GENRE: WordPress Post – Research article
TO: Various email Bcc list
AUTHOR: Sonja H
DATE SENT: Tuesday, 9 July 2013 10:39 AM
TITLE: Re: Nightly Interview – A response to Professor Thomson
STATUS: No response
UPDATES: Please post all updates and comments in the LEAVE A REPLY section below.
EXTERNAL LINKS: http://www.ch9.co.nz/node/95776
Dear Professor Thomson,
Re: Nightly Interview at this link: http://www.ch9.co.nz/node/95776
Regarding your finding that fluoridation starts earlier in children from unfluoridated communities, this could be explained by the following:
In their paper entitled “The failure of fluoridation in the United Kingdom”, when discussing the final report of that U.K. Health Department study, Professor A. Schatz and Dr J.J. Martin stated in 1972:
“It is thus clear that fluoridation does not prevent or reduce tooth decay. Instead, it merely postpones the appearance of caries by about 1.2 years Fluoridated children develop the same amount of tooth decay as their non fluoridated counterparts The only difference is that caries starts developing approximately 1.2 years later in the fluoridated group.”
This delay, at least partly, could be due to the teeth of children in fluoridated areas erupting (breaking through the gums) at a slightly older age, and therefore being exposed to decay-producing factors for a shorter period.
Regarding your referral to the CDC’s 1999 quote that “fluoridation is one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century,” Dr Paul Connett, Toxicologist and former Professor of Chemistry, points out that the article which underpins this quote was poorly researched, based on health studies six years out of date, and that the graph demonstrating that fluoridation was the cause for the reduction in tooth decay in Americans can easily be refuted by World Health Organization data that recorded the same declines in many non-fluoridated countries. Further, this quote does not come from the CDC as a whole, but from its Oral Health Division, which is about 30 people strong, most of whom have only dental qualifications. It seems this statement is simply propaganda for the promotion of fluoridation.
Like other fluoride promoters, you claim fluoridation is simply ‘topping up’ of fluoride already in water supplies. This is misleading, as there is a vast difference between naturally occurring calcium fluoride, and the industrial waste ‘byproduct’ with its various toxic contaminants, which is added to water supplies for fluoridation. Note the following from:
NeuroToxicology Volume 28, Issue 5, September 2007, Pages 1032–1042. Full paper at this link: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161813X07000459
Twenty-Third International Neurotoxicology Conference: ”Neurotoxicity in Development and Aging”
Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals
Silicofluorides (SiFs), fluosilicic acid (FSA) and sodium fluosilicate (NaFSA), are used to fluoridate over 90% of US fluoridated municipal water supplies. Living in communities with silicofluoride treated water (SiFW) is associated with two neurotoxic effects: (1) Prevalence of children with elevated blood lead (PbB > 10 μg/dL) is about double that in non-fluoridated communities (Risk Ratio 2, χ2p < 0.01). SiFW is associated with serious corrosion of lead-bearing brass plumbing, producing elevated water lead (PbW) at the faucet. New data refute the long-prevailing belief that PbW contributes little to children’s blood lead (PbB), it is likely to contribute 50% or more. (2) SiFW has been shown to interfere with cholinergic function. Unlike the fully ionized state of fluoride (F-) in water treated with sodium fluoride (NaFW), the SiF anion, [SiF6]2- in SiFW releases F- in a complicated dissociation process. Small amounts of incompletely dissociated [SiF6]2- or low molecular weight (LMW) silicic acid (SA) oligomers may remain in SiFW. A German PhD study found that SiFW is a more powerful inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase (AChE) than NaFW. It is proposed here that SiFW induces protein mis-folding via a mechanism that would affect polypeptides in general, and explain dental fluorosis, a tooth enamel defect that is not merely “cosmetic” but a “canary in the mine” foretelling other adverse, albeit subtle, health and behavioral effects. Efforts to refute evidence of such effects are analyzed and rebutted. In 1999 and 2000, senior EPA personnel admitted they knew of no health effects studies of SiFs. In 2002 SiFs were nominated for NTP animal testing. In 2006 an NRC Fluoride Study Committee recommended such studies. It is not known at this writing whether any had begun.
Regarding the safety of fluoride, you fail to mention dental fluorosis. According to Dr Hardy Limeback, recently retired Professor of Preventive Dentistry at Toronto University: “In my estimate, repairing all those teeth with objectionable fluorosis costs families (on average) more money than it costs to treat the dental decay that fluoridation supposedly prevents.” See the full discussion here: http://cof-cof.ca/2012/09/dr-hardy-limeback-bsc-phd-biochemistry-dds-dental-fluorosis-permanent-tooth-scarring-caused-by-fluoridation/
Also see Dr Paul Connett discuss the effect of fluoridation on lowering of IQ in this time-coded link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=AeyIPM_FOK0#t=2283s The full video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeyIPM_FOK0
Can you refute the claims presented by the highly qualified experts on the video Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation, which features Dr Limeback, as well as Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, three scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, and leading researchers in the field? This professionally-produced 28 minute video presents a powerful indictment of water fluoridation. View here
In trying to get to the truth regarding fluoridation, I find the work of former proponents, such as Dr Hardy Limeback, very compelling. Another former advocate, the late Dr John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer in Auckland, was employed to promote fluoridation throughout New Zealand. After finding evidence that fluoridation was ineffective, he spoke out against it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8th-Bbb0LQ&feature=youtu.be and wrote: Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation. The information provided by Dr Colquhoun is certainly eye-opening, and I find it hard to believe fluoridation is still promoted so long after this courageous dentist’s revelations.
P.S. I plan to forward a copy of this letter to Dunedin Television