Resources: March 2015

Index

  1. . Video links

Jane Beck at Sydney conference (30 min)

            What fluoride does to living cells at a concentration of 1 in 30 million (4 min)

  1. Elemental Depth Profiling of Fluoridated Hydroxyapatite. Research from American Chemical Society questions the efficacy of the ‘ptrotective film’ of fluoride appleed to teeth which is 100 time thinner than previously believed.
  2. Collusion Between the Sugar Industry & the National Institutes of Health

FAN report on medical journal article showing how the sugar industry manipulated the research on dental decay conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR)

4. Water fluoridation and ADHD: Newsweek wades into the quagmire

Article by Alan Cassels on the Newsweek evidence, followed by selected comments, including a responses to Steve Slott.on

            4.1 ‘Natural fluoridation;

            4.2 Gerorge Waldbott

            4.3 How to change the ‘benefits’ from less ltan 1% to 30%.

 

  1. New Jersey fluoridated areas, followed by reasoned opinion from Paddy Notar.

 

  1. How the EPA tests fluoridated tap water. Letter writer from Vermont quoting Bryson.

 

1.Video links

Fluoridation Conference Sydney 21 Feb 2015 Dr Jane Beck – Does fluoridation serve the greater good?

Is it safe to administer a medicine, such as fluoride, to the whole population via public water supp…32 min video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5b7WuXbe46M

ACS News Service Weekly PressPac: March 02, 2011

Fluoride is poison.

Classic  4 minute video demonstrating what fluoride does to living cells at a concentration of 1 in 30 million    Is it Waldbutt , late ‘50s?     https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=780648711959766

2 From the American Chemical Society

Mar 2

Does fluoride really fight cavities by ‘the skin of the teeth’?

Elemental Depth Profiling of Fluoridated Hydroxyapatite: Saving Your Dentition by the Skin of Your Teeth? Langmuir

In a study that the authors describe as lending credence to the idiom, “by the skin of your teeth,” scientists are reporting that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. It raises questions about how this renowned cavity-fighter really works and could lead to better ways of protecting teeth from decay, the scientists suggest. Their study appears in ACS’s journal Langmuir.

Frank MÜller and colleagues point out that tooth decay is a major public health problem worldwide. In the United States alone, consumers spend more than $50 billion each year on the treatment of cavities. The fluoride in some toothpaste, mouthwash and municipal drinking water is one of the most effective ways to prevent decay. Scientists long have known that fluoride makes enamel — the hard white substance covering the surface of teeth — more resistant to decay. Some thought that fluoride simply changed the main mineral in enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more-decay resistant material called fluorapatite.

The new research found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick. It would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. That’s at least 10 times thinner than previous studies indicated. The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay, or whether fluoride has some other unrecognized effect on tooth enamel. They are launching a new study in search of an answer.

The authors acknowledge support from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and Saarland Ministry of Finances.

 

 

 

3. From FAN

Collusion Between the Sugar Industry & the National Institutes of Health

March 25, 2015

A new article published in the peer-reviewed journal PLOS Medicine reveals that recently uncovered internal documents from 1959 to 1971 show that the sugar industry successfully manipulated the research on dental decay conducted by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The industry documents show that the NIH was directly influenced to focus on approaches to prevent tooth decay in American children without reducing sugar intake.  This is probably a major reason why fluoridation propaganda replaced honest information on dental decay in the US regulatory agencies.  According to the study, the 319 documents included internal memos, correspondence, reports, and meeting minutes, and were from a time period when the NIDR was the primary source of federal funding for dental research and initiatives, including the promotion of fluoride and fluoridation.  Authors found that “Seventy-eight percent of the sugar industry submissions were incorporated into the NIDR’s call for research applications. Research that could have been harmful to sugar industry interests was omitted.”

The article, entitled “Sugar Industry Influence on the Scientific Agenda of the National Institute of Dental Research’s 1971 National Caries Program: A Historical Analysis of Internal Documents,” was authored by a team of researchers from the University of California San Francisco.  One of the authors, Stanton Glantz, PhD, is famous for his work revealing the lies of the tobacco industry regarding health effects, and said of this study:

“These tactics are strikingly similar to what we saw in the tobacco industry in the same era.  Our findings are a wake-up call for government officials charged with protecting the public health, as well as public health advocates, to understand that the sugar industry, like the tobacco industry, seeks to protect profits over public health.  The sugar companies, in criticizing what we did, haven’t said we’ve said anything wrong or that we’ve misunderstood and misrepresented anything.  They’re saying ‘Oh, this is a long time ago, what difference does it make,’ — and that’s exactly what the tobacco industry said.”

