Looking for fluoride in entire archive - Found 95 matches in 34 files
Showing results 1 - 25
|A Critical Response to Antifluoridationist Yolanda Whyte, M.D., 23/5/2013|
|Yolanda M. Whyte, M.D. has been actively opposing fluoridation during the past few years. She speaks at community meetings, has testified at legislative hearings, and is currently appearing in a video sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the primary U.S. antifluoridation organization. This article dissects some of her views and indicates why they should be disregarded.|
The dose of fluoride that’s supposedly effective in preventing dental cavities is very close to the dose that, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, can cause harm for some children. This statement is false. The EPA has expressed concern that fluoridated water at above 2 parts per million can cause severe fluorosis . However, the level in community fluoridation ranges from 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm and is likely to be lowered because of the availability of fluoride in toothpaste and other products has increased .
I am deeply concerned that fluoride is not good for babies and that they are at risk for harmful side effects. This statement is misleading. Fluoride is an important mineral for young children. Children who drink fluoridated water while their permanent teeth are forming have less tooth decay later . After teeth are in the mouth, fluoride helps to reverse early signs of decay .
The most clearly visible side effect is dental fluorosis. According to the Centers for Disease Control, dental fluorosis affects 41% of teenagers. That’s millions of children who now have a visible form of chronic fluoride toxicity. The 41% figure refers to all degrees of dental fluorosis, but the commonest forms— questionable, very mild, and mild fluorosis and most cases of moderate fluorosis—are barely visible and pose no problem whatsoever . In addition, teeth with fluorosis are more resistant to decay than teeth without fluorosis . Such teeth may appear whiter than otherwise, but they are neither unattractive nor structurally damaged. Moreover, many people think that extra whiteness make the teeth more attractive. Severe fluorosis can adversely affect both appearance and function. It is common in communities where water is naturally fluoridated at 4 ppm or higher, but its incidence is close to zero among people who drink water that is optimally fluoridated. Implying that most cases of fluorosis represent "chronic fluoride toxicity" due to community fluoridation should be considered dishonest.
I’m concerned that fluoride could also affect tissues and organs that are not visible like the . . . brain. My concern is based in part on a large body of research finding that modestly elevated levels of fluoride can reduce a child’s intelligence. . . . During this statement, the video displayed the heading from an article that reviewed fluoride-IQ studies from China, Mongolia and Iran. Many of these studies included water samples in which the natural fluoride levels were considerably above the recommended level for fluoridating water in the U.S. No reasonable person could call these “modestly elevated levels." The Harvard researchers who examined these fluoride-IQ studies found that all “had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn." and that “the actual exposures of the individual children are not known." .
In May 2012, at a City Council hearing in Milwaukee, Whyte stated that she spent about half her time practicing pediatrics in Atlanta and half doing lobbying. She went on to say that fluoride is a toxin and claimed that fluorosis is as common as cavities and that she diagnoses it at least five times a day. Her presentation, which lasted about 20 minutes, is probably the wildest attack I have ever observed on the subject. She spoke very rapidly and made one dramatic charge after another. The hearing was called to discuss a resolution intended to bring an immediate halt to fluoridation in Milwaukee. Prudent observers should conclude that if even one item on Whyte's enormous "laundry list" of criticisms were valid, fluoridation would have been stopped worldwide. The hearing was called to consider a resultion to halt fluoridation in Milwaukee. Fortunately, the council members modified the proposal and voted to keep fluoridation but lower the concentration from 1.1 ppm to 0.7 ppm .
National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006.
Proposed HHS recommendation for fluoride concentration in drinking water for prevention of dental caries. Federal Register 76:2383-2388, 2011.
Singh KA and others. Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience of permanent first molars. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63:11-19, 2003.
Fluoride and Infant Formula: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). American Dental Association Web site, accessed Feb 4, 2013.
Choi AL and others. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, July 20, 2012,
Taylor B. Compromise reached in Milwaukee's fluoride debate. Fox6 Now, July 24, 2012.
|Why Fluoridation Is Important, 11/4/2013|
| Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in most water supplies. Fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural fluoride concentration to about one part of fluoride to one million parts of water. Although fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, the scare tactics of misguided poisonmongers have deprived many communities of its benefits.|
The history of fluoridation in the United States underlines its unique standing as a public health measure copied from a natural phenomenon. In the early 1900s, Dr. Frederick S. McKay began an almost 30-year search for the cause of the staining of teeth that was prevalent in Colorado, where he practiced dentistry. In his investigation, McKay found the condition common in other states, including Texas, where it was known as "Texas teeth." In 1928, he concluded that such teeth, although stained, showed "a singular absence of decay," and that both the staining and the decay resistance were caused by something in the water. In 1931, the "something" was identified as fluoride.
The Public Health Service then took over to determine precisely what amount of fluoride in the water would prevent decay without causing staining. Years of "shoeleather epidemiology" by Dr. H. Trendley Dean traced the dental status of 7,000 children who drank naturally fluoridated water in 21 cities in four states. In 1943, he reported that the ideal amount of fluoride was one part per million parts of water. This concentration was demonstrated to result in healthy, attractive teeth that had one-third as many cavities as might otherwise be expected—and no staining.
The next step was to determine whether water engineering could copy nature's amazing dental health benefit. At several test sites, the fluoride concentration of the public water supply was adjusted to one part per million.
One such test was conducted in the neighboring cities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. First, the children in both cities were examined by dentists and physicians; then fluoride was added to Newburgh's water supply. After ten years, the children of Newburgh had 58% fewer decayed teeth than those of nonfluoridated Kingston. The greatest benefits were obtained by children who had drunk the fluoridated water since birth. Other studies showed that teeth made stronger by fluoride during childhood would remain permanently resistant to decay. As the evidence supporting fluoridation accrued, thousands of communities acted to obtain its benefits.
In recent years, fluoridation has been reducing the incidence of cavities 20% to 40% in children and 15% to 35% in adults. The reduction is less than it used to be, probably due to improved dental hygiene and widespread use of fluoride toothpaste. Currently, more than 200 million Americans live in fluoridated communities. But many others receive public water supplies that are not fluoridated—thanks largely to the efforts of poisonmongers.
Half-truths are commonly used. For example, saying that fluoride is a rat poison ignores the fact that poison is a matter of dose. Large amounts of many substances—even pure water—can poison people. But the trace amount of fluoride contained in fluoridated water will not harm anyone.
Apparently, in the minds of the antis, these groups could all be working together to "poison" the American people! Years ago, conspiracy claims would work primarily with the very paranoid. But modern-day government scandals may make them seem realistic to a wider audience.The "slippery slope" claim is a related gambit. "This is only the beginning!" the antis wail. "First they will add fluoride, then vitamin pills, and the next thing you know it will be birth control pills!" Who "they" are need not be specified.
Scare words will add zip to any anti campaign. Not only the more obvious ones like "cancer" and "heart disease," but also more specialized terms like "mongoloid births" and "sickle-cell anemia." Ecology words are also useful. Calling fluoride a "chemical" (rather than a nutrient) can strike fear in the minds of many Americans who fear we are already too "chemicalized." The fact that water itself is a chemical and the fact that responsible use of chemicals is extremely helpful to our society will not reassure everyone. Fluoride is also called "artificial" and "a pollutant," which is "against nature."
Faced with the fact that fluoridation merely copies a natural phenomenon, the antis reply that "natural" fluoride differs from "artificial" fluoride—a "fact" as yet undiscovered by scientists.
Here the antis propose that the community distribute free fluoride tablets to parents who wish to give them to their children. The suggested program sounds "democratic," but it will not be effective from a public health standpoint. Most parents are not motivated to administer the 4,000+ doses needed from birth through age twelve. The plea for alternatives is often made by a "neutral" individual who sounds like he will support an alternative program if water fluoridation is defeated. Don't bet on it. Such advocacy is almost always a propaganda ploy.
In the mid-1970s, John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. and another anti began issuing a series of reports claiming that fluoridation causes cancer. Experts concluded that these reports were based on a misinterpretation of government statistics. They had compared cancer death rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities but failed to consider various factors in each city (such as industrial pollution) that are known to raise the cancer death rate. By 1977, independent investigations by eight of the leading medical and scientific organizations in the English-speaking world had refuted the claims, but they still surface today in many communities that consider fluoridation. In 1990, the cancer charge was raised again following an unauthorized release of data from an experiment in which rats and mice were exposed to high dosages of fluoride. The experiment was conducted by the National Toxicology Program, a branch of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The agency's final report stated that there was no evidence of cancer-causing activity in female rats or in male and female mice and only "equivocal evidence" in male rats. Subsequent review by a U.S. Public Health Service panel concluded that the data were insignificant and that fluoridation posed no risk of cancer or any other disease.
The American Dental Association
Fluoride supplementation for children in nonfluoridated communities Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoridation Opponent, Dead at 58.
Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (1991): Public Health Service report
|Linus Pauling's Statement Supporting Fluoridation, 8/6/2008|
| Over a period of more than a decade I have studied the available information about the fluoridation of drinking water I have reached the conclusion that the presence of fluoride ion in drinking water in concentrations about equal to the average for natural water is beneficial to the health, especially because of the protection that it provides against dental caries, and that there is no evidence for detrimental effects comparable in significance to the beneficial effects. I support the actions of city, state, and national governments in ordering that public supplies of drinking water be brought to this level by the addition of fluoride, in case that the water is deficient in fluoride, and by removal of some of the fluoride if there is an excess of fluoride in the water supply.|
Fluoride as a Poison
Fluoride in large amounts is a poison. In small amounts it is beneficial to human beings. In this respect fluoride ion is similar to many other substances, such as vitamin D, that are harmful in large amounts but are required in small amounts for life and good health of human beings. Another example is copper. Copper sales are poisonous, but a small amount of copper is essential for the health of human beings.
Fluoride Ion as an Enzyme Inhibitor
It is known that at certain concentrations fluoride ion acts as an inhibitor of some of the enzymes present in the human body. The available evidence indicates that the fluoride ion present in average natural waters or in waters that have been fluoridated according to the standard present-day practice does not cause harmful effects to human beings by inhibiting enzyme action.
The Mottling of Teeth by Fluoride Ion
Drinking water containing a larger than average amount of fluoride ion causes mottling of the teeth with white spots. In general, only mild or very mild mottling of the enamel is caused by the concentration of fluoride recommended in the fluoridation of drinking water. The disadvantage of occasional mild mottling of the enamel is far outweighed by the advantage of great decrease in dental caries.
I am pleased to note that the Linus Pauling Institute's Web site now contains an excellent report on the importance of adequate fluoride intake. The statement originated in the early 1990s and is periodically revised. The current version concludes:
The safety and public health benefits of optimally fluoridated water for prevention of tooth decay in people of all ages have been well-established. The Linus Pauling Institute supports the recommendations of the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which include optimally fluoridated water as well as the use of fluoride toothpaste, fluoride mouthrinse, fluoride varnish, and when necessary, fluoride supplementation. Due to the risk of fluorosis, any fluoride supplementation should be prescribed and closely monitored by a dentist or physician.
|A Critical Look at Paul Connett and his Fluoride Action Network, 2/6/2014|
|A Critical Look at Paul Connett and his Fluoride Action Network|
his Fluoride Action Network
Paul Connett, Ph.D., a retired chemistry professor, is executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and its parent organization, the American Environmental Health Studies Project. His followers are sufficiently organized that any community that considers fluoridating its water supply will hear from them by e-mail and possibly in other ways.
Wulf C and others. Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet. Columbus, OH: American Oral Health Institute, 1985, 1988.
|Benjamin Spock Statement Supporting Fluoridation, 9/8/2006|
|The fact is that I started out as somewhat skeptical and cautious about fluoridation in the 1940's and early 1950's. But then I became a firm believer as proof was assembled by scientists in the 1950's and afterwards that fluoridation of a water supply will reduce the production of tooth cavities (our most prevalent disease) by 60%, and, just as important, that no disease or defect is caused by this procedure. What particularly allayed my early doubts about adding a chemical to public water supplies was learning that fluoride has always occurred naturally in water supplies—in concentrations from several parts per million in some regions of the southwest to a mere twentieth of a part per million in the northeast. Obviously, it is a natural, though varying, ingredient of water. Because of this, any long-term bad effect could be—and was—searched for in those people who had drunk water with a moderate or high concentration all their lives.|
The story of how fluoridation's value was discovered is not only fascinating, but should also be reassuring to some doubters since it reveals that the early researchers had no bias, no axe to grind. They were simply looking for answers to certain dental problems. Dr. Frederick S. McKay, a practicing dentist in Colorado with an extraordinary curiosity and dedication to human betterment, spent the first 30 years of this century tracking down the cause of a certain type of tooth stain which has always been prevalent in Colorado and several southwestern states. He first found, strangely enough, that this staining occurred in people whose teeth had a high resistance to decay. He finally discovered, in 1931, that the staining and resistance to decay were both due to the high concentration of fluoride which occurred naturally in that region.
Then Dr. H. Trendley Dean and a team from the U.S. Public Health Service spent 10 years evaluating the dental health of 7,000 children in 4 southwestern states with moderate to high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride to find what concentration gave the best protection without staining. They found it to be one part fluoride in a million parts of water.
