Dear readers:

Being such an extremely bad medical practice, it is not surprising that opposition to fluoridation comes from people all across the political spectrum.  However, for over 60 years it has suited fluoridation proponents to characterize opposition as coming only from right wing extremists who thought that fluoridation was some communist conspiracy. This opposition was brillinatly satirized in Stanley Kubrick’s movie “Dr. Strangelove.” Portraying opponents as crackpots and conspiracy theorists has served the pro-fluoridation cause well because it distracts attention from the very weak science that they claim supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

As a result of a candidate winning the Republican primary in Nevada, some Democratic supporters have seen it advantageous to use this candidate’s opposition to fluoridation as a way of ridiculing her. Whatever else this person believes, her opposition to fluoridation is not grounds for this kind of treatment. Instead, it reflects badly on those who are using it this way. It indicates that they have done little, if any, research on the matter and have simply taken the simplistic propaganda of fluoridation proponents at face value. In short, they have been duped. It is particularly sad from my own personal perspective that one of the commentators who has joined in this ill-founded abuse has been Rachel Maddow. Hitherto, I have respected this hard hitting and outspoken commentator from the left. But her comments on this matter do not do her credit and makes it doubly difficult to watch the commercials for her program in which she proclaims her fairness. What she is doing here is not fair to the candidate in question, and is not fair to opponents of fluoridation in general and the sooner that she makes a public apology on this matter the better. Moreover, because it betrays a serious lack of research into this issue it undermines the confidence one has in the professionalism of her research staff.

I have written to Rachel Maddow twice on this matter and have received no reply. Others have as well. This week FAN put out a media release on this matter.

Paul Connett

FAN PRESS RELEASE:

Political Mischaracterization of Fluoridation Opposition Dismays Scientists

CANTON, N.Y., June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Scientists representing the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) strongly object to recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.

“Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing,” says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in OurDrinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There.” Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.

“We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that commentators are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice,” says Connett.

“FAN’s website http://www.FluorideAlert.org  has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” says Connett.  ”In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.”  On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

“The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries,” Connett states.

The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriatemedical practice.  These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride’s toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists.

According to Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, fluoridation is an “obsolete” practice that “is against all principles of modern pharmacology.”  FAN’s site also has a listing of over 2800 scientists and professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.

The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride’s predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk.  Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.

“Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it,” says Connett.

According to Connett and other scientists, “Fluoridation is reckless as there is clear science indicating that fluoride has the potential to damage human bones, kidneys, thyroid and to lower children’s IQs.”

source: FoodConsumer.org

Fifty-six lawmakers, including 50 representatives and six senators, sent a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack yesterday asking that the agency retain the regulated status of genetically modified (GMO) alfalfa.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT.) and Congressman Peter DeFazio (D-OR) led the effort, which comes just days after the U.S. Supreme Court rescinded a nationwide ban on Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa, directly in response to a USDA Draft Environmental Impact Statement finding “No Significant Impact” from using the agrigiant’s genetically engineered (GE), herbicide-resistant seeds.

The high court’s ruling this week maintains that it is up to the USDA to complete a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on GMO alfalfa before fulling deregulating it. As a release from Sen. Leahy’s office noted yesterday, genetically modified crops are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which requires federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed actions. The agency did not conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement before deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2005.

In their letter yesterday, lawmakers sharply questioned the agency’s current evaluation and preliminary finding. “We have concluded that USDA’s preliminary finding of ‘No Significant Impact’ cannot be justified and we call on you to correct the serious deficiencies in the [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] and to deny the request for deregulated GE alfalfa.”

The letter says that the agency’s conclusion that contamination of non-GMO alfalfa is highly unlikely to occur is “not supported by the evidence or the science.”  Lawmakers contend in the letter that genetically modified alfalfa would contaminate the crops of both conventional and organic alfalfa farmers, resulting in “significant economic harm to alfalfa seed producers and to the organic dairy industry.”

“The [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] acknowledges that gene flow contamination will likely occur and goes on to elaborate on the conditions which increase that possibility: proximity of fields, pest management strategies, feral alfalfa corridors, movement of honey bees and overstocking of pollinators,” says the letter.

“The [Draft Environmental Impact Statement] further acknowledges that honey bees, the primary pollinators of alfalfa, travel distances far in excess of the required isolation distances.  While [the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service] maintains that contamination is unlikely, they contradict their own conclusion by determining that glyphosate tolerant alfalfa deregulation will lead to a shift to larger farms as alfalfa producers seek more land to avoid contamination.”

Demand for organic dairy is growing rapidly and the sector currently generates about $1.4 billion in sales, according to the letter.

“Consumers today respect and rely on what the USDA certified organic seal represents, which includes no GE contamination,” the letter continues. “If the USDA organic seal no longer represents a GE-free product, the integrity of the entire organic industry in this country will be compromised and consumers may no longer choose organic products.”

This week’s 7-1 Supreme Court decision, in favor of Monsanto in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Company, gives the agency the option of allowing limited planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa while it continues to finalize its Environmental Impact Statement, which is expected before the next spring planting season.

The full letter from lawmakers is available here.

More Headlines from Food Politics »

Growing awareness of mass medication of public with deadly neurotoxin leads to establishment backlash

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The controversy over adding sodium fluoride to water supplies in both the U.S. and the UK is intensifying as two separate stories out of India reveal that children are being blinded and crippled partly as a result of the neurotoxin being artificially added to drinking water.

In the Indian village of Gaudiyan, well over half of the population have bone deformities, making them physically handicapped. Children are born normally but after they start drinking the fluoridated water, they begin to develop crippling defects in their hands and feet.

“Due to the excess fluoride content in drinking water, the calcium intake is not absorbed in the body, causing disabilities and deformities,” said Dr Amit Shukla, a neurophysician.

“Sijara, a 35-year-old woman who is also afflicted, said the problem started around 30 years ago and gradually gripped the entire village,” reports Express India. “Now, you hardly find a person without the deformities. People in the village die at a relatively young age,” added Sijara whose three sons also have physical deformities.”

Government doctors have denied that fluoridation of drinking water is to blame, but have refused to test the water, insisting such tests are “not necessary”.

Meanwhile, in the village of Pavagada, 180 km from Bangalore, children are going blind after being diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract — a condition wherein the eye lens are damaged.

“Alarmed by the pattern in eye diseases among children in Pavagada taluk and the increasing cases of blindness, Narayana Netralaya, in collaboration with Narayana Hrudalaya and Shree Sharada Devi Eye hospital and Research Centre in Pavagada, has begun one of the largest studies on eye disorders involving 29,800 children,” reports the Times of India in a piece entitled, Blinded by tradition and fluoride in water.

The doctors attribute the child blindness to two factors – consanguineous marriages and the “fluoride content” of the drinking water.

Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.

Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute studyfound that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.

A 2008 Scientific American report concluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerged of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

“Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

The Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin. Most Americans already drink artificially fluoridated water.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.

Growing opposition to fluoridation of water supplies in light of this evidence is contributing to a scaling back of water fluoridation programs, with voters in places like Mount Pleasant calling for the amount added to be reduced.

With awareness about sodium fluoride on the increase, the establishment is now moving to demonize anyone who raises the issue as a dangerous lunatic. In an official press release today, the Fluoride Action Network slams “recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.”

As we wrote earlier this month, Keith Olbermann sardonically attacked Nevada primary winner Sharron Angle for speaking out against water fluoridation, “because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Amidst his sophomoric jibes, Olbermann failed to explain why, if fluoride isn’t a poison as he claims, the word “toxic” is written on the packaging of bags of sodium fluoride that are dumped into the water supply of many Americans.

Sodium fluoride is a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers are required by law to include the following text on their products, “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

“FAN’s website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” states the press release. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

Watch a lecture on sodium fluoride presented by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D.

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).

- USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950’s that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to “Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”

- The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)

- 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK 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.

- Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

Click here to find out if your water supply is poisoned with deadly fluoride.

Dr. Mercola and Dr. Paul Connett Discuss Fluoride (part 1 of 5)

EU report prompts new call for infant formula fluoride warning

Bottle fed babies’ health is at risk if their formula is made up with fluoridated water, according to the latest report of the European Union’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks.

As a result, Fluoride Action Network New Zealand (FANNZ) is calling on all councils around the country to issue a warning to parents and caregivers not to use fluoridated tap water for making up infant formula.

The Hutt City Council decided to issue information about this health risk in 2007, following the announcement by the US Public Health Service and the American Dental Association in late 2006, and an approach by FANNZ. The move was strenuously opposed by the Hutt Valley DHB and the Ministry of Health.

“Those Councilors who voted to inform the public, and the Councilors in the Far North who chose not to have fluoridation, can hold their heads high now their action has been vindicated” says Mark Atkin of FANNZ.

The US warning was that fluoridated water above 0.7 mg/L posed a risk. In New Zealand the Ministry of Health recommends water to be fluoridated to 0.85 mg/L, but because water engineers are not able to maintain an exact level throughout the whole day, they work within a range of 0.7 to 1 mg/L. The EU warning identified that above 0.8 mg/L “moderate” dental fluorosis was likely.

“’Moderate’ dental fluorosis is a sign of major fluoride toxicity; not just ‘a cosmetic’ problem as fluoride promoters misleadingly say” explains Mr Atkin. “Given this, and applying the standard minimum safety margin of 10, the maximum allowable level of fluoride in water used for infants should be less than 0.1 mg/L. This is the natural level of fluoride in most NZ water supplies, before fluoride chemicals are added. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is clear – it is time to stop putting this toxic chemical in the water” he says.

“The Ministry of Health, and the NZ Dental Association, seem to be alone in the world in still thinking that risking babies’ health by giving them fluoridated tap water is okay” concludes Mr Atkin.

• Farmed Fish Now Makes Up
  Half of the World’s Consumption

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary

Lake Cowichan’s drinking water may not be as healthy as the public thinks, Burnaby-based Health Action Network Society president Jane Shaak argues.

The fluoridation of the water, she said, must end.

“I’m sure a lot of people in Lake Cowichan don’t know they’re the only community on the island that has (fluoridated water),” she said.

Not only is Lake Cowichan the only place on Vancouver Island still adding fluoride to its drinking water, its citizens make up some of the only 3.7 per cent of British Columbians with access to fluoridated water.

The Health Action Network Society has a goal of reducing that number to zero.

The World Health Organization document Fluoride in Drinking-water states: “Fluoride has beneficial effects on teeth at low concentrations in drinking-water, but excessive exposure to fluoride in drinking-water, or in combination with exposure to other sources, can give rise to a number of adverse effects.”

Lake Cowichan superintendent of public works Nagi Rizk confirmed through an e-mail interview that the town samples its water daily and once a month a compounded sample is tested in a certified laboratory for optimal fluoride content.

“For whatever reason (fluoridation) was done in the past, but this has to change,” Shaak said. By adding fluoride to the water supply the town is forcing a medication upon the public. “Why are municipalities medicating people? They’re making these arbitrary decisions based on information of the past.”

The fluoridation of the local water supply last came up in council meetings in 2002, when the council of the time approved of putting the fluoridation issue to a public vote.

Before this happened, submissions made by the Central Vancouver Island Health Region endorsing fluoridation came forward, and approval for the vote was withdrawn.

source: Cowichan News Leader Pictorial

Help Stop Water Fluoridation in Sacramento!

Water fluoridation has been one of the most controversial issues in America in the last century. While purported advantages to dental health are questionable, there is overwhelming evidence of overall health risks. The harmful effects of water fluoridation have been linked to cancer, kidney damage, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s and osteoporosis.

With Sacramento’s current fiscal challenges, along with other cost-cutting recommendations, the City is considering the elimination of its water fluoridation program. Not only does Sacramento spend nearly $1,000,000 a year to fluoridate the water, but, as less than 1% of the fluoridated water reaches the target population, this expenditure is not environmentally sustainable nor cost effective. 99% of the fluoridated water is used for washing clothes and cars, watering landscapes, showers, toilets and drains into local rivers, streams and sewers.

Attend the Sacramento City Council meeting on June 22nd, 5:45 p.m. to support Recommendation #45 to stop water fluoridation in Sacramento.

Now is the time to eliminate fluoride from Sacramento’s drinking water once and for all !!

To Help:
Contact (call, write, fax, e-mail, visit) your City Councilmember and/or speak out at the City Council Meeting on June 22nd, 5:45 PM in support of the Citywide Financial and Operational Review Recommendation #45 to eliminate Sacramento’s water fluoridation program. To make your written comment part of the City Council record, go to “eComment” option next to the June 22 agenda (have to wait until after June 15 for June 22 agenda to be listed) athttp://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=21. Questions? Contact Brian at BrianL [at] Lambertwebworks.com or 916-475-7685.

New City Hall, 915 I Street, 5th Floor, 95814, front desk: 808-5407, fax: 264-7680 (good to do).
Mayor Kevin Johnson, 808-5300, Mayor [at] cityofsacramento.org
Councilmembers:
Ray Tretheway, Dist. 1, 808-5848, rtretheway [at] cityofsacramento.org
Sandy Sheedy, Dist. 2, 808-7002, ssheedy [at] cityofsacramento.org
Steve Cohn, Dist. 3, 808-7003, scohn [at] cityofsacramento.org
Robert Fong, Dist. 4, 808-704, rkfong [at] cityofsacramento.org
Lauren Hammond, Dist. 5, 808-7005, lhammond [at] cityofsacramento.org
Kevin McCarty, Dist. 6, 808-7006, kmccarty [at] cityofsacramento.org
Robbie Waters, Dist. 7, 808-7007, rwaters [at] cityofsacramento.org
Bonnie Pannell, Dist. 8, 808-7008, bpannell [at] cityofsacramento.org

FLUORIDATION FACT SHEET

• Fluoride, a known toxin, is considered more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic.
• The main product being used to fluoridate Sacramento’s water (fluorosilicic acid) is a toxic waste
byproduct from the phosphate fertilizer industry, and often contains varying levels of lead, mercury, arsenic, uranium, and other heavy metals.
• Disposing properly of fluorosilicic acid as a toxic waste costs chemical companies at least $10,000 per truckload and requires dumping at the highest rated toxic waste dumpsites. The tanks that store the fluoride chemical compounds must be changed every 7-10 years due to corrosion, which may further contaminate public drinking water.
• Fluoride is a medication not usually prescribed or recommended for adults. It is predominantly intended for children.
• The labels on fluoridated toothpaste warn consumers to keep the toothpaste out of reach of children and to contact a poison control center if more than a small amount of fluoridated toothpaste is swallowed.
• The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in water, food, juices, soft drinks, other beverages, and dental products is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population, resulting in an increasing number of children with dental fluorosis and other health issues.
• No scientific double blind studies proving any benefits of water fluoridation have ever been done. The FDA has never tested the fluoride that is being added to our water to ensure its safety or effectiveness.
• Less than one percent (1%) of Sacramento’s fluoridated water is used for drinking. The remainder goes for lawns, car washing, showers, washing machines, dishwashers, and toilets, etc., draining into our sewers and/or rivers and streams, making it an environmental hazard. As the annual cost of water fluoridation for the City of Sacramento is slightly less than $1,000,000, water fluoridation is an inefficient way to fluoridate and not a cost-effective use of taxpayer money.
• The harmful effects of water fluoridation have been linked to cancer, kidney damage, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s and osteoporosis. Therefore, many segments of the population have to find other sources of water in order to avoid fluoride and protect their health.
• Many dentists, doctors, other health professionals, scientists, engineers, and lawyers oppose water fluoridation. Eleven Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unions representing at least 7,000 EPA environmental and public health professionals have spoken out against water fluoridation, calling for a moratorium of fluoridation programs across the country and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.
• It is unethical to mass medicate the public by adding medication, in the form of fluoride, to our drinking water. Mandatory water fluoridation has taken away the personal freedom and right to choose what we ingest.

source: Indybay