CV1765JLS BLM.
While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to those medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
"This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation," states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. "It does challenge MWD's bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD's perpetuation of absolute health claims."..................
San Diego, CA (PRWEB) August 10, 2011
Alleging willful misrepresentation and deceptive business practices by Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, in the interest of millions of consumers, the California attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed Foli v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. 3:2011cv01765 in the Southern District of California. The lawsuit cites that MWD of SoCal has made claims of safely and effectively treating and preventing dental disease in recipient consumers, while selecting and delivering a hydrofluosilicic acid drug through their water system that has never been approved for safety and effectiveness, nor in the expected dosages delivered by MWD through retail water districts, either topically, systemically through ingestion, or trans-dermal exposures through baths and showers.
In the legal action which may impact the decision-making of water districts across the country employing the same practices, the lawsuit filed on August 9, 2011 in San Diego Federal District Court addresses the Constitutional right of Plaintiffs to be free of bodily intrusion from a drug that has not been approved for MWD's intent to alter the physical structure and bodily functions to make a person's teeth more resistant to the demineralization process of tooth decay without their consent. The lawsuit against MWD SoCal is entitled Foli, Brown, Aslanian & Blake vs. Metorpolitan Water District of Southern California, Case No. '11CV1765JLS BLM.
While some consumers may elect to purchase bottled water for drinking, virtually all consumers are captive to exposures from baths and showers, as simple filtration and most non-commercial methods do not remove the product, resulting in exposures to consumers similar to those medications delivered by seasickness or nicotine patches.
"This case does not challenge the public policy of fluoridation," states Kyle Nordrehaug, attorney for the Plaintiffs. "It does challenge MWD's bait and switch tactics of orchestrating statements by them and their down-line distributors of water to individual consumers when MWD knew that the actual drug product that they deliver had never had a toxicological study performed on the health and behavioral effects of its continued use until 2010, much less approval for MWD's perpetuation of absolute health claims."..................
9 Aug 2011
USA - Fluoride Awareness Week – Enough is Enough
Fluoride Awareness Week – Enough is Enough - Fluoride Must Be Removed from all US Drinking Water Supplies
08/08/2011 18:19:00 admin
New York – August 8, 2011 – Dentists often brag that promoting water fluoridation would put them out of business. Instead, five new dental schools are opening since 2000, others are being planned and the dentist workforce is growing, according to American Dental Association leaders.1 Modern science shows that fluoride ingestion doesn’t reduce tooth decay2 but can impair health3 and damage children’s teeth4 - making fluoridation a huge waste of taxpayers’ money.......
08/08/2011 18:19:00 admin
New York – August 8, 2011 – Dentists often brag that promoting water fluoridation would put them out of business. Instead, five new dental schools are opening since 2000, others are being planned and the dentist workforce is growing, according to American Dental Association leaders.1 Modern science shows that fluoride ingestion doesn’t reduce tooth decay2 but can impair health3 and damage children’s teeth4 - making fluoridation a huge waste of taxpayers’ money.......
The Healthy Drink that May Destroy Your Sleep By Dr. Mercola
The Healthy Drink that May Destroy Your Sleep
Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 09 2011
The pineal gland is a small endocrine gland located between the two hemispheres of your brain. It is sometimes called the "third eye" due to its resemblance to the human retina. While your pineal gland is only about the size of a single grain of rice (5-8 mm), it performs several functions that are extremely important to your body.
One main role of your pineal gland is to produce melatonin, the natural sleep hormone that plays a vital role in your normal sleep function. Melatonin is not only necessary for proper sleep however, it also regulates the onset of puberty and fights against harmful free radicals. When your pineal gland function is suppressed, melatonin production suffers and you are putting yourself at risk for a number of startling conditions including:
Large article worth reading.
Posted By Dr. Mercola | August 09 2011
The pineal gland is a small endocrine gland located between the two hemispheres of your brain. It is sometimes called the "third eye" due to its resemblance to the human retina. While your pineal gland is only about the size of a single grain of rice (5-8 mm), it performs several functions that are extremely important to your body.
One main role of your pineal gland is to produce melatonin, the natural sleep hormone that plays a vital role in your normal sleep function. Melatonin is not only necessary for proper sleep however, it also regulates the onset of puberty and fights against harmful free radicals. When your pineal gland function is suppressed, melatonin production suffers and you are putting yourself at risk for a number of startling conditions including:
Large article worth reading.
