Learn About The McDougall Program
November 26, 2008
November 24, 2008
D i v i s i o n o f T h e S a m a n d J o C o m p a n y L L C ,
M a r i n a D e l R e y, C A 9 0 2 9 2
W E B – w w w . i l o v e m y h 2 o . c o m
E M A I L – i n f o @ i l o v e m y h 2 o . c o m
T E L – 1 8 0 0 6 1 8 0 2 5 3
While many people have become enlightened to the concerns with drinking water quality in the US and abroad, most people are still unaware of the potential exposure they have to contaminants and pollutants in the privacy of their shower and/or bath. In most developed countries, chlorine is used to disinfect the domestic drinking water. This is usually mandated by law. Chlorine is a powerful oxidizer and not only kills microorganisms it also oxidizes and attacks the DNA in all living matter. This can cause damage that will eventually result in permanent cellular alteration (e.g., premature aging and cancer). In addition, chlorine reacts with organic material in our water to produce a family of compounds known as chlorination byproducts and trihalomethanes. These compounds have been directly linked to the long- term development of cancer in very low concentrations. Provided below are a number of quotes taken from a variety of reports and articles, which bring particular focus to this issue and the need to filter the water we use for showering and bathing. At the end of the quotes is provided bibliography if the reader wishes to read the complete references.
“Taking long hot showers is a health risk, according to research presented last week in
Anaheim, California, at a meeting of the American Chemical Society. Showers – and to a lesser extent baths – lead to a greater exposure to toxic chemicals contained in water supplies than does drinking the water. The chemicals evaporate out of the water and are inhaled. They can also spread through the house and be inhaled by others. House holders can receive 6 to 100 times more of the chemical by breathing the air around showers and bath than they would by drinking the water.” NEW SCIENTIST 18 Sept 1986 Ian Anderson “Studies indicate the suspect chemicals can also be inhaled and absorbed through the skin during showering and bathing.” “Ironically, even the Chlorine widely used to disinfect water produces Carcinogenic traces.” “Though 7 out of 10 Americans drink chlorinated water, its safety over the long term is uncertain.” “Drinking chlorinated water may as much as double the risk of the Bladder Cancer, which strikes 40,000 people a year.” “A long, hot shower can be dangerous. The toxic chemicals are inhaled in high concentrations.” “On one hand, chlorination has freed civilization from the constant dangers of waterborne epidemics. On the other hand in the mid – 70s scientists discovered that chlorination could create carcinogens in water.” “80% of the population drinks chlorinated water.” “There was a higher incidence of cancer of the esophagus, rectum, breast, and larynx and of Hodgkin’s Disease among those drinking chlorinated surface waters.” “Volatile organics can evaporate from water in a shower or bath.” “Conservative calculations indicate that inhalation exposure can be as significant as exposure from drinking the water, that is, one an be exposed to just as much by inhalation during a shower as by drinking 2 liters of water a day.” “People who shower frequently could be exposed through ingestion, inhalation and/or dermal absorption.” “Skin absorption of contaminant has been underestimated and ingestion may not constitute the sole or even primary route of exposure.”
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH Dr. Halina Brown “Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. While it prevented epidemics of one disease, it was creating another. Two decades ago, after the start of chlorinating our drinking water in 1904. The present epidemic of heart trouble, cancer and senility began.”
SAGINAW HOSPITAL Dr. J.M. Price, MD. “Cancer risk among people drinking chlorinated water is 93% higher than among those whose water does not contain chlorine.” U.S. COUNCIL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY “Drinking tap water that is chlorinated is hazardous, if not deadly to your health.” HEALTHY WATER FOR A LONGER LIFE Dr. Martin Fox “Known carcinogens are found in drinking water as a direct consequence of the practice of chlorination. A long established pubic health practice for the disinfection of drinking water.” MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY Francis T. Mayo, Director. “Chlorine is used almost universally in the treatment of public drinking water because of its toxic effect on harmful bacteria and other waterborne, disease-causing organisms. But there is a growing body of scientific evidence that shows that chlorine in drinking water may actually pose greater long- term dangers than those for which it was used to eliminate. These effects of chlorine may result from either ingestion or absorption through the skin. Scientific studies have linked chlorine and chlorination by-products to cancer of the bladder, liver, stomach, rectum, and colon, as well as heart disease, arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), anemia, high blood pressure, and allergic reactions. There is also evidence that shows that chlorine can destroy protein in our body and cause adverse effects on skin and hair. The presence of chlorine in water may also contribute to the formation of chloramines in the water, which can cause taste and odor problems.” “Since chlorine is required by public health regulation to be present in all public drinking water supplies, it is up to the individual to remove it at the point-of-use in the home.” KEMYSTS LABORATORY Dr. Riddle, Ph.D. “Showering is suspected as the primary cause of elevated levels of chloroform in nearly every home because of the chlorine in the water.” ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Dr. Lance Wallace “A professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh claims that exposure to vaporized chemicals in the water supplies through showering, bathing, and inhalation is 100 times greater than through drinking the water.” “As chlorine is added to kill pathogenic microorganisms, the highly reactive chlorine combines with fatty acids and carbon fragments to form a variety of toxic compounds, which comprise about 30% of the chlorination by-products.” “During the mid- 1970s monitoring efforts began to identify widespread toxic contamination of the nation’s drinking water supplies, epidemiological studies began to suggest a link between ingestion of toxic chemicals in the water and elevated cancer mortality risks. Since those studies were completed a variety of additional studies have strengthened the statistical connection between consumption of toxins in water and elevated cancer risks. Moreover, this basic concern has been heightened by other research discoveries.” THE NADER REPORT – TROUBLED WATERS ON TAP
Center For Study of Responsive Law “The National Academy of Sciences estimate that 200 – 1000 people die in the United States each year from cancers caused by ingesting the contaminants in water. The major health threat posed by these pollutants is far more likely to be from their inhalation as air pollutants. The reason that emissions are high is that because water droplets dispersed by the shower head have a larger surface -to value ratio than water streaming into the bath.” SCIENCE NEWS, VOL. 130 Janet Raloff “The cause of arteriosclerosis and resulting heart attacks and strokes is none other than the ubiquitous chlorine in our drinking water.” CORONARIES / CHOLESTEROL / CHLORINE Dr. J.M. Price, MD.
“In the vast majority of cases where germ-free water is required for pubic supply, or in the swimming pool, the process of disinfection will involve the use of chlorine in one form or another.” CHEMISTRY AND CONTROL OF MODERN CHLORINATION Dr. A.T. Palin, Ph.D. (O.B.E.) “Chlorine gas was despicable used during WWI. When the war was over, the use of chlorine was diverted to poisoning germs in our drinking water. All water supplies throughout the country were chlorinated. The combination of chlorine (when in drinking water) and animal fats results in arteriosclerosis, heart attacks, and death” WATER CAN UNDERMINE YOUR HEALTH Dr. N. W. Walker D.S.
1. “SHOWERS POSE A RISK TO HEALTH”, Ian Anderson, New Scientist, 09/18/86. 2. “NON-INGESTION EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS IN POTABLE WATER” Julian Andelman. Working Paper 84-03, University of Pittsburgh, 1984. 3. “THE ROLE OF SKIN ABSORPTION AS A ROUTE OF
EXPOSURE FOR VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS (VOCS) IN DRINKING WATER”, Halina Brown. American Journal of Public Health, Vol 74, 5/84. 4. “TOXIC SHOWERS AND BATHS”, Janet Raloff. Science News, Vol 130, Page 190. 5. “Water”, John F. Ashton and Ronald S. Laura. Nature
& Health, 1988. 6. “HUMAN EXPOSURE TO VOLOTILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN HOUSEHOLD TAP WATER: THE INHALATION PATHWAY”, T.E. McKone Environ. SCI, Technology, Vol. 21, No 12, 1987, PP. 1194-1201. 7. “THE NADER REPORT – TROUBLED WATERS ON TAP”, Duff Conacher
and Assc. Center for Study of Responsive Law, January 1988. 8. “DID YOU KNOW THAT…A LONG HOT SHOWER”, Bottom Line/Personal, Aug. 15, 1987. 9. “MADEMOISELLE”, Prior to August 15, 1987. 10. “CORANARIES/CHOLESTEROL/CHLORINE”, Joseph M. Price, Jove Book, Alta
Enterprises, 1969. 11. “WATER CAN UNDERMINE YOUR HEALTH”, N.W. Walker D.S., Norwalk Press, 1974. 12. “WATER-SAFE TO DRINK? Safe To Bathe In?”, Kurt W. Donsbach D.C., PH., 1974. 13. “PROTEINS IN NATURAL WATERS AND THER RELATION TO THE FORMATION OF
CHLORINATED ORGANICS DURING WATER DISINFECTION”, Scully. Environ, SCI. Technol., Vol. 22, No. 5, 1988.537-542. 14. “ORGANIC CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER AND CANCER”, AM. J. Epidemiology, Vol. 110, 1979, P. 420. 15. “CANCER INCIDENCE AND
TRIHALOMETHANE CONCENTRATIONS IN A PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM”, George L. Carlo. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 74, No. 5, 1984, PP. 479-484. 16. “STUDIES OF DIFFUSION OF WATER THROUGH DEAD HUMAN SKIN: THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL
STATES AND OF CHEMICAL ALTERATION OF THE EPIDERMIS”, G.S. Berenson and G.E. Burch. AM. Of Tropical Medicine, 1951, No. 31 PP. 842-853. 17. “REGIONAL VARIATION IN PERCUTANEOUS PENETRATION IN MAN: PESTICIDES”, H.J. Maiback. Arch. Environ. Health, Vol. 23, Sep.
1971, p. 209. 18. “STUDIES OF EPIDERMAL WATER BARRIER, PART 2: INVESTIGATION OF THE CHEMICAL NATURE OF THE WATER BARRIER”, A. Mololtsy. J. of Invest. Derm, 1968, No. 50. PP. 19-20. 19. “TEMPORAL VARIATIONS IN TRIHALOMETHANE CONTENT OF DRINKING WATER”,
V.L. Smith. Environ. SCI. & Technol., Vol. 14 No 2, 1987, PP. 190-196. 20. “THMS IN DRINKING WATER”, J.A. Cotruvo. Environ. SCI & Technol., Vol. 15, No. 3, 1981, PP. 268-274. 21. “VOLATILE SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICALS (VOCS)”, K.V. Dyke. Water Technol. Vol. 13, No. 4, Apr.
1990, P. 38. 22. “IS YOUR WATER SAFE?” Carpenter, Hedges, Crabbe, Reilly and Bounds. U.S. News & World Report, July 29, 1991, PP. 48-55. 23. “IS YOUR WATER SAFE TO DRINK?”, Raymond Gabler. Consumer Reports Book, 1987.
“Taking long hot showers is a health risk,
according to research presented last week in
Anaheim, California, at a meeting of the American
Chemical Society. Showers – and to a lesser
extent baths – lead to a greater exposure to
toxic chemicals contained in water supplies thaneath.” WATER CAN UNDERMINE YOUR
November 22, 2008
One of the major issues I have with the way medicine is practiced in our country is an involuntary loss of control over what we choose to include in what we as unique individuals deem reasonable and proper with regard to our own health and that of our children. I am of an age that permits me to reflect over a number of decades and see issue after issue succumb to the rule o ‘big brother’ who enacts laws and rules of things better left to us in the free exercise of personal choice and control. This would include the inability to buy previously deemed legitimate over-the-counter items such as certain minerals and so on.
Anything can be labeled quackery, unproven and so on with regard to innovations in technology and equipment which I have seen and been the beneficiary of in the last century – really phenomenal stuff. When found it was confiscated and practitioners were either incarcerated or forced to leave the country to continue practice. There are benevolent reasons ascribed to all this and it always has to do with the idea that we are unable to choose for ourselves, we can easily be duped or taken advantage of. And yet, who does that better than “big brother,” bought and paid for by the AMA and big Pharmaceuticals etal?
Somehow, I do not throw the doctors into the same category, after all, aspiring young men and women who genuinely want to help, have a calling to medicine go into these colleges and halls of learning with great intentions – I am willing to give them that. The big pharma however is the power and purse strings behind how these halls of learning are run. Their power is too great and restraints are non-existent. Profit has been not only the bottom line, but the only consideration for so long that the medical community is in danger of falling apart, just like our financial and economic community have already done. We are ranked pretty darned low in the scales of health, longevity, medical care of citizenry and equivalent cost factors. And not to be forgotten, satisfaction with all of the above. We may pay through the nose, but we are getting shafted, royally. It is a disgrace.
Sadly, it is up to each of us to be as alert as possible and to exercise our rights and responsibilities. We must speak up when things are wrong, when governments err, when laws bind us rather than free and protect us. We must become informed, for nothing else will take the place of that – nothing! And we must choose. As an example, I have chosen not to have flouride nor the 100 other contaminants in city water in water that I drink or cook with. I am on maybe my fourth distiller – make it at home. Its easy and 100% safe and reliable. My little unit is a Sears product around $100, but the scale goes considerably up from there. I wouldn’t consider using deoderants for the danger to the breast (no doubt all have heard of the preponderance of breast cancer?), but rather choose a simple “salt Crystal” which I buy online for less than $10 and darned if it doesn’t last me several years. It stops odor tho does not interfere with the body’s natural need to sweat when it needs to (which is the way it ought to be). I do not use fluoride toothpaste as I have been concerned for decades about the harm emanating from usage of this element – not for my body. But, that’s just me! To each his own. I hope the following articles give you something to think about and I apologize in advance to you if you find them upsetting. Better to be upset and informed, but again – that’s just me.
. . .
. * * * * *
. . .
Kids now drinking poison waste product first used as mood stimulant by Nazis
Steve Watson & Paul Watson
Monday, Oct 27, 2008
Fluoride is being added to children’s milk in 42 schools throughout the city of Sheffield in the UK, despite the chemical’s proven link to liver and kidney damage, cancer and the lowering of IQ.
“A new strategy with the focus of preventing dental problems among children is to be introduced in Sheffield,” reports the Yorkshire Post.
The move comes in response to figures showing that the state of children’s teeth in the city is slightly higher than the national average.
“At present, fluoride is added to children’s milk in 42 primary schools in the city. This will continue, and the local NHS is also planning to begin talks on the possibility of adding fluoride to water.” the report continues.
While Fluoride has been proven to have a minimal effect in the prevention of tooth decay, the negative effects of the chemical are legion according to several medical studies, far outweighing any positive aspects.
A recent Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”
The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”
50 per cent of the fluoride taken in on a daily basis remains in the body for life, accumulating in the skeleton. This can cause, skeletal fluorosis, a crippling and painful condition.
“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Dan Fagin.
Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.
The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including recently the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin.
Sodium fluoride can also cause dental fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) which can be an indicator of kidney function harm according to an August 2006 study in Environmental Research. The study found that “water fluoride levels over 2.0 mg/L can cause damage to liver and kidney functions in children.”
2.0 mg is routinely exceeded daily by means of intake through milk, tea, toothpaste, fish, crops irrigated with fluoridated water and some medicines and food processed using fluoridated water. through food.
60 per cent of the U.S. population also drinks sodium-fluoride contaminated water, with the government aiming to increase that number to 75% by 2010.
In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.
“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.
Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.
Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.
The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.
An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.
FACTS ABOUT FLUORIDE
– Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.
– Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).
– USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950’s that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to “Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”
– The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)
– 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.
– In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.
– In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.
– Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.
. * * * *
(And this is a separate, second reference to the same subject dated January 2, 2008 from a different source. Jan)
‘Second Thoughts about Fluoride,’ Reports Scientific American
NEW YORK, Jan. 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “Some recent studies suggest that
over-consumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth,
bones, the brain and the thyroid gland,” reports Scientific American editors
(January 2008). “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to
shift,” writes author Dan Fagin.
“Fluoride, the most consumed drug in the USA, is deliberately added to 2/3 of
public water supplies theoretically to reduce tooth decay, but with no
scientifically-valid evidence proving safety or effectiveness,” says lawyer
Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.
Fagin, award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York
University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program, writes,
“There is no universally accepted optimal level for daily intake of fluoride.”
Some researchers even wonder whether the 1 mg/L added into drinking water is
too much, reports Fagin.
After 3 years of scrutinizing hundreds of studies, a National Research Council
(NRC) committee “concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function,
especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating
growth and metabolism,” reports Fagin.
Fagin quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at
the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly,
“The thyroid changes do worry me.”
Fluoride in foods, beverages, medicines and dental products can result in
fluoride over-consumption, visible in young children as dental fluorosis —
white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. We can’t normally see
fluoride’s effects to the rest of the body.
Reports Fagin, “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated
high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”
“(E)pidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride
exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable
populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.
Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which
tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa
children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50
percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children
living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin. Levy will study
fluoride’s effects on their bones.
Over 1200 professionals urge Congress to cease water fluoridation and conduct
Congressional hearings because scientific evidence indicates fluoridation is
ineffective and has serious health risks. Support them; write your
. * * *
(And finally, this is Dr. Mercola, today’s source of these two articles. Jan)
Fluoride, one of the most consumed drugs in the United States, is deliberately added to about two-thirds of U.S. public water supplies, theoretically to reduce tooth decay, even though there’s no scientifically-valid evidence proving either safety or effectiveness.
Adding fluoride to milk will only increase the toxic burden on children’s growing bodies.
Ironically, yet fortunately, the calcium in milk will actually make it more difficult for your child’s body to absorb the fluoride.
Why Do We Fluoridate Drinking Water if It’s Not Good For Us?
The commonly repeated history of how water fluoridation came to be, states that the practice was spurred on by 1930’s research findings that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay, which was, and is, a common health problem.
However, evidence points to it being little more than a well-orchestrated PR stunt to aid an industry in trouble – another glowing example of the art of disseminating “adjustable truths,” to sell an inconveniently toxic reality to an unsuspecting public.
Some pro-fluoride advocates go so far as to try to make you believe that fluoride is a nutrient – a supplement that naturally helps build strong teeth and bones. One such example is the Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and the Council, which lists “fluoride” as one of only 28 vitamins and minerals permissible for sale for human consumption within the European Union.
But let’s make this point clear right from the start:
- fluoride is not an essential nutrient, and is NOT something you should use as a supplement to your diet.
The truth is that the facts behind the endorsement of fluoride for public health have been shrouded by fraudulent science on behalf of extremely powerful political forces with financial and political agendas.
Prior to 1945 when communal water fluoridation took effect, fluoride was a known toxin.
For example, a 1936 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association stated that fluoride at the 1 ppm (part per million) concentration is as toxic as arsenic and lead.
The Journal of the American Medical Association stated in their September 18, 1943 issue, that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes.
And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated,
“Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.”
More recently, Christopher Bryson, award winning journalist and former producer at the BBC revealed the multi-tiered abuse of power by military and industry scientists and public health officials in his book The Fluoride Deception.
In it, he describes the intertwined interests that existed in the 1940’s and 50’s between the aluminum industry, the U.S. nuclear weapons program, and the dental industry, which resulted in fluoride being falsely declared not only safe, but beneficial to human health.
What is ‘Fluoride’?
Unless you have a strong background in the scientific field, you might not realize that there’s no such thing as plain “fluoride.” What is generically referred to as fluoride (or fluorine) is rather one of several types of fluoride compounds.
Some fluorides are natural; found in the earth’s crust and in your teeth and bones. Other types of fluoride are toxic chemical waste products.
One of the points made by many pro-fluoride advocates is that fluoride is a natural mineral found in human teeth and bones. Therefore, adding fluoride, whether through your diet or via topical applications, is a good thing, as it should help re-mineralize your bones and teeth.
But this is where you need to remember how good deception works.
A good fib must always start with a truth, or else no one will listen to you – at least not for long. So, as long as you start with the truth, you can then bend and twist it around to serve your own means, and most people won’t notice that the story has veered so far from reality that the original statement is no longer applicable.
This is how most misinformation campaigns work.
Why Do They Say Fluoride is Good For Your Teeth?
The natural form of mineral fluoride found both in nature, and in your teeth and bones, is called Apatite. It’s a mineral found in many areas of the world, and although it is often regarded as a single mineral, it is usually divided into three mineral sub-groups:
Fluorapatite (calcium fluoro-phosphate)
Chlorapatite (calcium chloro-phosphate)
Hydroxyl-apatite (basic calcium phosphate)
Inside your mouth, there is a natural equilibrium between hydroxyl-apatite (calcium phosphate) dissolving and forming in your tooth enamel from substances occurring naturally in your saliva. * Like everything else, your diet and various physical conditions shift this equilibrium back and forth constantly. When you have more calcium phosphate dissolving than being adhered, you end up with a demineralization condition called caries. This is when cavities form in your teeth. (Have done several posts on the natural way to care for teeth [Living Libations – Nadine Artemis] in which she describes that teeth are living things; can be remineralized, gums made healthy etc. check it out! Jan)
However, this is where the truth about fluoride’s benefits end and the LIES begin.
(An ironic side note is that the name Apatite stems from the Greek word apate, which means “deceit.” It originally got its name because it has a similar appearance to many other minerals, but if you believe in fateful signs then this would certainly fit the bill, because the deceit behind fluoride runs deep.)
Okay, So What’s REALLY Added to Your Water?
When “fluoride” is added to your drinking water, it’s NOT the natural mineral. It’s usually not even a pharmaceutical grade fluoride. Instead, the fluoride in question is another chemical fluoride compound – the toxic waste product from phosphate fertilizer plants.
There are three basic compound commonly used for fluoridating water supplies:
- Sodium fluoride (NaF)
- Sodium silicofluoride
- Hydrofluorosilicic acid
The first one of these, sodium fluoride, is pharmaceutical grade. It’s the most well known, as this is the compound used in toxicology studies and other research into the potential health dangers of fluoride.
The other two, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, are the compounds used for water fluoridation, with hydrofluorosilicic acid being the most commonly used additive, according to the CDC.
Sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are the waste products from the wet scrubbing systems of the fertilizer industry, and are classified as hazardous wastes.
Why Water Fluoridation May be Even MORE Hazardous Than Research Suggests!
Another tidbit that is not talked about openly is the fact that these hazardous industrial wastes – the fluoride compounds actually added to your water — have NEVER been fully tested to ascertain their full potential health hazard.
Instead, the pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride is used in the majority of studies evaluating the risk to human health.
Numerous studies have already identified sodium fluoride as a toxic agent, capable of doing irreparable harm to your body. The industrial fluorides, however, have been shown to act differently from the simpler sodium fluoride.
Therefore, the REAL danger to your health may be far GREATER than what any of the studies done so far have shown, which include the following health hazards:
Increases lead absorption
Disrupts synthesis of collagen
Hyperactivity and/or lethargy
Muscle disorders Brain damage, and lowered IQ
Lowers thyroid function
fluoride-bones Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)
Inactivates 62 enzymes
Inhibits formation of antibodies
Genetic damage and cell death
Increases tumor and cancer rate
Disrupts immune system
Damages sperm and increases infertility
Do You Know How Much Fluoride You’re Ingesting, or Giving Your Children Each Day?
When water fluoridation first began, the “optimal” level of fluoride for dental benefit was said to be 1 mg/day for an adult male, based on the estimate that the average adult male drank one liter of water per day. However, even at that level, 10 percent of the population (those in the high-risk group) was expected to get fluorosis.
Add to that the fact that we’re now exposed to multiple other sources containing fluoride — whereas in the 1940’s other sources of fluoride were scarce – and you have the potential for massive fluoride overdosing.
A 1991 review by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows just how drastic your overexposure might be when taking multiple sources into account.
Fluoride exposure levels for a 110-pound adult
from food, beverages, toothpaste, and mouthwash
in Drinking Water
Total Fluoride Intake
Percentage Over 1 mg
0.88 – 2.20 mg/day
much as 120 % “Optimally” Fluoridated
1.58 – 6.60 mg/day
as much as 560 %
> 2.0 mg/L 2.10 – 7.05 mg/day possible > 605 %
Although you may not know it, you are exposed to fluoride from many sources other than the obvious lineup of toothpastes and mouth rinses.
Dentists may also apply professional strength fluoride treatments, or they may (unwisely) prescribe daily fluoride supplements, and other, far less obvious sources of fluoride include:
Food and beverages processed with fluoridated water
Mechanically de-boned meat
Pesticide residue on food
Soy baby formulas
The Key to Healthy Teeth is in Your Diet!
If you’re wondering how to keep your teeth healthy, remember that fluoride was never the answer in the first place. Instead, look to your diet for naturally healthy teeth. In fact, most people whose diet includes very little sugar and few processed foods have very low rates of tooth decay.
Limiting, or eliminating sugar, and avoiding processed foods — along with regular cleanings with your natural dentist — will ensure that your teeth stay healthy naturally.
How to Remove Fluoride from Your Water Supply
Unfortunately, removing fluoride from your drinking water is a far more difficult feat. Whereas some other chemicals added to your drinking water will evaporate, fluoride is not one of them. Neither cooking, food processing, regular carbon based filtration, nor digestion, will remove fluoride.
The primary method used to remove fluoride from water is by using a reverse osmosis filter. (or distillation – Jan)
Please remember that a simple carbon filter will not remove fluoride.
November 11, 2008
Advertising Passed Off As Research
Confuses the Public Again
Study Published in New England Journal of Medicine
Expands the Indications for Statins—and the Public Suffers
Today’s (November 10, 2008) front page headlines worldwide announced a simple test called “highly sensitive C-reactive protein” (HS-CRP) and the most powerful cholesterol-lowering statin currently on the market, Crestor (rosuvastatin), used together, could cut the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease in half.1 For the casual reader, Crestor appears to be a miracle treatment with few risks and reasonable costs. Today’s publication adds to the belief of a growing number of experts that “statins are so wonderful that they should be added to our drinking water” (like fluoride).
For this study nearly 90,000 people were examined, and most of them were identified as being at increased risk for a heart attack, stroke, and/or premature death. Rather than choosing professionalism and treating the underlying causes of their health problems: their diet and lifestyle; these researchers chose commercialism; creating the most effective pharmaceutical advertising campaign ever devised. And they have succeeded.
The study was funded by the maker of the drug, AstraZeneca, and the lead author, Paul M Ridker MD, is listed as a co-inventor on patents held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital related to the use of HS-CRP for the evaluation of a patient’s risk of heart disease.
Profits Are Determining Medical Care
The cost of Crestor (rosuvastatin) is about $3.45 per day—much higher than that of generic statins. That amounts to $1259 a year just for this drug. Doing the math, this means to prevent one event in one “apparently healthy patient” would cost about $300,000 just for the Crestor. These figures do not include the cost of doctors’ visits, the lab tests and the treatment of side effects from the medications, including the serious adverse events caused by Crestor.(Calculations: Absolute benefit of 1 event for 120 treated patients for 1.9 years at $1259 = 120 x 1.9 x $1259 = $287,052.)
Heart attacks, strokes, and the need for surgery and drugs are caused primarily by eating the Western diet, and secondarily by “bad habits,” including cigarette smoking and lack of exercise. The underlying disease, atherosclerosis, is reversible. There are no side effects or added costs with diet-therapy—therein lies the problem (no profit).
How Did They Get Those Results?
1) They stacked the deck with sick people, but passed them off as “healthy” to the press and public. Previous studies of statins have found that people at high risk for a heart attack or stroke will benefit, but healthy people will not.2 The deception in this study began by choosing high-risk test subjects and identifying them as “apparently healthy men and women.”
The nearly 18,000 people selected for the study out of the original 89,890 screened had very high HS-CRP levels of over 4.2 mg/L. Simply based on the HS-CRP these were not “apparently healthy,” but rather, people at high risk for cardiovascular disease. The cutoff value for high “bad” LDL-cholesterol level was 130 mg/dL. This allowed the inclusion of many high-risk people—“good health” is associated with a LDL below 100 mg/dL. In addition, the average blood pressure (134/80 mmHg) and total cholesterol (186 mg/dL) numbers were too high for these people to be considered “apparently healthy.”
The baseline median body mass index (BMI) was 28.3 (normal 18.5-24.9), indicating most of these people were overweight or obese. At the beginning of the study 41% were reported to have “metabolic syndrome.” (Metabolic syndrome is a combination of medical disorders, such as abdominal obesity, elevated blood sugar, triglycerides, and blood pressure, which considered together indicate an increased risk of cardiovascular disease.)
2) They Emphasized Relative, Not Absolute Benefits
Reporting the “relative benefit” of a drug is the most common method used by drug companies to deceive patients and their doctors. In this case relative risk reduction was determined by dividing the number of designated events (heart attacks, stroke, and deaths from cardiovascular disease) for the treated (Crestor) group by the events for the placebo group: 83 vs. 157. This mean the treated group had half (53%) the chance of an event compared to placebo. This figure is impressive.
However, the “absolute benefit”—the real life benefit a person can expect from treatment—is a very different story. Consider the numbers: nearly 18,000 people were treated for almost 2 years. In absolute numbers this means 83/8901 or 0.9% of those people taking Crestor had a serious event, as opposed to 157/8901 or 1.8% of those in the placebo group. This is an absolute event reduction of less than 1%. In other words, 120 patients had to be treated with Crestor for 1.9 years to prevent one designated event: heart attacks, strokes, and death from cardiovascular disease.
3) Early Termination of the Study Is Impressive but Suggests Dishonesty. The study was supposed to go on for 4 years, but was stopped at 1.9 years for “ethical reasons.” It was considered unethical to continue the study because continuation would mean depriving the people in the placebo group of the advantage of the treatment—Crestor in this case. “Early termination” of research is a powerful technique used by pharmaceutical companies to enhance the perceived value of the treatment in the minds of the medical profession, the press, and the public. But it has been shown that studies that are stopped early are biased and prone to exaggeration.3 According to a recent review in the Journal of the American Medical Association, “RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) stopped early for benefit are bec oming more common, often fail to adequately report relevant information about the decision to stop early, and show implausibly large treatment effects, particularly when the number of events is small. These findings suggest clinicians should view the results
of such trials with skepticism.”4
No mention was made in this report about two other recent studies (CORONA and GISSI-HF) where Crestor did not result in any improvement in survival. 5,6
4) Researchers Underemphasized Serious Adverse Events from Crestor. One of the most important findings from this study (found in table 4) is the similar number of serious adverse events in both the Crestor-treated and placebo groups—1352 (15.2%) vs. 1377 (15.5%). How can that be? Wasn’t the number of events about half (83 vs. 157) for those taking Crestor? The study focused on events (heart attacks, strokes, and deaths from cardiovascular disease) that are expected to respond favorably to treatment. The study, and the media that followed, did not give appropriate attention to all adverse events that occurred. Clearly, there was an increase in non-cardiac serious adverse events in the Crestor group. Obviously, it is not in the best interest of the sponsor of the study to give attention to this findi ng.
The article did mention an increase in risk of diabetes in those treated with Crestor (270 reports of diabetes, vs. 216 in the placebo group). But there must be more. Amazingly, this study reported only one case of serious muscle damage (rhabdomyolysis). The expected rate is 3.16 fatal cases per million prescriptions written for Crestor.7 This is 16 to 80 times higher than that reported for other statins. Almost four years ago Dr. David Graham, FDA’s associate director for science and medicine, named Crestor as one of five drugs that pose serious safety concerns and the FDA told AstraZeneca to pull its ads for Crestor because they do not mention its risks of causing acute kidney failure or rhabdomyolysis.
There is no long-term information on the safety of using these high doses of Crestor to lower “bad” LDL-cholesterol to 55 mg/dL (as they did in this study). This study was stopped after less than 2 years, but patients prescribed statins can expect to take them for 20 years and longer.
One More Deregulated System That Must Be Fixed
Neither the patient nor our over-burdened health care system can thrive with this kind of deception from the pharmaceutical companies and the medical journals. Fortunately, health care professionals are beginning to recognize that what is happening in medical care is just like the tragedies we have recently witnessed in the stock market and the housing industries. Unregulated business practices lead to a few very rich people becoming even richer, and severe suffering for the rest of us. The time has come for change. Researchers and publishers must be held accountable like stockbrokers and bankers. Regulation enacted to protect the public is long overdue.
What is HS-CRP?
C-reactive protein (CRP) is a molecule produced in response to inflammation. It is non-specific, in other words, it does not identify the source of the inflammation, which could be due to an infection of a toe, arthritis, or a bad cold. The connection to cardiovascular disease (heart attacks and strokes) is that the sores (like pustules) on the artery walls cause the CRP to rise. This festering artery disease (atherosclerosis) is the underlying cause of heart attacks and strokes. The elevated CRP is simply one sign of the trouble—other signs are elevated blood pressure, blood sugar, cholesterol and triglycerides.
Highly sensitive (HS) refers to laboratory methodology used to increase accuracy. A level of less than 1mg/L indicates low risk, a level between 1 and 3mg/L indicates moderate risk, and a level greater than 3mg/L indicates high risk of active artery disease. The people in this study were on average in the high-risk group, in need of immediate and intensive dietary intervention.
Statins, like Crestor, are believed to be anti-inflammatory, reducing HS-CRP levels. Even without the postulated benefit of reduced inflammation, the cholesterol lowering effects of statins have been shown to reduce the risk of serious cardiovascular events in people at high risk. 2 A low-fat diet also cuts CRP in half in 4 weeks. 8 This reflects less inflammation, which means healing the arteries as a result of following a healthier diet.
1) Ridker,P Danielson, E Fonseca F, Genest J, Gotto A, Kastelein J, Koenig W, Libby P, Lorenzatti A, MacFadyen J, Nordestgaard B, Shepherd J, Willerson J, Glynn R, the JUPITER Study Group. Rosuvastatin to Prevent Vascular Events in Men and Women with Elevated C-Reactive Protein. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359:2195-2207
2) Abramson J, Wright JM. Are lipid-lowering guidelines evidence-based? Lancet. 2007 Jan 20;369(9557):168-9.
3) Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, et al.
PLoS Medicine Vol. 5, No. 1, e20 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020
4) Montori VM, Devereaux PJ, Adhikari NK, Burns KE, Eggert CH, Briel M, Lacchetti C, Leung TW, Darling E, Bryant DM, Bucher HC, Schünemann HJ, Meade MO, Cook DJ, Erwin PJ, Sood A, Sood R, Lo B, Thompson CA, Zhou Q, Mills E, Guyatt GH. Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005 Nov 2;294(17):2203-9.
5) Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, Böhm M, Cleland JG, Cornel JH, Dunselman P, Fonseca C, Goudev A, Grande P, Gullestad L, Hjalmarson A, Hradec J, Jánosi A, Kamensk? G, Komajda M, Korewicki J, Kuusi T, Mach F, Mareev V, McMurray JJ, Ranjith N, Schaufelberger M, Vanhaecke J, van Veldhuisen DJ, Waagstein F, Wedel H, Wikstrand J; CORONA Group. Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2248-61.
6) Gissi-Hf Investigators. Effect of rosuvastatin in patients with chronic heart failure (the GISSI-HF trial): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2008 Aug 29.
7) Bruce J, Rabkin E., Martin V. Rhabdomyolysis associated with current us of simvastatin and Nefazodone: Case report and current review of the literature. Advanced Studies in Medicine 2003; 3: 168-172.
8)Rankin JW, Turpyn AD. Low carbohydrate, high fat diet increases C-reactive protein during weight loss. J Am Coll Nutr. 2007 Apr;26(2):163-9.
© 2008 John McDougall All Rights Reserved
McDougall Wellness Center P.O. Box 14039, Santa Rosa,