Archive for June, 2013

Subject: On Gary Slade & Fluoride

Dear Mark Schultz,

This letter is in response to the recent article penned under your guidance as News and Observer Editor entitled “OWASA will continue fluoridating water in southern Orange County.”

Specifically I am rebutting Dr. Gary Slade, who serves as professor and director of the Oral Epidemiology Ph.D. program at the UNC School of Dentistry.  Gary was quoted in the aforementioned article alongside myself, making the most blatantly fallacious comments about the reality of this issue that reading them literally took my breath away.

In talking with the article’s author, Dr. Slade said the following which printed in your publication June 18:

Gary Slade

“If Orange County was to remove fluoride from the drinking water, that would mean that a bunch of people would have no choice in a certain aspect of their health because it’s pretty much impossible to buy bottled fluoridated water,”

This was breathtaking because never before had I considered that I would hear a pro-fluoride argument using the same ethical logic as an anti-fluoride argument.  How Slade was able to confuse and flip-flop the moral high-ground on this issue I am unsure, but I would bet money that his employer UNC has a few ethics 101 courses he could take which would point this out to him.

In case extracurricular learning does not fit into Slade’s schedule allow me, an amateur academic by comparison, explain;
  1. The University of North Carolina Chapel Hill first began medicating the water supply with fluoride in Orange County by fiat in approximately 1964.
  2. In 1977, the bureaucratic Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) was formed and given control of our public water supply.  They stubbornly continue pouring medicine into our water up to present day.
  3. Fluoridation as a policy originated in the US Public Health “Service,” an arm of the Federal Security Agency who’s head at the time was Oscar Ewing, an ex-lawyer for the Aluminum Company of America
  4. In 1953 Oscar Ewing retired to Chapel Hill and helped set up the Research Triangle Corporation
  5. The Research Triangle Corporation gives money to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  6. One should wonder what influence Oscar Ewing had within the public health department of UNC who first began fluoridating Orange County’s water
  7. In reality, the people living in OWASA’s public water district never had a choice about this –  especially those born after the practice began
  8. To assert that the cessation of water fluoridation, which was decided by none of us, is “removing choice” is simply logic that is absolutely dead-on-arrival.

Fluoride is an additive costing taxpayers in excess of $100,000/year.  It is added by the government without the consent of the governed; why does Gary pretend it is anything less?  If the city government & overzealous quacks like Slade were not so intent on medicating our drinking water, it would only contain trace levels of Calcium Fluoride, depending on geography, which is completely different than the fertilizer waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid purchased and administered by OWASA to drug all of Chapel Hill.

By the way, most of this information can be gleaned from OWASA’s own documents, made publicly available on their website.

Since fluoridation is a public policy done to us, the citizens, one who becomes aware of the water “treatment” can only ask questions after the fact.  If those questions lead you to doubt the efficacy of public water fluoridation, what are your choices? This is a key question Slade completely fails to ask himself since the answer is yet again, the opposite of the reality he is trying to project.

Why can’t Slade acknowledge that one could easily add fluoride to their non-medicated tap water if they wanted to?  Like all medicine doesn’t this make the most sense? Slade also makes the wrong assumption that he and the government are the ultimate authority on what is healthy or not,  shouldn’t that be left to the individual to decide?    Gary implies in his statement that we all consent and agree to the stated benefits of fluoridation, when it is abundantly clear that we do not!

Slade and others of his ilk believe this is not a decision you are able to make for yourself, he would rather the government make that decision for you.   This is stunning for a doctor to admit in such a public manner, since an ethical doctor would uphold the right of all individuals to consent to what medicine is (or is not) added to their own drinking water.

Slade’s health claims regarding fluoride only further confirm my assertion that fluoride is a drug and therefore illegally added to our drinking water.  How does Slade reconcile that it has its own national drug code # 68032-383, is regulated by the FDA, and requires a prescription for dosages lower than the dose administered by OWASA per 1 liter of Orange County Public Water? Doesn’t Slade know it’s against the law to administer medicine without a proper license?  Slade’s lack of knowledge on these most basic realities of the issue are exposed even further when he expands on the ridiculous notion that finding fluoridated bottled water would be “pretty much impossible” and the apparent main concern of OWASA customers, should they suddenly discover that OWASA stopped medicating their water supply.
He said later,
“Someone can currently buy bottled water without fluoride, or they can put a filter on that is able to remove fluoride. If fluoride is taken out of the water, the opposite does not apply.”

This type of logic is typical of tyrannical government servants and medical “authorities” who believe freedom of choice means one of two things;

  • you are free to remove the medicine they forcefully add to the public water
  • free to purchase bottled water without fluoride

Does that sound like a free choice to you?  None of these options are “free,” especially in consideration of the below:

1) It is incredibly easy to find bottled water that is fluoridated already. Is Slade not aware that most bottled water originates from municipal water sources which  in the United States, are fluoridated more than 80% of the time?

By contrast it is actually much harder to find truly non-fluoridated bottled water. Further to my point – many companies strangely advertise the addition of fluoride to their bottled water. You may have seen this at grocery stores called “Nursey Water.”  It is marketed to unsuspecting mothers- a fact I find incredibly disturbing.  For Slade to suggest that fluoridated bottled water is even close to impossible to find is generously speaking, ignorant hyperbole.

"Nursey Water" Creepy!

“Nursey Water” …”Since 1948!

To illustrate this here is a list of major bottled water brands who admit fluoride is added to their product, a fact you would not be able to discern by looking at their bottle alone:

Source: BottledWater.org

  • Alhambra
  • Arrowhead
  • Belmont Springs
  • Crystal Rock
  • Crystal Springs
  • Deer Park
  • Diamond Springs
  • Hinkley Springs
  • Ice Mountain
  • Kandiohi
  • Kentwood Springs
  • Mayer Bros.
  • Mount Olympus
  • Nursery Water
  • Ozarka
  • Poland Spring
  • Pure Flo
  • Puritan Springs
  • Shenandoah
  • Sierra Springs
  • Sparkletts
  • Zephyrhillis

2)  It is cost prohibitive to filter out the medicine added to your tap water which in a painfully ironic way, ends up hurting worst the same class of citizens public health do-gooders are claiming to help.  I know this myself, since I have had to spend more than $400 on equipment required to remove the medicine and contaminants lovingly added by Durham, a cost many would not bear.

The frustrating thing about fluorosilicic acid is that a cheap Britta filter will not remove it whatsoever, which makes access to the correct filters legitimately impossible for some. The only way I have discovered over the long term to remove FSA from my tap water is with steam distillation, a time & energy consuming process that removes the water from heavier elements contained in the tap water.  Unfortunately, distillation still does not even solve the problem of  showering in the highly corrosive hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is absorbed through your skin & accumulates in your bones over time.

It should be lucid by now, but these are not options. The citizens pay for and have the right to a public utility, water, without medication being added to it by force.  How this is not evident to a professed doctor, Gary Slade, is something I hope he will be able to explain after reading this.

In closing I would just like to say that since becoming an anti-fluoride activist it has been a most curious phenomenon to witness – that many of the most rabid pro water fluoridationists like Slade are dentists, even though one might expect that if fluoride worked as claimed it would put them out of business. With this in mind it was no surprise to me that Gary Slade, a dentist who teaches public health at the UNC school of dentistry, was published promoting the forced medication of all of Chapel Hill.  At least in Orange County it is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Slade’s employer, the citizens have to thank for their medicated tap water in the first place.

Hopefully this adds some valuable color to Slade’s comments which will help your readership understand their illogicality and offensively spurious nature.

Sincerely Yours,

Corey Sturmer

http://www.durhamagainstfluoride.com

Contact GARY SLADE Today

Dr. Gary Slade
Department of Dental Ecology
UNC School of Dentistry
CB# 7450
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7450

Telephone: (919) 843-0419
Fax: (919) 843-1170
Email: gary_slade@dentistry.unc.edu

Source: News & Observer

By Jane Porter — jporter@newsobserver.com

A practice that most North Carolinians do without thinking much about it – drinking fluoridated water from local systems – has become a controversial topic in parts of the Triangle.

On Thursday, the Orange County Water and Sewer Authority will hear petitions from citizens who want the county to stop fluoridating public water. And in Durham on Thursday, Board of Health directors will hear from a subcommittee that was asked to look into the issue.

Fluoride opponents point to a book, “The Case Against Fluoride,” to support their argument that fluoridating drinking water amounts to adding hazardous waste to the public water supply. They say fluoride is potentially hazardous to human health and is not as beneficial in preventing tooth decay as once thought.

Nearly 90 percent of North Carolina residents who drink from local water systems drink fluoridated water. It has been standard practice in most North Carolina counties for 50 years.

But after some Durham residents complained, the county’s Board of Health assembled a subcommittee in March “to evaluate the addition of fluoride to city drinking water and come back with a recommendation,” said Vicki Westbrook, the city’s assistant director of water management. The board is expected to hear the subcommittee’s recommendation at a meeting Thursday.

Corey Sturmer, a Durham citizen who opposes water fluoridation practices, said he and other activists have been unsuccessful in bringing the issue to the attention of Raleigh officials.

“Raleigh, unfortunately, has been provided with copious amounts of scientific data, repeated appearances by myself and other citizens and even notifications that what they are doing breaks current state and federal drug laws,” Sturmer said.

Efforts to reach Raleigh’s assistant director of public utilities were unsuccessful, but a page on the City of Raleigh website indicates its continued support of current fluoridation practices.

Continue Reading @ News & Observer…

The Portland branch of the NAACP has recently declared that they are opposed to the fluoridation of our water supplies.  This makes a lot of sense in context & is principally consistent with the stated mission of the NAACP, shown below:

The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.

As we know community water fluoridation is a highly discriminatory policy which disproportionately harms people & ethnic minorities of lower economic standing, who naturally have a harder time affording the expensive specialized filters needed to remove the toxic hydrofluorosilicic acid from their tap water.   As a personal example it has cost me more than $400 in equipment just to remove that which the city adds to the water I already pay for!  This certainly represents a cost anyone would not want to bear if they didn’t have to, most of all those without the disposable income to do so.

Since the less affluent are forced to more often consume public drinking water & can neither afford the filters or purified water, they unknowingly consume this toxic liquor of contaminants on a constant basis which accumulates in their bodies over time & is linked to a myriad of adverse health effects, some of which are alluded to by Clifford Walker in the video above.  As opposed to what the government will tell you, this is not a humanitarian effort which ensures the equality of rights among all citizens, it is the exact opposite.  It violates informed consent laws and removes the right to choose what goes into your body and what does not.  Unfortunately we are now also finding out that it does little to even help benefit your teeth as the Center for Disease Control reports 40% of adolescents in America are now suffering from overexposure to fluoride & dental fluorosis. (Source: CDC)  This is just one of the visible manifestations of overexposure which is accompanied by many other problems we are just now learning about(See: 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoride).  It is no surprise then that we see these rates of overexposure with 2nd & 3rd generations of fluoridated people now growing older.  .

Water is a natural resource that covers roughly 70% of the earth & makes up approximately 65% of our body which means we have the right to water free from pollutants, period.  This is especially true when citizens pay for the water & pollutants are introduced without their consent thanks to bureaucratic intervention based on dubious motivations and corrupt business practices.  In light of these basic truths Portland Chair of the NAACP Veteran’s Committee & longtime NAACP member Clifford Walker speaks above in opposition to this nearly 60 year old practice.  I have tried in the past to inform our city bureaucrats that contrary to conventional wisdom, community water fluoridation has had a history of opposition from minority groups and those involved with the civil rights movement.

In an effort to inform the Durham bureaucrats of this fact I appeared at this December 2012 health board meeting to encourage them to consider the other side of the fluoridation argument and what character of people are against it.   In the video above I read the following three quotes which demonstrates the strong anti-fluoride tradition woven throughout the civil right’s movement.

From William Owens, President of the 5,000-member-strong Coalition of African American Pastors:

“African Americans have more kidney disease and more diabetes, but nobody elected to tell us that kidney patients and diabetics are more susceptible to harm from ingested fluorides… We need to investigate this Fluoridegate mess. This is a civil rights and environmental justice issue.”

From Bernice King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr.:

“Water fluoridation needs to end. It is good that organizations are lending their support to help push this outdated and harmful practice of fluoridation toward collapse.”

From Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr.:

“This is a civil rights issue. No one should be subjected to drinking fluoride in their water, especially sensitive groups like kidney patients and diabetics, babies in their milk formula, or poor families that cannot afford to purchase unfluoridated water. Black and Latino families are being disproportionately harmed.”

Since the injustice perpetrated by public water fluoridation is both ubiquitous and quite obvious now, I have contacted the local NAACP chapters in the area and invited them to alert their membership of the upcoming public discussion on water fluoridation happening this Thursday, June 13th at the Orange County OWASA Board Meeting.   I have the official announcement below, along with the facebook invite & videos of me alerting the media to cover this very important issue!

The OWASA Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in OWASA’s Community Room, 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro.

Facebook Invite

Item 5 of the Agenda is to Consider Citizens’ Petitions regarding Fluoridation of OWASA Drinking Water. The June 13th agenda is available on our website (under About OWASA/Board of Directors’ Meeting).

Thank you,

Andrea Orbich, CMC

Executive Assistant

aorbich@owasa.org

Orange Water and Sewer Authority

phone: 919-537-4217

June 13, 2013 OWASA Agenda

Facebook Invite

The Orange Water and Sewer Authority, a body of  “directors” who were appointed by the Chapel Hill Town Council to oversee the management of Our water, has made an announcement that they are going to consider Our petitions against the medication of our water supplies this coming Thursday June 13, 2013.

Also known as OWASA this body of people decide whether or not the Orange County, Chapel Hill & Carrboro area will continue a nearly 60 year old policy of medicating our public drinking water.  This excerpt from OWASA’s website says clearly that they are tasked with “Making policy decisions,” which Fluoridation most certainly is:

OWASA is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors. The Chapel Hill Town Council appoints five, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen appoints two and the Orange County Board of Commissioners appoints two Board Members. The OWASA Board adopts the annual budget; sets rates, fees and charges based on cost-of-service principles; approves bond issues to fund capital projects; makes policy decisions; and appoints the Executive Director, General Counsel and Independent Auditor.

Please see the official note from Executive Assistant Andy Orbich;

The OWASA Board of Directors will meet on Thursday, June 13, 2013, at 7:00 p.m., in OWASA’s Community Room, 400 Jones Ferry Road in Carrboro. 

Item 5 of the Agenda is to Consider Citizens’ Petitions regarding Fluoridation of OWASA Drinking Water.  The June 13th agenda is available on our website (under About OWASA/Board of Directors’ Meeting).

Thank you,

Andrea Orbich, CMC

Executive Assistant

aorbich@owasa.org

Orange Water and Sewer Authority

phone: 919-537-4217

I have appeared at OWASA meetings twice now along with several others in the area to protest the forced medication of our water supplies, and I urge you to join us!  I will be attending to discuss the ethical problems with this practice with a specific focus on legality & liability risk.

I am hoping to make progress in this regard, since Chair of the OWASA Board Alan Rimer seems thus far desperately unaware that OWASA is even, as a board, medicating the water supply.  Understanding this is the most basic but CRUCIAL concept for our civil servants to grasp if we are ever to then communicate that they are liable for all the damage done as a result of this longstanding policy.

My second appearance resulted in a longer disquisition on the principles of this matter.  Board member Will Raymond in the below video actually lies, to my face, about what is stated very clearly on OWASA’s own website.  As you can see, even OWASA’s own documents state that Fluoride is a “Discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories” and yet in the below video Will Raymond refutes this obvious fact!

Substances in OWASA's Drinking WaterSource: OWASA.org

Will either does not read his organization’s own website or is just a liar and needs to be exposed:

I would also like to point out the recent video essay published here exposing in more detailed fashion that the OWASA Board as a whole seems not to understand this very basic obvious fact.   Click here to read “Why Doesn’t Government Know Their Own Definition Of A Medication?

