Posts Tagged ‘system’

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your tireless effort to bring awareness of the effects of water fluoridation to human health. I live in the Triangle area and am also concerned about this issue.

I thought you might be interested in a recently published article in a top level journal that links fluoridated water with ADHD and mental disorders. Here it is :

Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Toxicity

Attached is the original Lancet article.

Thanks,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hi,

Thanks for writing & sharing this article, although I am already aware of these studies & have written about them extensively on my website.

One of the most common criticisms of these studies is that the subjects in the studies were drinking water at a much higher concentration level than what is commonly seen in municipal water supplies across America.  However this observation does not negate the fact that drinking fluoride is simply linked to the lowering of IQ, so we naturally should question it’s efficacy & risk/reward.

Also the critics never address or even acknowledge the fact that having control over ‘concentration level’ does not = having control over the dosage of fluoride – which inherently varies from person to person to an extreme degree.

Obviously if we care more about our brains than our dental health then we should be concerned…but what happens when you discover that drinking fluoride ALSO does nothing for your dental health?

I’ll tell you what happens – we expose the fraud!  Which is what I try to do with my website, presentations & other activism.

How long have you lived in the Triangle?  When did you learn about fluoridation?

Would you be interested in speaking out or doing any activism?

Let me know your thoughts,

Corey

_________________________________________________

Hi Corey,

Thanks for your email. The Lancet article is actually a meta-analysis of the effects of industrial chemicals, including fluoride, on brain development.

I am a neurobiologist and my area of interest is sensory processing in the Central Nervous System. Recently I have partly shifted my research focus to study the effects of man-made chemicals on the developing brain.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that the rates of increase of human chronic diseases including neuro-developmental disease (ADHD, autism) and metabolic disease  (diabetes, obesity) parallel the rates of exposure of man-made chemicals in the environment.  Of the >80,000 chemical released into the environment, scientists have documented the safety and health effects of only a very tiny fraction of these chemicals. What’s more, many of the chemicals that are being used in the USA are in effect banned in the EU and other countries.

As a foreign citizen I feel I have no right to outwardly protest or demonstrate against the laws of this country. As a practicing scientist, it is also a risk to my job to speak out about issues which can possibly irk corporate interest (See Tyron Hayes, Ignacio Chapela and many other scientists).

However I do care very much about the citizens’ health and feel strongly that people need to be more aware of the chemicals found in their food or water and what these chemicals can do to their health.

Your perseverance to bring awareness of the fluoride in drinking water issue is an admirable undertaking and is indeed laudable. I apologize for my inability to be more involved, but please know that I support your tenacity and hard work.

Best,

Anonymous

_________________________________________________

Hello,

At the very least, would you allow me to publish this e-mail exchange with your identity kept completely anonymous?
I feel it would be enlightening to the other viewers of the site & I would ensure that you approve of the message before it is published.  I understand your position completely & know you have to work within the confines of your own circumstance to fight the perceived injustices, like we all do equally. I am just trying to suggest some way we can make this exchange productive, even if you are bound not to do anything more visibly.
Thank you for your encouragement & interest in my work, it is always appreciated when someone takes the time to make their thoughts known.
Let me know what you think!
Corey

Related Articles:

Advertisements
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

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.