8 Aug 2011
Daily Echo - Despite much debate, fluoride may not reach some of the most deprived areas
Despite much debate, fluoride may not reach some of the most deprived areas
EXCLUSIVE
• By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
WATER bosses have admitted it is likely fluoride will not be delivered to all the areas expected under the controversial scheme planned for Hampshire, the Daily Echo can reveal.
That could mean some of the most deprived areas of Southampton, where tooth decay in children is at its worst, will not receive the dosed supplies - which was the main argument for putting fluoride in water.
It comes as chiefs at South Central Strategic Health Authority say they still do not know how much it is going to cost to build the infrastructure needed to add the chemical to tap water.
Campaigners say the revelations show all of the major arguments for fluorida-tion have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, and the scheme should be put back on hold immediately, or scrapped completely.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: "It has to be technically and economically feasible - they are the first two criteria. All of the underpinning of their arguments has been stripped away, even if they worked in the first place.
A senior customer relations adviser said in a letter responding to a query about dosing stations that the actual locations have "yet to be finalised".
She said: "Depending upon the location of this dosing system it is most likely that not all the areas identified in the schemes 1 and 7 of the feasibility study will actually receive a fluoridated supply."
"The SHA board decided that the health benefits outweigh all arguments against water fluoridation for the population described in the consultation and remains confident with this decision.
Shortened version due to copyright
EXCLUSIVE
• By Jon Reeve
jon.reeve@dailyecho.co.uk
WATER bosses have admitted it is likely fluoride will not be delivered to all the areas expected under the controversial scheme planned for Hampshire, the Daily Echo can reveal.
That could mean some of the most deprived areas of Southampton, where tooth decay in children is at its worst, will not receive the dosed supplies - which was the main argument for putting fluoride in water.
It comes as chiefs at South Central Strategic Health Authority say they still do not know how much it is going to cost to build the infrastructure needed to add the chemical to tap water.
Campaigners say the revelations show all of the major arguments for fluorida-tion have been shown to be fundamentally flawed, and the scheme should be put back on hold immediately, or scrapped completely.
Stephen Peckham, chairman of Hampshire Against Fluoridation, said: "It has to be technically and economically feasible - they are the first two criteria. All of the underpinning of their arguments has been stripped away, even if they worked in the first place.
A senior customer relations adviser said in a letter responding to a query about dosing stations that the actual locations have "yet to be finalised".
She said: "Depending upon the location of this dosing system it is most likely that not all the areas identified in the schemes 1 and 7 of the feasibility study will actually receive a fluoridated supply."
"The SHA board decided that the health benefits outweigh all arguments against water fluoridation for the population described in the consultation and remains confident with this decision.
Shortened version due to copyright
7 Aug 2011
5 Medical Advances That Sound Too Good to Be True?
5 Medical Advances That Sound Too Good to Be True?
2.Say Goodbye to Tooth Decay
BioPharma has created a new bacterial strain, called SMaRT, which prevents tooth decay; this is done by keeping the bacteria that live on teeth from producing lactic acid. Although it is still undergoing clinical trials at the moment, a single application of SMaRT will keep your teeth healthy for the rest of your life!
Even if it worked and was safe would it reach the market?
2.Say Goodbye to Tooth Decay
BioPharma has created a new bacterial strain, called SMaRT, which prevents tooth decay; this is done by keeping the bacteria that live on teeth from producing lactic acid. Although it is still undergoing clinical trials at the moment, a single application of SMaRT will keep your teeth healthy for the rest of your life!
Even if it worked and was safe would it reach the market?
Dental Care for Young Children USA
Dental Care for Young Children USA
"One of the largest unmet health needs in the United States is dental care for children. Dental caries is the most common chronic disease of childhood.1 Approximately 60% of U.S. children experience caries in their primary teeth by age 5, and by age 17, 78% of children have caries.2"
After 66+ years of water fluoridation and 55+ years of fluoridated toothpaste:NYSCOF
"One of the largest unmet health needs in the United States is dental care for children. Dental caries is the most common chronic disease of childhood.1 Approximately 60% of U.S. children experience caries in their primary teeth by age 5, and by age 17, 78% of children have caries.2"
After 66+ years of water fluoridation and 55+ years of fluoridated toothpaste:NYSCOF
6 Aug 2011
USA - Show me your teeth
Show me your teeth
Now that we have fluoridated our lawns, organic gardens and our pets; washed our cars and clothes and most of all flushed mountains of fluoride down our toilets daily, I am wondering if we have fewer cavities yet?
