Thursday, March 23, 2006
New Fluoride study released in US
The Hastings Safe Water Association
43 Willow Crescent PORT MACQUARIE 2444
Phone 02 6583 9622 – 0417 279 602
23/3/06
Dear Editor,
What response to newly released (March 22 2006) study “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards” has there been From the NSW Health Department and Mid North Coast Mayors in favour of Fluoridation?
We here in the Hastings Port Macquarie area have like most Mid North and North Coast areas been successful in stopping the artificial Fluoridation of our drinking water supplies in the past decades because time after time when voting at Council Elections is held on the subject of Fluoridation residents have said a loud “No. But since the last Council Elections there has been action as a block by all local Mayors to deny local people a voice and force Fluoridation upon us.
Yesterday in the US The National Academies on Science, Engineering and Medicine released their large study "Fluoride in Drinking Water - A Scientific Review of EPA'S Standards" sponsored by the Environmental Protection Association.
At the News Conference Professor John Doull Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City and Chair, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water said,
“After reviewing the collective evidence on adverse health effects associated with fluoride, our committee concluded unanimously that EPA should lower the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride. Ongoing exposure to water fluoride levels at 4 mg/L puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, which is characterized by discoloration, enamel loss, and pitting of the teeth. This condition occurs during tooth development in children, before the teeth erupt in the mouth. Once it develops, it is a permanent condition.On average, approximately 10 percent of children in communities with water fluoride concentrations at or near 4 mg/L develop severe enamel fluorosis. Previous assessments have considered all cases of enamel fluorosis, including serious ones, to be aesthetically displeasing because of the yellow and brown staining of teeth that occurs, but not adverse to health. However, the majority of the committee concluded that severe cases of enamel loss constitute an adverse health effect because one function of enamel is to protect the teeth and underlying dental tissue. There is some evidence that pitting of tooth enamel could increase the risk of cavities because it allows plaque and bacteria to become trapped in the enamel. The damage to teeth caused by severe enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect that is consistent with prevailing risk assessment definitions of an adverse health effect. However, two of the 12 members of the committee did not agree that enamel defects alone are sufficient to consider severe enamel fluorosis an adverse health effect, as opposed to a cosmetic one. Although these members disagreed over the characterization of severe enamel fluorosis, they concurred with our recommendation that EPA's maximum contaminant level goal should prevent the occurrence of this unwanted condition.Studies indicate that up to 15 percent of children in communities exposed at the secondary guideline level of 2 mg/L have moderate enamel fluorosis, a less severe form of enamel fluorosis that does not involve enamel loss or pitting. Although this moderate condition can also lead to tooth discoloration that may be aesthetically objectionable, there is inadequate data to categorize it as an adverse health effect.In addition to effects on teeth, the committee reviewed new studies of fluoride's effects on bone. Fluoride is readily incorporated and accumulates in the bone. Concerns about fluoride's effects on the musculoskeletal system historically have been and continue to be focused on bone fracture and skeletal fluorosis. Studies with laboratory animals show that fluoride incorporation can weaken bone and increase the risk of fracture. Evidence for this effect in humans was found in several new studies of populations exposed to fluoride at 4 mg/L or higher in drinking water, as well as in clinical studies of fluoride as a therapeutic agent. Overall, there was consensus among the committee that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. The majority of the committee concluded that a population with lifetime exposure to fluoride in water at concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher is likely to experience more fractures than a group exposed to 1 mg/L. Three of the 12 committee members, however, supported a conclusion that EPA's 4 mg/L standard might not be protective against bone fractures. They said more evidence was needed that bone fractures occur at an appreciable frequency in human populations exposed to fluoride at 4 mg/L before drawing a firm conclusion about the risks at that level.”
But didn’t the Health Department, Doctors and Dentists assure us dummies that Fluoride was “benign”, a “nutrient” and a “mineral”. The outcome of this study should be read in full - it is four hundred plus pages - by local Mayors as a duty of care to the residents.
There is a four-page brief of the study, which makes very interesting reading and if there is any commonsense left in the world at all it should be the death knell for Fluoridation.
This information can be found at http://national-academies.org/. I am sorry for those who do not have access to the net but a visit to the local library and help from the librarian could point you to this article on the library's computer.
All of us need to read this before any more pressure is put upon us from NSW Health, who would not have access to this yet as they should, being too busy conducting flossy polls which tell us what they want us to think.
Yours sincerely Therese Mackay- Hastings Safe Water Association.
43 Willow Crescent PORT MACQUARIE 2444
Phone 02 6583 9622 – 0417 279 602
23/3/06
Dear Editor,
What response to newly released (March 22 2006) study “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards” has there been From the NSW Health Department and Mid North Coast Mayors in favour of Fluoridation?
