cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index cj.myfreeforum.org
NEWS, prophecy, dreams, ZionsCRY, Bible, teaching, visions
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   Join! (free) Join! (free)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Flouride is BAD for us!
Page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:01 pm    Post subject: Flouride is BAD for us!  Reply with quote

USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected
Beverages and Foods


Flouride Hardens Your Arteries - Odds Are 6 in 10 You're Consuming This Poison Ingredient Daily
By Dr. Mercola
It's no secret that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide. But how many people realize that fluoride—which is still added to many municipal water supplies in the U.S.—is linked to heart disease?
In a new study published in the journal Nuclear Medicine Communicationsi, researchers found that fluoride may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk as it causes hardening of your arteries.

Reviewing the imaging data and cardiovascular history of patients who received whole-body sodium fluoride PET scans, the researchers found a significant correlation between a history of cardiovascular events and presence of fluoride uptake in coronary arteries.
While there are certainly many factors contributing to the rise in heart disease—poor diet likely being the most important—it certainly doesn't help to add a chemical to water supplies that will be consumed by everyone in the area regardless of health status, from toddlers to seniors, that might contribute to the problem.

The primary issue here is that there's a lack of evidence supporting the use of fluoride, and an awful lot of evidence stacked against the indiscriminate use of it, including these latest findings.
The practice of adding fluoride to tap water began in 1945. With more than 70 percent of U.S. public water supplies currently fluoridated, chances are you're one of the 170 million Americans who drink and bathe in fluoride on a daily basis.ii

Most likely, your dentist—along with countless government and public health officials—has praised and promoted the use of fluoride, both in toothpaste and drinking water, as one of your must-do regimens to promote strong and healthy teeth.
But let's make this point clear right from the start: fluoride is not an essential nutrient needed for your health—dental or otherwise. There is not one single process in your body that requires fluoride.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



By Dr. Mercola

Fluoride is added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies to aid in the prevention of cavities

This benefit is dubious at best, as there is practically no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that fluoridate a high versus low percentage of their water.

Yet, while fluoride in drinking water does NOT decrease rates of tooth decay, numerous studies show that this chemical has a wide array of devastating health effects – one of them being lowered IQ.

Yet Another Study Links Fluoride to Lower IQ Levels

A review of brain studies involving the use of fluoride has concluded that one of the adverse effects of fluoride exposure on children is damage to their neurological development.1 According to the Harvard researchers, children who lived in high-fluoride areas had “significantly lower IQ than those in low fluoride areas,” with the authors noting:

“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children's neurodevelopment.“

This just adds to the growing number of animal and human studies demonstrating the damage fluoride inflicts on your brain, including your pineal gland. The results of one study looking at children’s intelligence in two towns – one with fluoridated water and one without – were particularly revealing, with about 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scoring as “bright, normal or higher intelligence” compared to only 8 percent in the high-fluoride area.2

Further, 15 percent of children in the high-fluoride city had signs of mental retardation, compared with only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city. And the study even accounted for other potential variables, such as lead exposure, iodine deficiency or a history of brain disease or head injury. There have been over 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage. This includes such effects as:

Some of these effects have been observed even at low levels of exposure, such as 1 part per million (ppm) of fluoride in water. This is below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 'safe' drinking water level for fluoride, which is 4 ppm, and right around the levels used in water fluoridation programs, which may range from 0.7-1.2 ppm.

The Fluoride in Your Drinking Water is an Industrial Waste Product

Did you know that the United States is one of only eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50 percent of its water supply? Even China does NOT allow water fluoridation because it's too toxic and causes damage, according to their studies. Instead, the waste product from their phosphate fertilizer industry is shipped to the United States, where we add it to our water supply!

This is a very important point: the fluoride added to your water is NOT even pharmaceutical grade.

It's a toxic industrial waste product, which is also contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The story gets even more convoluted, as now declassified files of the Manhattan Project and the Atomic Energy Commission show that the original motivation for promoting fluoride and water fluoridation in the United States was to protect the bomb-, aluminum-, and other fluoride-polluting industries from liability. In the early days some of the sodium fluoride used to fluoridate water supplies in the U.S. came from Alcoa.

A couple of years later, they switched to the even more hazardous waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry.

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officially claims that "For more than 65 years, water fluoridation has undergone extensive scientific studies and reviews to assess its public health benefits and risks. For many years, panels of experts from different health and scientific fields have provided strong evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective,”4 this claim appears to have the flimsiest of foundations.

According to a 2006 report from the National Research Council,5 extensive amounts of research are inconclusive, or still missing and need to be conducted to evaluate the whole-body impact of fluoride …

Not only that, but their scientific review also identified research suggesting a variety of harmful effects, from skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures, and, potentially, even cancer. With that in mind, how can the CDC claim that "extensive research" has concluded water fluoridation is safe for ALL community residents, without differentiation between infants and adults, the sick or the healthy?

How can the CDC possibly claim, as they often do, that water fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the last century? Fluoride is a toxic agent that is biologically active in the human body where it accumulates in sensitive tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes and produces a number of serious adverse health effects—including neurological and endocrine dysfunctions. So why is it still being added to so much of the U.S. water supply?

Healthy Food – Not Fluoride – Essential for Healthy Teeth

Fluoride's predominant action is on the surface of your tooth (although even this is now questionable) and not from inside the body – so the idea that many Americans are still being forced to swallow it for their teeth defies all common reason. Good oral health and strong, healthy teeth are NOT the result of drinking fluoridated water and brushing your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste. Rather it's virtually all about your diet.

Dr. Weston A. Price, who was one of the major nutritional pioneers of all time, completed some of the most extensive research on this topic back in the early 1900s and documented his findings in his classic book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. He found native tribes who were eating their traditional diet had nearly perfect teeth, and were almost 100 percent free of tooth decay -- and they did not have toothbrushes, floss, toothpaste, or root canals and fillings.

But when these tribal populations were introduced to sugar and white flour, guess what happened … their health, and their perfect teeth, rapidly deteriorated, just like the kids in El Salvador. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, you prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay in the first place.

Most people whose diet includes very little sugar and few processed foods have very low rates of tooth decay. So the simple act of limiting, or eliminating sugar, and avoiding processed foods -- along with regular cleanings with your natural mercury-free dentist -- will ensure that your teeth and gums stay healthy and cavity-free naturally.

Infants and Children Among Those Most at Risk

Breast milk contains very little, almost no, fluoride, and this is by design. Remember, fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxin that can damage a baby’s brain. As Dr. Paul Connett, co-author of the book, The Case Against Fluoride, explained:

“In the view of many critics of fluoridation, including Arvid Carlsson, Nobel laureate in medicine/physiology, it is reckless to expose infants to levels of fluoride orders of magnitude higher than that found in breast milk.

In the U.S., infants who are fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water receive the highest levels of fluoride (per kilogram bodyweight) in the human population. Specifically, infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated water at the current level of 1 part-per-million (1 ppm = 1 mg/liter) fluoride will receive a dose up to 250 times more than the breastfed infant.

Even with the proposal by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to lower fluoride to 0.7 ppm in fluoridation schemes, bottle-fed infants will still receive up to 175 times more fluoride than the breastfed infant.

… Even though health agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating countries have recognized that children are being grossly over-exposed to fluoride (41 percent of American children aged 12-15 now have some form of dental fluorosis), they are unwilling to concede that fluoride may be impacting the brain. Their approach has been either to ignore these studies completely or to challenge the relevance and the methodology of the fluoride-brain studies. They have thus far failed to conduct any IQ studies of their own.”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2012 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fluoride May Cause Cancer, ADHD & Early Puberty
12/8/12  The pineal gland is a small endocrine gland located between the two hemispheres of your brain. It is sometimes called the “third eye” due to its resemblance to the human retina. While your pineal gland is only about the size of a single grain of rice (5-8 mm), it performs several functions that are extremely important to your body.

One main role of your pineal gland is to produce melatonin, the natural sleep hormone that plays a vital role in your normal sleep function. Melatonin is not only necessary for proper sleep however, it also regulates the onset of puberty and fights against harmful free radicals. When your pineal gland function is suppressed, melatonin production suffers and you are putting yourself at risk for a number of startling conditions including:

Alzheimer’s disease
Circadian dysregulation
Bipolar disease
Hormone imbalances: low melatonin
Low back pain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Wed Mar 27, 2013 11:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Fri Feb 14, 2014 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Farm Bill: Three Big Wins, but One Dangerous Fluoride Amendment
February 4, 2014

Capitol Hill’s most powerful special interests resorted again to underhanded tactics.

Today, the Senate passed the $1 trillion dollar Farm Bill with a vote of 68 to 32 (the House gave its approval last Wednesday). As you may recall, the most recent version of this cumbersome bill had serious ramifications for farmers, GMO labeling, and consumer access to locally sourced foods.

What that earlier version didn’t have was an amendment that will expose Americans, and especially children, to dangerous amounts of fluoride residue—yet such an amendment was somehow snuck into the final, 949-page Farm Bill just forty-eight hours before it went to vote.

Section 10015, which was slipped in behind closed doors by Dow AgroScience’s lobbyists, overturns an EPA ruling that pesticide residues must be included in calculations of safe levels of fluoride exposure. By removing pesticide residues from the equation, this amendment almost guarantees that Americans will be exposed to higher levels of toxic fluoride, while thinking they’re consuming safe levels.

Let’s keep a few facts in mind. The EPA’s Union of Scientists have warned about the toxicity of fluoride (1999). So has the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science (2006). So have researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (2012).

The latter group reported a significant drop in children’s IQ level from fluoride exposure, on top of all the other health issues including cancer. Even the US Department of Health and Human Services finally admitted in 2009 that fluoride levels in public water should be reduced

And why is fluoride being forced on people? Supposedly to reduce tooth decay, but xylitol, a natural fruit sugar, is at least as effective for that. Meanwhile, we don’t get a choice about whether this waste product of the aluminum industry is added to our drinking water.

Are you unhappy to hear about how this fluoride friendly provision that had no place in this bill? Dow—one of DC’s most powerful special interests that spent over $10.5 million dollars on lobbying in 2013 alone—knew you would be. They knew that you would call and message your legislators until they stripped the fluoride amendment from the Farm Bill. That’s why they waited until the last minute and resorted to underhanded tactics—they’re scared of what activists like you can accomplish.

After all, you did win three big victories for the natural health community:
•The King Amendment. Perhaps the most crucial concession won was the removal of the unconstitutional King Amendment (a.k.a. the Interstate Commerce Amendment), which violated states rights and could have unraveled hard-won GMO labeling and animal rights laws. You called and wrote and harangued until that provision was dropped. Well done!
•More FDA Oversight. The final bill includes Section 11321, which will force the agency at least to study how new Food Safety Modernization Act rules could hurt small farms. This amendment helps shield family farmers from FDA overreach and could help protect consumer choice, as it’s less likely that farmers will be forced to either shut down or raise prices to implement expensive FDA regulations.
•No Shield for Big Ag. The final Farm Bill does not contain Section 1613, which would have prevented any government agency from disclosing any “information provided by a producer or owner of agricultural land concerning the agricultural operation.” Essentially, this would have outlawed the reporting of Big Farma’s most dangerous “oopsies,” including GMO crop contamination, antibiotic abuse, and livestock disease outbreaks.

The Farm Bill is just a taste of the legislative battles we’ll face in 2014. Stay tuned as we tackle this year’s toughest challenges, including the IRS attack on free speech, Senator Durbin’s Anti-Supplement Zombie Bill (it just won’t die!), and the next draft of the NDI guidance. The fight has just begun!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Fri Feb 27, 2015 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists
Around 15,000 people could be suffering needlessly from thyroid problems because of fluoride in drinking water, the University of Kent has warned


Fluoride could be causing depression and weight gain and councils should stop adding it to drinking water to prevent tooth decay, scientists have warned.

A study of 98 per cent of GP practices in England found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30 per cent more likely in areas of the greatest fluoridation.

It could mean that up to 15,000 people are suffering needlessly from thyroid problems which can cause depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.

Last year Public Health England released a report saying fluoride was a ‘safe and effective’ way of improving dental health.

But new research from the University of Kent suggests that there is a spike in the number of cases of underactive thyroid in high fluoride areas such as the West Midlands and the North East of England.

Lead author Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Service Studies, said: “I think it is concerning for people living in those areas.

“The difference between the West Midlands, which fluoridates, and Manchester, which doesn’t was particularly striking. There were nearly double the number of cases in Manchester.

“Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems. I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water. There are far safer ways to improve dental health.”

In England, around 10 per cent of the population (6 million) live in areas with a naturally or artificially fluoridated water supply of 1 mg fluoride per litre of drinking water.

The researchers compared areas to records from 7935 general practices covering around 95 per cent of the English population in 2012-2013.

Rates of high underactive thyroid were at least 30 per cent more likely in practices located in areas with fluoride levels in excess of 0.3 mg/l.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in water in varying amounts, depending on the region and it is also found in certain foods and drinks, including tea and fish. It helps combat tooth decay by making enamel more resistant to bacteria.

But previous studies have found that it inhibits the production of iodine, which is essential for a healthy thyroid.

The thyroid gland, which is found in the neck, regulates the metabolism as well as many other systems in the body.

An underactive thyroid can lead to depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles and affects 15 times more women than men, around 15 in 1,000 women.

The researchers say councils must rethink public health policy to fluoridate the water supply in a bid to protect the nation’s tooth health.

However Public Health England said that previous evidence overwhelmingly showed that fluoride in water was safe.

Dr Sandra White, Director of Dental Public Health at Public Health England, said: “Public Health England regularly reviews the evidence base for water fluoridation.

“The totality of evidence, accumulated over decades of research, tells us that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure, and shows no association with reduced thyroid function.”

Other experts also warned that the study may have been skewed by population bias, a claim denied by the authors.

Prof David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of Southampton, said: “It is quite possible that the observed association is a consequence of other ways in which the areas with higher fluoride differ from the rest of the country.

“There are substantially more rigorous epidemiological methods by which the research team could have tested their idea”

The research was published in the BMJs Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

10 Facts About Flouride

How Fluoride Can Cause Hypothyroidism
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mainstream media finally admits: Adding fluoride to water a 'useless scheme' with no benefit to public health

Fluoride, long added to our drinking water to improve oral health, is probably useless and even harmful to public health.

Its effectiveness is based on shaky science from the 1950s, yet big dental associations around the world keep promoting the addition of fluoride to our drinking water.

"The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen," says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.

A little bit of history
In the early 1930s the link was made between fluoride and both mottling – or tooth staining – and stronger, healthier teeth. By the mid-40s the U.S. Public Health Service was convinced that artificial fluoridation of drinking water to 1.0 ppm would provide better oral health without causing mottling from over-fluoridation.

In 1945, they started to add fluoride to a test environment, and by 1950 declared the test a huge success, reporting a 50 percent reduction in cavities. (This number may be slightly misleading). At the same time, people started to improve their oral health practices, and there was an increase in the use of fluoridated toothpaste, too.

Since then, fluoridation of drinking water has been pushed upon us as necessary to improving oral health. It was recommended that every community without naturally occurring fluoride in their water add it to their water supply.

"They have to justify forcing this on people who don't want it – it's a violation of the principle of informed consent," Paul Connett, a Briton who taught chemistry at St Lawrence University, in New York, for 23 years, and helped set up the Fluoride Action Network in the US, told The Guardian. "You can couple that with the fact that once you put it in the water you can't control the dose or who it goes to. Also, is it effective? At least demonstrate that it's effective and then demonstrate that it's safe."

"Studies describing fluoride as a 'neurotoxicant' should ring alarm bells," he added.

Effectiveness was never proven
Recently, The Guardian reported that many health experts are calling for a moratorium on water fluoridation. The claims of the benefits of water fluoridation, as opposed to those of topical fluoride (directly applied to the teeth), are actually unproved.

Stephen Peckham, director and professor of health policy at Kent University's centre for health service studies, warns: "Water fluoridation was implemented before statistics had been compiled on its safety or effectiveness. It was the only cannon shot they had in their armoury. It gets rolled out, becomes – in England – policy and then you look for evidence to support it."

It may have seemed a good idea back in the 1950s, when usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes weren't as widespread as today. However, these days it doesn't seem necessary or useful, and may even harm your health.

Some more recent studies claim that fluoridation of drinking water is linked to bone cancer in boys, as well as bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, hip fractures and lower IQ in children.

"It's been going on since 1950 and we are still having the same arguments over the same research," Peckham told The Guardian. "We don't have the information to address this. I think they should have a moratorium."

Peckham would like to see a study following similar groups of children in areas with fluoridated and non-fluoridated water.

Sources for this article include:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/052623...mful_chemicals.html#ixzz3xC4YZ12M
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 12 Dec 2009
Posts: 17167

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 6:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Undeniable evidence from numerous studies proves that fluoride causes cancer

The California Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) recently released a document called Evidence on the Carcinogenicity of Fluoride and Its Salts that highlights the many health hazards caused by the consumption of fluoride. And the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) recently submitted a compilation of its own to OEHHA, which is soon to make a final decision concerning fluoride's toxicity, providing additional evidence that fluoride causes cancer.

FAN has been working for many years to raise awareness about the toxicity of fluoride, with the eventual goal of getting it removed from public water supplies. And its most recent efforts involving OEHHA could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak, as it has the potential to unleash the truth about fluoride on a massive scale, and spark a revolt against its use.

According to a recent FAN press release, OEHHA's report was birthed out of an inquiry into the science of fluoride's toxicity. It is also a prelude to the group's scientific advisory board Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) meeting to be held on October 12 - 13, 2011, which will make a decision on the status of fluoride as a carcinogen.

The OEHHA report already states that "multiple lines of evidence (show) that fluoride is incorporated into bones where it can stimulate cell division of osteoblasts [bone-forming cells]," an admission that already recognizes fluoride as a cause of bone cancer. The report goes on to state that fluoride induces "genetic changes other cellular changes leading to malignant transformation, and cellular immune response thereby increasing the risk of development of osteosarcomas."

To add to this, FAN presented OEHHA with additional studies from the National Research Council (NRC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and several esteemed universities that all illustrate a link between fluoride consumption and various cancers, including liver and oral cancers, and thyroid follicular cell tumors.

With this mountain of evidence, the only logical conclusion OEHHA can come to in October is that fluoride is a toxic poison -- and just like lead and other known toxic chemicals already are in California, worthy of being publicly identified as dangerous.

"While we understand that there will be tremendous pressure put on the CIC and OEHHA by the proponents of fluoride and fluoridation, we ask that the Committee continue to rely on its high level of scientific knowledge and integrity when deliberating and reaching a final conclusion on the carcinogenicity status of fluoride and its salts," wrote FAN as part of its official submission.

To read the entire FAN press release, which contains further details about the cancer studies included, visit:

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/053953...r_water_safety.html#ixzz48D3tviMR

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    cj.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> HEALTH and Medical NEWS All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum