Why It So Hard To Change The Way We Think About Fluoride?

 

 

 Why It So Hard To Change The Way  We Think About Fluoride? 

 

 

I’m posing a question.

Why is it that sometimes we get an idea so greatly ingrained in our mind that it seems almost impossible to forget it or change our thoughts? One of those ideas for me was coconut oil.

 

When I was growing up, I had been told that coconut oil was really bad for us and never to use it. They said coconut oil contained cholesterol and saturated fat. As I got older and started researching health and nutrition, I found out that pure organic coconut oil is actually very good for us and may be one of the best healing oils we can use for cooking, eating and also as a moisturizer for our skin. The cholesterol in the coconut oil is the “good” cholesterol that helps balance the “bad” cholesterol. There is even evidence that it can help prevent Alzheimer’s disease, because it supports brain health with its ketones. I had to quite literally change my mind from the way I had been taught to think about it.

 

I pose another question:

What if a doctor told you that he was going to prescribe a drug to you that had not been approved by the FDA, that he wanted your whole family to take it, that he was not going to be able to regulate the amount each one of you received, that it was actually not the right type of drug the tests had shown to work, that this drug had been proven NOT to work in the way he was prescribing, that it could also cause brittle bones in the elderly, and cancer in boys, that it could cause severe thyroid problems and that, oh by the way, it was actually a toxic waste material. Would you TAKE it? What would you DO?

 

I ‘ve now become quite aware of the newest studies that have been done on the drug, fluoride. I grew up thinking, as most people, that fluoride was good for my dental health. I had been told for as long as I can remember that fluoride was good for preventing cavities. It’s an idea that is so deeply ingrained into our consciousness that it’s hard to change the way we’ve been taught to think.

 

My daughter lost one of her very dearest friends in high school to a rare bone cancer. Everyone who knew this wonderful young man was torn up with grief. There was no explanation whatsoever why this dear boy suddenly developed such a terrible disease called Osteosarcoma.

 

Just recently, I learned about a study done in 2001 on fluoride and osteosarcoma, which was a critical study in the form of a PhD dissertation at Harvard University (Bassin, 2001). “The thesis, authored by Dr. Elise Bassin found a strong, statistically-significant relationship between “fluoride exposure during the 6^th through 8^th years of life (the “mid-childhood growth spurt”) and the later development of osteosarcoma among young males.” (1)

 

Dr. Bassin’s research was an apparently extremely well-researched and detailed study, with accuracy on the assessment of her subjects and the content of their drinking water. Her work detected a direct association with fluoride and osteosarcoma. Her work and her findings show the fact that “bone is the principal site for fluoride accumulation within the body, and the rate of accumulation is elevated during the periods of bone development. Thus the cells in the bone, particularly during the growth spurts, may be exposed to some of the highest fluoride concentrations in the body. “ (2) Her study shows that fluoride is in fact, toxic and a carcinogen. This rare form of cancer, osteosarcoma, shows up in these young men in their late teens and early twenties. Her research and her findings have never been disproven.

 

I then looked back at where fluoride was first introduced as the way to prevent tooth decay, and at the study used to promote it. It was a study done in the cities of Newburgh and Kingston, NY, which are about 40 miles apart. They found that “after 10 years of the trial (which was methodologically flawed), it looked as if there was a large decrease in dental cavities in the fluoridated community, compared to the non-fluoridated community. However, when children were re-examined in these two cities in 1995 (50 years after the trial began), there was practically no difference in the dental decay in the two communities. If anything, the teeth in the non-fluoridated Kingston were slightly BETTER (Kumar and Green 1998).” (3)

 

What it looks like to me is that there was a study, with no long-term effect yet in place that promoted the use of fluoride in our water to provide better dental health. Yet as the long-term studies were done, they found that was actually not the case. It did not help with dental health, and in fact was found to cause many other detrimental health problems as a result of this toxic drug being added to the water supply. It was added in a way that was not regulated in dosage or concentration, thus causing an accumulative effect in people’s bodies.

 

Another thing I have learned over the years in my research of health and nutrition is the immense importance of water for our health. I have found that the QUALITY of the water or food that we eat is of vital importance to our health and well-being. Research today would show that most disease is actually a result of chronic intercellular dehydration. Our bodies are about 66-72% water. Blood uses water to transport oxygen, nutrients, and antibodies to every part of our body. Dr. Batmanghelidj, M.D. has written many books on the healing power of water to treat what he calls chronic intercellular dehydration. (4) So, our water supply is a highly valued and precious commodity.

 

Of course we need to have pure water to drink, but fluoride is not added to the water to purify the water. It is added with the idea that it helps prevent tooth decay. But the studies done on tooth decay were done with calcium fluoride. Yet, the fluoride added to our drinking water is different: sodium fluoride and fluorosilicic acid, that can be contaminated with lead and arsenic, and are actually toxic waste from aluminum and fertilizer plants. (5) So, this is not a fluoride that would even help with dental decay.

 

Look at the study done by leading dental researchers showing results that the mechanisms of fluoride’s benefits were mainly “topical not systemic,” meaning that it worked some, when they put it on the tooth topically. It didn’t work, if at all, when ingested. (6)

 

My thoughts on this have been, if a toxic substance is found to not help and in fact actually cause harm to health, then why not stop using it?

I pose that question.

 

Many cities spend a great deal of money (as much as $1, 000,000.00 or more) on purchasing the toxic waste from the fertilizer plants to put into our water supply. It is actually toxic waste until the city purchases it, and then it is legally called a product, simply because it has been “purchased.”

 

This is a product that has been proven: to NOT be the correct type of fluoride, to NOT work in an ingested form, to be an unapproved drug that cannot be regulated in dosage, to cause osteosarcoma in males, and to NOT even help with dental health. Even though we have done this for so long and it is so ingrained in our thoughts, I am posing a suggestion that maybe it is time to keep our water free of this toxic waste and help our water supply, stay cleaner and safer for our citizens. I’ve changed the way I think about fluoride in our water the same way I changed the way I think about coconut oil. Is this product good for our health? Sometimes it isn’t easy to admit that maybe we should do things differently, even though we have been doing it this way for so long. Change is not always easy. It takes a strong person to make change happen.

 

Studies show that dental decay has been DECLINING in every country at about the same rate, even before fluoride was introduced. It is still declining, whether they have fluoride or not. (7) Is it because the toothbrush was introduced? Maybe our hygiene has just improved over the last decade?

 

What I do realize from my research is that ingested fluoride can cause severe health problems, including and not limited to thyroid health problems (8), brittle bones (9) and cancer. (10)

 

If you agree with me on the dangers of fluoride, and would like to stop this procedure of adding fluoride to our drinking water, please let your local city councilman know how you feel. I’m sure they would like to know how their area residents feel about this matter. The council really has its constituents’ best interest at heart. Many of them made their previous decisions based on what they thought was right, and what was in the overall best interest of the community. But with the latest scientific studies and information detailing the dangers regarding this issue, they should be able to make a more educated and healthy decision. Please help make water safer for everyone. Contact your local councilman today.

 

Because these toxins are currently in our water supply, like fluoride and chlorine, I sincerely recommend putting a water purification system in your whole house. You can absorb as much water through your skin in a shower or bath as consuming 8 glasses of water. At the very least, consider getting a water purifier for your shower that removes chlorine and fluoride, and only use pure drinking water for cooking and drinking.

 

Another negative result is that plastic water bottles contribute to landfills and BPA plastic ingestion. In my own opinion, it would be much more environmentally responsible and healthy to have the public water supply fluoride free, so that it isn’t harming our health or the earth.

 

As for me, I will forever wonder …if my daughters’ dear friend’s death from osteosarcoma was not a result of having fluoride in our water supply.

 

Resources:

1. Revisisting the Fluoride-Osteosarcoma connection in the context of Elise Bassin’s findings: Part 1 by Dr. Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and Michael Connett, submitted to the NRC review on the Toxicology of Fluoride in Water- page 1. March 2, 2005.
2. Revisisting the Fluoride-Osteosarcoma connection in the context of Elise Bassin’s findings: Part 1 by Dr. Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and Michael Connett, submitted to the NRC review on the Toxicology of Fluoride in Water- page 4. March 2, 2005.
3. Kumar, JV and Green, EL, (1998) Recommendations for Fluoride Use in Children, NY State Dental Journal, February, 41-48. And Source, 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, by Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, 315-229-5853, eevideo@northnet.org
4. Your Body Is Not Sick, Your Body’s Many Cries For Water by DR. FEREYDOON BATMANGHELIDJ, M.D. TRANSCRIPT OF HIS LECTURE

AT, THE GOVERNMENTAL HEALTH FORUM, IN WASHINGTON D.C., USA, MARCH 28TH—30TH, 2003

5. Connett, PhD, Paul. “50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation.” St. Lawrence University (Canton, N.Y.). These “50 Reasons” were first compiled by Paul Connett and presented in person to the Fluoridation Forum in Ireland in October 2000. The document was refined in 2004 and published in Medical Veritas. See: www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons.htm. In the introduction to this 2004 version it was explained that after over four years the Irish authorities had not been able to muster a response to the “50 Reasons,” despite agreeing to do so in 2000.
6. Levine, 1976, Ferjerskov, Thylstrup and Larsen, 1981; Carlos, 1983, Featherstone, 1987, 1999, 2000, Margolis and Moreno, 1990, Clark, 1993; Burt, 1994; Shellis and Duckworth, 1994 and Limeback, 1999, 2000), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ( CDC, 1999) and page 2, 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation, by Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, 315-229-5853, eevideo@northnet.org
7. Diesendorf, M. 1986, The Mystery Of The Declining Dental Decay. Nature, 322, 125-129.) and Colquhoun, J. (1997) “ Why I changed my mind on fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 29-44. http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm
8. Galletti, P. & Joyet, G. (1958) Effect on Flourine on Thyroidal Iodine Metabolism in Hyperthyroidism, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology, [18:11]02-1110 http://www.fluoridealert.org/galletti.htm and Ditkoff, B. A. and Lo Gerfo, P. (2000) The Thyroid Guide, Harper-Collins, NY 2000., and Lin, F. F. et al (1991) The relationship of a low–iodine and high–fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine deficiency Disorder Newsletter 7.
9. ATSDR ( 1993) Toxicological Profile for fluorides, Hydrogen /fluoride and Fluorine (F), US department of Health and Human Services, ATSDR/TP-91/17.)
10. Hoover, R. N. et al (1990) Fluoridation of Drinking Water and Subsequent Cancer Incidence and Mortality, report to the Director of the National Cancer Institute. And Revisisting the Fluoride-Osteosarcoma connection in the context of Elise Bassin’s findings: Part 1 by Dr. Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and Michael Connett, submitted to the NRC review on the Toxicology of Fluoride in Water- page 1. March 2, 2005.

By Nancy Addison, CHC, AADP, For more information go to www.organichealthylifestyle.com