31 Oct 2011
29 Oct 2011
Dentists Are Speaking Out Against Fluoridation
Dentists Are Speaking Out Against Fluoridation
Few topics cause as much division as water fluoridation... It's like marmite, you're either for it or against it. Whichever it is, you can't ignore fluoride because it has literally poisoned our tap water in numerous areas... I'm sure you can tell which camp I fall into when it comes to this contentious subject!
Recently, I told you about the Health and Social Care Bill, which will pass the power of water fluoridation to local authorities, such as county or district councils. Since local authorities have to answer directly to the people who voted for them, the Health and Social Care Bill seems like a good idea because (on paper) it will allow residents to play a part in the decision-making process regarding water fluoridation...
However, we all know in reality this probably won't be the case.
Monster in the closet
Luckily, someone is on our side. See, if local councils act on their power to fluoridate the public water supplies, they can now also face claims for damages... The UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF), which represents 74 local councils that oppose fluoridation, has sent out a letter of warning to every council in the UK, pointing out the legal implications of their new powers.
If they decide to fluoridate the water supply, councils leave themselves open to claims for damages from parents if their children develop dental fluorosis — a common disfiguring condition caused by fluoride, which damages the enamel on teeth and leads to unsightly discolouration. Councils could also face criminal charges for promoting an unlicensed medicinal product, which the UKCAF regards fluoride in public water as being.
Of course, UKCAF are not the only ones who know the truth about fluoride... and trust me when I tell you, it doesn't stop at just being an unlicensed medicinal product... If you ask me, fluoride is nothing short of a poison that needs to be banned outright.
Back in 2007, the American Dental Association (ADA) first warned that infants younger than a year old should not consume baby formula that has been mixed with fluoridated water, due to concerns about dental fluorosis.
Now, the Journal of the American Dental Association has published a study that found increased fluorosis risk among infants who were fed infant formula reconstituted with fluoride-containing water. The researchers said that mild dental fluorosis can be reduced by avoiding the consumption of large quantities of fluoride... and these are dentists speaking who in the past have always been fluorides biggest advocates!
The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) followed suit and warned that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing enamel fluorosis. Unfortunately, the CDC's warning is ambiguous because they also state that water fluoridation is safe — and dental fluorosis is only a "cosmetic" problem.
The last two statements are both untrue! (Of course, we can't expect the authorities to admit they were wrong and totally back-track on what they've been saying for decades!). The truth is, discolouration of the teeth can also be an indication that the rest of your body (including your bones and brain) has been exposed to too much of this poison.
For many years now, fluoride has been added to the drinking water in many parts of the UK, especially in Ireland, under the guise that it helps prevent dental decay.
There are still those who blindly believe it actually protects teeth. Yet, the results of the largest study ever conducted on fluoridation and oral health involving 39,000 school children in 84 areas around the US, showed no statistical difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities.
Countless studies have shown that adding fluoride to drinking water has absolutely no health benefits at all and that this archaic practice does far more harm than good! The fact is that it's nothing short of being a chemical waste product!
The irony is that when you consume too much fluoride, your teeth can become discoloured and start crumbling. Tests have shown that fluoride enhances the brain's absorption of aluminium - the substance that's found in the brains of most Alzheimer's patients...
The list of fluoride's damaging effects just gets longer and longer, For example, it's been lionked too causing damage to the nervous system leading to limited joint mobility, ligament calcification, muscular degeneration, increased lead absorption, hyperactivity and/or lethargy, muscle disorders, brain damage and lowered IQ, arthritis, dementia, bone fractures, reduced thyroid function, bone cancer (osteosarcoma), disruption of the immune system, damaged sperm and increased infertility.
It saddens me that even though the ADA and the CDC have issued warnings about the use of fluoridated tap water to make infant formula, neither of them have openly informed the public about the risks and millions of parents will continue using tap water to make up formula, oblivious to its dangers!
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation! I highly recommend that you get a copy of Dr Connett's new book, The Case Against Fluoride, for more information on the bad science and political agendas that got this toxic chemical in our drinking water.
Few topics cause as much division as water fluoridation... It's like marmite, you're either for it or against it. Whichever it is, you can't ignore fluoride because it has literally poisoned our tap water in numerous areas... I'm sure you can tell which camp I fall into when it comes to this contentious subject!
Recently, I told you about the Health and Social Care Bill, which will pass the power of water fluoridation to local authorities, such as county or district councils. Since local authorities have to answer directly to the people who voted for them, the Health and Social Care Bill seems like a good idea because (on paper) it will allow residents to play a part in the decision-making process regarding water fluoridation...
However, we all know in reality this probably won't be the case.
Monster in the closet
Luckily, someone is on our side. See, if local councils act on their power to fluoridate the public water supplies, they can now also face claims for damages... The UK Councils Against Fluoridation (UKCAF), which represents 74 local councils that oppose fluoridation, has sent out a letter of warning to every council in the UK, pointing out the legal implications of their new powers.
If they decide to fluoridate the water supply, councils leave themselves open to claims for damages from parents if their children develop dental fluorosis — a common disfiguring condition caused by fluoride, which damages the enamel on teeth and leads to unsightly discolouration. Councils could also face criminal charges for promoting an unlicensed medicinal product, which the UKCAF regards fluoride in public water as being.
Of course, UKCAF are not the only ones who know the truth about fluoride... and trust me when I tell you, it doesn't stop at just being an unlicensed medicinal product... If you ask me, fluoride is nothing short of a poison that needs to be banned outright.
Back in 2007, the American Dental Association (ADA) first warned that infants younger than a year old should not consume baby formula that has been mixed with fluoridated water, due to concerns about dental fluorosis.
Now, the Journal of the American Dental Association has published a study that found increased fluorosis risk among infants who were fed infant formula reconstituted with fluoride-containing water. The researchers said that mild dental fluorosis can be reduced by avoiding the consumption of large quantities of fluoride... and these are dentists speaking who in the past have always been fluorides biggest advocates!
The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) followed suit and warned that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing enamel fluorosis. Unfortunately, the CDC's warning is ambiguous because they also state that water fluoridation is safe — and dental fluorosis is only a "cosmetic" problem.
The last two statements are both untrue! (Of course, we can't expect the authorities to admit they were wrong and totally back-track on what they've been saying for decades!). The truth is, discolouration of the teeth can also be an indication that the rest of your body (including your bones and brain) has been exposed to too much of this poison.
For many years now, fluoride has been added to the drinking water in many parts of the UK, especially in Ireland, under the guise that it helps prevent dental decay.
There are still those who blindly believe it actually protects teeth. Yet, the results of the largest study ever conducted on fluoridation and oral health involving 39,000 school children in 84 areas around the US, showed no statistical difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities.
Countless studies have shown that adding fluoride to drinking water has absolutely no health benefits at all and that this archaic practice does far more harm than good! The fact is that it's nothing short of being a chemical waste product!
The irony is that when you consume too much fluoride, your teeth can become discoloured and start crumbling. Tests have shown that fluoride enhances the brain's absorption of aluminium - the substance that's found in the brains of most Alzheimer's patients...
The list of fluoride's damaging effects just gets longer and longer, For example, it's been lionked too causing damage to the nervous system leading to limited joint mobility, ligament calcification, muscular degeneration, increased lead absorption, hyperactivity and/or lethargy, muscle disorders, brain damage and lowered IQ, arthritis, dementia, bone fractures, reduced thyroid function, bone cancer (osteosarcoma), disruption of the immune system, damaged sperm and increased infertility.
It saddens me that even though the ADA and the CDC have issued warnings about the use of fluoridated tap water to make infant formula, neither of them have openly informed the public about the risks and millions of parents will continue using tap water to make up formula, oblivious to its dangers!
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation! I highly recommend that you get a copy of Dr Connett's new book, The Case Against Fluoride, for more information on the bad science and political agendas that got this toxic chemical in our drinking water.
28 Oct 2011
Diabetes sufferers in Britain has risen by 50 per cent in just five years
'The number of diabetes sufferers in Britain has risen by 50 per cent in just five years, fuelled by soaring levels of obesity, campaigners warn.
Some three million adults and children now have the condition, after an increase of more than 117,000 in the past 12 months alone. The Diabetes UK charity warns that the NHS is now spending £9billion every year treating patients, which is almost a tenth of its budget.'
27 Oct 2011
USA - FAN Newsletter
Has fluoridation met its Waterloo? Since the October 25, 2010 victory in Waterloo, Ontario approximately 1,180,500 people have been freed from fluoridation by a city council or referendum vote ending the practice. There have been victories in every month of 2011 so far, and since August victories have become a weekly event. Clearly, the momentum is building to a head, and we may have finally reached fluoridation's tipping point.
Over the last year these communities (with approximate populations) have stopped adding fluoride to their drinking water:
--Palmer, Alaska (8,428) --Lawrenceburg, Tennessee (11,000) --Churchill, Manitoba (1000) --Pinellas County, Florida (700,000)
--College Station, TX (100,000) --Slave Lake, Alberta (7,000)
--Hohenwald, TN (4,000) --Philomath, OR (4,500)
--Spring Hill, TN (30,000) --Pottstown, PA (15,500)
--Taber, Alberta (6,500) --Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan (5,000)
--Taumarunui, New Zealand (5,000) --Fairbanks, Alaska (30,500)
--Mount Clemons, Michigan (17,300) --Lago Vista, TX (6,500)
--Marcellus, MI (1,100) --Independence, Virginia (1000)
--Calgary, Alberta (103,000) --Yellow Springs, OH (3275)
--Vercheres, Quebec (5240) --Schuylkill Haven, PA (5,500)
--Sparta, North Carolina (2,000) --Tellico, TN (900)
--Naples, NY (2,400) --Spencer, Indiana (2,500)
--Waterloo, St. Jacobs, and Elmira, Ontario (103,000)
Over the last year these communities (with approximate populations) have stopped adding fluoride to their drinking water:
--Palmer, Alaska (8,428) --Lawrenceburg, Tennessee (11,000) --Churchill, Manitoba (1000) --Pinellas County, Florida (700,000)
--College Station, TX (100,000) --Slave Lake, Alberta (7,000)
--Hohenwald, TN (4,000) --Philomath, OR (4,500)
--Spring Hill, TN (30,000) --Pottstown, PA (15,500)
--Taber, Alberta (6,500) --Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan (5,000)
--Taumarunui, New Zealand (5,000) --Fairbanks, Alaska (30,500)
--Mount Clemons, Michigan (17,300) --Lago Vista, TX (6,500)
--Marcellus, MI (1,100) --Independence, Virginia (1000)
--Calgary, Alberta (103,000) --Yellow Springs, OH (3275)
--Vercheres, Quebec (5240) --Schuylkill Haven, PA (5,500)
--Sparta, North Carolina (2,000) --Tellico, TN (900)
--Naples, NY (2,400) --Spencer, Indiana (2,500)
--Waterloo, St. Jacobs, and Elmira, Ontario (103,000)
How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Shock vaccine study reveals influenza vaccines only prevent the flu in 1.5 out of 100adults (not 60% as you've been told)
......How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!