Is there any follow-up research to see if poor children have fewer cavities? Could we have some feedback?
Gene Elder
Going by the number of dental practices set up in Southampton in the last year there will be a vast improvement from dental decay in 6 years time that will be credited to the introduction of fluoridation. In Birmingham there are more dentists per head than elsewhere and Coventry had £1,000,000 injection of extra funding in its dental budget both of course fluoridated
Now that we have fluoridated our lawns, organic gardens and our pets; washed our cars and clothes and most of all flushed mountains of fluoride down our toilets daily, I am wondering if we have fewer cavities yet?
Is there any follow-up research to see if poor children have fewer cavities? Could we have some feedback?
Gene Elder
Going by the number of dental practices set up in Southampton in the last year there will be a vast improvement from dental decay in 6 years time that will be credited to the introduction of fluoridation. In Birmingham there are more dentists per head than elsewhere and Coventry had £1,000,000 injection of extra funding in its dental budget both of course fluoridated
5 Aug 2011
Poor Aussie kids have 70% more caries than the wealthy
Poor Aussie kids have 70% more caries than the wealthy
By Rob Goszkowski, Assistant Editor
August 3, 2011 -- Echoing conditions in the U.S., two reports released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) reveal some alarming trends in the oral health of Australian children, particularly those in the lowest socioeconomic areas.
Across all states and territories that were included in the analysis, the average number of decayed, missing, and filled deciduous teeth of children from those areas was roughly 70% higher than those from the highest socioeconomic status areas, according to the first report, "Dental decay among Australian children."
"Of children aged 5 to 6 years in Western Australia, dental decay was 22% higher for children in the lowest socioeconomic areas than for those in the highest socioeconomic areas, while in the Northern Territory the difference was much greater: 139%," stated AIHW spokesperson Kaye Roberts-Thomson in a press release.
New South Wales and Victoria were not included in the report as data were unavailable.
“More than 40% of Australian children aged 5-6 years had untreated decay.”
— Kaye Roberts-Thomson, Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare Among all children ages 5 to 6 years, 48.7% had a history of dental decay in the deciduous teeth and the average number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth was 2. Of children who were 12 years old, 45.1% had a history of dental decay in the permanent teeth and the average number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth was 1.1.
Untreated dental caries is another significant issue, the AIHW noted.
"More than 40% of Australian children aged 5-6 years had untreated decay, and a quarter of Australian children aged 12 years had untreated decay," Roberts-Thomson said.
The proportion of children ages 5 to 6 years with untreated caries varied among states and territories from 29.3% in the Australian Capital Territory to 49.7% in the Northern Territory. There was no difference in prevalence of decay between boys and girls, according to the AIHW.
Toothbrushing education needed
The second report, "Changes in child toothbrushing over time," found that while toothbrushing is almost universally practiced in Australia, there has been a decline in toothbrushing frequency among children.
Between 1993 and 2000, the proportion of children brushing less than once a day when they began brushing their teeth almost doubled from 8% to 15%. The proportion brushing twice a day decreased from a high of 44% in 1993 to 32% in 2000.
"While slipping rates of toothbrushing frequency reduce the risk of very mild or mild fluorosis, the protective effects of fluoride exposure are lost," the AIHW noted. "The proportion of children brushing with low-fluoride children's toothpaste, as is recommended for children aged 6 years or under, has increased. Most young children now use low-fluoride toothpaste."
However, the inappropriate eating or licking of toothpaste has increased, both when children start brushing and at age 5, according to the AIHW.
"This is an established risk factor for dental fluorosis with no benefit in preventing dental caries," the agency concluded.
By Rob Goszkowski, Assistant Editor
August 3, 2011 -- Echoing conditions in the U.S., two reports released today by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) reveal some alarming trends in the oral health of Australian children, particularly those in the lowest socioeconomic areas.
Across all states and territories that were included in the analysis, the average number of decayed, missing, and filled deciduous teeth of children from those areas was roughly 70% higher than those from the highest socioeconomic status areas, according to the first report, "Dental decay among Australian children."
"Of children aged 5 to 6 years in Western Australia, dental decay was 22% higher for children in the lowest socioeconomic areas than for those in the highest socioeconomic areas, while in the Northern Territory the difference was much greater: 139%," stated AIHW spokesperson Kaye Roberts-Thomson in a press release.
New South Wales and Victoria were not included in the report as data were unavailable.
“More than 40% of Australian children aged 5-6 years had untreated decay.”
— Kaye Roberts-Thomson, Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare Among all children ages 5 to 6 years, 48.7% had a history of dental decay in the deciduous teeth and the average number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth was 2. Of children who were 12 years old, 45.1% had a history of dental decay in the permanent teeth and the average number of decayed, missing, and filled teeth was 1.1.
Untreated dental caries is another significant issue, the AIHW noted.
"More than 40% of Australian children aged 5-6 years had untreated decay, and a quarter of Australian children aged 12 years had untreated decay," Roberts-Thomson said.
The proportion of children ages 5 to 6 years with untreated caries varied among states and territories from 29.3% in the Australian Capital Territory to 49.7% in the Northern Territory. There was no difference in prevalence of decay between boys and girls, according to the AIHW.
Toothbrushing education needed
The second report, "Changes in child toothbrushing over time," found that while toothbrushing is almost universally practiced in Australia, there has been a decline in toothbrushing frequency among children.
Between 1993 and 2000, the proportion of children brushing less than once a day when they began brushing their teeth almost doubled from 8% to 15%. The proportion brushing twice a day decreased from a high of 44% in 1993 to 32% in 2000.
"While slipping rates of toothbrushing frequency reduce the risk of very mild or mild fluorosis, the protective effects of fluoride exposure are lost," the AIHW noted. "The proportion of children brushing with low-fluoride children's toothpaste, as is recommended for children aged 6 years or under, has increased. Most young children now use low-fluoride toothpaste."
However, the inappropriate eating or licking of toothpaste has increased, both when children start brushing and at age 5, according to the AIHW.
"This is an established risk factor for dental fluorosis with no benefit in preventing dental caries," the agency concluded.
4 Aug 2011
Fluoride Action Network
Yesterday the Fluoride Action Network distributed the following media release responding to the latest fluoride propaganda from the dental community. Please help us combat the pro-fluoride spin machine by forwarding our press release to your local media contacts and outlets.
NEW YORK, Aug. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A paper in the Journal of Dental Research by dentist Chester Douglass and colleagues, "An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma," (7/28/11) claims to show no association between fluoride bone levels and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. However, Douglass' study has serious scientific flaws and is incapable of disproving a previous study (Bassin et al., 2006) which linked water fluoridation to osteosarcoma, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Bassin found a 500% to 600% increased risk for young boys, exposed to fluoride in their 6th to 8th years, of later developing osteosarcoma. Douglass' study does not address exposure during this critical period because it measured the level of fluoride in bone, which accumulates fluoride over a lifetime. These bone levels provide no information about when the person was exposed to fluoride.
Not only does Douglass' study fail to refute Bassin's main finding, it suffers from other serious weaknesses:
1) Douglass' study was much smaller and weaker than Bassin's. It had only 20 control subjects under age 30, a fifth of Bassin's. For this key age group, Douglass' study was so small it could provide no reliable conclusions. Even Douglass admitted this serious limitation.
2) Douglass' choice of comparison group is suspect. Douglass compared the bone fluoride level of patients with osteosarcoma to "controls" with other forms of bone cancer. If fluoride also causes these other bone cancer types, then one would not expect to find any difference in bone fluoride between these groups. It is biologically plausible that fluoride could cause other bone cancers because it reaches such high concentrations in bone. One of the only studies of fluoride and non-osteosarcoma bone cancers did find a link, but this evidence was never mentioned by Douglass.
3) The controls were severely mismatched to the cases. Controls were much older (median 41 yrs) than the cases (18 yrs). The risk of osteosarcoma is highly age-dependent. Also, fluoride builds up in bone with age. Given Douglass' small sample size, it is unlikely he could have adequately compensated for the gross mismatch in age, especially because of these two simultaneous age dependencies. The groups were also mismatched on sex ratio, and osteosarcoma risk is well known to be sex dependent. Properly adjusting for sex and age would be virtually impossible.
In 2001, Douglass signed off on Elise Bassin's Ph.D. dissertation which found the strong association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. When it was later published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2006, Cancer Causes and Control, an accompanying letter from Douglass claimed that his "larger" study would eventually refute Bassin's findings. But Douglass also told a Fox News reporter that Bassin "... did a good job. She had a good group of people advising her. And it's a nice-it's a nice analysis. There's nothing wrong with that analysis."
Now that Douglass' study is finally published, it is clearly incapable of refuting Bassin's work. According to FAN director, Paul Connett, Ph.D., "Bassin's study was a high quality product, Douglass' study was not."
Chris Neurath, FAN's Research Director, points out "Even though Douglass collected extensive fluoride exposure histories from hundreds of other controls, that data was ignored in this paper. FAN is calling for the release of all of the Douglass data. The only way to get to the bottom of Douglass' two decade's study is to make the data available for any independent researcher to check and do the analyses which Douglass has failed to provide. The public has paid millions for this data, why is most of it still behind locked doors?"
One reason is suggested in Douglass' conflict-of-interest declaration where he says he has "... written reviews of the literature for several companies that sell, reimburse for, or do research on preventive dentistry products, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Colgate-Palmolive, Dentsply, Quintile, Delta Dental Plans...."
Omitted was his paid editorship of Colgate's promotional dental newsletter, which regularly contains advertisements for Colgate's fluoride products.
The International Association of Dental Research (IADR), publishers of The Journal of Dental Research, has a history of promoting fluoridation.
Connett says, "In my opinion, it seems that Douglass is more interested in protecting fluoride than investigating this issue objectively. Bassin's work suggests fluoridation may be causing a frequently fatal cancer in teenage boys. Douglass, after five years of trying, has failed to refute this disturbing evidence. How long will fluoridation promoters be allowed to continue to spin this issue?"
"Why are dentists - especially those who have shown a strong interest in protecting the water fluoridation program - conducting and publishing cancer research, anyway?" asks Connett.
A more detailed critique of Douglass' paper will be posted soon at www.fluoridealert.org.
Contact Paul Connett, PhD
NEW YORK, Aug. 2, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A paper in the Journal of Dental Research by dentist Chester Douglass and colleagues, "An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma," (7/28/11) claims to show no association between fluoride bone levels and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. However, Douglass' study has serious scientific flaws and is incapable of disproving a previous study (Bassin et al., 2006) which linked water fluoridation to osteosarcoma, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Bassin found a 500% to 600% increased risk for young boys, exposed to fluoride in their 6th to 8th years, of later developing osteosarcoma. Douglass' study does not address exposure during this critical period because it measured the level of fluoride in bone, which accumulates fluoride over a lifetime. These bone levels provide no information about when the person was exposed to fluoride.
Not only does Douglass' study fail to refute Bassin's main finding, it suffers from other serious weaknesses:
1) Douglass' study was much smaller and weaker than Bassin's. It had only 20 control subjects under age 30, a fifth of Bassin's. For this key age group, Douglass' study was so small it could provide no reliable conclusions. Even Douglass admitted this serious limitation.
2) Douglass' choice of comparison group is suspect. Douglass compared the bone fluoride level of patients with osteosarcoma to "controls" with other forms of bone cancer. If fluoride also causes these other bone cancer types, then one would not expect to find any difference in bone fluoride between these groups. It is biologically plausible that fluoride could cause other bone cancers because it reaches such high concentrations in bone. One of the only studies of fluoride and non-osteosarcoma bone cancers did find a link, but this evidence was never mentioned by Douglass.
3) The controls were severely mismatched to the cases. Controls were much older (median 41 yrs) than the cases (18 yrs). The risk of osteosarcoma is highly age-dependent. Also, fluoride builds up in bone with age. Given Douglass' small sample size, it is unlikely he could have adequately compensated for the gross mismatch in age, especially because of these two simultaneous age dependencies. The groups were also mismatched on sex ratio, and osteosarcoma risk is well known to be sex dependent. Properly adjusting for sex and age would be virtually impossible.
In 2001, Douglass signed off on Elise Bassin's Ph.D. dissertation which found the strong association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. When it was later published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2006, Cancer Causes and Control, an accompanying letter from Douglass claimed that his "larger" study would eventually refute Bassin's findings. But Douglass also told a Fox News reporter that Bassin "... did a good job. She had a good group of people advising her. And it's a nice-it's a nice analysis. There's nothing wrong with that analysis."
Now that Douglass' study is finally published, it is clearly incapable of refuting Bassin's work. According to FAN director, Paul Connett, Ph.D., "Bassin's study was a high quality product, Douglass' study was not."
Chris Neurath, FAN's Research Director, points out "Even though Douglass collected extensive fluoride exposure histories from hundreds of other controls, that data was ignored in this paper. FAN is calling for the release of all of the Douglass data. The only way to get to the bottom of Douglass' two decade's study is to make the data available for any independent researcher to check and do the analyses which Douglass has failed to provide. The public has paid millions for this data, why is most of it still behind locked doors?"
