FLUORIDE AND DENTISTS

We do not support the addition of any fluorides to: food, water, or air,
this includes adding it to salt, milk, baby formula and toothpaste.
We are not happy about its use in medicines, weapons,
insecticides, fungicides, anaesthetics,
and many industrial processes

Fluoridation Queensland Logo

NOT ALL DENTISTS SUPPORT FLUORIDATION

F.& dentists

image-Calcium-F.-India

We reserve the right to publish any of our outgoing correspondence
and incoming responses, or non-responses,  on our
web sites as part of our policy of a
 ❝ Citizen’s Right-To-Know ❞

The information on this website is not intended to diagnose or treat disease.
It is provided for educational and informational purposes only.
Please consult an inappropriate professional
if you have any concerns?

pro f. advocates

Multi-billion dollar international conglomerates,
which benefit from tooth decay and fluoride sales,
pour money into organized dentistry, which is behind
virtually every fluoridation initiative. Money
makes dentistry politically powerful and
enables them to get laws  passed to
benefit dentists’ bottom line. 

 See also 

  BABIES & FLUORIDE  

http://www.fluoridealert.org/professionals.statement

blue line

F.1979Sutton book cov.

This work has been ignored and was out of print.
↓  but is now available here  

  FLUORIDATION, 1979  

Scientific Criticisms and Fluoride Dangers – by Philip R.N.Sutton D.D.Sc.
(Melb.), L.D.S., F.R.A.C.D.S. Formerly Senior Lecturer in Dental Science,

Senior Research Fellow
blue line

Fluoride The Aging Factor

  FULL TEXT HERE  
blue line

Scientists, dentists and professionals (even cooks) have been
 persecuted, censored, or harassed when they oppose water fluoridation.

‘Second Look’ ↓ ↓

  http://www.slweb.org/ftrc.html  

Ziegelbecker

RUDOLF ZIEGELBECKER – Graz Austria:

http://www.fluorideresearch.org/421/files/FJ2009_v42_n1_p2.pdf

http://naturalnews.tv/v.aspv=42652E035A1B1BAAAE1F340B54694975

        ❝ … So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the [vested] interests who stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride. Unfortunately, because [some] government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about this issue.

(Some dentists unaware…)

As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the
American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities
waiting in the wings if they were to do so … ❞

image IAOMT

  International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology  

blue line

❝ The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read or write –
but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn. ❞

 ALVIN TOFFLER

( May be he had a bad dentist! )

blue line

Westendorf’s 30-year PhD research

❝ His work is important for reasons beyond its specific scientific findings.
His work was motivated by the assumption that ingested fluoride was beneficial.

aust-dentists-against-f

oecd-statdental-health

blue line

Dentists Are Doing Very Well, Thank You – Despite Fluoridation

Fluoridation hasn’t hurt dentistry’s bottom line at all. In fact, dentistry is big business today despite 7 decades of water fluoridation and a glut of fluoridated dental products. Americans spent about $108 billion on dentists in 2011, an inflation-adjusted increase from $64 billion in 1996, according to the General Accounting Office. But a dental crisis still exists. 

Since fluoridation doesn’t reduce tooth decay, whose best interests are served
by protecting fluoride’s image?

The Global Toothpaste Market is expected to reach $12.6 billion by 2015,
according Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

blue line

- FLUORIDATION – THE PROFITABLE LIE -

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYS:

 Dentists Are Big Political Players and do all they can to preserve their monopoly.”

— Huge donations to secure their political agendas:

They boasted the largest single health-care PAC in 2008, gave nearly $13 million to state and local politicians in 2010, raising the question: What do dentists want? Alicia Mundy has details on ‘The News Hub’.

US dental crisis f

A short youtube

Dental Crisis in America: – After 68 years of water fluoridation foisted upon Americans by the American Dental Association and its constituents groups, a Dental Crisis exists in America.

Senator Sanders introduced legislation to remedy this situation which is endorsed by 37 groups but not the ADA because it includes funding for Dental Therapists which would infringe upon dentists lucrative monopoly.  The ADA prefers fluoridation because it doesn’t stop tooth decay and doesn’t hurt their bottom line.  In fact, dentists are making lots of money covering up fluoride-stained teeth with expensive veneers because American children are now over-fluoridated with up to 60% affected with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. Veneers cost about $1,000 a tooth.                                

 For some Americans, dental care means a sturdy chair, a fluoride swish, and a free toothbrush. But for one in three Americans, it’s a nightmare, including astronomical bills, crippling credit card debt, panicked visits to an emergency room, and life-threatening disease. .  .

blue line

 ‘Hopewood Children’ – No Fluoride

blue line

Flagitious Lallation

Jackie robinson colour f

Dentistry wins Colgate support

“…Editor–Jones et al claim that water fluoridation produces a 44% reduction
in tooth decay in 5 year old children.

1 They fail to appreciate (or acknowledge) that fluoride causes a delay in tooth eruption of roughly a year.
2 This invalidates their data as they are not comparing like with like. Children aged five living in fluoridated areas should be compared with children aged four living in non-fluoridated areas.
When this is done there is NO benefit from water fluoridation…”

blue line

The truth of a theory can never be proven; for one never
knows if future experience will contradict its conclusions.
                                                                           - Albert Einstein

COMPETENCY CHECK: Airline pilots are required to undertake regular proficiency checks to ensure they continue to be competent and aware of new regulations. It would seem that the dental and medical professions are lax on this – they still promote fluoridation and other dangerous out of date practices…

internet archive f

Karl Roholm

Excerpts from: Roholm K. (1937).
The complete book with photos ↓  ↓  

Fluorine Intoxication by Danish researcher Kaj Roholm. Published 1937, Copenhagen. Scientific research on the toxic effects of fluoride exposure and fluoride intoxication via ingestion. Studies on humans, plants and animals. Thirty chapters with a forty-page bibliography. Black and white plates of visible effects of fluoride exposure included…

Fluoride intoxication: a clinical-hygienic study with a review of the literature and some experimental investigations. London: H.K. Lewis Ltd.

“The teeth may be delayed in eruption and have abnormalities in size, shape and position, and resistance of such teeth is low.” p. 272

“The pathological enamel is brittle and readily chips off. The incisors wear down abnormally, which sometimes leads to defective occlusion and, as a secondary phenomenon, abnormal growth of opposing teeth. The incisors often exhibit lateral deviations; growth is retarded.” p. 272

The above research is

STILL VALID AFTER 77 YEARS
Come on ADA, it must be time to catch up!

image ADA Aust.

EXTRACT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION’S
WEB SITE DISCLAIMER:

 ❝ … The ADA Inc. shall not be responsible for information

 provided herein under any theory of liability or indemnity.

Liability of ADA Inc., if any, for damages (including, without

limitation, liability arising out of contract, negligence,

 strict liability, tort or patent or copyright infringement)

shall not exceed the fees paid by the user for the

particular information or service provided … ❞

( Sounds very mumblecrust - fills us all with confidence ! )

blue line

blue line

Dr. Hardy Limeback ff

LARGE FILE → HERE 

blue line

Qld Labor

 ADA / Qld. Labour Party Collusion :

 The Queensland Health Department, funded
The Australian Dental Association Queensland Branch,
$220,000 as a CONtribution

to its pro-fluoridation campaign.

The request for this funding was directed to
the Hon. Stephen Robertson MP.
The Minister for Health at the time – Feb. 2006.

  $educed By An Attractive Error  

Extract Qld F. Act f

Just following orders didn’t work as a defense for the Nazis and
it shouldn’t work for those who poison our water supply either!

Full text → HERE

blue line

A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride

  www.slweb.org/bibliography.html  

  Paper Of The Month  

  SAFTEY DATA   

Fluoride: The Deadly Legacy by Gary Null Ph.D.

blue line
blue line

uni-adelaide-logo

FLAGITIOUS LALLATION

Jason Armfield tilt f

(Member of IADR)

    ❝ … Statements regarding the scientific controversy surrounding water fluoridation are generally regarded as artefacts of anti-fluoridationist activity, with actual scientific debate over water fluoridation being resolved decades ago. Almost all major dental and health organisations either support water fluoridation or have found no association between it and adverse health effects [20]. Nonetheless, propagating the idea of an ongoing scientific debate gives the illusion of scientific uncertainty and is a favoured tactic of water fluoridation opponents. In 1978, Consumer Reports published a two-part series on fluoridation that concluded:

The simple truth is that there’s no “scientific controversy” over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents, in Consumers Union’s opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation.” [21]  And yet, more than a quarter of a century after these words were printed the manufactured ‘controversy‘
shows no signs of  diminishing.

K K Cheng, Professor Of Epidemiology:

The review estimated the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth) and fluorosis of aesthetic concern at around 48% and 12.5% when the fluoride concentration was 1.0 part per million, 9 although the quality of the studies was low. The evidence was of insufficient quality to allow confident statements about other potential harms (such as cancer and bone fracture). The amount and quality of the available data on side effects were insufficient to rule out all but the biggest effects

Well said Mr. Armfield
however, history has shown that you have not been
keeping up with the recent science from overseas.
We hope our web site will help to keep you updated…

Extract: from letter by Dr. Jason Armfield

Australian Research Centre For Population Oral Health
University Of Adelaide:
ARCPOH Response to USHHS
(United States Health Service)

❝… Hence, fluoride exposures of importance to dental fluorosis occur across the early childhood years. Fluoride exposures of importance to dental caries occur across the whole life-course. Developing policy to influence those exposures needs to take account of this fundamental difference. Actions to reduce fluorosis should be targeted at fluoride exposures that affect children in the early childhood years, while maintaining fluoride exposures across life for the prevention of dental caries… ❞

Our Comments:

Well, what you are saying here,- in a round about way,
or are trying to cover up, is that dental fluorosis only
occurs during tooth formation, so reduce fluoride
from all other sources until after teeth have erupted, and no
NO  HARM  WILL  BE  VISIBLE,  but do not lower the dose
in drinking water. However the evidence is, that damage from
fluoridation continues to the rest of the body after the teeth
are formed, but will not be recorded on the teeth -.
We do not think your response to USHHS is ethical!
Please see the research papers on this web site, or our links
to them, including animal studies, which support our comments.
     Yours truly,
         ‘Fluoridation Queensland’

   Problems with topical applications   

blue line

Artificial Water Fluoridation – No Benefit – Definite Harm

National data set collected in the U.S. in 1986-1987 (more than 16,000 children, ages 7-17, 

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Clinch_2009_No_Benefit_Definite_Harm.pdf

blue line

MORE OF OUR CONCERNS:

Caries / Dental Fluorosis

Because dental fluorosis only occurs during tooth formation, fluoride levels in water and exposure to fluoridated toothpaste needs to be low in children, or there will be evidence of harm.

Skeletal fluorosis can be misdiagnosed as arthritis,
and dental fluorosis would reveal the real problem

Consumption of fluoridated water is difficult to monitor:

Fluid intake is relative to the “ambient air temperature”, work,
sport and exercise regimes. The availability of  ‘clean’
bottled water, and RO filters, which are now commonplace
in many Australian households, and will distort the [your] data.
Because fluoride is medication, the dilemma will always be the dose, — 1ppm is a rate – not a dose,
and is not related to body weight, or many other variables
including nutritional status, kidney function, weather, climate,
latitude, elevation and daily temperature variations at the fluoridation plant.
Medication by thirst, is scientifically irresponsible.
The observation of harm with fluoridation is modified by cross contamination,- some foods and drinks will be crossing borders of reticulated water supplies, some being fluoridated and some not, or at different levels (ppm).
No amount of long-winded circumlocution, technical language or
extensive discussions of the “appropriateness of study design “
can disguise the simple and obvious problems of trying to deliver medication via the public water supply at a defined dose… it defies logic, is contemptuous of science and it is professionally irresponsible to pretend otherwise…

blue line

There are only preliminary estimates available regarding how much F. is absorbed through our skin and lungs when we stand naked in our shower or soak in the bath contaminated by fluoridated water – and we also pay for this indignity in our water bill.

Armfield

  Cognitive Vulnerability:

A MODEL OF THE ETIOLOGY OF FEAR

By Jason M. Armfield

            “ Fear is a powerful and considerably aversive human emotion.”

 … We agree with the above statement. Your paper is interesting and is widely researched but makes no mention of nutrition?  We feel this is an major oversight. Animal and human behavior, reproduction, health and mental state are dependent on balanced nutrition and freedom from mind-altering chemicals and heavy metals.

Deficiencies of zinc, (especially for men and boys), some of the B vitamins, and vitamin K2 are well established and documented as essentials for a healthy body and a stable personality.
Excess sugar, aspartame and alcohol can cause mental disturbances indeed any chemical that can interfere with the pineal gland will have psychological impacts. Bad parenting is a significant factor, but the Hopewood experience provided evidence that even this can be over-come with a good diet and environment. Gov.info.