It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).
Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors.".....
......How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?
Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!
It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.
So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)
Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).
Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors.".....
26 Oct 2011
25 Oct 2011
Swallowing chemicals from teeth whiteners is common and very dangerous
Swallowing chemicals from teeth whiteners is common and very dangerous
Monday, October 24, 2011 by: S. D. Wells
NaturalNews) The increasing popularity of coffee and tobacco products has lead to a teeth whitening craze, which includes regular use of whitening trays, toothpastes, mouth rinses, and strips applied to the teeth for extended periods of time. The use of teeth whitening products, including over the counter kits and dentist applied ones, has tripled since the year 2000, and oral cancer statistics have increased at an alarming rate for young people, including those who do not use tobacco products.
Many patients who sit in a dentist's chair for 3 to 4 hours soaking their teeth and gums in tooth whiteners end up ingesting a boatload of toxins. Coal tars, fluorides, aspartame, aluminum and benzene top the list of popular toxins that are being ingested by consumers using teeth whitening products.
Teeth whitening product warnings are nearly impossible to heed. Some read, "This product may irritate your gums," and "risk increases if the bleaching agent is incorrectly applied, as it should not come into contact with the gums." Many of the toxic chemicals leak from the trays containing the whitening gel onto surrounding areas inside the mouth. Some products and dentists often warn that bleaching may "heighten sensitivity to hot and cold foods and beverages," but what they're really saying is that bleaching agents affect the nerves within the teeth.
Some dentists even offer to repair pulp damaged teeth because when pulp is dead or injured, the tooth will darken. To correct this problem, after a root canal is completed, the dentist actually fills the pulp chamber with bleach solution and covers it with a temporary filling. The costs of sealing carcinogens inside your teeth can vary, and most dentists charge between $300 and $400 per tooth.
Many of the trays and mouth pieces that soak the teeth for hours on end are now in question, especially the trays kept in the mouth over night. How can any human being reasonably avoid swallowing these teeth whitening chemicals while sleeping?
Currently, there is no research on the long-term effects of tooth whiteners, and since they are considered "cosmetic" products, tooth whiteners don't fall under FDA regulation. What is also not being considered is the amount of bleach being ingested from so many other popular products. White bread, white pasta, white rice, white sugar, and white coffee filters all contribute to the cumulative effect of consuming carcinogens. Plus, consider into the toxic equation how often you drink fluoridated water and swim in chlorinated pools.
Also, although hydrogen peroxide is rapidly broken down in the mouth by saliva, studies show that in regards to teeth whitening procedures, at least 25 percent is swallowed, releasing free radicals into the body and stimulating the growth of cancer cells.
However, there are many safe uses for hydrogen peroxide. There are theories that hydrogen peroxide, when used properly, can kill cancer cells because they do not have the mechanism to break down the hydrogen peroxide inside of healthy cells. Do your own research and make informed decisions. Baking soda is all natural and does a great job for whitening teeth.
Monday, October 24, 2011 by: S. D. Wells
NaturalNews) The increasing popularity of coffee and tobacco products has lead to a teeth whitening craze, which includes regular use of whitening trays, toothpastes, mouth rinses, and strips applied to the teeth for extended periods of time. The use of teeth whitening products, including over the counter kits and dentist applied ones, has tripled since the year 2000, and oral cancer statistics have increased at an alarming rate for young people, including those who do not use tobacco products.
Many patients who sit in a dentist's chair for 3 to 4 hours soaking their teeth and gums in tooth whiteners end up ingesting a boatload of toxins. Coal tars, fluorides, aspartame, aluminum and benzene top the list of popular toxins that are being ingested by consumers using teeth whitening products.
Teeth whitening product warnings are nearly impossible to heed. Some read, "This product may irritate your gums," and "risk increases if the bleaching agent is incorrectly applied, as it should not come into contact with the gums." Many of the toxic chemicals leak from the trays containing the whitening gel onto surrounding areas inside the mouth. Some products and dentists often warn that bleaching may "heighten sensitivity to hot and cold foods and beverages," but what they're really saying is that bleaching agents affect the nerves within the teeth.
Some dentists even offer to repair pulp damaged teeth because when pulp is dead or injured, the tooth will darken. To correct this problem, after a root canal is completed, the dentist actually fills the pulp chamber with bleach solution and covers it with a temporary filling. The costs of sealing carcinogens inside your teeth can vary, and most dentists charge between $300 and $400 per tooth.
Many of the trays and mouth pieces that soak the teeth for hours on end are now in question, especially the trays kept in the mouth over night. How can any human being reasonably avoid swallowing these teeth whitening chemicals while sleeping?
Currently, there is no research on the long-term effects of tooth whiteners, and since they are considered "cosmetic" products, tooth whiteners don't fall under FDA regulation. What is also not being considered is the amount of bleach being ingested from so many other popular products. White bread, white pasta, white rice, white sugar, and white coffee filters all contribute to the cumulative effect of consuming carcinogens. Plus, consider into the toxic equation how often you drink fluoridated water and swim in chlorinated pools.
Also, although hydrogen peroxide is rapidly broken down in the mouth by saliva, studies show that in regards to teeth whitening procedures, at least 25 percent is swallowed, releasing free radicals into the body and stimulating the growth of cancer cells.
However, there are many safe uses for hydrogen peroxide. There are theories that hydrogen peroxide, when used properly, can kill cancer cells because they do not have the mechanism to break down the hydrogen peroxide inside of healthy cells. Do your own research and make informed decisions. Baking soda is all natural and does a great job for whitening teeth.
Scotland - Time to take more of the fizz out of the family diet
Time to take more of the fizz out of the family diet
Published on 25 Oct 2011
IT is Scotland’s other drinking problem. In a public building, a child needs a boost. He slots a coin into a machine and waits for the comforting clunk of a can.
He rips it open and guzzles the contents, feeling the energy flooding through him. The fix will last a couple of hours before the process begins again.
Children in Scotland drink more fizzy drinks than in any other European country, even after the withdrawal of fizzy-drinks vending machines from schools. Worldwide it is reckoned that only Israeli youngsters down more.
Published on 25 Oct 2011
IT is Scotland’s other drinking problem. In a public building, a child needs a boost. He slots a coin into a machine and waits for the comforting clunk of a can.
He rips it open and guzzles the contents, feeling the energy flooding through him. The fix will last a couple of hours before the process begins again.
Children in Scotland drink more fizzy drinks than in any other European country, even after the withdrawal of fizzy-drinks vending machines from schools. Worldwide it is reckoned that only Israeli youngsters down more.
Gum disease now associated with pancreatic cancer
...This is not the only form of cancer that gum disease has been linked to. Studies have found a connection between the oral condition and a higher incidence of breast cancer. Research has also shown that nearly 90 percent of Americans over 40 have tooth decay, which can lead to gum disease if it goes untreated.....
24 Oct 2011
USA - Dentists, patients feel economy's bite in Sacramento area
Dentists, patients feel economy's bite in Sacramento area
By Anne Gonzales
"I have more people unable to pay for treatment," Lott said. "The hardest hit are the younger kids, who … don't have a steady job, or insurance, or are in college. When you tell them they need a root canal or crown for $2,500, they have a look on their face like it's not real."
Sacramento, California, is fluoridated:NYSCOF
By Anne Gonzales
"I have more people unable to pay for treatment," Lott said. "The hardest hit are the younger kids, who … don't have a steady job, or insurance, or are in college. When you tell them they need a root canal or crown for $2,500, they have a look on their face like it's not real."
Sacramento, California, is fluoridated:NYSCOF
23 Oct 2011
Go Green With Your Baby
Go Green With Your Baby
Tips for raising a healthy, eco-friendly kid.
Everyone wants to give his or her baby the best possible start in life. To me, that means healthy, green living with minimal chemical exposure, fresh organic food and lots of love.
Babies use approximately 6,000 diapers before toilet training. That’s a lot of disposable diapers in the landfill where they take 200-500 years to decompose. Hence the debate over disposable vs. cloth, which takes water, energy and chemicals to wash. Cloth diapers (and now bamboo) have been shown to have a lower environmental impact. With today’s busy families, however, many prefer the convenience of disposables. If so, use chlorine free (from Seventh Generation or Earth’s Best) or hybrid diapers, which have removable inserts that can safely biodegrade when flushed. Using a combination of both cuts back a bit on the amount in the landfill.
Rightly so, there has been much concern lately over plastic baby bottles that leach dangerous levels of bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is a synthetic chemical that that mimics natural hormones and is dangerous especially when heated. Glass or BPA-free baby bottles are a much safer alternative. (Avoid clear, hard plastic bottles marked with a 7 or “PC.”) For nipples, use clear silicone ones since latex rubber nipples can cause allergic reactions and might contain toxins linked to cancer. As far as plastic bottle liners go, don’t use them. The soft plastic liners may leach toxic chemicals into formula and breast milk, especially when heated.
The American Dental Association recommends using filtered tap water free of fluoride when reconstituting formula. Heating your bottles in a pan of hot water is safer than microwaving, which can heat unevenly and cause toxic chemicals to leach from plastic bottles into formula........
Tips for raising a healthy, eco-friendly kid.
