+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 3 8 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 145

Thread: The Fluoride Thread

  1. Link to Post #41
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Water fluoridation is now a multi-industries concerted scam between the nuclear and aluminum industrial wastes, big pharma, psychiatry and intelligence agencies:



    Quote Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
    From Sue Arrigo:

    [...]

    Georgetown University should be called CIA U. The mental research facility is not on the main campus near the regular college students. It is on a separate piece of land that makes it harder to run away from. The name of it is not Georgetown, but it is part of Georgetown University.

    Some people at the CIA have complained that attention deficit disorder is associated with the fluoridation of water and that the CIA refused to release the data on it in order to keep getting so many almost normal kids delivered to the door of their mind control clinics around North America.

    They also complain that the CIA knows the treatment for attention deficit disorder, a drug to chelate the fluoride and expel it from the body and refuses to publish that data as well.

    It is true that there are a number of books on the subject for internal consumption at the CIA. An ordinary epidemiologist could look at the issue and find out if those rumors within the CIA are true.

    The reason everything was limited to two weeks was that was the length of time that the in-hospital psychiatric hospitalization could maximally be extended to, to run basically healthy kids “through testing of their condition”. The CIA developed a bunch of bogus tests to run on ADD kids to justify their two-week hospitalization like “withdrawing them from sugar, food dyes, etc.”

    When this University facility’s history in mind control comes to the public’s attention, it will be a little hairy. Hundreds, no thousands, of parents will suddenly want to know if their child, grown or otherwise, was a mind control subject or in the control group. I will mention in passing three fairly reliable methods of knowing that.

    That information comes from CIA reports about what to do to confuse parents if they get to another therapist later, ie what disinformation to give them to prevent them from uncovering that the kid was mind controlled.

    That first piece of disinformation is -- "No one can tell if a person is a mind control victim—certainly not regular family and neighbors, only a qualified therapist could know and since they can’t tell no one can."

    That is given because the CIA found out that 56% of the children were discovered to have been uncovered by relatives and family members as "robotic" or "messed up in their minds" or "with inexplicable behaviors that came from outside of themselves."

    Teachers were particularly good at distinguishing control kids from experimental kids, and a number of teachers near that facility were killed by the CIA—on the order of a dozen in a decade.

    The second piece of disinformation that the CIA primed therapists around the world have dispensed is that it is "normal" for kids to act out in their teenage years by cross-dressing. It turned out that just the opposite is true of normal teenagers. They want to define their sexual identity and not cross dress.

    Teenagers are the most intolerant to cross dressing per CIA research. Unless of course, they are mind control subjects and have been trained to sexually please chicken hawks by boys dressing as girls. There is no market for girls dressed as boys so the cross dressing only goes in one direction.

    Surprisingly, the CIA research showed that homosexual boys rarely cross dressed on their own at that age - unless they had been used by porn filmmakers, chicken hawks and mind controllers. So the presence of cross-dressing in a teenage boy is highly predictive that he is a mind control or abuse victim.

    The third piece of disinformation that the CIA fed therapists in journals to fool them and the parents is a bit subtler. The disinformation said "There is no normal age at which children should be told about sex. Sex education can occur at any age — it is up to the parents to decide. And sex education may be bad for kids so maybe we shouldn’t have it in our schools..."

    The CIA spent a lot of money to convince parents, churches, and schools not to have real sex education classes. The reason was that when kids were allowed to freely talk in a group about their sexual experiences or fantasies or theories of sex, the kids themselves could see that some of them had very different levels of exposure to, and sophistication in, these matters.

    So if sex education had to be taught the CIA wanted canned talks in which the kids were not allowed to talk. It thus trained sex educators to control the amount kids could talk and tried to make it taboo for the kids to talk to each other afterwards.

    The CIA also found out that there was a best age for sex education –about the start of puberty. So then they fostered some campaigns to force the education to be earlier. The reason for that was that some young child whose native curiosity would not lead to sophisticated knowledge of sexual action, were coming out with it in front of parents and therapists.

    It was better for the CIA if they could say that the kid learned it in a sex education class than from CIA prostitution of them. So although it sounds contradictory, the CIA’s bottom line on sex education disinformation was—don’t have sex education classes, but if you must have them have them very early and don’t let kids talk at them. Make it a more taboo subject by the way you skirt it or only allow it to be taught in a very short segment and never referred to again.

    The CIA sponsored conferences for sex educators under a front company call “First Dating Experiences” if I remember correctly. Or maybe just “First Experiences”. When the abstinence only people objected the name of the front company was called something like “Wait for Marriage, Inc."

    It was the same front. The same staff, address etc. The CIA also pushes abstinence and marital fidelity fronts while not practicing these things themselves. It does that to increase the effectiveness of its blackmail ops.

    Sexual blackmail only works when the society is condemning towards others. It is not the abstinence of fidelity that the CIA is after, it is the condemning of others it is after.

    Condemning is a form of hate and the CIA provokes hate and condemning as a way of controlling others. It is a mind control technique that can then be used to get people to fight wars etc against their best interests.

    The CIA is looking for “handles” into a person’s psyche—an emotional issue that drives a person to act. Then it exploits it. It also creates handles by funding songs and lyrics into existence. That is another whole level of mind control directed at a population instead of individuals.

    I have gotten off track some here. This is useful information but not staying focused on the main topic.

    [tests to run on ADD kids to justify their two-week hospitalization] It was a total scam. They just needed something so difficult that parents couldn’t easily do at home to con the parent into letting Johnny stay at the hospital. They withdrew the food alright. They barely fed the kids at all. They fed them out of boxes, pre-packaged potato chips like Pringles and called that a sugar free diet. The last day the parents would come to pick the kid up and the interaction was observed carefully to see how well the kid could lie about his stay and what he had eaten in the hospital.

    It was a complete fantasy. The kid had been down in the basement without a bed, clothes, or single hot meal. The kids that passed had incredible abilities to make believe. So good that they even believed it. They were multiples just like me. They had gone through an hour’s hypnosis at the end of that torture and with the help of the hypnotist had imagined all that had happened to them in that two-week period of time.

    The parents were told that they couldn’t see the kids because the kids needed to learn a new way to relate to them to help their ADD, and that had to be learned well before they saw them again.

    The parents wanted a break from their ADD kids for 2 weeks so it worked. And the kids did relate to their parents differently after two weeks of hard torture without a hot meal. Meanwhile, some say the CIA did actually give them the fluoride chelating drug—a pill once a day so that the ADD was better. The program was popular with parents.

    The University facility touted its benefits. Researchers forged results to show how effective it was and others studied how to torture the kids and split their minds more reliably.

    Not all kids split well enough to pretend, or keep up the pretense. These are the ones people know of as the Finder kids. They were taken away from their parents. They were not able to find pushers in their communities, so they were sent to be sex slaves and drug mules where they didn’t have to perform at as high a level.

    If they couldn’t even do that, they were killed. They were not one-use kids for the sexual/torture use of the Ultra-rich, they were already used goods. The kids that Bush Sr. was expending were kids that came to that facility that were selected to be held in reserve for his use and his use only. Their parents had applied for their son’s hospitalization but the “application had been held up.”