Glantz and his co-authors reached the following conclusion in their article:

“This historical example illustrates how industry protects itself from potentially damaging research, which can inform policy makers today. While it may be valuable in theory for the industry to contribute data about their products to the research community, industry should not have the opportunity to influence public health research priorities [94]. Regulatory science to support sensible and defensible policies to limit added sugar consumption was not pursued in the 1970s because of the alignment of the NIDR’s research priorities with those of the sugar industry. Actions taken by the sugar industry to impact the NIDR’s NCP research priorities, which echo those of the tobacco industry, should be a warning to the public health community. The sugar industry’s current position—that public health recommendations to reduce dental caries risk should focus on sugar harm reduction as opposed to sugar restrictions—is grounded in more than 60 years of protecting industry interests. Industry opposition to current policy proposals—including a WHO guideline on sugars proposed in 2014 and changes to the nutrition facts panel proposed in 2014 by the FDA—should be carefully scrutinized to ensure that industry interests do not supersede public health goals.” —See full study

The connection between the sugar industry and fluoridation policy was also previously discussed in the book “The Case Against Fluoride” on pages 263-65:

“In 1949, one year before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation, the director of the Sugar Research Foundation, a lobby representing about 130 sugar interests, said that its research mission was ‘to find out how tooth decay could be controlled effectively without restriction of sugar intake.’  For the sugar lobby, fluoride—delivered through the water supply—quickly became the magic bullet to achieve that goal.  From the earliest days of fluoridation, considerable sums of money were paid to prominent fluoride researchers at leading American universities.”

The PLOS Medicine article has received significant media coverage, including articles by:

Dr. Mercola

Huffington Post

NPR

USA Today

AAAS Science Magazine

Medscape

4.Water fluoridation and ADHD

Water fluoridation and ADHD: Newsweek wades into the quagmire

Mar 16

Posted by Kevin Lomangino in CDC, Politics & health, public health interventions

28 Comments

The following is a guest blog post by Alan Cassels, a pharmaceutical policy researcher at the University of Victoria and the author of Seeking Sickness: Medical Screening and the Misguided Hunt for Disease (Greystone, 2012). The opinions are his; you are welcome to your own.

No randomized trial has ever been done to prove if adding fluoride to drinking water reduces cavities. What we know about fluoridating water supplies has come from epidemiologic and ecological studies comparing rates of tooth decay in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities.

Even though these limited ecological studies have delivered most of what we think we know about the benefits and harms of fluoridated water, it’s hard to imagine a new study shedding much light on this contentious issue. Marked by acrimony and controversy, the fluoridation debate has become something of a public health quagmire—one that you’d be well advised not to set foot in for fear of getting sucked permanently to the bottom.

And yet Newsweek waded into the quicksand last week with this story reporting on a recent study that adds another potential black mark on fluoride. Or maybe not.  This time the suggestion is that fluoridated water might be unintentionally adding to our epidemic rates of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).  The story lays out the association, reported in the journal Environmental Health, very clearly:  “Parents reported higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in their children in states in which a greater proportion of people receive fluoridated water from public water supplies.”

No wild or bombastic claims here, so let’s give Newsweek high marks for avoiding easy sensationalism, even as they might have missed the boat in discussing the research that supports fluoridated drinking water for dental health.  One is left wondering—amid all the ecological and animal studies, the mechanistic or the cohort-based explanations of the dangers of fluoride —is there actually any good evidence to support drinking water fluoridation in the first place?

The story discusses fluoride research with considerable context and history, which tends to deflate the story’s initial assertion that this is the “first time that scientists have systematically studied the relationship between the behavioral disorder and fluoridation.”  Newsweek’s story refers to dozens of studies over the last few decades where water fluoridation has been linked to the state of our teeth, our thyroids, our endocrine systems, and even our IQs. Fluoride, among other chemicals, has been previously described as a developmental neurotoxicant potentially linked to ADHD and other disorders. This is certainly not the first time that fluoride and ADHD have been connected with one another in the scientific literature, and I don’t think it will be the last.

But where does this leave us?  As we know, ecological associations are on the lower tier of the evidence pyramid, and there are dozens of other associations that could affect ADHD rates that have absolutely nothing to do with fluoride. What about kids who live in jurisdictions with school systems incented to ramp up childhood medical diagnoses in order to get more state money for learning assistance workers?  What about those areas that might have overactive ADHD associations, who are very energized to “educate” parents and teachers about the importance of early diagnosis?  With what is largely a socially-constructed disease, blaming everything on a chemical culprit is clearly a little wrong-headed.

The report notes the limitations of such research and appropriately quotes an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, who concludes, “it would be ludicrous to draw a strong conclusion based on this study alone.”

I especially liked the fact the reporter did double time in gathering commentary across a wide spectrum of outside experts, quoting a Harvard epidemiologist, a UMass scientist who studies endocrine disruptors, a pediatrician and researcher at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital, an NIH researcher, and a former risk assessment scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency.

Yet that extensive body of commentary seems to be missing one important thing: someone to stand up and say fluoridating our water is ultimately a good thing to prevent cavities.  While it might be hard to track down a CDC official before deadline, the CDC’s website is replete with factsheets (some of them curiously quite dated) supporting community water fluoridation.

Newsweek references a range of prior research and experiments to at least partly explain fluoride’s potential adverse influence on brain development, including how it affects plumbing (fluoride increases absorption of a known neurotoxin, lead, from lead pipes).  People wondering about the breadth of fluoride research are going to learn that there actually is a large body of ecological research that shows links (not causes) between fluoride-induced stained and mottled teeth and lower IQs, as well as references to studies showing geographical links between areas of high concentrations of water fluoridation, effects on thyroid function and lower IQs.

Readers might be disappointed that they can’t draw any conclusions from this kind of research, but I’m reminded about the early research on tobacco. No randomized trials were done to definitively prove the effects of tobacco on lung cancer, and it took forty years of dogged ecologic and epidemiologic research for a strong anti-tobacco public health message to emerge that suggested, but couldn’t prove, a causal connection.

One thing is for sure: this study reminds us that what we know, or think we know, about public health measures might be wrong.  We can’t say this story has gotten even close to the bottom of the truth about the benefits and harms of fluoridating the water supply and its effects on behavioral problems in our children. But in capturing the issue in an engaging and entertaining article, it makes us want to keep asking questions.

some useful comments

4.1 ‘Naturally fluoridated’

Brian Sandle; Steven Slott wrote: “However, they also report a negative, or neutral correlation of what they term to be “naturally fluoridated” areas, with ADHD. Given that there is no difference between fluoride ions which exist in water “naturally”, and those which are added through “artificial” fluoridation, obviously, it is not the fluoride ions which account for the positive correlation.

This leaves the only other variable in regard to fluoridation….the fluoridating compound..”

I don’t think you understood, Steve. In this study, “natural fluoride” could be at a mg/l level lower than “optimal fluoridation,” or at a higher mg/l level than “optimal fluoridation.”

The study said: “Artificial water fluoridation prevalence was significantly positively associated with ADHDprevalence, while natural water fluoridation prevalence was either negatively or notsignificantly associated with it. Although this could imply that the relationship betweenexposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence is specific to fluoridation chemicals, the high variability in naturally occurring fluoride concentrations (0.1 mg/L – 15.9mg/L) [21] within states prevents this conclusion from being made. Specifically, naturalfluoride concentration could potentially be confounding the relationship between naturalfluoridation prevalence and ADHD prevalence leading to a misleading result. For example, counties with low natural fluoridation prevalence could have high concentrations of naturallyoccurring fluoride that pose a greater neurodevelopmental risk than high prevalence of lowconcentrations of naturally occurring fluoride.”

 

4.2 George Waldbott

Pete:   Dr George Waldbott was a renowned medical doctor and allergist who was the first to document anaphylaxis from penicillin, and the first to make the link between smoking and emphysema This at a time when doctors and dentists appeared in cigarette adverts promoting it, and said lead, asbestos and mercury were safe.