Everyone wants to give his or her baby the best possible start in life. To me, that means healthy, green living with minimal chemical exposure, fresh organic food and lots of love.
Babies use approximately 6,000 diapers before toilet training. That’s a lot of disposable diapers in the landfill where they take 200-500 years to decompose. Hence the debate over disposable vs. cloth, which takes water, energy and chemicals to wash. Cloth diapers (and now bamboo) have been shown to have a lower environmental impact. With today’s busy families, however, many prefer the convenience of disposables. If so, use chlorine free (from Seventh Generation or Earth’s Best) or hybrid diapers, which have removable inserts that can safely biodegrade when flushed. Using a combination of both cuts back a bit on the amount in the landfill.
Rightly so, there has been much concern lately over plastic baby bottles that leach dangerous levels of bisphenol-A (BPA). BPA is a synthetic chemical that that mimics natural hormones and is dangerous especially when heated. Glass or BPA-free baby bottles are a much safer alternative. (Avoid clear, hard plastic bottles marked with a 7 or “PC.”) For nipples, use clear silicone ones since latex rubber nipples can cause allergic reactions and might contain toxins linked to cancer. As far as plastic bottle liners go, don’t use them. The soft plastic liners may leach toxic chemicals into formula and breast milk, especially when heated.
The American Dental Association recommends using filtered tap water free of fluoride when reconstituting formula. Heating your bottles in a pan of hot water is safer than microwaving, which can heat unevenly and cause toxic chemicals to leach from plastic bottles into formula........
20 Oct 2011
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 19 July (WA 266) and 14 September (WA 64), whether they now intend to commission an organisation without significant links to the dental profession to prepare and publish periodic systematic reviews updating the worldwide evidence on water fluoridation following the York review in 2000, rather than to monitor and evaluate specific effects of fluoridation or conduct government-commissioned research projects.[HL12348]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We are aware that the Australian Government's National Health and Medical Research Council published a further systematic review in 2007. The department constantly reviews what work it will commission. The department's National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including water fluoridation. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government why vaccination, which confers a degree of immunity on adults other than those vaccinated, requires individual informed consent, whereas fluoridation, which confers no such benefit beyond the individual, does not. [HL12351]
19 Oct 2011 : Column WA76
Earl Howe: Vaccination is a medical treatment using a medicinal product, while drinking fluoridated water is not a medical treatment involving a medicinal product.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 19 July (WA 266) and 14 September (WA 64), whether they now intend to commission an organisation without significant links to the dental profession to prepare and publish periodic systematic reviews updating the worldwide evidence on water fluoridation following the York review in 2000, rather than to monitor and evaluate specific effects of fluoridation or conduct government-commissioned research projects.[HL12348]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): We are aware that the Australian Government's National Health and Medical Research Council published a further systematic review in 2007. The department constantly reviews what work it will commission. The department's National Institute for Health Research welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including water fluoridation. These applications are subject to peer review and judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals made.
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government why vaccination, which confers a degree of immunity on adults other than those vaccinated, requires individual informed consent, whereas fluoridation, which confers no such benefit beyond the individual, does not. [HL12351]
19 Oct 2011 : Column WA76
Earl Howe: Vaccination is a medical treatment using a medicinal product, while drinking fluoridated water is not a medical treatment involving a medicinal product.
Radio 4 discussion
Radio 4 discussion about the Scottish "Child Smile" programme and fluoride varnishes. It's at the following link: Child Smile
The item starts at 30 minutes and 40 seconds into the programme.
The item starts at 30 minutes and 40 seconds into the programme.
19 Oct 2011
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 11 August (WA 405), whether the mean figure of 2.13 which they cited for decayed, missing and filled teeth among 12-year-olds within the unfluoridated Manchester Primary Care Trust area was derived from the correct table, or whether 1.12 is the correct figure from the website they cited.[HL12293]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): I confirm the correct mean figure for decayed, missing and filled teeth among 12-year-olds within Manchester Primary Care Trust area was 1.12. I should like to apologise for the error.
No retraction of the inference that there is a big difference between fluoridated and non fluoridated cities though. Apology is not good enough.
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 11 August (WA 405), whether the mean figure of 2.13 which they cited for decayed, missing and filled teeth among 12-year-olds within the unfluoridated Manchester Primary Care Trust area was derived from the correct table, or whether 1.12 is the correct figure from the website they cited.[HL12293]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): I confirm the correct mean figure for decayed, missing and filled teeth among 12-year-olds within Manchester Primary Care Trust area was 1.12. I should like to apologise for the error.
No retraction of the inference that there is a big difference between fluoridated and non fluoridated cities though. Apology is not good enough.
18 Oct 2011
What doctors don't tell you - Fluoride’s fall guys
Fluoride’s fall guys
Local councils in the UK are being given new powers that will allow them to fluoridate their local public water supply—but they could face claims for damages if they go ahead.
UK Councils Against Fluorida-tion (UKCAF; www.ukcaf.org), which represents 74 local councils opposed to fluoridation, has sent out a letter of warning to every council, pointing out the legal implications of their new powers.
If they decide to fluoridate the water supply, councils leave themselves open to claims for damages from parents if their children develop dental fluorosis, a common disfiguring condition caused by fluoride that damages the enamel on teeth. The council could also face criminal charges for promoting an unlicensed medicinal product, as UKCAF believes fluoride in public water is.
These new powers are included in the wide-ranging Health and Social Care Bill, which seeks to change the power base of the National Health Service (NHS). The bill, which is passing through Parliament, also transfers responsibility for fluoridation from strategic health authorities to local councils. Local councils within a water-board area will need to consult and arrive at a consensus view before fluoride can be added to the public water, the bill states.
Window dressing
UKCAF’s director Liz Vaughan fears that the decision-making process is merely window dressing, and that local authorities will have no other option than to fall in line with the current government thinking, which seems to be roundly in favour of further fluoridation.
The Department of Health, in a document that accompanies the bill, states that “fluoridation can significantly reduce inequalities in oral health between affluent and less affluent areas”, but accepts that the subject remains contro-versial. Once the bill becomes law, the health secretary will have the power “to specify particular public health services that local author-ities must provide to ensure their national availability”. Ukcaf fears that water fluoridation will be among the compulsory public-health services that local councils will be forced to implement, possibly even without public consultation.
Even though local councils might be merely the implementers of national government bidding, they—and even individual councillors who vote for water fluoridation—will be in the direct firing line when lawsuits are issued.
The medicine that isn’t
The first will be claims for damages from parents whose children are suffering from dental fluorosis as a direct result of fluoridation. The condition, in which the enamel of the teeth becomes discoloured, affects up to half of children in fluoridated areas, while around one in eight has a more severe reaction wherein the teeth become badly discoloured and deformed. In these cases, dental remedial work is needed, and costs for aesthetic treatment—which may not be covered under the NHS—can run into thousands of pounds, says Ukcaf. In addition to costs, parents may also win damages to compensate for any mental harm their child may suffer.
The second charge—criminal prosecution for promoting an unlicensed medical product—highlights the confused thinking in government about fluoridation. In 1983, Lord Jauncey ruled in a Court of Session in Edinburgh that fluoride “in whatever form it is ultimately purchased” is a medicinal product as defined by the Medicines Act 1968. As Lord Jauncey pointed out, fluoride is supposed to have a beneficial medical effect—it is promoted as a preventative of dental caries (tooth decay)—and is therefore a medicine. Under the Medicines Act, no medicinal product can be supplied unless it has marketing authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)—and fluoride has never been granted that authorization.
This is because the MHRA—a government body—has refused to accept that water fluoridation is a medicine. This ambivalence is compounded by the government and its health advisors who, of course, believe it has medicinal benefit.
They maintain that fluoridated water helps to prevent tooth decay in poorer communities, where diet and lifestyle may lead to more dental caries—even though it increases the risk of fluorosis in
all communities.
Diluting the problems
Successive UK governments—whether Conservative or Labour—have made moves to get the nation’s public water fluoridated. Four years ago, the government of the time was accused of massaging research findings in order to make the issue of fluoridation more palatable to the public. Professor Trevor Sheldon, pro-vice-chancellor of York University, who prepared a government-commissioned report, accused ministers of “one-sided handling of the evidence”. The Department of Health used the evidence “selectively . . . to give an over-optimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation”, he said (BMJ, 2007; 335: 699–702).
The UK government’s enthus-iasm for fluoridation is also out of step with other members of the EU. Only the Irish Republic has comprehensively introduced fluor-ide into its tap water—more than 70 per cent of public water there is fluoridated—and yet, it has one of the highest rates of tooth
decay in all of Europe. One study discovered that three out of four children in Ireland have tooth decay by the time they reach the age of 15, and 40 per cent have fluorosis (www.irishhealth.com).
The Irish phenomenon is not an anomaly. Health authorities in New Zealand during the 1980s were seeing similar results. The country’s then chief dental health officer said at the time: “When any unfluoridated area is compared with a fluoridated area of similar income level, the percentage of children who are free of dental decay is consistently higher in the unfluoridated area”.
His observations have been confirmed in studies from the US and Canada; one discovered no difference in levels of tooth decay in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas (Fluoride, 1990; 23: 55–67), while others have demonstrated that decay is less common in unfluoridated regions (J Can Dent Assoc, 1987; 53: 753–5).
Not only is fluoride ineffective, it is also hazardous to health, and it has been associated with diseases far more serious than just fluorosis.
Fluoride is a poison that is more toxic than lead. We are exposed to two forms of it every day: sodium fluoride is added to toothpaste, mouth rinses and gels, while hydrofluorosilicic acid is used in the public water. Even its pro-ponents accept that fluoride can be lethal at high quantities, but they argue that our exposure is minimal.
However, in assessing the levels of fluoride we absorb, scientists are not including all the sources to which we are daily exposed. In addition to brushing our teeth in it, it is also in pesticide-laden food, in the air we breathe, the tea we drink and the pharmaceuticals
we take—and is even found in preparations for babies.
Even so, say advocates, fluoride has a very short half-life of just
210 minutes—which means that the body is clear of it within that time—but evidence suggests that it accumulates in the blood, bones and soft tissues over a lengthy period, and can even reach toxic levels as a person ages. As a result, it has been suspected to be a cause of osteoporosis and hip fracture (JAMA, 1992; 268: 746–8), and can reach levels of low toxicity that nonetheless cause bone damage within 38 years.
Fluoride toxicity has also been linked to thyroid disease, manifesting as general fatigue, to heart irregularities and to low blood pressure (Publ Health Report, 1956; 71: 459–67), and to neurological problems such as vertigo, visual disturbances and mental acuity (Fluoride, 1975; 8: 61–85).
An ME connection
A large body of evidence is also linking fluoride to ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis). Researchers have seen similarities between the symptoms of ME and early-stage fluoride poisoning (Fluoride, 1998; 31: 13–20), possibly because it inter-feres with the movement of white blood cells, reducing the body’s natural infection-fighting capa-bility (InterAction, 1994; 14: 53–4).
Not surprisingly, the European Commission’s Scientific Com-mittee on Health and Environ-mental Risks (SCHER) has been reticent to recommend wide-spread water fluoridation. In its preliminary note, the committee states: “Fluoridation is a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage.”
Despite the evidence and hesitancy within the EU, the UK government seems set to follow the British Dental Association’s agenda and push for mass water fluoridation throughout the country. And with the local authorities in the direct firing line, and likely to be seen as the ‘bad guys’ if public opinion is strongly opposed to fluoridation, why should they worry?
Bryan Hubbard
Factfile: Symptoms of fluoride poisoning
After studying 112 people with fluorosis, researchers have drawn up a list of symptoms of early-stage fluorosis poisoning (Fluoride, 1998; 31: 13–20) that usually manifest before bone damage.
•Musculoskeletal Arthritis (cervical and lumbar spine), muscle pain, pins and needles, inability to control extremities
•Gastrointestinal Gastric pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating, diarrhoea, constipation, acute abdominal episodes, mouth inflammation
•Neurological Migraine-type headache, blurred vision with moving spots (floaters), convulsions, muscle fibrillation (contractions, twitching)
•Respiratory Nasal problems, emphysema, asthma, nosebleeds
•Skin Dermatitis, inflammation around capillary blood vessels
•General Cough, excess mucus, breathing difficulties, mouth ulcers, bleeding gums, palpitations, vertigo, sleep problems, excessive thirst, excessive urination, joint pain, rash, memory loss, tinnitus (persistent ringing in the ears), fatigue.
WDDTY 22 no 7, October 2011
Local councils in the UK are being given new powers that will allow them to fluoridate their local public water supply—but they could face claims for damages if they go ahead.
UK Councils Against Fluorida-tion (UKCAF; www.ukcaf.org), which represents 74 local councils opposed to fluoridation, has sent out a letter of warning to every council, pointing out the legal implications of their new powers.
If they decide to fluoridate the water supply, councils leave themselves open to claims for damages from parents if their children develop dental fluorosis, a common disfiguring condition caused by fluoride that damages the enamel on teeth. The council could also face criminal charges for promoting an unlicensed medicinal product, as UKCAF believes fluoride in public water is.
These new powers are included in the wide-ranging Health and Social Care Bill, which seeks to change the power base of the National Health Service (NHS). The bill, which is passing through Parliament, also transfers responsibility for fluoridation from strategic health authorities to local councils. Local councils within a water-board area will need to consult and arrive at a consensus view before fluoride can be added to the public water, the bill states.
Window dressing
UKCAF’s director Liz Vaughan fears that the decision-making process is merely window dressing, and that local authorities will have no other option than to fall in line with the current government thinking, which seems to be roundly in favour of further fluoridation.
The Department of Health, in a document that accompanies the bill, states that “fluoridation can significantly reduce inequalities in oral health between affluent and less affluent areas”, but accepts that the subject remains contro-versial. Once the bill becomes law, the health secretary will have the power “to specify particular public health services that local author-ities must provide to ensure their national availability”. Ukcaf fears that water fluoridation will be among the compulsory public-health services that local councils will be forced to implement, possibly even without public consultation.
Even though local councils might be merely the implementers of national government bidding, they—and even individual councillors who vote for water fluoridation—will be in the direct firing line when lawsuits are issued.
The medicine that isn’t
The first will be claims for damages from parents whose children are suffering from dental fluorosis as a direct result of fluoridation. The condition, in which the enamel of the teeth becomes discoloured, affects up to half of children in fluoridated areas, while around one in eight has a more severe reaction wherein the teeth become badly discoloured and deformed. In these cases, dental remedial work is needed, and costs for aesthetic treatment—which may not be covered under the NHS—can run into thousands of pounds, says Ukcaf. In addition to costs, parents may also win damages to compensate for any mental harm their child may suffer.
The second charge—criminal prosecution for promoting an unlicensed medical product—highlights the confused thinking in government about fluoridation. In 1983, Lord Jauncey ruled in a Court of Session in Edinburgh that fluoride “in whatever form it is ultimately purchased” is a medicinal product as defined by the Medicines Act 1968. As Lord Jauncey pointed out, fluoride is supposed to have a beneficial medical effect—it is promoted as a preventative of dental caries (tooth decay)—and is therefore a medicine. Under the Medicines Act, no medicinal product can be supplied unless it has marketing authorization from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)—and fluoride has never been granted that authorization.
This is because the MHRA—a government body—has refused to accept that water fluoridation is a medicine. This ambivalence is compounded by the government and its health advisors who, of course, believe it has medicinal benefit.
They maintain that fluoridated water helps to prevent tooth decay in poorer communities, where diet and lifestyle may lead to more dental caries—even though it increases the risk of fluorosis in
all communities.
Diluting the problems
Successive UK governments—whether Conservative or Labour—have made moves to get the nation’s public water fluoridated. Four years ago, the government of the time was accused of massaging research findings in order to make the issue of fluoridation more palatable to the public. Professor Trevor Sheldon, pro-vice-chancellor of York University, who prepared a government-commissioned report, accused ministers of “one-sided handling of the evidence”. The Department of Health used the evidence “selectively . . . to give an over-optimistic assessment of the evidence in favour of fluoridation”, he said (BMJ, 2007; 335: 699–702).
The UK government’s enthus-iasm for fluoridation is also out of step with other members of the EU. Only the Irish Republic has comprehensively introduced fluor-ide into its tap water—more than 70 per cent of public water there is fluoridated—and yet, it has one of the highest rates of tooth
decay in all of Europe. One study discovered that three out of four children in Ireland have tooth decay by the time they reach the age of 15, and 40 per cent have fluorosis (www.irishhealth.com).
The Irish phenomenon is not an anomaly. Health authorities in New Zealand during the 1980s were seeing similar results. The country’s then chief dental health officer said at the time: “When any unfluoridated area is compared with a fluoridated area of similar income level, the percentage of children who are free of dental decay is consistently higher in the unfluoridated area”.
His observations have been confirmed in studies from the US and Canada; one discovered no difference in levels of tooth decay in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas (Fluoride, 1990; 23: 55–67), while others have demonstrated that decay is less common in unfluoridated regions (J Can Dent Assoc, 1987; 53: 753–5).
Not only is fluoride ineffective, it is also hazardous to health, and it has been associated with diseases far more serious than just fluorosis.
Fluoride is a poison that is more toxic than lead. We are exposed to two forms of it every day: sodium fluoride is added to toothpaste, mouth rinses and gels, while hydrofluorosilicic acid is used in the public water. Even its pro-ponents accept that fluoride can be lethal at high quantities, but they argue that our exposure is minimal.
However, in assessing the levels of fluoride we absorb, scientists are not including all the sources to which we are daily exposed. In addition to brushing our teeth in it, it is also in pesticide-laden food, in the air we breathe, the tea we drink and the pharmaceuticals
we take—and is even found in preparations for babies.
Even so, say advocates, fluoride has a very short half-life of just
210 minutes—which means that the body is clear of it within that time—but evidence suggests that it accumulates in the blood, bones and soft tissues over a lengthy period, and can even reach toxic levels as a person ages. As a result, it has been suspected to be a cause of osteoporosis and hip fracture (JAMA, 1992; 268: 746–8), and can reach levels of low toxicity that nonetheless cause bone damage within 38 years.
Fluoride toxicity has also been linked to thyroid disease, manifesting as general fatigue, to heart irregularities and to low blood pressure (Publ Health Report, 1956; 71: 459–67), and to neurological problems such as vertigo, visual disturbances and mental acuity (Fluoride, 1975; 8: 61–85).
An ME connection
A large body of evidence is also linking fluoride to ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis). Researchers have seen similarities between the symptoms of ME and early-stage fluoride poisoning (Fluoride, 1998; 31: 13–20), possibly because it inter-feres with the movement of white blood cells, reducing the body’s natural infection-fighting capa-bility (InterAction, 1994; 14: 53–4).
Not surprisingly, the European Commission’s Scientific Com-mittee on Health and Environ-mental Risks (SCHER) has been reticent to recommend wide-spread water fluoridation. In its preliminary note, the committee states: “Fluoridation is a crude and rather ineffective form of systemic fluoride treatment to prevent dental caries without a detectable threshold for dental and bone damage.”
Despite the evidence and hesitancy within the EU, the UK government seems set to follow the British Dental Association’s agenda and push for mass water fluoridation throughout the country. And with the local authorities in the direct firing line, and likely to be seen as the ‘bad guys’ if public opinion is strongly opposed to fluoridation, why should they worry?
Bryan Hubbard
Factfile: Symptoms of fluoride poisoning
After studying 112 people with fluorosis, researchers have drawn up a list of symptoms of early-stage fluorosis poisoning (Fluoride, 1998; 31: 13–20) that usually manifest before bone damage.
•Musculoskeletal Arthritis (cervical and lumbar spine), muscle pain, pins and needles, inability to control extremities
•Gastrointestinal Gastric pain, nausea, vomiting, bloating, diarrhoea, constipation, acute abdominal episodes, mouth inflammation
•Neurological Migraine-type headache, blurred vision with moving spots (floaters), convulsions, muscle fibrillation (contractions, twitching)
•Respiratory Nasal problems, emphysema, asthma, nosebleeds
•Skin Dermatitis, inflammation around capillary blood vessels
•General Cough, excess mucus, breathing difficulties, mouth ulcers, bleeding gums, palpitations, vertigo, sleep problems, excessive thirst, excessive urination, joint pain, rash, memory loss, tinnitus (persistent ringing in the ears), fatigue.
