DR TOM COWAN, WHO CO WROTE THE BOOK "THE CONTAGION MYTH" WITH SALLY FALLON, IS POSTING SOME OF THE BEST HEALTH INFORMATION AND RESEARCH TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET.
HIS WEBSITE IS HERE: HTTPS://DRTOMCOWAN.COM
AND HIS ODYSEE CHANNEL IS HERE: HTTPS://ODYSEE.COM/@DR.TOMCOWAN:8
It's great to see Dr Sam getting some exposure in a mainstream Aussie paper:
https://canberradaily.com.au/how-to-create-a-pandemic/
Cancer and toxicity go together. The role of tumors is to store or sequester the toxins to a small circumscribed area to keep the poisons confined and prevent them from spreading. We know that tumors are highly toxic because when conventional cancer therapies break up a tumor very quickly and suddenly release cellular components into the bloodstream (a situation referred to as tumor lysis syndrome),1 this disturbance releases so much toxicity (or poison) that the person may die.
Researchers noted over twenty-five years ago that breast tissue stores toxic chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). They observed elevated levels of PCBs and other chemical residues “in fat samples from women with cancer, compared with [women] who had benign breast disease.”2 Investigators concluded that “environmentally derived suspect carcinogens” likely play a role in the “genesis of mammary carcinoma.”2 Looking at the issue of cancer and toxicity from another perspective, an independent researcher examined root canals and oral infections in nearly four thousand women who had lung or breast cancer and found that in 100 percent of the cases—without a single exception—the oral health problems were on the same side of the mouth and body as the cancers.3
We have known for even longer—nearly a century—that populations exposed to toxic substances have higher cancer and tumor rates. This is especially the case for people living or working near, downwind or down river from chemical factories, oil refineries, toxic waste dumps and other entities that spew poisons. The observation is inescapable—people exposed to toxins get cancer.
One of the best books ever written on this subject is The Secret History of the War on Cancer by Devra Davis.4 Dr. Davis wrote that in the 1930s, researchers in countries around the world (including Argentina, Austria, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Scotland, and the U.S.) all came to the same conclusion: “Where people lived affected getting cancer.”4
Like these 1930s researchers, European doctors have understood the role of toxicity in causing cancer for a long time. Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, popularizer of the Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS) dietary protocol, went to medical school in Russia and says, “In Russia and Europe, it was always known that toxicity caused cancer; there was no question about it” (personal communication, May 2017). On the other hand, if you ask an American oncologist “Why did I get cancer?,” the oncologist will look at you like a deer in the headlights and mumble something about genetic mutations.
TUMORS COME AND GO
In most cases, tumors have a limited life span. In fact, tumors come and go throughout our lives. You may have many tumors today and none tomorrow— if your body is working as it should—because you have a natural ability to remove toxins. With effective detoxification, the tumors are no longer necessary, and your body can dissolve, neutralize and eliminate them. “Spontaneous remission” is the medical term that describes the body’s ability to dissolve and excrete tumors, even life-threatening ones. The tumors just disappear. Spontaneous remission is a well-documented phenomenon in the biomedical literature.5,6
Pathologists find far more tumors and cancers in autopsies (such as in victims of auto and other accidents) than doctors diagnose in living patients in their offices. A 1993 report noted that whereas 1 percent of living women between ages forty and fifty have “clinically apparent breast cancer,” almost two-fifths (39 percent) of autopsied women in the same age group show evidence of breast cancer.7
CHEMOTHERAPY HAS IT BACKWARD
Sadly, there is no guarantee of experiencing spontaneous remission. In the modern era, it is easy to become overly toxic from repeated exposure to internal toxins (endotoxins) and external toxins (exotoxins). When we cannot detoxify quickly enough, then tumors, although necessary, can grow out of control.
Josef Issels, MD, who recognized that tumors are “a late-stage symptom of a generalized illness affecting the whole body,” developed one of the most successful approaches to address cancer.8 He wrote that “a tumor can only develop in a diseased organism” and that “the tumor is a symptom of that illness.”8 Operating on the premise that “optimal” cancer treatments need to have a “causal” focus, Dr. Issels was able to restore many late-stage terminal cancer patients to good health.
The prevailing treatment model of the “War on Cancer”—kill the tumor—is completely backward. Attacking a tumor actually may cause a kickback effect wherein the body struggles harder to keep the tumor functioning. The body wants the tumors. Tumors are the answer, not the problem.
In this context, it should come as no surprise that studies have found that chemotherapy can make tumors more aggressive. In 2012, for example, news headlines announced the “shocking” and “completely unexpected” finding that chemotherapy can “backfire” and make cancer worse.9 Reporting on a prostate cancer study published in Nature Medicine about “treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment,” 10 the news summary noted that “healthy cells damaged by chemotherapy secreted more of a protein called WNT16B, which boosts cancer cell survival.”9
A more recent report (July 2017) in Science Translational Medicine on breast cancer came to much the same conclusion, stating that chemotherapy promotes circulation of tumor cells in the bloodstream.11 In the researchers’ words
“chemotherapy, despite decreasing tumor size, increases the risk of metastatic dissemination.”11
It should be readily apparent that the answer to a toxic condition is not more toxicity. Chemotherapy is highly toxic. That is why courageous investigators have been sounding the alarm about chemotherapy for many years. A comprehensive review in 1992 of chemotherapy clinical trials and publications described the success rate of chemotherapy as “appalling,” with strong evidence pointing to “the absence of a positive effect.”12 In 2004, another major study reviewed fifteen years of chemotherapy treatments for the most common cancers causing the most deaths; the contribution of chemotherapy to five-year survival was minimal (about 2 percent).13
In 2015, researchers reporting on patients with end-stage cancer in JAMA Oncology concluded that “not only did chemotherapy not benefit patients…it appeared most harmful to those patients with good performance status.”14 The authors cautiously suggested that chemotherapy use in patients with terminal cancer “may need to be revised.”14 They also noted that an American Society of Clinical Oncology expert panel “identified chemotherapy use among patients for whom there was no evidence of clinical value as the most widespread, wasteful, and unnecessary practice in oncology.”14
COMPLETE HEALING
For complete healing, we must address cancer’s causes. What a person diagnosed with cancer needs most is a health-promoting lifestyle that reduces toxicity, provides nourishment and minimizes stress. The goal of health care practitioners who want to support full recovery should be to locate the causes of the toxicity (both internal and external) and work with the patient to enhance detoxification, cleansing and purification.
There is a reason why we find evidence of detoxification practices such as hot baths, saunas, fasting, cleanses, herbs and many other practices in every culture throughout humanity’s history. If ancient Greeks and Romans and native peoples from all over the world could understand the need for detoxification—long before the advent of the twentieth-century chemical industry—shouldn’t modern-day Americans recognize its importance as well? As a culture, we are far more toxic than any other civilization, and we have the diseases to show for it.
In 2003, I developed a system of working with body biofeedback that I now call the Koren Specific Technique (KST).15 KST practitioners locate and release hidden areas of toxicity and stress that other health care professionals often miss. Practitioners can use KST with anyone, no matter their age or health challenges.
Nine years ago, when doctors diagnosed a close family member with life-threatening brain tumors, I used KST along with the detoxification and support principles mentioned above—and the tumors disappeared.
The most important thing to remember is that cancer is a disease of toxicity. The best way to achieve a true cure, therefore, is to address this underlying cause. Recognizing that a tumor is an ally, not an enemy, makes it possible to work to promote its function so it will no longer be needed.
DIETARY PRINCIPLES FOR CANCER PATIENTS
A diagnosis of cancer often serves as a wake-up call to make profound dietary changes. Obviously, the first step is toeat nothing but clean food, including pasture-fed animal products, and to avoid all processed foods containing refined sweeteners and industrial seed oils. The following foods support detoxification while nourishing the body:
COD LIVER OIL: Unprocessed cod liver oil provides vitamins A and D in a range of forms. Vitamin A is the vitamin for
detoxification and the first requirement for cancer patients. Vitamin D supports the immune system and works synergistically with vitamin A.
RAW WHOLE MILK: Raw milk is our best source of glutathione, the body’s master detoxification compound. Plus, raw milk provides complete nourishment in a form that is easily digested.
GELATIN-RICH BONE BROTH: Glycine in bone broth supports the liver in detoxification.
POULTRY LIVER: Liver from chicken, ducks and geese is an excellent source of vitamin K, which provides strong protection against cancer. It works synergistically with vitamins A and D in cod liver oil. Plus, liver is a powerhouse of many other important nutrients.
BUTTER: Butter is the queen of fats and provides many compounds, specifically CLA, that help protect against cancer. Be sure to use butter from grass-fed cows.
LACTO-FERMENTED FOODS: Fermented foods provide vitamin C and good bacteria for healthy gut flora.
REFERENCES
1. Hochberg J, Cairo MS. Tumor lysis syndrome: current perspective. Haematologica 2008;93:9-13.
2. Falck F Jr, Ricci A Jr, Wolff MS, Godbold J, Deckers P. Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyl residues in human breast lipids and their relation to breast cancer. Arch Environ Health 1992;47(2):143-146.
3. Hughes F, with contributions from Dowling R. Am I Dead? Or Do I Just Feel Like It? Cancer Cured…the Coming Storm. Live Oak, FL: Hobbies for Health, 2007.
4. Davis D. The Secret History of the War on Cancer. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2007.
5. Potts DA, Fromm JR, Gopal AK, Cassaday RD. Spontaneous remission of an untreated, MYC and BCL2 coexpressing, high-grade B-cell lymphoma: a case report and literature review. Case Rep Hematol 2017; 2017: 2676254.
6. Ahmadi Moghaddam P, Cornejo KM, Hutchinson L, et al. Complete spontaneous regression of Merkel cell carcinoma after biopsy: a case report and review of the literature. Am J Dermatopathol 2016;38(11): e154-e158.
7. Black WC, Welch HG. Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy. N Engl J Med 1993;328: 1237-1243.
8. Issels J. Cancer: a Second Opinion, the Classic Book on Integrative Cancer Treatment. Garden City Park, NY: Square One Publishers, 2005.
9. AFP Relax News. Shock study: chemotherapy can backfire, make cancer worse by triggering tumor growth. Daily News, August 6, 2012. http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/shock-study-chemotherapy-backfire-cancer-worse-triggeringtumor-growth-article-1.1129897.
10. Sun Y, Campisi J, Higano C, et al. Treatment-induced damage to the tumor microenvironment promotes prostate cancer therapy resistance through WNT16B. Nat Med 2012;18(9):1359-1368.
11. Karagiannis GS, Pastoriza JM, Wang Y, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy induces breast cancer metastasis through a TMEM-mediated mechanism. Sci Transl Med 2017;9(397): eaan0026.
12. Abel U. Chemotherapy of advanced epithelial cancer—a critical review. Biomed Pharmacother 1992;46(10): 439-452.
13. Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clin Oncol 2004;16(8): 549-560.
14. Prigerson HG, Bao Y, Shah MA, et al. Chemotherapy use, performance status, and quality of life at the end of life. JAMA Oncol 2015;1(6): 778-784.
15. Koren Specific Technique. http://korenspecifictechnique.com/kst.asp.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Fall 2017.
About Tedd Koren
Tedd Koren, DC, is a chiropractic practitioner who writes, lectures and teaches in the US, Europe and Australia. Dr. Koren developed the Koren Specific Technique and trains other practitioners in its use (korenspecifictechnique.com). This article was adapted from a blog post published at teddkoren.com.
Today is the last day of July, fluoride awareness month - we have compiled all 31 of our daily posts for the month here:
https://wapfwellington.blogspot.com/.../fluoride-aware...
·
☠️ Fluoride: A Toxic Waste Product ☠️
Hydrofluorosilcic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Why are we allowing this hazardous waste in our drinking water? It's time to demand an end to this abomination.
📢 Get Involved: Follow our Facebook pages:
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100064287175469
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61561786023353
https://fluoridefree.org.nz/who-would-have-believed.../...
Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth,” it is about industry getting rid of its hazardous waste at a profit, instead of having to pay a fortune to dispose of it.
If not dumped in the public water supplies, these silicofluorides would have to be neutralized at the highest rated hazardous waste facility at a cost of $1.40 per gallon (or more depending on how much cadmium, lead, uranium and arsenic are also present). Cities buy these unrefined pollutants and dump them–lead, arsenic and all–into our water systems. Silicofluorides are almost as toxic as arsenic, and more toxic than lead.1, 2
The EPA has recently said it is vitally important that we lower the level of both lead and arsenic in our water supplies, and their official goal is zero parts per million. This being the case, why would anyone recommend adding silicofluorides, which contain both of these heavy metals?3
On July 2, 1997, EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, PhD, stated, “Our members’ review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiology studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children.”4
The largest study of tooth decay in America (by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1987) proved that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in 84 cities. The media has never disclosed these facts. The study cost us, the taxpayers, $3,670,000. Surely, we are entitled to hear the results.5
Newburgh and Kingston, both in the state of New York, were two of the original fluoridation test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston.5
The recent California fluoridation study, sponsored by the Dental Health Foundation, showed that California has only about one quarter as much water fluoridation as the nation as a whole, yet 15-year-old California children have less tooth decay than the national average.6
From the day the Public Health Service completed their original 10-year Newburgh and Kingston fluoridation experiment, fluoride promoters have repeatedly claimed that fluoride added to drinking water can reduce tooth decay by as much as 60 to 70 percent.
Adding fluoride to the water has never prevented tooth decay, it merely delays it, by provoking a genetic malfunction that causes teeth to erupt later than normal. This delay makes it possible to read the statistics incorrectly without lying. Proponents count teeth that have not yet erupted as “no decay.” Therefore, they claimed that the fluoridated Newburgh children age 6 had 100 percent less tooth decay; by age 7, 100 percent less; by age 8, 67 percent less; age 9, 50 percent less; and by age 10, 40 percent less.
Obviously, the only reduction that really counted was the 40 percent by age 10, but the Public Health Service totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70 percent.”
Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30, 20, 0, and eventually the children drinking fluoridated water had more cavities–not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. In other words, this “65 percent less dental decay” is just a statistical illusion. It never happened!7
EPA scientists recently concluded, after studying all the evidence, that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylatically useless. . . substance.” They felt there should be “an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.” Unfortunately, the management of the EPA sides not with their own scientists, but with industry on this issue.8
There is less tooth decay in the nation as a whole today than there used to be, but decay rates have also dropped in the non-fluoridated areas of the United States and in Europe where fluoridation of water is rare. The Pasteur Institute and the Nobel Institute have already caused fluoride to be banned in their countries (France and Sweden). In fact, most developed countries have banned, stopped or rejected fluoridation.9
Several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher rather than lower rates of caries. There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be “simply not warranted by available evidence.”10In fact, dentists make 17 percent more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.11 There are no savings.
Meanwhile, the incidence of dental fluorosis has skyrocketed. It is not just a “cosmetic effect.” Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary says: “Fluorosis is poisoning by fluorides.” Today, in North America, there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15 percent to 65 percent in fluoridated areas and 5 percent to 40 percent in non-fluoridated areas.12 African-American children experience twice the rate of dental fluorosis as white children and it tends to be more severe.13 The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities) is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population.
A 1995 American Dental Association (ADA) chart shows that a certain fluoride drug should not be given to children under six months of age. It also shows that if fluoride is put into water, all children under six years of age will be getting an overdose.14
The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug, not a mineral nutrient. Who has the right to put a prescription drug in the water supply where there can be no control of dosage? People who drink a lot of water, like diabetics and athletes, will be overdosed, and studies have proven that 1 percent of the people are allergic to fluoridated water. Today, an unusual number of children in non-fluoridated areas are developing dental fluorosis!
Even if fluoride were good for teeth, shouldn’t the water be as safe as possible for everyone? Why should those who are against it be forced to drink it? What has happened to “Freedom of Choice?” We all know that fluoride is not “just one of forty chemicals used to treat water,” it is the only chemical added to treat the people! It is compulsory medication, which is unconstitutional. There are other alternatives that do not infringe on the rights of all consumers to choose their own form of medication.16
When the people have been given a chance to vote on this issue, more often than not, they have voted “no.” In the majority of cases, nationwide, it is the local city council that has forced it on the people. Fluoride promoters find it much easier to convince a few city council members than the general public. Here in America, we shouldn’t have to fight to keep a hazardous waste out of our water supply!
Bottom line: There are no benefits to fluoridation. We actually pay the phosphate fertilizer industries for their crude hazardous waste. Fluoridation contributes to many health problems and hither dental bills, and causes more (not less) suffering. Only big business wins with fluoridation–not our children (or us).
On Nov. 24, 1992, Robert Carton, PhD, a former EPA scientist, made this statement: Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time. Impossible? No, it’s not–look at how many years millions of people were fooled by the tobacco industries!
George Glasser, Journalist, St. Petersburg, FL, “Fluoridation: A Mandate to Dump Toxic Waste in the Name of Public Health,” July 22, 1991.
R.E. Gosselin et al, Clinical Toxicology of commercial Products, 5th ed., 1984. U.S. EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) EPA/NSF Standard 60.
San Diego Union Tribune, May 25, 2000, “EPA proposes stricter rules for arsenic levels in water supplies,” and Associated Press, Jan. 17, 2001, “EPA Orders Sharp Reduction in Arsenic Levels in Drinking Water,” by H. Josef Hebert.
Letter of July 2, 1997, from J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. to Jeff Green. The union (now NTEU, Chapter 280) consists of and represents all of the toxicologists, chemists, biologists and other professionals at EPA headquarters, Washington, D.C.
“New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits,” by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News,Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989. “Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children,” Jayanth V. Kumar, D.D.S., M.P.H.; Elmer L. Green, D.D.S., M.P.H., Pediatric Dentistry, Feb. 1998.
San Diego Union Tribune, Sept. 1, 1999.
Konstatin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, “Fluoridation Benefits–Statistical Illusion,” testimony before the New York City Board of Estimate, Mar. 6, 1957.
J. William Hirzy, EPA Union Vice-President, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation,” May 1, 1999.
Mark Diesendorf, “The mystery of declining tooth decay,” Nature, July 10, 1986, pp. 125-29.
“The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation,” John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995.
The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972.
K.E. Heller, et al, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 57: No. 3 Summer 1997.
National Research Council, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” 1993, p. 44.
Pediatrics, May 1998, Vol. 95, Number 5.
Food and Drug Administration letter dated Aug. 15, 1963.
Abbot Laboratories, Scientific Divisions, North Chicago, IL, June 18, 1963.
https://www.westonaprice.org/.../fluoridation-the.../...
1. Promoters say fluoride works on the outside of the teeth but then say everyone must have it in their drinking water.
2. Even though fluoridation chemicals are added to the water supply for a claimed therapeutic purpose, they are exempt from the Medicines Act. Fluoride pills, fluoride toothpaste and fluoride mouthwashes are not exempt.
3.Fluoridation chemicals are too toxic to be allowed to be released into the air so are captured in the smokestacks of the phosphate fertiliser industry. This highly toxic substance cannot be disposed of in streams, rivers or the sea but can be added to the public water supply with the claim that it reduces dental decay, so ultimately ends up in streams, rivers and the sea anyway (except what is retained in people’s bones and soft tissue).
4.All medications have an established safe dosage (i.e. mg per kilo per day) and are prescribed accordingly. But this isn't the case for the highly toxic fluoridation chemicals. Dose varies depending on how much water someone drinks regardless of age, weight, health status, dental health or even if they have teeth.
5.Fluoridation forces bottle fed babies to consume 200 times more than they would have received through breast milk because the mother's body screens out just about all fluoride. It is logical to assume that there must be a good reason for this.
6. A tube of fluoride toothpaste comes with a warning not to swallow, yet the fluoridation chemicals are added to water for everyone to consume.
7.Fluoride is added to water under the guise of reducing dental decay in some children yet everyone is forced to consume it with the claim that it may help someone else’s teeth.
8. Fluoridation allows the Government to do to everyone what a doctor cannot do to an individual patient – prescribe medication without informed consent.
9. We are told the dose is too small to cause harm to anyone but large enough to be of benefit to everyone.
Fluoride is lowering the IQ of all New Zealanders - that is the real reason it is being added to the water supply.
In May 2023, the U.S. Government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a 6 year scientific review of fluoride and IQ. The Review contained a monograph and a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found lower IQ with fluoride exposure, demonstrating remarkable consistency. Of the 19 studies rated higher quality, 18 found lowering of IQ.
The NTP authors said: “We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant women in the United States” and that “Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas…many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.”
In New Zealand water is fluoridated at a higher level than in the U.S. and Canada. The maximum for fluoridation in those countries is 0.7 ppm (i.e. 0.7 mg/L). The New Zealand Ministry of Health recommends that water be fluoridated in a range between 0.7 and 1ppm. Most councils aim for the median of 0.85ppm but testing results from councils around the country has found that many of them are often fluoridating above 0.85ppm. This is a significant increase compared with the North American countries and therefore we can expect that the loss of IQ in New Zealand children is likely to be worse.
The evidence is growing stronger. Even since the NTP review was originally completed, there have been more U.S. Government funded studies published which have found harm to the developing brain.
The NTP goes on to say “Research on other neurotoxicants has shown that subtle shifts in IQ at the population level can have a profound impact on the number of people who fall within the high and low ranges of the population’s IQ distribution. For example a 5-point decrease in a population’s IQ would nearly double the number of people classified as intellectually disabled.
This means that every year in New Zealand thousands of babies have their brain development impaired directly as a result of fluoridation
Fluoride added to water makes circus animals calm and prisoners docile. Now we know the reason. A search for “fluoride” and “testosterone” turns up dozens of studies showing adverse effects, such as “Effects of sodium fluoride and sulfur dioxide on sperm motility and serum testosterone in male rats,” “Sodium fluoride disrupts testosterone biosynthesis by affecting the steroidogenic pathway in TM3 Leydig cells” and “Fluoride toxicity in the male reproductive system.”
It’s mostly Chinese researchers who are looking at this problem. A group from Shanxi, China, led by Jiahai Zhang investigated what happened to rats when given sodium fluoride in their drinking water (and also exposed to sulfur dioxide in the air) for eight consecutive weeks. Exposure to fluoride with sulfur dioxide but also to fluoride alone adversely affected testis tissue and serum testosterone levels in rats.
Addition of fluoride—a toxic waste—to drinking water should be banned worldwide, but of course there is resistance, because then the industries producing it (such as the fertilizer industry) would have to engage in the expensive process of cleaning it up.
In 2014 the Chief Science Advisor and the NZ Royal Society produced a Report on fluoridation. The conclusion on fluoride and IQ contains a blatant lie.
The Report claims the loss of 7 IQ points (described as “less than one standard deviation”) found in a 2012 Harvard review of human fluoride-IQ studies “is likely to be a measurement or statistical artefact of no functional significance.” This conclusion is a blatant lie. If the truthful conclusion had been reported, it would have said “is likely to be a measurement OF functional significance”, the whole trajectory of fluoridation in New Zealand would have been entirely different.
Everyone in New Zealand should be aware of this deception.
Watch video at 11 minutes in to see visual presentation of this lie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5WwNKP0WRI&t=655s
https://fluoridefree.org.nz/fluoridation-in-new-zealand.../
The Latest Science Indicates That the Practice Must Stop
Water fluoridation is the deliberate addition of a substance containing, or yielding, fluoride (that is, in the form of the free fluoride ion) to the public water supply with the ostensible aim of reducing tooth decay. The concentrations of fluoride used for this purpose in the U.S. range from 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water (0.7-1.2 parts per million or ppm). When the practice began in the U.S. and Canada in 1945 there were no published studies available which demonstrated that consuming fluoride at these levels was safe.
Without any formal study, it was assumed that because some people in some places had consumed natural fluoride levels higher than 1 ppm for many years, with no “apparent” harm recorded, adding fluoride to water would be safe.
The authors both work for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN),1 a nonprofit dedicated to education and sharing information on the toxicity of fluoride. FAN maintains the largest database dedicated to fluoride’s toxicity on blood,2 bone,3 brain,4 heart,5 kidney,6 liver,7 lung,8 the reproductive system,9 and the thyroid gland;10 as well as the largest collection of news articles on fluoride11 that are accessible by country, by state for the U.S. and by province for Canada. The website also contains links to many videotaped interviews,12 government reports by country,13 fluoride industrial emissions by state14 and more.
NEITHER ETHICAL NOR SCIENTIFIC
It was neither ethical nor scientific to force people to consume fluoride in 1945, and it is not ethical or scientific to do it today. The arguments get stronger as U.S. authorities are finally getting around to doing the studies on tissues that they should have conducted many years ago—and should have done before they started what has amounted to one of the largest public health experiments in U.S. history.
PROTECTING A BELIEF SYSTEM
The dilemma for those who believe that this practice is causing harm is how to end it when most people don’t even know their water is being fluoridated and don’t know the potential risks it may be posing to their children. Sadly, most doctors and dentists simply follow the policies of their professional bodies without reading the literature for themselves. The media are not telling the public about the latest health studies and are simply parroting statements from organizations like the American Dental Association (ADA) and agencies like the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which hold a long standing “belief” in the “safety and effectiveness” of this practice. Meanwhile, government health departments at all levels appear to be more interested in protecting this outdated policy than protecting the health of our children.
The task that FAN has set itself since 2000 is to share the science about the dangers posed by this practice with those who are willing to read and listen, mainly through our web page at FluorideALERT.org and through public presentations (for example, in Seattle15). The latest science makes it very clear that the practice of fluoridation must stop!
FLUORIDE AND INTELLIGENCE
In 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies concluded that “fluorides have the ability to interfere with functions of the brain”16 and for the first time called fluoride an endocrine disruptor.17
In 2006, there were only five IQ studies available to the NRC panel. Subsequently, many more have been published (including studies that were previously only available in Chinese). As of 2019, we now have sixty studies, fifty-three of which have shown a lowered IQ in children in communities with high fluoride exposure compared to communities with lower fluoride exposure.18
Most of these studies have been carried out in China, but others took place in India, Iran and Mexico. In 2012, twenty-seven of these studies were subjected to a meta-analysis by a team from Harvard, which was published in one of the world’s leading environmental health journals, Environmental Health Perspectives.19 While this team had concerns about the lack of information on several possible confounding factors in many of these studies, they were struck by the consistency of the results. Even though the research was carried out over a period of twenty-one years, by many different research teams, in two countries (China and Iran) and in many different locations, twenty-six out of the twenty-seven studies found the same result: a lowering of IQ. The average lowering was seven IQ points.
It should be noted that a shift downward of five IQ points in a large population would halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than one hundred thirty) and increase by over 50 percent the number of mentally handicapped (IQ lower than seventy). Such a downward shift would have both huge economic and social consequences for a country like the USA.
Promoters of fluoridation have done their best to diminish the significance of these findings for fluoridated communities, but recent findings have largely undermined their self-serving arguments. A rigorous U.S. government-funded study carried out by a highly qualified research team headed by Dr. Morteza Bashash confirmed that fluoride is neurotoxic at levels currently experienced in fluoridated communities and, for this effect, the most vulnerable stage of human life is during fetal development.20 This study was conducted in Mexico City with two hundred ninety-nine mother-offspring pairs. The authors found strong associations between fluoride exposure to the pregnant women (as measured in their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at age four and again at six to twelve years of age. Subsequently, in 2018, a study reported that the lowering of IQ in the same cohort also occurred in an earlier age range (one to three years).21
In 2018, using the same Mexico City cohort, Dr. Bashash found that there was a strong association between some of the symptoms of ADHD in the children and urine fluoride levels in the pregnant women.22 A 2015 study found a relationship between the prevalence of ADHD in the U.S. and fluoridation status by state; the higher the percentage of the state fluoridated, the greater the prevalence of ADHD.23
It is hard to overstate the importance of the 2017 Bashash study.20 Strikingly, it was funded by U.S. government agencies, two of which (National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency) have promoted (NIH) and defended (EPA) the safety of water fluoridation. The study was part of a twenty-five-year ELEMENT research project (Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants) directed by professor Howard Hu from the University of Toronto. The Bashash study took over twelve years and involved researchers from many distinguished universities and institutions in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. These included the universities of Toronto, McGill, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Harvard, as well as Mount Sinai and the National Institute of Perinatology in Mexico. These researchers have published over fifty studies conducted along similar lines for other neurotoxicants. Of particular importance was the fact that, unlike most of the other IQ studies on fluoride, this study involved measurements at the individual (not community) level for both mother and child. Based upon their extensive experience, the authors controlled for a large number of potential confounding variables, and even after controlling for these they still found a very strong relationship between fluoride exposure during pregnancy in the mother and lowered IQ in their offspring.
Fluoridation promoters, including the American Dental Association, have claimed that this study was not relevant to fluoridated communities in the U.S. because Mexico City does not have artificial fluoridation and pregnant women there are likely to have higher doses of fluoride from fluoridated salt and some naturally fluoridated water areas. Such arguments are not convincing because the biometric of exposure used was fluoride levels in the urine, which is a measure of total dose of fluoride and is independent of the source. Moreover, the range of exposure in Mexico City was within the range of fluoride levels in the urine of adults in the U.S. This point was further confirmed by a subsequent national study of the urine fluoride levels in pregnant women in Canada. This study found that levels of fluoride in the urine of Canadian women living in fluoridated communities were almost identical to the levels in Mexico City, namely 0.87 ppm in Canada versus 0.91 ppm in Mexico City.24
As far as the politics of fluoridation are concerned, it is significant that some of the world’s leading neurotoxicologists, like Phillipe Grandjean (mercury specialist) and David Bellinger (lead specialist), are now participating in this research as well as reviewing the literature.25,26 They now see fluoride’s neurotoxicity in the same vein as that of lead, arsenic, mercury and other well-established neurotoxicants.
It should also be stressed that in addition to the fifty-three IQ studies discussed above, there are many other animal, human, biochemical and cellular studies that provide an overwhelming weight of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic. These include one hundred thirty human brain studies;27 two hundred forty-one animal brain studies;28 thirty-three cellular brain studies;29 and thirty review studies.30
FLUORIDE AND HYPOTHYROIDISM
In the 1930s, ’40s and ’50s, doctors in Argentina, France and Germany used sodium fluoride to lower the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid gland).31 -37 Despite this knowledge, government agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating countries have never seen fit to investigate a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and the rising level of hypothyroidism in their countries. Only recently have scientists reviewed the matter.38-41
A 2018 study, reported that while they could find no relationship between fluoride exposure and TSH levels (thyroid stimulating hormone and an indicator of hypothyroidism) and fluoridation status among the general population, they did find that for those who had low or even borderline iodine intake, fluoride exposure was associated with an increase in their TSH levels.42
The importance of this finding is that it gives a very plausible mechanism for why fluoride might lower IQ in children born to mothers with high fluoride exposure. When the fetus comes into existence it has no thyroid gland. It is entirely dependent on the mother’s thyroid levels for its early mental development. So any depression in the mother’s thyroid hormone levels will increase the risk of lowered IQ in their offspring (see Vyvyan Howard’s explanation of this situation in a PowerPoint presentation he gave in New Zealand in 2018).43
WARNING PREGNANT WOMEN
One of the sad consequences of the medical community’s acceptance of the safety-and-effectiveness argument for water fluoridation, based upon dogma rather than upon the latest science, is that many doctors are oblivious of these findings. The result is that women are not being warned to avoid fluoride exposure during pregnancy. They are not being warned by their doctors, by health departments, by professional bodies or by the media. It has been left to non-governmental bodies like FAN to get the word out the best we can via social media, the Internet (see the Moms 2B Campaign),44 press releases,45 leaflets and talks. We have been trying to do so since 2017, but it is an extremely difficult task, as is the continuing battle to try to end the well-entrenched practice of water fluoridation.
LAWSUIT PROVIDES NEW HOPE
In November 2016, the Fluoride Action Network, along with Food & Water Watch, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, the Organic Consumers Association and individuals, petitioned the EPA46 to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to public drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances and Control Act.
We argued that “[t]he risk to the brain posed by fluoridation additives is an unreasonable risk because, inter alia, it is now understood that fluoride’s predominant effect on tooth decay comes from topical contact with teeth, not ingestion. Since there is little benefit in swallowing fluoride, there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom. The addition of fluoridation chemicals to water thus represents the very type of unreasonable risk that EPA is duly authorized to prohibit pursuant to its powers and responsibilities under Section 6 of TSCA, and Petitioners urge the Agency to exercise its authority to do so.”
In September 201747 the EPA rejected our petition on its scientific merits. In response to an appeal from FAN, a federal court denied EPA’s motion to dismiss in December 2017.48
Also in December 201749 the EPA argued that no other studies should be added to the case after our petition was first delivered to them in November 2016. The court disagreed with EPA50 and ruled to allow new studies, such as those by Bashash and others discussed above. A trial date has been set to take place in federal district court in San Francisco in August 2019.
We are confident that we can win this case. In order to do so, it will require us to demonstrate three things: 1) that fluoride poses a hazard to the developing brain; 2) that there is a risk at current exposure levels (from all sources combined) in fluoridated communities; 3) that this is an unreasonable risk because there are other ways that tooth decay can be prevented.
Moreover, even if fluoride is one of those alternatives, there are other and more appropriate ways of delivering fluoride to the surface of teeth than putting fluoride into the drinking water. Indeed, the majority of countries worldwide that do not fluoridate their water have actually demonstrated this over many years.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
There are many ethical and scientific arguments against the seventy-year practice of water fluoridation. The evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay remains weak. Not a single randomized controlled trial has been attempted to demonstrate this, and promoters have relied on studies with far weaker methodologies.65 Meanwhile, the number of studies that indicate harm can be caused, even at the doses experienced in fluoridated communities, has been growing, particularly studies on the brain.20,22,24,42,46
With such risks on the table, it is unconscionable, in our view, that governments continue to promote the deliberate addition of a known neurotoxic and endocrine-disrupting substance to the drinking water of millions of people, most of whom have not been informed of the risks involved, or been given the opportunity to give—or refuse—their consent on the matter.
SIDEBARS
ELEVEN ARGUMENTS WHY FLUORIDATION SHOULD BE ENDED
1.
Fluoridation is unethical. Using the public water supply to deliver
dental therapy goes against all recognized principles of modern
pharmacology and ethical healthcare practice. It imposes medication on
all water consumers indiscriminately and without the individual’s
informed consent. These include the unborn, bottle-fed infants, persons
with chronic diseases known to be aggravated by fluoride (such as poor
kidney function), the poorly nourished (such as those with low iodine
intake) and the elderly. It does so with uncontrolled dosage, no
monitoring of adverse effects and no possibility of avoiding treatment
for most, if not all, people. This is especially true for those on a
low-income budget who simply cannot afford avoidance measures like
reverse osmosis filtration systems.
2.
Fluoridation is unusual. The vast majority of countries worldwide do
not fluoridate their drinking water. Out of one hundred ninety-six
countries, only twenty-four have any fluoridated cities, and of those,
only ten, including the U.S., fluoridate more than half their
population. Ninety-five percent of the world’s people drink water
without artificial fluoridation. Over half of those who do, live in the
U.S. In Europe, where forty-three out of forty-eight nations have no
water fluoridation, 98 percent of the population is not forced to drink
fluoridated water. A few European countries (namely France, Germany,
Switzerland and Austria) have fluoridated salt available, but people are
not forced to buy this salt, as non-fluoridated salt is also available.
Despite this, World Health Organization (WHO) data61 indicate that
since the 1960s, tooth decay in twelve-year-olds has been coming down as
fast in non-fluoridated countries as in fluoridated ones.
3.
Children in fluoridated communities are being grossly over-exposed to
fluoride. In the U.S. and other fluoridated countries, there has been a
dramatic increase in young children and teens in the prevalence of
dental fluorosis (discoloration of tooth enamel caused by low-level
systemic fluoride toxicity during tooth formation). This condition
indicates that children have been grossly over-exposed to fluoride
before their permanent teeth have erupted. The latest national survey
indicates that over 60 percent of U.S. teens have dental fluorosis.52,53 Of
those, 24 percent have moderate and nearly 2 percent have severe levels
of the disease. These levels can produce yellow and brown staining and
structural damage to the enamel. To put this into context, the early
promoters of fluoridation anticipated only 10 percent of the children in
fluoridated communities would be affected by this condition, and these
would be only in the “very mild” category. They believed that this was
an acceptable trade-off for reducing tooth decay. Even avid promoters of
fluoridation no longer accept that the current prevalence rates as
acceptable but they tend to blame other sources of fluoride—rather than
water fluoridation—for the dramatic increase. In reality, every source
of fluoride ingested contributes to this prevalence. The contribution
from water fluoridation can be eliminated with a simple policy change.
4.
Fluoride has the potential to damage many other tissues. Because of the
prevalence of dental fluorosis, there is no question that fluoride can
damage the developing teeth. Nor is there any question from the evidence
provided in countries with large areas of endemic fluorosis (such as
India and China) where millions of people have both dental and skeletal
fluorosis, that high doses of fluoride can damage other tissues
including bones, connective tissue, the brain, the endocrine system, the
gut and kidneys. The Indian Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,54 provides
an excellent description of the problems faced by thousands of villages
poisoned by fluoride. For the Western world, much of this evidence was
provided in a comprehensive review of the literature conducted by the
National Research Council of the National Academies in 2006.16 What
has emerged since 2006 is a growing body of evidence that this harm can
occur at doses experienced in artificially fluoridated communities.
5.
Fluoridation is unnecessary. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No
one has ever demonstrated that a single biological process in the human
body needs fluoride to function properly. There is no such thing as a
“fluoridedeficiency” disease. Children can have perfectly good teeth
without ingesting fluoride. Even promoters of water fluoridation admit
that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical, not systemic.55-58 Thus,
it is morally indefensible to force people to ingest fluoride via the
public water supply, when for those who want fluoride, fluoridated
toothpaste is universally available. Moreover, the fluoride used in
toothpaste is pharmaceutical grade whereas the fluoride used to
fluoridate water is an industrial grade hazardous waste product from the
phosphate fertilizer industry.25
6.
Today’s fluoride is worse. The fluoridating chemical used in over 90
percent of the fluoridating communities in the U.S. is a substance
called hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6). This substance is removed from
the scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry as a 23-25
percent solution. It is contaminated with trace amounts of other toxic
substances including aluminum, arsenic, lead and radioactive isotopes
(the same ore that is mined for fluoride in Florida is also mined for
uranium). Ironically, this waste product cannot be dumped into the sea
by international law, but health authorities blandly allow it to be put
untreated into the public water supply!
7.
Fluoride is very toxic and nature has developed protection mechanisms
for many living things. For lower creatures like bacteria and fungi,
there are genes—switched on by high levels of fluoride—which code for
proteins called fluoride exporting proteins (FEX proteins). These
proteins are located in the cellular membranes and pump fluoride out of
the cell.26 In
mammals, the kidney excretes about 50 percent of fluoride ingested each
day from healthy individuals, and most of the rest is rapidly
sequestered in hard tissues like the bones. Importantly, the human
breast appears to act as a fluoride filter for the new born baby. The
level in mothers’ milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm).27 Thus,
a bottle-fed baby, when the formula is made up with fluoridated tap
water (0.7 to 1.2 ppm), will get approximately two hundred times more
fluoride than a breastfed infant (that is, two hundred times more than
nature intended).
8. Fluoridation is unscientific. Fluoridation is promoted with PR techniques like endorsements, not with sound
science.
Most of the endorsements were made shortly after the U.S. Public Health
Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950 with virtually no science
on the short-term—let alone long-term—health effects. Citizens should be
very wary of taking such endorsements at face value unless they are
accompanied by an up-to-date review of the literature—and very few are.
Incredibly, in over seventy years there has been no randomized control
trial (RCT) to demonstrate that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay.
As far as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is concerned, an
RCT is the gold standard for approving new drugs. According to the FDA,
fluoride is an unapproved drug28 and
the FDA has never approved fluoride tablets for ingestion. Many
decision makers and journalists around the world are impressed when they
read the notorious statement from the CDC in 1999 that “Fluoridation is
one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century.”63 However,
what they may not realize is that this statement did not come from the
CDC itself (which has about thirty thousand employees, many of whom are
highly qualified in many medical fields as well as toxicology) but from
the CDC’s small Oral Health Division with only thirty employees, most of
whom only have dental qualifications. Moreover, their job is defined as
promoting fluoridation. They even admit to not following—or being
responsible for—the science pertaining to fluoride’s harmful effects.
Journalists and others have been impressed by a public relations
exercise by a promotional body, not by a body that maintains a careful
overview of any harm the practice may be causing.
9.
Health risks are ignored in fluoridated countries. Sadly, because the
imposed dental practice of water fluoridation is so entrenched in the
psyche of the medical, dental and public health establishments in
fluoridated countries, neither governments nor the mainstream media are
warning the public about the large and growing
body of scientific research30 that shows that fluoride exposure poses many health risks.
10.
Fluoridation violates the precautionary principle. The scientific
evidence that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay is weak,31 but
the weight of evidence that it causes harm to the developing brain is
so one-sided, that to wait for further studies before halting the
deliberate addition of fluoride to water is a rash and irresponsible
public health position.
11.
Fluoridation violates the principles of environmental justice. The
addition of fluoride to public water is an environmental injustice to
people living in poverty in fluoridated areas who do not have access to
alternative water
sources and are captive to tap water for all their water needs. Moreover, it is well established that those with poor
nutrition are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects, and poor nutrition is more likely to occur among those
with low incomes.
REFERENCES
1. Fluoride Action Network, website http://fluoridealert.org/.
2. Blood: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=blood&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
3. Bone: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=bone-joints&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
4. Brain: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
5. Heart: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/effect=cardio-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
6. Kidney: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=kidney&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
7. Liver: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=liver-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=
8. Lung: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=respiratory-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
9. Reproductive System: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=reproductive-toxicity&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
10. ThyroidGland: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=thyroid-2&sub=&type=&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
11. News Articles, http://fluoridealert.org/news/
12. Videotaped Interviews, http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/
13. Government Reports, http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/government-reports/.
14. Fluoride Emissions by State, http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/overview-tri/.
15. Seattle, http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/connett-seattle/
16. National Research Council of the National Academies. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking
Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/33368/.
17. Choi et al. 2012. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives.120(10):1362-1368 at 16. page
266, https://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/10?term=disruptor#266.
18. Fluoride Action Network. Fluoride & IQ: the 53 studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/.
19. Choi et al. 2012. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives.120(10):1362-1368.
20. Bashash et al. 2017. Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children at 4 and 6–12 years of age in Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives. Sept; 25(9):097017. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/bashash-2017-.pdf
21. Thomas et al. 2018. OP V – 2 Prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavior among children 1–3 years of age in Mexico. Occupational & Environmental Medicine. March; 2018;75:A10. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/30717/.
22.
Bashash et al. 2018. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age
in Mexico City. Environment International. Oct 10; 121(1):658-666. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/32332/.
23.
Malin and Till. 2015. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents
in the United States: an ecological association. Environmental Health. February. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/malin-2015.pdf.
24.
Till et al. 2018. Community water fluoridation and urinary fluoride
concentrations in a national sample of pregnant women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. Oct 10; 126(10):107001-13. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/till-2018.pdf.
25. Grandjean and Landrigan. 2014. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology. March; 3:330-338. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/grandjean-20141.pdf.
26. Bellinger DC. 2018. Environmental chemical exposures and neurodevelopmental impairments in children. Pediatric Medicine 1:9. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/bellinger-2018.pdf.
27. Fluoride Action Network. 130 Human fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=human&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
28. Fluoride Action Network, 240 Animal fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=animals&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
29. Fluoride Action Network, 33 Cellular fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=cell&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
30. Fluoride Action Network, 30 Review fluoride brain studies, http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/?effect=brain-2&sub=&type=reviews&start_year=&end_year=&show=10&fulltext=&fantranslation=.
31.
Goldemberg L. 1926. Action Physiologique des Fluorures. Comptes Rendes
Séances de la Société de Biologie et de ses Filiales (Paris) 95:1169.
32. Goldemberg L. 1930. Traitement de la Maladie de Basedow et de l’Hyperthyuroidismepar le Fluor. La Presse Médicale 102:1751.
33.
Goldemberg L. 1932. Comment Agiraient-ils Therapeutiquement les Fluoers
dans le Goitre Exopthalmique et dans L’Hyperthryoidisme. La Semana Médica 39:1659.
34. May W. 1935. Antagonismus Zwischen Jod und Fluor in Organismus. Klinische Wochenschrift 14:790-792.
35. May W. 1937. Behandlung the Hyperthyreosen Einschliesslich des Schweren Genuinen Morbus Basedow mir Fluor. Klinische Wochenschrift 16:562-64.
36. Orlowski W. 1932. Sur a Valeur Thérapeutique du Sang Animal du Bore et du Fluor dans la Maladie de Basedow. La Presse Médicale 42:836-37.
37. Galletti and Joyet. 1958. Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. Oct;18(10):1102-10. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/galletti-1958.pdf
38.
Peckham et al. 2015. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated
with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study
of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. Jul;69(7):619-24. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peckham-2015.pdf
39. Chaitanya et al. 2018. A systematic analysis on possibility of water fluoridation causing hypothyroidism. Indian Journal of Dental Research. May-Jun; 29(3):358-363. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/31383/
40. McLaren JR. 1969. Fluoride and the thyroid gland. Editorial. Fluoride. Oct; 2(4):192-194. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/mclaren-1969.pdf.
41.
Gas’kov et al. 2005. The specific features of the development of iodine
deficiencies in children living under environmental pollution with
fluorine compounds. Gigiena i Sanitariia. Nov-Dec;(6):53-5. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/15213/.
42.
Malin et al. 2018. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults
living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status. Environment International. 121:667-674. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/malin-2018.pdf.
43. Vyvyan Howard, FRCPath, http://fluoridealert.org/howard-2018-nz/.
44. Moms2B Campaign, http://fluoridealert.org/issues/moms2b/.
45. Fluoride Action Network , Press Releases, http://fluoridealert.org/news/?country=united-states&sub=fluoride-action-network-press-release-unitedstates.
46.
Connett M. 2016. Petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. §
2620, invoking Section 6 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a), on behalf of
several groups and individuals. November 22. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/epa-petition.pdf.
47.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Federal defendants’
motion to dismiss. In the United States District Court for Northern
California, San Francisco Division. Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC, Document 28.
September 25. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.epa-motion-to-dismiss.9-25-17.pdf.
48.
United States District Court for Northern California. 2017. Order
denying defendant’s motion to dismiss. Case No. 17-cv-02162-EMC, Docket
No.28. December 21. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.12-21-17.denies-epa-motion-to-dismiss.pdf.
49.
U.S. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2017. Federal defendants’
notice of motion and motion to limit review to the administrative record
and to strike plaintiffs’ jury demand. Case No.: 17-cv-02162-EMC.
December 14. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.12-14-17.epa-requests-protective-order-to-limit-discovery.
pdf.
50.
United States District Court for Northern California. 2018. Order
Denying Defendant’s Motion to Limit Review to the Administrative Record.
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC, Document 53, February 7. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca.2-7-18.court-denies-epa-motion-to-limit.pdf.
51. WHO Data, http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/who-data/.
52.
Wiener et al. 2018. Dental fluorosis over time: a comparison of
national health and nutrition examination survey data from 2001-2002 and
2011-2012. Journal of Dental Hygiene. Feb;92(1):23-29.
53. Neurath et al. 2019. Dental fluorosis trends in United States oral health surveys: 1986-2012. Journal of Dental Research Clinical & Translational Research. In print.
54. Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, National Health Portal of India. 2016. Fluorosis. http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/33368/.
55.
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 1999. Achievements in
public health, 1900-1999: fluoridation of drinking water to prevent
dental caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly. October 22, 1999 /48(41);933-940. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/cdc-mmwr.oct-22-1999.pdf.
56.
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 2001. Recommendations for
using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United
States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review. Recommendations and Reports, August 17, 2001 / 50(RR14);1-42.
57. Ibid at 16.
58. Featherstone JD. 2000. The science and practice of caries prevention. Journal of the American Dental Association. July: 131(7):887-99.
59. Fluoride Action Network, Phosphate Fertilizer Industry, see http://fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01/
60.
Li et al. 2013. Eukaryotic resistance to fluoride toxicity mediated by a
widespread family of fluoride export proteins. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Nov
19;110(47):19018-23.
61. Ibid at 16, page 40, https://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/4#40.
62. Moore, Robert J. 2005. Fluoride is an unapproved drug. Letter from Food and Drug Administration to Daniel Stockin. www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/fda-2005a.pdf.
63. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. 1999. Ten Great Public Health Achievements–United States, 1900-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Review. December 24, 1999 / 48(50);1141
64. Fluoride Action Network. Study fluoridealert.org/studytracker/.
65. Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, et al. 2015. Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. June 18. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract.
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/environmental-toxins/water-fluoridation/#gsc.tab=0
