Logo

Fluoride avoidance reduced anemia in pregnant women, and decreased preterm births, according to a new study.

Anemia in pregnancy can lead to maternal and infant mortality; it continues to be a problem despite nutritional counseling and maternal iron and folic acid supplementation.

Medical News Today reports:

“Anemic pregnant women living in India, whose urine contained 1 mg/L fluoride or more, were separated into two groups. The experimental group avoided fluoride in water, food and other sources ...

Results reveal that anemia was reduced and pre-term and low-birth-weight babies were considerably fewer in the fluoride-avoidance group.”


Sources:

Medical News Today September 3, 2010

Current Science May 25, 2010, Vol. 98, No. 10

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Many people are confused about fluoride and they believe that since it is “naturally” found in some water supplies it should be healthy and necessary for optimal human health.

While the logic is sound, it just isn’t true for fluoride. It is a poison when added to the water supply as most U.S. cities do, and it is a poison when occurring naturally as this study demonstrates.

This study was conducted in India, which is one of several countries known to have dangerously high levels of fluoride in their drinking water. This poison comes into contact with water supplies naturally when rocks containing fluoride erode or volcanic activity spews fluoride-containing ash into the air, allowing the colorless, odorless substance to enter groundwater.

In areas where naturally occurring fluoride is high, serious health problems usually become apparent, and that is, unfortunately, what's happening now in India where children are suffering vision loss and bone deformities due to high fluoride exposure.

This study, however, has major implications not only for people in India but for those all over the world who are exposed to fluoride. In the United States, for instance, fluoride is intentionally added to water supplies, putting unborn children at risk.

Fluoride Poses Serious Risks for Pregnant Women and Their Unborn Children

In this latest study, when anemic pregnant women avoided fluoride in their water, food and other sources, their anemia was reduced and premature and low-birth-weight babies were significantly less likely compared to pregnant women exposed to fluoride.

Anemia is a serious complication during pregnancy that can lead to both maternal and infant death, and it appears that fluoride may play a direct role in causing this dangerous condition.

Specifically, fluoride may damage the gastrointestinal mucosa, leading to impaired nutrient absorption and related illnesses like anemia. It has also been linked to:

* Decreased red blood cells
* Reduced blood folic acid activity
* Inhibitions in vitamin B12 production
* Non-absorption of nutrients for hemoglobin synthesis

When the pregnant women avoided fluoride, however, their intestinal lining regenerated, leading to enhanced nutrient absorption and reduced anemia, along with a decreased risk of pre-term birth and improved birth weights for their babies.

In the United States, a similar connection has also been made. Researchers from the State University of New York reported that premature births were more common in communities with fluoridated drinking water than those with non-fluoridated water.

More Reasons Why You Don’t Want to “Fluoridate” Your Baby

Fluoride is a drug. You can't get fluoride without a prescription, yet, if you live in the United States it's being added to your water supply on a mandatory basis at various levels that may or may not be safe for various individuals, especially children, pregnant women, the sick, and the elderly.

Approximately 50 percent of the fluoride that you ingest each day ends up accumulating in your bones over a lifetime. So you're steadily increasing the fluoride levels in your bones over time, which has been linked to arthritis-like symptoms such as joint pains and osteoporosis.

Fluoride also lowers thyroid function. It was used in medicine during the 1930s through 1950s in Europe to treat patients with overactive thyroid glands. This is a very real and significant concern, especially today as millions of people suffer with low thyroid function.

Fluoride in the United States is a Toxic Pollutant

Ninety percent of the chemicals used in fluoridation in the United States do not occur naturally.

Dr. William Hirzy from the EPA has pointed out that if it goes into the air, it's a pollutant. If it goes into the local water, it's pollution. But if the public water utilities buy it and pour it in your drinking water, it's no longer a pollutant. All of a sudden like magic it's a beneficial public health measure (even though fluoride has no benefits whatsoever when ingested).

But even the American Dental Association (ADA), which for many years was one of fluoride's biggest advocates, changed its tune a few years back and warned that parents of infants younger than a year old "should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride" when mixing baby formula.

The ADA was concerned about fluorosis, a condition caused by too much fluoride that damages the enamel of teeth and has been linked to more serious developmental problems. Studies have associated fluorosis with lower IQ, endocrine system problems, and skeletal damage.