If you would like to see the OWASA board’s incompetence exposed from Parker & Zach’s perspective, please give some time to his entry in the Operation Paul Revere Contest entitled “Obtuse Academy” (Runtime 50 minutes)

Source: WhyDon’tYouTryThis

Nearly 200,000 Australians have been released from the medical slavery that is artificial water fluoridation thanks to a major governmental policy change.

The Liberal National Party (LNP) government of the Australian state of Queensland has not only cut $14 million of funding that had previously been used for fluoridation, but has also decided to allow local councils to decide for themselves whether or not to fluoridate, a move that has already prompted the northern city of Cairns to end its water fluoridation program.

As reported by The Australian, former “One Nation” member of parliament (MP) Rosa Lee Long, who is now mayor of the north Queensland Tablelands Regional Council, successfully lobbied LNP to end a longstanding policy that compelled local communities to fluoridate without approval from local residents.

The government of Queensland last year also ended a policy that required larger communities to fluoridate their water, which is similar to existing fluoridation mandates in California and elsewhere.

So by the middle of March, Cairns’ more than 150,000 area residents will no longer be exposed to fluoride chemicals in the water, making it the seventh community in Queensland to end water fluoridation so far this year. Murgon, Wondai, Kingaroy, Nanango, Blackbutt, and South Burnett have all ended their water fluoridation programs since January which, combined with the area population of Cairns, represents nearly 200,000 people who will no longer be forcibly medicated with an unapproved drug.

“If people want to have access to fluoride, they need to take that up with their dentists,” said a local Cairns council spokeswoman about the policy change. “The decision has been made … [fluoride] shouldn’t be forced on people without consent.”

Australian health authorities admit water fluoridation is ‘involuntary medication’ of public

The Australian Dental Association (ADA) and various members of the establishment government in Australia raised their usual fear-mongering in response to the landmark decision — children’s teeth will rot out of their heads without fluoride, has been their response, which mimics the same tired and unproven argument used by many American officials to defend the outdated and dangerous practice of water fluoridation.

But Queensland’s LNP has remained steadfast in its decision, declaring forced water fluoridation to be “involuntary medication” of the public, regardless of someone’s own personal opinion on the efficacy and safety of fluoride. This declaration is key, as it highlights a reality about fluoride that few people are willing to admit — fluoride is a chemical drug that has never been proven safe and effective, but that is routinely added to water supplies without informed consent.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) likewise admits that water fluoridation is akin to forced medication, as the agency’s official stance on the chemical is that it is an “unapproved drug” when added to water supplies. It is a fact that the FDA has never approved fluoride as a safe and effective water supplement, which means adding it to public water supplies is an illegal administration of a drug without FDA approval, and without the informed consent of every person exposed to it.

You can learn more about the dangers of fluoride by visiting the Fluoride Action Network (FAN)

Sources for this article include: http://www.theaustralian.com.auhttp://www.hangthebankers.comhttp://www.fluoridealert.org/content/communities/
Related:

In this video-essay I will explore the art of debating the Fluoride issue, but vicariously & more importantly expose the frightening reality that our civil servants, the ones we pay with our tax dollars, do not even understand the basic definition of a medication.  This is tragic in consideration of the fact that for almost 60 years Durham, Raleigh & Chapel Hill has enforced a mandatory & systematic medication of our public water supplies with what turns out to be a known neurotoxin Sodium Fluoride & Hydrofluorosilicic Acid.

As a primer please watch Chair of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Alan Rimer express his utter incompetence on this subject during a “NRTS” meeting, which is closed to public comment & includes Perennial Government Pig & Public Health Terrorist Rebecca King who makes it her job to convince these ad-hoc committees that Fluoride is the best thing since sliced bread.


If you are wondering why bother with this mental exercise I say it is always diligent to point out the illegitimacy of our public servant’s arguments when they are claiming to provide a service that we do not want.

There are two main branches to the anti-fluoridation argument, as I see it:

1) One has versed themselves in some of the peer reviewed science which has been published since the compulsory fluoridation program first began in the 1950’s, and is concerned with adverse health risks associated with this policy.

2) A principled disagreement with the concept of forced medication via the public water supply.

Naturally one should be able to fuse both branches into a firm stance, especially if he or she is well learned in the clinical/scientific area.  Eventually in arguments the problem arises though how to reconcile #1, if in the case of #2 you must call it a medication?  Unfortunately in today’s pharmacrazy society the word medication  is often considered to have a positive connotation, whereas if you call Fluoridation a “poison” this requires you bear the burden of proof & engage in that discussion about the possible benefits in contrast to your perceived damage.  For arguments the waters become muddy very quickly in this later scenario & results in a less successful expose if you are not prepared to have that scientific discussion.

This is why a fluoride activist should always be as scientifically prepared as possible, else you may end up being deceived or run roughshod over by the dizzying hypocrisy and confusion exhibited below courtesy Allan Spalt.  Realizing how muddy the waters have become is always a sobering moment:

But what happens when one makes only the argument that he disagrees with the concept of being medicated through the water supply?

As I will show below, even when using the government’s own terminology to have a rational discussion the minions of the system CAN NOT COMPUTE and will sometimes resort to diversion, perverting the facts, or outright lying to maintain the upper hand.

The only unfortunate caveat to this perspective is that it must inherently use the language of those in Government,  who themselves claim a preventative benefit derived from the introduction of Fluoride to our water supply which defines it as medication –

Even though I also object to the assertion that there is some benefit derived.

In this spirit I appeared at the OWASA public meeting April 25 to ask the question “Does the OWASA board believe that they have the authority to medicate our water supply?”

To which the appointed OWASA Chair Alan Rimer says,

“That’s a Rhetorical question. The Board doesn’t need to answer that.”

The very next month OWASA Appointee Terri Buckner either reveals her stunning ignorance on the matter or issues the audience a bold face lie when she claims the Federal Drug Administration “does not define Fluoride as a drug.”

This, despite my prior appearance which offered a completely self evident truth that can not be refuted.

No matter what her reason for saying this falsehood, I will not be going to the State Board of Health as she suggests I will be asking her directly June 13 at the next OWASA board meeting & holding her accountable for these silly statements.

Please enjoy these events juxtaposed, and stay tuned for the next update.

If this juxtaposition does not hit your lie detector, please just follow this very simple equation:

A principled mind should easily grasp a proof which make the position self evident, and I have attempted to do this below & in the video above:

1) The Government says Fluoride is added to the water supply because they allege it prevents cavities

2) The FDA’s definition of a Drug/Medication is; “articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease”  [FD&C Act, sec. 201(g)(1)]

3) Therefore, the one SINGLE argument ever perpetrated by pro-fluoridationists has to be at bare minimum considered “medication of the drinking water.”

One must then ask, since this is such an easy concept, why do those in Government who proudly proclaim on their websites that Fluoride is added to the water for “dental health,” not even admit this basic fact in a face to face meeting?

The answer is two fold-

1) In the most correct sense what the Government is doing by medicating the water supply is already illegal.  This is true for many more ethical & legal reasons than just the Federal Drug Administration’s requirement that you have a medical license & write a prescription to administer medicine to another person. But that ought to be enough.

Of all people, Pharmacist & Mayor of Raleigh Nancy MacFarlane should get this but she is a complicit liar and will stubbornly stare you dead in the face without giving a damn about the state policy to hurt your family.  See below:

2) The Bureaucrats are allergic to the term medication because it implies a level of culpability, and since they subconsciously realize they do not have the moral high ground and are in fact fully aware that this is a corrosive toxic waste product of the aluminum & fertilizer industries, they do not want to be reminded of their acquiescence with a state-run eugenics operation which has wrought incalculable damage in the form of lost IQ, premature death, & systemic disease onto humankind.

Watch this phenomenon play out in real time as I educate people well advanced in age compared to me on how to be principled in their thinking.  Don’t confuse my tenacity for enjoyment – I wish I did not have to endure this mind numbing discussion but it is one that needs to be had for the good of all.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE: Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and Coronary Artery Disease

A January 2012 study published by the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System has linked Sodium Fluoride uptake with the hardening & calcification of major arteries, also known as Cardiovascular disease & the number one cause of death in the United States.

The study first appeared in the Nuclear Medicine Communications Journal, a “rapid communications journal publishing research and clinical work in all areas of nuclear medicine for an international readership,”  but these observations have not yet been picked up by the collective.  The research was performed by nuclear medicine physicians who retrospectively reviewed the imaging data and cardiovascular history of 61 patients who received whole-body sodium [F]fluoride PET/CT studies at their institution from 2009 to 2010. Fluoride uptake and calcification in major arteries, including coronary arteries, were analyzed by both visual assessment and standardized uptake value measurement.

In the introduction section it is interestingly noted that the phenomenon of hardening arteries & what risks that may pose to our health has been extensively studied, however Fluoride uptake & it’s clinical significance to coronary arteries has not yet been documented:

To predict and prevent any deadly cardiovascular events, extensive studies have been conducted to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular disease.  Over the past decade, many cardiovascular studies focused on the calcification process in atherosclerosis (hardening of arteries).  Calcification in atherosclerosis occurs through an active process that resembles bone formation and is controlled by complex enzymatic and cellular pathways.  Coronary artery calcification parallels atherosclerosis progress and is strongly and linearly correlated with fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in coronary arteries.  However, the clinical significance of fluoride uptake in coronoary arteries has not been documented.

The results of this study therefore have vast implications for our collectively becoming aware of one main contributing factor to the ongoing scourge heart disease, namely municipal water fluoridation.  This is especially true in consideration that 80% of Americans are since 1957 forcibly fluoridated  via their public drinking water & cardiovascular disease still remains the #1 cause of death in America (600,000/year).

Despite this study’s relative significance to the research produced by Harvard which concluded higher Fluoride uptake predictably lowers the Intelligence Quotient in humans, these specific conclusions have unfortunately not made it into mainstream news to the same degree. Although the full article admits more research should be conducted on the clinical significance of Fluoride uptake, this is the exact problem we face (lack of studies) nearly 60 years into the forced, highly systematic & ubiquitous fluoridation of our municipal water supplies!  One wonders the true extent of damage done if our scientists are only just now realizing the tragic link between Fluoride uptake & a disease that kills more Americans than one hundred and seventy  9/11s combined EACH YEAR

This blows a huge hole in the already horrendously flawed pro-fluoride argument which posits that drinking Fluoride only affects the teeth and does not have any health hazards to other organs of the body.  For fluoride fighters in the area, listen to me debunk local Public Health Terrorist Rebecca King once more, who ridiculously claims ingestion of fluoride is the best thing since sliced bread as it returns to the mouth in our saliva & continuously bathes our teeth in Fluoride-rich fluid! Such a bold faced & twisted manipulation of the facts is incredible in that it intrinsically admits Fluoride is penetrating all cells of the body- even the salivation glands.

So What were the results?

Patients

There were 58 male patients and three female patients. Detailed clinical histories and the presence of cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, obesity, and history of cardiovascular events, were obtained for all patients. The clinical characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Patients' Clinical CharacteristicsImaging and Statistical Analyses

sd_CTorthopedics_main_enCT and PET images were coregistered by the Philips Extended Brilliance workstation (Philips Healthcare). CT, PET, and fused PET/CT images were evaluated visually and semi-quantitatively simultaneously using the same workstation. All images were analyzed by two independent nuclear medicine physicians blinded to all patients’ clinical information. Inter-reader reproducibility was excellent and was evaluated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (0.89). Vascular calcification was identified as positive on CT images if the target was visually detectable with a greater than 130 Hounsfield units. CT-attenuated PET images were evaluated for fluoride uptake in major arteries. Background activity was based on the standardized uptake value (SUV) of the blood pool, which was calculated from the mean SUVs of three circular regions of interest (ROIs) placed in the left atrium, mid lumen of the aortic arch, and abdominal aorta at the level of the celiac trunk on axial images. The sizes of ROIs were 2cm in diameter for the left atrium and 1cm for the aortic arch and the abdominal aorta.

Results (Abbreviated, click link to view original article)

Patients’ age and reasons for sodium fluoride PET/CT imaging are summarized in Table 1.  Most patients were men with a median age of 66 years (27-91 years).  The majority of patients (69%) had more than one risk factor for coronary artery disease.

Arterial sodium Fluoride uptake and calcification

Arterial wall sodium fluoride uptake and calcification were evaluated in major arteries, including carotid arteries, the thoracic ascending (including aortic arch) aorta, the thoracic descending aorta, the abdominal aorta, femoral arteries, and major branches of coronary arteries. Iliac arteries were not evaluated because of frequently observed urinary and occasional bowel uptake in the pelvis, which interferes with the accurate assessment of iliac vessels. For coronary arteries, four major branches were evaluated. An example of fluoride uptake in femoral arteries is shown in Fig. 1. Orthogonal views of fluoride uptake in the aorta and coronary arteries are shown in Figs 2 and 3.
Figure1
Figure 2Figure3Relationship between coronary fluoride uptake and cardiovascular risk factors
The coronary arteries were also investigated for fluoride uptake. Four major branches of coronary arteries, including left main artery (LMA), left anterior descending (LAD), left circumflex (LCA), and right coronary arteriy (RCA) were evaluated. Fluoride uptake was more frequently observed in the LAD and LCAs.  A similar pattern was also identified in coronary artery calcification. In each individual coronary branch, calcification was more frequently observed than fluoride uptake (Table 2).  Table2
  • Among 10 patients who had significant three-vessel coronary calcifications, 80% demonstrated fluoride uptake in at least one coronary branch (data not shown).
  • Cardiovascular risk factors including hypertension, obesity, diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, smoking history, and history of coronary artery disease were reviewed in all patients (Table 3).
  • The majority of the patients (69%) had more than one cardiovascular risk factor; however, neither the individual cardiovascular risk factor nor the number of risk factors was significantly correlated with coronary fluoride uptake (Table 3).
Table3
Nine patients had a history of cardiovascular events. Among them, eight demonstrated identifiable coronary fluoride uptake. There was significant correlation between coronary calcification and fluoride uptake in this group evaluated by Fisher’s exact test (Table 3). All nine patients also demonstrated coronary calcification on CT images. We also compared the SUVmax in coronary arteries between patients with and without a history of cardiovascular events. The average coronary SUV max in patients with a history of cardiovascular events was 1.70, significantly higher than 1.39 for patients without a history of cardiovascular events (P=0.029, two-tailed Student’s t-test). No correlation was observed between cardiovascular risk factors and fluoride uptake in other vascular territories (noncoronary).

Discussion Highlights

Vascular calcification, in particular coronary calcification, has been shown to predict vascular events [25–27]. 

In our study, fluoride uptake and CT calcification are significantly correlated in the same arterial territories, except in the abdominal aorta. This is because of the extremely high positive rate (97%, only one patient demonstrated negative uptake) for fluoride uptake in the abdominal aorta.

 Fluoride uptake either overlaps with calcification or locates adjacent to the detectable calcium deposits, suggesting that fluoride uptake and detectable calcification represent different stages of the atherosclerotic process.

 We found that fluoride uptake in coronary arteries is significantly correlated with a patient’s history of cardiovascular events, and the uptake value in patients with cardiovascular events was significantly higher than that in patients without cardiovascular events. These results further support the fact that higher fluoride uptake in coronary arteries indicates increased cardiovascular risk.

The combination of sodium [18F]fluoride PET and CT is a promising imaging modality that provides both metabolic and anatomic information in evaluating vascular calcification. However, large-scale studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance of fluoride PET/CT for imaging atherosclerosis.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that vascular calcification and fluoride uptake are significantly correlated in the same arterial territory, although not necessarily overlapping in the same anatomic locations. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. Combined anatomic and metabolic imaging with sodium [18F]fluoride PET/CT offers a promising, noninvasive method to evaluate atherosclerosis.