He specialized in the research and treatment of allergies. In this field he published several                                    books and more than 200 scientific articles, many in American Medical Association journals. His Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants (2nd edition, March 1978) was used as a textbook in universities in the United States and abroad.

Waldbott was a pioneer in the study of allergies, and the founder and chief of allergy clinics in four Detroit hospitals. He was president of the Michigan Branch of the American College of Chest Physicians, Chairman of the Air Pollution Committee and of the American Academy of Allergy.

How did the fluoridationists react to the information on fluoride toxicity Waldbott provided? Not in a way you would expect. They attacked him with a vengeance instead of stopping fluoridation and doing more study.

Waldbotts findings have been confirmed by dozens of further researchers and thousands of people reporting toxicity symptoms worldwide. The most startling one is the Feltman and Kosel study. They were supporters of fluoridation but were honest fluoridationists unlike today. They received government funding.

As soon they became aware of Feltman and Kosel reporting side effects in some people, the government withdrew funding! Then they got the American Academy of Allergy (AAA) to issue a statement essentially endorsing fluoridation without doing any research into fluoride themselves. This statement was then used by fluoridating authorities around the world. Using this statement to negate bona fide research publications without doing careful scientific testing or trials themselves is a dereliction of duty.

At the same time the AAA statement was released the PHS announced research grants to 4 of the board members worth $800,000 (worth over 4 million dollars in today). Most of the other board members had previously received funding from the PHS. Contrast this with the PHS withdrawing funding to Feltman and Kosel.

4.3 How to change the ‘benefits’ from less ltan 1% to 30%.  

johndmac Kevin, you asked for evidence that fluoridating our water is ultimately a good thing to prevent cavities. To help consumers (and

journalists) critically analyze claims about health care interventions, please have a look at Armfield (2010), the first one of the “countless such studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation” provided by Steven Slott (who could be considered the “voice of fluoridation”). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001

The Abstract says the permanent caries experience was 31.6% higher in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas.

The actual results say the “absolute magnitude of difference” between the number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth (DMFT) of children living in negligible vs optimally fluoridated areas was 0.25, and this represented a “relative difference” of 31.6%.

Out of a total of 28 teeth, 0.25 of a tooth is an insignificant 1% difference, but using deceptive relative differences, it sounds like a significant 32%.

This is typical of evidence cited to claim the need to fluoridate, including the US government’s biggest (and still the best) study that involved 39,000 schoolchildren who represented over 43 million children aged 5-17 years. It found <1% difference in the number of healthy tooth surfaces, but this has been touted as the ad nauseam claim of a 20% benefit from fluoridated water. – Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. 1990. Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research. http://www.slweb.org/NIDR-DMFS.html

Here’s an analogy using a fictional IQ study: In a community of non-fluoridated kids, their average IQ was 98, which is 2 points below the national average of 100. In a community of optimally fluoridated kids, their average IQ was 97, which is 3 points below average.

Results: There was a 1% difference in the IQ of kids in low-fluoride areas compared to kids in optimally fluoridated areas. This is an accurate and honest interpretation using the “absolute magnitude of difference.”

In contrast, here’s an inaccurate and deceptive interpretation using “relative differences”: The IQ loss of kids in optimally fluoridated areas was 50% greater than the IQ loss of kids in low-fluoride areas. Or, the IQ loss of kids in low-fluoride areas was 33% less than the IQ loss of kids in optimally fluoridated areas

Extracts from: http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2015/03/water-fluoridation-and-adhd-newsweek-wades-into-the-quagmire/

 

 

  1. 5. New Jersey
NEW JERSEY Water systems with fluoride County Water System
Atlantic Atlantic City
Atlantic Egg Harbor
Burlington McGuire Air Force Base
Willingboro MUA
Mt. Laurel MUA
U.S. Army Fort Dix
Aqua New Jersey – Hamilton Square
Gloucester Washington MUA
Hunterdon NJ American
Mercer East Windsor MUA
Aqua New Jersey – Hamilton Square
Hightstown
Trenton Water Works
NJ American-Raritan
Middlesex East Brunswick
South Brunswick
NJ American
Monmouth Allentown
Freehold Borough
Freehold Township
S B Water
NJ American-Coastal North
Morris NJ American-Raritan
Somerset NJ American-Raritan
Sussex Newtown Water & Sewer Authority
Union United Water Rahway

New Jersey American towns that get fluoride

A partial list

  • Branchburg Township (including Neshanic Station)
  • Parts of Bridgewater (Bradley Gardens, Finderne, Green Knoll)
  • Cranbury (only sections served by New Jersey American Water)
  • Hillsborough Township (including Belle Mead)
  • Kingston
  • Lawrence Township
  • Manville
  • Millstone
  • Montgomery (including Skillman)
  • Peapack-Gladstone
  • Plainsboro (only section served by New Jersey American Water)
  • Princeton Borough
  • Princeton Township
  • Raritan Borough
  • Raritan Township (except Maple Glen)
  • Readington
  • Somerville
  •  West Windsor

From

http://www.mycentraljersey.com/story/news/local/middlesex-county/2015/03/02/east-brunswick-fluoride-drinking-water/24285689/

Paddy Waggin’ ‘At some point, the discussion whether fluoride should be added to drinking water needs to take place amongst local and state politicians’. A reasoned 6. Opinion piece in Resources

Opinion

Paddy Waggin’

Do you like getting medication without your consent? Do you like not knowing what dosage you’re getting or whether you actually need what is being put into your body? Guess what? You don’t have a choice. Apparently, the Anchorage Assembly likes playing doctor and they’re using medication from China to supposedly make you better. Roll up your sleeve because Dick Traini and the rest of the Apple Dumpling Gang want to give you a drug that you never agreed to. Is that even legal? Apparently so, and it needs to be explained because there is some confusion on whether fluoride is a nutrient or a drug. Actually, the Food and Drug Administration refuses to recommend fluoride as a safe supplement.

The late New Jersey Assemblyman, John Kelly, fought long and hard to keep fluoride out of city water lines. He said, “The FDA has been aware for at least the past 35 years that these unapproved products are being prescribed to millions of infants and children. They have been fully aware of the potential side effects of these products as listed in numerous publications, such as the NTP Toxicological Fluoride Profile, the Physician’s Desk Reference, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, and the Merck Index. The FDA has allowed these children to endure adverse health effects and has allowed their parents to be defrauded out of millions of dollars for products which the FDA does not recognize as either safe or effective. By ignoring the law for 35 years, the FDA has made it clear that their concern is the well being of industry, not the public.”

That’s a strong statement which is backed up by some very strong documentation saying that fluoride is bad for you. I recently read another study saying that it’s impossible to have any adverse affects from fluoride because it’s in such low dosage. It was pretty interesting to read until I got to the footnotes and realized that the study was paid for by the American Dental Association. We know who lines their pockets. That’s like the study when Mar’s Candy paid a company to tell us that chocolate wasn’t bad for our teeth. If we know one thing about this country it’s that money can buy anything, including corporate studies that guarantee a happy ending.

In a New York Times article this past Sunday, Feb. 23, “New York’s Fluoridation Fuss, 50 Years Late” it reported how New York is contending with the contentious issue of fluoride in its water, since it was implemented in 1965. Cited in the article was that “Portland, Ore. voted down fluoridation in 2013 – for the fourth time – and Israel ended mandatory fluoridation last year.”

What I find interesting is that there’s a small amount of fluoride that occurs in water from deep wells. Ironically, UNICEF does everything in its power to get that fluoride out of the water. In many countries, UNICEF brings in specially designed pumps and filters to eradicate the fluoride because they have found that it causes ulcers, bone disease, thyroid disease, infertility, and learning disorders in children. Of course, we proudly push fluoride into our system here in Anchorage. Maybe we can convince UNICEF that we’re a third world country and they’ll give us a pump and filter instead of the city giving its residents third world, Chinese made fluoride. If the Food and Drug Administration doesn’t think it’s necessary then why are we even considering it, let alone dosing taxpayers without their consent? It makes you wonder what’s going on in the Assembly and the mayor’s office.

It’s as if someone started a ridiculous trend and every city started to buy into it without doing their own research or asking people if they mind. That just shows you how lazy our legislators are. It also shows you how much they respect your opinion. Let’s talk about it before you put any foreign element into the water. I would think that’s just common sense.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who chairs the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Community, said that she understands the health benefits of fluoridating drinking water but also believes each community should make that decision for themselves. That’s a nice way of saying “I agree with both sides and refuse to have any real opinion.”

At some point, the discussion whether fluoride should be added to drinking water needs to take place amongst local and state politicians, and it should start with what Dr. John Yiamouyianni, a noted author and opponent to fluoridating our community water said: “We would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic

  1. How the EPA tests fluoridated tap water. Letter writer from Vermont quoting Bryson.

Vermont

March 5 Z.

Several weeks ago The Times Argus printed an article from The Associated Press featuring a weak debate on water fluoridation. The article asserted that fluoride is found in nature and is a safe and beneficial additive to drinking water. Only the first statement is true, as the source of the fluoride added to drinking water is almost exclusively from industry. Industries that produce a fluoride byproduct include the aluminum smelting and steel industries, high-octane gas production and the phosphate fertilizer industry. The latter is the primary source of the additive, which is not fluoride the element found in nature, but sodium fluorosilicate, which is considered a toxic waste. Christopher Bryson, author of “Fluoride Deception,” states that the Public Health Service was initially against industrial fluoride until the 1950s when a public relations giant, Edward Bernays, was hired to “engineer consent” for fluoridation, which helped the industry dispose of the toxic waste. Bernays realized a stunning success that endures today, even though 98 percent of Western European nations do not subscribe to the practice of water fluoridation. In addition, writer George C. Glasser spent a year badgering the EPA for the science and discovered that the agency tested only sodium fluoride — not sodium fluorosilicate or fluorisilicic acid. It did not even conduct the test on tap water, but on 99.97 percent double distilled and deionized water. Although the agency never tested sodium fluorosilicate, which is the source of the additive, it determined that it was an adequate surrogate for the sodium fluoride it did test. Testing one ingredient and then using another as a surrogate is deceptive at best. If that were done by the pharmaceutical industry, Bryson argues, it would be a criminal act. Disposing of sodium fluorosilicate — a “scrubber liquor” used in phosphate fertilizer production — was less of a public health innovation and more of a public relations ploy used by an industry attempting to get rid of a toxic industrial byproduct. If there is a debate — and there should be — let’s use the facts and weigh the benefits. Let’s consider too the dental fluorosis afflicting 21 million kids between the ages of 12 and 15, which prompted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to argue for less fluoridation in drinking water. Perhaps it should be eliminated altogether, as many European nations — and Plainfield — have decided in a true cost-benefit analysis. Cathleen Heitmann East Montpelier

7. Gloucester MA: Calculating eoebt of low thyroid

Mar 25

To the editor:

“For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”

— President John F Kennedy, 1962

Some folks have been very outspoken in claiming that the science of fluoridation was settled decades ago.

They dismiss any science that does not fit their preconceived notions that fluoridation is an absolute good, claiming that dental opinions are the totality of science. There are many scientists who disagree, and who have the 21st century science to back it up.

Several outstanding pieces of per-reviewed scientific research on fluoridation have been published so far in 2015. Two of them were featured in Newsweek (Feb. 24 and March 10). All the studies built on earlier science, all of which validate a pattern of endocrine system disruption as the result of living in an “optimally” fluoridated community.

An epidemiological thyroid study surveyed all the General Practitioners in England for diagnosed cases of low thyroid. It found that incidences of low thyroid in communities with their water fluoridated at .7 parts per million were approximately twice the rate of incidences in communities with naturally occurring concentrations at .3 ppm.

Gloucester has a naturally occurring concentration of .3 ppm. Additionally, communities with natural concentrations at .5 ppm had low thyroid rates at the approximate mid-point between those with .3 ppm and with .7 ppm. That pattern indicates a dose-response trend line.

In other words, Cape Ann communities, with their 1.0 ppm concentration of fluoride, can be predicted to have more than twice the incidences of low thyroid than they would have without artificial fluoridation. Given that the low thyroid incidences in the study for fluoridated communities was 9 percent, we can predict that if we stopped fluoridating, about 2,000 fewer Cape Anners would need treatment for low thyroid

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *