A thread about fluoridation [Archive] - The Project Avalon Community Forum

View Full Version : A thread about fluoridation

onawah

3rd March 2015, 17:10

Here's something new from Natural News:
(I will ask the Mod team to record this so we can have it here permanently)

Dear NaturalNews Talk Hour listeners,

As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. government has gone too far - in terms of blocking freedom of speech and choice. Today, we'll prove how deceptive they really are.

In addition, we issue a water supply alert + much more!

=======================================

Today, on the NaturalHealth365 Podcast, we have a serious warning about fluoridated water. Fluoride damages bone and muscle tissue.

If your water has fluoride - STOP and listen to this show now!

http://www.naturalhealth365.com/fluoride-alert-water-supply-1334.html

Lots more good stuff from this edition of the Natural News newsletter today including:

The U.S. government is caught red-handed blocking freedom of speech. The proof is clearly laid out in this special report:
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/vaccine-dangers-white-house-petition-1333.html

According to conventional psychiatry, you're 'mentally ill' if you want to only eat healthy, organic food. Here's the whole story:
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/orthorexia-nervosa-eat-healthy-mental-disorder-1335.html

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark your calendar. Sunday - Mar. 8th - Jonathan Landsman and Carolyn Dean, M.D., ND talk about the hidden dangers of Western medicine.

If you're taking any medications - do NOT miss this show!
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/talkhourshow.html

Quote of the day:

"All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree that dental fluorosis, which is the first visible sign of systemic poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels." - Dr. David Kennedy, Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

Seek the truth and protect your health,

Jonathan Landsman, Host
NaturalNews Talk Hour
NaturalHealth365.com

Most popular stories on NaturalHealth365

"Hospital warns cancer patients about vaccinated people"

"Wireless and other EMF exposures are a violation of human rights"

"GMO dangers revealed by former U.S. government scientist"

ThePythonicCow

4th March 2015, 03:56

The water fluoridation issue has been heating up in Arkansas.
So I'll be posting news here, but any news about fluoridation is welcome.
Here's something new from Natural News:
(I will ask the Mod team to record this so we can have it here permanently)
Here's Jonathan Landsman's interview of Cathy Justus, a horse breeder, about fluoride in the drinking water of humans and horses:

http://media.blubrry.com/naturalhealth365_podcast/p/content.blubrry.com/naturalhealth365_podcast/fluoride-alert-03-02-15.mp3
Source: http://media.blubrry.com/naturalhealth365_podcast/p/content.blubrry.com/naturalhealth365_podcast/fluoride-alert-03-02-15.mp3
Cathy Landsman successfully campaigned to stop the fluoridation of water in her town – talk about the dangers of fluoride in U.S. drinking water, like you’ve never heard before.

ThePythonicCow

4th March 2015, 04:03

A brief intro to Cathy Justus, frmo Contact Fluoride Free Prince George (http://www.fluoridefreeprincegeorge.com/animals---horses.html):

========

Fluoride affects all animals from rats, to cattle and prized horses. Cathy Justus from Pagosa Springs, Colorado is the Fluoride Action Network’s National Spokesperson Against Fluoride Poisoning in Animals. Her first hand experience on the harm from fluoridation is confirmed from owning the first horses to ever be diagnosed with “chronic fluoride poisoning” resulting from their consumption of artificially fluoridated municipal water.

"We have now lost 8 horses and 4 dogs to this virulent, cumulative, toxin and this has been scientifically proven."

http://www.fluoridefreeprincegeorge.com/uploads/2/5/8/1/25816960/5265700.jpg?446

========

amor

4th March 2015, 04:21

Calcium moves around the body wherever needed, in the brain, the heart, the bones, and every other organ of the body. Flouride, chemically similar, moves into space vacated by calcium BUT DOES NOT MOVE OUT. It makes bones brittle, break and dissolve, especially the spine. It mottles teeth and they eventually break. It destroys the pinneal gland which is our contact with spirit, and PROZAK

onawah

4th March 2015, 04:25

More about the subject of the show here:
http://www.naturalhealth365.com/fluoride-alert-water-supply-1334.html

(NaturalHealth365) In Europe, only Ireland, Poland, Serbia, Spain and the U.K. fluoridate any of their water supply sources. In fact, most developed countries – including Japan and 97% of the western European people – do not consume fluoridated water.
Yet, in the United States, about 70% of public water supply is fluoridated and it’s all funded by taxpayer dollars. This equates to approximately 185 million people, which is over half the number of people drinking artificially fluoridated water worldwide.
Today, on the NaturalHealth365 Podcast, Jonathan Landsman and Cathy Justus, a horse breeder – who successfully campaigned to stop the fluoridation of water in her town – talk about the dangers of fluoride in U.S. drinking water, like you’ve never heard before. You’ll quickly see what’s going on here and why you should be so concerned about your water. Cathy’s story is quite dramatic!
Links related to the show:
1. For more information about Cathy Justus – her email address is freely offered at the 29:16 mark of this podcast – above.
2. To purchase the book: “The Case against Fluoride: How Hazardous Wast Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There” – go to Amazon.com.
3. Subscribe to the NaturalHealth365 newsletter to receive lots of great health gifts + the latest news and information on natural health solutions.
The ugly truth about the history of fluoride?
Most people have no idea that fluoride was actually a toxic ingredient used by World War II researchers for weapons of mass destruction. Massive quantities of fluoride were used to develop bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.
After WWII, fluoride was turned into a popular form of rat poison. Once the rat poison market was ‘maxed out’, scientists were challenged by industry leaders to come up with another usage for this toxic ingredient.
Today, fluoride is routinely added to the water supply of around 10% of the UK population (though this figure is set to rise) and more than 60% of the U.S. population. These figures are in stark contrast to the 98% of Western Europe that has rejected fluoridation on the grounds that it does not work and that it is morally reprehensible to forcibly medicate whole populations of people.
Most people have been lied to about the ‘safety’ of fluoride. This toxic ingredient does NOT protect teeth. In fact, when you look at the scientific research – it’s the opposite. Fluoride actually causes dental fluorosis – a defect of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride intake during the first 8 years of life.
Shocking admissions by scientific experts about the dangers of fluoride
”I would advise against fluoridation…Side-effects cannot be excluded…In Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances.” – - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)
“The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects.” – Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association.
“I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.” – - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.
“E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects.” – Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.
“Water contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them.” – Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors.
Program highlights:
Find out how Cathy discovered that fluoride was poisoning her horses.
Learn about the many (common) health problems associated with fluoride in drinking water.
Why did some horses get sicker than others?
In interesting discussion about how the town reacted to Cathy’s activism plus, what you can do to get fluoride out of your drinking water.
- See http://www.naturalhealth365.com/fluoride-alert-water-supply-1334.html

amor

4th March 2015, 04:27

amor

4th March 2015, 04:33

The above post is about Fluoride in water AND IN PROZAC

Mike Gorman

4th March 2015, 06:35

People tend to dismiss the fluoride issue because it is seemingly a micro dosing of one part per million- why are they so intent on putting this toxin in our water, when even the literature in the mainstream talks of a possible benefit to 'topical' applications of fluoride to children's teeth - not ingesting it! It is a brainwashing for sure when dental authorities so vehemently argue for the fluoridation of water supplies - we are condemned to ingest it all our lives building in our bones and poisoning us. I hate this scheme with a vengeance - forced medication of the water supply, water that we all have to have to survive - it is just so stupid.

Hervé

4th March 2015, 13:27

About that "Rat poison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenticide)" (warning: not as graphic as Gaza's or Donesk's bombed humans but... still...):

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1080 Poison Drop in NZ forests (http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.fr/2012/05/1080-poison-drop-in-nz-forests.html)
(http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.fr/2012/05/1080-poison-drop-in-nz-forests.html)Saturday, 19 May 2012

Here's what's happening in Godzone, apparently "100% pure". Yeah, right !!

Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide in New Zealand - Part One
Uploaded by stin64 (http://www.youtube.com/user/stin64) on Jan 14, 2010

"Poisoning Paradise - Ecocide in New Zealand" takes you into the drop-zone of aerial 1080 operations, beneath the canopy, where the birds and animals live. For the first time, supported by scientific evidence and indisputable footage, this film fully exposes the truth about a culture that is believed will eventually see New Zealand left as a toxic wasteland, and an international embarrassment.

1080. Indiscriminate killing of all life... of whatever comes next in the food chain or drinks from a contaminated water supply. 1080 does not break down. It remains active in every part of the food chain. This means that by the time it gets to the human level of the food chain, we don't die... we just end up with 'mysterious' illnesses and a high prevalence of cancer. Please continue to protest Against 1080. Picket. Campaign. Lobby. Sign on to every petition you can find... Write to your MP. Pour your energy into making a stand against the ongoing Poisoning of Paradise, OUR country, New Zealand.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/1080PoisonWarning_gobeirne.png

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080_usage_in_New_Zealand)

http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2014/05/helicopters_arrive_to_be_loaded_with_1080_cereal_b_538816d2ac.JPG
Source (http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/304175/doc-us-poison-drop-row)

http://static2.stuff.co.nz/1307480459/480/5113480.jpg
Source (http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5111974/1080-report-kick-in-the-guts-Dunne)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GHJoYfMdzjI/TB_NOPOa4BI/AAAAAAAAAlY/Qnda8_t_GRI/s640/Westcoast+11.jpg

Source (http://thegrafboys.blogspot.co.nz/) - The Graf Boys

http://www.tvwild.co.nz/files/4513/4454/1011/tvwild_aus_Poisoned_yearling_-_Copy.jpg

Source (http://www.tvwild.co.nz/your-photos)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vGHVkOmsFbY/Te8ue6rboEI/AAAAAAAAAoM/kzCq4mj87kw/s320/1080-2.png

Source (http://www.careydillon.com/unpurenzfinal/poisons.html) Source (http://thejackalman.blogspot.co.nz/2011/06/hero-of-week-award-peter-dunne.html)

This is a slow painful death affecting the nervous system of the animal. For a large animal like this domesticated horse or a wild deer, it takes around 3-4 days of having seizures before death finally comes.

http://emigratetonewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/1080horses0011.jpg

Source (http://e2nz.org/category/clean-green-new-zealand/page/3/)

http://www.paws4acausenz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/cai-pic-laddi.jpg
Source (http://www.paws4acausenz.com/a-dogs-tail/)

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRjWlEb1uFK6Tz-mVCs73CliPi13XdsIs-Ea94GldtTyEKcuYS_

1080 found in NZ streams... killing ALL life. Graf Boys: campaigners.

Join the protest. Sign the petitions to: "Stop the Drop"

Make NZ 1080 free. Stop the Drop !!!
No More inhumane killing of all life.
No More insanity.
No More !!

Posted by Ramallah (http://www.blogger.com/profile/09560023800644829786) at 15:12 (http://co-creatingournewearth.blogspot.fr/2012/05/1080-poison-drop-in-nz-forests.html)

Selkie

5th March 2015, 14:09

For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson. Beware, though, because as full of vital information as it is, I think that overall, the book might be a disinformation piece.

p.s. Fluorine is the most highly reactive element known to man

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorine

p.s. Fluoride also displaces iodine in the thyroid gland and the rest of the body. See Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can't Live Without It by David Brownstein, M.D.

Selkie

5th March 2015, 14:44

Default Re: A thread about fluoridation
Calcium moves around the body wherever needed, in the brain, the heart, the bones, and every other organ of the body. Flouride, chemically similar, moves into space vacated by calcium BUT DOES NOT MOVE OUT. It makes bones brittle, break and dissolve, especially the spine. It mottles teeth and they eventually break. It destroys the pineal gland which is our contact with spirit, and its takes up space in the heart and blood vessels. My dearest friend of 58 years was given this poison unnecessarily. Her back became an unsupported spinal cord and her heart valves failed. I know another person traveling the same route. This POISON is being given to children and everyone up the ladder. GENOCIDE.

Fluoride is also in the antibiotic Cipro. I had to take Cipro one time, and its effects on me were horrendous. It made me as ill in its own way as the infection I was taking it for did. Fluoride is also a kind of anti-intelligence mineral. Iodine is the mineral of intelligence, and fluoride blocks the uptake of iodine in the thyroid, and also throughout the whole body.

Andrew

5th March 2015, 16:08

onawah

5th March 2015, 16:12

Fluoride Whistleblower with Hidden Camera Footage
http://www.tvoinews.com/fluoride-whistleblower-with-hidden-camera-footage/
Adam Kokesh interviews Brett Cantwell a water treatment operator who has become a whistleblower against fluoride; ultimately he was fired from his $27 per hour job......in the interview it does not say what district or state in which he worked.
This footage shows point source of fluoride from Japan, but it's generally from China.
ALNL_zZc9es

Selkie

5th March 2015, 16:44

Whats the difference between Sodium Flouride and Flouride because on some products it has Flouride included but doesn't say Sodium Flouride? Is there not a natural Flouride out in nature that can be in some Water?

Sodium fluoride is natural. Fluoride is the most aggressive electron grabber known to man, and so it is rarely or never found as an element. It bonds readily with other elements and forms compounds such as sodium fluoride, calcium fluoride, fluorocarbons, hydrogen fluoride, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride

It is an enzyme poison...truly horrible stuff...and has no business being added to the water supply or to toothpaste in any form.

For the real story of why it was added to the water supply in the first place, see The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson.

Hint: it had to do with what happened at Nagasaki:

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Nagasaki/images/NG30.jpg

p.s. If the label only says "fluoride" then there is no way to know what compound of fluoride the product contains. If its toothpaste, though, then its probably either sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride.

onawah

6th March 2015, 03:08

The Arkansas Senate Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee met today to take up action on the House Bill 1355, An Act To Provide Local Control Over Fluoride Levels In Water Systems, that passed the Arkansas House by a margin of about two-to-one recently.
However, the Senate Public Health Committee voted the bill down.
The bill had to be passed by the committee in order for it to be voted on by the entire Senate, opening the way for it to become law.
While fluoride opponents weren't notified when the hearing would be held, dental groups were posting online that they expected to testify against the bill when the committee held the hearing.
The failure to schedule a hearing on the issue early enough to allow fluoride opponents to organize to attend reminds anti-fluoridation groups of the stealthy way the fluoride mandate was passed by the legislature in 2011 late in the session with little opportunity for public input, while pro fluoridation groups like the Delta Dental Foundation were intimately involved in drafting the legislation.
The statewide group Secure Arkansas said passage of the fluoride mandate bill is an example of legislators being paid for their votes. “Most of the legislators that voted for the bill received a campaign donation from Arkansas Dental PAC for their ‘yea’ votes,” Secure Arkansas said. “Some legislators received over $4,000 for this one vote.”
Most of those same legislators are still on the public health committee.
The Eureka Springs Independent News called and emailed members of the public health committee this past week. One said he was learning towards supporting passage of the legislation.
“I do have some reservations about it,” said Sen. John Cooper, Jonesboro. “I think it is probably beneficial, but I also support local control rather than have it mandated by the state. I have mixed feelings about the bill, actually, but most likely I will wind up supporting the legislation. There is a lot of activity about this bill, a lot of emails and phone calls, on both sides of it. I hate to say in advance of hearing a bill whether I’m going to support it or not because you want to hear the bill presented. But I tend to support it, and most likely that is where I will be when the vote is taken. I will still listen to all the issues as they are presented.”
Cooper said he thought fluoride was a bigger issue in Eureka Springs than anywhere else in the state.
Longtime fluoridation opponent Crystal Harvey of Hot Springs thought that it was critical that the legislators hear about new research linking fluoridation to thyroid problems and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children.
“It is almost divine providence that these two new studies would come out at the same time that the legislature is considering returning control of fluoridation to local water districts,” said Harvey.
The study published recently in Environmental Health said each one percent increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011. The study concludes parents reported higher rates of medically-diagnosed ADHD in their children in states where a greater proportion of people receive fluoridated water from public water supplies.
“The relationship between fluoride exposure and ADHD warrants future study,” the authors said. A review of the research published in Science Daily said the research suggests public officials rethink the public health policy to fluoridate the water supply in a bid to protect teeth.
The U.S. puts more fluoridation chemicals in drinking water than the rest of the world combined. Some health experts warn there is an epidemic of hypothyroidism in the U.S. There are also concerns about a thyroid epidemic in dogs.
Despite the new research and growing opposition to fluoridation in Arkansas, the committee voted as expected.
The late anti-fluoridation proponent Jeff Green
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_11-18-14/
...advised many communities who were fighting fluoride that the best way to get states to back down was to threaten to bring the issue to court. Close examination of all the issues, including the unconstitutionality of medicating people without their permission, has proven so embarrassing to state level proponents that in most cases, the states simply stopped enforcing the fluoridation mandates for those communities.
It remains to be seen if anti-fluoridation factions in Arkansas will pursue this step, but it seems that all other measures have been exhausted, so that would the next likely one.

Mike

6th March 2015, 04:25

Natalia

6th March 2015, 17:46

this may be a slightly unpopular take Nat, but my experience tells me fluoride works pretty well when used in toothpaste and/or mouthwash. (note: i am totally against using it in my drinking water, and dont)

couple years ago, i assiduously brushed and flossed and rinsed my mouth with fluoride-free products...but i kept getting these small cavities by my gum line. im a little vulnerable to this due to the ribose i take sublingually and the honey i put in my hawthorn preparations, but i was still surprised to learn i had a couple cavities - i was downright ocd about my teeth.

now, flash forward 2 yrs later or so...
im not nearly as teeth conscious as i was before...i simply brush with fluoride toothpaste and rinse maybe once a day with a fluoride mouthwash. no flossing or anything else. and ive been cavity free ever since. and im still doing everything i did before

so the stuff works..in my experience anyway

Thanks, Mike, you have convinced me to get some fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash (not tested on animals, ones), and this is after a few years of me having fluoride free aloe vera toothpaste, and having to have a few fillings - more than ever before in that amount of time...I noticed that the "natural" toothpaste wasn't as good for my teeth as the fluoride ones, but I was in denial cause I sooo much didn't want the fluoride one in case it was too toxic...A few times I had a little battle inside whether to get it again, or not...and I didn't...but now, yeah I'll try it again.

(and it reminds me of those raw foodists who have lost teeth and had damaged teeth, early...)...

Meggings

6th March 2015, 18:39

Herve, about your link #9 above ( http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?80412-A-thread-about-fluoridation&p=939270&viewfull=1#post939270 )
can you find anywhere a peition for the people of the world to sign demanding this cease?

There are times we should not be silent, but should voice our firm "NO" to this or that insanity.

In Ontario, Canada, 75.9% of Ontario has an artificially fluoridated water supply (http://www.theregenesisproject.com/mf-ontario).

Someone asked Cosmic Awareness once what to do if you had no choice but to drink fluoridated water. The response was that a kind of alchemy is created when you put your water through a vortex (as researched by Viktor Schauberger) at the point of drinking it. This effect is not permanent over time, but it will obviate the harm of fluoride in the body. There are a number of vortex devices available - Clayton Nolte makes one; another kind is by River of Life water vortexer.

Dr. Gerald Pollock, discoverer of "exclusion zone" water or the fourth state of water, said in an interview that he and his wife only drink structured water and have basically all the varieties on the market to structure water. (http://www.structuredwaterunit.com/Dr_Gerald_Pollack.html)

In the meantime, people need to actively talk to their local municipatlities and governments to say "NO" to this poison, to counter the lies spoken by current science that it "helps teeth".

AlaBil

6th March 2015, 20:32

Herve, about your link #9 above ( http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?80412-A-thread-about-fluoridation&p=939270&viewfull=1#post939270 ) Someone asked Cosmic Awareness once what to do if you had no choice but to drink fluoridated water. The response was that a kind of alchemy is created when you put your water through a vortex (as researched by Viktor Schauberger) at the point of drinking it. This effect is not permanent over time, but it will obviate the harm of fluoride in the body. There are a number of vortex devices available - Clayton Nolte makes one; another kind is by River of Life water vortexer.

Dr. Gerald Pollock, discoverer of "exclusion zone" water or the fourth state of water, said in an interview that he and his wife only drink structured water and have basically all the varieties on the market to structure water. (http://www.structuredwaterunit.com/Dr_Gerald_Pollack.html)

Meggins... Many thanks for the information on the vortexed or structured water units. I had not heard of these and after reading some of the information, they the best choice for those of us tied into a fluoride city wide water source.

Hervé

7th March 2015, 14:54

Selkie

7th March 2015, 15:08

[...]

It is an enzyme poison...truly horrible stuff...and has no business being added to the water supply or to toothpaste in any form.

For the real story of why it was added to the water supply in the first place, see The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson.

Hint: it had to do with what happened at Nagasaki:

[...]

Hello Silkie,

... maybe... it's a cover-up for this nastier operation: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?72628-Fracking-And-Related-Stuff&p=940342&viewfull=1#post940342

I am sure that you are correct! But there is something else, there, too, hiding between the lines of The Fluoride Deception. I have to re-read that book.

Btw, I am not hinting that I have any kind of insider knowledge or anything. It is simply something I picked up on as I was reading the book.

Hervé

7th March 2015, 15:43

Earlier threads on the subject: Fluoride - a conversation with an insider who knows the real story (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?4228-Fluoride-a-conversation-with-an-insider-who-knows-the-real-story)

and this one: Re: Lancet: Fluoride OFFICIALLY classified as a neurotoxin... It's about time!! (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?72301-Lancet-Flouride-OFFICIALLY-calssified-as-a-neurotoxin...-It-s-about-time--&p=847753&viewfull=1#post847753)

... all worth a peek!

onawah

7th March 2015, 18:50

Thanks for that info, Meggings. I am going to look into getting one of the devices for my shower, if they do actually start fluoridating the water here.
There is already discussion about hiring a lawyer and filing a suit. :clap2:
We just have to raise the money, but since FAN is getting actively involved, that might not be a problem.
Here is a link for the debate that was recently broadcast online by the local Facebook group, Secure Arkansas, featuring Dr. Paul Connett of Fluoride Action Network
http://securetherepublic.com/broadcasting/2015/03/05/truth-about-fluoride-3215/

...two PhD. chemists argue the dangers of water fluoridation vs. a dentist who promotes fluoridation without really having any answers to the harm that this public health policy is having on the general population then this audio is for you. Sorry for the broadcast having some transmission issues. Paul Connett and William Hirzy were both in Australia at the time of broadcast.
The Truth About Fluoride | Secure The Republic Broadcasting
The Truth About Fluoride, from Secure Arkansas’ online fluoride forum, which originally aired March 2, 2015 @ 7pm central. Moderator: Jeannie Burlsworth Speakers: Dr. Paul Connett Dr. Bill Hirzy Dr. Howard Pollick
SECURETHEREPUBLIC.COM

A local policy maker sent the message today to our group: that we will be reminding the Arkansas Board of Health that adding lead to water is a federal crime and it is impossible to find a compound free of lead.
When the stuff is in our water, and an analysis shows that the water contains lead, notice can be filed to the Board of Health of our intent to sue under that federal law.
At the present allowable level, one 8 ounce glass of water contains 1 milligram of fluoride.
Two mg. is enough to cause trouble for those with malfunctioning kidneys.
That's the news for today from my little corner of Arkansas.

Someone asked Cosmic Awareness once what to do if you had no choice but to drink fluoridated water. The response was that a kind of alchemy is created when you put your water through a vortex (as researched by Viktor Schauberger) at the point of drinking it. This effect is not permanent over time, but it will obviate the harm of fluoride in the body. There are a number of vortex devices available - Clayton Nolte makes one; another kind is by River of Life water vortexer.

Dr. Gerald Pollock, discoverer of "exclusion zone" water or the fourth state of water, said in an interview that he and his wife only drink structured water and have basically all the varieties on the market to structure water. (http://www.structuredwaterunit.com/Dr_Gerald_Pollack.html)

In the meantime, people need to actively talk to their local municipatlities and governments to say "NO" to this poison, to counter the lies spoken by current science that it "helps teeth".

onawah

7th March 2015, 19:31

New US Study Links Fluoridation to ADHD
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-us-study-links-fluoridation-to-adhd-300044550.html

NEW YORK, March 3, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- "Artificial water fluoridation prevalence was significantly positively associated with ADHD prevalence," according to research published in Environmental Health (2/15), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

This is the first study to examine the relationship between exposure to fluoridated water and ADHD prevalence.

Artificial fluoride chemicals (hydrofluosilicic acid) added to public water supplies attempt to match the perceived decay-preventing effects of natural calcium fluoride. But teeth require calcium – not fluoride.

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood disorder. Symptoms include difficulty paying attention, controlling behavior, and hyperactivity.

Researchers, Malin and Till, conclude that, even after controlling for socio-economic-status, their findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD.

They write, fluoride "has received virtually no attention in the ADHD literature, [even though], there is a burgeoning body of human and animal research indirectly suggesting that it may contribute to the disorder's onset."

This ADHD/fluoride study comes on the heels of a British study linking fluoride to thyroid disease.

Malin and Till write "exposure to fluoridated water may contribute to ADHD via suppression of the thyroid gland."

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director says "We've been falsely assured that the science is settled on fluoridation safety. But studies such as this one were never done before. What else have they failed to research? What's worse is that government agencies dismiss research that hurts fluoridation rather than protect the citizens whose health is entrusted to them."

Researchers Malin and Till explain that children and adults living in fluoridated communities (0.7 – 1.2 mg/L) actually received 0.9 – 3.6 mg/L and 0.6 – 6.6 mg/L of fluoride per day, respectively from all sources, including water, food and dental products.

They write "Fluoride can readily cross the placenta, accumulate in the infant brain and easily exert neurotoxic effects…Such changes can adversely affect arousal and attention, pain tolerance, and learning and memory, respectively."

"Importantly, among children who were exposed environmentally to water fluoridated at 1.2 – 3 mg/L (slightly above the US recommended level), increased urinary fluoride concentrations were associated with slower reaction time and poorer visuospatial organization that could interfere with attention, and reading and writing respectively," they write.

Connett adds, "With fluoride linked to lower IQ, and ADHD in children and hypothyroidism in adults, it is reckless to continue fluoridation."

Fluoride's brain effects.

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

RELATED LINKS
http://www.fluorideaction.net

onawah

7th March 2015, 20:25

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/10405597_10153659219369502_1768509856449220193_n.jpg?oh=35c8770e42f8d9cf1b2ddbe62a989063&oe=557537D0&__gda__=1435757493_02acf473ef017684d161438d4c217bc4

onawah

8th March 2015, 05:33

From: FluorideAlert.org Fluoride Action Network
See the active links here: http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_03-07-15/
Article follows:

MARCH 7, 2015

Latest Victories

Bennington, Vermont: Despite aggressive campaigning by a well-organized and well-funded pro-fluoridation coalition, on Tuesday residents of this community of 16,000 voted 1,539 to 1,117 in opposition to fluoridation in an advisory referendum vote. This is at least the fifth time Bennington residents have voted down fluoridation since the 1960’s. The Selectmen will now make the final decision at an upcoming meeting, and are expected to honor the vote. According to news reports, the only local official who publicly supported fluoridation lost the election as well on Tuesday. Local opposition was organized as soon as the proposal was considered. Bennington Citizens Against Fluoridated Water, along with a number of area residents, led the efforts that included Letter-to-editor campaigns and a community forum.
Gilford, Pennsylvania: Gilford Water Authority officials have decided to end fluoridation after more than 60 years of practicing it. The authority sent a letter to water customers stating, “We believe we should not put anything into the water that is not required by regulation to maintain the potability and pH balance of your water.” The decision has been aggressively criticized by local pro-fluoridation dentists, who plan on attending the water authority’s March 9th meeting to bully the board into reversing their decision.
Sonoma City, California: This week City Councilors voted 3-2 to oppose a proposal by the County government to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water. The council will be sending a letter of opposition to the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors. The idea for the vote and letter of opposition came from local fluoride-free campaigner Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh along with others with the Clean Water Sonoma-Marin group, who reached out to Mayor David Cook about the harms and risks associated with fluoridation.
ADA Spokesperson Makes False Statements About NRC Study of Thyroid

A spokesperson for the American Dental Association made an inaccurate statement in the media recently while criticizing the latest study showing hypothyroidism’s link to fluoridation.

Dr. Edmond Hewlett, ADA spokesman and a professor at the UCLA School of Dentistry has been quoted by numerous publications discounting the study, stating that other studies have not uncovered a link between fluoridated water and thyroid problems, saying:

“the 2006 report by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) found no adverse effects on the thyroid even at levels more than four times greater than that used in fluoridation."

The quote appeared in a number of articles including those by the Chicago Tribune, HealthDay, and WebMD. It’s an absolutely false statement, as FAN’s NRC Thyroid webpage makes very clear. What isn’t clear is whether Dr. Hewlett intentionally lied when making the statement, or if he just lacked the knowledge to make an accurate statement on the matter.

Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D., who was one of the authors of the 2006 NRC report on fluoride, responded to the inaccurate statement with the following letter to the author of the HealthDay article that quoted Dr. Hewlett:

Regarding a recent HealthDay article by Alan Mozes, which has been used by the Chicago Tribune, WebMD, and probably others:

The article on fluoride and underactive thyroid, reporting on a recent publication by Stephen Peckham et al., quotes a representative of the American Dental Association as saying that "the 2006 report by the U.S. National Research Council found no adverse effects on the thyroid even at levels more than four times greater than that used in fluoridation." This statement by the ADA spokesman is demonstrably inaccurate.

From the NRC report

pp. 262-263: Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations. . . In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.

p. 260: The major endocrine effects of fluoride exposures reported in humans include elevated TSH with altered concentrations of T3 and T4. . . . These effects are summarized in Tables 8-1 and 8-2, together with the approximate intakes or physiological fluoride concentrations that have been typically associated with them thus far. Table 8-2 shows that several of the effects are associated with average or typical fluoride intakes of 0.05-0.1 mg/kg/day (0.03 with iodine deficiency). . . . A comparison with Chapter 2 (Tables 2-13, 2-14, and 2-15) will show that the 0.03-0.1 mg/kg/day range will be reached by persons with average exposures at fluoride concentrations of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water, especially the children. The highest intakes (>0.1 mg/kg/d) will be reached by some individuals with high water intakes at 1 mg/L. . . .

also
p. 266: Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor.

p. 234: Thus, several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.

(Note: I was one of the authors of the 2006 NRC report. The NRC report is available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards)

Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D.

Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, Inc.

Harvard IQ Researchers Respond to Pro-Fluoridation Criticism

The authors of the 2012 Harvard Meta-analysis that highlighted fluoride’s role as a developmental neurotoxin, Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, and Anna Choi, ScD, have written a letter responding to pro-fluoridation criticism of their work by Dr. Jonathan Broadbent. Broadbent’s counter-study and Grandjean's letter in response were both published in the American Journal of Public Health. In his response Grandjean states,

“We are therefore concerned that the safety of elevated fluoride exposure is being exaggerated in ways similar to those employed by vested interests to misconstrue the scientific evidence of other neurotoxicants, such as lead, mercury, and certain pesticides. Firm dismissal of fluoride as a potential neurotoxic hazard would seem premature.”

READ THE ENTIRE LETTER

This isn’t the first time Grandjean has responded to pro-fluoridation efforts to downplay the impact fluoride has on IQ. In December, he challenged the spin being used by fluoridation promoters. Grandjean's commentary (Mottled fluoride debate) appears on his website (Chemical Brain Drain) and is printed in full below. Grandjean explained that for the children tested,

“Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the US. Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth.”

Hear Directly From the Experts on These Latest Studies

This month’s International Fluoride Free Teleconference will be held on Saturday, March 14th at 5:00pm (Eastern Time). The call will feature a group of scientific experts and researchers discussing the current state of scientific research on fluoridation, including the most recently published studies on IQ, hypothyroidism, and ADHD. This will be your opportunity to learn the details of these studies, what they mean for the fluoridation debate, and have your questions answered by experts.

REGISTER TODAY FOR THIS IMPORTANT TELECONFERENCE

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Manager
Fluoride Action Network

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=0eb8f826-0853-4679-a257-2b5f5af0b63f&c=a8a8dcd0-1d68-11e3-8456-d4ae52843dc7&ch=a8da7420-1d68-11e3-84d5-d4ae52843dc7

March 2015
International Fluoride Free
Teleconference

REGISTER HERE http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/2F7W7VME32JLVZK

New Research
The Science is Not Settled!

Like us on Facebook

Pro-fluoridationists continue to avoid a genuine scientific inquiry into the health impacts of drinking fluoridated water by saying that the "science is settled." Nothing could be farther from the truth, and two studies published in Feburary prove we need even more research. The March 2015 teleconference will focus on these new reports and what you need to know about them. We will also discuss the state of scientific research into water fluoridation today and how the ADA, the media and others treat evidence of harm.

"Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?
A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water" by S Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer
Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK (http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peckham-2015.pdf)

"Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association" by Ashley J Malin and Christine Till
Environmental Health (http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract)

The famous 2006 National Research Council's report "Fluoride in Drinking Water" enumerates many detrimental health impacts and should have been enough to end the practice for fluoridation. Thankfully, a few scientists continue to advance our understanding of fluoride's effects on the human body. We live in a time when science itself has been distorted by politics and monied interests that use public relations tactics to shield the truth about the wide-ranging effects on our entire bodies and communities where fluoridation is mandated.

Register today and a be a part of the solution!

The International Fluoride Free Teleconference continues each month because of the generous financial support from participants like you.

Connection Options

COMPUTER DESKTOP OPTIONS

Skype (Credit)
Use your own Skype credit by dialing the US phone number your were assigned on Skype and then entering you own unique conference PIN.

Skype (Direct)
Use the Skype user name mcdirect1 to access the event at no cost to you.

MCDialer
You can download and install this desktop solution to access the teleconference for free. Click here for instructions:
http://maestroconference.zendesk.com/entries/23434887-MC-Dialer

INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE ACCESS NUMBERS

If you live in a country other than the United States, please put aside the phone number that was automatically assigned to you and use the one below for your country.

Australia 612 801 14954
Ireland 081 827 0066
United Kingdom 084 447 33032
Canada and others - Right now, you must dial the US number or use one of the computer options above.

My sense is that this battle is going to be won by tiny increments, but only if enough people do the tedious work of writing letters, making calls, attending meetings, etc.,...the way many important battles are won...

Innocent Warrior

20th November 2015, 03:10

Fluoride: Poison On Tap - Full Documentary

GqstwfKGzPI

onawah

26th November 2015, 17:32

It would be ironic cosmic justice if the key to dismantling the whole fluoridation empire in the US came from Arkansas, source of some of the purest, most healing water on the planet.
It was discovered by an Arkansan who has long been an active opponent of fluoridation that a US study which has been widely used to support claims that fluoride prevents cavities was a hoax.
This should have ramifications not only in Arkansas but nationwide.
Read the article here:
http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2015/11/22/apparent-fluoride-deception-used-by-lynn-mouden-former-director-of-oral-health/

onawah

26th November 2015, 17:38

FAN’S NEW DIRECTOR GOES HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH PROPONENTS OF FLUORIDATION
Fluoride Action Network | November 24, 2015

Michael Connett is Paul Connett's son, and will be taking over FAN as Paul retires.
He is not only an expert on fluoridation but is also a lawyer, and so it is hoped he will be able not only to help continue educating people about the dangers of fluoridation, but how to fight it in court.

FAN’s Executive Director Debates Fluoridation on Public Radio
Last week, Michael Connett appeared on Pennsylvania Public Radio (WPSU) to debate three fluoridation proponents, including a local dentist, the Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Epidemiology, and a doctor with the State Department of Heath. The 28-minute discussion took place on the Take Note Show hosted by Patty Satalia, who asks excellent questions throughout the program and gave Michael enough time to present his arguments along with the latest research. Best of all, the combination of Michael’s points and Satalia’s questions clearly showed how little science the so-called experts are familiar with, and how heavily they rely on predictable talking points and endorsements by government agencies and other fluoridation-pushers.
Listen to the Debate http://radio.wpsu.org/…/take-note-70-years-and-water-fluori…
“Health Risks of Water Fluoridation Raise Concern”
Public Radio International aired a very good 8-minute piece on fluoridation last week on the Living on Earth show. Host Steve Curwood interviewed University of Kent professor and researcher Stephen Peckham, BSc, MA, HMFPH, Harvard professor and researcher Philippe Grandjean, MD, DMSc, and environmental advocate Laura Turner Seydel.
Dr. Peckham discusses the paper he recently published in the journal Environmental Health showing an association between fluoridated water in the U.K. and underactive thyroid, or hypothyroidism. Dr. Grandjean discusses his research on the impact of fluoride exposure on IQ. Both scientists raise major concerns over the health risks associated with water fluoridation.
Please use this interview as a powerful campaign tool that should be shared with your local and state officials, as well as with your friends and neighbors.
Listen to the Show & Read Transcript
In 2011, the same radio show interviewed FAN’s Science Director, Chris Neurath on fluoridation. You can listen to the interview and read the transcript here.
News You May Have Missed
-Mental Disorders Too High in Fluoride-hit Nalgonda (India)
-Rous Water: Opponents Step Up the Fight Against Fluoride (Australia)
-Controversy Over Bega Valley’s Consideration of Fluoridation (Australia)
-Legal Battle Brews Between Ozark Mt. and Health Dept. (Arkansas)
-Parry Sound/McDougall: Step Taken to Prevent Fluoride Vote (Ontario)
-Meadville Fluoride Opponents Want Equal Time to Present (Pennsylvania)
-Bellefonte Council to Appeal DEP’s Fluoride Decision (Pennsylvania)
-Sulfuryl Fluoride Poisoned 10-Year-old Causing Brain Damage (Florida)
-Rutland City Panel Refuses to Defund Fluoridation (Vermont)
-Port Orange Fluoride Debate Has Some Grinding Teeth (Florida)
-Arab Water Board Posts Letter Stating Opposition to Fluoridation (Alabama)
-San Marcos Shuts Off the Fluoride Spigot at Water Plant (Texas)
-Fluoridation Causes Birth Defects (Ireland)

Take Note: 70 Years On And Water Fluoridation Is Still Controversial
If you’re like most people, you’ve given only limited thought to the fluoride in your tap water. That is, unless you live in Bellefonte, where the issue...
RADIO.WPSU.ORG|BY PATTY SATALIA

onawah

4th December 2015, 18:59

Fluoride controversy really heating up in Arkansas.

This is a very long article, but I feel it is important and should be posted, because it should have an effect on the fluoridation policy over the entire country.
A lot of unpaid, grass roots time and energy were devoted to exposing a hoax that has had far-reaching consequences, and I think it's worthy of your attention if you are interested in the issue of fluoridation.
(There are too many live links to copy them all here, so please go to this link for the live links.) Thanks.

http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2015/12/04/more-adh-and-pew-deceptions-lies-and-coverups

"*We find it very suspicious that Mr. Lynn Mouden ended up with a higher position of Chief Dental Officer for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Washington D.C. after he finished with getting the 2011 fluoridation mandate bill passed here in Arkansas. Remember, he was the Arkansas Department of Health Director of Oral Health before and during the water fluoridation mandate passage (ACT 197)."

More ADH and PEW Deceptions, Lies, and Coverups

December 4, 2015 Featured, Fluoridation

http://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/12/353893342_Lies.pngLies
Arkansas, we have a problem! We have discovered a couple of misleading reports that were submitted during the 2010-2011 legislative session regarding information that was used for the water fluoridation mandate; so what this ultimately means is that our legislators were deceived when they passed the fluoridation bill ACT 197 which mandated that all communities in Arkansas over 5,000 people fluoridate their public water supplies.

Be sure to read the entire article to understand what actually happened during this era. Also, you will want to see all the players involved in this coverup!

Secure Arkansas’ Safe Drinking Water Coordinator, Crystal Harvey, and our State Coordinator, Jack Abrahamson, have been corresponding with Reginald Rogers, the attorney for the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH), about the supposed survey/dental screenings conducted in three schools in Arkansas in 2002 (mentioned in our Rebuttal Part 4).

It is Secure Arkansas’ belief that these 2002 dental screening studies that were supposedly conducted for kindergarten students in schools in Morrilton, Arkansas, and Perry County, Arkansas never existed! We believe the data was falsified based on interviews from witnesses that were actually present at the time the surveys were supposedly conducted in each school district!

Witnesses claim the 2002 dental screenings/study never happened at Morrilton Elementary

Witnesses from Perry County, Anne Watson Elementary in Bigelow claim that no study/dental screenings were done in their school in 2002

Witnesses from Perry-Casa Elementary now merged into Two Rivers Elementary claim they did not remember any 2002 study/dental screenings done there or at that time

We have found NO proof that this study was ever conducted! If our fluoride mandate was based on a false report, then we must have the governor nullify and void ACT 197, and since fluoride is now listed as a neurotoxin, a call for a moratorium on water fluoridation in Arkansas is in order.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/CsNcDWE0qetcPQG8W2xvK3ApWLsuTaDMWOiRGDYFl04TUzQKxDEjqgeWeUcG9yeRdfjm8fWD00NBOV8ToYAWqL_pEKXYoIs8k29u hvEu1Bbx2--954KIQL_BHxtYgUiHA_uTh7g

We recently found out in a reply to an FOIA to the ADH that they apparently didn’t maintain the records from which they claim to be quoting. We have asked for the ADH to provide the study that was supposedly conducted by ADH. It was never peer reviewed or published, either. Senator David Johnson used this alleged information to get Act 197 / the fluoride mandate bill passed out of the Senate Committee and in their ‘lobbying’ efforts.

In the Arkansas Joint Health Committee meeting on October 5, 2015, Dr. Nate Smith of the ADH testified very generally that a study was done in two communities in Arkansas (one fluoridated and one non-fluoridated) and claimed that there was a “50% decrease in dental costs in the fluoridated community”, BUT he never mentioned the names of those communities nor any specifics! Based on his vague statements, Secure Arkansas wanted to find out more information, specifically the name of the study and a copy of it in printed format. This is one of many reasons we contacted Reginald Rogers of the ADH. Here is the information that Secure Arkansas requested on November 10, 2015:

names of the individuals and organizations who participated in and/or conducted this survey. If this survey/study was peer reviewed please send publication.

all data related to this survey including the number of dental professionals that provide dental services in these 2 counties

any income comparisons of each county’s population

records of the dates these 2 counties were fluoridated

any follow up surveys done after the non fluoridated county became fluoridated

The reply we received from Reginald Rogers of ADH was: “Please find attached an article regarding what you requested. It was not peer reviewed. There were no income comparisons to our knowledge.”

A few minutes later, he emailed this:

“In 2002, studies were done in Morrilton, Arkansas and in the Perry County, Arkansas schools. The public water is fluoridated in Morrilton, but was not in Perry County. The kindergarten students in Perryville, Casa and Ann Watson elementary schools, all in Perry County, received dental screenings, as did all kindergarten students in Morrilton. The Perry County children were found to have twice the number of cavities as did the Morrilton children. As is shown in Table 1, the Morrilton kindergarten had, on average, 1.7 decayed teeth per child and the Perry County kindergarten had 3.4 per child.(59) See Table 1.”

Perry co and morrilton oral health.png

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/QM1QaDyPWERxmOeqDd9QaL639hPEtoKvTxIXd7XJ43j6l8ZB-N8kbs7f9XMNcIAVBVT4fkLbACfx4NOmsXQpZ4gVWwfNLVRkpiKV566UE554NR46ffdoMid9pTcpxqvmCei3xuc

Secure Arkansas found that Table 1 above is from Fluoride: The Natural State of Water (pp. 15-16). Again, there is no proof that this study was ever performed.

Secure Arkansas has collected information thus far regarding the 2002 Study (see chart below) that Lynn Mouden is claiming has been done in Morrilton and Perry County. He was Director of Oral Health in Arkansas at the time. Mouden also deceptively reported: “The data is especially compelling because the screenings involved virtually every kindergarten child in the area.” (Fluoride: The Natural State of Water) This same article is being relied on in many different articles throughout this country and is sourced as one of the reasons fluoridated children have less cavities. (This is just another lie that Dr. Lynn Mouden has used and is still using to convince the world they must fluoridate the public water supplies).

To date we cannot find even one person that remembers any dental screenings or surveys done in that area of Arkansas for this 2002 Study.

Another reply sent by Reginald Rogers of the ADH was:

“I have attached a position paper from 2008 on this issue. It is my understanding that the emails (my third to you ) I have forwarded to you are all that we have in response to your FOIA request.”

Here is that position paper: Arkansas Fluoridation Paper

Then Secure Arkansas requested the raw data sheets that were used by ADH for filling in the data in order for ADH to come to the conclusion that fluoridated Arkansas children had less cavities than non fluoridated Arkansas children.

And Reginald Rogers replied:

“I’m not sure what you mean by raw data sheets. As you know, individually identifiable patient information would not be releasable. Further, Dr. Mouden left ADH several years ago. He was the one responsible for the study. However, I will check to see if anyone can find his materials but it is very unlikely. The study was done years ago.”

But the material Mr. Rogers sent in his reply to Secure Arkansas was a position paper and an article in the Arkansas Dentistry Magazine (which is associated with a trade organization) and not a state publication. Secure Arkansas mentioned that this was not the actual cited study and that the actual original study with the supporting documents was needed.

His final reply was:

“I have been informed that since the study occurred many years ago, there are no documents that can be located. That data does not have to be maintained.”

Later, on November 24, 2015, we also asked Mr. Rogers of ADH for this information:

Provide a copy of the dental screening request made by Perry County Hometown Health Coalition to the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health in 2002.
Provide a copy of the response sent from the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health, to Perry County Hometown Health Coalition concerning the dental screening request.
Provide a copy of the dental screening request made by any school in Morrilton, Arkansas to the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health, in 2002.
Provide a copy of the response sent from the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health, to the Morrilton, Arkansas school concerning the dental screening request.
*The source information leading to the above request was derived from a report put out by Arkansas Department of Health titled “Oral Health in Arkansas: The Facts”

The following quote is from page 2 “Oral Health in Arkansas: The Facts” by ADH:

“Two separate but parallel studies were conducted in Morrilton and Perry County, Arkansas. The data from these neighboring communities, on opposite sides of the Arkansas River, vividly showcase the efficacy of water fluoridation. In January of 2002, elementary school students in Perryville, Casa and Ann Watson schools received dental screenings at the request of the Perry County Hometown Health Coalition. In October of 2002, all kindergarten students from the City of Morrilton also received a dental screening at the request of the school. (Secure Arkansas does not believe the school requested the dental screenings since ADH never did this study, according to witnesses.) Comparing the data from fluoridated Morrilton to the data on the same age students in Perry County showed twice the decay rate for non-fluoridated Perry County children.
Reference: Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health 2002. (We are unable to find this oral health report)

============= End of FOIA of 11/24/2015 =============

Seems to us that if the alleged Perry Co. and Morrilton study was actually done, the ADH would be using it as major bragging rights. We can’t seem to find any mention of a study done in Morrilton and Perry County or anything about the 2008 survey which ADH seems to have no documentation on either. (See ‘past accomplishments’ page 6-9 of the below Arkansas Oral Health Plan). Yet, in this article they talk about the importance of gathering data so that Arkansans oral health needs can be addressed over a ‘lifespan’.

