Saturday, May 12, 2012

Dispensing with Fluoride.

The following article comes from a highly respectable research based group of real professionals. This interesting article was written by a person who grew up in a town where the water was fluoridated, yet he had a mouthful of amalgam fillings. Wouldn’t this give a message to our Australian politicians, who are hell-bent on disposing China’s toxic waste product from the fertiliser and aluminium industries through our drinking water systems without any benefits? Yet interestingly; China will not allow fluoridating their drinking water.

Here is a good video explaining "The Fluoride Deception" for the uninformed. Click here.

A Chemist declares fluoride to be 'one of the greatest public health threats of modern times.'  Click here to see what he says. – Werner

* * * * * * *

Dispensing with Fluoride.
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, May 7, 2012
Editorial by Andrew W. Saul

(OMNS May 7, 2012) As a child, there was nothing I liked about going to the dental dispensary, with the possible exception of the large tropical fish aquarium in the waiting room. This was a distraction to what was coming: three hours in a vast hall containing a double line of black dental chairs and a matching double line of white-clad dental students. And that, as a six-year-old, is where I first met fluoride on a regular basis. After a free cleaning and checkup (the reason my cost-conscious parents had me go there, and the reason it literally took three hours to complete), fluoride was applied to my teeth with a swab. I remember both the smell (acrid) and the taste (astringent). I actually looked forward to the fluoride treatment, simply because it was the last thing they did to me before I was allowed to leave.
Did it work? Probably not. In addition to my regular topical fluoride treatments, I lived in a city with fluoridated water and was raised on fluoridated toothpaste. And I had a mouthful of amalgam by high-school graduation.


Controversy? What Controversy?
In the late 1970s, as a young parent, I became aware of the National Fluoridation News, published in the still largely unknown town of Gravette, Arkansas (pop 2,200). For a very small donation, I received a boxful of back issues by return mail. In addition to this generosity, what surprised me about the NFNews was the high caliber of its content. Most of the non-editorial articles were well referenced and the work of well qualified scientists. This was something of a poser, for as a college biology major, I had been thoroughly schooled in the two Noble Truths of Fluoridation: 1) that fluoride in drinking water would reduce tooth decay by 60-65% and 2) that anyone who disagreed with this view was a fool. Yes, I had seen the movie Dr. Strangelove, and yes, I knew how to read an ADA endorsement on a toothpaste label.

Not long after this, my penchant for reading toothpaste labels paid off. There it was, printed right on the back of the tube: "Children should only use a 'pea-sized' portion of fluoride toothpaste when they brush." I had two toddlers, and this caught my interest. Looking into it, I learned that small children swallow a considerable quantity of toothpaste when they brush, perhaps most of it.

Anyone who has watched television at all could not have failed to see toothpaste ads. They always showed the brush loaded, with decorative overhang tips flared out on each end. When "AIM" brand toothpaste first came out, I distinctly remember toothpaste being displayed in two or even three layers on the brush. The number of children that used the product so generously, and swallowed half of it, will likely remain unknown. As for me, I immediately switched my family to toothpaste with no fluoride in it. As for toothpaste labels, they rather quickly were re-written. 


They now read:
"If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."

But all children swallow more than is used for brushing. The only question is, how much? The US Centers for Disease Control states:
"Fluoride toothpaste contributes to the risk for enamel fluorosis because the swallowing reflex of children aged less than 6 years is not always well controlled, particularly among children aged less than 3 years. Children are also known to swallow toothpaste deliberately when they like its taste. A child-sized toothbrush covered with a full strip of toothpaste holds approximately 0.75-1.0 g of toothpaste, and each gram of fluoride toothpaste, as formulated in the United States, contains approximately 1.0 mg of fluoride. Children aged less than 6 years swallow a mean of 0.3 g of toothpaste per brushing and can inadvertently swallow as much as 0.8 g." [1, emphasis added]

For children age 6 and under, that is an average swallow of a third of the toothpaste they use, and a possibility of inadvertently swallowing 80% or more. There is about a milligram of fluoride in a single "serving" of toothpaste. I am calling it a "serving" because fluoride in toothpaste is regulated as if it were a food, not a drug. How is this true? Adding even less than one milligram of fluoride to a single serving of children's vitamins instantly makes them a prescription drug. It is truly odd that fluoride toothpaste remains an over-the-counter product.

Into the Schools.
When my children were in grade school, the local dental college (the people who brought us the dispensary I went to as a young boy) interested our school district in a research project. Our town's public water was under local control and un-fluoridated, unlike the city nearby. So the idea was to administer fluoride rinses to schoolchildren, during the school day, and then count caries. We were asked to sign a permission letter, which emphasized likely benefits and glossed over any hazards. Remembering what youngsters did with sweet toothpaste, I made a guess that they'd swallow a saccharin-laced rinse about as well. We chose to not sign. But I did check the box to receive results of the study. It ultimately came in the form of a letter, saying that the results were disappointingly inconclusive: no evidence that fluoride rinses helped our unfluoridated-water-drinking community. I am unaware that the study was published.

That is not especially surprising. Shutting out access to balanced scientific discussion of fluoridation is alive and well. . . and taxpayer supported. Negative fluoride studies and reviews are hardly abundant on PubMed/Medline. One does not need to be a conspiracy theorist to observe that the US National Library of Medicine refuses to index the journal Fluoride. [2] Censorship is conspicuously aberrant behavior for any public library.


No Discussion.
About 15 years ago, our town's public water supply was annexed by the nearby metropolis. Aside from a rate increase, the only other, barely detectable change to our bill was a one-time typed legend at the bottom of it that fluoride has now been added to the water. There had been no vote, and there had not even been any discussion. Communities coast-to-coast know that this is not at all uncommon. Four glasses of fluoridated tap water contain about as much fluoride as a prescription dose does. Not only is fluoridated water nonprescription, it is even more certain to be swallowed than toothpaste. Being over 6 years of age means better control over swallowing reflexes, thus limiting ingestion of fluoride from toothpaste. There is no such accommodation for drinking water.

Evidence-based medicine requires evidence before medicating. Fluoridation of water is not evidence-based. It has not been tested in well-controlled studies. Fluoridation of public water is a default medication, since you have to deliberately avoid it if you do not want to take it. A person's daily intake of fluoride simply from drinking an average quantity of fluoridated tap water, fluoridated bottled water, and beverages produced or prepared with fluoridated water can easily exceed the threshold for what your druggist would rightly demand a prescription for. Fluoride in toothpaste and mouth rinses also is medication. It may be intended as topical, but the reality is different. No matter how it may be applied in their mouths, young children are going to swallow it. Indeed, most of the public and the dental profession already have.
 

To see the references click here and go to the bottom of the article.


Here is very easy to read document and you do not need a science degree to understand that this is probably the most damming report on fluoride ever be produced. It has significant implications for every politician, every health officer and every dentist in all English speaking countries that support the compulsory fluoridation of public water supplies. To read it click here.

Fluoride free Ottawa Canada. Click here.

My quote for today. Werner

"Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time."--Robert Carton, Ph.D. former US EPA scientist.

How to make a comment? Read this annotation.



7 comments:

Young Mother said...

I found this article very interesting since I suffer from a thyroid problem and should not drink fluoridated water. I wrote to my LNP Member of Parliament, whom I voted for and asked him if the Newman government is stopping this insidious practice foisted on us by dictator Bligh? Three weeks have gone past without a reply. I’m starting to wonder if they emulate the arrogance of the Bligh Labor government.

True Blue Aussie said...

Why am I forced in a democratic country like Australia, to drink water that contains silicofluoride a schedule number 7 poison; a toxic waste product from the Chinese fertiliser and aluminium industries? As I citizen of this country I should have a free choice to decide whether I want this in my drinking water or not. Why is this right taken away from me? Could somebody tell me why, please?

Sonja Hardy said...

It astounds me that Australian politicians on both sides have been conned into believing pro-fluoride propaganda, when for many years now evidence from an increasing number of ETHICAL scientists and dentists has made it patently clear that fluoridation DOES NOT WORK and is linked to numerous adverse health effects. The few politicians who try to expose the truth are vilified, or very quickly pulled into line by their party power brokers.

As a long time activist against this unsafe, ineffective, unethical practice I have often experienced the arrogance of politicians who refuse to look at the evidence, then claim that fluoridation is "one of the greatest health initiatives ..." If that is so, why is most of Australia experiencing dental crises, when most states have been extensively fluoridated for more than 50 years? And why has most of Europe banned fluoridation? And why is dental health in countries that do not fluoridate as good as, and in many cases better than in countries that do?

Esther said...

Fluoride doesn't do the job as our politicians would like us tho think and I don't need scientific evidence to prove it: I come form Europe, and for 25 years I never had fluoridated water, none or whatsoever. And guess what: I never ever had any tooth decay, I don't even have a filling. And all my friends, class mates, they all had pretty healthy teeth.
Since I moved to Australia, I've developed hypothyroidism. Fluoride and thyroid are not the best match. This fluoride legislation is the most undemocratic law. If someone thinks this chinese toxic rubbish is good for them, be my guest, but DO NOT FORCE OTHERS TO FOLLOW THIS INSANE IDEA ABOUT FLUORIDE AND MOST IMPORTANTLY DO NOT FORCE THAT ALUMINUM WASTE DOWN OUR THROAT!

Ute and Eddie said...

Thanks for this interesting article. We will send it around Australia.
It is a shame that we have to drink this stuff. Our son says the real reason fluoride is used is to clean the water-pipes.

Brisbane Lady said...

We found this an interesting read. We were all disgusted with Bligh for adulterating our drinking water. However, it seems to us that the new LNP government, who we voted for, is turning a blind eye on water fluoridation.

We brought up three children in the un-fluoridated Brisbane. All of us have good teeth and no fillings. This is due to eating healthy food and good dental hygiene.

Why have we been forced to spend a lot of money to for a reverse osmosis filter to take the dammed stuff out that the council is forced to put in? It just doesn’t make any sense. On top of all this, the RO filter wastes 4 litres of water for 1 litre of drinking water. We had thought that we live in a free democratic society, but this doesn’t seem to be the case anymore.

Geelong Dentist said...

Good Post