Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Salina, Kansas - Fluoride on the Nov. 4th ballot - TV commercials + More

Fluoride Debate - October 20, 2014, Newsradio 1150 KSAL The Truth About Fluoride with Dr. Charles Hinshaw and Dr. Ron Hunninghake Ed Asner: "Fluoride Should Be a Choice, Not a Mandate" Truth about Fluoride hits Mainstream TV in Australia 2010-8-5 its a poison Solution $10 Billion Lien

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Sodium Floride is an Industrial Chemical, NOT the Naturally-Occuring Calcium Floride, & Creates Neurodevelopmental Disabilities > Latest publication in Medical Journal > Plus, another new study that proves fluoride calcifies our arteries & validates earlier reports that fluoride causes death for kidney patients!

Fluoride Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin in World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal


Sept. 28, 2014

Above medical journal report weblink here:  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/fulltext#article_upsell

The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 330 - 338, March 2014
doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3Cite or Link Using DOI

Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity

Dr Philippe Grandjean MD a b Corresponding AuthorEmail Address, Philip J Landrigan MD c


Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

Fluoridated Water Can Calcify Arteries, Study Finds

Friday, September 5, 2014

Newest info on the battle to keep DSHEA

Negotiating the New Dietary Ingredient Notification Process

By Marc Ullman

The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA) requires that manufacturers and distributors who wish to market dietary supplements that contain new dietary ingredients (NDI) notify FDA about these ingredients. These are ingredients that were not marketed in the United States prior to Oct. 15, 1994—the date that DSHEA became law. There is, however, no official list of “old dietary ingredients" not requiring notification, and it is up to ingredient suppliers to ensure that any notification requirements are met. Whether an ingredient is actually new can be a difficult question.

When an ingredient supplier determines that notification is necessary, DSHEA requires the material submitted to FDA demonstrates that there is a “reasonable expectation of safety" for its intended use. To date, the only real guidance provided by FDA on how this standard can be satisfied was found in a July 2011 guidance document, which was subsequently withdrawn for revision following nearly unanimous objection by the trade and members of Congress.

Even if the ingredient is new, no notification is required if that specific ingredient has been “present in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in which the food has not been chemically altered." Again, exactly what constitutes “chemically altered" can be a difficult question, though some insight can be gleaned from a review of FDA’s June 2014 guidance discussing changes in manufacturing processes for food and the need for additional regulatory notifications.

Each of these issues has contributed to a situation where FDA finds approximately 75 percent of the NDI notifications it receives fail to satisfy the “reasonable expectation of safety" standard. While this is an alarming failure rate, companies that take the time to understand why others have failed and what those who have succeeded have in common stand a good chance of having their NDI notification filed by FDA without substantive objection.

It is important to remember that the NDI Notification process is just that: a premarket notification of intent to sell. Seventy-five days after a notification is submitted, the statutory requirement has been satisfied, even if FDA has substantive questions concerning safety. Whether it is wise to go to market when FDA has such questions is another question.

Is an Ingredient Really “New?"

While there is no official list of “old dietary ingredients, industry trade associations such as the United Natural Products Alliance (UNPA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) have submitted lists of “grandfathered" ingredients to FDA. While these lists have limitations such as not identifying extraction methods and solvents, they can provide a substantive starting point for building a case that an ingredient was marketed prior to the passage of DSHEA and not subject to the NDI notification process. The American Herbal Products Association’s (AHPA) “Herbs of Commerce" was published in 1992 and provides a list of all common and scientific names of botanicals that were sold in the United States at that time. This publication, while not accepted as authoritative by FDA, is generally recognized as strong evidence that a botanical was marketed in the United States prior to Oct. 15, 1994.

How to Show “Reasonably Expected to Be Safe?"

Satisfying this standard can be a daunting challenge. FDA has never provided a clear, concise statement describing the data set that will meet this standard. What we do know, however, is that a significant toxicological profile along with a coherent explanation of why the ingredient is safe for use in dietary supplements must be provided. While the standard of certainty required for a “reasonable expectation of safety" is somewhat less that needed to satisfy the GRAS (generally recognized as safe) standard for food ingredients, companies that attempt to negotiate the NDI notification process on their own are almost certainly doomed to failure. Companies that assemble a team that includes qualified toxicologists and counsel have a far greater chance of success than those that try and go it on their own.

The best way to understand what FDA is looking for to satisfy this standard is to review both successful and unsuccessful NDI notifications. FDA’s efforts to maintain a public docket allows public access to this information (the most recent entry is for NDI notification number 744 from May 2012). The AHPA NDI database has full reports through NDI notification number 779 and reports of results through notification number 820. The AHPA database also has a much more user friendly search function and a table of contents that provides easily accessible information on whether FDA stated any substantive objection to the notification.

Present in the Food Supply?

