A little information
on Fluoridation
by
Dr. Gregor Lowrey
When
mass fluoridation was first introduced, the American Dental Association was
vehemently opposed to the plan. Even
though there has been no research to validate their move to now support
fluoridation, that change in position has gradually taken place.
It is
unfortunate that the dental community could have been so misled and that our
friendly dentists are unwittingly victimizing so many of their clients.
It
sometimes seems that all most dentists need to know about fluoride their
fluoride salesman already told them.
When
many dentists in Brigham City, Utah, which has been Utah’s only fluoridated
community, all got together and posted an editorial claiming the benefits of
fluoride, they boldly declared that there was no higher incidence of brittle
bones and hip fractures after fluoridation than before.
Not only were the dear dentists speaking outside their specialty, I mean
what dentists track the number of hip fractures in the community (?), but also
they were just plain wrong.
Joseph
Lyon, MD, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, and
three colleagues reported a 27 percent increase in hip fractures for women and a
41 percent increase for men, ages 65+, in fluoridated Brigham City, Utah,
compared to non-fluoridated Logan and Cedar City. The study covered fractures
occurring between 1984-1990. (JAMA. 268:746, 1992).
Considering
the great benefits the Brigham City dentists claimed, I was shocked at the large
number of dentist working there. One
would think that with the purported success of fluoridation, dentists would be
the “loneliest guys in town”.
It
has been pointed out elsewhere, but is good to consider however that dental
cosmetics to get rid of the signs of fluoride poisoning pays hundreds of dollars
more per tooth than filling cavities. Still,
I suspect the Brigham City dentists really fill just about as many cavities as
dentists in other communities. While
the caries count may have gone down there since fluoridation, all other studies
show that caries over all have reduced in like proportions in towns without
fluoridation as in those with fluoridation.
The one thing that is definitely different is that the towns without
fluoridation do not suffer from fluoride poisoning and the communities that
fluoridate do, as statistics I present a little further in this report will
illustrate.
Here
is a little background that everyone should be aware of.
Fluoridation
is directly suspect for a variety of cancers. According to a U.S. Public Health
Service study cancer rates in the subject city increased 22% after fluoridation.
The Calif. Tumor Registry reports a 40% higher cancer incidence in Calif.
communities practicing fluoridation. Data
from the National Cancer Institute and the New Jersey Dept. of Health indicate
that fluoridation is linked to a nearly 70% increase in bone cancer in men under
20 years of age. A 1980 study
reported in the Journal of Medicine concludes, "fluoride had no
preventative effect. In some
experiments there was even a deleterious effect of fluoride."
They found that fluoride accelerated the process of osteoporosis leading
to a loss of calcium from the bone. These
studies go on and on. The tissue
hardening effect (scleroderma) of fluoride that is supposed to prevent carries
also hardens other soft tissues creating misdiagnosed rheumatoid or
osteoarthritis and causing mild to severe kyphosis (hunch back).
Fluoridation studies published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association in 1978 showed fluoride to increase incidence of fractures by
decreasing the strength of the bone. They
also pointed out that administration of fluoride resulted in nonmineralized
seams in bones, resulting in osteomalacia.
This
same collagen and protein deforming effect of fluoridation also makes DNA
strands become brittle and break, at the same time inhibiting DNA repair enzyme
(that fixes damaged DNA) by 50%.
The
January 20, 1979 New York Times reports the State Supreme Court awarding
$750,000 damages to the parents of a 3 year old Brooklyn boy who swallowed
instead of spitting during a fluoride treatment from his dentist, went into a
comma and died from fluoride poisoning. There
have been numerous cases of children swallowing fluoride tablets and dying.
In one famous case a child ate a full tube of toothpaste and died from
fluoride poisoning. Before fluoride was considered for an anti-carries agent, it
was primarily sold as rat poison. Still
today, if you will look at a box of rat poison, it is the same product that the
dentist wants to fill you up with.
How
can such nice dentists be so uninformed? They
just do what the drug companies tell them to.
Why bother doing research when every one else is doing it (!) and there
is so much money to be made. The
dentist can have entry level personnel cleaning teeth and applying fluoride for
which he charges dentist rates, but pays only minimum wage.
