FLUORIDE … The Aging Factor

Mr. Small’s functions at the USPHS [United States Public Health Service]
include the writing and printing of anonymous memos,
on USPHS letterheads, covering up the harmful
effects of fluoridation…

fluoride-banner

[Book # 31 on our Reading List]

F. the Aging Factor

John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. (1943-2000)

J.A.-Yia...

At the center of the second-generation conspiracy is John Small. While he is only a high school graduate with no college degree, his credentials do include six years as an information officer for a government department on chemical warfare. He is now and has been the U.S. Public Health Service ‘expert’ on fluoridation since the 1960s.

fluoride/fluoride/fluoridation/fluoridation-yiamousyiannis

     Mr. Small’s functions at the USPHS [United States Public Health Service] include the writing and printing of anonymous memos, on USPHS letterheads, covering up the harmful effects of fluoridation, and distributing these memos to promoters of fluoridation, and when necessary, getting his hands on memos and reports put out by the government (even the White House) and rewriting them so they no longer express their original concerns about the toxicity and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. Most of the information supplied to dentists and physicians concerning fluoridation comes either directly or indirectly from Mr. Small. He is the cover-up supervisor, an expert relied upon by the USPHS to supply answers to Congress.

He also has the task of harassing, intimidating, and destroying anyone whose publications, utterances, or activities work to the detriment of fluoridation. In some cases, he calls upon other divisions of the Public Health Service to ‘neutralize’ studies or articles showing adverse effects of fluoridation.

In 1969, when Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a biochemical editor for Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center and the largest division of the American Chemical Society, he began to publicly express his concern about the health risks associated with fluoridation.

Mr. Small contacted his employer and communicated his displeasure with the statements of Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was notified by his employer several times and finally told that if he spoke out against fluoridation one more time, he would be fired. He was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if Chemical Abstracts Service did not shut him up.

After the meeting, his employer wrote to Small, “I have again talked to Dr. Yiamouyiannis and I have again made my position as strong and as clear as possible. He will not repeat this kind of performance and remain as an employee of Chemical Abstracts Service.” Within weeks after Dr. Yiamouyiannis next spoke out against fluoridation, he was put on probation, was told that he would never receive a raise again, and was advised to find another job. He was ultimately forced to resign.

Two years later, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was appointed science director of the National Health Federation where he was able to devote more time on the fluoridation issue.

During the 1970s, the fluoridation battle was stalemated. On one side, those opposing fluoridation were winning elections to stop fluoridation. On the other side, there was the force and money and power of the USPHS, the ADA, and industry that kept fluoridation going. In 1978, Yiamouyiannis served as a consultant and witness in a court case in Pennsylvania that proved fluoridation was harmful and banned it. The fluoridation promoters had to do something.

ADA’s White Paper

In 1979, the American Dental Association came out with a “White Paper on Fluoridation” characterizing fluoridation opponents as either “uninformed or misinformed” or “self-styled experts whose qualifications for speaking out on such a scientific issue as fluoridation were practically nonexistent or whose motivation was self-serving.” It suggested that dentists should propagandize politicians while they are in the dental chair. The White Paper proposed setting up the conspiracy between the American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Health Statistics, National Institute of Dental Research, state dental societies, and state dental directors for “identification of communities where the timing for political action is favorable as well as unfavorable and where the opponents of fluoridation are considering the initiation of referendums” and for “promoting fluoridation.”

It urged that “individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports . . . on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program” and that the ADA should cooperate with the USPHS to get EPA to soften its statements regarding fluoride as a contaminant. It suggested behavioral studies to “help anticipate the behavior of opponents of fluoridation,” e.g. studies that would determine “Why would some persons deny the life-long health benefits of fluoridation to children? What kind of mentality would reject the opinion of those who are qualified by education, training and experience . . .”

It suggested that ADA’s responses to opponents of fluoridation should be prefaced by: “The ADA reiterated its longstanding support of fluoridation . . . Numerous studies have shown . . . There is no evidence of any relation . . . Investigators have observed . . . .” It suggested that “The advice of behavioral scientists should be sought with regard to more realistic, convincing rebuttals” and that “The ADA should produce a step-by-step manual for the development and conduct of a fluoridation campaign . . . The ADA should provide field assistance if needed in a fluoridation campaign or cooperate with the [US]PHS and state health departments in providing such assistance.”

Strategies of the Second Generation

This conspiracy solidified in the formation of a planning committee to organize a symposium (sponsored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), USPHS, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Care and Assistance, Maternal and Child Health Division, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Prevention Services, Dental Disease Prevention Activity, the W. K Kellogg Foundation, Delta Dental Health Plan of Michigan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, and Medical Products Laboratories). This symposium took place at the University of Michigan on August 9-10, 1983.

Members of the planning committee included Mr. Small, Mr. James Collins of the CDC, Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS, Dr. Robert Mecklenburg, Chief Dental Officer of the USPHS, Dr. William Warren, Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Joel Boriskin, chairman of the American Dental Association’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, Dr. Wilbert Fletke of the ADA, Dr. Anthony Kiser of the ADA, Ms. M. Lisa Watson of the ADA, Ms. Martha Liggett of the American Association of Dental Schools, Dr. Michael Easley, formerly of the Ohio Dept. of Health and CDC, and Dr. Ray Kuthy of the Illinois Department of Health, who were and/or are some of the central figures in the conspiracy.

The stated purpose of the meeting was to “discuss the status of organized opposition to fluoridation; to analyze probable motives influencing the anti-fluoride movement; to assess the need for a national fluoridation strategy; to develop political and legal strategies for the defense and promotion of fluoridation; and to evaluate past legal and political pro-fluoridation initiatives, focusing on the defeats as well as the victories.”

An examination of the seminar speakers, their affiliation, and the content of their presentations provides a further look into the “un-American” nature of this taxpayer-supported event

Speakers included:

Dr. William T. Jarvis, a member of the board of advisors of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). He spoke on the “Psychology of Anti-fluoridationism.” With regard to those opposing fluoridation, he stated: “I do not believe in providing such people a public platform from which they can create confusion and doubt about fluoridation . . . For several years I have put on fluoridation debates in my dental classes, taking surveys before and after to determine attitudes toward fluoridation. Invariably, each class became more anti-fluoridationist as a result of the debate.”

Dr. Sheldon Rovin, a member of ACSH and co-author with Stephen Barrett of the book, ‘The Tooth Robbers’, a book defaming anti-fluoridationists. He spoke on how to win fluoridation battles through the political process, pointing out that “if it is at all humanly possible, the referendum should be avoided.” In the discussion following, Dr. Myron Allukian asked what could be done to stop anti-fluoridationists from getting signatures to put fluoridation on the ballot.

Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS. As chairman of his workshop, he reported that his committee felt “the lead entities, namely the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association” should accept a plan “to close the ‘windows of vulnerability’ in our defense.” He suggested avoiding trials based on the merits of fluoridation. Finally, he suggested that a mandatory state fluoridation law be developed. During the following discussion, Dr. Easley suggested a conspiracy to deny those seeking relief through the courts their right to due process.

Dr. Dennis H. Leverett of the University of Rochester. As chairman of his workshop, he reported that his committee felt that fluoridation was “a political rather than a scientific situation” and encouraged research on the adverse effects of fluoridation “that will presumably show no effect or will show equivocal results.”

Dr. D. Scott Navarro of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, as chairman of his workshop, suggested that the cost of litigation defending fluoridation should be borne by taxpayers, professional organizations, health groups, universities, and research institutes.

Colleen Wulf of the Ohio Department of Health. As chairman of her workshop, she reported that her committee suggested the formation of a nonprofit organization which would coordinate with the CDC and ADA, pointing out that CDC has already drafted promotional materials for fluoride and that the ADA and the USPHS had already formed the Ad Hoc Committee to Plan for the Legal Defense of Community Water Fluoridation. She suggested that the name of the new group might be something like “Coalition for Improved Dental Health or something similar.”

ASLAP

As a matter of fact, the name of the group ended up being the American Oral Health Institute, incorporated in the state of Ohio on February 19, 1985 as a not-for-profit corporation. In 1985 and 1988, this organization came out with the first and second editions of a book, titled Abuse of the Scientific Literatune in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet (ASLAP), edited by Coleen A. Wulf, Karen F. Hughes, Kathleen G. Smith, and Michael W. Easley. The 215-page second edition of this book attacked the 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1988 editions of a very well referenced Question and Answer pamphlet titled Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation by Dr. Yiamouyiannis that was effectively being used to fight fluoridation.

The preparation of this book was a collaborative effort of 18 federal and state health officials who were promoting fluoridation. Those with an asterisk after their name were invited to or attended the University of Michigan on August 9-10, 1983 symposium discussed above. There was not a single scientist among them: 10 were dental hygienists (Colleen A. Wulf*, Karen F. Hughes*, Kathleen G. Smith*, Linda S. Crossett*, Elizabeth King, Sharon Pierce, Ruth Nowjak-Raymer, Beverly Wargo, Geraldine Wirthman, and Karen Zinner), 2 were dentists (Michael Easley* and Elizabeth Bernard), 5 had degrees in public relations, education, psychology, or public health (James Collins*, Taimi M. Carnahan*, Claire Gelband, Judy Harvey, and Helen S. Hill), and one had no college degree at all (John Small*). The person who wrote the introduction was a psychiatrist (Stephen Barrett). . .

page 186

CONSUMER REPORTS

With the help of fluoride promoters, Consumer Reports prepared and published a two-part article on fluoride in its July and August 1978 issues. The writer of these articles was Mr. Joseph Botta. Mr. Botta holds a Master of Arts Degree in English, but no scientific degree. In this article he passed along the same lies and slander used by the promoters to the trusting readers of Consumer Reports.

The Consumer Reports article on fluoridation is the most artfully written piece incorporating the lies and slander necessary to discredit the research and personalities of scientists showing that fluoridation is harmful. It is by far the Number One article distributed by the government bureaucrats in their promotion of fluoridation. This is not because government bureaucrats are not skillful liars. It is because, by having their spoon-fed material rewritten and published by a “consumer” magazine, their lies become more believable. Dr. William Bock of the Centers for Disease Control thought it was so good that he ordered 10,000 reprints and paid for them with federal tax dollars. The American Dental Association gave Mr. Botta an award for writing it.

This Consumer Reports article was used by U.S. Public Health Service bureaucrats to provide a “scientific” foundation for their views on fluoridation. The situation has become ludicrous. For example, Dr. Vernon Houk, the director of the Environmental Center for Health of the Centers for Disease Control, traveled all the way from Atlanta, Georgia, to St. Paul, Minnesota, to give his “expert” testimony by reading from the Consumer Reports article.

The “Big Lie” in this article and the phrase most often quoted from it is the claim that “The simple truth is that there’s no “scientific controversy” over the safety of fluoridation.” In 1990, Dr. Edward Groth III, the technical director for Consumer Reports, nullified this claim by stating: “The point is that this is a legitimate scientific controversy. Proponents of fluoridation insist that there are no grounds for controversy at all, and with that, I totally disagree.” This hasn’t stopped proponents from quoting the same phrase to this day.

Who is Stephen Barrett?

Quackpot

…Barrett is a shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and
his bully tactics and unjustified discrediting of  leading innovators,
scientists and health practitioners should not be tolerated…

See our post  -   Dentist and Fluoridation  - for more info on this man.

     Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, [claims to be] helped in the preparation of the 1978 Consumer Reports article and of the 1988 book Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Anti-fluoridation Pamphlet. He has close ties with the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service. He is a recipient of the FDA award for “quack-busting” and is a coauthor, along with William Jarvis and others, of the 1993 book Readers’ Guide to Alternative Health Methods, published by the American Medical Association. In this book, he cites, and gives summaries of, the two publications mentioned above to inform his readers about fluoridation. He is a science and editorial adviser to the American Council on Science and Health.

A glimpse into his character can be gained through his habitual use of words to mean their exact opposite. For example, in an article entitled “Poison Mongers,” Dr. Barrett refers to people who are trying to stop the addition of fluoride, a poison, to the water supply as poison-mongers…

stephen-barret-f Now a monger is one who sells something, e.g. a fishmonger is a person who sells fish.
Therefore, it is quite evident that a poison-monger is a person who sells poison.
Thus, one opposed to having fluoride added to the water supply is exactly the
opposite of a poison-monger. The word usage of Dr. Barrett is comparable
to the process called “Newspeak” described in George Orwell’s 1984,
where what is true becomes false and what is false becomes true.
The first few paragraphs of Dr. Barrett’s article “Poison-Mongers”
is the best example of how Dr. Barrett has used “Newspeak.”
“In hundreds of American communities citizens
have voted against healthier teeth.
“Why?
   ”They were confused by poison-mongers.

 ”These alarmists in our society are using confusion and a scare vocabulary as weapons against fluoridation.

They are cheating all of us, but especially our children.

“The benefits of fluoridation are supported by 10,000 scientific studies which
prove the poison- mongers are wrong. “What do the poison-mongers say?

“Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, they call it a ‘pollutant’.

“Instead of telling you that fluoride is a nutrient essential to life, they call it a poison’.

“Instead of the big truth, that fluoridation has never harmed anyone, they tell the big lie and say it causes hundreds of ailments.”

This article was published in newspapers across the country and was printed in the November 1976 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association. It has also been used by the U.S. Public Health Service in its ‘education’ of Congressmen and in its campaign to get various areas around the country fluoridated.

A closer look into Dr. Barrett’s personality can be obtained by examining his correspondence in 1972 with a group of people in Minnesota interested in stopping fluoridation. On March 8, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote to one of these people, saying:

“I read your letter in Prevention [magazine] with some interest. There have been other attempts to defeat the fluoridationists in court but most have failed. Before investing money, I would like to have full details of what you plan.”

Thanks, Stephen J. Barrett, MD.”

In another letter to these people, dated April 4, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote:

“Thank you for your recent telephone call. I am sorry that I could not immediately make the financial commitment which you requested. I know how enthusiastic you are and did not want to raise your hopes until I had a chance to discuss the matter with my group.

I am part of a group which is vitally concerned about fluoridation and which has raised a considerable amount of money. We are not yet sure whether it would be more practical to lobby or to go to court in Pennsylvania. The reason your lawsuit interests us is because it might be more practical for us to join your effort rather than go it alone.

“Thus we would need to have a detailed, written description of the plans of your suit. Our attorneys would then be in a position to study how it would effect Pa. law and also to estimate the chances of your suit being successful. We would also need some detail as to how the Attorney General’s favorable attitude will be used to advantage without this becoming apparent to the American Dental Association.

“We realize you are hesitant to say too much about your plans. On the other hand, we could not make a total commitment unless we had full knowledge of what we would be getting for our investment. We realize this asks a lot of you. On the other hand, we think we have a lot to offer.

“You may be assured that whatever information you send us will be handled with appropriate discretion.

“Sincerely yours, Stephen Barrett, M.D.”

On April 12, 1972, he wrote another letter to Miss Mary Bernhardt, the person at the American Dental Association responsible for promoting fluoridation, and related the following:

“Dear Miss Bernhardt:

“At about 6:20 this evening, I received another phone call from Mike Liptak, the organizer of MOFF [Minnesotans Opposed to Forced Fluoridation]. He said that at 4.30, Judge Gordon McRae ordered an injunction ‘to keep the fluoride out of Brainerd.’

“He said that there were 1500 people who watched the trial and that the judge had cautioned them about becoming emotional. They were very quiet. The case presented by MOFF included an affidavit from Dr. Waldbott. The attorney general of Minnesota defended and was given ‘five days for rebuttal.’ According to Mr. Liptak, who again said he went to school with the attorney general, the attorney general said he ‘would not furnish a rebuttal’. He merely stated that the new Minnesota law required fluoridation.

“Mr. Liptak added that there was an additional legal action scheduled for September. In about two weeks, 500 local citizens were planning to gather at a meeting where the vice-president of a local bank would get from them ’3 year notes for $50 each’ to help finance the suit. He explained that such mass action would not get them much publicity in Prevention magazine and the National Health Federation. It was their plan to seek further injunctions of this type with eventual overturning of the new state laws. He again asked me for a contribution, even a token one. He added that there might be money left over for use in another state such as Pennsylvania.

“On 5/14, Dr. Gross will try to contact leaders of the pro fluoridation forces in the Minnesota Dental Society and will also call the American Dental Association attorney. We have Mr. Liptak’s confidence and hope to continue to use it to our advantage. Perhaps the dental society should consider entering the suit as a guardian of the children. It might also be helpful if some quick way could be devised to dissuade the Brainerd residents from their imminent investment in foolishness.

“Best wishes, Stephen Barrett, M.D.”

Ironically, Dr. Barrett is a co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud.

Subsequently, he and Mary Bernhardt got together and published a book called The Health Robbers, in which they refer to those opposing fluoridation as health robbers. Excerpts from this book, which consist primarily of the substance of his poison-monger article, were reprinted in newspapers around the country, as well as in Family Health Magazine.

Teaming up with others of his kind, including Drs. Thomas Jukes, Warren Winklestein, and Joel M. Boriskin, Dr. Barrett complained about and tried to prevent Dr. Yiamouyiannis from speaking before the Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley. Together they claimed that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was some disreputable person not deserving a forum at the University of California campus.

In another action, Dr. Barrett, Dr. Boriskin and Dr. William Jarvis, who also is on the board of the National Council Against Health Fraud, wrote letters of complaint to the National News Council concerning an article published in the National Inquirer which pointed out that higher cancer risks were associated with fluoridation.

An indication of how Barrett’s ‘Newspeak’ is passed down the line to local dentists is evident from the experience Dr. Yiamouyiannis had when he was called in by local residents of St. Charles, Missouri for a debate on fluoridation. When Dr. Michael Garvey, a local dentist, heard that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was going to be the opposition speaker, he refused to participate in the debate.

According to the November 12, 1982 St. Charles Post: “Dr. Garvey said American Dental Association Officials had told him, ‘running up against Dr. Yiamouyiannis is not recommended’. The man is well-known as an antifluoridation speaker, Dr. Garvey said. ‘This guy is a terror.’”

page 203

Why haven’t Consumer Reports, Stephen Barrett and others who issue false and defamatory statements been sued for libel and slander? Why haven’t bureaucrats responsible for illegally spending tax monies to influence elections been prosecuted and sent to jail? Why haven’t bureaucrats who have lied in court while under oath been prosecuted for perjury?

In many cases they have. However, when legal action was taken against Consumer Reports, the court didn’t even allow a hearing on the case. The court claimed Consumer Reports’ right to freedom of speech outweighed the plaintiffs right to due process of the law.

When charges concerning Dr. Schneiderman’s alleged perjury in the Pittsburgh court case were brought before the district attorney’s office, they pointed out it would be virtually impossible to convict anyone on perjury and they rarely, if ever, prosecute such cases.

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis was not the first in the controversy over fluoridation. Even such accomplished physicians as Drs Ionel F Rapaport and George L Waldbott were severely oppressed in the early stages of the dispute over fluoridation. Even today, similar reprisals continue, as can be seen in the case of Forsyth Dental Research Center toxicologist Phyllis J Mullenix, phd, and USEPA cancer scientist William Marcus, phd. These actions are described by Professor Paul Connett in his “Fluoride: A Statement of Concern”, which is translated into Japanese in this issue of the Journal of the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research, as “a sickening thread that runs throughout this sorrowful 50-year history of fluoride promotion by the agencies of the US Public Health Service.”

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, biochemist and founder of the Safe Water Foundation, USA, died October 8, 2000, passing away peacefully in sleep at his home in Delaware, Ohio, surrounded by members of his family.

 Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Health Action Press 6439 Taggart Road

Delaware, Ohio 43015

First edition published 1983

Third edition published 1993

Excerpts from the book, with permission from the author.

Chapter 17 . . . The Conspiracy: The Second Generation

In 1975  Dr. John Yiamouyiannis publishes a preliminary survey which shows that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas.
The National Cancer Institute attempts to refute the studies.
Later in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joins with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which are then included in the Congressional Record by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption.
Both reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer.
(Note: Obviously Dr. Burk felt free to agree with scientific truth only after his tenure at NCI ended,
since his job depended on towing the party line).

In 1989 Dr. Yiamouyiannis used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain carcinogenicity studies conducted by Proctor and Gamble (one of the makers of fluoridated toothpaste) that were submitted to (and covered up by) the United States Public Health Service. These studies showed dose dependent cell abnormalities caused by fluoride. These results were reported in the February 22, 1990 issue of the Medical Tribune. Additional studies by Proctor and Gamble scientists confirmed the link between oral precancerous growth and fluoride, as well as an increase in  osteomas (bone tumors) and osteosarcomas (bone cancer). In fact, the National Cancer Institute found in 1991 that  the incidence of bone cancer was 50% higher in men ages 0-19 years of age exposed to fluoridated water compared to those who were not.

see also → Fluoride  credit Dr. Mercola

“The evidence against the safety of this public health policy

will keep mounting and never disappear again.” - Mullenix

We at ‘Fluoridation Queensland’ will work to ensure that
fluorides are not added to public water supplies.

fluoridation-queensland-logo

new-devider-fq

2-purple-parrots-f

FLUORIDE IS DAMAGING TO THE THYROID +

This body of work was not considered by the York Review when
their remit was changed from, ”Studies of the effects of
fluoride on health” to “Studies on the effects of
fluoridated water on health.” 

 A few more sources of fluoride in food plants

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

F-Thyroid-

Barry Peatfield

Barry Durrant-Peatfield  MBBS LRCP MRCS is a specialist/consultant in the diagnosis and treatment of metabolic and thyroid-related diseases. He has been a medical practitioner for over forty years and specialises in metabolic disorders. He is a leading authority in the United Kingdom for thyroid and adrenal management.

    There is a daunting amount of research studies showing that the widely acclaimed benefits on fluoride dental health are more imagined than real. My main concern however, is the effect of sustained fluoride intake on general health. Again, there is a huge body of research literature on this subject, freely available and in the public domain.

But this body of work was NOT considered by the York Review when their remit was changed from
“Studies of the effects of fluoride on health” to
“Studies on the effects of fluoridated water on health.”
It is clearly evident that it was not considered by the BMA (British Medical Association), British Dental Association (BDA), BFS (British Fluoridation $ociety) and FPHM, (Faculty for Public Health and Medicine) since they all insist, as in the briefing paper to Members of Parliament – that fluoridation is safe and non-injurious to health..

This is a public disgrace. I will now show by reviewing the damaging effects of fluoridation  with special reference to thyroid illness.

It has been known since the latter part of the 19th century that certain communities, notably in Argentina, India and Turkey were chronically ill, with premature ageing, arthritis, mental retardation, and infertility; and high levels of natural fluorides in the water were responsible. Not only was it clear that the fluoride was having a general effect on the health of the community, but in the early 1920s Goldemberg, working in Argentina showed that fluoride was displacing iodine; thus compounding the damage and rendering the community also hypothyroid from iodine deficiency.

‘HIGHLY DAMAGING TO THE THYROID GLAND’

This was the basis of the research in the 1930s of May, Litzka, Gorlitzer von Mundy, who used fluoride preparations to treat over-active thyroid illness. Their patients either drank fluoridated water, swallowed fluoride pills or were bathed in fluoridated bath water; and their thyroid function was as a result, greatly depressed. The use in 1937 of fluorotyrosine for this purpose showed how effective this treatment was; but the effectiveness was difficult to predict and many patients suffered total thyroid loss. So it was given a new role and received a new name, Pardinon. It was marketed not for over-active thyroid disease but as a pesticide. (Note the manufacturer of fluorotyrosine was IG Farben who also made sarin, a gas used in World War II).

This bit of history illustrates the fact that fluorides are dangerous in general and in particular highly damaging to the thyroid gland, a matter to which I shall return shortly. While it is unlikely that it will be disputed that fluorides are toxic – let us be reminded that they are Schedule 2 Poisons under the Poisons Act 1972, the matter in dispute is the level of toxicity attributable to given amounts; in today’s context the degree of damage caused by given concentrations in the water supply. While admitting its toxicity, proponents rely on the fact that it is diluted and therefore, it is claimed, unlikely to have deleterious effects.

THEY COULD NOT BE MORE MISTAKEN…

It seems to me that we must be aware of how fluoride does its damage. It is an enzyme poison. Enzymes are complex protein compounds that vastly speed up biological chemical reactions while themselves remaining unchanged. As we speak, there occurs in all of us a vast multitude of these reactions to maintain life and produce the energy to sustain it. The chains of amino acids that make up these complex proteins are linked by simple compounds called amides; and it is with these that the fluorine molecules react, splitting and distorting them, thus damaging the enzymes and their activity. Let it be said at once, this effect can occur at extraordinary low concentrations; even lower than the one part per million which is the dilution proposed for fluoridation in our water supply.

THE BODY CAN ONLY ELIMINATE HALF OF THE TOTAL INTAKE.

Moreover, fluorides are cumulative and build up steadily with ingestion of fluoride from all sources, which include not just water but the air we breathe and the food we eat. The use of fluoride toothpaste in dental hygiene and the coating of teeth are further sources of substantial levels of fluoride intake. The body can only eliminate half of the total intake, which means that the older you are the more fluoride will have accumulated in your body. Inevitably this means the ageing population is particularly targeted. And even worse for the very young there is a major element of risk in baby formula made with fluoridated water. The extreme sensitivity of the very young to fluoride toxicity makes this unacceptable. Since there are so many sources of fluoride in our everyday living, it will prove impossible to maintain an average level of 1ppm as is suggested.

WHAT IS THE RESULT OF THESE TOXIC EFFECTS?

First the immune system. The distortion of protein structure causes the immune proteins to fail to recognize body proteins, and so instigate an attack on them, which is Autoimmune Disease. Autoimmune diseases constitute a body of disease processes troubling many thousands of people: Rheumatoid Arthritis, Systemic Lupus Erythematosis, Asthma and Systemic Sclerosis are examples; but in my particular context today, thyroid antibodies will be produced which will cause Thyroiditis resulting in the common hypothyroid disease, Hashimoto’s Disease and the hyperthyroidism of Graves’ Disease.

Musculo Skeletal damage results further from the enzyme toxic effect; the collagen tissue of which muscles, tendons, ligaments and bones are made, is damaged. Rheumatoid illness, osteoporosis and deformation of bones inevitably follow. This toxic effect extends to the ameloblasts making tooth enamel, which is consequently weakened and then made brittle; and its visible appearance is, of course, dental fluorosis.

The enzyme poison effect extends to our genes; DNA cannot repair itself, and chromosomes are damaged. Work at the University of Missouri showed genital damage, targeting ovaries and testes. Also affected is inter uterine growth and development of the foetus, especially the nervous system. Increased incidence of Down’s Syndrome has been documented.

Fluorides are mutagenic. That is, they can cause the uncontrolled proliferation of cells we call cancer. This applies to cancer anywhere in the body; but bones are particularly picked out. The incidence of osteosarcoma in a study reporting in 1991 showed an unbelievable 50% increase. A report in 1955 in the New England Journal of Medicine showed a 400% increase in cancer of the thyroid in San Francisco during the period their water was fluoridated.

MY PARTICULAR CONCERN IS THE EFFECT OF FLUORIDES
ON THE THYRIOD GLAND

Perhaps I may remind you about thyroid disease. The thyroid gland produces hormones which control our metabolism – the rate at which we burn our fuel. Deficiency is relatively common, much more than is generally accepted by many medical authorities: a figure of 1:4 or 1:3 by mid life is more likely. The illness is insidious in its onset and progression. People become tired, cold, overweight, depressed, constipated; they suffer arthritis, hair loss, infertility, atherosclerosis and chronic illness. Sadly, it is poorly diagnosed and poorly managed by very many doctors in this country.

What concerns me so deeply is that in concentrations as low as 1ppm, fluorides damage the thyroid system on 4 levels.

1. The enzyme manufacture of thyroid hormones within the thyroid gland itself. The process by which iodine is attached to the amino acid tyrosine and converted to the two significant thyroid hormones, thyroxine (T4) and liothyronine (T3), is slowed.

2. The stimulation of certain G proteins from the toxic effect of fluoride (whose function is to govern uptake of substances into each of the cells of the body), has the effect of switching off the uptake into the cell of the active thyroid hormone.

3. The thyroid control mechanism is compromised. The thyroid stimulating hormone output from the pituitary gland is inhibited by fluoride, thus reducing thyroid output of thyroid hormones.

4. Fluoride competes for the receptor sites on the thyroid gland which respond to the thyroid stimulating hormone; so that less of this hormone reaches the thyroid gland and so less thyroid hormone is manufactured.

These damaging effects, all of which occur with small concentrations of fluoride, have obvious and easily identifiable effects on thyroid status. The running down of thyroid hormone means a slow slide into hypothyroidism. Already the incidence of hypothyroidism is increasing as a result of other environmental toxins and pollutions together with wide spread nutritional deficiencies.

141 MILLION EUROPEANS ARE AT RISK

One further factor should give us deep anxiety. Professor Hume of Dundee, in his paper given earlier this year to the Novartis Foundation, pointed out that iodine deficiency is growing worldwide. There are 141 million Europeans are at risk; only 5 European countries are iodine sufficient. UK now falls into the marginal and focal category. Professor Hume recently produced figures to show that 40% of pregnant women in the Tayside region of Scotland were deficient by at least half of the iodine required for a normal pregnancy. A relatively high level of missing, decayed, filled teeth was noted in this non-fluoridated area, suggesting that the iodine deficiency was causing early hypothyroidism which interferes with the health of teeth. Dare one speculate on the result of now fluoridating the water?

FLUORIDE DISPLACES IODINE IN THE BODY

These figures would be worrying enough, since they mean that iodine deficiency, which results in hypothyroidism (thyroid hormone cannot be manufactured without iodine) is likely to affect huge numbers of people. What makes it infinitely worse, is that fluorine, being a halogen (chemically related to iodine), but very much more active, displaces iodine. So that the uptake of iodine is compromised by the ejection, as it were, of the iodine by fluorine. To condemn the entire population, already having marginal levels of iodine, to inevitable progressive failure of their thyroid system by fluoridating the water, borders on criminal lunacy.

I would like to place a scenario in front of those colleagues who favour fluoridation. A new pill is marketed. Some trials not all together satisfactory, nevertheless, show a striking improvement in dental caries. Unfortunately, it has been found to be thyrotoxic, mutagenic, immunosuppressive, cause arthritis and infertility in comparatively small doses over a relatively short period of time.

DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE MARKETED?

Fluoridation of the nation’s water supply will do little for our dental health; but will have catastrophic effects on our general health. We cannot, must not, dare not, subject our nation to this appalling risk.

Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield obtained his Medical degrees in 1960 at Guy’s Hospital London. He left the NHS in 1980 to specialise in thyroid illnesses drawing inspiration from the work of infamous Dr Broda Barnes, at the Foundation that bears his name, Connecticut, USA. He has been a medical practitioner for over forty years specialising in metabolic disorders during which time he became a leading authority in the UK for thyroid and adrenal management. For over twenty years he also ran a successful private clinic and became a nation-wide leading authority on thyroid and adrenal dysfunction, but clashed with establishment medicine in the management of thyroid illness. He is the author of The Great Thyroid Scandal (see opposite page), he currently lectures at nutritional colleges in London as well as conducting his own teaching seminars. Barry will shortly be opening a diagnostic clinic in the UK for thyroid and adrenal disorders where he will provide advice on diagnosis and treatment with special interests in nutritional aspects. For further information contact: Dr B Durrant- Peatfield 36A High St, Mersham, Redhill Surrey, RH1 3EA.

Tel: 44 (0)1737 215462 <mailto:Email: info@drpeatfield.com>Email: info@drpeatfield.com

Web site:

http://www.drpeatfield.com

References:

L Goldemberg – La Semana Med 28:628 (1921) – cited in Wilson RH, DeEds F -”The Synergistic Action Of Thyroid On Fluoride Toxicity” Endocrinology 26:851 (1940).

G Litzka – “Die experimentellen Grundlagen der Behandlung des Morbus Basedow und der Hyperthyreose mittels Fluortyrosin”

Med Wochenschr 63:1037-1040 (1937) (discusses the basis of the use of fluorides in anti-thyroid medication, documents activity on liver, inhibition of glycolysis, etc.).

W May – “Behandlung der Hypothyreosen einschlieblich des schweren genuinen Morbus Basedow mit Fluor” Klin Wochenschr 16: 562 – 564 (1937).

Sarin: (GB: isopropyl methylphosono-fluoridate) is a colorless, odorless volatile liquid, soluble in water, first synthesized at IG Farben in 1938. It kills mainly through inhalation.

Cyclosarin (GF) and Thiosarin are variants. Pennsylvania Department of Health

http://www.dsf.health.state.pa.us/health/cwp/view.asp?a=171&q=233740

Sarin: (GB: CH3-P(=O)(-F)(-OCH(CH3)2)

Source: A FOA Briefing Book on Chemical Weapons http://www.opcw.org/resp/html/nerve.html Gerhard Schrader, a chemist at IG Farben, was given the task of developing a pesticide. Two years later a phosphorus compound with extremely high toxicity was produced for the first time.

IG Farben: “…the board of American IG Farben had three directors from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most influential of the various Federal Reserve Banks. American IG Farben. also had interlocks with Standard Oil of New Jersey, Ford Motor Company, Bank of Manhattan (later to become the Chase Manhattan Bank), and AEG. (German General Electric) Source: Moody’s Manual of Investments; 1930, page 2149.”

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books/wall_street/chapter_02.htm

At a later date, Namaste will be publishing a more in-depth article outlining the devastating affects that fluoride, aspartame and MSG have on the endocrine system.

Dr Durrant-Peatfield will be answering frequently asked questions on thyroid illness in Namaste’s next issue. Send your questions to us preferably by

Email to: info@namastepublishing.co.uk

Has anyone read the book, The Great Thyroid Scandal by

Dr. Barry Durrant-Peatfield?

Does anyone know about this doctor? I saw that he has
had his license revoked for about 18 months due to
what his colleagues call bad medicine.
Seems like a mark in his favour to us.

Image of thyroid f

stop the thyroid mad..f

  Stop The Thyroid Madness  

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

Your Thyroid and how to kep...

See → HERE

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

comprehensive book on iodine

BLUE-RED-BLUE strip

fluoridation-queensland-logo

new-devider-fq

5-golden-conures

EVIDENCE SHOWS FLUORIDATION DANGER

The 23 + studies from India, Iran, Mexico and China
have shown 
that high doses of fluorides are
associated with lowered IQ in children.

6-children-f

EVIDENCE SHOWS FLUORIDATION A DANGER

by Paul Connett, PhD -  ↑

Paul Connett image f

Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University, Canton, Director of Fluoride Action Network.

Currently, I am traveling in Italy giving presentations on waste management. I have been forwarded a copy of your editorial ridiculing any notion that fluoridation could possibly cause any health problem and that practice is extremely effective at reducing tooth decay.

   I will leave your councilors to judge the quality of the evidence that I will share with them on March 14. I write now because I am upset with the bullying tone you have adopted with one of your councilors, Amy Valentine. It is well known that if people are unable to answer a disturbing message they begin by attacking the messenger. You have chosen to do so in this case using the authority of local dentists, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, on this particular issue all these sources are highly suspect because of their very aggressive and long-term promotion of this practice.

It is simply not enough to parrot the phrase that fluoridation is “safe and effective” [our link] to win the case. It is incumbent on those who support this most unusual practice (what other chemical is added to the public water supply to treat people rather than treat the water?), which has been rejected by most industrial countries, to provide the scientific evidence for their claims.

To offset the 23 studies from India, Iran, Mexico and China which have shown that high doses of fluoride are associated with lowered IQ in children, where are the studies of the IQ of children living in Plattsburgh or any other fluoridated community in the U.S.? I am not aware of any. Why have they not been done?

The key question, of course, is whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the levels which have caused this harm in other countries and the levels experienced by children in this country drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water. The lowest level estimated at which IQ was lowered in one of these studies was 1.8 ppm (Xiang et al., 2003). Can you find a single toxicologist or pharmacologist who will tell you that offers an adequate margin of safety for all children exposed to fluoridated water at 1 ppm? For that matter, will they also tell you that there is an adequate margin of safety for all the other health effects discussed in the 507-page report by the National Research Council, “Fluoride in Drinking Water” published in March 2006? Three of the authors of that report don’t think so and have stated so in public.

On the issue of effectiveness, where is the peer-reviewed, published, scientific evidence that the teeth of children in Plattsburgh are “sturdier” than children in non-fluoridated communities in the area? You have none — only anecdotal reports. In fact, a study commissioned by the N.Y. Department of Health, which examined tooth decay in third graders, found absolutely no relationship between tooth decay averaged by county and percentage of the county’s population drinking fluoridated water! Meanwhile, the data collected by the World Health Organization shows no difference in tooth decay in 12 year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries .

In my view adding fluoride — a known toxic substance — to the public drinking water at 250 times the level naturally present in mother’s milk (0.004 ppm) is both reckless and foolish, especially now that even promoters of fluoridation like the CDC admit that fluoride works topically, not systemically, i.e. it works by acting on the surface of the tooth not from inside the body (CDC, 1999, 2001).

Not only did your editorial writer question my concerns about fluoride’s ability to damage the brain, but he or she also questioned my suggestion that fluoride also damages the teeth. That’s strange because the CDC has reported that 32 percent of American children have dental fluorosis, a mottling and discoloration of the teeth caused by ingesting fluoride before the permanent teeth have erupted.

While the largest proportion of children thus affected have the condition in its very mild form, over 3-4 percent of children have the condition in its moderate or severe forms, in which 100 percent of the enamel is affected. Moreover, while these enamel defects can be covered by expensive veneers (about $1,000 per tooth) the worrying aspect about this is that it is generally agreed that dental fluorosis is the first indication that the child’s developing body has been over-exposed to fluoride.

Thus, the key question then becomes, while the fluoride is damaging the growing tooth by some systemic mechanism, what other tissues might it be damaging without this obvious and visible telltale sign? This underlines the significance of the IQ studies from countries which do not have a fluoridation program to protect.

So let’s examine the science here, please, not just the reiteration of long-held beliefs.

radial-lin-blue

 Fluoridation Equipment Failures

f-dosing-plant-image

radial-lin-blue

Bone/joint problems-Fluorosis-Poland

radial-lin-blue

Fluoride: Why You Won’t Want to Use It +

fq

 

sparrow-3

FLUORIDATION AND RUDOLF ZIEGELBECKER

Rudolf  Ziegelbecker began a successful career in
electron microscopy, where his remarkable
talents as a researcher soon emerged.

FLUORIDATION & RUDOLF ZIEGELBECKER

Rudoff Ziegelbecker f

extract-ziegelbecker-f

 

OBITUARY

Fluoride 42(1)2 January-March 2009

Rudolf Ziegelbecker Obituary 2 Burgstahler, Spittle

RUDOLF ZIEGELBECKER

Born 26 August 1924 in Veitsch, Austria Died 12 January 2009 in Graz, Austria.
After early training and work in electrical engineering,

Rudolf Ziegelbecker began a successful career in electron microscopy, where his remarkable talents as a researcher soon emerged. Additionally, because it had not been possible due to World War II, he also began to pursue university studies of electrical engineering and physics. Drawing on his knowledge and experience in research, he then directed his efforts to improve living conditions of his fellow citizens, co-founding an Institute for Environmental Research in Graz in 1970. As part of this activity, he was instrumental in ending environmentally hazardous industrial operations in his neighborhood, which also prompted his research on fluoride beginning in the late 1960s.

Rudolf Ziegelbecker, 1924–2009

At the local brick works in Graz-St. Peter, Ziegelbecker
discovered that fluoride emissions were not only damaging the local vegetation but were also impairing the health of his own and other children who were regularly receiving prophylactic fluoride tablets to protect against dental caries. The children were suffering from unexplained excessive fatigue, nausea, stomach-ache, and joint and limb pain, from which they recovered when they stopped taking the fluoride tablets and the polluting operations were terminated. When he pressed the local health authorities to provide data for a maximum allowable fluoride intake and evidence for an anti-caries benefit of the tablets, they were unable to do so.

He then undertook a critical examination of various aspects of the dental use of fluoride. From his systematic analyses of data and conclusions published by leading dental researchers, he was able to show Austrian authorities that neither fluoride tablets nor water fluoridation were effective in preventing tooth decay as claimed. As a result, first the local and then the entire fluoride tablet program in Austria was terminated.

Over the next four decades, Ziegelbecker campaigned tireless against water fluoridation, fluoride tablets, and salt fluoridation. In this connection, he wrote numerous scientific and popular articles and co-authored a book with Dr Max Otto Bruker (Vorsicht Fluor, reviewed by Jörg Spitz in Fluoride 2007;40/3:205-6). He also testified at expert hearings, reported at conferences and to governmental committees, participated in panel discussions, and appeared on radio and television. His vigorous and persistent campaigning eventually played an important role in ending water fluoridation and fluoride tablet programs in Austria, Germany, and other countries in Europe.

On April 19, 2007 (as reported by Peter Meiers in Fluoride 2007;40/3:160-1), Ziegelbecker’s untiring efforts to promote a better quality of life were recognized by the Town Council with a “Citizen of Graz” award for all he had achieved for the city and its citizens. During the past year, he lost his eyesight and was stricken with cancer from which he died this year on January 12. The next issue of Fluoride will carry an In Memoriam tribute with more details of his work and life.

Albert W Burgstahler, Editor Lawrence, Kansas, USA Bruce Spittle, Managing Editor Dunedin, New Zealand

Copyright © 2009 The International Society for Fluoride Research Inc.  www.fluorideresearch.org www.fluorideresearch.com  www.fluorideresearch.net  Editorial Office:
727 Brighton Road, Ocean View, Dunedin 9035, New Zealand. 

ufo-line

…Fluoride is a sabotage toxin with the property that
by inhibiting enzymes people may die from problems with
 other organs without fluoride being discovered as the true cause…
- Rudolf Ziegelbecker

fq

2-purple-parrots-f