Editor's note: We strongly encourage our readers to make a donation to this non-profit organization. You have a right to drink clean, natural and safe water. Those who want fluoride or believe fluoride prevent any dental disease, please take fluoride supplements.
Dear Readers,
Before we get to news of another town voting out fluoridation here is a quick update on our annual fundraiser.
Yesterday was fantastic! Largely because of three very large and unexpected donations we almost doubled our total. We went from $16,621 from 191 donors to $32,051 from 220.
All of a sudden that ambitious total of $100,000 from 500 or more donors by midnight December 31, looks a little more attainable. This giant leap in our fortunes has also greatly improved the morale of the whole FAN team. Thank you all who have donated so far. Whether large or small every donation counts.
Exciting new premiums
For those who are still mulling things over maybe we can tempt you with some exciting new premiums. Thanks to the creative efforts of a brilliant young graphic designer (DJ Catrow), we have the following items to offer:
Bumper sticker (new)
T-shirt
Tote Bag
Coffee mug
Stainless steel water bottle
All of them have our web address on them plus a slogan. The slogan I like best is on the coffee mug: Fluoride: Not in My Coffee. You can see what these premiums look like by clicking here (scroll down a bit). Note you can magnify the images of the items that interest you.
If you have already donated and would like one of these premiums and your donation covers this amount (or you would like to add to it) please email us at ellen@fluoridealert.org and we will arrange to send it to you. Please allow several weeks for delivery.
Big Victory in Canada
Following hard on the news of several other communities voting out fluoridation -- Grantsburg, Wisconsin (Dec. 12), Welsh, Louisiana (Oct. 4), and Mechanicsville, Iowa (Apr. 17) -- here is news from Carole Clinch about another victory in Canada. Carole writes:
Moncton Council in New Brunswick, Canada voted this evening - Monday, December 19, 2011 to turn artificial water fluoridation off. The vote was 7-4 for the motion to turn it off. The motion voted on states: "that the introduction of hexafluorosilicic acid into the Greater Moncton water supply cease for a period of five years, at which time it will be reviewed."
Moncton also sells fluoridated water to 2 other communities: Dieppe and Riverview. Dieppe recently voted 5-3 to turn it artificial water fluoridation off. Dieppe's resolution, approved the week before, on Monday, December 12, 2011 reads: "that Council wishes, further to the new information received since the October 24, 2011 meeting, to reconsider its decision and recommend to the City of Moncton the discontinuance of water fluoridation."
Olivier Weil has led the group in New Brunswick and has demonstrated extremely effective communication skills.
Here's the news story.
You can hear a 17-minute interview that was broadcast on a radio station in London, Ontario this morning. Carole talks about the Moncton vote and other aspects of how fluoridation is unraveling in Canada.
Important letter to the editor
As important as this victory is, the information contained in the following letter to the editor of a newspaper in the Moncton area is equally important because it too has nation-wide implications. Note that the writer is complaining of the obvious bias of the medical officer of health who testified on behalf of retaining fluoridation in a meeting held in Dieppe. We have seen this bias from many medical officers of health testifying in other communities in Canada but they seldom get called out on it. It is great news that both Canadian citizens and Canadian decision-makers are seeing through the ill-informed "robotic" messages delivered to them by these local medical officers of health, who are simply obeying orders of the pro-fluoridation zealots at Health Canada. Here is the letter.
Incensed with fluoride 'lobbyist'
To The Editor:
The three communities of greater Moncton have been debating water fluoridation. Dieppe council recently had a presentation by the southeast New Brunswick medical officer of health. The doctor gave a pro-fluoride talk that was basically summarized on one slide: fluoridation reduces dental decay rates by 20-40 per cent, fluoridation is proven safe, fluoridation reduces dental inequalities, and fluoridation saves money.
When it came time for councillors to ask questions, one of them remarked that in his supporting materials the doctor had listed the year 2000 York University Review as a study supporting fluoridation (to which the doctor concurred). The councillor then proceeded to quote a letter from the chair of the York study that refuted each one of the arguments advanced by the good doctor: fluoridation reduces dental decay rates by at most 15 per cent, is not proven to be safe or to reduce dental inequalities and does not save money.
When asked about this apparent misrepresentation, the doctor admitted he had never read the York review despite having indicated it supported fluoridation! The councillor then asked about another study by the National Research Council in 2006, which found health problems associated with fluoridation but went unmentioned in the presentation. The doctor turned beet-red and became quite tongue-tied when confronted by these alleged omissions and distortions.
Another council member declared that the doctor made an excellent fluoride lobbyist! Clearly shaken, the doctor left the meeting with his head hung low and his credibility shattered.
An officer of public health is not supposed to have bias. When helping non-experts to make medico-related policy decisions, he has a duty of care to summarize the science based on the facts - including the valid/copious evidence against fluoride. On an issue that affects the health of everyone consuming city water, such bias illustrates a level of ignorance bordering on professional misconduct. I am outraged that my tax dollars subsidize lobbyists who act with a deplorable disregard for professional ethics and public health.
Armand Melanson,
Dieppe
Just as Canadian decision-makers have to be suspicious about robotic messages coming from Health Canada so too do American decision-makers need to be careful about messages originating from the CDC. First, they need to know that statements made by the CDC do not represent the input from any division at this large 20,000 strong federal agency other than the CDC's Oral Health Division. This division consists of only 30 staff, who are largely dentally trained and whose mission is to promote fluoridation. They are not qualified to make pronouncements on the safety of fluoridation but they do so all the time and people believe them. When pushed for clarification it becomes clear that the Oral Health Division personnel rely on other agencies for input on safety. This too is presented in a biased fashion. For example of bias look how the CDC uses the York Review and compare it with the comments later published on the York Review website below:
The CDC claimed that the York Review showed that:
- Community water fluoridation reduces tooth decay.
- Fluoridation is still effective even with the use of many other sources of fluoride.
- There is no clear association between fluoridation and bone fractures or cancer.
- There appears to be no difference between benefits from natural and artificial fluoridation.
- There is an association between the water fluoride concentration and the occurrence of dental fluorosis.
- No clear evidence of other potential negative health effects were found.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/systematic.htm
However, the York authors state on their website that:
We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Thanks to everyone for your donations and everything else you are doing to end fluoridation in your own community or country.
Sincerely,
Paul Connett,
FAN Director
How to Give a Tax-Deductible
Donation to FAN
To make a tax-deductible contribution to the Fluoride Action Network, you can quickly and easily Donate Online.
You can also send a check or money order to:
Fluoride Action Network
82 Judson Street
Canton, NY 13617
To make this fundraising effort more interesting we are offering a number of premiums throughout the month.
Click here to see our New Premiums!
Thank you for your continued support of FAN's efforts to end the irrational practice of fluoridation.
Sincerely,
The FAN Team
Comments