That begs the question: if this is so important, why did ADH not maintain all past data that has been gathered?

Arkansas Oral Health Plan 2012-2015

Under the CDC cooperative agreement, the Office of Oral Health (page 7 of the above link)

Created a state oral health surveillance system

Hired a 0.50 FTE epidemiologist for oral health completed an expanded statewide oral health survey of third-grade students in early 2002 (notice: this is not a kindergarteners’ survey)

Conducted a county-specific survey of 7000 students in 2003 and 2004 and 2010

Conducted a Brief Screening Survey (BSS) of Older Adults in 2012”

Page 8, on the bottom, the report says that Bigelow and other small towns passed ordinances or resolutions for fluoridation. Surely these towns all thought the information from ADH was the truth but actually started fluoridating over false or misleading assurance that it will prevent tooth decay.

Page 11, “The most comprehensive data on children were collected in 2010, when the Arkansas Department of Health’s Office of Oral Health along with its partners screened 4,239 children enrolled in public schools throughout the state.” We will ask ADH for this data soon!

Page 19, This is one of the information pieces that was asked for in our FOIA but not answered:
“I will also need all data related to this survey including the number of dental professionals that provides dental services in these 2 counties” If ADH had bothered to answer all FOIA questions asked, they could have sent the map shown in the above oral health plan.

Page 22 states: Recommendation 2.10. “Create and maintain an oral health surveillance system for use by policy makers and program planners to most effectively address the oral health needs of Arkansans across the lifespan.”

889090555_Truth-is-truth-even-if-no-one-believes-it-Lie-is-a-lie.jpg

We felt it was important for your understanding to share some of the history behind the decision to collect oral health data in Arkansas. Lynn Mouden became the Oral Health Director in 1999, and soon after, he began building coalitions with other groups outside of the health department – all to implement mandatory water fluoridation. The first attempt at mandating water fluoridation was in 2005, which was not successful.

Arkansas Year 2000 Statewide Oral Health Needs Assessment Survey:

Page 2 states: “Because little data has ever been collected on oral health needs within Arkansas, the first challenge was to collect baseline data on oral health. With an appropriate database, decisions can be made to guide dental public health policy. To that end, during the spring of 2000, the Department provided support for a statewide oral health needs assessment. In addition, data is necessary for reporting to agencies of the federal government.”

“As required by the block grant, (Title V of the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Block Grant) Arkansas reports annually on eighteen national performance measures and eight state-selected performance measures related to maternal and child health.”

“During 1999, the Arkansas Oral Health Advisory Committee developed a plan to collect data on sealant utilization. This plan was expanded for the 2000 survey to include data on decayed, missing and filled primary and permanent teeth; caries rates; and untreated caries along with sealant data.”

“Only licensed dentists are allowed to perform dental examinations in Arkansas. (They have since changed this rule.) Although the 1999 study used eighteen different volunteer dentists, “The 2000 survey was conducted entirely by the Director Dr. Lynn Douglas Mouden, Office of Oral Health (Arkansas Department of Health) to maximize comparability of data. The Director traveled across the state during February, March and April, visiting all eighteen schools and examining 299 children.” What in the world is the oral health director of the state doing, going to schools doing exams by himself? Talk about being able to create biased data! It would be interesting to see how he was able to single handedly pull off a oral survey of 299 children! Getting the permission forms for oral exams signed by parents must have been a nightmare! By the way, we can’t find this data either…

The above attachments are from the ADH FOIA and the links below are the only places in which Secure Arkansas can find this study mentioned, and no one seems to have the raw data that was used.

Water Fluoridation Impact on African Americans and other Minorities

This report is not dated, but if you look at the references in the report, they make it appear to be published around 2007, maybe?

Kindergarten study mentioned pg.1

Successes Studies consistently show a marked decrease in tooth decay in fluoridated versus fluoride-deficient communities. These studies show decay reduction of 40-49% for primary (baby) teeth and 50-59% for permanent teeth. In 2002, kindergarten students in Perry County (non-fluoridated area) and Morrilton (fluoridated area) received dental screenings. Perry County showed twice the decay rate for non-fluoridated Perry County children. These studies led community leaders in Perryville and Bigelow in Perry County to institute fluoridation for their residents.

From first attachment sent by ADH:

Mouden, LD. “Fluoride: The Natural State of Water.” Arkansas Dentistry; Summer 2005; 77(2): 15-16. pg 15 In 2002, studies were done in Morrilton, Arkansas and in the Perry County, Arkansas schools. The public water is fluoridated in Morrilton, but was not in Perry County. The kindergarten students in Perryville, Casa and Ann Watson elementary schools, all in Perry County, received dental screenings, as did all kindergarten students in Morrilton. The Perry County children were found to have twice the number of cavities as did the Morrilton children. As is shown in Table 1, the Morrilton kindergarten had, on average, 1.7 decayed teeth per child and the Perry County kindergarten had 3.4 per child.59 See Table 1. See attachment for complete article

Front Porch – Edition 69 : Health & Safety
Fluoride:The Natural State of Water by Lynn Mouden (Former Director of Arkansas Oral Health, Arkansas Department of Health) ”There were two separate studies conducted in Conway and Perry counties. The data from these communities, on opposite sides of the Arkansas River, vividly show the effectiveness of fluoridation. In 2002, kindergarten students in Perry County Schools received dental screenings at the request of the local health coalition. In that same year, kindergarten students from Morrilton also received a dental screening at the request of the school. (From what Secure Arkansas has uncovered at the schools, we believe this statement to be a lie! The schools never participated in any dental screenings at that time, let alone request dental screenings to be done!) Comparing the data from fluoridated Morrilton to the data on the same age students in Perry County showed twice the decay rate for non-fluoridated Perry County children. These studies led community leaders in Perryville and Bigelow in Perry County to institute fluoridation for their residents.”

“Some people oppose fluoridation, immunization and other public health measures. This small minority has stood in the way of better dental health for many Arkansans. However, the 65-year history of research and practical application continue to prove fluoridation is safe and effective.” Remember, fluoride is neither safe or effective! This man seems to be continually manipulating people, facts, and statistics. After all, it appears he has clawed his way to the top by these deceptive practices.

Arkansas Report Compares Communities (2008) – This report by the Arkansas Department of Health examined the scientific evidence and oral health data that are the basis for the department’s support for community water fluoridation. Three years after this report was released, Arkansas enacted a fluoridation law. The report shares data from two adjacent counties—the fluoridated town of Morrilton (Conway County) and non-fluoridated areas of Perry County. Dental screenings of kindergarten students (see pages 13-14) revealed that children in Perry County had twice the rate of tooth decay as Morrilton children experienced. (posted or updated in 2010)

(Beware of this report; non-existent data and junk science was used. Some snippets are noted below in black font. Secure Arkansas comments are shown in red font.)
“A multitude of studies consistently show a marked decrease in tooth decay in fluoridated versus fluoride-deficient communities. These studies show decay reduction of 40-49 percent for primary (baby) teeth and 50-59 percent for permanent teeth. Similar data for Arkansas now confirm this.” Researching the other studies we found the percentages vary widely on the amount of tooth decay reduction.

(An FOIA was requested of ADH, and so far, they cannot provide the raw data showing how they arrived at the the conclusion that children drinking fluoridated water had less cavities). It appears that this study was used by Dr. Lynn Douglas Mouden to implement statewide fluoridation and used it as a trophy to land him a new job with a much higher position as Chief Dental Officer, U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Oral Health in Arkansas: The Facts

Two separate but parallel studies were conducted in Morrilton and Perry County, Arkansas. The data from these neighboring communities, on opposite sides of the Arkansas River, vividly showcase the efficacy of water fluoridation. In January of 2002, elementary school students in Perryville, Casa and Ann Watson schools received dental screenings at the request of the Perry County Hometown Health Coalition. In October of 2002, all kindergarten students from the City of Morrilton also received a dental screening at the request of the school. Comparing the data from fluoridated Morrilton to the data on the same age students in Perry County showed twice the decay rate for non-fluoridated Perry County children.

4. Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health 2002. We cannot find a 2002 Oral Health Report that has the kindergarten survey referenced in this article.

We believe there is NO mention below of a 2002 Kindergarten Study supposedly done by Mouden in any of the oral health reports below because it is fraudulent.

Oral Health Facts in Arkansas

Oral Health in Arkansas 2007: No mention in data sources

Oral Health in Arkansas 2009: No mention in data sources

AR Smiles: Arkansas Oral Health Screening, 2010 Lynn Douglas Mouden, DDS, MPH; Director

Final Narrative Report State Oral Health Collaborative Systems (SOHCS) Grant Number H47MC01929-03-04

During the school years 2000-2001 through 2004-2005, the Dental Health Action Team has collected data on oral health and sealant utilization. See studies chart pg. 4

The Burden of Oral Disease in Arkansas, 2013 See pg 58. This data was requested in an FOIA “I will also need all data related to this survey including the number of dental professionals that provides dental services in these 2 counties” and it was not provided. That information is also in this article.

The need for Dental Education in Arkansas July 6,2007

Interim Study proposal for House and Senate Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor

——————————————————————————————————-

We also wanted to show you just how serious this situation is by sharing a few of the references from “Mouden, L. ?Fluoride: The Natural State of Water.? Arkansas Dentistry; Summer 2005” that has been quoted not only in Arkansas but all over the country! A lot of people, organizations, and governments have relied on this ghost study as factual data and have touted it to implement water fluoridation.

1512407833_studies-made_up_numbers.gif

(After researching many documents, we believe the first mention of the 2002 Study was referenced in the Summer of 2005.)

Examples used all over the country in which this 2002 Arkansas kindergarten study has been erroneously cited can be seen below in the hyperlinks:

ASTDD: Members’ Breakfast Summary of State/Territorial …
*Oct 31, 2005 -Mouden, L. “Fluoride: The Natural State of Water.” Arkansas Dentistry (Summer 2005) Vol. 77, No. 2, 15-16. Ernie Mueller is a former …

Summer 2011 – Georgia Oral Health Coalition
* May 3, 2005 – Governor’s Oral. Health Summits. ? Medical Mile Mural. Page 14. Fluoride: The Natural State of Water. Page 15. Education (Policy). Arkansas.

City of Loveland, CO
LOVELAND UTILITIES COMMISSION Special Fluoride Meeting September 30, 2014

*Sep 30, 2014 – 4 Mouden, L. “Fluoride: The Natural State of Water.” Arkansas Dentistry; Summer 2005; 77(2): 15-16. 5 Kumar, J. “Geographic Variation in …

State Oral Health Programs: Coalitions
National Oral Health Conference May 3,2005

Frequently Asked Questions – Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland
Part of the propaganda that was used in Portland before the people voted to reject water fluoridation references Lynn Mouden’s article.

Summer 2011 – Georgia Oral Health Coalition
*May 3, 2005 – Governor’s Oral. Health Summits. ? Medical Mile Mural. Page 14. Fluoride: The Natural State of Water. Page 15. Education (Policy). Arkansas.

State Oral Health Programs: Coalitions
*Sep 30, 2014 – 4 Mouden, L. “Fluoride: The Natural State of Water.” Arkansas Dentistry; Summer 2005; 77(2): 15-16. 5 Kumar, J. “Geographic Variation in ..

A Summary of Key Sources: see page 8

Myths and Facts

Mouden, L. ?Fluoride: The Natural State of Water.? Arkansas Dentistry; Summer 2005; 77(2): 15-16.

We have just shown you many examples of how often this altered report is quoted. Read on to find out more news.

Shown below is an article written by Kathryn Lucariello of the Carroll County News. Click the linked title to read it in its entirety. (We’ve just included some important points.)

State oral health director challenged over comments about fluoridation
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Kathryn Lucariello, Carroll County News

This is an old story but it shows the amount of deceit that was spread by Dr. Lynn Douglas Mouden of the Arkansas Oral Health, Department of Health office. Mouden appeared to used his office and his power to sell his fluoride lies to the public. Dr. Mouden was the Director of Oral Health between October 1999 to February 2012. It appears that with all these lies Mouden used to get Arkansas fluoridated he was able to land a big promotion in Baltimore, Maryland area. Mouden is now the Chief Dental Officer, Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

Dr. Lynn Douglas Mouden, Arkansas Director of Oral Health (Arkansas Department of Health) was challenged by Attorney Janie Evins over comments he made about fluoridation. A Letter was sent to Dr. Lynn Mouden from the Law office of Janie Evins that is dated February 19, 2009 demanding a retraction of false and misleading statements by Dr. Mouden. Evins received a response March 4 from Deputy General Counsel Reginald A. Rogers of the Arkansas Health Department. Rogers does not respond to the demands in Evins’ letter for proof of Mouden’s statements but merely states, “The comments made by Dr. Lynn Mouden . . . are consistent with credible scientific evidence. Community water fluoridation has been proven in scientific research and practical experience for more than 60 years in the U.S. as being safe and effective. While your client may disagree with some statements made, we base our policy on proven science.”

This is all about forcing water fluoridation and the people are not being given the truth.

– – – – –

depends.jpghttps://lh4.googleusercontent.com/BbAkI5dNWa_55TAYDtFrB5a72epnoHUR_76IjTePiLF0f_9odIEpiAapUtNj2t1WZv2_MdMHiwIG5yoXXyIQmBRpY8SIBD2NDZK7 WxIhwRQBLbGdlZlUymNEUFAI1zaJAJJq-OE

*We find it very suspicious that Mr. Lynn Mouden ended up with a higher position of Chief Dental Officer for Medicare and Medicaid Services in Washington D.C. after he finished with getting the 2011 fluoridation mandate bill passed here in Arkansas. Remember, he was the Arkansas Department of Health Director of Oral Health before and during the water fluoridation mandate passage (ACT 197).

Freedom Of Information Act Request from Secure Arkansas to ADH – dated 11/21/2015

(ADH is in violation of this 11/21/2015 FOIA request. No response has been received.)

Provide a copy of the agreements between the Arkansas Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
Provide a copy of the agreements between the Arkansas Department of Health and the Health Resources and Services Administration.
Provide a copy of the agreements between the Arkansas Department of Health and the ADH Tobacco Prevention & Cessation Program (HRSA)
Provide a copy of the cooperative agreement between the Arkansas Department of Health and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) concerning Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)
Provide a list of all grants and funding provided to the Arkansas Department of Health promoting Oral Health.
====================================

Secure Arkansas has found a second report that was based on erroneous material! The PEW Report that has been so widely used is proven to not be accurate! Even the Arkansas State Dental Association (ADA) had issues with the PEW report. (see slide 2) ADA stated that six out of the eight benchmarks was PEW’s opinion with unproven efficacy. PEW had a lot of collaboration with appropriate state officials which resulted in erroneous findings for Arkansas. ADA stated that they don’t agree with everything in the report.

Arkansas Dentistry, Fall/Winter 2010-2011 “Change Is Coming to Arkansas Dentistry”
by Dr. Bob Mason. See page 21
“”On this particular report, Arkansas received a “yes” on benchmarks 5 and 8. Current Medicaid data shows Arkansas currently exceeds requirement on benchmark 4, but older data was used in the determination. At best, Arkansas should have received a “D.” Understand that two of the eight benchmarks are proven, effective means to improve oral health, fluoridation and school based sealant programs, while the other six benchmarks are Pew’s opinion with unproven efficacy.“ The Morrilton & Perry County bogus survey was quoted in 2011 when Senator David Johnson testified before the Arkansas Senate Committee on Public Health to get Senate Bill 359 passed out of committee, later to become Act 197. Another report that Arkansas Department of Health, Senator Jason Rapert and Senator David Johnson used to convince the legislators to pass ACT 197 was the February 2010 PEW Report which caused Arkansas to fail and receive an “F”.

Pew children’s dental initiative released The Cost of Delay. This PEW report used erroneous data. For the full report click here, and also see Fluoridation Advocacy Pew’s Contributions page 7-9. for details of PEW’s involvement in Arkansas. “Arkansas stakeholders laid the groundwork, but Pew brought to the table their own public health understanding and knowledge.” PEW graded each state on its policy responses to actions each State did to improve dental health among low-income children. The Partners of PEW appear to be in bed with the dental professionals and the oral health division of CDC in promoting the toxic fluoridation of our public water supply.

The PEW report has 8 benchmarks that were used to come up with a grade for each the state. Only benchmark #3 is for fluoride. The Pew Center released the study in February 2010 with the support of Kellogg Foundation and DentaQuest Foundation. Arkansas received a “F” due to two benchmarks using incorrect data. Per the PEW report, Arkansas only met benchmarks 4 and 8. If the correct data was used, Arkansas would have received at least a “D”.

The Arkansas Health Department (ADH) knew or should’ve known that the Pew data was in question when ADH and David Johnson used this report to pass the mandate, since it was called into question a year before ACT 197 was enacted into law.

Pew admits “After Pew released its 2010 report, Arkansas legislators enacted laws to expand community water fluoridation. The state senator who sponsored these bills specifically cited Pew’s “F” grade as the impetus for his efforts.” PEW tries very hard to cover their ‘mistakes’ 2 years after their mistakes cost us our freedom of choice of what we put in our bodies.

DentaQuest Foundation and W.K. Kellogg Foundation are both supporting PEW in their report. Check out their IRS filings below.

DentaQuest Foundation IRS 990-PF 2013 filing

Provided a $90,000 grant to Pew Charitable Trusts
W.K. Kellogg Foundation IRS 990 PF 2013 filing From IRS 990 PF – 2013 filing the following grants are shown: (some of these entities testified before the Public Health Committee supporting fluoridation)

Provided a $250,000 grant to Arkansas Public Policy Panel
Provided a $500,000 grant to Arkansas Department of Human Services
Provided a $600,000 grant to Arkansas Community Foundation, Inc.
Provided a $150,000 grant to Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families
Provided a $152,000 grant to University of Arkansas Foundation
Provided a $100,000 grant to University of Arkansas
The Arkansas Legislators, the Arkansas Department of Health, and Delta Dental relied heavily on misrepresenting the data in the PEW report that they must have known was in error to pass SB359/ACT197.

Here are the PEW report benchmarks: (Please note that only benchmark #3 pertains to fluoride)

Benchmark #1 State has sealant programs in place in at least 25% of high-risk schools..
Benchmark #2 State does not require a dentist’s exam before a hygienist sees a child in a school sealant program
Benchmark #3 State provides optimally fluoridated water to at least 75 percent of citizens on community systems. (This is the only benchmark that addresses fluoride)
Benchmark 4# State meets or exceeds the national average (38,1%) of children ages 1 to 18 on Medicaid receiving dental services. Arkansas received a Yes
Benchmark 5# State pays dentists who serve Medicaid- enrolled children at least the national average (60.5 percent) of Medicaid rates as a percentage of dentists’ median retail fees
Benchmark 6# State Medicaid program reimburses medical care providers for preventive dental health services.
Benchmark 7# State has authorized a new primary care dental provider
Benchmark 8# State submits basic screening data to the national database. Arkansas received a YES.
The way the PEW report was rigged, Arkansas could only have passed benchmark 3 for fluoridation and still gotten a failing grade of “F”.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

— Soren Kierkegaard

So, public policy was set in Arkansas based on what we think could be a fraudulent study and a fraudulent PEW report.

______________________________________________________________

“Beware of the Half Truth.
You May Have Gotten Ahold of the Wrong Half.”

— Author Unknown

Stay tuned for more revealing truth about the topic of toxic water fluoridation! We’ve got more information which we can’t wait to share with you…

Your friends and family may also sign up to receive our Action Alerts by clicking here.

Local control of water and our freedom from fluoride poison are important!

As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com. The Search box is a handy tool. For more information about FLUORIDE, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!
stop fluoride

Securing the blessings of liberty,
Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com

Share This Article

onawah

2nd February 2018, 04:17

NZ: federal control of fluoridation would be a nightmare
2/1/18
by Jon Rappoport
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/02/01/nz-federal-control-of-fluoridation-would-be-a-nightmare/
So would censoring debate on the issue

For the past year or so, I’ve been following a critical situation in New Zealand, where local communities decide whether to fluoridate their water supplies. A number of communities have said no.

A bill in the national parliament would change all that.

If the bill passes, the decision to fluoridate would fall into the hands of so-called District Health Boards—which are part of a federal system. At that point, New Zealand would be fluoridated as a matter of top-down command; local choice would be gone.

Now, there is a battle going on in the parliament about allowing debate on the science of fluoridation. Apparently, the pro-fluoridation forces are terrified that open presentations will expose official lies and destroy their position.

A press release (1/31) from Fluoride Free New Zealand (twitter) describes the situation:

National Party health spokesperson, Jonathan Coleman (twitter; and, see this tweet), is castigating the Government for allowing the latest science on fluoridation to be aired. “This is now going to unfairly colour the debate and raise questions in people’s minds, especially MPs who are going to vote on these Bills,” says Coleman.

It is hard to fathom why listening to both sides of an issue will “unfairly” colour the debate.

Prof Paul Connett is booked to give a presentation to all Parliamentarians in February during his speaking tour of New Zealand. He will explain the latest science on fluoride’s adverse health effects – particularly the growing research on the link between fluoride and the lowering of IQ.

A multi-million-dollar landmark US Government funded study published last year found that children who were exposed to fluoride in utero (at the same levels NZ children are exposed to) caused a drop of around five IQ points. This study was carried out by researchers in the top Universities of North America, such as Harvard, Michigan, Toronto and McGill…This comes on top of the 52 (out of 58) human studies and hundreds of animal studies that have also found fluoride interferes with brain function.

For Jonathan Coleman to call this “junk science” is preposterous.

New Zealand is one of the few remaining countries that still has fluoridation. 98% of Europe has rejected it. Ministry of Health statistics from 2009 (the latest available) show that over 40% of New Zealand children have some form of dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is the first outward sign of fluoride poisoning. The evidence that New Zealand children are being put in harm’s way is now overwhelming.

Fluoride Free New Zealand congratulates the Government for not being bullied by the likes of Jonathan Coleman and others – who are now showing signs of desperation to keep people away from the information.

Prof Connett will be speaking in a number of towns and cities that are not fluoridated. Prof Connett holds a B.A. (Honours) in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University, England and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Dartmouth College. He is a world leading expert in fluoridation and has spoken in fifty-two countries on this issue and the issue of Waste Management. Details of his Talks can be found at fluoridefree.org.nz.

—end of press release—

New Zealand has reached a point where open and honest discussion is under the gun.

Professor Connett must be allowed to speak before the parliament. All attempts to stop him must be derailed.

Here is an interview I did with Professor Connett in November. The study referred to in the interview was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, in September 2017. It is titled: “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age.” It is often referred to as the Bashash study, after its first listed author.

The study concluded: “…higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 y.”

In short, pregnant women exposed to fluorides give birth to children who later show up with lower IQ.

Q (Rappoport): There is a new study on the effect of fluorides on IQ. Several questions: Do you believe the study is well done? Does it deserve our attention? What conclusions does it draw?

A (Connett): This is a very important study…Taken at face value it should have been a good study. It was financed largely by the NIEHS [National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the US National Institutes of Health], which of course is pro-fluoridation. It was conducted largely by specialists in the field who have done similar studies on other neurotoxicants. None of them to my knowledge had taken a public position against water fluoridation (indeed one was known to be pro-fluoridation) so the notion of bias here was small…

Q: What is the reaction of public health agencies to the new study?

A: Pro-fluoridation agencies have done what they always do – attack any study that finds harm. They are all more interested in protecting the archaic practice of water fluoridation than to protect the health of our children. Extraordinary that any civil servant should think that children’s teeth are more important than their brains! The people at the top are desperately trying to protect a policy they have waxed lyrical about for 70 years. The people in the middle are taught to promote “policy” not question it and the people at the bottom simply believe what they were taught at dental or medical school and reinforced by their professional bodies. Others I think are very concerned that if they lose fluoridation it will affect the public’s trust in other public health practices – a clear example would be vaccination, a multi-billion dollar interest supported by the CDC (a big champion of fluoridation).

Q: How have major media reacted to the new fluoridation study?

A: Apart from CNN and CTV in Canada and Newsweek there has been little coverage by the mainstream media. It was not covered by the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or any other major newspaper. That again is extraordinary for a study of this significance. Sadly, this is also typical of these outlets when it comes to the detailed science on this issue. They simply don’t want to know.

Q: I’ve been covering the fluoride situation [fluoridating water supplies] in New Zealand. Last I heard, there was a move to take decision-making away from local governments and put it in the hands of federal health councils, who would determine whether to fluoridate water supplies. Can you give me an update?

A: Yes this is a dreadful development. Thus, in addition to the health issues we now have democracy threatened in NZ. Yesterday [11/16/17], the new government re-introduced the bill [handing over fluoridating decisions to federal authorities] for a second reading. One can only hope that the coalition partners will not be bullied into going along with this. A NZ first member is strongly against this bill. I would hope that the Green Party will not be railroaded on this either. But they have been very weak so far.

Q: I’ve been told that many years ago, you were in favor of water fluoridation. What was the turning point? What made you change your mind?

A: To be more accurate I didn’t want to get involved. I was so busy teaching chemistry and working on waste [disposal issues] (which has taken me to 49 states and 65 other countries) that I didn’t have time for a third issue. And I certainly didn’t want a third issue in which if I got involved would get me labelled as “loony tunes.” Over the years I was approached by three different people to get involved…I resisted them all. Then someone I couldn’t resist twisted my arm…– my wife – in 1996. When I read the literature she had amassed I was both shocked with what I learned and embarrassed that I had not got involved before. I have spent the last 21 years trying to make amends.

—end of interview—

The New Zealand government is teetering on the edge of a fascist decision to poison its own people. This edict must not go forward.

onawah

2nd February 2018, 04:20

Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news
by Jon Rappoport
February 1, 2018
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/02/01/fluorides-the-atomic-bomb-and-fake-news-2/

Faced with toxic fluorides destroying food crops, animal and human life, and with law suits piling up, atomic scientists decided they could distract the nation by promoting fluorides as a beneficial tooth treatment…

Occasionally, I reprint this article. I wrote it some years ago, during research on toxic chemicals pervading the landscape. I used to send the piece to mainstream reporters, but I eventually gave that up as a bad bet.

They’re dedicated to fake news…and now they’re losing control over public consciousness. Losing badly. Independent media are in the ascendance, and rightly so.

In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on a number of websites.

Author Griffiths told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: studying the water is not enough; toxic fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide).

I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, launched to build the first A-bomb.

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”

The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

But records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.

More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell Company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.

The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.

Footnote: In Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, General Ripper is fleshed out as a crazy right-wing fanatic. He’s ready and willing to start a nuclear war. How odd. Apparently unknown to the Strangelove script writers, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the program that created atomic bombs in the first place…

onawah

23rd February 2018, 19:01

The link between fluoride levels and Alzheimer’s disease
By Contributor 22nd February 2018
https://www.imt.ie/opinion/letters/link-fluoride-levels-alzheimers-disease-22-02-2018/

Dear Editor,

The Irish Examiner previously published an excellent report on the increase in dementia in Ireland (‘Dementia tsunami looms’, Catherine Shanahan, June 25, 2015).
In this article, Dr Ronan Collins was quoted as saying: “I have seen the exponential growth of dementia in our clinical workload over the last 15 years, a true tsunami with the burden it imposes on increasing numbers of people and their families, and its cost both in terms of the lost social contribution of the person and through the economic cost of care needed.”

Shanahan also reported that the economic cost of dementia illness in the Republic of Ireland was estimated to be €1.7 billion in 2010.

Like Ireland, the USA has also seen an unprecedented increase in dementia in recent decades. Between 1999 and 2014, deaths rates from Alzheimer’s disease in the USA rose by more than 50 per cent.

The current cost of healthcare for dementia in the USA is US$236bn (€191.2bn). It is important to be aware that the USA and Ireland are two of the most fluoridated countries in the world, with in excess of 70 per cent of their populations provided with artificially fluoridated drinking water.

It is also important to note that in 2003, research published in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry found that lower brain acetylcholinesterase (AChE) activity was associated with cognitive impairment in adults, and that individuals with low AChE activity may have early Alzheimer’s disease changes in the brain.

Most people remain unaware that in 2006, the National Research Council of the National Academies in the USA reported that fluoride inhibits the activities of AChE, and warned of the possibilities that exposure to fluoride may act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.

In 2014, the National Academy of Sciences in India reported that exposure to fluoride in drinking water resulted in significant impairment of AChE with the maximum inhibition occurring in the brain.

Importantly, the fluoride levels in drinking water in this study were comparable to that found in artificially fluoridated water in the USA and Ireland. In addition, the study found that co-exposure to fluoride and the Chlorpyrifos, a previously widely used pesticide that was permitted to be used in the agricultural sector in Ireland until March 2016, resulted in synergistic toxicity or enhanced impairment of AChE activity.

More recently, in 2015 the journal Pathophysiology published the findings of another study, which found that drinking water containing recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water resulted in brain neurotoxicity, by causing severe neuronal histomorphological changes and impairing AChE activity in the brain. As with Chlorpyrifos, co-exposure to fluoride and aluminium was found to result in synergistic toxicity.

Based on these findings, one would consider that to reduce the burden of Alzheimer’s disease, it is imperative that public health authorities and the Irish Government stop adding fluoride to our drinking water supplies.

Declan Waugh
Scientist, Researcher and Risk Management Consultant
Bandon, Co Cork

onawah

1st March 2018, 20:58

FAN wins second round in court case
3/1/18 Fluoride Action Network (FAN)
http://fluoridealert.org/content/content-bulletin_3-1-18/

FAN wins second round in court case and now it is all stations go to fund our lawsuit
On February 7, 2018, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), together with a coalition of environmental and health groups (see Plaintiffs below), won a second major victory in our legal case to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end the deliberate addition of fluoride to the public water supply (water fluoridation).

Our victory was the ruling from Federal Judge Edward M. Chen, of the Northern District Court of California, when he dismissed EPA’s motion to limit discovery:

“The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.” Re: February 7, 2018: Order Denying Defendant’s [EPA] Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record

Our attorney, Michael Connett, noted:

“If you look at the legislative history, Congress wanted a robust mechanism for citizen oversight over EPA. This court’s decision highlights for environmental groups that Congress created a powerful tool.” (Inside EPA, Feb 20,2018)

Had the EPA prevailed we would have been prohibited from including any new fluoride neurotoxicity study published after our Petition was submitted in November 2016. With the court’s ruling we can now include the major 12-year study by Bashash et al. published in September 2017. This study is critical in demonstrating that fluoride is neurotoxic and has no place in the public water supply.

The Bashash study http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-lower-iq-in-kids-new-study-says/
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this study, especially since it was funded by these U.S. agencies: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA.

The authors from several universities in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, followed over 300 mother-child pairs in Mexico City for a 12-year period. They found a strong relationship between the mothers’ exposure to fluoride (as measured in their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at 4 and again at 6-12 years of age. The urine levels of the pregnant woman in the study were the same as is found in pregnant women in the U.S. (0.5 to 1.5 mg/Liter, or ppm). At these levels the authors reported a loss of 6 IQ points.

The lead investigator of this study, Dr. Howard Hu from the University of Toronto, commented on the study in the Canadian National Post:

“This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children.”

This study adds another level of scientific rigor to our case. We should never deliberately expose an unborn child or bottle-fed infant to a known neurotoxic (i.e. brain-damaging) substance but that is precisely what we are doing every day with water fluoridation.

Our TSCA lawsuit is attempting to force the US EPA to end this reckless practice. As Michael Connett stated in response to EPA’s attempt to dismiss our case:

“in a nation besieged by neurological disorders of poorly understood etiology, both in young children and the elderly, minimizing exposures to known neurotoxic substances must be a public health priority [page 4].”

Now it is all stations go to raise the money to finish the job.
Now that the court has granted us full discovery, we have the end of fluoridation in our sights. But It is going to take a lot of money to finish the job. Michael explains why:

“In this vital phase we will need to engage a larger legal staff and hire experts with several areas of expertise, including developmental neurotoxicology, endocrinology, epidemiology, toxicology, and risk assessment. These experts will be needed to add depth and explanation to support our analysis of fluoride’s neurotoxicity including IQ loss and harm to the fetal brain.”

According to Michael:

“Nobody has ever done what we are doing, and this is going to require top level experts who will need to do substantial review and analysis and this will require significant funding.”

Starting today we will be aiming to raise $225,000 by May 31.
Daunting yes – it took the whole of December to raise less than that – but we have some terrific friends who are determined that our legal team will not want for lack of money to do the job. If FAN can raise $75,000 by May 31, two anonymous donors (one individual and one group) have each pledged to give us another $75,000 each. In other words, all donations to FAN specifically earmarked for the lawsuit will be tripled for a total $225,000.

Paul Connett, senior adviser to the Fluoride Action Network said about this challenge,

“Since FAN was formed in 2000 we have had many important fundraisers but none more important than this. Every penny we raise over the next few weeks will take us closer to that magnificent day when we will see an end to fluoridation. This is not wishful thinking, we have a clear path to victory here and we mustn’t drop the ball. And once again this is a team effort – we have the science – we have the legal expertise – and now we need all our supporters to chip in what they can afford to make this happen.”

Will you be part of the biggest challenge we have ever faced? If so, here’s how to donate:
To distinguish donations for the Legal Fund, have your donation end with $5 (for example, $25, $55, $105, $205, etc.). All donations are tax-exempt as FAN is a project of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, Inc., a 501(c)(3) non-profit and will go into a designated fund.

You can donate in one of two ways:
• Online at our secure server at https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005

• By check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:

Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905
http://fluoridealert.org/content/content-bulletin_3-1-18/

onawah

6th March 2018, 18:50

Lawsuit against the EPA
TSCA: OUR TWO CAMPAIGNS
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin
March 6, 2018
http://fluoridealert.org/content/content-bulletin_3-6-18/

In our last bulletin (March 1) we started our campaign to raise $75,000 by May 31, 2018 to fund the lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end fluoridation using provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). See our Nov 2016 Citizens Petition and our two victories in Federal District court on Dec 21, 2017 and Feb 7, 2018.

If we achieve this $75,000 goal we will receive an additional $150,000 from two extraordinary donors (one individual and one group) bringing our fund to $225,000. So far we have received $7,265 from 64 donors.

In addition, we will be sending out two bulletins a week until May 31, or until we reach our goal, whichever comes first.

These bulletins will cover another major objective in our 2018 campaign: recruiting your help in educating the public, scientists, the media and decision-makers about the remarkable and disturbing scientific developments pertaining to fluoride’s impact on the developing brain. There has been an avalanche of studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. For example, in our 2016 petition we cited 232 studies on the neurotoxicity of fluoride that were published after the National Research Council (2006) landmark review concluded that, “it is apparent thatfluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain (p 222).”

These studies include the critically important 12-year U.S.-government funded study by Bashash et al. (2017), which reported a very strong correlation between exposure of pregnant women to fluoride (at levels experienced in the U.S.) and a significant 6 IQ points loss in their offspring. Shockingly, despite its scientific and public health importance, and the rigor with which the study was conducted, it was not covered in any major newspaper in the U.S!

Sadly, even though we know how serious this matter is – most citizens and decision-makers are blissfully unaware of the situation,

a) because the media is not telling them (e.g. the Bashash et al study, 2017 was not covered in by the major media in the U.S.)

b) because federal, state and local health officials only peddle the myth that fluoridation is “safe and effective”

c) because scientists, who might otherwise have been interested in the toxic threat posed by fluoride, have been kept away from the scientific literature due to the portrayal of citizens and scientists opposed to fluoridation as “anti-science” and “flat-earthers.” We still hope that more scientists will see through this ploy when they review both our web page and the book The Case Against Fluoride, where we have spelled out and carefully documented the scientific arguments.

However, while we are not getting much help, for the sake of future generations of unborn children we must warn women to avoid fluoride exposure during pregnancy and not to use fluoridated tap-water when they make up baby formula.

So while we fundraise and work to win our TSCA lawsuit against the EPA to force them to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to the public drinking water, we are hoping to recruit your help with our campaign to get this vital information DIRECTLY to pregnant women and to parents who bottle-feed their infants.

To this end, In the next few bulletins we will:

1) Share a campaign strategy and practical ways on how to get this message out to pregnant women and parents (and your input on this is very welcome).

2) Present the important findings of many of the neurotoxicity studies we submitted to EPA (and the new studies which continue to emerge) so that we all can learn this issue inside out. Important in this task is to simplify and clarify the meaning and significance of the findings in a language that the ordinary person can understand. This will help all of us educate our friends, communities and scientists on this issue.

3) Update you on the progress of our lawsuit and our fundraising effort.

Please join us on the two biggest challenges we have ever faced.
• Getting this critical warning to pregnant women and bottle-feeding caregivers.

• Raising the money to fund our lawsuit.

Fluoride Action Netwk
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Please stay tuned.

Paul and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising team

*The Plaintiffs:

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Food and Water Watch, MOMS Against Fluoridation, the Organic Consumers Association, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

Resources:

• The full TSCA petition can be accessed here
• A shorter 8-page summary
• Follow the news reports here
• The Documents submitted into the court record
* The Timeline of the Lawsuit

See all FAN bulletins online

http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

onawah

9th March 2018, 20:52

TSCA: ANOTHER IQ STUDY SUPPORTS OUR LAW SUIT AGAINST EPA
Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org/content/content-bulletin_3-9-18/
MARCH 9, 2018

The New York Times Science Staff on Fluoridation
“… I understand that you disagree, but I think it’s fair to say
that most members of the science staff of The New York Times
consider this debate to have been decided – in fluoride’s favor –
about 50 years ago.”

Donald McNeil Jr., Science Correspondent, New York Times
April 2, 2015 email. Subject: READERS MAIL
See copy of email at 4:35 minutes into Our Daily Dose

Such a statement would have shocked most scientists, for whom no scientific debate is ever really settled. As Aldous Huxley pointed out, the tragedy of science is that a beautiful hypothesis can always be destroyed by an ugly fact. In the case of water fluoridation many ugly facts have emerged over the last 25 years, including 52 IQ studies.

While the effects on IQ from in-utero exposure to fluoride has shocked most of us, we are not sure if the study by Bashash et al. (2017), funded by U.S. government agencies has registered with the science staff at the New York Times because they have yet to report on it.

Please note the 12-year Bashash study reported an astonishing loss of 5 to 6 IQ points which correlated with fluoride urine levels ranging from 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L in pregnant mothers. These are the same levels in adults reported in U.S. communities with fluoridated drinking water (0.6 and 1.5 mg/L).

We should add that one of the references cited in the Bashash study is to another in-utero IQ study published in 2017 that reported cognitive effects on the offspring – more on this below.

In 2017-2018 there are at least three animal studies that reported adverse neurodevelopmental effects on the pups of exposed mothers – again, details below. But before we review these, there is some very disturbing news from Hawaii and Baltimore. Once again, we witness a single-minded focus on children’s teeth without regard to what the very toxic fluoride ion may do to other tissues, especially during pregnancy and infancy.

Intolerable Human Experiments with Pregnant Women and their Offspring:
In February 2018 a proposed Bill was introduced into the Hawaiian Legislature for a study of voluntary fluoride supplement use for pregnant women & children. And there is a clinical trial titled, Effect of Supplementation of Fluoride on Maternal Periodontal Health, Preterm Delivery, and Perinatal Well-Being, proposed to take place under the auspices of John Hopkins University. While It’s unclear whether this study is underway or still recruiting its victims, what is clear is that the “facts” used to support this study are wrong. For example:

“When supplied during pregnancy in small aliquots, as with water fluoridation, the fluoride is likely taken up in the mother’s bones and excreted by her kidneys so rapidly, that the fetus is denied a meaningful amount of fluoride, unless it is supplied in a pulse dose by supplement.”

The Second in-Utero IQ Study
This study by Valdez Jiménez et al. was published in March 2017 in the journal Neurotoxicology and titled: In utero exposure to fluoride and cognitive development delay in infants. This study, like the Bashash study, was done in Mexico with mother-child pairs. Some of the differences between the two studies are:

this study had fewer participants (65 mother-baby pairs vs 300 mother-child pairs)

the IQ testing took place between the ages of 3 to 15 months (vs 4 years and 6-12 years of age)

Unlike the Bashash study, this study took place in an area with high naturally occurring levels of fluoride in the drinking water (called endemic hydrofluorosis areas). Over 81.5% of the samples of tap water were above 1.5 mg/l with the highest value of 12.5 mg/.
33.8% of the births were pre-term. The authors stated, “We found higher levels of F in urine across trimester in premature compared with full term.” There was no mention of pre-term births in the Bashash study. (See more on preterm, Gurumurthy et al. 2011; Susheela et al. 2010; Hart et al. 2009).
Results: The authors state, “In this study near to 60% of the children consumed contaminated water and the prevalence of children with IQ below 90 points was 25% in the control group (F urine 1.5 mg/g creatinine) in comparison with the 58% of children in the exposed group (F urine >5 mg/g creatinine)…Our data suggests that cognitive alterations in children born from exposed mothers to F could start in early prenatal stages of life.”

Animal studies published in 2017-18 that reported effects on neurodevelopment in offspring of F-exposed mothers.

Sun et al. (2018) reported that “F exposure during embryonic to suckling stages impaired the learning and memory ability of the mouse pups.”

Zhu et al. (2017) reported, “These data indicate that exposure to fluoride and arsenic in early life stage changes ERK, p-ERK, CREB and p-CREB protein expression in the hippocampus and cerebral cortex of rat offspring at PND21 and PND 42, which may contribute to impaired neurodevelopment following exposure.”

Zigu et al. (2017) reported, “The results suggested that dietary calcium significantly affected hippocampal synaptic plasticity of offspring of mothers exposed to water fluorosis… The findings also demonstrate the important effects of maternal exposure to water fluorosis on offspring brain functions before water improvement.”

Please join us on the two biggest challenges we have ever faced.
Getting a warning to pregnant women and infant-bottle caregivers.
https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005
Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

Please stay tuned.

Paul and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising Team

*The Plaintiffs:

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Food and Water Watch, MOMS Against Fluoridation, the Organic Consumers Association, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

Resources:

• The full TSCA petition can be accessed here
• A shorter 8-page summary
• Follow the news reports here
• The Documents submitted into the court record
* The Timeline of the Lawsuit
• The first press release

See all FAN bulletins online http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

Bob

11th March 2018, 16:49

What else is Fluoride responsible for? Blindness it seems - like macular degeneration, where the center of the eye's retina starts to die around the optic nerve, eventually leading to total optical failure. Fluoride destroys the natural protector in our bodies - TAURINE which when depleted in the eye, macular degeneration happens.. Enlarged hearts, heart failure (CHF) happens, organ failure.. Weakness, lameness, sensory "deadness" all from fluoride killing/sabotaging LIFE. LIFE is inconsistent with "crystalline forming fluorides".

From this thread, (please read for details (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101645-Taurine-for-Macular-Degeneration-Enlarged-Heart--Heart-Failure--Gallstones&p=1206546&viewfull=1#post1206546)), one can see and understand more about treatment from FLUORIDE damage, and why it is important to deal with it now before permanent damage happens:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?101645-Taurine-for-Macular-Degeneration-Enlarged-Heart--Heart-Failure--Gallstones&p=1206546&viewfull=1#post1206546

Solving body and nervous system damage from FLUORIDE - CAN it be done?

Taurine is found to be extremely high in the retinas. Without it the retina dies, starting at the center working its way to the outside - (describing Macular Degeneration, a leading cause of old-age related blindness).

Taurine needs go up when subjected to stress. Taurine deficiency could also be present with a pure vegetarian diet, although humans are able to produce taurine in some amounts naturally by breaking down foods. Cats can't survive without that supplement.

Is it toxic in excessive amounts? Some studies say don't over-do it, and some studies say since it is a water soluble vitamin, the body will use what it needs and then the extra amount will clear thru the urine.

What could be depleting Taurine in the body? Fluorides for one. (http://www.pathophysiologyjournal.co...027-8/fulltext) - The primary substance to deal with fluoride is TAURINE..

So what happens, we are "fluoride supplemented" to protect our teeth and the end result is the child ends up "blind" as an elderly adult.. (although macular degeneration CAN happen in younger folk too).

onawah

21st March 2018, 23:40

BREAKING!!!! Corbett Report--Fluoridation Could Be BANNED!
Mar 21, 2018

Today we talk to Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network (fluoridealert.org) about Food & Water Watch Inc., et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, a lawsuit that could bring an end to the practice of water fluoridation in the United States. We discuss the Toxic Substances Control Act under which the suit is being filed, how recent court rulings have allowed the case to proceed, and the incredible significance of the chance to depose the EPA's "experts" under oath. Please help spread the word about this exciting development.
j_737uiecSw
SHOW NOTES
Fluoride Action Network homepage
http://fluoridealert.org/
Previous Corbett Report interviews with Dr. Connett
https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=connett
Court Decision Could Lead to EPA Banning Water Fluoridation
http://fluoridealert.org/news/court-decision-could-lead-to-epa-banning-water-fluoridation/
Support Documents for Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water Section 21 Petition
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/support-documents-fluoride-chemicals-drinking-water
Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.12-21-17.denies-epa-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
Information on the most important fluoride/IQ study to date
http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-lower-iq-in-kids-new-study-says/

MorningFox

22nd March 2018, 16:11

Ewan

22nd March 2018, 17:37

I hope those of you who are condoning fluoride in toothpaste realise that rubbing it in to your gums morning and night is an even more effective way to get the fluoride in to your bloodstream than drinking it? Why do you think people rub cocaine in to their gums?

I've used fluoride free toothpaste for nearly ten years now and last year my dentist said I have some of the best teeth he's seen in a 30 year old. I haven't ever had a single problem with my teeth.

Saying that, I don't really eat sugar and never have. Case in point - do not consume fluoride if you wish to develop your dreaming, your intuition, your second attention, your nagual, your spirituality etc etc.

I don't even use toothpaste any more, just brush and water. Occasionally make my own pastes with bicarb and salt if my gums are looking a bit dodgy, and once when I was quite sure I'd developed gingivitus I used a little trisodium phospahte dodecahydrate which is so salty it will promote gag reflex if it makes it anywhere near the back of the throat but 48 hrs later I was good to go again. 40 yrs of smoking has assured I don't need to worry about whiteners anymore. Antique Ivory is the new white. :)

But yeah, brushing your gums with fluoride toothpaste would seem to be an expressway to the brain. Yet every new dental student that leaves dental school with their bright shiny new diploma, or whatever, are thoroughly brainwashed into believing that fluoride is the single most important fact concerning healthy teeth. When I enquired of her how fluorosis backed up that claim she didn't have an answer, furthermore she had no idea that some ancient peoples had been unearthed with absolutely perfect teeth exhibiting no signs of decay.

Bob

22nd March 2018, 19:23

U know it is interesting that people believe that they HAVE to remove their silver fillings.. And replace with 'innocent' white plastic replacements.

Guess what the white plastic is FILLED WITH - FLUORIDE..

How many people out there had their silver replaced with white fillings?

https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/company-us/all-3m-products/~/ketac-nano-Ketac-Nano-Light-Curing-Glass-Ionomer-Restorative/?N=5002385+3294768954&rt=rud

The first paste/paste, resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorative based on bonded nanofiller technology
Esthetic glass ionomer restorative
High fluoride release

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/742176F/ketac-nano-quick-mix-trial-kit-3305tk.jpg

Generally, glass ionomer restoratives can contain a broad range
of particle sizes. Filler particle size can influence strength, optical
properties and abrasion resistance.

By using bonded nanofillers and
nanocluster fillers, along with FAS glass, Ketac Nano restorative has
improved esthetics and low wear, yet still provides the benefits of
glass ionomer chemistry, such as fluoride release.

Overall, Ketac Nano
restorative exhibits impressive surface characteristics.

https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/647178O/ketactm-nano-with-quick-mix-capsule.pdf

avid

22nd March 2018, 22:12

Thanks Bob, I researched everything that dentists stuff in our mouths, and requested ‘no fluoride’, shock horror, every single item/solution/coating/filling is packed with fluoride. Asking for no fluoride anything stymies one’s dentist! My good friend, a dental inspector of practices, was mortified when I requested an holistic, fluoride-free list of practices. Impossible in the UK unless one is filthy rich and get ‘under-the-counter’ fluoride-free treatment.

Some items leach many times the ‘safe’ levels of fluoride into one’s body, compounded by fluoridated drinking water, toothpaste, additional fillings, crown adhesives, veneers et al. Brain death by dentistry here we come...

onawah

24th March 2018, 01:34

Another new study published in Advances in Dentistry and Oral Health found that increasing fluoride exposure significantly affected thyroid function in children aged 8-14 years by impairing T3 activity. Fluoride exposure was also found to significantly decrease carbonic anhydrase (CA) activity in red blood cells,. The authors report that reduced CA leads to acidosis, contributes to a decrease in salivary pH which causes demineralization and hypoplasia leading to caries.

https://juniperpublishers.com/adoh/pdf/ADOH.MS.ID.555721.pdf

onawah

30th April 2018, 21:21

Good news from Fluoride Action Network!

APRIL 30, 2018
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_4-30-18/
(The wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine)
Yes we have reached our goal of $75,000 in our TSCA lawsuit fundraiser* and we did it a month ahead of schedule thanks to supporters like you. See the thank you video from Paul and Michael. This will be matched by two fabulously generous pledges of $75,000 from an individual and a small non-profit. As of this morning our FAN total stands at $77,995 from 504 donors. We expect that this will increase as there are checks in the mail.
On behalf of the FAN team, 500 thank yous!

* The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.
The Fluoride Action Network together with Food & Water Watch, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and others petitioned EPA to exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies. We made this request on the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular, and human research shows that fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities.

We have won the first two rounds in Federal Court. The first was the Dec 21, 2017, ruling to allow the case to go forward, thus ending EPA’s effort to dismiss the case. The second ruling on Feb 7, 2018, allows us to enter new studies into consideration, something that EPA argued against.
See all FAN bulletins online
http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

onawah

18th May 2018, 16:53

Erin Brockovich's trusted drinking water expert, Bob Bowcock discussing fluoridation.
Be The Change
Published on Apr 10, 2018

Bob Bowcock traveled with Erin Brockovich to North Texas informing 500+ concerned residents experiencing adverse health symptoms and rashes (after a "routine" chlorine burn) about the water crisis growing all across this nation. This video compares conflicting statements made by North Texas Municipal Water District and the City of Frisco water leaders at a city council meeting with the explanations made by water expert Bob Bowcock. rdmwhldCUTI

onawah

20th May 2018, 17:01

Update on the Movement Against Water Fluoridation
May 20, 2018
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/05/20/movement-against-water-fluoridation.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20180520Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM208770&et_rid=310321349
6JUT7Ih0FVo

Story at-a-glance
Over the past 18 years, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has facilitated the removal of fluoride from the water supplies of hundreds of communities in North America, Canada and Europe
FAN has filed an historic lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under a provision in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Under this TSCA statute, the judge may not defer to the EPA but must weigh the evidence brought forth in trial. If the judge finds there’s an unreasonable risk, he has the authority to order EPA to begin proceedings to eliminate the risk of fluoride in drinking water
Earlier this year, EPA tried to limit the scope of what FAN could bring to the court’s attention. Its motion was denied, and FAN will be able to request internal documents, submit interrogatories to EPA and depose EPA experts
By Dr. Mercola

In this interview, Paul Connett, PhD, toxicologist, environmental chemist and the founder FAN, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), an organization that has fought to remove toxic fluoride from water supplies across the world, provides an important and exciting update on FAN's progress during this past year. FAN is an organization that has fought to remove toxic fluoride from the water supply across the world.

Over the past 18 years, FAN has helped hundreds of communities around the US, Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, Israel and New Zealand fight the reckless and unethical practice of water fluoridation.

Unprecedented Lawsuit Against EPA
In November 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The petition included more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health, including more than 180 studies published since 2006 showing fluoride causes neurotoxic harm and reduces IQ.

"Under the TSCA, the EPA has authority to ban the uses of chemicals that present unreasonable risks to the general public or to susceptible subpopulations. We've brought this case on the grounds that adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to the general public, especially to some susceptible subpopulations," Connett explains.

In its February 27, 2017, response,1 the EPA claimed the petition had failed to "set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride." Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides citizens with the ability to challenge an EPA denial in federal court, which is where we are now.

"Water fluoridation needs to end," Connett says. "The United States needs to follow the path of Europe and take fluoride out of the water supply. Those who want it can get it in toothpaste and dental products, which gives everyone the right to choose whether they want to use fluoride or not.

We can apply fluoride in a targeted fashion to the one tissue of the body that stands to benefit — the teeth — and keep it away from everywhere else, particularly to the brain. The focus of our lawsuit is on fluoride's effects on the brain, for which there is a large and growing body of research."

Federal Judge to Assess Fluoride Hazards
The current White House administration has vigorously opposed federal regulatory actions and has already reversed many of the environmental safety precautions previously established. This raises serious questions with regard to fluoride, because even if the lawsuit against the EPA turns out to be successful, the Trump administration could easily do something to eliminate its impact. While this is certainly a risk, Connett explains the importance of this historic case.

"One of the reasons we are excited about having this case now in federal court is that it takes this issue away from the federal health agencies, which have really been unable to get past the dogma on this issue.

Here, we have a federal judge who's going to look at the evidence. What's powerful about this TSCA statute, is it commands that the judge not defer to the EPA. The judge can't simply say, 'It's good enough for the EPA, it's good enough for me.' The language in the statute says that it is to be a de novo proceeding, meaning without deference to the federal agency.

Not only that, but we had a lengthy argument earlier this year where EPA tried to limit the scope of what we could bring to the court's attention. The judge denied that motion. We are going to be able to get discovery against the EPA. We're going to be able to request internal documents. We're going to be able to submit interrogatories to them and depose their experts.

It's going to be a nice fact-finding mission for us, in addition to having an opportunity to have the best evidence presented by the best experts before this federal judge. If the judge agrees with us [and] finds that there's an unreasonable risk, he has the authority to order EPA to begin proceedings to eliminate the risk of fluoride in drinking water. That would be a truly historic and unprecedented situation. We really are excited about the potential that this case brings."

Help Fund Legal Action to End Water Fluoridation
The trial date has been set for August 2019. While Michael is recruiting experts to testify in this case FAN continues its campaign to educate the public of fluoridation's dangers, especially the threat it poses to the developing brain.

In May FAN launched an urgent campaign to warn women to avoid fluoride during pregnancy in response to a major US government funded study which found a strong correlation between fluoride exposure during pregnancy and lowered IQ in offspring (Bashash et al, 2017 and Thomas et al, 2018).

The government and the media should be issuing these warnings but they aren't. So FAN – a relatively small non-profit organization – has taken on this huge task itself. Please help fund this important campaign by making a tax-deductible donation to FAN.
https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005

Legal Expectations
FAN's contention in this case is that adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water presents an unreasonable health risk. If the court agrees, the judge would order EPA to initiate a rule-making proceeding to eliminate that risk. And, while the judge cannot tell the EPA exactly what to do, the most obvious solution that would eliminate this risk would be to no longer add fluoride to drinking water.

Now, there are many powerful organizations that still support water fluoridation, including the American Dental Association (ADA), which supports not only fluoridation but also mercury fillings. The ADA has become quite notorious for ignoring the risks of toxic substances. With that in mind, Connett suspects that if FAN wins the case, there will be a rash of lobbying and pressure on the EPA to find a way to address the problem without actually banning fluoridation outright.

"We can cross that bridge when we get to it, but the EPA potentially could consider lowering the fluoride levels even further," he says. "But I think, really, if the judge finds that there's unreasonable risk, the one real solution that fixes the problem is just banning fluoridation. That's what the United States should be doing …

Western Europe demonstrates to us that this is possible. Countries like the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, they used to fluoridate some of their water supplies, but they decided to end the practice. Western Europe shows us that we can do it here as well.

When you couple the new research linking low-level fluoride exposures to adverse effects on the brain with the fact that we now know you don't need to swallow fluoride for the one benefit it may provide, then it makes no sense to be forcing hundreds of millions of people to swallow this every day — not just through their water supply, but also through the foods and beverages that our water is used for."

Water Fluoridation Gives False Appearance of Dental Care
One of the reasons why it's so important to eliminate water fluoridation is because this chemical is very difficult to remove. You can remove some or a significant amount using distillation, reverse osmosis and special filtration media, but the vast majority of water filters that people have access to will not remove fluoride. So, you might filter your water, thinking you've purified it, but you haven't eliminated one of the most significant hazards.

A primary target population for fluoridation is low-income communities, on the grounds that they have less access to dentists and are therefore in greater need of dental care. However, water fluoridation in no way, shape or form addresses this very real need. Adding fluoride chemicals to the drinking water is not dental care. As noted by Connett, "It's an illusion of dental care." What's worse, low-income populations are also more likely to suffer the ill effects of fluoride, as few can afford to buy expensive water filtration systems.

"There's plenty of reason to believe that lower income populations will be more vulnerable to fluoride's toxicity, because we know that good nutrition and healthy diets are critical to making one less susceptible to fluoride's toxicity," Connett says. "Having inadequate levels of calcium, vitamin C, vitamin D, protein — those are things we know can cause you to be more susceptible to suffering harm from fluoride.

We know that deficient nutrient intakes are more common in low-income populations, as well as certain diseases, like kidney disease and diabetes. Both of which make one more susceptible to fluoride toxicity, [yet] lower income populations are the very population targeted with fluoridation campaigns today. It's a very problematic situation."

What's Motivating the Promoters of Fluoridation?
Considering the evidence against fluoride, you might wonder what the motivation for the promoters might be. Just what incentives do the ADA and other industries have for continuing to promote it? One major factor is simply organizational and political inertia. Fluoride has been vigorously promoted as a health promoting tactic for decades. It's extremely difficult for those organizations to now change their tune and admit they were wrong this whole time, and have actually caused people harm.

In the early days of water fluoridation, there were of course political and financial incentives. Chris Bryson's book, "The Fluoride Deception," reveals the role the war-making industries in the U.S. — the aluminum, steel and bomb industry in the '30s, '40s and '50s — and their role in funding fluoride research.

"They had every interest in the world to not find fluoride to be harmful at low levels, because they were exposing workers and communities to fluoride pollution," Connett says. "They were the very people funding a lot of the key early research to explain how fluoride affects human health.

I think you had a corruption of the science early on in this issue. But the question of 'Why do we fluoridate water?' Honestly, it's a hard question. It's a complex question. I think there are a lot of people who absolutely and genuinely believe it's a good thing."

One of the most encouraging developments we're now seeing is the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding much-needed studies looking at how fluoride affects the brain at low levels. The first NIH-funded paper was published last fall by a team of researchers from the University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard and Indiana University. In the past, most of these kinds of safety studies were done by ardent pro-fluoridation advocates.

"There was a pretty vigorous suppression of scientific dissent in the early days of fluoridation. Today, we're seeing the emergence of independent researchers who now have the means to study this issue. We're starting to see the emergence of a more vigorous academic debate. I think that's a really important development … that will help us get out of the politics," Connett says.

How Fluoride Affects Your Brain and Thyroid
As noted by Connett, there are more than 50 human population studies that have linked elevated fluoride levels with neurological effects, particularly lower IQ. More than 200 animal studies also support this link, showing fluoride has adverse effects on the brain, including detrimental effects on learning and memory. The evidence quite clearly shows that fluoride is a neurotoxin. The evidence also shows fluoride is an endocrine disruptor.

The question is at what doses do such effects occur, and how do these doses vary based on individual susceptibility? According to Connett, the evidence suggests brain effects occur at doses that are very close to what many Americans are getting on a daily basis.

More than 20 papers have found effects of fluoride exposure on IQ at around 2 parts per million (ppm), and in the U.S., the recommended fluoride level in water is 0.7 ppm. "It's within the factor of 3. That's a pretty small margin," Connett notes, because you're also getting it from other foods and beverages, plus fluoridated toothpaste.

Fluoride also affects your thyroid gland. In fact, in the '50s and '60s, fluoride was used as a drug to lower thyroid activity in patients with overactive thyroid.

By adding fluoride to water, it may be lowering thyroid function in people with normal or underactive thyroid, leading to hypothyroidism or subclinical hypothyroidism, which carries a range of significant health effects, including obesity, heart disease and depression. We also know that suboptimal thyroid functioning during pregnancy can affect a child's cognitive development, so this may actually be one of the mechanisms by which fluoride affects the brain.

Fluoride Also Harms Your Teeth and Bones
Systemic fluoride also damages teeth, causing staining and pitting of the enamel known as dental fluorosis. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 58 percent of American adolescents now have some form of dental fluorosis.

"Tens of millions of kids now have dental fluorosis, which is a visible sign of overexposure," Connett says. "Which begs the question, 'If fluoride is affecting the tooth-forming cells and causing this visible effect, what is it doing to the tissues in the body that we can't see?' [The high rate of fluorosis today] highlights that we're getting way more fluoride than was ever envisioned by the proponents of fluoridation back in the '40s and '50s.

When they started fluoridation back in the 1940s and '50s, the proponents of the policy … stated that they wanted to keep the level of dental fluorosis in the population to no more than 10 to 15 percent of children, and only in its mildest forms. Beyond that [it] would be a public health issue, they said. Fast-forward 70 years to where we are today, and you have 58 percent of American adolescents … with dental fluorosis.

We are far past the level that the proponents — not the opponents — considered permissible and acceptable when the policy began.

We really need to take a step back and look at this and say, 'Is there any need whatsoever to be supplementing every person's daily intake of fluoride by adding it en masse to water supplies and, with it, all our processed foods and beverages?' There's simply no need, because it's so easy to get fluoride. If you want it, you just … buy toothpaste with fluoride in it."

As for your bones, fluoride has somewhat paradoxical effects. While it tends to increase the density of trabecular bone in the spine, it decreases the bone density in cortical bone, which is more prevalent in the appendicular skeleton such as leg and arm bones, as well as the hip.

And, while the density might be increased in certain types of bone, the new bone structure is structurally inferior bone that is more prone to fracture. "I think U.S. health authorities were premature to dismiss concerns about fluoride's effects on the bone. I think that remains a substantial concern with the current exposures," Connett says.

On May 20 to 27, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) 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 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).
For more history, science and details about the betrayal of the public trust involved with the promotion of fluoridation, order the book “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by Paul Connett, James Beck and H. Spedding Micklem.
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.
FDA/Fluoride Files: The documents in this section show the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved fluoride supplements as safe and effective.
Together, Let's Help FAN Get to the Finish Line
This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the eighth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.
https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005

onawah

11th June 2018, 21:39

Fluorides, the atomic bomb, and fake news
6/11/18
by Jon Rappoport
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/06/11/fluorides-atomic-bomb-fake-news/

Faced with toxic fluorides destroying food crops, animal and human life, and with law suits piling up, atomic scientists decided they could distract the nation by promoting fluorides as a beneficial tooth treatment…

Occasionally, I reprint this article. I wrote it some years ago, during research on toxic chemicals pervading the landscape. I used to send the piece to mainstream reporters, but I eventually gave that up as a bad bet.

They’re dedicated to fake news…and now they’re losing control over public consciousness. Losing badly. Independent media are in the ascendance, and rightly so.

In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on a number of websites.

Author Griffiths told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: studying the water is not enough; toxic fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide).

I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, launched to build the first A-bomb.

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the [uranium] is the causative factor.”

The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

But records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.

More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell Company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.

The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.

Footnote: In Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, General Ripper is fleshed out as a crazy right-wing fanatic. He’s ready and willing to start a nuclear war. How odd. Apparently unknown to the Strangelove script writers, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the program that created atomic bombs in the first place…

spade

19th June 2018, 13:54

I'm curious to know where the rich get their dental work done flouride-free? Maybe your good friend knows, but won't let you in on it?

onawah

19th June 2018, 14:51

There are dentists who advertise as being alternatively oriented, and can be found by googling for them in your area. They are few and far between, however. Here's one site in the US: http://holisticdental.org/

onawah

20th June 2018, 18:00

NEW YORK TIMES “DROPS A CLANGER”
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | June 20, 2018
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_6-20-18/
(Too many hyperlinks in this article to embed.)

In a recent article the New York Times (NYT) made a very embarrassing mistake. Specifically, it cited a videotape that repeated a serious mistake on the toxicity of fluoride that was corrected 6 years ago.

The mistake made in the video was the claim that an important meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies carried out by a team from Harvard University (Choi et al., 2012) – comparing the IQ between children from villages with high fluoride exposure and villages with low-exposure- reported an average loss of 0.45 of an IQ point. In reality, the Harvard researchers reported a loss of 0.45 of one standard deviation, which amounted to a loss of 7 IQ points. A huge difference. A loss of half an IQ point might be insignificant, but a loss of 7 IQ points would be very serious at the population level. Such a loss would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by at least 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).

Under any other circumstances this would be a very embarrassing mistake but on the matter of fluoridation the NYT is not embarrassed easily. For example, in 2015 the senior science editor wrote an email in connection with fluoridation:

“… I understand that you disagree, but I think it’s fair to say
that most members of the science staff of The New York Times
consider this debate to have been decided – in fluoride’s favor –
about 50 years ago.”

Donald McNeil Jr., Science Correspondent, New York Times
April 2, 2015 email. Subject: READERS MAIL
See copy of email at 4:35 minutes into Our Daily Dose

It is quite possible that Donald McNeil’s pro-fluoridation position here has something to do with the fact that his father wrote a history of water fluoridation that was decidedly pro-fluoridation (The Fight for Fluoridation, Donald McNeil, Oxford University Press, 1957). Be that as it may, McNeil should know that such a statement is preposterous. Science is never “settled.” This situation is what Thomas Huxley described as the “great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”

In the case of water fluoridation there are dozens of ugly facts that slay the hypothesis and the much repeated mantra that “fluoridation is safe and effective.” These include 53 studies that associate a lowering of IQ with exposure to fluoride (http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/). From the fluoridation promoters’ perspective, the “ugliest” of these “facts” came last year in the form of a rigorous US government-funded study that found an association between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered IQ in their children at 4 and 6-12 years of age (Bashash et al., 2017).

New York Times continues to ignore recent IQ studies
The worrying thing here is not so much this recent “clanger” from the NYT but rather the fact that the editors of this paper made a decision that these important findings from 2017 (and repeated in 2018 by Thomas et al.) were not “fit to be published.”

This, despite the fact that this multi-million-dollar research effort was carried out over 12 years, and involved researchers from many leading US, Canadian and Mexican institutions and Universities, with over 50 published papers on other neurotoxic chemicals between them, and that it was published in the world’s leading environmental health journal (Environmental Health Perspectives).

Failure of the New York Times means that pregnant women are not being warned to avoid fluoride
FAN is doing its best to warn people about these important findings but sadly, without the attention of important outlets like the NYT, pregnant women in the US and other fluoridated countries will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.

FAN writes letter on June 3rd to the New York Times requesting correction
Letter to the Editor:

A recent NY Times article (5/28/2018) linked to an outdated video, which made a serious mistake about fluoride science, should be corrected.

The speaker in the video claims a Harvard University meta-analysis of 27 fluoride/IQ studies reported an average difference of 0.45 IQ points. In reality, the Harvard researchers reported a loss of 0.45 of one standard deviation, which amounts to a loss of 7 IQ points. A huge difference.

A loss of 7 IQ points would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by at least 50% the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).

We are also disappointed that the Times failed to report recent findings of a rigorous US-government funded study conducted by a team of highly experienced researchers (Bashash, 2017 and Thomas, 2018) that essentially confirmed the Harvard review’s concerns. In this latest study, a loss of 6 IQ points in children was associated with exposure to women during pregnancy of levels of fluoride commonly experienced by adults in artificially fluoridated communities.

Without the attention to such important science, by such news outlets as the NY Times, pregnant women in the USA will not be adequately warned that they should avoid fluoride during pregnancy.

Paul Connett, PhD

FAN has also written a letter to the video host
Dear Dr. Carroll,

In 2014, you made a YouTube video entitled “Fluoride in the Water Isn’t Going to Hurt You.”

In the video, you stated that a Harvard meta-analysis found that higher fluoride levels in 27 studies, on average, lowered the IQ’s of children by about one half an IQ point. Actually, the study said that it was about half a standard deviation, equating to about seven IQ points (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/). This was a major error, leading to anyone watching your video to underestimate how serious fluoride in water can be. Since that study, many others have found that fluoride may lower IQ’s, including last year’s major NIH-funded study led by the University of Toronto (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/) (and including at least one researcher from your own Indiana University) that linked higher fluoride levels in pregnant women to lower IQ’s in their children.

Recently, the New York Times ran an article linking to your video, further compounding this misunderstanding.

I have a simple request. Would you please, in the very near future, either correct your YouTube video or, if that’s not possible, remove it entirely from the internet as soon as possible? Please let me know.

Meanwhile, would you also inform the NY Times – who relied on your video – of this error.

Thank you,

Paul Connett, PhD

Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network

We have received no reply and no correction from either the New York Times or Carroll. Thus, the lie (fluoridation is safe) persists and other than FAN no one is warning pregnant women to avoid fluoride.

Sincerely,

Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

See all FAN bulletins online

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

onawah

23rd June 2018, 18:57

NZ Fluoride Feud: Paul Connett’s Presentation to the New Zealand Parliament
fluoridealert
Published on Jun 20, 2018
Paul Connett, Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network, gives a detailed presentation on the potential harmful effects of water fluoridation on residents of New Zealand.
cfTSc5T7CNY

onawah

29th June 2018, 17:45

This email update today from FAN regarding the info posted just above (about the recent anti-fluoridation victory in New Zealand, which also has global implications) hasn't been posted yet on their website at http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/ --that sometimes takes a day or two, so I am just copying the email message as follows:
JUNE 29, 2018
"Some of our readers were puzzled yesterday by FAN NZ broadcasting the Supreme Court verdict on fluoridation as a victory rather than a defeat. After all the Supreme court ruled against the plaintiffs (New Health New Zealand) in their efforts to prevent South Taranaki from fluoridating its water.

Let me explain, in my view, this is a classic case of losing a battle but winning the war.

In this case, the war is over the ethics of fluoridation. For opponents of fluoridation, this practice violates the individual's right to medical or human treatment. For proponents the counter-argument has been that fluoride is not a medicine and fluoridation is not a medical treatment. Proponents further argue that even if fluoride was a medicine people are not forced to drink the fluoridated water.

In the following two paragraphs (99 and 100) in the Supreme court ruling it is clear that the judges side with opponents on this matter and this finding will have huge ramifications worldwide. In other words it is a huge victory for us. Meanwhile, proponents will celebrate their local victory.

Applying this approach, we find that fluoridation of drinking water is the provision of medical treatment. It involves the provision of a pharmacologically active substance for the purpose of treating those who ingest it for dental decay. We agree with the Courts below that people who live or work in areas where fluoridation occurs have no practical option but to ingest the fluoride added to the water. So

the treatment is compulsory. While drinking water from a tap is not an activity that would normally be classified as undergoing medical treatment, we do not consider that ingesting fluoride added to water can be said to be qualitatively different from ingesting a fluoride tablet provided by a health practitioner.

We conclude that fluoridation of drinking water requires those drinking the water to undergo medical treatment in circumstances where they are unable to refuse to do so. Subject to s5, therefore, s11 of the Bill of Rights Act is engaged.

To see how that local victory was won you will have to read the paragraphs 101 - 144 in the ruling. But basically, they argue that the individual right to informed consent to medication (section 11 of the NZ Bill or Rights) may in certain circumstances be over-ridden by the interests of the larger community (see section 5). However, the judges somewhat undermined these arguments by earlier acknowledging in paragraph 10 that the benefits of fluoridation are largely topical, and as such allowing individuals the right to informed consent in this case would not deprive the rest of society of fluoride's perceived benefits since there is universal access to fluoridated toothpaste.

Another important point is that when the issue was being heard the US-government funded study by Bashash et al., 2017 had not been published. Had the judges known about this important and rigorous study, it is questionable whether they would they have felt it was in the interests of the larger community to support a practice which would lower the IQ of its children?

Meanwhile, below are more details and arguments from FAN –NZ.

Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

Most of you will have heard that the Supreme Court made a Ruling on the Appeal by New Health New Zealand. This Appeal resulted in two judgments. The second one (NSC60) held that whether or not fluoridation chemicals should come under the regulations of the Medicines Act was moot, as Medsafe had been given an exemption for fluoridation chemicals if they are added to the drinking water.

The first one (NSC59) dealt with whether or not councils had a legal right to add fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water. Chief Justice Sian Elias said they didn't, but the other four judges thought they did. However, the important point for us is that all judges, except Judge William Young, ruled that fluoridation was a medical treatment, and that if a person lives or works in a fluoridated area it is compulsory medication and therefore it breached Section 11 of the Bill of Rights Act. Section 11 - "Everyone has the right to refuse to undergo medical treatment".

So why does this not make fluoridation illegal? The judges then went on to look at Section 5 which is about "Justified limitations" and says "Subject to section 4, the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights may be subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Section 4 is about "Other Enactments" which says that other laws override the Bill of Rights. But two of the judges argued that fluoridation was justified under Section 5. They say they are not able to weigh up the benefits and risks, so they rely on the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization, who say there are benefits and no risks. One judge ruled that this was a balancing that each decision maker had to make at the time, potentially taking local circumstances into account. But all three agreed the balancing question needed to be addressed.

So we are back to everyone, including the highest court of the land, allowing fluoridation because the Ministry of Health and the World Health Organization say it's okay. This is in spite of the fact that most of the world does not practice fluoridation - even though the WHO says it is good - and the decision makers in the Ministry of Health are a handful of people who have been promoting fluoridation most of their professional careers, so are unlikely to change their mind.

Where does that leave us? The fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that fluoridation is compulsory medical treatment means the proponents can never again spin the PR line that they are "just topping up the natural levels". Hallelujah! Thank you New Health New Zealand for initiating this great leap forward. It also leaves us where we were before, in that we need hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to understand this issue - so the few policy advisors within the Ministry of Health can no longer wield such great power so irresponsibly."

Bob

29th June 2018, 18:08

presumed "guilty" instead of presumed "innocent" argument it seems to me..

'we will treat you' with you having no recourse' with a drug (en masse) to prevent what 'we' perceive is a disease that you will develop without the 'medicine' (drug)..

I suppose along that argument, look at a box of cereal, or a loaf of bread or a container of milk - "Fortified" with the following "drugs" (substances that alter the body by their ingestion) - the list is massive..

Fluoride is an overt poison, the fluorine molecule is used to make some most deadly nerve agents..

If the argument is "dental caries" is a disease that can be prevented, giving a nerve toxin is not a solution.. There is a simple strain of bacteria (like a certain probiotic) which naturally fights dental caries bacteria, but that would cut back on a certain medical community's income.. Hypocrisy or really control and crippling folks with fluorine..

If the argument is stop tooth decay, here is your choice (should you wish), a simple application once a month of a probiotic will stop tooth decay from the dental caries bacteria.. That would be honest and showing sincere care... so I would think.

onawah

29th June 2018, 18:48

As yet, unfortunately, the fight isn't about stopping tooth decay, it's about lining the coffers of the controllers and reducing the population by any means possible however nefarious, but when the battle is won, probiotics should finally be recognized as one of our best allies in health.

If the argument is stop tooth decay, here is your choice (should you wish), a simple application once a month of a probiotic will stop tooth decay from the dental caries bacteria.. That would be honest and showing sincere care... so I would think.

Bob

29th June 2018, 20:25

onawah

30th August 2018, 03:08

New Study Links Fluoride to Anemia
"This study highlighted that the consumption of fluoride may adversely affect adolescent girls and boys considering their baseline and post-intervention hemoglobin levels and BMI. Withdrawal of fluoride from consumption possibly corrected the damage caused to the gastrointenstinal mucosa/loss of microvilli, which led to the absorption of nutrients leading to rise in hemoglobin and correction of anemia."

http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/115/04/0692.pdf

onawah

30th August 2018, 05:08

Yet another new study showing the damages caused by fluoride:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-studies-link-fluoride-to-adverse-health-effects-300704043.html

"NEW YORK, Aug. 29, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Studies linking fluoride to lower IQ, ADHD, thyroid dysfunction and depression are presented at the 2018 joint annual meeting of the ISES-ISEE (International Society of Exposure Science and the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology) in Ottawa, Canada (August 26-30), reports New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

For example:

Green, et al. report an increase of 1 milligram per liter of maternal urinary fluoride during prenatal development was associated with a decrease of Full Scale IQ by 4.5 points in young boys.

Bashash et al. reports "Higher levels of prenatal fluoride exposure were associated with higher symptoms of ADHD…in the offspring at age 6-12 years."

Hu et al. report "prenatal fluoride exposure, in the range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and non-pregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6-12 years."

Malin et al: reports "Adults living in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher levels of urinary fluoride may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity."

Alvarez et al. "…exposure to fluoride during development can yield to a depressive-like behavior in rats, suggesting that high intake of fluoride must be prevented to avoid harmful effects at adulthood."

These studies add to the growing mountain of scientific evidence showing fluoride's adverse health effects, especially to the brain.

This evidence is downplayed or ignored by fluoridation promoters, according to Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz (Journal of Risk Research 2018) who report that 3 major expert committees (York, NRC, SCHER) found only poor quality fluoridation evidence proving "there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and efficacy of fluoridation."

Attorney Paul Beeber says, "For example, the American Fluoridation Society claims that fluoridation "is completely safe" but uses political maneuvers, T-shirts, misinformation and ad hominem attacks to intimidate legislators to retain fluoridation e.g. Potsdam, NY."

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz reveal that fluoridation policy-makers do what they accuse others of - share partial biased information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.

Beeber says, 'Kudos to Walden NY legislators who saw through the aggressive PR campaign to unanimously vote out fluoridation, May 2018. They paved the way for other NYS communities to navigate NYS's new convoluted and unreasonable fluoridation law passed without citizen involvement.'"

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com

http://FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

KiwiElf

30th August 2018, 08:30

There is absolutely nothing about flouride, that is good for your teeth (or anything else!)

Next time you visit your dentist, challenge them about it & watch their reactions - even better, demand they prove it! ;)