SWIS NEWS – MAY 2016 Ref: 620
U.K FREEDOM FROM FLUORIDE ALLIABCE Edition: 00
Comment and Discussion
Is fluoridation in the U.K. on the way out?
The puzzle of the missing propaganda
In one day in May there were two programs on the BBC on dental health in the UK. Neither mentioned fluoride, fluoridated toothpaste and fluoridation. This is a first!
Now that Bedford O&S Committee has voted unanimously not to recommend the resumption of fluoridation and now that we’ve seen a PHE Bedford report on the non-statistically significant difference between dental health during and after fluoridation, it appears (fingers crossed) that fluoridation could be on its way out.
However, what is so galling is that we’re not likely to be told that this is the case. Instead, it seems as though the Government might quietly allow fluoridation to die a death without having a funeral! Also, I guess that the Gov. will not want to tell the USA that this might be their little plan just in case the UK Gov. is persuaded to change its mind.
Let’s look at the evidence against fluoridation which is stacking up:
Fluoride reduces intelligence. This implies that it negatively affects the unborn child’s brain. Anything which causes harm to the unborn child ought to be prevented. Pregnant women are not supposed to smoke and drink alcohol and most are careful about what they eat and drink so how come it’s OK to drink a developmental neuro-toxin?
Fluoride causes ADHD.
Fluoride causes dental fluorosis.
The NOAEL fixed by the Committee on Toxicity in 2003 is clearly not having the desired effect. The NOAEL was applied to 6-month-old children who were considerd to be at the greatest risk of getting dental fluorosis if they ingested more than 0.05 mg fluoride per kg bodyweight. However, the Bedfordshire statistics on dental fluorosis show that there are too many 12-year-olds who have significant aesthetic opacities. It seems therefore, that no-one knows about the NOAEL for 6-month-old babies. The words “chocolate teapot” come to mind.
Fluoride causes hypothyroidism. We know that this is the case because hydrogen fluoride was used in the 1930-1960s in Austria to cure hyperthyroidism. Had the treatment continue for too long, patients would have flipped over into hypothyroidism since hyperthyroidism, euthyroidism and hypothyroidism lie on a continuum. There is about 2% hydrogen fluoride in artificially fluoridated water. This does not dissociate in water and is absorbed via the skin when taking a hot bath or shower. Women aged more than 40 are increasingly coming down with hypothyroidism, especially if they live in fluoridated areas. Remember the statistic: “almost double the incidence of hypothyroidism in fluoridated West Midlands compared with non-fluoridated Manchester”. (Peckham et al, 2014)
New Zealand dentists have recently produced a report which shows that decay in fluoridated white children is the same or more than the decay found in non-fluoridated white children. Yet, the NZ Gov. wants to make fluoridation mandatory. What’s that all about?
Bedford PHE also produced a report in November 2015 which showed that decay had not significantly increased after fluoridation ceased.
I Liz and Doug Cross UKCAF :Have you noticed that water fluoridation does not now appear to be part of PHEs strategy? No mention of it by PHE’s spokesperson, Dr Sandra White. Despite the continued claims that fluoridation works, when everyone knows that that’s been disproved by the scientists, PHE’s position has become absurd and they’re fearful of looking like fools of they try to push for it. We won’t see any more schemes proposed now (unless Andy Burnham takes over Labour and they win an election!), and I suspect that the fluoridating water companies themselves are quietly reducing their own implementation of it too, what with the curious absence of fluoride in some allegedly fluoridated water supplies. No one will admit to such chicanery, of course!
I have a paper coming out very shortly in a peer-reviewed academic Journal, entitled ‘An unhealthy obsession with fluoride.‘ This deals with the ethics, law and politics behind this bizarre pactice, and shows how it persists purely to protect the dental profession’s vested interest in continuing the practice. I’ll post a full copy as soon as I get the PDF from the publishers – you’ll find it very interesting!