    Bush, Sr. had a certain look of boy he liked, like the youngest boy “Eager to Beaver” in the Brady House Boys (?). They looked like he looked when he was a boy before “it happened to him” at age 6. He kept on sodomizing kids like his dad sodomized him. His father kept it up much longer than others can imagine. He kept it up until he was close to death. Some things run in families.

    Would you want to see your dad if that continued to be what you had to submit to? Dark and ugly secrets that even the principals might not know—what with multiplicity being what it is. Bush, Sr. — does he even know that he goes to that base and why? I leave it to your remote viewing skills and imagination to decide.

    I was not at the CIA because of my ability to imagine what loose ends there were. I was there to know what loose ends there were and failing to know could cost me my life and more than that.

    The actual results were that the CIA training was not adequate in amount or quality to do anything to train a kid in pushing. So the experiment was not a test of that at all. The experiment was a cover story for how to get the kids into one’s hands.

    [...]
    So, now, instead of dealing with scientific data, we are dealing with undoing myths and legends about "settled sciences" of inquisition proportion and order of magnitude.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (26th October 2018), Bill Ryan (20th June 2019), enigma3 (26th October 2018), mountain_jim (26th October 2018), onawah (26th October 2018), pueblo (26th October 2018), ThePythonicCow (26th October 2018), Victoria (10th December 2020)

  3. Link to Post #42
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    More good info on fluoride in this thread: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...87#post1256087
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (26th October 2018), Hervé (26th October 2018), pueblo (26th October 2018)

  5. Link to Post #43
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    2,200
    Thanks
    9,801
    Thanked 18,249 times in 2,176 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    More good info on fluoride in this thread: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...87#post1256087
    My apologies Onawah, i did a search for a fluoride thread but somehow missed this one!

    Perhaps a Mod could merge them if that was agreeable?

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    Hervé (26th October 2018), onawah (26th October 2018)

  7. Link to Post #44
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Sure, fine with me Pueblo.
    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    More good info on fluoride in this thread: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...87#post1256087
    My apologies Onawah, i did a search for a fluoride thread but somehow missed this one!

    Perhaps a Mod could merge them if that was agreeable?
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  8. Link to Post #45
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    2,200
    Thanks
    9,801
    Thanked 18,249 times in 2,176 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Could a Mod please merge this thread with this one please?

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...luoride-Thread

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    Hervé (26th October 2018)

  10. Link to Post #46
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    Could a Mod please merge this thread with this one please?

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...luoride-Thread
    [Mod note: Done! Thanks, Hervé]
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    pueblo (26th October 2018)

  12. Link to Post #47
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Judge Orders More Discovery In TSCA Fluoride Suit
    OCTOBER 24, 2018
    The order marks the latest in a series of potentially precedential losses the EPA has suffered in the landmark TSCA fluoride suit.
    https://www.waterskraus.com/judge-or...fluoride-suit/
    "A federal judge has ordered EPA to provide internal documents and allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on the risks posed by fluoridation, mandates that highlight the effect of an earlier ruling allowing the plaintiffs to introduce new evidence in their landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) suit rather than limiting it to the agency’s record.

    In an Oct. 4 order, Judge Edward Chen, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered EPA to release internal documents regarding its scientists’ views of a study linking fluoridation to IQ decrements, as well as ordering EPA to allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on whether its existing fluoride standards consider neurotoxicity risks.

    The order marks the latest in a series of potentially precedential losses the agency has suffered in the landmark TSCA suit, Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, where environmentalists and public health groups are seeking to force EPA to grant their petition seeking to ban the practice of treating drinking water with fluoride.

    “In my view, it’s quite significant going forward … [Chen] didn’t provide any qualifications. He allowed deposition and forced EPA to search for internal documents,” the plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Connett with Waters Kraus & Paul’s Los Angeles office, tells Inside EPA. “Even though [the order] is not technically precedential, it’s nevertheless helpful guidance for future courts” because this case is the first of its kind.

    Late last year, Chen ruled that the reformed TSCA allows citizens to petition EPA to regulate single uses of substances, a stance at odds with the agency’s position in this case, where it rejected the petition because it sought to regulate one use of fluoride, the fluoridation of drinking water for its dental benefits.

    More significantly for the latest order, Chen also ruled last February against the agency’s arguments to restrict the suit to the evidence presented in EPA’s petition denial — paving the way for a rare, de novo hearing of the petitioners’ arguments, scheduled for August 2019, where the plaintiffs are expected to offer a host of new scientific studies on the risks posed by the widely used substance.

    EPA has declined to appeal either ruling and instead has vowed to win the suit on the merits. But attorney observers say the rulings will usher in increased interest from public interest groups in filings such petitions — an action that had previously been rare, and even more rarely, if ever, challenged in court.

    Environmentalists last month filed a similar section 21 petition urging the agency to amend its Chemical Data Reporting rule to require businesses to report their uses of asbestos, an effort aimed at closing what the petitioners say is a loophole EPA created when it said the regulation does not cover asbestos because it is “naturally occurring.”

    Section 21 gives EPA 90 days to respond to such a petition. Should EPA deny the petition, or fail to respond within 90 days, the petitioners can sue the agency in federal court.

    Chen’s latest ruling broadens the evidence that plaintiffs can gather from EPA, allowing for discovery of certain internal documents and even deposition of EPA staff on certain topics.

    In his latest ruling, Chen reminds EPA that in this TSCA section 21 suit, “the Court reviews Plaintiffs’ administrative petition de novo. The EPA’s documents and correspondence relating to the specified studies are relevant to the ultimate issue the Court must decide — whether the ingestion of fluoride in drinking water causes neurotoxic harm.”

    Joint Letter

    Chen’s order responds to a joint Sept. 27 letter EPA and plaintiffs filed that details areas in which the litigants, after several months of discovery negotiations, have been unable to agree.

    For example, the plaintiffs tell Chen that they “requested EPA documents related to the first-ever” National Institutes of Health-funded study of fluoride and IQ, which was published in September 2017.

    “This much anticipated and methodologically rigorous study (which was funded, in part, by the EPA) found that fluoride ingestion during pregnancy correlates with significant and sizable IQ loss in children and thus strongly supports Plaintiffs’ position,” they say.

    The plaintiffs are seeking any internal documents that may exist of EPA scientists’ review of the study. “Internal EPA documents showing, inter alia, that EPA’s own scientists recognize the strength of this study (A) would be probative reliance material for Plaintiffs’ experts, (B) would assist the Court in assessing the testimony of EPA’s litigation experts, and (C) would help identify potential witnesses.”

    The plaintiffs argue that “[d]espite the probative value of EPA’s internal assessments of these studies, EPA has taken the sweeping position that any views of its individual scientists are wholesale irrelevant. The only documents EPA has produced, therefore, are official EPA and third-party documents that were already available in the public domain. This runs counter to the Court’s discovery ruling which permitted Plaintiffs to discover ‘evidence [that] would not have been previously available to Plaintiffs but is within the scope of the petition.’”

    EPA, however, argues that plaintiffs’ discovery “unnecessarily focuses on internal discussion and the personal opinions of agency personnel. Given the scope of discovery already defined by the Court, EPA searched for and produced responsive documents relevant to the existence of scientific studies and data rather than EPA’s interpretation of that data.”

    “Additionally, EPA flagged for Plaintiffs the potential that such requests likely impinge on EPA’s deliberative process privilege. . . . Nevertheless, Plaintiffs implicitly reflect their desire to harm the agency by attacking its credibility through compelled testimony of its own scientists.”

    Chen also ordered EPA to respond to plaintiffs’ request for a witness. Chen writes that the plaintiffs’ requests “are relevant because whether the EPA considered the neurotoxic risk of fluoride in establishing its safety standards bears on how much weight the Court should give to any EPA argument that its safety standards can be used to show what a safe level of fluoride is.”

    Chen acknowledges EPA’s “protests that the request is duplicative and not proportionate to the needs of the case because the ‘factual and scientific predicates for EPA’s denial of the petition are publicly expressed and identified in the document denying the petition.’”

    But Chen notes that “EPA has not identified any undue burden from the request, and courts have made clear that ‘the deposition process provides a means to obtain more complete information [than written responses to discovery requests] and is, therefore, favored,’” citing a 2008 case, Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., from the U.S. District Court for Nevada.

    Connett deposed EPA’s Ed Ohanian, associate director for science, on Oct. 15. As a witness in a federal rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Ohanian represents EPA and his statements are binding on the agency for purposes of the litigation, Connett says.

    Fluoride Neurotoxicity

    The plaintiffs in their letter to Chen explained they seek access to depose EPA witnesses “to clarify whether, and to what extent, EPA’s current safety standards the [maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) in drinking water] and [reference dose (RfD), the maximum amount an individual can be estimated to ingest daily over a lifetime without experiencing noncancerous health effects] considered neurotoxicity as a potential risk of fluoride.”

    The plaintiffs add that based on information they have received, “it appears EPA’s safety standards did not meaningfully consider fluoride neurotoxicity, and, as such, cannot be used to demonstrate a neurological safe level of fluoride.”

    EPA, however, argues that “While EPA takes the position as a matter of policy that neurotoxicity is not a risk of concern at doses below those associated with the MCLG and RfD, EPA is not required to defend that policy position in this litigation.”

    “Moreover, in public documents addressing the issue which have already been provided to Plaintiffs, EPA has noted that the available data on neurotoxicity are not sufficient to assess the public health relevance to the U.S. population. Thus, Plaintiffs are unable to identify how inquiry into the MCLG for fluoride is relevant to the availability and existence of scientific studies and data necessary to demonstrate an unreasonable risk. … Plaintiffs have not provided a convincing explanation of how the disputed discovery relates to the only fact ‘of consequence’ in this litigation — whether there is scientific evidence of an unreasonable risk of injury.”

    This article originally appeared in the October 22, 2018 issue of Inside EPA."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (27th October 2018), Houman (27th October 2018), pyrangello (27th October 2018), ThePythonicCow (27th October 2018)

  14. Link to Post #48
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Five MORE Fluoride-Condemning Studies Published
    Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Oct 15, 2018
    http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v14n23.shtml
    "This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.
    (OMNS Oct 15 2018) Five new published studies support previous research linking fluoride to thyroid disease; ADHD; overdosing formula-fed infants and bias in government reports. Another reveals pregnant Canadians have higher urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas which previous studies linked to offspring's lower IQ.

    Fluoride exposure coupled with iodine deficiency is linked to thyroid disease, report researchers in Environment International (December 2018). They said this is the first human population-based examination of chronic low-level fluoride exposure on thyroid function that considers residents' iodine status.
    "I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure," said lead author Ashley Malin, "And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years," (Environmental Health News).

    "Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention [in offspring]," researchers report in Environment International (December 2018). This is consistent with a growing body of evidence linking neurotoxicity to early-life fluoride exposure, they said.
    "Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the growing fetal nervous system may be negatively affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure," said Morteza Bashash, the study's lead author and a researcher at University of Toronto's School of Public Health. (NeuroscienceNews.com)

    "Significantly more infants, particularly those under six months old, will exceed the UL [Upper Limit] when consuming formula reconstituted with 0.7 ppm [fluoride] water, increasing their risk of developing dental fluorosis." (Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 2018).
    "The primary adverse effects associated with chronic, excess fluoride intake are enamel and skeletal fluorosis." (National Academy of Sciences, 1997).

    The US Centers for Disease Control encourages the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies to reach 0.7 ppm without adequately informing parents about the consequences of fluoride overexposure.

    Organizational bias compromised the integrity of fluoride research from the beginning and persists today (Medical Hypotheses, Spencer and Limeback, December 2018) The authors identify ten major flaws in a recent US National Toxicology Program's (NTP) fluoride experiment as an example of how institutional bias can skew science.
    Canadian pregnant women have double urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas (Environmental Health Perspectives, October 10, 2018). Previous Mexican research links urine fluoride levels in pregnancy to offspring's lower IQ. The Canadian and Mexican women's fluoride levels are similar, which causes concern.
    "We found that fluoride in drinking water was the major source of exposure for pregnant women living in Canada," said Christine Till, an associate professor of Psychology in York's Faculty of Health and lead author on the study. (News Release from York University in Toronto)


    [The Orthomolecular Medicine News Service thanks Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com and the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. for this release. For more information:
    http://FluorideAction.Net ,
    NYSCOF on Twitter ;
    NYSCOF on Facebook


    Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
    Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org


    Find a Doctor
    To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml


    The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.


    Editorial Review Board:
    Ilyès Baghli, M.D. (Algeria)
    Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
    Prof. Gilbert Henri Crussol (Spain)
    Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
    Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
    Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
    Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
    Michael J. Gonzalez, N.M.D., D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
    William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
    Tonya S. Heyman, M.D. (USA)
    Suzanne Humphries, M.D. (USA)
    Ron Hunninghake, M.D. (USA)
    Michael Janson, M.D. (USA)
    Robert E. Jenkins, D.C. (USA)
    Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
    Jeffrey J. Kotulski, D.O. (USA)
    Peter H. Lauda, M.D. (Austria)
    Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
    Homer Lim, M.D. (Philippines)
    Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
    Victor A. Marcial-Vega, M.D. (Puerto Rico)
    Charles C. Mary, Jr., M.D. (USA)
    Mignonne Mary, M.D. (USA)
    Jun Matsuyama, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
    Dave McCarthy, M.D. (USA)
    Joseph Mercola, D.O. (USA)
    Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
    Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
    Tahar Naili, M.D. (Algeria)
    W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
    Dag Viljen Poleszynski, Ph.D. (Norway)
    Jeffrey A. Ruterbusch, D.O. (USA)
    Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
    Thomas L. Taxman, M.D. (USA)
    Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
    Garry Vickar, MD (USA)
    Ken Walker, M.D. (Canada)
    Anne Zauderer, D.C. (USA)

    Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor-In-Chief
    Editor, Japanese Edition: Atsuo Yanagisawa, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
    Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA), Associate Editor
    Helen Saul Case, M.S. (USA), Assistant Editor
    Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA), Contributing Editor
    Michael S. Stewart, B.Sc.C.S. (USA), Technology Editor
    Jason M. Saul, JD (USA), Legal Consultant "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (2nd November 2018), mountain_jim (22nd November 2018), ThePythonicCow (2nd November 2018)

  16. Link to Post #49
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    New Study Concludes "a relatively large proportion of fluoride intake is retained in the body in weaned infants."
    05 November 2018
    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...C6F403B4BF9A85

    "Limited knowledge is available on total fluoride exposure, excretion and retention in infants, despite the first year of human life being the critical period for dental development and risk of dental fluorosis. This study investigated total daily fluoride intake (TDFI), excretion (TDFE) and retention (TDFR) in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated water areas at pre- and post-weaning stages of development. Healthy infants, aged 0–12 months, were recruited and their TDFI (mg/kg body weight (BW) per d), from diet and toothpaste ingestion, was assessed over a 3-d period using a dietary diary and tooth-brushing questionnaire. TDFE (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by collecting 48-h urine and faeces. TDFR (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by subtracting TDFE from TDFI. A total of forty-seven infants completed the study: sixteen at pre-weaning and thirty-one at post-weaning stages, with a mean age of 3·4 and 10·0 months, respectively. TDFI was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P=0·002) but higher in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFE was mainly affected by type of feeding, with higher excretion in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFR was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P<0·001) but higher in formula-fed infants (P=0·001). In conclusion, a relatively large proportion of fluoride intake is retained in the body in weaned infants. This is an important consideration in fluoride-based prevention programmes, with goals to maximise caries prevention while minimising the risk of dental fluorosis."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (6th November 2018)

  18. Link to Post #50
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    FAN Professional Statement calling for end to fluoridation
    (From FAN's email update today)
    NOVEMBER 16, 2018

    "A few days ago the Fluoride Action Network* sent out a request to professionals in any medical, scientific, legal, educational, environmental or other field, to sign a "New Professionals' Statement" http://fluoridealert.org/researchers...tement/calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide--see the list of signers to the new statement. http://fluoridealert.org/researchers...ement-signers/

    This "New Professionals' Statement" has been triggered by the publication of very important and disturbing U.S. Government-funded studies (Bashash et al, 2017 and 2018). These studies have added very strong additional evidence to the large number of existing studies that show that fluoride is neurotoxic. They underline that the critical period of exposure to fluoride is in the womb and that at levels of fluoride exposure currently experienced by pregnant women in fluoridated communities there is a strong correlation with the lowering of IQ and ADHD symptoms in their offspring.

    Sadly, and possibly because the imposed dental practice of water fluoridation is so entrenched in the psyche of the medical, dental and public health establishments in fluoridated countries, neither governments not the mainstream media are warning the public about this large - and growing - body of scientific research.

    Thus, we are appealing to professionals to sign this statement. We hope by circulating this it will help us get this information out to more professionals, the public (especially pregnant women), the media and decision-makers in fluoridated countries, and eventually halt this unnecessary and reckless practice being imposed on our children.

    Please note, we are inviting all professionals to sign this new statement regardless of whether they signed the original 2007 statement or not. For the moment we will be treating this as a standalone statement, but so that we don’t lose the weight of nearly 5000 signers to the previous statement we will find some way of combining the totals of unique signers in the future.

    If you are a professional and wish to add your name you can do it online HERE. http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2477/p/sa..._page_KEY=8760 Please provide your name, highest degrees, occupation town/state/country and email address. If you feel inclined please add a short statement of your own.

    If you are not a professional this effort gives you an excellent opportunity to approach your doctor, dentist and other professionals in medical and environmental fields with this shocking new information that fluoridation maybe damaging the brains of future generations. If you have a university in your town you may wish to approach professors teaching in any scientific field. All the key information you and they need for this can be obtained from our revolving mastheads on our home page FluorideALERT.org .

    SIGN & SHARE THE STATEMENT TODAY http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2477/p/sa..._page_KEY=8760

    Thank you for all you are doing to end this reckless and unnecessary practice."
    Paul Connett, PhD,
    Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network
    and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (18th November 2018), mountain_jim (22nd November 2018), ThePythonicCow (18th November 2018)

  20. Link to Post #51
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    New Bill Promoting Fluoridation
    Fluoride Action Network
    DECEMBER 4, 2018
    http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2477/p/di...tion_KEY=23358

    On President Trump’s desk is currently a bill created and promoted by the American Dental Association that--if signed into law--could allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide funding to state dental associations and regional oral health coalitions promoting fluoridation and lobbying for its expansion. In other words, even more tax-dollars could go into pro-fluoridation propaganda with little accountability. Needless to say not a penny of this will be used to tell the American people about the U.S. government-funded studies linking exposure to fluoride during pregnancy and lowered IQ and increased indicators of ADHD in offspring (Bashash et al.,2017, 2018)

    H.R. 2422, called the Action for Dental Health Act of 2017, is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. At first glance, directing federal funds through CDC grants to innovative dental programs for the poor and underserved seems like a good idea. In fact, I believe the majority of this money will go to worthy programs that are less harmful, more effective alternatives to fluoridation. This is one of the obstacles we face in requesting a veto from the President, but we need to educate him about the potential risk that will come with his signature.

    In the House and Senate we worked to amend the bill to prohibit the promotion of fluoridation. While some good amendments were eventually made, reducing the funding significantly and putting some checks and balances on how this grant money would be used, we were unsuccessful in getting an amendment we wanted prohibiting the promotion of fluoridation.

    While fluoridation isn’t mentioned in the text or in the ADA’s lobbying materials, it is a primary part of their Action for Dental Health Initiative. And if you read between the lines you can see that the vague language of the bill authorizes the use of federal funds “to develop and implement initiatives to improve oral health…through community-wide dental disease prevention programs; and by increasing public awareness and education related to oral health and dental disease prevention.,” which incorporates all of the keywords necessary to include the ADA’s favorite program: fluoridation.

    Effectively, by leaving controversial fluoridation language out of the bill and replacing it with vague authorization, the ADA has successfully tricked House and Senate members. Now we must try one last hail-Mary effort to educate the President. While chances are slim he will choose this for the first veto of his presidency, our efforts now will at least serve to alert his administration to the public health debacle that is fluoridation.

    SEND A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

    You can also call their offices and leave a message with staff:

    Donald J. Trump
    Phone (202) 456-1111

    Mike Pence
    Phone (202) 456-1111
    Please take action, share, and stay tuned for more information about this bill over the coming days, including how it came about, how it has changed, and how it may impact your future campaign efforts. We understand that Trump must act on this bill by the end of the week, so please take action as soon as possible.
    Thank you,

    Stuart Cooper
    Campaign Director
    Fluoride Action Network
    See all FAN bulletins online: http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  21. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (4th December 2018), Hervé (5th December 2018), mountain_jim (5th December 2018), ThePythonicCow (4th December 2018)

  22. Link to Post #52
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Statements from Professionals Opposed to Fluoridation - Part One
    From FAN's email update today:
    "To date approximately 200 professionals have signed the New Professionals' Statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Many of these provided short personal statements as to why they oppose fluoridation. Below, we print 18 of these statements. In future bulletins we will provide more.

    In addition, we are very happy to share this videotaped testimonial from Mike Ewall, JD, the highly respected director of the Energy Justice Network. Paul and Ellen have worked with Mike for over 30 years fighting both incineration and fluoridation. For many years Mike has successfully kept mandatory fluoridation out of the state of Pennsylvania.


    Dr. Robert C Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP, BPE

    Artificial water fluoridation is unethical, unsafe, ineffective and not necessary for any body function. It is outdated, harmful and regressive. There are so many better ways to improve the oral and overall health of infants, young children, the disadvantaged, the chronically ill, the elderly and people of color.

    Robban Sica, MD

    Among the many health-damaging effects of Fluoride, is its harmful effect on the thyroid. It is no surprise Hashimoto's thyroiditis and hypothyroidism is at epidemic levels, which dramatically impacts a person's quality of life and ability to function effectively.

    Neil Carman, Ph.D.

    Fluoride is one of the most toxic chemicals added to the water and is an industrial hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry and other industrial sectors.

    Philip Robertson, ND
    In clinical practice, in fluoridated Geelong, Australia, it is most unusual not to see patients with fluoride toxicity symptoms every week.

    Dorothy Lambert, Ph.D.

    I oppose fluoridation in the water as it is bad for people's thyroid and also has other medical issues.

    David Banks, DDS

    Fluoridation is mass medication with a known neurotoxin.

    Miriam Westerman

    I have fought against water fluoridation in Israel and beyond since 2002. It has been clear for many, many years that in the handful of fluoridated countries that fluoride is a “protected pollutant.” I signed the original 2007 Professional's Statement. At the time I worked in the Medical Laboratory for diagnostic tests and research, Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. I have since retired but I continue to fight for sanity in the battle against this outdated and risky practice.

    Gerald Steel, MS, PE, Esq.

    Fluoridated water is an illegal unsafe drug that is harming people who ingest it.

    Mageswari Sangaralingam, MEM

    Malaysia is still adding fluoride to its public drinking water system. The fluoride level recommended by the Ministry of Health Malaysia is 0.5 – 0.9 mg/L. Some states in Malaysia had stopped artificial fluoridation of drinking water in the wake of higher cases of dental fluorosis amongst the population. We want an end to fluoridation of our drinking water considering its neurotoxicity and other health impacts.

    Daniel Eyink, MD

    Fluoridation is medical treatment of the population without considering the individual's health needs nor their rights of choice. I strongly object to its use.

    RS Carlson DDS

    Community Water Fluoridation is forced medication--See Recent Decision Of New Zealand Supreme Court…It is an obsolete approach as a solution to dental caries which is a nutritional issue as many health issues are.

    J Collins Meek, Ph.D.

    As a neurological learning specialist, I have known for many years that fluoridated drinking water reduces learning capabilities in children, some much worse than others. It is highly inappropriate for authorities to dose the drinking water with material that is toxic for most, if not all, children.

    Herminio Delgado, PG (Professional Geologist), CEG (Certified Engineering Geologist)

    Fluoride is harmful and people should have the option of choosing whether they are exposed to this toxin.

    William Potter, PhD Biochemistry

    Potential neuro-developmental toxin. Inappropriate use of water system to deliver topical drug.

    Arjun Khandare, Ph.D.

    Fluoride is a slow poison, causes dental, skeletal and non-skeletal fluorosis. It affects almost all the organs in the body. Most serious is its damage to the brain. There is strong evidence that it lowers IQ in children.

    James Reeves, Ph.D.

    Even if fluoride helped children's' teeth (unlikely), ADULTS should not be forced to consume it in every glass of water, every day of life, thus being exposed to many serious health issues.

    Carol Vander Stoep, RDH, BSDH

    I write books about oral/systemic medicine and it is unbelievable to me that we still think fluoridation is a great idea due to all the unforeseen consequences of adding fluoride as a "medication" to water. Even a popular biology lecturer came to Austin and lectured hygienists here of her turn around on the issue after she nearly died from hypothyroidism and took a closer look.

    John Mueller, BSc (Geoph. Engr.) P.E. (Civil, Control Systems)


    As Senior Engineer in Water and Sewer Dept of municipal public works utility, I first began studying fluoridation when tasked with preparing the technical specifications for fluorosilicic acid (FSA) for the utility's purchasing contract for fluoridation chemicals. I then learned that arsenic invariably occurs as a contaminant in measured concentrations in virtually all tanker truck shipments of FSA to the municipality's two drinking water treatment plants. The two plants serve about a half-million people, and began fluoridation in 1953. Deliberately adding a chemical contaminated with arsenic, which has an EPA assigned Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of zero, is a violation of the spirit and intent of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the SDWA on the basis that the added arsenic, a known carcinogen, is diluted to a concentration below the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level, thereby passing regulatory compliance requirements. Meanwhile, in our city, Dental fluorosis, seen as patchy paper-white patchy enamel defects on front teeth, is commonplace among young and old alike in lifetime residents. "

    Thank you,
    Paul Connett, Ph.D.
    Director
    Fluoride Action Network
    See all FAN bulletins online http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  23. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Hervé (5th December 2018), mountain_jim (6th December 2018), ThePythonicCow (6th December 2018)

  24. Link to Post #53
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Statements From Professionals Opposed to Fluoridation
    FAN Part 2
    DECEMBER 6, 2018

    "In this bulletin we provide another 30 statements from the list of doctors, dentists, nurses, scientists, water treatment operators, and others who have signed the New Professionals' statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Some of these statements have been edited to avoid repetition.

    Declan Waugh, Ireland
    As a scientist and risk management consultant, I have read the science and reviewed the evidence regarding water fluoridation and fluoride intoxication. As a published author who has also undertaken risk assessment of fluoride intake I am aware that you cannot control the dose of exposure when you contaminant the public water supply with this toxin. Evidence suggests that Fluoride works topically in reducing dental caries but ingesting fluoride is harmful to the body, the soft organs including the brain, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs and immune system. I do not consent to mandatory fluoridation both on scientific and ethical grounds. It is a flawed policy that needs to stop immediately. The science is clear, fluoride is a neurotoxin, a metabolic and enzymatic poison and it should not be ingested, particularly by pregnant women or infants or persons who are susceptible to its toxic effects such as individuals who are iodine deficient, chloride deficient, individuals with kidney disease or compromised immunity.

    Michael May, BSc Eng, CEng
    …Fluoridation of our water supply impacts the young and poor disproportionately more since the young often obtain it in higher concentrations than adults and the poor can`t afford the Reverse Osmosis filtration required to remove it.

    Eve-Marie Arcand, DDS
    My 18 years of experience as a dentist have showed me that eating habits and oral hygiene are the key factors to prevention of dental decay. My examination of the literature regarding water fluoridation has convinced me that even though the intention behind this practice is good, the risks largely exceed the potential benefits (that appear to be much lower than expected initially)… It is unsafe for many people; it can harm babies that are bottle fed and it can make it worse for individuals with impaired thyroid function. Toxins are very abundant in our environment and we need to reduce them whenever it is possible, so adding a known toxin to water makes no sense.

    April Hurley, MD
    I oppose dosing developing children with neurotoxins under the guise of "treating" them. I oppose damaging all body tissues to address dental damage which can be prevented by wiser, safer, and nutritional means. I oppose harming people to "protect" them…

    Emily Matthews, RN
    It works better applied directly to teeth. Anybody who wants it can have it applied at their visit to the dentist. It is medication without consent when put in drinking water…

    Jeffrey Sutherland, Ph.D.
    The latest research shows that even in amounts commonly found in doctored water it reduces the IQ of children significantly. As a research scientist with significant expertise in the effects of radiation exposure I know that small amounts of toxins such as mercury, fluoride, and even chlorine can significant increase negative health effects.

