Friday, September 22, 2017

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Lowers Babies’ Intelligence, Study Shows

Pregnant women’s urine fluoride levels are linked to lower intelligence in their offspring, according to a US government-sponsored study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (September 2017), and at levels commonly found in US adults.

Fluoridation lobbyists cavalierly dismissed this study because it was conducted on women from Mexico which makes it irrelevant to the US, they claim.  However, urine fluoride levels in healthy US adults in US fluoridated areas are similar and is a measure of one's total fluoride intake from all sources. 

The lead researcher, Dr. Howard Hu, also disagrees with their assessment. He is quoted in the media as saying “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the US, seems disingenuous.”

Most US water suppliers add unnecessary fluoride chemicals into public water supplies in a failed attempt to reduce tooth decay for political not scientific reasons.

Hu says the study “also suggests that the prenatal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children.”

This new careful investigation, by respected researchers from respected institutions and published in a respected peer-reviewed journal, adds to a frightening trend.  Over 300  studies  now link fluoride to neurotoxic effects – 50 of them human – over 20 at fluoride levels allowed in US water supplies. Taken together, with this new study added, the evidence is now very strong that fluoride exposures common in the USA is causing IQ loss in at least some children.

A New Zealand study (Broadbent, et al) is often touted as proof fluoride is not neurotoxic.  However, that study showed no difference in total fluoride intake between children in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas since most of the children in nonfluoridated areas were given fluoride supplements.

According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), “The loss of IQ is very large.  The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm fluoride water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero fluoride in it… Such a drop of IQ in the whole population would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).”

The researchers adjusted for a wide range of other factors including lead, mercury, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.

Urine fluoride is a good indicator of total fluoride intake from all sources. When drinking water is the dominant source of fluoride, urine fluoride and water fluoride are usually about the same So, the average urine fluoride level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that women were ingesting the same amount of fluoride as women drinking water with 0.9 mg/L fluoride, according to FAN.

Up until 2011, government agencies advised artificially fluoridating water up to 1.2 mg/L.  Because of the growing dental fluorosis epidemic, they revised it downward to 0.7 mg/L.  But it’s just a recommendation. Not all water suppliers comply. Also, many US communities are served naturally fluoridated water up to 4 mg/L.

Fluoridated water is not the only fluoride source that adds to the bodies total fluoride burden.  Virtually all foods and beverages have some fluoride. Fluoride is absorbed into the bloodstream from topical application of fluoridated dental products and is a component of air pollution.

Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health  said to Newsweek: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water. These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration.” 

Fluoridation lobbyists, such as the American Dental Association, the American Fluoridation Society and the Children’s Dental Health Project (sponsored by the American Academy of Pediatrics) erroneous claim that
Mexican mothers had fluoride exposures higher than found in the USA and therefore the study isn’t applicable to American women.  They fail to understand the urine levels come from a mix of sources.  What’s relevant is that the fluoride levels found in Mexican mothers urine is similar to that found in Americans regardless of the sources of exposure.

After fluoride gets into the body and can be measured in the urine, as was done in this study, it is immaterial what the original source of that fluoride is.  The fluoride may have come from fluoridated water, fluoridated salt, swallowed toothpaste, fluoride supplements,  dental office fluoride treatments and/or air pollution.  Once fluoride  is ingested or absorbed into the bloodstream, it is all the same in terms of toxic effects on the fetus.  The developing brain in the fetus can't tell which source the fluoride came from.

This study was performed by respected leading researchers in environmental neurotoxins.  It was funded by $3 million in grants from the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
. It was published in the premier journal for environmental health after undergoing peer-review. 

Understandably, this study cuts to the heart of the dental profession's support of fluoride to combat dental decay.  But rather than a knee-jerk reaction to deny the importance of this study in the interests of teeth, perhaps dentists should take a more holistic perspective and consider the entire child, including his cognitive development.  How many IQ points loss would you consider is worth one cavity prevented???

                             END FLUORIDATION

Sunday, August 13, 2017

Dentists Responsible for Tooth Decay Epidemic?

After 72 years of fluoridation, reaching 2/3 of Americans, promising to substantially reduce tooth decay, especially in poor children, the American Journal of Public Health (2017) reports
“Despite significant financial, training, and program investments, US children’s caries experience and inequities continued to increase over the last 20 years.”
Children are fluoride-overdosed while oral-health-disparities between poor and non-poor increase. “America's shockingly poor dental care system,” is profiled in the Yakima Herald.

The silent oral-health epidemic, declared in 2000 by US Surgeon General David Satcher, persists today, he says.

For example: 2001 statistics show that tooth decay doubled after fluoridation was mandated in Kentucky in 1977
in 2016, cavities in Kentucky children increased again despite more oral health education, dental visits, sealants,
fluoride varnish and supplements on top of water fluoridation as the below graphic depicts.

By avoiding the real problem - lack of dentists who care to treat poor people - has organized dentistry created this dental health epidemic the US faces today?

Fluoridation, an outdated 1945 concept, predicted only 10% would suffer mild dental fluorosis (white-flecked teeth). However, 58% of adolescents are now afflicted - some with more severe fluorosis (stained, pitted teeth) without benefit of less tooth decay.  Dentists are profiting from covering dental fluorosis.

65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively.

Dye reports: “The prevalence of pediatric caries in the United States has remained consistent for the past 3 decades.” 
"… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation," said Dye.

Is organized dentistry, leading fluoridation promoters, to blame?  They wrote in December 2016, 

"the ADA will need to increase efforts in communities not only where fluoridation is challenged but increase efforts to assist members in identifying and initiating fluoridation efforts in those communities where fluoridation might be successfully implemented." (This link has been removed from public view after this was published.) 

80% of dentists refuse government-sponsored dental insurance (i.e. Medicaid and CHIP)  They prefer to treat the water of but not the teeth of low-income folks.  Fluoridation gives the illusion that organized dentistry cares about the poor folks who aren't welcomed in their dental chairs.

Legislators are often intimidated by fluoridation-promoting dentists who threaten to unseat them if they vote against fluoridation as happened in Pinellas County, Florida.  Too many legislators prefer to keep their jobs than protect their constituents.

Organized dentistry is possibly protecting its political viability by supporting fluoridation. But are the American people protected? Researchers report fluoridation safety doubts persist

Some say to follow the money.  In fact,  organized dentistry misinformed and manipulated California legislators to mandate fluoridation in 1995 . And they continue to thwart  perceived threats to their lucrative monopoly as occurred when  the Massachusetts' Governor attempted to legalize Dental Therapists in the state but was dropped due to strong opposition by dentists.
Reason Magazine reports “The over-the-top intimidation tactics of the ADA [American Dental Association] and its shiny-toothed shock troops,” contributed to high healthcare costs. A lawmaker is quoted as saying “I put their power right up there with the NRA.” 

The Washington Post (“The unexpected political power of dentists”) quoted a Harvard dentist comparing the ADA to ISIS.

In July 2017, a California newspaper reports the "Dental lobby prevails again in Legislature," by blocking legislation intending to save children's lives.

Free once-a-year “pop-up” dental clinics “fail to relieve the suffering of marginalized people but also can produce it,” according to a dissertation by Raskin. 

Raskin explains extractions are routine and “incentivized” instead of preventive or restorative care. Dentist volunteerism declined; patients are turned away.

Organized dentistry has priced low-income Americans out of dental care but spent millions of dollars unsuccessfully trying to thwart Dental Therapists from working in rural Alaska where dentists refused to work or live and where people were pulling out their own teeth.  They claimed patients would get substandard care; but 11 years later reports show Dental Therapists are successful.  For example:

-- more children and adults received preventive care

-- Fewer children under age 3 had extractions of the front four teeth
-- Fewer adults ages 18 and older had  tooth extractions

In 2008, the New York Times profiled the political clout of the New York State Dental Association.

July 2017, the New York Post reported that that NYS Dentist PAC donated $4M to political campaigns in 2010 and “the mint from the dentist’s chair has paid off – the trade group has blocked legislation in the statehouse that could spur competition and hurt business.”

Evidence that fluoridation failed New York State is here and here

.People need to take back their water systems from special interest groups.

Despite growing evidence that fluoridation is a failed concept, the American Dental Association and its constituent groups are aggressively pursing increased fluoridation throughout the nation without discerning or caring that our children are already fluoride overdosed.. Are they serving the public or the political viability of organized dentistry?

                                             END FLUORIDATION

Monday, July 17, 2017

Stop Fluoridation: It's Ineffective & Harmful, Say Chilean Researchers

Water and milk fluoridation haven't reduced tooth decay but is potentially harmful, report researchers from Chile (Medical Journal of ChileFebruary 2017,Translated with Google Translate). They recommend the government of Chile change its laws to stop adding fluoride chemicals into drinking water and milk in all regions of the country.

They show how fluoride intake can cause bone, thyroid, neurological and skin damage without reducing tooth decay. For example, they explain that, in the 1950s, fluoride was used to depress or reduce overactive thyroid glands (hyperthyroid) at doses which corresponds to the doses in drinking water of some fluoridated areas.(between 2 and 5 mg per Liter per day)

So it's not surprising that a recent study found a link between fluoridation and hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid)

Unnecessary fluoride chemicals are added to public water supplies, in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers. Many theories which gave birth to fluoridation in the early 1900's have been scientifically disproved making fluoridation a waste of money and a detriment to health.

The Chilean researchers report, “The fluoridation of drinking water does not significantly impact on caries prevention... effectiveness is rather a topical and non-systemic effect, as demonstrated by countries that do not fluoridate drinking water, and do not use milk or fluoride salts," yet have similar decay rates.

The research team based their analysis on a review of irrefutable scientific studies which included control of confounding variables.

They report that, according to WHO data, between 1970 and 2013, a decrease in 12-year-old's tooth decay occurred and at the same rate whether a country fluoridated its water or not. The same holds true for countries that fluoridate drinking water vs countries that do not fluoridate drinking water or salt.

Many European countries that have substantially decreased dental decay have never had massive fluoridation programs for milk and milk products (and/or drinking water).

"Therefore, fluoridation of drinking water and salts have no incidence at all in reducing dental [decay]," they conclude. 

About 3 million Chilean children consume fluoridated milk, diluted with water that naturally has at least 0.3 mg/L of fluoride. Considering consumption of at least  3 glasses of milk a day (200 ml), the intake of fluoride would be 2.59-3.6 mg/day which is above any international recommendation, they report.

"...the fluoridation of milk has no relevance in reducing dental decay. In addition children who have received fluoride salts are at increase risk of developing not only dental fluorosis [discolored teeth], but diseases such as those described in this review," they write.

This isn't the first review to expose the fluoridation boondoggle.

The respected UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay.

"Peckham and Awofeso concluded that the evidence suggests that fluoride has the potential to generate health problems, while it only has a discrete effect on the prevention of dental caries," the Chilean research team reports.

Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report Israeli  researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016) 

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016).

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al, reported "Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs...these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable."

Even respected dental researchers have reported in dental textbooks that fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific evidence.

                                    END FLUORIDATION

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Lead Linked to Autism - Fluoride Increases Lead Absorption

A new study reveals that children with Autism had much higher levels of lead levels throughout their development, according to Medical News Today.

The new research was led by Manish Arora, Ph.D., an environmental scientist and dentist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, NY, and the findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.

Naturally exfoliated baby teeth were analyzed for lead content. However, fluoride level wasn't mentioned; but should be tested.

Lead is allowed in fluoridation chemicals used in most US public water supplies

Here's an explanation of how that occurs.

Also, while not providing a direct link to autism, several studies show that fluoride increases blood lead levels.  

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, boosts lead absorption in lab animals' bones, teeth and blood, report Sawan, et al. (Toxicology 2/2010).
Earlier studies already show children's blood-lead-levels are higher in
 fluoridated communities, reports Sawan's research team.
"…exposure to increased amounts of lead and fluoride occurs at about the same age (1-3 years)… Therefore, this is a critical time when systemic exposure to fluoride should be minimized since fluoride may increase lead accumulation," the researchers caution.
"These findings suggest that a biological effect, not recognized so far, may underlie the epidemiological association between increased blood-lead levels in children and water fluoridation," concludes Sawan's research team.
"[O]ur findings may have serious implications for populations exposed to
increased amounts  of both lead and fluoride, particularly young children,"
the research team writes.
Masters and Coplan's landmark studies show higher blood-lead-levels in
children living in silico-fluoridated communities. (Neurotoxicology 2000, 2007). 
Macek's research shows children's higher blood-lead-levels are associated with water fluoridation when lead is already in the environment
(Environmental Health Perspectives, 2006).
                           --  END FLUORIDATION --

Monday, May 01, 2017

Fluoride Safety Doubted, Researchers Report

Fluoridation Safety & Efficacy is Doubted, Researchers Report
Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report Israeli  researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016)
Fluoridation is the unnecessary addition of fluoride chemicals (lead- and arsenic-laced hydrofluosilicic acid) into public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay.

Albany County  enjoys a very low decay rate (25%)  despite a very low 13% fluoridation rate, according to NYS Dept of Health statistics. 

The Israeli researchers further report that  “A [UK] Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth]." 
Israel policy-makers and public health officials ignored or denied valid evidence, produced by experts in their fields and respected science groups to push through a fluoridation mandate in Israel, report Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz.

They report that “policy makers themselves …[carry] out what they accuse others [fluoridation opposers] of doing. They share only partial, biased information in order to support their [pro-fluoridation] case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”

The same is true in the US

From the beginning, respected US scientists and physicians criticized fluoridation but were ignored (i.e., Waldbott). Voices of opposition were suppressed since the early days, according to Chemical and Engineering News.

Criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV.  

In fact, US public health bureaucrats ignore their own published evidence of fluoride’s potential harm i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.

The ignored1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials.

Today’s PR gurus coach fluoridationists to avoid mentioning risks because then “opponents are likely to win.”  (slide 18) And they disallow fluoridation opponents from partaking in fluoridation discussions. This occurred in New York State.

Coming on the heels of evidence showing that fluoridation is useless and more harmful to the poor, researchers continue to report that fluoridation's tooth decay reduction are still  not scientifically proven.

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016). 

 Swedish researchers, in PLOS one, February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [McDonagh]… was graded as low.”

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable” 

Even respected dental researchers have reported in dental textbooks that fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific evidence.

Countries that do not fluoridate the water have experienced a dramatic decline in tooth decay.  See chart.

NYS Communities which have stopped or rejected fluoridation are:  Suffolk, Nassau & Rockland counties, Albany, Elba, Naples, Levittown, Canton, Corning, Johnstown, Oneida, Carle Place, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, Riverhead, Central Bridge Water District, Homer, Ithaca, Rouses Point, Pulaski, Romulus and Amsterdam.