Practicing Dentist and Professor of Dentistry Reports on the Toxic Effects of Flouride

Letter from Dr. Hardy Limeback, August 15, 2014 (to Israeli Health Minister)

Dear Minister German:

I have been following the debate on fluoridation in Israel for some time. I served 3.5 years on the US National Academies of Sciences Subcommittee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.

The NAS is sometimes referred to as the ‘Supreme Court of Science’, an organization that sets up unbiased (or balanced) committees to review scientific issues of concern to Americans. The committee on which I served examined the health effects of fluoride in drinking water. Our report, published March 22, 2006, can be found online.

Our committee was funded by the US EPA – we were charged NOT to examine the benefits of fluoridation but we certainly reviewed all relevant literature on the toxicity of fluoride, including those at low levels of intake, including the toxic side effects of fluoridation.

The EPA has still not made a ruling on the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for fluoride, while the Department of Human Health Services, being concerned about the dental fluorosis that fluoridation is causing, has lowered its recommendation for levels of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L (ppm). The American Dental Association and the Center for Disease Control in the US both agreed that fluoridated tap water should not be used to make up infant formula, since that increases the risk of dental fluorosis. To me, dental fluorosis is a biomarker for fluoride poisoning, not just of developing teeth but of all mineralizing tissues. Health Canada, taking the recommendation of only pro-fluoridation experts, continues to recommend fluoridation (now at a lowered level of 0.7 ppm) despite mounting evidence that the optimum therapeutic level of fluoride in drinking water, if there is even any benefit at all, is at 0.35 ppm or less.

I have personally conducted years of funded research at the University of Toronto on the topic of fluorosis (fluoride poisoning) and bone effects of fluoride intake. A bone study, for which we received national funding, comparing hipbones of people who live in Toronto (fluoridated since 1963) to the bones of people from Montreal (Montreal has never been fluoridated), suggested disturbing negative changes in the bone quality of Torontonians. This is not something that was supposed to happen. Fluoridation was only supposed to affect teeth.

Since we studied a cross section of the population as they were selected for hip replacement, we were unable to examine only those people who were exposed to fluoridation for a lifetime. If we had been able to do this, we would have seen a much greater negative effect of fluoride since fluoride accumulates with age (our study confirmed that).

The NAS committee examined the literature on the effects of fluoride on bone up until 2006. Since that time there have been more studies to confirm the link between fluoridation and bone changes, as well as a link to bone cancer. Our Toronto vs Montreal study was not included in the 2006 review by the US National Academies of Sciences because it only just got published in 2010.

I am also the co-author of studies that show that too much fluoride accumulation in the dentin of teeth (the tissue that supports enamel) causes its properties to change as well. I suspect that a lifetime of fluoride accumulation on teeth causes them to be more brittle and fracture more easily. This effect of fluoridation has never been examined.

As a practicing dentist, I have been diagnosing and treating patients with dental fluorosis for over 30 years. My research on dental fluorosis (confirmed by the studies reported in the 2006 NRC report as well as the York review) show fluoridation significantly increases the numbers of patients seeking expensive cosmetic repairs. No one in public health has ever accounted for the added costs of treating dental fluorosis when considering the cost-benefit ratio of fluoridation.

Our 2006 NRC (NAS) report also concluded that there is a likelihood that fluoride can promote bone cancer. On page 336 it is stated Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, but the evidence to date is tentative and mixed (Tables 10-4 and 10-5). This alone should force the EPA to set a fluoride maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water at ZERO (as it did for arsenic). The EPA has not yet made a decision as to fluoride’s carcinogenicity. In addition we now know that fluoride is neurotoxic and that children with noticeable fluorosis have lowered IQs.

I have looked at this from all angles and I have to conclude that fluoridated cities would save money on fluoridation costs, parents would save on costly dental bills treating dental fluorosis, dental decay rates would remain unchanged or even continue to decline (as has been demonstrated in many modern fluoridation cessation studies) and the health of city residents would improve when industrial waste products are no longer added/ to the drinking water (I find it absurd that the fluoride used to fluoridate drinking water is derived from industrial waste without purification, increasing carcinogenic heavy metal levels, such as arsenic and radionuclides, in the drinking water). In my opinion, purposely adding carcinogens to the drinking water at levels that are known to increase cancer rates (e.g. arsenic at parts per billion), in my opinion, is against all concepts of ‘do no harm’. Lawsuits have now been launched to hold those responsible for this practice accountable.

Several Canadian cities have decided it is not worth continuing the practice of fluoridation. These can be viewed at COF-COF.ca. The number of communities that are no longer fluoridating their drinking water has reduced the total percentage of Canadians on artificially fluoridated water down from 2/3 to about 1/3.

There is no doubt in my mind that fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay. The modern literature is clear on that. Fluoridation cessation studies fail to show an increase in dental decay. In fact, caries rates continue to drop. The York review, held up as the best evidence for ‘safe and effective’ for fluoridation is flawed because a) it could not find a single randomized, double blinded clinical trial, b) none of the clinical trials adjusted for confounding factors known to affect dental decay such as vitamin D levels, daily sugar intake, sweeteners, fissure sealants etc.. c) lumping modern studies with very old studies when decay rates were a lot higher resulted in an over-estimate of the benefit.

In the 1950’s, when fluoridation started to catch on, it was claimed that there was as much as a 40% benefit. Despite the evidence being very weak, fluoridation might have been worthwhile, especially since fluoridated toothpastes were not introduced until the late 1960’s. After the introduction of fluoridated toothpaste, the benefit of fluoridation declined. Now, if there is any benefit at all, one could expect perhaps a 5-10% benefit in children. If half the children are already cavity free and the average decay rates are only two cavities per child it means cities have to fluoridate for 20 years in order to save one decayed surface for every fifth child. More recent studies conducted in Australia show that a lifetime of fluoridation MIGHT save about one tooth from decay from childhood to middle age. Clearly, that is NOT a policy that demonstrates fiscal responsibility and cities that do not do due diligence in terms of cost-benefit analysis are wasting tax payers money and may actually be putting their councillors in a position of liability. The claim that for every $1 spent on fluoridation saves $38 was never accurate and is currently exceedingly misleading. It simply is a lie.

No government agency anywhere in the world is properly monitoring the accumulation of fluoride in people consuming fluoridated water. You cannot medicate people without knowing whether they are overdosing on the medication and whether there are any long-term negative health effects.

Fluoride added to drinking water has NOT been shown to be safe and effective. In fact, as more and more peer-reviewed studies on fluoride toxicity appear in the literature, it has become clear to me that the pendulum is certainly shifting to ‘not safe, and no longer effective’.

I would be more than happy to provide you and all the Israeli experts in the CC list a full list of peer-reviewed studies on which I have based my expert opinion expressed in this email.

You have made the right decision NOT to fluoridate in Israel. Congratulations.

Sincerely,

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS

Professor Emeritus and Former Head of Preventive Dentistry,
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto

Bucks County Pennsylvania Stops Medicating the Public Through the Water Supply

BUCKS COUNTY WATER & SEWER AUTHORITY ANNOUNCES NEW FLUORIDE-FREE WATER SUPPLY

Source: Press Release: Bucks County Water & Sewer Authority | July 8th, 2014

Location: United States, Pennsylvania

On July 1st BCWSA will no longer be purchasing its water supply from the City of Philadelphia. We will now be supplying your drinking water from the Forrest Park Water Plant in Chalfont, PA.

BCWSA has heard your request and is happy to announce that our Customers have a choice to use fluoride or not through your dentist instead of being mandated through your water supply. The new source does not have fluoride added to it.

You may notice a minor change in water characteristics, as the new source utilizes state of the art filtration methods which will improve your water quality.

BCWSA strives to be a good partner with the customers it serves and we look forward to moving into the future alongside our valued Customers.

BCWSA is one of the largest water and sewer authorities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania serving more then 78,000 accounts and 385,000 people in the southeastern Pennsylvania region.

Orion Retrovirus – Take Back Your Dreams!

This virus will steal your dreams, particularly when they are combined with flouride in your brain. You will have flouride deposits building up in the pineal gland and elsewhere unless you live in Europe where almost all countries have banned flouridation. Even then you will have to avoid toothpaste and mineral water which indicate flouride contamination on the label.

Multiple researchers observed that with the orion viruses cleared, dreams are vivid and remembered upon awaking. At first this is unsettling. After a while, some researchers were disappointed in their dreams for being unorganized, characters coming and going, upsetting for petty emotional issues and so forth. Their conclusion was that we need to take charge of our dream lives and help them be more focused, more positive, more useful, and more educational. In addition, any time dreams become less vivid or memorable, it is a strong indicator of orion retrovirus reinfection. Conclusion: our dream life is disorganized because we don’t realize what is going on when higher brain function is disabled with these viruses.

————
This interesting frequency set was developed based on one of Peter Moon’s books. A source told him the Atlantean civilization was wiped out by an off-world Orion Alliance using biotechnology. Specifically, a retrovirus destroyed Atlantean priests higher brain function causing them to forget how to operate their technology. They made mistakes causing widespread destruction.

Maybe this is true, maybe it is fiction. However, if such a virus existed, it would remain in the brains of all humans, perhaps all mammals. The standard process used for determination of frequencies was applied to the top of the head and the current form of the virus was found along with several strains.

Testing these viral frequencies with fellow researchers caused remarkable effects. Running them focuses primarily the top of the brain, yet these viruses are embedded in the DNA of all our cells. As a result, the frequencies will need to be run for an extended time period repeatedly to remove these viruses.

An expansion and clarity of thinking occur with these frequencies, elevating your IQ and allowing you to better focus and get more done. Constant vivid dreams are often noticed after running them. For some, there are significant herxheimer responses. Residual swine flu organisms flare up, for example. One researcher said removing these viruses felt like an exorcism and was not pleasant at all. Others report only exhilaration and a feeling of being released from prison. The end result, in all cases, was positive.

Running the frequencies will, at a minimum, cause minor symptoms of the common cold. I suspect eliminating these viruses will improve immunity to colds and flu. As always, use these frequencies only for research purposes and at your own risk. Please report any results positive or negative for the benefit of other researchers.

Regular updates of these frequencies are available to Frequency Research Foundation subscribers.

Payback Time: Is Flouride the Next Asbestos?

Censorship Alert: The flouridealert.org web address is being systematically crippled by bad actors in government and commercial insititutions who have a vested interest in preventing you from receiving factual information from the Flouride alert network. You must Google Flouride Alert Network and click on the link there. Clinking on the link below, even though it is the correct web address will give you a 404 error, page does not exist. The good news is that the Flouride Alert Network appears to be winning a multiyear lawsuit against the EPA for supressing information and failing to protect the health of the American people.

Fluorides Under Fire: see flouridealert.org

Legal Community Awakens as Federal Fluoride Harm Case Proceeds to Oral Arguments and Fluoride Harm Newspaper Advertising Appears

Legal community interest in the long-smoldering controversy over use of fluorides is growing as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fluoride harm case of Nemphos versus Nestle Waters North America, Inc., et al.

The case centers around “dental fluorosis” disfigurement of teeth caused by childhood ingestion of fluorides in water and other products.

The Washington D.C.-based law firm Public Justice has joined other plaintiff firms to help argue the case. Public Justice has more than 3,000 affiliated attorneys.

In another development, advertisements seeking students with dental fluorosis are beginning to appear in newspapers at universities, such as The Hoya newspaper at Georgetown University.

The advertisements show photos of dental fluorosis teeth staining and inform students that those with fluoride teeth harm may be entitled to monetary damages.

“There are a lot of harmed people out there that were not told the facts about fluorides, nor have they seen documentation of what dental leaders knew and admitted amongst themselves about fluorosis,” says attorney Chris Nidel.

“Fluoride providers and promoters are now under the microscope as the Fluoridegate scandal unfolds,” he says. “In their own publications, dentists warned of a day when fluoride litigation would arrive.”

Nidel’s law firm and the firm of Paulson and Nace have been with the case from the beginning. Public Justice is adding its expertise to argue that defendants in the case cannot use federal laws to preempt state legal actions on fluoride harm.

The plaintiff in the Nemphos case is a mother who purchased fluoride-containing products for her daughter, believing she was helping her child avoid cavities. The mother claims she was not warned about the possibility of costly-to-repair disfiguring fluorosis that later manifested in her daughter’s teeth.

Major dental organizations continue to promote use of fluorides, claiming the fluorosis stains are mostly barely visible and fit in a designation of “mild” or “very mild.”

“The so-called ‘mild’ fluorosis of the Nemphos girl is certainly not barely visible,” says Daniel Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation who now speaks regularly with law firms about fluoride issues.

“The fluorosis classification system used by dentists hides the severity of it,” Stockin says. “The system specifically tells dentists to ignore an individual’s worst fluoride-stained tooth in classifying a person’s fluorosis severity, and the system does not take into account the total number of teeth affected. Twelve teeth or two teeth with stains, both are allowed to be called ‘very mild’ or ‘mild’ fluorosis. This revelation will be deeply disturbing to citizens and elected leaders who were misled about fluorosis.”

An article in the Journal of Dental Research acknowledged increasing amounts of fluorosis, calling it undesirable and saying it “places dental professionals at an increased risk of litigation.”

Another article in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology echoed the warning about lawsuits, specifically addressing fluoride supplements: “It is only a matter of time until a case is brought that gets public attention. The risk is that noticeable fluorosis will be perceived by the public as a toxic consequence of fluoride ingestion – which, arguably, it is – and there will be a reaction against all uses of fluoride…”

On its website, Public Justice describes the advertising of fluoride-containing products offered by defendants in the Nemphos case: “Advertising like Nestle’s and Dannon’s, which induce consumers to purchase a product by touting an ingredient’s benefits without warning of that same ingredient’s known hazards, is generally prohibited by state tort and consumer protection laws. Those laws allow wronged consumers to sue for injuries the product caused.”

“Fluorides are a concern for both young children and college students and others,” Stockin says. “For college students seeing the fluorosis newspaper advertisements, they know that fluorosis impacts their job interviews, their self confidence, their professional relationships, and even personal and dating relationships in a very real way. For parents of young children, fluorosis on their child’s teeth can mean financial costs in the future, and of course they wonder what other harm has also occurred, such as impact on kidneys, thyroid glands, bones, and even IQ. So I think perhaps it’s not surprising that what consumers are hearing about fluorides from product sellers is changing.”

A toddler training toothpaste referenced in the Nemphos case filings warns of white spots on children’s teeth from swallowed fluorides. Several companies now sell an unfluoridated toddler training toothpaste described as safe if swallowed because they are fluoride-free.

REFERENCES:

1. Fluorosis advertisement in The Hoya: http://issuu.com/the_hoya/docs/issuu_3.4.14/7?e=3568114/6958776

2. Journal of Dental Research 69 (Spec. Iss.): 539-549, February 1990

3. Journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology; 1999; 27: 72-83

4. Public Justice website information about the Nemphos case: http://publicjustice.net/what-we-do/case-stories/NemphosvNestleWaters

5. Email for Washington D.C. attorney Chris Nidel: [email protected]

Daniel G. Stockin, MPH

[email protected]

Carcinogens in Your Drinking Water

Take Aim Against Fluoride in Drinking Water

An Issue You Can Sink Your Teeth Into

March 4, 2014Dear Citizen for Health,As a supporter of CFH, we know you work to stay informed about the issues that affect your ability to maintain your health and wellness. We emailed you last week to draw your attention once again to the potential negative health effects of water fluoridation, and are working to bring you resources for staying informed, as well as opportunities to take action.
There are reasons to be concerned:
–“Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale.” A shocking quote from Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the National Cancer Institute’s Cytochemistry Sector, co-discoverer of biotin and publisher of more than 250 scientific articles. Why was he so concerned about the link between fluoride and cancer? Watch an interview with Dr. Burk here.
–Residents of Bernalillo County, home of Albuquerque, take note: Your Water Utility Authority Board is considering a reversal of a decision from 2011 to stop adding fluoride to drinking water. The move would cost taxpayers $400,000 initially, and $100,000 per year thereafter – read more here.
–And we noted in our last email that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) own National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory says that fluoride is a chemical with “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity”. We think this bears mentioning again. And often.
The good news is that people all over the world are taking this fight to the grassroots, and we here in the U.S. must follow the lead set by nine states proposing anti-fluoridation bills last year. Stay tuned for more on this issue, and for how you can add your voice to the chorus calling for an end to forced fluoridation of our drinking water.

Pseudoscience: the American Dental Association

For over a decade I was on the faculty of the University of Colorado School of Medicine where I was one of the leading experts in carcinogenesis from radiation and toxic chemicals. I was appointed by the Governor and senior Senator of Colorado to monitor the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons plant and as Chair of the Health Effects Committee was reviewing toxicology reports on a wide variety of chemicals as well as radiation on a weekly basis for many years.

I was also the Co-Chair of the leading committee on healthcare standards for many years and attended workshop after workshop with members of the FDA and CDC. When I would complain about issues like the one below I was repeatedly informed that these organizations were continuously buffeted by political pressure which influenced all their actions. They said they had much bigger problems with political influence than the ones I had identified.

Here is a short excerpt of some toxicology concerns that indicate infants are getting fluoride far above the EPA upper limit. As an expert in this area, my view is that there is no safe dose of fluoride, only a dose like the EPA limit where most adults will not have obvious clinical symptoms.

The government has been repeatedly been convicted of destroying evidence, obstruction of justice, harassing scientists and fraudulent suppressing or altering the data in official reports on fluoride hazards. The appeal courts have refused to overturn the governments objections to being ordered in court to stop their criminal behavior and reinstate senior scientists who have been abused. Watch Fluoridegate for testimony on government officials forced to lie when setting standards.

The Basics of Regulatory Toxicology: Protecting the Public from Harmful substances

By Paul Connett

So many of the statements and arguments coming from proponents of fluoridation betray their lack of knowledge of basic toxicological principles especially as it is applied in the regulatory field. It is one thing when such poorly informed positions emanate from lay persons but quite another when it comes from pediatricians or people at the very top of large organizations promoting fluoridation.

Here is one shocking example. The appalling toxicological ignorance of the American Dental Association (ADA) was demonstrated when it dismissed the relevance of the landmark review by National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) on the very day it was published in 2006. The same ignorance was displayed by the CDC Oral Health Division six days later. Both organizations argued that the NRC (2006) was not relevant to water fluoridation because the panel (they claimed) only looked at harm in communities with fluoride levels between 2 and 4 ppm. There are four major problems with this position:

a) The NRC panel looked at several studies in which harm was found at less than 2 ppm

b) Chapter 2 of the NRC (2006) review consisted of an exposure analysis that concluded that certain subsets of the US population (including bottle-fed babies) drinking water at 1 ppm were exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) safe reference dose for fluoride (0.06 mg/kg/day).

c) Neither the ADA or the CDC Oral Health Division appears to realize that there is a difference between concentration and dose. When comparing two populations and considering whether a certain concentration is safe or not one must first calculate the dose involved. This depends on how much water is consumed. As far as a harmful dose is concerned there will be an overlap between the doses ingested by individuals when comparing two communities – one drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride and one drinking water at 4 ppm – and even more so when comparing 1 ppm and 2 ppm. This overlap will occur even before we consider individuals exposed to other sources of fluoride. It is the total daily dose that is the critical calculation as far as harm is concerned. So both the ADA and CDC are incorrect when they imply there is a margin of safety simply because harm has been found at a higher concentration (in the studies cited by the NRC) and not necessarily at the 1 ppm used in water fluoridation.Concentration is not an appropriate basis for comparison as far as toxicity or safety is concerned.

d) They also ignored the need to use a safety factor when extrapolating from small studies to estimate a safe dose needed to protect everyone in a large population.

I will now go into more detail on these issues below.

The difference between concentration and dose.

Concentration is measured in milligrams (mg) of fluoride per liter (1 mg/liter = 1 part per million or ppm). This can be controlled at the water works. Dose is measured in mg/day and this cannot be controlled as it depends on how much someone drinks – and some drink a lot – and how much fluoride they are getting from other sources. It is the total dose that has the potential to harm someone. The concentration (mg/liter) offers no guarantee of safety. It is actually worse than that, which brings us to part b) above.

The difference between dose and dosage.

The same dose (mg/day) can have different affects on different people. There are two reasons for this:

1) because in a large population there is a large range of sensitivity to any toxic substance (more about that later) and

2) because the same dose can have a very different affect on people of different bodyweights. This is especially relevant when comparing the impacts of the same doseon adults and infants. That is why toxicologists use a different measure called dosage. In this they take account of bodyweight by dividing the dose in mg/day by the adult’s average bodyweight of 70 kg.

Thus supposing it was determined that 7 mg/day was safe for an adult (for some health end point), then the safe dosage (sometimes referred to as a safe reference dose) which can be applied to anyone of any weight including an infant, would be 0.1 mg/kg bodyweight per day. 7mg/day divided by 70 kg = 0.1 mg/kg/day

Going from safe dosage to safe dose for a particular bodyweight

From a safe dosage we can work out a safe dose for any age range by multiplying the safe dosage by the average bodyweight for that age range. Thus for a 7 kg infant the safe dose for this hypothetical situation would be 0.7 mg/day and for a 20 kg child it would be 2 mg/day.

The EPA’s Iris Reference Dose (Dosage)

Going back to the real world. The (EPA) determined a safe reference dosage (for the end point of moderate dental fluorosis) of 0.06 mg/kg/day (the so-called IRIS reference dose). Using this Iris reference dose we can determine the safe dose for a bottle-fed infant – at least for dental fluorosis. Assuming an average bodyweight of 7 kg, the safe dose would be 7 kg x 0.06 mg/kg/day = 0.42 mg/day.

A 7 kg infant drinking 800 ml of formula per day made up with fluoridated water at 1 ppm, would receive 0.8 liters x 1 mg/liter/ day = 0.8 mg/day. In other words a bottle-fed baby consuming water at 1 ppm fluoride would get about twice the safe dose based upon the EPA’s IRIS safe reference dose.

Watch Flouridegate …

Support flouridealert.org

Flouride Banned in Israel by the Supreme Court

AUGUST 9, 2013

Only 11 countries have over 50% of their populations drinking artificially fluoridated water. On July 29, 2013, that number was reduced to only 10 countries when the Supreme Court of Israel ruled that new regulations require Israel to stop adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies in one year.

The Izun Hozer Association for Dissemination of Health Education and Yaacov Gurman petitioned Israel’s highest court, November 12, 2012, demanding that the Ministry of Health order the cessation of fluoridation because it presents health dangers and its benefits are no longer widely accepted.

A 1974 regulation mandated fluoridation throughout Israel. But in April 2013, the Minister of Health, Yael German, created a new regulation removing that mandate.

The court ruled that the new regulations will not only bring an end to mandatory fluoridation in Israel in 2014 but will also put an end to any fluoridation – mandatory or voluntary. The Fluoride Action Network paid to have a professional translation of the Court’s ruling, see it here.

“It must be known to you that fluoridation can cause harm to the health of the chronically ill,” including “people who suffer from thyroid problems,” German wrote in a letter addressed to doctors opposed to ending fluoridation. On April 13, the Health Mialso had this to say about her decision on April 13:

“My decision to stop fluoridation was because Israel fluoridated all the water for residential use. In fact, less than 2% of the water is used for drinking. Fluoridating the washing-machine water, dish-washer water, baths, toilets and gardening are actions without logic. Physicians told me that fluoridation can harm pregnant women, people who suffer from thyroid problems and the elderly. I was exposed to studies from the world that raise the suspicion that too much fluoride can harm teeth and bones. In the current state we receive fluoride from several sources: drinking water, toothpaste, cooking water, vegetables, and it is impossible to know what’s the dose we absorb. The WHO published a study, which shows that there is no difference between cavity levels in countries that fluoridate and do not fluoridate. Because of this, with all considerations and interests combined, I think that continuing massive fluoridation of 100% of the water was not right and many also think that it harms the basic rights and the freedom of choice.”

According to Dr. Paul Connett, Executive Director of FAN, “This is another nail in the coffin of this outdated program worldwide. We are lucky that the Minister of Health in Israel has had the courage to resist pressure from both her own bureaucrats and pro-fluoridation dentists and make this important decision.”

Connett continued, “Zealous fluoridation promoters try to convince the American public that ‘everyone drinks fluoridated water.’ But the opposite is true. An overwhelming number of countries do not fluoridate, including 97% of the European population. In fact, over half the people in the world drinking fluoridated water live in the US. We are the odd ones out.”

“Fluoridation is an outdated, unscientific, failed public health blunder,” says Connett “What I find remarkable here is that Health Minister German has been able to escape the unscientific ‘belief’ system on fluoridation that traps so many public health bureaucracies in fluoridated countries.”

Many communities, over the last few years, stopped fluoridation in the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Recently, both Wichita, Kansas and Portland, Oregon rejected fluoridation 60% to 40%. Hamilton, NZ, councilors voted 7-1 to stop 50 years of fluoridation after councilors listened to several days of testimony from those for and against fluoridation. Windsor, Ontario, stopped 51 years of fluoridation. Sixteen regional councils have halted or rejected fluoridation in Queensland, Australia since mandatory fluoridation was dropped there in Nov 2012.

Meanwhile, New York City Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. continues in his effort to halt fluoridation in NYC. And among anti-fluoridation activists it is anticipated that with Israel abandoning fluoridation, the next country to fall will be Ireland, which has had mandatory fluoridation in place since 1963. Today this practice is meeting strong opposition in Ireland from scientists like environmental consultant Declan Waugh, a number of health professionals, and a very creative group of young girls called “Little Miss Fluorides.”

Research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals indicates that fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health.

Tooth Decay Trends: Flouride vs. Non-Floride

Latest Flouride Research

A Review of the 2011 Fluoride Literature
by Tara Blank, PhD, Science and Health Liaison Officer for FAN.

print this page

Summary of 2011 Fluoride Research

Fluoride and Brain Damage

Evidence of fluoride’s detrimental effects on the brain and central nervous system continues to mount. Among animal studies, chronic fluoride exposure in rats has been found to result in: detrimental changes in the sciatic nerve, spinal cord, and hippocampus and neocortex of the brain (Reddy et al., 2011); changes in the expression of several brain proteins, including those involved with cell signaling, energy metabolism, and protein metabolism (Ge et al., 2011); and changes in the structure and function of the synaptic interface, which would likely result in altered transmission of neural information (Zhu et al., 2011).

At least four more studies finding a link between fluoride exposure and decreased intelligence (IQ) of children were published this year, putting the total number of such studies at 25. Poureslami et al. (2011) found that children 7-9 years old living in a “high” fluoride city (2.38 mg F/L in drinking water) had significantly lower IQ scores than those living in a “low” fluoride city (0.41 mg F/L in drinking water). A previous study (Poureslami et al., 2010) had found that children 4-5 years old living in this “high” fluoride city had a daily fluoride intake of 1.71 mg. Frighteningly, this is actually less than than the average daily intake for similarly aged children in the United States (2.03 mg/day), according to a recent analysis by the U.S. EPA (2010).

Another study similarly found a trend towards decreasing IQ in 12-14 year old children living in a “high” fluoride village (2.45 mg F/L in drinking water), compared to those living in a “low” fluoride village (0.29 mg F/L in drinking water) (Eswar et al., 2011). Taking a different approach, a study by Shivaprakash et al. (2011) found that the mean IQ score of 7-11 year-old children with dental fluorosis (66.6) was significantly lower than those without dental fluorosis (76.4), with girls being more negatively impacted than boys. Another study by Ding et al. (2011) found a very significant association between fluoride levels in children’s urine and IQ scores, with an estimated 0.59 IQ points lost for each 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride. It is again disturbing that similar urine fluoride levels have been observed in children (NRC, 2006) consuming what is considered the average amount of fluoride ingested by children in fluoridated communities (EPA, 2010).

Two reviews on the neurotoxicity of fluoride were also published this year. According to Valdez-Jiménez (2011), “The prolonged ingestion of [fluoride] may cause significant damage to health and particularly to the nervous system. Therefore, it is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain [fluoride], particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of [fluoride].” Spittle (2011) concluded “there is no threshold for fluoride neurotoxicity in drinking water, and the only assuredly safe level is zero.” More info …

——

It is important to avoid any flouride exposure from water, food, or toothpaste. Subscribers to Frequency Foundation have access to frequencies that will remove it from the system, particularly from the brain. Political action is increasingly effective at eliminating this nuclear waste product from our food chain. Get involved.

Flouridegate: An Emerging Opportunity for Lawyers to Make More Money

The Truth about Fluoride – report from Dr. Mercola

Tap water, and bottled water that originates from tap water, is loaded with fluoride. Though you may have been lead to believe this substance to be vital to the dental health of you and your family, this is simply not the case. Unfortunately, the belief that fluoride prevents cavities is a common misconception. In fact, the exact opposite is true.
As this recent study done on children in India shows, fluoride is anything but a cavity fighter. Fluoride is a toxin that actually leads to an increased risk of cavities and can cause a wide range of health problems, including weakening your immune system and accelerating aging due to cellular damage.
One study, published in the September 2001 issue of International Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, found that South African children who drank water containing high levels of natural fluoride (3 ppm), had more tooth decay than children in other parts of South Africa who drank much lower concentrations (between 0.19 to 0.48 ppm). And fluoride-saturated American teenagers had twice the rate of cavities as the South African children drinking low levels of natural fluoride!
A new study in the Journal of the American Dental Association, published in October of last year, also found that, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for teeth.The study found that fluoride intake during a child’s first few years of life is significantly associated with fluorosis, and warned against using fluoridated water in infant formula.
In response, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has updated the information on their website, stating:
“Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis may increase the chance of a child developing … enamel fluorosis.” “In children younger than 8 years of age, combined fluoride exposure from all sources—water, food, toothpaste, mouth rinse, or other products—contributes to enamel fluorosis.”
More importantly however, on January 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that they will take another look at the standards and guidelines for fluoride in drinking water due to the increase in dental fluorosis.
This is the first time in 50 years that the federal government has recommended changing the amount of fluoride added to public water supplies. They’re now proposing the recommended amount of fluoride in drinking water be reduced to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. The recommended range has been 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, so for many communities this new level will equate to a fluoride reduction of nearly 50 percent! The EPA is also initiating a review of the maximum amount of fluoride allowed. Depending on their findings, the maximum amount of fluoride allowed may also be revised. This is at least a step in the right direction!
However, this is likely not the last you’ll hear on this issue. According to a recent press release by The Fluoride Action Network, “Fluoridegate” is fast approaching as it’s becoming clear that dental fluorosis is “just the tip of the iceberg.” The press release states:
“A series of disclosures are surfacing about the actions of water fluoridation promoters that point to a likely tsunami of Fluoridegate investigations, hearings, and explosive courtroom entanglements. Tennessee state legislator Frank Niceley states, “There is a real Fluoridegate scandal here. Citizens haven’t been told about harm from fluorides, and this needs to be investigated by the authorities and the media.”
Washington D.C. toxic tort attorney Chris Nidel says, “I think when we look back we’ll ask why Fluoridegate didn’t surface earlier. There are serious concerns about possible conflict of interest and heavy editing of information being fed to the public about fluoride risks and impacts.”

Take Aim Against Fluoride in Drinking Water

An Issue You Can Sink Your Teeth Into

AUGUST 9, 2013

A Review of the 2011 Fluoride Literatureby Tara Blank, PhD, Science and Health Liaison Officer for FAN.

The Truth about Fluoride – report from Dr. Mercola

A Review of the 2011 Fluoride Literature
by Tara Blank, PhD, Science and Health Liaison Officer for FAN.