It’s big money for the dentist. Why
would he want to rock the boat, especially when the chapters in his college text
books (written by the fluoride manufacturers) told him that fluoride was safe
and important?
I
don’t think the majority of dentists would knowingly endanger the public, but
they have been horribly misinformed. I
do think it is highly unprofessional for them to not research the products they
use, but rather rely on the drug pusher for their safety information.
There is so much information available, there really is no excuse for
them to not be informed on this topic that has been the subject of so much
debate for so long.
Amazingly,
an early sign of long term fluoride poisoning is Dental Fluorosis.
Yet American dentists seem to feel that fluorosis is simply a cosmetic
issue and fail to recognize its implications.
I was
asked about natural fluoridation in ground water and whether it is different
than the sodium fluoride that the government adds to public water systems and
the potential for benefit from naturally occurring fluoride.
There
are areas in this country that are noted for natural fluoridation, primarily
Colorado and Texas. Severe dental fluorosis called "Texas Teeth" or
“Colorado Brown Stain” is named for the areas of natural fluoridation that
causes this mottling (white or brown spots) on teeth.
As
far as I know there is little to no difference in the molecular structure of
naturally occurring fluoride and the industrial by-product fluoride (primarily
from aluminum, fertilizer, insecticide, steel, glass, brick, and enamel
manufacture). One thing that is different however is that the fluoride used for
water fluoridation does not utilize naturally occurring fluoride, and fluoride
reclaimed from factory smokestack scrubbers
is bonded to deadly elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them
carcinogenic. So in addition to the
dangers of fluoride itself, we are faced with these other industrial
contaminants as well.
The
mere fact that many groundwater supplies test positive for all these elements,
including fluoride, and in some cases even in higher amounts than the government
program recommends does not mean that consuming these toxic elements is safe and
natural. Many elements have found
their way into groundwater only recently due to irresponsible industrial dumping
or faulty containment. In other
cases, some natural groundwater sources do contain these toxins in dangerous
amounts, but the fact that some water is naturally poisoned does not serve as an
endorsement for drinking it.
The
big player in public fluoridation was Alcoa when back in the 1930's the US
Public Health Dept. was actually calling for the total removal of naturally
occurring fluoride in areas with measurable amounts of groundwater fluoride less
than the amount the government wants to put in your water today!
Suddenly, Dr. Gerald Cox from the Mellon Institute (the Mellon's being
the owners of Alcoa) without any research or evidence of any kind, suggested
that even though large doses (even naturally occurring) of fluoride could be
toxic, somehow (according to him) smaller doses should be good for you.
After all, he said, small doses are present in virtually every water
supply, so it must be ok. Dr. Cox recommended the 1ppm dose which is the
standard today for public water systems which remember was still more than the
amount that the Health Dept thought was too dangerous to leave as a naturally
occurring element in groundwater and was wanting to remove from the whole
nation’s groundwater. After the
first acceptance of fluoridation, Proctor and Gambol also joined in the push to
fluoridate. (they could add it to toothpaste)
The warnings on some toothpastes refer to the poisonous effects of
consuming fluoride.
The
dentists were not initially in favor of Dr. Cox’s plan (to sell Alcoa’s
industrial waste to illegally medicate America) and stated in the October 1,
1944 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association the following
(excerpt):
“We
do know the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per
million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as
osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we
cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances
in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent
development of dental disfigurements among children.
“Because
of our anxiety to find some therapeutic procedure that will promote mass
prevention of caries, the seeming potentialities of fluorine appear
speculatively attractive, but, in the light of our present knowledge or lack
of knowledge of the chemistry of the subject, the potentialities for harm far
outweigh those for good.”
In
1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan became the first test city for public water
fluoridation. In 1950, even though
no studies had been done to determine the safety or success of the trial, the
Health Service approved the plan to fluoridate America.
Muskegon
was selected as a “control” city in the Grand Rapids experiment and the only
data collected showed that tooth decay in non-fluoridated Muskegon had decreased
about the same as in fluoridated Grand Rapids and that fluoridation was not
effective at all in reducing decay in permanent teeth.
There
will always be the lucky few who have good teeth in spite of fluoridation but I
think it is probably pretty safe to make an educated assumption that there are
plenty of dentists in fluoridated areas doing plenty of business filling
cavities.
The
concept behind fluoridation is all hooked in with fluorides action on collagen.
Fluoride causes collagen to become all stringy and deformed and hard.
Between the stringy parts, more collagen is attracted and this eventually
mineralizes creating a very hard, bone-like substance.
What
was proposed then was that fluoride would also; by this same process make the
enamel of teeth harder, by actually making a kind of bony shield to be a barrier
to caries agents.
What
they found however in the very first studies was that initially; there was what
appeared to be a very favorable result. The
tooth enamel did appear to harden and carries was reduced. But very shortly this
test group began to develop Fluorosis. In
mild cases there appeared chalky white patches on the tooth.
In severe cases, teeth exhibit yellow, brown, and black stains; develop
pits and crevices and the tips break off.
Research
in Arizona, Africa, China, Argentina, Italy, Japan and Britain began to be
produced showing that dental mottling (Fluorosis) in the permanent teeth of
children nine years of age and older could be attributed to fluoride
concentrations of less than the 1ppm recommended by the government programs.
Communities
with measurable fluoride in drinking water showed in 1937 the following results
in regard to dental Fluorosis. (remember
these studies were not about caries)
From
a low ppm (of fluoride) of .6 resulting in 2.4% Fluorosis to 1.5 ppm showing
24.5% Fluorosis, 3.9ppm in Amarillo showing 90.3% Fluorosis, and 5.7ppm in Post,
Texas and 8ppm in Ankeny, Iowa both producing 100% Fluorosis.
Far
from cosmetic concerns alone, dental Fluorosis is simply very potent evidence
that fluoride poisoning of the entire body has occurred. Both systematically fluoridated areas and areas with
naturally occurring fluoride levels over .5ppm
have tremendous incidence of advanced scleroderma (hardening of the tissues),
bone and oral cancers etc.
In
the fifty –five years that fluoride has been applied as a caries-preventing
agent no research has been presented that shows a conclusive positive result.
The power behind public fluoridation and ADA promoted fluoridation has
always been the producers of industrial (waste) sodium fluoride like Alcoa.Here
is a very interesting article, which made headlines all over the world recently.
Prominent
researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride by Barry Forbes
The
Tribune, Mesa, AZ
Sunday,
December 5, 1999
"Why'd
you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?"
I
had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., PhD in Biochemistry, D.D.S.,
head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry for the University of Toronto,
and president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research. (Whew.)
Dr.
Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and, until recently, the
country's primary promoter of the controversial additive. In a surprising
newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change
of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated
toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water.
And
baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
Why,
I wondered? What could have caused such a powerful paradigm shift?
"It's
been building up for a couple of years," Limeback told me during a recent
telephone interview. "But certainly the crowning blow was the realization
that we have been dumping contaminated fluoride into water reservoirs for half
a century.
The
vast majority of all fluoride additives come from Tampa Bay, Florida
smokestack scrubbers. The additives are a toxic byproduct of the
super-phosphate fertilizer industry."
"Tragically," he continued, "that means we're not just
dumping toxic fluoride into our drinking water. We're also exposing innocent, unsuspecting people to deadly
elements of lead, arsenic and radium, all of them carcinogenic. Because of the
cumulative properties of toxins, the detrimental effects on human health are
catastrophic."
A
recent study at the University of Toronto confirmed Dr. Limeback's worst
fears. "Residents of cities that fluoridate have double the fluoride in
their hip bones vis-à-vis the balance of the population. Worse, we discovered
that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human
bones."
Skeletal
Fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in
bones, making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms?
"Mottled and brittle teeth," Dr. Limeback told me. "In Canada
we are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we do treating
cavities. That includes my own
practice." One of the most obvious living experiments today, Dr. Limeback
believes, is a proof-positive comparison between any two Canadian cities.
"Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver -
which has never fluoridated - has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's."
And, he pointed out, cavity rates are low all across the industrialized world
including Europe, which is 98% fluoride free. Low because of improved
standards of living, less refined sugar, regular dental checkups, flossing and
frequent brushing. Now less than 2 cavities per child Canada wide, he said.
"I don't get it, Doc. Last month, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
ran a puff piece all across America saying the stuff was better than sliced
bread. What's the story?" "Unfortunately," he replied,
"the CDC is basing its position on data that is 50 years old, and
questionable at best. Absolutely no one has done research on fluorosilicates,
which is the junk they're dumping into the drinking water."
"On
the other hand," he added, "the evidence against systemic fluoride
in-take continues to pour in."
"But
Doc, the dentists." "I
have absolutely no training in toxicity," he stated firmly. "Your
well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from
public health and the dental association. Me, too.
"Unfortunately,
we were wrong." Last week, Dr. Hardy Limeback addressed his faculty
and students at the University of Toronto, Department of Dentistry. In a
poignant, memorable meeting, he apologized to those gathered before him.
"Speaking as the head of preventive dentistry, I told them that I had
unintentionally mislead my colleagues and my students. For the past 15 years,
I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to
anyone.
Poisoning
our children was the furthest thing from my mind." "The truth,"
he confessed to me, "was a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow it I
did." South of the border, the paradigm shift has yet to dawn. After half
a century of delusion, the CDC, American Dental Association and Public Health
stubbornly and skillfully continue to manipulate public opinion in favor of
fluoridation. Meantime, study after study is delivering the death knell of the
deadly toxin. Sure, fluoridation will be around for a long time yet, but
ultimately its supporters need to ready the life rafts. The poisonous waters
of doubt and confusion are bound to get choppier.
"Are
lawsuits inevitable?" I asked the good doctor. "Remember
tobacco," was his short, succinct reply. Welcome, Dr. Hardy Limeback, to
the far side of the fluoride equation. It's lonely over here, but in our
society loneliness and truth frequently travel hand in hand. Thank you for the
undeniable courage of your convictions.
Here
is one last excellent little article I’d like to share.
Fluoride:
Much ado about Something
Utah
County Journal - Thursday, October 19th, 2000
By
DEBORAH LEE
Special
to Journal Publications (Oct. 19)
”I
am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is
a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-term basis. Any
attempt to use water this way is deplorable”,says Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd,
Past President of the American Medical Association
No,
I’m not a scientist, a professor, or a medical doctor. I am a journalist
with an insatiable desire to ferret out the truth, wherever it may be found.
Having studied the fluoridation issue for more than two decades, I am quite
amazed that the real story behind it has not yet hit the masses in Utah.
Most
of western Europe has emphatically rejected fluoridation because the countries
have taken the time to become informed about it. For example, Holland banned
fluoridation in 1976 and modified its constitution so that it could never
again be introduced. France rejected fluoridation in 1980 because the Chief of
Public Health declared it was too dangerous.
The
cancer connection
Dr.
Gary Null reports that Dean Burk, Ph.D., former Chief Chemist Emeritus of the
National Cancer Institute, estimates that fluoride causes more cancer than any
other chemical. Dr. Burk compared the cancer death rates of the largest
fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities. These death rates were similar prior
to 1953 when the use of fluoride was introduced, then increased markedly among
fluoridated cities. According to Burk’s estimates, fluoride caused about
61,000 cases of cancer in 1995 and is likely to cause 90,000 cancer cases by
2015.
Studies
in New Jersey reveal a higher rate of bone cancer in young men exposed to
fluoridated water compared to those who were not. The Public Health Service
reported that the risk of bone cancer was roughly three times higher in
fluoridated areas when compared to non-fluoridated areas.
Other
ailments
The
ingestion of fluoride has also been linked to birth defects, osteoporosis, and
the propensity to increase lead absorption in children. Both the New England
Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association have
reported studies that link increased fracture rates and fluoride. A French
study reported that hip fractures among 3,758 people, ages 65+, were 86
percent higher among those with highest levels of fluoride intake. (Journal of
the American Medical Association [JAMA] 273:775; 1995).
Joseph
Lyon, MD, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of Utah,
and three colleagues reported a 27 percent increase in hip fractures for women
and a 41 percent increase for men, ages 65+, in fluoridated Brigham City,
Utah, compared to non-fluoridated Logan and Cedar City. The study covered
fractures occurring between 1984-1990. (JAMA. 268:746, 1992).
Why
would fluoride cause this change in the human body? Researchers have
discovered that fluoride creates a brittle shell on the outside of bones and
teeth, while honeycombing or creating a porous situation on the inside.
The
real tooth
The
brittle shell over teeth has led some dental professionals to believe that
tooth decay can be arrested or halted by fluoride therapy. However, contrary
to popular belief, the rate of tooth decay is not lower in fluoridated
communities. Gary Null’s research has unveiled the following facts:
In
British Columbia, only 11 percent of the population drinks fluoridated water,
as opposed to 40-70 percent in other Canadian regions. Yet British Columbia
has the lowest rate of tooth decay in Canada. In addition, the lowest rates of
dental caries within the province are found in areas that do not have their
water supplies fluoridated.
A
World Health Organization survey reports a decline of dental decay in western
Europe, which is 98 percent unfluoridated. They state that western Europe’s
declining dental decay rates are equal to and sometimes better than those in
the U.S.
In
1986-87, the largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay was taken.
The
subjects were 39,000 school children, ages 5-7, living in 84 areas around the
country. A third of the places were fluoridated, a third were partially
fluoridated, and a third were not. Results indicate no statistically
significant differences in dental decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated
cities.
In
his book Fluoridation: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly, Kenneth M. Howard
states:
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. A survey of over 120,000 children in Georgia towns
(population 15,000 to 75,000) corroborates this effect. The Center for Disease
Control (CDC) warns excessive blood lead levels can cause learning
disabilities, behavioral problems, and seizures.
Masters
and Coplan report that lead is a highly significant risk factor in predicting
higher rates of crime, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity and higher
rates of substance abuse. In a study now in press, Mastersresearch team found
higher rates of violent crime and substance abuse in silicofluoridated
communities. Is this a risk we want to take with our children.
An
esteemed scientist, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, points out that:
We
would not purposely add arsenic to the water supply. And we would not
purposely add lead. But we do add fluoride. The fact is that fluoride is more
toxic than lead and just slightly less toxic than arsenic.
Natural
fluoride is a trace mineral found in some soils, waters, and certain foods. It
is one of many nutrients that combine with calcium and magnesium to strengthen
various body tissues, including teeth and bones. A trace mineral is one that
the body needs in very small amounts. Too much of even a natural source can be
toxic.
However,
the fluoride introduced into public water supplies is a far cry from that
found in nature. Where does the constant supply of fluoride come from for
municipal water systems around the nation? Are some beneficent scientists
working tirelessly night and day in some laboratory? Is there a fluoride mine
somewhere that is producing the substance?
Kenneth
Howard sheds some light on the answer:
Fluorides
that are sold to water utilities are derived from the manufacture of aluminum,
phosphate fertilizer production, etc. and collected from the scrubber systems
of industrial smokestacks.
Well,
I think Deborah expressed herself quite well.
I appreciate her report.
This
research about lead absorption being enhanced by fluoridation is very alarming.
I have included a section in my book on water facts that deals with some
of the original research on this as it relates to juvenile criminal behavior,
low IQ and other behavioral symptoms that are strangely identical to most of the
symptoms of ADD/ADHD.
So,
while most of America would find laughable the idea of the government acting in
good faith, these same people will trust that the public’s best interests are
really at the heart of mass fluoridation. Too
many people are too quick to brand as conspiracy hysteria, the simple acceptance
of thousands of research studies over 50 years time that all prove conclusively
the dangers of fluoridation in favor of a handful of studies that support
fluoridation conceptually but fail to show any experimental support for their
position while they denounce the anti-fluoridation stance, not because it has
been proved faulty, but only because it is politically unpopular.
Political
popularity is pretty well accepted to be generated by special interest money,
and not by concern for the public good. Many
industries benefit financially from the poisoning of the American people.
Some of them are intentional participants.
It is
simply a plain and unfortunate fact that mass fluoridation in America is
the result of a conspiracy into which many good people have unwittingly been
sucked. As the good bible says, the
truth shall make you free. When
your body is falling apart, ignorance is a useless excuse
Good
hygiene, pure water and a non-acid diet will solve our dental concerns as well
as most of our other health concerns. Let’s
not allow anyone to convince us that poison (just a little bite) will make us
healthier.
Dr.
Lowrey