Yesterday( May 9th) on North West news they had the PHE Liverpool dental officer who went on about children cleaning their teeth properly etc with fluoridated toothpaste, no mention of water fluoridation at all. My impression is they have no intention of fluoridating the water, not only not being legal it is too expensive, too many councils have rejected it as mass medication now. What is interesting is there was no mention of dental milk, UKCAF has put in an official complaint to the fraud office on this (see our website www.ukcaf.org Let us hope we are right,
From Linda Forrest: On the Victoria Derbyshire programme this morning, fluoridation was not mentioned. Dr Sandra White from Public Health England stated that the good news is that there is an improvement in tooth decay. There is a steady downward trend from a third to a quarter of 5 year olds with tooth decay. She also mentioned cutting down on sugary drinks and taking children to the dentist when they are very young.
the puzzle of the missing fluoride
Meanwhile in Coventry, (CV5), the level of fluoride in the water supply has been between 0.1 and 0.2ppm for 6+ weeks. Now the new suppliers, Industrial Chemicals Group Ltd (ICGL) is sourcing its fluoridating acid from Spain (confirmed) so this is probably the same muck that is added to Ireland’s water supply. We have an analysis of Irish H2SiF6 dating back to 2000 and that analysis shows that the acid contains 28 contaminants of which 14 are injurious to health. Recognition of the fact that in order to dose the water with 1mg fluoride per litre of water, you need to add 5.36mg of the acid to each litre of water seems to have flown below the radar. We only found this out when we acquired a copy of YARA UK’s guidance.
Why has the level of fluoride reduced? Five possibilities:
Resources and Reports
With National Smile Month taking place between 16 May and 16 June, researchers at the University of Chester are using the opportunity to highlight that indulging a sweet tooth is one factor which contributes to tooth decay in children.
This comes after they published research finding that the biggest influence on children’s tooth decay is inequality, which can be improved by addressing social determinants of health (in other words, the conditions in which people are born, grow, work, live, and age, and the wider influences shaping our daily lives) rather than by mass fluoridation of water. Despite the ambiguous evidence around fluoridation of our tap water supplies in some parts of the UK, historically it has been used as a strategy for protecting against dental caries.
Karen Tocque, Professor of Health Intelligence, and Professor Lynne Kennedy, Associate Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Clinical Sciences, both from the University of Chester, have studied the links between dental decay, social deprivation and local water fluoridation – and their research has shown that social deprivation has a far greater negative influence on dental health than local fluoridation of tap water has a positive one.
Professor Kennedy said: “We know that people living in affluent societies such as the UK have high intakes of sugar in their diet, including sugary drinks. National Smile Month is the largest and longest-running campaign to promote good oral health, so we felt that this was a good time to raise issues of dental hygiene and good diet in preventing cavities, especially in our children.
“Despite the fact that fluoridated drinking water can help moderate dental caries, in reality human behaviour, such as eating a lot of sweets and chocolate, sugary beverage consumption, dental hygiene, other nutritional factors and access to dental services are more likely to
While much research has been carried out on fluoridation and levels of tooth decay, Tocque and Kennedy’s research is distinctive by analysing variations in dental decay in five-year-old children across the whole of England in relation to social deprivation, in areas with and without local water fluoridation. Both professors recognise that water fluoridation results in an overall lower average of tooth decay in children, but their findings show that the independent effects of social deprivation are much greater than this benefit.
Their work focused on the National Dental Epidemiology Programme’s survey of five-year old-children in England (and has been published by the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology), which, in an analysis of over 142,000 dental examinations, found that 31% of 5-year old children had at least one decayed, missing or filled tooth (dmft).
Children living in the most deprived areas were three times more likely to experience tooth decay than those living in more affluent areas, but Professor Tocque and Professor Kennedy concluded that there was no evidence that water fluoridation reduces inequalities in children’s dental health; because the difference across the social gradient remains the same whether children live in fluoridated areas or not.
Professor Tocque said: “We discovered that there was a very strong association between good dental health and social advantage, with 80% of children living in the most affluent areas being decay-free and only 56% of those living in the most deprived areas. But there was only a small difference in being decay-free between fluoridated (73%) and non-fluoridated areas (68%).
“However, children living in deprived areas that are fluoridated do have significantly lower average dental decay than those living in equivalent deprivation with no water fluoridation. Our study concluded that fluoridated drinking water does moderate dental caries, but socio-economic deprivation has a stronger influence on dental decay than local fluoridation of water does in preventing/mitigating it.”
Professor Kennedy added: “Children are at greater risk of developing caries if they have poor dental hygiene (including infrequent brushing), use non-fluoride toothpaste and are more likely to have a diet high in sugar and sugary drinks. Other research also suggests that, nationally, fewer children are consuming tap water, fluoridated or not.
