Research news on nutrition, environmental medicine and health
“An Inconvenient Tooth” is a documentary film by Guy Wagner about fluoride. It was released September 6th, 2012 at the city hall in Portland, Oregon. On the same day a public hearing was held before the five-member City Council about whether or not the city should fluoridate its water supplies. http://AnInconvenientTooth.org
This is a good, but a little known documentary about water fluoridation. Directed and edited by Brandon Kovatch.
Graeme Munro-Hall, BDS, and Lillian Munro-Hall, BDS, are pioneering dentists with a combined 50 years experience, who have treated chronic diseases for over 20 years. They have written the book Toxic Dentistry Exposed (2009). In this interview Graeme and Lilian Munro-Hall speak out about the ongoing use of mercury and fluoride in dentistry and how it could be the cause of modern illnesses. (Milton Keynes: Edge Media Television. December 1, 2011.)
Further Information
Munro-Hall Clinic. Holistic dental practice in Bedfordshire, England
Chronic Disease Treatment. Blog by Graeme Munro-Hall, BDS
“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.”
— Dr. Dean Burk (1904-1988) former head of National Cancer Institute Research
This interview was recorded live in Holland in the 1970′s, and as a result of it being broadcast, 100,000 people took to the streets and had fluoride removed immediately.
In Dr. Dean Burk’s own words; “this amounts to public murder on a grand scale, it is a public crime, it would be, to put fluoride in the drinking water of people”.
Dr. Dean Burk co-authored one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry, The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants, published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934.
In 1937, Dean became a co-founder of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), and headed its Cytochemistry department for over three decades.
Dean was initially skeptical that there was any link between fluoridation and cancer but later came to believe ardently that fluoride was a major carcinogen, responsible for tens of thousands of deaths per year. With his NCI credentials, he was the most impressive witness the anti-fluoridation forces around the world had. Needless to say, this role did not endear him to the public health establishment, which fought for its right to medicate the entire public with fluoride in the public drinking water in the name of preventing tooth decay among children.
Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in New York, gives a damning interview (2010) on the history of water fluoridation, the collusion of major industries to put certified toxic waste into your drinking water, and why government health authorities refuse to conduct scientific studies into the dangers of fluoridation. After watching this video, you will never look at tap water the same way again.
Connett describes how he initially thought people who opposed fluoridation were “a bunch of whackos,” before conducting his own research which found that sodium fluoride was a toxic substance that contributed to a wide array of health defects. Heavy industry is barred from dumping this toxic waste into the sea by international law, but being able to sell it enables them to remove its hazardous characteristic and it becomes a product, explains Connett, polluting not only our water supply but also toothpaste and thousands of different foods.
Connett provides a detail run down of the many health problems caused by fluoride consumption, including dental fluorosis, which the Centers For Disease Control just recently announced was a problem for 41 per cent of children aged 12-15 in the United States, clearly indicating that children are being over-exposed to fluoride and that this is affecting other tissues and organs in the body, including bone disorders, a problem also wreaking havoc amongst adults in the United States as one in three now suffer from arthritis, which again is being caused by a build-up of toxic fluoride in the body. Connett also points to fluoride’s connection with thyroid disorders.
There have now been over 100 studies involving animals which show that fluoride damages the brain, stresses Connett, which is a particular concern for newborn babies who are susceptible to fluoride build up because of their weak blood-brain barrier. Connett cites numerous studies which prove a link between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children.
Fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland, which is a piece of brain tissue that sits in-between the two hemispheres of the brain, is key because fluoride attracts to this gland like a magnet. Researchers have found through animal studies that fluoride lowers the ability of the pineal gland to produce the hormone melatonin, which in turn shortens the time it takes to reach puberty, correlating with studies of fluoridated communities that show girls are on average menstruating 5 months earlier than those in non-fluoridated communities. Children are entering puberty at increasingly early stages and this is causing widespread concern, but health authorities have made no effort whatsoever to conduct any studies regarding this development and its link to fluoride.
Dr Stanley Monteith goes in this video over the history of fluoride, its use, its dangers and its promotion over time. Why something that is rejected by so many nations is promoted here in the USA. Learn about the Hidden Agenda behind the use of Fluoride, who’s behind it and the real purpose behind its use.
Hailed as a harmless chemical that would prevent tooth decay, new evidence shows how fluoride could be linked to serious health problems. Fluoridation was first advanced in the US at the end of the Second World War. Proponents argued that fluoride in water and toothpaste would help to protect teeth and prevent decay. Over the following decades, fluoride was added to public water supplies across the country. While the benefits of fluoridation have been held to be unquestionable, accumulating evidence points to a frightening prospect: that fluoride may have serious adverse health effects, including infant mortality, congenital defects and IQ.
A book titled The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson examines the background of the fluoridation debate. According to Bryson, research challenging fluoride’s safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. He says fluoridation is a triumph not of medical science but of US government spin.
A paper in the Journal of Dental Research by dentist Chester Douglass and colleagues, An Assessment of Bone Fluoride and Osteosarcoma, (7/28/11) claims to show no association between fluoride bone levels and osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer. However, Douglass’ study has serious scientific flaws and is incapable of disproving a previous study (Bassin et al., 2006) which linked water fluoridation to osteosarcoma, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
Bassin found a 500% to 600% increased risk for young boys, exposed to fluoride in their 6th to 8th years, of later developing osteosarcoma. Douglass’ study does not address exposure during this critical period because it measured the level of fluoride in bone, which accumulates fluoride over a lifetime. These bone levels provide no information about when the person was exposed to fluoride.
Not only does Douglass’ study fail to refute Bassin’s main finding, it suffers from other serious weaknesses:
1) Douglass’ study was much smaller and weaker than Bassin’s. It had only 20 control subjects under age 30, a fifth of Bassin’s. For this key age group, Douglass’ study was so small it could provide no reliable conclusions. Even Douglassadmitted this serious limitation.
2) Douglass’ choice of comparison group is suspect. Douglass compared the bone fluoride level of patients with osteosarcoma to “controls” with other forms of bone cancer. If fluoride also causes these other bone cancer types, then one would not expect to find any difference in bone fluoride between these groups. It is biologically plausible that fluoride could cause other bone cancers because it reaches such high concentrations in bone. One of the only studies of fluoride and non-osteosarcoma bone cancers did find a link, but this evidence was never mentioned by Douglass.
3) The controls were severely mismatched to the cases. Controls were much older (median 41 yrs) than the cases (18 yrs). The risk of osteosarcoma is highly age-dependent. Also, fluoride builds up in bone with age. Given Douglass’ small sample size, it is unlikely he could have adequately compensated for the gross mismatch in age, especially because of these two simultaneous age dependencies. The groups were also mismatched on sex ratio, and osteosarcoma risk is well known to be sex dependent. Properly adjusting for sex and age would be virtually impossible.
In 2001, Douglass signed off on Elise Bassin’s Ph.D. dissertation which found the strong association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. When it was later published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in 2006, Cancer Causes and Control, an accompanying letter from Douglass claimed that his “larger” study would eventually refute Bassin’s findings. But Douglass also told a Fox News reporter that Bassin “… did a good job. She had a good group of people advising her. And it’s a nice—it’s a nice analysis. There’s nothing wrong with that analysis.”
Now that Douglass’ study is finally published, it is clearly incapable of refuting Bassin’s work. According to FAN director, Paul Connett, Ph.D., “Bassin’s study was a high quality product, Douglass’ study was not.”
Chris Neurath, FAN’s Research Director, points out “Even though Douglass collected extensive fluoride exposure histories from hundreds of other controls, that data was ignored in this paper. FAN is calling for the release of all of the Douglass data. The only way to get to the bottom of Douglass’ two decade’s study is to make the data available for any independent researcher to check and do the analyses which Douglass has failed to provide. The public has paid millions for this data, why is most of it still behind locked doors?”
One reason is suggested in Douglass’ conflict-of-interest declaration where he says he has “… written reviews of the literature for several companies that sell, reimburse for, or do research on preventive dentistry products, most notably GlaxoSmithKline, Colgate-Palmolive, Dentsply, Quintile, Delta Dental Plans….”
Omitted was his paid editorship of Colgate’s promotional dental newsletter, which regularly contains advertisements for Colgate’s fluoride products.
The International Association of Dental Research (IADR), publishers of The Journal of Dental Research, has a history of promoting fluoridation.
Connett says, “In my opinion, it seems that Douglass is more interested in protecting fluoride than investigating this issue objectively. Bassin’s work suggests fluoridation may be causing a frequently fatal cancer in teenage boys. Douglass, after five years of trying, has failed to refute this disturbing evidence. How long will fluoridation promoters be allowed to continue to spin this issue?”
“Why are dentists – especially those who have shown a strong interest in protecting the water fluoridation program – conducting and publishing cancer research, anyway?” asks Connett.
A more detailed critique of Douglass’ paper will be posted soon at http://www.FluorideAction.Net
Sodium fluoride supplements “have not been found by FDA to be safe or effective,” according to the US National Library of Medicine’s (NLM) website, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).
Routinely prescribed to children in non-water-fluoridated communities, sometimes even in fluoridated areas, sodium fluoride drops, lozenges and “vitamins” are meant to reduce tooth decay.
Before testing was required, sodium fluoride ingestion slipped into common usage without FDA approval. Now, the FDA is cracking down on unapproved drugs such as sodium fluoride (1).
The following warning – “Note: This Drug Has Not Been Found by FDA to be Safe and Effective” – is newly included with sodium fluoride drug information meant for ingestion (2).
Fluoride supplements deliver no benefits to primary teeth but increase dental fluorosis risk – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth, according to a 2008 Journal of the American Dental Association systematic review (3),
In fact, “In non-fluoridated communities, the use of fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing dental fluorosis,” concludes a meta-analysis in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (2/99) (4).
“It is therefore concluded that the risks of using supplements in infants and young children outweigh the benefits…fluoride supplements should no longer be used for young children in North America,” writes Burt (Fall 1999 Journal of Public Health Dentistry” (5).
Further, Belgium stopped selling fluoride supplements in 2002 because documentation revealed that fluoride can cause physical and neurological harm with little evidence of decay reduction (6).
According to the NLM, fluoride’s side effects could include (7):
· staining of teeth · unusual increase in saliva · salty or soapy taste · stomach pain · upset stomach · vomiting ·diarrhea · rash · weakness · tremor · seizures
The FDA asks that fluoride drug side effects, including dental fluorosis, be reported at http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch or 1-800-332-1088.
Freedom of choice governs fluoride supplements but not water fluoridation. Even in small doses injected into drinking water supplies, fluoride can have serious side effects especially to the brain, thyroid, kidney patients and babies (8 a, b, c, d).
“We urge parents to deeply research fluoride supplements and fluoride varnish before dosing their children,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President.
“We also urge everyone to contact their legislators and do what it takes to stop the unnecessary force-feeding of fluoride chemicals into their bodies via the public water supplies,” says Beeber.
New York City Council Members have introduced such legislation. “NYC residents must show their support by contacting their Council member to support this bill,” says Beeber. For more info: http://tinyurl.com/NYCfluoridation
How Fluoride Supplements Came To Be Used
The first human-health fluoride experiment began in 1945 when sodium fluoride was poured into Newburgh, NY’s, water supply to learn if fluoride would harm children.
Pre-schoolers, adults and sick children were excluded from examination. Even with this research flaw, after ten years, Newburgh’s school-children had more anemia, cortical bone defects and early puberty than never-fluoridated nearby Kingston, NY (9). Brain, thyroid effects and cancer rates weren’t considered.
Despite these failures, officials prematurely claimed the Kingston/Newburgh study proved water fluoridation was safe and, therefore, assumed fluoride supplements were safe also.
Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
SOURCE: NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
References
1) “Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry Marketed Unapproved Drugs “
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) June 2006
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM070290.pdf
2) http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=20443
3) Fluoride supplements, dental caries and fluorosis: A systematic review
J Am Dent Assoc November 1, 2008 139(11): 1457-1468
http://jada.ada.org/content/139/11/1457.full
4) Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999 Feb, “Fluoride supplements and fluorosis: a meta-analysis,” Ismail and Badekar.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10086926
5) “The case for eliminating the use of dietary fluoride supplements
for young children,” Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Fall 1999, by
Burt. http://tinyurl.com/2bnoff
6) http://www.fluoride-journal.com/02-35-3/353-212.pdf
7) http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/meds/a682727.html
8a) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/index.html
b) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/thyroid/index.html
c) http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/kidney/
d) http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/New-York/Don-t-Feed-Babies-Fluoridated-Water-say-NYS-Health-Officials
9) Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study. XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1956 Mar;52(3):296-306. SCHLESINGER ER, OVERTON DE, CHASE HC, CANTWELL KT.
Recent Comments