Guest guest Posted August 20, 2004 Report Share Posted August 20, 2004 Comments? Misty L. Trepke http://www..com Fluoride:The Thyroid, Alzheimers and CFS --- How toxins affect the thyroid gland Toxins from the environs may alter the thyroid function. duardo Gaitan from Univ Mississipi found that drinking water contaminated with petrochemicals results in blocked activity of thyroid hormones. ( Ref Jounal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 1983 Vol. 56) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) can alter thyroxine levels and result in symptoms of thyroid disorders (Science, vol.267) It is now understood that the environment, diet and nutrition influence thyroid function in a number of ways and may relate to thyroid disorders of non-specific origin (Annual Review of Nutrition -1995 Vol 15) Another line of evidence indicating that fluoride is an 'endocrine disrupter' stems from the number of studies that indicate the fluoride may inhibit the functioning of the thyroid gland. Andreas Schuld, president of a group called Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children, has prepared an excellent summary of the evidence that points in this direction To put the matter as simply as I can, his group has been able to show that areas of " endemic fluorosis " are also areas designated as being endemic with iodine deficiency disorders (IDD). Thyroid hormones are absolutely essential for normal growth and development. Hyperthyroidism means that the thyroid gland is producing too much of the thyroid hormones, T3 and T4. These two hormones have 3 and 4 iodine atoms respectively. Schuld's group has also shown that there is a remarkable similarity between the symptoms listed for hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid gland) and those reported for fluoride poisoning. Putting these two conditions together, it appears that fluoride decreases the production of thyroid hormones. For a normal person if you are exposed to too much fluoride it could result in reducing thyroid hormone production below normal and necessary levels (i.e., hypothyroidism). It is not clear just how fluoride reducesthyroid hormone production. The theory is that since Flouride, fluorine, and chlorine are " identical " to the molecular structure of iodine, the thyroid detects it as such. Alternatively, fluoride inhibits the " enzymes " inside the gland which assemble the hormones from its chemical precursor, the amino acid 'tyrosine'. -------------------------------- Another concern is that women who bottle feed their babies and who live in fluoridated communities are not being adequately warned that they should be using non-fluoridated bottled water, not tap water, to make up the formula. Underlining these concerns is the fact that fluoride levels in mothers' milk is naturally very low, averaging approximately 0.01 ppm (22, p 301), which is one hundred times lower than fluoridated tap water. Even when the mother herself is drinking fluoridated water, very little of it gets passed on in her breast milk. One has to wonder then, if fluoride is necessary for healthy tooth development, how it was that God (or evolutionary forces) 'failed' in this important development by limiting the supply of fluoride to the newly born baby. Why is it that human milk provides the baby with such low levels of fluoride if much higher levels are deemed necessary for healthy teeth? Who is correct? God or the US Public Health Service? -- Fluoride's *toxicity* is rated higher than 'lead'. The US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level for lead in water is 15 ppb (parts per billion) whereas the level allowed for fluoride is 4,000 ppb. The recommended level for artificial fluoridation of the drinking water of 1 part per million (1 ppm == 1,000 ppb) was established in 1945, and it hasn't been changed since, even though today we (and our children) are getting fluoride from many other additional sources, including toothpaste, other dental products, mouthwashes, processed food, some vitamin tablets, and beverages. The theory behind fluoride's purported benefit to teeth is that the fluoride ion displaces the hydroxide ion from the calcium hydroxyapatite in the tooth enamel, forming the substance calcium fluorapatite, which is more resistant to acid attack. A second suggestion is that fluoride kills some of the decay causing bacteria in the mouth by poisoning their enzymes . However, these mechanisms pose huge questions, which have plagued this matter for over 50 years. 1) Can you poison the enzymes in the oral bacteria, without poisoning some of the enzymes in the rest of the body? Nearly every single chemical reaction in the body is steered by enzymes (enzymes are biological catalysts). --- In Europe, where nearly all the countries remain unfluoridated, the average DMFTs for the children are actually lower (i.e. better) than those for children in the US. Moreover, Ireland, the only country in Europe with significant fluoridation (about 73% of the population drink fluoridated water), rates sixth in a table of national average DMFTs in Europe ------------------------------ Fluoride: A Statement of Concern by Paul Connett, PhD Waste Not #459 1. I have been researching the literature on fluoride for just over three years. I approached this issue with an open mind. If I had any bias when I set out it was that those who were opposed to fluoridation were `crackpots'. 2. However, the more I have read the more concerned I have become over the dangers posed by fluoride and the very poor science underpinning its supposed efficacy in protecting children's teeth. How we ever allowed such a toxic substance into the drinking water is staggering. The benefits to teeth are questionable. The key initial studies which purported to show that fluoride was a benefit to teeth, conducted in Grand Rapids, Michigan (1945), Newburgh, New York (1945), Evanston, Illinois (1947), and Brantford, Ontario, Canada (1945), were of a very dubious scientific quality. This is fully and thoroughly documented by Dr. Philip Sutton in his book, " The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation " (1). While the science was dubious, the confidence of the US Public Health Service (PHS) was enormous. In April 1951, before any single fluoridation trial had been completed, the US Surgeon General, Leonard Scheele, was telling a Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations, " During the past year our studies progressed to the point where we could announce an unqualified endorsement of the fluoridation of the public water supplies as a mass procedure for reducing tooth decay by two thirds " Subsequent Surgeon Generals have continued to act as cheerleaders for this procedure. Their passionate promotion bears little relation to the quality of the science involved in fluoridation, either to its efficacy or to its safety. Another Surgeon General, Thomas Parran, stated, " I consider water fluoridation to be the greatest single advance in dental health made in our generation " Such an opinion sharply contrasts with that of former US EPA scientist, Dr. Robert Carton, who after he examined the evidence declared, " Fluoridation is a scientific fraud, probably the greatest fraud of the century " . According to Dr. John Lee, a bone specialist from California, " Certain crucial errors common to fluoride studies that claim benefit have been identified and, when applied to any or all fluoridation trials claiming to prove benefit, are sufficient to nullify them. I challenge fluoridationists to find just one trial that can stand a critical review in the light of the errors I describe. If they cannot, they should use their authority to help rid our water supply of this useless toxin " . Lee continues, " It is important to understand that in health matters, everything is interrelated and multifactorial. This presents a challenge to all health research: the factor being studied is just one factor among many that may confound the study. If the other factors can not be held constant (or their presence be kept equal in all groups being observed), the role of the single factor being studied can be confused... In the case of dental caries, the various factors include oral sugar and other fermentable carbohydrates, lysine and other amino acids, calcium and other minerals, vitamins, fiber, saliva flow and oral pH, dental hygiene, sunlight, genetic or constitutional factors, immune factors, use of antibiotics which may inhibit plague bacteria and others " (5). Lee lists the statistical misinterpretations common to the " fluoridation trials " : a) using " percent reductions " instead of " rate of change " of decay; b) selection bias; and c) outright fudging of the data. 6. Why were these early studies so poorly designed? In some cases it may simply have been the result of over-zealous promotion. For example, in the Grand Rapids, Michigan, study the control city was dropped six years into the study, supposedly because they wanted the children in this city to get the benefits as well. In the case of Hastings, New Zealand, this study was unmistakably fraudulent. Here the control city of Napier was dropped after only two years and the method of diagnosing tooth decay was changed during the course of the study, which quite artificially inflated the drop in decay. This change in diagnosis was made without this being stated in the final report . I am not aware of any double blind examination to investigate the efficacy of water fluoridation (i.e. one in which neither investigator nor subject is aware of which subjects have been exposed and which have not). 7. Meanwhile, considerable evidence has accumulated that the state of children's permanent teeth in non-fluoridated communities, as measured by their DMFT (decayed, missing and filled teeth) values, is just as good as (if not better than) those in fluoridated communities. (7). Dental fluorosis is a mottling of the teeth. In its mildest form it consists of white patches or streaks. As the severity increases the color of the patches changes from white to yellow, to orange and then to brown. In its severest form dental fluorosis results in loss of tooth enamel and extreme brittleness. The only known cause of dental fluorosis is exposure to fluoride and the rates are increasing. The argument used by the pro-fluoride authors of the Newburgh- Kingston study is that the improvement in DMFTs in non-fluoridated Kingston is due to exposure to fluoride from other sources: fluoridated toothpaste, beverages and processed food. If we accept this argument at face value then it completely undermines the need to add fluoride to the drinking water since a better result (i.e. slightly better DMFTs and less dental fluorosis) was achieved in Kingston without fluoridation. 8. In 1986-87 a survey was conducted by the National Institute for Dental Research (NIDR) at a cost of $3.6 million to the US taxpayer. The raw data from this study had to be pried out of this institution by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis using the Freedom of Information Act. From this data he was able to show that there was little difference in the DMFT values for approximately 40,000 children, whether they grew up in fluoridated, non-fluoridated or partially fluoridated communities (. Pro-fluoridationists have argued that this data (or a sub-set of it) indicates 25% lower DMFT in fluoridated communities. Even if we take this argument at face value, with current DMFT values (about 2.0 or less) this represents less than half a tooth. Hardly an achievement to compensate for the increase in dental fluorosis which goes hand in hand with the measure and possibly other more serious health effects discussed below. According to Dr. Hardy Limeback, the Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, fluoridation of water, " has contributed to the birth of a multi-billion dollar industry of tooth bleaching and cosmetic dentistry. More money is being spent now on the treatment of dental fluorosis than what would be spent on dental decay if water fluoridation were halted " (9). Again, it was found that the teeth of children in non- fluoridated cities were slightly better than those in the fluoridated cities, and again the levels of dental fluorosis was much higher in the fluoridated cities (10). 10. In Europe, where nearly all the countries remain unfluoridated, the average DMFTs for the children are actually lower (i.e. better) than those for children in the US. Moreover, Ireland, the only country in Europe with significant fluoridation (about 73% of the population drink fluoridated water), rates sixth in a table of national average DMFTs in Europe (11). 11. How can this be? People in the US have been told again and again that children drinking fluoridated water have far better teeth than those who don't. What explains this conflict between claim and reality? What emerges from impartial study is that the quality of children's teeth in industrialized countries has been steadily improving from the 1930s to the 1990s, independent of whether fluoride has been added to the water supply or not. Thus, unless a control community was chosen extremely carefully–which they were not– improvements were erroneously assigned to fluoride addition rather than to the overall improvement that was taking place in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. 16. The theory behind fluoride's purported benefit to teeth is that the fluoride ion displaces the hydroxide ion from the calcium hydroxyapatite in the tooth enamel, forming the substance calcium fluorapatite, which is more resistant to acid attack. A second suggestion is that fluoride kills some of the decay causing bacteria in the mouth by poisoning their enzymes (16). However, these mechanisms pose three huge questions, which have plagued this matter for over 50 years. 1) Can you poison the enzymes in the oral bacteria, without poisoning some of the enzymes in the rest of the body? Nearly every single chemical reaction in the body is steered by enzymes (enzymes are biological catalysts). 2) As far as the tooth is concerned, can you strengthen the enamel on the outside of the tooth without damaging the tooth cells on the inside? In other words, will chemical intervention with the enamel on the surface of the tooth be accompanied by biological interference with the enzymes which lay down that enamel? 3) What will this constant exposure to fluoride do to our bones? They, too, contain calcium hydroxyapatite. Will the formation of calcium fluorapatite in our bones make them more or less vulnerable to fracture? Does fluoride poison the enzymes involved in bone growth and turnover? Are there any other ways fluoride could damage bone growth and structure? Some of these questions will be addressed below. To argue that dental fluorosis is merely a " cosmetic effect, " as some US government agencies do, is a blatant example of " linguistic detoxification " (19). In actual fact, dental fluorosis indicates that fluoride has interfered with the enzymes laying down the tooth enamel. Thus dental fluorosis is the visible flag of fluoride's toxicity. This observation should raise the question, what other enzymes and processes in the body are being affected by fluoride for which we do not have a visible flag? Up until 1983 dental fluorosis was defined as an adverse health effect due to overexposure to fluoride 1) fluoridation has continued for over 50 years; 2) approximately half of the fluoride we ingest each day is deposited in our bones; 3) there is a steady accumulation of fluoride in our bones over our lifetime; 4) serious bone diseases have occurred to people with excessive exposure, especially in workers in the aluminum industry and in areas of countries like India and China; and 5) we are being exposed to more sources of fluoride today than we were in the 1940s and 1950s. By now, if American health authorities had done their job properly we should have had a wealth of data. We should know the bone levels as a function of many variables: location, fluoridation, hardness of water supply, diet, disease status, smoking, etc. We have practically nothing. Instead, when American agencies consider what levels may cause bone damage they go back to studies carried out with cryolite (the mineral used in the smelting of aluminum) workers in Denmark in 1937. Even though Kaj Roholm's study is a classic (23), it should not substitute today for a comprehensive study of the bones of the American people. According toa 1993 report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), " Fluoride is found in all bone, with the concentration depending on total fluoride exposure. The amount varies among different bones. Levels of fluoride in human bone are generally determined by biopsy of the iliac crest bone, and are generally reported as ppm of bone ash. Normal bone contains 500-1,000 ppm fluoride... Bone from people with preclinical skeletal fluorosis... contains 3,500-5,500 ppm... The fluoride concentration in bone increases with age. In a group of five people ages 64-85 who had lived for at least 10 years in an area with water containing 1 ppm fluoride, the average fluoride concentration of the iliac crest bone was 2,250 ppm of bone ash " (24, pp. 53-54). It is extraordinary to me that a leading US agency should be relying on measurements made on " five people " . The sad truth of the matter is that the US PHS has spent many more millions of dollars promoting fluoridation than it has on investigating the effect that fluoridation has had on the American people. Belatedly, an investigation has been carried out comparing the fluoride levels in the iliac crest bone in citizens in Montreal (non- fluoridated) and Toronto (fluoridated). The initial results of this study by Dr. Limeback and colleagues have been reported to the annual meeting of the International Association for Dental Research in 1999. These results indicate that the levels are about twice as high in the bones of the Toronto residents. This is a disturbing finding, since Toronto was only fluoridated in 1963. We have yet to have any human being on this planet exposed to artificially fluoridated water for a lifetime. We have little idea what levels of fluoride will be in the bones of someone who lives into their 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s who has had lifetime exposure to fluoridated water as well as all the other sources we are exposed to today. It is incredible that despite the importance of this Canadian study its funding has been discontinued. If governmental authorities in fluoridated countries wish to retain any semblance of credibility on this issue, these type of studies need to be carried out with greater intensity, not less. The fear is that the increases in dental fluorosis in our children today may foreshadow the damage to their bones that will come in the future. .. Meanwhile, there are numerous studies in the published literature (four published in the Journal of the American Medical Association alone) which demonstrate an association between water fluoridation, or naturally occurring fluoride, and increased hip fractures in the elderly, particularly women who were exposed to fluoride prior to menopause (25-30). In 1993 the ATSDR made the following comment on the published studies on hip fractures: " The weight of evidence from these experiments suggests that fluoride added to water can increase the risk of hip fractures in both elderly women and men... If this effect is confirmed, it would mean that hip fracture in the elderly replaces dental fluorosis in children as the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride exposure " (24, pp. 56-57). Yet another study (this one from Finland) has just been published which demonstrates a correlation between increased hip fracture rates in elderly women and naturally occurring fluoride (31). While there are other smaller studies which have not found this correlation (32-34), and some critics have stressed the weaknesses inherent in the " ecological " methodology used (study group and control are distinguished by geographical location and not by the actual doses received by individuals), the weight of evidence indicates an association between hip fracture and exposure to fluoride. Does it make sense to protect our teeth (possibly) when we are young, and then break our bones (possibly) when we are old? By whom should such a trade-off be made? This is not a trivial issue. According to Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute of Dental and Cranofacial Research (formerly the NIDR), " About one-half of the people with hip fractures end up in nursing homes, and in the year following the fracture, 20 per cent of them die " (35). Another set of findings which has been outrageously downplayed in my view is a possible association between water fluoridation (or fluoride exposure) and osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males. Flouride is associated with " chronic fatigue syndrome " , and there is a definite relationship between chronic fatigue and pineal gland calcification (Sandyk and Awerbuch, 1994) with the latter consisting of apatite crystals similar in size and structure to dentin and bone (Nakamura, et al. 1995). Thus, fluorides potential to acerbate soft-tissue pathologies in general, deserves further consideration. Similarly, the cognitive difficulties that result from exposure to fluoride (Spittle, 1994) are accompanied by general malaise and fatigue; intolerance to low levels of environmental chemicals is a polysymptomatic sequela of chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, etc. resulting from an immunological and/or a neurogenic triggering of somatic symptoms and inflammation (Bell, et al. 1998); and the earliest subjective symptoms of osteo-fluorosis are arthritic in nature. Side-effects of fluoride treatment also include gastro-intestinal problems simply referred to as -- " symptoms " (Riggs, et al. 1990); " intolerance " (Dequeker and Declerick, 1993); and " complaints " (Lips, 1998). In two separate studies, the comparative results between patients receiving fluoride treatment for 3-12 months (Das, et al. 1994) and those having documented osteo-fluorosis (Dasarathy, et al. 1996) were identical - 70% endoscopic abnormalities, 70-90% histologic chronic atrophic gastritis; and 100% microscopic abnormalities such as loss of microvilli. Moreover, these affects were also qualitatively similar to a study (Gupta, et al. 1992) that correlated non-ulcer dyspepsia with ingested fluoride level. As expected, symptoms occurring at the (RTECS) human acute TDLo dosage of only 214 ug/kg are gastrointestinal. --- Similar to curing osteoporosis, fluoride has been proposed as a preventive measure (sic) against Alzheimer's Disease (AD) based on the presumption that by direct competition in the gut, fluoride would decrease aluminum uptake (Kraus and Forbes, 1992). Rather, such antagonism (Li, et al. 1990) is due to the formation of aluminum fluoride complex (Li, et al. 1991). That fluoride potentiates neuro- toxicity of aluminum has been substantiated (van der Voet, et.al. 1999) -- consisting of interference with neuronal cytoskeleton metabolism. Aluminum accumulations have been found in nuclei of the paired- helical filament (PHF) containing neurons in the brains of both AD patients and elderly normal controls (Shore and Wyatt, 1983) but as no elevations of aluminum were found in serum or cerebrospinal fluid of AD patients, aluminum alone is not the cause – rather, aluminum in PHF bearing neurons is simply a " marker " . Fluoride decreases protein content of brain tissue (Shashi, et al. 1994) with 7-months of 30-ppm fluoride resulting in a 10% decrease in total brain phospholipid content (Guan, et.al. 1998) – as well as (biphasic) changes in brain levels of coenzyme-Q (Wang, et al. 1997) --- Peer Review Journal References Cited in the Text – with more than 80% of them being published within the past ten-years Akapa, et al. (1997). Dental fluorosis in 12-15-year-ol rural children exposed to fluorides from well drinking water in the Hail region of Saudi Arabia. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol; 25(4): 324- 327. Alexandre, et al. (1984). Fluoride poisoning caused by Vichy Saint- Yorre water. [title only; article in French]. Presse Med; 13(16); 1009. Alhava, et al. (1980). The effect of drinking water fluoridation on the fluoride content, strength and mineral density of human bone. Acta Orthop Scand; 51(3): 413-420. Angelillo, et al. (1999). Caries and fluorosis prevalence in communities with different concentrations of fluoride in the water. Caries Res; 33(2):114-122. CONCLUSION: " Fluoridation is a scientific fraud, probably the greatest fraud of the century " . _________________ JoAnn Guest mrsjoguest DietaryTipsForHBP http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.