Demand for full tests on impact of fluoride

Daily Echo: Demand for full tests on impact of fluoride Demand for full tests on impact of fluoride

CAMPAIGNERS fighting plans to add fluoride to Hampshire tap water have called on the Government to end a “medical scandal” by fully testing the impact it has on health.

Hampshire Against fluoridation wants the chemical to be treated as a medicine, and for rigorous assessments of its possible effects to be carried out for the first time – before it can be added to tap water.

The organisation, which has been fighting the controversial scheme to fluoridate homes and businesses in parts of Southampton , Eastleigh , Totton , Netley and Rownhams , has written to the Health Secretary demanding a change in the law.

Its chairman, John Spottiswoode , said the refusal to fully examine the effects of fluoridation is “very reminiscent of the early days of the defence of nicotine, lead and asbestos”.

Health bosses hope to introduce fluoride in Hampshire by next spring, arguing it will improve children’s dental health and has no proven serious side effects, but Mr Spottiswoode said he fears growing evidence of harm is being ignored.

Opponents claimed the chemical can cause problems such as mottled teeth, brittle bones, cancers and even lowered IQ in youngsters.

Mr Spottiswoode said he wants the Department of Health to require fluoride to be examined to strict medicinal standards before new schemes are brought in, adding to those running elsewhere in the UK since the 1960s.

He said: “Millions are being experimented on with a substance that has never been properly tested.

“The question is how long this medical scandal can continue, the unsound defence of fluoride being very reminiscent of the early days of the defence of nicotine, lead and asbestos.

“Several toxins can be, and are included with the fluoride, which while only at theoretically low levels are still worryingly high for the level of consumption by people every day over the long term.

“It is the duty of the Department of Health to look after the population’s health and this is a serious loop-hole that means the population is not being protected.

“Water fluoridation should not be extended until the fluoride chemicals have been properly tested for their effects on the whole body and not just on the teeth.”

A spokesman for the Department of Health said fluoridation has been in place in parts of the UK for more than 40 years, and there are “no immediate plans” to treat it as a medicine.

Comments (92)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:09am Fri 17 Aug 12

seventh-junction says...

My teeth are getting whiter every week but so's my poo
My teeth are getting whiter every week but so's my poo seventh-junction

8:25am Fri 17 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you? The Wickham Man

8:33am Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it. southy

8:45am Fri 17 Aug 12

tootle says...

Whilst these campaigners are showing a one sided view the improvement of chidren's oral health due to adding Fluoride to water also lacks any real proof. As to MMR, there are questions to be answered still over the connection between MMR and the noticeable onset of Autism, even though personally I don't think there is a specific link to be found. Will we all still be talking about the effects(possible or otherwise) of fluoridation 20 years on? If so then it shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Whilst these campaigners are showing a one sided view the improvement of chidren's oral health due to adding Fluoride to water also lacks any real proof. As to MMR, there are questions to be answered still over the connection between MMR and the noticeable onset of Autism, even though personally I don't think there is a specific link to be found. Will we all still be talking about the effects(possible or otherwise) of fluoridation 20 years on? If so then it shouldn't be allowed to happen. tootle

9:08am Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
.. I presume John Selwyn Gummer and various other government ministers and officials had "read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country" on nvCJD.

Turned out it was all "evidence" designed to give the answers the government desired. British beef wasn't safe after all, was it?

Oh you people with such short memories.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote].. I presume John Selwyn Gummer and various other government ministers and officials had "read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country" on nvCJD. Turned out it was all "evidence" designed to give the answers the government desired. British beef wasn't safe after all, was it? Oh you people with such short memories. freefinker

9:55am Fri 17 Aug 12

On the inside says...

Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another.

As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated.

Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else. On the inside

9:59am Fri 17 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
Garbage. There is no evidence at all that any child suffered because of MMR vaccine. It's because of idiots like you that proper research is wasted. There was no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism other than what would be expected in normal statistical samples. Dr Wakefield manipulated normal statistical variance to support his theory. You didn;t even bother to read the research, but no surprise there. I can tell you as an ex-scientist that if research is not published it is because it is not sufficiently rigorous to be accepted, not because somebody disagrees with it. Either do your homework properly or shut up
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]Garbage. There is no evidence at all that any child suffered because of MMR vaccine. It's because of idiots like you that proper research is wasted. There was no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism other than what would be expected in normal statistical samples. Dr Wakefield manipulated normal statistical variance to support his theory. You didn;t even bother to read the research, but no surprise there. I can tell you as an ex-scientist that if research is not published it is because it is not sufficiently rigorous to be accepted, not because somebody disagrees with it. Either do your homework properly or shut up The Wickham Man

10:10am Fri 17 Aug 12

Of the Ilk says...

Sensationalist bad health stories sell papers. This is so with the effects of flouride and the MMR vaccine. Everyone remembers the bad report, but then the papers and those who have been hoodwinked ignore the proper research that shows the original reports were biased and incorrect.
Sensationalist bad health stories sell papers. This is so with the effects of flouride and the MMR vaccine. Everyone remembers the bad report, but then the papers and those who have been hoodwinked ignore the proper research that shows the original reports were biased and incorrect. Of the Ilk

10:13am Fri 17 Aug 12

Brian Hooper says...

Actually, Mr Spottiswoode is an honourable man who has done a great deal of work on this subject. Cheap shots are just that. Regardless of that, he's unquestionably right to say it's a scandal that fluoridation is not subject to the medical licensing regime, when clearly it is done, or proposed to be done, with the aim of producing a medical outcome.
Could it be that classing fluoride as a medicine would make it unlawful to administer it to people without any assessment of whether they need it?
Actually, Mr Spottiswoode is an honourable man who has done a great deal of work on this subject. Cheap shots are just that. Regardless of that, he's unquestionably right to say it's a scandal that fluoridation is not subject to the medical licensing regime, when clearly it is done, or proposed to be done, with the aim of producing a medical outcome. Could it be that classing fluoride as a medicine would make it unlawful to administer it to people without any assessment of whether they need it? Brian Hooper

10:16am Fri 17 Aug 12

Linesman says...

southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
You are WRONG this time southy.

ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out.

He was wrong.

There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab.

This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis
t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]You are WRONG this time southy. ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out. He was wrong. There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab. This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong. Linesman

10:19am Fri 17 Aug 12

Linesman says...

Brian Hooper wrote:
Actually, Mr Spottiswoode is an honourable man who has done a great deal of work on this subject. Cheap shots are just that. Regardless of that, he's unquestionably right to say it's a scandal that fluoridation is not subject to the medical licensing regime, when clearly it is done, or proposed to be done, with the aim of producing a medical outcome.
Could it be that classing fluoride as a medicine would make it unlawful to administer it to people without any assessment of whether they need it?
If 50 years of flouride in the Midlands water supply, with only beneficial effects, is not test enough, what else would satisfy you?

What is Mr Spottiswoode's answer to that FACT?
[quote][p][bold]Brian Hooper[/bold] wrote: Actually, Mr Spottiswoode is an honourable man who has done a great deal of work on this subject. Cheap shots are just that. Regardless of that, he's unquestionably right to say it's a scandal that fluoridation is not subject to the medical licensing regime, when clearly it is done, or proposed to be done, with the aim of producing a medical outcome. Could it be that classing fluoride as a medicine would make it unlawful to administer it to people without any assessment of whether they need it?[/p][/quote]If 50 years of flouride in the Midlands water supply, with only beneficial effects, is not test enough, what else would satisfy you? What is Mr Spottiswoode's answer to that FACT? Linesman

10:53am Fri 17 Aug 12

southy says...

Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
You are WRONG this time southy.

ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out.

He was wrong.

There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab.

This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis

t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.
was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain).
Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind.
The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]You are WRONG this time southy. ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out. He was wrong. There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab. This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.[/p][/quote]was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain). Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind. The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child. southy

11:14am Fri 17 Aug 12

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
You are WRONG this time southy.

ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out.

He was wrong.

There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab.

This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis


t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.
was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain).
Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind.
The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.
.. southy, give up will you. You know nothing.

Yes, a few children do have a reaction to MMR, as do some to the 3 jabs separately, as do some to all other vaccinations and inoculations.

There is, however, NO evidence that MMR is any worse in this respect than the 3 jabs separately. There is NO evidence to link MMR to autism.

I have already shown above my scepticism on the government position on fluoridisation. They are being extremely selective with the “evidence” the offer to the debate.

However, MMR is a red herring and you will have perhaps noticed this argument has never been used by the opponents of fluoridisation to back up their position.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]You are WRONG this time southy. ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out. He was wrong. There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab. This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.[/p][/quote]was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain). Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind. The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.[/p][/quote].. southy, give up will you. You know nothing. Yes, a few children do have a reaction to MMR, as do some to the 3 jabs separately, as do some to all other vaccinations and inoculations. There is, however, NO evidence that MMR is any worse in this respect than the 3 jabs separately. There is NO evidence to link MMR to autism. I have already shown above my scepticism on the government position on fluoridisation. They are being extremely selective with the “evidence” the offer to the debate. However, MMR is a red herring and you will have perhaps noticed this argument has never been used by the opponents of fluoridisation to back up their position. freefinker

11:31am Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
You are WRONG this time southy.

ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out.

He was wrong.

There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab.

This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis


t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.
was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain).
Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind.
The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.
Oh really?

http://www.jennymcca
rthybodycount.com/Je
nny_McCarthy_Body_Co
unt/Home.html
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]You are WRONG this time southy. ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out. He was wrong. There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab. This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.[/p][/quote]was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain). Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind. The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.[/p][/quote]Oh really? http://www.jennymcca rthybodycount.com/Je nny_McCarthy_Body_Co unt/Home.html Georgem

11:38am Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

And once again southy turns the discussion away from the subject at hand, and toward him proving himself to be "right" about something else. Tedious. Unworthy of the Rahit Maryada, which by the way southy, has been proven by credible sources which you trust NOT to have been named after anyone. The ridiculous amount of lies you told around that one will haunt you forever now.
And once again southy turns the discussion away from the subject at hand, and toward him proving himself to be "right" about something else. Tedious. Unworthy of the Rahit Maryada, which by the way southy, has been proven by credible sources which you trust NOT to have been named after anyone. The ridiculous amount of lies you told around that one will haunt you forever now. Georgem

11:58am Fri 17 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

Linesman writes "If 50 years of flouride in the Midlands water supply, with only beneficial effects, is not test enough, what else would satisfy you?"

This is the Midlands calling Southampton. Linesman - don't make me laugh! Of course there is evidence of harm. 30-40% of children with permanent Dental Fluorosis in their permanent teeth caused by an overload of fluoride in their diet and environment. A research report from 1997 (Rock and Sabieha) which documented Dental Fluorosis in fluoridated Birmingham, and another research report from 1991 (Hamdan and Rock) which compared fluoridated Birmingham with very recently fluoridated Tamworth and found a much lower incidence of Dental Fluorosis in Tamworth. Fluoride varnishes are being applied to fluoridated children's teeth throughout the West Midlands because fluoridation is not working. In the last few weeks, we've received statistics from the fluoridated Irish Republic which show that the incidence of prostrate and pancreatic cancer and leukaemia are higher there than in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. (Until researchers pin-point the cause of the cancer, it is so tempting to see causation between fluoride, the genotoxic contaminants in the fluoridating acid and cancer.) Then there is the very recent Harvard Systematic Review by Choi et al which has examined all the worldwide research on children's intelligence and fluoride and which has decisively concluded that fluoride reduces children’s intelligence. We've known all along that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and that children bio-accumulate it more than adults. Now we have further proof that their brains are being adversely affected.

Fluoride is added to water to prevent dental decay in a very small number of disadvantaged children so why does an entire population have to put up with the imposition of this garbage? I agree with John Spottiswoode that the policy of water fluoridation is a medical scandal. It is also an ethical, political scandal. We have the right under the NHS Constitution to refuse medical treatment. We can refuse vaccinations on behalf of ourselves and our children but we cannot altogether avoid fluoridated water. Yet, injections and mandatory fluoridation are both invasive procedures. It’s time to forcefully remind the NHS and the SHAs that we, the people, will not put up with a Public Health policy which exists to try to prevent a disease which is only mildly infectious among family members and which is definitely not of epidemic proportions. It’s as laughable as adding headache pills to the water supply to help a minority of people who suffer from migraines. Fluoridation is a ridiculous ill-health intervention.
Linesman writes "If 50 years of flouride in the Midlands water supply, with only beneficial effects, is not test enough, what else would satisfy you?" This is the Midlands calling Southampton. Linesman - don't make me laugh! Of course there is evidence of harm. 30-40% of children with permanent Dental Fluorosis in their permanent teeth caused by an overload of fluoride in their diet and environment. A research report from 1997 (Rock and Sabieha) which documented Dental Fluorosis in fluoridated Birmingham, and another research report from 1991 (Hamdan and Rock) which compared fluoridated Birmingham with very recently fluoridated Tamworth and found a much lower incidence of Dental Fluorosis in Tamworth. Fluoride varnishes are being applied to fluoridated children's teeth throughout the West Midlands because fluoridation is not working. In the last few weeks, we've received statistics from the fluoridated Irish Republic which show that the incidence of prostrate and pancreatic cancer and leukaemia are higher there than in non-fluoridated Northern Ireland. (Until researchers pin-point the cause of the cancer, it is so tempting to see causation between fluoride, the genotoxic contaminants in the fluoridating acid and cancer.) Then there is the very recent Harvard Systematic Review by Choi et al which has examined all the worldwide research on children's intelligence and fluoride and which has decisively concluded that fluoride reduces children’s intelligence. We've known all along that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and that children bio-accumulate it more than adults. Now we have further proof that their brains are being adversely affected. Fluoride is added to water to prevent dental decay in a very small number of disadvantaged children so why does an entire population have to put up with the imposition of this garbage? I agree with John Spottiswoode that the policy of water fluoridation is a medical scandal. It is also an ethical, political scandal. We have the right under the NHS Constitution to refuse medical treatment. We can refuse vaccinations on behalf of ourselves and our children but we cannot altogether avoid fluoridated water. Yet, injections and mandatory fluoridation are both invasive procedures. It’s time to forcefully remind the NHS and the SHAs that we, the people, will not put up with a Public Health policy which exists to try to prevent a disease which is only mildly infectious among family members and which is definitely not of epidemic proportions. It’s as laughable as adding headache pills to the water supply to help a minority of people who suffer from migraines. Fluoridation is a ridiculous ill-health intervention. Joy Warren

12:09pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
You are WRONG this time southy.

ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out.

He was wrong.

There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab.

This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis


t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.
was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain).
Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind.
The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.
So you know better than:

1) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2) The Institute of Medicine

3) National Academy of Sciences

AND

the NHS and the Cochrane Library review.

The research was declared fraudulent in 2011 by the British Medical Journal.



Of course you do, what am I thinking!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]You are WRONG this time southy. ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out. He was wrong. There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab. This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.[/p][/quote]was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain). Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind. The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.[/p][/quote]So you know better than: 1) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2) The Institute of Medicine 3) National Academy of Sciences AND the NHS and the Cochrane Library review. The research was declared fraudulent in 2011 by the British Medical Journal. Of course you do, what am I thinking! Shoong

1:21pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

On the inside wrote:
Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another.

As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated.

Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
[quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal. Inform Al

2:00pm Fri 17 Aug 12

sarfhamton says...

I love it when a fluoride story appears, it brings all the nutters, conspiracy theorists and arm chair scientists out of the woodwork!

I saw a fluoride protest last year and these campaigners are so old they all have false teeth anyway.

Stick to looking for martians guys!
I love it when a fluoride story appears, it brings all the nutters, conspiracy theorists and arm chair scientists out of the woodwork! I saw a fluoride protest last year and these campaigners are so old they all have false teeth anyway. Stick to looking for martians guys! sarfhamton

2:02pm Fri 17 Aug 12

On the inside says...

Inform Al wrote:
On the inside wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
Oh dear god. Is stupidity required where you live. Arsenic, just like Fluoride, is naturally present in drinking water at varying levels depending on where you live.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.[/p][/quote]Oh dear god. Is stupidity required where you live. Arsenic, just like Fluoride, is naturally present in drinking water at varying levels depending on where you live. On the inside

2:58pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

As a reply to 'Inform Al', arsenic is added to our tap water since it's a contaminant in the fluoridating acid.

Natural arsenic and/or inorganic arsenic are present in some raw waters at extremely low levels. If it's organic arsenic, it's not as injurious to health as the arsenic added at the same time as the fluoride. The recommendation by a Government Committee is to keep "inorganic arsenic as low as reasonably practicable". (COT/2003/01). The easiest way of keeping arsenic as low as 'reasonably practicable' is not to add it to our drinking water in the first place.

The total amount of arsenic in our water supply in the West Midlands varies throughout the Region and throughout the year, and in 2010, levels were between 0.37ppb (or less) right up to 9.6ppb. The maximum allowable is 10ppb. However, the levels of total arsenic are not the essence of the problem: it's the deliberate addition of arsenic which is the scandal. What sort of crazy health policy is it that encourages the addition of arsenic to drinking water just so that stubborn health authorities can add fluoride?

Water company technicians try to provide us with pure, wholesome water. They add chemicals and then remove the chemicals as part of the water treatment process. Finally, they add chlorine or chloramines in order to kill any pathogens. This then constitutes potable water. The technicians are then ordered to adulterate the potable water by adding 5.36ppm hexafluorosilicic acid per litre of potable water, rendering it unwholesome and impure. Note that we are not offered a refund because of the consequent reduction in quality and we can't insist on being compensated. If it was any other type of utility company, we would be able to move our custom. That democratic right is denied us!
As a reply to 'Inform Al', arsenic is added to our tap water since it's a contaminant in the fluoridating acid. Natural arsenic and/or inorganic arsenic are present in some raw waters at extremely low levels. If it's organic arsenic, it's not as injurious to health as the arsenic added at the same time as the fluoride. The recommendation by a Government Committee is to keep "inorganic arsenic as low as reasonably practicable". (COT/2003/01). The easiest way of keeping arsenic as low as 'reasonably practicable' is not to add it to our drinking water in the first place. The total amount of arsenic in our water supply in the West Midlands varies throughout the Region and throughout the year, and in 2010, levels were between 0.37ppb (or less) right up to 9.6ppb. The maximum allowable is 10ppb. However, the levels of total arsenic are not the essence of the problem: it's the deliberate addition of arsenic which is the scandal. What sort of crazy health policy is it that encourages the addition of arsenic to drinking water just so that stubborn health authorities can add fluoride? Water company technicians try to provide us with pure, wholesome water. They add chemicals and then remove the chemicals as part of the water treatment process. Finally, they add chlorine or chloramines in order to kill any pathogens. This then constitutes potable water. The technicians are then ordered to adulterate the potable water by adding 5.36ppm hexafluorosilicic acid per litre of potable water, rendering it unwholesome and impure. Note that we are not offered a refund because of the consequent reduction in quality and we can't insist on being compensated. If it was any other type of utility company, we would be able to move our custom. That democratic right is denied us! Joy Warren

3:01pm Fri 17 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

I think it is very important that the following hard facts are reported. In 1999 the Government commissioned a study on the effects of Fluoride. Following that study the Government pressed ahead with Fluoridation plans. In 2003 the highly respected Scientists responsible for that report published the following letter called ‘what the York review really found’ In that letter they state they were concerned by how the York Review was being misinterpreted . They went on to say:

‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. ‘

As you can see.. After 50 years of Fluoridation there is no reliable proof it works ‘World-Wide‘. All that was found is the ‘suggestion’ that Fluoride has a benefit, but also the suggestion that it causes harm. They also state that ‘Not enough is known’ regarding the safety of fluoride. It is interesting to note that the York Review refused to look at or include animal studies that do show.. Reduced IQ , Cancer and a whole host of other negative effects caused by Fluoride. But all in all these responsible and brave scientists did there best to put the record straight.
Lets remember that Fluoride is a High level Neurotoxin. Just read the back of any toothpaste and it will state ‘ In case of intake of Fluoride from ANY other sources, consult a doctor.
I think it is very important that the following hard facts are reported. In 1999 the Government commissioned a study on the effects of Fluoride. Following that study the Government pressed ahead with Fluoridation plans. In 2003 the highly respected Scientists responsible for that report published the following letter called ‘what the York review really found’ In that letter they state they were concerned by how the York Review was being misinterpreted . They went on to say: ‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. ‘ As you can see.. After 50 years of Fluoridation there is no reliable proof it works ‘World-Wide‘. All that was found is the ‘suggestion’ that Fluoride has a benefit, but also the suggestion that it causes harm. They also state that ‘Not enough is known’ regarding the safety of fluoride. It is interesting to note that the York Review refused to look at or include animal studies that do show.. Reduced IQ , Cancer and a whole host of other negative effects caused by Fluoride. But all in all these responsible and brave scientists did there best to put the record straight. Lets remember that Fluoride is a High level Neurotoxin. Just read the back of any toothpaste and it will state ‘ In case of intake of Fluoride from ANY other sources, consult a doctor. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

3:30pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Georgem says...

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS wrote:
I think it is very important that the following hard facts are reported. In 1999 the Government commissioned a study on the effects of Fluoride. Following that study the Government pressed ahead with Fluoridation plans. In 2003 the highly respected Scientists responsible for that report published the following letter called ‘what the York review really found’ In that letter they state they were concerned by how the York Review was being misinterpreted . They went on to say:

‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. ‘

As you can see.. After 50 years of Fluoridation there is no reliable proof it works ‘World-Wide‘. All that was found is the ‘suggestion’ that Fluoride has a benefit, but also the suggestion that it causes harm. They also state that ‘Not enough is known’ regarding the safety of fluoride. It is interesting to note that the York Review refused to look at or include animal studies that do show.. Reduced IQ , Cancer and a whole host of other negative effects caused by Fluoride. But all in all these responsible and brave scientists did there best to put the record straight.
Lets remember that Fluoride is a High level Neurotoxin. Just read the back of any toothpaste and it will state ‘ In case of intake of Fluoride from ANY other sources, consult a doctor.
Is your name supposed to be "facts for the mothers" or "fact for them others"?
[quote][p][bold]FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS[/bold] wrote: I think it is very important that the following hard facts are reported. In 1999 the Government commissioned a study on the effects of Fluoride. Following that study the Government pressed ahead with Fluoridation plans. In 2003 the highly respected Scientists responsible for that report published the following letter called ‘what the York review really found’ In that letter they state they were concerned by how the York Review was being misinterpreted . They went on to say: ‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. ‘ As you can see.. After 50 years of Fluoridation there is no reliable proof it works ‘World-Wide‘. All that was found is the ‘suggestion’ that Fluoride has a benefit, but also the suggestion that it causes harm. They also state that ‘Not enough is known’ regarding the safety of fluoride. It is interesting to note that the York Review refused to look at or include animal studies that do show.. Reduced IQ , Cancer and a whole host of other negative effects caused by Fluoride. But all in all these responsible and brave scientists did there best to put the record straight. Lets remember that Fluoride is a High level Neurotoxin. Just read the back of any toothpaste and it will state ‘ In case of intake of Fluoride from ANY other sources, consult a doctor.[/p][/quote]Is your name supposed to be "facts for the mothers" or "fact for them others"? Georgem

4:57pm Fri 17 Aug 12

J.P.M says...