“That’s why we believe that reducing the disparities in health is key to the future of our children’s teeth. We feel that this would be better achieved by focusing resources on reducing the effects of socioeconomic deprivation on overall health and wellbeing – with strategies tailored to needs.”
With the latest data from the National Dental Survey, also released today, confirming the persistent relationship between dental caries in 5-year olds and social deprivation – Professor Tocque added: “The challenge for the Government and public health authorities is to successfully address the social and behavioural influences on poor health in general. This would achieve a greater overall improvement in health and wellbeing – rather than trying to tackle one single disease at a time.”2
NEW YORK, April 21, 2016 —
Prominent physician, Mark Hyman, MD, author of 9 New York Times best-selling books and a Huffington Post medical editor warns that swallowing fluoride poses risks to the brain and thyroid, and that communities of color and underserved communities are disproportionately harmed. Dr. Hyman supports, “federal investigative hearings looking into why our cities and towns are allowed to continue to add fluoride to public water sources and why the whole story about fluorides is only just now coming out,” reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Hyman joins a growing number of health, civil rights, and environmental leaders who are speaking out against the addition of neurotoxic and thyroid disrupting fluoride chemicals to water, including civil rights icon Andrew Young, and well-known environmental activists such as Erin Brockovich, Ed Begley, Jr. and Lois Gibbs.
Andrew Young says, “I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices. So it is with fluoridation.”
Erin Brockovich says, “My career has been about making people aware of harmful exposures and the deception that often accompanies those exposures. Drinking water fluoridation is harmful, [but] we’ve been deceived to believe it is safe.”
Ed Begley says, “I’m concerned because there are many studies that indicate an association between lowered IQ and levels of fluoride [in water] which offer no margin of safety to protect all our children…I urge citizens throughout North America to help end this outdated practice of water fluoridation.”
Lois Gibbs, says, “We’re finding out that the story we were all told about the addition of fluoride to public water systems was not the whole story. . . . We oppose water fluoridation as it harms our health, it harms the environment, and is a textbook case of environmental justice harm affecting low income and families of color.”
Dr. Hyman says “There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain…Communities of color and the underserved are disproportionately harmed by fluorides.”
Spanish-language station, Telemundo, aired a three-part expose on fluoridation’s hazards. LULAC, the nation’s largest Latino civil rights organization, calls for an end to the practice.
SOURCE Fluoride Action Network
An article by Jack Crowther, a resident of Rutland, with help from Paul Connett, prompted by the recent vote by a 61-39 percent margin to continue fluoridation in Rutland.
,,,What the voters didn’t know was aided by a strong propaganda campaign whatever the cost to scientific truth. The state Department of Health head, Commissioner Harry Chen, gave credibility to the pro-fluoridation cause, while failing to provide honest, science-based information to the public that employs him
‘Dr. Chen wrote an op-ed piece for the Rutland Herald that ran Feb. 20. It is a beautiful mix of propaganda and bureaucratic homage to the pro-fluoridation policies of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ‘
Thearticle asks us to’ consider Chen’s inaccuracies, smokescreens and tricks of language’,. They include many familiar claims and are all dealt with decisively in this article
from Rutland Herald:http://rutlandherald.com/article/20160428/OPINION04/160429517
From ADA News
A useful list of criminals
Cincinnati, Ohio — Recognizing the important health benefits and safety of community water fluoridation, the ADA, the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention honored leaders, states and community water suppliers at the National Oral Health Conference April 17.
The groups recognized Kip Duchon, national fluoridation engineer at the Division of Oral Health within the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, with a Fluoridation Special Merit Award for his contributions toward the progress of fluoridation.
Mr. Duchon is credited with maintaining and overseeing ongoing development of the Water Fluoridation Report System, which every state now uses for fluoridation surveillance; overseeing and delivering national fluoridation training; providing fluoridation technical assistance around the country; developing and distributing annual CDC Quality Award and providing expert advice in collaboration with the ADA, ASTDD and other groups.
Furthermore, Mr. Duchon led the revision and restructuring of the national training course, Principles and Practices of Community Water Fluoridation, and developing high quality course materials and manual, organizers of the awards program said. “Under Kip’s careful stewardship, course content is updated each year, providing attendees with the most current information on fluoridation public health and engineering topics,” organizers of the conference said about Mr. Duchon.
Mr. Duchon called the honor “humbling,” adding, “My contribution was only possible through the efforts of two groups: Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors members, as they are the eyes and ears close to the action while I am locked up in the CDC ivory tower, and my remarkable and talented CDC colleagues.”
Meanwhile, Colorado, Connecticut, North Dakota, Nevada, Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Louisiana and Virginia were recognized with the 2015 State Fluoridation Quality Award for consistent optimally fluoridated water in more than 90 percent of the adjusted water systems or population supplied by adjusted water systems.
Communities awarded the Community Fluoridation Reaffirmation Award for defeating initiatives to discontinue community water fluoridation during the past year are the Tri-Community Water System, Fairhope and Sylacauga in Alabama; Breckenridge, Denver, Hayden and Snowmass in Colorado; Eustis and Inverness in Florida; Lyerly, Georgia; Culver, Indiana; Bethel and East Millinocket in Maine; Concord, Gloucester, Newburyport, Oak Bluffs, Rockport, Shrewsbury, Templeton and Topsfield in Massachusetts; West Branch, Michigan; Park Hills, Missouri; Egg Harbor City, New Jersey; Austin, Dallas and Madisonville, Texas; Martinsville, Virginia; Amery, Delavan, Durand, Eagle River and Rice Lake, Wisconsin; Clarksburg and Shinnston, West Virginia.
Communities that passed water fluoridation initiatives during the past calendar year, receiving Community Initiative Awards, include Brockton, Massachusetts; and New Zion Utilities and Como in Mississippi.
States awarded the State Fluoridation Initiative Award for having the greatest increase in population receiving fluoridation during the past year are California and Arkansas. States receiving the Health People 2020 Award for achieving a 10 percent increase in population served by community water systems with optimally fluoridated water since 2010 are Arkansas and Kansas.
Finally, many communities were honored for 50 years of continuous community water fluoridation. They were Five Star Water and Gordo Gas and Sewer Board in Alabama; Jonesboro Water System and McCory Waterworks in Arkansas; Boulder, Carter Lake: North & South WTPS in Colorado; Hartwell, Blakely, and Royston in Georgia; Charleston, Galena, Rantoul, Shawneetown, Union-York Water District, Utilities Inc. Clarendon Water Company and Utilities Inc. Lake Holiday in Illinois; Delphi, Greendale, North Vernon, Rensselear, Rochester, Shelbyville-Indiana American Water Co. and Topeka in Indiana; Beatrice State Development Center and Rushville in Nebraska; Lancaster Water Department in New Hampshire; Allentown Water Department and City of Burlington Water Department in New Jersey; Massena Village, New York City, Owego Water District No. 2 and Syracuse City in New York; Sweet Home, Oregon; Eldora Water Supply, Elk Horn Municipal Water Works, Iowa American Water Company-Clinton District, Lake City Water Supply, Lake Mills Municipal Water Department and Postville Water Department in Iowa; Albany Water Works, Cadiz Municipal Water Company, Dawson Springs Water and Sewer, Irvine Municipal Utilities, Manchester Water Works, Nicholasville Water Department and Sturgis Water Works in Kentucky; Kennebec Water District and Pittsfield Water Works in Maine; Alma, Charlotte, K. I. Sawyer and Michigan State University in Michigan; Anoka, Blaine, Brooklyn Park, Gaylord, Jordan, Moorhead, Paynesville, Saint James, Spring Valley and Winona in Minnesota; Maryville, Missouri; Brookhaven, Canton and Mendenhall in Mississippi; Asheville, Selma and Statesville in North Carolina; Ashley, Beulah, Carrington, Drayton, Langon and Lisbon in North Dakota; Dubois Municipal Water Authority in Pennsylvania; Clinton, South Carolina; Athens Utilities Board, Newport Utilities Board, Parsons Water Department, Pigeon Forge, Portland Water System and Sevierville, Tennessee; Forth Worth, Texas; Wise and Culpepper in Virginia; Lynden Water Department in Washington; Antigo Water Department, Barneveld, Black Earth, Delavan, Eagle River Light and Water Department, Pardeeville, Williams Bay and Windsor in Wisconsin; and Buckhannon Water Board, Lewisburg Municipal Water and Red Sulphur Public Service District in West Virginia.
New Zealand plans to drown its citizens in toxic fluorides
I love New Zealand. It’s one of the most beautiful places on Earth. It’s…what? What did you say?…No, that’s impossible. That couldn’t be happening. They’re doing what??”
