FLUORIDE

Here in New Zealand, fluoride is being added to the water supply by our globalist rulers, in order to make us sick, docile, and stupid.

 

To make change in New Zealand we need a groundswell of visible opposition. Politicians will not act until they know there is public support.

If everyone in New Zealand knew that the fluoridation chemicals added to water were toxic waste from the phosphate fertiliser industry, or that there were ten U.S. Government funded studies published since 2017 that have found an association with fluoridation and brain damage, fluoridation would stop as the weight of public opinion would be too great for politicians to bear.
 


 
THE FACE OF GLOBALIST OPPRESSION IN NZ

Dr Diana Sarfati is the globalist puppet who is forcing NZ councils to poison their residents.

 
 
Director General of Health, Dr Diana Sarfati, is forcing all NZ councils to fluoridate their residents or face a fine of $200,000 plus $10,000 per day, amounting to over $3,000,000 via their rates if they do not do what she says.
 
 
 
It turns out that Dr Diana Sarfati's (Director-General of Health) threats to enforce huge fines on councils who don't comply to her unlawful demand to add fluoridation chemicals to local water supplies may have been nothing more than HOT AIR.

 In a court hearing on Wednesday, the lawyer for the DG advised the judge that there was no indication the DG was intending to enforce any fines on non-compliant councils. We believe this is a tacit commitment from Sarfati not to embark on enforcement, at least not until the Bill of Rights analysis has been completed. Even after that we do not believe that she would be able to enforce any fines until the legal case by New Health New Zealand has been completed.

 See the FFNZ press release for more detail.

 

Which countries poison their citizens with Fluoride?

After decades of pro-fluoride propaganda in the New Zealand media, there are a lot of people here who still think that fluoridation is widespread. But outside of America, the practice is rare. In most countries it is illegal.

· Approximately 4% of the world’s population are being poisoned with a fluoridated water supply.

· There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the USA than the rest of the world combined.


NZ Foods are poisoned with fluoride

The European Court of Justice ruled in 2009 that fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine, and cannot be used to prepare foods, so Europe could technically block foods imported from Australia, NZ, USA and Ireland at any time.

 

FLUORIDE CAUSES TOOTH DECAY

Reducing tooth decay is the excuse the globalist governments use when poisoning the water supply. That lie falls apart as soon as any real research is done.


Fluorides and dental fluorosis are actually associated with increased tooth decay. The most comprehensive US review was carried out by the National Institute of Dental Research on 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years. It showed no significant differences in terms of DMF (decayed, missing and filled teeth).

What it did show was that high decay cities (66.5-87.5 percent) have 9.34 percent more decay in the children who drink fluoridated water. Furthermore, a 5.4 percent increase in students with decay was observed when 1 ppm fluoride was added to the water supply. Nine fluoridated cities with high decay had 10 percent more decay than nine equivalent non-fluoridated cities.

The world’s largest study on dental caries, which looked at 400,000 students, revealed that decay increased 27 percent with a 1ppm fluoride increase in drinking water. In Japan, fluoridation caused decay increases of 7 percent in 22,000 students,while in the US a decay increase of 43 percent occurred in 29,000 students when 1ppm fluoride was added to drinking water.

https://www.westonaprice.org/fluoride-worse-than-we-thought

 

 
 

Fluoridation causes an average 5% drop in children's IQ

A Major US Government Study on Fluoride Damage to the brain should have ended fluoridation in New Zealand.

To summarize the key finding: Children born to mothers drinking the standard levels of fluoride used in NZ would have on average a 5 POINT LOWER IQ than children not exposed to fluoride poisoning.
 
 
The study published by the US Government’s Environmental Health Perspectives found that children born to mothers exposed to fluoride while pregnant, had significantly lower IQ scores. This is particularly relevant to New Zealand where most of the population is currently subjected to fluoridation.
 
It measured fluoride in urine and found the average level of fluoride in urine was 0.9mg/L (mg/L = parts per million). To relate this to water fluoride concentration, a separate study found that pregnant women in an area with 0.4 to 0.8 ppm water fluoride only had slightly lower urine fluoride than the average participants in this study. The NZ Ministry of Health recommends fluoride chemicals be added to the water at 0.85ppm.
 
Pregnant women in New Zealand in fluoridated areas likely have similar levels of urine fluoride as those in the American study. Urine fluoride reflects total fluoride intake from all sources, not just fluoridated water. The paper also reports that in the USA, which is 70% fluoridated, urine fluoride ranges from about 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L.
 
The child of a mother who was drinking water with 0.85ppm fluoride would be predicted to have 5 lower IQ points than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero fluoride in it. This obviously has huge consequences for New Zealand children.
 
The Ministry of Health recommended 1ppm until the 1990s when it reduced to a range from 0.7ppm to 1ppm, with a target of 0.85ppm. The US Human and Health Services have directed a maximum of 0.7ppm for fluoridation.
 
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. It was funded by the US Government’s National Institute of Health 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.
 
The 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 effects by these other factors. The factors ruled out included lead, mercury, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.
 
This study offers confirmation of previous studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere. Some of those studies had higher fluoride exposures than are commonly found in fluoridating countries, but many did not. 
 
The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation was by Dunedin (NZ) dentist Jonathan Broadbent. That study found no association between water fluoridation and IQ and was trumpeted by fluoridation defenders. But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL fluoride intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with non-fluoridated water, since at least half of the children in the non-fluoridated area were given fluoride supplements. This left only a small proportion of the study children without substantial fluoride exposure. 
 
Nor did this study look at maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy, which could be the most vulnerable time of exposure.
 
The study authors were cautious in their conclusions, but the implications of this study are enormous. There have been 58 other human studies looking at fluoride exposure and harm to the brain – 51 of them have found an association.
 

Fluoride causes behavioral problems in children

New US Study finds fluoridated water is causing behavioral problems in children
 

Pre-natal fluoride exposure has serious consequences for mental health, according to another major study just published in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
 
According to Tracy Bastain, senior author of the study and an associate professor of clinical population and public health science “Our results showed that higher fluoride levels in mother’s urine were associated with significantly increased neurodevelopmental problems in their three-year-old children, especially for internalizing problems like depression and anxiety…These results are very concerning from a public health perspective, given that the majority of U.S. communities have fluoridated water.”
 
This was reported in Newsweek, which went on to say “In their study, Bastain and colleagues found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in maternal fluoride exposure was associated with a near-doubling increase in their child’s risk of developing neurobehavioral problems, including emotional reactivity, headaches, anxiety and symptoms linked to autism.”
 
And the Los Angeles Times reported on the study confirming fluoride exposure was associated with “an increased risk of neurobehavioral problems at age 3, including symptoms that characterize autism spectrum disorder. The association was seen among women who consumed fluoride in amounts that are considered typical in Los Angeles and across the country.”
 
The study was conducted on mother-child pairs in Los Angeles, and found significant increases in psychological problem scores for both internal (e.g. depression and anxiety) and external (e.g. autism) conditions.
 
This latest US study is the first study of its kind carried out in the US but is on top of a growing number of US Government-funded studies from Canada and Mexico. It also comes after a major six year review carried out by the US Government’s National Toxicology Program that reviewed all fluoride IQ studies and found that fluoride “with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure … is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”
 
This study suggests that fluoridation is likely to be one of the reasons New Zealand children are suffering from record levels of anxiety and depression.
 
The fluoridation level recommended by the NZ Ministry of Health is 0.85ppm (midrange between 0.7 and 1ppm). This is 21% higher than the maximum target of 0.7ppm in the USA.
US scientists are calling for a warning that pregnant women should avoid fluoridated water. In 2018 the NZ Supreme Court held that once fluoride was in the water it was almost impossible to avoid completely and is “compulsory medical treatment”.
 
 
 

There Are Multiple Toxins Added To NZ Tap Water

 Tap water in NZ is toxic because it contains fluoride, chlorine, aluminium (alum), and in some cases (where there are old water pipes) asbestos as well

It’s not just drinking the tap water that’s a problem – bathing and showering in it leads to fluoride and chlorine absorption too.

A good household carbon filter will take out chlorine, asbestos, and aluminium, but it will not take out fluoride. This can be done, but it requires a much more expensive filtration system (around NZ$2000-4000) to sort out your water for bathing and showering.

Reverse osmosis filters and distillers will get most of the fluoride out for drinking, but they remove the good minerals too, and this may cause other problems.

If you are unable to obtain water free from a good source, and have to buy bottled water, keep in mind that some bottled water is just tap water that’s been filtered to get rid of the chlorine taste, while some bottled spring water is good quality.

In Wellington, clean drinking water is freely available directly from the Petone Aquifer.

And there is another aquifer at the Dowse Art Museum taps in Lower Hutt

IMG_0643b

For smaller amounts, and they ask customers not to take more than 2L at a time so it's not the spot for filling up a few hundred liters of bottles, there is also an artesian fountain at the Moore Wilson's store corner of Tory & College Streets Wellington.


 

Fluoridated Toothpaste – Toxic and bad for teeth too

 Most toothpastes contain fluoride, supposedly to prevent tooth decay. Sadly, the majority of consumers fall for this con and poison themselves even further by applying it to their teeth.


The fluoride in toothpaste is not an organic trace mineral found in the ground. It’s an industrial waste chemical that has been deceivingly and incorrectly called “fluoride”. It is inorganic, very toxic, and more poisonous than lead.

Any amount of fluoride in water exceeding 2 ppm (parts per million) would be considered unsafe. But fluoridated toothpastes have been found to contain levels of up to 7000 ppm. Even the U.S. FDA now regards fluoride in toothpaste as a potential toxic drug.

One of the most common symptoms of excess fluoride is “dental fluorosis”. You will see chalky white patches on the teeth making teeth “spotty”. Enamels can also become more porous with use of fluoridated toothpaste leading to discoloration of the teeth and pitting of the enamel.

Young children tend to apply lots toothpaste to their toothbrush, and then swallow plenty of it. (Swallowing half a tube of fluoride toothpaste in one go can be fatal)

Fluoride in the mouth is absorbed through our mucous lining and accumulates in our bodies just like fluoride that has been swallowed. The accumulated fluoride is carcinogenic and harmful to our metabolic systems. It leads to increased hip fractures, osteoporosis, arthritis and lowered brain function.

Another harmful ingredient in toothpaste is sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) – a foam building substance known to be cancer causing.

And in addition, virtually all toothpastes contain glycerine. Glycerine coats the teeth, so that they can’t remineralise to heal tooth decay

The basic requirements for remineralising teeth are:

A nutrient dense, whole food, Weston A Price type diet, including:

Bone broths & marrow
  Cod liver oil
  Butter oil, or lots of good quality butter
  Good quality animal foods
  Fermented foods
Fluoride free water

 A fluoride free, glycerine free tooth cleaner

Winning the Fluoride Fight

James Corbett talks to Michael Connett, lead attorney for the plaintiffs’ in the #FluorideLawsuit. They discuss the history of the lawsuit, what’s at stake, and how people who are concerned about the fluoridation of the water supply can get involved in the fight against this uncontrolled medical intervention.

 
 

Fluoride Stupidity & Population Control

Sodium fluoride, a hazardous-waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum, is a common ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, anesthetics, hypnotics, psychiatric drugs, and military nerve gas. It’s historically been quite expensive to properly dispose of, until some aluminum industries with an overabundance of the stuff sold the public on the insane but highly profitable idea of selling it at a 20,000% markup, injecting it into our water supplies, and then forcing the public to DRINK it.


 Fluoride is injected into our drinking water supply at approx. 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink 0.5% of the total water supply, the remaining 99.5% literally goes down the drain as a free hazardous-waste disposal for the chemical industry

Independent scientific evidence repeatedly showing up over the past 50 years reveals that fluoride shortens our life span, promotes cancer and various mental disturbances, accelerates osteoporosis and broken hips in old folks, and makes us stupid, docile, and subservient.

There are reports of aluminum in the brain being a causative factor in Alzheimer’s Disease, and evidence points towards fluoride’s strong affinity for aluminum and also its ability to “trick” the blood-brain barrier by looking like the hydrogen ion, and thus allowing chemical access to brain tissue.
 

Fluoride is absorbed through the skin

Fluoride is also absorbed through the skin so unless you have full household filtration you are absorbing it every time you shower...

 

Some facts about fluoride

– Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

– Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

– 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however most New Zealander's are being forced to drink it and the NZ government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.

– In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

– In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

– Other sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

 

Fluoride is not a nutrient in any way

It’s often said that what makes fluoridation so harmful is that they use a chemical called hydrofluorosilicic acid rather than naturally occurring fluoride. However, the fact is all fluoride is toxic, even naturally occurring fluoride.


Fluoride is not a nutrient in any way. It is not like calcium or magnesium; it is much more like lead or arsenic.

In some parts of Africa, China, India and other parts of the world, the underground fluoride supplies have high amounts of fluoride. This causes huge problems. The children and adults suffer from skeletal fluorosis which causes crippling bone problems.

It is expensive to remove fluoride as most filters do not remove it. To remove all fluoride a reverse osmosis or distillation system is needed although in rural India they are developing some low cost filtration systems using lime.

A website called India Water Portal contains a lot of really interesting information regarding the harms of excess fluoride. The images of children with deformities and adults bed-ridden is heart breaking. There are also articles about what people are doing to try and remove fluoride and even remedy skeletal fluorosis through avoidance of fluoride and a nutrient dense diet.

It is true, though, that naturally occurring fluoride is generally not as toxic as the chemical fluoride added to New Zealand waters. Naturally occurring fluoride normally comes with high levels of calcium or magnesium which it binds to and makes less toxic. Also, fluoride is cumulative and even “low” levels can cause skeletal fluorosis. The first stage of skeletal fluorosis is identical to arthritis and doctors in New Zealand are not aware that patients presenting with arthritic-like symptoms may, in fact, have skeletal fluorosis.

Demanding that councils add a toxic substance like fluoride purposedly to people’s water, is absolutely crazy if the Director-General of Health’s aim is to improve the health of New Zealanders. And it is cowardly and ignorant of any mayor or councillor not to stand up to this craziness and tell the Direct-General of Health that they will not take any part in poisoning the community.

 
 

Only in New Zealand

No countries in Europe are still poisoning their citizens with fluoride.
 
 
Fluoridation has been rejected in just about every country in the world. Yet, here in New Zealand, the globalist "government" is extending fluoridation across the entire country.
 
No country in continental Europe has fluoridation. Some countries in Europe did start fluoridation many years ago but have all since stopped. The last place to stop was the Basque region in Spain.
 
The UK (10%) and Ireland (70%) are the only European countries that still fluoridate. Only eight, out of a total of 197, countries in the world have more than 50% of the population on fluoridated water.
 
Back in 2014, Fluoride Free New Zealand aired an advert on TV3 to present this information. The 30 second advert provided some of the reasons these countries have rejected fluoridation. https://youtube.com/watch?v=-F-0XoG4EzY

See Statements from European Health, Water and Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation. https://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/
 

 

Another Study Designed To Find No Effect

 Australian study of fluoridation neurotoxicity: Streetlight Effect Fallacy

Researchers looked in the wrong place. Couldn’t find IQ loss that other studies found.

 
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-scientific-studies-are-so-often-wrong-the-streetlight-effect

Insensitive And Unreliable Measures Of Neurotoxicity

A just-published Australian study claims to have found no link between fluoridation and harm to children’s developing brains but didn’t use any IQ tests [Do 2022].  Instead, it used parent questionnaires of child behaviors which have been found to be relatively insensitive to detecting harm from fluoride and other neurotoxic chemicals.

The study’s lead author, dentist Dr. Loc Do of Queensland University, Australia, used two parent questionnaires to see if he could detect the same neurotoxic effects in Australian children that numerous other studies have found in Canada, Mexico, China, and elsewhere.  But those studies all used standard IQ-type tests.  Do’s study instead used a Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), which is not a measure of intelligence or cognitive ability but is “a 25-item brief behavioral screening tool that measures children’s behaviors, emotions, and relationships.”  For example, it asks parents whether their child can be described as “Kind”, “Lies”, “Bullied”, “Shares”, “Unhappy”, “Helps”, “Clingy”, and other items having little relationship to IQ [Ribeiro Santiago 2021].

 

Other Weaknesses: Ecological, Didn’t Account For All Fluoride Sources, Inadequate Control Of Confounders

Do’s study summary for his grant claimed his study would provide “high quality evidence” on fluoridation and intellectual development.  However, it has additional important shortcomings compared to recent studies that found adverse neurotoxic effects.  Do’s study, instead of using an individual-level measure of fluoride exposure, used a group-level measure (also called an ecological measure), and only tried to account for fluoride from fluoridated water, rather than all sources.  This is an important weakness compared to the best studies, which either used the biomarker of urine fluoride concentration which reflects fluoride exposure from all sources, or used combined estimates of fluoride intake from drinking water and tea [Goodman 2022, Cantoral 2021, Farmus 2021, Wang 2021, Yu 2021, Zhao 2021, Till 2020, Wang 2019, Green 2019, Riddell 2019, Bashash 2018, Bashash 2017, Valdez-Jimenez 2017]. Tea has been found to be the second largest source of fluoride exposure after fluoridated water, even in a country with much lower tea consumption than Australia [Helte 2021].  The inability to account for all sources of fluoride exposure in the Do study likely further reduced the study’s ability to detect an effect of fluoride.

Another weakness of the Do study is its lack of control for potentially important confounders, which other recent studies did control for, including: lead, mercury, arsenic, PFOA, parent IQ, HOME score, gestational age, birth weight, parity, marriage status, smoking, alcohol use of mother, and Body Mass Index (BMI).

Cites Food & Pharma Industry Front-Group’s Bogus Review

More evidence of the author’s bias is found in the Do paper introduction that cites a very biased German review that concludes fluoride has no association with neurotoxicity [Guth 2020].  This is a favorite review of fluoridation defenders.  But the authors of that review are closely associated with a front-group for food and pharmaceutical interests that has a history of claiming chemical food additives, genetically modified foods, and even endocrine disrupting chemicals are no problem [USRightToKnow 2022, CorporateEuropeObservatory 2012, TestBioTech 2012]. We’ll have more on those authors and their links with industry in a future bulletin.

Do’s Advocacy For Fluoridation Reveals Bias

Finally, the choice to publish Do’s paper in the fluoridation-friendly Journal of Dental Research (JDR) instead of a journal specializing in neurotoxicity or environmental health, is further evidence the Do study is biased to avoid finding an adverse effect that might threaten fluoridation.  JDR is sponsored by the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), which has had a long-standing official position supporting fluoridation and claiming it is “safe and effective”.  In fact, the latest update of the IADR Position Statement on fluoridation was written by Dr. Do and has outdated and misleading information about adverse effects [IADR 2021].

The Streetlight Effect Fallacy may explain how this Australian study failed to find harm to the brain from fluoridation, but another proverb summarizes what appears to be the attitude of the researchers, and of all fluoridation defenders who are trying to deny the strong scientific evidence that fluoride harms brains: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil… about fluoridation.

Other Weaknesses: Ecological, Didn’t Account For All Fluoride Sources, Inadequate Control Of Confounders

Do’s study summary for his grant claimed his study would provide “high quality evidence” on fluoridation and intellectual development.  However, it has additional important shortcomings compared to recent studies that found adverse neurotoxic effects.  Do’s study, instead of using an individual-level measure of fluoride exposure, used a group-level measure (also called an ecological measure), and only tried to account for fluoride from fluoridated water, rather than all sources.  This is an important weakness compared to the best studies, which either used the biomarker of urine fluoride concentration which reflects fluoride exposure from all sources, or used combined estimates of fluoride intake from drinking water and tea [Goodman 2022, Cantoral 2021, Farmus 2021, Wang 2021, Yu 2021, Zhao 2021, Till 2020, Wang 2019, Green 2019, Riddell 2019, Bashash 2018, Bashash 2017, Valdez-Jimenez 2017]. Tea has been found to be the second largest source of fluoride exposure after fluoridated water, even in a country with much lower tea consumption than Australia [Helte 2021].  The inability to account for all sources of fluoride exposure in the Do study likely further reduced the study’s ability to detect an effect of fluoride.

Another weakness of the Do study is its lack of control for potentially important confounders, which other recent studies did control for, including: lead, mercury, arsenic, PFOA, parent IQ, HOME score, gestational age, birth weight, parity, marriage status, smoking, alcohol use of mother, and Body Mass Index (BMI).

Cites Food & Pharma Industry Front-Group’s Bogus Review

More evidence of the author’s bias is found in the Do paper introduction that cites a very biased German review that concludes fluoride has no association with neurotoxicity [Guth 2020].  This is a favorite review of fluoridation defenders.  But the authors of that review are closely associated with a front-group for food and pharmaceutical interests that has a history of claiming chemical food additives, genetically modified foods, and even endocrine disrupting chemicals are no problem [USRightToKnow 2022, CorporateEuropeObservatory 2012, TestBioTech 2012]. We’ll have more on those authors and their links with industry in a future bulletin.

Do’s Advocacy For Fluoridation Reveals Bias

Finally, the choice to publish Do’s paper in the fluoridation-friendly Journal of Dental Research (JDR) instead of a journal specializing in neurotoxicity or environmental health, is further evidence the Do study is biased to avoid finding an adverse effect that might threaten fluoridation.  JDR is sponsored by the International Association for Dental Research (IADR), which has had a long-standing official position supporting fluoridation and claiming it is “safe and effective”.  In fact, the latest update of the IADR Position Statement on fluoridation was written by Dr. Do and has outdated and misleading information about adverse effects [IADR 2021].

The Streetlight Effect Fallacy may explain how this Australian study failed to find harm to the brain from fluoridation, but another proverb summarizes what appears to be the attitude of the researchers, and of all fluoridation defenders who are trying to deny the strong scientific evidence that fluoride harms brains: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil… about fluoridation.

Fluoride has been implicated in all of these diseases


Blind Spots; Body temperature disturbances; Breast Cancer; Cachexia (wasting away); Candidasis; Carpal Tunnel Syndrome; Cataracts; Change in blood pressure(=/-); Chest pain; Chronic Fatigue Syndrome; Collagen breakdown; Cold Shivers; Coma; Concentration Inability; Constipation; Convulsions; Crying easily for no apparent reason; Death; Decrease in Testosterone; Dementia; Demyelinizing Diseases; Dental Abnormalities; Dental Arch smaller; Dental Crowding; Dental enamel more porous; Dental Fluorosis (Mottling of teeth); Delayed Eruption of teeth; Depression; Diabetes Insipidus; Diabetes Mellitus; Diarrhea; Dizziness; Down Syndrome; Dry Mouth; Dyspepsia; Dystrophy; Early/Delayed Onset of Puberty; Eczema; Edema; Epilepsy; Eosinophilia; Excessive Sleepiness; Eye, ear and nose disorders; Fatigue; Fearfulness; Fever; Fibromyalgia; Fibrosarcoma; Fibrosis; Fingernails:Lines/Grooves; Fingernails:Brittle; Forgetfulness; Gallstones; Gastro-disturbances; Gastric Ulcers; Giant Cell Formation; Gingivitis; Goiter; Growth Disturbances; Headache; Hearing Loss; Heart Disorders; Heart Failure; Heart Palpitations; Hepatitis; Hemorrhage; Hives; Hoarseness; Hyperparathyroidism; Hypertension; Hypoplasia; Immunosuppression; Impotence; Incoherence; Infertility; Inflammatory Bowel Disease; Inner Ear Disorders; Irritability; Joint Pains; Kidney Failure; Lack of Energy; Lack of Co-ordination; Loss of Appetite; Loss of Consciousness; Loss of IQ; Loss of Spermatogenesis; Low Birth Weight; Lung Cancer; Lupus; Magnesium Deficiency; Memory Loss; Mental Confusion; Migraine; Mouth Sores; Multiple Sclerosis; Muscle Pain, Wasting, Cramps, Stiffness, Weakness; Muscoskeletal Disease; Nausea; Osteoarthritis; Osteoporosis; Osteosarcoma; Optic Neuritis; Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma; Otosclerosis; Parkinson’s Disease; Pins & Needles; Polydipsia; Polyneuropathy; Polyurea; Pyelocystitis; Premature Delivery; Pruritis (Itchy Skin); Pulminary Edema; Recurring Colds; Respiratory Complications; Restlessness; Retinitis; Rhinitis; Schizophrenia; Sceroderma; Skin Pigmentation; Secondary teeth erupt later; Sensitive to light; Seizures; Shortness of Breath; SIDS; Sinus Infections; Skeletal Changes; Sleep Disorders; Slipped Epiphysis; Sluggishness; Skin Irritations; Spondylitis, ankylosing; Stillbirths; Swallowing Difficulties; Swelling in Face; Telangiectasia; Testicular Growth/Alteration; Thirst; Thrombosis; Thyroid Cancer; Tinnitus; Tingling Sensations; Visual disturbances; Ulcerative Colitis; Urticaria; Uterine Bleeding; Uterine Cancer; Vaginal Bleeding; Vas Deferens Alterations; Vertigo; Vitiligo; Weak Pulse; Weight Disturbances; Zinc Deficiency.

 

Warning - Fluoride In Your Water

Fluoridation of water is promoted as a health measure when the science indicates multiple toxicities. In this interview Dr Sam Bailey speaks with one of the unsung New Zealand heroes, Kane Titchener who has volunteered his time to combat the authorities’ attempts to poison our water supplies.

videos/interviews/warning-fluoride-in-your-water/


In this video he discusses:

    The relationship of fluoridation to vaccination
    The effects of fluoride on the brain and IQ
    Why your typical doctor or dentist doesn’t know much about fluoride
    How to protect yourself against fluoride toxicity
    What kind of toothpaste is best for your family

 
 

Fluoridation: The Fraud of the Century

Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it.


 Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.

They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2

The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3

On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4

The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5

Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5

The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6

From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.

Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.

Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”

Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7

EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8

There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9

Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.

Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.

A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14

The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!

Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16

When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!

Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).

On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not – look at how many years millions of people were fooled by the tobacco industry!

 
 

References

  1. George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
  2. R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
  3. San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
  4. Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
  5. “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
  6. San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
  7. Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
  8. J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
  9. Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
  10. “The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
  11. The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
  12. K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
  13. National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
  14. Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
  15. Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
  16. Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.

 https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/health-issues/fluoridation-the-fraud-of-the-century

 

The Fluoride Deception

The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson documents a powerful connection between big corporations, the military, and the historic reassurances of fluoride safety provided by the government.

 

https://archive.org/details/fluoridedeceptio00brys

The Fluoride Deception reads like a thriller, but one supported by two hundred pages of source notes, years of investigative reporting, scores of scientist interviews, and archival research in places such as the newly opened files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission. 

The book is nothing less than an exhumation of one of the great secret narratives of the industrial era: how a grim workplace poison and the most damaging environmental pollutant of the cold war was added to our drinking water and toothpaste.


 

FLUORIDE IMAGE GALLERY

 For anyone looking for some fluoride images to post online during FLUORIDE AWARENESS MONTH (July 2024) - there is now a gallery of fluoride images right here on this blog to share around online: 

https://sift666.blogspot.com/p/fluoride-images.html

 
 
 

DENTAL FLUOROSIS SHOWS POISONING

The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming, but the corruption at government and council level in NZ, as with covid, is also overwhelming. Keep on exposing all of this health misinformation!


 DENTAL FLUOROSIS SHOWS POISONING

White spots on child’s teeth – first outward sign of fluoride poisoning
If you or your child have white spots on the teeth, or the tips of your teeth have white marks, this is probably a condition called dental fluorosis.


The only way a person gets dental fluorosis is from being exposed to too much fluoride as the teeth are developing. This is the first outward sign of that over-exposure. It means the person is showing an outward sign of fluoride poisoning. The Ministry of Health, on the other hand, claims that dental fluorosis is “only cosmetic”.


Take this analogy: Burton’s line is a distinctive, thin, blue-purplish line that appears along the margin of the gums, at the base of the teeth, in individuals with chronic lead poisoning. The Burton line is a valuable diagnostic tool for identifying cases of chronic lead poisoning. No one would say that Burton’s Line is “only cosmetic”! Dental fluorosis should be seen as a valuable diagnostic tool for identifying cases of chronic fluoride poisoning.


In New Zealand the Ministry of Health’s (MoH) last report, the 2009 Oral Health Survey, that looked into dental fluorosis rates, said that around 40% of children had some form of dental fluorosis. They said that it was the same rate in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas. However, much more thorough New Zealand studies have found about twice the rate of dental fluorosis in fluoridated areas compared to nonfluoridated areas (30% vs 15%).


We have a serious problem in this country when so many children are showing the first outward sign of being poisoned by the neurotoxin, fluoride. Our public health officials should be ALARMED.


Watch short video clip on dental fluorosis.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkzzIikhcQc
https://fluoridefree.org.nz/white-spots-on-childs-teeth.../

 
#fluoridefreeawarenessmonth

 
 

Water Fluoridation by Paul Connett

The Latest Science Indicates That the Practice Must Stop

Water fluoridation is the deliberate addition of a substance containing, or yielding, fluoride (that is, in the form of the free fluoride ion) to the public water supply with the ostensible aim of reducing tooth decay. The concentrations of fluoride used for this purpose in the U.S. range from 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water (0.7-1.2 parts per million or ppm). When the practice began in the U.S. and Canada in 1945 there were no published studies available which demonstrated that consuming fluoride at these levels was safe.

Without any formal study, it was assumed that because some people in some places had consumed natural fluoride levels higher than 1 ppm for many years, with no “apparent” harm recorded, adding fluoride to water would be safe.

The authors both work for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN),1 a nonprofit dedicated to education and sharing information on the toxicity of fluoride. FAN maintains the largest database dedicated to fluoride’s toxicity on blood,2 bone,3 brain,4 heart,5 kidney,6 liver,7 lung,8 the reproductive system,9 and the thyroid gland;10 as well as the largest collection of news articles on fluoride11 that are accessible by country, by state for the U.S. and by province for Canada. The website also contains links to many videotaped interviews,12 government reports by country,13 fluoride industrial emissions by state14 and more.

NEITHER ETHICAL NOR SCIENTIFIC

It was neither ethical nor scientific to force people to consume fluoride in 1945, and it is not ethical or scientific to do it today. The arguments get stronger as U.S. authorities are finally getting around to doing the studies on tissues that they should have conducted many years ago—and should have done before they started what has amounted to one of the largest public health experiments in U.S. history.

PROTECTING A BELIEF SYSTEM

The dilemma for those who believe that this practice is causing harm is how to end it when most people don’t even know their water is being fluoridated and don’t know the potential risks it may be posing to their children. Sadly, most doctors and dentists simply follow the policies of their professional bodies without reading the literature for themselves. The media are not telling the public about the latest health studies and are simply parroting statements from organizations like the American Dental Association (ADA) and agencies like the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which hold a long standing “belief” in the “safety and effectiveness” of this practice. Meanwhile, government health departments at all levels appear to be more interested in protecting this outdated policy than protecting the health of our children.

The task that FAN has set itself since 2000 is to share the science about the dangers posed by this practice with those who are willing to read and listen, mainly through our web page at FluorideALERT.org and through public presentations (for example, in Seattle15). The latest science makes it very clear that the practice of fluoridation must stop!

FLUORIDE AND INTELLIGENCE

In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies concluded that “fluorides have the ability to interfere with functions of the brain”16 and for the first time called fluoride an endocrine disruptor.17

In 2006, there were only five IQ studies available to the NRC panel. Subsequently, many more have been published (including studies that were previously only available in Chinese). As of 2019, we now have sixty studies, fifty-three of which have shown a lowered IQ in children in communities with high fluoride exposure compared to communities with lower fluoride exposure.18

Most of these studies have been carried out in China, but others took place in India, Iran and Mexico. In 2012, twenty-seven of these studies were subjected to a meta-analysis by a team from Harvard, which was published in one of the world’s leading environmental health journals, Environmental Health Perspectives.19 While this team had concerns about the lack of information on several possible confounding factors in many of these studies, they were struck by the consistency of the results. Even though the research was carried out over a period of twenty-one years, by many different research teams, in two countries (China and Iran) and in many different locations, twenty-six out of the twenty-seven studies found the same result: a lowering of IQ. The average lowering was seven IQ points.

It should be noted that a shift downward of five IQ points in a large population would halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than one hundred thirty) and increase by over 50 percent the number of mentally handicapped (IQ lower than seventy). Such a downward shift would have both huge economic and social consequences for a country like the USA.

Promoters of fluoridation have done their best to diminish the significance of these findings for fluoridated communities, but recent findings have largely undermined their self-serving arguments. A rigorous U.S. government-funded study carried out by a highly qualified research team headed by Dr. Morteza Bashash confirmed that fluoride is neurotoxic at levels currently experienced in fluoridated communities and, for this effect, the most vulnerable stage of human life is during fetal development.20 This study was conducted in Mexico City with two hundred ninety-nine mother-offspring pairs. The authors found strong associations between fluoride exposure to the pregnant women (as measured in their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at age four and again at six to twelve years of age. Subsequently, in 2018, a study reported that the lowering of IQ in the same cohort also occurred in an earlier age range (one to three years).21

In 2018, using the same Mexico City cohort, Dr. Bashash found that there was a strong association between some of the symptoms of ADHD in the children and urine fluoride levels in the pregnant women.22 A 2015 study found a relationship between the prevalence of ADHD in the U.S. and fluoridation status by state; the higher the percentage of the state fluoridated, the greater the prevalence of ADHD.23

It is hard to overstate the importance of the 2017 Bashash study.20 Strikingly, it was funded by U.S. government agencies, two of which (National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency) have promoted (NIH) and defended (EPA) the safety of water fluoridation. The study was part of a twenty-five-year ELEMENT research project (Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants) directed by professor Howard Hu from the University of Toronto. The Bashash study took over twelve years and involved researchers from many distinguished universities and institutions in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. These included the universities of Toronto, McGill, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Harvard, as well as Mount Sinai and the National Institute of Perinatology in Mexico. These researchers have published over fifty studies conducted along similar lines for other neurotoxicants. Of particular importance was the fact that, unlike most of the other IQ studies on fluoride, this study involved measurements at the individual (not community) level for both mother and child. Based upon their extensive experience, the authors controlled for a large number of potential confounding variables, and even after controlling for these they still found a very strong relationship between fluoride exposure during pregnancy in the mother and lowered IQ in their offspring.

Fluoridation promoters, including the American Dental Association, have claimed that this study was not relevant to fluoridated communities in the U.S. because Mexico City does not have artificial fluoridation and pregnant women there are likely to have higher doses of fluoride from fluoridated salt and some naturally fluoridated water areas. Such arguments are not convincing because the biometric of exposure used was fluoride levels in the urine, which is a measure of total dose of fluoride and is independent of the source. Moreover, the range of exposure in Mexico City was within the range of fluoride levels in the urine of adults in the U.S. This point was further confirmed by a subsequent national study of the urine fluoride levels in pregnant women in Canada. This study found that levels of fluoride in the urine of Canadian women living in fluoridated communities were almost identical to the levels in Mexico City, namely 0.87 ppm in Canada versus 0.91 ppm in Mexico City.24

As far as the politics of fluoridation are concerned, it is significant that some of the world’s leading neurotoxicologists, like Phillipe Grandjean (mercury specialist) and David Bellinger (lead specialist), are now participating in this research as well as reviewing the literature.25,26 They now see fluoride’s neurotoxicity in the same vein as that of lead, arsenic, mercury and other well-established neurotoxicants.

It should also be stressed that in addition to the fifty-three IQ studies discussed above, there are many other animal, human, biochemical and cellular studies that provide an overwhelming weight of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic. These include one hundred thirty human brain studies;27 two hundred forty-one animal brain studies;28 thirty-three cellular brain studies;29 and thirty review studies.30

FLUORIDE AND HYPOTHYROIDISM

In the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s, doctors in Argentina, France and Germany used sodium fluoride to lower the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid gland).31 -37 Despite this knowledge, government agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating countries have never seen fit to investigate a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and the rising level of hypothyroidism in their countries. Only recently have scientists reviewed the matter.38-41

A 2018 study, reported that while they could find no relationship between fluoride exposure and TSH levels (thyroid stimulating hormone and an indicator of hypothyroidism) and fluoridation status among the general population, they did find that for those who had low or even borderline iodine intake, fluoride exposure was associated with an increase in their TSH levels.42 

The importance of this finding is that it gives a very plausible mechanism for why fluoride might lower IQ in children born to mothers with high fluoride exposure. When the fetus comes into existence it has no thyroid gland. It is entirely dependent on the mother’s thyroid levels for its early mental development. So any depression in the mother’s thyroid hormone levels will increase the risk of lowered IQ in their offspring (see Vyvyan Howard’s explanation of this situation in a PowerPoint presentation he gave in New Zealand in 2018).43

WARNING PREGNANT WOMEN

One of the sad consequences of the medical community’s acceptance of the safety-and-effectiveness argument for water fluoridation, based upon dogma rather than upon the latest science, is that many doctors are oblivious of these findings. The result is that women are not being warned to avoid fluoride exposure during pregnancy. They are not being warned by their doctors, by health departments, by professional bodies or by the media. It has been left to non-governmental bodies like FAN to get the word out the best we can via social media, the Internet (see the Moms 2B Campaign),44 press releases,45 leaflets and talks. We have been trying to do so since 2017, but it is an extremely difficult task, as is the continuing battle to try to end the well-entrenched practice of water fluoridation.

LAWSUIT PROVIDES NEW HOPE

In November 2016, the Fluoride Action Network, along with Food & Water Watch, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, the Organic Consumers Association and individuals, petitioned the EPA46 to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to public drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances and Control Act.

We argued that “[t]he risk to the brain posed by fluoridation additives is an unreasonable risk because, inter alia, it is now understood that fluoride’s predominant effect on tooth decay comes from topical contact with teeth, not ingestion. Since there is little benefit in swallowing fluoride, there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom. The addition of fluoridation chemicals to water thus represents the very type of unreasonable risk that EPA is duly authorized to prohibit pursuant to its powers and responsibilities under Section 6 of TSCA, and Petitioners urge the Agency to exercise its authority to do so.”

In September 201747 the EPA rejected our petition on its scientific merits. In response to an appeal from FAN, a federal court denied EPA’s motion to dismiss in December 2017.48

Also in December 201749 the EPA argued that no other studies should be added to the case after our petition was first delivered to them in November 2016. The court disagreed with EPA50 and ruled to allow new studies, such as those by Bashash and others discussed above. A trial date has been set to take place in federal district court in San Francisco in August 2019.

We are confident that we can win this case. In order to do so, it will require us to demonstrate three things: 1) that fluoride poses a hazard to the developing brain; 2) that there is a risk at current exposure levels (from all sources combined) in fluoridated communities; 3) that this is an unreasonable risk because there are other ways that tooth decay can be prevented.

Moreover, even if fluoride is one of those alternatives, there are other and more appropriate ways of delivering fluoride to the surface of teeth than putting fluoride into the drinking water. Indeed, the majority of countries worldwide that do not fluoridate their water have actually demonstrated this over many years.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

There are many ethical and scientific arguments against the seventy-year practice of water fluoridation. The evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay remains weak. Not a single randomized controlled trial has been attempted to demonstrate this, and promoters have relied on studies with far weaker methodologies.65 Meanwhile, the number of studies that indicate harm can be caused, even at the doses experienced in fluoridated communities, has been growing, particularly studies on the brain.20,22,24,42,46 

With such risks on the table, it is unconscionable, in our view, that governments continue to promote the deliberate addition of a known neurotoxic and endocrine-disrupting substance to the drinking water of millions of people, most of whom have not been informed of the risks involved, or been given the opportunity to give—or refuse—their consent on the matter.

SIDEBARS

ELEVEN ARGUMENTS WHY FLUORIDATION SHOULD BE ENDED
1. Fluoridation is unethical. Using the public water supply to deliver dental therapy goes against all recognized principles of modern pharmacology and ethical healthcare practice. It imposes medication on all water consumers indiscriminately and without the individual’s informed consent. These include the unborn, bottle-fed infants, persons with chronic diseases known to be aggravated by fluoride (such as poor kidney function), the poorly nourished (such as those with low iodine intake) and the elderly. It does so with uncontrolled dosage, no monitoring of adverse effects and no possibility of avoiding treatment for most, if not all, people. This is especially true for those on a low-income budget who simply cannot afford avoidance measures like reverse osmosis filtration systems.
2. Fluoridation is unusual. The vast majority of countries worldwide do not fluoridate their drinking water. Out of one hundred ninety-six countries, only twenty-four have any fluoridated cities, and of those, only ten, including the U.S., fluoridate more than half their population. Ninety-five percent of the world’s people drink water without artificial fluoridation. Over half of those who do, live in the U.S. In Europe, where forty-three out of forty-eight nations have no water fluoridation, 98 percent of the population is not forced to drink fluoridated water. A few European countries (namely France, Germany, Switzerland and Austria) have fluoridated salt available, but people are not forced to buy this salt, as non-fluoridated salt is also available. Despite this, World Health Organization (WHO) data61 indicate that since the 1960s, tooth decay in twelve-year-olds has been coming down as fast in non-fluoridated countries as in fluoridated ones.
3. Children in fluoridated communities are being grossly over-exposed to fluoride. In the U.S. and other fluoridated countries, there has been a dramatic increase in young children and teens in the prevalence of dental fluorosis (discoloration of tooth enamel caused by low-level systemic fluoride toxicity during tooth formation). This condition indicates that children have been grossly over-exposed to fluoride before their permanent teeth have erupted. The latest national survey indicates that over 60 percent of U.S. teens have dental fluorosis.52,53 Of those, 24 percent have moderate and nearly 2 percent have severe levels of the disease. These levels can produce yellow and brown staining and structural damage to the enamel. To put this into context, the early promoters of fluoridation anticipated only 10 percent of the children in fluoridated communities would be affected by this condition, and these would be only in the “very mild” category. They believed that this was an acceptable trade-off for reducing tooth decay. Even avid promoters of fluoridation no longer accept that the current prevalence rates as acceptable but they tend to blame other sources of fluoride—rather than water fluoridation—for the dramatic increase. In reality, every source of fluoride ingested contributes to this prevalence. The contribution from water fluoridation can be eliminated with a simple policy change.
4. Fluoride has the potential to damage many other tissues. Because of the prevalence of dental fluorosis, there is no question that fluoride can damage the developing teeth. Nor is there any question from the evidence provided in countries with large areas of endemic fluorosis (such as India and China) where millions of people have both dental and skeletal fluorosis, that high doses of fluoride can damage other tissues including bones, connective tissue, the brain, the endocrine system, the gut and kidneys. The Indian Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,54 provides an excellent description of the problems faced by thousands of villages poisoned by fluoride. For the Western world, much of this evidence was provided in a comprehensive review of the literature conducted by the National Research Council of the National Academies in 2006.16 What has emerged since 2006 is a growing body of evidence that this harm can occur at doses experienced in artificially fluoridated  communities.
5. Fluoridation is unnecessary. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No one has ever demonstrated that a single biological process in the human body needs fluoride to function properly. There is no such thing as a “fluoridedeficiency” disease. Children can have perfectly good teeth without ingesting fluoride. Even promoters of water fluoridation admit that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical, not systemic.55-58 Thus, it is morally indefensible to force people to ingest fluoride via the public water supply, when for those who want fluoride,  fluoridated toothpaste is universally available. Moreover, the fluoride used in toothpaste is pharmaceutical grade whereas the fluoride used to fluoridate water is an industrial grade hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.25
6. Today’s fluoride is worse. The fluoridating chemical used in over 90 percent of the fluoridating communities in the U.S. is a substance called hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). This substance is removed from the scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry as a 23-25 percent solution. It is contaminated with trace amounts of other toxic substances including aluminum, arsenic, lead and radioactive isotopes (the same ore that is mined for fluoride in Florida is also mined for uranium). Ironically, this waste product cannot be dumped into the sea by international law, but health authorities blandly allow it to be put untreated into the public water supply!
7. Fluoride is very toxic and nature has developed protection mechanisms for many living things. For lower creatures like bacteria and fungi, there are genes—switched on by high levels of fluoride—which code for proteins called fluoride exporting proteins (FEX proteins). These proteins are located in the cellular membranes and pump fluoride out of the cell.26 In mammals, the kidney excretes about 50 percent of fluoride ingested each day from healthy individuals, and most of the rest is rapidly sequestered in hard tissues like the bones. Importantly, the human breast appears to act as a fluoride filter for the new born baby. The level in mothers’ milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm).27 Thus, a bottle-fed baby, when the formula is made up with fluoridated tap water (0.7 to 1.2 ppm), will get approximately two hundred times more fluoride than a breastfed infant (that is, two hundred times more than nature intended).
8. Fluoridation is unscientific. Fluoridation is promoted with PR techniques like endorsements, not with sound
science. Most of the endorsements were made shortly after the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950 with virtually no science on the short-term—let alone long-term—health effects. Citizens should be very wary of taking such endorsements at face value unless they are accompanied by an up-to-date review of the literature—and very few are. Incredibly, in over seventy years there has been no randomized control trial (RCT) to demonstrate that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay. As far as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is concerned, an RCT is the gold standard for approving new drugs. According to the FDA, fluoride is an unapproved drug28 and the FDA has never approved fluoride tablets for ingestion. Many decision makers and journalists around the world are impressed when they read the notorious statement from the CDC in 1999 that “Fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century.”63 However, what they may not realize is that this statement did not come from the CDC itself (which has about thirty thousand employees, many of whom are highly qualified in many medical fields as well as toxicology) but from the CDC’s small Oral Health Division with only thirty employees, most of whom only have dental qualifications. Moreover, their job is defined as promoting fluoridation. They even admit to not following—or being responsible for—the science pertaining to fluoride’s harmful effects. Journalists and others have been impressed by a public relations exercise by a promotional body, not by a body that maintains a careful overview of any harm the practice may be causing.
9. Health risks are ignored in fluoridated countries. Sadly, because the imposed dental practice of water fluoridation is so entrenched in the psyche of the medical, dental and public health establishments in fluoridated countries, neither governments nor the mainstream media are warning the public about the large and growing
body of scientific research30 that shows that fluoride exposure poses many health risks.
10. Fluoridation violates the precautionary principle. The scientific evidence that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay is weak,31 but the weight of evidence that it causes harm to the developing brain is so one-sided, that to wait for further studies before halting the deliberate addition of fluoride to water is a rash and irresponsible public health position.
11. Fluoridation violates the principles of environmental justice. The addition of fluoride to public water is an environmental injustice to people living in poverty in fluoridated areas who do not have access to alternative water
sources and are captive to tap water for all their water needs. Moreover, it is well established that those with poor
nutrition are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects, and poor nutrition is more likely to occur among those
with low incomes.

REFERENCES
1. Fluoride Action Network, website http://fluoridealert.org/.
2. Blood: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=blood&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
3. Bone: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=bone-joints&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
4. Brain: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
5. Heart: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/effect=cardio-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
6. Kidney: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=kidney&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
7. Liver: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=liver-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=
8. Lung: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=respiratory-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
9. Reproductive System: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=reproductive-toxicity&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
10. ThyroidGland: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=thyroid-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
11. News Articles, http://fluoridealert.org/news/
12. Videotaped Interviews, http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/
13. Government Reports, http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/government-reports/.
14. Fluoride Emissions by State, http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/overview-tri/.
15. Seattle, http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/connett-seattle/
16. National Research Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking
Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/33368/.
17. Choi et al. 2012. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives.120(10):1362-1368 at 16. page
266, https://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/10?term=disruptor#266.
18. Fluoride Action Network. Fluoride & IQ: the 53 studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/.
19. Choi et al. 2012. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives.120(10):1362-1368.
20. Bashash et al. 2017. Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children at 4 and 6–12 years of age in Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives. Sept; 25(9):097017. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/bashash-2017-.pdf
21. Thomas et al. 2018. OP V – 2 Prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavior among children 1–3 years of age in Mexico. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. March; 2018;75:A10. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/30717/.
22. Bashash et al. 2018. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International. Oct 10; 121(1):658-666. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/32332/.
23. Malin and Till. 2015. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association. Environmental Health. February. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/malin-2015.pdf.
24. Till et al. 2018. Community water fluoridation and urinary fluoride concentrations in a national sample of pregnant women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. Oct 10; 126(10):107001-13. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/till-2018.pdf.
25. Grandjean and Landrigan. 2014. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology. March; 3:330-338. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/grandjean-20141.pdf.
26. Bellinger DC. 2018. Environmental chemical exposures and neurodevelopmental impairments in children. Pediatric Medicine 1:9. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/bellinger-2018.pdf.
27. Fluoride Action Network. 130 Human fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=human&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
28. Fluoride Action Network, 240 Animal fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=animals&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
29. Fluoride Action Network, 33 Cellular fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=cell&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
30. Fluoride Action Network, 30 Review fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=reviews&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
31. Goldemberg L. 1926. Action Physiologique des Fluorures. Comptes Rendes Séances de la Société de Biologie et de ses Filiales (Paris) 95:1169.
32. Goldemberg L. 1930. Traitement de la Maladie de Basedow et de l’Hyperthyuroidismepar le Fluor. La Presse Médicale 102:1751.
33. Goldemberg L. 1932. Comment Agiraient-ils Therapeutiquement les Fluoers dans le Goitre Exopthalmique et dans L’Hyperthryoidisme. La Semana Médica 39:1659.
34. May W. 1935. Antagonismus Zwischen Jod und Fluor in Organismus. Klinische Wochenschrift 14:790-792.
35. May W. 1937. Behandlung the Hyperthyreosen Einschliesslich des Schweren Genuinen Morbus Basedow mir Fluor. Klinische Wochenschrift 16:562-64.
36. Orlowski W. 1932. Sur a Valeur Thérapeutique du Sang Animal du Bore et du Fluor dans la Maladie de Basedow. La Presse Médicale 42:836-37.
37. Galletti and Joyet. 1958. Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. Oct;18(10):1102-10. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/galletti-1958.pdf
38. Peckham et al. 2015. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Jul;69(7):619-24. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peckham-2015.pdf
39. Chaitanya et al. 2018. A systematic analysis on possibility of water fluoridation causing hypothyroidism. Indian Journal of Dental Research. May-Jun; 29(3):358-363. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/31383/
40. McLaren JR. 1969. Fluoride and the thyroid gland. Editorial. Fluoride. Oct; 2(4):192-194. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/mclaren-1969.pdf.
41. Gas’kov et al. 2005. The specific features of the development of iodine deficiencies in children living under environmental pollution with fluorine compounds. Gigiena i Sanitariia. Nov-Dec;(6):53-5. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/15213/.
42. Malin et al. 2018. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status. Environment International. 121:667-674. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/malin-2018.pdf.
43. Vyvyan Howard, FRCPath, http://fluoridealert.org/howard-2018-nz/.
44. Moms2B Campaign, http://fluoridealert.org/issues/moms2b/.
45. Fluoride Action Network , Press Releases, http://fluoridealert.org/news/?country=united-states&sub=fluoride-action-network-press-release-unitedstates.
46. Connett M. 2016. Petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. § 2620, invoking Section 6 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a), on behalf of several groups and individuals. November 22. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/epa-petition.pdf.
47. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Federal defendants’ motion to dismiss. In the United States District Court for Northern California, San Francisco Division. Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC, Document 28. September 25. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.epa-motion-to-dismiss.9-25-17.pdf.
48. United States District Court for Northern California. 2017. Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. Case No. 17-cv-02162-EMC, Docket No.28. December 21. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.12-21-17.denies-epa-motion-to-dismiss.pdf.
49. U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Federal defendants’ notice of motion and motion to limit review to the administrative record and to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand. Case No.: 17-cv-02162-EMC. December 14. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.12-14-17.epa-requests-protective-order-to-limit-discovery.
pdf.
50. United States District Court for Northern California. 2018. Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record. Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC, Document 53, February 7. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.2-7-18.court-denies-epa-motion-to-limit.pdf.
51. WHO Data, http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/who-data/.
52. Wiener et al. 2018. Dental fluorosis over time: a comparison of national health and nutrition examination survey data from 2001-2002 and 2011-2012. Journal of Dental Hygiene. Feb;92(1):23-29.
53. Neurath et al. 2019. Dental fluorosis trends in United States oral health surveys: 1986-2012. Journal of Dental Research Clinical & Translational Research. In print.
54. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, National Health Portal of India. 2016. Fluorosis. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/33368/.
55. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 1999. Achievements in public health, 1900-1999: fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly. October 22, 1999 /48(41);933-940. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/cdc-mmwr.oct-22-1999.pdf.
56. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 2001. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review. Recommendations and Reports, August 17, 2001 / 50(RR14);1-42.
57. Ibid at 16.
58. Featherstone JD. 2000. The science and practice of caries prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. July: 131(7):887-99.
59. Fluoride Action Network, Phosphate Fertilizer Industry, see http://fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01/
60. Li et al. 2013. Eukaryotic resistance to fluoride toxicity mediated by a widespread family of fluoride export proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Nov 19;110(47):19018-23.
61. Ibid at 16, page 40, https://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/4#40.
62. Moore, Robert J. 2005. Fluoride is an unapproved drug. Letter from Food and Drug Administration to Daniel Stockin. www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/fda-2005a.pdf.
63. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 1999. Ten Great Public Health Achievements–United States, 1900-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review. December 24, 1999 / 48(50);1141
64. Fluoride Action Network. Study fluoridealert.org/studytracker/.
65. Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, et al. 2015. Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. June 18. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract.

 https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/environmental-toxins/water-fluoridation/#gsc.tab=0

Eugenics is never about dental health

 

FLUORIDATION IS BASED ON A LIE

In 2014 the Chief Science Advisor and the NZ Royal Society produced a report on fluoridation. Their conclusion on fluoride and IQ contained a blatant lie.


The Report claims the loss of 7 IQ points (described as “less than one standard deviation”) found in a 2012 Harvard review of human fluoride-IQ studies “is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance.” This conclusion is a blatant lie. If the truthful conclusion had been reported, it would have said “is likely to be a measurement OF functional significance”, the whole trajectory of fluoridation in New Zealand would have been entirely different.


Everyone in New Zealand should be aware of this deception.


Watch video at 11 minutes in to see visual presentation of this lie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5WwNKP0WRI&t=655s
https://fluoridefree.org.nz/fluoridation-in-new-zealand.../

 


 

Fluoride turns men into eunuchs

Fluoride added to water makes circus animals calm and prisoners docile. Now we know the reason. A search for “fluoride” and “testosterone” turns up dozens of studies showing adverse effects, such as “Effects of sodium fluoride and sulfur dioxide on sperm motility and serum testosterone in male rats,” “Sodium fluoride disrupts testosterone biosynthesis by affecting the steroidogenic pathway in TM3 Leydig cells” and “Fluoride toxicity in the male reproductive system.” 

 

It’s mostly Chinese research­ers who are looking at this problem. A group from Shanxi, China, led by Jiahai Zhang investigated what happened to rats when given sodium fluoride in their drinking water (and also exposed to sulfur dioxide in the air) for eight consecu­tive weeks. Exposure to fluoride with sulfur dioxide but also to fluoride alone adversely affected testis tissue and serum testosterone levels in rats. 

Addition of fluoride—a toxic waste—to drinking water should be banned worldwide, but of course there is resistance, because then the industries pro­ducing it (such as the fertilizer industry) would have to engage in the expensive process of cleaning it up.

Fluoride impairs brain development

Fluoride is lowering the IQ of all New Zealanders - that is the real reason it is being added to the water supply.

In May 2023, the U.S. Government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a 6 year scientific review of fluoride and IQ. The Review contained a monograph and a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found lower IQ with fluoride exposure, demonstrating remarkable consistency. Of the 19 studies rated higher quality, 18 found lowering of IQ.

The NTP authors said: “We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant women in the United States” and that “Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas…many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.”

In New Zealand water is fluoridated at a higher level than in the U.S. and Canada. The maximum for fluoridation in those countries is 0.7 ppm (i.e. 0.7 mg/L). The New Zealand Ministry of Health recommends that water be fluoridated in a range between 0.7 and 1ppm. Most councils aim for the median of 0.85ppm but testing results from councils around the country has found that many of them are often fluoridating above 0.85ppm. This is a significant increase compared with the North American countries and therefore we can expect that the loss of IQ in New Zealand children is likely to be worse.

The evidence is growing stronger. Even since the NTP review was originally completed, there have been more U.S. Government funded studies published which have found harm to the developing brain.

The NTP goes on to say “Research on other neurotoxicants has shown that subtle shifts in IQ at the population level can have a profound impact on the number of people who fall within the high and low ranges of the population’s IQ distribution. For example a 5-point decrease in a population’s IQ would nearly double the number of people classified as intellectually disabled.

This means that every year in New Zealand thousands of babies have their brain development impaired directly as a result of fluoridation

 
 

The Case Against Fluoride

The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There

By Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck, MD, PhD, & H.S. Micklem, DPhil
Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010



On the label of every tube of fluoride toothpaste is a statement which reads, “Drug Facts: Active Ingredient—Sodium Fluoride … Keep out of reach of children under six years of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” The amount recommended for brushing is about the size of a pea. This pea-sized dab contains about the same amount of fluoride as one glass of water in areas that fluoridate the water. Do you drink the recommended eight glasses of water per day? Do you call the Poison Control Center when you do?

The insanity of intentional water fluoridation is examined from every angle in this book. International law forbids dumping fluoride waste into the sea but it is accepted in American drinking water. As stated in the toothpaste disclaimer above, the FDA officially considers fluoride to be a drug. This drug has never been approved by the FDA. Contaminating drinking water with fluoride can be most charitably characterized as an experiment which violates the Nuremburg Code prohibiting experimental human treatment without informed consent. China, India, Japan and most of Europe do not fluoridate their water.


 One of the first studies claiming the safety of fluoride was done by Cox and Hodge. Cox worked for the giant aluminum company Alcoa. At that time fluoride was a major waste product of aluminum processing. It must have seemed like a wondrous miracle when Cox discovered that this toxic waste was safe and effective for preventing tooth decay when added to the water supply. The real miracle is that so many people apparently believe this. Hodge worked on the Manhattan Project supervising experiments on unsuspecting patients who were injected with uranium and plutonium. These guys have all the credibility of those famous leading scholars named Larry, Curly and Moe. If you believe the studies and health advice of Cox and Hodge, you might want to consider cutting back on eating those old lead-based paint chips.

Many other studies are reviewed, such as those of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, who not only had no conflict of interest with the commercial entities involved but in fact suffered professionally for daring to suggest that fluoride might be problematic.

John Colquhoun of New Zealand promoted fluoride enthusiastically around the country for years. After traveling the world to survey the effects of fluoride, he realized he was quite wrong. Colquhoun was a man of rare courage and integrity, and spent the rest of his life trying to undo the damage he had done.


 When the National Research Council came out with a report—over five hundred pages long—unfavorable to fluoride, the American Dental Association took less than one day to dismiss it. The Centers for Disease Control rejected it six days later. The director of Quackwatch called fluoride opponents “poison-mongers.” The irony piles pretty high when you consider that most opponents are unpaid and do much of this on their own dime, they have nothing to monger or sell, and are trying to remove the poison, not add it.

Toward the end of the book the authors pull out one of my all-time favorite quotes from the late Michael Crichton. “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. . . There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus.



This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2011.

 The Absurdities of Fluoridation

 

1. Promoters say fluoride works on the outside of the teeth but then say everyone must have it in their drinking water.


2. Even though fluoridation chemicals are added to the water supply for a claimed therapeutic purpose, they are exempt from the Medicines Act. Fluoride pills, fluoride toothpaste and fluoride mouthwashes are not exempt.


3.Fluoridation chemicals are too toxic to be allowed to be released into the air so are captured in the smokestacks of the phosphate fertiliser industry. This highly toxic substance cannot be disposed of in streams, rivers or the sea but can be added to the public water supply with the claim that it reduces dental decay, so ultimately ends up in streams, rivers and the sea anyway (except what is retained in people’s bones and soft tissue).

 
4.All medications have an established safe dosage (i.e. mg per kilo per day) and are prescribed accordingly. But this isn't the case for the highly toxic fluoridation chemicals. Dose varies depending on how much water someone drinks regardless of age, weight, health status, dental health or even if they have teeth. 


5.Fluoridation forces bottle fed babies to consume 200 times more than they would have received through breast milk because the mother's body screens out just about all fluoride. It is logical to assume that there must be a good reason for this.


6. A tube of fluoride toothpaste comes with a warning not to swallow, yet the fluoridation chemicals are added to water for everyone to consume. 


7.Fluoride is added to water under the guise of reducing dental decay in some children yet everyone is forced to consume it with the claim that it may help someone else’s teeth.


8. Fluoridation allows the Government to do to everyone what a doctor cannot do to an individual patient – prescribe medication without informed consent. 


9. We are told the dose is too small to cause harm to anyone but large enough to be of benefit to everyone.



 Fluoridation is not about children’s teeth

Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it.


Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water; however, that type of fluoride has never been used for fluoridation. Instead what is used over 90 percent of the time are silicofluorides, which are 85 times more toxic than calcium fluoride.They are non-biodegradable, hazardous waste products that come straight from the pollution scrubbers of big industries. 

If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2


The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3


On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4


The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5


Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5


The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.


Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.


Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”


Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7


EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8


There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9


Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.


Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.
 

A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14


The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!


Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16


When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!


Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).


On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of people were fooled by the tobacco industries!

References


    George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
    R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
    San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
    Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
    “New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
    San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
    Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
    J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
    Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
    “The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
    The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
    K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
    National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
    Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
    Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
    Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.


https://www.westonaprice.org/.../fluoridation-the.../...


Bone pain, joint pain, arthritis or fluoride poisoning

Most people don’t realise that 50% of fluoride ingested is stored in the bones and soft tissue. Accumulation of fluoride can cause a disease called skeletal fluorosis. The first symptoms of skeletal fluorosis are identical to osteoarthritis.


 
“Long-term accumulative exposures to fluoride even at low levels carries a risk of sub-clinical or stage-1 musculo-skeletal fluorosis presenting as joint pain or arthritis. Notably, arthritis is a leading cause of disability with 647,000 now affected in this country and annual costs exceeding $3 billion.” Dr Mike Godfrey, Journal New Zealand Medical Association.

It is completely unknown how many people in New Zealand are suffering from skeletal fluorosis, rather than arthritis, because doctors are not aware this could happen here so testing is never done.

What we do know is that the U.S. Government’s Institute of Medicine, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride.(1997), have estimated “The development of skeletal fluorosis and its severity is directly related to the level and duration of exposure. Most epidemiological research has indicated that an intake of at least 10 mg/day for 10 or more years is needed to produce clinical signs of the milder forms of the condition”.

In 2013, the Hamilton City Council held a Tribunal Hearing on Fluoridation. One of the expert speakers promoting fluoridation was former chief oral health advisor, and now Medical Director for Health New Zealand, Dr Robin Whyman.

Dr Whyman explained to the councillors “You then swallow the fluoride and it comes down into the blood supply. Some of it is actually moves across to bone, we don’t disagree with that at all, and some of it will go to soft tissue.” But rather than stopping there and discussing what this means for bone health, and the health of our entire bodies, Dr Whyman, a dentist, moved on to talk about dental health.


Because fluoride accumulates, less exposure over longer periods can achieve the same result as high exposure over a shorter period. The intake established by the Institute of Medicine, 10 mg a day for 10 years, may be roughly the same as 5mg a day for 20 years or 2.5 mg a day for 40 years and so on. The Institute of Medicine say “Stage 1 skeletal fluorosis is characterized by occasional stiffness or pain in joints and some osteosclerosis of the pelvis and vertebra.” 


Could your bone or joint pain be caused by fluoride accumulating in your bones? Try avoiding all forms of fluoride. See Sources of Fluoride and New Zealand study on Fluoride and Tea.


“If I was an arthritic individual, I would be eliminating every source of fluoride exposure I could think of”. Phyllis Mullinex, PhD. 


Watch short video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwLAcR85iG4

https://fluoridefree.org.nz/bone-pain-joint-pain.../

 


Petition Against Fluoride in NZ

The Stop Fluoridation Petition is live. Fluoride Free New Zealand launched a parliamentary petition on the 2nd of August 2024 to stop water fluoridation in New Zealand. Let's go big with this!

Although the NZ government is primarily focused on control rather than health, signing this petition may encourage them to stop poisoning us with fluoride, and it only takes a few seconds so we might as well give it a crack😵‍💫


Go to the link below and sign the petition:

https://fluoridefree.org.nz/parliamentary-petition-stop.../

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)