One reason is suggested in Douglass' conflict-of-interest declaration where he says he has "... written reviews of the literature for several companies that sell, reimburse for, or do research on preventive dentistry products, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Colgate-Palmolive, Dentsply, Quintile, Delta Dental Plans...."
Omitted was his paid editorship of Colgate's promotional dental newsletter, which regularly contains advertisements for Colgate's fluoride products.
The International Association of Dental Research (IADR), publishers of The Journal of Dental Research, has a history of promoting fluoridation.
Connett says, "In my opinion, it seems that Douglass is more interested in protecting fluoride than investigating this issue objectively. Bassin's work suggests fluoridation may be causing a frequently fatal cancer in teenage boys. Douglass, after five years of trying, has failed to refute this disturbing evidence. How long will fluoridation promoters be allowed to continue to spin this issue?"
"Why are dentists - especially those who have shown a strong interest in protecting the water fluoridation program - conducting and publishing cancer research, anyway?" asks Connett.
A more detailed critique of Douglass' paper will be posted soon at www.fluoridealert.org.
Contact Paul Connett, PhD
3 Aug 2011
Study confirms fluoride toxic in tiny amounts
Study confirms fluoride toxic in tiny amounts
By Dr. William Campbell Douglass on 08/02/2011
If the fastest way to rot a kid's mind is with TV and junk food, the slow method involves plain old water.
Thank your government for that.
The fluoride intentionally dumped into your water is a neurotoxin so powerful that a new study finds it can have devastating effects in concentrations as low as 1 part per million.
That's so thoroughly diluted it's positively homeopathic, folks -- and it's right smack in the middle of the target used by the feds for years (and just a fraction of what many people still get with every sip, by the way).
Your tainted tap
Mexican researchers examined data from 18 studies on humans and animals and found that prolonged exposure -- like, say, a lifelong presence in your drinking glass --"may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system."
The review also confirms what I've been saying since the 1960s: Fluoride has the power to cross the blood-brain barrier.
That means once it's in your system, it has a free pass to run roughshod through your noggin -- and the researchers wrote in Neurologia that fluoride damage in the brain is similar to that of Alzheimer's disease, according to animal studies.
That could help explain the dramatic rise in this disease in recent generations.
But the biggest fluoride risk isn't among seniors -- it's among children, because this stuff is proven to make kids dumber than a knock-knock joke.
And because fluoride works so slowly, you may not even notice the damage... not at first anyway.
Then, one day, you wake up and realize the only way your kid is getting into college is by getting a job there…as a janitor.
Don't get me wrong -- the world needs its janitors. But if you don't want your kids and grandkids to be forced to be among them, keep them away from fluoridated water, toothpaste, mouthwash, and anything else that contains this poison.
The most effective way to do that is with a reverse-osmosis water filter.
Attach it where the water enters your home, and every tap will be clean, safe and fluoride-free
By Dr. William Campbell Douglass on 08/02/2011
If the fastest way to rot a kid's mind is with TV and junk food, the slow method involves plain old water.
Thank your government for that.
The fluoride intentionally dumped into your water is a neurotoxin so powerful that a new study finds it can have devastating effects in concentrations as low as 1 part per million.
That's so thoroughly diluted it's positively homeopathic, folks -- and it's right smack in the middle of the target used by the feds for years (and just a fraction of what many people still get with every sip, by the way).
Your tainted tap
Mexican researchers examined data from 18 studies on humans and animals and found that prolonged exposure -- like, say, a lifelong presence in your drinking glass --"may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system."
The review also confirms what I've been saying since the 1960s: Fluoride has the power to cross the blood-brain barrier.
That means once it's in your system, it has a free pass to run roughshod through your noggin -- and the researchers wrote in Neurologia that fluoride damage in the brain is similar to that of Alzheimer's disease, according to animal studies.
That could help explain the dramatic rise in this disease in recent generations.
But the biggest fluoride risk isn't among seniors -- it's among children, because this stuff is proven to make kids dumber than a knock-knock joke.
And because fluoride works so slowly, you may not even notice the damage... not at first anyway.
Then, one day, you wake up and realize the only way your kid is getting into college is by getting a job there…as a janitor.
Don't get me wrong -- the world needs its janitors. But if you don't want your kids and grandkids to be forced to be among them, keep them away from fluoridated water, toothpaste, mouthwash, and anything else that contains this poison.
The most effective way to do that is with a reverse-osmosis water filter.
Attach it where the water enters your home, and every tap will be clean, safe and fluoride-free
1 Aug 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
