There is a simple fact – a lie that is left unchallenged and endlessly repeated assumes the cachet of self-evident truth.
– Benjamin Netanyahu
We’re assaulted on all sides by lies and accused of being anti-science.
And by whom? Those who have set themselves up as the “ones to be trusted”? The ones who “have the science”?
There are a few examples in this newsletter of the nefarious strategies of fluoridation proponents.
But first, the good news.
Enter to Win
Tell us which is your favourite submitted artwork under Fluoride Artwork for a chance to win an organic T-Shirt (value $25.00) or a Lawn Sign (value $15.00).
Reply to this email to have your name entered in the draw to win one of two prizes. Contest ends Wednesday, June 24, 2015.
The following studies demonstrate that fluoridation chemicals damage both female and male reproduction systems. How’s that for attacking our very lives?
The damage caused by fluorosis is permanent, and has been recognized as a public health problem in a number of regions of the world. Although multiple studies provided evidence that sodium fluoride (NaF) elicits adverse effects on reproductive function, the effect of fluoride on female germ cell development is not well understood. Therefore, the present study aimed at evaluating the effect of fluoride treatments on in vivo maturation and developmental potential of mouse oocytes, in which female ICR mice were treated with a range of doses (0, 30, 60, and 150 mg/L) of NaF. After treatment, mice were superovulated to collect ovulated oocytes. The effects of NaF on oocyte quality, fertilization potential and early embryonic development were evaluated, as well as the underlying mechanisms were primarily investigated. The findings of this study showed that NaF treatment resulted in abnormal spindle configuration, actin cap formation, and cortical granule-free domain formation. Additionally, overexposure of mice to NaF notably reduced ATP production and mitochondrial membrane potential, further influencing in vitro fertilization and subsequent embryonic development. These results indicated that NaF treatment impairs the subsequent embryonic developmental potential of the oocytes.
In conclusion, overexposure to fluoride in vivo was associated with a significant disruption of cytoskeletal dynamics and decreased oocyte quality, affecting the oocyte’s subsequent fertilization and embryonic development. Results of this study provide a rationale for treating reproductive diseases such as infertility or miscarriage caused by environmental contaminants.
B. Male Fertility – (Animal Reproduction Science, 2008)
Fluoride Affects Sperm Quality at Concentrations Found in Human Blood Following Use of Topical Fluoride Gels
In 2002 and again in 2006, researchers from Poland reported that exposing ram semen to 0.38 parts per million (20 umol/L) of fluoride for 5 hours was sufficient to “cause a statistically significant decrease in the motility of spermatoza and the number of intact acrosomes.” (Zakrzewska 2002). As the authors noted, these changes would “undoubtedly affect the physiological function of the sperm.” Prior to the Polish team’s findings, researchers from Texas found that infusing testis with higher, but still relatively modest, levels of fluoride (4.75 ppm) “unequivocally” inhibited the synthesis of testosterone. (Chubb 1985) Read More.
The Polish team’s findings are of particular importance when considering that from the 1960s to the 1990s, the use of high-concentration topical fluoride gels produced blood concentrations in boys and men that far exceeded 0.38 ppm. In tests on both children and adults, the use of topical fluoride gels at the dental office has been found to produce blood fluoride concentrations as high as 1.2 ppm, or four times higher than the concentration found to damage sperm. (Ekstrand 1980, 1981). Further, the blood fluoride concentrations have been found to exceede 0.38 ppm for up to six hours after treatment (longer than the length of time that the Polish researchers exposed the semen). Although most dentists now use precautionary procedures (e.g., suction devices) to reduce blood fluoride concentrations following application of fluoride gels, available data shows that children will still routinely ingest enough fluoride from topical gels to reach blood fluoride concentrations exceeding 0.38 ppm….
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:
Fluorosis has become an endemic problem worldwide. Fluoride has its effect on various organs, including the reproductive system, although there are controversial reports over it. Thus, the present study was designed to study the effect of sodium fluoride (NaF) exposure for different durations….
The present study demonstrates that fluoride hampers the reproductive functions of male rabbits and is proportional to the duration of fluoride exposure.
If you dare raise any concerns about this, you’re “anti-science.” Public health officials are being encouraged to do a better job of countering the “social-media fuelled movement that some have termed ‘science under siege.’”
By: Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Ontario 08-Jun-2015 –
Public health officials from across Ontario need to do a better job engaging with the public to counter the social-media fuelled movement that some have termed “science under siege”, a public health conference heard Monday.
With growing numbers of responsibilities on their plates — from inspecting restaurants and tattoo parlours to infant health and immunization — public health officials say demands for their services, and expectations, are growing, despite a chronic shortage of funding.
But the annual conference of the Association of Local Public Health Agencies was told that public health officials must play a key role in countering anti-science backlash when it comes to issues such as immunization and fluoridation of water.
“We just need to be smarter. If we don’t occupy the space in the social media, other people will,” said Dr. Peter Donnelly, president and chief executive of Public Health Ontario….
STATEMENT BY ERIN BROCKOVICH
After a great deal of research and personal thought, I am opposed to the continued policy and practice of drinking water fluoridation; I believe this harmful practice must be ended immediately. Public drinking water is a basic human right; and its systematic use as a dispensary of a substance for medical purposes is deplorable.
Shocking revelations are surfacing in the growing scandal; real harm from fluoride affects people of all races and ages, but one of the especially shocking aspects of the scandal is how dental and government officials responded when The Lillie Center for Energy & Health Studies publicized the science showing disproportionate fluoride harm to the African American community. Minority community and civil rights leaders have been speaking out, including Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece Alveda King. Ms. King recently posted on my Facebook page that I should keep shining the light on Fluoridegate. Ms. King also called for public hearings, and I agree: it’s time for meaningful public hearings. There are numerous documents and aspects to this scandal that investigative bodies and investigative journalists will want to examine.
Now is the time for professional and consumer advocacy groups that have blindly lent their name to support drinking water fluoridation to rescind that permission. How many of them actually conducted their own reviews before allowing their name to be used? And now is the time to ask the hard questions about the nature of the relationship between trade groups, our surgeon generals, and other government officials concerning drinking water fluoridation.
As a mother and grandmother, I am concerned about families in fluoridated communities using fluoridated drinking water from their tap to mix infant milk formula. I am concerned that the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences has designated kidney patients, children, diabetics and seniors as “susceptible subpopulations” that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides. How can we in good conscience give susceptible persons an uncontrolled amount of fluorides in water? I also strongly support Drinking water utility professionals, many I know many deplore and feel guilty about the idea of dispensing medication through drinking water and working with the dangerous fluoridation chemicals.
Drinking water fluoridation takes away people’s freedom to choose what they take into their bodies. Low income families may not have the financial means to avoid over dosing with their drinking water.
I call for four avenues of action:
1. An immediate repeal of all laws that require or enable fluoridation.
2. Holding of Fluoridegate hearings at both national and state levels.
3. For professional associations and advocacy groups to rescind allowing their names to be used to support drinking water fluoridation.
4. For key research to immediately begin on how to safely remove fluorides that have accumulated in people’s bones and pineal glands.
My career has been about making people aware of harmful exposures and the deception that often accompanies those exposures. Drinking water fluoridation is harmful, we’ve been deceived to believe it is safe, and with new found knowledge we must all act now to stop it.
Water fluoridation for Fairview to go to plebiscite – May 27, 2015
Town of Fairview council listened carefully to two presentations about fluoridation at their May 19 meeting and decided not to proceed with a bylaw repealing the bylaw authorizing the addition of fluoride to water – for now.
Instead, the town will take the question to plebiscite in the fall, when most people have returned from summer vacation….
Councillor Schindel said the plebiscite would add more longevity to the decision and when Councillor Buck moved council refer the decision to plebiscite it was approved unanimously.
Council also approved the suggestion that water co-op customers be given the opportunity to vote in the plebiscite.
This report comes from the FAN Newsletter, June 3, 2015.
Thank you to the writers of this letter submitted to the Fluoride Action Network. It describes a lack of integrity demonstrated by the local Boards of Health in the Massachusetts communities of Gloucester and Rockport on idyllic Cape Ann. The two communities share an island and a newspaper. Island activists banded together about a year ago in an attempt to remove fluoridation from the two water supplies and several formed the Cape Ann Fluoride Action Network. The local Boards of Health (BOH) also established a relationship with each other, local dentists and national promoters of fluoridation to fight those efforts. Gloucester has been fluoridated since 1981 and Rockport since 1982. The days of being fooled by so-called experts are numbered. — Paul & Ellen Connett
To people of integrity:
On April 30th, three days after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USHHS) lowered the upper limit of the recommended fluoride level from 1.2 ppm to 0.7 ppm in fluoridated communities, the first change in over 50 years, the Rockport BOH held what they euphemistically called a ‘forum to discuss the myths, misinformation and meaningful use of fluoride.’ The school nurse sent an email to parents inviting them to attend in order to learn the ‘benefits of fluoridation.’ According to the forum rules, only the panelists selected by the BOH would be allowed to speak. All the panelists were supporters of fluoridation and included two proponents from off the island. Attendees were encouraged to write questions on index cards to submit to the panel, but those questions were neither read nor answered. Instead, the moderator simply asked the panelists to address a category that was mentioned on several of the cards in the last few minutes of the allotted time.
Aptly named, the event was indeed full of myths and misinformation. It also featured verbal sleights of hand as well as war stories. Dentist Myron Allukian, an avid fluoridationist, spoke the longest. He described volunteering his dental services in war torn Vietnamese orphanages during the 1960s. He and other panelists also told vivid stories of the pus-filled gums of children living in poor communities in the U.S. “who didn’t even own a toothbrush” and of the pain of toothaches. Another vivid image was of pre-WWII dental health conditions. The panelists promised the attendees, literally promised them, that those days of pain, suffering and toothlessness would be revisited on Rockport if they stopped fluoridation. Talk about fear mongering.
Records from a Rockport schools dental program begun in 1925 paint a different picture. In 1933, 40% of the children in grades 1 thorough 6 had perfect permanent teeth, despite concerns about lack of milk for these Depression era children. Moreover, in 1934 the Rockport dental hygienist noted a dramatic drop in extractions and general improvement in dental health over a period of several years that was attributed to passing out toothbrushes, instruction on tooth brushing and annual cleanings. More modern studies of children living in communities that stopped fluoridation prove that the level of decay continues to drop after cessation, consistent with world-wide declining decay rates in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions also attributed to better oral hygiene, regular dental visits, and improved diet. None of this more relevant or modern dental detail was mentioned by panelists.
However, at one point in the midst of a number of intensive monologues, one of the panelists mentioned in passing that the “optimal” fluoridation standard had recently been changed to 0.7 ppm. He did not explain that this meant a 30% reduction in fluoridation for Rockport, but rather quickly emphasized the higher EPA contaminant levels as guarantees of safety. Predictably, the panelist also failed to mention that in 2006 the report by the National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC) on the toxicology of fluoride found those same “safe” EPA levels to be decidedly unsafe, but that is another story.
Indeed at no time before Rockport’s non-binding referendum on May 5th, did the BOH truly inform the town of the USHHS’ April 27th announcement or the April 28th Massachusetts Department of Public Health bulletin to municipal Boards of Health that advised towns to reduce their fluoridation level ostensibly for the purpose of reducing dental fluorosis which disproportionately affects non-white and low-income populations and results in more brittle teeth. Or if they did, like during the forum, it was artfully obscured.
Instead, the local paper ran a full-page advertisement several times in the week leading up to the election. Paid for by dentists, this ad declared in all caps that those opposing fluoridation are “ANTI-PUBLIC HEALTH FEAR MONGERS” making “bogus attacks.”
The panelists put on an excellent performance, getting laughs for their disparaging jokes about the naivety of those opposing fluoridation, derisively dismissing peer-reviewed studies documenting adverse effects, and expressing barely contained rage at opponents ‘who want to harm our poor children who can’t vote for themselves.’ Pep Rally or Kangaroo Court are more apt descriptions than panel or forum for this event.
As a matter of fact, the fluoridationists did try to get the opponents arrested. Members of the Cape Ann Fluoride Action Network (CAFAN) were handing out information opposing fluoridation at the door. Someone called the police to say the group was barring access. No one was barred access, no one was arrested, and there were a hundred residents in attendance.
Myths and misinformation, indeed. Also, manipulation and censorship.
One letter from a Gloucester resident opposing fluoridation submitted almost three weeks earlier was published the day after the election with substantial edits. Another, from Dr. Hardy Limeback, a panelist on the 2006 NRC report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, was published online only while letters supporting fluoridation filled the papers the week before the election, along with a pro-fluoride editorial. Those pro-fluoride letters, largely from the dental community, contained outrageous statements allowed to stand as fact, such as an anecdote from a member of the Rockport BOH about a neighbor’s child she had seen decades earlier who had small pegs of chalky flaking teeth. Without any medical or dental examination, the Rockport doctor attributed that condition as due to lack of dietary fluoride and blamed the mother for not providing her child with fluoridated water in what we can only describe as the epitome of scare-mongering.
We are hard pressed to choose the most egregious demonstration of lack of scientific or personal integrity during what should have been a civil community dialogue. However, we have to say the deft suppression of the national news concerning the lowering the upper level of fluoridation by 40% prior to the election can’t be explained away as ignorance of the facts or arrogance. This was a dereliction of duty for the purpose of influencing an election. With approximately one third of the registered voters casting a ballot, Rockport voted 3:2 to keep fluoridation. Well done, Rockport BOH and Cape Ann dentists – your myths, misinformation and machinations won you the election.
Karen Spencer, Gloucester MA
Zenas Seppala, Rockport MA
Rose Ciulla, Gloucester MA
Terry Collins, Rockport MA
I have no news about fluoridation in Lethbridge but there is growing concern about the “smart meters” being installed in city homes.
A concerned citizen sent me this flyer about smart meters. Everyone needs to educate themselves regarding the potential public health risk, safety hazard, as well as privacy concerns related to these so called “smart meters.”
Here’s the City’s information: Electric Meter Replacement – Frequently Asked Questions.
You’re encouraged to “contact Burns Hill at the City of Lethbridge at 403 320 4886 or firstname.lastname@example.org and he will be pleased to answer your inquiry.”
You may not see much happening here in Lethbridge concerning the battle to end fluoridation, but there are rumblings of discontent about being “medicated” without our consent.
Write City Council; easy to do by clicking on the link under Write City Council.
Speak out with your Lawn signs. Call Sean at 403-329-9157 to get yours.
Wear your FFL T-shirts – 100% organic cotton (not supporting GMOs or Monsanto).
Like Fluoride Free Lethbridge on Facebook and keep abreast of the latest news.
Follow us on Twitter: Fluoride Free YQL.
Visit our site: Fluoride Free Lethbridge – a new look and easy to use format.
The truth will prevail! Remember the Alamo with a healthy pineal!