Often, when NDI notification requirement is discussed, the question is generally framed as “Was the substance present in the food supply in a form not chemically altered?" By pushing the discussion in this direction, companies that do not want to deal with the notification process have been able to bypass the “as an article used for food" clause in the law. However, the inclusion of this clause in the law means the answer to the question of whether a NDI notification is required hinges on whether the particular ingredient has been intentionally consumed as food—=and not merely been consumed because it happens to be a constituent of a food item.

Successful NDI Notification

Aside from assembling a qualified team of experts to support a company’s work, it is vitally important to understand why some NDI notifications succeed and nearly three-fourths of the others fail. According to Corey Hilmas, M.D., senior vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs for the Natural Products Association (NPA), and the person who oversaw the NDI program at FDA until June 2014, key factors are repeatedly seen in both successful and unsuccessful Notifications.

For unsuccessful submissions, these include:

· Use of data from another company’s product rather than data on the specific ingredient that is the subject of the submission;

· Failing to ensure that a company has met all regulatory requirements for a notification including translating foreign language scientific articles submitted in support of the notification;

· Providing evidence of “history of use" that is not relevant to the ingredient submitted, including considerations relating to the serving size of the ingredient that users are expected to consume; and

· Not including information on the fermentation media for microbial ingredients.

For successful submissions:

· The company has had met with the FDA NDI review team prior to submitting a notification;

· Understanding FDA’s comments following an unsuccessful notification and resubmitting after those concerns are fully addressed; and

· Testing a high enough dose to determine the no-observed-adverse-effect level to show that the serving level or dose on the label has sufficient safety margin in humans.

Companies that submit poor, rushed and/or incomplete data packages in support of their NDI notifications are certain to receive a letter from FDA stating that the agency disagrees with the company’s belief that their ingredient is safe. However, with the proper resources, commitment to thorough science, the right team of expert consultants and a thorough understanding to the process, a company should be able to successfully negotiate the NDI notification process.

For more tips to help understand laws regulating the supplement and functional foods market, visit INSIDER’s Regulatory Content Library. Also, hear more from Ullman during the panel discussion, "Current Issues Regarding New Dietary Ingredient (NDI) Notifications," on Thursday, Oct. 8, at 9 a.m., during SupplySide West, Las Vegas.

Marc Ullman is a partner at the New York-based law firm Ullman, Shapiro & Ullman LLP.

Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Peru's world news reveals what a USA 15 year old did two years ago--invented a lab test to detect cancer sooner!! (see the 3 pictures at the article web link) Just one example of what youth are capable of doing!!


Jack Andraka: Boy Wonder

September 2, 2014
by Valentina Alvarez

Jack Andraka, a 15-year-old from Maryland, was sitting in a biology class when he bubbled up an idea that could revolutionize the detection of pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancer.
Inspired by the death of a close family friend who was like an uncle to him and with nearly no prior knowledge on the subject, Andraka dug into research using what he calls “a teenager’s best friends”: Google and Wikipedia. He discovered that an astonishing 85% of pancreatic cancers are diagnosed late, leaving the victims with less than a 2% chance at survival. Jack connected this problem to the sixty-year-old technique used to detect it: expensive (valued at $800 per test) and grossly inaccurate (missing 30% of cancers).

Convinced by his “teenage optimism” that there had to be a better way to do it, he investigated for months, individually reading about 4000 proteins to eventually find the correct biomarker for the disease that his sensor could detect. Then, he had his breakthrough idea in class, a place he describes as “possibly the most unlikely place for innovation”. In essence, he single-handedly designed a simplistic, inexpensive, rapid, sensitive, and selective cancer detector out of paper.

However, when he sent his research and procedure to 200 professors at John Hopkins University and the National Institute of Health, he got 199 rejections and only one weak offer to help. Eventually, after working in this professor’s lab for months, he filled all the holes in his procedure and came up with a prototype that is 68 times faster, 26,667 times less expensive, and 400 times more sensitive than existing technologies for detecting cancer.

The best part is that this detector is nearly 100% accurate since the very early stages of the disease. Also, the sensor could eventually be adapted to detect a number of diseases besides pancreatic, lung, and ovarian cancers.

Ever since he developed this method, Andraka has been awarded the Gordon E. Moore Award, the Smithsonian magazine’s American Ingenuity Award in the Youth Achievement category, and the grand prize of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair where he received a $75,000 award. Additionally, he has had appearances on TEDx, The Colbert Show, and has been interviewed on international news channels like BBC.

Sunday, August 17, 2014

King's College London has developed new dental technique, to be all over Britain in 3 years -- Something we could use here, too?

New dental technique repairs damaged teeth naturally, negates need for injections, drillings and fillings
Saturday, August 16, 2014

Learn more:

(NaturalNews) In an effort that aligns entrepreneurial spirit with the body's natural ability to restore health, experts at King's College London have developed a way to put dental fillings by the wayside and, instead, help teeth heal themselves. (1)

Rather than drilling into an affected tooth and filling it with material to build up its structure again, a damaged tooth can instead be treated with the help of their new technology, Electrically Accelerated and Enhanced Remineralization (EAER), a technique that uses a small electric current to speed up a tooth's natural remineralization process and, in turn, repair teeth without the need for drilling, injections and fillings. (1, 2)

Professor Nigel Pitts of King's College London's Dental Institute says it's a healthy and affordable way to keep teeth in good shape, and one that's long overdue.

"The way we treat teeth today is not ideal," he said, explaining the seemingly never-ending cycle of drilling, filling and refilling that a dental patient often experiences. "Not only is our device kinder to the patient and better for their teeth, but it's expected to be at least as cost-effective as current dental treatments. Along with fighting tooth decay, our device can also be used to whiten teeth." (2)

King's College is involved with a project called MedCity, which was launched by London mayor Boris Johnson in an effort to encourage entrepreneurship in the London-Oxford-Cambridge life sciences sector.

How the new technology treats damaged teeth

EAER's low-frequency currents allow remineralization, a naturally occurring process in teeth that keeps them strong and healthy, to take place faster and deeper in the tooth, negating the need for traditional fillings. This new
technique simply involves isolating elements in the mouth such as saliva that can get in the way of this healing process, then using the EAER technique to drive the natural minerals into the tooth. (3)

Pitts said that by using "the electrical method, we can achieve remineralization that would have taken weeks and we can do it an order of magnitude faster and better." (3) His goal is to have this technique in place in British
dental offices within three years; furthermore, he's currently working with international dental groups in an effort which may make strides in the United States, where dental regulations differ from those in Britain. (3)

In addition to many people having a phobia when it comes to visiting the dental office, the materials that are often used -- namely amalgam, the silver-colored fillings -- contain mercury, a toxin that is linked with neurological disorders such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and autism. (4)

Sources for this article include:


(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com

(4) http://www.naturalnews.com


About the author:
A science enthusiast with a keen interest in health nutrition, Antonia has been intensely researching various dieting routines for several years now, weighing their highs and their lows, to bring readers the most interesting info and news in the field. While she is very excited about a high raw diet, she likes to keep a fair and balanced approach towards non-raw methods of food preparation as well.

Read more:

Learn more:

Friday, August 8, 2014

New Hampshire Scientist, Dr. Jane Nielson, PhD., describes her journey from pro-fluoride to anti-fluoride...


8 Aug 2014

Fluoridation Convert A Scientist Explains What Changed Her Mind

By Jane Nielson, Ph.D
Steering Committee Member,
Sonoma County Water Coalition
Board member, Open-space, Water, and Land Preservation Foundation (O.W.L.)

I was in the middle of my education as a scientist when I first encountered the fluoridation controversy. I was getting a Masters in Geochemistry from the university of Michigan, and I attended a heated City Council meeting in Flagstaff, Arizona. By the end of that meeting I was convinced opponents of water fluoridation were conspiracy-minded loonies.  For decades I never thought much about fluoridation. I believed the doctors who said fluoride prevented tooth decay, so I gave my two children fluoride drops when they were infants. It wasn’t until the Sonoma County Water Coalition hosted a debate in 2009 that I became aware of different information about water fluoridation. Like that memorable Flagstaff meeting, I thought I’d hear “science” from supporters and “crazy stuff” from opponents. But neither side presented any science at all. What the Studies Show
Exasperated, I started researching for myself. This was familiar terrain: I had published many papers, so I know what it takes to prove a point scientifically, and the data required to get a paper published. I had performed analyses, plotted data and defended my research and interpretations in public forums.

I quickly found World Heath Organization data that stunned me:
• Tooth decay has plummeted in developed countries worldwide, regardless of fluoridation.
• Cavity rates are the same—or even lower – in many non-fluoridated countries compared to the U.S.
• The one clear correlation with water fluoridation is disfiguring “dental fluorosis” (supposedly only a cosmetic problem.)
I then proceeded to review a range of scientific papers, including all the most recent research on actual and potential effects of water fluoridation. In study after study I found that differences in tooth decay rates between areas that
have fluoridated water supplies for decades, and those that either never fluoridated or stopped fluoridating, were minimal to nonexistent. Key U.S. studies confirm that ingesting fluoride does not prevent tooth decay:
• 1990 National Institute of Dental Research Survey: One of the largest U.S. surveys of tooth decay found no significant difference in tooth decay (less than ½ of 1% of the 128 tooth surfaces in the mouth) between fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations.
• Several modern U.S. Studies (1997-2001): Tooth decay did not go up when fluoridation was stopped.• The 2009 National Institutes of Health-funded “Iowa Study”: Cavity levels the same regardless of whether children ingested fluoride
or not.

Apply It, or Swallow It? In recent years the differentiation between swallowing fluoride and coating teeth with it has become lost in the discussion. But this differentiation is essential. The overwhelming consensus among scientists, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Research Council, is that fluoride works when it’s applied to the tooth surface, NOT when it’s swallowed. Sonoma County Has Provided No Scientific Support for Fluoridation In 2013, County Health officials provided the Sonoma County Water Coalition with a single study in support of fluoridation by Australian scientists who reviewed worldwide fluoridation studies written in English.
But that study is flawed because it failed to compare fluoridated versus non-fluoridated populations, lacked a cavity prevention assessment, and showed an extremely weak correlation insufficient to prove cause-and-effect. Thus far the County has not offered any more definitive data to support its campaign.

How Did the U. S. Get Sold on Public Water Fluoridation? In analyzing early research, it’s clear that the U.S. promoted the spread of water fluoridation before completing definitive studies. I’ve met with this practice of promoting innovations that later prove to have negative public health impacts over and over again in my scientific career. After the debate, I realized that without solid science to back it up, fluoridation could well represent the same dynamic. And now, having examined the research myself, I’ve concluded that water fluoridation is indeed an echo of past mistakes. Improving children’s dental health is a worthy goal. But before Sonoma County considers water fluoridation, the public must demand the County first prove that it works.

Monday, August 4, 2014

Fluoride on the ballot in Salina, Kansas

Salina, Kan., Next To Consider Water Fluoridation Repeal


By Bryan Thompson

Voters in Salina, Kan., will decide this fall whether to end fluoridation of the city's water supply.

The city has been adding fluoride to its municipal water supply since 1968, as a low-cost way to improve residents’ dental health. That practice could end this November.

Petitions submitted to the Saline County Clerk have been verified as having enough signatures to force the issue to a vote. The question to be decided in the general election is whether the 1968 city ordinance that approved water fluoridation should be rescinded.

A citizens’ organization calling itself Salina Cares has been campaigning against fluoridation for more than two years. They contend that fluoridation amounts to involuntary medical treatment.

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Lab results for 6 Chinese chemical manufacturers' sodium fluoride - what are the lab results for hydrofluorosilicic acid, a.k.a. fluoride?


Natural News exclusive: Fluoride used in U.S. water supplies found contaminated with lead, tungsten, strontium, aluminum and uranium

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046227_fluoride_heavy_metals_contamination_lab_test_results.html#ixzz38y51JhgY

"...These ICP-MS results, shown below, were determined with the very same ICP-MS laboratory instrumentation used by the FDA and various universities...

 "...The presence of these elements in water fluoridation chemicals cannot be refuted by any informed person, as the evidence is easily confirmed by any competent laboratory running ICP-MS instrumentation...

"...We also know that U.S. cities which foolishly engage in water fluoridation almost never test their raw materials for heavy metals contamination. After all, there is no law against dumping toxic heavy metals into public water supplies as long as the bags of powder are labeled "sodium fluoride." While the EPA does require municipal water suppliers to test their water for overall heavy metals concentrations, in reality the samples acquired for this testing are often acquired upstream from the fluoride insertion point, thereby excluding the fluoride contaminants from the tests...

Why fluoride advocates are forced to lie about what's really in the fluoride

"Fluoride advocates have always used dishonest language to try to deceive the public about fluoride. I remember seeing an advertisement from a pro-fluoride city which claimed, "Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral. Water fluoridation simply restores the natural level of that mineral in the water to protect public health." Such a claim, we all know, is blatantly false in both its literal wording and its implied claim.

"For starters, just because an element is "naturally occurring" does not make it healthy. Arsenic is also a naturally-occurring mineral in many water wells, but arsenic causes cancer and death. If the argument of fluoride proponents is that all "naturally-occurring minerals" should be "restored" to public water supplies, then by their logic we should also be dumping arsenic into the city water.

"Secondly, sodium fluoride imported from China's industrial chemical factories is not at all the same as a fluoride mineral found in groundwater. There are many different chemical compounds which contain fluorine elements in various configurations. Some are far more toxic than others, and all of them are, by default, labeled "fluoride" for purposes of municipal water fluoridation. This dishonest labeling is of course entirely intentional.

"Thirdly, fluoride contamination of water wells around the globe is a very large and widespread problem. This is what gives rise to the epidemic of dental fluorosis, affecting tens of millions of children across the globe. Just because fluoride is found in some wells doesn't mean it should be added to all other water supplies. The idea is ludicrous, and anyone who argues such an invalid point only admits they are irrational or unintelligent to begin with..."

Thursday, July 10, 2014

Who saw this coming?? Fluoride studies showing evidence it causes Alzheimer's!


Fluoridation and Dementia

Is fluoride in our water promoting dementia?

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

FAN & Dr. Mercola come together with new info on fluoride (hydrofluorosiliic acid)!!

July 1, 2014

Osteopathic physician, entrepreneur, and strong FAN supporter, Doctor Joseph Mercola published a new article on fluoridation today on his website Mercola.com. The article entitled “Drinking Water May be Damaging Your Brain,” is the latest in a large collection of articles by Mercola on the health risks associated with fluoride and water fluoridation.

Read Mercola’s Latest Article
*****(see below)***http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/01/water-supply-fluoridation.aspx

Even more exciting is the fact that Dr. Mercola has confirmed that he will be presenting at FAN’s Fifth Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride, which will be held this upcoming September 6-8 at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Crystal City, Virginia (right outside of Washington, D.C.).

Doctor Mercola won’t be the only expert presenter at the conference. On Saturday, September 6 we will hear from Dr. Quanyong Xiang from the CDC, in China. Xiang performed one of the pivotal IQ studies that were reviewed both by the NRC in 2006 and a team from Harvard in 2012. We will also hear from confirmed speakers: Paul Connett, Michael Connett, Chris Neurath, Bill Hirzy, and Henry Lickers. On Sunday we will hear from:

• Stuart Cooper (FAN’s campaign manager)

• Rick North (who helped in the successful effort to keep fluoridation out or Portland)

• Charlie Brown, the director of Consumers for Dental Choice. Charlie has performed miracles in the worldwide battle to rid dentistry of mercury amalgams. Hopefully, he can help us do the same for water fluoridation

• Mike Ewall, one of the most effective organizers in the country on waste and energy issues, is now a lawyer and resides in Washington, DC

• Dr. Neil Carman (formerly with the Texas Air Commission and member of the Sierra Club) will tell us some of the things, which are going on in Austin, Texas in their battle to end fluoridation there.
Ireland’s premier activist, Aisling FitzGibbon, aka, The Girl Against Fluoride.

And on Monday, September 8 we will be heading to Washington, D.C. (only minutes away by subway) to hold FAN’s first ever lobby-day on Capitol Hill.

To register for the conference please fill out the following form: http://fluoridealert.org/content/conference-registration-form/



Stuart Cooper
FAN, Campaign Manager


Expert Testimony: How Your Drinking Water May Be Damaging Your Brain

July 01, 2014 

Story at-a-glance

  • Dallas is considering whether or not to renew a three-year, $1.8-million contract that provides their drinking water with fluoride
  • Set to expire January 1, 2015, if Dallas ends fluoridation, it will become the largest city in the US to stop fluoridating its water
  • Dr. Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), recently testified before the Dallas council, giving expert commentary on why water fluoridation must be challenged
  • The adulteration of the public water supply with fluoride violates your right to informed consent to medical treatment
  • Fluoride is fundamentally a poison, with no beneficial biological role in the human body, and the effectiveness of swallowing fluoride to reduce tooth decay has never been demonstrated by a randomized controlled trial

Dallas Is on the Verge of Ending Water Fluoridation

12 Reasons Why Water Fluoridation Must Be Challenged

Fluoride Added to List of Chemicals That Cause 'Brain Drain' (Along with Mercury and Lead)

Check Out the Truth: Drinking Fluoride Doesn't Prevent Cavities

Fluoride Has Nothing to Do with the Underlying Causes of Tooth Decay

More Than 100 US Communities Have Ditched Water Fluoridation

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

Do you want to add your city to this growing list? Stay tuned, as the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation, both in the US and Canada. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies....

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Video of Dr. Oz--in trouble for pushing weight-loss supplements > Dr. Mercola's answer to those who are demonizing all dietary supplements, claiming they're "unsafe" and are "not regulated" > http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/25/weight-supplements.aspx?e_cid=20140625Z1_PRNL_art_1&utm_source=prmrnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20140625Z1&et_cid=DM48606&et_rid=564775429

Story at-a-glance
  • Weight loss pills are a nod to the pharmaceutical Band-Aid mentality, and actually run counter to the idea of a healthy lifestyle. This is why I stopped selling weight loss supplements, and it’s why I encourage others to stop
  • Supplements that are deemed hazardous are typically “spiked” with some form of pharmaceutical drug or synthetic ingredient
  • Suspect products are typically of the weight loss or “fat burner” variety, along with muscle-building and energy beverages or pills
  • Pro-pharmaceutical spokesmen have been repeatedly been quoted as saying that dietary supplements are unregulated and need stricter oversight due to the hazards they pose to your health
  • This is patently false, as the FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA)
  • Senate Hearing Puts Dr. Oz in the Hot Seat
  • Are Supplements Regulated or Not?
  • Hazardous Supplements Are Typically 'Spiked' with Pharmaceuticals FTC Also Regulates Marketing of Supplements
  • Why I Encourage Supplement Industry to Stop Selling Weight Loss Cures
  • Most Weight Loss Products Are Stimulants, Like 'Coffee in a Pill'
  • In essence, if you eat right, you don't need a weight loss supplement.
  • Ingredients that have been found to support weight loss that you can get through your diet include (Dr. Mercola gives chart of whole foods that help lose weight):
  • Transparency Is Key for Protecting the Supplement Industry
  • For Weight Loss, Focus on Your Diet First...
  • How Do You Determine Whether a Supplement Is of High Quality?

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

More News on Fluoride

The Fluoride Files 

Ireland Is Rejecting The Blarney Of Water Fluoridation - Are They Lucky, Or Just Smart?

May 22, 2014
Dear Citizen for Health,
Our campaign to enlighten folks about the different manifestations of fluoride, together with our ally Fluoride Action Network (FAN), rolls on in an effort to answer the question, "Fluoride: Good or Bad?", with this latest dispatch from the Fluoride Files.
The question may seem challenging, but folks from Michigan to Missouri appear decided on the matter.
In Michigan, the Boyne City Commission voted to end the practice of water fluoridation earlier this month after nearly 41 years. For those who voted to end it, the issue came down to choice - it's easier for folks who want fluoride to get it via toothpaste or mouthwash than it is for those who want to avoid it to find an alternative source of drinking water.
In Union, Missouri, Aldermen voted 7-1 to forego repairs to the equipment that adds fluoride to the city's wells, effectively ending water fluoridation. The equipment needed the repairs because of the corrosive effects of the additive, but even the one dissenting vote commented "Anything in overabundance is going to be poisonous."
The main story this week brings us "across the pond" where our friends in Ireland are lucky to have a government willing to respond to anti-fluoride campaigns sweeping the country. County Cork councillors voted unanimously to call for an end to the practice, prompting Ireland's Health Research Board to do a full assessment of the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. Echoing his political brethren from Michigan, one councillor commented "There should be a choice."
Stay tuned to this campaign - we are confident that our efforts will empower you to make even more informed decisions about maintaining your family's health and wellness.
Thanks, as always, for your participation.
The Citizens for Health Team
For extra credit: What is the difference between fluorine and fluoride?

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD, Neurosurgeon - gives medical report on fluoride combined with aluminum (both in hydrofluorosilicic acid) affecting the human brain with dementia/Alzheimer's

Fluoride combined with even trace amounts of aluminum in water can cause major brain damage

Wednesday, March 19, 2014 by: Ethan A. Huff,
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/044366_fluoride_aluminum_brain_damage.html#ixzz2wS4BP9en

(NaturalNews) Renowned medical doctor and neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock holds nothing back when it comes to telling it like it is, even when "it" goes against the prevailing schools of thought within his profession. And one of his latest Blaylock Wellness Reports is no exception, shining light on the very real dangers associated with fluoride exposure, especially when that fluoride interacts with other toxic chemicals commonly found in municipal water supplies.

In his "Why Fluoride Is Toxic" report, Dr. Blaylock explains how we are all essentially being lied to about the safety of artificial fluoride chemicals in our water. Widespread claims by government health authorities that fluoride is completely safe at current exposure levels are false, Dr. Blaylock explains, as they ignore copious scientific evidence pointing to both brain and nervous system damage in conjunction with fluoride exposure, not to mention an elevated risk of cancer.
One major area of research involves fluoride's apparent role in triggering early-onset brain diseases such as Alzheimer's. When it is not lodging itself in brain tissue and actually causing this and other forms of dementia, fluoride appears to worsen brain disease symptoms in patients who have already been diagnosed with dementia. And it does this by combining with other toxins also found in water such as aluminum.
"One study shows that adding fluoride to water in the presence of even small amounts of aluminum caused severe destruction of brain cells in the part of the brain controlling learning and memory," explains Dr. Blaylock in his new report.

Studies confirm fluoride enhances 'bioavailability' of aluminum

What apparently happens when individuals with aluminum-induced neural degeneration are exposed to fluoride is that the fluoride enhances the toxicity of aluminum. In terms of bioavailability, or the ability of aluminum to cause harm, fluoride greatly increases the overall toxic burden of this pervasive metal, rendering it exceptionally more toxic.

"[A]luminum-induced neural degeneration in rats is greatly enhanced when the animals were fed low doses of fluoride," reads the news release for a 1998 study published in the peer-reviewed medical journal Brain Research. "The presence of fluoride enhanced the bio-availability of aluminum (Al) causing more aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier and become deposited in the brain. The aluminum level in the brains of the fluoride-treated group was double that of the controls."

These findings have major implications for humans, many of whom are exposed to both fluoride and aluminum through their tap water. The World Health Organization (WHO) explains in a report on aluminum that aluminum salts used as coagulants at many water treatment facilities can lead to increased concentrations of aluminum in finished water, which is worsened by the addition of fluoride chemicals.
"The pathological changes found in the brain tissue of the animals given fluoride and aluminum-fluoride were similar to the alterations found in the brains of people with Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia," reads an announcement associated with the publishing of the Brain Research study, which corroborates the findings of an earlier study published in the journal Neurotoxicology and Teratology back in 1995.

Sources for this article include:



Another good reason to get hydrofluorosilicic acid banned as a fluoride water treatment source - the proverbial lawsuit that even the dental profession has predicted is starting


March 18, 2014                                                                               

Below is an important news release on recent developments in the fluorosis legal battle sent out by Dan Stockin, MPH of the Lillie Center in Georgia:

NEWS RELEASE: For Immediate Release

Fluorides Under Fire:
Legal Community Awakens as Federal Fluoride Harm Case Proceeds to Oral Arguments and Fluoride Harm Newspaper Advertising Appears

Legal community interest in the long-smoldering controversy over use of fluorides is growing as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has agreed to hear oral arguments in the fluoride harm case of Nemphos versus Nestle Waters North America, Inc., et al.

The case centers around “dental fluorosis” disfigurement of teeth caused by childhood ingestion of fluorides in water and other products.

The Washington D.C.-based law firm Public Justice has joined other plaintiff firms to help argue the case. Public Justice has more than 3,000 affiliated attorneys.

In another development, advertisements seeking students with dental fluorosis are beginning to appear in newspapers at universities, such as The Hoya newspaper at Georgetown University.

The advertisements show photos of dental fluorosis teeth staining and inform students that those with fluoride teeth harm may be entitled to monetary damages.

“There are a lot of harmed people out there that were not told the facts about fluorides, nor have they seen documentation of what dental leaders knew and admitted amongst themselves about fluorosis,” says attorney Chris Nidel.

“Fluoride providers and promoters are now under the microscope as the Fluoridegate scandal unfolds,” he says. “In their own publications, dentists warned of a day when fluoride litigation would arrive.”

Nidel’s law firm and the firm of Paulson and Nace have been with the case from the beginning. Public Justice is adding its expertise to argue that defendants in the case cannot use federal laws to preempt state legal actions on fluoride harm.

The plaintiff in the Nemphos case is a mother who purchased fluoride-containing products for her daughter, believing she was helping her child avoid cavities. The mother claims she was not warned about the possibility of costly-to-repair disfiguring fluorosis that later manifested in her daughter’s teeth.

Major dental organizations continue to promote use of fluorides, claiming the fluorosis stains are mostly barely visible and fit in a designation of “mild” or “very mild.”

“The so-called ‘mild’ fluorosis of the Nemphos girl is certainly not barely visible,” says Daniel Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation who now speaks regularly with law firms about fluoride issues.

“The fluorosis classification system used by dentists hides the severity of it,” Stockin says. “The system specifically tells dentists to ignore an individual’s worst fluoride-stained tooth in classifying a person’s fluorosis severity, and the system does not take into account the total number of teeth affected. Twelve teeth or two teeth with stains, both are allowed to be called ‘very mild’ or ‘mild’ fluorosis. This revelation will be deeply disturbing to citizens and elected leaders who were misled about fluorosis.”

An article in the Journal of Dental Research acknowledged increasing amounts of fluorosis, calling it undesirable and saying it “places dental professionals at an increased risk of litigation.”

Another article in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology echoed the warning about lawsuits, specifically addressing fluoride supplements: “It is only a matter of time until a case is brought that gets public attention. The risk is that noticeable fluorosis will be perceived by the public as a toxic consequence of fluoride ingestion – which, arguably, it is – and there will be a reaction against all uses of fluoride…”

On its website, Public Justice describes the advertising of fluoride-containing products offered by defendants in the Nemphos case: “Advertising like Nestle’s and Dannon’s, which induce consumers to purchase a product by touting an ingredient’s benefits without warning of that same ingredient’s known hazards, is generally prohibited by state tort and consumer protection laws. Those laws allow wronged consumers to sue for injuries the product caused.”

“Fluorides are a concern for both young children and college students and others,” Stockin says. “For college students seeing the fluorosis newspaper advertisements, they know that fluorosis impacts their job interviews, their self confidence, their professional relationships, and even personal and dating relationships in a very real way. For parents of young children, fluorosis on their child’s teeth can mean financial costs in the future, and of course they wonder what other harm has also occurred, such as impact on kidneys, thyroid glands, bones, and even IQ. So I think perhaps it’s not surprising that what consumers are hearing about fluorides from product sellers is changing.”

A toddler training toothpaste referenced in the Nemphos case filings warns of white spots on children’s teeth from swallowed fluorides. Several companies now sell an unfluoridated toddler training toothpaste described as safe if swallowed because they are fluoride-free.

1. Fluorosis advertisement in The Hoya: http://issuu.com/the_hoya/docs/issuu_3.4.14/7?e=3568114/6958776
2. Journal of Dental Research 69 (Spec. Iss.): 539-549, February 1990
3. Journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology; 1999; 27: 72-83
4. Public Justice website information about the Nemphos case: http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GrhMorZArTsCQl5WQDfAu%2FcuqdwdXzbQ
5. Email for Washington D.C. attorney Chris Nidel: chris@nidellaw.com

Daniel G. Stockin, MPH

Friday, March 7, 2014

New Zealand Court Verdict on Fluoride Is In.....and it came from Illinois over in the USA???

 Fluoridation court ruling in New Zealand

by Sharon Hill • March 7, 2014 • 2 Comments

Fluoridation is a reasonable activity for the common good. It is not medication, says a new ruling.

Fluoridation a local government issue: court.

The High Court has affirmed the right of local government to fluoridate drinking water.

In a decision released today, Justice Rodney Hansen threw out claims from anti-fluoride campaigners who disputed the South Taranaki District Council’s decision add fluoride to drinking water in Waverley and Patea.

The campaign group, New Health New Zealand, applied to review the council’s decision.

The court rejected the application on all grounds.

Justice Hansen quoted a decision from a case in the Illinois Supreme Court: “Fluoridation programmes, even if considered to be medication in the true sense of the word, are so necessarily and reasonably related to the common good that the rights of the individual must give way.”

He drew analogies between fluoridation and the use of chlorine, which is an accepted public health treatment of drinking water.

David Sloan, Chairman of New Health New Zealand Inc, said in a statement that New Health “respectfully disagrees” with the High Court’s decision and will appeal.

Opponents say that fluoridation is a medical treatment and should not be imposed on citizens since there are problems with dosage and individual needs as well as consent. However, this process is widespread and demonstrable SAFE and EFFECTIVE. Yes there are issues but the comparison to chlorine and iodine addition makes some sense. You can always buy bottled water without fluoride. Many people have chosen that route for various reasons. Is this controversy settled? Nope. Not by any means. It’s not a simple one.

Fluoridation a local government issue: court
Last updated 17:53 07/03/2014

The High Court has affirmed the right of local government to fluoridate drinking water.

In a decision released today, Justice Rodney Hansen threw out claims from anti-fluoride campaigners who disputed the South Taranaki District Council's decision add fluoride to drinking water in Waverley and Patea.
The campaign group, New Health New Zealand, applied to review the council's decision.

The court rejected the application on all grounds.

Justice Hansen said the purpose of local government was to enable democratic local decision-making and action by and on behalf of communities.

It was within the council's legal power, and right mind, to add fluoride to drinking water, he said.

Murray Thomson, professor of dental epidemiology and public health at the University of Otago, said the judgment was "sensible" and "affirmed the important role of community water fluoridation in keeping New Zealanders healthy".

Justice Hansen quoted a decision from a case in the Illinois Supreme Court: "Fluoridation programmes, even if considered to be medication in the true sense of the word, are so necessarily and reasonably related to the common good that the rights of the individual must give way."

He drew analogies between fluoridation and the use of chlorine, which is an accepted public health treatment of drinking water.

"The addition of iodine to salt, folic acid to bread and the pasteurisation of milk are, in my view, equivalent intervention made to achieve public health benefits by means which could not be achieved nearly as effectively by medicating the populace individually."

A person who did not want to consume fluoride could choose to supply their own drinking water or filter out fluoride.

David Sloan, Chairman of New Health New Zealand Inc, said in a statement that New Health "respectfully disagrees" with the High Court’s decision and will appeal.

In particular, New Health disagrees with the view that fluoridation is not a medical treatment for the purposes of the Bill of Rights.

"In today’s consumer-enlightened era, people should have the choice whether or not to ingest something that has a claimed therapeutic purpose," Sloan said.

"Delivering medication this way is contrary to medical ethics as it fails to control for dose, individual need and sensitivities, and overrides individual consent."

Fluoride was first added to New Zealand drinking water in Hastings in 1954. Forty-eight per cent of the New Zealand population now live in communities with water fluoridation programmes.

Jonathan Broadbent, a public health dentistry specialist at the University of Otago, said: "The decision reaffirms the legal basis of the scientifically sound practice of community water fluoridation.

"The people of New Zealand have the right to benefit from this effective public health practice. Community water fluoridation benefits everyone, especially those New Zealanders who are disadvantaged."

The naturally occurring fluoride level in New Zealand water supplies is usually between 0.1 parts per million and 0.3ppm. Fluoride content for drinking water in New Zealand is in the range of 0.7 - 1.0ppm. The maximum acceptable value for fluoride is 1.5ppm (parts per million).

- © Fairfax NZ News