Georgem has got dentures.
Georgem has got dentures. J.P.M

5:07pm Fri 17 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Georgem wrote:
FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS wrote: I think it is very important that the following hard facts are reported. In 1999 the Government commissioned a study on the effects of Fluoride. Following that study the Government pressed ahead with Fluoridation plans. In 2003 the highly respected Scientists responsible for that report published the following letter called ‘what the York review really found’ In that letter they state they were concerned by how the York Review was being misinterpreted . They went on to say: ‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. ‘ As you can see.. After 50 years of Fluoridation there is no reliable proof it works ‘World-Wide‘. All that was found is the ‘suggestion’ that Fluoride has a benefit, but also the suggestion that it causes harm. They also state that ‘Not enough is known’ regarding the safety of fluoride. It is interesting to note that the York Review refused to look at or include animal studies that do show.. Reduced IQ , Cancer and a whole host of other negative effects caused by Fluoride. But all in all these responsible and brave scientists did there best to put the record straight. Lets remember that Fluoride is a High level Neurotoxin. Just read the back of any toothpaste and it will state ‘ In case of intake of Fluoride from ANY other sources, consult a doctor.
Is your name supposed to be "facts for the mothers" or "fact for them others"?
In answer to your question 'Is your name supposed to be "facts for the mothers" or "fact for them others"? It really depends on what you are.. If you are a mother please read as such.. if 'other' please read as such.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS[/bold] wrote: I think it is very important that the following hard facts are reported. In 1999 the Government commissioned a study on the effects of Fluoride. Following that study the Government pressed ahead with Fluoridation plans. In 2003 the highly respected Scientists responsible for that report published the following letter called ‘what the York review really found’ In that letter they state they were concerned by how the York Review was being misinterpreted . They went on to say: ‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. ‘ As you can see.. After 50 years of Fluoridation there is no reliable proof it works ‘World-Wide‘. All that was found is the ‘suggestion’ that Fluoride has a benefit, but also the suggestion that it causes harm. They also state that ‘Not enough is known’ regarding the safety of fluoride. It is interesting to note that the York Review refused to look at or include animal studies that do show.. Reduced IQ , Cancer and a whole host of other negative effects caused by Fluoride. But all in all these responsible and brave scientists did there best to put the record straight. Lets remember that Fluoride is a High level Neurotoxin. Just read the back of any toothpaste and it will state ‘ In case of intake of Fluoride from ANY other sources, consult a doctor.[/p][/quote]Is your name supposed to be "facts for the mothers" or "fact for them others"?[/p][/quote]In answer to your question 'Is your name supposed to be "facts for the mothers" or "fact for them others"? It really depends on what you are.. If you are a mother please read as such.. if 'other' please read as such. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

5:14pm Fri 17 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
well the Wickham Man really is out to lunch isnt he :-).. Perhaps he should read 'What the York review really found' and then comment. He is clearly the kind of man who talks about something he has zero knowledge of..The official Government commisioned report on Fluoride says ' The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable' '‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.' . Fluoride is a proven scam..
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]well the Wickham Man really is out to lunch isnt he :-).. Perhaps he should read 'What the York review really found' and then comment. He is clearly the kind of man who talks about something he has zero knowledge of..The official Government commisioned report on Fluoride says ' The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable' '‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.' . Fluoride is a proven scam.. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

6:37pm Fri 17 Aug 12

tootle says...

Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.
Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation. tootle

6:42pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Huffter says...

tootle wrote:
Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.
Well said - people have to take some responsibility for their own health and should not have anything forced upon them.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.[/p][/quote]Well said - people have to take some responsibility for their own health and should not have anything forced upon them. Huffter

6:54pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Velleity says...

So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use?

Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet?
So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use? Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet? Velleity

7:12pm Fri 17 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Huffter wrote:
tootle wrote: Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.
Well said - people have to take some responsibility for their own health and should not have anything forced upon them.
Dont be sorry.. If you read whats written you will see the smart money is on 'NO TO FLUORIDE' ..Fluoride is a proven scam.
[quote][p][bold]Huffter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.[/p][/quote]Well said - people have to take some responsibility for their own health and should not have anything forced upon them.[/p][/quote]Dont be sorry.. If you read whats written you will see the smart money is on 'NO TO FLUORIDE' ..Fluoride is a proven scam. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

7:16pm Fri 17 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Velleity wrote:
So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use? Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet?
I can tell you that I use Boots own Toothpaste.. They are proud to have NON-FLOURIDE wriiten in Giant letters on the front of the tube.. It says on the back its suitable for young children because its safer.. In fact a child could die if they ate a tube of Toothpaste with fluoride.. thats a simple fact.. Never swallow fluoride toothpaste. Its a high level Toxin.
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use? Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet?[/p][/quote]I can tell you that I use Boots own Toothpaste.. They are proud to have NON-FLOURIDE wriiten in Giant letters on the front of the tube.. It says on the back its suitable for young children because its safer.. In fact a child could die if they ate a tube of Toothpaste with fluoride.. thats a simple fact.. Never swallow fluoride toothpaste. Its a high level Toxin. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

7:43pm Fri 17 Aug 12

J.P.M says...

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS wrote:
Velleity wrote:
So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use? Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet?
I can tell you that I use Boots own Toothpaste.. They are proud to have NON-FLOURIDE wriiten in Giant letters on the front of the tube.. It says on the back its suitable for young children because its safer.. In fact a child could die if they ate a tube of Toothpaste with fluoride.. thats a simple fact.. Never swallow fluoride toothpaste. Its a high level Toxin.
Thanks doctor - don't call us......
[quote][p][bold]FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use? Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet?[/p][/quote]I can tell you that I use Boots own Toothpaste.. They are proud to have NON-FLOURIDE wriiten in Giant letters on the front of the tube.. It says on the back its suitable for young children because its safer.. In fact a child could die if they ate a tube of Toothpaste with fluoride.. thats a simple fact.. Never swallow fluoride toothpaste. Its a high level Toxin.[/p][/quote]Thanks doctor - don't call us...... J.P.M

8:07pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

Velleity wrote:
So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use?

Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet?
No, probably because I'm not stupid enough to swallow any.
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: So, all the "nay" sayers on here. Please can you tell me what brand of non-fluoride toothpaste you currently use? Your totthpaste is 1000 ppm fluoride. Has it killed you just yet?[/p][/quote]No, probably because I'm not stupid enough to swallow any. Inform Al

9:17pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

These comments on toothpaste are surreal! Fluoride is absorbed via the lining of the mouth and sub-lingually. All toothpastes are capable of destroying bacteria and the ones which are non-fluoridated are as capable of looking after the teeth as the fluoridated toothpastes.

A research report (Muller, 2010) found that fluoridated toothpastes confers a protective layer of only 6 nanometres. That's as thick as the tail of a human sperm: really thin. Why bother to use fluoridated toothpaste is this is the case?

No toothpaste should be swallowed, especially the fluoridated type. Unfortunately, many parents do not realise this. Fluoridated toothpaste causes Dental Fluorosis of the permanent teeth. If you're prescribed Duraphat by your dentist, please don't pick up the prescription: it's a very neurotoxic toothpaste at 2400ppm. Fluoride is bioaccumulative.
These comments on toothpaste are surreal! Fluoride is absorbed via the lining of the mouth and sub-lingually. All toothpastes are capable of destroying bacteria and the ones which are non-fluoridated are as capable of looking after the teeth as the fluoridated toothpastes. A research report (Muller, 2010) found that fluoridated toothpastes confers a protective layer of only 6 nanometres. That's as thick as the tail of a human sperm: really thin. Why bother to use fluoridated toothpaste is this is the case? No toothpaste should be swallowed, especially the fluoridated type. Unfortunately, many parents do not realise this. Fluoridated toothpaste causes Dental Fluorosis of the permanent teeth. If you're prescribed Duraphat by your dentist, please don't pick up the prescription: it's a very neurotoxic toothpaste at 2400ppm. Fluoride is bioaccumulative. Joy Warren

9:45pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Rob444 says...

Clearly, the time honoured axiom
"If in doubt leave it out" applies here.
Clearly, the time honoured axiom "If in doubt leave it out" applies here. Rob444

11:49pm Fri 17 Aug 12

BeyondImagination says...

There will be the same amount of fluoride in a glass of water as a pea sized portion of toothpaste. 8 glasses of water means 8 times the amount we are told not to swallow. We will also absorb it through our skin when we have a bath.
Several countries and US states are removing or reducing fluoride from water because of evidence of adverse effects and cheaper,safer and more effective ways of improving dental health.
It may be true that some of the protestors are older and have dentures. This enforced medication is no use to them but the adverse effects are still there.
It is illegal to dump fluoride into the sea but OK to put it into our water where it eventually end up in the sea.
There will be the same amount of fluoride in a glass of water as a pea sized portion of toothpaste. 8 glasses of water means 8 times the amount we are told not to swallow. We will also absorb it through our skin when we have a bath. Several countries and US states are removing or reducing fluoride from water because of evidence of adverse effects and cheaper,safer and more effective ways of improving dental health. It may be true that some of the protestors are older and have dentures. This enforced medication is no use to them but the adverse effects are still there. It is illegal to dump fluoride into the sea but OK to put it into our water where it eventually end up in the sea. BeyondImagination

7:58am Sat 18 Aug 12

stay local says...

southy wrote:
Linesman wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish.
That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
You are WRONG this time southy.

ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out.

He was wrong.

There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab.

This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis


t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.
was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain).
Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind.
The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.
Once again you are making claims that are completely unjustified. I well remember you stated previously that you have evidence to justify this outlandish slur. the evidence was.... the claim of a bloke whose name you did not know who went fishing at Redbridge. But you have ignored research that has dealt with over one million children that has shown no link. The man who made the claims (Andrew Wakefield) had developed and had got patents on an alternative vaccine so had a vested interest in stopping MMR. From now on Southy {the representative of the TUSC in Southampton} please back up all your claims with searchable evidence or I will simply repost the ever growing list of you stupid, ill thought, malicious garbage for all to see. Thereby ensuring that someone of such little credibility can never be allowed to represent the views of a community!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]You are WRONG this time southy. ONE doctor had a theory, and put it claimed it as a fact, that could not, and was not supported by any tests that were carried out. He was wrong. There are always some people who, despite evidence to the contrary, will always believe the worst, and that was the case with MMR. This resulted in many children suffering from either Mumps, Measles or Rubella, all of which can have devastating effects, that they would not have contacted if the had received the jab. This was NOT a Labour/Tory/Socialis t Worker thing, that has politically motivated, just a case of a doctor who thought he knew best, but was very wrong.[/p][/quote]was not a theory but results after having the single MMR jab, that some children was badly effected by the jab with brain damage and those that had 3 single jabs over peroid of time where unfected (the basic how I under stand it is that having all 3 at the same time for the body can heat the blood to much causing damage to the brain). Measles and German Measle and Mumps as little effect in children its Adults that will suffer the most. Like Mumps can make you sterile in young adult mainly in males, and German measles to a pregnant woman is deadly, Measle can cause still borns or blind. The reason why they give the Vacine to children is because when kids start school an infection like these in one child will spead like wild fire though out a community infecting any Adult that did not have it while a child.[/p][/quote]Once again you are making claims that are completely unjustified. I well remember you stated previously that you have evidence to justify this outlandish slur. the evidence was.... the claim of a bloke whose name you did not know who went fishing at Redbridge. But you have ignored research that has dealt with over one million children that has shown no link. The man who made the claims (Andrew Wakefield) had developed and had got patents on an alternative vaccine so had a vested interest in stopping MMR. From now on Southy {the representative of the TUSC in Southampton} please back up all your claims with searchable evidence or I will simply repost the ever growing list of you stupid, ill thought, malicious garbage for all to see. Thereby ensuring that someone of such little credibility can never be allowed to represent the views of a community! stay local

9:56am Sat 18 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

Inform Al wrote:
On the inside wrote:
Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another.

As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated.

Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.[/p][/quote]You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you. The Wickham Man

10:18am Sat 18 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS wrote:
southy wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?
And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.
well the Wickham Man really is out to lunch isnt he :-).. Perhaps he should read 'What the York review really found' and then comment. He is clearly the kind of man who talks about something he has zero knowledge of..The official Government commisioned report on Fluoride says ' The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable' '‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.' . Fluoride is a proven scam..
"Fluoride is a proven scam". Yeah, yeah of course it is. Evidence is inconsistent but luckily you alone with no formal training have the intellect to carve through the biochemistry and see the singularity of truth gleaming where all others have failed......what we can actually deduce from your posts is that you have learned to cut and paste your google results. But that doesn't make you a qualified analyst does it? That is not a subsstitute for years learning how to analyse data statistically and how to make rational deductions based on confidence. Actually. the way to deal with people like you is to let your inability to assimilate data rise to the fore, where you subsitutute hyperbole and exaggeration for your personal credibility. Because you already have a predetermined outcome in mind rather rather than being an actual researcher you use a scattergun approach to select quotes and paragraphs that suit your predetermined prejudice. I would prefer to read the York review itself rather than a selective edited summary. Bearing in mind the huge doses of fluoride that most intelligent people have self administered every day for decades on their toothbrushes and mouthwashes with no ill effects I wonder whether you can state how much more fluoride by comparison will be ingested via tap water by such people, and also, which graph shows a mysterious elbow where all these hundreds of supposed causal effects suddenly kick in from nowhere. You think I'm out to lunch - when we start analysing the data I'll expose you for the amateur you are.
[quote][p][bold]FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: If Mr Spottiswoode says the existing testing is inadequate this means he must have read all the evidence and all the results of all previous tests reviewed by the health authorities in this country. In which case Mr S don't be vague - tell people exactly and precisely why these existing tests fall short. Is it simply that they don;t show any of the evidence you just keep insisting is there? The truth is you don;t have any evidence of your own to put up except flawed google trawls which are not scientific and not trusted, so you spend all your time trying to rubbish proper research that is there and which doesn't show what you want it to show. You remind me of Dr Wakefield, who should have been struck off for his campaigning against the MMR vaccine by using lies and smears, but then you aren't even a doctor, are you?[/p][/quote]And some times, well than some times that release proper research is one sided and not all of it publish. That campaign against MMR was not unfounded to many kids did suffer because of it.[/p][/quote]well the Wickham Man really is out to lunch isnt he :-).. Perhaps he should read 'What the York review really found' and then comment. He is clearly the kind of man who talks about something he has zero knowledge of..The official Government commisioned report on Fluoride says ' The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable' '‘We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.' . Fluoride is a proven scam..[/p][/quote]"Fluoride is a proven scam". Yeah, yeah of course it is. Evidence is inconsistent but luckily you alone with no formal training have the intellect to carve through the biochemistry and see the singularity of truth gleaming where all others have failed......what we can actually deduce from your posts is that you have learned to cut and paste your google results. But that doesn't make you a qualified analyst does it? That is not a subsstitute for years learning how to analyse data statistically and how to make rational deductions based on confidence. Actually. the way to deal with people like you is to let your inability to assimilate data rise to the fore, where you subsitutute hyperbole and exaggeration for your personal credibility. Because you already have a predetermined outcome in mind rather rather than being an actual researcher you use a scattergun approach to select quotes and paragraphs that suit your predetermined prejudice. I would prefer to read the York review itself rather than a selective edited summary. Bearing in mind the huge doses of fluoride that most intelligent people have self administered every day for decades on their toothbrushes and mouthwashes with no ill effects I wonder whether you can state how much more fluoride by comparison will be ingested via tap water by such people, and also, which graph shows a mysterious elbow where all these hundreds of supposed causal effects suddenly kick in from nowhere. You think I'm out to lunch - when we start analysing the data I'll expose you for the amateur you are. The Wickham Man

10:26am Sat 18 Aug 12

BeyondImagination says...

The way the SHA have presented their case for fluoride and relied on flawed legislation to force it on an unwilling public has damaged the reputation of our National Health advisors. Why should we believe anything they tell us?
The way the SHA have presented their case for fluoride and relied on flawed legislation to force it on an unwilling public has damaged the reputation of our National Health advisors. Why should we believe anything they tell us? BeyondImagination

10:57am Sat 18 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
On the inside wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.
Wicker man shows he has no knowledge of the history of Fluoridation. Fluoride added to water supplies is industral waste.. It is waste from the aluminium industry and fertiliser industry. The fluorine compounds liberated during the acidulation of phosphate rock in the manufacture of phosphoric acid and fertilizers are now rightly regarded as a menace, and the industry is now obliged to suppress emissions of fluorine-containing vapours to within very low limits in most parts of the world. They way they do this is to make a slurry of industrial waste fluoride and its then added to drinking water.. In fact 5 parts per million are added, because 80% of this muck is also carrying other nasties like mercury, lead and a whole hoste of toxic gunk..Fluoride added to water is a scam.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.[/p][/quote]You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.[/p][/quote]Wicker man shows he has no knowledge of the history of Fluoridation. Fluoride added to water supplies is industral waste.. It is waste from the aluminium industry and fertiliser industry. The fluorine compounds liberated during the acidulation of phosphate rock in the manufacture of phosphoric acid and fertilizers are now rightly regarded as a menace, and the industry is now obliged to suppress emissions of fluorine-containing vapours to within very low limits in most parts of the world. They way they do this is to make a slurry of industrial waste fluoride and its then added to drinking water.. In fact 5 parts per million are added, because 80% of this muck is also carrying other nasties like mercury, lead and a whole hoste of toxic gunk..Fluoride added to water is a scam. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

11:26am Sat 18 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
On the inside wrote:
Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another.

As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated.

Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.
I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.[/p][/quote]You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.[/p][/quote]I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all. Inform Al

12:10pm Sat 18 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

Inform Al wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
On the inside wrote:
Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another.

As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated.

Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.
I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all.
I thought so. A liar who thought he could create a better background for himself than he was entitled to, and was caught out and publicly humiliated. Calling me a cretin (which I palpably am not) further reduces your credibility to that of a small child throwing stones from the safety of his back garden then running inside. Providing the evidence I requested is not "personal" to you is it - it would be shared by anyone who was actually being truthful about their attendance of a very distinguished university so you can answer it with impunity. Unless of course you were lying. If you aspire to any kind of office then you can answer the point about your claim to have attended Imperial in front of everyone or you can withdraw it. Either way as I am still a proud associate member of the Royal College of Science (an organisation you should have heard of if your claim was real) it won't take me long to discover the truth. Again if you aspire to any kind of public office I am sure someone on here will happily remind me of your name.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.[/p][/quote]You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.[/p][/quote]I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all.[/p][/quote]I thought so. A liar who thought he could create a better background for himself than he was entitled to, and was caught out and publicly humiliated. Calling me a cretin (which I palpably am not) further reduces your credibility to that of a small child throwing stones from the safety of his back garden then running inside. Providing the evidence I requested is not "personal" to you is it - it would be shared by anyone who was actually being truthful about their attendance of a very distinguished university so you can answer it with impunity. Unless of course you were lying. If you aspire to any kind of office then you can answer the point about your claim to have attended Imperial in front of everyone or you can withdraw it. Either way as I am still a proud associate member of the Royal College of Science (an organisation you should have heard of if your claim was real) it won't take me long to discover the truth. Again if you aspire to any kind of public office I am sure someone on here will happily remind me of your name. The Wickham Man

12:24pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

tootle wrote:
Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.
I think that's a fair point tootle, but the argument concerning fluoride is that while it has no signiifcant negative impact on those who already have good dental hygene the main beneficiaries would be the children of people in low socio economic groups who simply don't look after their children's teeth. Whether we like to admit it or not there are a lot of people who deny their children a fair chance in life by not looking after their teeth and teaching them good hygene. it is all very well for FactsforMothers to come on moralising and getting ever more extreme about fluoridation (I agree with Wickham on this) but the whole point about fluoridation is trying to help some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society. Listening to extremists like FactsforMothers trying to pretend this is just mass poisoning by some secret government conspiracy is disingenuous and imho, distasteful.
[quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.[/p][/quote]I think that's a fair point tootle, but the argument concerning fluoride is that while it has no signiifcant negative impact on those who already have good dental hygene the main beneficiaries would be the children of people in low socio economic groups who simply don't look after their children's teeth. Whether we like to admit it or not there are a lot of people who deny their children a fair chance in life by not looking after their teeth and teaching them good hygene. it is all very well for FactsforMothers to come on moralising and getting ever more extreme about fluoridation (I agree with Wickham on this) but the whole point about fluoridation is trying to help some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society. Listening to extremists like FactsforMothers trying to pretend this is just mass poisoning by some secret government conspiracy is disingenuous and imho, distasteful. Andy Locks Heath

6:55pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

This thread of comments is now getting ridiculous! It's obvious that there are raised passions on both sides but please try to look at this issue less emotively and more logically.

For starters, is the remedy of water fluoridation intended for the benefit of small children from disadvantaged families a proportional practice? This was the test applied by the European Commission on Human Rights, during Jehl-Doberer -v- Switzerland in 1991. "The Commission found that water fluoridation did constitute a violation of Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights. But it then applied the test of proportionality, and found that, on the basis of evidence submitted at that time by the Respondent, the Grand Council of Basel-Stadt, the benefits of this intervention were deemed to be proportionate. It is on that evidence alone that the Commission ruled that the infringement was permissible, and on which the UK’s DH now depends. BUT, In April 2003, the Grand Council reappraised its own evidence and found that it could no longer be substantiated. By then it had become convinced that there was in fact no reliable evidence that fluoridation had reduced dental decay in the children of the Canton. Of more concern, however, it realised that fluoridation had caused an ‘alarming increase’ in dental fluorosis. On that basis it reversed its earlier view that fluoridation provided a proportionate benefit to the community and, setting aside the Commission’s decision in its own favour, it abolished fluoridation." (Cross, 2012). Hence, with the exception of England and the Republic of Ireland, fluoridation is not practised throughout Europe. Why are the governments of the two countries so convinced that fluoridation is a 'good thing'? The answer to this question could reveal some interesting under-currents.

If anyone in the UK gets so far as to appeal to the ECHR against the imposition of water fluoridation under Article 8, the experience and reversal of the decision by Basel-Stadt will be considered by the Court and that could bring an end to this whacky medical experiment.

Children who are not taught dental hygiene are the piggies-in-the-middl
e. Yes - we feel sorry about their pain and suffering but no, we cannot now regard the imposition of fluoridation as being a justified and proportional practice. Parents of disadvantaged children need to be educated by the health authorites since failure to teach dental hygiene to these families will mean that their succeeding generations will continue to depend on the crutch of fluoridation. The majority of people clean their teeth so why should we be poisoned just because certain health authorities are unwilling to 'grasp the nettle'.

I Use the word 'poisoned' with some justification: fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and a toxin is the same thing as a poison. Our tap water in the West Midlands is poisonous.
This thread of comments is now getting ridiculous! It's obvious that there are raised passions on both sides but please try to look at this issue less emotively and more logically. For starters, is the remedy of water fluoridation intended for the benefit of small children from disadvantaged families a proportional practice? This was the test applied by the European Commission on Human Rights, during Jehl-Doberer -v- Switzerland in 1991. "The Commission found that water fluoridation did constitute a violation of Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights. But it then applied the test of proportionality, and found that, on the basis of evidence submitted at that time by the Respondent, the Grand Council of Basel-Stadt, the benefits of this intervention were deemed to be proportionate. It is on that evidence alone that the Commission ruled that the infringement was permissible, and on which the UK’s DH now depends. BUT, In April 2003, the Grand Council reappraised its own evidence and found that it could no longer be substantiated. By then it had become convinced that there was in fact no reliable evidence that fluoridation had reduced dental decay in the children of the Canton. Of more concern, however, it realised that fluoridation had caused an ‘alarming increase’ in dental fluorosis. On that basis it reversed its earlier view that fluoridation provided a proportionate benefit to the community and, setting aside the Commission’s decision in its own favour, it abolished fluoridation." (Cross, 2012). Hence, with the exception of England and the Republic of Ireland, fluoridation is not practised throughout Europe. Why are the governments of the two countries so convinced that fluoridation is a 'good thing'? The answer to this question could reveal some interesting under-currents. If anyone in the UK gets so far as to appeal to the ECHR against the imposition of water fluoridation under Article 8, the experience and reversal of the decision by Basel-Stadt will be considered by the Court and that could bring an end to this whacky medical experiment. Children who are not taught dental hygiene are the piggies-in-the-middl e. Yes - we feel sorry about their pain and suffering but no, we cannot now regard the imposition of fluoridation as being a justified and proportional practice. Parents of disadvantaged children need to be educated by the health authorites since failure to teach dental hygiene to these families will mean that their succeeding generations will continue to depend on the crutch of fluoridation. The majority of people clean their teeth so why should we be poisoned just because certain health authorities are unwilling to 'grasp the nettle'. I Use the word 'poisoned' with some justification: fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and a toxin is the same thing as a poison. Our tap water in the West Midlands is poisonous. Joy Warren

11:09pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Calli says...

The anti Fluoride side do not consider it to be a Health cover up. More of an 'We dont want to know about the findings' Health cover up. Notable scientists across the world have released evidence confirming the side effects of Fluoride. You only have to check online and it is also easy to cross reference to check the credentials of the claimants. Because in the late 40's, when the waste product escaping from the chimneys of industry involved in fertilizer production had a toxic affect on the farmland and not wanting to be sued some spin doctor was employed to sell this product to the health dept (in the USA) as a way of preventing cavities. NO tests were carried out and have never been carried out. It just continues and the evidence is purely coincidental. Please check the dental fluorosis issue - this is white spots to brown staining and pitting on the teeth and is considered as acceptable by the authorities as a lesser problem. We know that fluoridation is billed as a move to stop the inequalities suffered by poorer children, but ask yourself 40% of American children have fluorosis which can be unsightly. This is also true of Eire. There is no cure for fluorosis except to have crowns fitted. This is not paid for on the NH. So how can this benefit a poorer child? They already are poor and then if they develop fluorosis they cant afford to get the crowns. This incidentally involves filing down the existing tooth so the 'crown' can be fitted over. I live and work in Southampton currently. I work in a school and quite a few of the children already have dental fluorosis - thats before this stuff has been put in. When you ask them they will tell you that they ate their toothpaste! A full Health study needs to be carried out on populations before this Mass Medication is introduced and people have to have the option to withdraw their consent. Why should someone be forced to take medication meant for someone else?
The anti Fluoride side do not consider it to be a Health cover up. More of an 'We dont want to know about the findings' Health cover up. Notable scientists across the world have released evidence confirming the side effects of Fluoride. You only have to check online and it is also easy to cross reference to check the credentials of the claimants. Because in the late 40's, when the waste product escaping from the chimneys of industry involved in fertilizer production had a toxic affect on the farmland and not wanting to be sued some spin doctor was employed to sell this product to the health dept (in the USA) as a way of preventing cavities. NO tests were carried out and have never been carried out. It just continues and the evidence is purely coincidental. Please check the dental fluorosis issue - this is white spots to brown staining and pitting on the teeth and is considered as acceptable by the authorities as a lesser problem. We know that fluoridation is billed as a move to stop the inequalities suffered by poorer children, but ask yourself 40% of American children have fluorosis which can be unsightly. This is also true of Eire. There is no cure for fluorosis except to have crowns fitted. This is not paid for on the NH. So how can this benefit a poorer child? They already are poor and then if they develop fluorosis they cant afford to get the crowns. This incidentally involves filing down the existing tooth so the 'crown' can be fitted over. I live and work in Southampton currently. I work in a school and quite a few of the children already have dental fluorosis - thats before this stuff has been put in. When you ask them they will tell you that they ate their toothpaste! A full Health study needs to be carried out on populations before this Mass Medication is introduced and people have to have the option to withdraw their consent. Why should someone be forced to take medication meant for someone else? Calli

11:22pm Sat 18 Aug 12

Calli says...

Ask yourselves this: If you accept that teeth are part of your skeleton and therefore are bone - what effect is fluoride having on your bones if it causes fluorosis? Incidentally fluorosis IS acknowledged by the Health officials. They even put it in the lovely A4 booklet they had produced for the people of Southampton. The like of which I have not found anyone who has seen it! Possibly because it was only obtained if you turned up at their one sided opinion drop ins. Of course you could have rung up for it if indeed you knew of its existence. The reason so many people in Southampton were unaware of what was going on was that they didnt know. The Strategic Health Authority fulfilled the criteria for the consultation that 'all people affected by the decision should be informed' by putting small adverts in the local paper. If you didn't get the paper, or didn't see the advert you wouldnt know. The Strategic Health Authority should surely have mailed everyone!!!
Ask yourselves this: If you accept that teeth are part of your skeleton and therefore are bone - what effect is fluoride having on your bones if it causes fluorosis? Incidentally fluorosis IS acknowledged by the Health officials. They even put it in the lovely A4 booklet they had produced for the people of Southampton. The like of which I have not found anyone who has seen it! Possibly because it was only obtained if you turned up at their one sided opinion drop ins. Of course you could have rung up for it if indeed you knew of its existence. The reason so many people in Southampton were unaware of what was going on was that they didnt know. The Strategic Health Authority fulfilled the criteria for the consultation that 'all people affected by the decision should be informed' by putting small adverts in the local paper. If you didn't get the paper, or didn't see the advert you wouldnt know. The Strategic Health Authority should surely have mailed everyone!!! Calli

12:22am Sun 19 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
tootle wrote: Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.
I think that's a fair point tootle, but the argument concerning fluoride is that while it has no signiifcant negative impact on those who already have good dental hygene the main beneficiaries would be the children of people in low socio economic groups who simply don't look after their children's teeth. Whether we like to admit it or not there are a lot of people who deny their children a fair chance in life by not looking after their teeth and teaching them good hygene. it is all very well for FactsforMothers to come on moralising and getting ever more extreme about fluoridation (I agree with Wickham on this) but the whole point about fluoridation is trying to help some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society. Listening to extremists like FactsforMothers trying to pretend this is just mass poisoning by some secret government conspiracy is disingenuous and imho, distasteful.
Andy lock says 'Fluoride has no significant negative impact on those who already have dental hygiene' The man is a liar its as simple as that..and as such, liars should not be tolerated on this forum. In the West Midlands One Third of children and teenagers have been found to have DENTAL FLUOROSIS, A serious permanent malformation and disfigurement of the secondary teeth. Dental fluorosis is not just cosmetic. It is the external visual symptom of Fluoride poisoning of the whole body. Fluoride does not ‘target’ teeth.. It is absorbed and accumulates in organs and bones of the body as a whole. Its interesting to note that Fluoride does ‘target’? accumulate in the pineal gland in the brain and crystallises within that organ . I will go on to say that its as easy as picking fruit from a tree to find people with dental fluorosis in the West Midlands. I have spoken to dozens of people on a personal basis that have shown me their own dental disfigurement and in some sad cases the expensive and ‘dodgy’ cosmetic dentistry carried out to cover up the damage caused by Fluoride. Andy Lock.. What kind of man must you be to misinform people about potential damage to their health?
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tootle[/bold] wrote: Sorry to disagree with everybody but my children were born and raised in Southampton, my son had his first filling at 20, my daughter has never needed a filling and is now 20. Many of their schoolmates had fillings in their milk teeth followed by fillings in their adult teeth. Why? I think education of children and parents in proper cleaning of teeth, effects of different foods and drinks on teeth, how to supervise the cleaning of teeth etc could have more effect than fluoridation.[/p][/quote]I think that's a fair point tootle, but the argument concerning fluoride is that while it has no signiifcant negative impact on those who already have good dental hygene the main beneficiaries would be the children of people in low socio economic groups who simply don't look after their children's teeth. Whether we like to admit it or not there are a lot of people who deny their children a fair chance in life by not looking after their teeth and teaching them good hygene. it is all very well for FactsforMothers to come on moralising and getting ever more extreme about fluoridation (I agree with Wickham on this) but the whole point about fluoridation is trying to help some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in society. Listening to extremists like FactsforMothers trying to pretend this is just mass poisoning by some secret government conspiracy is disingenuous and imho, distasteful.[/p][/quote]Andy lock says 'Fluoride has no significant negative impact on those who already have dental hygiene' The man is a liar its as simple as that..and as such, liars should not be tolerated on this forum. In the West Midlands One Third of children and teenagers have been found to have DENTAL FLUOROSIS, A serious permanent malformation and disfigurement of the secondary teeth. Dental fluorosis is not just cosmetic. It is the external visual symptom of Fluoride poisoning of the whole body. Fluoride does not ‘target’ teeth.. It is absorbed and accumulates in organs and bones of the body as a whole. Its interesting to note that Fluoride does ‘target’? accumulate in the pineal gland in the brain and crystallises within that organ . I will go on to say that its as easy as picking fruit from a tree to find people with dental fluorosis in the West Midlands. I have spoken to dozens of people on a personal basis that have shown me their own dental disfigurement and in some sad cases the expensive and ‘dodgy’ cosmetic dentistry carried out to cover up the damage caused by Fluoride. Andy Lock.. What kind of man must you be to misinform people about potential damage to their health? FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

12:34am Sun 19 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

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., Ph.D., 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.

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-a-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 meetng, 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, fuoridation 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.
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., Ph.D., 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. 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-a-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 meetng, 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, fuoridation 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. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

1:30am Sun 19 Aug 12

Poppy22 says...

Local people have already voted against this, during previous consultations, so why on earth is it being allowed to happen?
What are our MPs and councillors doing about this? Nothing as usual?
I don't want enforced medication and if I had children and grandchildren I would certainly be fighting against this.
There's no reason "working class" children shouldn't have "middle class" teeth - NHS dental care is still available in this area and many NHS dentists are the ones also doing the private work so no difference when it comes to children's teeth. Free dental care is also available to those on benefits, which isn't available to the "middle classes".
Shame the same can't be said about many parents of all classes who continually give their children supermarket sugary drinks (so no local tapwater used anyway!) that are ruining their teeth.
No way should we all have something forced on us just because some parents aren't looking after their children's dental health.
As always, totally back to front and no common sense thinking by the government. If they want to tackle this problem they need to do it via parents and dentists, not force-feeding the rest of us a chemical which is likely to end up with legal class action claims in the future.
And, having seen many people's teeth in the areas where fluoride is in the water, many are not a pretty sight when compared to people down here!
Local people have already voted against this, during previous consultations, so why on earth is it being allowed to happen? What are our MPs and councillors doing about this? Nothing as usual? I don't want enforced medication and if I had children and grandchildren I would certainly be fighting against this. There's no reason "working class" children shouldn't have "middle class" teeth - NHS dental care is still available in this area and many NHS dentists are the ones also doing the private work so no difference when it comes to children's teeth. Free dental care is also available to those on benefits, which isn't available to the "middle classes". Shame the same can't be said about many parents of all classes who continually give their children supermarket sugary drinks (so no local tapwater used anyway!) that are ruining their teeth. No way should we all have something forced on us just because some parents aren't looking after their children's dental health. As always, totally back to front and no common sense thinking by the government. If they want to tackle this problem they need to do it via parents and dentists, not force-feeding the rest of us a chemical which is likely to end up with legal class action claims in the future. And, having seen many people's teeth in the areas where fluoride is in the water, many are not a pretty sight when compared to people down here! Poppy22

10:40am Sun 19 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

Calli says "I work in a school and quite a few of the children already have dental fluorosis - thats before this stuff has been put in. When you ask them they will tell you that they ate their toothpaste!"

A research project by Rock and Sabieha in 1997 concluded that "The results of the study suggest that toothpaste swallowing may be a factor in the producton of fluorosis". "May" is research-speak for "is probably" and its use is politically motivated in many research reports, often at the behest of sponsors. It's important to note that the research did not state that fluoride in swallowed toothpaste was NOT responsible for Dental Fluorosis (DF). No other factors which cause damaged enamel in permanent teeth were considered by these researchers, even though one is known to have been pro-fluoride.

Southampton is not fluoridated and yet children there have dental fluorosis. It is strongly suggested that Southampton PCT should immediately survey local children to establish the level and incidence of DF in each age group. But they won't because if they quantified it, they would not then be able to go ahead with their fluoridation plans since they would be doing so in full knowledge of the existing prevalence of DF in the non-fluoridated population. So the PCT will deliberately continue in ignorance in order to implement its fluoridation policy.

Children who swallow their toothpaste are already fluorosed. If they also have fluoride in their water and in food manufactured in a fluoridated area they will become even more fluorosed. "We accept that Dental Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" (Hayman, Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158).

Is it not ironic that excess lead has been removed from our environment. In children, "at blood lead levels between 25 and 60 μg/dL, neuropsychiatric effects such as delayed reaction times, irritability, and difficulty concentrating, as well as slowed motor nerve conduction and headache can occur. Anemia may appear at blood lead levels higher than 50 μg/dL". (Wikipedia). In severe cases, a blue lead line will appear along the gum line. It took years to remove lead from petrol and paint. With fluoride, we witness another preventable cause of an ill-health agent. The signs of fluoride toxicity are all too apparent and we now have conclusive proof that the toxin damages our children's intelligence. (Choi et al, 2012) So, why is it still being promoted when the production of lead as well as tobacco and asbestos are controlled? Could it be because lead, tobacco and asbestos are not waste products and there is, therefore, no imperative to dispose of them? On the other hand, the fluoridating acid is a hazardous waste by-product which costs a lot to dispose of.
Calli says "I work in a school and quite a few of the children already have dental fluorosis - thats before this stuff has been put in. When you ask them they will tell you that they ate their toothpaste!" A research project by Rock and Sabieha in 1997 concluded that "The results of the study suggest that toothpaste swallowing may be a factor in the producton of fluorosis". "May" is research-speak for "is probably" and its use is politically motivated in many research reports, often at the behest of sponsors. It's important to note that the research did not state that fluoride in swallowed toothpaste was NOT responsible for Dental Fluorosis (DF). No other factors which cause damaged enamel in permanent teeth were considered by these researchers, even though one is known to have been pro-fluoride. Southampton is not fluoridated and yet children there have dental fluorosis. It is strongly suggested that Southampton PCT should immediately survey local children to establish the level and incidence of DF in each age group. But they won't because if they quantified it, they would not then be able to go ahead with their fluoridation plans since they would be doing so in full knowledge of the existing prevalence of DF in the non-fluoridated population. So the PCT will deliberately continue in ignorance in order to implement its fluoridation policy. Children who swallow their toothpaste are already fluorosed. If they also have fluoride in their water and in food manufactured in a fluoridated area they will become even more fluorosed. "We accept that Dental Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" (Hayman, Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158). Is it not ironic that excess lead has been removed from our environment. In children, "at blood lead levels between 25 and 60 μg/dL, neuropsychiatric effects such as delayed reaction times, irritability, and difficulty concentrating, as well as slowed motor nerve conduction and headache can occur. Anemia may appear at blood lead levels higher than 50 μg/dL". (Wikipedia). In severe cases, a blue lead line will appear along the gum line. It took years to remove lead from petrol and paint. With fluoride, we witness another preventable cause of an ill-health agent. The signs of fluoride toxicity are all too apparent and we now have conclusive proof that the toxin damages our children's intelligence. (Choi et al, 2012) So, why is it still being promoted when the production of lead as well as tobacco and asbestos are controlled? Could it be because lead, tobacco and asbestos are not waste products and there is, therefore, no imperative to dispose of them? On the other hand, the fluoridating acid is a hazardous waste by-product which costs a lot to dispose of. Joy Warren

1:37pm Sun 19 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

One of the most rewarding aspects of challenging single issue extremists such as "Facts for Mothers" on these pages is that when they are challenged over their failure to present balance and context their extreme and aggressive overreaction immediately loses them their credibility. I am not a "liar" as others will tell you and you would know if you spent more time away from your sole obsession. I apply the kind of consistent evidence based approach that you find intolerable because it threatens to expose your limited grasp and knowledge of your subject. The moment you start reaching for the extreme comments of your own selected mavericks who are actually outnumbered 1000:1 by the overwhelming weight of mainstream medical opinion is usually the point as which you expose the lack of consistency in your own evidence. For exapmple The USA is the most dentally-conscious society on average in the world, and the moment you start trying to insinuate that 40% of its childrens teeth are rotted by fluorosis you are going into meltdown and losing your argument as well as your temper. What the statistics will show you is that US chidren with good dental hygene including fluoride toothpaste have better teeth than those who have none but that overall what you describe as "fluorosis" is nothing of the kind. You have no scientific credibility, no expertise and no ability to contextualise the data you present; you can only present it in the same dimension in which it has been given to you, which shows you up as someone whose "research" is spent trawling the same old anti-sites selected by you because they are run by people with exactly the same views as you. Your data, your "argument", and your lack of context are just those of the extremist scaremongering amateur. . Someone like you calling me a liar when your own obsessive peculiarity has been exposed on this thread causes me to loseno sleep at all.
To give just one small example of many -
You infer that the waste from a fertiliser production process is effectively dumped into the water supply and then even insinuate that this is some kind of hidden agenda just to just get rid of it. SImple economics would reveal that assertion to be stupid, illogical and nonsensical when in fact the fluorosilicates are simply a legitimate fluoride rich feedstock passed into a totally separate process to create sodium fluoride - a purer compound with almost none of these toxins that you infer are just added. You obsess about arsenic when a little research will tell you that arsenic along with hundreds of other trace compounds is already in our water anyway with permitted tolerances based on the human body's own abilities to void toxins. Humans in Britain are healthier now than at any time in British history. Using your own rather childish sophistry I wonder what conclusion that would lead you to?
One of the most rewarding aspects of challenging single issue extremists such as "Facts for Mothers" on these pages is that when they are challenged over their failure to present balance and context their extreme and aggressive overreaction immediately loses them their credibility. I am not a "liar" as others will tell you and you would know if you spent more time away from your sole obsession. I apply the kind of consistent evidence based approach that you find intolerable because it threatens to expose your limited grasp and knowledge of your subject. The moment you start reaching for the extreme comments of your own selected mavericks who are actually outnumbered 1000:1 by the overwhelming weight of mainstream medical opinion is usually the point as which you expose the lack of consistency in your own evidence. For exapmple The USA is the most dentally-conscious society on average in the world, and the moment you start trying to insinuate that 40% of its childrens teeth are rotted by fluorosis you are going into meltdown and losing your argument as well as your temper. What the statistics will show you is that US chidren with good dental hygene including fluoride toothpaste have better teeth than those who have none but that overall what you describe as "fluorosis" is nothing of the kind. You have no scientific credibility, no expertise and no ability to contextualise the data you present; you can only present it in the same dimension in which it has been given to you, which shows you up as someone whose "research" is spent trawling the same old anti-sites selected by you because they are run by people with exactly the same views as you. Your data, your "argument", and your lack of context are just those of the extremist scaremongering amateur. . Someone like you calling me a liar when your own obsessive peculiarity has been exposed on this thread causes me to loseno sleep at all. To give just one small example of many - You infer that the waste from a fertiliser production process is effectively dumped into the water supply and then even insinuate that this is some kind of hidden agenda just to just get rid of it. SImple economics would reveal that assertion to be stupid, illogical and nonsensical when in fact the fluorosilicates are simply a legitimate fluoride rich feedstock passed into a totally separate process to create sodium fluoride - a purer compound with almost none of these toxins that you infer are just added. You obsess about arsenic when a little research will tell you that arsenic along with hundreds of other trace compounds is already in our water anyway with permitted tolerances based on the human body's own abilities to void toxins. Humans in Britain are healthier now than at any time in British history. Using your own rather childish sophistry I wonder what conclusion that would lead you to? Andy Locks Heath

1:51pm Sun 19 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

ALH's assertion are borne out by Factsfor Mother's sudden production of a vitriolic piece of journalistic bias from - wait for it - 1999 - 13 years ago! The most valid evidence on this subject would be less than 3 years old and it would not use a journalist's sensationalist piece about Florida in the 1990s as relevant to Hampshire in the 2010s . I would not stake my reputation on such a biassed journalistic polemic either but FactsforMothers has tied her reputation to such stuff, now her credibility should be judged on its quality and relevance.
ALH's assertion are borne out by Factsfor Mother's sudden production of a vitriolic piece of journalistic bias from - wait for it - 1999 - 13 years ago! The most valid evidence on this subject would be less than 3 years old and it would not use a journalist's sensationalist piece about Florida in the 1990s as relevant to Hampshire in the 2010s . I would not stake my reputation on such a biassed journalistic polemic either but FactsforMothers has tied her reputation to such stuff, now her credibility should be judged on its quality and relevance. The Wickham Man

3:57pm Sun 19 Aug 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

I see that the most respected medical paper "The Journal" from Mesa Arizona has been quoted by RandomFactsforMother
s so we must all take note. Mesa is a small town in the middle of nowhere in Arizona FFS. This is a bit like the US basing its foreign policy on something Keith Newbery wrote in the Portsmouth News 13 years ago. Pretty desperate stuff to trawl up eh? Bring on fluoride I say because you know what? - I won't notice a thing and neither will you.
I see that the most respected medical paper "The Journal" from Mesa Arizona has been quoted by RandomFactsforMother s so we must all take note. Mesa is a small town in the middle of nowhere in Arizona FFS. This is a bit like the US basing its foreign policy on something Keith Newbery wrote in the Portsmouth News 13 years ago. Pretty desperate stuff to trawl up eh? Bring on fluoride I say because you know what? - I won't notice a thing and neither will you. MisterGrimsdale

8:53pm Sun 19 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
On the inside wrote:
Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another.

As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated.

Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.
I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all.
I thought so. A liar who thought he could create a better background for himself than he was entitled to, and was caught out and publicly humiliated. Calling me a cretin (which I palpably am not) further reduces your credibility to that of a small child throwing stones from the safety of his back garden then running inside. Providing the evidence I requested is not "personal" to you is it - it would be shared by anyone who was actually being truthful about their attendance of a very distinguished university so you can answer it with impunity. Unless of course you were lying. If you aspire to any kind of office then you can answer the point about your claim to have attended Imperial in front of everyone or you can withdraw it. Either way as I am still a proud associate member of the Royal College of Science (an organisation you should have heard of if your claim was real) it won't take me long to discover the truth. Again if you aspire to any kind of public office I am sure someone on here will happily remind me of your name.
I have not met many members of the RCS I would think of as cretins, you appear to be the exception that proves the rule. Just continue to ignore the facts in your inimitable style,
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.[/p][/quote]You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.[/p][/quote]I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all.[/p][/quote]I thought so. A liar who thought he could create a better background for himself than he was entitled to, and was caught out and publicly humiliated. Calling me a cretin (which I palpably am not) further reduces your credibility to that of a small child throwing stones from the safety of his back garden then running inside. Providing the evidence I requested is not "personal" to you is it - it would be shared by anyone who was actually being truthful about their attendance of a very distinguished university so you can answer it with impunity. Unless of course you were lying. If you aspire to any kind of office then you can answer the point about your claim to have attended Imperial in front of everyone or you can withdraw it. Either way as I am still a proud associate member of the Royal College of Science (an organisation you should have heard of if your claim was real) it won't take me long to discover the truth. Again if you aspire to any kind of public office I am sure someone on here will happily remind me of your name.[/p][/quote]I have not met many members of the RCS I would think of as cretins, you appear to be the exception that proves the rule. Just continue to ignore the facts in your inimitable style, Inform Al

10:10pm Sun 19 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

This is getting acrimonious. You're all losing the plot! Please do try to keep to the main topic: water fluoridation - otherwise the Daily Echo will close this forum.

Basics: people who are fluoridated are overdosing on the toxin because it's in their water at 1ppm + in their toothpaste + in their tap water which is fluoridated, in their hot bathing water, in their swimming poole water and in their medicines, e.g. Prozac. Thus many people in the West Midlands are getting too much of the stuff and over a lifetime of bioaccumulated toxin, their health is challenged.

Those of you who are pro-fluoridation are not attacking me! Why not? Is it because you cannot refute my logic? Go on - I dare you to call me an armchair scientist.
This is getting acrimonious. You're all losing the plot! Please do try to keep to the main topic: water fluoridation - otherwise the Daily Echo will close this forum. Basics: people who are fluoridated are overdosing on the toxin because it's in their water at 1ppm + in their toothpaste + in their tap water which is fluoridated, in their hot bathing water, in their swimming poole water and in their medicines, e.g. Prozac. Thus many people in the West Midlands are getting too much of the stuff and over a lifetime of bioaccumulated toxin, their health is challenged. Those of you who are pro-fluoridation are not attacking me! Why not? Is it because you cannot refute my logic? Go on - I dare you to call me an armchair scientist. Joy Warren

1:32am Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
One of the most rewarding aspects of challenging single issue extremists such as "Facts for Mothers" on these pages is that when they are challenged over their failure to present balance and context their extreme and aggressive overreaction immediately loses them their credibility. I am not a "liar" as others will tell you and you would know if you spent more time away from your sole obsession. I apply the kind of consistent evidence based approach that you find intolerable because it threatens to expose your limited grasp and knowledge of your subject. The moment you start reaching for the extreme comments of your own selected mavericks who are actually outnumbered 1000:1 by the overwhelming weight of mainstream medical opinion is usually the point as which you expose the lack of consistency in your own evidence. For exapmple The USA is the most dentally-conscious society on average in the world, and the moment you start trying to insinuate that 40% of its childrens teeth are rotted by fluorosis you are going into meltdown and losing your argument as well as your temper. What the statistics will show you is that US chidren with good dental hygene including fluoride toothpaste have better teeth than those who have none but that overall what you describe as "fluorosis" is nothing of the kind. You have no scientific credibility, no expertise and no ability to contextualise the data you present; you can only present it in the same dimension in which it has been given to you, which shows you up as someone whose "research" is spent trawling the same old anti-sites selected by you because they are run by people with exactly the same views as you. Your data, your "argument", and your lack of context are just those of the extremist scaremongering amateur. . Someone like you calling me a liar when your own obsessive peculiarity has been exposed on this thread causes me to loseno sleep at all. To give just one small example of many - You infer that the waste from a fertiliser production process is effectively dumped into the water supply and then even insinuate that this is some kind of hidden agenda just to just get rid of it. SImple economics would reveal that assertion to be stupid, illogical and nonsensical when in fact the fluorosilicates are simply a legitimate fluoride rich feedstock passed into a totally separate process to create sodium fluoride - a purer compound with almost none of these toxins that you infer are just added. You obsess about arsenic when a little research will tell you that arsenic along with hundreds of other trace compounds is already in our water anyway with permitted tolerances based on the human body's own abilities to void toxins. Humans in Britain are healthier now than at any time in British history. Using your own rather childish sophistry I wonder what conclusion that would lead you to?
Andy Locks Heath says ‘fluorosilicates are simply a legitimate fluoride rich feedstock passed into a totally separate process to create sodium fluoride - a purer compound with almost none of these toxins that you infer are just added.’ Is this actually true?
NO!
In fact the slurry of industrial waste that is added to make ’fluoridated’ water is added at the ratio of 5 parts per million.. Not one part per million.. This is because only 20% of the poison added to drinking water is fluoride ( a developmental neurotoxin) the other 80% of the poison is made up of Lead, Mercury, barium, and lots of other contaminants. In fact to be 100% accurate there is some selenium in this toxic soup.. and selenium is a positive.. But anyway.. This is just a small post to confirm Andy Lock as a liar.. The source of my information is from the company that actually adds this toxic soup to drinking water.. Lets see Andy Lock ‘bull’ his way out of that fact.. Oh I forgot.. Of course that’s what he will do J . Andy is one of those who base their ideas and facts upon nothing but assumptions.. There are millions like him.. and they are people who have just been misled or misinformed by propaganda.. However Andy Lock is also a dangerous figure who wishes to impose his false view of reality onto this forum.. What is his motive? Whatever it is.. It is not coming from a good place.. I urge everyone on this forum to go to source documents and not simply trust what is said on here.. Do your own research and look at ‘ What the York Review Really Found’ ( a letter written by the scientists commissioned by Government) Also Research why Holland has taken unprecedented steps to ensure Fluoride is never added to their drinking water.. Holland has had it written into their constitution that no Government , past or future, will ever be allowed to add fluoride to drinking water. Also research what Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D., 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 has to say.. Your own intelligence will do the rest.. No need to read what I or Andy Lockedintolies has to say.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: One of the most rewarding aspects of challenging single issue extremists such as "Facts for Mothers" on these pages is that when they are challenged over their failure to present balance and context their extreme and aggressive overreaction immediately loses them their credibility. I am not a "liar" as others will tell you and you would know if you spent more time away from your sole obsession. I apply the kind of consistent evidence based approach that you find intolerable because it threatens to expose your limited grasp and knowledge of your subject. The moment you start reaching for the extreme comments of your own selected mavericks who are actually outnumbered 1000:1 by the overwhelming weight of mainstream medical opinion is usually the point as which you expose the lack of consistency in your own evidence. For exapmple The USA is the most dentally-conscious society on average in the world, and the moment you start trying to insinuate that 40% of its childrens teeth are rotted by fluorosis you are going into meltdown and losing your argument as well as your temper. What the statistics will show you is that US chidren with good dental hygene including fluoride toothpaste have better teeth than those who have none but that overall what you describe as "fluorosis" is nothing of the kind. You have no scientific credibility, no expertise and no ability to contextualise the data you present; you can only present it in the same dimension in which it has been given to you, which shows you up as someone whose "research" is spent trawling the same old anti-sites selected by you because they are run by people with exactly the same views as you. Your data, your "argument", and your lack of context are just those of the extremist scaremongering amateur. . Someone like you calling me a liar when your own obsessive peculiarity has been exposed on this thread causes me to loseno sleep at all. To give just one small example of many - You infer that the waste from a fertiliser production process is effectively dumped into the water supply and then even insinuate that this is some kind of hidden agenda just to just get rid of it. SImple economics would reveal that assertion to be stupid, illogical and nonsensical when in fact the fluorosilicates are simply a legitimate fluoride rich feedstock passed into a totally separate process to create sodium fluoride - a purer compound with almost none of these toxins that you infer are just added. You obsess about arsenic when a little research will tell you that arsenic along with hundreds of other trace compounds is already in our water anyway with permitted tolerances based on the human body's own abilities to void toxins. Humans in Britain are healthier now than at any time in British history. Using your own rather childish sophistry I wonder what conclusion that would lead you to?[/p][/quote]Andy Locks Heath says ‘fluorosilicates are simply a legitimate fluoride rich feedstock passed into a totally separate process to create sodium fluoride - a purer compound with almost none of these toxins that you infer are just added.’ Is this actually true? NO! In fact the slurry of industrial waste that is added to make ’fluoridated’ water is added at the ratio of 5 parts per million.. Not one part per million.. This is because only 20% of the poison added to drinking water is fluoride ( a developmental neurotoxin) the other 80% of the poison is made up of Lead, Mercury, barium, and lots of other contaminants. In fact to be 100% accurate there is some selenium in this toxic soup.. and selenium is a positive.. But anyway.. This is just a small post to confirm Andy Lock as a liar.. The source of my information is from the company that actually adds this toxic soup to drinking water.. Lets see Andy Lock ‘bull’ his way out of that fact.. Oh I forgot.. Of course that’s what he will do J . Andy is one of those who base their ideas and facts upon nothing but assumptions.. There are millions like him.. and they are people who have just been misled or misinformed by propaganda.. However Andy Lock is also a dangerous figure who wishes to impose his false view of reality onto this forum.. What is his motive? Whatever it is.. It is not coming from a good place.. I urge everyone on this forum to go to source documents and not simply trust what is said on here.. Do your own research and look at ‘ What the York Review Really Found’ ( a letter written by the scientists commissioned by Government) Also Research why Holland has taken unprecedented steps to ensure Fluoride is never added to their drinking water.. Holland has had it written into their constitution that no Government , past or future, will ever be allowed to add fluoride to drinking water. Also research what Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D., 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 has to say.. Your own intelligence will do the rest.. No need to read what I or Andy Lockedintolies has to say. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

1:44am Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Worldwide rejection
Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway , Switzerland, West Germany, Netherlands and Italy have all banned the addition of hydrofluorosilic acid to drinking water. So have Japan and India, where fluoride occurs naturally and skeletal fluorosis (thickening of bones) is prevalent. In 1942, the Lancet reported severe dental fluorosis in areas where natural mineral salts such as calcium fluoride concentrations of one ppm - the Government's “safe” limit - caused skeletal defects in children with poor nutrition.
Dr John Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand changed his mind about fluoride when his worldwide study revealed that dental decay was “slightly better in children in non-f luo ridated areas” and fluoride caused more harm than good to children's teeth.
Professor Hardy Limeback, a consultant to the Canadian Dental Association also studied the health effects of fluoride on children in fluoridated Toronto . He found an increasing trend in Torontonians having double the level of fluoride in hipbones compared to children in unfluoridated Montreal. Prof Limeback warned that children under three years should never drink fluoridated water or use fluoride toothpaste or products, and that fluoridated water must never be used for making baby formula. He rebuts the safety of fluoride and is concerned that no tests have been undertaken by the international pro-fluoride lobby to assess the effects of fluoride accumulation.
The WHO is aware of over-exposure to fluorides and concludes in its 1994 monograph Fluoride and Dental Health , “Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries (tooth cavities) prevention.”
Worldwide rejection Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Luxembourg, Norway , Switzerland, West Germany, Netherlands and Italy have all banned the addition of hydrofluorosilic acid to drinking water. So have Japan and India, where fluoride occurs naturally and skeletal fluorosis (thickening of bones) is prevalent. In 1942, the Lancet reported severe dental fluorosis in areas where natural mineral salts such as calcium fluoride concentrations of one ppm - the Government's “safe” limit - caused skeletal defects in children with poor nutrition. Dr John Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, New Zealand changed his mind about fluoride when his worldwide study revealed that dental decay was “slightly better in children in non-f luo ridated areas” and fluoride caused more harm than good to children's teeth. Professor Hardy Limeback, a consultant to the Canadian Dental Association also studied the health effects of fluoride on children in fluoridated Toronto . He found an increasing trend in Torontonians having double the level of fluoride in hipbones compared to children in unfluoridated Montreal. Prof Limeback warned that children under three years should never drink fluoridated water or use fluoride toothpaste or products, and that fluoridated water must never be used for making baby formula. He rebuts the safety of fluoride and is concerned that no tests have been undertaken by the international pro-fluoride lobby to assess the effects of fluoride accumulation. The WHO is aware of over-exposure to fluorides and concludes in its 1994 monograph Fluoride and Dental Health , “Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries (tooth cavities) prevention.” FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

1:48am Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Any 'Green Party' supporters may wish to go to their website and see what they have to say about Fluoride..Its very informative and also spells out how the public have been mislead over the issue of fluoride.
Any 'Green Party' supporters may wish to go to their website and see what they have to say about Fluoride..Its very informative and also spells out how the public have been mislead over the issue of fluoride. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

1:57am Mon 20 Aug 12

IronLady2010 says...

I was born in the Midlands where I believe Fluoride has been for many years. I never once had a filling or any tooth issues.

Yet, when I moved down South, that is a different story.

I am now early 40's, 2 fillings and a set of healthy teeth apparently.

Mind, I rarely drink tap water as it comes out too warm.
I was born in the Midlands where I believe Fluoride has been for many years. I never once had a filling or any tooth issues. Yet, when I moved down South, that is a different story. I am now early 40's, 2 fillings and a set of healthy teeth apparently. Mind, I rarely drink tap water as it comes out too warm. IronLady2010

2:48am Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

IronLady2010 wrote:
I was born in the Midlands where I believe Fluoride has been for many years. I never once had a filling or any tooth issues. Yet, when I moved down South, that is a different story. I am now early 40's, 2 fillings and a set of healthy teeth apparently. Mind, I rarely drink tap water as it comes out too warm.
Listen to IronLady2010.. Her story tells it all.. She comes from the midlands but 'rarely drinks tap water'. Her teeth are good after 40 years. OK she gets a couple of fillings later in life. So its simple:. Clean your teeth and avoid fluoride contaminated water..
[quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I was born in the Midlands where I believe Fluoride has been for many years. I never once had a filling or any tooth issues. Yet, when I moved down South, that is a different story. I am now early 40's, 2 fillings and a set of healthy teeth apparently. Mind, I rarely drink tap water as it comes out too warm.[/p][/quote]Listen to IronLady2010.. Her story tells it all.. She comes from the midlands but 'rarely drinks tap water'. Her teeth are good after 40 years. OK she gets a couple of fillings later in life. So its simple:. Clean your teeth and avoid fluoride contaminated water.. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

2:52am Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Links to obesity and hypothyroid
Water in the West Midlands has been fluoridated for forty years. In 2003, the region topped the UK's “fat list” with 22% of the population classed as clinically obese. Doctors are concerned that pregnant mothers ingesting fluoride from drinking water are predisposing their offspring to obesity.
Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield, a thyroid specialist, believes that fluoride is partially to blame for the high incidence of under active thyroid problems (hypothyroidsm) in Birmingham. He says, “There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.” This is because fluoride interferes with the uptake of iodine crucial for the regulation of hormones. Dr Peatfield was suspended by the GMC (General Medical Council) because he made natural thyroid treatments available to his patients. He was subsequently reinstated.
Up until the 1950s, European doctors used fluoride to reduce the symptoms of an overactive thyroid gland. However, the maximum daily intake of 6.6mg of fluoride by populations overexposed to fluoride exceeds the maximum dose of 4.6mg used to depress the thyroid gland. In the US, an estimated 13 million women have been diagnosed with an underactive thyroid, and drugs used to treat hypothyroi dism were the second most prescribed medication in 1999.
Links to obesity and hypothyroid Water in the West Midlands has been fluoridated for forty years. In 2003, the region topped the UK's “fat list” with 22% of the population classed as clinically obese. Doctors are concerned that pregnant mothers ingesting fluoride from drinking water are predisposing their offspring to obesity. Dr Barry Durrant-Peatfield, a thyroid specialist, believes that fluoride is partially to blame for the high incidence of under active thyroid problems (hypothyroidsm) in Birmingham. He says, “There is no doubt that fluoride is enzyme disruptive and one thing it affects is thyroid hormones.” This is because fluoride interferes with the uptake of iodine crucial for the regulation of hormones. Dr Peatfield was suspended by the GMC (General Medical Council) because he made natural thyroid treatments available to his patients. He was subsequently reinstated. Up until the 1950s, European doctors used fluoride to reduce the symptoms of an overactive thyroid gland. However, the maximum daily intake of 6.6mg of fluoride by populations overexposed to fluoride exceeds the maximum dose of 4.6mg used to depress the thyroid gland. In the US, an estimated 13 million women have been diagnosed with an underactive thyroid, and drugs used to treat hypothyroi dism were the second most prescribed medication in 1999. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

8:59am Mon 20 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS wrote:
IronLady2010 wrote:
I was born in the Midlands where I believe Fluoride has been for many years. I never once had a filling or any tooth issues. Yet, when I moved down South, that is a different story. I am now early 40's, 2 fillings and a set of healthy teeth apparently. Mind, I rarely drink tap water as it comes out too warm.
Listen to IronLady2010.. Her story tells it all.. She comes from the midlands but 'rarely drinks tap water'. Her teeth are good after 40 years. OK she gets a couple of fillings later in life. So its simple:. Clean your teeth and avoid fluoride contaminated water..
You have just shot yourself in the foot. She may not drink "much" tap water today but that is a subjective remark and almost certainly ignores the water that would be in almost all her food. I bet she drank fluoridated water exclusively all through her childhood and early life and you have very kindly published the beneficial result, The trouble with single issue obsessives like you is not only do you lack any sense of proportionality - which is why to you this tiny insiginificant issue assumes world ending significance- but you also have the arrogance of someone incapable of budging an inch no matter what evidence is brought. You are clearly no scientist because scientists work from evidence. Like other single issue extremists you cannot actually make an analytical case as to the actual hazard of what is proposed, but instead think you can win an argument just be throwing tons of unsubstantiated, dubious random unstructured data from anywhere in the world and of such age as to be useless. 1999? Are you mad?. It doesn;t work love. You just look make yourself look like the other obsessives -arrogant, bitter, obsessive and liable to make a big faux pas as you have just done.
By the way you are also factually in error. The trace elements and compounds you list are all regulated and cannot exceed safe tolerances. Implying that a water company can just throw poisons into the water for the hell of it is misleading,innacurat
e and counter intuitive. Water Company employees have children too. The truth is you don;t know which compound Southern Water will even use because you don;t know, and you don;t know because you cannot be bothered to get off your backside and do proper research so you think you can just smear and screech instead, You've met your match and you don;t like it. You are starting to sound like a very embittered woman with too much time on her hands.
[quote][p][bold]FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]IronLady2010[/bold] wrote: I was born in the Midlands where I believe Fluoride has been for many years. I never once had a filling or any tooth issues. Yet, when I moved down South, that is a different story. I am now early 40's, 2 fillings and a set of healthy teeth apparently. Mind, I rarely drink tap water as it comes out too warm.[/p][/quote]Listen to IronLady2010.. Her story tells it all.. She comes from the midlands but 'rarely drinks tap water'. Her teeth are good after 40 years. OK she gets a couple of fillings later in life. So its simple:. Clean your teeth and avoid fluoride contaminated water..[/p][/quote]You have just shot yourself in the foot. She may not drink "much" tap water today but that is a subjective remark and almost certainly ignores the water that would be in almost all her food. I bet she drank fluoridated water exclusively all through her childhood and early life and you have very kindly published the beneficial result, The trouble with single issue obsessives like you is not only do you lack any sense of proportionality - which is why to you this tiny insiginificant issue assumes world ending significance- but you also have the arrogance of someone incapable of budging an inch no matter what evidence is brought. You are clearly no scientist because scientists work from evidence. Like other single issue extremists you cannot actually make an analytical case as to the actual hazard of what is proposed, but instead think you can win an argument just be throwing tons of unsubstantiated, dubious random unstructured data from anywhere in the world and of such age as to be useless. 1999? Are you mad?. It doesn;t work love. You just look make yourself look like the other obsessives -arrogant, bitter, obsessive and liable to make a big faux pas as you have just done. By the way you are also factually in error. The trace elements and compounds you list are all regulated and cannot exceed safe tolerances. Implying that a water company can just throw poisons into the water for the hell of it is misleading,innacurat e and counter intuitive. Water Company employees have children too. The truth is you don;t know which compound Southern Water will even use because you don;t know, and you don;t know because you cannot be bothered to get off your backside and do proper research so you think you can just smear and screech instead, You've met your match and you don;t like it. You are starting to sound like a very embittered woman with too much time on her hands. The Wickham Man

