| > News |  |
RSS Feed | View by: Most Recent | Most Popular | Most Discussed |
Southampton fluoridation challenge launched
30th Jun 2009
A judicial review has been initiated by a resident against the decision by health chiefs to add fluoride to tap water in Southampton. Solicitors Leigh Day & Co began the legal challenge against the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) on behalf of Geraldine Milner, a lifelong resident of the city, The SHA is forging ahead with fluoridation, having instructed Southern Water to fluoridate the local water supply in both the city and parts of South West Hampshire, despite protests following months of public consultation. It is set to make Southampton the first place in England to introduce fluoridation since Health Minister Alan Johnson's ‘fluoridation for all' proposal in February 2008. But Ms Milner is opposed to the proposals because of uncertainties regarding long-term health risks associated with fluoridation, as well as concerns with regard to the possible adverse environmental effects. She also considers that more targeted and less intrusive measures should be used to deal with problems of tooth decay in the Southampton area. The legal challenge argues that the SHA failed to have regard to the Government's policy that mass fluoridation of drinking water should only go ahead in any particular area if a majority of the local people are in favour of it. More than 10,000 people had their say in the consultation with more than seven out of ten of all respondents who lived in the affected area saying they were against the plans, while an independent phone survey also showed more people against the scheme than for it. But Southampton City Primary Care Trust (PCT), who made the proposals, maintained that the public vote could not be the deciding factor and that medical evidence shows fluoridation will reduce tooth decay – and failed to back up claims of serious negative side effects. The PCT also says other measures to beat tooth decay have not worked, and fluoridation is the most effective method left available. But this legal challenge also argues that the SHA failed to follow the requirements set out in the Regulations to evaluate ‘the cogency of the arguments advanced' in the responses to the consultation for and against fluoridation. Chief dental officer Barry Cockcroft commented: There has been one consultation in Southampton and the anti-fluoridation lobby has now asked for a judicial review. It tests the legislation and the way the SHA carried out the consultation. But there's a lot of interest around the country.' Adding weight to this legal challenge, anti-fluoridation campaigners last month took a 14,000-name petition to Downing Street. The campaigners in Hampshire have also reacted with anger to the news that newly appointed health secretary Andy Burnham was vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society and resigned from this role shortly before taking up the Cabinet post. |
| > Comments (posted immediately - see terms & conditions) |
Posted by drstephenmorris
30/6/09 at 16:20
Indeed the tea plant absorbs Fluoride pollution like no other.
And it was my accidental discovery that Tea caused my IBS that set me free of it 17 years ago. The fact that my "IBS" had been Fluorosis was confirmed when I moved to North Essex not knowing it was a tiny "hotspot" of naturally high Fluoride and I hasd a recurrence...cured by bottled water. See full story here from IBS Network magazine http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/gi/ibs-2004.pdf#search=%22leonard%20harley%20%2B%20fluoride%22
The fact that F in Tea is rising, along with F pollution and ingestion from all sources, should make us extremly circumspect about forcing people to consume more.
Any (very limited) beneficial effect is topical, so swallowing a Cytotoxic substance, almost as poisonous as Arsenic, to acheive a local topical effect, seems as sensible as swallowing hair dye or sunscreen to acheive the desired effects.
Seven years after my "cure from IBS" I bought my first PC & discovered that the link to IBS symptoms was known (Susheela; Waldbott; Moolenbergh). In fact Professor Susheela , who has more than a 1000 papers published on Fluorosis, told UK Gov that what Westerners call IBS is Fluorosis. But this was unwelcome data, and is to be deliberately not be examined, along with a list of other serious and "plausible" Fluoride-induced diseases listed by the MRC "as a low priority for research".
Considering this and Professor Sheldon's open letter in which he had to reprimand the BMA, BDA, BFS & NAEDH for misrepresenting his York Review's findings we should think more of a moritorium pending further investigation. But The Precautionary Principle and "First do no harm" are not to be applied where Fluoridation is concerned even though the margin between alleged optimum and harm is admitted as narrow.
Telling-off the BMA, BDA etc. Professor Sheldon also said……
“The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation”
One would think that, as Fluoride is much more toxic than Lead, this situation of uncertainty would mean a precautionary moratorium?
Not so!
And one would never guess from any official iterations that there was….
(1)A “dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy”, nor that,
(2)“There will continue to be “legitimate scientific controversy”.
This whole, critical dimension is pre-filtered out for public consumption, and media handouts. (Often the Press simply reprints these media handouts of paternalistic reassurances that are purely partial propaganda)
The Government has adopted a “marketing” strategy; specifically to feign that there is no reasonable, or “legitimate” opposition, much less “legitimate scientific controversy.” This strategy denies debate, and attempts to devalue opposition, or make it seem perverse or even “wacky”.
But nothing could be further from the truth. There is also an ever-growing mountain of “unwanted” evidence of Fluoride’s deleterious effects. Perversely this makes those who have made career or professional investments in Fluoridation only the more keen to lobby for it, and promote it, with Government assistance. They are riding a tiger they dare not dismount.
All the above, is just the fallout from the York Review, which had itself been structured (and limited in its scope) to favour a “positive” result for fluoridation………..
Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS
Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK
“There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits of fluoride on dental health are more imagined than real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain.
But this body of work was not considered by the York Review when their remit was changed from “Studies of the effects of fluoride on health” to “Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on health.” It is clearly evident that it was not considered by the BMA (Britsh Medical Association), British Dental Association (BDA), BFS (British Fluoridation Society) and FPHM, (Faculty for Public Health and Medicine) since they all insist, as in the briefing paper to Members of Parliament - that fluoridation is safe and non-injurious to health.
This is a public disgrace, I will now show by reviewing the damaging effects of fluoridation, with special reference to thyroid illness.”
Government ignores the "Dearth of reliable evidence" and denies "legitimate scientific controversy" to continue predetermined policy.
Without “Reliable evidence”; knowing that there is “Legitimate scientific controversy”; and also with an admitted narrow margin between the alleged “optimal dose” and serious toxic effects, what should be done?
The Precautionary Principle, and the principle "First do no harm". Would clearly demand a moratorium
But our Government is so determined to expand fluoridation; it breaks these Golden Rules/Principals. It also ignores myriad health warnings, it uses Quangos and spin to massage opinion, it brings in Law enabling Health Trusts to force local Fluoridation against local opinion, and it blocks any new research that might lead to any critical evidence! When such evidence arises, it is unfairly faulted or simply ignored, (whilst accepting bad, favourable “evidence”).
This is the normal doubly-bad tactic for Fluoridation. There is a presumption in favour; and evidence is selected to suit this presumption.
In a presentation to the California Assembly Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Dr. Richard Foulkes, B.A., M.D., former special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia, revealed:“The [water fluoridation] studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were "selling," were either omitted or declared to be "bad science." The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self-interest of professional elites. Some of the basic "facts" presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity. We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced”
And it was my accidental discovery that Tea caused my IBS that set me free of it 17 years ago. The fact that my "IBS" had been Fluorosis was confirmed when I moved to North Essex not knowing it was a tiny "hotspot" of naturally high Fluoride and I hasd a recurrence...cured by bottled water. See full story here from IBS Network magazine http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/gi/ibs-2004.pdf#search=%22leonard%20harley%20%2B%20fluoride%22
The fact that F in Tea is rising, along with F pollution and ingestion from all sources, should make us extremly circumspect about forcing people to consume more.
Any (very limited) beneficial effect is topical, so swallowing a Cytotoxic substance, almost as poisonous as Arsenic, to acheive a local topical effect, seems as sensible as swallowing hair dye or sunscreen to acheive the desired effects.
Seven years after my "cure from IBS" I bought my first PC & discovered that the link to IBS symptoms was known (Susheela; Waldbott; Moolenbergh). In fact Professor Susheela , who has more than a 1000 papers published on Fluorosis, told UK Gov that what Westerners call IBS is Fluorosis. But this was unwelcome data, and is to be deliberately not be examined, along with a list of other serious and "plausible" Fluoride-induced diseases listed by the MRC "as a low priority for research".
Considering this and Professor Sheldon's open letter in which he had to reprimand the BMA, BDA, BFS & NAEDH for misrepresenting his York Review's findings we should think more of a moritorium pending further investigation. But The Precautionary Principle and "First do no harm" are not to be applied where Fluoridation is concerned even though the margin between alleged optimum and harm is admitted as narrow.
Telling-off the BMA, BDA etc. Professor Sheldon also said……
“The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation”
One would think that, as Fluoride is much more toxic than Lead, this situation of uncertainty would mean a precautionary moratorium?
Not so!
And one would never guess from any official iterations that there was….
(1)A “dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy”, nor that,
(2)“There will continue to be “legitimate scientific controversy”.
This whole, critical dimension is pre-filtered out for public consumption, and media handouts. (Often the Press simply reprints these media handouts of paternalistic reassurances that are purely partial propaganda)
The Government has adopted a “marketing” strategy; specifically to feign that there is no reasonable, or “legitimate” opposition, much less “legitimate scientific controversy.” This strategy denies debate, and attempts to devalue opposition, or make it seem perverse or even “wacky”.
But nothing could be further from the truth. There is also an ever-growing mountain of “unwanted” evidence of Fluoride’s deleterious effects. Perversely this makes those who have made career or professional investments in Fluoridation only the more keen to lobby for it, and promote it, with Government assistance. They are riding a tiger they dare not dismount.
All the above, is just the fallout from the York Review, which had itself been structured (and limited in its scope) to favour a “positive” result for fluoridation………..
Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield MBBS LRCP MRCS
Medical Advisor to Thyroid UK
“There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits of fluoride on dental health are more imagined than real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain.
But this body of work was not considered by the York Review when their remit was changed from “Studies of the effects of fluoride on health” to “Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on health.” It is clearly evident that it was not considered by the BMA (Britsh Medical Association), British Dental Association (BDA), BFS (British Fluoridation Society) and FPHM, (Faculty for Public Health and Medicine) since they all insist, as in the briefing paper to Members of Parliament - that fluoridation is safe and non-injurious to health.
This is a public disgrace, I will now show by reviewing the damaging effects of fluoridation, with special reference to thyroid illness.”
Government ignores the "Dearth of reliable evidence" and denies "legitimate scientific controversy" to continue predetermined policy.
Without “Reliable evidence”; knowing that there is “Legitimate scientific controversy”; and also with an admitted narrow margin between the alleged “optimal dose” and serious toxic effects, what should be done?
The Precautionary Principle, and the principle "First do no harm". Would clearly demand a moratorium
But our Government is so determined to expand fluoridation; it breaks these Golden Rules/Principals. It also ignores myriad health warnings, it uses Quangos and spin to massage opinion, it brings in Law enabling Health Trusts to force local Fluoridation against local opinion, and it blocks any new research that might lead to any critical evidence! When such evidence arises, it is unfairly faulted or simply ignored, (whilst accepting bad, favourable “evidence”).
This is the normal doubly-bad tactic for Fluoridation. There is a presumption in favour; and evidence is selected to suit this presumption.
In a presentation to the California Assembly Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Dr. Richard Foulkes, B.A., M.D., former special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia, revealed:“The [water fluoridation] studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were "selling," were either omitted or declared to be "bad science." The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self-interest of professional elites. Some of the basic "facts" presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity. We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced”
Large parts of NE England have been artificially fluoridated since 1969. Would we expect a higher incidence of IBS in the north-east? The obvious problem is; tea drinking is so common. In other words, it's not just the water fluoridation, it might be tea as well.....plus, what about fluoride in toothpaste? You also mention 'self-interest'. A strange one this, as of course if dentists wanted to be unethical they would campaign against fluoride, as it would generate more work.
--This post was last edited on 2/3/10 at 16:44--
--This post was last edited on 2/3/10 at 16:44--
Firstly, sorry about typo above. Susheela has over 100 published studies not 1000 (Hope that was obvious). No edit facility.
Tessa Jowell asked Prof. Susheela why they didn't find these effects. She was told they were not looked for; indeed the NHS had no facility to check Fluoride blood & urine levels. It is an imperfection of the scientific method that generally you only find what you look for. (The hypothesis being tested). This is aggravated by financial interests control of funds and the lack of obligation to publish.
My own IBS was due entirely to F in Tea (I was using Sensodyne Toothpaste, not then fluoridated, at the time due to sensitive teeth. The sensitivity recovered when we stopped freezing Orange Juice to make lollies! ) http://www.bruha.com/pfpc/html/green_tea___.html
Fluoridation has always been political, and Gov. does not seek data that embarrasses.
Fluoride is, by volume, the world’s largest toxic waste. A lot of mined materials bring F up from deep bedrock, but Uranium processing creates a large amount. The origin of the “re-branding” of F as “good for teeth” has its roots in the protection of the Manhattan A-bomb project from lawsuits brought by parties injured by F pollution. This has been documented by Chris Bryson in a recent book “The Fluoride Deception” from declassified documents. It was an unfortunate confluence of U.S. Gov/Military/Industry interests in the late 40’s. Until then Fluoride was known universally as something intensely toxic (and destructive of teeth).
This campaign was backed by poor studies (not one double-blind trial) and authoritative endorsements. Bryson described it thus…"Fluoride science is corporate science. Fluouride science is DDT science. It's asbestos science. It's tobacco science. It's a racket”. It is a shame that Scientists have have to make this appeal for an open honest debate free of dirty tricks. http://www.fluoridealert.org/appeal.htm
Since it is still raw, untested, contaminated toxic waste from chimney scrubber-liquorsthat is used for most Fluoridation (Fluorsilisic Acid) it is in no-one’s clear financial interest to stop this. (Leave alone possible litigation worries).
Leaving ethical questions aside one has to wonder when water is fluoridated what percentage ends up incorporated (helpfully?) in a child’s tooth? What is certain is that each time you wash your car, water the roses or flush the toilet, crude toxic waste is cheaply disposed of in a manner that is otherwise illegal! It was only collected in smokestacks because it is not permitted to be discharged into the air or watercourses nor dumped at sea. Oddly, the only legal way to dump this into the environment is through our drinking water!
This “science”, that turns out to be PR veneer, explains the recantations of some of prominent Dental proponents. They universally admit they NEVER had examined the case against Fluoride. They had simply taken their fellow professionals word for it’s “benefits”
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000072.htm
This is backed up by my own conversations with Dental professionals.
Their job is not to be Toxicologists after all. But I believe that if any person considers both arguments, well presented, in this matter, they would become much more cautious about Fluoride in general, and be opposed to all forced consumption.
Fluorosis is a sign that SYSTEMIC poisoning has taken place and the other symptoms are so vague and multifarious that they will be diagnosed as other maladies….Rheumatism, IBS, ME, sub-clinicial Hypothyroidism or even ADHD or autism spectrum disease. (See Phyliss Mullinix Ph.D. pharmacologist and toxicologist, another scientist who suffered loss of funding after finding bad news for Fluoride)
Twenty-five years ago, the British Dental Journal (September 15, 1970, page 300) advised its readers: "Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not. . . . as soon as dentists recognize their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding. In politics, the emphasis is on propagandizing rather than education."
On the contrary , I would beg you to consider what you advocate, for yourselves, before lending your white-coat authority to this campaign
Tessa Jowell asked Prof. Susheela why they didn't find these effects. She was told they were not looked for; indeed the NHS had no facility to check Fluoride blood & urine levels. It is an imperfection of the scientific method that generally you only find what you look for. (The hypothesis being tested). This is aggravated by financial interests control of funds and the lack of obligation to publish.
My own IBS was due entirely to F in Tea (I was using Sensodyne Toothpaste, not then fluoridated, at the time due to sensitive teeth. The sensitivity recovered when we stopped freezing Orange Juice to make lollies! ) http://www.bruha.com/pfpc/html/green_tea___.html
Fluoridation has always been political, and Gov. does not seek data that embarrasses.
Fluoride is, by volume, the world’s largest toxic waste. A lot of mined materials bring F up from deep bedrock, but Uranium processing creates a large amount. The origin of the “re-branding” of F as “good for teeth” has its roots in the protection of the Manhattan A-bomb project from lawsuits brought by parties injured by F pollution. This has been documented by Chris Bryson in a recent book “The Fluoride Deception” from declassified documents. It was an unfortunate confluence of U.S. Gov/Military/Industry interests in the late 40’s. Until then Fluoride was known universally as something intensely toxic (and destructive of teeth).
This campaign was backed by poor studies (not one double-blind trial) and authoritative endorsements. Bryson described it thus…"Fluoride science is corporate science. Fluouride science is DDT science. It's asbestos science. It's tobacco science. It's a racket”. It is a shame that Scientists have have to make this appeal for an open honest debate free of dirty tricks. http://www.fluoridealert.org/appeal.htm
Since it is still raw, untested, contaminated toxic waste from chimney scrubber-liquorsthat is used for most Fluoridation (Fluorsilisic Acid) it is in no-one’s clear financial interest to stop this. (Leave alone possible litigation worries).
Leaving ethical questions aside one has to wonder when water is fluoridated what percentage ends up incorporated (helpfully?) in a child’s tooth? What is certain is that each time you wash your car, water the roses or flush the toilet, crude toxic waste is cheaply disposed of in a manner that is otherwise illegal! It was only collected in smokestacks because it is not permitted to be discharged into the air or watercourses nor dumped at sea. Oddly, the only legal way to dump this into the environment is through our drinking water!
This “science”, that turns out to be PR veneer, explains the recantations of some of prominent Dental proponents. They universally admit they NEVER had examined the case against Fluoride. They had simply taken their fellow professionals word for it’s “benefits”
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm
http://www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm
http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000072.htm
This is backed up by my own conversations with Dental professionals.
Their job is not to be Toxicologists after all. But I believe that if any person considers both arguments, well presented, in this matter, they would become much more cautious about Fluoride in general, and be opposed to all forced consumption.
Fluorosis is a sign that SYSTEMIC poisoning has taken place and the other symptoms are so vague and multifarious that they will be diagnosed as other maladies….Rheumatism, IBS, ME, sub-clinicial Hypothyroidism or even ADHD or autism spectrum disease. (See Phyliss Mullinix Ph.D. pharmacologist and toxicologist, another scientist who suffered loss of funding after finding bad news for Fluoride)
Twenty-five years ago, the British Dental Journal (September 15, 1970, page 300) advised its readers: "Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not. . . . as soon as dentists recognize their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding. In politics, the emphasis is on propagandizing rather than education."
On the contrary , I would beg you to consider what you advocate, for yourselves, before lending your white-coat authority to this campaign
Sorry Dr Morris I neglected your remark...."A strange one this, as of course if dentists wanted to be unethical they would campaign against fluoride, as it would generate more work. "
I am positive no Dentists mean to be unethical. But it is possible for professional bodies to sometimes behave in unethical ways through ignorance, political comitment or error, hence Prof Sheldon's strictures to them.
Whether Fluoridation has reduced Dental work is a moot point.
Caries has dropped at least as much in countries that rejected fluoridation as in those that adopted it. The lack of good studies mentioned by Prof Sheldon is pertinent here. What is certain is that we have an enormous increase in Dental Fluorosis, circa 40%, in fluoridated areas. And veneering Fluorosis is very expensive, and you could say lucrative? Prof Sheldon also chided these bodies for acting as if Dental Fluorosis was merely a cosmetic issue. It is a sign of systemic poisoning and should be treated as such.
I would let this U.S. Dentist (who significantly is also a Toxicology Lecture) outline his concern at the many of Professional endorsements http://www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm
As for coercions The U.S. EPA Scientists Union have been fighting a long campaign against the safety margins having been altered by political interferance.
But all this diverts from the real issue which is the damage to general health. Fluoride is extremely pharmocologically active, acutely toxic and bio-accumulative. None of the cited researches uses the Toxic waste Silicofluorides that are dumped into water supplies. Fluoride crosses the blood/brain barrier especially in the presence of Aluminium (also in Tea) when it forms Aluminium Fluoride. It is a pathway for Aluminium to enter the brain so Alzheimers is a concern. Chinese studies show loss of intelligence with rising Fluoride ingestion and Mullinix's work showed the same.
It is accepted that a section of the community is "susceptible" to Fluoride but their general health is to be sacrificed for a dental benefit to others that cannot be proved (i.e. by swallowing as opposed to topical).
Also Fluoride displaces less active Halides such as Iodine hence its former use to suppress Hyperthyroidism. People are now ingesting doses from all sources that were considered Thyroid-suppressing before. So Thyroid sensitive people, athletes and Kidney-disease sufferers are sacrificial. I cannot believe that it can be ethical to "dispense" a raw toxic waste without any regard to the individual's sensitivity, medical history, previous ingested load, size or weight and knowing it will harm many groups. All the more so when the normal Therapeutic Index (Safety Margin) has been slashed and destroyed. And the number of ways Fluoride can poison is legion; for these "side-effects" visit http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
I am positive no Dentists mean to be unethical. But it is possible for professional bodies to sometimes behave in unethical ways through ignorance, political comitment or error, hence Prof Sheldon's strictures to them.
Whether Fluoridation has reduced Dental work is a moot point.
Caries has dropped at least as much in countries that rejected fluoridation as in those that adopted it. The lack of good studies mentioned by Prof Sheldon is pertinent here. What is certain is that we have an enormous increase in Dental Fluorosis, circa 40%, in fluoridated areas. And veneering Fluorosis is very expensive, and you could say lucrative? Prof Sheldon also chided these bodies for acting as if Dental Fluorosis was merely a cosmetic issue. It is a sign of systemic poisoning and should be treated as such.
I would let this U.S. Dentist (who significantly is also a Toxicology Lecture) outline his concern at the many of Professional endorsements http://www.nofish.org/new_page_17.htm
As for coercions The U.S. EPA Scientists Union have been fighting a long campaign against the safety margins having been altered by political interferance.
But all this diverts from the real issue which is the damage to general health. Fluoride is extremely pharmocologically active, acutely toxic and bio-accumulative. None of the cited researches uses the Toxic waste Silicofluorides that are dumped into water supplies. Fluoride crosses the blood/brain barrier especially in the presence of Aluminium (also in Tea) when it forms Aluminium Fluoride. It is a pathway for Aluminium to enter the brain so Alzheimers is a concern. Chinese studies show loss of intelligence with rising Fluoride ingestion and Mullinix's work showed the same.
It is accepted that a section of the community is "susceptible" to Fluoride but their general health is to be sacrificed for a dental benefit to others that cannot be proved (i.e. by swallowing as opposed to topical).
Also Fluoride displaces less active Halides such as Iodine hence its former use to suppress Hyperthyroidism. People are now ingesting doses from all sources that were considered Thyroid-suppressing before. So Thyroid sensitive people, athletes and Kidney-disease sufferers are sacrificial. I cannot believe that it can be ethical to "dispense" a raw toxic waste without any regard to the individual's sensitivity, medical history, previous ingested load, size or weight and knowing it will harm many groups. All the more so when the normal Therapeutic Index (Safety Margin) has been slashed and destroyed. And the number of ways Fluoride can poison is legion; for these "side-effects" visit http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
Veneering fluorosis case?! I don't have more tha 1 (one) case of fluorosis in my practice, in an area fluoridated since 1969. It was treated by bleaching/microabrasion very successfully. How, exactly, are you to somehow 'separate' fluoride ingested from drinking tea and/or ingesting fluoride containing toothpaste (children almost always ingest some toothpaste)? I suggest such separation would be to all practical intents impossible. Yes, of course fluoride is a toxic chemical. So is chlorine - but take it out of the water supply system and nasties such as cholera will cause greater mortality by far! The only real way of assessing whether or not water fluoridation is harmful is to do a really big study comparing the general health of a fluoridated area with one where there has been no natural or atificial fluoridation. Personally, I think there are much better things to spend limited public health research budgets on. But if other organisations want to use their own funds, who would object? Not me. If water fluoridation was stopped, I would just give my own family fluoride tablets (supplements prescribable within the NHS so free for children). Then I would await the increased treatment demand levels at work.
--This post was last edited on 3/3/10 at 16:32--
--This post was last edited on 3/3/10 at 16:32--
Fluoride is much more toxic, reactive and pharmacologically-active than Chlorine.
Fluoride does not disperse when water is rested, nor can it be removed by simple home-Filters.
Chlorine is necessary to ensure a potable water supply with low bacteria counts.
The water supply does not require Fluoride to maintain its quality in any way.
If, it is regrettable but necessary, to add a bactericide (Chlorine) to water, then, far from justifying the addition of further poisons, any further toxic addition would appear highly undesirable?
I agree that one cannot separate the many (and increasing) sources of Fluoride and that is why the addition of more Fluoride to the water supply is so dangerous. Some calculations of average consumption and retention act as though Fluoride loads were not in fact vastly different from individual to individual. This means that, by adding to the ever-increasing load of Fluoride, you ensure a wider and wider group of people will suffer harm at the boundaries of susceptibility and loading. This is no way to medicate. And, in the water supply, susceptible individuals have no practical means of avoiding it. This medication without consent is all the worse given its unavoidability.
Fluoride has often been called “The Protected Pollutant” and the flagrant disregard of the Therapeutic Index (to facilitate Fluoridation) is yet another example. Dr. James Patrick, a former antibiotics research scientist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, describes the predicament: "[There is] a very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 ppm is recommended. ...in several countries, severe fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm. In the development of drugs... we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies."
Once added to the water supply it also lands up in foods, through irrigation and livestock watering & feeds for example. Then, in processed foods and beverages of all kinds, it is often added again and concentrated by boiling/reductions. Again this all adds to variability in loadings and unavoidability for victims.
Fluoride is a massive toxic waste problem looking for uses. Its toxicity makes it the basis of many pesticides (and indeed Chemotherapy) so the load in foods has been growing. And its toxicity may well be the reason for the limited topical effect found in some studies. It poisons the bacteria. But we cannot simply poison ourselves to save our teeth!
Given the astonishing and cavalier disregard for the usual Therapeutic Index, and given the extreme toxicity of Fluoride at very low concentrations, surely the studies you describe (but blinded) should be an absolute prerequisite for those advocating it.
The precautionary principle should apply and respect for what Professor Sheldon called “Legitimate scientific controversy”
Fluoride does not disperse when water is rested, nor can it be removed by simple home-Filters.
Chlorine is necessary to ensure a potable water supply with low bacteria counts.
The water supply does not require Fluoride to maintain its quality in any way.
If, it is regrettable but necessary, to add a bactericide (Chlorine) to water, then, far from justifying the addition of further poisons, any further toxic addition would appear highly undesirable?
I agree that one cannot separate the many (and increasing) sources of Fluoride and that is why the addition of more Fluoride to the water supply is so dangerous. Some calculations of average consumption and retention act as though Fluoride loads were not in fact vastly different from individual to individual. This means that, by adding to the ever-increasing load of Fluoride, you ensure a wider and wider group of people will suffer harm at the boundaries of susceptibility and loading. This is no way to medicate. And, in the water supply, susceptible individuals have no practical means of avoiding it. This medication without consent is all the worse given its unavoidability.
Fluoride has often been called “The Protected Pollutant” and the flagrant disregard of the Therapeutic Index (to facilitate Fluoridation) is yet another example. Dr. James Patrick, a former antibiotics research scientist at the U.S. National Institutes of Health, describes the predicament: "[There is] a very low margin of safety involved in fluoridating water. A concentration of about 1 ppm is recommended. ...in several countries, severe fluorosis has been documented from water supplies containing only 2 or 3 ppm. In the development of drugs... we generally insist on a therapeutic index (margin of safety) of the order of 100; a therapeutic index of 2 or 3 is totally unacceptable, yet that is what has been proposed for public water supplies."
Once added to the water supply it also lands up in foods, through irrigation and livestock watering & feeds for example. Then, in processed foods and beverages of all kinds, it is often added again and concentrated by boiling/reductions. Again this all adds to variability in loadings and unavoidability for victims.
Fluoride is a massive toxic waste problem looking for uses. Its toxicity makes it the basis of many pesticides (and indeed Chemotherapy) so the load in foods has been growing. And its toxicity may well be the reason for the limited topical effect found in some studies. It poisons the bacteria. But we cannot simply poison ourselves to save our teeth!
Given the astonishing and cavalier disregard for the usual Therapeutic Index, and given the extreme toxicity of Fluoride at very low concentrations, surely the studies you describe (but blinded) should be an absolute prerequisite for those advocating it.
The precautionary principle should apply and respect for what Professor Sheldon called “Legitimate scientific controversy”
Eljay. With all due respect for your opinion about F and its toxicity. Have a look at the Vipeholm study (done in Sweden in 1940's and quite unethical with today's ethical guidelines) which was the first study supporting the fact that F has an effect on lowering the prevalence of caries. I am not sure if I as a Dentist think that water fluoridation is a good idea. (it is certainly the cheapest, instead of educating people about good oral hyg. and paying the Dental profession decent fees for prevention) I can tell you this much that there is a lot of scientific evidence showing that topical F is the single major fact behind lower caries prevalence.
Eljay. What I forgot to mention in my previous post was that The Vipeholm study actually is not about F but about the effect of Sugar consumption and Caries prevalence. Fluoride's effect on caries prevalence was better understood during the 60's
I don’t really want to get into a debate about the efficacy of TOPICAL Fluoride in reducing caries. (My main concern is to be ABLE to avoid it for my general health) But it seems the older, and lower quality, the research the more the alleged benefit was seen & “understood” as you say Frasse.
John Colquhoun. Explains the dilemma better than I could. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm He was Principal Dental Officer for Aukland NZ and such an expert on Fluoridation that he did World Tours promoting it. Nonetheless he completely changed his mind when he looked at the evidence.
However the debate over WATER Fluoridation is about three different issues.
(1)If the effect is topical, and not systemic, as even protagonists recently admit, what is the sense in swallowing something far more poisonous than Lead?
And the ethics of FORCING people to swallow it leave me dumbfounded.
If it was asserted tomorrow that a little Lead was good for teeth, then some might rub it onto them, but would we dump Lead waste into water supplies knowing the harm to general health? (But I can hear the proponents saying “Well we add Fluoride to water, and that is far more poisonous than Lead, so why not add Lead? And a well-oiled and funded marketing campaign could achieve it as we’ve learnt.)
The York review was established by a Government wedded to Fluoridation. And the terms were restricted in ways that could only favour an apparent endorsement. This included banning any consideration of animal studies, thus ruling out Toxicological studies. (This from a Government that so staunchly defended animal experimentation!)
Nevertheless the reviewers were surprised that fluoridation was so long endorsed and promoted with such certainty when 3200 world-wide papers failed to show any good quality evidence of benefit or safety! “Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor,” wrote researchers in the BMJ (6-10-07).
Professor Trevor Sheldon, who was also Chair of the York Review’s advisory committee, as well as co-author of the BMJ article, wrote in a different 2006 report that officials promoting fluoridation may have misrepresented the York Review findings to suit “prior beliefs and policy intent.” It was he, as Chair of the York Review Working Group, that chastised the BDA, BMA, BFS etc. for doing the same thing.
Remember we are talking about dumping raw toxic waste into drinking water; something where you would think, caution, prudence & certainty would be vital. Instead we have the astounding situation where the chief investigator on the Government’s own Review has to tell off the whole Politico-Medical establishment for “misrepresentations” concerning safety. When all fluoridation has been long stopped people will fail to comprehend how this policy was expanded as the tide of science swelled against it.
It was not in the remit of York to look at everything that questioned safety, nor did they proclaim it safe. Moreover they said that there remained real concerns and doubts due to the poor quality of evidence. But the “fluoridation marketing machine” proceeded to proclaim the results as the vindication they had been intended to be. It was a victory for the power of marketing and spin over science.
Those who believe that we would see be aware of any negative effects from fluoridation, must consider two things (a) Are they being looked for. The answer is “No”. (b) Are we seeing the “inexplicable” growth of many diseases & syndromes that could be caused by Fluoride intoxication? The answer is yes.
(As well as IBS, Sub-Clininical Hypothyroisim etc. see the work of Phyliss Mullenix Phd. A Pharmacologist investigating Toxicity of Dental at Forsythe Dentre Centre Boston. Her work has alarming implications for the rise in ADD, ADHD, Autism & other syndromes which are beginning to affect a ridiculous percentage of children).
(2)Effects on general health. It is perfectly feasible that the presence of a cytotoxic and enzyme-disrupting pesticide on the Teeth might lower counts of Caries causing bacteria
That does not make it wise, even for individuals that could benefit from this, to swallow it.
Indeed it should counsel us against ingestion.
The effects on general health are simply too many to list. Refer here http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
(3)If it is illegal to dispose of Silico-fluoride wastes by dilution into watercourses, air or sea, how can it be prudent to approve disposal of the same wastes through dilution drinking water? (and thence into watercourses)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM&feature=related
John Colquhoun. Explains the dilemma better than I could. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm He was Principal Dental Officer for Aukland NZ and such an expert on Fluoridation that he did World Tours promoting it. Nonetheless he completely changed his mind when he looked at the evidence.
However the debate over WATER Fluoridation is about three different issues.
(1)If the effect is topical, and not systemic, as even protagonists recently admit, what is the sense in swallowing something far more poisonous than Lead?
And the ethics of FORCING people to swallow it leave me dumbfounded.
If it was asserted tomorrow that a little Lead was good for teeth, then some might rub it onto them, but would we dump Lead waste into water supplies knowing the harm to general health? (But I can hear the proponents saying “Well we add Fluoride to water, and that is far more poisonous than Lead, so why not add Lead? And a well-oiled and funded marketing campaign could achieve it as we’ve learnt.)
The York review was established by a Government wedded to Fluoridation. And the terms were restricted in ways that could only favour an apparent endorsement. This included banning any consideration of animal studies, thus ruling out Toxicological studies. (This from a Government that so staunchly defended animal experimentation!)
Nevertheless the reviewers were surprised that fluoridation was so long endorsed and promoted with such certainty when 3200 world-wide papers failed to show any good quality evidence of benefit or safety! “Thus, evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor,” wrote researchers in the BMJ (6-10-07).
Professor Trevor Sheldon, who was also Chair of the York Review’s advisory committee, as well as co-author of the BMJ article, wrote in a different 2006 report that officials promoting fluoridation may have misrepresented the York Review findings to suit “prior beliefs and policy intent.” It was he, as Chair of the York Review Working Group, that chastised the BDA, BMA, BFS etc. for doing the same thing.
Remember we are talking about dumping raw toxic waste into drinking water; something where you would think, caution, prudence & certainty would be vital. Instead we have the astounding situation where the chief investigator on the Government’s own Review has to tell off the whole Politico-Medical establishment for “misrepresentations” concerning safety. When all fluoridation has been long stopped people will fail to comprehend how this policy was expanded as the tide of science swelled against it.
It was not in the remit of York to look at everything that questioned safety, nor did they proclaim it safe. Moreover they said that there remained real concerns and doubts due to the poor quality of evidence. But the “fluoridation marketing machine” proceeded to proclaim the results as the vindication they had been intended to be. It was a victory for the power of marketing and spin over science.
Those who believe that we would see be aware of any negative effects from fluoridation, must consider two things (a) Are they being looked for. The answer is “No”. (b) Are we seeing the “inexplicable” growth of many diseases & syndromes that could be caused by Fluoride intoxication? The answer is yes.
(As well as IBS, Sub-Clininical Hypothyroisim etc. see the work of Phyliss Mullenix Phd. A Pharmacologist investigating Toxicity of Dental at Forsythe Dentre Centre Boston. Her work has alarming implications for the rise in ADD, ADHD, Autism & other syndromes which are beginning to affect a ridiculous percentage of children).
(2)Effects on general health. It is perfectly feasible that the presence of a cytotoxic and enzyme-disrupting pesticide on the Teeth might lower counts of Caries causing bacteria
That does not make it wise, even for individuals that could benefit from this, to swallow it.
Indeed it should counsel us against ingestion.
The effects on general health are simply too many to list. Refer here http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
(3)If it is illegal to dispose of Silico-fluoride wastes by dilution into watercourses, air or sea, how can it be prudent to approve disposal of the same wastes through dilution drinking water? (and thence into watercourses)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM&feature=related
Advertisement