How to Get Fluoride Out of Your Drinking Water

Sadly, for many people in India and other developing countries there is no access to safer water supplies or reverse osmosis filters that could remove the naturally occurring fluoride from the water, and now generations of children are growing up with serious health problems as a result.

There, the solution lies in securing safer water supplies or filters to remove the naturally occurring poison.

In the United States, there needs to be more pressure to prompt the government to stop adding this poison to municipal water supplies intentionally. The Fluoride Action Network has created a statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide that has now been signed by over 3,000 professionals.

We encourage all medical and science professionals to sign this statement.

In the United States, we're likely not going to be able to pass a federal law against fluoridation. There is not going to be a Presidential mandate or even a statewide elimination. This change will occur one community at a time.

So stay tuned, as we will be working to devise a complete game plan to tackle this issue head on. Once we reach the tipping point, which may be as little as 5 percent of the population, we will be able to reverse the policies of water fluoridation.

Until then, you can remove about 80% of the fluoride from your drinking water using a reverse osmosis (RO) filter. It is really hard to remove all of it with virtually any commercial filter. If you are concerned about fluoride the BEST solution is to help the Fluoride Action Network in their campaign to remove it from the water supply.

Keep in mind, too, that water is not the only source of added fluoride.

Although you may not know it, you are exposed to fluoride from many sources other than the obvious lineup of toothpastes and mouth rinses (which I recommend using fluoride-free versions of as well).

Far less obvious sources of fluoride, which I highly recommend avoiding, include:

* Food and beverages processed with fluoridated water
* Mechanically de-boned meat
* Pesticide residue on food
* Pharmaceutical drugs, especially SSRI antidepressants and fluoroquinolone antibiotics like Cipro
* Soy baby formulas
* Instant tea

Two Excellent Fluoride Resources

Professor Paul Connett has informed us that on September 17 he and several other scientists and concerned citizens from the UK, Ireland, Austria and the United States testified before a hearing on water fluoridation organized by the EU’s Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) in Brussels.

Connett and others raised many concerns about fluoride’s ability to damage your teeth, bone, brain and your endocrine system. They also stressed that there is little solid scientific evidence that ingesting fluoride actually reduces tooth decay.

Professor Connett left the committee a manuscript copy of the book he has co-authored on fluoridation that will be available in October from publisher Chelsea Green, VT, titled “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep it There.” Advanced orders for the book can be placed at Amazon.com.

While you are waiting for this book to reach the shelves, Professor Connett urges people to get their own personal copy of the DVD “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation.”

If you have yet to watch this DVD it is a wonderful 30-minute introduction to the issue from 15 highly qualified experts, including a Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, and three members of the important National Research Council panel that published a landmark review of the toxicology of fluoride in water in 2006.

Source:
mercola.com

Brantford was the third city in the world to artificially fluoridate there public water supply. The test phase began in 1945.

According to the Brantford Expositor archives there is two articles posted about water fluoridation in 1945.

The first was on January 17th 1945, titled: "Fluorine Plans Are Advanced"
This article explains that the fluorine committee had been formed. With C. C. Cariss as the as the chairman, Dr. F. J. Wentworth as Vice chairman, and city clerk E. J. Campbell as secretary.

It then goes on to say that fluoride has very large dental benefits, as well as having a positive effect on hearing.

The second article was posted on September 26th 1945, titled: "Brantford Now Adding Fluorine to city water"
Here is the first section of the article.
"Pioneering in a new field of public health. The city of Brantford is the first municipality in Canada to add fluorine to the public water supply, as a means of improving the dental health of the community.

The public utilities commission disclosed today that fluorine has been added to the water for a period of three months, without any notification to the public, and there has been no public reaction. Not one complaint has been received of any "taste" or any difference since the fluorination project started last June."

It then goes on to say that the commission decided that fluorine had been given a fair trial without publicity, and it was now time to inform the public.

The fluorine project is a long range plan which will require a number of years to prove or disprove its value as an aid to dental health.


I looked for follow up studies about water fluoridation in Brantford or Brant county. I have been unable to find a single one. I spoke to several people in the public utilities commission, but none of them knew of any, and they did not even know when water fluoridation had started. There is no Brantford Expositor archives to any follow up testing either.

I also did extensive research into who the people on the fluorine committee where. Once again to my surprise there are next to no records of these people. I was able to come up with some marriage certificates but nothing past that. Although while I was researching these men, I came across a huge conflict of interest.

J. P. Ryan served as an alderman from 1932 - 1940, and as mayor from 1940 - 1945. He resigned within two months after water fluoridation became public. From 1932 until 1949 (the time of his death) he sat on the Brantford hospital and medical boards, as well as being the chairman of the Industrial board.

Thats right chairman of the Indutrial board (Source of the sodium fluoride) and the medical board (where they have promoted it as healthy for 65 years). How is that for a conflict of interest?


With this being the case, I decided to speak to our medical officer of health Dr. Lock. When he did not return my many phone calls, I went straight into his office to speak with him. He told me that fluoride is a natural occurring substance (which is a lie), and that he supports the practice of water fluoridation. For the poor people in the community that cannot afford toothpaste.

After that we went to city council and requested that a vote be held. So that the public could decide for themselves. This request was denied.


So lets get this straight.
Water fluoridation began in Brantford in the year 1945, with a requirement of further testing. No further testing has been done.
The people responsible for starting the project did so without any public input, and even though the CDC hails water fluoridation as one of the top 20 achievements of the 20th century. These people are not added to the history books.
The mayor at the time had a very large conflict of interest in the matter.
We have a head medical officer who is ignorant to the facts of fluoride, or has a reason to be lying about it. And also uses a bogus reason for supporting the practice.
We have a city council that will not allow the people of Brantford to vote on the issue.

This is why we need the people to stand up and demand justice! We Are Change Brantford has been working on our petition, under the Ontario fluoridation act a petition with 10% of the populations signatures can force a vote.

If you are interested in helping out, or signing the petition please contact us at wearechangebrant@live.ca

When it comes to fluoridating drinking water, Ontario and Quebec couldn't be further apart. Ontario has the country's highest rate of adding the tooth-enamel-strengthening chemical into municipal supplies, while Quebec has one of the lowest, with practically no one drinking fluoridated water.

But surprisingly, the two provinces have very little difference in tooth-decay rates, a finding that is likely to intensify the ongoing controversy over the practice of adding fluoride to water as a public health measure.

Quebeckers have more cavities than people in Ontario, but the difference is slight. Among children 6 to 19, considered the most decay-prone part of the population, the rate in Ontario was lower by less than half a cavity per child.

In the 6-11 age group, Ontario kids have 3.5 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 1.7 cavities compared to 1.76 in Quebec.

In the 12-19 age group, Ontario youths have 15.8 per cent fewer cavities than those in Quebec: 2.35 cavities compared to 2.79.



Details of the cavity rates in the two provinces have been compiled by Statistics Canada in a study it conducted recently into the health status of Canadians. Experts peered into the mouths of more than 5,000 Canadians from 2007 to 2009, tallying the number of cavities and teeth with filings, to try to get an idea of the state of oral health of the nation.

After a request from The Globe and Mail for a breakdown of the cavity rates by province, Statistics Canada tabulated the figures for Ontario and Quebec, where it said it had a sufficient number of people to be a representative sample.

Statscan said it couldn't compile meaningful data for British Columbia and Alberta, which are in a similar situation. British Columbia has practically no one drinking fluoridated water, while nearly three-quarters of Albertans rely on municipal supplies where the chemical is added.

The paper sought the information to see what light it would shed on the effectiveness of fluoridation, which has been touted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, and is endorsed by all dental associations in the country and by Health Canada.

But the results showed that if fluoridation is the only major difference between the two provinces, the chemical is preventing fewer than half a cavity per child in Ontario.

Health Canada down played the significance of the findings.

“While accurate,” the data on the children are “an incomplete picture of the tooth decay situation.... [and] cannot be used to form conclusions regarding the efficacy of fluoride use in water,” Health Canada said.

The federal department said firm conclusions can't be drawn from the Statscan survey because it didn't collect assessments on individual intakes of the chemical. To make a proper assessment, Health Canada said it would need detailed information on whether people in the two provinces differ in their intake fluoride supplements, drink tap water or bottled water, and use fluoridated toothpaste.

But fluoridation is one major and obvious difference between the provinces. More than three-quarters of Ontario residents live in areas where municipal water supplies contain the chemical. In Quebec, 94 per cent have water free of the additive, according to figures published by Health Canada in 2007.

Since then, Quebec City has voted to stop fluoridating, indicating that the difference between the two provinces is currently even more pronounced.

Some critics of fluoridation say the survey does raise questions about the practice.

“Fluoridation is no longer effective,” contends Hardy Limeback, head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto, who says adding the chemical to water is “more harmful than beneficial.”

Although fluoridation is touted as an unalloyed benefit by public health agencies, which estimate it cuts cavity rates by 20 per cent to 40 per cent, many community groups have sprung up across Canada lobbying to stop the practice, which is subject to repeal by local referendums. Some health professionals are worried fluoridation may have under-appreciated risks.

While fluoride toughens the outside of teeth to make them more resistant to bacteria-causing decay, a number of medical journal studies have linked exposure to altered thyroid function, and to reduced IQ levels in children, although the intellectual impairments were found at levels of the chemical in water well above those used for municipal supplies.

The most worrisome study, by Harvard researchers, appeared in 2006 in the journal Cancer Causes and Control and found that boys aged 7 exposed to high levels of fluoridated water were about four times more likely to develop childhood osteosarcoma. It's a rare bone cancer that felled Canadian icon Terry Fox and almost always leads to amputations.

There has also been a worldwide reduction in cavity rates, regardless of whether countries use the chemical, suggesting factors other than adding it to water supplies are at work.

One theory is that most people are already getting adequate exposure to fluoride through toothpastes, so the amounts in water aren't making much difference in tooth decay rates.

“The parallel reduction in caries [cavities] incidents in countries with a lot of fluoridation and countries with not much fluoridation is quite dramatic,” says Warren Bell, former head of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, a group that questions the practice.

Dr. Limeback said factors that might be preventing caries include increased exposure to vitamin D, better oral hygiene, less sugar consumption, and even antibiotics.

When fluoridation started 60 years ago, doctors thought swallowing the chemical was beneficial by strengthening teeth from the inside out. Dr. Limeback said more recent research shows that if there is a benefit, it is from the topical application of fluoride to the surface of teeth, which suggests that brushing with a toothpaste is more effective than drinking water containing the chemical.

Source:
theglobeandmail.com

These videos are from the May 25 2010 city council meeting. All speakers told council how bad of an idea water fluoridation is and how toxic fluoride is. Ultimately the council shot down the idea of ending the practice, or putting it to a vote. No surprise there, but this gave us another valuable tool to inform the people.


Here is the playlist for all 6 speakers.

Natural News

Municipalities all across America are currently dripping fluoride chemicals into their public water supply, dosing over a hundred million Americans with a chemical that they claim "prevents cavities."

What's interesting here is that this biological effect of "preventing cavities" is a medical claim, according to the FDA. And as such, making this claim instantly and automatically transforms fluoride into a "drug" under currently FDA regulations.

This means that cities and towns all across America are now practicing medicine without a license by dripping liquid medication into the public water supply without the consent of those who are swallowing the medication.

If you or I did this, we would be arrested and tried as either terrorists (because contaminating the water supply is an act of terrorism) or felons practicing medicine without a license. So what allows cities and towns to get away with these very same crimes?

Cities openly violate state and federal law
Keep in mind that a medication can only be legally prescribed to someone after they have been diagnosed with a medical need. In other words, a doctor can't legally prescribe you some pharmaceutical unless he examines you and determines you actually need it. But fluoride is medicating everyone whether they need it or not, without any medical diagnosis whatsoever.

And that means those children or adults who already have high exposure to fluoride (from swallowing toothpaste or drinking fluoridated bottled water, for example) may now be exposed to too much fluoride from the added amounts in the tap water. Excess fluoride can cause serious health problems such as bone fractures and dark spots appearing on your teeth (dental fluorosis).

This does not appear to concern the proponents of fluoride -- people who believe they alone have the right to practice mass medicine without a license by dripping an unapproved drug chemical into the public water supply without the knowledge or consent of those who are being medicated by that chemical.

Every city and town in America currently engaged in fluoridation of the water supply is committing felony crimes. Town leaders who approve of water fluoridation are criminals operating in clear violation of FDA regulations, state medical laws and federal laws.

How to fight back
If you happen to see one of these town leaders at a town meeting, make a citizens' arrest and put them in handcuffs, then turn them over to the local sheriff.

You may also wish to write a strong letter to your state medical board and complain that your city or town officials are "practicing medicine without a license" by dosing your city residents with an unapproved drug.

If they insist fluoride is not a drug, tell them to read the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). (http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinform...)

There, you will find that the Act states:

The term "drug" means... articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals.

Now, I don't personally agree with this definition of a "drug" but this is what the FDA claims it to be, and it clearly states that any item intended to "affect the structure" of the body is a drug.

Fluoride is intended to affect the structure of the teeth. That's the whole claimed purpose of dumping it into the water supply. Therefore, fluoride is a drug.

Furthermore, since it is a drug, it is ILLEGAL to dump it into the water supply, even if it were approved by the FDA to treat cavities (which it isn't).

Thus, every employee of every city or town that is currently dumping this chemical drug into the water supply is guilty of a felony crime and should be immediately arrested and prosecuted for contamination of the public water supplies as well as practicing medicine without a license.

Call your local police department and report these crimes. It's time to arrest these fluoro-terrorists who are illegally contaminating our public water supply with illegal drugs. Stop the fluoride madness.

"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 range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

Natural News

canadafreepress.com
By News on the Net: Lesley Spence Sunday, July 25, 2010
Dear Helena Guergis;
I’m writing about the proposed Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA.

Recent news articles and reports that I’ve seen indicate this deal would offer few if any benefits to Canada. European companies would be the winners; at costs Canadians cannot afford.
Nothing that I’ve heard from government or business advocates has convinced me that this deal with Europe makes sense. Neither group have very much to say about where the real benefits are for Canadians. They merely say that free trade is good and everyone who disagrees is wrong. That is neither sound trade policy nor sound economic policy.
This week, the Toronto Star reported on a new legal opinion about CETA. The EU has insisted that drinking water services be included, opening the door for European multinationals to “stake” a claim in Canada’s municipal water systems. “The most serious threat to public ownership and control of water arises from the risk of private entities being able to establish a proprietary claim to the water itself,” the report says.

That legal opinion also says European negotiators are hoping to make it impossible for Canadian cities to buy or hire locally under any circumstance, even when doing so offers more economic or social benefits than picking the lowest cost bidder.
There are a lot of groups questioning this agreement, including farmers, workers, environmentalists, citizens groups and civic-minded think tanks like the Columbia Institute, which released the report on cities by Mr. Shrybman. We need open and honest debate on Canada’s trade policy before we are stuck with a new European deal that doesn’t make sense.
I encourage you to read through Mr. Shrybman’s legal opinion on CETA, which recommends that the federal government:

1. undertake and publish a thorough, timely and objective assessment of both the costs and benefits for municipalities of the CETA agenda;
2. provide an explanation of which sectors are most likely to be the principal beneficiaries of CETA, and how the purported benefits of this trade deal are to be distributed;
3. engage in effective consultations with municipalities following these analyses and before negotiations are pursued further; and
4. allow sufficient time for municipalities to solicit public comment from those potentially affected by present proposals.

These recommendations seem reasonable; I ask that you take them on as my federal representative.

Why are Canadian negotiators even considering sacrificing the freedom to source locally in this trade agreement with Europe? For example, why is the federal government thinking of giving away the ability of the municipalities to spend public money in ways that benefit the local community and promote sustainable development?

What benefit could there possibly be in doing such a thing? How will cities, provinces, workers, water and the environment be impacted across Canada by this European agreement? We need answers to these questions and the time to debate those answers as a country, before anything is signed.

Sincerely,

Lesley Spence
Elmvale ON

Police have added a water cannon to their arsenal as they step up security ahead of this week's G20 summit in Toronto.

Provincial police Const. Michelle Murphy of the Integrated Security Unit says the water projection system will be used to control large crowds if there are riots.

Activists have promised to be out in force to protest the two-day summit of world leaders that starts Friday.

Const. Murphy says the security plan is moving ahead as planned and officers are being put in place.




Toronto's police chief has said 5,100 officers have been assigned to keep the city safe as the weekend summit nears.

There are ads in local newspapers Monday explaining the security zone and advising people how to deal with it.

There was also a visible increase in the number of uniformed police officers on downtown streets over the weekend.

Source