9:46am Mon 20 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Joy Warren wrote:
This is getting acrimonious. You're all losing the plot! Please do try to keep to the main topic: water fluoridation - otherwise the Daily Echo will close this forum. Basics: people who are fluoridated are overdosing on the toxin because it's in their water at 1ppm + in their toothpaste + in their tap water which is fluoridated, in their hot bathing water, in their swimming poole water and in their medicines, e.g. Prozac. Thus many people in the West Midlands are getting too much of the stuff and over a lifetime of bioaccumulated toxin, their health is challenged. Those of you who are pro-fluoridation are not attacking me! Why not? Is it because you cannot refute my logic? Go on - I dare you to call me an armchair scientist.
Hello Joy I'm still rejoicing in being described as "dangerous"!. I'm not a chemist but I have worked all my life in a "scientific" environment for want of a better word and I find that doing your own analytics works better than just copying others out of context. . Your point is a good one - fluoride doesn't just come from the amount we drink so this is the analysis I did. ( I don't know why FactsFor Mothers goes all round the world trawling for irrelevant material from the past when the most relevant document is right here on our own doorstep). Here is the NHS's own FAQ unless they are part of this strange conspiracy that FactsforMothers claims as well! http://www.southofen
gland.nhs.uk/what-we
-do/public-health/fl
uoridation/fluoridat
ion-faqs/
If she disagrees with it why not explicitly perform a detailed evidence based rebuttal rather than obsessing about FLorida in the 1990s? ? The second piece of evidence answering your precise point is here again from this area not some other irrelevant country:- http://www.southernw
ater.co.uk/homeAndLe
isure/drinkingWater/
drinkingWaterStandar
ds.asp Note that allowed safe levels for fluoride are 1.5mg/l (Fluoride compounds are used to treat osteoporosis at far higher levels than this anyway btw). The third piece of evidence is the CHief Inspectors annual report of drinkig water again in this region not some irrelevant US state http://dwi.defra.gov
.uk/about/annual-rep
ort/2011/summary-tab
les/srn.pdf. THe fourth piece of evidence is that it is proposed to add 1mg /litre which if you add to the existing trace content is still only about 66% of the daily limit. The 5th piece of evidence is that adult humans ingest on average around 3.5 litres per day so You with nearly .5mg / litre as a per litre contingency against any tiny ingest from other sources you have a daily buffer of around 1.75mg. Re your other sources, eg if you have a bath or swim you are not going to absorb anything like a litre of water though your skin and nobody is going to force you to swallow your own toothpaste except yourself. So I am afraid I have refuted your claim that people are overdosing - because when you do a bit of checking you can see quite clearly that they are not. And I would say that you and millions of others are living proof of that.
[quote][p][bold]Joy Warren[/bold] wrote: This is getting acrimonious. You're all losing the plot! Please do try to keep to the main topic: water fluoridation - otherwise the Daily Echo will close this forum. Basics: people who are fluoridated are overdosing on the toxin because it's in their water at 1ppm + in their toothpaste + in their tap water which is fluoridated, in their hot bathing water, in their swimming poole water and in their medicines, e.g. Prozac. Thus many people in the West Midlands are getting too much of the stuff and over a lifetime of bioaccumulated toxin, their health is challenged. Those of you who are pro-fluoridation are not attacking me! Why not? Is it because you cannot refute my logic? Go on - I dare you to call me an armchair scientist.[/p][/quote]Hello Joy I'm still rejoicing in being described as "dangerous"!. I'm not a chemist but I have worked all my life in a "scientific" environment for want of a better word and I find that doing your own analytics works better than just copying others out of context. . Your point is a good one - fluoride doesn't just come from the amount we drink so this is the analysis I did. ( I don't know why FactsFor Mothers goes all round the world trawling for irrelevant material from the past when the most relevant document is right here on our own doorstep). Here is the NHS's own FAQ unless they are part of this strange conspiracy that FactsforMothers claims as well! http://www.southofen gland.nhs.uk/what-we -do/public-health/fl uoridation/fluoridat ion-faqs/ If she disagrees with it why not explicitly perform a detailed evidence based rebuttal rather than obsessing about FLorida in the 1990s? ? The second piece of evidence answering your precise point is here again from this area not some other irrelevant country:- http://www.southernw ater.co.uk/homeAndLe isure/drinkingWater/ drinkingWaterStandar ds.asp Note that allowed safe levels for fluoride are 1.5mg/l (Fluoride compounds are used to treat osteoporosis at far higher levels than this anyway btw). The third piece of evidence is the CHief Inspectors annual report of drinkig water again in this region not some irrelevant US state http://dwi.defra.gov .uk/about/annual-rep ort/2011/summary-tab les/srn.pdf. THe fourth piece of evidence is that it is proposed to add 1mg /litre which if you add to the existing trace content is still only about 66% of the daily limit. The 5th piece of evidence is that adult humans ingest on average around 3.5 litres per day so You with nearly .5mg / litre as a per litre contingency against any tiny ingest from other sources you have a daily buffer of around 1.75mg. Re your other sources, eg if you have a bath or swim you are not going to absorb anything like a litre of water though your skin and nobody is going to force you to swallow your own toothpaste except yourself. So I am afraid I have refuted your claim that people are overdosing - because when you do a bit of checking you can see quite clearly that they are not. And I would say that you and millions of others are living proof of that. Andy Locks Heath

10:17am Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

ANDY LOCK THE LIAR is at it again,
He says 'So I am afraid I have refuted your claim that people are overdosing - because when you do a bit of checking you can see quite clearly that they are not. And I would say that you and millions of others are living proof of that.'
The reality check: "We accept that Dental Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" (Hayman, Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158). In the West Midlands one third of children teenagers have been found to have Dental Fluorosis, a serious malformation and disfigurement of the secondary teeth. Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. Why dont we talk about another topic Andy? Say Lead in petrol or thalidomide and you can tell me how good it is for us.. ha ha .. Sorry for laughing.. but saying your name is very much like hearing a joke.
ANDY LOCK THE LIAR is at it again, He says 'So I am afraid I have refuted your claim that people are overdosing - because when you do a bit of checking you can see quite clearly that they are not. And I would say that you and millions of others are living proof of that.' The reality check: "We accept that Dental Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" (Hayman, Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158). In the West Midlands one third of children teenagers have been found to have Dental Fluorosis, a serious malformation and disfigurement of the secondary teeth. Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. Why dont we talk about another topic Andy? Say Lead in petrol or thalidomide and you can tell me how good it is for us.. ha ha .. Sorry for laughing.. but saying your name is very much like hearing a joke. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

10:34am Mon 20 Aug 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

Inform Al wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Inform Al wrote:
On the inside wrote:
Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another.

As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated.

Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.
Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.
You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.
I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all.
I thought so. A liar who thought he could create a better background for himself than he was entitled to, and was caught out and publicly humiliated. Calling me a cretin (which I palpably am not) further reduces your credibility to that of a small child throwing stones from the safety of his back garden then running inside. Providing the evidence I requested is not "personal" to you is it - it would be shared by anyone who was actually being truthful about their attendance of a very distinguished university so you can answer it with impunity. Unless of course you were lying. If you aspire to any kind of office then you can answer the point about your claim to have attended Imperial in front of everyone or you can withdraw it. Either way as I am still a proud associate member of the Royal College of Science (an organisation you should have heard of if your claim was real) it won't take me long to discover the truth. Again if you aspire to any kind of public office I am sure someone on here will happily remind me of your name.
I have not met many members of the RCS I would think of as cretins, you appear to be the exception that proves the rule. Just continue to ignore the facts in your inimitable style,
I don't think he needs to worry about you - after all you didn't go there at all did you.
[quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Inform Al[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]On the inside[/bold] wrote: Forget tests on over three million people for over 40 years in Birmingham, they have done the tests on hundreds of mllions of people worldwide for hundreds of years. Flouride occurs naturally at higher levels than proposed in many places. Perhaps Mr Spottiswood's time would be better spent deciding which political party he likes as he keeps leaving one and joining another. As for you Southy, shame on you for buying the Daily Mails lies about MMR and placing working class children at risk due to the middle classes who read the Mail failing to have their children vaccinated. Fluoride gives working class kids middle class teeth and nothing else.[/p][/quote]Yes fluoride is found naturally in water in places where ricketts and subnormal mental capacity are rife. Arsenic is also found naturally in water in some places in Asia, shall we add that to our water as well, must cure something surely. Adding industrial waste to our water supply is no less than criminal.[/p][/quote]You tried to infer in a previous post that you were a graduate of Imperial College, yet you post the kind of sensationalist claptrap that suggests you haven't actually done any formal scientific higher education at all. If the compound used in fluoiridation is really just industrial waste then a) can you let us know from which industrial process it is produced as a by-product and b) for my own curiosity, what faculty were you in, what did you study and who was your tutor because frankly, I don't believe you.[/p][/quote]I am averse to giving personal details to cretins so will not do so. I do not support sensationalist issues, just what is right and best for us all.[/p][/quote]I thought so. A liar who thought he could create a better background for himself than he was entitled to, and was caught out and publicly humiliated. Calling me a cretin (which I palpably am not) further reduces your credibility to that of a small child throwing stones from the safety of his back garden then running inside. Providing the evidence I requested is not "personal" to you is it - it would be shared by anyone who was actually being truthful about their attendance of a very distinguished university so you can answer it with impunity. Unless of course you were lying. If you aspire to any kind of office then you can answer the point about your claim to have attended Imperial in front of everyone or you can withdraw it. Either way as I am still a proud associate member of the Royal College of Science (an organisation you should have heard of if your claim was real) it won't take me long to discover the truth. Again if you aspire to any kind of public office I am sure someone on here will happily remind me of your name.[/p][/quote]I have not met many members of the RCS I would think of as cretins, you appear to be the exception that proves the rule. Just continue to ignore the facts in your inimitable style,[/p][/quote]I don't think he needs to worry about you - after all you didn't go there at all did you. MisterGrimsdale

10:57am Mon 20 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS wrote:
ANDY LOCK THE LIAR is at it again, He says 'So I am afraid I have refuted your claim that people are overdosing - because when you do a bit of checking you can see quite clearly that they are not. And I would say that you and millions of others are living proof of that.' The reality check: "We accept that Dental Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" (Hayman, Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158). In the West Midlands one third of children teenagers have been found to have Dental Fluorosis, a serious malformation and disfigurement of the secondary teeth. Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. Why dont we talk about another topic Andy? Say Lead in petrol or thalidomide and you can tell me how good it is for us.. ha ha .. Sorry for laughing.. but saying your name is very much like hearing a joke.
Your shrill posts are working against you now. You need to think how others are going to perceive your immature and superficial smears before you post stuff like that. I also notice that you seem to be again quoting data from 13 years ago out of context rather than tackling the evidence of this area at this time. Your repeated misuse of the term "fluorosis" shows a deliberate or maybe just ignorant non scientist's misunderstanding of data. If one substance impacts upon another eg sodium fluoride upon tooth enamel that does not mean there are just two states. "Fluorosis" is the name given to that reaction, not just to a chronic condition. Evidence of its existence does not mean that teeth are significantly damaged by it. The only time it would be significant is when that damage is more severe than the damage done by lots of other things we ingest, such as fizzy drinks, tea and sugar to name but three, as they also damage enamel. I am inclined to keep you talking here because like Wickham said earlier you are revealing to everyone that you do not seem to posess any understanding of poportionality. Try addressing the NHS FAQ case above systematically and point by point without just dumping random data from long ago as though that represents a reasoned answer Frankly I don't think you can and for all your childish insults, that is what people here will find far more revealing.
[quote][p][bold]FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS[/bold] wrote: ANDY LOCK THE LIAR is at it again, He says 'So I am afraid I have refuted your claim that people are overdosing - because when you do a bit of checking you can see quite clearly that they are not. And I would say that you and millions of others are living proof of that.' The reality check: "We accept that Dental Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity" (Hayman, Hansard, 20 Apr 1999 : WA 158). In the West Midlands one third of children teenagers have been found to have Dental Fluorosis, a serious malformation and disfigurement of the secondary teeth. Fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity. Why dont we talk about another topic Andy? Say Lead in petrol or thalidomide and you can tell me how good it is for us.. ha ha .. Sorry for laughing.. but saying your name is very much like hearing a joke.[/p][/quote]Your shrill posts are working against you now. You need to think how others are going to perceive your immature and superficial smears before you post stuff like that. I also notice that you seem to be again quoting data from 13 years ago out of context rather than tackling the evidence of this area at this time. Your repeated misuse of the term "fluorosis" shows a deliberate or maybe just ignorant non scientist's misunderstanding of data. If one substance impacts upon another eg sodium fluoride upon tooth enamel that does not mean there are just two states. "Fluorosis" is the name given to that reaction, not just to a chronic condition. Evidence of its existence does not mean that teeth are significantly damaged by it. The only time it would be significant is when that damage is more severe than the damage done by lots of other things we ingest, such as fizzy drinks, tea and sugar to name but three, as they also damage enamel. I am inclined to keep you talking here because like Wickham said earlier you are revealing to everyone that you do not seem to posess any understanding of poportionality. Try addressing the NHS FAQ case above systematically and point by point without just dumping random data from long ago as though that represents a reasoned answer Frankly I don't think you can and for all your childish insults, that is what people here will find far more revealing. Andy Locks Heath

12:19pm Mon 20 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

I'm revisiting my earlier post of yesterday since I notice that there were a couple of omissions. So, for clarification, here is the corrected version:

"Basics: people who are fluoridated are overdosing on the toxin because it's in their tap water at 1ppm + in their toothpaste (whether swallowed or absorbed when in the mouth) + in their food which is manufactured in fluoridated areas using fluoridated water + in their hot fluoridated bath water + in their fluoridated swimming pool water + in their medicines, e.g. Prozac. Thus many people in the West Midlands are getting too much of the stuff and over a lifetime of bioaccumulated toxin, their health is challenged."

Perhaps it's just as well that I am repeating these basic facts since there's so much flummery on this forum that they can easily be overlooked.

Something which no-one has mentioned so far: it is acknowledged that fluoride bioaccumulates in our teeth when they are growing in the gums. Bones are made of the same material. Fluoridated people have altered bones where the natural bone material - hydroxyapatite - has been changed into fluorapatite. The rate of deposition of fluoride is greater in young adults, children and babies. This new material is denser but paradoxically weaker because the presence of collagen is reduced. There is ample research evidence that demonstrates that this is indeed the case and I advise that all subscribing to this forum should visit the following web-page where you will find the following: "Carefully conducted human clinical trials- including two "double-blind trials" - have found that fluoride (at doses of 18-34 mg/day for just 1-4 years) increases the rate of bone fracture, particularly hip fracture, among osteoporosis patients." . (http://www.fluoride
alert.org/health/bon
e/fracture/strength.
html ). (Although we ingest and absorb less than 18mgF /day, the bio-accumulation is over a lifetime and not just for 1-4 years.) The research quoted on the above site is from International sources. OK - so, the research doesn't specifically deal with Southampton people but since we're all humans it's fine in my book to read all the available worldwide research literature.

Getting back to alteration of bones, on a purely personal basis, I think that it's a bit rich for the Health Authorites to ignore this fluoride-induced alteration of our bones. I never asked to have my bones remodelled and I bitterly resent this alteration having taken place without my consent.

Andy - you have listed some sources from the NHS. Of course, I am aware of their content but having analysed their advice, and in light of my deeper understanding of this issue, cannot logically accept their advice and statements as being the whole truth. Indeed, to believe that everything which issues forth from any part of the Government machinery as being wholly the truth is disingenuous. On the other hand, the annual DWI reports do faithfully report where water companies have complied with the law and where they have been found wanting.

The maximum level of fluoride allowable in water supplies is 1.5 mg F/litre of water and the target concentration is 1 mg F/litre of water. The margin of safety is far too small and no toxicologist would ever advise allowing this narrow margin, particularly since fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. Also, the dosage can’t be controlled. For example, pregnant women are advised to keep themselves hydrated and they will, if they take the advice, consume more than 2 litres of water (or equivalent) a day. Fluoride crosses the placenta so the unborn child is fluoridated before birth. How do you all feel about that?

In answer to The Wickham Man, few of of us anti-fluoridationist
s are “single-issue extremists”. For example, I also research into many other health issues. My University experience has taught me to dig around a topic and not to make wild unfounded statements, particularly since the issue of fluoridation is surrounded by so many confounding factors, all of which have to be analysed.
I'm revisiting my earlier post of yesterday since I notice that there were a couple of omissions. So, for clarification, here is the corrected version: "Basics: people who are fluoridated are overdosing on the toxin because it's in their tap water at 1ppm + in their toothpaste (whether swallowed or absorbed when in the mouth) + in their food which is manufactured in fluoridated areas using fluoridated water + in their hot fluoridated bath water + in their fluoridated swimming pool water + in their medicines, e.g. Prozac. Thus many people in the West Midlands are getting too much of the stuff and over a lifetime of bioaccumulated toxin, their health is challenged." Perhaps it's just as well that I am repeating these basic facts since there's so much flummery on this forum that they can easily be overlooked. Something which no-one has mentioned so far: it is acknowledged that fluoride bioaccumulates in our teeth when they are growing in the gums. Bones are made of the same material. Fluoridated people have altered bones where the natural bone material - hydroxyapatite - has been changed into fluorapatite. The rate of deposition of fluoride is greater in young adults, children and babies. This new material is denser but paradoxically weaker because the presence of collagen is reduced. There is ample research evidence that demonstrates that this is indeed the case and I advise that all subscribing to this forum should visit the following web-page where you will find the following: "Carefully conducted human clinical trials- including two "double-blind trials" - have found that fluoride (at doses of 18-34 mg/day for just 1-4 years) increases the rate of bone fracture, particularly hip fracture, among osteoporosis patients." . (http://www.fluoride alert.org/health/bon e/fracture/strength. html ). (Although we ingest and absorb less than 18mgF /day, the bio-accumulation is over a lifetime and not just for 1-4 years.) The research quoted on the above site is from International sources. OK - so, the research doesn't specifically deal with Southampton people but since we're all humans it's fine in my book to read all the available worldwide research literature. Getting back to alteration of bones, on a purely personal basis, I think that it's a bit rich for the Health Authorites to ignore this fluoride-induced alteration of our bones. I never asked to have my bones remodelled and I bitterly resent this alteration having taken place without my consent. Andy - you have listed some sources from the NHS. Of course, I am aware of their content but having analysed their advice, and in light of my deeper understanding of this issue, cannot logically accept their advice and statements as being the whole truth. Indeed, to believe that everything which issues forth from any part of the Government machinery as being wholly the truth is disingenuous. On the other hand, the annual DWI reports do faithfully report where water companies have complied with the law and where they have been found wanting. The maximum level of fluoride allowable in water supplies is 1.5 mg F/litre of water and the target concentration is 1 mg F/litre of water. The margin of safety is far too small and no toxicologist would ever advise allowing this narrow margin, particularly since fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. Also, the dosage can’t be controlled. For example, pregnant women are advised to keep themselves hydrated and they will, if they take the advice, consume more than 2 litres of water (or equivalent) a day. Fluoride crosses the placenta so the unborn child is fluoridated before birth. How do you all feel about that? In answer to The Wickham Man, few of of us anti-fluoridationist s are “single-issue extremists”. For example, I also research into many other health issues. My University experience has taught me to dig around a topic and not to make wild unfounded statements, particularly since the issue of fluoridation is surrounded by so many confounding factors, all of which have to be analysed. Joy Warren

12:36pm Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Here is another quote from the moron Andy Lock ' "Fluorosis" is the name given to that reaction, not just to a chronic condition.'
The reaction Andy Lock is talking about is the disfigurement of teeth caused by Fluoride.. In fact this reaction/disfigureme
nt is caused by ingestion of fluoride and not by short period topical application . It is therefore obvious to anyone other than moron Andy that Fluorosis is systemic poisoning of the body. Fluoride does NOT target Teeth ! It has no ability to do this.. It is absorbed by bone and organs of the body.. Once again Lock shows himself to be a liar. So lets move on and see what else the moron Andy Lock says ‘I also notice that you seem to be again quoting data from 13 years ago out of context rather than tackling the evidence of this area at this time’ What a joke!! Fluoride has been added to water supplies for 50 years.. Fluorosis is a lifetime condition! So evidence from 13 years ago is quite valid an irrefutable in terms of the number of people with Fluorosis .. because it’s a lifetime condition.’ Andy likes to grab at straws.. Because that’s the only thing he has on his side of the argument. And lets see what else ANDY says ‘Evidence of its existence does not mean that teeth are significantly damaged by it. The only time it would be significant is when that damage is more severe than the damage done by lots of other things we ingest, such as fizzy drinks, tea and sugar to name but three, as they also damage enamel‘. Here Andy compares Fluoride to other substances that damage teeth, Yes he’s right.. Fluoride is another substance that damages teeth.. At last he accidentally says the truth.. However.. Tea and sugar are not Neurotoxin poisons that get permanently absorbed into our bodies..Tea and sugar are not the active ingredients in some rat poisons or Prozac for that matter.. But Fluoride is! Yes Folks.. Prozac is over 90% Fluoride.. Its the active ingredient. So feeling a little excited or depressed.. Maybe you brain is overloaded with thoughts?.. Take Prozac! it’s a Neurotoxin poison that will take the edge off life and the edge of your brain! Just another reason why Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.. Remember folks Prozac is over 90% fluoride!.. Go check it out for yourself..
Here is another quote from the moron Andy Lock ' "Fluorosis" is the name given to that reaction, not just to a chronic condition.' The reaction Andy Lock is talking about is the disfigurement of teeth caused by Fluoride.. In fact this reaction/disfigureme nt is caused by ingestion of fluoride and not by short period topical application . It is therefore obvious to anyone other than moron Andy that Fluorosis is systemic poisoning of the body. Fluoride does NOT target Teeth ! It has no ability to do this.. It is absorbed by bone and organs of the body.. Once again Lock shows himself to be a liar. So lets move on and see what else the moron Andy Lock says ‘I also notice that you seem to be again quoting data from 13 years ago out of context rather than tackling the evidence of this area at this time’ What a joke!! Fluoride has been added to water supplies for 50 years.. Fluorosis is a lifetime condition! So evidence from 13 years ago is quite valid an irrefutable in terms of the number of people with Fluorosis .. because it’s a lifetime condition.’ Andy likes to grab at straws.. Because that’s the only thing he has on his side of the argument. And lets see what else ANDY says ‘Evidence of its existence does not mean that teeth are significantly damaged by it. The only time it would be significant is when that damage is more severe than the damage done by lots of other things we ingest, such as fizzy drinks, tea and sugar to name but three, as they also damage enamel‘. Here Andy compares Fluoride to other substances that damage teeth, Yes he’s right.. Fluoride is another substance that damages teeth.. At last he accidentally says the truth.. However.. Tea and sugar are not Neurotoxin poisons that get permanently absorbed into our bodies..Tea and sugar are not the active ingredients in some rat poisons or Prozac for that matter.. But Fluoride is! Yes Folks.. Prozac is over 90% Fluoride.. Its the active ingredient. So feeling a little excited or depressed.. Maybe you brain is overloaded with thoughts?.. Take Prozac! it’s a Neurotoxin poison that will take the edge off life and the edge of your brain! Just another reason why Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.. Remember folks Prozac is over 90% fluoride!.. Go check it out for yourself.. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

1:22pm Mon 20 Aug 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS wrote:
Here is another quote from the moron Andy Lock ' "Fluorosis" is the name given to that reaction, not just to a chronic condition.'
The reaction Andy Lock is talking about is the disfigurement of teeth caused by Fluoride.. In fact this reaction/disfigureme

nt is caused by ingestion of fluoride and not by short period topical application . It is therefore obvious to anyone other than moron Andy that Fluorosis is systemic poisoning of the body. Fluoride does NOT target Teeth ! It has no ability to do this.. It is absorbed by bone and organs of the body.. Once again Lock shows himself to be a liar. So lets move on and see what else the moron Andy Lock says ‘I also notice that you seem to be again quoting data from 13 years ago out of context rather than tackling the evidence of this area at this time’ What a joke!! Fluoride has been added to water supplies for 50 years.. Fluorosis is a lifetime condition! So evidence from 13 years ago is quite valid an irrefutable in terms of the number of people with Fluorosis .. because it’s a lifetime condition.’ Andy likes to grab at straws.. Because that’s the only thing he has on his side of the argument. And lets see what else ANDY says ‘Evidence of its existence does not mean that teeth are significantly damaged by it. The only time it would be significant is when that damage is more severe than the damage done by lots of other things we ingest, such as fizzy drinks, tea and sugar to name but three, as they also damage enamel‘. Here Andy compares Fluoride to other substances that damage teeth, Yes he’s right.. Fluoride is another substance that damages teeth.. At last he accidentally says the truth.. However.. Tea and sugar are not Neurotoxin poisons that get permanently absorbed into our bodies..Tea and sugar are not the active ingredients in some rat poisons or Prozac for that matter.. But Fluoride is! Yes Folks.. Prozac is over 90% Fluoride.. Its the active ingredient. So feeling a little excited or depressed.. Maybe you brain is overloaded with thoughts?.. Take Prozac! it’s a Neurotoxin poison that will take the edge off life and the edge of your brain! Just another reason why Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.. Remember folks Prozac is over 90% fluoride!.. Go check it out for yourself..
Based on your manic overreactions on this thread already I reckon you are far better acquainted with prozac than most of us here so I am sure you are an expert on that if on nothing else. Take your Prozac regularly folks, or you end up like FactsforMothers.
[quote][p][bold]FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS[/bold] wrote: Here is another quote from the moron Andy Lock ' "Fluorosis" is the name given to that reaction, not just to a chronic condition.' The reaction Andy Lock is talking about is the disfigurement of teeth caused by Fluoride.. In fact this reaction/disfigureme nt is caused by ingestion of fluoride and not by short period topical application . It is therefore obvious to anyone other than moron Andy that Fluorosis is systemic poisoning of the body. Fluoride does NOT target Teeth ! It has no ability to do this.. It is absorbed by bone and organs of the body.. Once again Lock shows himself to be a liar. So lets move on and see what else the moron Andy Lock says ‘I also notice that you seem to be again quoting data from 13 years ago out of context rather than tackling the evidence of this area at this time’ What a joke!! Fluoride has been added to water supplies for 50 years.. Fluorosis is a lifetime condition! So evidence from 13 years ago is quite valid an irrefutable in terms of the number of people with Fluorosis .. because it’s a lifetime condition.’ Andy likes to grab at straws.. Because that’s the only thing he has on his side of the argument. And lets see what else ANDY says ‘Evidence of its existence does not mean that teeth are significantly damaged by it. The only time it would be significant is when that damage is more severe than the damage done by lots of other things we ingest, such as fizzy drinks, tea and sugar to name but three, as they also damage enamel‘. Here Andy compares Fluoride to other substances that damage teeth, Yes he’s right.. Fluoride is another substance that damages teeth.. At last he accidentally says the truth.. However.. Tea and sugar are not Neurotoxin poisons that get permanently absorbed into our bodies..Tea and sugar are not the active ingredients in some rat poisons or Prozac for that matter.. But Fluoride is! Yes Folks.. Prozac is over 90% Fluoride.. Its the active ingredient. So feeling a little excited or depressed.. Maybe you brain is overloaded with thoughts?.. Take Prozac! it’s a Neurotoxin poison that will take the edge off life and the edge of your brain! Just another reason why Fluoride should not be added to drinking water.. Remember folks Prozac is over 90% fluoride!.. Go check it out for yourself..[/p][/quote]Based on your manic overreactions on this thread already I reckon you are far better acquainted with prozac than most of us here so I am sure you are an expert on that if on nothing else. Take your Prozac regularly folks, or you end up like FactsforMothers. MisterGrimsdale

1:38pm Mon 20 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

If FactsforMothers wants to expand and contract the scope at random I'm more than happy to follow her lead. 50 years should be long enough to observe any impacts on health, so I note that in the last 50 years the average lifespan of people in this country has increased, along with quality of life and income and following the perverse logic of attributing everything you don't like to one single cause I'd say fluoride should also be given the credit using the same twisted thought process.
As someone who does proper analytical research I would never actually make such an association except as a joke, but if there was strong reliable evidence of health problems caused by fluoride over 50 years it would be clear and unambiguous by now. And it isn't. The truth is that it isn't and FactsForMothers is not only incapable of going to raw data and analysing it for herself she is also afraid of others doing it as well. THis is is why instead of asking people to read the York Report and other sources for themselves she instead wants people to read a sensationalised extreme conspiracy riddled criticism of it instead.
I am starting to wonder if with her obsession there isn't some kind of hidden agenda here, such as scientology as opposed to science?
Joy I know you are being reasonable in your opposition but the same consideration applies. If your estimate of impact is correct we should have the same overwhelming causal evidence as for other epidemics and we don't. Instance of the illnesses quoted by FactsforMothers are at best pockets well within the spectrum of normal population variance and definitely within the predictable ranges of statistical probability.
If FactsforMothers wants to expand and contract the scope at random I'm more than happy to follow her lead. 50 years should be long enough to observe any impacts on health, so I note that in the last 50 years the average lifespan of people in this country has increased, along with quality of life and income and following the perverse logic of attributing everything you don't like to one single cause I'd say fluoride should also be given the credit using the same twisted thought process. As someone who does proper analytical research I would never actually make such an association except as a joke, but if there was strong reliable evidence of health problems caused by fluoride over 50 years it would be clear and unambiguous by now. And it isn't. The truth is that it isn't and FactsForMothers is not only incapable of going to raw data and analysing it for herself she is also afraid of others doing it as well. THis is is why instead of asking people to read the York Report and other sources for themselves she instead wants people to read a sensationalised extreme conspiracy riddled criticism of it instead. I am starting to wonder if with her obsession there isn't some kind of hidden agenda here, such as scientology as opposed to science? Joy I know you are being reasonable in your opposition but the same consideration applies. If your estimate of impact is correct we should have the same overwhelming causal evidence as for other epidemics and we don't. Instance of the illnesses quoted by FactsforMothers are at best pockets well within the spectrum of normal population variance and definitely within the predictable ranges of statistical probability. Andy Locks Heath

3:31pm Mon 20 Aug 12

Joy Warren says...

So, Andy, how would it be you discovered that research which could prove that fluoride causes a range of ill-health in humans and animals is not being funded by the Department of Health because it is their avowed policy to protect the practice of water fluoridation to their dying breath, even if it is a rubbish (ill-) health policy? I have no proof of this, of course since I am not a fly on the wall. It would be easy enough to ask the DH to undertake research into the incidence of hypothyroidism in the fluoridated population compared to the incidence of hypothyroidism in the non-fluoridated population. Please feel free to go ahead and do this and see what reply you get. My bet is that you will get a nowhere because the DH doesn't want to upset their neatly arranged applecart. Meanwhile systematic reviews and hands-on research from the States and elsewhere in the World are streets ahead in showing us that water fluoridation is an unsound practice.

Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.
Fluoride reduces intelligence.
Fluoride causes permanent Dental Fluorosis in permanent teeth.
Fluoridation does not restore equality to disadvantaged children. (York, 2002 - http://www.appgaf.or
g.uk/archive/archive
_letter_york/)
York found that the quality of research into fluoridation was poor. Therefore, my reasoning is that any conclusions built on poor research would also be poor as a consequence.
York was not allowed to examine all the aspects of fluoridation - the DH narrowed the brief.
Fluoridation denies us our human rights under Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 5 of the Biomedicine Convention.
In accordance with the NHS Constitution, I am allowed to refuse consent to receiving this compulsory preventative medical treatment.

There I must end. This comments' forum is going nowhere and I am in the middle of a campaign and can ill-afford the time wasted.
So, Andy, how would it be you discovered that research which could prove that fluoride causes a range of ill-health in humans and animals is not being funded by the Department of Health because it is their avowed policy to protect the practice of water fluoridation to their dying breath, even if it is a rubbish (ill-) health policy? I have no proof of this, of course since I am not a fly on the wall. It would be easy enough to ask the DH to undertake research into the incidence of hypothyroidism in the fluoridated population compared to the incidence of hypothyroidism in the non-fluoridated population. Please feel free to go ahead and do this and see what reply you get. My bet is that you will get a nowhere because the DH doesn't want to upset their neatly arranged applecart. Meanwhile systematic reviews and hands-on research from the States and elsewhere in the World are streets ahead in showing us that water fluoridation is an unsound practice. Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. Fluoride reduces intelligence. Fluoride causes permanent Dental Fluorosis in permanent teeth. Fluoridation does not restore equality to disadvantaged children. (York, 2002 - http://www.appgaf.or g.uk/archive/archive _letter_york/) York found that the quality of research into fluoridation was poor. Therefore, my reasoning is that any conclusions built on poor research would also be poor as a consequence. York was not allowed to examine all the aspects of fluoridation - the DH narrowed the brief. Fluoridation denies us our human rights under Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 5 of the Biomedicine Convention. In accordance with the NHS Constitution, I am allowed to refuse consent to receiving this compulsory preventative medical treatment. There I must end. This comments' forum is going nowhere and I am in the middle of a campaign and can ill-afford the time wasted. Joy Warren

3:53pm Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
If FactsforMothers wants to expand and contract the scope at random I'm more than happy to follow her lead. 50 years should be long enough to observe any impacts on health, so I note that in the last 50 years the average lifespan of people in this country has increased, along with quality of life and income and following the perverse logic of attributing everything you don't like to one single cause I'd say fluoride should also be given the credit using the same twisted thought process. As someone who does proper analytical research I would never actually make such an association except as a joke, but if there was strong reliable evidence of health problems caused by fluoride over 50 years it would be clear and unambiguous by now. And it isn't. The truth is that it isn't and FactsForMothers is not only incapable of going to raw data and analysing it for herself she is also afraid of others doing it as well. THis is is why instead of asking people to read the York Report and other sources for themselves she instead wants people to read a sensationalised extreme conspiracy riddled criticism of it instead. I am starting to wonder if with her obsession there isn't some kind of hidden agenda here, such as scientology as opposed to science? Joy I know you are being reasonable in your opposition but the same consideration applies. If your estimate of impact is correct we should have the same overwhelming causal evidence as for other epidemics and we don't. Instance of the illnesses quoted by FactsforMothers are at best pockets well within the spectrum of normal population variance and definitely within the predictable ranges of statistical probability.
Here is yet another example of the LIAR ANDY LOCK trying to twist facts! Andy say’s
‘This is why instead of asking people to read the York Report and other sources for themselves she instead wants people to read a sensationalised extreme conspiracy riddled criticism of it instead.

And now for the TRUTH which anyone can see from my posts.. I have asked people to read ‘ What the York Review really found’ Nothing more! ..If Andy Lock had actually read the York Review.. he would know that ‘What The York Review really found’ IS NOW PART OF THE YORK REVIEW! IT IS WRITTEN BY THE SCIENTISTS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE YORK REVIEW AND IS ON THE YORK REVIEW WEBSITE. In fact these scientists had to write this letter because of people Like ANDY LOCK who were deliberately misinterpreting the evidence.

This is the truth about the York Review form the people who wrote it!!!!

‘We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full at http://www.york.ac.u
k/inst/crd/pdf/summa
ry.pdf.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.

What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.

This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.

An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the
quality of the evidence was poor.

The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.

Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.

It is signed by Yours sincerely,
(SIGNED) Professor Jos Kleijnen
Director, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

(SIGNED) Sir Iain Chalmers
UK Cochrane Centre

(SIGNED) Professor Trevor Sheldon
Head of Department
Department of Health Sciences, University of York

(SIGNED) Professor George Davey-Smith
Department of Social Medicine
University of Bristol
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: If FactsforMothers wants to expand and contract the scope at random I'm more than happy to follow her lead. 50 years should be long enough to observe any impacts on health, so I note that in the last 50 years the average lifespan of people in this country has increased, along with quality of life and income and following the perverse logic of attributing everything you don't like to one single cause I'd say fluoride should also be given the credit using the same twisted thought process. As someone who does proper analytical research I would never actually make such an association except as a joke, but if there was strong reliable evidence of health problems caused by fluoride over 50 years it would be clear and unambiguous by now. And it isn't. The truth is that it isn't and FactsForMothers is not only incapable of going to raw data and analysing it for herself she is also afraid of others doing it as well. THis is is why instead of asking people to read the York Report and other sources for themselves she instead wants people to read a sensationalised extreme conspiracy riddled criticism of it instead. I am starting to wonder if with her obsession there isn't some kind of hidden agenda here, such as scientology as opposed to science? Joy I know you are being reasonable in your opposition but the same consideration applies. If your estimate of impact is correct we should have the same overwhelming causal evidence as for other epidemics and we don't. Instance of the illnesses quoted by FactsforMothers are at best pockets well within the spectrum of normal population variance and definitely within the predictable ranges of statistical probability.[/p][/quote]Here is yet another example of the LIAR ANDY LOCK trying to twist facts! Andy say’s ‘This is why instead of asking people to read the York Report and other sources for themselves she instead wants people to read a sensationalised extreme conspiracy riddled criticism of it instead. And now for the TRUTH which anyone can see from my posts.. I have asked people to read ‘ What the York Review really found’ Nothing more! ..If Andy Lock had actually read the York Review.. he would know that ‘What The York Review really found’ IS NOW PART OF THE YORK REVIEW! IT IS WRITTEN BY THE SCIENTISTS WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE YORK REVIEW AND IS ON THE YORK REVIEW WEBSITE. In fact these scientists had to write this letter because of people Like ANDY LOCK who were deliberately misinterpreting the evidence. This is the truth about the York Review form the people who wrote it!!!! ‘We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full at http://www.york.ac.u k/inst/crd/pdf/summa ry.pdf. We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor. An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor. The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable. Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this. It is signed by Yours sincerely, (SIGNED) Professor Jos Kleijnen Director, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (SIGNED) Sir Iain Chalmers UK Cochrane Centre (SIGNED) Professor Trevor Sheldon Head of Department Department of Health Sciences, University of York (SIGNED) Professor George Davey-Smith Department of Social Medicine University of Bristol FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

4:57pm Mon 20 Aug 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

Bloody hell woman you are practically screaming now! What you have posted up there practically tells me that the scientists quoted didn't find any evidence of any harm apart from a few mottled teeth in some cases and that it is 12 years old anyway which justifies what Andy is saying. Why do you just keep screaming that he is a liar when he is asking people to read the evidence for themselves?
Are you ill? You need to stop shrieking.
Bloody hell woman you are practically screaming now! What you have posted up there practically tells me that the scientists quoted didn't find any evidence of any harm apart from a few mottled teeth in some cases and that it is 12 years old anyway which justifies what Andy is saying. Why do you just keep screaming that he is a liar when he is asking people to read the evidence for themselves? Are you ill? You need to stop shrieking. MisterGrimsdale

5:46pm Mon 20 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

Joy Warren wrote:
So, Andy, how would it be you discovered that research which could prove that fluoride causes a range of ill-health in humans and animals is not being funded by the Department of Health because it is their avowed policy to protect the practice of water fluoridation to their dying breath, even if it is a rubbish (ill-) health policy? I have no proof of this, of course since I am not a fly on the wall. It would be easy enough to ask the DH to undertake research into the incidence of hypothyroidism in the fluoridated population compared to the incidence of hypothyroidism in the non-fluoridated population. Please feel free to go ahead and do this and see what reply you get. My bet is that you will get a nowhere because the DH doesn't want to upset their neatly arranged applecart. Meanwhile systematic reviews and hands-on research from the States and elsewhere in the World are streets ahead in showing us that water fluoridation is an unsound practice. Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. Fluoride reduces intelligence. Fluoride causes permanent Dental Fluorosis in permanent teeth. Fluoridation does not restore equality to disadvantaged children. (York, 2002 - http://www.appgaf.or g.uk/archive/archive _letter_york/) York found that the quality of research into fluoridation was poor. Therefore, my reasoning is that any conclusions built on poor research would also be poor as a consequence. York was not allowed to examine all the aspects of fluoridation - the DH narrowed the brief. Fluoridation denies us our human rights under Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 5 of the Biomedicine Convention. In accordance with the NHS Constitution, I am allowed to refuse consent to receiving this compulsory preventative medical treatment. There I must end. This comments' forum is going nowhere and I am in the middle of a campaign and can ill-afford the time wasted.
This is what you get when you vote Green. You get a mass of shrill single issue obsessives each claiming for some reason that makes no sense whatsoever the government are conducting all these secret plans and cover ups to kill everyone. Green Party philosophy is not harmless fun to be indulged between real elections - it is an entry into the humourless world of cranks and obsessives whose total unshakeable beliefs are matched by an absolute hatred of anyone who dares question their logic. You aren't allowed to question the belief that the government would intervene to stop the disposal of some small scale industrial waste not by using landfill but by the creation of a massive programme to distribute it into the nations water supply. If you can't see the logic it's because there isn't any. It is an insane glimpse into the paranoid world of the eco warrior. Just remember that next time you see a Green candidate on the ballot paper.
[quote][p][bold]Joy Warren[/bold] wrote: So, Andy, how would it be you discovered that research which could prove that fluoride causes a range of ill-health in humans and animals is not being funded by the Department of Health because it is their avowed policy to protect the practice of water fluoridation to their dying breath, even if it is a rubbish (ill-) health policy? I have no proof of this, of course since I am not a fly on the wall. It would be easy enough to ask the DH to undertake research into the incidence of hypothyroidism in the fluoridated population compared to the incidence of hypothyroidism in the non-fluoridated population. Please feel free to go ahead and do this and see what reply you get. My bet is that you will get a nowhere because the DH doesn't want to upset their neatly arranged applecart. Meanwhile systematic reviews and hands-on research from the States and elsewhere in the World are streets ahead in showing us that water fluoridation is an unsound practice. Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin. Fluoride reduces intelligence. Fluoride causes permanent Dental Fluorosis in permanent teeth. Fluoridation does not restore equality to disadvantaged children. (York, 2002 - http://www.appgaf.or g.uk/archive/archive _letter_york/) York found that the quality of research into fluoridation was poor. Therefore, my reasoning is that any conclusions built on poor research would also be poor as a consequence. York was not allowed to examine all the aspects of fluoridation - the DH narrowed the brief. Fluoridation denies us our human rights under Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 5 of the Biomedicine Convention. In accordance with the NHS Constitution, I am allowed to refuse consent to receiving this compulsory preventative medical treatment. There I must end. This comments' forum is going nowhere and I am in the middle of a campaign and can ill-afford the time wasted.[/p][/quote]This is what you get when you vote Green. You get a mass of shrill single issue obsessives each claiming for some reason that makes no sense whatsoever the government are conducting all these secret plans and cover ups to kill everyone. Green Party philosophy is not harmless fun to be indulged between real elections - it is an entry into the humourless world of cranks and obsessives whose total unshakeable beliefs are matched by an absolute hatred of anyone who dares question their logic. You aren't allowed to question the belief that the government would intervene to stop the disposal of some small scale industrial waste not by using landfill but by the creation of a massive programme to distribute it into the nations water supply. If you can't see the logic it's because there isn't any. It is an insane glimpse into the paranoid world of the eco warrior. Just remember that next time you see a Green candidate on the ballot paper. The Wickham Man

7:42pm Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

MisterGrimsdale wrote:
Bloody hell woman you are practically screaming now! What you have posted up there practically tells me that the scientists quoted didn't find any evidence of any harm apart from a few mottled teeth in some cases and that it is 12 years old anyway which justifies what Andy is saying. Why do you just keep screaming that he is a liar when he is asking people to read the evidence for themselves? Are you ill? You need to stop shrieking.
Another idiot MisterGrimsdail says the York Review 'did not find evidence of harm apart from a few mottled teeth' Ha ha. First the York Review called for further research stating that not enough is known to rule out that Fluoride does not cause cancer and a whole host of other illnesses . The York Review also states quite clearly that Fluoride causes harm in the form of dental Fluorosis.. Fluoride can not ‘target’ teeth alone. DENTAL FLUOROSIS IS THE OUTWARD VISUAL SYMPTOM OF SYSTEMIC FLUORIDE POISONING. Finally ( As everyone agrees) We are not talking about a ‘few’ mottled teeth.. We are talking about MILLIONS OF TEETH AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE BEING SLOWLY POISONED BY FLUORIDE. Sorry for shouting.. But children and dogs sometimes need a raised voice. You act like both and I act accordingly. Lets also not forget.. The York review did not include animal studies.
[quote][p][bold]MisterGrimsdale[/bold] wrote: Bloody hell woman you are practically screaming now! What you have posted up there practically tells me that the scientists quoted didn't find any evidence of any harm apart from a few mottled teeth in some cases and that it is 12 years old anyway which justifies what Andy is saying. Why do you just keep screaming that he is a liar when he is asking people to read the evidence for themselves? Are you ill? You need to stop shrieking.[/p][/quote]Another idiot MisterGrimsdail says the York Review 'did not find evidence of harm apart from a few mottled teeth' Ha ha. First the York Review called for further research stating that not enough is known to rule out that Fluoride does not cause cancer and a whole host of other illnesses . The York Review also states quite clearly that Fluoride causes harm in the form of dental Fluorosis.. Fluoride can not ‘target’ teeth alone. DENTAL FLUOROSIS IS THE OUTWARD VISUAL SYMPTOM OF SYSTEMIC FLUORIDE POISONING. Finally ( As everyone agrees) We are not talking about a ‘few’ mottled teeth.. We are talking about MILLIONS OF TEETH AND MILLIONS OF PEOPLE BEING SLOWLY POISONED BY FLUORIDE. Sorry for shouting.. But children and dogs sometimes need a raised voice. You act like both and I act accordingly. Lets also not forget.. The York review did not include animal studies. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

7:51pm Mon 20 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

MisterGrimsdale wrote:
Bloody hell woman you are practically screaming now! What you have posted up there practically tells me that the scientists quoted didn't find any evidence of any harm apart from a few mottled teeth in some cases and that it is 12 years old anyway which justifies what Andy is saying. Why do you just keep screaming that he is a liar when he is asking people to read the evidence for themselves? Are you ill? You need to stop shrieking.
As you can see MisterGrimsdale.. The York review did not find any Reliable evidence that Fluoride added to water actually does any good! Yes! after reviewing over 50 years of study and research across the whole of the USA , Europe, and many other countries..The Government Research hard facts are as follows:
'We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide' 'The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.' Not my words Grimsdale!! The words of the York Scientists!! What idiot would support fluoride after reading that? OH yes.. I forgot .. people like Grimsdail :-)
[quote][p][bold]MisterGrimsdale[/bold] wrote: Bloody hell woman you are practically screaming now! What you have posted up there practically tells me that the scientists quoted didn't find any evidence of any harm apart from a few mottled teeth in some cases and that it is 12 years old anyway which justifies what Andy is saying. Why do you just keep screaming that he is a liar when he is asking people to read the evidence for themselves? Are you ill? You need to stop shrieking.[/p][/quote]As you can see MisterGrimsdale.. The York review did not find any Reliable evidence that Fluoride added to water actually does any good! Yes! after reviewing over 50 years of study and research across the whole of the USA , Europe, and many other countries..The Government Research hard facts are as follows: 'We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide' 'The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.' Not my words Grimsdale!! The words of the York Scientists!! What idiot would support fluoride after reading that? OH yes.. I forgot .. people like Grimsdail :-) FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

5:04pm Tue 21 Aug 12

Calli says...

Cant believe no one has attacked me yet! Incidentally Joy and Facts for Mothers - Keep it up because the TRUTH will emerge eventually. By the way Andy and Wickerman I vote Conservative. Just because because people have views that challenge your narrow thought pattern do not assume they are on the fringes of society. One basic fact why should we all be mass - medicated against our will? I would not agree with it if it was honey etc. It is against the law on human rights. The only way THEY can get away without calling it medication is because the Medines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority will not classify it as such because - wait for it - ITS A POISON! No, instead it is classed as a FOOD - when it is clearly not as it is listed as a POISON!!!!! If it was listed as a Drug it would not be allowed into the water as - yes you've guessed it - ITS AGAINST OUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE MASS MEDICATED! By the way Im taking some drug for my migraine would you both like it? So many people suffer with migraine we may as well dump it in the water!!!!!!!!!

Educate yourselves boys - its easy to separate the lies from the truth if you have an open mind. BUT THEY WOULD'NT DO THAT TO US WOULD THEY? Two Words - ERIN BROCKOVITCH - watch the film................
............
Cant believe no one has attacked me yet! Incidentally Joy and Facts for Mothers - Keep it up because the TRUTH will emerge eventually. By the way Andy and Wickerman I vote Conservative. Just because because people have views that challenge your narrow thought pattern do not assume they are on the fringes of society. One basic fact why should we all be mass - medicated against our will? I would not agree with it if it was honey etc. It is against the law on human rights. The only way THEY can get away without calling it medication is because the Medines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority will not classify it as such because - wait for it - ITS A POISON! No, instead it is classed as a FOOD - when it is clearly not as it is listed as a POISON!!!!! If it was listed as a Drug it would not be allowed into the water as - yes you've guessed it - ITS AGAINST OUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE MASS MEDICATED! By the way Im taking some drug for my migraine would you both like it? So many people suffer with migraine we may as well dump it in the water!!!!!!!!! Educate yourselves boys - its easy to separate the lies from the truth if you have an open mind. BUT THEY WOULD'NT DO THAT TO US WOULD THEY? Two Words - ERIN BROCKOVITCH - watch the film................ ............ Calli

9:01am Thu 23 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

Calli wrote:
Cant believe no one has attacked me yet! Incidentally Joy and Facts for Mothers - Keep it up because the TRUTH will emerge eventually. By the way Andy and Wickerman I vote Conservative. Just because because people have views that challenge your narrow thought pattern do not assume they are on the fringes of society. One basic fact why should we all be mass - medicated against our will? I would not agree with it if it was honey etc. It is against the law on human rights. The only way THEY can get away without calling it medication is because the Medines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority will not classify it as such because - wait for it - ITS A POISON! No, instead it is classed as a FOOD - when it is clearly not as it is listed as a POISON!!!!! If it was listed as a Drug it would not be allowed into the water as - yes you've guessed it - ITS AGAINST OUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE MASS MEDICATED! By the way Im taking some drug for my migraine would you both like it? So many people suffer with migraine we may as well dump it in the water!!!!!!!!!

Educate yourselves boys - its easy to separate the lies from the truth if you have an open mind. BUT THEY WOULD'NT DO THAT TO US WOULD THEY? Two Words - ERIN BROCKOVITCH - watch the film................

............
You are not only wrong but you are a fake which is why no-one has bothered to attack you. Get this - disagreeing with you does not make someone a liar or a moron - you arrogant little nobody. Who do you think you are? God? Typing in capital letters doesn't make you clearer - it makes you look like a hysterical obsessed weirdo. Chemicals like chlorine are already added to water to clean it, so why are you pretending water has no chemicals in it? All water has chemicals in it even rain water. Finally, almost all additions in water are toxic in large enough doses. Fluoride is not different to all the others so why are you shrieking about toxicity? Even water itself is toxic in large enough quantities. If you had done a science degree you would understand proportionality, instead you are just a screwed up obsessive weirdo with nothing else to do. You aren't convincing anybody. By the way Erin Brockovitch wasn;t about this country. the USA has problems of its own. Are you saying we should believe everything in every Hollywood movie? What about Fatal Attraction? Is that what you are like when someone disagrees with you? You are the last person to talk to anyone about open mindedness. Take a look at yourself woman.
[quote][p][bold]Calli[/bold] wrote: Cant believe no one has attacked me yet! Incidentally Joy and Facts for Mothers - Keep it up because the TRUTH will emerge eventually. By the way Andy and Wickerman I vote Conservative. Just because because people have views that challenge your narrow thought pattern do not assume they are on the fringes of society. One basic fact why should we all be mass - medicated against our will? I would not agree with it if it was honey etc. It is against the law on human rights. The only way THEY can get away without calling it medication is because the Medines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority will not classify it as such because - wait for it - ITS A POISON! No, instead it is classed as a FOOD - when it is clearly not as it is listed as a POISON!!!!! If it was listed as a Drug it would not be allowed into the water as - yes you've guessed it - ITS AGAINST OUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE MASS MEDICATED! By the way Im taking some drug for my migraine would you both like it? So many people suffer with migraine we may as well dump it in the water!!!!!!!!! Educate yourselves boys - its easy to separate the lies from the truth if you have an open mind. BUT THEY WOULD'NT DO THAT TO US WOULD THEY? Two Words - ERIN BROCKOVITCH - watch the film................ ............[/p][/quote]You are not only wrong but you are a fake which is why no-one has bothered to attack you. Get this - disagreeing with you does not make someone a liar or a moron - you arrogant little nobody. Who do you think you are? God? Typing in capital letters doesn't make you clearer - it makes you look like a hysterical obsessed weirdo. Chemicals like chlorine are already added to water to clean it, so why are you pretending water has no chemicals in it? All water has chemicals in it even rain water. Finally, almost all additions in water are toxic in large enough doses. Fluoride is not different to all the others so why are you shrieking about toxicity? Even water itself is toxic in large enough quantities. If you had done a science degree you would understand proportionality, instead you are just a screwed up obsessive weirdo with nothing else to do. You aren't convincing anybody. By the way Erin Brockovitch wasn;t about this country. the USA has problems of its own. Are you saying we should believe everything in every Hollywood movie? What about Fatal Attraction? Is that what you are like when someone disagrees with you? You are the last person to talk to anyone about open mindedness. Take a look at yourself woman. The Wickham Man

11:09am Thu 23 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Calli wrote: Cant believe no one has attacked me yet! Incidentally Joy and Facts for Mothers - Keep it up because the TRUTH will emerge eventually. By the way Andy and Wickerman I vote Conservative. Just because because people have views that challenge your narrow thought pattern do not assume they are on the fringes of society. One basic fact why should we all be mass - medicated against our will? I would not agree with it if it was honey etc. It is against the law on human rights. The only way THEY can get away without calling it medication is because the Medines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority will not classify it as such because - wait for it - ITS A POISON! No, instead it is classed as a FOOD - when it is clearly not as it is listed as a POISON!!!!! If it was listed as a Drug it would not be allowed into the water as - yes you've guessed it - ITS AGAINST OUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE MASS MEDICATED! By the way Im taking some drug for my migraine would you both like it? So many people suffer with migraine we may as well dump it in the water!!!!!!!!! Educate yourselves boys - its easy to separate the lies from the truth if you have an open mind. BUT THEY WOULD'NT DO THAT TO US WOULD THEY? Two Words - ERIN BROCKOVITCH - watch the film................ ............
You are not only wrong but you are a fake which is why no-one has bothered to attack you. Get this - disagreeing with you does not make someone a liar or a moron - you arrogant little nobody. Who do you think you are? God? Typing in capital letters doesn't make you clearer - it makes you look like a hysterical obsessed weirdo. Chemicals like chlorine are already added to water to clean it, so why are you pretending water has no chemicals in it? All water has chemicals in it even rain water. Finally, almost all additions in water are toxic in large enough doses. Fluoride is not different to all the others so why are you shrieking about toxicity? Even water itself is toxic in large enough quantities. If you had done a science degree you would understand proportionality, instead you are just a screwed up obsessive weirdo with nothing else to do. You aren't convincing anybody. By the way Erin Brockovitch wasn;t about this country. the USA has problems of its own. Are you saying we should believe everything in every Hollywood movie? What about Fatal Attraction? Is that what you are like when someone disagrees with you? You are the last person to talk to anyone about open mindedness. Take a look at yourself woman.
Oh I see the moron Whickham man is back.. Well lets see what he says this time?
‘You are not only wrong but you are a fake which is why no-one has bothered to attack you.’
Ha ha.. So anyone who does not agree with him is ’fake’ :-)
He then goes on the call this person an ’arrogant little know body’ an ’obsessed weirdo’
Ha ha .. I guess that’s the sort of comment you would get from an arrogant nobody who is obsessed :-)
He then compares Fluoride to other toxic substances in water.. Ha ha.. But fails to mention that Fluoride added to water is a cocktail of toxins that we do not need to add to water and in fact 90% of the county does not add it to water.. and they are doing fine without it thank you :-) He also fails to mention that Fluoride once inside the body .. Does not leave! Yes over a lifetime this toxic soup deposits into your bones and organs of your body, including your brain. He also does not mention that Prozac is over 90% pure fluoride!.. And that this substance that deposits into your brain over a lifetime is a recognised neorotoxin. He also does not bother to mention that American parents are officially warned not to prepare baby formula with fluoridated water. If the target group for adding fluoride cant even clean their kids teeth.. will they make baby feed using tap water? Of course they will!!!.. So its ok to damage a new born babies brain.. to save a few trips to the dentist? . Lets remember Fluoridated water contains 175 times more fluoride than is found in breast milk!. Over millennia Women have developed to take as much fluoride out of breast milk as is possible! Are we going to reject natures answer to fluoride? And poison babies with 175 times the maximum level of Fluoride a mother will allow her child to ingest?
He then goes on to say mention the film ‘Erin Brockovitch’ and compares it to ‘Fatal Attraction’. Is Wickham Man mentally subnormal? Fatal attraction was fiction.. Erin Brockovitch is a factual film and a legitimate subject to mention on this forum. Wickham man also tries to leave the USA out of the argument.. But in fact ‘Fluoridation’ comes from the USA.. I would recommend people research Eric Brockovitch.. It gives you an insight into how the US drug companies really work in practice.
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Calli[/bold] wrote: Cant believe no one has attacked me yet! Incidentally Joy and Facts for Mothers - Keep it up because the TRUTH will emerge eventually. By the way Andy and Wickerman I vote Conservative. Just because because people have views that challenge your narrow thought pattern do not assume they are on the fringes of society. One basic fact why should we all be mass - medicated against our will? I would not agree with it if it was honey etc. It is against the law on human rights. The only way THEY can get away without calling it medication is because the Medines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority will not classify it as such because - wait for it - ITS A POISON! No, instead it is classed as a FOOD - when it is clearly not as it is listed as a POISON!!!!! If it was listed as a Drug it would not be allowed into the water as - yes you've guessed it - ITS AGAINST OUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO BE MASS MEDICATED! By the way Im taking some drug for my migraine would you both like it? So many people suffer with migraine we may as well dump it in the water!!!!!!!!! Educate yourselves boys - its easy to separate the lies from the truth if you have an open mind. BUT THEY WOULD'NT DO THAT TO US WOULD THEY? Two Words - ERIN BROCKOVITCH - watch the film................ ............[/p][/quote]You are not only wrong but you are a fake which is why no-one has bothered to attack you. Get this - disagreeing with you does not make someone a liar or a moron - you arrogant little nobody. Who do you think you are? God? Typing in capital letters doesn't make you clearer - it makes you look like a hysterical obsessed weirdo. Chemicals like chlorine are already added to water to clean it, so why are you pretending water has no chemicals in it? All water has chemicals in it even rain water. Finally, almost all additions in water are toxic in large enough doses. Fluoride is not different to all the others so why are you shrieking about toxicity? Even water itself is toxic in large enough quantities. If you had done a science degree you would understand proportionality, instead you are just a screwed up obsessive weirdo with nothing else to do. You aren't convincing anybody. By the way Erin Brockovitch wasn;t about this country. the USA has problems of its own. Are you saying we should believe everything in every Hollywood movie? What about Fatal Attraction? Is that what you are like when someone disagrees with you? You are the last person to talk to anyone about open mindedness. Take a look at yourself woman.[/p][/quote]Oh I see the moron Whickham man is back.. Well lets see what he says this time? ‘You are not only wrong but you are a fake which is why no-one has bothered to attack you.’ Ha ha.. So anyone who does not agree with him is ’fake’ :-) He then goes on the call this person an ’arrogant little know body’ an ’obsessed weirdo’ Ha ha .. I guess that’s the sort of comment you would get from an arrogant nobody who is obsessed :-) He then compares Fluoride to other toxic substances in water.. Ha ha.. But fails to mention that Fluoride added to water is a cocktail of toxins that we do not need to add to water and in fact 90% of the county does not add it to water.. and they are doing fine without it thank you :-) He also fails to mention that Fluoride once inside the body .. Does not leave! Yes over a lifetime this toxic soup deposits into your bones and organs of your body, including your brain. He also does not mention that Prozac is over 90% pure fluoride!.. And that this substance that deposits into your brain over a lifetime is a recognised neorotoxin. He also does not bother to mention that American parents are officially warned not to prepare baby formula with fluoridated water. If the target group for adding fluoride cant even clean their kids teeth.. will they make baby feed using tap water? Of course they will!!!.. So its ok to damage a new born babies brain.. to save a few trips to the dentist? . Lets remember Fluoridated water contains 175 times more fluoride than is found in breast milk!. Over millennia Women have developed to take as much fluoride out of breast milk as is possible! Are we going to reject natures answer to fluoride? And poison babies with 175 times the maximum level of Fluoride a mother will allow her child to ingest? He then goes on to say mention the film ‘Erin Brockovitch’ and compares it to ‘Fatal Attraction’. Is Wickham Man mentally subnormal? Fatal attraction was fiction.. Erin Brockovitch is a factual film and a legitimate subject to mention on this forum. Wickham man also tries to leave the USA out of the argument.. But in fact ‘Fluoridation’ comes from the USA.. I would recommend people research Eric Brockovitch.. It gives you an insight into how the US drug companies really work in practice. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

7:22am Fri 24 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

No - its because you posted under the name Calli then you posted under the name FactfortheMothers you idiot! - but it's good to see you learned the lesson I taught you about using upper case in your rants anyway. How many people have died of fluoride poisoning in this country compared to (say) bee stings? Answer very few. So should we exterminate all bees as they pose a greater threat to people than your little cause celebre? How about deaths from peanut allergies? Babies and garden ponds? And Dogs! And to think you worry about fluoride with all these other things to worry about! The York report was inconclusive but you are qyie happy to mention it in one breath then launch into a tirade about how we are all going to die of fluoride poisoning. You cannot bring yourself to stick to the data. You are not only obsessed you are not very bright. I suspect you have an ulterior motive for your obsession - possibly scientology possibly not. Maybe you are just angry because you are lonely. Who cares? We will have fluoridation and nobody will be hurt. Your hysterical rants have persuaded nobody. You have failed.
No - its because you posted under the name Calli then you posted under the name FactfortheMothers you idiot! - but it's good to see you learned the lesson I taught you about using upper case in your rants anyway. How many people have died of fluoride poisoning in this country compared to (say) bee stings? Answer very few. So should we exterminate all bees as they pose a greater threat to people than your little cause celebre? How about deaths from peanut allergies? Babies and garden ponds? And Dogs! And to think you worry about fluoride with all these other things to worry about! The York report was inconclusive but you are qyie happy to mention it in one breath then launch into a tirade about how we are all going to die of fluoride poisoning. You cannot bring yourself to stick to the data. You are not only obsessed you are not very bright. I suspect you have an ulterior motive for your obsession - possibly scientology possibly not. Maybe you are just angry because you are lonely. Who cares? We will have fluoridation and nobody will be hurt. Your hysterical rants have persuaded nobody. You have failed. The Wickham Man

10:42am Fri 24 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
No - its because you posted under the name Calli then you posted under the name FactfortheMothers you idiot! - but it's good to see you learned the lesson I taught you about using upper case in your rants anyway. How many people have died of fluoride poisoning in this country compared to (say) bee stings? Answer very few. So should we exterminate all bees as they pose a greater threat to people than your little cause celebre? How about deaths from peanut allergies? Babies and garden ponds? And Dogs! And to think you worry about fluoride with all these other things to worry about! The York report was inconclusive but you are qyie happy to mention it in one breath then launch into a tirade about how we are all going to die of fluoride poisoning. You cannot bring yourself to stick to the data. You are not only obsessed you are not very bright. I suspect you have an ulterior motive for your obsession - possibly scientology possibly not. Maybe you are just angry because you are lonely. Who cares? We will have fluoridation and nobody will be hurt. Your hysterical rants have persuaded nobody. You have failed.
Wickham man is back with his rubbish arguments again :-) He says 'How many people have died of fluoride poisoning in this country compared to (say) bee stings?'.. Ha Ha.. hes so funny.. The truth is drinking fluoridated water will not kill you overnight.. but over a lifetime.. it probably will! .. Just take a look at Cancer research UK's map of Ireland.. Its astonishing.. cancer rates for all common cancers are much higher in Southern Ireland !.. And what makes this even more important is that the cancer rate changes directly on the border!! This is incredible.. Proof beyond doubt that it is something in the water that gives South Ireland Cancer.. It can not be air, it can not be food, Remember the change to higher rates of cancer happens on the border and then sweeps over all southern Ireland. So? WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUTH AND NOTHERN IRELAND! ONE THING! THE SOUTH HAS FLUORIDE ADDED TO THEIR DRINKING WATER.. Go look at Cancer research UK and see for yourself.. its a shocking map and a shocking wake up call about Fluoride!
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: No - its because you posted under the name Calli then you posted under the name FactfortheMothers you idiot! - but it's good to see you learned the lesson I taught you about using upper case in your rants anyway. How many people have died of fluoride poisoning in this country compared to (say) bee stings? Answer very few. So should we exterminate all bees as they pose a greater threat to people than your little cause celebre? How about deaths from peanut allergies? Babies and garden ponds? And Dogs! And to think you worry about fluoride with all these other things to worry about! The York report was inconclusive but you are qyie happy to mention it in one breath then launch into a tirade about how we are all going to die of fluoride poisoning. You cannot bring yourself to stick to the data. You are not only obsessed you are not very bright. I suspect you have an ulterior motive for your obsession - possibly scientology possibly not. Maybe you are just angry because you are lonely. Who cares? We will have fluoridation and nobody will be hurt. Your hysterical rants have persuaded nobody. You have failed.[/p][/quote]Wickham man is back with his rubbish arguments again :-) He says 'How many people have died of fluoride poisoning in this country compared to (say) bee stings?'.. Ha Ha.. hes so funny.. The truth is drinking fluoridated water will not kill you overnight.. but over a lifetime.. it probably will! .. Just take a look at Cancer research UK's map of Ireland.. Its astonishing.. cancer rates for all common cancers are much higher in Southern Ireland !.. And what makes this even more important is that the cancer rate changes directly on the border!! This is incredible.. Proof beyond doubt that it is something in the water that gives South Ireland Cancer.. It can not be air, it can not be food, Remember the change to higher rates of cancer happens on the border and then sweeps over all southern Ireland. So? WHATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOUTH AND NOTHERN IRELAND! ONE THING! THE SOUTH HAS FLUORIDE ADDED TO THEIR DRINKING WATER.. Go look at Cancer research UK and see for yourself.. its a shocking map and a shocking wake up call about Fluoride! FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

11:54am Fri 24 Aug 12

The Wickham Man says...

Then how do you explain that people are living longer than at any time in history? Is fluoride making people live longer or is it just that your assumption about all these deaths is entirely spurious? You don;t have any evidence for your hysterical paranoia in fact evidence suggests you are completely wrong because there are no deaths from fluoride poisoning, and there is no difference in average ages between fluoride and non fluoride areas. When you say ALL cancer rates are higher in the south of ireland who says you can just decide to pick fluoride as the reason? You cannot just decide what the cause is because you feel like it. How do you even know it is not because of differences in the way statistics are collated by different health bodies? You don;t and because you have no science skill at all you didn;t even think about it. You have no evidence. You don't understand your subject. You are just a bored housewife - or you'd like to be if anyone would have you.
Then how do you explain that people are living longer than at any time in history? Is fluoride making people live longer or is it just that your assumption about all these deaths is entirely spurious? You don;t have any evidence for your hysterical paranoia in fact evidence suggests you are completely wrong because there are no deaths from fluoride poisoning, and there is no difference in average ages between fluoride and non fluoride areas. When you say ALL cancer rates are higher in the south of ireland who says you can just decide to pick fluoride as the reason? You cannot just decide what the cause is because you feel like it. How do you even know it is not because of differences in the way statistics are collated by different health bodies? You don;t and because you have no science skill at all you didn;t even think about it. You have no evidence. You don't understand your subject. You are just a bored housewife - or you'd like to be if anyone would have you. The Wickham Man

9:50am Sat 25 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

It's worth mentioning that not only was Erin Brockovich a "factionalised" hollywood movie, not a documentary but it was nothing to do with fluoride at all! It was about as close to what actually occurred as other well known Hollywood "true stories" such as Pearl Harbor. I don't see why someone who uses the word "facts" in their name seems incapable of producing any relevant "facts" at all. It doesn't matter whether you call me a liar or a moron, (which only serves to make you look unhinged by the way) it does not alter the fact that you have done a lot of hysterical screaming and almost no persuasive argument. Perhaps you could do with some forced medication to calm you down (joke).
It's worth mentioning that not only was Erin Brockovich a "factionalised" hollywood movie, not a documentary but it was nothing to do with fluoride at all! It was about as close to what actually occurred as other well known Hollywood "true stories" such as Pearl Harbor. I don't see why someone who uses the word "facts" in their name seems incapable of producing any relevant "facts" at all. It doesn't matter whether you call me a liar or a moron, (which only serves to make you look unhinged by the way) it does not alter the fact that you have done a lot of hysterical screaming and almost no persuasive argument. Perhaps you could do with some forced medication to calm you down (joke). Andy Locks Heath

2:18pm Sun 26 Aug 12

Calli says...

Hi Calli here. Lets clear one thing up and exonerate Factsformothers into the bargain. She/He and I are two separate people if you knew how this site operated you would know I could not use a pseudonym with my e.mail address. I have been off line since my first and only post due to the fact I have been at the hospital with a sick daughter. (and before you both start - No I am not attributing it to fluoride!) I am NOT a moron and take great offence to being called one. If your attacks persist I will report you for the antagonistic and bullying tactics you have both resorted to. This is easy to do through a complaint to the Police. The film I referred to was to give you both an idea of the tactics that industry use to avoid prosecution. Please do not assume I have no scientific knowledge. I am have knowledge just like all the other qualified doctors, dentists chemists out there who have done their research and have come to the conclusion that this substance is no good. Chlorine in water is to clean it and no Im not too keen on consuming that but Brita filters get it out - unlike fluoride which can only be removed by distillation or Reverse Osmosis. A very expensive process. You accuse me of ranting but in all honesty isnt it you both getting hot under the collar?
Hi Calli here. Lets clear one thing up and exonerate Factsformothers into the bargain. She/He and I are two separate people if you knew how this site operated you would know I could not use a pseudonym with my e.mail address. I have been off line since my first and only post due to the fact I have been at the hospital with a sick daughter. (and before you both start - No I am not attributing it to fluoride!) I am NOT a moron and take great offence to being called one. If your attacks persist I will report you for the antagonistic and bullying tactics you have both resorted to. This is easy to do through a complaint to the Police. The film I referred to was to give you both an idea of the tactics that industry use to avoid prosecution. Please do not assume I have no scientific knowledge. I am have knowledge just like all the other qualified doctors, dentists chemists out there who have done their research and have come to the conclusion that this substance is no good. Chlorine in water is to clean it and no Im not too keen on consuming that but Brita filters get it out - unlike fluoride which can only be removed by distillation or Reverse Osmosis. A very expensive process. You accuse me of ranting but in all honesty isnt it you both getting hot under the collar? Calli

6:06pm Sun 26 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Please report me. I have not called you a moron though been called that and worse by your fellow ranter, so be my guest. The point I and others have repeatedly made is proportionality. Nobody disputes simple scientific fact, but what is the point banging on about toxicity when almost any substance in excess is toxic? Fluorine compounds are no different. In fact I very much look forward to the cloak of anonimity being peeled away from your hysterical colleague as well as yourself so your views can be scutinised properly. You have made the threat, now put your money where your mouth is and make a complaint. As for your experience, the years of training required to become a scientist is not about stuffing your head full of data as you wrongly assume - it is to learn how to take a rational, detached objective view to the analysis of evidence in order to produce a reasoned conclusion, or in very rare cases, a proof. You have done none of those things and unless you learn how to do this your rantings have no value. They are simnply an amplification of your pre-existing prejudice. I look forward to your official complaint.
Please report me. I have not called you a moron though been called that and worse by your fellow ranter, so be my guest. The point I and others have repeatedly made is proportionality. Nobody disputes simple scientific fact, but what is the point banging on about toxicity when almost any substance in excess is toxic? Fluorine compounds are no different. In fact I very much look forward to the cloak of anonimity being peeled away from your hysterical colleague as well as yourself so your views can be scutinised properly. You have made the threat, now put your money where your mouth is and make a complaint. As for your experience, the years of training required to become a scientist is not about stuffing your head full of data as you wrongly assume - it is to learn how to take a rational, detached objective view to the analysis of evidence in order to produce a reasoned conclusion, or in very rare cases, a proof. You have done none of those things and unless you learn how to do this your rantings have no value. They are simnply an amplification of your pre-existing prejudice. I look forward to your official complaint. Andy Locks Heath

7:48pm Sun 26 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
It's worth mentioning that not only was Erin Brockovich a "factionalised" hollywood movie, not a documentary but it was nothing to do with fluoride at all! It was about as close to what actually occurred as other well known Hollywood "true stories" such as Pearl Harbor. I don't see why someone who uses the word "facts" in their name seems incapable of producing any relevant "facts" at all. It doesn't matter whether you call me a liar or a moron, (which only serves to make you look unhinged by the way) it does not alter the fact that you have done a lot of hysterical screaming and almost no persuasive argument. Perhaps you could do with some forced medication to calm you down (joke).
Andy Lock Heath is nothing other than a liar and a shill.. He says ‘I don't see why someone who uses the word "facts" in their name seems incapable of producing any relevant "facts" at all.
This man must also be a moron. Its incredible that he should make such a statement when anyone who views my posts will see they contain many relevant verifiable facts about the dangers of Fluoride..
The refer to ’What the York review really found’ written by the very scientists asked to study fluoride by the Government.. I refer to Cancer research UK who have found that cancer rates in South Ireland are higher than Northern Ireland.. And that the increase changes Direct on the border!. Southern Ireland is Fluoridated.. Northern Ireland is not. I refer the W. H. O. who have published figures showing that Fluoride makes no difference to dental decay! . I refer to the fact that Prozac is over 90% pure Fluoride!.. I refer to the Green Party statements about Fluoride.. And I also refer to the following interview:


Prominent researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride



"Why'd you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?"

I had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D., 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.

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-a-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 meetng, 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, fuoridation 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.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: It's worth mentioning that not only was Erin Brockovich a "factionalised" hollywood movie, not a documentary but it was nothing to do with fluoride at all! It was about as close to what actually occurred as other well known Hollywood "true stories" such as Pearl Harbor. I don't see why someone who uses the word "facts" in their name seems incapable of producing any relevant "facts" at all. It doesn't matter whether you call me a liar or a moron, (which only serves to make you look unhinged by the way) it does not alter the fact that you have done a lot of hysterical screaming and almost no persuasive argument. Perhaps you could do with some forced medication to calm you down (joke).[/p][/quote]Andy Lock Heath is nothing other than a liar and a shill.. He says ‘I don't see why someone who uses the word "facts" in their name seems incapable of producing any relevant "facts" at all. This man must also be a moron. Its incredible that he should make such a statement when anyone who views my posts will see they contain many relevant verifiable facts about the dangers of Fluoride.. The refer to ’What the York review really found’ written by the very scientists asked to study fluoride by the Government.. I refer to Cancer research UK who have found that cancer rates in South Ireland are higher than Northern Ireland.. And that the increase changes Direct on the border!. Southern Ireland is Fluoridated.. Northern Ireland is not. I refer the W. H. O. who have published figures showing that Fluoride makes no difference to dental decay! . I refer to the fact that Prozac is over 90% pure Fluoride!.. I refer to the Green Party statements about Fluoride.. And I also refer to the following interview: Prominent researcher apologizes for pushing fluoride "Why'd you do it, Doc? Why'd you toss the fluoride folks overboard?" I had just tracked down Dr. Hardy Limeback, B.Sc., Ph.D., 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. 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-a-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 meetng, 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, fuoridation 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. FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

9:59pm Sun 26 Aug 12

Calli says...

Okay, its late but if im in the wrong i apologize. Andy Locks Heath I have just reread your mail and apologize to you for saying you called me a moron. Lets keep this debate civil. At the end of the day my main point is that it is against the law to mass medicate. As our Health minister declared 'No decision about me without me'. It is against the law to be administered a drug/poison without consent.
Okay, its late but if im in the wrong i apologize. Andy Locks Heath I have just reread your mail and apologize to you for saying you called me a moron. Lets keep this debate civil. At the end of the day my main point is that it is against the law to mass medicate. As our Health minister declared 'No decision about me without me'. It is against the law to be administered a drug/poison without consent. Calli

9:09am Mon 27 Aug 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

That's well said Calli and I'm happy to shake on that. It is unfortunate that there is a peculiar Green extremist (FactsForMothers) on your side whose disproportionate anger and paranoid postings have become more extreme as this thread developed. It serves her right to leave this on a civilised note because it leaves her final hysterical post high and dry.
That's well said Calli and I'm happy to shake on that. It is unfortunate that there is a peculiar Green extremist (FactsForMothers) on your side whose disproportionate anger and paranoid postings have become more extreme as this thread developed. It serves her right to leave this on a civilised note because it leaves her final hysterical post high and dry. Andy Locks Heath

11:04am Mon 27 Aug 12

FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
That's well said Calli and I'm happy to shake on that. It is unfortunate that there is a peculiar Green extremist (FactsForMothers) on your side whose disproportionate anger and paranoid postings have become more extreme as this thread developed. It serves her right to leave this on a civilised note because it leaves her final hysterical post high and dry.
I have just been called a ‘green extremist’ by Andy Lock.. Well as far as Fluoride goes and calling a spade a spade as far as the liar Andy Lock is concerned.. I am happy to be called an extremist.. But lets look at the language Andy Lock uses… ‘Extremist’ . Here are a couple of the things we all now take for granted that only exist because of Extremist’s… Women’s Right to Vote. The End Of Slavery . The list is endless.. But lets just see what Martin Luthor King said about ‘Extremists’

‘The question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be.’"Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963

Martin Luthor King also talks about Andy Lock and people like him.. He says
‘Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity’
Finally.. Lets look at what these ‘extremists’ have to say about Fluoride.. Then ask yourself who do you trust? Them or Martin Lock?

“Water fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century,
if not of all time.”
Dr Robert Carton, former President of the Union of Government Scientists
at the US Environmental Protection Agency
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone
he has never met, whose medical history he does not know,
a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life
because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children'.”
Dr Peter Mansfield, Director, Templegarth Trust
“Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula should never be made up using fluoridated water.”
Professor Hardy Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at the University of Toronto
"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it
faster, than any other chemical."
Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute
“I think a lot of people with arthritis may actually be suffering from early symptoms of skeletal sclerosis as a result of drinking fluoridated water.”
Tony Lees, dentist
“It has long been known that excessive fluoride intake carries
serious toxic effects. But scientists are now debating
whether fluoride confers any benefit at all.”
UNICEF
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: That's well said Calli and I'm happy to shake on that. It is unfortunate that there is a peculiar Green extremist (FactsForMothers) on your side whose disproportionate anger and paranoid postings have become more extreme as this thread developed. It serves her right to leave this on a civilised note because it leaves her final hysterical post high and dry.[/p][/quote]I have just been called a ‘green extremist’ by Andy Lock.. Well as far as Fluoride goes and calling a spade a spade as far as the liar Andy Lock is concerned.. I am happy to be called an extremist.. But lets look at the language Andy Lock uses… ‘Extremist’ . Here are a couple of the things we all now take for granted that only exist because of Extremist’s… Women’s Right to Vote. The End Of Slavery . The list is endless.. But lets just see what Martin Luthor King said about ‘Extremists’ ‘The question is not whether we will be extremist but what kind of extremist will we be.’"Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963 Martin Luthor King also talks about Andy Lock and people like him.. He says ‘Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity’ Finally.. Lets look at what these ‘extremists’ have to say about Fluoride.. Then ask yourself who do you trust? Them or Martin Lock? “Water fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.” Dr Robert Carton, former President of the Union of Government Scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency “No physician in his right senses would prescribe for someone he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some people say that it can reduce tooth decay in children'.” Dr Peter Mansfield, Director, Templegarth Trust “Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste. Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula should never be made up using fluoridated water.” Professor Hardy Limeback, Professor of Dentistry at the University of Toronto "In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical." Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, US National Cancer Institute “I think a lot of people with arthritis may actually be suffering from early symptoms of skeletal sclerosis as a result of drinking fluoridated water.” Tony Lees, dentist “It has long been known that excessive fluoride intake carries serious toxic effects. But scientists are now debating whether fluoride confers any benefit at all.” UNICEF FACTSFORTHEMOTHERS

10:53pm Sun 2 Sep 12

Dan Soton says...

Re: A spokesman for the Department of Health said fluoridation has been in place in parts of the UK for more than 40 years, and there are “no immediate plans” to treat it as a medicine.


-

Southampton has naturally occurring fluoride in its water supply, how would the Department of Health go about comparing Southampton's Teeth/Health and Obesity/Cancer rates with say fluoridated Birmingham or Newcastle?..

Hmmm.. is there anywhere in the world to correctly and scientifically compare fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle, it has to be totally fluoride toothpaste and fluoride water supply free?..

-

Maybe Somalia, birth place of Mo Farah? located on the Horn of Africa its public healthcare system has been blown away by civil wars.

The Somalian diet.. frying is the most common method of cooking, Somalians like to eat with their fingers, lamb or goat meat is considered the best meat to eat, tea is the most common drink and is taken with lots of sugar usually 4-6 times a day, home-made cakes are often eaten as snacks.. what do you know almost identical to a Brummie's diet.

Somalians have few cavities, they clean their teeth twice a day and scrape their tongues with a cleaning stick collected from the branches of a tree called "Roomay" or a stick called "Muswaki" made from the root of another type of tree.

-

The Department of Health says fluoride is not linked to Obesity or Cancer yet some say they are good indicators of fluoride poisoning.



1) Somalian Colon-Rectum Cancers.. World Rank 131.


2) Somalian Uterin Cancer.. World Rank 139.


3) Somalian Prostate Cancer.. World Rank 142.


4) Somalian Stomach Cancer.. World Rank 128.


5) Somalian Leukemia.. World Rank 135.


6) Somalian Obesity.. World Rank 164.

 
-

So summing-up.. when they are eating well Somalian's have an almost identical diet to a Brummie.. like frying meat/food, tea taken with lots of sugar 4-6 times a day and cakes are often eaten as snacks yet they have few Cavities and low Cancer rates.

-


To the unknown spokesman for the Department of Health.. I guess fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle have a lot to keep quiet about when it comes to Obesity and Cancer.
Re: A spokesman for the Department of Health said fluoridation has been in place in parts of the UK for more than 40 years, and there are “no immediate plans” to treat it as a medicine. - Southampton has naturally occurring fluoride in its water supply, how would the Department of Health go about comparing Southampton's Teeth/Health and Obesity/Cancer rates with say fluoridated Birmingham or Newcastle?.. Hmmm.. is there anywhere in the world to correctly and scientifically compare fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle, it has to be totally fluoride toothpaste and fluoride water supply free?.. - Maybe Somalia, birth place of Mo Farah? located on the Horn of Africa its public healthcare system has been blown away by civil wars. The Somalian diet.. frying is the most common method of cooking, Somalians like to eat with their fingers, lamb or goat meat is considered the best meat to eat, tea is the most common drink and is taken with lots of sugar usually 4-6 times a day, home-made cakes are often eaten as snacks.. what do you know almost identical to a Brummie's diet. Somalians have few cavities, they clean their teeth twice a day and scrape their tongues with a cleaning stick collected from the branches of a tree called "Roomay" or a stick called "Muswaki" made from the root of another type of tree. - The Department of Health says fluoride is not linked to Obesity or Cancer yet some say they are good indicators of fluoride poisoning. 1) Somalian Colon-Rectum Cancers.. World Rank 131. 2) Somalian Uterin Cancer.. World Rank 139. 3) Somalian Prostate Cancer.. World Rank 142. 4) Somalian Stomach Cancer.. World Rank 128. 5) Somalian Leukemia.. World Rank 135. 6) Somalian Obesity.. World Rank 164.   - So summing-up.. when they are eating well Somalian's have an almost identical diet to a Brummie.. like frying meat/food, tea taken with lots of sugar 4-6 times a day and cakes are often eaten as snacks yet they have few Cavities and low Cancer rates. - To the unknown spokesman for the Department of Health.. I guess fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle have a lot to keep quiet about when it comes to Obesity and Cancer. Dan Soton

8:45pm Tue 4 Sep 12

Dan Soton says...

Dan Soton wrote:
Re: A spokesman for the Department of Health said fluoridation has been in place in parts of the UK for more than 40 years, and there are “no immediate plans” to treat it as a medicine.


-

Southampton has naturally occurring fluoride in its water supply, how would the Department of Health go about comparing Southampton's Teeth/Health and Obesity/Cancer rates with say fluoridated Birmingham or Newcastle?..

Hmmm.. is there anywhere in the world to correctly and scientifically compare fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle, it has to be totally fluoride toothpaste and fluoride water supply free?..

-

Maybe Somalia, birth place of Mo Farah? located on the Horn of Africa its public healthcare system has been blown away by civil wars.

The Somalian diet.. frying is the most common method of cooking, Somalians like to eat with their fingers, lamb or goat meat is considered the best meat to eat, tea is the most common drink and is taken with lots of sugar usually 4-6 times a day, home-made cakes are often eaten as snacks.. what do you know almost identical to a Brummie's diet.

Somalians have few cavities, they clean their teeth twice a day and scrape their tongues with a cleaning stick collected from the branches of a tree called "Roomay" or a stick called "Muswaki" made from the root of another type of tree.

-

The Department of Health says fluoride is not linked to Obesity or Cancer yet some say they are good indicators of fluoride poisoning.



1) Somalian Colon-Rectum Cancers.. World Rank 131.


2) Somalian Uterin Cancer.. World Rank 139.


3) Somalian Prostate Cancer.. World Rank 142.


4) Somalian Stomach Cancer.. World Rank 128.


5) Somalian Leukemia.. World Rank 135.


6) Somalian Obesity.. World Rank 164.

 
-

So summing-up.. when they are eating well Somalian's have an almost identical diet to a Brummie.. like frying meat/food, tea taken with lots of sugar 4-6 times a day and cakes are often eaten as snacks yet they have few Cavities and low Cancer rates.

-


To the unknown spokesman for the Department of Health.. I guess fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle have a lot to keep quiet about when it comes to Obesity and Cancer.
Today Public Health Minister says decisions on fluoridation should be made at local level.

-

This will mean ensuring local people’s opinions on fluoridation are considered before decisions are made to adopt, change or end fluoridation programmes

-




Views sought on how local authorities should consult on fluoridation schemes.

September 4, 2012.

A consultation on what local authorities should do and who they should involve when considering water fluoridation schemes has been launched today by Public Health Minister Anne Milton.

Views are being sought solely on the process by which local authorities carry out consultations and decision-making on new and existing fluoridation proposals – not on the pros or cons of fluoridation itself.

These changes are prompted by the abolition of Strategic Health Authorities, which currently carry out this role, and means local authorities will be given new responsibilities and powers to improve the health of their communities.

This will mean ensuring local people’s opinions on fluoridation are considered before decisions are made to adopt, change or end fluoridation programmes.

This is just one of a raft of improvements that, from April 2013, will give greater power and responsibility to local authorities to make a real impact in improving the health of their local community.

Public Health Minister Anne Milton said:

“Decision-making on public health issues should be made at the local level where they understand what is needed and where the community’s voice can best be heard.

“We want to hear as many views as possible about how this process should work when local authorities get their new powers next year – I encourage everyone to take part.”

Strategic Health Authorities currently have the responsibility for considering changes to fluoridation in local areas, but this consultation is about how this power is taken over by local authorities.

It will seek views on a range of processes related to making local decisions including how public views are considered and how joint decisions are made in areas where water supply covers more than on local authority.

The consultation will be open for responses from 4 September to 27 November. Any person, business or organisation with an interest is encouraged to respond.

Any decisions will only be taken after full consideration is given to consultation responses, evidence and other relevant information.


-


http://mediacentre.d
h.gov.uk/2012/09/04/
views-sought-on-how-
local-authorities-sh
ould-consult-on-fluo
ridation-schemes/
[quote][p][bold]Dan Soton[/bold] wrote: Re: A spokesman for the Department of Health said fluoridation has been in place in parts of the UK for more than 40 years, and there are “no immediate plans” to treat it as a medicine. - Southampton has naturally occurring fluoride in its water supply, how would the Department of Health go about comparing Southampton's Teeth/Health and Obesity/Cancer rates with say fluoridated Birmingham or Newcastle?.. Hmmm.. is there anywhere in the world to correctly and scientifically compare fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle, it has to be totally fluoride toothpaste and fluoride water supply free?.. - Maybe Somalia, birth place of Mo Farah? located on the Horn of Africa its public healthcare system has been blown away by civil wars. The Somalian diet.. frying is the most common method of cooking, Somalians like to eat with their fingers, lamb or goat meat is considered the best meat to eat, tea is the most common drink and is taken with lots of sugar usually 4-6 times a day, home-made cakes are often eaten as snacks.. what do you know almost identical to a Brummie's diet. Somalians have few cavities, they clean their teeth twice a day and scrape their tongues with a cleaning stick collected from the branches of a tree called "Roomay" or a stick called "Muswaki" made from the root of another type of tree. - The Department of Health says fluoride is not linked to Obesity or Cancer yet some say they are good indicators of fluoride poisoning. 1) Somalian Colon-Rectum Cancers.. World Rank 131. 2) Somalian Uterin Cancer.. World Rank 139. 3) Somalian Prostate Cancer.. World Rank 142. 4) Somalian Stomach Cancer.. World Rank 128. 5) Somalian Leukemia.. World Rank 135. 6) Somalian Obesity.. World Rank 164.   - So summing-up.. when they are eating well Somalian's have an almost identical diet to a Brummie.. like frying meat/food, tea taken with lots of sugar 4-6 times a day and cakes are often eaten as snacks yet they have few Cavities and low Cancer rates. - To the unknown spokesman for the Department of Health.. I guess fluoridated Birmingham and Newcastle have a lot to keep quiet about when it comes to Obesity and Cancer.[/p][/quote]Today Public Health Minister says decisions on fluoridation should be made at local level. - This will mean ensuring local people’s opinions on fluoridation are considered before decisions are made to adopt, change or end fluoridation programmes - Views sought on how local authorities should consult on fluoridation schemes. September 4, 2012. A consultation on what local authorities should do and who they should involve when considering water fluoridation schemes has been launched today by Public Health Minister Anne Milton. Views are being sought solely on the process by which local authorities carry out consultations and decision-making on new and existing fluoridation proposals – not on the pros or cons of fluoridation itself. These changes are prompted by the abolition of Strategic Health Authorities, which currently carry out this role, and means local authorities will be given new responsibilities and powers to improve the health of their communities. This will mean ensuring local people’s opinions on fluoridation are considered before decisions are made to adopt, change or end fluoridation programmes. This is just one of a raft of improvements that, from April 2013, will give greater power and responsibility to local authorities to make a real impact in improving the health of their local community. Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: “Decision-making on public health issues should be made at the local level where they understand what is needed and where the community’s voice can best be heard. “We want to hear as many views as possible about how this process should work when local authorities get their new powers next year – I encourage everyone to take part.” Strategic Health Authorities currently have the responsibility for considering changes to fluoridation in local areas, but this consultation is about how this power is taken over by local authorities. It will seek views on a range of processes related to making local decisions including how public views are considered and how joint decisions are made in areas where water supply covers more than on local authority. The consultation will be open for responses from 4 September to 27 November. Any person, business or organisation with an interest is encouraged to respond. Any decisions will only be taken after full consideration is given to consultation responses, evidence and other relevant information. - http://mediacentre.d h.gov.uk/2012/09/04/ views-sought-on-how- local-authorities-sh ould-consult-on-fluo ridation-schemes/ Dan Soton

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree