Dosing us with drugs through our food and water: Water Fluoridation

Dosing us with drugs through our food and water: Water Fluoridation

In November Waterloo residents will be asked: “Should the Region of Waterloo fluoridate your municipal water? Yes or No?”

This highly politicized debate has already polarized Waterlooians who believe the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid to our drinking water may cause harm against public health groups who insist water fluoridation is a safe effective means of reducing cavities across the population that is ‘particularly beneficial to underprivileged people …. and the hardest to reach poor.’ ⁽⁴⁾

Those thinking scientific studies will guide their response to the referendum question will be disappointed.

 

While Ontario’s 2009 Chief Medical Officer of Health asserts ‘the studies are clear and unequivocal and the benefits of fluoridation are well documented ⁽⁴⁾, Trevor A Sheldon, chair of England’s National Health Services Centre for Reviews and Dissemination fluoridation review advisory panel, concludes ‘evidence on the potential benefits and harms of adding fluoride to water is relatively poor… we know of no subsequent evidence that reduces the uncertainty. ⁽⁶⁾ Both England’s pro-fluoridation Chief Dental Officer and Chief Medical Officer acknowledge ‘the evidence base on the effects of fluoridation on health needs strengthening. ⁽⁵⁾

 

How do we vote ‘Yes or No’ when scientific evidence ranges from poor to contradictory for total exposure to fluoride, its effectiveness at reducing cavities, its safety, its potential harms and our supposedly trustworthy public health officials so blatantly whitewash this conflicting evidence in favour of fluoridation?

 

Waterloo Region Record Columnist Luisa D’Amato cites thalidomide deformed babies to remind us of a history ‘full of episodes where the authorities told us a medicine or a chemical was safe, only to find out later that they were horribly, tragically, wrong’ Thalidomide’s use today as a cancer treatment demonstrates drugs can both harm and benefit. With thalidomide the patient can freely choose to use the drug or not.

 

A parallel public health initiative provides clearer data on how the wholesale dosing a population benefits some while harming others.

 

A daily folic acid tablet given to women around the time of conception has been shown to effectively reduce neural tube defects in newborns. Claiming folic acid tablets weren’t reaching poor, disadvantaged women, those who threaten our freedom in both the U.S. and Canada mandated folic acid be added to everyone’s diet by adding it to flour and grain products.

 

One evaluation of U.S. folic acid supplementation found mean folate blood concentrations more than doubled in the overall population with ‘bread, rolls and crackers’ becoming the largest dietary contributor. Less than 10% women of childbearing age – the targeted group – reached the folate levels needed to prevent neural tube defects. ⁽¹⁾

 

Mounting evidence points to significant adverse impacts of dosing the entire population with folic acid. Folic acid is a synthetic chemical that differs from naturally occurring dietary folates.  In countries with mandatory food fortification unmetabolized folic acid is found in most individuals – including newborns - where it competes with natural folates in normal metabolic processes. ⁽²⁾ Increased folic acid intake also decreases natural killer cell cytotoxicity and reduces the effectiveness of drugs used to treat arthritis, psoriasis, and cancer. High blood levels of folate are also linked with cognitive impairment, anemia, an increased risk of insulin resistance and obesity in children and increased rates of breast and colorectal cancers. ⁽³⁾

We know each one of us is a unique individual. Our distinctive genetic makeup ensures some of us are resistant to certain diseases while others are not. From moment to moment we encounter differing physical, emotional and nutritional environmental factors that are immeasurable. Each one of these varying factors turns on and off different genes to adapt our metabolism to this ever-changing environment. Dosing such a diverse human population of individuals, as if it were one, is certain to benefit some while doing irreparable harm to others.

 

Hopefully Waterlooians will consider the effective, readily available alternatives to widespread fluoride dosing, the inconclusive science, the less-than-frank advice from our public health establishment and, most importantly, our unique individual response to drugs when deciding whether to support – or not - fluoridation of its public drinking water.

 

 

References

1 - The effect of folate fortification of cereal-grain products on blood folate status, dietary folate intake, and dietary folate sources among adult non-supplement users in the United States. Dietrich M, Brown CJ, Block G. J Am Coll Nutr. 2005 Aug;24(4):266-74. http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/24/4/266

2 - Evidence of unmetabolised folic acid in cord blood of newborn and serum of 4-day-old infants. Sweeney MR, McPartlin J, Weir DG, et al. Br J Nutr 2005;94:727–30. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=924440

 

3 - Is folic acid good for everyone? A David Smith, Young-In Kim, and Helga Refsum Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:517–33. http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/87/3/517

 

4 – Value of Water Fluoridation. May 26, 2009 Memorandum to Medical Officers of Health. http://region.waterloo.on.ca/web/health.nsf/4f4813c75e78d71385256e5a0057f5e1/802C4278C3E2C63885256B14006407A4/$file/Water%20Fluoridation_Value.pdf?openelement

 

5 – Rapid Responses to: Adding fluoride to water supplies K K Cheng, Iain Chalmers, and Trevor A Sheldon. BMJ 2007; 335: 699-702 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/335/7622/699#177639

6 - Adding fluoride to water supplies. K K Cheng, Iain Chalmers and Trevor A Sheldon. BMJ 2007;335;699-702 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/?tool=pubmed

 

 

 

Pimping Pandemics and Poo

In a study about alcohol use and cancer recently published by the National Cancer Institute's British and widely reported in the Canadian press, researchers concluded: “Low to moderate alcohol consumption in women increases the risk of certain cancers. For every additional drink regularly consumed per day, the increase in incidence up to age 75 years per 1000 for women in developed countries is estimated to be about 11 for breast cancer, 1 for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, 1 for cancer of the rectum, and 0.7 each for cancers of the esophagus, larynx and liver, giving a total excess of about 15 cancers per 1000 women up to age 75.”

Lead author of the study, epidemiologist Naomi E. Allen of the University of Oxford, estimated that about five per cent of U.S. cancers in women, about 30,000 cases per year, are due to such low levels of consumption.

In an editorial that accompanied the study Dr. Michael S. Lauer and Paul Sorlie of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute spewed: "From the standpoint of cancer risk, the message of this report could not be clearer. There is no level of alcohol consumption that can be considered safe.”

The pimps of pandemics and poo failed to mention another significant finding of the study: “Women were followed up for cancer incidence over 9.2 million person-years, for an average of 7.2 years per woman ( Table 1 ). A total of 68 775 incident cancers were notified by the NHS Central Registers. We calculated the relative risk at individual cancer sites by categories of alcohol consumption at recruitment ( Table 2 ). Nondrinkers had an increased risk for several cancer sites compared with women who drank fewer than or equal to 2 drinks per week; increases were statistically significant for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, stomach, liver, lung, cervix, endometrium, and renal cell carcinoma. Women were followed up for cancer incidence over 9.2 million person-years, for an average of 7.2 years per woman ( Table 1 ). A total of 68 775 incident cancers were notifi ed by the NHS Central Registers. We calculated the relative risk at individual cancer sites by categories of alcohol consumption at recruitment ( Table 2 ). Nondrinkers had an increased risk for several cancer sites compared with women who drank fewer than or equal to 2 drinks per week; increases were statistically significant for cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, stomach, liver, lung, cervix, endometrium, and renal cell carcinoma.”

The Most Dangerous Man in the State

When leaving the hospital to take my first son home a few days after his birth I remember my cheeks ached from what must have been a silly grin that had controlled my face since he was born. His mother, Deb Marie, remained in hospital for ‘a few tests’ to determine the cause of the anaemia that had plagued the pregnancy, and then, waiting for a bed in Victoria Hospital’s cancer clinic in London.

The mind has an odd way of letting you smile as you recall happy events of decades past while your gut aches as you remember the rest.

The six months to a year prognosis stretched to 14 years. The hope that was renewed and firmly grasped with each remission or announced ‘breakthrough’ in cancer research was overwhelmed by the days of endless gut-wrenching vomiting that followed each treatment.

The genuine warmth, caring and compassion of the doctors, nurses and technicians couldn’t hide an understandable emotional detachment that comes from treating an often incurable disease with harsh chemotherapy and radiation that makes the patient wish they were dead.

This emotional detachment clearly serves as an essential protection for the mental state of those dealing with disease, mangled bodies and death on a daily basis. It also protects patient autonomy by giving medical practitioners the ability to detach from and accept patients’ decisions to decline the treatment the doctor believes offers hope. Deb Marie’s doctors grudgingly accepted her never regretted insistence to stop their treatments and opt for milder alternatives. It’s impossible to know whether continued conventional treatment would have extended Deb’s life. There is no doubt that taking control of her healthcare vastly improved her satisfaction of living.

Recent events tell us some in the medical community – not all - are losing their ability to detach from patients’ decisions. Courts have been asked to resolve disputes between patients and their families and doctors over whether to force unwanted treatment or continue potentially hopeless medical care to prolong life. Some doctors are even encroaching into their patients’ lives by refusing to treat those whose lifestyles they disapprove of and there is an ever-growing and ominous trend for medical activists to seek laws that impose their views of social hygiene on the rest of us.

The loss of this crucial detachment coupled with the political power of today’s medical community is leading to a dangerous hygienic cleansing of our society. Just as human genetics were used to justify racial hygiene and the genetic cleansing that followed it is our personal choices that have been perverted into the great threat that must to be purged today.

During development of the ‘scientific’ concept that the white race was superior to all others Christopher Willhelm Hufeland warned: ‘If the physician presumes to take into consideration in his work whether a life has value or not, the consequences are boundless and the physician becomes the most dangerous man in the state.’

Sadly, Hufeland’s warning went unheeded then but it does prompt the question today: Which is the greatest threat to a free and caring society - the choices each of us make that have an uncertain or perhaps unforgiving impact on our body or the medical practitioner’s lost detachment and escalating control of our lives?

Monomania

To fully understand the mindset of the leaders of the tobacco control crusade simply pay attention to what they say. "At this point it's very likely smoking causes all cancers" say Roberta Ferrence, executive director of the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit and a University of Toronto public health science professor. It's difficult to understand how politicians can possibly follow their advice. Well... maybe not!

A Civil Debate

Your head has been buried very deeply and for a very long period of time if you have not heard the shrill anti-smoking warnings coming from a seemingly endless assortment of politicians, health professionals and government funded anti-tobacco lobbyists. Using an equally copious supply of statistics these doomsayers would have us believe smoking is a catastrophic epidemic killing billions around the world. A worrying undercurrent swirling within this “War on Tobacco” is a tactical campaign to marginalize smokers as stupid, yellow-toothed addicts with mental health problems whose selfish, littering ways kill those around them, burden our health care system and waste our health care dollars.

This slimy campaign of constant repetition and social ostracism is intended to intimidate, offend, degrade or humiliate smokers into quitting their ‘filthy’ habit. Simply put, smokers can no longer be tolerated in our society.

Now the American Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and a variety of other anti-smoking dens (1, 2) have taken us to a new and dangerous low. They are displaying on their websites a No Smoking symbol (shown at left) depicting a smoker being punched. Sure, they'll tell you it was posted by a 'friend' but how long would a 'friend's' depiction of a woman being punched, a pornographic picture or a swastika stay on the sites they control?

We don’t tolerate this bald-faced bullying in schoolyards or workplaces. Why do we seem all too willing to accept it from the anti-smoking crusaders?

Parents, most government agencies, educators and employment experts all recognize the serious adverse effects of bullying in schools, workplaces and the community at large. And while these groups work diligently to prevent bullying the anti-tobacco movement happily encourages it.

We all hold dear civility, privacy and individual liberties. Yet anti-tobacco crusaders demand we abandon these core values for their greater good. If they weren’t so obsessed with both their undying hatred of tobacco companies and their self-righteous belief that they know what is best for all, perhaps, just maybe they’d see the damage their hatred is doing to a caring, tolerant society.

Let’s pull the reins back on those so consumed with controlling tobacco that they don’t recognize an open dialog is based on truth. Let’s remind them of the differences between education and indoctrination. Tell them in no uncertain terms that civil debates do not include bullying and drowning out reasoned arguments just to get one’s way. And, of utmost importance, let’s remind them that legal individual choices are not medical conditions in need of an ‘intervention.’

Let’s bring civility and sanity back into the tobacco control debate

Is tobacco smoke in a vehicle 23 times more toxic then in a home?

Ever heard the one about tobacco smoke in a vehicle being “23 times more toxic than in a house”? You’ll see it rear its ugly head in jurisdictions where tobacco control groups are pushing for a ban on smoking in cars.

In Ontario, Canada, the Ontario Medical Association is given as the reliable source of this data(1). The problem is the OMA cites a newspaper article(3) as the source of this ‘evidence.’

An exhaustive search for scientific support for this claim has found two studies that have measured in-vehicle particulate concentrations associated with tobacco smoke. One, the paper published in 2007 by Ott el al and a 2002 paper by Offermann et al(5) presented at a 2002 International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. The later paper by Offermann is the likely source of the ’23 times’ claim since Offermann claims tobacco smoke in vehicles is “25 times more toxic than in a house.”

The 2007 Ott study was funded by Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute (FAMRI). FAMRI is “funded through a settlement from a class action lawsuit against tobacco companies on behalf of flight attendants who sustained health problems due to exposure to second hand smoke in their job.”

The 2004 Offermann study was funded by “the Tobacco Free Project, San Francisco Department of Public Health, paid for by Proposition 99, the 1988 Tobacco Tax Initiative, under Contract 89-97927.”

Both studies measured particulate matter inside a vehicle with a smoker and found:

• particle levels smaller than 3 microns peaked between 2000 and 3000 ug/m3 for a very few seconds when a cigarette was first lit. These peak measurements occurred only when the vehicle’s windows were closed and the fan was turned off with a resultant low air exchange rate (about five complete air exchanges per hour). The average ug/m3 while the cigarette was smoked in this sealed vehicle was around 1200.

• turning the fan in the vehicles on increased the air exchange rate to about one complete exchange every minute thus reducing the particulate count inside the vehicle. The average ug/m3 during while the cigarette was smoked in this sealed vehicle with the fan on was around 700.

• opening one window (3” in Ott’s study) increased the air exchange rate even further with an additional decrease in particulates inside the vehicle. The average ug/m3 during while the cigarette was smoked in this windows open/fan off vehicle was around 92.

• The actual volume of the inside compartment of the vehicle is a critical measurement when determining concentrations. Offermann’s 2004 study estimated the volume inside a ‘1996 mini-van’ at 2.0 m3. Ott’s 2007 study estimated the volume of the much smaller ‘2005 Toyota Corolla’ at 2.6 m3.

In addition to their questionable objectivity both studies suffer serious methodological flaws.

• the difficulty in accurately determining the actual volume of air inside a vehicle as evidenced by the estimated air volume inside the compact Toyota Corolla being greater than the volume of air inside the mini-van.

• the particulate measurements obtained by Offermann incorrectly refers to particulates as ets. He counted all particles under 3 microns in diameter. Equipment cannot differentiate between tobacco smoke, road dust, pollen, diesel exhaust, paint pigment, carpet fibres, skin cells, soot and viruses that are less than 3 microns diameter. Therefore his measurements include other sources of particulates inside the vehicle. How much did these others sources contribute?

• no particle measurements were taken inside a car with non-smoking passengers to determine background levels of particulates inside the vehicle. Any movement can be expected to send particulate matter from engine exhaust, carpets, clothes, skin and a myriad of other sources into the air of the vehicle.

• the Dusttrak measuring equipment used in the Offermann’s 2004 study is well known to give readings up to 3 times higher than actual(8).

• humidity also give readings(9) higher than actual and no adjustment was made to account for this (ie drying tubes). In addition, the highest measurements were recorded inside a vehicle with windows closed and fan off which one would expect would increase humidity inside the vehicle.

• Offerman’s measurements of air quality inside a vehicle were not used to compare to air quality inside a home. Rather the air quality for vehicles was estimated and then compared to the air of a home. A far more appropriate comparison would be to OSHA indoor air quality standards(10) which consider up to 5000 ug/m3 per hour for an 8 hour day/40 hour work week over the course of a workers employment life to be safe.

• Another more suitable comparison would be fine particulates inside a bus which have been measured to peak at 1732 ug/m3 in the middle of the bus with extraordinarily high peaks around 12000 ug/m3 near the door to the bus(11) Both studies compare air quality inside a vehicle to outdoor air quality standards. The irrationality of this is apparent. Compare the EPA’s outdoor air quality standards for particulate matter under 2.5 microns(12) (currently 35 ug/m3 over 24 hours) to OSHA indoor air quality standards that ensures a safe indoor workplace((10) above). If EPA standards dictated workplace air quality no workplace would be considered safe.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects Canadians from the unreasonable interference of government in the lives of people in a free and democratic society. While the Charter does allow the government to legally limit an individual's freedoms it does so within clearly defined reasonable limits. Surely the evidence above that is now being used to press for limits to Canadian’s privacy and existing freedoms cannot be helpful to any sincere considerations to limit these civil liberties.

References

1 Witmer Stands Up For Children. http://www.elizabethwitmermpp.ca/news/show_news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1201190349&archive=&template=sidebar

2 OMA Position Paper, Exposure to second-hand smoke: are we protecting our kids? https://www.oma.org/Health/tobacco/smoke2004.pdf

3 Sanko J. Bill targets smokers in cars: Boulder Senator says state should step in on behalf of children. Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado) 1998 Jan 10:6A.

4 Wayne Ott, Neil Klepeis and Paul Switzer, "Air change rates of motor vehicles and in-vehicle pollutant concentrations from secondhand smoke". Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 18 July 2007; doi: 10.1038/sj.jes.7500601 http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/7500601a.html

5 Offermann F.J., Colfer R., Radzinski P., and Robertson J. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in an automobile. Proceedings of the 9^th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Monterey, CA,

June 30-July 5, 2002. Paper No. 2C3p1, pp. 2002, 506. http://www.iee-sf.com/resources/pdf/ETSincars.pdf

6 M Nebot¹, M J López¹, G Gorini², M Neuberger³, S Axelsson⁴, M Pilali⁵, C Fonseca⁶, K Abdennbi⁷, A Hackshaw⁸, H Moshammer³, A M Laurent⁹, J Salles¹⁰, M Georgouli⁵, M C Fondelli², E Serrahima¹⁰, F Centrich¹⁰, S K Hammond¹¹ Environmental tobacco smoke exposure in public places of European cities Tobacco Control 2005;14:60-63 http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/60

7 Air quality testing and secondhand smoke.....an update http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

8 Chung, A. Chang, D.P.Y., Kleeman, M.J., Perry, K.D., Cahill, T.A., Dutcher, D., McDougall, E.M. and Stroud, K. (2001). Comparison of real-time instruments used to monitor airborne particulate matter. Journal of the Air And Waste Management Association., v. 51, p.109-120.

9 Chang et al (2001) Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Measurement Methods for One-Hour Exposures to O3, PM2.5 , and CO; Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, vol. 51, pp. 1414-1422.

10 TABLE Z-1 Limits for Air Contaminants http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992

11 A Multi-City Investigation of the Effectiveness of Retrofit Emissions Controls in Reducing Exposures to Particulate

Matter in School Buses http://www.catf.us/publications/reports/CATF-Purdue_Multi_City_Bus_Study.pdf

12 EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards http://www.epa.gov/particles/standards.html

Where are the health benefits of prevention?

In our asbestos insulated elementary school, when we weren’t cowering under our desks or in the hallways seeking shelter from a fake nuclear attack, we crafted puppets out of asbestos mixed with water and glue. We marveled in our radioactive glow of our watches in the dark attic of our asbestos insulated wartime homes. We breathed the asbestos fibres spewed into the air every time the brakes on nearby automobiles were applied and inhaled numerous long lasting radioactive elements from above ground nuclear testing. We ate and drank the same radioactivity that had settled on our food and infiltrated our milk. Many of us spent decades working in asbestos filled workplaces. Even cooking at home exposed us to fraying asbestos oven mitts.

Those who share similar memories should be able to take some comfort in recent reports from International Early Lung Cancer Action Program (ELCAP) investigators confirming lung cancer is a rare disease - even among those deemed most at risk.

Screening of 31,567 asymptomatic high risk persons for lung cancer from 1993 through 2005 did not find the disease in 98.5% of those screened. When lung cancer was found and surgically removed within a month of its discovery the researchers concluded “annual spiral CT screening can detect lung cancer that is curable.”

Our medical gurus can’t tell us what causes lung cancer – nobody can. Some surmise that one asbestos fibre or radioactive particle trapped deep in a lung is all it takes to initiate a process that results in a cancerous growth years later. ELCAP investigators defined those at high risk for lung cancer if they were over 55, had a history of cigarette smoking, occupational exposure to asbestos, the radioactive isotopes beryllium, uranium and radon, or exposure to secondhand smoke.

Anti-tobacco groups don’t tell us lung cancer is a rare disease. They’d have us believe self-inflicted diseases are ravaging our society at a cost of thousands of deaths annually – some anti-tobacco nuts are up to billions of deaths - added to billions in economic devastation.

Statistics are used to tell us smoking increases the risk of lung cancer 400%. Groups touting prevention strategies promote this flawed assessment of chance to sell both the fear of disease and tickets to their lotteries. Buy five tickets instead of one to increase your relative risk of winning the 649 lottery by 400% - to a whopping absolute risk of five out of 14 million.

Over the past three decades billions of health care dollars have been diverted to smoking prevention. We were told reduced smoking would almost totally eliminate lung cancer, prevent many other cancers and heart diseases. In response to these claims between 1970 and 2003 smoking rates among those 15 and older has dropped from 55% to 35% in men and 39% to 21% in women.

Yet despite this significant reduction in smoking the age standardized incidence of lung cancer has continued to increase. Lung cancer incidence in men in 2001 was the same as it was in 1976. During the same period the incidence of lung cancer in women increased steadily from 16.3 to 44.5 per 100,000. In fact in men and women the incidence of cancer and the prevalence of heart disease have steadily increased for the past thirty years.

Where are the health benefits we’ve been promised?

Let’s not think for a moment prevention advice is benign. Expensive prevention campaigns have diverted scarce funding away from the valuable research, treatments and facilities needed for all our serious ills. That a lung cancer patient doesn’t get the timely treatment ELCP researchers tell us may cure the disease is only one shameful example of a huge problem in obtaining timely health care.

Next time you’re waiting for a health care service consider how much more could be accomplished if money spent creating frightening or just plain silly prevention messages was used to train more doctors and nurses, provide better equipped facilities and fund real research devoted to finding more effective treatments or, as ELCAP researchers are claiming, maybe even a cure or two.