.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, September 23, 2017

Friday, September 22, 2017

F.A.N. Newsletter

The results of the first ever US government funded study of fluoride/IQ have now been published. A team of researchers funded by the National Institute of Environmental Sciences--part of the National Institutes of Health--found that low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy are linked to significantly reduced IQ in children, according to a study published on September 19, 2017 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
The study, entitled Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico, was conducted by a team of scientists from University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard, and McGill, and found:
“…higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old.”
Within hours of it being published, FAN released a video response featuring Chemist and Toxicologist, Professor Paul Connett, PhD.

  1. Share FAN’s Facebook and Twitter posts on social media.

  2. Share FAN’s webpage on the study with friends, family, co-workers;     particularly expecting mothers.

  3. Share the study, the accompanying press release, FAN’s Video, and the Newsweek article with your city councilors and Water Board, urging them to protect the next generation by opposing fluoridation.
More to come…

FAN Comment
The study found a very large and significant effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. Such a drop of IQ in the whole population would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L. Studies have found that adults in the USA have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L which is what caused the 5 to 6 IQ point difference in the children of the study mothers.
This new study had fluoride exposures almost the same as what is found in fluoridating countries like the USA. The paper shows the relationship between urine fluoride and IQ in the graph (Figure 2) reproduced here:

The data in this graph has been adjusted for numerous potential confounding factors like sex, birth weight, gestational age, and whether the mother smoked. Other potential confounders had already been ruled out, including lead, mercury, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, mother’s education, mother’s IQ, and quality of home environment.
FAN has redrawn this graph in simplified form to better illustrate the relationship found between mothers’ urine fluoride and childrens’ IQ.
This simplified version of the graph highlights the range of urine fluoride levels common in women in the USA with the blue text and bracket. When comparing mothers at the low end to those at the high end of this range, the subsequent loss of IQ in their children was 6 points. The light red shaded zone around the relationship line is the 95% Confidence Interval and demonstrates that the relationship is statistically significant across the entire range of fluoride exposures.
Important Points:
1.  The loss of IQ is very large.  The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm F water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.  
2.  The study measured urine F, which is usually a better indicator of total F intake than is the concentration of F in drinking water.  When drinking water is the dominant source of F,, urine F and water F are usually about the same.  So, the average urine F level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that woman was ingesting the same amount of F as a woman drinking water with 0.9 mg/L F.
3.  The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States.  The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation.  There is no need to extrapolate downward from effects at higher doses.  The claims by fluoridation defenders that only studies using much higher doses than occur in areas with artificial fluoridation have shown a loss of IQ are squarely refuted by this study.  Those false claims range from 11 times to 30 times higher, but are based on the logical fallacy that it is the highest dose amongst several studies that is relevant, when it is the LOWEST dose amongst studies that is most relevant. 
4.  This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.  This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study.  This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants. 
5.  This study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect.  It was able to largely rule out confounding by these other factors.  The factors ruled out included Pb, Hg, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy. 
6.  This study offers confirmation of previous less sophisticated studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere.  Some of those studies had higher F exposures than are commonly found in the USA, but many did not.  The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation (as opposed to artificial salt fluoridation which was likely a main source of F in this new study) was by Broadbent in New Zealand.  That found no association between water F and IQ and was trumpted by fluoridation defenders.  But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL F intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with unfluoridated water, since most of the unfluoridated water children were given F supplements.
7.  The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists.  But the implications of this study are enormous.  A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag.  It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.

Key Quotes:
… “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water,” says Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health.
Trasande emphasizes that the levels of fluoride seen among the mothers in this study are slightly higher than what would be expected in U.S., based on current fluoride supplementation levels. However, he also explains that fluoride is known to disrupt thyroid function, which in turn is crucial for brain development.
“These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration,” Trasande says.
… Dr. Howard Hu, the study’s lead investigator, and a professor of environmental health, epidemiology and global health at [the University of Toronto’s] Dalla Lana School of Public Health, says the fact that the fluoride levels in the mothers was most predictive of the drop in test scores may be due to the fact that the brains of babies develop so rapidly while they are in utero.
“This is consistent with a growing appreciation in environmental health that the growing fetal nervous system is more sensitive to exposures than a developed nervous system,” he told CTVNews.ca by phone from Sydney.
  • Both the Montreal Gazette & the National Postran the same article: Researchers urge caution over study linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy to lower IQs in children, by Sharon Kirkey, September 21:
… [The article quotes the lead investigator of the study, Dr Howard Hu:] “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.”
… “Why would anybody rate the equivalency or supremacy of reducing tooth decay by about one cavity a lifetime when what’s at stake is the mental development of your children? It’s utterly preposterous,” said Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network.
Press Releases:
Additional Media Coverage:


Stuart Cooper & Ellen Connett
Fluoride Action Network

See all FAN bulletins online

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Report: New Evidence Of Ongoing Corruption And Scientific Misconduct At CDC

misconduct CDC
Kennedy hopes new evidence and a fresh look at criminal misconduct will result in law enforcement action, rigorous and transparent vaccine safety science, and safer vaccines.
Washington, DC – In a new report released today, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his team outlined various criminal acts on the part of employees and consultants for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whose questionable ethics and scientific fraud have resulted in untrustworthy vaccine safety science.
Among other information, Kennedy has found additional evidence of criminal activity by the CDC consultant, Poul Thorsen, the author and principal coordinator of multiple CDC studies exonerating the mercury-based preservative thimerosal in the development of autism.
The new evidence, recently uncovered by the World Mercury Project, shows that Thorsen and his collaborators did not obtain permission from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct their research, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and Pediatrics in 2003.
In 2011, The Department of Justice indicted Thorsen on 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering for stealing over $1 million in CDC grant money earmarked for autism research. The product of Thorsen’s work for CDC was a series of fraud-tainted articles on Danish autism rates that, today, form the backbone of the popular orthodoxy that vaccines don’t cause autism.
In 2009, when CDC discovered that Thorsen never applied for the IRB approvals, staff did not report the errors or retract the studies. Rather, FOIA documents show that CDC supervisors ignored the missteps and covered up the illegal activity.

You can’t handle the truth about vaccines (Ad)

This misconduct undermines the legitimacy of these studies which were used to refute vaccine injury claims in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). The studies were also used in the NVICP’s “Omnibus Proceeding” to dismiss 5000 petitions by families who claimed that their children had developed autism from vaccines. These claims, if settled in the claimants’ favor, would have resulted in payouts totaling an estimated $10 billion.

Fluoride again will be added to Albuquerque’s water supply.
Water utility board members voted 5-2 Wednesday to approve a $250,000 appropriation that will allow the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority to buy the equipment needed to resume supplemental drinking-water fluoridation, which the utility halted in 2011.
The decision followed nearly an hour of passionate pleas by both opponents and supporters of fluoridation similar to comments expressed at two earlier public hearings on the issue.
“At the end of the day, when there’s a question about science, we need to listen to the scientists,” board member and Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis said before he voted in favor of resuming fluoridation. Davis withdrew his proposal for an advisory question on the 2018 general election ballot that would have asked Bernalillo County voters whether they support or oppose supplemental fluoridation.
Voting against the appropriation were Albuquerque Councilors Klarissa Peña and Trudy Jones. Joining Davis in support were Bernalillo County Commissioners Debbie O’Malley, Wayne Johnson and Maggie Hart Stebbins and Albuquerque’s Chief Administrative Officer Rob Perry, who represents Mayor Richard Berry on the board..............
Shame the latest research was published after the vote, it may well have changed the decision.

ADA responds to study suggesting association between lower IQ and fluoridation

ADA responds to study suggesting association between lower IQ and fluoridation

September 20, 2017
By Michelle Manchir
The ADA on Sept. 19 issued a response to a study published online the same day that suggested an association between higher prenatal fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores.

For the study, researchers examined 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico, including their general cognitive indexes and IQ analyses, and concluded that “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 years.”

The findings, however, are not applicable to the U.S., according to the ADA’s news release, which also noted that the Association “continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.”

In responding to the study’s conclusions, the ADA noted that the intake of fluoride in Mexico “is significantly different from the U.S.,” because fluoride is added to salt and because fluoride naturally exists in varying degrees in community water. In the U.S., fluoride is not added to salt and is only added to water “in cases where the natural occurrence of fluoride is lower than the rec-ommended level to prevent tooth decay,” the ADA said.

Furthermore, it is unknown how the subjects of the study ingested fluoride — whether through salt, water, or both — so “no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects of community water fluoridation in the U.S.”

The study, Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico, was published in Environmental Health Perspectives.

The ADA endorses community water fluoridation as safe and effective for preventing tooth decay based on 70 years of scientific research. To see scientific evidence and other information about fluoridation, visit ADA.org/fluoride.

A not unexpected response from ADA.

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

Are we winning at last?

Higher levels of fluoride in urine associated with lower intelligence in children


September 19/2017

Prof Howard Hu Fluoride in the urine of pregnant women shows a correlation with lower measures of intelligence in their children, according to University of Toronto researchers who conducted the first study of its kind and size to examine fluoride exposure and multiple states of neurodevelopment.

“Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure,” said Dr. Howard Hu, the study’s principal investigator and Professor of Environmental Health, Epidemiology and Global Health at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health. “It also suggests that the pre-natal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children.”

Tap water and dental products have been fluoridated in communities in Canada and the United States (as well as milk and table salt in some other countries) by varying amounts for more than 60 years to prevent cavities and improve bone health. In recent years, fierce debate over the safety of water fluoridation — particularly for children’s developing brains — has fueled researchers to explore the issue and provide evidence to inform national drinking water standards.

There are some known side effects of fluoride, for example dental defects like mild staining are common among those ingesting recommended levels of fluoride in the United States and Canada. Skeletal fluorosis — excessive accumulation of fluoride in the bones — is much less common and only observed at levels of fluoride in the water that are more than 5 to 10 times higher than those recommended.

“Relatively little is known, with confidence, about fluoride’s impact on neurodevelopment,” said Hu, whose research team included experts from the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, University of Toronto, University of Michigan, McGill University, Indiana University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Harvard School of Public Health.

The study, “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico,” published today in Environmental Health Perspectives, analyzed data from 287 mother-child pairs in Mexico City that were part of the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project, which recruited pregnant women from 1994 to 2005 and has continued to follow the women and their children ever since.

The research team analyzed urine samples that had been taken from mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to reconstruct personal measures of fluoride exposure for both mother and child.

“This is significant because previous studies estimated exposures based on neighborhood measurements of drinking water fluoride levels, which are indirect and much less precise measures of exposure. They also looked at children’s exposures instead of prenatal exposures or had much smaller sample sizes of subjects to study,” said Dr. Hu.

The researchers then analyzed how levels of fluoride in urine related to the children’s verbal, perceptual-performance, quantitative, memory, and motor abilities at age four and once more between the ages of six and 12. Analyses were adjusted for other factors known to impact neurodevelopment, such as gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, IQ, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure.

With regard to the study’s implications for populations in North America, researchers found that urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women were somewhat higher than, but within the general range of, urinary fluoride levels seen in non-pregnant general populations in Canada and the United States. However, in Dr. Hu’s opinion, the findings do not provide enough information to suggest there is no safe level of fluoride exposure.

“The potential risks associated with fluoride should be further studied, particularly among vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is clearly needed.”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded this study (R01ES021446).


Image result for newsweekAdding fluoride to public drinking water for dental purposes has been controversial since the practice first began in 1945, and the latest findings are sure to stir that pot yet again. A new study suggests that prenatal exposure to this chemical may affect cognitive abilities and that children born to mothers exposed to high amounts of fluoride could have lower IQs.
The study, published Tuesday in Environmental Health Perspectives, found an association between lower intelligence and prenatal fluoride exposure in 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico. The team measured fluoride levels from mothers via urine samples and followed up on their children until they were between 6 and 12 years old. Even when other possible factors were taken into account, such as exposure to other chemicals, results continually showed that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was linked to lower scores on tests of cognitive function in children at age 4 and then again between 6 and 12.
Drinking water with high levels of fluoride may put children at risk for lower IQs.
Although the study accurately measured how much fluoride was in each mother's urine samples, it could not pin down the exact amount of fluoride the children had been exposed to. That's because pregnancy can change how certain substances are secreted in urine. However, the team estimates that these levels of exposure are not exceptionally high.
"If you just assume for the moment that fluoride in the urine of pregnant women is the same as it is in nonpregnant women, then these levels are a bit higher—but not hugely higher—than that seen in general population samples in North America," lead study author Dr. Howard Hu, who studies environmental health at the University of Toronto, tells Newsweek
The mothers in this study did not have fluoride added to their water. Rather, they ingested fluoride from natural sources or through fluoridated salt and supplements. In Mexico, fluoridated salt is the main way that women get salt into their diet, says Hu, unlike in the U.S., where fluoridated water is the main avenue.
The data could renew the debate about the safety of adding fluoride to tap water, in part because experts have not been quick to dismiss the findings. "This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water," says Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health. (He was not involved in the new study.)
Trasande emphasizes that the levels of fluoride seen among the mothers in this study are slightly higher than what would be expected in U.S., based on current fluoride supplementation levels. However, he also explains that fluoride is known to disrupt thyroid function, which in turn is crucial for brain development.
"These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration," Trasande says.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical that is noted for its ability to help prevent tooth decay and is often added to public drinking water for this reason. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drinking fluoridated water reduces cavity occurrence by 25 percent in areas where it is practiced. In 2014, about 74 percent of the U.S. population was on fluoridated public water systems, and by 2020 the CDC hopes to increase this number to 79.6 percent. 
A large body of research has confirmed the safety of fluoride in water. One review of more than 70 studies concluded that the practice was safe. A 2009 review of more than 50 studies deemed the practice safe. A study in 1996 called the evidence confirming the safety of water fluoridation "compelling." 
But this new study is not the first time that research has raised alarm about toxic levels of the element. One critical review stated that fluoride ingestion or inhalation "constitutes an unacceptable risk with virtually no proven benefit." A review of studies conducted in China, where naturally occurring levels of fluoride in water can be dangerously high, found a connection between exposure to fluoride and children’s IQ.
However, these investigations were examining a water supply with fluoride levels reaching 30 milligrams per liter. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency sets the limit at 4 mg per liter, and most public water supplies contain about 0.7 mg per liter. In other words, the findings in China are most likely inapplicable to the U.S. population. (But an extensive report by the National Research Council, part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, did call for a reduction in the legally allowed limit of 4 mg/liter.)
This occasion is not the first time that Environmental Health Perspectives has waded into the fluoride debate waters. The same journal also published a controversial investigation, known as "the Harvard Study," which reported a link between exposure and neurological development in children. But that study was heavily criticized, in part for its reliance on data from China. 
Dr. James Betoni, an ob/gyn who specializes in high-risk maternal fetal medicine at Saint Alphonsus Medical Group in Boise, Idaho, tells Newsweek that he would advise patients not to be too fearful of the findings. 
"There are so many variables and so many factors for cognitive development, I think it's such a nebulous thing," says Betoni. "The fluoride may be high, but there may be something in the water that we don't even know." 
He says he would tell patients concerned about these new findings that, although they are interesting, this is only one study and they shouldn't make any lifestyle changes based on the results of a single study. 
Still, many groups oppose the practice, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has a campaign to quell fears. And the new study, which found a link between fluoride and lower IQ starting at 0.5 mg per liter in the mother's urine (lower than the levels in tap water), may be viewed as supporting their argument.  
Hu and colleagues note that their results need to be reproduced by other researchers—and in different, larger populations—before any conclusion can be made about the effects of this finding on fluoride levels in public drinking water. They would also like to explore how other factors, such as different nutrients and genetics, may play a role in a link between fluoride consumption and children's IQ. 

Karen Favazza Spencer
Don't know why Newsweek bent over backwards to find support for fluoridation, which required ignoring the prestigious 2000 York and 2015 Cochrane ireviews that confirmed there is no safety data. Those panels also determined that there is no benefit to adults while the small evidence of small benefit to children is highly suspect. The 2009 Parnell study is an obvious put-up job. The content dcoumented there is no data or evidence for safety, yet concluded fluoridation is valid where "culturally acceptable." The 1996 item is an opinion peice by a dentist, and the 2008 item is a political review by a single author that is a political attempt to negate the findings of the York Reveiw.

I suggest these are more relevant:
2017: “The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems... avoid the fluoridation of drinking water and fluoridation of milk in all regions of the country.” - Romero et al. The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health. Verena Romero, Frances J. Norris, Juvenal A. Ríos, Isel Cortés, Andrea González, Leonardo Gaete, Andrei N. Tchernitchin. Rev. méd. Chile vol.145 no.2 Santiago Feb. 2017.

2016: “Food fluoridation, fluoridated milk and fluoridated water do not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries.” - Sicca, Claudio et al. “Prevention of Dental Caries: A Review of Effective Treatments.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 8.5 (2016): e604–e610. PMC. Web. 29 Dec. 2016

2016: Fluoridation advocates and their political partners ”share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.” - A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz in "Communicating risk that involve ‘uncertainty bias’…" Journal of Risk Research. August 2016.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Canada - Group Wants Another Referendum on Fluoride

A petition circulating to add a question to the 2018 municipal election ballot about removing fluoride from Owen Sound's water supply is garnering momentum.

Oliver Hartan, spokesperson for Fluoridation Free Owen Sound (FFOS), says the group already has more than 1,000 signatures supporting its appeal to the city to pose the question on the 2018 election ballot: "are you in favour of the discontinuance of the fluoridation of the public water supply of this municipality?"

Hartan says, "the petition is really just asking City Hall to give Owen Sound residents a chance to vote on whether or not they want fluoride in their drinking water.".......................

Canada - Moncton City Council Says No To Fluoridated Drinking Water

After months of consultation, Moncton City Council is rejecting the advice of many health organizations and keeping fluoride out of municipal water.
Councillor Paulette Theriault said as a grandmother, she was not comfortable with her grandchildren drinking water with fluoride in it.

New Brunswick Dental Society Vice President Dr. Suzanne Drapeau McNally had a fiery response.
"If they're serious, we want decay to stop, so let's talk and not put the blame on someone else," says Dr. Drapeau McNally. "I'm gonna be a grandmother just like Paulette Theriault, and those kids, it is safe for them to have fluoride."
Dr. Nicole Brien is a dentist specializing in children, and she is also disappointed in the decision.
"I have seen a difference since the fluoride has been removed from the water, and not just the number of cavities I see, but also in how quickly the teeth deteriorate," says Dr. Brien.
Dr. Drapeau McNally questioned whether the City was truly serious about improving the dental health of residents.
"Well, do something about it," says exclaims. "[Council] has been saving $125,000 per year, this is five years, where has this money gone, or what have you done to help?"
Mayor Dawn Arnold said without knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that fluoride was harmless she couldn't support adding it back into the municipal water supply.

The motion to keep the status quo and leave fluoride out of municipal drinking water was passed 7 - 3 with Councillor Paul Pellerin absent.

Councillors Susan Edgett, Rob McKee, and Greg Turner voted to reintroduce fluoride, while Councillors Paulette Theriault, Shawn Crossman, Pierre Boudreau, Blair Lawrence, Charles Leger, and Bryan Butler, as well as Mayor Dawn Arnold all voted to keep fluoride out.

A Deep Dive Into the Conspiracy Theory That Governments Are Controlling Us with Fluoride

Is flouride in our water the biggest public health cover-up of our times, or just "truthers" having a rant? Wake up, sheeple!

On the World Wide Web, there are few black holes more enticing to fall down than the great fluoride conspiracy. Some would call it the ramblings of paranoid truth gurus who spend too much time maintaining their dreads and making YouTube videos about Atlantis. Others insist that it's the largest mass control experiment of our times.

Where does the truth lie in an argument taken up by both sides with near religious conviction? It's almost impossible to decipher. Perhaps it's somewhere between the two.

The idea, in a nutshell, is that governments put fluoride in our water supply in order to negatively affect huge populations, for their own financial gains. That fluoride is actually a strong tranquilliser in disguise. That the US want their citizens to be zombies. That Kellogg's, Nestle, Crest and other food companies – known as "The Fluoride Mafia" – are all in on it. That fluoride dumping is secretly wrapped up in Illuminati interests.

If you dig into why water fluoridation began, you find a convoluted, suspicious mess. According to the conspiracy theory, the name of the company with the biggest profit to be made from water fluoridation was ALCOA. The ALCOA Company had an unlimited supply of toxic waste – a byproduct of aluminium, AKA fluoride. At their lab, an ALCOA-sponsored biochemist did a test on rats that showed cavities were reduced with the fluoridated water and concluded that: "The case should be regarded as proved." In this historic moment in 1939, so the story goes, the first public proposal that the US should fluoridate its water supplies wasn't made by a doctor or a dentist, but an industry scientist working for a company that was also threatened by fluoride damage claims.

Another part of the theory is that, during the Second World War, industrial fluoride pollution increased because of the production and extensive use of ALCOA aluminium in aircraft manufacturing. It was after the Second World War that many governments began to put fluoride in our water supplies to protect people against cavities. Coincidence!?

Currently, about 372 million people (around 5.7 percent of the world's population) receive artificially fluoridated water in about 24 countries, including Australia, Canada, Ireland, the US and the UK. Since the 1950s, there has been relentless debate over whether there's any real reason to do this. Early conspiracy theorists declared that it was a communist plot to weaken American public health. Many have argued from a moral and ethical view that the public haven't chosen to be consuming it and so it's against individual will. From an economic standpoint, public money is being used on something without definitive proof of benefits. Some dentists and medical professionals have even said fluoridation of water isn't the best way to reduce tooth decay.

The tangled conspiracy gets even darker with comments on Reddit threads such as "Hitler used fluoride first!!" and "They got this from the Nazis! Illuminati scum." The so-called "fact" that Hitler gave people in concentration camps fluoride water to keep them docile and unable to resist Nazi power is used often by the anti-fluoridation brigade. Many say this treatment was then repeated in Russian gulags.

Ian E Stephens, a writer for the Australian "alternative news" magazine Nexus (which covers "health breakthroughs, future science and technology, suppressed news, free energy, religious revisionism, conspiracy, the environment, history and ancient mysteries, the mind, UFOs, paranormal and the unexplained") claims he was told by chemist and researcher Charles E Perkins, who wrote the book The Truth About Water Fluoridation, that the Nazis envisioned a far-reaching plan of mass control and reduced population by using a medication in water that could cause sterility in women.

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotising a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him," Perkins wrote. He goes on to say: "I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine – any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically." There is no trace of a credible living source on Nazi history coming out in support of this theory.

To many in the new age community, this doesn't matter. They believe fluoride is instrumental in mind control because, they insist, it blocks the "third eye". Mystics and spiritual masters have concluded that the pineal gland, situated in the centre of the brain, is a connection between the body and the soul. They say: wake up, sheeple, the government-slash-Illuminati-slash-powers-that-be want us to stay on this spiritual plane. It's not in their best interests that we are conscious. If people get conscious, they'll stop turning up to their horrible jobs, eating meat and wasting food, and they'll live in collectives and spoil their ballot papers.

This might sound ridiculous to some, but it has a degree of basis in science. In the 1990s, a British scientist, Jennifer Luke, discovered that by old age, the pineal gland contains about the same amount of fluoride as teeth, and we now know that calcification of the pineal gland gets worse with age and can occur in children as young as two. This gland is in the brain – it maintains the body's sleep-wake cycle, regulates the onset of puberty in females and helps protect the body from cell damage. A huge review on fluoride toxicity published by the National Research Council in 2006 reported a range of negative side effects from fluoride, including "decreased melatonin production" and "other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans".

Go on YouTube and you'll find plenty of people sharing "knowledge" of the spiritual dangers of fluoride and how to reverse the effects of a "calcified" pineal gland (many say you can't; it's too late). They say stop drinking tap water. Stop using regular toothpaste and find a fluoride-free one. Get a shower filter to cut the fluoride from your shower. Cut out meat because you can be sure as heck they've been guzzling the fluoride water, too. Tell your dentist you don't want fluoride-based products used. And after all that, detox.

However, there are more serious scientific objections to fluoride, and many are far removed from the assertions of David Icke disciples. Numerous studies researched by Harvard and China Medical University in Shanghai have shown that fluoride may be linked to reduced IQ in children, and even suggest that it could be toxic to a developing brain. Fluoride at high levels has been shown to destroy the male reproductive system in rabbits. Fluoride lowers the thyroid function. One study linked it to bone cancer in boys. A 2007 Nuffield Council on Bioethics report reached a conclusion that the benefit-to-risk ratio on water fluoridation is unclear due to lack of good evidence, that alternatives to water fluoridation exist and that the role of consent gets priority when there are potential harms.

Professors doing this research have been met with numerous attempts to discredit them. Stephen Peckham – director of the Centre for Health Services at the University of Kent, and professor at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine at the University of Toronto – has had his research of water fluoridation rejected from dental health journals. He's spoken out about being accused of "statistics-hacking" and for research that made the link between fluoride and hypothyroidism. Catherine Carstairs, a professor who wrote about the history of water fluoridation, was attacked and the Journal of Public Heath had to defend itself for publishing "strong... research even when [it does] not fit well with our preconceived ideas".

Why are efforts to uncover the effects of fluoride so vilified, and why is the atmosphere so toxic?

In fact, there has been a sea change in attitudes towards water fluoridation. About 10 years ago, York University found that tooth decay in children across Europe had fallen, regardless of whether or not there was fluoride in the water. The countries showing the biggest decrease – Sweden, Netherlands, Finland and Denmark – don't fluoridate their supplies.

Increasingly, water fluoridation is being rejected in local British areas. In 2014, Bolton refused to add fluoride to their water supply, with David Crausby, MP for Bolton North East, likening it to "mass medication". That same year, Public Health England had to drop plans to fluoridate water in Southampton and parts of Hampshire because of fierce opposition from Southampton City Council. But still, Public Health England encourages fluoridation and the NHS website states that fluoride provides no significant health risk. Millions around the country still drink fluoridated water.

But what do the water companies think? I called United Utilities, who said that most water companies have to have a "neutral position" on fluoridation. "The water company is just obliged to fluoridate where asked," a spokesperson said. "We're just a contractor." But have they heard the conspiracies? I asked a Severn Trent Water spokesperson, who laughed and said: "Oooh yes, don't worry, we've heard all sides of the story very loudly, but to be honest we try and stay out of it. We don't want to get involved because then it makes it much too complicated." Complicated indeed.

In countries like Brazil, China and, unsurprisingly, the US, fluoridation still has a stronghold. Significantly, 194 million Americans are supplied with this water, including those who live in 43 of its 47 largest cities. It's there that the "truth" is being spread with most fervour.

Despite various claims by "truth gurus" being torn down – it's unlikely that Margaret Thatcher pumped fluoride into Northern Ireland to control the rebels or that pharmaceutical companies are pumping us full of fluoride via Prozac – the conspiracy rages ahead, while science slowly erodes fluoride's reputation. Will this be the next formaldehyde? The next lead? Don't forget that dentists and doctors once promoted cigarettes. Should we listen to YouTubers? What if this became the greatest public health conspiracy of our time – of all times?

Fluoride exposure in utero linked to lower IQ in kids, study says

(CNN)Increased levels of prenatal fluoride exposure may be associated with lower cognitive function in children, a new study says.

About 75% of Americans are exposed to fluoride through public water, but Mexico does not have a fluoridation program.The study, published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, evaluated nearly 300 sets of mothers and children in Mexico and tested the children twice for cognitive development over the course of 12 years. Fluoride is not added to public water supplies in Mexico, but people are exposed through naturally occurring fluoride in water and fluoridated salt and supplements.
The study found a drop in scores on intelligence tests for every 0.5 milligram-per-liter increase in fluoride exposure beyond 0.8 milligrams per liter found in urine. However, although the researchers found a potential connection to a child's exposure to fluoride in utero, they found no significant influence from fluoride exposure on brain development once a child was born.
Is bottled water safer?
Is bottled water safer?
"Childhood exposure to fluoride is safer than prenatal. There is pretty good science now to support the fact that the fetal system tends to be more sensitive to environmental toxicants than once the child is born," said the study's lead author, Howard Hu, founding dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto.
The authors measured fluoride exposure for the Mexican mothers and their children by looking at the chemical content in their urine. "Since we're using an integrated biological marker, it will give you a fairly standardized measure," Hu explained. Previous studies measured fluoride exposure by analyzing it in the environment, such as in water.
On average, the researchers found that the mothers had 0.90 milligrams per liter of fluoride in their urine. Currently, there have been no such measurements for pregnant American women. There are similar measurements from a study in Poland that found healthy pregnant women to have fluoride levels just less than what was found in the Mexican women.
"The levels in this population that were measured in urine were high, but not crazy high," said Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Birnbaum was not involved in the study.
Most Americans get fluoride from public water
About 75% of Americans are exposed to fluoride through public water, the main route of exposure aside from toothpaste and mouth rinses. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has called water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the past century. Since fluoride was introduced into community water over 70 years ago, the CDC says, there has been a 25% reduction in cavities in children and adults.
Fluoride is commonly added to drinking water in the United States in order to improve dental health, though a number of communities including Portland, Oregon, and Tuscon, Arizona, have rejected water fluoridation.
What the new research means for pregnant women in the United States is up in the air. Hu cautioned that this was just one study. "It needs to be reproduced in other populations by other scientists," he said.
Long-term breastfeeding leads to more cavities, study says
Long-term breastfeeding leads to more cavities, study says
Because the study evaluated samples that had been collected for other studies, researchers weren't able to determine specific levels of fluoride exposure.
"That's a big unknown. We don't have the whole picture," said Dr. Angeles Martinez-Mier of the Indiana University School of Dentistry, another researcher involved with the study.
However, despite these limitations, this is one of the most rigorous studies to look at fluoride and neurodevelopment, Hu said. It is the largest and longest study to evaluate fluoride exposure and its impact on the developing brain.
Fluoride as a neurotoxin
Birnbaum agreed that some caution should be taken when evaluating the significance of this study. But she also pointed out that it raised significant questions.
"There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before," said Birnbaum.
'Putting the next generation of brains in danger'
'Putting the next generation of brains in danger'
Previous studies have found fluoride to be a potential neurotoxin at extremely high levels. Many of these studies have been conducted in China, where fluoride levels in water can be as high as 30 milligrams per liter.
The US Public Health Service recommends an optimal level of fluoride concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter. The Environmental Protection Agency has set a limit of 4 milligrams per liter.
Chronic excessive intake of fluoride can lead to discoloration of teeth and skeletal fluorosis, a condition that results in extreme joint and skeletal pain.
Many of the Chinese studies were unable to control for other potential neurotoxins such as lead or mercury. The new Mexican study controlled for those two neurotoxins, along with socioeconomic status and education.
'A single piece in a very large puzzle'
"This new study is a welcome addition to the overall body of scientific literature pertaining to fluoride," said Matt Jacob of the nonprofit Children's Dental Health Project. "Every new study is like a single piece in a very large puzzle. It is helpful, but the degree to which it is helpful depends on several elements, including the study's design and how well it controlled for other factors."
Stopped flossing? Teeth still vital to overall health
Stopped flossing? Teeth still vital to overall health
The American Dental Association said the study's findings "are not applicable to the U.S. The ADA continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay."
Both Jacob and the ADA pointed out a study done in New Zealand, a country that has community water fluoridation similar to the United States, found no connection between fluoridated water and IQ. However, the New Zealand study did not look at levels of fluoride in utero.
And while Birnbaum agreed that the study provided no concrete answers, she said it "is raising the issue and that we should pay attention to this."
Scientists agree that extreme fluoride levels, like those sometimes found in China, can have neurodevelopmental risks. But as the study also points out, fluoridation also "substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries."
What is the right amount? As Martinez-Mier said, "we know that fluoride is all about dose, giving the right amount in the right moment."
Trying to determine what that dose needs to be is what scientists are trying to zero in on.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Published on 17 Sep 2017

Know the enemy! WaterNZ CEO is former CEO of PEPANZ (oil 'n' gas - fracking etc) do you 'seriously' believe that this man has YOUR child's health as paramount? The people this man represent's don't have much respect for OUR lands/environment - and even LESS respect for us 'common folk' with little, if any, condsideration for OUR children! This 'Association' is the face-front behind the Fraud that is Water Fluoridation and they have the arrogance to try to advise our government that our opinions and voices are "a waste of time"! Again - the is REAL! Look into it for yourselves - come to your own conclusions but the FACTS remain, WaterNZ, by THEIR own draft submission - are calling for MANDATORY WATER FLUROIDATION and WE cannot accept this Fraud to continue. #endwaterfluoridation2017 * For those who may want to know more - PEPANZ is the association that represents New Zealand's Oil & Gas Industry. Our members are the companies that explore for, and extract petroleum products that help drive our economy. http://www.pepanz.com/about/ Enough is Enough - It's time to put an end to the Fraud - Community Water Fluoridation is NOT Safe!