Babies Are Vulnerable Innocent Victims
A small selection of Comments demonstrating that:
Babies Are Vulnerable Innocent Victims
Suffering Exploitation
By The Fluoride Promoters
Item (1)
WITH APOLOGIES TO THOSE WHO ALREADY SUBSCRIBE TO FAN
This FAN bulletin is ranked extremely important and is being sent to both LIST A and list B recipients.
THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FAN Bulletin 708: At last ADA gives sound advice!
Nov 10, 2006
Dear All,
In an announcement that should spell trouble for fluoridation, the ADA has advised parents not to make up milk formula with fluoridated water. Their actual words in yesterday’s ADA e-gram (Nov 9, 2006) referring to baby formula were: “If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.” Of course, this is very sensible advice – and should have been made years ago – as soon as scientists had found out how low fluoride was in mothers’ breast milk.
According to table 2-6 on page 23 of the NRC (2006) review, the level of fluoride in mother’s milk in a non-fluoridated community is 0.004 ppm. This means a baby bottle fed with formula made up with fluoridated tap water (at 1 ppm) will get 250 times more fluoride than a breast fed baby. Unless one is prepared to say (like the Chief Health Officer in Victoria, Australia) that nature screwed up on these matters, it is abundantly clear that a new born baby does not NEED fluoride, and it is quite likely that such levels could be dangerous at these very early days in its life. One of the reasons that Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson gave for opposing fluoridation in Sweden in the 1970’s was his concern with what such excessive levels would do to the baby’s developing brain.
The baby’s blood brain barrier is not fully developed at birth.
In yesterday’s announcement, the ADA still sticks to phrases like “exceeding optimal levels” thus blindly ignoring that as far as “optimal levels” are concerned nature has said that there are NONE. Fluoride is not a nutrient period. Even the CDC (1999, 2001) has conceded what most dental researchers have found, namely that whatever slight benefit fluoride might have on teeth is TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC, so it is very hard to see what an “optimal level” means to a newborn baby before its teeth have erupted! Giving tap water to a baby, or to an infant before its teeth have erupted, gives no TOPICAL benefit, only SYSTEMIC risks.
For the ADA the concern is largely focused on the one SYSTEMIC toxic effect that they cannot hide – or deny – dental fluorosis. With 32% of kids in the US now afflicted with this damaged enamel (CDC 2005) – it is abundantly clear that kids are being grossly over-exposed to fluoride in this country (as well as other fluoridated countries like Australia, New Zealand and Ireland). One contributing factor to this is bottle feeding with fluoridated water and correctly the ADA now advises against it.
When a few years ago the Food and Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI) recommended to the Fluoridation Forum that women should not bottle-feed their babies using tap water (73% of the people in Ireland drink fluoridated water) it caused great consternation among the pro-fluoridation panel members. The result was a great deal of pressure behind the scenes and another FSAI committee recommendation (organized by phone!) came back with a watered down version – the second time round the FSAI merely made a positive recommendation for breast feeding, without advising against using bottle feeding with fluoridated tap water. It was widely recognized by Irish politicians, at the time, that if the FSAI had stuck to its guns it would have spelt the end of water fluoridation in Ireland. They knew that it would have been impossible to educate all the mothers in Ireland to follow these directions without a commitment to a massive education campaign. (For more info on the Irish controversy, see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/news/09.html )
So the key question now is this. Is the ADA statement a “paper tiger” warning – merely some “liability limiting” action? Or is the ADA going to commit time, effort and resources to educating the public, the media and local officials to make sure that a large majority of parents (if not ALL) get this information? Giving this information only to dentists is not sufficient.
My gut feeling is that the ADA won’t reach out to the masses of people who need to hear and heed this warning; that it will simply limit its effort to statements like this. After all, the last thing any promoter of fluoridation wants to do is to warn parents about any dangers – small or large – accruing from their “perfectly safe” practice. Better to hide the warnings in very small print.
However, for all of those who are unfortunate enough to live in a fluoridated community, please contact your village, town or city councilors and tell them about this statement and ask them how they intend to give parents this important information. Also, take the ADA’s statement with you to your local supermarket and warn the manager if they sell fluoridated bottle water aimed at kids and infants.