The strategy of the New Zealand government is simple.
A series of local movements is successful. So kill them off by claiming decision-making must occur at a “higher level.” Take power out of the hands of locals.
The people can’t represent themselves. That’s dangerous. No, big government will represent the people—by squashing what the people want.
The issue is fluorides. I recently wrote two articles demonstrating the extreme toxicity of this substance, which of course is dumped in water supplies as a medical treatment. (fluoride archive here).
In New Zealand, a group called Fluoride Free NZ has been highly successful working with town councils to ban fluorides from local communities.
But these successes are a threat, because they contradict the lies medical authorities spew about how safe fluorides are, and because grass-roots victories erode blind faith in centralized government.
Here are quotes from Kane Titchener, who represents the group, Fluoride Free NZ, in New Zealand. His remarks lay out what’s happening behind the scenes in that natural paradise:
“…the fluoridation issue has been brought to a head. The NZ Government is proposing that the [bigger] District Health Boards take over the decision making [about] fluoridation [in water supplies] as opposed to the local councils. This is because we have been very good at winning at the local council level.”
“Fluoride Free NZ was formed in 2003. Since that time we have had many substantial victories in local Councils throughout New Zealand. Local Councils that have stopped [fluoridating water supplies] as a result of Fluoride Free NZ’s lobbying efforts: New Plymouth; Taumarunui; Waipukurau; Far North…”
“In summary, the Government is planning to implement mandatory fluoridation to the whole of New Zealand. Currently, only around 50% of households are on fluoridated water, with only 23 out of 67 local councils still fluoridating, while voicing their growing concerns about fluoridation risks and dangers. In response to more and more councillors and mayors deciding against fluoridation, the Government is now taking the decision away from local councils and communities and putting the power into the hands of District Health Boards (DHB), who are under the direct control of Central Government.”
If you think Fluoride Free NZ’s successes working with town councils is a walk in the park, think again. This group has scored victories against long odds. This group is smart, dedicated, and effective.
They represent what can happen when strong, clear-sighted, creative individuals band together to accomplish a righteous goal.
And the tyrannical response of big government is predictable.
However, there is going to be blowback against that government in New Zealand.
The degree and power of the blowback is going to depend, in part, on the response of people around the world who become aware of the situation and make their voices heard.
Contact Fluoride Free NZ. Help them. Spread their press releases all over the world.
Why should a government be permitted to dump poison into the water and call it medical treatment?
And having called it medical treatment, by what power can a government mandate it for all citizens without informed consent, without the explicit permission of those millions of patients? Yes, patients, because that’s what they are. They’re being treated every day.
By what power can this happen? Dictatorship calling itself democracy.
A note to tourists: how do you feel about traveling to New Zealand and bathing in, and drinking, poison? Do you like that bonus for spending your good money in “paradise?”
If not, you might want to contact the New Zealand tourism authority (newzealand.com) and let them know about your change of plans.
Such organizations are always interested in money, where it’s coming from—and where it won’t be coming from.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
You’re not given a choice if you want this or By Michael Connett
Fluoride Action Network (FAN)
Following the recent water crisis in Flint, it’s no wonder that the U.S. public has begun to question exactly how safe our drinking water actually is. What was once taken for granted — the idea of safe, pure, and drinkable water for everyone — is now in serious question.
In addition to the continuing problems with lead contamination, it has come to light in recent years that public water supplies are now contaminated with trace levels of pharmaceutical drugs, including oral contraceptives and mood stabilizers.
These drugs end up in our water inadvertently; however, there’s one pharmaceutical that is intentionally added to our tap water: Fluoride.
Fluoride Is a Neurotoxic, Endocrine-Disrupting Drug
Fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting, neurotoxic, and bone-weakening substance that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) defines as a drug when used to prevent disease, because unlike the minerals we need (e.g. calcium), humans have no known physiological requirement for fluoride.
But because of fluoride’s toxicity, you cannot purchase fluoride “supplements” over-the-counter; they can only be dispensed by prescription under the supervision of a doctor. In short, sodium fluoride is not a nutritional “supplement;” it is a prescription drug, and a dangerous one.
Although fluoride drugs have been prescribed for over 50 years, the FDA recently announced that marketing fluoride drops and tablets for cavity prevention violates federal law, because FDA has never approved these products as either safe or effective.
FDA made this stunning declaration in a Warning Letter, in which the Agency called on a manufacturer to immediately cease selling fluoride drops and tablets. Removing harmful fluoride drugs from the market will protect the health of millions of children, but we also need to address the big elephant in the room: water fluoridation.
With water fluoridation, cities and towns can add almost the same dose of fluoride contained in prescription fluoride drops and tablets to each glass a toddler drinks — with no supervision of a health professional, and without the informed consent of the patient.
FDA Issues Warning Letter
On January 13, 2016, the FDA sent a “Warning Letter” to Kirkman Laboratories, Inc., demanding that the manufacturer immediately discontinue the marketing of its fluoride drops and tablets.
The FDA’s Warning Letter clearly states that fluoride drops and tablets are “unapproved new drugs” because: (1) they are not generally recognized as safe and effective for caries prevention purposes, and (2) no manufacturer has ever provided FDA with adequate studies to demonstrate the drugs’ safety and effectiveness.
This isn’t the first time FDA has stated that fluoride drops and tablets are unapproved drugs; FDA first grudgingly admitted this bewildering fact in the 1990s in response to a dogged investigation by the late New Jersey Assemblyman John Kelly.
What makes the Warning Letter to Kirkman so significant, however, is that the FDA has finally decided to take enforcement action against a company producing these drugs.
FDA’s Warning Letter is a historic development, but much remains to be done. The real test will be whether FDA follows through on its own conclusions by going after the larger companies that are currently manufacturing the very same fluoride drugs.
Three of the largest companies making fluoride drops/tablets today are Libertas Pharma Inc., Sancilio & Company, Inc., and Qualitest and so far, FDA has not taken any action against these companies.
For this reason, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT) have filed a Citizens Petition with the FDA that calls upon the agency to take enforcement action against all companies, not just Kirkman, that continue to produce unapproved fluoride drugs.
The petition asks that these unsafe and ineffective drugs be removed from the market entirely. To support the FAN/IAOMT petition, please sign this online letter to FDA.
Help End the Practice of Fluoridation
There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”
Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?
The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and visit the links below:
- Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter, and sign up for campaign alerts.
- 10 Facts About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
- 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
- Health Effects Database: FAN’s database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride’s effects on human health.
J Epidemiol Community Health doi:10.1136/jech-2015-206502
Does cessation of community water fluoridation lead to an increase in tooth decay? A systematic review of published studies
1. 1Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada 2. 2Discipline of Dental Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Correspondence toDr Lindsay McLaren, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 4Z6;firstname.lastname@example.org
- Received12 August 2015
- Revised28 March 2016
- Accepted13 April 2016
- Published Online First13 May 2016
Background Cessation of community water fluoridation (CWF) appears to be occurring with increasing frequency in some regions. Our objective was to comprehensively review published research on the impact of CWF cessation on dental caries.
Methods We searched 13 multidisciplinary databases. Results were synthesised qualitatively and quantitatively.
Results We identified 15 instances of CWF cessation (‘intervention’) in 13 countries, which covered a broad time frame (1956–2003) and diverse geographical and political/economic contexts. Overall, results were mixed, but pointed more to an increase in caries postcessation than otherwise. For example, of the 9 studies with at least moderate methodological quality based on criteria we developed for this review, 5 showed an increase in caries postcessation. 3 studies did not show an increase in caries postcessation; however, important postcessation changes (eg, implementation of alternative fluoride delivery programmes) and/or large-scale social change may have contributed to those effects. Of the 3 study groupings that permitted quantitative synthesis, 2 showed statistically significant mean overall increase in caries postcessation; however, quantitative synthesis results must be interpreted cautiously.
Conclusions Overall, the published research points more to an increase in dental caries post-CWF cessation than otherwise. However, the literature is highly diverse and variable in methodological quality. To build this literature, it is important to exploit research opportunities presented by CWF cessation. Remaining knowledge gaps include the impact of CWF cessation on the distribution of dental caries (ie, equitable or not) and understanding the decision-making circumstances around CWF cessation.
Pro fluoride letter in the Berkshire3 eagle with a huge comment trail, mostly an argumnent with a the super-troll, Randy Johnson.
From the Times of Oman, a long list oif the wonders of fluoide
…The public drinking water supply in Oman is fluoridated. If you drink water from public water supplies and brush regularly with fluoride toothpaste then it is sufficient for adults and children with healthy teeth to lower down the risk of decay. However, fluoride is present in much lesser quantity in bottled water….
N ew Zealand
DHB Data Show No Benefit From Water Fluoridation
Monday, 18 April 2016, 10:29 am
Press Release: Fluoride Information Network For Dentists
Data released by the Ministry of Health today confirm that water fluoridation is having no noticeable effect in reducing tooth decay.
Around one in three NZ children have at least one cavity by age 5, and growing up with water fluoridation seems to offer no benefit.
Children in areas without fluoridation, like Christchurch and Nelson-Marlborough once again have among the best teeth in the country, with less tooth decay among 5 year olds than most fluoridated areas, such as Auckland and Counties-Manukau.
Hastings, the first area to have fluoride put in its water as an experiment in the 1950’s still has just as much tooth decay than its non-fluoridated neighbor, Napier, the town originally used to demonstrate the benefit of water fluoridation. Sixty years on there is still no benefit.
The overturning of the Hamilton council decision to stop fluoridation in 2013 also appears a wasted effort, with non fluoridated Waikato areas having less tooth decay than the fluoridated city.
“It’s very hard to see, with their own data consistently showing these trends for over 20 years, how Health Minister Coleman, the DHBs as well as the NZ Dental Association, can continue to make New Zealanders believe they will obtain a 40% reduction in tooth decay if councils fluoridate. Such statements are not backed by the science, nor by the facts, which are blatantly obvious in the school dental service data” says Dr. Stan Litras, spokesperson for the dentist group FIND who consider waterfluoridation a futile distraction.
“It’s clear to anyone who has looked at this in any depth that tooth decay is linked to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and access to health care, not to water fluoridation. We think the health authorities are barking up the wrong tree, simply because it’s more convenient to pretend that’s going to fix the problem than to address the real issues”.
“While fluoridation enthusiasts fêted the government announcement last week aiming to give DHBs the power to force fluoridation on councils, assuming this would result in mandatory national fluoridation, we believe such a move could also give DHBs the power to end fluoridation if they look at the facts and act responsibly.”
School dental service data can be found on www.health.govt .
|FIND cites new researchFriday, 22 April 2016, 11:06 am
Press Release: Fluoride Information Network For Dentists
New Research Confirms Fluoride Link to Lower IQ and Poor Health
New research has confirmed that increased fluoride in water results in reduced intelligence. The research, published in the journal,of environmental monitoring and assessment, found that the higher the fluoride content in water, the lower the IQ of children, and the lower the Body Mass Index, a measure of overall health.
The study also found that dental fluorosis, seen as a discoloration of teeth, is a bio-marker of fluoride toxicity. Dental fluorosis was directly related to the amount of IQ reduction and BMI reduction.
Dental fluorosis occurs in 40% of children in NZ, and the findings of this study would suggest that they have been exposed to levels of fluoride high enough to cause health effects.
The findings, by Environmental Science researchers at the University of Burdwan in India, add more weight to emerging science in China, Mexico and Iran, and to animal studies showing the effects of fluoride on the brain.
Fluoride was classified as a developmental neurotoxin, in the medical journal the Lancet in 2014.
Apart from reduced IQ, research indicates other types of damage to the brain may be occurring such as developmental disorders, depression and dementia.
FIND, a dentist group keeping a close watch on fluoridation research, is concerned that while in these studies the fluoride intake comes almost entirely from fluoride in groundwater, New Zealand has other major sources such as diet, fluoride toothpaste and other dental products, which add to the fluoride exposure.
Furthermore, the fluoride used to artificially fluoridate the water in parts of NZ is not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride measured in these studies, but the more highly bio- active HFSA, a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
FIND has repeatedly lobbied the government to test total fluoride doses at the individual level. An open letter was delivered to Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne just last month calling for urine testing, the method used in this study and recommended by the WHO.
“We think it’s irresponsible to be promoting water fluoridation when 40% of the population are already exceeding safe levels, and individual dosage is not being monitored.” Says FIND spokesman, Dr. Stan Litras.
“It looks like we could be sacrificing the mental health of the many by questionably trying to improve the dental health of a few”
K.Das and N. Mondal ,March 2016
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 188:218 “Dental fluorosis and urinary fluoride concentration as a reflection of fluoride exposure and its impact on IQ level and BMI of children”