We here in the Hastings Port Macquarie area have like most Mid North and North Coast areas been successful in stopping the artificial Fluoridation of our drinking water supplies in the past decades because time after time when voting at Council Elections is held on the subject of Fluoridation residents have said a loud “No. But since the last Council Elections there has been action as a block by all local Mayors to deny local people a voice and force Fluoridation upon us.
Yesterday in the US The National Academies on Science, Engineering and Medicine released their large study "Fluoride in Drinking Water - A Scientific Review of EPA'S Standards" sponsored by the Environmental Protection Association.
At the News Conference Professor John Doull Professor Emeritus of Pharmacology and Toxicology University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City and Chair, Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water said,
“After reviewing the collective evidence on adverse health effects associated with fluoride, our committee concluded unanimously that EPA should lower the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride. Ongoing exposure to water fluoride levels at 4 mg/L puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, which is characterized by discoloration, enamel loss, and pitting of the teeth. This condition occurs during tooth development in children, before the teeth erupt in the mouth. Once it develops, it is a permanent condition.On average, approximately 10 percent of children in communities with water fluoride concentrations at or near 4 mg/L develop severe enamel fluorosis. Previous assessments have considered all cases of enamel fluorosis, including serious ones, to be aesthetically displeasing because of the yellow and brown staining of teeth that occurs, but not adverse to health. However, the majority of the committee concluded that severe cases of enamel loss constitute an adverse health effect because one function of enamel is to protect the teeth and underlying dental tissue. There is some evidence that pitting of tooth enamel could increase the risk of cavities because it allows plaque and bacteria to become trapped in the enamel. The damage to teeth caused by severe enamel fluorosis is a toxic effect that is consistent with prevailing risk assessment definitions of an adverse health effect. However, two of the 12 members of the committee did not agree that enamel defects alone are sufficient to consider severe enamel fluorosis an adverse health effect, as opposed to a cosmetic one. Although these members disagreed over the characterization of severe enamel fluorosis, they concurred with our recommendation that EPA's maximum contaminant level goal should prevent the occurrence of this unwanted condition.Studies indicate that up to 15 percent of children in communities exposed at the secondary guideline level of 2 mg/L have moderate enamel fluorosis, a less severe form of enamel fluorosis that does not involve enamel loss or pitting. Although this moderate condition can also lead to tooth discoloration that may be aesthetically objectionable, there is inadequate data to categorize it as an adverse health effect.In addition to effects on teeth, the committee reviewed new studies of fluoride's effects on bone. Fluoride is readily incorporated and accumulates in the bone. Concerns about fluoride's effects on the musculoskeletal system historically have been and continue to be focused on bone fracture and skeletal fluorosis. Studies with laboratory animals show that fluoride incorporation can weaken bone and increase the risk of fracture. Evidence for this effect in humans was found in several new studies of populations exposed to fluoride at 4 mg/L or higher in drinking water, as well as in clinical studies of fluoride as a therapeutic agent. Overall, there was consensus among the committee that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures. The majority of the committee concluded that a population with lifetime exposure to fluoride in water at concentrations of 4 mg/L or higher is likely to experience more fractures than a group exposed to 1 mg/L. Three of the 12 committee members, however, supported a conclusion that EPA's 4 mg/L standard might not be protective against bone fractures. They said more evidence was needed that bone fractures occur at an appreciable frequency in human populations exposed to fluoride at 4 mg/L before drawing a firm conclusion about the risks at that level.”
But didn’t the Health Department, Doctors and Dentists assure us dummies that Fluoride was “benign”, a “nutrient” and a “mineral”. The outcome of this study should be read in full - it is four hundred plus pages - by local Mayors as a duty of care to the residents.
There is a four-page brief of the study, which makes very interesting reading and if there is any commonsense left in the world at all it should be the death knell for Fluoridation.
This information can be found at http://national-academies.org/. I am sorry for those who do not have access to the net but a visit to the local library and help from the librarian could point you to this article on the library's computer.
All of us need to read this before any more pressure is put upon us from NSW Health, who would not have access to this yet as they should, being too busy conducting flossy polls which tell us what they want us to think.
Yours sincerely Therese Mackay- Hastings Safe Water Association.
# posted by Middle Child @ Thursday, March 23, 2006
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Jama says Doctors should stop accepting bribes from drug companies
Please take the time to read this as it is important to understand just how deeply entrenched are the interests of big business, and the conflict of interest that has to occur
Finally The Journal of the American Medical Accociation has spoken out against the corruption re Doctors and The Bribes from the Drug Companies which amount to 19 Billion...yes Billion per annum in the US.
Therese Mackay
NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published March 1 2006
JAMA says doctors should stop accepting bribes from drug companies
The Journal of the American Medical Association is rocking the boat in conventional medicine. An article in JAMA has come up with the suggestion -- aghast! -- that doctors should stop accepting bribes from drug companies. Most people didn't know that doctors routinely accept bribes (including hundreds of thousands of dollars in "contractor's fees" for signing patients up for drug trials), so this news may come as a bit of a shock to some.
Big Pharma spends nearly $19 billion a year bribing and influencing physicians, by the way. That's billion with a "B." How much money is $19 billion? It's more money than NASA wastes smashing satellites into Mars and exploding space shuttles in Earth's upper atmosphere. It's more money than the entire junk food industry spends hypnotizing obese children into nagging their parents for another box of sugar-bomb breakfast cereal at the quickie mart. Heck, it's more money than the entire United States spends on genuine disease prevention and health education.
In other words, it's a lotta dough. But bribing doctors requires a lot of cash. Doctors have big-dollar appetites. They drive Mercedes Benz, Hummers and Audis. They live in 5,000 square-foot houses with high heating and cooling bills (especially for the outdoor pool). They have expensive habits, expensive travel, and expensive dinner bills (fortunately, drug companies pick up most of the travel and dinner). Let's face it: Doctors have just gotten used to the idea that they're supposed to be treated to a higher level of comfort and prestige than the rest of the population, and if it takes drug money to buy that lifestyle, then bring on the drug reps!
Actually, I'm being facetious. Most doctors hate those pesky drug reps. And the smart ones can't stand Big Pharma, either. The really good doctors will first see if they can get patients to make healthy lifestyle changes on their own, and if they can't, they'll prescribe generic drugs instead of the overpriced brand-name drugs. But really good doctors, sadly, are also really rare. I happen to know a few, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Nevertheless, nearly all doctors -- the good ones, the bad ones and the downright corrupt ones -- take money and gifts from drug companies. Walk into any doctor's office, and you'll be hard pressed to find a single object (mugs, paper pads, pens, etc.) that isn't emblazoned with the logo of a high-profit prescription drug. And those aren't even the bribes, those are just trinkets. But it shows you how completely drug companies have penetrated the offices of most doctors.
The majority of doctors say these gifts don't influence their prescribing behavior, just like the majority of consumers claim television advertising has no influence on their grocery purchases, either. Studies prove otherwise. Studies prove that drug company gifts to doctors are, indeed, not only effective, but quite a bargain for the drug companies. It's sort of like street corner drug dealers handing out crack in order to gain new customers, except that nobody denies crack is actually bad for your health.
Speaking of crack, Pfizer's CEO Hank McKinnell says all this talk about banning the bribing of doctors is unnecessary because Pfizer already has its own "voluntary code of conduct." Well that's a relief. All the bribery in the industry is going to be stopped by the drug dealers themselves!
The doctor bribery problem has reached such a high level of ridiculousness that even JAMA, which usually plays the role of blowing the pro-drug propaganda horn, has noticed there is a problem. In fact, it has suggested a course of action that, if adopted, might actually reign in drug company bribes and restore a bit of honesty to the world of medicine. But that's only if it is widely adopted, and that's about as likely as asking a heroin addict to agree to stop shooting up.
Specifically, the anti-bribery proposal would:
Exasperatingly, the industry has been so deeply corrupted by drug company money that the seemingly simple act of banning bribes is going to take a political miracle to accomplish.
Just don't expect Congress to jump in and pass national laws outlawing the bribing of doctors. They're also on the take when it comes to drug money. The financial influence of Big Pharma is now so deep-rooted with lawmakers, medical schools, doctors and the mainstream media that it's going to take the emergence of a massive, deadly scandal to jolt this nation back to its senses.
Vioxx, apparently, did not kill quite enough Americans (only 60,000+ according to Dr. David Graham's estimates), meaning that we will have to see a massive drug-based chemical holocaust, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans, before genuine reform is likely. That chemical holocaust, by the way, is well under way. It's only a matter of time before another Vioxx surfaces. Only this time, the cost in human lives may be far worse than 60,000.
(image placeholder)
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NewsTarget.com/terms.shtml
Finally The Journal of the American Medical Accociation has spoken out against the corruption re Doctors and The Bribes from the Drug Companies which amount to 19 Billion...yes Billion per annum in the US.
Therese Mackay
NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published March 1 2006
JAMA says doctors should stop accepting bribes from drug companies
The Journal of the American Medical Association is rocking the boat in conventional medicine. An article in JAMA has come up with the suggestion -- aghast! -- that doctors should stop accepting bribes from drug companies. Most people didn't know that doctors routinely accept bribes (including hundreds of thousands of dollars in "contractor's fees" for signing patients up for drug trials), so this news may come as a bit of a shock to some.
Big Pharma spends nearly $19 billion a year bribing and influencing physicians, by the way. That's billion with a "B." How much money is $19 billion? It's more money than NASA wastes smashing satellites into Mars and exploding space shuttles in Earth's upper atmosphere. It's more money than the entire junk food industry spends hypnotizing obese children into nagging their parents for another box of sugar-bomb breakfast cereal at the quickie mart. Heck, it's more money than the entire United States spends on genuine disease prevention and health education.
In other words, it's a lotta dough. But bribing doctors requires a lot of cash. Doctors have big-dollar appetites. They drive Mercedes Benz, Hummers and Audis. They live in 5,000 square-foot houses with high heating and cooling bills (especially for the outdoor pool). They have expensive habits, expensive travel, and expensive dinner bills (fortunately, drug companies pick up most of the travel and dinner). Let's face it: Doctors have just gotten used to the idea that they're supposed to be treated to a higher level of comfort and prestige than the rest of the population, and if it takes drug money to buy that lifestyle, then bring on the drug reps!
Actually, I'm being facetious. Most doctors hate those pesky drug reps. And the smart ones can't stand Big Pharma, either. The really good doctors will first see if they can get patients to make healthy lifestyle changes on their own, and if they can't, they'll prescribe generic drugs instead of the overpriced brand-name drugs. But really good doctors, sadly, are also really rare. I happen to know a few, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Nevertheless, nearly all doctors -- the good ones, the bad ones and the downright corrupt ones -- take money and gifts from drug companies. Walk into any doctor's office, and you'll be hard pressed to find a single object (mugs, paper pads, pens, etc.) that isn't emblazoned with the logo of a high-profit prescription drug. And those aren't even the bribes, those are just trinkets. But it shows you how completely drug companies have penetrated the offices of most doctors.
The majority of doctors say these gifts don't influence their prescribing behavior, just like the majority of consumers claim television advertising has no influence on their grocery purchases, either. Studies prove otherwise. Studies prove that drug company gifts to doctors are, indeed, not only effective, but quite a bargain for the drug companies. It's sort of like street corner drug dealers handing out crack in order to gain new customers, except that nobody denies crack is actually bad for your health.
Speaking of crack, Pfizer's CEO Hank McKinnell says all this talk about banning the bribing of doctors is unnecessary because Pfizer already has its own "voluntary code of conduct." Well that's a relief. All the bribery in the industry is going to be stopped by the drug dealers themselves!
The doctor bribery problem has reached such a high level of ridiculousness that even JAMA, which usually plays the role of blowing the pro-drug propaganda horn, has noticed there is a problem. In fact, it has suggested a course of action that, if adopted, might actually reign in drug company bribes and restore a bit of honesty to the world of medicine. But that's only if it is widely adopted, and that's about as likely as asking a heroin addict to agree to stop shooting up.
Specifically, the anti-bribery proposal would:
- Prohibit doctors from accepting free drug samples.
- Exclude doctors who have financial ties to drug companies from serving on the hospital panels that determine which medicines should be on the preferred prescribing lists.
- Prohibit drug companies from providing direct financing for educational programming.
- Prohibit medical faculty from belonging to pharmaceutical companies' speakers' bureaus or publishing drug company articles as their own.
- Require faculty members that receive financial support from pharmaceutical companies to post them on public Internet sites.
Exasperatingly, the industry has been so deeply corrupted by drug company money that the seemingly simple act of banning bribes is going to take a political miracle to accomplish.
Just don't expect Congress to jump in and pass national laws outlawing the bribing of doctors. They're also on the take when it comes to drug money. The financial influence of Big Pharma is now so deep-rooted with lawmakers, medical schools, doctors and the mainstream media that it's going to take the emergence of a massive, deadly scandal to jolt this nation back to its senses.
Vioxx, apparently, did not kill quite enough Americans (only 60,000+ according to Dr. David Graham's estimates), meaning that we will have to see a massive drug-based chemical holocaust, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Americans, before genuine reform is likely. That chemical holocaust, by the way, is well under way. It's only a matter of time before another Vioxx surfaces. Only this time, the cost in human lives may be far worse than 60,000.
(image placeholder)
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. Newstarget.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NewsTarget.com/terms.shtml
# posted by Middle Child @ Sunday, March 05, 2006
