New evidence seems to confirm that by fluoridating our water, we are Poisoning our children.
More than two years ago, the court-killed Spotlight wrote about George Glasser, a citizen researcher who blew the whistle on the use of highly-toxic fluorosilicic acid from rock fertilizer processing as the primary source of community water fluoridation.
Now, a massive study of young children who have been subjected to fluorosilicic add fluoridation in New York communities shows that the water additive does not improve kids' teeth and could even be poisoning them.
Until that time, most people were under the impression that water fluoridation used sodium fluoride, rat poison, a by-product of aluminum manufacturing.
Glasser, however, pointed out that more than 75 percent of the U.S. water fluoridation communities have been using the even more toxic fluorosilicic acid since the late 1970s.
Glasser was the first to stress the excessive toxicity inherent in using the hydrofluorosilicic acid residue that is removed from the industrial pollution control ‘scrubbers' in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers.
The chemists refer to this material as silicofluorides and have now conclusively shown that the fluoridation material is linked to other heavy metal toxins that are found in drinking water - lead, arsenic, aluminum and cadmium for example.
In the March 2001 issue of the journal Neuro-Toxicology, a team of researchers led by Dr. Roger Masters of Dartmouth College reported evidence that public drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid is linked to higher levels of lead in children.
After pointing out that since 1992 only about 10 percent fo America's fluoridated communities use sodium fluoride and 90 percent use fluorosilicic acid, the researchers stated that about 140 million Americans have this chemical placed in their water.
They also pointed out that sodium fluoride was tested on animals and approved for human consumption, but fluorosilicic acid had not been so tested and approved.
The research team studied the blood-lead levels in more than 400-000 children in three different samplings. In each case they found a significant link between fluorosilicic acid-treated water and elevated blood levels of lead.
In the latest study, the blood levels of about 150,000 children ranging in ages from infant to 6 were analyze.
The samples were collected by the New York State Department of children's Health from 1994 through 1998.
Researchers concluded that the fluorosilicic acid-treated water was equal or worse a contributor of bloodlead levels as old house paint.
Dr. Masters said these preliminary findings correlate the fluorosilicic acid water treatment and behavior problems that are due to known effects of lead on brain chemistry.
Additionally, a study in Germany showed the fluorosilicic acid water (SiFs) may inhibit the enzyme cholinesterase which plays a key role in regulating neurotransmitters.
"If SiFs are cholinesterase inhibitors, this means that SiFs have effects like the chemical agents linked to Gulf War Syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome and other puzzling conditions that plague millions of Americans," Masters said. "We need a better understanding of how SiFs behave chemically and physiologically."
Last March, Dr. Masters testified before New Hampshire legislators in favor of the Fluoride Product Quality Control Act. The bill would put the SiFs to a series of tests, and perhaps further research on neurotoxicity and behavior.
"If further research confirms our findings," Master said, "this may well be the worst environmental poison since leaded gasoline."
The EPA admits it has no data on the health and behavioral effects of SiFs.
Dr. Masters asked: "Shouldn't we stop intentionally exposing 140 million Americans to an untested chemical until the risks are extensively and objectively evaluated by independent researchers?"
And, the final insult: There is no conclusive evidence that
fluoridation of drinking water significantly improves the teeth
of children at all.
|Top|
Several groups of parents are suing drug companies on grounds that the ingredients have harmed their children.
Parents have sued several drug companies and dental associations for allegedly causing their children to develop autism through exposure to vaccines and fillings containing mercury.
Drug firms Wyeth, GlaxoSmithKline Pic., Johnson & Johnson and Armour Pharmaceutical and the American Dental Association and Georgia dental Association are accused of, among other things, negligence in 11 lawsuits filed April 3 in an Atlanta court.
Georgia Power was also listed as a defendant for allegedly releasing mercury-containing emissions into the environment.
The families are asking for unspecified damages on behalf of their children.
Dental groups misled consumers by falling to tell them that amalgam fillings contain mercury and could, when implanted in women's mouths, expose fetuses and nursing infants to toxic levels of mercury, said Shawn Khorrami, an attorney for the families.
The drug firms are being sued because they failed to warn parents that children receiving vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal were at higher risk for mercury poisoning, according to court papers.
Some scientist have linked mercury, a naturally occurring element, to autism, a neurological disease that can cause sever learning disabilities, impaired motor skills and repetitive behavior. Amalgam fillings typically contain about 50 percent mercury. "These companies have been hiding the ball from the American public," said Khorrami, who noted that the children he represents, who range in age from 3 to 12, suffer disabilities that could require lifelong care.
"Actions like these mislead vulnerable people, using information with no scientific basis to give false hope to those with chronic, often incurable illnesses," the American Dental Association said in a prepared statement.
The 141,000-member ADA said the suits are an "egregious" abuse of the legal system and the claims are without merit.
However, many health experts concede that the build-up of mercury in the body from fillings can be extremely toxic.
According to Holistic Healing, an alternative news site:
Obviously, not everyone experiences acute toxicity effects from the mercury in amalgam fillings. However, virtually everyone does have mercury build up in their bodies from implantation of such fillings. The large increase in mercury exposure from the newer non-gamma-2 mercury fillings means that only time will tell how much damage has been caused by daily exposure to mercury in such fillings.
Holistic Healing cited numerous research and data showing that the mercury from amalgam fillings in an "extremely important source of toxic material."
For more information on this important topic, visit on the
web: www.holisticmed.com/dental/amalgam/.
|Top|
In the wake of the 9-11 terror attack, the federal government is pressuring state and local governments to enact harsh, unprecedented measures which could trash your constitutional rights.
As of March 17, these broad new measures have already passed in Washington, south Dakota and Wisconsin but have been defeated in Wyoming.
"The model legislation provided by the Health and Human services Department gives the governor the power to declare himself dictator in case of ‘a public health emergency,'" said Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS). "further, the governor could delegate this awesome power to unelected political appointees in state and local public offices."
According to the AAPS, this sweeping legislative model, which is now reflected by numbered bills in every state legislature, is so alarming that it is opposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the nation's largest bipartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators.
The Proposed legislation, which not only has the urging of the federal government but has a promise of increased funds is already under consideration in several states including California, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota and Illinois. Many other states will be considering it during this year's legislative sessions.
The model bill, provided by Tommy Thompson's agency operating under the auspices of the"war against terrorism," is titled Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA).
Under the provisions of this model any governor or appointee with the power could do the following:
• Force you to take a vaccination or a medical treatment
decided by the governor - or be arrested.
• Round you up and herd you into a public quarantine or isolation
facility. Or take your children from your home to quarantine.
• Seize property that the government deems may be necessary
to cope with the emergency - including real estate, fuel, food,
clothing, and communication equipment.
• Destroy property deemed or alleged to be hazardous - without
due process, without recourse, without compensation.
• Conscript you or your business into state service.
• Impose rationing, price controls, and quotas and control
the transportation or any use of any item deemed "reasonable
and necessary for emergency response," specifically including
firearms.
• Suspend any state laws or rules that might hinder the program.
"The governors do not have to consult the public health authority, the legislature or the courts," said Dr. Orient. "They will not have to answer to anyone, ever, for the consequences of their actions. HHS will probably try to bribe or coerce the states into passing this law by threatening to withhold federal funds for state Medicaid or other health programs."
Andy Schafly, the attorney for AAPS, appeared before the New York State Assembly committee reviewing this model legislation - Assembly Bill 9508 - and provided strong aarguments against the New York draft of the bill in its present form.
"This is a completely irrational - and unconstitutional - deprivation of legislative authority and rresponsibility," said Schafly. "There is no justification for this shift of power from one branch of government to another. It means that a two-thirds vote of the legislature cannot stop the governor during the 60-day period. Not even a unanimous vote of the legislature can do anything.
"Why?" Schafly asked. "If the legislature is unanimously opposed to a declaration of a health emergency or if a two-thirds majority, or even a simple majority, as in other states, then it should be able to override the governor."
Schafly pointed out that the model legislation, which was funded by the Centers for Disease Control, lists three references for the extraordinary provisions. None of the references bear any resemblance to the New York proposal.
"Some may think that a health emergency could require a complete change in government, but the greatest crisis of all - a national declaration of war - can only ooccur by an act of Congress," said Schafly. "When a real crisis arrives, legislative bodies are fully capable of acting quickly and forcibly."
He emphasized that the checks and balances, for which our constitutional government has been most noted, are most needed in times of crisis.
Schafly also stressed that the New York's proposed AB-9508 goes far beyond "bioterrorism," the purported reason for the federal push in this matter.
"It[Section1020] includes," Shafly said, "every disease that ‘poses a substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities or incidents of permanent or long-term disability.'"
"Lyme disease in New York could be the basis for a declaration of a state public health emergency by the governor under the draft bill. Hepatitis B or any other widespread illness could be cited in declaring a health emergency," Shafly said.
"The Bill uses a definition of ‘infectious disease' that broadly includes virtually everything, Shafly said. "It is defined to mean ‘a disease caused by a living organism...that may, or may not, be transmissible from person to person, animal to person, or insect to person' [Section 1003 (6)]. That sweeps far too much within the scope of the legislation."
The AAPS lawyer stressed also that no exceptions are in the bill for conscience or religious conviction.
Schafly made an important observation about "the striking differences" between individual choices and public health officials when government mandates a vaccination because of a bioterrorism threat. He pointed out that when the government declared the anthrax vaccine safe and effective, the military were forced to take the vaccine. Personnel who declined were subjected to court martial.
Shafly said:
After the anthrax attack hit , the vaccine was provided to postal workers and members of the media. Only about 2 percent elected to be vaccinated. Under the draft legislation, the governor could simply order everyone to be inoculated with the anthrax or any other vaccine. The manufacturer's incentive to improve the safety of the vaccine is lost if everyone is forced to take it.
Obviously freedom of choice in that anthrax vaccine matter resulted in 98 percent of the postal people ignoring government and choosing for themselves, which is an important indicator fact, especially considering how the media hyped the anthrax scare at the time.
Schafly also argued against the provisions allowing for quarantine at the sole discretion of the health officials:
"It could order people out of their homes into dangerous quarantines where there would be no guarantee of safety from violence or contagious disease. Children would be removed from parents and thrown into public quarantine with others. The mere potential of removing children from homes is very frightening to most parents. Difficult medical decisions, including whether to accept or deny treatment, should be made without the added worry of how a health department official may react."
Finally Schafly pointed out the threat the proposed law makes against the privacy of medical records, especially prescriptions. The AAPS lawyer closed his argument by quoting George Annas, Chairman of the Health Law Department at Boston University School of Public Health:
"This law treats American citizens as if they were the
enemy."
|Top|