+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 65

Thread: The Fluoride Thread

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member avid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2010
    Location
    NW UK
    Posts
    2,246
    Thanks
    28,861
    Thanked 9,542 times in 2,016 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Dentists generally utilise products that are infiltrated with leaching fluoride, such as replacement fillings after mercury-riddled olde amalgam ‘safely’ removed. I searched for fluoride-free filling products, or any other substance that would be introduced into ‘remedial’ dentistry, and could not find anything which was not contaminated with fluoride. Even crowns, dentures...
    Trying to find an holistic dentist who has not been ‘compromised’ (innocently or not, as they work to ‘award schemes’, like most health services who are beholden to the big pharma), is almost impossible.

    However, earlier on in this thread, it was advocated that Curcumin (organic turmeric) helped to deplete fluoride in the body and brain. Last year, I started on organic curcumin with organic black pepper to facilitate absorbtion 600mg capsules per day, as my water is fluoridated. Hopefully, the terrible proliferation in West Cumbria of alzheimers and dementia will not affect me yet.... fingers et al crossed....
    The love you withhold is the pain that you carry
    and er..
    "Chariots of the Globs" (apols to Fat Freddy's Cat)

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to avid For This Post:

    anandacate (7th October 2018), Bill Ryan (7th October 2018), onawah (7th October 2018), Paul (8th October 2018), Valerie Villars (7th October 2018)

  3. Link to Post #22
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Three new studies
    10/10/18
    https://www.ehn.org/we-add-it-to-dri...1#rebelltitem1
    Oct 10, 2018
    "Three new studies released today link fluoride exposure to ADHD and thyroid problems — and point to drinking water as the major source of exposure.
    Brian Bienkowski
    Two studies — one from Canada and one Mexico — released today point to potential health problems from fluoride, which, in a majority of U.S. communities, is purposefully added to drinking water to protect people's teeth.

    The Canada study found that adults who are iodine deficient and have higher levels of fluoride in their system have a greater risk of an underactive thyroid. The Mexico study found mothers with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy were more likely to have children with symptoms of ADHD. Both studies were published in the journal Environmental International.

    A third study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that among 1,566 pregnant women in Canada, fluoride levels in urine were almost two times higher for women who lived in regions where the element was added to their drinking water compared to pregnant women in regions with non-fluoridated water.

    The studies call into question the practice of purposely adding fluoride to water or salt, which is done to prevent cavities and, to a lesser extent, osteoporosis. Many cities in the U.S. and Canada add fluoride to public drinking water and in Mexico it's added to some salt. Approximately 66 percent of people in the U.S. receive drinking water with added fluoride, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    About 80 percent of fluoride exposure comes from water and beverages such as tea, which can leach fluoride from soil. Other sources include grapes and shellfish.

    "I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure," Ashley Malin, lead author of the Canada thyroid study and a researcher at the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told EHN. "And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years."

    Fluoride, iodine and thyroids
    Malin and colleagues had massive amounts of information from the Canadian Health Measure study. They looked at fluoride levels in the urine of nearly 7 million Canadians, as well as iodine deficiency and thyroid gland activity.

    They found Canadians who were deficient in iodine—a mineral crucial for proper functioning of the thyroid — and who had high amounts of fluoride in their urine also had higher levels of thyroid stimulating hormones. Elevated levels of these hormones are a marker for a suppressed thyroid gland – commonly referred to as hypothyroidism, a condition that can cause a host of problems including fatigue, disrupted heart rates, and altered metabolism.

    Small increases in thyroid stimulating hormones can be problematic, Malin said.

    "Someone doesn't need to have full blown hypothyroidism to have an elevation in [thyroid stimulating hormones]. Research is showing more and more that subclinical elevations are associated with bad health effects," Malin said.

    Iodine helps flush fluoride from the body so a deficiency leaves the body with more fluoride, which has been shown to interfere with certain enzymes important for thyroid function. This could explain why only iodine deficient Canadians seemed sensitive to fluoride impacts.

    Malin said 18 percent of the nearly 7 million people they studied were iodine deficient. "We're talking about potentially [more than] a million people at risk of an underactive thyroid due to fluoride exposure."

    But there are major health benefits of fluoride in water. According to the CDC, drinking fluoridated water reduces cavities (also called tooth decay) by about 25 percent in children and adults. The agency named water fluoridation one of its "Ten Great Public Health Achievements" of the 20th Century.

    Dr. Manish Arora, a dentist and vice chairman of the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told EHN via email that it "is important to balance these results with what we know about the benefits of water fluoridation as well."

    "There have been tremendous gains in children's oral health worldwide over the past decades that, at least in part, can be attributed to the beneficial effects of fluoride," said Arora, who was not involved in any of the studies released today but is collaborating with some of the researchers on other projects.

    While the new study doesn't prove fluoride impacts thyroid function, previous studies have linked the element to reduction thyroid hormones, and to elevated thyroid stimulating hormones and increased likelihood of hypothyroidism and diabetes in adults.

    Behavior impacts

    In the other study published today, researchers looked at 213 Mexican mother-children pairs and examined mothers' urine fluoride levels during pregnancy and assessed children for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms at ages 6 to 12. They found mothers with higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy were more likely to have children with ADHD symptoms, especially inattention.

    It's not clear from this study why fluoride may impact child's behavior, but it could be driving thyroid hormone insufficiency in pregnant mothers (which can lead to problems in their unborn), or altering children's levels of dopamine, which moves signals from nerve cells to the brain and is vital for behavior development.

    Christine Till, an associate professor and researcher at York University, told EHN one of her main concerns is that pregnant women are susceptible to iodine deficiency, which, according to the study from Canada, could leave the mothers-to-be with thyroid problems.

    Also, fluoride easily crosses the placenta from mother to her unborn. The study is not the first to find a fluoride-behavioral link: A previous study linked the element to ADHD in U.S. children.

    Dr. Howard Hu, co-author of the Mexico study and an epidemiological researcher at the University of Washington, told EHN the research from Canada on fluoride levels in pregnant women "makes the results of this study from Mexico even more applicable to what might be going on in North America."

    To add or not to add
    The evidence that fluoride may have negative impacts on health is building, Hu said, adding that one of the "most awkward features of this debate" is that it pits one branch of public health vs another.

    Arora said "as a dentist and environmental health scientist, I feel this is an opportune moment in our professions to have an honest discussion."

    "A question that is becoming increasingly important – is fluoridation of water supplies the best way to deliver the oral health benefits of fluoride?" Arora said. "For me, there is no 'one size fits all' answer to this. Socioeconomics, background risk and other aspects of the community have to be considered, but now is the time to have the scientific debate."

    In a statement, the American Dental Association told EHN their National Fluoridation Advisory Committee would review the new studies, adding that "public health policy is based on a collective weight of scientific evidence, not the results of a single (or few) studies. The ADA remains committed to fluoridation of public water supplies as the single most effective public health measure to help prevent tooth decay."

    Hu echoed Arora and said the answer in moving forward with fluoride is more nuanced than being pro- or anti-fluoride.

    "Clearly this warrants additional research and consideration with how policies related to fluoride may need to be rethought," Hu said. "And not simply 'do we use fluoride or not,' but can we figure out a way to preserve the benefits while minimizing the potential adverse effects."

    Till said she is "certain the safety of fluoride ingestion has not been proven."

    "The problem is that it's an uncontrolled dose – everyone is exposed to different levels. It may be prudent for pregnant women to reduce ingesting fluoride during pregnancy."
    RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
    Impact of Drinking Water Fluoride on Human Thyroid Hormones: ... ›
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20696-4
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (10th October 2018), Bill Ryan (10th October 2018), Hervé (10th October 2018), Houman (11th October 2018), Ken (6th December 2018), mountain_jim (22nd November 2018), Paul (10th October 2018)

  5. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Making Sense of the New Studies Associating Fluoride With Harm


    fluoridealert
    Published on Oct 16, 2018
    "FAN, Paul Connett reacts to three recently released studies linking fluoride exposure to ADHD, thyroid problems, and showing that pregnant women in “optimally” fluoridated Canada have significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than women in non-fluoridated communities.

    This third study also showed that pregnant Canadians had fluoride urinary levels similar to those that had reduced IQ in offspring from last year’s Bashash et al, 2017 NIH-funded study.

    These findings suggest that the Bashash results from Mexico City may be applied to Canada, and probably the United States, namely that pre-natal exposure to fluoride has the potential to lower IQ in children."


    From Fluoride Alert.com email update today:
    Making Sense of the New Studies Associating Fluoride With Harm
    OCTOBER 18, 2018
    "The FAN team shall never forget the date September 19, 2017. We had concluded our FAN conference in Washington DC on Sept 18 and we were preparing to journey home. In the early hours of the morning we got the news that a rigorous and high-quality US-government funded study had been published that confirmed our worst fears about fluoride’s ability to impact the mental development of young children. The scientific bombshell was that this harm occurred in the womb! Since then - at least in our circles - the name of the lead author –Bashash- has become a household word. Now just over one year later in October 2018, three more papers have been published in the Environment International and the Environmental Health Perspectives. These include a second paper by Bashash et al.

    FAN's Response

    The Fluoride Action Network's Executive Director, Paul Connett, PhD, has filmed a response to these three papers. Please click on the link below to watch, then please share the video with local decisionmakers and neighbors. You can also share FAN's video post on Facebook. See video:


    (Click on graphic to watch video)


    Here are those three papers and a brief explanation why they are important:

    Till C, Green R, Grundy JG, Hornung R, Neufeld R, Martinez-Mier A, Ayotte P, Muckle G, Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada, Environmental Health Perspectives.


    In this study (partially funded by the US National Institutes of Health) the urinary levels of fluoride in pregnant mothers was measured in ten large cities in Canada (7 fluoridated, 3 not). The authors found the same range of urinary fluoride levels in the Canadian women as in the Mexican city study (Bashash et al., 2017). The mean values in the fluoridated Canadian communities were almost identical to the Mexican City study (0.91 versus 0.87 ppm). We should note two things a) the large sample size used (N=1566 women) and b) the maternal urinary fluoride (UF) was analyzed exactly the same way as in the Bashash study (i.e. adjusting for urinary creatinine). This allows us to make direct comparisons across the two studies.

    This rebuts the simplistic claim by the ADA (issued within a few minutes of the publication of the Bashash study on Sept 19, 2017) that the results were not relevant to the USA.



    Bashash M, Merchand M, Hu H, Till C, Martinez-Mier AE, Sanchez BN, Basu N, Peterson K, Green R, Schnaas L, Mercado-Garcia A, Hernandez-Avila M, Tellez-Rojo MM. Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms in Children at 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico City. Environmental International.
    This study (also partially funded by the US NIH) was done on the same cohort of mother-child pairs as used in the earlier groundbreaking Bashash et al, 2017 IQ study. In this study, 213 Mexican children aged 6-12 who had elevated prenatal (i.e. in utero) exposure to fluoride (as measured in their mothers’ urine) were more likely to show symptoms of ADHD (Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder) as reported by parents. Prenatal fluoride exposure was more strongly associated with inattentive behaviours and cognitive problems, but not with hyperactivity. In other words, pre-natal fluoride exposure not only interferes with overall cognitive development (as shown earlier by Bashash et al, 2017), but according to this study may also contribute to symptoms of ADHD.

    Bashash controlled for gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure. All these factors can influence neurological development.

    Malin AJ, Riddell J, McCague H, Till C. The Relationship among Urinary Fluoride, Urinary Iodine and Serum Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Levels among Adults Living in Canada. Environment International.

    In this study Ashley Malin and co-workers measured the TSH levels in both men and women in Canada. TSH levels are a measure of underactive thyroid gland. When TSH levels go up they indicate an increased risk of hypothyroidism, which has many serious health implications. The study used health-related data from a nationally representative sample of Canadians. The study consisted of 6,914,124 adults between the ages of 18 and 79 years. Adults who were diagnosed with a thyroid disorder, or who were on thyroid medication, as well as pregnant women were excluded. These exclusion criteria are important because they deliberately excluded those who are likely most vulnerable to effects of fluoride. Also, it Is important to note that ~40% of the sample lived in communities that were fluoridated (meaning that most of the sample (~60% ) were exposed to only low levels of fluoride in their drinking water.

    Malin et al. did not find a relationship between fluoride exposure and increased TSH levels among the general population, but they did find a relationship with people who already some iodine deficiency. Specifically, they reported that:

    “An increase of 1 mg of urinary fluoride (specific gravity adjusted) was associated with a 0.35 mIU TSH/liter among adults with moderate-to-severe iodine deficiency.”

    In other words, fluoride exposure appears to exacerbate the condition of hypoactivity for people with low iodine intake. Malin controlled for age, sex, body mass, as well as calcium levels in blood all of which can influence TSH levels.

    It was striking to find how common iodine deficiency is among adults in Canada (and US). In the current study, almost 18 per cent of adults fell in the moderately-to-severely iodine deficient range.


    This mimics an important result found in 1991 by Lin et al, where it was found that modest exposure to fluoride (0.9 ppm) further lowered the IQ of offspring from mothers with iodine deficiency. Note there is a strong relationship between hypothyroidism in the mother and lowered IQ in their offspring. (See a discussion of this in the presentation given by Dr. Vyvyan Howard on Oct 6, 2018 at Otago University, NZ.)



    This study builds upon the substantial evidence that fluoride exposure can impact thyroid function in some individuals, including at “optimal levels.”

    See news coverage of these studies:http://fluoridealert.org/issues/moms...tober-11-2018/


    Paul Connett, PhD
    Exective Director
    Fluoride Action Network
    http://fluoridealert.org/search-resu...C%202018%20%20
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (19th October 2018), Bill Ryan (21st October 2018), Houman (21st October 2018)

  7. Link to Post #24
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    A short list on why fluoridation is a bad idea:

    2014 Legal Analysis of Policy: http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/
    Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent
    William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review (2014)
    Rita F Barnett
    http://chej.org/
    The Center for Health, Environment and Justice has been on the front line in the fight for environmental health for 38 years. We train and support local activists across the country and build local, state and national initiatives that win on issues from Superfund to climate change.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (22nd October 2018), Bill Ryan (21st October 2018)

  9. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Thyroid Deficiency Linked to Iodine Deficiency and Fluoridated Water
    Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    October 23, 2018
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=451783470

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    People who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher fluoride levels may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity
    Pregnant women living in communities with fluoridated drinking water have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in nonfluoridated communities
    Research has previously revealed that women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence
    Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with higher measures of ADHD, including more symptoms of inattention, in the children at ages 6 to 12 years
    More than 66 percent of the U.S. population drinks water with added fluoride,1 despite the fact that studies continue to question its safety and usefulness for its stated purpose: preventing cavities. A number of countries — including Germany, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Finland and Israel — have already stopped this hazardous practice, but many Americans are still at risk.

    In Canada, nearly 39 percent of the population also receives fluoridated drinking water (compared with only about 3 percent of Europeans).2 It's been known for years that fluoridated water consumption is linked to thyroid dysfunction and behavioral problems like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and two new studies have added to the already apparent associations.

    Exposure to Fluoridated Water May Disrupt Thyroid Functioning
    Your thyroid gland, located in the front of your neck, influences almost every cell in your body. Thyroid hormones regulate your metabolism and are required for growth and development in children and nearly every physiological process in your body.

    When your thyroid levels are unbalanced, it can lead to a cascade of problems throughout your body. In hypothyroidism, the most common thyroid disorder, your thyroid gland activity is suppressed.

    Also known as underactive thyroid, many with this condition are unaware they have it, and another 4 to 10 percent of the U.S. population may suffer from subclinical hypothyroidism that is missed by testing yet associated with miscarriage, preterm birth and altered growth and neurodevelopment in babies.

    Even moderately imbalanced thyroid levels may be associated with increased risk of metabolic syndrome, researchers noted in the journal Environment International, which is why "studying factors that contribute to low thyroid function, even at the subclinical level, is of high public health importance."3

    Notably, subclinical hypothyroidism is diagnosed by high serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations, and "fluoride in drinking water, even at levels as low as 0.3–0.5 mg/L, have predicted elevated TSH concentrations," the researchers added. "Higher water fluoride concentrations have also predicted an increased likelihood of a hypothyroidism diagnosis among adults."4

    The latest study, which involved data from nearly 7 million Canadian adults not taking any thyroid-related medication, found that higher fluoride levels were not associated with higher TSH levels in the general population; however, when iodine status was accounted for, the results shifted.

    Iodine Deficiency May Heighten the Risks of Fluoridated Water
    Your body uses iodine across several organ systems, but it is most commonly known to synthesize thyroid hormones. Clinically low levels of iodine are associated with visible symptoms, such as a goiter (swelling of the thyroid gland), hypothyroidism or pregnancy-related problems. However, subclinical iodine deficiency can also interfere with your thyroid function.

    Meanwhile, the Canadian study revealed that adults in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher fluoride levels tend to have higher TSH levels, which indicates they may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity.5

    It's a startling finding, considering nearly 2 billion people worldwide don't get enough iodine in their diet.6 As the researchers of the featured study noted, this means that those with iodine deficiency may be at an even greater increased risk from drinking fluoridated water:7

    "Iodine deficiency can contribute to decreased thyroid hormone production and exacerbate the thyroid-disrupting effects of certain chemicals, as well as fluoride …

    Fluoride exposures of 0.05 to 0.13 mg/kg/day have been associated with adverse thyroid effects among iodine sufficient people, while lower fluoride exposures of 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg/day have been associated with these effects among iodine deficient people."

    The effects were so worrying that lead study author Ashley Malin, a researcher at the department of environmental medicine and public health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told Environmental Health News:8

    "I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure … And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years … We're talking about potentially [more than] a million people at risk of an underactive thyroid due to fluoride exposure."

    In 2015, for instance, British researchers warned that 15,000 people may be afflicted with hypothyroidism in the U.K. as a result of drinking fluoridated water.9 In areas where fluoride levels in the water registered above 0.3 mg/l, the risk of having a high rate of hypothyroidism was 37 percent greater compared to areas that do not fluoridate.

    Pregnant Women Drinking Fluoridated Water Have Higher Fluoride Levels
    Fluoride exposure can occur from multiple sources, ranging from tea and processed foods to dental products, pharmaceuticals and fluoride-containing pesticides. However, research continues to show that drinking water remains a primary route of exposure, including in pregnant women.

    In a study of more than 1,500 pregnant women living in Canada, those living in communities with fluoridated drinking water have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in nonfluoridated communities.10

    "Research is urgently needed to determine whether prenatal exposure to fluoride contributes to neurodevelopmental outcomes in the offspring of these women," researchers explained.11 In fact, research has previously revealed that women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence.

    Specifically, each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women's fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children's General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) scores, respectively.

    Lead researcher Dr. Howard Hu, of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Canada, said in a news release:12

    "Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure. It also suggests that the prenatal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children."

    The findings were groundbreaking, as the study, which spanned 12 years and received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), was one of the first and largest studies looking into this topic.

    Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Is Linked to ADHD
    The Canadian study on pregnant women living in fluoridated communities revealed levels of fluoride similar to those found in a study of pregnant women living in Mexico City, where the chemical is added to table salt. The same Mexican sample population has now been featured in another study, linking fluoride exposure to ADHD.13

    The study, which involved more than 200 mother-children pairs, found that higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with higher measures of ADHD, including more symptoms of inattention, in the children at ages 6 to 12 years. "[The f]indings are consistent with the growing body of evidence suggesting neurotoxicity of early-life exposure to fluoride," researchers explained.14

    It's also possible that fluoride may contribute to or exacerbate behavioral problems such as ADHD by way of pineal gland calcification. Despite its diminutive size, your pineal gland tends to accumulate significant amounts of fluoride, which eventually causes it to calcify.

    Besides ADHD-like symptoms, pineal calcification may also play a role in Alzheimer's and bipolar disease. According to Frank Granett, director of clinical pharmacy operations at Behavioral Center of Michigan Psychiatric Hospital:15

    "Located deep within the brain below the corpus callosum, which is the circuit connector for the right and left brain hemispheres, the pineal gland is responsible for the secretion of melatonin, the human body's biological time-clock hormone regulating normal sleep patterns.

    More importantly, the pineal gland plays a critical role in the enzyme pathway for the production of brain neurotransmitters including serotonin and norepinephrine. Additionally, the body's antioxidant defense system is optimized by healthy pineal tissue, which helps eliminate free-radical toxin accumulation in the body."

    A review in Lancet Neurology also classified fluoride as one of only 11 chemicals "known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings,"16 alongside other known neurotoxins such as lead, methylmercury, arsenic and toluene. Among the proposed mechanisms of harm, studies have shown fluoride can:17

    Interfere with basic functions of nerve cells in the brain

    Reduce nicotinic acetylcholine receptors

    Reduce lipid content in the brain

    Damage the pineal gland through fluoride accumulation

    Impair antioxidant defense systems

    Damage the hippocampus

    Damage Purkinje cells

    Increase uptake of aluminum, which has neurotoxic effects

    Encourage formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer's disease)

    Exacerbate lesions induced by iodine deficiency

    Increase manganese absorption, which has also been linked lower IQ in children

    Impair thyroid function, which can also affect brain development

    Can Fluoride Be Removed From Drinking Water?
    Effective 2015, the level of fluoride in U.S. drinking water was reduced to 0.7 mg/L from a previously recommended range of between 0.7 and 1.2 mg/L. If you live in the U.S. and want to know fluoride levels in your water, the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) Tap Water Database can help.18 This is important for everyone, but pregnant women and households mixing formula for babies should take extra care to consume fluoride-free water. EWG notes:

    "Even fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm, the amount of fluoride in drinking water recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, can result in too much fluoride for bottle-fed babies.

    EWG recommends that caregivers mix baby formula with fluoride-free water. The National Toxicology Program is investigating the potential for low doses of fluoride to alter thyroid function and childhood brain development."19

    Unfortunately, fluoride is a very small molecule, making it tremendously difficult to filter out once added to your water supply. Any simple countertop carbon filter, like Brita, will not remove it.

    If you have a house water carbon filtration system that has a large volume of carbon, then it may reduce the fluoride as fluoride removal is in direct proportion to the amount of fluoride and the time it's in contact with the media. It's just not going to get it all. Among the more effective filtering systems for fluoride removal are:

    Reverse osmosis (RO). The drawback is that it will remove many valuable minerals and trace elements as well. RO systems also need frequent cleaning to avoid bacterial growth. So, use a tankless RO system with a compressor
    Water distillation, which, like RO, gets everything out, including beneficial minerals. You then need to restructure the water
    Bone char filters and biochar with activated charcoal
    The simplest, most effective, most cost-effective strategy is to not put fluoride in the water to begin with.

    Help End the Practice of Fluoridation
    There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity."

    Furthermore, according to the CDC, 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why? The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place.

    Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

    Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
    I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and visit the links below:

    Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter and sign up for campaign alerts.
    10 Facts About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
    50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
    Health Effects Database: FAN's database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride's effects on human health."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (25th October 2018)

  11. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Judge Orders More Discovery In TSCA Fluoride Suit
    https://www.waterskraus.com/judge-or...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.

    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." https://insideepa.com/daily-news/lat...-fluoride-suit
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (25th October 2018), Hervé (25th October 2018), mountain_jim (22nd November 2018)

  13. Link to Post #27
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    700
    Thanked 1,059 times in 223 posts

    Default Toronto University Fluoride Study - Link to ADHD

    How long before people say 'no more' to the mandatory addition of a neurotoxin like Fluoride to our water?


    Quote Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:

    Epidemiologic and animal-based studies have raised concern over the potential impact of fluoride exposure on neurobehavioral development as manifested by lower IQ and deficits in attention. To date, no prospective epidemiologic studies have examined the effects of prenatal fluoride exposure on behavioral outcomes using fluoride biomarkers and sensitive measures of attention.
    OBJECTIVE:

    We aimed to examine the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and symptoms associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
    METHOD:

    213 Mexican mother-children pairs of the Early Life Exposures to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) birth cohort study had available maternal urinary samples during pregnancy and child assessments of ADHD-like behaviors at age 6-12. We measured urinary fluoride levels adjusted for creatinine (MUFcr) in spot urine samples collected during pregnancy. The Conners' Rating Scales-Revised (CRS-R) was completed by mothers, and the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT-II) was administered to the children.
    RESULTS:

    Mean MUFcr was 0.85 mg/L (SD = 0.33) and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 0.46 mg/L. In multivariable adjusted models using gamma regression, a 0.5 mg/L higher MUFcr (approximately one IQR higher) corresponded with significantly higher scores on the CRS-R for DSM-IV Inattention (2.84 points, 95% CI: 0.84, 4.84) and DSM-IV ADHD Total Index (2.38 points, 95% CI: 0.42, 4.34), as well as the following symptom scales: Cognitive Problems and Inattention (2.54 points, 95% CI: 0.44, 4.63) and ADHD Index (2.47 points; 95% CI: 0.43, 4.50). The shape of the associations suggested a possible celling effect of the exposure. No significant associations were found with outcomes on the CPT-II or on symptom scales assessing hyperactivity.
    CONCLUSION:

    Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention as measured by the CRS-R in the offspring.

    Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    KEYWORDS:

    ADHD; Fluoride; Neurobehavioral; Pregnancy
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316181

  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to pueblo For This Post:

    avid (26th October 2018), Chip (26th October 2018), enigma3 (26th October 2018), Hervé (26th October 2018), Lefty Dave (26th October 2018), mountain_jim (26th October 2018), Paul (26th October 2018), Sunny-side-up (26th October 2018), toppy (26th October 2018)

  15. Link to Post #28
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 posts

    Default Re: Toronto University Fluoride Study - Link to ADHD

    It seems to be a race between how quickly "they" can poison and dumb us down enough that not enough people realize how and why they are doing that, and whether enough will awaken in time to stop them from doing it!
    Certainly a race to the death, and they sure have a lot of ways of distracting people from noticing....
    Quote Posted by pueblo (here)
    How long before people say 'no more' to the mandatory addition of a neurotoxin like Fluoride to our water?


    Quote Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND:

    Epidemiologic and animal-based studies have raised concern over the potential impact of fluoride exposure on neurobehavioral development as manifested by lower IQ and deficits in attention. To date, no prospective epidemiologic studies have examined the effects of prenatal fluoride exposure on behavioral outcomes using fluoride biomarkers and sensitive measures of attention.
    OBJECTIVE:

    We aimed to examine the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and symptoms associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
    METHOD:

    213 Mexican mother-children pairs of the Early Life Exposures to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) birth cohort study had available maternal urinary samples during pregnancy and child assessments of ADHD-like behaviors at age 6-12. We measured urinary fluoride levels adjusted for creatinine (MUFcr) in spot urine samples collected during pregnancy. The Conners' Rating Scales-Revised (CRS-R) was completed by mothers, and the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT-II) was administered to the children.
    RESULTS:

    Mean MUFcr was 0.85 mg/L (SD = 0.33) and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 0.46 mg/L. In multivariable adjusted models using gamma regression, a 0.5 mg/L higher MUFcr (approximately one IQR higher) corresponded with significantly higher scores on the CRS-R for DSM-IV Inattention (2.84 points, 95% CI: 0.84, 4.84) and DSM-IV ADHD Total Index (2.38 points, 95% CI: 0.42, 4.34), as well as the following symptom scales: Cognitive Problems and Inattention (2.54 points, 95% CI: 0.44, 4.63) and ADHD Index (2.47 points; 95% CI: 0.43, 4.50). The shape of the associations suggested a possible celling effect of the exposure. No significant associations were found with outcomes on the CPT-II or on symptom scales assessing hyperactivity.
    CONCLUSION:

    Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention as measured by the CRS-R in the offspring.

    Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    KEYWORDS:

    ADHD; Fluoride; Neurobehavioral; Pregnancy
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316181
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (26th October 2018), Chip (26th October 2018), Ioneo (26th October 2018), mountain_jim (26th October 2018), Paul (26th October 2018), pueblo (26th October 2018), Sunny-side-up (26th October 2018)

  17. Link to Post #29
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,153 times in 15,477 posts

    Default Re: Toronto University Fluoride Study - Link to ADHD

    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.

  18. The Following 7 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), Paul (26th October 2018), pueblo (26th October 2018)

  19. Link to Post #30
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

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

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

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

  21. Link to Post #31
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    700
    Thanked 1,059 times in 223 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    More good info on fluoride in this thread: http://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?

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

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

  23. Link to Post #32
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 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: http://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...
    _____________

  24. Link to Post #33
    Ireland Avalon Member pueblo's Avatar
    Join Date
    5th February 2016
    Posts
    236
    Thanks
    700
    Thanked 1,059 times in 223 posts

    Default Re: Toronto University Fluoride Study - Link to ADHD

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

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

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

    Hervé (26th October 2018)

  26. Link to Post #34
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,766
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,153 times in 15,477 posts

    Default Re: Toronto University Fluoride Study - Link to ADHD

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

    http://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.

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

    pueblo (26th October 2018)

  28. Link to Post #35
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 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...
    _____________

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

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

  30. Link to Post #36
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 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...
    _____________

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

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

  32. Link to Post #37
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 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...
    _____________

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

    avid (6th November 2018)

  34. Link to Post #38
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 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...
    _____________

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

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

  36. Link to Post #39
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 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...
    _____________

  37. 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), Paul (4th December 2018)

  38. Link to Post #40
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Posts
    11,696
    Thanks
    27,925
    Thanked 50,548 times in 10,237 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...
    _____________

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

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 4 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