Yes Mary, Here I am.

Ronnie from Negaunee

--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, "sparrowdancer" <sparrowdancer1@...>
wrote:
>
> Greetings, I'm a journalist and columnist for Rense.com and used to post on
this site years ago. I'm wondering if anyone knows how to contact Ron, above. I
have lost touch with him.
> Thank you,
> Mary Sparrowdancer
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Aliss

To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 09, 2010 9:26 AM

Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] EPA and FDA rewriting fluoride toxicology

 

Hi Mary,

You highlight an important fact that has frustrated Phyllis M for years and was the reason she published her article on fluoride poisoned workers a few years back. EPA says high exposures from environment or workplace are not toxic and ignores synergy with air pollutants and aluminum. They also allow testing be done when plant is offline! (See? Low levels today, therefore worker illness not due to fluoride.) FDA says high doses are not toxic and ignores lowered threshold of toxicity from prior fluoride exposures and organic fluorides. Medical training says fluoride toxicity is not medically serious and serious symptoms aren’t due to fluoride. Laboratories say high urine fluoride levels are within acceptable reference range, or cannot measure below 1 ppm or above 10 ppm. Almost no one does blood fluoride. A few years ago, an emergency room doctor here in Toronto did a blood fluoride measurement on a woman who presented with classic hypocalcaemia symptoms and found grossly elevated F levels. The woman was a heavy smoker and had developed extreme electro-sensitivity after a cell phone tower was installed on her apartment building. She had been previously diagnosed with elevated but subacute levels of lead, cadmium and mercury (common in smokers). I tried to track down the doctor and connect with the hospital lab but was shut out. There was another incident of fluoride poisonings in a dialysis unit here that was likewise not publicized as fluoride from water fluoridation, but equipment failure of the reverse osmosis system. I believe there was overfeed from one of the treatment plants that week. It is virtually impossible to pin things down to fluoride poisoning from tap water, when Toronto Water only has to report fluoride averages. In order to make up for a toxic spill all they do is temporarily turn off the fluoride, keep testing and then add the low F results so that the median is within range. What a scam.

Aliss

Hi Ronnie - I have been the journalist covering a very large antitrust case between one man versus Johnson & Johnson, and CNN since 2008.  Both of those companies have threatened to kill the one man, with at least one phone threat suggesting poison.  The man is an inventor of a dental product that was clinically proven to be over 30% more effective than J&J's leading dental product.  They have kept him off the market.

In December, the man was poisoned.  He somehow survived a lethal dose of fluoride that was administered sublingually to him by his dentist.  I will be reporting on all of this, but I wanted you and your group to know that fluoride is now the "ideal" tool of the assassin, because NO ONE tests for it. That's right.  NO ONE TESTS FOR IT.  It took us weeks to finally locate a forensic laboratory that would check the man's urine for fluoride.  He had 132 mg/L of fluoride in his urine (tested eight times), which appears to me to be the highest level ever recorded in a still-living human being.  He is an otherwise healthy young man - in perfect health until this was done to him.  The first thing that happened to him within about 12 hours was acute renal failure, with his scant next day urine having a creatinine level of 5636 mg/L.  Had he died several days after his dental visit, no one would have known the cause of death, and no one would have suspected the assassin: his female dentist.

We have kept careful notes, and I wanted you and your group to know that the "accepted" symptoms of fluoride poisoning are not at all accurate or inclusive of everything that a man might actually experience.  Poison Control does not have the full list of true symptoms, nor do toxicologists, nor do they know what to do to help him after surviving an acute fluoride poisoning.  The government does not know what to do, and the FDA issued an inaccurate report trying to shield the fluoride rather than helping the fluoride poisoned man.  

Mary

-----

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8629241.stm



Farmers in southern Iceland have been racing to protect their animals from being
poisoned by volcanic dust.

The animals are at risk of fluoride poisoning if they inhale or ingest the ash,
leading to internal bleeding, long-term bone damage and teeth loss.

Sheep, cattle and horses were rushed to shelter after they got lost in a fog of
ash in areas near an erupting volcano.

Areas south of the Eyjafjallajoekull volcano have been caked in a layer of grey
ash some 10cm (four inches) thick.

Ponds have turned into pools of cement-like mud and geese have had trouble
flying because their wings are heavy with ash, media reports say.

'Contaminated earth'

On Sunday, farmers banded together to drive around searching for hundreds of
shaggy Icelandic horses, who panicked and got lost in a downpour of ash that
turned day into night.


Icelandic President Olaf Ragnar Grimsson: "It's an important lesson for all of
us"
"The risk is of fluoride poisoning if they breathe or eat too much," Berglind
Hilmarsdottir, a dairy farmer from Nupur, told the AP news agency through a
protective white dust mask.

The fluoride in the ash creates acid in the animals' stomachs, corroding the
intestines and causing haemorrhages.

It also binds with calcium in the blood stream and after heavy exposure over a
period of days makes bones frail, even causing teeth to crumble.

"The best we can do is put them in the barn, block all the windows, and bring
them clean food and water as long as the earth is contaminated," Ms
Hilmarsdottir said.

Sveinn Steinarsson, of Iceland's Horse Breeding Association, warned that
Iceland's famously resilient ponies would be in danger if the ash contamination
continued.

"In areas where there's ash fall and horses are outside, the conditions are
terrible," Mr Steinarsson told the French news agency, AFP.

"They can't survive in this if it carries on too long. The horses have to be fed
with hay and have access to running water to avoid them consuming a lot of ash."

Conditions on the ground immediately downstream of the volcano remained
extremely difficult on Monday, said the BBC's Lorna Gordon in Iceland, and
visibility was down to just a few metres.

Teams from the country's civil defence department have been visiting the farmers
to offer support and advice using specially modified vehicles and armoured
personnel carriers, our correspondent said.

Austin, TX: America's Largest Water Fluoridation Fight
Friday, 21 May 2010
Written by Niamh Marnell


Water fluoridation is an institution in America. The American Dental Association
(ADA) and World Health Organization (WHO) say it is a safe and cost-effective
way to prevent cavities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
hails it as one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th Century.
On the other side, some experts, scientists, and concerned citizens argue that
fluoride has many negative side effects and is hazardous to public health. In
Austin, Texas, they are fighting about whether or not to have it removed from
the public water supply.

In an interview about his 2004 book, The Fluoride Deception, Chris Bryson,
award-winning investigative journalist and former BBC producer, concludes that
"fluoride science is corporate science. Fluoride science is DDT science.
Fluoride science is asbestos science. It's tobacco science. It's a racket." The
book, based on 10 years of research, is a scathing review of the history of
water fluoridation, which claims that the safety standards for water
fluoridation in this country are based on fraudulent science.

Ted Norris, an MD with a PhD in neuro endocrinology agrees, saying that
fluoridated water is a scam worse than big tobacco. "All our thyroids are
screwed up. It causes chronic obesity. It causes fatigue. It causes depression.
It causes lack of energy, and that's not even to get into the osteosarcomas and
the hip replacements." He continues, "It's devastating. I think it's worse than
lead. It's a shame."

Norris is just one of the many experts in Austin, Texas, pushing the
hyper-political question of whether or not to continue fluoridating the city's
water. Austin is poised to be the first city with a significant population in
the United States to possibly reverse their practice of fluoridating the public
water supply, which could cause large cities all across America to reevaluate
the effects of fluoride on the health of their populations.

Bill Kiel, who was a council member in Alamo Heights, Texas, when they
overturned the decision to fluoridate the water, experienced what he called
"gangbusters" or the fluoride "lobby." He said that if Austin starts reassessing
the water fluoridation policy, he "wouldn't be surprised if [the proponents of
fluoride] came in with many hundreds if not millions of dollars to fight this.
Can you imagine what that effect would be if a city that size actually rejected
fluoride? I mean, it would really make the news."

Last August, Austin's environmental board was concerned enough by the citizens'
outcry against water fluoridation to request an independent study. In December,
they received a report by representatives from the Human and Health Services
Department, Austin Water Utility, Assistant City Manager Rudy Garza, and the
Watershed Protection Development Review Department. According to Chairwoman Mary
Gay Maxwell, it was a three page report which contained no research yet
concluded that fluoride levels were within safe limits, according to CDC
guidelines. Board members comments that the report was not sufficient elicited
applause from the meeting attendees.

Chairwoman Maxwell told DCBureau.org, "We had enough concern about it and enough
interest in it to forward it to the council," but it wasn't taken seriously. At
the time, she told The Daily Texan of her "extreme displeasure" at the report
saying, "This makes me very disturbed. It's very hard to be the chair of a board
that's been put in this position."

The council remained unresponsive to the request of the environmental board. A
group of experts and concerned citizens, including the aforementioned Norris and
Kiel, decided to pursue the issue independently. The group met Monday with
council staffers and Council Member Chris Riley in an attempt to garner the two
council sponsors necessary to go forward with the issue, assemble an independent
task force, and ultimately get the vote of four council members that would be
necessary to reverse the decision. Other experts in attendance included Griffin
Cole, who is an Austin dentist with a fluoride-free practice, and Neil Carman,
who is the Sierra Club Clean Air Program Director and has a PhD in plant
chemistry.

The group was also armed with a wealth of scientific studies including the
National Research Council's study on water fluoridation that was commissioned by
the EPA. They also had the backing of Kathleen Thiessen, who is a leading expert
in toxicology and risk assessment. Thiessen served as a panelist on the National
Research Council review, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of
EPA's Standards." The review found that water only represents half of all
fluoride consumed, which puts fluoride consumption in the 2-4 milligram per
liter range associated with health dangers.

In an interview with Michael Connett of the Fluoride Action Network, Thiessen
talked about the research saying, "I think it's important to know that our
committee unanimously said that the existing regulatory limits for fluoride in
drinking water are not protective." She continued, "We also pointed out a number
of areas where there are, or seem to be, adverse health effects that have not
historically been associated with fluoride or at least not in the mainstream
literature."

After the meeting, Kiel reported to DCBureau.org that Council Member Riley and
the staffers implied that moving forward without the support of the mainstream
medical community would be difficult, though all were receptive and sympathetic
to the cause.

Kiel suggested to others after the meeting that, with the issue being so
contentious, they may want to first focus on the points of agreement between
themselves and the mainstream medical community. One example he gave was that
the CDC website states: "It now appears that the amount of the fluoride
contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child's
risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child's sole source of
nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula." He recommended they first focus
on fighting for public health warnings, so that people are, at the very least,
aware that fluoridated water poses a risk for infants.

Some citizens and experts in Austin strongly believe that the science is
indisputable and that, if the medical community and the general public will take
a second look at all the new research, there would be no question about getting
fluoride out of the drinking water. Norris said, "The science is over. It is no
longer an issue. Now it's just a political thing. How much are we going to act
like this isn't killing us as a society in order to make sure that the
corporations have their profits and are able to do business irrespective of what
it's doing to our environment?"

The anti-fluoride groups will continue to push the issue to try to bring it into
the public arena for debate. If they succeed, there will likely be a
knock-down-drag-out fight between angry anti-fluoride citizens and the
entrenched fluoride establishment with each side hurling science and experts at
the other.

This looks like a newspaper or magazine article. To whoever posted this, it
would be helpful to know where this article was published. A quote from the
article:

"Kiel suggested to others after the meeting that, with the issue being so
contentious, they may want to first focus on the points of agreement between
themselves and the mainstream medical community. One example he gave was
that the CDC website states: "It now appears that the amount of the fluoride
contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a
child's risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child's
sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula." He
recommended they first focus on fighting for public health warnings, so that
people are, at the very least, aware that fluoridated water poses a risk for
infants."

Actually there are very few "points of agreement" regarding current fluoride
regulations and recommendations.  Infant formula preparation is one example
where there is no "point of agreement."

Public health dentists in many states recommend fluoridated water be used
for the preparation of infant formula.  Some of these public health dentists
say that parents should NOT be informed about the risk of fluorosis from
infant formula.  I found a Texas public health document that recommended
fluoridated water be used for the preparation of infant formula.  The same
document contained the fluoride supplement schedule, which says give no
fluoride supplements to infants 0 to 6 months of age regardless of how
little fluoride is in their tap water.  This contradiction in policy has
never been explained to me by anyone in public health.  There are more
contradictions raising questions that remain unanswered.

In Texas there are areas with very high fluoride levels in the tap water -
far above the "optimum" level.  The WIC (women, infants, children) program
gives out free infant formula to poor parents.  But in Texas the WIC
advisors are not trained to give any advice on what fluoride level is
recommended or safe for infant formula preparation.  Thus, in Texas, infant
formula is prepared by unknowing parents with fluoride levels far higher
than what is considered "optimum."

You might think that the public health establishment would be concerned with
infant formula prepared with water that has a higher than "optimum" fluoride
content.  Evidence of this concern is very difficult to find, if it exists
at all.

The thinking still seems to exists in some dental researchers and public
health professionals that evidence of fluorosis is a good thing, because it
means less tooth decay.

There is no good way for members of the public to be "fighting for public
health warnings" on a national level.  Public health warnings would likely
have more people avoiding fluoridated tap water, which is the opposite of
what the public health establishment wants.  If you live in a small town you
could have such warnings made by the town government.  But if you have
enough political support to get such warnings, you likely have enough
support to discontinue or not start fluoridation in the first place.  This
is what happened in Kiel's city of Alamo Heights Texas.

After many years of prevailing dental research that showed infant formula
prepared with fluoridated water was a risk factor for fluorosis, the CDC
finally admitted it in 2006.  They said parents could consider using
non-fluoridated water for formula preparation.  In 2008 the CDC & ADA formed
a panel of experts to come up with new fluoride recommendations for infants.
Quote: "The panel hopes to have evidence-based recommendations on the use of
fluoridated water in the reconstitution of infant formula released in spring
2010.  Recognizing WIC as a key stakeholder in the oral health of infants,
ADA will provide the recommendations to WIC as soon as they are available."

It will be interesting to see what evidence, if any, is presented by the ADA
as showing a fluoride benefit for infants 0 to 6 months of age.  It's
possible that no fluoride studies for this age group have ever been done.

Doug,
This was posted by Ron Eheman, (owner/founder of the group)
It came from :

http://dcbureau.org/20100521434/Bulldog-Blog/austin-tx-americas-largest-water-fl\
uoridation-fight.html

DC Bureau is staffed by award-winning journalists dedicated to bringing you
in-depth stories covering the Environment and National Security

Niamh Marnell earned a master's degree in social sciences from the University of
Chicago where she examined organizations and power from the perspective of
political science and sociology. She moved to DC to pursue a career in
journalism.





--- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, Doug Cragoe <cragoe@...> wrote:
>
> This looks like a newspaper or magazine article. To whoever posted this, it
> would be helpful to know where this article was published. A quote from the
> article:
>
> "Kiel suggested to others after the meeting that, with the issue being so
> contentious, they may want to first focus on the points of agreement between
> themselves and the mainstream medical community. One example he gave was
> that the CDC website states: "It now appears that the amount of the fluoride
> contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a
> child's risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child's
> sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula." He
> recommended they first focus on fighting for public health warnings, so that
> people are, at the very least, aware that fluoridated water poses a risk for
> infants."
>
> Actually there are very few "points of agreement" regarding current fluoride
> regulations and recommendations.  Infant formula preparation is one example
> where there is no "point of agreement."
>
> Public health dentists in many states recommend fluoridated water be used
> for the preparation of infant formula.  Some of these public health dentists
> say that parents should NOT be informed about the risk of fluorosis from
> infant formula.  I found a Texas public health document that recommended
> fluoridated water be used for the preparation of infant formula.  The same
> document contained the fluoride supplement schedule, which says give no
> fluoride supplements to infants 0 to 6 months of age regardless of how
> little fluoride is in their tap water.  This contradiction in policy has
> never been explained to me by anyone in public health.  There are more
> contradictions raising questions that remain unanswered.
>
> In Texas there are areas with very high fluoride levels in the tap water -
> far above the "optimum" level.  The WIC (women, infants, children) program
> gives out free infant formula to poor parents.  But in Texas the WIC
> advisors are not trained to give any advice on what fluoride level is
> recommended or safe for infant formula preparation.  Thus, in Texas, infant
> formula is prepared by unknowing parents with fluoride levels far higher
> than what is considered "optimum."
>
> You might think that the public health establishment would be concerned with
> infant formula prepared with water that has a higher than "optimum" fluoride
> content.  Evidence of this concern is very difficult to find, if it exists
> at all.
>
> The thinking still seems to exists in some dental researchers and public
> health professionals that evidence of fluorosis is a good thing, because it
> means less tooth decay.
>
> There is no good way for members of the public to be "fighting for public
> health warnings" on a national level.  Public health warnings would likely
> have more people avoiding fluoridated tap water, which is the opposite of
> what the public health establishment wants.  If you live in a small town you
> could have such warnings made by the town government.  But if you have
> enough political support to get such warnings, you likely have enough
> support to discontinue or not start fluoridation in the first place.  This
> is what happened in Kiel's city of Alamo Heights Texas.
>
> After many years of prevailing dental research that showed infant formula
> prepared with fluoridated water was a risk factor for fluorosis, the CDC
> finally admitted it in 2006.  They said parents could consider using
> non-fluoridated water for formula preparation.  In 2008 the CDC & ADA formed
> a panel of experts to come up with new fluoride recommendations for infants.
> Quote: "The panel hopes to have evidence-based recommendations on the use of
> fluoridated water in the reconstitution of infant formula released in spring
> 2010.  Recognizing WIC as a key stakeholder in the oral health of infants,
> ADA will provide the recommendations to WIC as soon as they are available."
>
> It will be interesting to see what evidence, if any, is presented by the ADA
> as showing a fluoride benefit for infants 0 to 6 months of age.  It's
> possible that no fluoride studies for this age group have ever been done.
>

http://www.fluoridefreeaustin.com/



Fluoride Free Austin is an alliance of concerned citizens from all walks of life
united behind the goal of eliminating the dangerous and costly practice of
community water fluoridation. Fluoride Free Austin is not a card-carrying,
dues-paying organization. It is a fire in the minds of men and women–a fire that
will not die until Austin's drinking water is free of the
artificially-introduced, health-damaging hazardous waste toxin fluoride. If you
agree with our objectives, then, wherever you may live, you can be a part of
Fluoride Free Austin. Welcome on board.

You can actively help our campaign by downloading and distributing our handouts,
sending us interesting news items to post and–if you live in the Austin
area–emailing, calling or writing to City Council members and signing up to
speak before the City Council. You can also take advantage of our new Reading
Room page, with its outstanding collection of links, to educate yourself and
others. Please explore our website and make use of the resources you find there.

PROGRESS REPORT:
Our first year and a half—celebrated this month—has brought a number of landmark
successes. Last August, through our efforts, the Austin Environmental Board
issued a recommendation that City Council convene an independent task force to
study the issue of water fluoridation as has been done in other cities such as.
Juneau, Alaska. When the City Manager's office attempted to subvert the Board's
intent by hastily issuing its own rubber-stamp endorsement of fluoridation, we
were present in force to speak out against the whitewash report at the EB
meeting where it was presented. The Environmental Board then voted to resubmit
its original request to Council for a genuinely independent study panel. There
the matter rests, to date. In November, Fluoride Free Austin received its first
major media coverage, a well-balanced feature in the Austin Chronicle which was
picked up by Yahoo News and followed by two shorter pieces. The University of
Texas student newspaper, the Daily Texan also produced a feature piece, and news
of our activities traveled worldwide through the Fluoride Action Network
Bulletin and other fluoride news tracking services. Through our website, we have
heard from supporters all over the country, and the world.

It was during this same period that the Austin City Council put in place a rule
to limit access to the Citizens Communication platform by prohibiting an
individual from speaking more often than every third meeting. The justification
was to encourage "new voices," though that could better be achieved by providing
more speaker slots. While we cannot prove this measure was directed specifically
at us, we believe it was, at least in part. We take it as recognition of our
effectiveness in communicating a message unpopular with politicians but resonant
with the general public.

An amendment to the rule allows the "regulars" to sign up on standby status to
speak in the event that the 10-slot roster fails to fill up with "new voices."
This is the case more often than not, and so we have had continued opportunities
to ensure that our voice is never absent from chambers for long.

In the past six months, we have set up several meetings between individual City
Council members and a select group of professionals that includes scientists, a
dentist and a medical doctor. We've been featured on several TV and radio
programs. And we've begun spreading our message at events like this year's Earth
Day Festival on April 21, which earned us coverage in the Daily Texan as well as
a fine opportunity to engage the environmentally conscious public. All these
efforts will continue, along with an expanded community outreach push through
leafleting and public presentations of our slide show.

Fluoride Free Austin has successfully created a buzz, and that's no small thing.
Now we must build on it.

Professor A.K. Susheela, PhD., who has researched fluoride for more than 20
years and is one of the world's leading researchers and experts on Fluoride in
our water supply, says long-term studies show fluoride is a serious threat to
public health.

With more than 80 scientific studies published in Western and Indian Journals to
her credit, Dr. Susheela says that fluoride not only has been linked to
increased rates of stillbirth and miscarriages among populations exposed to
fluoride in water, but fluoride also poses a serious risk of birth abnormalities
including mental retardation.

Dr. Susheela says the studies have shown that fluoride destroys:

•muscle structure and muscle function
•muscle energy
•bone and teeth
•red blood cells and blood vessels
•the lining of the stomach and intestine

"We now have ample scientific evidence to substantiate the fact that ingestion
of fluoride prevents biosynthesis of hemoglobin leading to anemia in human
beings. We have studied this problem in pregnant mothers. The danger of anemia
in pregnancy is that it would lead to abnormalities in the development of the
embryo/fetus,'' says Dr Susheela.

Studies also indicate it harms fetuses carried by pregnant women and may cause
abortions and stillbirths. Dr. Susheela says results of reducing fluoride in
water include reduced abortions and stillbirths, as fluoride is known to induce
calcification of blood vessels of the fetus.

"It has been shown that when fluoride-contaminated water (>1.0 mg/L) and dental
products are consumed or used by pregnant mothers, it destroys the thyroid gland
of the embryo/fetus,'' says Dr Susheela.

"When children with dental fluorosis were investigated, there were severe
derangements in the thyroid hormone levels T3 (Triiodothyronine) and T4
(Tetraiodothyronine) along with Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). Such children
suffer from sub-clinical hypothyroidism, T3 toxicosis, low T3 syndrome, primary
hypothyroidism and disturbed hormone conversion. Thyroid hormone defects results
in mental retardation (low IQ) in children, deaf mutism, knock-knee, bow-leg and
cretinism."

The results of the studies on women ingesting fluoride were reported at the 27th
Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research held in Beijing
China.

Reference: "Fluoride Ingestion and Health Hazards with Focus on Anaemia in
Pregnancy and low birth weight babies: Guidelines for rectification". (Susheela
A.K, Mondal NK, Rashmi G, Ganesh Kamala, Bhasin Shammi, Gupta Gunjan.)



http://www.askdrgarland.com/?p=2754

----- Original Message -----

From: FluoridePoisoning-owner@yahoogroups.com

To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 6:02 AM

Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] Professor A.K. Susheela, PhD.,

 

Professor A.K. Susheela, PhD., who has researched fluoride for more than 20 years and is one of the world's leading researchers and experts on Fluoride in our water supply, says long-term studies show fluoride is a serious threat to public health.

With more than 80 scientific studies published in Western and Indian Journals to her credit, Dr. Susheela says that fluoride not only has been linked to increased rates of stillbirth and miscarriages among populations exposed to fluoride in water, but fluoride also poses a serious risk of birth abnormalities including mental retardation.

Dr. Susheela says the studies have shown that fluoride destroys:

•muscle structure and muscle function
•muscle energy
•bone and teeth
•red blood cells and blood vessels
•the lining of the stomach and intestine

"We now have ample scientific evidence to substantiate the fact that ingestion of fluoride prevents biosynthesis of hemoglobin leading to anemia in human beings. We have studied this problem in pregnant mothers. The danger of anemia in pregnancy is that it would lead to abnormalities in the development of the embryo/fetus,'' says Dr Susheela.

Studies also indicate it harms fetuses carried by pregnant women and may cause abortions and stillbirths. Dr. Susheela says results of reducing fluoride in water include reduced abortions and stillbirths, as fluoride is known to induce calcification of blood vessels of the fetus.

"It has been shown that when fluoride-contaminated water (>1.0 mg/L) and dental products are consumed or used by pregnant mothers, it destroys the thyroid gland of the embryo/fetus,'' says Dr Susheela.

"When children with dental fluorosis were investigated, there were severe derangements in the thyroid hormone levels T3 (Triiodothyronine) and T4 (Tetraiodothyronine) along with Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). Such children suffer from sub-clinical hypothyroidism, T3 toxicosis, low T3 syndrome, primary hypothyroidism and disturbed hormone conversion. Thyroid hormone defects results in mental retardation (low IQ) in children, deaf mutism, knock-knee, bow-leg and cretinism."

The results of the studies on women ingesting fluoride were reported at the 27th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research held in Beijing China.

Reference: "Fluoride Ingestion and Health Hazards with Focus on Anaemia in Pregnancy and low birth weight babies: Guidelines for rectification". (Susheela A.K, Mondal NK, Rashmi G, Ganesh Kamala, Bhasin Shammi, Gupta Gunjan.)

http://www.askdrgarland.com/?p=2754

After 30 years of suffering from fibromyalgia I discovered that fluoride was the
culprit.  For the past two years I have been religious about eliminating all
fluoride from my life and have been almost completely free from pain. However, I
was recently diagnosed with gluten and casein intolerance by a new holistic Doc.
I started on an array of new supplements today and now I am feeling the effects.
All the pain has returned...is it possible the supplements could have caused
this so quickly?  My guess is it is either the gelatin capsules or calcium in
the supplements.  And just when I thought this was all behind me...it's so
discouraging.

----- Original Message -----

From: RobinS

To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:05 PM

Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] Is there any calcium that is safe to take? Sick again...

 

After 30 years of suffering from fibromyalgia I discovered that fluoride was the culprit. For the past two years I have been religious about eliminating all fluoride from my life and have been almost completely free from pain. However, I was recently diagnosed with gluten and casein intolerance by a new holistic Doc. I started on an array of new supplements today and now I am feeling the effects. All the pain has returned...is it possible the supplements could have caused this so quickly? My guess is it is either the gelatin capsules or calcium in the supplements. And just when I thought this was all behind me...it's so discouraging.

----- Original Message -----

From: Aliss

To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:54 PM

Subject: RE: [FluoridePoisoning] Is there any calcium that is safe to take? Sick again...

 

Hi Robin,

Experience says this is temporary and is likely due to hidden fluoride in the supplements. Try not to let it get you down. Calcium from algae source e.g. Bone Strength Take Care (New Chapter) might be tolerated. Best to take one new supplement at a time rather than start a bunch at once. I don’t think I’ve ever met a naturopathic doc who was half as cognizant of fluoride poisoning symptoms and sources of exposure as anyone on this list who does even a modicum of reading. They mean well but they just aren’t up to speed. We need that book from Dr. Mullenix to get finished and printed, to convince them!

Depending where you live for availability, raw milk cultured into kefir or yogurt might be your best dietary source, providing you tolerate it. For more than two years I was having this and I rebuilt my bones, my eyesight improved, and my fingernails are the strongest and clearest they have ever been. I now use pasteurized goat milk kefir and am fine with it, but the calcium absorption is not quite as good when it has been pasteurized due to the loss of the enzymes that facilitate mineral assimilation from milk. Kefir is a better probiotic food than yogurt and the casein is more digestible.

Other than milk, herbs like dandelion and parsley, though they can be quite diuretic, are also full of calcium and if grown in your control, they should be very low in F. The cabbage family is also rich in calcium AND magnesium – but with our iffy thyroids we need to cook them or ferment them into sauerkraut or Kimchi, and make sure they were grown in low fluoride conditions.

Boron can be a rescue – 10 mg per day, citrate or other form (be careful with Borax, not recommended because of the sodium and trace contaminants including F), so can homeopathic tissue salts and Urticalcin, a homeopathic from nettle herb, by A. Vogel Co.

Sesame paste (tahini) has both calcium and boron.

Natto (fermented soybeans) comes frozen and one teaspoon per day provides plenty of K2 for improved calcium transport into muscle and bone.

Aliss

---

From: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of RobinS
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 9:06 PM
To: FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [FluoridePoisoning] Is there any calcium that is safe to take? Sick again...

 

After 30 years of suffering from fibromyalgia I discovered that fluoride was the culprit. For the past two years I have been religious about eliminating all fluoride from my life and have been almost completely free from pain. However, I was recently diagnosed with gluten and casein intolerance by a new holistic Doc. I started on an array of new supplements today and now I am feeling the effects. All the pain has returned...is it possible the supplements could have caused this so quickly? My guess is it is either the gelatin capsules or calcium in the supplements. And just when I thought this was all behind me...it's so discouraging.

An advisory panel to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) has recommended that every person be vaccinated for
the seasonal flu yearly, except in a few cases where the vaccine is
known to be unsafe.

“Now no one should say ‘Should I or shouldn’t I?’” said CDC flu
specialist Anthony Fiore.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted 11-0 with one
abstention to recommend yearly flu vaccination for everyone except for
children under the age of six months, whose immune systems have not
yet developed enough for vaccination to be safe, and people with egg
allergies or other health conditions that are known to make flu
vaccines hazardous. If accepted by the CDC, this recommendation will
then be publicized to doctors and other health workers.

The CDC nearly always accepts the advisory committee’s recommendations.

http://www.fact2012.com/?p=1775

Thanks
Maria