Fluoridation Of Our Water – Part II

Brampton Focus brings you the second episode on the controversial topic of fluoridation in Peel’s water. In this episode, Lisa Cianchino is joined by her lawyer, Nadar R. Hasan to discuss the pending lawsuit against the Region and the reasons that they have decided to challenge this practice.

Join the discussion on FaceBook

31
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
8 Comment threads
23 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Chris PriceSiru CossaboonKSpencerDiogo PintoSiru Cossaboon Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dan Germouse
Guest

The perpetrators of the forced-fluoridation experiment may want to take a look at Article 6 of the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights, which is on the UNESCO website. “Article 6 – Consent 1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” Clearly the forced-fluoridation experiment (i.e. the dumping of toxic industrial fluoride… Read more »

Siru Cossaboon
Guest

Yes, Thank you! People do not understand what kind of a toxin hydrofluorocilic acid is, it melts flesh and eats through concete, but people think it is “good for the teeth”. It is unbelievable! It is illegal to add such poisons to the water in the Nederlands, Sweden, and China. Here is a spill video from Rock Island water treatment plant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaazVMV2HmE&feature=youtu.be

Chris Price
Guest

So show me the data sheet that says not to run your hose on concrete?? in case of damage
And show me the data sheet that says fluoride is poison at .7PPM

Chris Price
Guest

So who do you suggest the people get their “informed consent” from??

Siru Cossaboon
Guest

If people would actually read the science, they would know that there is very little scientific support for fluoridation, despite what the proponents claim. Fluorides are neurotoxic endocrine disrupting carcinogens and adding these toxins into the water supply does nothing good for the teeth. It is universally accepted that fluoridated water causes dental fluorosis, which is a permanent defect in the dental matrix and visible evidence of fluoride intoxication, including bio-accumulation of fluorides into the skeletal bones, since teeth are the only visible bones. Here is a link to dozens of scientific studies, which do not support fluoridation. http://www.fluoridation.com/abstract.htm

Chris Price
Guest

so why not give a link to a quality dental or medical institution that does not support C.W.F.??
Thats right, there is none

Siru Cossaboon
Guest
Siru Cossaboon

Chris, CEF is illegal in Seden, the Nederlands, China, etc. The dental organizations in those countries do not support CWF. It is a crime! UNICEF did a worldwide study of water fluoridation in 1999 and discounted any benefit of it.

Chris Price
Guest

Again, no European country has imposed a “ban”
on water fluoridation, it has simply not been implemented for a variety of technical, legal, financial or
political reasons.
For example,
although fluoridation is not carried out in Sweden and
the Netherlands, both countries support World Health
Organization’s recommendations regarding fluoridation
as a preventive health measure, in addition to the use of
fluoride toothpastes, mouthrinses and dietary fluoride
supplements.
Roemer R. Legislation on fluoridation of water
supplies. In: Experience on water fluoridation in
Europe. Copenhagen: World Health Organization;1987:23-36.

Siru Cossaboon
Guest
Siru Cossaboon

“Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.” SOURCE: Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000. Also Nederlands bans water fluoridation in its constitution, other countries do not allow it, because fluorides have never been found neither safe not effective when ingested. Sorry, but I was raised in Europe and people are not about to accept adding chemicals to their water, which does not treat the water, but the… Read more »

Chris Price
Guest

In making the case for such a clearinghouse, the authors listed several substances that they believed warranted classification as neurotoxins, thus joining a list of others for which there is strong evidence to support such classification. One of these substances newly proposed to be a neurotoxin was fluoride, though the only article cited by the authors to support their claim was one whose conclusion was that more research was needed before such a classification could be made. Also on that same list of over 200 substances are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (artificial sweetener), ethanol ( beer and other… Read more »

Siru Cossaboon
Guest
Siru Cossaboon

I would never ingest any aspartame. However, issue is fluorides. I listen to many PhD’s worldwide who have studied fluorides extensively for decades and not fluoride trolls hired by the industry.

Chris Price
Guest

As usual with the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby. Once they run out of sensible arguments, we are all trolls

Chris Price
Guest

They conveniently for get to tell you the natural health industry is the big supporter of there agenda, with large amount of cash to prop up the scaremongering and lies.

Siru Cossaboon
Guest
Siru Cossaboon

I haven’t had any problem with vaccines. Only fluorides! Why are you lumping vaccines and fluorides in the same pile? These are different issues.

Chris Price
Guest

I usually find the same people support both agandas Look at the health liberty website
A year ago, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) joined the Health Liberty Coalition, formed by Mercola.com, the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), and Consumers for Dental Choice.

The purpose of forming the nonprofit partnership was to advocate and actively campaign for the freedom of individuals to make personal health decisions, and to increase access to unbiased and accurate health information.
The apples dont fall far from the tree

Siru Cossaboon
Guest

Also Fluorides are endocrine disruptors and thus damage the thyroid, specifically in Iodine deficient people. Here is a letter sent by Doctors to the American Thyroid Association regarding the havoc fluorides cause in the endocrine system. http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf
There is no benefit of water fluoridation, only harm. Also adding such toxins to the water supply, without the consent of all people violates the Nuremberg Code as well as the UNESCO Bioethics article, as noted in the post above. Finally, noone is monitoring the dose and people such as thyroid and kidney patients will signifigantly suffer due to such forced ingestion of toxins.

Chris Price
Guest

Overall,
despite of 20 years of research a human health risk from exposure to low concentrations of exogenous
chemical substances with weak hormone-like activities remains an unproven and unlikely hypothesis.
Endocrine disruption: Fact or urban legend?
Gerhard J. Nohynek a,∗, Christopher J. Borgert b, Daniel Dietrich c, Karl K. Rozman d

Diogo Pinto
Guest

You know, if you’re gonna pretend to be a neutral organization you do need to show the other side of the story.

For starters, no, hydrofluoric acid not toxic at all in the amounts used in water fluoridation. Secondly, the “science” the anti-fluoridation nut jobs keep citing is akin to the “science” anti-vaxxers use to say vaccines are toxic. There is no evidence whatsoever that suggests that fluoridation of water is dangerous and there are literally mountains of evidence to the contrary.

Siru Cossaboon
Guest
Siru Cossaboon

Kentucky is great evidence that ingesting fluorides does not work! According to the CDC, Kentucky ranks number one among U.S. states with 99.8 percent of its population receiving fluoridated water. Yet, the CDC ranks Kentucky as the state with the second highest missing teeth rate, falling only a few percentage points behind West Virginia. This is good and obvious evidence that fluoridation is not effective for its stated purpose let alone being safe (which it is not). It is an obsolete outrageous practice that belongs to the hall of shame!

http://ukhealthcare.uky.edu/health-info/publications/advances-insights/pediatrics/Kentucky-rates-second-in-US-in-poor-oral-health/

Chris Price
Guest

Shall; we look at the real facts instead of the Activist twisting of them The percentage of KY residents on public water systems ranks in the high 90%-range. KY also has one of the highest rates of edentulousness, so that antis try to make the claim that it proves that fluoridation doesn’t work. It is very explainable, but the antis, and sometimes politicians, don’t care about the facts. Most of the edentulousness is in a generation of Kentuckians that never had the benefits of lifetime exposure to fluoridated water. Also, a very large percentage of Kentuckians aren’t on public water… Read more »

Diogo Pinto
Guest

How about instead of lawyers and “concerned citizens” you get dentists, scientists, researchers, and chemists on the show (you know, people who are professionals?). I’m sure they’ll all have the exact same opinion.

KSpencer
Guest
KSpencer

You’d be wrong: Expert in Medical History: “I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory…..It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is… Read more »

Chris Price
Guest

Colquhoun Other reports that Colquhoun cites that supposedly do not show benefits of fluoridation failed to establish residence histories of the sample populations, used crude measurements of caries prevalence, and were based on intake of natural fluoride, the level of which is neither controlled nor monitored ” —Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the  Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation:  A Response to John Colquhoun Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D. Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H.Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 42:526-541, 1999. The complete text of the Newbrun paper. along with references, may be found: http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/newbrun.html. Osmunson West Coast Spokesman for… Read more »

Chris Price
Guest

IAOMT David Kennedy is past President of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. That in itself will cause any reputable scientist to discard his opinions, but, since you seem as unaware of this as you are with all other science: “The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the “smoking tooth” video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson’s and autism.… Read more »

Chris Price
Guest

Remember, if the arguments against fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own merit, without legal help. Or threats of. If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not. Maybe that is why they need a lawyer in charge, To bully and threaten towns, because the fairy tales dont stack up. And also if the arguments against fluoride were so good, The illnesses and associated medical problems that fluoride is supposed to cause, at .7PPM, would have well and truly been investigated in… Read more »

Siru Cossaboon
Guest
Siru Cossaboon

They didn’t investigate anything in the 40″s other than how much they can dump in to the water and get away with it without killing masses. There were no “safety” studies. Even efficiency is highly doubtful, since any honest studies show only potential topical only benefit, not systemic.

Chris Price
Guest

Griffin, S. O., Regnier, E., Griffin, P. M., & Huntley, V. (2007). Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. Journal of Dental Research, 86(5), 410-415. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1745255 Yeung, C. A. (2008). A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation. Evidence-based dentistry, 9(2), 39-43. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/eh41 Parnell, C., Whelton, H., & O’Mullane, D. (2009). Water fluoridation. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, 10(3), 141-148. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03262675 Rugg-Gunn, A. J., & Do, L. (2012). Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries prevention. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 40(s2), 55-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998306 Featherston (2000). The paper is The science and practice of caries prevention, –  here is a quote… Read more »

Siru Cossaboon
Guest
Siru Cossaboon

You can say there are no studies proving harm at “optimal” levels, but even the 2006 NRC found many and advised that there were no studies proving safety at ANY levels….. here are 14 recent studies pertinent to 2016 conversations: A few 2014-2015 studies and reports plus two on fluoride and lead: 1. S Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. J Epidemiol Community Health. 24 February 2015. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204971. http:// jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971 2. Navneet Singh, et al.… Read more »

Chris Price
Guest

I,m not going though the list here but lets look at a few Peckam was the leader of Hampshire against fluoridation The paper is Peckham & Awofeso (2014), Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention, The Scientific World Journal Volume 2014 (2014). Have a read if you have not already seen it. There is nothing new or challenging in it. If you can read anti-fluoridation articles by Paul Connett or Declan Waugh you can read this. It may just as well have been copypasta from Connett’s book or one of… Read more »

KSpencer
Guest
KSpencer

For heavens sake. We are talking about FLUORIDATION, not vaccination. The fluoride trolls, many of whom are sponsored by Pew who is funded by the CDC and fluoride industry, are experts at distraction, denigration, and disruption. There are hundreds of peer reviewed studies proving harm published in credible journals. The two independent 21st century reviews of fluoridation literature purporting benefit found that the dental claims were disingenuous. Both the 2015 Cochrane and 2000 York panels found that those studies were low quality, at high risk of bias, did not support the dental assertions that fluoridation ‘benefited poor children’ or adults.… Read more »

Chris Price
Guest

“Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. These results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in both children’s baby and permanent teeth.” Cochrane report The York review is only one of a half dozen systematic reviews, and their standard was to exclude epidemiologic studies from their systematic review, for which they have been criticized, because comparing communities that… Read more »