Fluoride in its various forms interferes with many nutrients, enzymes and minerals and the pineal gland, and as such is contraindicated. This last statement however may be at odds with your training and profession, but science is science and it is often in a lifetime that at least one change of belief is required in the bright dawn of a new revelation. Research papers from the 1930s and recent times, especially recent research from countries not influenced by U.S.A, and its commercial interests, confirm and reaffirm that fluoride in any of its forms is a hazard to plants, animals, enzymes, and humans.

Dr. Jason M Armfield:

 ❝  ….  Any action to lower the fluoride levels must be carefully
considered in order not to undermine the protective effect *…. ❞

[* read – Protection of our Water Fluoridation Policy ]

   An Inconvenient Tooth – Fluoride Documentary  

A recent scientific report shows that fluoride disturbs the enzymes casein kinase II och alkaline phosfatase, which causes a disordered enamel formation. Thus, what dentists call innocent stains on the teeth is actually a symptom of chronic fluoride poisoning in the infant. Enamel damaged by fluorosis has been shown more susceptible to caries than normal enamel, recently in study of native children in South Africa who never experience any type of dental care.  When considering the biological nature of fluorosis, it is not hard to understand that children during the period of dental development should avoid fluoride as much as possible, i.e. they should not have fluoride tablets, fluoridated chewing gum or drink fluoridated water or consume fluoridated salt or fluoridated milk.

   Full text  →  HERE

blue line

mike-morgan-f

FLUORIDATION SURVEYS IN AUSTRALIA

Published Research Findings – Why Most Are False

blue line

❝ There is no right way to do the wrong thing.  -  Oren Arnold

blue line

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

blue line

IADR code of ethics

European Journal Of General Dentistry – 2013
Is fluoride still a pivot of preventive dentistry?
Authors: Poonam Mahajan, KL Veersha, Ajay Mahajan

Pages: 20 – 24
 Abstract:

Poonam Mahajan, KL Veersha, Ajay Mahajan 

European Journal of General Dentistry 2013 2(1):20-24

Fluoride is considered the corner stone of the preventive dentistry. Fluoride has both beneficial and detrimental effects on human health. In terms of dental health, the prevalence of dental caries is inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in drinking water; while there is a dose-response relationship between the concentration of fluoride in drinking water and the prevalence of dental fluorosis. Fluoride has a statistically significant association with a wide range of adverse effects like increased risk of bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, and lowered intelligent quotient, arthritic-like condition, early puberty and possibly, osteosarcoma. The aim of the present review is to discuss the current status of fluorides in dentistry in view of its benefits and adverse effects. 
Citation: European Journal of General Dentistry 2013 2(1):20-24
PubDate: Sat,2 Feb 2013
 DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.106797
Issue No: Vol. 2, No. 1 (2013)

http://www.ejgd.org/text.asp?2013/2/1/20/106797

‘$ & DENTISTS’ – WATCH

Nobel prize winners  copy

NOBLE PRIZE WINNERS WHO HAVE OPPOSED FLUORIDATION

double-blue-lineud Uni. WA

Niyi Awofeso ff

Ethics of Artificial Water Fluoridation in Australia

Professor Niyi Awofeso

School of Population Health

… Awofeso’s analysis reinforces Shaw’s conclusion by showing
that most of the arguments used to vindicate fluoridation
do not stand up to careful ethical scrutiny…

blue line

Prof. Mark Diesendorf

  Prof. Mark Diesendorf  

blue line

 THE TOWNSVILLE REPORT  

  International Society for Fluoride Research Inc.

  LIST OF PAPERS  

↑ A VERY LONG LIST ↑
blue line

Bite Magazine and website:

2-childen-aged-6...

A new study at the University of Sydney will try to find out what’s going wrong
with their teeth. The tiny teeth of Australian toddlers are rotting and dental
researchers at the University of  Sydney are poised to start a long-term
study to find out why.

Our comment:
                It looks like artificial water fluoridation is still not working.
                Fluoride does not work for sheep, see below 

Fluorosis Sheep ff

See more photos like this from 

  Queensland Gov. Fluoride Research  

blue line

See also →  Fluoride  ←  Credit Dr. Mercola

blue line

…This apparatus
 has been erected
to lie and obfuscate this issue. It cannot
tolerate a single chink in its armour of deceit.
No compromise, no partial admission is possible without
the integrity of the whole edifice of deception being threatened.

❝ It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ❞
—  Upton Sinclair  —

USA To Lower Fluoride Levels: ATLANTA  7 January  2011 (extracts from reports) In a remarkable turnabout, federal health officials say many Americans are getting too much fluoride, and it’s causing splotches on children’s teeth and perhaps other, more serious problems.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans Friday (7 Jan) to lower the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in nearly 50 years, based on a fresh review of the science. The announcement is likely to renew the battle over fluoridation, even though the addition of fluoride to drinking water is considered one of the greatest public health successes of the 20th century. One reason behind the change: About 2 out of 5 adolescents have tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride, a government study found recently. In extreme cases, teeth can be pitted by the mineral — though many cases are so mild only dentists notice it. The problem is generally considered cosmetic and not a reason for serious concern.

dental flurosis

 The splotchy tooth condition, fluorosis, is unexpectedly common in youngsters  ages 12 through 15 and appears to have  grown more common since the 1980s,  according to the Centers for Disease  Control and Prevention. But there are also growing worries about  more serious dangers from fluoride.
The Environmental Protection Agency released two new reviews of research on fluoride Friday. One of the studies found that prolonged, high intake of fluoride can increase the risk of brittle bones, fractures and crippling bone abnormalities. Critics of fluoridated water seized on the proposed change [on] Friday to renew their attacks on it — a battle that dates back to at least the Cold War 1950s, when it was denounced by some as a step toward Communism. Many activists nowadays don’t think fluoride is essential, and they praised the government’s new steps.

blue line

 Extract from:

FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER
A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OF EPA’S  STANDARDS

Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology
Division on Earth and Life Studies

Credit to:

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIESTHE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.

 Available Online →  HERE  

ENAMEL FLUOROSIS

   ❝  Fluoride has a great affinity for the developing enamel because tooth apatite crystals have the capacity to bind and integrate fluoride ion into the crystal lattice (Robinson et al. 1996). Excessive intake of fluoride during enamel development can lead to enamel fluorosis, a condition of the dental hard tissues in which the enamel covering of the teeth fails to crystallize properly, leading to defects that range from barely discernable markings to brown stains and surface pitting. This section provides an overview of the clinical and histopathological manifestations of enamel fluorosis, diagnostic issues, indexes used to characterize the condition, and possible mechanisms.

CLINICAL AND HISTOLOGICAL FEATURES

Enamel fluorosis is a mottling of the tooth surface that is attributed to fluoride exposure during tooth formation. The process of enamel maturation consists of an increase in mineralization within the developing tooth and concurrent loss of early-secreted matrix proteins. Exposure to fluoride during maturation causes a dose-related disruption of enamel mineralization resulting in widening gaps in its crystalline structure, excessive retention of enamel proteins, and increased porosity. These effects are thought to be due to fluoride’s effect on the breakdown rates of matrix proteins and on the rate at which the by-products from that degradation are withdrawn from the maturing enamel (Aoba and Fejerskov 2002).

Clinically, mild forms of enamel fluorosis are evidenced by white horizontal striations on the tooth surface or opaque patches, usually located on the incisal edges of anterior teeth or cusp tips of posterior teeth. Opaque areas are visible in tangential reflected light but not in normal light. These lesions appear histopathologically as hypomineralization of the subsurface covered by a well-mineralized outer enamel surface (Thylstrup and Fejerskov 1978). In mild fluorosis, the enamel is usually smooth to the point of an explorer, but not in moderate and severe cases of the condition (Newbrun 1986). In moderate to severe forms of fluorosis, porosity increases and lesions extend toward the inner enamel. After the tooth erupts, its porous areas may flake off, leaving enamel defects where debris and bacteria can be trapped. The opaque areas can become stained yellow to brown, with more severe structural damage possible, primarily in the form of pitting of the tooth surface.

Enamel in the transitional or early maturation stage of development is the most susceptible to fluorosis (Den Besten and Thariani 1992). For most children, the first 6 to 8 years of  life appear to be the critical period of risk. In the Ikeno district of Japan, where a water supply containing fluoride at 7.8 mg/L was inadvertently used for 12 years, no enamel fluorosis was seen in any child who was age 7 years or older at the start of this period or younger than 11 months old at the end of it (Ishii and Suckling 1991). For anterior teeth, which are of the most aesthetic concern, the risk period appears to be the first 3 years of life (Evans and Stamm 1991; Ishii and Suckling 1991; Levy et al. 2002a). Although it is possible for enamel fluorosis to occur when teeth are exposed during enamel maturation alone, it is unclear whether it will occur if fluoride exposure takes place only at the stage of enamel-matrix secretion. Fejerskov et al. (1994) noted that fluoride uptake into mature enamel is possible only as a result of concomitant enamel dissolution, such as caries development. Because the severity of fluorosis is related to the duration, timing, and dose of fluoride intake, cumulative exposure during the entire maturation stage, not merely during critical periods of certain types of tooth development, is probably the most important exposure measure to consider when assessing the risk of fluorosis (Den Besten 1999).

MECHANISMS

Dental enamel is formed by matrix-mediated biomineralization. Crystallites of hydroxyapatite (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2) form a complex protein matrix that serves as a nucleation site (Newbrun 1986). The matrix consists primarily of amelogenin, proteins synthesized by secretory ameloblasts that have a functional role in establishing and maintaining the spacing between enamel crystallites. Full mineralization of enamel occurs when amelogenin fragments are removed from the extracellular space. The improper mineralization that occurs with enamel fluorosis is thought to be due to inhibition of the matrix proteinases responsible for removing amelogenin fragments. The delay in removal impairs crystal growth and makes the enamel more porous (Bronckers et al. 2002). DenBesten et al. (2002) showed that rats exposed to fluoride in drinking water at 50 or 100 mg/L had lower total proteinase activity per unit of protein than control rats. Fluoride apparently interferes with protease activities by decreasing free Ca2+ concentrations in the mineralizing milieu (Aoba and Fejerskov 2002).

Matsuo et al. (1998) investigated the mechanism of enamel fluorosis in rats administered sodium fluoride (NaF) at 20 mg/kg by subcutaneous injections for 4 days or at 240 mg/L in drinking water for 4 weeks. They found that fluoride alters intracellular transport in the secretory ameloblasts and suggested that G proteins play a role in the transport disturbance. They found different immunoblotting-and-pertussis-toxin-sensitive G proteins on the rough endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi membranes of the germ cells of rats’ incisor teeth.

HEALTH ISSUES AND CLINICAL TREATMENT

Whether to consider enamel fluorosis, particularly the moderate to severe forms, an adverse cosmetic effect or an adverse health effect has been the subject of debate for decades. Some early literature suggests that the clinical course of caries could be compromised by untreated severe enamel fluorosis. Smith and Smith (1940, pp.1050-1051) observed,

 

“There is ample evidence that mottled teeth, though they be somewhat more resistant to the onset of decay, are structurally weak, and that unfortunately when decay does set in, the result is often disastrous.”

Caries once started evidently spreads rapidly. Steps taken to repair the cavities in many cases were unsuccessful, the tooth breaking away when attempts were made to anchor the fillings, so that extraction was the only course.” Gruebbel (1952, p.153) expressed a similar viewpoint: “Severe mottling is as destructive to teeth as is dental caries. Therefore, when the concentration is excessive, defluorination or a new water supply should be recommended. The need for removing excessive amounts of fluorides calls attention to the peculiar situation in public health practice in which a chemical substance is added to water in some localities to prevent a disease and the same chemical substance is removed in other localities to prevent another disease.” Dean advised that when the average child in a community has mild fluorosis (0.6 on his scale, described in the next section), “… it begins to constitute a public health problem warranting increasing consideration” (Dean 1942, p. 29).

There appears to be general acceptance in today’s dental literature that enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect of fluoride intake that, in its severest forms, can produce adverse effects on dental health, such as tooth function and caries experience. For example:

  • “The most severe forms of fluorosis manifest as heavily stained, pitted, and friable enamel that can result in loss of dental function” (Burt and Eklund 1999).

  • “In more severely fluorosed teeth, the enamel is pitted and discolored and is prone to fracture and wear”

    (ATSDR 2003, p. 19).

  • “The degree of porosity (hypermineralization) of such teeth results in a diminished physical strength of the enamel, and parts of the superficial enamel may break away … In the most severe forms of dental fluorosis, the extent and degree of porosity within the enamel are so severe that most of the outermost enamel will be chipped off immediately following eruption” (Fejerskov et al. 1990, p. 694).

  • “With increasing severity, the subsurface enamel all along the tooth becomes increasingly porous … the more severe forms are subject to extensive mechanical breakdown of the surface” (Aoba and Fejerskov 2002, p. 159).

  • “With more severe forms of fluorosis, caries risk increases because of pitting and loss of the outer enamel” (Levy 2003, p. 286).

  • “ … the most severe forms of dental fluorosis might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment” (NRC 1993, p. 48).

Severe enamel fluorosis is treated to prevent further enamel loss and to address the cosmetic appearance of teeth. Treatments include bleaching, microabrasion, and the application of veneers or crowns. Bleaching and microabrasion are typically used with the mild to moderate forms of enamel fluorosis. Bleaching is the least invasive procedure, but does not eliminate the dark stains associated with severe enamel fluorosis. Microabrasion involves the controlled abrasion of enamel to remove superficial stains… 

OUR NOTE: The full text is available on line, → HERE 

However it does not address the matter of the nutrition, and
the variations in results e.g. vitamin C, magnesium, intake etc.

 — Don’t Let Your Diet be Dictated by Corporate Agendas —

blue line

❝ …fluoride reduces the level of thyroid hormone during tooth development, by activation calcium-transducing G-protein receptor G q/11, there is delayed tooth eruption, delayed removal of enamel matrix proteins, and delayed enamel maturation.
The evidence of the deficiency is seen later with mottled teeth… 

Extract from:

‘FLUORIDE FATIGUE’

by Bruce Spittle.

The complexities of halogen chemistry are legion and it is that very complexity that is employed by the less scrupulous fluorine advocates to stifle protest from their adversaries with pseudo- scientific, convoluted terminology, which very often they themselves do not understand.

Very much a matter of  ‘the blind leading the blind’.

Fluorine is an element. Atomic number 9. Atomic weight 18.9984. Symbol F. Fluorine is a halogen. There are five halogens known to contemporary science. In alphabetical order these are:

Astatine, Bromine, Chlorine, FLUORINE and Iodine.

Fluorine is one of the most poisonous substances known to the science of toxicology. The word ‘halogen’ is derived from the Greek, hals meaning salt and genes meaning born. The word refers to the propensity of the element to combine with Sodium.

Examples are: Sodium Bromide, Sodium Chloride, Sodium Fluoride and so forth.

This ‘mixture’ of a halogen and one or more other substances is called a ‘halide’, the letter “IDE” being affixed to the first letters of the particular halogen title. Thus Bromine compounded with something else becomes a Bromide. A Chlorine compound likewise becomes a Chloride and a Fluorine compound becomes a Fluoride.

The other ingredient(s) of the halide are included in the title to completely identify the halide chemically. So Sodium mixed with Chlorine becomes Sodium Chloride. Potassium mixed with Bromine becomes Potassium Bromide and Calcium mixed with Fluorine becomes Calcium Fluoride and so on for literally thousands of simple and complex combinations.

For all practical purposes the element FLUORINE cannot exist as a single entity. It must always associate with another substance or substances to exist.

That is to say it is only found as a fluoride.

In this need for existence, Fluorine, more so than the other halogen elements, will combine avidly with almost any other substance or substances, taking its deadly potential along with it to impart a lethal hazard to what was formerly a most innocent and benign material. The resultant degree of toxicity is not in debate here.

A well recognized example of this ‘chemical corruption’ is in the medicinal drug “Fluorouracil” whereby the vital and totally inoffensive human metabolite “uracil” is converted into a deadly ‘cytotoxic’ (meaning – cell destructive) killer compound.

So then simple (duplex) Fluorine based compounds can combine or be combined with one or more other virtually harmless substances to create a chemical killer of considerable complexity and extreme danger. A ‘triplex’ Fluoride is Sodium Fluoroacetate, marketed under the cover name of Compound 1080.

Another is Fluoroacetamide (Compound 1081).

The designed deadliness of both these FLUORIDE products is legend and promoted under the 1080 and 1081 labels but the close chemical relationship with the Sodium Fluoride in your water supply is vehemently denied. Much less admitted.

Other examples of multiple fluorides are “SARIN”

(Isopropyl methyl-phospho FLUORIDATE) and

“SOMAN” (Pinacolyl methylphos-phonoFLUORIDATE).

Both these ‘fluorides’ are nerve gasses, one drop of either of which,

absorbed through the skin, will kill an adult human, in seconds.

In the Martindale Extra Pharmacopoeia, under the heading

Sodium Fluoride is the sub-heading “and other Fluorine Compounds”

which include both 1080 and 1081.

Other data and relevant physiologic aspects of Fluorides have been set out in “The Dickinson Statement”.
In closing this paper it should be pointed out that Fluorides are toxic to animals in a number
of chemical and bio-chemical ways.

 CORROSIVE, ANTI-METABOLIC, ALLERGENIC, GENETIC, CARCINOGENIC, SYSTEMIC, ENZYME INHIBITING and CUMULATIVE are among the popular description of the toxic activity of fluorides.

As an “acute” poison, a comparatively large dose may be needed to cause extinction but as a “chronic” toxin, neither the microscopic amounts needed nor the period of exposure (to cause death) have ever been evaluated. However, as an awesome indication, time lapse photography of the activity of living mammalian cells under the influence of
ONE PART OF SODIUM FLUORIDE TO 60 MILLION PARTS OF WATER
demonstrates almost immediate extinction of the cells.
Fluoridated tap water contains an “average” of -
TWO PARTS OF SODIUM FLUORIDE TO ONE MILLION PARTS OF WATER.

Suffice it now to say that in the final analysis all FLUORIDES are killers and who-so-ever administers, or causes to be administered any Fluoride on any pretext, by accident or by design to any person of any age is, by simple definition a KILLER.

Ian E. Stephens, 8 June 1988.  [ For more info by same author see → HERE  ]

Although 1 part fluoride ion in one million is argued to be ‘safe’ for human consumption, understand that one liter of water fluoridated with 1.0 ppm fluoride ion contains around 3.18 billion billion atoms of fluoride ion.

The toxic action of fluoride resides in the fact that fluoride ions act as enzymatic
poisons, inhibiting enzyme activity and, ultimately, interrupting
metabolic processes such as glycolysis
and synthesis of proteins.

Do you enjoy tales of intrigue, conspiracy and corruption? Then ‘The Fluoride Deception’ by Christopher Bryson won’t disappoint. It’s a very well written, meticulously researched expose´ of the history of fluoridation, which Dr Robert Carton (formerly of the US Environmental Protection Agency) has described as “the greatest case of scientific fraud of this (20th) century, if not of all time”. It’s a history of “greed, collusion, personal aggrandizement, corporate and government cover-up,” littered with human tragedy and the tattered careers of scientists who dared to try to expose the truth.

‘Esteemed Voices have, for 50 years, warned the American public that water
fluoridation has dangerous long-term consequences to health:

“I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.” Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

blue line

Albert Schatz ff

Albert Schatz

❝ Contrary to what is widely assumed, the toxicity of

fluoride is not always related to concentration.

Under certain conditions fluoride toxicity actually

increases as the concentration decreases.

This is what is known as a paradoxical effect. ❞

  Albert Schatz, Ph.D., M.C.R.S., Professor at the Univ.

of Chile and co-discoverer of streptomycin.  

blue line

Letters sent “NO thanks” 

Fluoridation New York 1963

Pro-fluidationists are blinded by a diabolical ideology, which does not allow
them to draw rational conclusions.
This ideology is hostile the rights of individuals to choose or reject their
personal medical needs.

Iodine is a halogen. The halogens are a series of non-metal elemants:
       Fluorine, F
       Chlorine, Cl
       Bromine, Br
       Iodine, I 
       Astatine, At

The problem is that fluoride is a “bully.” Any time an atom of fluoride
and an atom of any other halogen are in the same vicinity, the
fluoride will displace the other halogen and take its pla
- Dr. Terry Tennant, MD, MD(H), PSc.,D

blue line

Editor’s comment:

This is universal, probably throughout time and most likely throughout
the cosmos. We realise that some dentists will see this as yet another
threat to their constant claims of fluoridation’s safety, but
to claim otherwise is to fly in the face of science.
See also Periodic Table of the Elements

This one is interactive – take a look 

blue line

No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: “Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children.” –

          Dr. Peter Mansfield, Director Templegarth Trust, Birmingham, UK.

blue line

    SALT FLUORIDATION is as much “forced medication” as water fluoridation.
“Universal” salt fluoridation – where all salt destined for human consumption is fluoridated – is worse than any water fluoridation measure, as no one can escape the measure.  Salt has a quality worse than water: an individual’s preferred level of salt may be raised or lowered by progressively raising or lowering the actual level over a period of time. In other words, the amount of “salt sprinkled on” today might not be enough a month from now when just a little bit more will be added.

blue line

F. free NZ

New Zealand

blue line

Dr. Gerard  F. Judd, Ph.D. –  GOOD TEETH FROM BIRTH TO DEATH

blue line

DENTAL FLUORIDE — An Open Letter About the “DEADLY POISON”

blue line

Dental Fluorosis 

f-teeth

Durley & Young

BobHope3 Stooges

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new-water-splash

 

Post-Mortem Examination on Jason Burton-Fluoride Death.

(Form E)

STATE OF QUEENSLAND

“The Registration of Births, deaths and Marriages Acts, 1962 to 1967″

(Section 31)

POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION

(Medical Certificate of the Cause of Death)

To the Registrar for the District of  BRISBANE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on    16th May,  1973, by order of    W. R. PULLAR   Esq., Coroner, I made a Post Mortem Examination of the body of a male aged 2 years, named JASON BURTON who is stated to have died at  Mater Childrens Hospital and, in my opinion, the date of death was 15th May, 1973, and the cause of death was  Disease or condition directly leading to death :… Fluoride poisoning Dated… 16.5. 1973  ……………………………………….N. G. Johnston (Government Medical Officer)   Post-Mortem Examination Report CORONERS ACT 1958-1972 Section 18 POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT  

Name:_______BURTON, Jason________ Address:_____16 Hardwick Street_________________Wynnum West__________P.M. Authorised by  W. R. Pullar, Coroner
  1. _____23538_____________________

D.O.B.: 20.2.71___Age: 2____Sex: M____ Time and Date of Death: 4.50 P.M. 15.5.73 Time and Date of P.M.: 10.00 A.M.16.5.73     Place of P.M.: Institute of Forensic Pathology 

Police Officers attending P.M.___________ Constable Kennedy, Woolloongabba__________. 1. EXAMINATION   STATURE_86 cm__WEIGHT_13.6 kg_BUILD__Medium__NUTRITION__Good _______RIGOR MORTIS___Present_____HYPOSTASIS___Present______

 The scalp, skull and membranes appear normal. The brain shows extensive autolysis, consistent with death having occurred some time previously. There is no other significant abnormality of the brain Weight of Organs(Grams)1175 g
The larynx, pharynx and trachea appear normal. The pleural cavities are clear. Both lungs show moderate congestion and oedema. L. 130 gR. 138 g
The pericardial cavity is clear. The heart and the great vessels appear anatomically normal 74 g
The liver is congested but otherwise normal. The gall bladder and biliary tracts are normal 826 g
Spleen: 40 g
Both kidneys appear normal. The adrenals and thymus gland appear normal for age. L. 41 gR. 49 g
   
COMMENT:No pathological change which could have caused death could be found in any organ at the post mortem examination. However, the autolysis of the brain tissues was so marked that any evidence of a disease such as encephalitis would be impossible to find.In my opinion, therefore, the most probable cause of death was fluoride ingestion because of:-1. The history of fluoride overdose.2. The supporting evidence of a positive blood fluoride level.3. The absence of any other disease process.  
   
2. OPINION AND COMMENT as to Cause of Death ___Fluoride Poisoning__________To____________________________________Signature________(Signed)____________

Hospital Report (“Discharge Summary”) MATER MISERICORDIAE PUBLIC HOSPITALS — SOUTH BRISBANE DISCHARGE SUMMARY 21st June 1973   NAME……..BURTON…….Jason..Paul………………………….AGE…..2…….. ADDRESS………16 Hardwick S t.,………………………………………………….. ………………………Wynnum West……………………………………………………… ADMITTED……10.5.73……………………………………Died…15.5.73………. REFERRING DOCTOR………..Hansen…………………………………………… FINAL DIAGNOSIS…………….Flouride Ingestion…………………………….. ————————————————————————— SUMMARY OF HISTORY, CLINICAL FINDINGS, INVESTIGATIONS, TREATMENT AND PROGRESS This child was admitted to hospital via casualty in a moribund condition. The child was said to have swallowed an unknown quantity of flouride tablets (2 mg). but more than likely he would not have swallowed more than 50 tablets. This was said to have happened approximately 6 hours prior to admission. The child did have access to several other drugs. These drugs included Polarmine, Elexamine, Robinul and Dormel. However, it was unlikely that he may have swallowed any of these other tablets. On EXAMINATION: Blood pressure 50 systolic and there was only fair peripheral perfusion. The pupils were dilated, unequal and irregular.There was generalized muscular hypotonia. There were no focal neurological signs. The pulse was 100 per minute, regular R.T.A.and there was normal sinus rythym on E.C.G. Immediate treatment was instuited with the administration of I.V. SPPS. This bought his blood pressure back to 100/systolic. As the child had had an respiratory arrest five minutes after arrival in the casualty dept, he was taken to theatre and a naso-tracheal tube was inserted. The patient was then placed on the Bird´s respirator with intermittent positive pressure respiration. Very intensive observations were instuited. Because his presentation was consistent to a flouride intoxication he was treated accordingly. He was given doses of 10% calcium gluconate I.V. Blood was taken for analysis of the most common poisons, and a sample of blood was also sent to a state government analysist for estimation of serum flouride.Over the next few days this patient made no improvement whatsoever. E.E.G. was performed on 14.5.73. The trace was completely flat. It was thought the prognosis was absolutely hopeless. The respirator was turned off 15.5.73 and life was pronounced extinct. The level of serum flouride, although it was elevated was not regarded as being in the toxic range. However, the sample of blood had been taken approximately 10 hours after ingestion. S. Fluoride level <100 µg/100 ml (Toxicity levels 200-300 µg)

Death Certificate & Letters 

Pretending, ignoring, misquoting, or lying are a major disservice to science,
and on the mater of fluoridation are crimes against humanity.


The FDA Issued Warning Letter to Pharmaceutical Company on Fluoride…

radial-lin-blue

 

radial-lin-blue

logo-aust-f-skeptics

new-water-splash

THE ARCHITECT OF FLUORIDATION IN AUSTRALIA

“Professor Martin’s claim that, although there are nearly two thousand known places in the U.S.A. where water is naturally fluoridated, and that “some have 12 or 13 parts per million—with no adverse effects and with a markedly high standard of dental health,” is simply propaganda without any scientific proof…

Noel Martin f

The Architect of Fluoridation in Australia

Professor Noel Martin was the champion of fluoride tablets here in Australia. Before a Royal Commission in Tasmania Martin claimed that tablets taken to the amount of 1.5 mg of fluoride per day in the last six months of pregnancy would improve the teeth of their children remarkably.

Some of Professor Martin’s positions from which he influenced the propagation of fluoridation in Australia were: Dean of Faculty of Dentistry, University of Sydney; member of the Dental Board, NSW; member, Australian Dental Advisory Council; deputy chairperson, Australian Dental Examining Committee; member of the NSW Health Commission’s Professional Services Advisory Committee: member of NHMRC’s Dental Health Committee; editor, Dental Journal Australia; dental consultant, World Health Organization; and member of  WHO’s Expert Committee on Dental Health.

“The damage done by this man is still perpetuated by the above listed,

and much quoted organisations…

  LIST OF STUDIES 

EXTRACT FROM:

    ↓ original ↓

  T H E   N E W   T I M E S  

Registered at the G.P.O., Melbourne,

for transmission by Post as a Newspaper

“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”

Vol. 25, No. 16  MELBOURNE, FRIDAY 14th August 1959

[Notice the date]

The New “Scientists”

One of the most terrifying features of our Brave New World” is the manner in which so- called scientists are prepared to use blatantly false propaganda to assist Governmental bodies to extend their powers over the individual. A classic case has been brought to our attention in which a prominent Australian advocate of fluoridation, Professor Noel Martin of the Sydney University, answers questions for a West Australian paper.

The Weekend Mail, a Perth newspaper, of June 6, 1959, introduces Professor Martin “as a recognized authority on the control of dental caries by means of fluoridation of water” and invites him to answer a number of questions. In answer to the question, “Will all people on the system get the same dose strength?” Professor Martin said: “It has been conclusively established by the New York School of Engineering that, despite claims to the contrary, there is practically no variation in the distribution of fluoride in water supplies. This is a favorable argument among the ‘antis’ but it has no basis in fact.”

The truth is that the New York School of Engineering has never published any data whatever supporting Professor Martin’s claims. Professor Martin obviously is merely parroting a news release by Dr. Hilleboe, the New York State Health Officer, an active advocate of fluoridation who has been thwarted by the opposition of the water engineers of New York City, who have published data showing that it is impossible to overcome variations in the amount of fluorine in the water at each individual tap. Some of the strongest opposition to fluoridation has come from water engineers. Examination of the files of the Journal of the American Water Works Association reveals the basis of the opposition. In the August 1953, issue of the Journal a census revealed the mounting evidence of the corrosive damage to water equipment. And there were many complaints that “the chemical flow is too free to permit accurate control.”

Investigations in a number of American centres, some of them large, some of them small, have proved beyond all argument that there are tremendous variations in the dosage people would be obtaining from different taps. Graphs compiled by independent investigators have con- firmed the water engineers’ views. Sampling tests in Hastings, New Zealand, and in Yass, N.S.W., have also demonstrated considerable variability.

In answer to a question concerning the famous American Medical-Dental Ad Hoc Committee opposing fluoridation, Professor Martin made the remarkable reply that “When these claims were being investigated by the World Health Organization, only two men appeared for these 1500 eminent people—and both were well-known cranks. There is just no documented proof of their claims of toxic elements in one part per million of fluoridated water, or of their other claims. I notice that they use as references for their claims many of the world’s fore- most scientists who are urging fluoridation.”

PAGE 4

Professor Martin’s reply is “remarkable” because the claims of the Ad Hoc Committee have never even been investigated by the World Health Organization, still less refuted. No representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee have ever appeared before the World Health Organization. In fact, the eighteen members of the World Health Organization Executive Board conducted no hearings at all on fluoridation, but a committee of six declared supporters of fluoridation presented a report, which was then authorized for publication.

Commenting on Professor Martin’s complaint that opponents of fluoridation have used as references the work of known supporters of fluoridation, Dr. F. B. Exner, co- author with Dr. G. L. Waldbott of the book The American Fluoridation Experiment., writes in a letter: “As for using the writings of proponents in support of my claims, I do so consistently and deliberately. If I quote Dr. Clive McKay against Dean, the hearer can still choose which ‘authority’ to believe. But when Dean (a fluoridationist) contradicts himself, or misquotes his own data, or publishes data which condemns fluoridation, the proponents cannot very well challenge the source of my material.”

Professor Martin’s claim that, although there are nearly two thousand known places in the U.S.A. where water is naturally fluoridated, and that “some have 12 or 13 parts per million—with no adverse effects and with a markedly high standard of dental health,” is simply propaganda without any scientific proof. Out of the total number of 1903 centres listed by the American Public Health Service as having natural fluoride in the water, only 282 of these, with a total population of 808,760, have fluoride within the range advocated by the fluoridators as the ideal for preventing tooth decay. There are only four communities listed with more than 8 pmm. of fluoride, with a total population of less than 1500.

These places all have badly fluorised teeth and data concerning teeth has been published for only one centre, Bruneau. And this was the result of an investigation in 1929. There has been no investigation at any time of the general health of the people in these communities. There has been only one study of general health in a high fluoride centre that of Bartlett as compared with Cameron, a low-fluoride centre. This study showed that the death rate in Bartlett was, if the people over 65 in both centres were ignored, six times as high as the corresponding rate in Cameron. Opponents of fluoridation like Dr. Exner do not claim that the difference in death rate was due to fluoride, but to say, “that a study in which a six to one difference is casually dismissed as ‘not significant’ with no investigation or reason, is not a scientific study at all, but merely window-dressing for a propaganda campaign.”

 Professor Martin, so far from speaking as a scientist, emerges as

a propagandist prepared to distort or ignore truth in

order to advance a totalitarian policy”

they-are-usung-th-fluride-word-again

 

Fluoridation Queensland Logo

new-water-splash

‘FLUORIDATION, 1979′ by Philip R. N. Sutton +

‘FLUORIDATION, 1979′ – Philip R.N.Sutton

The Australian Fluoridation Skeptics
reproduce this publication with respect and honour
and our belief that this would be in keeping with
the wishes of the late Philip R. N. Sutton

Image of Sutton ff

F.1979Sutton book cov. copy

Scientific Criticisms and Dangers
by
Philip R.N. Sutton

Former Senior Lecturer in Dental Science
University of Melbourne, Australia

Full text ↓

  F. 1979 Sutton  ←

Green stripGreen strip

Philip Sutton published the first warning about fluoridation deceptive claims made about the first experimental fluoridation plants. His book Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials, published 1959 is only now acknowledged by the fluoridation hierarchy as correct, even though throughout the years since he published his research, the Health Departments of the USA & government employed dentists throughout the world aggressively attacked his printed data

 See also by Philip Sutton 

→ → Fluoridation Omission And Errors  ← ←

Dr Sutton was the leading Australian dental researcher to question the alleged scientific basis for fluoridation. In 1959, as a Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Oral Medicine and Surgery, University of Melbourne, Dr. Sutton published a landmark monograph, “Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials” (Melbourne University Press, Melbourne). This was a greatly expanded version of a paper published in 1958 by Dr Sutton and Sir Arthur Amies, then Dean of the Melbourne University Dental School. The monograph revealed in detail some of the serious deficiencies in the North American fluoridation ‘trials’ at Grand Rapids, Evanston, Brantford and Newburgh. In my view it is a substantial scientific analysis, carefully and rigorously done. It shows that the trials have major short-comings, including limitations of data used, inconsistencies and errors in sampling, inadequacy of control populations, inappropriate ‘weighting’ of results, alterations to original results and misleading presentations and discussions of results.

Soon after publication of the monograph, the pro-fluoridation Australian Dental Association (ADA) sent copies ‘to all of the men who are in charge of the experiment’, asking them for comments. Then three hostile reviews were published in the “Australian Dental Journal (February 1960) and on the “New Zealand Dental Journal” (January 1960). Although the reviews contained serious and inaccurate accusations, it appears that Dr Sutton was not given the opportunity to reply in the journals concerned.

So, Dr Sutton brought out a second edition of his monograph (Melbourne University Press, 1960) which included the hostile reviews in full, together with his responses.

To do this, he first had to overcome the obstacle that the plates
of the first edition had been destroyed, counter
to normal practice and counter to his wishes.

Dr Sutton’s critique of the early fluoridation trials has stood the test of time.
It is unfortunate that these inadequate trials are still cited in reports
by pro-fluoridation health authorities and textbooks,
without any citation of Dr Sutton’s critique.

In 1985, Dr Sutton and I convened a scientific symposium on fluoridation at the annual conference of the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science (ANZAAS). This may well have been the first scientific symposium aiming to debate the issue of fluoridation in Australia. We invited two of the main proponents of fluoridation to participate: the ADA and the National Health and Medical Research Council. Both decline, and the ADA wrote to the organisers of the ANZAAS Conference questioning the motivations of the conveners of the symposium. Fortunately, this pressure was resisted and the symposium when ahead. As a result of the attempted suppression, the symposium gained very wide media coverage in Australia.

Although he was ostracised by many of his dental colleagues for his position
on fluoridation,
Dr Sutton stood firm, while remaining calm and polite
to those who saw themselves
 as his opponents.
He was a gentleman and scholar

of high moral courage.
He will be missed.

new-skeptics-logo

new-water-splash

MERCURY-FREE DENTISTRY


The New York University College of Dentistry recently
announced it will no longer allow amalgam use in its clinics.

Biohazard symbol

AMALGAM – Patient Information – translated from the German

M.-Free-Dentistry-s

Last update – 7th Oct. 2017

new-info-arrow-down

“Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Dental Offices”

blue line

Mercury & Toxic Metal Effects on Kidneys, Urinary System & Fertility

UN Mercury Treaty ff

UNEP logo

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can harm the brain, spinal cord, kidneys and liver. It is used throughout health care in a variety of products including thermometers, sphygmomanometers, DENTAL AMALGAM, laboratory chemicals and preservatives such as thimerosal,✺ cleaning agents, and various electronic devices such as fluorescent lamps and computer equipment. The cumulative usage, spills, breakages and disposal of these products makes the health care sector a significant contributor of mercury pollution in the environment. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to phase out the use of mercury because of the many affordable, accurate and safer alternatives that exist for nearly all uses of mercury in health care.

Editor’s comment:
The United Nations Mercury Treaty is under
threat from the vaccine and dental 
lobbies.

blue line

Charlie BrownHERE

Charlie Brown discusses the latest breakthroughs in establishing mercury-free
dentistry
 worldwide, and the progress made at The 4th World Health
Organization
 Mercury Treaty meeting in South America. 

 Download Interview Transcript  

CONSUMERS FOR DENTAL CHOICE

Shakes up the Debate on Dental Mercury

Story at-a-glance

  • Amalgam is an archaic, dangerous dental practice left over from the US Civil War Era and is driven entirely by profits, without regard for human health

  • A landmark economics report reveals that after environmental costs are taken into account, amalgam is significantly more expensive than the non-mercury alternatives. In fact, the real cost of an amalgam filling is up to $87 more than a composite filling after the environmental costs of each material is considered

  • Another recent report by the European Commission recommends phasing out dental amalgam to reduce mercury pollution, which threatens the health of the environment, wildlife, and humans

  • Among the advances toward mercury-free dentistry, the New York University College of Dentistry recently announced it will no longer allow amalgam use in its clinics, nor will NYU require students to perform competency examinations for amalgam 

Charlie Brown discusses the latest breakthroughs in establishing mercury-free dentistry worldwide, and the progress made at the 4th World Health Organization Mercury Treaty meeting in South America.

Download Interview Transcript

blue line

Visit the Mercola Video Library

blue line

Still Carrying Around This Potent Neurotoxin Next to Your Brain?

CONSUMERS FOR DENTAL CHOICE

   By Charlie Brown

“I do not approve the practice of any who use mercury or quicksilver as an ingredient for stopping teeth, and would not privately recommend any one to go to such.”– Eleazar Parmly, M.D. Dr. Eleazar Parmly’s warning about the dangers of amalgam fillings was not issued in 2012…nor even in 1912… He spoke these words way back in 1845.

Over 150 years later, health professionals still voice those same concerns about amalgam –
a product that is 50 percent mercury by weight. Over 150 years later, some dentists (albeit an ever-dwindling number) still claim that mercury is safe in people’s mouths.

Over 150 years later, even children are still subjected to the unnecessary exposure to mercury fillings.

 ENOUGH IS ENOUGH…

The time for debate is over. Countless studies, reports, and articles now conclusively prove that dental mercury is dangerous in the environment.

And Consumers for Dental Choice is working with our colleagues from the dental, medical, and environmental sectors to make sure everyone knows it.

How Dental Mercury Harms Your Health

Even if  You Don’t have Amalgam —

If you subscribe to Dr. Mercola’s newsletter, by now you know that mercury is never safe –
it is a neurotoxin, a reproductive toxin, and absolutely unneeded in 21st century dentistry. When you’ve been given a choice, you choose mercury-free fillings for your teeth and for your children’s teeth. So are you safe from dental mercury?

Unfortunately, no. Dental mercury is so toxic in the environment that it affects our whole planet…our nations…our communities… and individuals.

HERE’S HOW:

Amalgam fillings are one of the largest consumer uses of mercury in the world.

Between 313 and 411 tons of dental mercury are consumed each year.

In fact, the demand for dental mercury is higher than the demand for almost all other mercury products – more than lighting (120-150 tons), electrical devices (170-210 tons), and measuring devices like thermometers (300-350 tons).

As other mercury products are being phased out, amalgam is fast becoming the largest source of mercury pollution from products.

Some dental mercury is dumped directly from the dental office into the environment.

But most dental mercury walks out of the clinic in people’s teeth. From there, dental mercury enters the environment by numerous unsound pathways.

FOR EXAMPLE, DENTAL MERCURY IS POLLUTING:

AIR -  from cremations, dental clinic emissions, sludge incineration, and respiration; and

LAND -  via landfills, burials, and fertilizer.

WATER -  via dental clinic releases that go down the drain and human waste;

Once in the environment, dental mercury can convert to its even more toxic form: methylmercury 

.
Ever wonder where all that mercury in fish and seafood comes from?

Mercury fillings are one source of mercury contaminating the fish and seafood that we eat. The environmental health effects of dental mercury are well known: brain damage and neurological problems, especially for children and the unborn babies of pregnant women.

♦♦  Methylmercury – “CH3Hg+, organic form of mercury and the form of mercury that is most easily bioaccumulated in organisms; a neurotoxin.” -
It accumulated within organisms faster than it’s eliminated) and biomagnifies (increases in concentration as it travels up the food chain).”

How Consumers for Dental Choice is Fighting for
Your Right to a World Free of Dental Mercury

Two years ago as the mercury treaty negotiations loomed, ‘Consumers for Dental Choice’ started highlighting the environmental harms caused by amalgam. This powerful approach is paying off at the mercury treaty sessions – and turning the tide in nations around the world.

AMONG OUR RECENT STEPS FORWARD

  • Citing the upcoming mercury treaty specifically, as well as the environmental concerns we too have been voicing, the New York University College of Dentistry announced a new “amalgam policy” to its students: NYU will no longer recommend dental amalgam as the primary posterior tooth restorative… nor will NYU require students to perform competency examinations for amalgam…nor will NYU allow amalgam use in its clinics unless students obtain faculty permission for a specific case. These measures take NYU closer to the ultimate goal: to become “amalgam-free.”

  • Across the Atlantic, we had equally exciting news. The European Union had hired a consultant to advise it on what to do about amalgam. Our World Alliance for Mercury-Free Dentistry teamed with European Environmental Bureau, Zero Mercury Working Group, and Non Au Mercure Dentaire to submit information and to testify. The consultant now recommends a total phase-out of amalgam in the 27 nations of the E.U.1 – for the same environmental reasons our team has been explaining. Much work remains to be done here, but we are already mobilizing our forces for that battle.

  • While our opponent was trying to turn the 4th mercury treaty session (held in Uruguay) into a never-ending debate on health, we succeeded in keeping amalgam in the draft treaty by emphasizing amalgam’s known environmental harms and by offering practical solutions. As a result of this environmental strategy, our support from government officials and influential organizations from around the world continues to grow.

AMALGAM: ONE OF THE COSTLIEST DENTAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE

‘Consumers for Dental Choice’ is fighting so that every child can grow up in a dental mercury-free world. To do this, we are working with top experts to highlight the dangers –and high cost – of mercury fillings.

For example, we commissioned Brussels-based Concorde East/West, an international consulting firm that provides research to government agencies, to study the cost of dental mercury compared to the costs of mercury-free fillings. The landmark economics report The Real Cost of Dental Mercury2 (2012) reveals that after environmental costs are taken into account, amalgam is significantly more expensive than the non-mercury alternatives.

In fact, the real cost of an amalgam filling is up to $87 more than a composite filling after the environmental costs of each material is considered. Co-released by Consumers for Dental Choice with the Mercury Policy Project and the European Environmental Bureau, the report goes on to explain that both the environment and society are adversely impacted over ”the whole life cycle of dental amalgam – mercury production, preparation of filling materials, removal of old fillings and placement of new ones, environmental and health impacts from mercury recycling, discharges to wastewater, solid waste disposal, emissions from crematoria and releases from cemeteries.”

The solution: ”phasing out amalgam as a dental restorative material and switching to mercury free alternatives.” The pro-mercury dental associations have long spread the myth that mercury fillings are cheaper than the many mercury-free options such as composite.

As stated by Charlie in the featured interview:

“The reason the pro-mercury dentists use amalgam is the profits.

They make more per filling, per chair, per day…

They do this because they don’t pay for the environmental damage.

It’s the rest of us who have to pay for the huge environmental damage

caused by the irresponsible pro-mercury dentists.”

Now, we are prepared to counter them with hard numbers.

So who pays the high costs associated with dental mercury pollution?

  • Taxpayers, who pay for the clean-up of dental mercury

  • Governments, who pay the administrative costs of dental mercury pollution clean-up

  • Fishermen, who lose income when dental mercury contaminates seafood

  • Funeral home owners, who pay for abatement equipment to address dental mercury from crematoria

  • Landlords, who are left with mercury in dental clinic pipes

  • Farmers, who cannot use [sewerage] sludge contaminated by dental mercury as fertilizer

  • Environmentally-responsible dentists, who are at a competitive disadvantage because they do not use mercury

  • Manufacturers of alternatives, who are at a disadvantage against competitors selling polluting mercury products

  • Job seekers, who lose opportunities for work making, developing, and distributing the mercury-free alternatives to amalgam

  • Wildlife, which is contaminated by dental mercury pollution

  • Tourism workers, who lose revenue when the natural environment is harmed by dental mercury pollution

  • Pregnant and nursing women, whose unborn and newborn babies are exposed to dental mercury pollution

  • Children and parents, who pay for neurological damage resulting from dental mercury pollution

European Commission Recommends Phasing Out Amalgams to Save Environment

As mentioned earlier, a recent report created by the BIO Intelligence Service (BIOS)3 for the European Commission recommends phasing out dental amalgam and mercury in button cell batteries by 2018 in order to protect the environment from continued devastating harm. According to the authors, dental amalgam is “a significant contributor to overall EU environmental emissions of mercury from human activities.” The situation is identical in the US.

ACCORDING TO THE REPORT

“The current levels of mercury pollution in the EU are such that all the EU population is exposed to mercury above the natural background level and certain population groups such as high-level fish consumers, women of childbearing age and children are subject to high risk levels, principally due to their high exposure and/or high vulnerability to mercury in the form of methylmercury, which is ingested through the diet.

This presents a risk of negative impacts on health, in particular affecting the nervous system and diminishing intellectual capacity.

There are also environmental risks, for example the disturbance of microbiological activity in soils and harm to wildlife populations. The effects of mercury releases on the integrity of the ecosystem are substantial. Various species, especially eagles, loons, kingfishers, ospreys, ibises, river otters, mink and others that rely on fish for a large part of their diet, have been observed to suffer adverse health and/or behavioral effects.

Observed disorders such as effects on the muscles and nervous system, reduced or altered mating habits, ability to reproduce, raise offspring, catch food and avoid predators have been demonstrated to affect individual animal viability and overall population stability.

According to calculations based on the critical load concept, more than 70 percent of the European ecosystem area is estimated to be at risk today due to mercury, with critical loads of mercury exceeded in large parts of western, central and southern Europe.”

HOW YOU CAN HELP FIGHT DENTAL MERCURY

Right now, you can help progress against dental mercury in two ways:

1.)  Write a letter to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), asking them to take action against harmful mercury pollution, and

2.)  Make a donation to Consumers for Dental Choice, to help them fight for your right to mercury-free dentistry

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has done more to protect us from mercury than all other EPA administrators put together. She has written strong rules addressing mercury in air pollution. When you write, please thank her for her diligent work against mercury, and urge her to turn her attention now to dental mercury, as it is a major source of mercury in the environment.

Please remember that the EPA does not regulate the safety of health products, so do not discuss how amalgam in the mouth is damaging. The EPA’s role is to keep toxins out of the environment, so focus your correspondence on the environmental impact of dental mercury. This is where she has the authority to act.

Actual letters in the US mail have more impact that emails, so we encourage you to write and mail a letter! Please send it to:

Lisa Jackson, Administrator Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460

If you send an email, send it to Administrator Jackson at: Jackson.LisaP@epa.gov. To get noticed, emails need a good subject line; we recommend something like “Take action against dental mercury.”

Consumers for Dental Choice and its allies have made amazing progress against this primitive, polluting mercury product, but the battle is not won yet – dental mercury is still being dumped in nations all around the world… and in your own community. Will you please consider a donation to Consumers for Dental Choice, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization dedicated to advocating mercury-free dentistry?

Donations are tax-exempt and can be made online at www.toxicteeth.org.
Checks can be mailed to:
Consumers for Dental Choice 316 F St., N.E., Suite 210 Washington DC 20002

blue line

PubMed logo

 Mercury exposure in young adulthood & incidence of diabetes later in life
Our results are consistent with findings from laboratory studies
and provide longitudinal human data suggesting that people
with high mercury exposure in young adulthood may
have elevated risk of diabetes later in life.

Also from PubMed:

Mercury Exposure and Children’s Health

blue line

 The Reproductive System, Fertility and Mercury

new-info-arrow-down

Mercury Is Toxic To ALL Living Organisms

And 
Join Consumers for Dental Choice’s newsletter list
 on  ToxicTeeth.org or write to Charlie at Charlie@ToxicTeeth.org.

( The European Parliament’s Environment Committee voted overwhelmingly
to phase out all amalgam use by 31 December  2022. )

blue line

Diabetes: Causes, Natural Control, & the Mercury/Vaccine Factor

double-blue-lineud

A great new group has started:

AUSTRALIANS FOR MERCURY-FREE DENTISTRY

Led by Dentist

Dr.-Lisa-Matriste-nf

blue line

✺   …Vaccine manufacturers, in order to store larger amounts of vaccine at a lower cost, offer “multi-dose units” while adding preservatives such as thimerosal  to prevent contamination. That way doctors can open and close a vaccine container, inviting germs into the once-sterile solution, while assuring the public that those contaminants are quickly killed by the preservative. It saves money, while posing an undue risk to your health. But like many toxic preservatives it kills more than just bacteria and fungi; it can lead to extensive neurological damage in your children, and has even been implicated in autism… ❞ 

[Especially when the vitamin C levels are low.]

* Contains Mercury

      Thiomersal (also know as thimerosal in the United States) is a bacteriostatic preservative used in vaccines and other biologic products since the 1930s for several specific reasons: as a broad bacteriostatic agent; as a preservative; and to inactivate specific moieties. Its concentration in most vaccines results in delivery of about 25 µg of thiomerosal in each dose administered. Importantly, thiomerosal is only 50% ethylmercury by weight. Many regulators, including the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require the addition of a preservative to multi-dose vaccine vials. Multi-dose vials have several advantages. They are cheaper than single dose formulations, and because more doses can be stored in a smaller space, they allow for decreased storage costs across the cold chain substantial for large immunization programs.
Infants in 120 countries rely on multi-dose vaccines containing  Thiomerosal to protect them against life-threatening diseases…  Full text → HERE   
Editor’s comment:

Coca-Cola seems to be able to deliver millions of individual glass vials [sorry]  bottles, around the globe at a profit!  - In 2013, Coke products could be found in over 200 countries worldwide, with consumers downing more than 1.8 billion company beverage servings each day… This makes the Thiomersal augment look somewhat pathetic.

THE TWIN TOXIC DANGERS OF MERCURY AND FLUORIDE

❝ … I have always liked all my dentists, trusting their competence more than doctors, but when I began to understand the twin dangers of fluoride and dental mercury amalgam I began to see that the entire profession has been duped, and that goes for most graduates of medical school. We first-world people like to think that our universities and medical schools are centers of higher learning and intelligence, but the fact is that they are intense conditioning machines that forcefully mind shape the brains of their vulnerable students who start out with good intentions… ❞

The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students.
It is engaged in making students safe for ideas.
— Clark Kerr

blue line

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Still Carrying Around This Potent Neurotoxin Next to Your Brain?

blue line

Bernard-Windham

→  FACTS ABOUT MERCURY & DENTAL AMALGAM – Bernard Windham  

Facts-About-Murcury-...

“…toxic metals such as mercury, lead, cadmium, etc.
have been documented as neurotoxic, immunotoxic,
reproductive/developmental toxins that according to
U.S. Government agencies cause adverse health
effects and learning disabilities to millions
in the U.S. each year…”

blue line

IAOMT-ccc

VERY SHORT VIDEO ⇒ HERE

  International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology  

Thank you for supporting Mercury-Free Dentistry!

blue line

New mercury standards –EPA [USA]

Court Upholds EPA’s Mercury Emissions Standards for Power Plants

Read more:

http://www.care2.com/causes/court-upholds-epas-mercury-emissions-standards-for-power-plants.html#ixzz2zDeeAXdG

In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the first ever national standards to reduce mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal and oil-fired power plants. Since the implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the EPA has been tasked with issuing regulations to regulate damaging pollutants released into the air. In 1990, there were three major industries that emitted two-thirds of mercury and other toxic emissions: medical waste incinerators, municipal waste combustors, and power plants.

Mercury is extremely toxic and linked to neurological and developmental problems, and even death. When it is emitted into the air, it gets trapped into precipitation and returns into the water supply. Once it ends up in lakes and streams, it turns into a more toxic organic form that permeates the food chain by being absorbed in the tissue and muscles of fish — and all that eat them.  Pregnant women and children are most susceptible to the dangers of mercury, which can lead to nervous system damage, respiratory illnesses and birth defects.

Having been subject to regulations for a number of years, medical waste incinerators and municipal waste combustors had reduced their mercury emissions by 98 percent and 96 percent respectively by 2005. At the time of the new regulations in 2011, power plants were the source of 50 percent of air-borne mercury emissions, 75 percent of acid gases and nearly 60 percent of toxic metals. Many of these plants are located near major water supplies.

A coalition of state and industry representatives sued the EPA♠ claiming that they did not have the authority to issue the regulations and that they failed to consider the costs of implementing the new standards. The economies of the states that fought the rules were heavily dependent on the coal and energy industry. The coalition said being forced to comply with the regulations would disrupt the power supply as many of the older plants would have to shut down and there would be a risk of losing more than a half-million jobs.

On Tuesday, an appeals court upheld the regulations.

The court rejected the industry’s argument that the EPA didn’t have authority, saying that Congress had relegated the authority to the EPA to determine which types of things would be deemed a hazard to public health and act accordingly. Furthermore, they were convinced that the EPA had acted appropriately based on the ample evidence of the health risks of mercury. As for the costs, the court said the EPA had acted properly by making the decision based on health risks and not compliance costs and that the agency had shown that the benefits outweighed the costs.

The standards will prevent about “90 percent of the mercury in coal burned in power plants being emitted to the air; reduce 88 percent of acid gas emissions from power plants; and reduce 41 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants.” The nation’s more than 600 coal and oil-fire power plants will have until April 2015 to comply, and the law allows for states to grant an additional year for technology installation. Thus far the coal industry has invested $130 billion, and anticipates spending an additional $100 billion over the next decade on “clean coal technology.”  An industry coalition has said that many power plants have already been retired due to the costs and expects additional ones to go offline by the deadline, which they say risks disruption to the energy supply of the nation.

The EPA called the ruling a “a victory for public health and the environment” and notes that in EPA’s 40 year history, the Clean Air Act has not impacted power companies’ ability to keep the lights on in communities across the United States.

   And they can do so without polluting the air and water.

  Mercury does not affect everyone equally

Children are highly susceptible to harm from mercury because their bodies are developing at such a rapid rate. The most recent estimates by the EPA indicate that one in six U.S. women of child-bearing age has mercury levels in her blood high enough to put her baby at risk.1 That means as many as 630,000 infants are born in the U.S. every year with unsafe mercury levels, double what the EPA previously estimated.2 These children face the risk of damage to their nervous system, which can result in delayed onset of walking and talking, cerebral palsy and mental retardation…

 Read more:→ EPS Mercury emission standards for power stations.

blue line

Mercury Free Logo

Measurable-Misleading-book-cover-m

MEASURABLY Misleading

blue line

Good new policy – July 2014 → HERE  

blue line

  • Amalgam damages teeth: Amalgam requires the removal of more healthy tooth tissue, weakens tooth structure, and can crack teeth as it expands and contracts – leading to higher dental bills later.

  • Amalgam exposes people to mercury: Dental amalgam releases mercury, a neurotoxin. Children, the unborn, the hypersensitive, and dental personnel are especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of mercury.

  • Amalgam pollutes our environment: Dental amalgam constitutes the largest amount of mercury in use in the United States today, and most of this mercury ends up polluting our air, soil, and water. Mercury pollution indisputably can cause health problems, especially for children and the unborn.”

  • Declared Safe for Centuries, Yet It Slowly Ravages Your Brain

blue line

 ! MAKE YOUR OWN FLU SHOT !

↑ A short fun U-tube 

blue line

F.-Mercury-Autism-mms
blue line

COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION ON MERCURY

blue line“Mad as a Hatter”
Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland- 1865. 

Mad Hatter's tea party f

new-skeptics-logo

New-Splash

 

HISTORY OF FLUORIDE IN CAVITY PREVENTION – Dr. Russell Blaylock, Neurosurgeon

“Opponents of the fluoridation project were quickly labeled by the
masterminds of Alcoa’s PR group as loonies and right-wing
extremists who saw fluoridation as a communist plot.

History-F.-Cavity-Prevention-c

russell-blaylock-image

Dr. Russell Blaylock, Neurosurgeon

Officials who loudly promote fluoridation of public water claim as their motivation the prevention of dental cavities. They frequently cite studies comparing tooth decay rates in fluoridated areas to unfluoridated areas, which purport to show dramatic reductions in tooth decay in children-as much as a 60 percent difference. If this were true, and fluoride were indeed safe, it would be a truly miraculous substance, but this still would not justify putting it in the water supply because we are being medicated and have not even been given a choice in the matter, as you will see. As it stands, there is in fact no credible evidence that fluoride added to the water supply reduces cavity rates at all, and several studies have convincingly demonstrated that the incidence of cavities is actually higher in fluoridated areas.

Shortly after the turn of the century it was noticed that children in certain areas of the country had a high incidence of damaged teeth. Further investigation disclosed that this mottling of their tooth enamel, now known as “dental fluorosis,” was caused by elevated contents of naturally occurring fluoride in certain water systems. This finding motivated the American Dental Society and the U.S. Public Health Department to call for the removal of fluoride in the water from these areas. H. Trendley Dean of the U.S. Public Heath Department in 1930 conducted the original work on this problem.

At this juncture, Dr. Gerald Cox took up the banner and suggested that using a smaller dose of fluoride could not only prevent dental fluorosis, but could even prevent cavities. He suggested adding 1 ppm of fluoride to the public drinking water. He made this proclamation without any studies, human or otherwise, to suggest that it would be effective or safe. What makes this so interesting is that Dr. Cox was on the staff of the Mellon Institute, and the Mellon family owned the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa). One of the major waste products produced in the aluminum industry is fluoride. Because of its intense corrosive ability and extreme toxicity, disposal of fluoride had, up until that time, been a very expensive and controversial proposition. So what could the aluminum industry do with all of this toxic fluoride? After all, safe disposal cost the company millions of dollars every year.

Ironically, the answer was to come from government. Fortunately for Alcoa, Andrew Mellon, its founder, was also the Treasury Secretary. Interestingly, the U.S. Public Health Service at that time was under the direct control of the Treasury Secretary. Dr. Dean, who eventually came to support adding 1 ppm fluoride to public water supplies as a safe and effective way to reduce dental caries, became known as “Mr. Fluoridation,” and was chosen by the USPHS to head up the fluoridation studies. As Dr. John Yiamouyiannis noted in his excellent book, Fluoride. The Aging Factor, the American Medical Association (AMA), on September 18, 1943, (as fluoridation was first being proposed) cautioned that fluoride was a powerful protoplasmic poison, and because of its widespread presence in nature, toxic accumulation could be a major problem if water was fluoridated. On October 1, 1944, the Journal of the American Dental Association also noted that: “the potential for harm outweighed those for good.” It would behoove the Association’s present membership to remember that in this same article the ADA recognized that as little as 1.2-3.0 ppm of fluoride in drinking water was associated with “developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteoporosis, as well as goiter.”

Despite these cautionary warnings, Dr. Cox convinced Dr. J.J. Frisch, a Wisconsin dentist, to actively promote fluoridation of the water supply. According to historians of the era, Frisch led the charge with the frenzy of a religious zealot and turned it into a political crusade. These developments were, of course, just what Alcoa’s owners wanted. In 1944, according to Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce held on May 25-27, 1954. Alcoa hired a powerful attorney, Oscar Ewing, and paid him an annual salary of $750,000, even though Alcoa wasn’t facing any major litigation. A few months after being hired, he left the company to accept a job as Federal Security Administrator, a position that put him in charge of the USPHS and under the direct control of, – you guessed it, Treasury Secretary Mellon. It should also be noted that he made a great deal of fanfare about leaving such a well-paid job to serve his country. Not surprisingly, Ewing launched a vigorous nationwide campaign to promote fluoridation of public water supplies.

The fluoridation effort was no small project, and certainly not one that Ewing intended to lose. He hired the best public relations master money could buy: Edward L. Bernays, labeled by The Washington Post as “the original spin doctor.” In addition to his other credentials, Bernays was also the nephew of Sigmund Freud. Bernays knew the best route to take was to get the endorsement of the dental and medical professionals, since the public depended on their wisdom in these matters, and generally trusted them. By using all of the powers at their command Mellon’s fluoridation team convinced the city council of Grand Rapids, Michigan, to allow its water supply to be fluoridated, with the city of Muskegon serving as an unfluoridated control in the experiment. The project was to begin on January 25, 1945, and would be the first U.S. city to add fluoride to its drinking water.

Two things need to be understood at this point. First, the recommendation was accepted just three months after the dire warnings expressed by both the AMA and the ADA. Second, even at that time there was significant evidence that fluoride was toxic to cells in small concentrations, yet these devious men proceeded despite the fact that no human studies had been published on the safety of adding fluoride to Grand Rapids’ water supply. The people of Grand Rapids were to be unwilling test subjects.

Opponents of the fluoridation project were quickly labeled by the masterminds of Alcoa’s PR group as loonies and right-wing extremists who saw fluoridation as a communist plot. I remember these charges very well in the ’50s, having grown up during that period. Suddenly making a complete reversal of their previous stance, the USPHS and the ADA began to endorse widespread fluoridation, even before a single study of the Michigan experiment had been completed that could show fluoridation was safe, much less that it reduced cavities. But there was a compelling reason they didn’t want to wait on the results of a study, namely because initial results were showing that tooth decay rates in unfluoridated Muskegon had decreased as much as fluoridated Grand Rapids. In fact, tooth decay rates were falling in all industrialized nations well before fluoridation. Why? Because of better hygiene and nutrition.

The fluoridationists’ shenanigans were recognized as early as 1952 by Dr. A.L. Miller, a U.S. representative from Nebraska who was also Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals in Foods. He noted how strange it was that high officials of the USPHS would do a complete about face on the acceptability of fluoridation and within only three months of advocating extreme caution. Dr. Miller also noted that he could find no original studies by the AMA or the ADA, or any other evidence for fluoridation’s usefulness. All those associations did was refer to each other for confirmation. Representative Miller also noted the convenient connection between Oscar Ewing in his position as Federal Security Administrator, and his representation of Alcoa, which was anxious to get rid of its toxic fluoride waste.

In his book on this subject, Dr. Yiamouyiannis also points out that dissenting dentists were either censured or lost their ADA membership. Dental scientists themselves were controlled by the power of USPHS grant money: those who criticized fluoridation simply saw their grant monies dry up, a very effective tactic still used in many other areas of politicized science. The list of people involved in the fluoridation conspiracy reads like a rogues’ gallery. For example, there is John Small, the USPHS’ fluoridation expert since the 1960s. His sole job is to stem any criticism of fluoridation from any quarter, and he does his job very well. One of his major tasks is to harass, intimidate and virtually destroy anyone who dares to publicly speak or write about the dangers of fluoridation. As an’ example of his viciousness, I will share the story of Dr. Yiamouyiannis, who was once the biochemical editor of the Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center. When John Small learned that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was writing critical reviews of fluoridation, he contacted the problem doctor’s immediate superior and expressed his displeasure. In ensuing conversations with this superior, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if he did not cease and desist his criticisms of fluoridation. The good doctor was warned several more times and finally unwilling to suppress the truth about fluoridation dangers-he was forced to resign.  So much for the independence of science.

blue line

” Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century. “

Robert Carlton, Ph.D., former EPA scientist, 1992

blue line“Regarding Fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public. Not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects. “

William Marcus, Ph.D., Senior EPA toxicologist, 1992

blue line

Unfortunately, this world is inhabited by some people who seek a profit at any cost and have no concern for public welfare and safety. The fluoride story powerfully demonstrates that we are indeed correct to be suspicious of megacorporations. We have seen how these institutions have done everything in their power to avoid civic responsibility and to manipulate the government, scientific institutions, and the medical and dental professions, all in the name of empty profit.

Most of us have been led to believe by a powerful propaganda network that fluoridation of drinking water, regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste and regular fluoride treatments are not only a good way to prevent cavities, but that the practice of fluoridation itself is very safe.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Those who promote this viewpoint have an ulterior motive and, it is not your health.

Russell Blaylock 2

 

blue line

 

new-skeptics-logonew-water-splash

FLUORIDE TOOTHPASTE – Keep out of reach…

❝  Two Hundred and Forty children under 6 years old
died last year from ingesting fluoride toothpaste. ❞  [USA] 

 -  Keep out of reach of rats, pets and humans -

   fluoride toothpastes  

toothpaste warning

FDA toothpaste warning f

- FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE IN AUSTRALIA -

THE AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT REMOVED THE ‘ S5 POISON LABELS ‘

ON FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE  to help the commercial sales of toothpaste.

THE  N.H.M.R.C. RE-CLASSIFIED FLUORIDE TOOTHPASTE

 AS A “COSMETIC”

Fluoride toothpaste was registered as a S5 poison
The N.H.M.R.C. in their book “The Effectiveness of Water Fluoridation” p.131.,
explained the need to examine poison regulations concerning fluoride toothpaste
which was registered as an ‘S5 POISON’ as printed on the package.

The Answer by N.H.M.R.C.
Fluoride Toothpaste an S5 poison was reclassified as a
“Cosmetic for sales regulations”.

 

In 2009, there were 24,547 calls to U.S. Poison Control Centers due to ingestion of fluoride toothpaste.

      A  SAMPLE OF TOXIC INGREDIENTS FOUND IN TOOTHPASTE:

1)  Sodium lauryl sulfate – A chemical sudsing agent with well known toxic side effects.

2)  Sodium fluoride – Toxic by-product of aluminum and fertilizer chemical plants.

3)  Triclosan  – An actual pesticide chemical, used in toothpaste to prevent  spoilage.

4)  Propylene glycol – An antifreeze chemical used in vehicle radiators.

5)  DEA – A foaming agent that’s linked to liver and kidney cancers.

6)  Chemical sweeteners –  aspartame and saccharin.

 Triclosan remains in Children’s Toothpaste Despite Risk…

A recent study demonstrated how quickly blood levels of triclosan may rise in small children exposed to the chemical in toothpaste and hand soap.5 This is one of the first studies to show how triclosan invades the bodies of young children through environmental exposure. Senior study author Joe Braun, assistant professor of epidemiology at Brown University, explained the impetus behind the study:6

“There’s very little data on the exposure in those first years of life. There are a lot of behavioral changes in those years, and environmental chemicals can play a role.”

Braun and his colleagues tested 389 women and children from Cincinnati between pregnancy and until the children were 8 years old. They collected urine three times during the pregnancy and periodically between the children’s first and eighth year. They found triclosan in more than 70 percent of the samples.

Interestingly, by age 8 they found children who used the most hand soap had 66 percent more triclosan in their body, and those who washed their hands more than five times a day had four times more chemical than those who reported washing their hands once or less per day.7 Children who brushed their teeth with toothpaste in the past 24 hours had 2.5 times more triclosan than those who had not used toothpaste. Isaac Pessah, Ph.D., researcher at the University of California, who was not involved in the study, commented:

“It’s a thorough, well-done analysis. Given the high concentrations [of triclosan] in personal care products, you’re seeing that the concentrations in the end user are also quite high.”

Triclosan in More Than Toothpaste and Hand Soap

Despite the fact that U.S. manufacturers must phase out triclosan after the FDA banned it and several other chemicals from use in hand soap after concerns were made public that it disrupted the body’s hormonal system, triclosan remains in other personal care products

green-toothbrush-f

Triclosan sticks to toothbrushes – New Info-2017

double-tooth-brush-separator

Don’t be fooled by small print on toothpast packages.
The majority of toothpast manufactures list  ’fluoride’ additives 
in very small print! - Are the makers no longer proud of their product?

double-tooth-brush-reverse-separator

The finding (see below) raises the obvious question of whether
the widespread use and ingestion of fluoride toothpaste is
contributing to, or exacerbating, the rising prevalence
of diabetes in children. Diabetes is a condition
caused by persistently high glucose levels.

blood-fluoride-levelsglucose

FULL INFORMATION ⇒  HERE

double-tooth-brush-reverse-separator

MONOFLUOROPHOSPHATE (MFP) HISTORY – (toothpaste)

© Peter Meiers

double-tooth-brush-separator

Cavistat may be a better past!

Cavistat, containing all-natural food ingredients,
was created to imitate the affects of saliva.

double-tooth-brush-reverse-separator

A LIST OF PREFERRED INGREDIENTS

In 2009, there were 24,547 calls to U.S. Poison Control Centers due to ingestion of fluoride toothpaste.

Comment t:paste TGA s

DROWNING IN FLUORIDE (toothpaste)

Nearly all toothpastes sold in the US,  UK and Australia contain fluoride – typically 1000-1500 parts per million. Commonly used mouth rinses contain 230-900 ppm. Fluoride is also present in candy-flavoured treatments and dentifrices. Fluoride products for preventing tooth decay may contain as much as 9000 ppm. Researchers at Madras Dental College and elsewhere found that the fluoride in fluoridated toothpaste, even if not swallowed, is quickly absorbed through the lining of the mouth and gums into the general circulation (Lancet, 1991; 337: 1213).

 

Toothpaste and vitamin preparations – and presumably baby formulas – containing fluoride cause allergic reactions in some children, toxic reactions in others (see www.cadvision.com/-fluoride/adverse). The resulting mouth ulcers don’t respond to antibiotics or local medications, but clear up promptly when non-fluoride toothpaste is substituted (Ann Allergy; 1967; 25: 388-91)…… Full text → HERE

(It makes good rat bait)

Choc-v-F.1

By Dr. Mercola Link to original   HERE 

Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste product that is a poison to your body even in trace amounts, yet it is added to the majority of US water supplies using the rationale that it helps prevent dental cavities. 

The archaic practice continues even though it is now widely recognized that fluoride’s only justifiable benefit comes from topical contact with teeth – and even that is debatable.

To put it simply, there are FAR better options for decreasing tooth decay than ingesting a harmful industrial pollutant or using a topical poison like fluoride… in fact, new research suggests even chocolate extract would make a better alternative.

 

CHOCOLATE TOOTHPASTE WORKS BETTER THAN FLUORIDE 

A recent study presented at the American Dental Association (ADA) 2013 Annual Session pitted fluoride toothpaste against a new toothpaste that contains the naturally-occurring cacao extract theobromine.

This test determined which product better repaired and re-mineralized exposed dentin (the tissue that makes up the bulk of your teeth below the enamel). Exposed dentin is a leading cause of tooth hypersensitivity.

The results showed that patients who brushed their teeth with the cacao-extract toothpaste twice a day for one week had “100 percent dental occlusion” with their tooth dentin becoming re-mineralized or repaired. According to a press release:1

“The comparison to toothpastes containing fluoride – one as much as 5,000 ppm [parts per million] – validates what our research has shown all along: that Rennou [the cocoa extract] … is more effective and safer than fluoride, which can be toxic if ingested.”

Past research has also shown that the chocolate ingredient theobromine works better than fluoride. When lesions in artificial enamel were treated with theobromine, remineralization occurred at a greater rate than when they were treated with fluoride.2 The study found, in fact, that theobromine made teeth less vulnerable to bacterial acid erosion that could lead to cavities.

 

SCIENTISTS NOW QUESTIONING WHETHER FLUORIDE
WORKS TO FIGHT CAVITIES

With potential alternatives like theobromine, which, unlike fluoride, are not harmful when swallowed, it’s unfortunate that fluoride can still be found in a vast assortment of toothpastes, mouthwashes and professionally applied fluoride treatments. It’s even added to your drinking water for this purpose, as mentioned.

Yet fluoride, long heralded as the answer to decaying teeth, is receiving increasing scrutiny –
and for good reason.

A groundbreaking study published in the journal Langmuir4 uncovered that the fluorapatite layer formed on your teeth from fluoride is a mere six nanometers thick. To understand just how thin this is, you’d need 10,000 of these layers to get the width of a strand of your hair!

Scientists now question whether this ultra-thin layer can actually protect your enamel and provide any discernible benefit, considering the fact that it is quickly eliminated by simple chewing. They wrote:

“ …it has to be asked whether such narrow… layers really can act as protective layers for the enamel.”

 

FLUORIDE TOOTHPASTE CAN BE DEADLY TO CHILDREN

I’m not a fan of fluoridated toothpaste for adults or children, but if you do decide to use it, it’s probably best to keep it safely out of the reach of your children. Fluoride toothpaste is often the largest single source of fluoride intake for young children, and is a major risk factor for disfiguring dental fluorosis.

This is because children swallow a large amount of the paste that they put in their mouth. In fact, research has shown that it is not uncommon for young children to swallow more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is recommended as an entire day’s ingestion from all sources.5

If you have a young child, it’s recommended that you use a non-fluoride toothpaste. If, however, you do use fluoride toothpaste, it’s very important that you supervise your children while they brush to make sure they use no more than a “pea-sized amount” of paste, and that they fully rinse and spit after they finish.

And, lastly, do not purchase candy-flavored toothpaste (e.g., bubble-gum and watermelon) as these toothpastes (which still contain adult-strength concentrations of fluoride) increase the risk that your children will swallow it (and actually want to swallow it). Still, it’s hard to ignore the absurdity that poison control should be called if you swallow a quarter milligram of fluoride from toothpaste while just ONE glass of water can contain this amount of fluoride.

 

THE INSANITY OF SWALLOWING FLUORIDE TO PREVENT CAVITIES

Apply toxic fluoride topically to your teeth is bad enough from a health (and lack of effectiveness) perspective, but swallowing it daily in your drinking water takes this fluoride insanity to a whole other level.

The science clearly demonstrates that fluoride is a toxic chemical that accumulates in your tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes, and produces a number of serious adverse health effects, including neurological and endocrine dysfunction.

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure. Scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity,” 25 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children.

double-tooth-brush-separator

THE SAFEST SOLUTION TO BETTER DENTAL HEALTH

Toothpaste containing natural ingredients, like theobromine and others, appears to be more effective and safer than fluoride-containing toothpastes. Water fluoridation, too, is ineffective and may offer no benefit at all for your teeth, not to mention placing your overall health in jeopardy. There’s no reason to risk it. Here are my basic guidelines for optimizing your dental health, safely and naturally:

  • Avoid fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpaste.

  • Minimize your sugar and grain consumption. Keep your fructose intake to less than 25 grams per day. Avoid processed foods.

  • Make sure you consume a diet rich in fresh, whole foods, fermented vegetables, and grass-fed meats, which will ensure you’re getting plenty of the minerals that are so important for strong bones and teeth.

  • Practice good oral hygiene and get regular cleanings from a mercury-free natural dentist.

  • Consider oil pulling with coconut oil, which is a powerful inhibitor of a large variety of pathogenic organisms.

      JOIN THE FIGHT TO GET FLUORIDE OUT OF DRINKING WATER

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you’re stuck with whatever your community puts in your water, and it’s very difficult to filter out of your water once it’s added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation, both in the United States and Canada. Clean, pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, support the anti-fluoride movement by making a donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

❝  Two Hundred and Forty children under 6 years old
died last year from ingesting fluoride toothpaste. ❞ [USA] 

Read the label on fluoride toothpaste:

Toothpaste contains 1000 to 1,450 parts
per million (ppm) of fluoride.

double-tooth-brush-separator

Welcome to Theodent

 Fluoride Free Toothpaste

double-tooth-brush-reverse-separator

Brushing with Fluoride Can Give You a Radiant Smile:

double-tooth-brush-reverse-separator

   COLGATE ‘NEUTRAFLUOR’ TOOTHPASTE 5000 (56g)

Colgate-5000-s-300x116

❝ This product is a Pharmacist Only Medicine and requires pharmacist advice for us to send it to you. If you order this product, you will be required to call us within 48 hours on 1300 367 283 to complete the order. In the event that you do not do this, the product will be deleted from your order and the balance of your order will be dispatched.

This is not required if you have a doctor’s prescription.

   DIRECTIONS:

Adults and children 6 years or older, apply a thin ribbon of Neutrafluor 5000 Plus to a soft, small headed, multi-tufted toothbrush.

Brush thoroughly for two minutes preferably at bedtime, or use as recommended be your dental professional.

Adults should spit out after brushing.

Children aged 6-16 years, should brush under supervision, spit out after use and rinse mouth thoroughly.

For best results, avoid eating or drinking for 30 minutes.

   INGREDIENTS:

Contains 1.1% w/w Neutral Sodium Fluoride.

Also contains: Sodium benzoate; Sodium saccharin.

Warnings:

   DO NOT SWALLOW:

As with all medications, keep out of reach of infants and children. Neutral Sodium Fluoride Rinse Side Effects

Please note – some side effects for Neutral Sodium Fluoride Rinse may not be reported.
Always consult your doctor or healthcare specialist for medical advice.
You may also report side effects to the FDA at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/ or 1-800-FDA-1088 (1-800-332-1088).

   READ MORE:

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/neutral-sodium-fluoride-rinse-side-effects.html#ixzz10cgldgBE

NeutraFluor 5000 Plus is a high concentration sodium fluoride toothpaste for use by patients who have a high risk of dental decay (caries). Scientific research concludes that when toothpaste containing a relatively high amount of fluoride is applied to the teeth it offers increased protection against acid attack from decay causing bacteria in the mouth.

   WHAT IS IN THE PRODUCT?

This toothpaste contains fluoride, and each treatment dose, i.e. a thin ribbon of paste on a tooth brush contains 2.5mg fluoride

(5,000ppm sodium fluoride). The toothpaste also contains a number of other ingredients. These are necessary to facilitate the consistency, flavour, foaming and cleaning actions of the toothpaste. These ingredients include silica, sorbitol, saccharin, polyethylene glycol, gum, flavour, sodium benzoate, sodium laurel sulphate, titanium dioxide, sodium hydroxide and brilliant blue colour.

NeutraFluor 5000 Plus is registered on the Australian Register of

Therapeutic Goods and its number is Aust R 67437.

NeutraFluor 5000 Plus comes in a 56g tube.

   BEFORE USING THIS PRODUCT

NeutraFluor 5000 Plus should only be used on the recommendation of your dentist or doctor, as part of a tooth decay prevention routine.

NeutraFluor 5000 Plus should not be used by any person with known allergic reactions to fluoride or the other ingredients stated above.

Children under 6 years should not use NeutraFluor 5000 Plus unless recommended by a dentist or doctor.

Pregnant or breastfeeding women should be cautious before using this product and discuss its use with their dentist or doctor.

   DO NOT SWALLOW THE TOOTHPASTE

The toothpaste acts on the surface of your teeth and does not need to be swallowed.

Dosage: Follow these instructions unless otherwise instructed by your dentist or doctor:

1. Adults and children 6 years and older:

Apply a thin ribbon of NeutraFluor 5000 Plus to a soft, small headed, multi-tufted toothbrush. Brush teeth thoroughly for two minutes.

2. After use: Adult spit out. Children aged 6 -16 years spit out after use and rinse mouth thoroughly. For best results, do not eat, drink or rinse your mouth for 30 minutes.

3. NeutraFluor 5000 Plus is easily applied on a toothbrush and should be used daily in place of regular fluoride toothpaste unless otherwise instructed by your dentist or doctor.

4. In the event of an overdose, contact your nearest Poisons Information Centre (or hospital accident and emergency department), or tell your doctor immediately.

   UNWANTED EFFECTS:

Allergic reactions have been rarely reported with the use of fluoride toothpastes. Should you experience any unwanted effect from using the product you should stop using the product and consult your doctor or dentist.

   HOW TO STORE THE PRODUCT:

You should keep your NeutraFluor 5000 Plus below 25°C and out of reach of children.

This product should not be used after the expiry date which is clearly marked at the crimp on the end of the tube.

NeutraFluor 5000 Plus is a product developed by Colgate-Palmolive.

Colgate Oral Care 345 George Street Sydney NSW 2000

For all enquiries regarding this product, please call Consumer

Information Service (Free Call) 1800802 307 (Australia) or

0800 441 740 (New Zealand)

This package leaflet was developed in January 1999.

Published by MIMS/myDr November 2000 ❞

   EXTRACT FROM ANOTHER WEB SITE:

❝ Conclusions:  This review suggests that the training of staff in the form of a comprehensive practically oriented program addressing areas such as oral diseases, oral screening assessment, and hands-on demonstration of oral hygiene techniques and products is likely to have a positive impact on the management of oral hygiene care within residential aged care facilities. The review also identified that regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, use of therapeutic fluoride products and application of therapeutic chlorhexidine gluconate products are validated by research as effective for the general population and some populations with special needs. ❞

❝ This toothpaste has a very high fluoride content for at risk patients ie elderly patients with dry mouths at risk of root caries, patients with teeth that are sensitive due to exposed dentine and institutionalised or otherwise people unable to look after their teeth. It should not be swallowed and is unsuitable for use by children under the age of 10. …❞

   THIS TOOTHPASTE CONTAINS A NUMBER OF OTHER INGREDIENTS:

“These are necessary to facilitate the consistency, flavour, foaming and cleaning
actions of the toothpaste.
These ingredients include: silica,  sorbitol,  saccharin,  polyethylene glycol,  gum,
flavour,  sodium benzoate,  sodium laurel sulphate,  titanium dioxide,
sodium hydroxide  and brilliant blue colour.”

double-tooth-brush-separator

Exit international logo

Exit International (Assisted Suicide/ Voluntary Euthanasia)

Exit International is a leading End of Life Choices law reform
& information/ advocacy non-profit, founded by :

Philip Nitschke f

Dr Philip Nitschke PhD, MD

This product is legal, lethal, and cheaper than

an airline ticket to Mexico for phenobarbitone,

or a one way ticket to Zurich for ‘Death Tourism’.

double-tooth-brush-reverse-separator

Healing Teeth Naturally – what to avoid 


double-tooth-brush-separator

One Tube of Toothpaste – Cheap 3 Months Rat & Mouse Free
double-tooth-brush-reverse-separator

P.S. It IS posible to buy safe toothpaste, fluoride-free. 

 ( YES – made in Australia –  available at most stores )

OK to eat – “Not too bad on fresh wholemeal bread and real dairy butter”

Grants toothpaste image

There are several other brands of toothpaste that do not contain fluoride.

Visit your local Health Food Store.

See also: ‘MODERE’ (formerly ‘Neways’) – www.modere.com.au

double-tooth-brush-separator

Julia Roberts NO toothpast smile

Julia Roberts Famous Megawatt fluoride free smile → HERE

double-tooth-brush-reverse-separatorIngredients In Conventional Toothpastes

 If there was enough poison in their toothpaste that it would kill them
if they ate the whole tube because it tasted like bubble gum;
would you leave it in their bathroom drawer
or would you keep it locked up with the
medicines or toxic cleaning agents? 

The use of company names or products is for identification only,
and does not imply endorsement by ‘ Fluoridation Queensland ‘

WE SAY NO TO FLUORIDE

new-skeptics-logo

new-water-splash

 

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.

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” 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.

new-skeptics-logo

new splash

 

THE TOWNSVILLE REPORT

‘The Townsville Report’ has been used as part of
‘The Evidence’ 
to justify the fluoridation of
Queensland’s public water supply.

Factors Often Overlooked In Fluoridation Research

Map of queensland

We are told by the Queensland government that no adverse effects
have been seen in Townsville from fluoridation, but Queensland
Health has never provided any health studies to justify this claim.

The original 

TOWNSVILLE_AFTER_10YRS

( Fluoridated on 2nd August 1965 )

‘THE EFFECT ON CARIES EXPERIENCE OF LIFETIME RESIDENTS’

A Survey by W. Vidoroni, G.S. Sternberg and G.N. Davies 
Division of Dental Services, Department of Health,
Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and Dental School,
University of Queensland, Turbot St, Brisbane, Australia.

 Our criticisms:

Extract

❝ …Another feature of Townsville is the mobility of the population.
This is reflected by the fact that although 900 children were examined
only 317 or 35 per cent could be classified as lifetime residents.
Data on the remaining non-lifetime residents will be reported in a separate paper. ❞ 

 So Where Is It ?

This additional data was promised in the report,
but despite numerous telephone requests to one
of the authors of this report at the time –
W. Videroni, none was ever provided.

 More criticisms:

Extract

❝ …In addition to assessing the dental caries experience

        of the children data were collected on the following:

fluorosis, idiopathic enamel opacities, enamel hypoplasia, tetracycline staining, traumatic injuries to teeth, oral mucosal disease, pathology of bone, dentofacial anomalies, periodontal status (soft deposits, calculus, intense gingivitis), need for periodontal treatment, prosthetic status, denture requirements, conditions needing immediate attention and fillings and extractions required for individual teeth. These data will be reported in a subsequent publication. ❞.

So Where Is It ?

This additional data was promised in the report, but despite
numerous telephone requests to one of the authors of this report
at the time – W. Videroni – none was ever provided.

More Comments:

•  Lost in this long list fluoridation negative outcomes,
 is one of major concern, Dental Fluorosis:

•  Dental fluorosis is not reversible and in more severe cases,
causes disfigurement, pitting, staining and positional defects.

•  Dental fluorosis is also associated with skeletal fluorosis.

•  Dental fluorosis is now the most common dental problem in Australia.

Qld. Health – Demographics 

As can been seen from the newspaper cutting below,
Fluoridation of Townsville’s water supply
has not had the expected results:

Townsville Kicked in the teeth

CHILDREN will no longer receive free dental care at school. The Queensland Government has stopped offering treatment in its school dental vans because there is not enough staff to man them. A letter sent out through schools this week says the vans would only examine students and provide a report to parents on the state of their teeth. They will then have to seek treatment at private dental practices or take their chances with long public dental waiting lists. “Due to expected demand for treatment you may have to wait for a while for an appointment for non-urgent treatment,” the letter said.Queensland Parents and Citizens Association Northern Region president Mick Cutler said parents wanted to see the dental van visits saved. “We would be disappointed but we also understand the reality of change,” Mr Cutler said. “We’d hope they have the capacity to recruit more staff. “When Queensland children have the highest rate of tooth decay in Australia of course we would like to see the dental vans continue. “We also need to continue the education of our children on better eating habits that don’t contribute to (poor dental health).” In the past all Queensland children from four years old to year 10 at school have been eligible for public sector oral health services. The non-emergency dental treatment is provided at schools through dental clinics and dental vans on a rotational basis. Parents sign a consent form allowing the dentists to check for cavities and put in fillings, if necessary. In February 2006 the Townsville Bulletin reported annual free dental check-ups for students across the twin cities would be stretched out to every two years. At the time a health spokeswoman blamed the wait on the twin cities’ population surge. Leading dental researcher Dr Kerrod Hallett said he had been shocked by the sorry state of  Townsville tots’ teeth on his last visit to the city. Dr Hallett is trialling a new mouth guard, designed to stop tooth decay, at Vincent State School. The paediatric dentist hopes the trial will stop young children from suffering the pain of tooth aches and rotting teeth. “I examined 16 children on the first day,” he said. “Out of those one had a healthy mouth. “I was quite shocked myself.” Caption: BRUSHED . . . children such as Annabella Schmid, 4, will no longer receive treatment through school dental vans.

Illus: Photo Library Heading: Health General State Government Health Local Section: NEWS

… © Copyright …

blue line

TOWNSVILLE_AFTER_10YRS

—  UPDATE  NOVEMBER  2010  —
Townsville has been fluoridated for 40 + years
by the Townsville Council.

… Earlier this year [2012] we asked Townsville Council if they knew of any general health studies that had been done in Townsville for water fluoridation  the then Mayor and Director’s representative replied:

  Townsville Council ….. not aware of any specific studies (fluoridation health studies) not commissioned any – not aware of any …. contact Qld.  Health to see if they have done any …❞

We are told by the Queensland Government that no adverse effects have been seen in Townsville from fluoridation, but Queensland Health has never provided any health studies to justify this claim – the reason why - they have never looked at anything but teeth. Fluoride, when ingested travels throughout the body in the blood plasma, but supposedly it only  beneficially affects teeth? If you don’t look – you don’t find — Just keep on parroting fluoridation is safe

Credit: 

Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc.

blue line

Full 91 page original text→ HERE 

Extract Davies page 16   Full 91 page original text→ HERE

new-skeptics-logo

new splash