Part 6: Rebuttal to ADH Fluoridation Testimony to Ark. Joint Health Committee 10/05/15 (minutes 54-1:02)
Dr. John A. Yiamouyiannis published a paper entitled "Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay: Results From the 1986-1987 National Survey of US. Schoolchildren" in the Fluoride, Journal of The International Society for Fluoride Research (Volume 23, No. 2; April 1990; pp 55-67). The conclusion of this paper showed that there was NO significant difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. This study showed that the fluoridation of the U.S. water supply was worthless. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was, until his death in 2000, the world’s leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride.
In this sixth — and final — part of our rebuttal, Secure Arkansas is summing up our argument that the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) is misleading our legislators and the general public. We want our lawmakers to plainly comprehend the fluoridation debacle. Secure Arkansas is simply saying to the ADH: ”No, you’re wrong, and this is why” – stating our argument and providing evidence. Remember, ADH CANNOT produce the survey which they claim was conducted in a fluoridated area versus a non-fluoridated area; also, the PEW report that was used had all kinds of errors in it that gave Arkansas an “F”.
We must continue calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation until this deceptive mandate is dealt with by Governor Hutchinson.
In this alert, font colors are the same as they’ve been in our past alerts on this topic: text shown in black font below is the transcription of statements made by each speaker during the Joint Health Committee meeting on October 5, 2015 regarding water fluoridation in Arkansas, and text shown in red font shows Secure Arkansas’ written comments about each speaker’s statements after the fact. The blue text comments are from Sandra Young, MD, Secure Arkansas’ Physician Advisor.
NOTE: Dr. Sandra Young was the final speaker at the meeting and the only one who was allowed to present an opposing view on the topic of water fluoridation at this particular Joint Health Committee meeting. So, in these alert notes, she was the speaker (black font) and she subsequently made written comments about herself and her speech (blue font).
– – – – –
Dr. Sandra Young (speaking):
Yes, my name is Sandra Young, I’m a physician who graduated from UAMS in 1972. I’ve just recently retired. (I started working again part time for Boston Mountain Rural Health Center effective Nov. 16, 2015.) I have spoken before the Department of Health (Board of Directors on July 23, 2015. Click here for a video of that talk and click here for a transcription of that talk. Click here for a copy of my follow-up letter to the Arkansas Board of Health) opposed to fluoride, giving my reasons. The research that they are relying on has to do only with research on bones and teeth; it’s not on biological systems. Fluoride on biological systems is EXTREMELY toxic. First off, I’d like to make a comment about the $38.00 that they are talking about saving by doing water fluoridation. It’s my understanding that they took the time off that the parents would have to take from work and the income that they would lose to figure in and factor in to that $38.00. (This $38 savings for every $1 spent on fluoridation is just another one of those falsehoods being spread by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), ADH, and the dental professionals. CDC has no data to back this $38 savings claim. This is just another bogus report to sell the legislators and public on community water fluoridation.
In a review paper by Lee Ko and Kathleen M. Thiessen, “A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation”, the authors proves that there were defective estimations used in the costs and benefits claimed by CDC and the dental community. The following is quoted directly from the review paper:
“Results: Recent economic evaluations of CWF contain defective estimations of both costs and benefits. Incorrect handling of dental treatment costs and flawed estimates of effectiveness lead to overestimated benefits. The real-world costs to water treatment plants and communities are not reflected.
Conclusions: Minimal correction reduced the savings to $3 per person per year (PPPY) for a best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis.”
(The figure of $38 was discussed in the first portion of this meeting. The transcription and audio may be found in our alert here. It was based on parents making $18/hour and factoring in their time off to go to the dentist.)
I sent out an email this morning, or late last night, that all of you should have received giving most of the points I’m going to give. I’ve also… at SecureTheRepublic/Arkansas in their blogs, I’ve written some papers on fluoride and IQ. I disagree. I believe those studies do show that it does lower IQ. It has neurological problems. The National Research Council, this is the book here (holds up the book) did a study in 2006 (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. You can get a free pdf download of the book at this website. At the end of each chapter, there are recommendations that they make. To summarize and make the reading easier, FluorideAlert.org has listed many of those recommendations in an easier to read format at http://fluoridealert.org/?s=
I also directed you to the YouTube video of/by Michael Connett. He’s the son of Paul Connett who wrote the book The Case Against Fluoride…. in which he analyzes the IQ studies that have been done showing lowering of IQ by fluoride. (https://www.youtube.com/
Fluoride also affects the endocrine system, leads to hypothyroidism, occasionally it can cause goiters, (rather) conversely it can cause goiters which is an overstimulation, it alters the parathyroid, it affects diabetes. It affects cellular communication systems…and adversely affects those.
It combines with aluminum and has a 3-D structure that is similar to a phosphate, so it affects every biochemical system that uses phosphates. Your DNA has phosphate in it. Your energy producing system, your ATP (adenosine triphosphate) has phosphate in it. It is used in research, in pharmacology research. In fact, in Goodman and Gilman’s Principles of Therapeutics (title should be The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics), the latest edition, the 12th edition, they state on there that the fluoride…I’m sorry…the GPCRs, the G protein coupled receptors — that’s one of the communication systems that it affects — that 50%, perhaps up to 50% of drugs excluding antibiotics are used to address those systems. Those are the systems that fluorides poison. Therefore, 50% of what drug companies are making is off the fluoride poisoning our biochemical system.
On this research (NRC 2006), Dr. John Doull was the Chairman of the panel. He says, “When we look at the studies that have been done, we felt like (found that) many of the questions are unsettled.”
The Cochrane Review was a review published that is independent of financial interests and is supposed to (be free of bias)….They found that studies that are purporting to show fluoridation’s ability to reduce tooth decay are outdated, biased, and were conducted before the widespread use of fluoridated dental products. In other words, they were scientifically invalid.
The York Review which the CDC frequently uses says that …the York reviewers came back and said, “We’re concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence…We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”
Fluoride’s benefit comes from topical application, not ingestion. There is therefore no need to swallow any fluoride. In the July 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, they reported that “fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection.” I’ve got a link to that in your email.
The CDC is the one who’s come out and said that “fluoride is good”. However, when that was researched, it was the CDC’s Oral Health Division, and there were no toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Division that participated in this or did any research on the biochemical effects of fluoride.
One other thing on contamination, and I can send you guys an email — but Phyllis Mullenix PhD did a study last year that came out where she took batches of the fluoridation chemicals to look for other contaminants in them. And she found cadmium, uranium, arsenic, of course some arsenic occurs naturally, but it is a known carcinogen, and high levels of aluminum. …(unintelligible)… aluminum in the biochemical system.
I believe that the initiation of dental instruction to kids — using toothpaste, using toothbrushes, flossing — is coincident with the fluoridation and is the result (cause) of any decrease that you see in dental caries.
I’m open to any questions.
(No questions were asked. This was the end of the Joint Health Committee meeting.)
——————————
A review of the biochemistry and physiology of fluoride was presented in the Secure Arkansas post preceding this one which can be accessed here.
Shown immediately below is a letter that was emailed to the Arkansas legislature and the Department of Health on October 5, 2015 from Sandra Young, MD.
_ _ _ _ _
In case you weren’t aware, the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 197 in 2011 mandating water fluoridation for all water treatment plants that served 5000 customers or more. This is causing untold harm to the citizens of Arkansas, and this was done as a response to a recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control's Oral Health Division (CDC), the American Dental Association (ADA), and the Pew Foundation.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents showed that since the 1970s, dental health professionals alone in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have controlled the agency’s stance supporting water fluoridation. A request for the names and job descriptions of all persons in CDC that have had input into CDC’s decision to support fluoridation listed no CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division. Water, health, and political leaders have believed that the CDC utilized its broad array of internal expertise in assessing research on whole-body, outside-the-mouth harm from fluoridation.
Even after a 2006 report from the National Research Council documented extensive amounts of basic research never conducted on whole-body fluoride impacts, the CDC continued promoting fluoridation while stating on its website, “Extensive research conducted over the past 60 years has shown that fluoridation of public water supplies is safe and effective for all community residents.” On the contrary, there is an increasing body of literature in epidemiology, toxicology, clinical trials, and lab investigation of humans and animals, along with biochemical and molecular studies showing harm to the body from fluoride.
A white paper issued by the American Dental Association in 1979 stated: “Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program and that nonparticipation is an overt neglect of professional responsibility.” In other words, dentists are told not to study the science behind fluoride, yet if they do not promote water fluoridation, they are neglecting their professional responsibility. That’s almost like Congress passing a bill before they read it!
In the journal Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods, 2011, a 67 page article by Jeff Prystupa was published a review titled Fluorine—A current literature review. His conclusion was: “Due to its insatiable appetite for calcium, fluorine and fluorides likely represent a form of chemistry that is incompatible with biological tissues and organ system functions. Based on an analysis of the effects of fluoride demonstrated consistently in the literature, safe levels have not been determined nor standardized. Mounting evidence presents conflicting value to its presence in biological settings and applications. Evidence examined in this review of the literature, and specifically the recent report by the National Research Council (NRC), offer strong support for an immediate reconsideration concerning risk vs benefit. Consensus recommendations from several sources are presented.” http://www.dmww.com/upl/
The National Research Council report to which he referred was released on March 22, 2006. A 450 page review of fluoride toxicity, the report was 3 years in the making. It was administered by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The NRC concluded that the safe drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm at that time) caused significant damage to teeth, and placed consumers at elevated risk for bone damage, including bone fracture and joint pain. Because of this, the NRC recommended that the fluoride safety standard be reduced. In addition to its concerns about tooth and bone damage, the NRC identified a wide range of other health effects that may be associated with fluoride exposure.
The NRC states that fluoride has the ability to affect a wide range of systems in the body, particularly the brain and endocrine system. Therefore, the NRC’s research had numerous concerns and recommendations. One disease that has become rampant in the last century is Alzheimer’s with “no known cause”. When I graduated from medical school at UAMS in 1972, it was rare to infrequent to see a patient with Alzheimer’s disease. Noted on page 212 of the NRC report is the statement that “histopathological changes similar to those traditionally associated with Alzheimer’s disease in people have been seen in rats chronically exposed to AlF” (aluminum fluoride). Fluoride combines with aluminum allowing it to be transported across the blood-brain barrier and into the brain. Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain. The NRC concluded that more research is needed to clarify fluoride’s biochemical effects on the brain. p222
“The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short- and long-term memory.” p.223 “Additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning are needed.” p.223
There is an excellent YouTube video of Michael Connett reviewing the Fluoride and IQ studies. This can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Multiple studies have shown that fluoride affects the thyroid, usually causing hypothyroidism or occasionally causing a goiter. p262 Fluoride also alters the parathyroid. It can alter the pineal gland. It increases serum glucose and increases the severity of existing diabetes. Two studies show early menarche. Fluoride lowers testosterone levels in men. The NRC recommends further studies on the effects of fluoride on the endocrine system.
After creating the NRC Report, Dr. Hardy Limeback, a dentist and NRC Panel Member, once an avid proponent of water fluoridation, stated “In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming.”
Dr John Doull, NRC Panel Chairman said:
“What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled, and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”
The Cochrane Review was published June 2015. It is an independent UK review which found that studies purporting to show fluoridation’s ability to reduce tooth decay are out-dated, biased, and were conducted before the widespread use of fluoridated dental products: in other words – scientifically invalid. Figures that show there is a 35% reduction in cavities are based on the poor and on biased science. Even if there were a “benefit” based on sound-science, it only means a “benefit” of less than two primary teeth or one permanent tooth over a lifetime. The costs to remedy fluoride’s other health-damaging effects far exceeds any financial gain from this cavity reduction.
The CDC funded the Cochrane Review to upgrade the 2013 U.S. Community Preventative Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation (which itself is based on the same low-quality evidence.) When Cochrane's review didn't come out the way CDC would have liked, the CDC diverted attention away from Cochrane in favor of the outdated Task Force Review. The Task Review itself says the basis for its report is a previous 2000 fluoridation systematic review dubbed the "York Review". In 2003, York reviewers clarified: “We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence…We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”
Fluoride’s benefit comes from topical application, not ingestion. There is no need therefore to swallow any fluoride. The July 2000 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association reported that “fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection.” (Featherstone 2000 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Emphasis in the above quotes have been mine. They were done to emphasize that WATER FLUORIDATION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN TO BE SAFE. Rather, studies have shown that it affects nearly every body system adversely. If you want to see some of these studies yourself, you can go to http://fluoridealert.org/
I am requesting that you repeal Act 197 and remove the mandate to fluoridate our water for your health and mine, for your children and mine, for the sake of all persons in Arkansas.
Sincerely,
Sandra Young MD
——————————
Click here to listen to the audio-only of the minutes contained in this alert.
Be sure to read our upcoming articles. We have found more information concerning Lynn Mouden, DDS, the Chief Dental Officer for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). We think you’ll find it very enlightening…
Be sure to forward this email to your family and friends!
They may also sign up to receive our Action Alerts by clicking here.
Local control of water and our freedom from fluoride poison are important!
As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com. The Search box is a handy tool.
For more information about FLUORIDE, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!
Securing the blessings of liberty,
Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com
Share This Article