WDDTY 22 no 7, October 2011
Just 1 Single Drop of This Would Poison a Lake Enough to Ban Fishing on It...
Not fluoride this time.
In the House of Lords
Fluoridation
Question
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 15 September (WA 87), whether other treatments, such as surgery, which are not classified as medicinal products, require individual informed consent from the recipient.[HL12350]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): It is a general legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained from an individual before starting a treatment or physical intervention such as surgery.
Why isn't fluoride treatment then?
Question
Asked by Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 15 September (WA 87), whether other treatments, such as surgery, which are not classified as medicinal products, require individual informed consent from the recipient.[HL12350]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe): It is a general legal and ethical principle that valid consent must be obtained from an individual before starting a treatment or physical intervention such as surgery.
Why isn't fluoride treatment then?
Councillor Thomas has always opposed Fluoridation
I spoke to Councillor Thomas just before the first council vote at the Civic Centre and he was absolutely against and voted accordingly.
17 Oct 2011
16 Oct 2011
Story at-a-glance
Story at-a-glance
Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste product, which may also be contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The fluoride added to municipal water supplies is not pharmaceutical grade.
Twenty-three studies from four countries indicate that even moderate exposure to fluoride lowers IQ.
The daily dose of fluoride recommended by the American Dental Association results in the same level of fluoride in your blood shown to cause an 8-point drop in IQ.
Poison control should be called if you swallow a quarter milligram of fluoride from toothpaste. Meanwhile just ONE glass of water can contain this amount of fluoride.
To remain within "safe" limits, you'd have to use such a small amount of fluoridated toothpaste that one tube would last you several years.
Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste product, which may also be contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The fluoride added to municipal water supplies is not pharmaceutical grade.
Twenty-three studies from four countries indicate that even moderate exposure to fluoride lowers IQ.
The daily dose of fluoride recommended by the American Dental Association results in the same level of fluoride in your blood shown to cause an 8-point drop in IQ.
Poison control should be called if you swallow a quarter milligram of fluoride from toothpaste. Meanwhile just ONE glass of water can contain this amount of fluoride.
To remain within "safe" limits, you'd have to use such a small amount of fluoridated toothpaste that one tube would last you several years.
Microbes’ effect on health explored
Microbes’ effect on health explored
By Rob Stein
Washington Post / October 16, 2011
WASHINGTON - Consider this: The average person’s body contains about 100 trillion cells, but only maybe 1 in 10 is human.
This isn’t the latest Hollywood horror flick, or some secret genetic engineering experiment run amok. The human cells that form our skin, eyes, ears, brain and every other part of our bodies are far outnumbered by those from microbes, primarily bacteria but also viruses, fungi, and other microorganisms.
This, it turns out, is nature’s way. A growing body of evidence indicates that the microbial ecosystems that have long populated our mouths, noses, intestines, and every other nook and cranny play crucial roles in keeping us healthy.
Moreover, researchers are becoming more convinced that modern trends - diet, antibiotics, obsession with cleanliness, Caesarean delivery of babies - are disrupting this delicate balance, contributing to some of the most perplexing ailments, including asthma, allergies, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and perhaps even autism.
“In terms of potential for human health, I would place it with stem cells as one of the two most promising areas of research at the moment,’’ said Rob Knight of the University of Colorado. “Everywhere we look, microbes seem to be involved.’’
Equipped with super-fast new DNA decoders, scientists are accelerating the exploration of this realm at a molecular level, yielding provocative insights into how these microbial stowaways may wield far greater powers than previously appreciated in, paradoxically, making us human.
A five-year, $175 million study, the US Human Microbiome Project, is assembling an outline of a “healthy’’ microbiotic profile for humans by sampling the mouth, airway, skin, intestinal, and urogenital tract of 300 healthy adults, as well as deciphering the genetic codes of 200 possibly key microbes.
“The field has exploded,’’ said Jeffrey Gordon of Washington University, who pioneered the exploration of humanity’s microbial inhabitants, known as the “microbiome’’ or “microbiota.’’ “People have this sense of wonderment about looking at themselves as a compilation of microbial and human parts.’’
Some equate these microbial inhabitants to a newly recognized organ. Acquired at birth, this mass of fellow travelers may help steer normal development, molding immune systems and calibrating fundamental metabolic functions such as energy storage and consumption. There are even tantalizing clues they may help shape brain development, influencing behavior.
“The ‘human supraorganism’ is one term coined to describe the human host and all the attendant microorganisms,’’ said Lita Proctor, who leads the Human Microbiome Project at the National Institutes of Health, which is mapping this world. “There’s been a real revolution in thinking about what that means.’’
Investigators are trying to identify which organisms may truly be beneficial “probiotics’’ that people could take to help their health. Others are finding substances that people might ingest to nurture the good bugs. Drugs may mimic the helpful compounds that these organisms produce.
Doctors have even begun microbiota “transplants’’ to treat a host of illnesses, including a sometimes-devastating gastrointestinal infection called C. difficile, digestive system ailments such as Crohn’s disease, colitis, and irritable bowel disorder, and even in a handful of cases obesity and other afflictions, such as multiple sclerosis.
Many advocates of the research urge caution, noting that most of the work so far has involved laboratory animals or small numbers of patients, many hypotheses remain far from proven and nothing has zero risk.
“We have to be very careful in how we state what we know at the present time versus what we think might be true at this point,’’ said David Relman of Stanford University. “But it’s probably fair to say that our indigenous communities are more diverse, more complex, and more intimately and intricately involved in our biology than we thought.’’
Scientists have long known that many organisms evolved with humans and perform vital functions, digesting food, extracting crucial nutrients, and fighting off disease-causing entities.
But as microbiologists have begun scrutinizing these colonies, it has become clearer that they create carefully calibrated enterprises, with unique combinations inhabiting individual crevices and identifiable nuances from person to person.
European scientists reported in April that people generally seem to have one of three basic combinations that may be as fundamentally important as, say, blood type.
Dozens of studies are underway, including some that are repeatedly swabbing kids and adults, including twins, to gain insights into why one person gets tooth decay, asthma, ulcerative colitis, or even cancer, and another doesn’t.
One intriguing finding is that babies born through Caesarean sections apparently miss out on acquiring mothers’ microbiota.
“The birth canal is very heavily colonized by bacteria,’’ said Maria Dominguez-Bello, a University of Puerto Rico biologist who has been studying microbiota around the world, including in isolated tribes in the Amazon. “We think that is not by chance.’’
By Rob Stein
Washington Post / October 16, 2011
WASHINGTON - Consider this: The average person’s body contains about 100 trillion cells, but only maybe 1 in 10 is human.
This isn’t the latest Hollywood horror flick, or some secret genetic engineering experiment run amok. The human cells that form our skin, eyes, ears, brain and every other part of our bodies are far outnumbered by those from microbes, primarily bacteria but also viruses, fungi, and other microorganisms.
This, it turns out, is nature’s way. A growing body of evidence indicates that the microbial ecosystems that have long populated our mouths, noses, intestines, and every other nook and cranny play crucial roles in keeping us healthy.
Moreover, researchers are becoming more convinced that modern trends - diet, antibiotics, obsession with cleanliness, Caesarean delivery of babies - are disrupting this delicate balance, contributing to some of the most perplexing ailments, including asthma, allergies, obesity, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, cancer, and perhaps even autism.
“In terms of potential for human health, I would place it with stem cells as one of the two most promising areas of research at the moment,’’ said Rob Knight of the University of Colorado. “Everywhere we look, microbes seem to be involved.’’
Equipped with super-fast new DNA decoders, scientists are accelerating the exploration of this realm at a molecular level, yielding provocative insights into how these microbial stowaways may wield far greater powers than previously appreciated in, paradoxically, making us human.
A five-year, $175 million study, the US Human Microbiome Project, is assembling an outline of a “healthy’’ microbiotic profile for humans by sampling the mouth, airway, skin, intestinal, and urogenital tract of 300 healthy adults, as well as deciphering the genetic codes of 200 possibly key microbes.
“The field has exploded,’’ said Jeffrey Gordon of Washington University, who pioneered the exploration of humanity’s microbial inhabitants, known as the “microbiome’’ or “microbiota.’’ “People have this sense of wonderment about looking at themselves as a compilation of microbial and human parts.’’
Some equate these microbial inhabitants to a newly recognized organ. Acquired at birth, this mass of fellow travelers may help steer normal development, molding immune systems and calibrating fundamental metabolic functions such as energy storage and consumption. There are even tantalizing clues they may help shape brain development, influencing behavior.
“The ‘human supraorganism’ is one term coined to describe the human host and all the attendant microorganisms,’’ said Lita Proctor, who leads the Human Microbiome Project at the National Institutes of Health, which is mapping this world. “There’s been a real revolution in thinking about what that means.’’
Investigators are trying to identify which organisms may truly be beneficial “probiotics’’ that people could take to help their health. Others are finding substances that people might ingest to nurture the good bugs. Drugs may mimic the helpful compounds that these organisms produce.
Doctors have even begun microbiota “transplants’’ to treat a host of illnesses, including a sometimes-devastating gastrointestinal infection called C. difficile, digestive system ailments such as Crohn’s disease, colitis, and irritable bowel disorder, and even in a handful of cases obesity and other afflictions, such as multiple sclerosis.
Many advocates of the research urge caution, noting that most of the work so far has involved laboratory animals or small numbers of patients, many hypotheses remain far from proven and nothing has zero risk.
“We have to be very careful in how we state what we know at the present time versus what we think might be true at this point,’’ said David Relman of Stanford University. “But it’s probably fair to say that our indigenous communities are more diverse, more complex, and more intimately and intricately involved in our biology than we thought.’’
Scientists have long known that many organisms evolved with humans and perform vital functions, digesting food, extracting crucial nutrients, and fighting off disease-causing entities.
But as microbiologists have begun scrutinizing these colonies, it has become clearer that they create carefully calibrated enterprises, with unique combinations inhabiting individual crevices and identifiable nuances from person to person.
European scientists reported in April that people generally seem to have one of three basic combinations that may be as fundamentally important as, say, blood type.
Dozens of studies are underway, including some that are repeatedly swabbing kids and adults, including twins, to gain insights into why one person gets tooth decay, asthma, ulcerative colitis, or even cancer, and another doesn’t.
One intriguing finding is that babies born through Caesarean sections apparently miss out on acquiring mothers’ microbiota.
“The birth canal is very heavily colonized by bacteria,’’ said Maria Dominguez-Bello, a University of Puerto Rico biologist who has been studying microbiota around the world, including in isolated tribes in the Amazon. “We think that is not by chance.’’
15 Oct 2011
Alex Jones - Nighlty News - Dr. Laura Pressley: Speaking on Fluoride Freedom!
Video from USA worth listening to.
Leicester children 'worst teeth in UK', an NHS survey finds
Leicester children 'worst teeth in UK', an NHS survey finds
Twelve-year-old children in Leicester have the highest rate of tooth decay in England, according to an NHS report.
The latest figures found 45.3% of 12-year-old children in the city have experienced tooth decay, compared to an England average of 17.5% in 2008/09.
NHS Leicester City Primary Care Trust (PCT) said it needed to try harder to get the basic dental hygiene message across to people.
In total, 140 PCTs of 152 took part in the national dental health survey.
There are many causes of poor dental health, which include diet, poor oral hygiene and not visiting a dentist, the British Dental Association (BDA) said.
Ivan Browne, a consultant in public health for NHS Leicester City, said there was also a responsibility with "people looking after their own teeth" if the city was to improve tooth decay in children.
"Yes we can increase provision, improve information and get the information out there, but the fundamental thing is making sure children are not having all those sugary snacks and brushing their teeth properly," he said.
Baby teeth
Jancy Pope, a specialist paediatric dentist at Leicester's Westcotes Clinic, said a few years ago removing all 20 baby teeth on a toddler was "not a unique occurrence at all".She added: "Scotland runs a programme were fluoride is applied to children's teeth at pre-school, nurseries and schools and the results show significant improvement in oral health".Ms Pope suggested "water fluoridation and better education" would reduce the number of children in Leicester with decaying teeth.
Christopher Allen, who chairs the Dental Public Health Working Group for the BDA, said: "Despite an overall improvement in recent years, unacceptable inequalities between those with the best and worst oral health persist.
"Vital to tackling these inequalities is the input of consultants in dental public health. Worryingly, around one-third of primary care trusts, including Leicester City, do not have access to such expertise. This must be rectified as the Government's NHS reorganisation continues."
The survey, called NHS Dental Epidemiology Programme (NHS DEP) for England, was undertaken by North West Public Health Observatory and The Dental Observatory.
Twelve-year-old children in Leicester have the highest rate of tooth decay in England, according to an NHS report.
The latest figures found 45.3% of 12-year-old children in the city have experienced tooth decay, compared to an England average of 17.5% in 2008/09.
NHS Leicester City Primary Care Trust (PCT) said it needed to try harder to get the basic dental hygiene message across to people.
In total, 140 PCTs of 152 took part in the national dental health survey.
There are many causes of poor dental health, which include diet, poor oral hygiene and not visiting a dentist, the British Dental Association (BDA) said.
Ivan Browne, a consultant in public health for NHS Leicester City, said there was also a responsibility with "people looking after their own teeth" if the city was to improve tooth decay in children.
"Yes we can increase provision, improve information and get the information out there, but the fundamental thing is making sure children are not having all those sugary snacks and brushing their teeth properly," he said.
Baby teeth
Jancy Pope, a specialist paediatric dentist at Leicester's Westcotes Clinic, said a few years ago removing all 20 baby teeth on a toddler was "not a unique occurrence at all".She added: "Scotland runs a programme were fluoride is applied to children's teeth at pre-school, nurseries and schools and the results show significant improvement in oral health".Ms Pope suggested "water fluoridation and better education" would reduce the number of children in Leicester with decaying teeth.
Christopher Allen, who chairs the Dental Public Health Working Group for the BDA, said: "Despite an overall improvement in recent years, unacceptable inequalities between those with the best and worst oral health persist.
"Vital to tackling these inequalities is the input of consultants in dental public health. Worryingly, around one-third of primary care trusts, including Leicester City, do not have access to such expertise. This must be rectified as the Government's NHS reorganisation continues."
The survey, called NHS Dental Epidemiology Programme (NHS DEP) for England, was undertaken by North West Public Health Observatory and The Dental Observatory.
14 Oct 2011
NZ - Beginning of the end for fluoridation
Beginning of the end for fluoridation
MATT RILKOFF
A bombshell decision to end water fluoridation in New Plymouth is being heralded as the beginning of the end for the practice in New Zealand.
The New Plymouth District Council yesterday voted to stop fluoridation in the district after more than 40 years of adding the chemical to its water to reduce dental decay.
Mary Byrne of anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network New Zealand said the decision could lead to a domino effect of other councils rejecting the chemical.
"It has to because we have got New Plymouth and the Ruapehu District Council both deciding to turn it off.
"The other councils don't have a leg to stand on. What this does is legitimise it.
"It will give other councils the courage to make the right decision and it also makes a lot of them realise this is a serious mainstream issue," Ms Byrne said.
The decision was the biggest anti-fluoride victory so far, made more significant because councillors held a two-day tribunal to hear both sides of the argument before reaching their conclusion.
"I think what will happen is I think this New Plymouth decision will shake up the remaining councils.
"Because we now have 25 councils out of 69 that have fluoridation and they will start wondering if they are doing the right thing ... I definitely think this is the beginning of the end."
More than half of New Zealand's population supplied with fluoridated water – Christchurch is the only main centre with non-fluoridated water.......
MATT RILKOFF
A bombshell decision to end water fluoridation in New Plymouth is being heralded as the beginning of the end for the practice in New Zealand.
The New Plymouth District Council yesterday voted to stop fluoridation in the district after more than 40 years of adding the chemical to its water to reduce dental decay.
Mary Byrne of anti-fluoride group Fluoride Action Network New Zealand said the decision could lead to a domino effect of other councils rejecting the chemical.
"It has to because we have got New Plymouth and the Ruapehu District Council both deciding to turn it off.
"The other councils don't have a leg to stand on. What this does is legitimise it.
"It will give other councils the courage to make the right decision and it also makes a lot of them realise this is a serious mainstream issue," Ms Byrne said.
The decision was the biggest anti-fluoride victory so far, made more significant because councillors held a two-day tribunal to hear both sides of the argument before reaching their conclusion.
"I think what will happen is I think this New Plymouth decision will shake up the remaining councils.
"Because we now have 25 councils out of 69 that have fluoridation and they will start wondering if they are doing the right thing ... I definitely think this is the beginning of the end."
More than half of New Zealand's population supplied with fluoridated water – Christchurch is the only main centre with non-fluoridated water.......
13 Oct 2011
Canada - Time to end fluoridation in Halton
Time to end fluoridation in Halton
NORTH OAKVILLE TODAY LETTER - It’s time to end the fluoridation of Halton’s water supply.
Joining with Great Lakes United, The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and thousands of toxicologists, doctors, and other medical professionals Oakvillegreen, BurlingtonGreen, Miltongreen and Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources in Halton Hills, all came together last year to call for an end to the practice.
All anyone has to see to demonstrate that fluoride is harmful are the warnings on your toothpaste box. They say “do not swallow”. Further they warn not to use fluoride toothpastes on young children. Some state they should only be used on children older than 12.
The potential for harm to human health, especially for children, by adding this toxic substance to our drinking water, is great. The potential harm to the environment is also great as fluoride is toxic to aquatic life and 99% of all fluoride-treated water is released into the environment.
Most Canadians don’t have fluoride added to their municipal water yet cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas are virtually the same.
Drinking fluoride is ineffective at preventing cavities and potentially harmful to human health and the health of the environment. It’s time to end fluoridation.
- Karen Brock, President
Oakvillegreen Conservation Association.
Around the world people are calling for an end to fluoridation while the SHA still ignore the tide of opinion and continue to plan to put it in our water.
NORTH OAKVILLE TODAY LETTER - It’s time to end the fluoridation of Halton’s water supply.
Joining with Great Lakes United, The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and thousands of toxicologists, doctors, and other medical professionals Oakvillegreen, BurlingtonGreen, Miltongreen and Protect Our Water and Environmental Resources in Halton Hills, all came together last year to call for an end to the practice.
All anyone has to see to demonstrate that fluoride is harmful are the warnings on your toothpaste box. They say “do not swallow”. Further they warn not to use fluoride toothpastes on young children. Some state they should only be used on children older than 12.
The potential for harm to human health, especially for children, by adding this toxic substance to our drinking water, is great. The potential harm to the environment is also great as fluoride is toxic to aquatic life and 99% of all fluoride-treated water is released into the environment.
Most Canadians don’t have fluoride added to their municipal water yet cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas are virtually the same.
Drinking fluoride is ineffective at preventing cavities and potentially harmful to human health and the health of the environment. It’s time to end fluoridation.
- Karen Brock, President
Oakvillegreen Conservation Association.
Around the world people are calling for an end to fluoridation while the SHA still ignore the tide of opinion and continue to plan to put it in our water.
12 Oct 2011
AQUASERVE fluoride removal
Advert for filtration shame we may all have to use something like this if they go ahead with fluoridation. Good for their business but how many could afford it here?
News from the USA
Emergence of Fluoridegate
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - 4:38pm
Submitted by Ben Nelms
It was reported a few months ago in this column that something called Fluoridegate is on the horizon. The issue was and is the consumption of fluoride in drinking water and other sources and the deleterious health effects that result from it. The column also stated that the handwriting is on the wall for the days of water fluoridation. The dawning of that day has begun.
The emergence of Fluoridegate has been signaled by two federal lawsuits, one filed in California on Aug. 9 and another filed in Maryland on Aug. 30. Though more than half a century in the making, the floodgates are opening and you should expect that many, many others will follow.
The first lawsuit was filed Aug. 9 against the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California in the U.S. District Court of Southern California on behalf of millions of its water system customers in Los Angeles, San Diego and Ventura counties.
This suit essentially uses the admission by the federal Food and Drug Administration that fluoride added to water is an unapproved drug (for more on that reference and others pertaining to the many issues with fluoride see the previous Fluoridegate columns available at The Citizen).
The second suit was filed Aug. 30 in the U.S. District Court in Maryland against Nestle, manufacturer of eight-ounce Deer Park and Poland Spring bottled water with added fluoride, and Gerber, manufacturer of baby food and baby formula containing fluoride. The specifics of this suit deals with dental fluorosis (the permanent staining and disfigurements of teeth that is currently present in a significant percentage of American children).
Also of note was the resolution adopted in September by the League of Latin American Citizens opposing water fluoridation. A number of black leaders, such as Andrew Young, are also beginning to sound off on the issue of fluorosis.
And just a week ago, the County Commission in Pinellas County, Fla., voted to remove fluoride from the drinking water consumed by its 700,000 citizens.
It is worth mentioning that manufacturers, too, are reacting to the approaching fluoride tsunami that involves the young. Gerber now offers fluoride-free bottled water for making baby formula and several major toothpaste companies recently began marketing fluoride-free toothpaste for toddlers that is safe to swallow.
Litigation involving fluoride poisoning with the aging and the infirm, such as dialysis patients and those with thyroid conditions, will follow.
On the local level, I have a friend in Peachtree City who was concerned about the link to the fluoride in her municipal drinking water and her significant problems with her thyroid, for which she was on medication. She installed a reverse osmosis system in her home and stopped taking her thyroid meds. Now more than a year later, her thyroid tests just fine without medication. The only thing she did was to stop drinking our fluoridated water. You figure it out.
Also locally, I’ve been happily surprised to come across so many of you, old and young, who were already aware of this toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer that is shipped here and added to the drinking water in Fayette and Coweta counties.
Among the many that are already educated on this issue are Fayette County Commissioner Allen McCarty and Coweta County Commissioner Bob Blackburn. Both these men, as do many of you, have increasing questions about our mandated use of fluoride in drinking water by the Georgia General Assembly.
As for the lawsuits that will cascade, it is unfortunate that citizens have to rely on attorneys to stand up for their protection, something that in this case, and many others, the federal and state governments (including Georgia) are woefully unwilling to do.
Fluoride compounds are in more drinks, food and medications than you would likely imagine. Parents and grandparents, if you are interested check the partial list of these at Parents of Fluoride-poisoned Children (http://poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/).
It is the ongoing work of people like public health professional Daniel Stockin at the Lillie Center in Ellijay and endless others that will not end until water fluoridation has ended and the healing has begun.
At its root Fluoridegate involves the complicity of the federal government and its agencies in promoting the use of fluoride so that specific industries might benefit at the cost of their employees and consumers. Fluoride’s real and suspected links to various types of cancers and kidney, thyroid, brain and skeletal problems has long been noted. Those portions of the Fluoridegate tale will unfold along the way. Fluoridegate is not conspiracy, it’s just business.
A portion of this unfolding can be seen in another way. The term Fluoridegate was introduced in this column in early 2011. At that time a Google search turned up one hit – the one in that column. Today, the same search shows well over 7,000.
There is something else related to, but not limited to, the dangers of some of the endless fluoride compounds we eat, drink, breathe and bathe in. It is us and the way we think about the toxins in our lives.
When it comes to organic toxins like viruses and bacteria, we see citizens, the media and the government come out with guns blazing, demanding and receiving action.
But when it comes to toxins that are inorganic, everybody is silent and nobody cares, except the affected citizens for whom there is no place to turn for help, unless they hire a lawyer. We are told not to care about inorganics and we dutifully follow our orders, believing exactly what we are told to believe, and without question.
That’s because inorganic toxins, with a few exceptions like mercury and lead (for which the “science” that said these inorganic chemicals were fine was eventually defeated) and radiation, are used heavily in some manufacturing processes and are, not surprisingly, overlooked.
We have to look no further than nature for many organic toxins but to look at inorganic toxins we have to look at ourselves, our employers, our investment portfolios and especially our federal government, whose conscience long ago was “seared as with a hot iron.”
As for fluoride, its days as an additive in drinking water are numbered. Remember where you heard it.
[Ben Nelms is a reporter for The Citizen.]
Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - 4:38pm
Submitted by Ben Nelms
It was reported a few months ago in this column that something called Fluoridegate is on the horizon. The issue was and is the consumption of fluoride in drinking water and other sources and the deleterious health effects that result from it. The column also stated that the handwriting is on the wall for the days of water fluoridation. The dawning of that day has begun.
The emergence of Fluoridegate has been signaled by two federal lawsuits, one filed in California on Aug. 9 and another filed in Maryland on Aug. 30. Though more than half a century in the making, the floodgates are opening and you should expect that many, many others will follow.
The first lawsuit was filed Aug. 9 against the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California in the U.S. District Court of Southern California on behalf of millions of its water system customers in Los Angeles, San Diego and Ventura counties.
This suit essentially uses the admission by the federal Food and Drug Administration that fluoride added to water is an unapproved drug (for more on that reference and others pertaining to the many issues with fluoride see the previous Fluoridegate columns available at The Citizen).
The second suit was filed Aug. 30 in the U.S. District Court in Maryland against Nestle, manufacturer of eight-ounce Deer Park and Poland Spring bottled water with added fluoride, and Gerber, manufacturer of baby food and baby formula containing fluoride. The specifics of this suit deals with dental fluorosis (the permanent staining and disfigurements of teeth that is currently present in a significant percentage of American children).
Also of note was the resolution adopted in September by the League of Latin American Citizens opposing water fluoridation. A number of black leaders, such as Andrew Young, are also beginning to sound off on the issue of fluorosis.
And just a week ago, the County Commission in Pinellas County, Fla., voted to remove fluoride from the drinking water consumed by its 700,000 citizens.
It is worth mentioning that manufacturers, too, are reacting to the approaching fluoride tsunami that involves the young. Gerber now offers fluoride-free bottled water for making baby formula and several major toothpaste companies recently began marketing fluoride-free toothpaste for toddlers that is safe to swallow.
Litigation involving fluoride poisoning with the aging and the infirm, such as dialysis patients and those with thyroid conditions, will follow.
On the local level, I have a friend in Peachtree City who was concerned about the link to the fluoride in her municipal drinking water and her significant problems with her thyroid, for which she was on medication. She installed a reverse osmosis system in her home and stopped taking her thyroid meds. Now more than a year later, her thyroid tests just fine without medication. The only thing she did was to stop drinking our fluoridated water. You figure it out.
Also locally, I’ve been happily surprised to come across so many of you, old and young, who were already aware of this toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer that is shipped here and added to the drinking water in Fayette and Coweta counties.
Among the many that are already educated on this issue are Fayette County Commissioner Allen McCarty and Coweta County Commissioner Bob Blackburn. Both these men, as do many of you, have increasing questions about our mandated use of fluoride in drinking water by the Georgia General Assembly.
As for the lawsuits that will cascade, it is unfortunate that citizens have to rely on attorneys to stand up for their protection, something that in this case, and many others, the federal and state governments (including Georgia) are woefully unwilling to do.
Fluoride compounds are in more drinks, food and medications than you would likely imagine. Parents and grandparents, if you are interested check the partial list of these at Parents of Fluoride-poisoned Children (http://poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/).
It is the ongoing work of people like public health professional Daniel Stockin at the Lillie Center in Ellijay and endless others that will not end until water fluoridation has ended and the healing has begun.
At its root Fluoridegate involves the complicity of the federal government and its agencies in promoting the use of fluoride so that specific industries might benefit at the cost of their employees and consumers. Fluoride’s real and suspected links to various types of cancers and kidney, thyroid, brain and skeletal problems has long been noted. Those portions of the Fluoridegate tale will unfold along the way. Fluoridegate is not conspiracy, it’s just business.
A portion of this unfolding can be seen in another way. The term Fluoridegate was introduced in this column in early 2011. At that time a Google search turned up one hit – the one in that column. Today, the same search shows well over 7,000.
There is something else related to, but not limited to, the dangers of some of the endless fluoride compounds we eat, drink, breathe and bathe in. It is us and the way we think about the toxins in our lives.
When it comes to organic toxins like viruses and bacteria, we see citizens, the media and the government come out with guns blazing, demanding and receiving action.
But when it comes to toxins that are inorganic, everybody is silent and nobody cares, except the affected citizens for whom there is no place to turn for help, unless they hire a lawyer. We are told not to care about inorganics and we dutifully follow our orders, believing exactly what we are told to believe, and without question.
That’s because inorganic toxins, with a few exceptions like mercury and lead (for which the “science” that said these inorganic chemicals were fine was eventually defeated) and radiation, are used heavily in some manufacturing processes and are, not surprisingly, overlooked.
We have to look no further than nature for many organic toxins but to look at inorganic toxins we have to look at ourselves, our employers, our investment portfolios and especially our federal government, whose conscience long ago was “seared as with a hot iron.”
As for fluoride, its days as an additive in drinking water are numbered. Remember where you heard it.
[Ben Nelms is a reporter for The Citizen.]
11 Oct 2011
10 Oct 2011
Australia - Schools not following healthy guidelines
Schools not following healthy guidelines
October 09, 2011 03:15 AM PDT
Research has shown that reducing consumption of sweet drinks could reduce obesity in Australia by up to one third.
Sugary drinks have been proven to be linked with weight gain, tooth decay, reduction in bone density and fatty liver disease, and children are among the worst affected.
Children who drink sweet drinks regularly have been found to be more likely to be overweight, have low self esteem and have trouble focusing, but many school canteens are not adhering to healthy canteen guidelines.
2SER’s Elizabeth Pratt spoke with Chris Tate from the Healthy Kids Association.
But at least they drink fluoridated water so no worries then.
October 09, 2011 03:15 AM PDT
Research has shown that reducing consumption of sweet drinks could reduce obesity in Australia by up to one third.
Sugary drinks have been proven to be linked with weight gain, tooth decay, reduction in bone density and fatty liver disease, and children are among the worst affected.
Children who drink sweet drinks regularly have been found to be more likely to be overweight, have low self esteem and have trouble focusing, but many school canteens are not adhering to healthy canteen guidelines.
2SER’s Elizabeth Pratt spoke with Chris Tate from the Healthy Kids Association.
But at least they drink fluoridated water so no worries then.
Wales - Wales' top doctor has said more needs to be done
Wales' top doctor has said more needs to be done to improve the state of children's teeth.
The Welsh government currently provides some nursery children with tooth brushes and fluoride varnishes.
In his annual report, Dr Tony Jewell said "alternative methods" were needed so teeth could benefit from fluoride.
On average, four children in a class of 30 five year olds will have experienced dental pain in the last 12 months.
The chief medical officer Dr Jewell said it was a sign of deprivation and a measure of inequality.
He added that the figure rose to six children in a class of 30 in Blaenau Gwent
The Welsh government's "Designed to Smile Programme" provides more than 60,000 children a toothbrush in school as well as fluoride varnish to three to five-year-old children.
Dr Jewell said: "In Wales we need to get more teeth in contact with fluoride via alternative methods.
More than 5,130 general anaesthetics were given to children to remove teeth last year in unfluoridated south east Wales”
Dr Tony JewellChief medical officer for Wales
"More than 5,130 general anaesthetics were given to children to remove teeth last year in unfluoridated south east Wales.
"This should be compared to fluoridated Birmingham (a similar size population) where just over 2,700 children received the same treatment."
Some areas of England already use fluoride in the water system.
Critics argue the long-term health risks of fluoridation are unknown. But advocates, including much of the medical profession, say it is a safe, proven way of improving dental health.....
They never give up pushing fluoridation.
The Welsh government currently provides some nursery children with tooth brushes and fluoride varnishes.
In his annual report, Dr Tony Jewell said "alternative methods" were needed so teeth could benefit from fluoride.
On average, four children in a class of 30 five year olds will have experienced dental pain in the last 12 months.
The chief medical officer Dr Jewell said it was a sign of deprivation and a measure of inequality.
He added that the figure rose to six children in a class of 30 in Blaenau Gwent
The Welsh government's "Designed to Smile Programme" provides more than 60,000 children a toothbrush in school as well as fluoride varnish to three to five-year-old children.
Dr Jewell said: "In Wales we need to get more teeth in contact with fluoride via alternative methods.
More than 5,130 general anaesthetics were given to children to remove teeth last year in unfluoridated south east Wales”
Dr Tony JewellChief medical officer for Wales
"More than 5,130 general anaesthetics were given to children to remove teeth last year in unfluoridated south east Wales.
"This should be compared to fluoridated Birmingham (a similar size population) where just over 2,700 children received the same treatment."
Some areas of England already use fluoride in the water system.
Critics argue the long-term health risks of fluoridation are unknown. But advocates, including much of the medical profession, say it is a safe, proven way of improving dental health.....
They never give up pushing fluoridation.
8 Oct 2011
USA - Dr. Laura Pressley speaking to Austin City Council
Dr. Laura Pressley speaking to Austin City Council about the dangers of Fluoride at Austin City Council on October 6, 2011
6 Oct 2011
5 Oct 2011
Daily Echo - Health chiefs blast NHS reform plans
Health chiefs blast NHS reform plans
GOVERNMENT plans to i overhaul the NHS will make it harder to fight disease outbreaks and hit worse-off residents hardest, according to some of Hampshire's top public health chiefs.
They have signed a letter claiming the reforms will do "irreparable harm to the NHS, individual patients and to society as a whole".
As Health Secretary I Andrew Lansley prepared to give his keynote speech to the Conservative Party conference, the letter, from 400 public health experts, said his proposals would I put patient safety at risk, i waste money and damage j trust in the medical profession.
Among the signatories were Southampton's director of public health, Dr Andrew Mortimore, three academics from
Southampton University, and Dr Anna Morris, a speciality registrar in public health at NHS Hampshire.
'Inequalities'
They said the changes would widen so-called "health inequalities", and weaken the ability of health authorities to fight disease outbreaks.
But Mr Lansley dismissed the warning, branding the experts' tactics "curious", and saying they had no evidence for their claims.
He told the Daily Echo: . "I can find you hundreds of i GPs who were signing letters saying how they agreed with the Bill, I met hundreds of doctors who did.
"I look at this letter and it says 'we worry about health inequalities', well, they widened under Labour and the Bill is very clear about the duty on all of those concerned to reduce them.
"They say they want local government to be more involved in delivering improvements to public health - the Bill enables that to happen.
"It's very curious. They make assertions, but when you look at it, there's no evidence for what they are asserting."
Just like fluoridation and inequalities.
GOVERNMENT plans to i overhaul the NHS will make it harder to fight disease outbreaks and hit worse-off residents hardest, according to some of Hampshire's top public health chiefs.
They have signed a letter claiming the reforms will do "irreparable harm to the NHS, individual patients and to society as a whole".
As Health Secretary I Andrew Lansley prepared to give his keynote speech to the Conservative Party conference, the letter, from 400 public health experts, said his proposals would I put patient safety at risk, i waste money and damage j trust in the medical profession.
Among the signatories were Southampton's director of public health, Dr Andrew Mortimore, three academics from
Southampton University, and Dr Anna Morris, a speciality registrar in public health at NHS Hampshire.
'Inequalities'
They said the changes would widen so-called "health inequalities", and weaken the ability of health authorities to fight disease outbreaks.
But Mr Lansley dismissed the warning, branding the experts' tactics "curious", and saying they had no evidence for their claims.
He told the Daily Echo: . "I can find you hundreds of i GPs who were signing letters saying how they agreed with the Bill, I met hundreds of doctors who did.
"I look at this letter and it says 'we worry about health inequalities', well, they widened under Labour and the Bill is very clear about the duty on all of those concerned to reduce them.
"They say they want local government to be more involved in delivering improvements to public health - the Bill enables that to happen.
"It's very curious. They make assertions, but when you look at it, there's no evidence for what they are asserting."
Just like fluoridation and inequalities.
4 Oct 2011
Fluoride campaigners snubbed
The Echo are putting previous videos taken over the campaign on Youtube
3 Oct 2011
Daily Echo letters
Democracy is dead if plan to fluoridate water goes aheadTHANK you councillors. Common sense prevails. Congratulations on joining the anti-fluoride campaigners and the great Echo's fluoride debate, in our struggle against mass medication, about to be enforced by the SHA via our tap water. Your U-turn vote will no doubt go down in history as a vote for democracy.
Regrettably, I fear, it will have no influence on Prime Minister Cameron who has offered his sympathy, but is supporting the SHA all the way to the tap. They are both responsible for this farce from the first public meeting, wasting thousands of pounds on a bogus public exercise programme, using the prevention of tooth decay as an excuse to implement and justify the dumping of industrial fluoride waste into our rivers.
This will save millions of pounds for the industries who now have to pay approximately £48 per ton to get rid of their poisonous byproduct. They no doubt will be in a position to charge the water authorities for their fluoride waste to put into your drinking water.
Who will pay the bill? Democracy is dead if a bunch of quangoes can decide the fate of 72 per cent of our citizens who are against their enforced medication.
If saving our children's teeth was the genuine issue two water fountains could have been installed in every school, one containing fluoride with instructions "mouth wash only, don't drink", the other containing water only - freedom of choice, democracy for children. The adult population would be fluoride free (common sense at a fraction of the cost).
We don't want fluoride or your sympathy Prime Minister. But you need our vote.
A Willott Lordswood
Offended by 'Mother knows best' diktat
I AM highly offended and exasperated to hear the SHA declare that the Southampton residents will be happy when they see the beneficial results of toxic fluoride being added to the water.
Why should we expect beneficial results when other countries have removed fluoride and even the USA after many years are finally lowering the
dose, having seen the long-term damage caused by this pollutant.
Moreover I object to being treated like a child being told that Mother knows best!
We deserve the choice!
J HORROCKS,
Southampton.
2 Oct 2011
NZ - To add or not to add
Helen HarveyAnti fluoride group FAANZ held a small rally out side the New Plymouth District Council before submissions were heard at a council meeting. Kristy Gray, left, & Danielle Diamond.
To add fluoride to the water or not to add fluoride to the water - that is the question the New Plymouth District Council is grappling with.
For the past two days councillors have been listening to more than 50 submitters give their views of the pros and cons of putting fluoride in the water.
It is not a new debate - discussion about the pros and cons of fluoride have been going on since fluoride was first added to the water in New Zealand in the 1950s - but it is an emotive debate. Both sides believe the science and statistics they are quoting are correct and both accuse the other of putting out misinformation.
The New Plymouth District Council received more than 400 submissions, the overwhelming majority of which were against fluoridation. The council needs to decide whether the whole district gets fluoride - Inglewood, Okato and Oakura don't have fluoride - fluoride is removed from the water supply altogether or the status quo remains. The council meets to debate the issue on October 13 and a decision may be made then.
The first fluoridated water scheme started in the United States in 1945. The first place in New Zealand to have fluoride in the water was Hastings in 1954. It was added to water supplies all over the country in the 1960s and now Christchurch is the only main city without it. It came to New Plymouth in 1970.......
1 Oct 2011
USA - The Drug that's Untested for Safety that Virtually Everyone Is Forced to Take
By Dr. Mercola | October 01 2011
We have been actively involved with the Fluoride Action Network's initiatives to eliminate fluoride from Canadian and U.S. drinking water supplies, one community at a time. We are making some great strides in this area! Earlier this year, New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. introduced legislation "prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply." A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of water fluoridation in the United States.
On its heels, a new lawsuit has been filed against the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of Southern California -- the largest wholesaler of water in Southern California, which services some 18 million consumers -- alleging that the water supplier engaged in deceptive business practices and infringements on consumers' Constitutional rights by adding a fluoridation chemical to their water...........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