    Heidi Ward- McGrath, BVSc
    Fluoride has detrimental effects on the health of pets that are supplied with fluoridated water. Fluoride affects the functionality of their thyroid gland and subsequently hormonal status. Our renal patients are negatively affected by this addition. I am concerned about fluoride uptake into bone. There is scant pet animal research in this area, however I suspect similar levels of fluoride in dog and cat joints is contributing to pain, inflammation and disease. Many pet owners are unaware of the impact this unnecessary addition to their pets vital water supply is having on their pets overall health. It must end.

    Carol Wells, RDH, Canada
    …Every single ounce of artificially fluoridated water consumed, while drinking and eating foods that have been rinsed, washed or cooked …with hexafluorosilicic acid – a neurotoxin - no amount is safe.

    Lashawn Bollenbach, RN
    Fluoride is toxic and…has damaged my daughter’s teeth as diagnosed by our traditional dentist in Oklahoma. Studies show that it lowers IQ significantly, and it's criminal to continue this antiquated practice in modern America.

    David McRae, Australia
    Water fluoridation is poor medicine/public health in that it doses all citizens with a strong chemical substance regardless of need, sensitivity, medical conditions and other risk factors.

    Tina Kimmel, Ph.D., MSW, MPH
    Fluoridation chemicals (including unavoidable contaminants) are neurotoxic, in addition to dozens of other harms to the body. They pose the worst risks to fetuses and infants…Despite all this, fluoridation is being imposed on local water districts by unelected government officials.

    Richard Taylor, M.A. Psychology, licensed psychologist
    Fluoride accumulates in brain and bone and causes lowered IQ and ADHD like symptoms, and has been implicated in causing osteosarcoma in juvenile males.

    Michael Fadell, MD
    It is a toxin! I am a grandfather and am concerned for the health of my granddaughter!

    Obiora Embry, BS, Industrial Engineering, EIT
    I have been against water fluoridation for over 20 years and am dismayed that even with the knowledge of how toxic it is to humans (the born and unborn) it is still used within most communities within the United States…

    George Eichholzer, BASc, P. Eng
    There are far better ways to help teeth without poisoning the water supply.

    Reverend Jonathan Singleton, MA, MDiv
    It's not healthy.... It's not a vitamin.... It's not needed in the human body.... It's IMMORAL!

    Kevin O'Donnell
    I was diagnosed with osteoporosis at age 53, and have avoided drinking tap water for the past several years, drinking only bottled water formulated by reverse osmosis.

    Gary Fortinsky, DDS, HOM
    …if the benefits of fluoride are supposedly topical, then why is it in our water?

    George Fairfax, MD
    There is much evidence of adverse effects that is occurring in humans.

    Alan Feuer, MPME
    …It only serves to financially benefit the sellers of fluoride.

    Mary Sanda, RN, BSN, CCRC
    I believe it is extraordinarily irresponsible to add fluoride to public water supplies. Even if you agree that fluoride is beneficial topically to the teeth, it is not meant to be absorbed by all of the cells in our bodies, especially brain cells…From the tiniest of newborn babies to the largest adults, all of us are exposed to the same concentration of fluoride in the water. I am a nurse and there is absolutely no such thing as prescribing a drug in the same concentration for everyone universally. One does not need to be in the medical field to understand how wrong it is to add any substance to our water supply to treat people, not knowing how different people could be affected.

    Hugh Davoren, RD, PGDipSci, PGDipDiet
    From a human nutrition perspective, Fluoride is not required for any purpose. It is not a nutrient. Sure, when applied topically Fluoride does seem to have a positive effect in delaying the onset of decay. In NZ the average dietary intake of Fluoride is at least 2 mg daily via the food supply alone (not including fluoridated water), a lot more if you're a tea drinker. There is simply no need to have it added to our water supply any longer.

    Richard Mills, MD
    Fluoride is a toxic inorganic ion that plays no part in normal human biochemistry.

    Christopher Christianson (Utilities Operations Supervisor, grade IV Wastewater, T3 Treatment, D3 Distribution)
    It is unnecessary to add this chemical to the water supply. It does not treat water, and what benefit it may have is administered ineffectively at uncontrolled dosage in the wrong method. Most fluoridated drinking water does not even enter a human's mouth--possibly 99%. It's flushed down the toilet, watered onto a lawn, washed onto a car, or flows down the drain with the dishwater and the laundry water. Thus, it becomes an environmental waste, as wastewater treatment plants do not remove fluoride.

    David Ball, DDS, MAGD, AIAOMT
    Fluoride is a toxin with effects at ppm, we don't need it, you can't control the dose people get.

    John Holden, DOM
    As a natural medicine physician, I have known for years that the fluoride added to drinking water has toxic effects on the body, and environment. Fluoride stores up in the body over time, and displaces necessary nutrients like calcium and iodine, disrupting bone, glandular, and brain function, and has been shown to contribute to cardiovascular disease and low IQ…

    According to Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association (AMA):"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."

    It is human nature to resist change to ideas that have been believed for a long time, regardless of their validity. The scientific evidence against fluoridation of drinking water is overwhelming.
    Dominic Berry, Ph.D.
    First of all, it is an obvious and flagrant violation of medical ethics because it constitutes medication without consent. Second, I am a professional research scientist, have spent quite some time going through the literature on the subject, and am absolutely shocked by the dishonesty of the people promoting the practice.

    Stephen Taylor, DNP
    We should have clean drinking water and water treatment plants should provide this, not attempt to be our pharmacy.

    Kristie Lavelle, OTR/L, CHT
    The health risks from fluoridation to the brain, bones, thyroid, and kidneys far outweigh any benefits to teeth. It is unethical to force exposure to fluoridation chemicals on entire populations without consent.

    Debbie Rhyner, RN
    Internal ingestion of fluoride is unnecessary for dental cavity prevention & can be harmful to the human body … Any substance or drug that is utilized as a preventative or curative treatment plan, should always be individualized to each person. Adding fluoride to the public water supply isn't individualized dosing, but it is a careless 'one size fits all' approach. It doesn't take into account the weight, age, gender or health status of each person or the quantity of water that each person drinks per day. Therefore, it should NOT be added to the public water supply! Topical application of fluoride is an appropriate treatment choice that can be offered to patients on an as needed basis for dental cavity prevention. "

    Thank you,
    Paul Connett, Ph.D.
    Director
    Fluoride Action Network
    http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  25. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (6th December 2018), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), conk (1st February 2019), Franny (6th September 2019), Pam (13th February 2019), ThePythonicCow (6th December 2018)

  26. Link to Post #54
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    New Study: Potential Role of Fluoride in the Etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease
    https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965
    12/6/18
    (From FAN's email update today)
    Abstract
    "The etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease has not been fully explained. Now, the disease is widely attributed both to genetic and environmental factors. It is believed that only a small percentage of new AD cases result solely from genetic mutations, with most cases attributed to environmental factors or to the interaction of environmental factors with preexistent genetic determinants. Fluoride is widespread in the environment and it easily crosses the blood–brain barrier. In the brain fluoride affects cellular energy metabolism, synthesis of inflammatory factors, neurotransmitter metabolism, microglial activation, and the expression of proteins involved in neuronal maturation. Finally, and of specific importance to its role in Alzheimer’s disease, studies report fluoride-induced apoptosis and inflammation within the central nervous system. This review attempts to elucidate the potential relationship between the effects of fluoride exposure and the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. We describe the impact of fluoride-induced oxidative stress and inflammation in the pathogenesis of AD and demonstrate a role for apoptosis in disease progression, as well as a mechanism for its initiation by fluoride. The influence of fluoride on processes of AD initiation and progression is complex and warrants further investigation, especially considering growing environmental fluoride pollution.
    View Full-Text: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965/htm
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  27. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (8th January 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Pam (13th February 2019)

  28. Link to Post #55
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    STUDIES ON TOOTH DECAY RATES AFTER WATER FLUORIDATION IS STOPPED
    https://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries05/
    "For decades, the American Dental Association (ADA) has long warned that if communities end their water fluoridation programs, the rate of tooth decay will increase. In it’s “Fluoridation Facts” brochure, the ADA states:

    “Dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued for one year or more, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses are widely used.”

    At the turn of the 21st century, however, a flurry of 4 published studies reported that tooth decay rates did not increase in communities that had ended fluoridation. In fact, in each of the studies, the rate of tooth decay continued to decrease.

    The fact that tooth decay decreased following the end of fluoridation is consistent with the fact that tooth decay rates in all western nations have sharply declined over the past 50 years irrespective of whether the country fluoridates its water, or not.

    Fluoridation Cessation Studies
    1. CANADA:

    “The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community.”
    SOURCE: Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.

    2. FINLAND

    “The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child.”
    SOURCE: Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries Research 34: 462-468.

    3. GERMANY

    “In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed.”
    SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.

    4. CUBA

    “In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease, while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased…”
    SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5. "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  29. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (8th January 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Pam (13th February 2019), ThePythonicCow (11th January 2019)

  30. Link to Post #56
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    U.S. Water Fluoridation: A Forced Experiment that Needs to End (Can it be clearer than this?)
    JANUARY 09, 2019
    By the Children’s Health Defense Team
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...urce=mailchimp

    "The United States stands almost entirely alone among developed nations in adding industrial silicofluorides to its drinking water—imposing the community-wide measure without informed consent. Globally, roughly 5% of the population consumes chemically fluoridated water, but more people in the U.S. drink fluoride-adulterated water than in all other countries combined. Within the U.S., just under a third (30%) of local water supplies are not fluoridated; these municipalities have either held the practice at bay since fluoridation’s inception or have won hard-fought battles to halt water fluoridation.

    Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.
    The fluoride chemicals added to drinking water are unprocessed toxic waste products—captured pollutants from Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry or unregulated chemical imports from China. http://fluoridealert.org/issues/wate...ion-chemicals/ The chemicals undergo no purification before being dumped into drinking water and often harbor significant levels of arsenic and other heavy metal contamination; one researcher describes this unavoidable contamination as a “regulatory blind spot that jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/

    Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...278-3/fulltext —have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ and lowers children’s IQ. Fluoride is also associated with a variety of other health risks https://files.iaomt.org/wp-content/u...man-Health.pdf in both children and adults. However, U.S. officialdom persists in making hollow claims that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial, choosing to ignore even its own research! A multimillion-dollar longitudinal study https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655 published in Environmental Health Perspectives in September, 2017, for example, was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences—and the seminal study revealed a strong relationship between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered cognitive function in offspring. Considered in the context of other research, the study’s implications are, according to the nonprofit Fluoride Action Network, “enormous”—“a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.”

    According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.
    A little history
    During World War II, fluoride (a compound formed from the chemical element fluorine) came into large-scale production and use as part of the Manhattan Project. According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a “leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.” https://www.projectcensored.org/18-m...ride-toxicity/
    In order to stave off lawsuits, government scientists “embarked on a campaign to calm the social panic about fluoride…by promoting its usefulness in preventing tooth decay.” https://www.chelseagreen.com/product...inst-fluoride/

    To prop up its “exaggerated claims of reduction in tooth decay,” https://www.chelseagreen.com/product...inst-fluoride/ government researchers began carrying out a series of poorly designed and fatally flawed community trials of water fluoridation in a handful of U.S. cities in the mid-1940s. In a critique decades later, http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ a University of California-Davis statistician characterized these early agenda-driven fluoridation trials as “especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” As one example, a 15-year trial launched in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 used a nearby city as a non-fluoridated control, but after the control city began fluoridating its own water supply five years into the study, the design switched from a comparison with the non-fluoridated community to a before-and-after assessment of Grand Rapids. Fluoridation’s proponents admitted that this change substantially “compromised” the quality of the study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627472/

    In 1950, well before any of the community trials could reach any conclusions about the systemic health effects of long-term fluoride ingestion, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) endorsed water fluoridation as official public health policy, strongly encouraging communities across the country to adopt the unproven measure for dental caries prevention. Describing this astonishingly non-evidence-based step as “the Great Fluoridation Gamble,” the authors of the 2010 book, The Case Against Fluoride, argue that:

    “Not only was safety not demonstrated in anything approaching a comprehensive and scientific study, but also a large number of studies implicating fluoride’s impact on both the bones and the thyroid gland were ignored or downplayed” (p. 86).

    In 2015, Newsweek magazine not only agreed that the scientific rationale for putting fluoride in drinking water was not as “clear-cut” as once thought but also shared the “shocking” finding of a more recent Cochrane Collaboration review, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr....pub2/abstract namely, that there is no evidence to support the use of fluoride in drinking water.

    Bad science and powerful politics
    The authors of The Case Against Fluoride persuasively argue that “bad science” and “powerful politics” are primary factors explaining why government agencies continue to defend the indefensible practice of water fluoridation, despite abundant evidence that it is unsafe both developmentally and after “a lifetime of exposure to uncontrolled doses.” Comparable to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, which summarizes studies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and “credulous journalists swear don’t exist,” The Case Against Fluoride is an extensively referenced tour de force, pulling together hundreds of studies showing evidence of fluoride-related harm. https://www.alternet.org/2015/04/thi...science-speak/

    … death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease.
    The research assembled by the book’s authors includes studies on fluoride biochemistry; cancer; fluoride’s effects on the brain, endocrine system and bones; and dental fluorosis. With regard to the latter, public health agencies like to define dental fluorosis as a purely cosmetic issue involving “changes in the appearance of tooth enamel,” but the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT)—a global network of dentists, health professionals and scientists dedicated to science-based biological dentistry—describes the damaged enamel and mottled and brittle teeth that characterize dental fluorosis as “the first visible sign of fluoride toxicity.” https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride...-health-risks/

    The important 2017 study https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655 that showed decrements in IQ following fluoride exposure during pregnancy is far from the only research sounding the alarm about fluoride’s adverse developmental effects. In his 2017 volume, Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix, https://pregnancyandfluoridedonotmix.com/index.html John D. MacArthur pulls together hundreds of studies linking fluoride to premature birth and impaired neurological development (93 studies), preelampsia (77 studies) and autism (110 studies). The book points out that rates of premature birth are “unusually high” in the United States. At the other end of the lifespan, MacArthur observes that death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease. A 2006 report by the National Research Council warned that exposure to fluoride might increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.http://fluoridealert.org/news/letter...imers-disease/

    The word is out
    Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix shows that the Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Harvard’s National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Toxicology Program all are well aware of the substantial evidence of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity, yet no action has been taken to warn pregnant women. Instead, scientists with integrity, legal professionals and the public increasingly are taking matters into their own hands. A Citizens Petition
    http://fluoridealert.org/researchers...ainst-u-s-epa/
    submitted in 2016 to the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act requested that the EPA “exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.” This request—the focus of a lawsuit to be argued in court later in 2019—poses a landmark challenge to the dangerous practice of water fluoridation and has the potential to end one of the most significant chemical assaults on our children’s developing bodies and brains."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  31. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (10th January 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), East Sun (4th December 2019), Franny (6th September 2019), Pam (13th February 2019), ThePythonicCow (11th January 2019)

  32. Link to Post #57
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    World expert on lead now warns of fluoride's neurotoxicity
    NEWS PROVIDED BY
    Fluoride Action Network
    Jan 31, 2019, 08:00 ET
    https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300787432.html

    "NEW YORK, Jan. 31, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- A major review article in the journal Pediatric Medicine by Dr. David Bellinger includes fluoride in a list of chemicals known or suspected to interfere with the neurodevelopment of children, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
    http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/32944/

    Bellinger, recognized as one the leading experts in the world on the neurotoxicity of lead, holds three important positions in Boston: two at Harvard and one at Boston Children's Hospital.

    In his review of fluoride's neurotoxicity, Bellinger cites the meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies from China and Iran (Choi et al., 2012); a follow-up study in China he co-authored (Choi et al., 2015) and the more recent US-government funded mother-offspring studies from Mexico City (Bashash et al., 2017 and 2018). These latter studies, which controlled for many possible confounders, found a very strong association between fluoride levels in the pregnant mothers' urine and lowered IQ in their offspring. These fluoride urine levels from the mothers in Mexico City correspond to the fluoride levels in pregnant women in fluoridated communities in Canada (Till et al., 2018).

    While the mainstream media covered the Choi meta-analysis from 2012, they have ignored all the major neurotoxicity studies published since then. Meanwhile, they continue to go overboard on low-quality studies that focus on tooth decay.

    According to Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director, "We hope that when more pediatricians read about these important neurotoxicity studies –especially the mother-offspring studies– that they will warn women of child-bearing age to avoid all sources of fluoride during pregnancy and parents not to bottle-feed their infants with formula prepared with fluoridated tap water."

    Connett added, "There are over 350 published studies on fluoride's effect on the brain: 130 human studies, over 200 animal studies, and 33 cell studies." "

    SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

    Related Links
    fluorideaction.net
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  33. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (1st February 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Constance (4th February 2019), East Sun (4th December 2019), JRS (1st February 2019), mountain_jim (3rd February 2019), Pam (13th February 2019), ThePythonicCow (1st February 2019), what is a name? (1st February 2019)

  34. Link to Post #58
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    All “silver” dental filling are poisoned with mercury and it was covered up for 30 years
    Nov 22, 2018
    https://www.getholistichealth.com/78...ry-covered-up/

    "As part of a lawsuit settlement with several consumer groups, the F.D.A. was finally forced to publicly admit that all “silver” dental filling are poisoned with mercury, which attacks the brain as it is absorbed into the blood, and fumes that are emitted whenever one of its victims chews. These facts have been known, and covered up, for 30 years.
    Quote “Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses. When amalgam fillings are placed in teeth or removed from teeth, they release mercury vapor. Mercury vapor is also released during chewing… Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”

    www.fda.gov
    After this article was published, the F.D.A. removed the web page (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html) that the above quotes were taken from, which is very likely in flagrant violation of the court order. The court had required them to post this information publicly.

    Notice that in spite of the court; they still wrote that mercury “may” have neurotoxic effects, as if toxicologists are not really sure about it yet, and they even went so far as to pretend that brain poisonings should only be an issue to consider for infants.

    Of course, this is just another one of their attempts to confuse the issue, since the real issue that we are being distracted from is members of the older population with dental fillings, and who are suffering from mercury-induced Alzheimer’s disease.

    They are truly disgusting people, who go into spasms whenever something truthful gets too close to them. The court has mandated that F.D.A. officials take action against the practice of using “silver” dental fillings in 2009, or risk being held in contempt of the court.

    Unfortunately, we realize that this illegitimate, presidentially-appointed agency will continue to do what it always has done — operate outside the law.

    Anyone at risk of mercury poisoning should supplement his diet with selenium, which is a natural neutralizer of mercury. We strongly recommend the high-quality selenium that is found at health food stores, but not general retailers.

    Selenium neutralizes some toxic heavy metals; especially mercury and aluminum. Our research shows that selenium alone will prevent most so-called “age-related” degenerative brain diseases. These diseases are, in most cases, lifelong heavy metal accumulation and toxicity.

    They are simple cases of poisoning, and the victims are not really diseased. Preventing the brain damage with selenium is tremendously easier than reversing it, which can be impossible. People should be aware that taking excessive amounts of selenium can be dangerous. A typical dose for an adult is 100 mcg., and 400 mcg. should never be exceeded.

    Of course, anyone with enough time and money should have his so-called “silver” fillings replaced with safer materials, along with undergoing a good detoxification program. Ironically, if they really were pure silver fillings, then they would improve health, and have no toxic effects.

    View “Smoking Teeth”

    See it for yourself: Here is a video from the University of Calgary, and it shows poison gasses coming from old dental fillings, and a weak mercury solution corroding brain neurons via a microscope."

    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  35. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (12th February 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Dennis Leahy (13th February 2019), Franny (21st December 2019), mountain_jim (13th February 2019), Pam (13th February 2019), ThePythonicCow (14th February 2019)

  36. Link to Post #59
    United States Avalon Member Dennis Leahy's Avatar
    Join Date
    14th January 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Language
    English
    Age
    69
    Posts
    6,741
    Thanks
    47,010
    Thanked 48,583 times in 5,817 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    The fluoride thread had been invaded by mercury!

    Speaking of fluoride, you have to tell your dentist ahead of time to get non-fluoride composite (they may have to order it.) You have to tell them that you don't want any fluoride in the composite filling material. Some of it has fluoride, and some has timed-release fluoride. Some has no fluoride.


  37. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Dennis Leahy For This Post:

    avid (13th February 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), East Sun (4th December 2019), Flash (22nd March 2019), Franny (6th September 2019), mountain_jim (13th February 2019), onawah (13th February 2019), Pam (13th February 2019), ThePythonicCow (14th February 2019), Valerie Villars (13th February 2019)

  38. Link to Post #60
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,681
    Thanked 116,092 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    I don't know why I posted that article about mercury on this thread, but I guess I will leave it, since it's somewhat related.
    Quote Posted by Dennis Leahy (here)
    The fluoride thread had been invaded by mercury!

    Speaking of fluoride, you have to tell your dentist ahead of time to get non-fluoride composite (they may have to order it.) You have to tell them that you don't want any fluoride in the composite filling material. Some of it has fluoride, and some has timed-release fluoride. Some has no fluoride.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (16th February 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Philippe (16th February 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 3 8 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts