Link between FLUoride and FLUoxetine further - The Prozac Connect

[Guest guest]

Exploring the link between FLUoride and FLUoxetine further - The Prozac

Connect http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,1233560,00.html

A Kick in the Teeth

It was hailed as a harmless chemical that would prevent tooth decay. But

a new book claims that fluoride could be linked to serious health

problems. Bob Woffinden Tuesday June 8, 2004

The Guardian A 50-year-old medical controversy is about to be

re-ignited. The government is considering the introduction of further

fluoridation schemes throughout the country. To facilitate that, the

Water Act passed last November indemnified water companies from civil or

criminal actions as a result of adding fluoride to public water supplies.

Fluoridation was first advanced in the United States at the end of the

second world war. Proponents argued that fluoride in water and

toothpaste would help to protect teeth and prevent decay. It was a time

of scientific evangelism, when chemicals meant progress and the public

trusted them to

bring about a safer, cleaner future.

Many believe that the effects of fluoride on teeth, beneficial or

otherwise, are irrelevant; what matters is the accumulating research

evidence that fluoride may have serious adverse health effects.

However, the government wanted to extend fluoridation schemes,

ostensibly to benefit those in poorer areas. So, it set up the York

Review to allow leading scientists to examine the issue. One of the

review's conclusions in September 2000 was that there had been

" surprisingly " little research into fluoride's harmful effects, and

emphasised the need for " high-quality research " , specifically into the

possible links between fluoride and " infant mortality, congenital

defects and IQ " .

A subsequent inquiry into fluoridation by the Medical Research Council

recommended an updated analysis of data on fluoride and cancer rates,

but concluded that " there is no evidence for any significant health

effects on the immune system, or reproductive and developmental (birth)

defects and no specific research is recommended, although it is

appropriate to keep the

area under review. "

Now, a new book, The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, just

published in the US, examines the background of the fluoridation debate.

Bryson, who has had the advantage of access to recently declassified

files, concludes that fluoridation is a triumph not of medical science

but of US government spin, adding that, " The very same professionals and

institutions who told us that fluoride was safe said much the same about

lead, asbestos or DDT, or persuaded us to smoke more cigarettes. "

In fact, in the 1930s, the very first researcher into fluoride, a Dane

called Kaj Roholm, specifically advised against exposing children to

fluoride, but his work was soon buried. Bryson links the subsequent

" discovery " that fluoride benefited teeth with research paid for by

major US industries that needed to be able to defend " lawsuits from

workers and communities poisoned by industrial fluoride emissions " .

In 1955, farmers in Oregon took Reynolds Metals to court, alleging harm

from fluoride emissions. The key medical experts for the farmers were

Donald Hunter, an English specialist in industrial diseases, who told

the court

that fluoride was particularly dangerous because it was " an enzyme

poison " ; and Dr Richard Capps from Chicago, who gave evidence that

fluoride displaced iodine in the body, thus leading to thyroid dysfunction.

The farmers won a sensational victory, and US industrialists were

shaken. Dr Robert Kehoe, whose work was funded by major US companies,

resolved - according to Bryson - to create a new medical orthodoxy that

would be unassailable in future court cases. Kehoe set up an experiment

with beagles, with the dogs breathing in fluoride. The results were

alarming, and showed that fluoride travelled rapidly from the lungs into

the blood stream, causing significant harm.

Lawyers for major US companies received copies of the dog study;

needless to say, it went no further. Until Bryson found it, no one knew

of its existence.

The drive to encourage public acceptance of fluoride was handed over to

Edward Bernays, known as the father of PR, or the original spin doctor,

and the man who helped persuade women to take up smoking. " You can get

practically any idea accepted, " Bernays explained, " if doctors are in

favour. The public is willing to accept it because a doctor is an

authority to most people, regardless of how much he knows or doesn't know. "

Among the things that the doctors who endorsed fluoridation didn't know,

according to Bryson, were that research impugning fluoride's safety was

either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. When one doctor

reported that fluoride supplements produced harmful side-effects in

pregnant women, he received no funding to carry out further work.

So fluoride became equated with scientific progress, and those opposing

it were dismissed as cranks. For 30 years, little changed, with both

sides in their entrenched positions.

Yet putting fluoride into the water supply - at what the Department of

Health considers to be the " safe " level of one part per million - would,

according to opponents in the UK, appear to ignore some important

considerations. First, they say it does not allow for individual

sensitivities to fluoride. Second, those suffering dietary deficiencies,

who may be low in calcium, magnesium and essential nutrients (in other

words, the poor and those in ill-health), will be more vulnerable to

fluoride's

toxic properties. Third, the level of fluoride in the water supply is no

indication of an individual's actual exposure. Those in certain

professions - for example, labourers or athletes - will take in more

water, and therefore more fluoride.

Also, there is regular exposure from other sources - fluoride

toothpaste, of course, as well as pesticide residues and

pharmaceuticals. In 1994, the World Health Organisation recommended that

public health administrators should be aware of " the total fluoride

exposure in the population " . In fact, in Britain during the past 30

years, anti-fluoridation campaigners claim

that the public's overall exposure to fluoride has become much greater,

while the government's ostensible " safe " limit has remained exactly the

same.

They say that two of the major concerns in childhood development today

could be explained by fluoride. If it interferes with the central

nervous system, as some studies have shown, then that could help to

explain the growing prevalence of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.

There is also concern that fluoride displaces iodine in the human body.

Iodine is essential for normal functioning of the thyroid gland. If

fluoride, by displacing iodine, does inhibit thyroid activity, then that

would lead to weight gain and obesity.

Moreover, iodine is essential for brain development.

There are now epidemiological studies from China that link fluoride

exposure with lower IQ levels. After Dr Phyllis Mullinex, a leading

neurotoxicologist in Boston, had carried out work on rats, she reported

that fluoride was likely to lead to lower IQs. She was fired.

Bryson believes that what has made fluoride so impervious to criticism

so far is not just the PR offensive, but also - paradoxically -

fluoride's overall toxicity. Unlike chemicals that have a signature

effect (like the mesothelioma caused by asbestos), fluoride is, he says,

" a systemic poison, likely to produce a range of health problems " , so

that its effects are harder to diagnose.

" We've known about all this for a long time, " says Jane Jones of the

National Pure Water Association, which campaigns against fluoride, " now

I hope the wider public will sit up and take notice " .

There are many in the UK who support the fluoridation of our water

supply, among them Ian Wylie, chief executive of the British Dental

Association, who argued in this paper recently: " Scientific opinion

worldwide is that low-dose fluoride has a beneficial effect on oral

health. In America, almost two-thirds of the population has drunk water

with fluoride, without a problem, for decades. " The government has

promised that no further fluoridation schemes will be

implemented without public consultations beforehand. The debate is

likely to be fierce and prolonged.

... The Fluoride Deception is available in this country through

Turnaround Distributors.

Links: Bfsweb.org Fluoridealert.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian

Newspapers Limited 2004 _________________