A crucial test was begun in 1945 in Newburgh, New York, to see whether deliberate addition of fluoride to a water supply which had very little natural fluoride would provide the same benefit. Over a 10-year period, the children of Newburgh developed nearly 60% fewer cavities than the children of the comparable city of Kingston, where the water was not fluoridated. Since then, thousands of studies of the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation have been made with consistent results.
The natural occurrence of moderate to high concentrations of fluoride in certain regions has made it possible for scientists to search without delay for possible bad effects by carefully comparing rates for such diseases as cancer, heart disease, birth defects and allergies in regions with high, medium and low concentrations of fluoride. All studies have agreed: the only adverse effect is staining of the teeth when the fluoride concentration is several times as high as that recommended for artificial fluoridation.
You've probably heard the accusations against fluoridation—that it is a poison; that it may cause cancer, heart disease, birth defects, allergies and other diseases; that its use in a public water supply is an invasion of people's constitutional rights unless they consent. Other, wilder, claims are that it is a communist plot to weaken our country (even though the Soviet Union uses fluoridation), or that it is simply a money-making scheme of the aluminum companies who produce the fluoride as a by-product. All adverse claims and accusations which had the slightest plausibility have been scrupulously investigated by scientists and government officials and have been found to be baseless. But nothing seems to keep the more determined opponents from repeating old accusations and making new ones.
|Fluoridation: A Roadmap for Legislators, 18/8/2007|
|MORE THAN 30 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES NOW DRINK FLUORIDATED WATER. Over 3 million of them are drinking naturally fluoridated water. As far as naturally occurring fluorides are concerned, this has been going on for generations. It is true that some people are drinking naturally fluoridated water where the fluoride content is far greater than that advocated by the U.S. Public Health Service or that which is put into the water in a mechanically controlled manner.|
There is a universal presence of fluorides in water, plant and animal life; infinitesimal as it may be, it is still there. It is self-evident that a certain amount of fluoride is entirely compatible with human health, and' indeed to plant and animal life everywhere.
Fluorides like other trace substances have been around since time began, and even the strongest opponents of fluoridation do not deny that several trace substances are needed for proper human growth and general health. Scientists have located a trace substance (fluoride) already present in many water supplies in sufficient quantities to decrease tooth decay and at the same time do no harm to people.
Scientists advocate putting this trace substance (fluoride) in other water supplies where only a "fraction of a trace" is present.
|Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoridation Opponent, Dead at 58, 6/9/2014|
| John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. (1943–2000) liked to call himself "the world's leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride." He was for more than 25 years the most active antifluoridationist in the United States. He was very bright—and determined. Had he chosen a positive direction, he might well have made a valuable contribution to science. But he did not. Despite training as a biochemist, he became obsessed with the idea that water fluoridation is dangerous.|
Yiamouyiannis also operated the Health Action Press, which produced three titles: Fluoride: the Aging Factor (1983, 1986, 1993), High Performance Health (1987), and AIDS: The Good News Is That HIV Doesn't Cause It (1995), which he co-authored with Peter Duesberg, the leading HIV denialist. The jacket of his 1983 book stated:
Dr. Yiamouyiannis lives with his wife and six children on a 35-acre farm just outside of Columbus, Ohio. Their lifestyle revolves around a total preventive health care program with emphasis on a virtually fluoride-free diet. The results: all of his children are excellent athletes in excellent health. For the last twenty years, their total medical bill has been less than $500.
Yiamouyiannis J. Fluoride: The Aging Factor. Delaware, OH: Health Action Press, 1983, 1986.
Schmitz J. Why fluoride foes sank $50,000 in fluoride suit. The Pittsburgh Press, Nov 22, 1978.
Wulf C and others. Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet. Columbus, OH: American Oral Health Institute, 1985, 1988.
|How Dental Restoration Materials Compare, 24/4/2002|
| A mixture of submicron glass filler and acrylic that forms a solid tooth-colored restoration. Self- or light-hardening at mouth temperature. Self-hardening mixture of fluoride containing glass powder and organic acid that forms a solid tooth colored restoration able to release fluoride. Self or light- hardening mixture of sub-micron glass filler with fluoride containing glass powder and acrylic resin that forms a solid tooth colored restoration able to release fluoride.|
Leakage is generally low; recurrent decay is comparable to other direct materials, fluoride release may be beneficial for patients at high risk for decay. Leakage is low when properly bonded to the underlying tooth; recurrent decay is comparable to other direct materials, fluoride release may be beneficial for patients at high risk for decay.
|Questionable Organizations: An Overview, 3/9/2016|
|2. Who are its leaders and advisors? The International Society for Fluoride Research may sound respectable, but it is actually an antifluoridation group. The International Academy of Preventive Medicine (now called the International Academy of Nutrition and Preventive Medicine) numbered among its leaders Carlton Fredericks, Linus Pauling, Lendon Smith, and other promoters of questionable nutrition practices. The Health Resources Council was founded by Gary Null to promote "alternative" health methods.|
5. Does it oppose proven public health measures? Opposition to fluoridation and immunization are tipoffs to extremely poor judgment. The names of such organizations sometimes fail to reveal their true purpose. "Pure water" and "Safe Water" groups nearly always have dishonest opposition to fluoridation as their central focus. The Preventive Dental Health Association is opposed to the use of amalgam fillings as well as to fluoridation. The World Children's Wellness Foundation is a chiropractic group that opposes the immunization of children.
International Society for Fluoride Research
Fluoride Action Network
International Society for Fluoride Research
|Twenty-Six Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers, 5/6/2016|
|Fluoride is necessary to build decay-resistant teeth and strong bones. The best way to obtain adequate amounts of this important nutrient is to augment community water supplies so their fluoride concentration is about one part fluoride for every million parts of water. But quacks usually oppose water fluoridation, and some advocate water filters that remove fluoride. It seems that when they cannot profit from something, they may try to make money by opposing it.|
|Dr. Joseph Mercola Ordered to Stop Illegal Claims, 16/1/2017|
|Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the leading promoter of misinformation about fluoridation. Its donations are funneled through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project.|
Mercola JM. Is fluoride as safe as you are told. Optimal Wellness Center Web site, Feb 2, 6, and 9, 2002.
Mesh A. Dr. Joseph Mercola gives $15,000 to anti-flouride campaign. Williamette Week, May 6, 2013.
|How Medical Facts Are Developed, 7/10/2004|
|A variant of the clinical trial is the community trial, which is used when a public-health program cannot be applied selectively to individuals but must be applied to the community as a whole. An example is fluoridation of water to prevent tooth decay, which was tested for its effectiveness in the 1940s. Several communities had fluoride added to their water supplies, while other communities served as controls. By comparing the prevalence of tooth decay among schoolchildren in the test cities against that in control cities, it was found that the children in the fluoridated areas had far fewer cavities. Community trials are necessarily restricted to a limited number of areas, and thus there is the possibility of picking atypical areas that may give misleading results. For this reason, community trials are inherently less powerful tools for testing hypotheses than ordinary clinical trials, in which chance tends to play a far lesser role because the principles of random sampling can be more fully applied.|
The fluoridation experiments illustrate that not all trials need be double-blind. It was obviously impossible to avoid disclosing the fact that the water in the test areas had been fluoridated. However, because it is unlikely that development of cavities would be much affected by this knowledge, there was little concern that a placebo effect would bias the findings. (Intuitively, the assumption that there is no placebo effect in fluoridation trials seems correct. The assumption is supported by the fact that in areas with naturally high levels of fluoride in the water, residents had few cavities before it was suspected that fluoride was protective.)
|Nonrecommended Periodicals, 24/10/2015|
|Fluoride: Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research |
|Some Notes on the Groton Wellness Center, 25/1/2015|
|The Evanses also oppose the use of fluoride in any form to fight tooth decay .|
Fluoride - There's a better choice. Groton Wellness Web site, accessed Jan 22, 2015.
|Appropriate Use of Supplements, 15/11/2010|
|Fluoride supplements should be given to children not drinking fluoridated water.|
Standing Committee of on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference ntakes, Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine. Dietary Reference Intakes: Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington, DC 1997, National Academy Press.
|Alternative Medicine: A Public Health Perspective, 25/1/2009|
| Here again, people seem to be confused by semantics. Webster's Dictionary defines "natural" in many ways, including "being in accordance with or determined by nature," "untouched by the influences of civilization and society," and "having a form or appearance found in nature." Poking acupuncture needles into the skin, swallowing homeopathic concoctions elaborately prepared according to Hahnemannian principles, manipulating the spine, colonic irrigations, or swallowing handfuls of dietary supplements are no more "natural" than medical procedures. In the case of fluoridation, alt-care providers have been against this procedure which merely adjusts the level of fluoride in water to mimic the tooth decay prevention seen in areas where fluoride occurs naturally. Immunization also is based upon mimicking naturally-acquired immunity discovered by medical pioneers. Registered dietitians promote food rather than pills for good nutrition, but alt-care providers are notorious for pushing dietary supplements. Alt-care may be low tech, but it is not as natural as science-based medicine.|
|Be Wary of the National Health Federation (1993), 31/7/2013|
|Adjusting community drinking water to about one part fluoride to one million parts of water is a safe, simple, and inexpensive way to help prevent tooth decay. Although NHF's leaders claim to be interested in preventing disease by "proper nutrition," they are rigidly opposed to fluoridation.|
|A Reply to False Statements by Helke Ferrie, 30/12/2012|
| "If its income falls below what is needed . . . the rest comes out of my pocket." His and Gots' pockets are interesting, to say the least. The funding sources of their organizations were readily available on the Internet until recently; in the early '90s he stopped disclosing such information. The last annual report to list donors was published 1991 where we find all our toxic friends: Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland (both of genetic engineering fame), the Nutrasweet Company (neurotoxic aspartame etc.), Union Carbide (as in Bopal disaster), the producers of pesticides, fertilizers, and fluoride Dow Chemical, Dupont, Cargill etc., the biochemical warfare and pharmaceutical producers Eli Lilly, the Uniroyal Chemical Company, all the big petroleum and pharmaceutical companies, and various refined sugar producers and refined food producing giants. Two thirds of the world's economy is controlled by this list of North American Big Business. With friends like that, who needs to worry about telling the most fantastical lies in public?|
|A Critical Look at "Dr." Paula Bickle, 6/7/2007|
|Dr. Paula Bickle started her career as a dental hygienist in Portland, Oregon. During her dental practice she started to question the safety of root canals and commonly used dental materials including mercury and fluoride. She realized that the oral cavity was not disconnected from the rest of the body. Many diseases show themselves in the oral cavity, furthermore some diseases may originate in the oral cavity and certainly the patient's nutritional status affects it all.|
|How to Choose a Dentist, 14/1/2007|
|Regular check-ups can detect problems early. Routine tooth cleanings, bite evaluations, periodontal examinations, early interventions, and fluoride treatments can often avoid costly repairs. The frequency of maintenance care (including calculus removal and x-ray examinations) should be based on an assessment of the frequency of cavity formation, the rate of calculus formation, the condition of the gums, and any other special problem. Once current treatment has been completed, the patient should be placed on a recall schedule and notified when the next checkup is due.|
|How Quackery Sells, 20/1/2005|
|Quackery's most serious form of fear-mongering has been its attack on water fluoridation. Although fluoridation's safety is established beyond scientific doubt, well-planned scare campaigns have persuaded thousands of communities not to adjust the fluoride content of their water to prevent cavities. Millions of innocent children have suffered as a result.|
|Rep. Diane Watson Introduces Anti-Amalgam Bill, 27/11/2004|
|Statement by Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles): Mercury in Dental Filling Disclosure and Prohibition Act. Los Angeles, California, Nov 5, 2001. Accessed on Fluoride Action Network Web site, Nov 9, 2001.|
|Testimony Opposing Naturopathic Licensure in Massachusetts, 21/8/2003|
|It would be a slap in the faces of nurse practitioners and physician's assistants, who are far more qualified than naturopaths but who would enjoy less autonomy and the appearance of lower status in the eyes of a public that places its trust in government. It would be a giant headache for the Department of Public Health, which would be inundated by bogus claims of "heavy metal poisoning," "fluoride toxicity," widespread "food allergies," "yeast infections" and "toxins," exaggerated dangers of childhood vaccinations, and other claims common to naturopathic practice (4).|
|"Nutrition Insurance": A Skeptical View, 12/12/2001|
|The most appropriate use of vitamin supplements is in conditions in which caloric intake is below 1,200 calories per day and particularly if, at the same time, requirements are increased, perhaps as the result of illness. A correctly balanced multivitamin supplement may also be appropriate for pregnant women. Supplements of vitamins A and D of appropriate potency can be justified for young infants as insurance against nutritional inadequacy. And supplementary fluoride is vital to help strengthen the teeth of children growing up in nonfluoridated communities -- a need that CRN does not address.|
|Testimony of John M. Taylor, 13/9/2001|
|Consumers usually think of drugs as the medicines they take to treat illnesses, but most Americans use CDER-regulated drug products every day to maintain health. Drugs include more than just medicines. For example, fluoride toothpastes, antiperspirants, dandruff shampoos, and sunscreens are all considered "drugs," within the meaning of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act.|
Limit of 25 files reached.