A Response to the Bellingham Herald’s Pro-Fluoridation Piffle

1 Comment

Fluoridation: Public health, not forced medication
June 27, 2014

Ok, now this is what the Bellingham Herald is NOT telling you:

“Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its “good reputation” for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses. In recent years, several investigations demonstrated that fluoride can induce oxidative stress and modulate intracellular redox homeostasis, lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyl content, as well as alter gene expression and cause apoptosis. Genes modulated by fluoride include those related to the stress response, metabolic enzymes, the cell cycle, cell–cell communications and signal transduction” [1].

Whilst the Herald is correct that excessive levels of fluoride can be dangerous, the real question is, is there an adequate margin of safety [2] between the known harmful effects of fluoride and the doses received as a result of increased population exposure due to artificial fluoridation programs? According to one expert who served on the 2006 NRC Report [3]:

Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups. In addition to the “known” adverse health effects of dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and increased risk of bone fracture, “anticipated” adverse health effects from fluoride exposure or community water fluoridation include (but are not limited to) carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, endocrine effects, increased blood lead levels, and hypersensitivity (reduced tolerance) to fluoride. These effects (described in more detail below) are not as well studied as the dental and skeletal effects, which should indicate that a greater margin of safety is necessary to ensure protection of the population” [4].

After all, we know for a fact that:

“The major dietary source of fluoride for most people… is fluoridated municipal (community) drinking water, including water consumed directly, food and beverages prepared at home or in restaurants from municipal drinking water, and commercial beverages and processed foods originating from fluoridated municipalities” [5].

Interestingly, the newspaper seems to want things both ways. They acknowledge the increased general exposure and make it sound like the authorities are monitoring the population’s fluoride consumption in some rigorous manner, yet they conveniently fail mention that biomonitoring standards are currently inadequate [6] [7]. They also fail to mention the acknowledged weaknesses in the literature supposedly “supporting” fluoridation [8] [9], and they fail to mention that many key primary health studies have not been conducted [10].

As for fluoride being a “nutrient,” this statement has little if any basis in rigorous science [11] [12]. In a desperate effort of spin, the newspaper also tries to muddy the proverbial water regarding treatment, medication and prevention. We’ve dealt with this line of attack previously [13] [14] – as have FAN [15].

So don’t be fooled by the usual pro-fluoridation spin pumped out by these sycophantic media buffoons. The claims made by pro-fluoridation forces are weak and easily refuted [16]. Furthermore, don’t let this deferral to endorsements intimidate you. Endorsements are not adequate substitutes for science [17]. They are the last resort of the desperate – a fact the Bellingham Herald should be made aware of.

The paper would also have you believe that fluoridation has been “spectacularly successful” in preventing tooth decay and that the program’s greatest beneficiaries are low income children. No, rather, it has been a spectacularly successful master propaganda operation. In actual fact, the evidence for benefit is very weak [18] [19] and the evidence about fluoridation reducing inequalities in dental health is some of the weakest of all [8].

> Learn more about the fluoridation fraud

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

One thought on “A Response to the Bellingham Herald’s Pro-Fluoridation Piffle

  1. Thankyou afamildura, plz keep up the good work of exposing these crooks/criminals!

    ┏━┳┳┳┓ ┏━┳━━┳┳┳┓
    ┃━┫┃┃┃ ┃┗┣┓┏┫┃┃┃
    ┃┏╋┓┃┃ ┃┏┃┃┃┃┃┃┃
    ┗┛┗━┻┛ ┗━┛┗┛┗━━┛
    Fluoridation Is Great Crime Against Humanity!

    Although there has been some increasing awareness regarding the addition of synthetic fluoride to municipal water supplies and elsewhere, it is not enough.
    The seriousness of this issue is greater than most realize. Fluoridation ranks with GMOs and tainted forced vaccinations among the great crimes against humanity.The consequence of dental fluorosis, a condition that results from the intake of too much fluoride during tooth development, is well known in the medical and dental fields. There has been plenty of exposure on the subject through written reports. Yet the American Dental Association (ADA) continues to endorse fluoride treatments.The addition of sodium fluoride to water and food also creates other more serious health problems that are not widely publicized and are even suppressed. In addition to fluorosis, independent labs and reputable researchers have linked the following health issues to daily long term intake of sodium fluoride:*Thyroid disruption — sodium fluoride affects the entire endocrine system and leads to obesity*Melatonin hormone disruption —lowers immunity to cancer, accelerates aging, and creates sleep disordersAccording to investigative journalist Christopher Bryson, author of The Fluoride Deception, getting large quantities of sodium fluoride into the water and food system was a ploy of public relations sponsored by the industries who were saddled with getting rid of their toxic material without ruining the environment. Not only did they want disposal of it to be cheap, they actually found a way to make money off it!
    ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒ ❒❒❒❒

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s