(Statements and Letters by concerned citizens)
(Statements and Letters by concerned citizens)
Dr James S. Beck, MD, PhD
Excerpt from the PRESS RELEASE of January 21, 2015
Regina says, “Many more doctors and scientists were looking forward to giving their testimony before the council at the next City Council Meeting but we were informed the Mayor canceled the meeting that was on the City Calendar for January 21st. The alternative now will be to send the testimonies to the City Council via the City Secretary, like Dr James S. Beck, MD, PhD already has done. Dr Beck was born in Dallas in his letter is says "Fluoridation of public water supplies has been for the most part a well-intentioned mistake. Its justification would be that it is ethical, safe and effective in prevention of cavities. It is now clear that it is none of these." Dr Beck's letter is attached to this press release. His and many other testimonies can be seen by going our web-site http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com ”.
Regina says, “The Media has been silent about the upcoming vote and the serious concerns about the neurotoxin that is being added to the Dallas water. I have pleaded with the reporters to stay and cover our presentations to the Council, but I have been told, they have been instructed not to stay. The people need to hear about how dangerous this chemical is and how unnecessary it is to be adding it to our water that already has .5ppm and (many days even higher amounts) in the raw untreated water. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vCgB_PGbTE#t=58 This is a practice that has been going on for 50years. It is hard to change status quo, but by presenting science and being persistent we have opened the eyes of many of the council-members. Councilman Adam Medrano only days ago stated he is “standing with Sheffie”. Councilman Medrano said to me “I have been listening”.
Regina says, “Many, many people in Dallas do not know about the vote on January 28th and the serious concerns about Fluoridation. The facts and science show the risks far outweigh the supposed benefits. I believe many wanted this vote to go under the radar. We need to try to bring more attention to it and put more pressure on the Media to report about this Council vote. We will be standing outside Channel 8/WFAA studios 2500 Victory Ave (Olive St), Dallas, TX 75219 Thursday January 22 at 3pm with signs saying “Report the News about Fluoridation” and we invite others to join us. Details can be found on our web-site along with our email and phone number. I believe many like Adam Medrano have been listening, and like him they are on the council to serve the community. They will realize doing the right thing, would have to mean voting no on January 28th”.
Dr James S. Beck, MD, PhD
Statement to Dallas City Council
I hope you will consider the following brief argument on the matter of fluoridation of your public water supply. I am a physician and scientist (biophysics). I have doctorates from Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis) in medicine and the University of California (Berkeley) in biophysics. I studied at Rice Institute (Houston; now Rice University). I am a co-author of a 2010 book on fluoridation. I was born in Dallas.
Fluoridation of public water supplies has been for the most part a well-intentioned mistake. Its justification would be that it is ethical, safe and effective in prevention of cavities. It is now clear that it is none of these.
It is generally accepted by health authorities and scientists that the necessary way to determine whether a procedure is safe and effective is by randomized control trials. No such trial exists for fluoridation as a preventive of cavities. The four early trials in the United States, Canada and New Zealand had faults varying from unacceptable methodology to outright fraud (fraud in the New Zealand case). And no good control study has been done—at least none have been published in the scientific literature.
However, it has been observed on the basis of huge amounts of data that the occurrence of cavities does not decrease due to fluoridation. For example the World Heath Organization collected data from the early 1960s to 2004 from 18 industrialized countries. This data shows a steady decrease in prevalence of cavities in all 18 countries. But only four of those countries were fluoridated; fourteen were not. Clearly other changes, such as better diet and fluoridated toothpaste introduced in the 1970s were among the likely causes. Now it is generally accepted, even by promoters of fluoridation, that any protection of the teeth, minimal at best, is due to a topical action on the tooth enamel, not due to swallowing fluoride. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Dental Association admitted this in 1999.
In contrast with the lack of demonstration of effectiveness there are many studies, published in peer-reviewed journals, that show that stopping fluoridation is not followed by an increase in incidence of cavities but rather by either no change or a reduction in incidence.
Though no general toxicological studies have been published on the chemicals used in fluoridation, there is an abundance of credible papers on particular toxic effects. Associations of fluoride exposure in drinking water with many adverse conditions have been observed. Defects in reproductive processes, in teeth, in bone, in neurological development, and in thyroid function are particularly certain. Others have been observed with less certainty. This variety of toxic effects is not surprising since fluoride is well recognized to interfere with the function of enzymes, the proteins that catalyze (accelerate) biochemical reactions in all tissues. Also fluoride interferes with signaling across cell membranes—for example, in the case of hormones—a process essential for cellular functions in all organs and tissues.
The canons of medical ethics include strict conditions on what must accompany medical procedures. Some requirements are: informed consent, the option to stop the procedure, and monitoring of effects. None of these conditions are met in fluoridation of a public water supply. In fact, a council that implements fluoridation is doing what a physician or dentist can not do, which is to admnister a medicine without having examined the recipient, without having the consent of the recipient, and without observing the results.
Ethics touches law here, but I hopefully leave that to your informed conclusions.
Let me add a few points not embedded in the above. (1) Fluoridation chemicals are medicines. They are administered to prevent dental caries (cavities), a disease. (2) Fluoride is not a nutrient. It is not essential or helpful to any biochemical, physiological, or developmental process of the human body. Consequently fluoride is not a dietary supplement. (3) Controlling the concentration of fluoride in a water supply does not control the dose a person gets. The dose is the amount per day and the amount of water individuals ingest varies hugely. (4) There are groups, large and small, in a population that are more sensitive to exposure to fluoride. These groups include infants, the elderly, people with kidney disease, diabetics, people with low-iodine diets and others. (5) There are ways to prevent cavities that are matters of free choice: a good diet including adequate vitamin D, good dental hygiene, and occasional professional care. Currently there exist public programs involving these measures that have been very successful.
Finally, if you have questions you would like to ask me, feel free to contact me by e-mail. I am willing and ready to say what references and consultations have led me to the conclusions that fluoridation is not safe, not ethical, and not effective.
James S. Beck, MD, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics
University of Calgary
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
In this Dallas Morning News “Letter to the Editor” (Jan 23, 2015), Vincent Zanfagna describes his knowledge from involved family members about how WATER FLUORIDATION first came on the scene. And he goes into the TOXICITY, because his uncle had to deal with people exposed to excessive Fluoride.http://letterstotheeditorblog.dallasnews.com/2015/01/the-fluoride-debate-safe-or-unsafe.html/
Rudolph Bush hits the nail on the head when it comes to fluoride — science and evidence must always prevail. As president of the Dallas County Dental Society, representing nearly 1,400 dentists in the area, it is my duty to support health, safety and facts. The fact of the matter is those of us in the dental profession could sit back, allow the end of water fluoridation in our city and enjoy the financial benefits. The fact of the matter is that such a decision would inevitably increase dental decay in our city and mean a whole lot more fillings and treatments. The fact of the matter is, we’re not in this fight for the money.
First and foremost, we are obligated to health and safety. It is our responsibility as health care providers to support evidence-based practices that are in the best interest of our patients and community. Equally, it is our city leaders’ obligation to trust the experts over activists. Junk science, viral videos and Facebook groups can be persuasive. But making decisions about the health and well-being of our city’s population should be entrusted to the educated, evidence-backed professionals whose commitment is to health.
James Christian Miller, DDS, Dallas
… But were they misled?
We were sold a bill of goods 70 years ago based on a hunch, manufactured “trials” and marketing. My uncle, Dr. Phil Zanfagna, was in charge of a 1,000-bed military hospital during World War II. He worked with soldiers, scientists and chemists who used fluoride to manufacture the atomic bomb. He was president of the International Society of Allergists and the International Association of Fluorine Chemists. He tested fluorine compounds for 10 pharmaceutical companies.
He knew fluoride, and he recognized the symptoms of fluoride toxicity. He opposed the implementation of community water fluoridation. My uncle co-wrote Fluoridation and Truth Decay in 1974, describing back-room deals between R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Alcoa, working within the government to hide the deadly effects of smelting with fluoride throughout America. With community water fluoridation in place, they averted billions of dollars in settlements, and never again had to worry about disposing of this deadly toxin.
The corporations concocted a lie, marketing fluoride as a dental nutrient, using dentists as their shills. They did not advertise the toxic effects to brain and body — ADD, Alzheimer’s, arthritis, bone diseases, thyroid disorders and dental fluorosis.
My uncle was concerned about informed consent. Dallas should be, too.
Vincent Zanfagna, Newburyport, Mass.
Statements from Black/Hispanic Leaders
Statements from Black/Hispanic Leaders
~~ The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) passed a resolution opposing fluoridation.
~~ Andrew Young, former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration.
~~ Portland NAACP.
~~ Dr. Gerald L. Durley, a clinical psychologist, environmentalist, and Pastor of the Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta.
~~ Rev. Bernice A. King, a pastor, attorney, and daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
~~ Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
~~ Rev. William Owens, President of the Coalition of African American Pastors.
In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged for the first time that the black community has higher rates of dental fluorosis. It took a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, however, to learn the full extent of this disparity. According to recently released FOIA documents, 58% of black children were diagnosed with dental fluorosis in CDC’s 1999-2004 national survey, versus 36% of white children.
Despite being fluoride-overdosed, blacks still suffer from higher rates of tooth decay, with many low-income minority communities suffering from what health officials have called a “silent epidemic” of untreated tooth decay.
Dear Mr. Scott Griggs:
I am concerned about your upcoming Dallas City Council decision regarding water fluoridation. I am a board certified Family physician practicing in California and maintain medical licenses in three states.
I prescribed fluoride for more than twenty five years believing that I was protecting children’s teeth.
I have taken the time to read the literature, the research of globally respected toxicologists and neuroscientists, the consensus of foreign investigative scientific bodies and our own National Research Council (2006). By complying with a reckless public health policy to alleviate dental neglect, I exposed the brains of my young patients to a neurotoxin that harmed them over their lifetimes. I contributed to more illness in the populations that I served. We all did.
That is why I am writing to you. Even if fluoride could benefit teeth, we cannot justify prescribing or contaminating drinking water. In fact, the evidence is now overwhelming that water fluoridation is a dangerous campaign and a prohibitively expensive proposal for tooth decay:
- Systemic (swallowed) fluoride does not prevent cavities. Dental hygiene and nutritious diet does.
- Population studies indicate that children are already “overdosed” from total fluoride ingestion.
- Fluoride harms cells generating protein-mineral matrices. Fluoride promotes fractures in mature teeth and bones.
- Fluoride corrupts collagen and cartilage, is associated with painful arthritic conditions.
- Water fluoridation has been found to increase cancer rates in animal and human studies.
- Fluoride interferes with immune function and contributes to autoimmune disease.
- Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and impacts fertility (reduced), sexual development (earlier), glucose metabolism (diabetes), thyroid function (hypothyroidism), heart disease and stroke (risks increased).
- Fluoride is used universally as a rodenticide, a mammalian enzyme poison. The human body has no use for fluoride; in fact, it tries to minimize fluoride in breast milk.
- Fluoride is a recognized neurotoxin and impairs brain function and intelligence.
- Water fluoridation is a profitable remedy for industrial toxic waste disposal.
All exposures to fluoride, toxic chemicals, and harmful heavy metals, should be avoided wherever possible. According to trend indicators of the Center for Disease Control, one in three Dallas boys born today will be diagnosed with autism; one in six children will struggle with a developmental disability. Mental illness, sleep disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases are increasing at alarming rates. We are losing more precious minds, more functional adults every year. The ultimate cost for all of us is devastating and truly incalculable.
Thank you for appreciating the whole child; for protecting your family and community. Thank you for voting against increasing fluoride in Dallas city water.
April Hurley, MD
Just so I've got his straight - the choices are
A) Spend $1 million for a chemical waste product to be administered as an unapproved drug without the informed consent of people taking it in order to increase the naturally occurring neurotoxin fluoride from 0.5 ppm to 0.7 ppm for no apparent purpose, since it hasn't been proven it provides any additional cavity protection.
B) Save the $1 million and let people make do with the 0.5 ppm water they get already, notwithstanding we will be deprived of the additional lead, arsenic and uranium we were getting as a bonus with the hydrofluorosilicic acid.
That's a tough one.
Maybe we could get the chemical industries to just sell us the lead, arsenic, and uranium. It would be a win win. We still get our fluoride (albeit 0.2 ppm less), but can keep up with the daily dosages of the other poisons for no doubt a lot less money. Someone call the Mayor.
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re Dallas Council's pending Fluoridation vote on Jan 28
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 7:23 pm pt
Dear Mayor Mike Rawlings and other Dallas Councilors:
As a longtime Environment-Health forensics consultant (ret'd) and founder-director
of Santa Monicans for Safe Drinking Water Coalition (2002-09), I wish to join with other informed safe-clean water advocates by respectfully asking for your unanimous vote on Jan 28 2015 to END artificial fluoridation in Dallas.
On that note, for your consideration, this intensely researched item:
Award-winning investigative journalist/author Chris Bryson's celebrated book The Fluoride Deception is a remarkable truth-finding effort. (111 pages of footnotes & supporting data.)
Conveniently, the following fast video seems to capture that integrity. The author opens with his often-quoted wrap-up in a lucid interview with pioneering Dr. Paul Connett (PhD Environ. Chemistry). May I urge you to please visit that, if only for a few minutes here:
Political ploys and weak claims aside, sound precise proof for the longtime environ-health safety for the mass consumption of fluoridation's hazmat products appears to be egregiously absent.
If by chance any Councilors happen to be wavering about that (not-uncommon) assessment
(or query) of mine, I wish they could please check in with the whole (28 min) video.
Thank you kindly for listening - and possibly for watching.
Water Supplies Department - Hong Kong
Thank you for your e-mail of 7 May 2014.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), a low level of fluoride in drinking water provides protection against dental caries. The WHO’s "Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality" published in 2011 has reaffirmed the health-based guideline value of 1.5 mg/L for fluoride in drinking water after an extensive review of scientific studies and literature.
A large number of epidemiological studies have been conducted in many countries concerning the effects of long-term exposure to fluoride. There is so far no conclusive scientific evidence on any health hazard of long-term exposure to a very low amount of fluoride in drinking water.
Fluoridation of water supply in Hong Kong is implemented in accordance with the advice of the Department of Health (DH) as a preventive measure to reduce dental decay in the community. The current target level in the drinking water supply as recommended by the DH is 0.5 mg/L as fluoride. The Water Supplies Department (WSD) closely monitors the fluoride levels of treated water at water treatment works, service reservoirs and consumers’ taps. The average fluoride content in treated water supplied by the WSD is 0.49 mg/L during the period of October 2012 - September 2013, which is within the DH’s recommendation and well below the guideline value set out by the WHO. Detailed information on the drinking water quality of Hong Kong can be found in the following website of the WSD:
HO Sing Yiu
Water Supplies Department
Dallas Raw Source Water (before added Fluoride) has that amount of 0.5 ppm or 0.5 mg/L of Fluoride.
Hong Kong (population over 7 million) TRIES to use this amount and no more as a result of their scientific research and WHO, the World Health Organization.
Chantal Arashvand presented this information before the Dallas City Council on June 4th, 2014
Listen here (click OPEN MICROPHONE SPEAKERS) http://dallastx.swagit.com/play/06042014-567