Please also go to our homepage <http://www.FluorideAlert.Org> for a lot more background information on this issue – currently, it is the top item. Note in particular the crucial question: how likely is it that when fluoride has caused dental fluorosis, it has caused no harm to any other tissue? I have printed this section after the ADA statements below.
Paul Connett
——————————————–
ADA E-Gram
November 9, 2006
A forum for breaking news and
timely information from the ADA
Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula
Have any of your patients ever asked what type of water should be used when mixing powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula? Information about fluoride intake for infants and young children, which includes interim guidance on reconstituted infant formula, is posted on ADA.org.
The appropriate amount of fluoride is essential to prevent tooth decay, but fluoride intake above the recommended level for a child’s age creates a risk for enamel fluorosis in teeth during their development before eruption through the gums. According to fluoride intake guidelines set by the Institute of Medicine, the amount of fluoride recommended for babies under a year old is less than that for older children and adults. Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride (which may increase their risk of enamel fluorosis) if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride.
Recent developments led the ADA to develop the interim guidance. Last spring, the National Research Council released a report on naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water. While not the major focus of the report, research was cited that raised the possibility that infants could receive a greater than optimal amount of fluoride from reconstituted baby formula. Then, on Oct. 14, the FDA said bottlers could claim that fluoridated water can reduce the risk of dental cavities or tooth decay, but that this claim could not be used on water marketed to infants.
More research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made, but, in the meantime, if parents and caregivers are concerned, the ADA’s interim guidance provides steps to simply and effectively reduce fluoride intake during a baby’s first year of life. Essentially, the ADA supports the pediatricians’ recommendations on the benefits of breastfeeding and notes that using ready-to-feed formula for bottle-fed babies will keep their fluoride intake under IOM limits. If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride.
Visit ADA.org for additional information on fluoride. If you have questions about products containing fluoride, contact John Malone (2878, malonej@ada.org). With questions about community water fluoridation, contact Jane McGinley (2862, mcginleyj@ada.org).
A fuller statement was also released by the ADA:
……………………………………………………………………………
Study Links Fluoride to Premature Births
University of New York (SUNY) researchers found more premature births in fluoridated than non-fluoridated upstate New York communities, according to a presentation made at the American Public Health Association’s annual meeting on November 9, 2009 in Philadelphia.
(Note: Today 26 Aug.2010 ABC TV [Australia]) reported nearly 20,000 premature births in Australia last year.
(1) Fluoridation is the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies ostensibly to prevent tooth decay. Many groups oppose fluoridation because of its scientifically documented health risks.
(2) Human pregnancy lasts about 40 weeks or just more than 9 months. A baby born before 37 weeks of pregnancy is considered a preterm (or premature) birth. About 12 percent of US pregnancies are preterm and this is one of the top causes of infant death in the US, according to the US National Institutes of Health.
(3) The SUNY researchers used 1993-2002 data from the NY State-wide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), which collects patient characteristics, diagnoses, treatments, services and charges for every hospital discharge, ambulatory surgery patient and emergency department admission in New York State. They recorded fluoridation residence status (under or over 1 milligram fluoride per Litre of water) and adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, neighbourhood poverty level, hypertension and diabetes. “Domestic water fluoridation was associated with an increased risk of PTB [preterm birth]. This relationship was most pronounced among women in the lowest SES [socio-economic-status] groups (>10% poverty) and those of non-white racial origin,” write Rachel Hart, et al. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, SUNY School of Public Health. Previous published research by others has shown that fluoride can interfere with the reproductive system.
(4) “It would be wise to follow the lead of the 7,000 Environmental Protection Agency scientists and public health professionals
(5) Who asked Congress to place a moratorium on fluoridation until definitive studies are conducted to prove fluoridation is safe for every human consuming it,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. “Clearly fluoridation is not safe for everyone,” says Beeber. At the request of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a National Research Council (NRC) panel of experts reviewed current fluoride toxicology. In 2006 they concluded that the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water is too high to be protective of health. At least three NRC panel members believe water fluoride levels should be as close to zero as possible. The EPA has yet to perform a fluoride risk assessment based on the NRC’s findings leaving millions of Americans at risk of fluoride’s adverse health effects. According to Dr. Bill Hirzy, Chair of American University’s Chemistry Department and former EPA scientist from 1981 to 2008, the EPA fears “setting a maximum contaminant level goal of zero because that would mean the EPA is going to be responsible for the end of the water fluoridation program. EPA knows that there will be enormous political flak for doing that.”
(6)
SOURCE: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc (NYSCOF)
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
Follow NYSCOF on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/nyscof
References:
1) 197468 Relationship between municipal water fluoridation and preterm birth in Upstate New York Rachel Hart, BA, MPH, et al. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University at Albany, State University of New York, Rensselaer, NY
http://apha.confex.com/apha/137am/webprogram/Paper197468.html
(2) Fluoride Action Network – Health Effects Database
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/sitemap.html
(3) National Institutes of Health, “Preterm Labor and Birth,”
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/Preterm_Labor_and_Birth.cfm
(4) Fluoride Action Network – HEALTH EFFECTS: Fluoride & the Reproductive System http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/repro/index.html
(5) Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation
http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm
(6) The Eagle, “Hirzy: EPA drags feet on fluoride.” by Howie Perlman, October 28, 2009
www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/hirzy-epa-drags-feet-on-flouride
……………………………………………………………………………
After the first full year of fluoridation Kansas City, Missouri’s infant mortality increased 13 percent.
‘The Kansas City Star, 21 November 1982’
After the fifth year of fluoridation in Kansas City, infant mortality increased 36 percent.
‘The Kansas City Star, 26 February 1987’
Extract from:
National Academy Calls for Lowering Fluoride Limits in Tap Water
EWG Analysis of Government Data Finds Babies Over-Exposed to Fluoride in Most Major U.S. Cities
Severity of Overexposure Tied to Fluoride Levels in Water Used to Reconstitute Formula
……………………………………………………………………………
(WASHINGTON, March 21) — A new report from the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concludes that the current allowable level of fluoride in tap water is not protective of the public health and should be lowered, citing serious concerns about bone fractures and dental fluorosis, a discoloration and weakening of the enamel of the teeth that the committee noted is associated with other adverse health impacts.
The NAS report puts concerns about the safety of fluoride in tap water squarely in the mainstream of scientific thought. The committee called on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reevaluate and tighten current safety standards in light of these concerns.
In just one example of the potential health risks from water fluoridation, the committee cited concerns about the potential of fluoride to lower IQ, noting on page six of the report that the “consistency of study results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” IQ deficits, the committee noted, have been strongly associated with dental fluorosis, a condition caused by fluoride in tap water (NAS pg 175).
The committee’s findings support Environmental Working Group’s (EWG’s) recommendation that fluoride exposure should be limited to toothpaste, where it provides the greatest dental benefit and presents the lowest overall health risk.
EWG analysis shows infants overexposed
A new EWG analysis of fluoride exposure to bottle-fed babies supports the concerns the NAS committee raised.
EWG’s analysis shows that in 25 of the 28 largest cities in the U.S., fluoride levels in tap water alone will put 8 to 36 percent of all babies up to 6 months of age over the safe dose of fluoride on any given day. “These elevated early life exposures put children at risk for precisely the health problems that the NAS committee is concerned about,” said Dr. Tim Kropp, toxicologist and senior scientist at EWG….
“Fluoridation … it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has. ” Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D. (Microbiology),
Co-Discoverer of streptomycin
……………………………………………………………………………
MYRON COPLAN, CO-AUTHOR OF TWO STUDIES THAT FOUND elevated lead levels in the blood of 280,000 children in Massachusetts and 151,000 children in New York. These studies showed “a doubling of the incidence of the danger level of lead in children’s blood when flurosilicic acid is present in the public drinking water”. (1999:Masters and Coplan) Children and pregnant women are the most susceptible to lead based health risks.
Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behaviour in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent.
Infant formula
Infant formula is high in both fluoride and aluminium, far surpassing the “optimal” dose, and has been shown to be a significant risk factor in dental fluorosis and neurological disorders-
A Melbourne scientist made assays of all Australian Baby Formula foods using – one reconstituted with fluoridated tap water,
and another with fluoride free, purified water.
The fluoridated tap water Formula Food contained 2-3 ppm fluoride.
The fluoride free water Formula Food contained 0.7 – 1.0 ppm Fluoride. This is of considerable concern as it is accepted worldwide that babies should not ingest fluoride. - Breast milk, nature’s first food, is virtually fluoride free.
……………………………………………………………………………
It has been know for a long time that
one of the consequences of iodine deficiency
in mothers is an increased risk of
mental retardation in their
children.
Studies from China indicate that even a moderate amount of fluoride
exposure can exacerbate
the affects of low
iodine’s impacts on
the developing brain.
……………………………………………………………………………
The chemical most commonly used to fluoridate America’s drinking water is associated with an increase in children’s blood lead levels. Most studies that purport fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness in preventing cavities use the chemical sodium fluoride. However, most communities inject cheaper silicofluorides (fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride) into their drinking water based on the theory that each chemical comes apart totally, so that freed fluoride can incorporate into tooth enamel.
However, the silicofluorides (SiF) do not separate completely, as sodium fluoride does, As a result, water treatment with silicofluorides apparently functions to increase the cellular uptake of lead.
In research published in the International Journal of Environmental Studies (September 1999), Masters and Coplan studied lead screening data from 280,000 Massachusetts children. They found that average blood lead levels are significantly higher in children living in communities whose water is treated with silicofluorides. Data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Evaluation Survey (NHANES III) and a survey of over 120,000 children in New York towns (population 15,000 to 75,000) corroborate this effect.
Masters and Coplan reported that some minorities are especially at risk in high SiF exposure areas, where Black and Mexican American children have significantly higher blood lead levels than they do in unfluoridated communities.
Silicofluorides are used by over 90% of U.S. fluoridated towns and cities. Ironically, children with higher blood lead levels also have more tooth decay (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 23/30, 1999 reviewed in a previous newsletter).
So water fluoridation may prove to cause tooth decay rather than prevent it. This research is just another block stacked on a giant wall of evidence that proves fluoridation is neither safe nor effective — no matter what fluoride chemical is used.
Lead poisoning can cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems, and at high levels, seizures, coma and even death, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Lead is a highly significant risk factor in predicting higher rates of crime, attention deficit disorder or hyperactivity and learning disabilities. Higher rates of violent crime and substance abuse in silicofluoridated communities were also found in research that is yet to be published.
Web sites:
http://www.fluoride-journal.com/
http://www.cadvision.com/fluoride/
http://SaveTeeth.org/
http://sonic.net/~kryptox/fluoride.htm/
http://www.bruha.com/fluoride/html/f-_in_food.htm/
CONTACT: Paul Beeber, J.D., P.O. Box 263, Old Bethpage, NY, 18804-0263, phone, 516-433-8882, fax, 516-433-8932, NYSCOF@aol.com; or Professor Roger D. Masters, Ph.D., 603-646-2153, or fax, 603-646-0508, roger.d.masters@dartmouth.edu/
“17th International Neurotoxicology Conference Children’s Health and the Environment,”
Little Rock, Arkansas, October 17-20, 1999
CHILD FLUORIDE POISONING
& POST-MORTEM EXAMINATION REPORT
Child poisoned by fluoride
My husband and I have agreed on writing this letter in the hope that it may prevent someone going through the experience we suffered in May 1973.
In July 1970 we were told by our doctor that we were going to have a baby. In my first visit to the Hospital for a check-up in October, I was told by the Matron to start taking fluoride tablets for the benefit of the baby. I did so until the 20th of February 1971 when our first child, Jason, was born.
When he was one year oild the welfare clinic told me to start giving him 1/2 of a fluoride tablet per day. I did so for 15 months. When he was 27 months old he got hold of the fluoride tablets, and at the time I didn´t know how many he had eaten, but I knew it wasn´t many.
I took him to the doctor straight away and he gave our son a stomach pump treatment. The doctor told me he could only find four tablets in his stomach. I was told to take him home and he would sleep for a while, but he would be okay when he woke up. This was at 2:00 P.M.
At 5:30 P.M. I realized that something was wrong, as I couldn´t wake him. I rang the doctor and was advised to take him back to the surgery. The doctor saw him staright away and told me to take him to the maternity hospital. As we arrived he was still unconscious and he stopped breathing. The doctor put him in a respirator immediately.
The doctor and the nurses didn´t believe that he could be so ill from taking fluoride tablets until they did some test on him. They told us it would take 200 to 500 tablets to make him so sick. There were less than 100 tablets in the bottle before he touched it.
On May 15th, five days after admission, Jason passed away. The doctor verified that his brain, due to fluoride poisoning, was completely dead.
We have now two children. They have never or will never receive fluoride tablets from us.
We are completely against fluoridation of drinking water and we hope that this letter will help stop such a thing from happening.
Mr. and Mrs. A. Burton
Birkdale, Brisbane
Queensland, Australia
FROM: Dukes M.N.G.: “Side Effects of Drugs, Annual 4″, Excerpta Medica, Oxford 1980, p. 354
Fluoride (SEDA-3, 399)
At least three fatalities have occurred due to the fact that the toxicity of fluoride is often underestimated.
One case report may be cited.
A boy aged 27 months swallowed an unknown quantity of fluoride tablets containing 0.5 mg each. As the bottle contained less than 100 tablets, the unconscious child was sent home after a gastric lavage yielding 4 (!) tablets only, with the assurance to the parents that no risk existed. Three and a half hours later respiratory failure began to develop and the child was hospitalized; he died five days later. Even at the hospital the parents were told that 200 to 500 tablets would be required to endanger the child.
5 – 10 g of fluoride are commonly considered to comprise the acute lethal dose; the child in question had received less than 50 mg, which suggests an enormous difference between the supposed and actual lethal dose, even allowing for the age of the victim. It is true that the mother had received fluoride during pregnancy and that the child had received 0.5 mg daily for 15 months before the incident occurred but one must wonder whether the chronic load could have been sufficient to lower the acute lethal dose so drastically. This overdosage risk must be added to known risks attributable to fluoride in normal doses
(i. e. gastrointestinal bleeding and atopic dermatitis) (33 c)
FROM: John Yiamouyiannis: “Fluoride the aging factor”, Health Action Press, 1983, p. 85:
(The statement was originally published in the “Melbourne Truth”, Australia, 3 Nov. 1979)
A spokesman for the Queensland Justice Department confirmed that Jason´s death was caused by fluoride poisoning. He said the death certificate was authentic. It records the cause of death as fluoride poisoning.
“Mrs. Burton (Jason´s mother) recalled the day her nightmare began:
´I was getting some carpet laid while Jason was having his afternoon sleep. After about five minutes - definitely not more than seven – I got the feeling something was the matter. Jason was sitting on the floor with a bottle of fluoride tablets. I rang the doctor and said Jason had taken some of the tablets, not many … about half a dozen.´
Mrs. Burton said the doctor told her to take Jason down to him and had then given the child a stomach pump. ´I asked the doctor if he had found any fluoride tablets and he replied that he had found four.´ …”
DENIAL:
Letter from Dental Surgeon Sydenham Dobbin, B.D.S., F.I.C.D., Yass Australia, to Prof. Schuebel, of Duesseldorf, Germany, in response to a request from Prof. Schuebel relative to the claim by Yiamouyiannis, cited above and mentioned by me in a TV discussion:
22nd November, 1985
Dear Professor Schubel,
The document you sent me for verification is false. I have spoken with the Department of Justice in Queensland, and they stated that they never made such a statement.
The Poisons Advisory Department in the Royal Children´s Hospital in Sydney, keeps a record of all people poisoned in Australia.
The Director told me when I read her the statement, that no child (or adult), had died of fluoride poisoning in Australia.
Furthermore, she said that a number of children had swallowed up to 200 fluoride tablets, and it had not affected their health at all.
I also contacted the Cancer Council of New South Wales. This Council keeps a record of all deaths from cancer in New South Wales, both from a statistical basis, and a geographical basis. The director said that despite the fact that 85% of the population of New South Wales was drinking fluoridated water, there was no increase in the incidence of cancer. Some towns have had fluoridation of the water supply for 30 years (Yass).
I am enclosing some literature which you will find interesting. It will enable you to refute the false hysterical claims of the anti fluoridationists.
Yours faithfully
(signed)
S. DOBBIN, B.D.S., F.I.C.D.
HOWEVER:
(THE ORIGINAL DEATH CERTIFICATE
IS HELD by ’BRISBANE ANTI-FLUORIDATION ASSOCIATION’
COPIES CAN BE OBTAINED FROM US)
Post-Mortem Examination (Medical certficate of the Cause of 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
No. _____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
Address:_____16 Hardwick Street______
___________Wynnum West__________
P.M. Authorised by W. R. Pullar, Coroner
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 g
R. 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 g
R. 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)____________
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
(Grams)
1175 g
R. 138 g
R. 49 g
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.
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)
Despot:
