now browsing by category
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked October 20, 2020
- Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor at York University in Toronto, Canada, has published several damning studies showing fluoride damages the brain and lowers IQ
- In 2019, Till received the President’s Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) from York University for her research into the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure
- After giving a lecture at a recent conference that included speakers who question the safety of mercury and vaccines, a group of 14 scientists are calling for an independent review of Till’s work on fluoridation “to determine whether her ‘ideology is being misrepresented as science’”
- For now, it doesn’t appear as though York University will comply with the call for an independent probe into Till’s research and public statements about water fluoridation
- Depositions by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials in 2018 have also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also does not have any data showing fluoride intake is harmless to the brain. Meanwhile, more than 400 animal and human studies have found fluoride is neurotoxic and damages the brain
While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, hundreds of studies reveal it’s one of the most harmful public health strategies ever implemented.
Among the many researchers who have published damning fluoride studies is Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor at York University in Toronto, Canada1 who in 2019 received the President’s Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) for her research into the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure.2
That same year, she published research3,4 showing maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy lowered IQ in children. In 2020, Till and her team published another study,5 showing children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.
She’s also listed as a co-author on several other important fluoride studies published in the last five years. Till’s studies are part of hundreds of studies presented as evidence during the landmark fluoridation trial held in federal court in June 2020, reviewed in “Fluoride on Trial,” and are considered some of the strongest evidence against water fluoridation to date.
Policy makers, health professionals and scientists must have access to all high-quality evidence to make informed decisions. It would be unacceptable to censor scientific results because they do not conform to a certain set of beliefs. ~ Christine Till, Ph.D.
Now, Till is suddenly facing the same “cancel culture” that so many other researchers have faced when they present evidence that challenges industry propaganda and threatens the continuation of a toxic but profitable practice.
Pro-Fluoride Group Calls for Independent Probe
According to an October 8, 2020, report6 by CTV News, 14 scientists, referring to themselves as an “International Group of Fluoridation Experts,” have written a letter7 to York University’s board of governors, calling for an independent review of Till’s work on fluoridation “to determine whether her ‘ideology is being misrepresented as science.’” The September 21, 2020, letter reads, in part:8
“… Till’s work continues to have sway in the political and public decision making process because it asserts a ‘possibility’ that water fluoridation is dangerous, however dubious the work’s methodology and conclusions.
That ‘possibility’ frightens some elected officials and administrators. We are advised that several United States boards, which oversee water quality, are currently deciding whether to cease community water fluoridation because of concerns advanced by Dr. Till, her students and associates, including that fluoride harms the developing brain …
Dr. Till’s fluoride research conclusions diverge significantly from current research on the safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) … We believe that some or all of Dr. Christine Till’s fluoride publications might well contain significant error …
Therefore, we are acting on our moral duty to make this belief known by asking you to establish an international, independent, expert committee to determine whether our concerns are justified.”
In response to the accusations, Till told CTV News:9
“Our study underwent extensive scrutiny to meet the scientific standards for publishing in the highest-ranking pediatric journal in the world. Policy makers, health professionals and scientists must have access to all high-quality evidence to make informed decisions. It would be unacceptable to censor scientific results because they do not conform to a certain set of beliefs.”
University Defends Scientific Freedom of Its Faculty
September 29, 2020, York University president Rhonda Lenton issued a public reply10 to the letter, stating:
“Over the past few months, several incidents bearing on the academic freedom of members of the York Community have been brought to my attention.
In each case, individuals and groups external to the University have appealed to senior leadership to intercede against faculty members due to statements made, or research published, in the course of their legitimate scholarly activities.
I believe this presents an important opportunity to restate York’s unequivocal support of academic freedom …
We must always defend the right of students, professors and instructional staff to express their views and conduct free inquiry. It is, however, not required that we agree with the content of that speech.
Free expression, especially on controversial topics, is best regulated by vigorous counterspeech. It is not appropriate for the University to decide which side of a particular issue is correct …
As a leading research university, York remains steadfast in its defense of academic freedom. We will not censure any member of our community for their research or their public statements made in the course of their scholarly work within limits prescribed by law and applicable policies governing the responsible conduct of research.”
Till’s Public Statements Questioned
In addition to questioning Till’s scientific integrity, the group questions the truthfulness of a number of public statements she’s made. That includes the short video featured above, produced by Till and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University11 in Canada.
On a side note, Lanphear is also an invited member of the Council of Fellows of the Collegium Ramazzini12 in Italy, an international scientific academy comprised of physicians and scientists that seeks to increase scientific knowledge of the environmental and occupational causes of disease to protect public health.
The Collegium Ramazzini collaborates with the Ramazzini Institute,13 a nonprofit social cooperative dedicated to independent scientific research into environmental toxins.
You may recall hearing about the Ramazzini Institute in relation to the harms of cellphone radiation — another hotly contested area of research where organizations with vested interests are doing everything they can to smear and dismiss findings showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause physical harm.
Getting back to the video, in it, Till and Lanphear review the history of water fluoridation, research showing fluoride to be toxic to the developing brain, and the implications of an IQ loss of three to five points.
As noted in the video, most people have an IQ score between 85 and 115 points. Only 2.5% of children have an IQ above 130, which is considered gifted. Another 2.5% of children have an IQ below 70, which is considered challenged.
A mere five points drop in IQ, which doesn’t sound like much, actually results in a whopping 57% increase in the number of children who are intellectually and academically challenged, from 6 million to 9.4 million. There’s also a corresponding decrease in those who are gifted, from 6 million down to 2.4 million, and the overall societal impact of this downward slide is tremendous.
“We ask the international, expert, arm’s length committee to consider whether Dr. Till is in a possible conflict of interest as between her duty (to collect and to report research data reliably) and her probable interest (which appears to be to cause and end to community water fluoridation),” the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” write.14
The group also wants the reviewing committee to ascertain whether the video fairly represents Till’s scientific findings, and if not, they call for a “forensic audit into whether public funds meant for research or knowledge translation were used to create the video, and, if so, require those funds to be reimbursed.”15
Why Was Till Singled Out?
For now, it doesn’t appear as though York University will comply with the call for an independent probe into Till’s research and public statements about water fluoridation, but it raises the question of why she was targeted in the first place.
As it turns out, the attack came on the heels of a lecture she gave in September 2020 at the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) conference, held in Nashville, Tennessee. Till gave her presentation virtually, from Canada.
According to a September 30, 2020, article16 by Canadian journalist Tom Blackwell, presenters at the event included “a who’s who of the anti-vaccination and COVID-19 conspiracy-theory movements.”
Among the presenters17 receiving “top billing” were Andrew Wakefield, producer of the excellent documentary “1986: The Act,” and Judy Mikovitz, Ph.D., featured in the highly-censored documentary “Plandemic.” Other criticized presenters included Marc Geier and retired chemistry professor Boyd Haley, both of whom have linked vaccines to autism.
According to Blackwell, “Till said she didn’t learn who else was presenting until organizers sent her an agenda two weeks before the event.” Blackwell also reports that, in an interview, Till:
“… stressed that she accepted no payment from the IAOMT, and does back childhood vaccination of the sort her fellow speakers decry … ‘Just because I speak to an organization does not mean I subscribe to the views of the other speakers … To me the invitation to speak is to present our research findings, make them accessible to this group.’”
As detailed in “Fluoride on Trial” (hyperlinked above) and many other articles over the past decade, there’s no shortage of scientific evidence showing water fluoridation causes more harm than good. More than 400 animal and human studies have in fact found fluoride is neurotoxic and damages the brain,18 and have been published in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals.
The claim that Till’s research conclusions “diverge significantly from current research” therefore doesn’t hold water. What’s more, depositions by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials, which took place in 2018, have also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and its effects on the brain. During the fluoride trial against the EPA, which took place in June 2020, Michael Connett, an attorney for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) who is leading the lawsuit, asked the EPA to identify all studies that demonstrate or support the neurological safety of prenatal fluoride exposure.
They produced a single study from 1995, in which the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride was assessed in rats. Ironically, this study actually shows that neonatal fluoride exposure is neurotoxic, and EPA scientists confirmed that this was indeed the case.
So, the only study they could find to support safety is actually showing harm. Aside from the 201919,20 and 202021 studies that Till led, the following also implicate fluoride as a neurotoxin that has no place in communal water supplies:
|Bashash 201722,23 — Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA, this study followed pregnant women and their babies for 12 years, measuring the fluoride in their urine, which reveals total exposure, regardless of the source. They found a strong relationship between the fluoride level in mothers’ urine and IQ scores in their children at the ages of 4, and between 6 and 12.|
|Green 201924 — Published in JAMA Pediatrics, this study reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.|
|Riddell 201925 — Published in Environment International, this study found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.|
|Malin 201926 — Published in Environmental Health, it linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.|
|Malin 201927 — Published in Environment International. A second study by Malin’s team reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride. The CDC funded this study.|
|Uyghurturk 202028 — Published in Environmental Health, it found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019, and Bashash et al, 2017.29,30|
As early as 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) looked at the toxicology of fluoride, concluding that, based on the studies available at that time, fluoride poses a threat to the brain.31
Studies have also demonstrated that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor32 that suppresses thyroid function,33,34,35 and this too can lower IQ in offspring if the mother has underactive thyroid function during pregnancy.
Excessive fluoride exposure also causes dental fluorosis, which in turn increases rates of dental cavities.36,37 This alone should be cause for reconsidering water fluoridation, considering it’s a public health strategy aimed at preventing cavities.
The Fight Against Water Fluoridation Continues
Hopefully, FAN’s legal action against the EPA will result in the elimination of fluoride from U.S. water supplies. We still have a ways to go though. As it stands, the judge in the case has asked FAN to allow the EPA to reassess the evidence before he makes a ruling.
According to the judge, the EPA has used the wrong standard to assess the evidence (which, incidentally, means the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” are likely to have made the same mistake when judging the available research).
The judge also noted, on the record, that the evidence presented by plaintiffs raises serious questions about the policy to fluoridate water supplies. If the EPA tries to drag out this process, he is prepared to make a ruling based on the evidence presented.
So, we still have to wait for the conclusion to this groundbreaking trial but, clearly, we are closer than we’ve ever been to seeing an end to this tragic and unnecessary poisoning of millions of individuals. In the end, researchers like Till may well end up having the last word on the matter.
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked October 06, 2020
- September 24, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released its long-overdue safety communication on amalgam
- The FDA warns mercury fillings may adversely affect people in certain high-risk groups and should be avoided
- Groups identified as being at increased risk for harmful effects from dental mercury fillings include pregnant women and their developing fetuses, nursing women, women who are planning to become pregnant, infants and children under the age of 6, people with neurological diseases, impaired kidney function or heightened sensitivity to mercury or other amalgam components
- After years of pressure from Consumers for Dental Choice and its allies, the FDA finally agreed to reopen the amalgam issue, and now admits dental amalgam releases mercury vapor that can cause health problems in some individuals
- The FDA also advised against use of the misleading term “silver fillings,” and urges patients to discuss all dental filling options with their dentist
Just four weeks after we celebrated our 10th annual Mercury Awareness and Mercury-Free Dentistry Week, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a long-overdue safety communication on amalgam.
In an astounding about-face to its previous stance, the FDA issued a warning that mercury fillings may adversely affect pregnant women, children and other susceptible individuals, and should be avoided by these groups.
The safety communication1 was posted September 24, 2020, and with this, we have suddenly achieved an incredibly important goal that we’ve had our sights on for the last decade!
Goal Achieved: FDA Releases Amalgam Safety Communication
As noted in the FDA’s statement:2
“Today, the FDA is issuing updated recommendations concerning dental amalgam and potential risks to certain high-risk individuals that may be associated with these mercury-containing fillings …
The FDA has found that certain groups may be at greater risk for potential harmful health effects of mercury vapor released from the device [amalgam]. As a result, the agency is recommending certain high-risk groups avoid getting dental amalgam whenever possible and appropriate.”
Groups identified by the FDA as being at increased risk for harmful effects from dental mercury fillings include:
|Pregnant women and their developing fetuses|
|Women who are planning to become pregnant|
|Nursing women and their newborns and infants|
|Children, especially those younger than 6|
|People with pre-existing neurological disease such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease|
|People with impaired kidney function|
|People with known heightened sensitivity (allergy) to mercury or other components of dental amalgam|
FDA Admits Amalgam Dangers
After years of pressure from Consumers for Dental Choice and its allies, the FDA finally admits the unvarnished truth about amalgam, noting3 that “Dental amalgam is a mixture of mercury and a powdered alloy made up of silver, tin and copper” that “releases small amounts of mercury vapor over time.”
The FDA has found that certain groups may be at greater risk for potential harmful health effects of mercury vapor released from the device [amalgam]. As a result, the agency is recommending certain high-risk groups avoid getting dental amalgam whenever possible and appropriate.
The agency also admits there are “uncertainties” and risks associated with this mercury vapor release, especially for the high-risk groups listed. In particular, there is “the potential for mercury in dental amalgam to convert to other mercury compounds in the body,” and mercury could potentially accumulate in body fluids and tissues, resulting in “unintended health outcomes.”
“These uncertainties in the most vulnerable patients are why today we are recommending people who may be at high risk for adverse health effects of mercury exposure use non-mercury alternatives to dental amalgam, such as composite resins and glass ionomer cement fillings,” the FDA states.4
While the FDA downplays the importance of its changed recommendation by stressing that the benefits of dental amalgam likely “outweigh their risks for most patients,” this update is nothing short of monumental, and opens the door, finally, for the elimination of dental mercury for all patients in the U.S., as has been done in many other countries already.
I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you who have supported Consumers for Dental Choice during these past 10 years, as it is this organization’s unwavering dedication that has now borne fruit.
Consumers for Dental Choice Sued FDA — and Won
The FDA is legally required to classify — that is, issue a rule for — all medical devices, including dental amalgam. But for 30 years, FDA dodged its legal duty to classify amalgam.
Consumers for Dental Choice put an end to FDA’s negligence when, in 2008, this dynamic nonprofit organization assembled plaintiffs and sued FDA, demanding that amalgam be classified. The judge agreed and told FDA to sit down with Consumers for Dental Choice to determine a deadline. FDA was compelled to commit to classifying amalgam by July 2009.
But when July 2009 came around, it was clear the FDA had not considered the science — especially the evidence of harm amalgam can cause vulnerable populations like children, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers.
Its abysmal rule reflected this shortcoming, as it did not restrict the use of amalgam for these most vulnerable individuals. The rule did not even require that patients be told that amalgam is made of mercury. Nonetheless, FDA’s 2009 rule did acknowledge that amalgam could be harmful, and that there was no proof of safety for the populations most susceptible to this toxin.
In response, Consumers for Dental Choice challenged FDA’s rule, while simultaneously pursuing other opportunities to advance mercury-free dentistry, like defeating pro-mercury state dental boards, fighting for amalgam fact sheet laws for patients at the state level, and getting amalgam into the Minamata Convention on Mercury.
As Consumers for Dental Choice racked up win after win — regaining licenses for mercury-free dentists persecuted by state boards, gaining fact sheets to protect dental patients, achieving an amalgam reduction requirement in the Minamata Convention — the FDA’s rule was looking increasingly archaic.
Decade-Long Wait Is Over
Nearly a decade after the FDA issued its flawed amalgam rule, Consumers for Dental Choice launched a nonstop campaign focused on getting the FDA to move on amalgam.
They assembled an accomplished team of experts to approach the FDA, and in 2018, unveiled the “Chicago Declaration to End Mercury Use in the Dental Industry” at the University of Illinois School of Public Health.
This declaration, signed by more than 50 heavy-hitter environmental groups, called on the FDA “to bring its policies in line with the Federal Government as a whole and with its responsibilities under the Minamata Convention and to publicly advise a phase down of the use of mercury amalgams with the goal of phasing out entirely.”
The declaration also called for the immediate ban on amalgam use in children, pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers. Working with key signatories to the “Chicago Declaration,” Consumers for Dental Choice were able to secure meetings with top officials at the FDA, during which they were able to submit scientific studies for the FDA to review.
The first sign of progress came with the FDA’s September 2019 scientific review5 of amalgam, “Epidemiological Evidence on the Adverse Health Effects Reported in Relation to Mercury from Dental Amalgam,” which recognized that the elemental mercury in dental amalgam can convert inside the body into toxic methylmercury — the same type of mercury that the FDA warns about in fish.
The FDA also recognized bioaccumulative effects of mercury. Since patients are exposed to many sources of mercury — including high-mercury fish in their diets, occupational exposures and environmental mercury from waste incinerators — the mercury from amalgam could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.
FDA Reverses Stance on Amalgam
Consumers for Dental Choice also organized a strong showing of public support from you. Its online petition, which had nearly 50,000 signatures, was presented to the FDA in person at its first meeting with the agency. Many of you also submitted public comments on patient preferences to the FDA.
FDA was also made aware of the changes to amalgam rules in other parts of the world, such as amalgam phase-out dates set by the Philippines, Ireland, Slovakia, Finland, Nepal, Moldova, Czech Republic and New Caledonia, and the bans on amalgam use in children issued by the European Union, Vietnam and Tanzania.
Having finally reached the top of the FDA, Consumers for Dental Choice succeeded in persuading the agency to reopen and take another in-depth look at the amalgam policy.
A scientific advisory committee meeting — which included testimonies by 16 experts from the Children’s Environmental Health Network, Tuskegee University, the International Indian Treaty Council, the Organic & Natural Health Association and the Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, as well as city and county commissioners, a physician expert in environmental justice, a pharmacist specializing in toxicology and several attorneys — took place in November 2019.
You can see Consumers for Dental Choice’s team and their colleagues in action in the video below, which features highlights of the advisory panel meeting.
Ultimately, the FDA advisory committee members recommended the agency provide information to patients about the risks of dental amalgam, especially for vulnerable populations. Many even agreed that the use of amalgam needs to end, which has been the goal of Consumers for Dental Choice all along.
Final Step Ahead
Now that the FDA has finally broken its silence on the dangers of mercury for pregnant and nursing mothers, children and people with certain underlying conditions, the final step — a full ban on amalgam for all — looms near.
The American Dental Association, which has long defended amalgam’s safety, is now running out of allies. For now, however, the ADA still maintains its contrarian view.
In response to the FDA’s updated recommendations, the ADA stated6 that there was “no new scientific evidence cited as part of the FDA recommendation,” and that the ADA “reaffirms its position that dental amalgam is a durable, safe and effective cavity-filling option.”
On the upside, the ADA affirmed its support of patient decision-making, agreeing with the FDA’s statement that “all dental restorative decisions and treatment options should be made by the patient and the dentist.”
Seeing how the ADA’s ethical rules in the past were used by state dental boards to bar dentists from even informing patients about the fact that mercury is a key ingredient in amalgam, and how the ADA deceptively promoted amalgam as “silver fillings,” this shift, while small, is better than nothing.
In its September 24, 2020, safety communication on dental amalgam,7 the FDA specifically advises dentists against using the term “silver filling,” “as this may imply the filling is made solely from silver and does not accurately convey the mercury component of this restorative material.” The FDA also highlights this in its Dental Devices description page for amalgam, which received its last update September 29, 2020, noting that:8
“Dental amalgam is a mixture of metals, consisting of liquid (elemental) mercury and a powdered alloy composed of silver, tin, and copper. Approximately half (50%) of dental amalgam is elemental mercury by weight. The chemical properties of elemental mercury allow it to react with and bind together the silver/copper/tin alloy particles to form an amalgam.
Dental amalgam fillings are often referred to as ‘silver fillings’ because of their silver-like appearance, although the use of this term in not recommended because the term does not correctly explain the materials in amalgam.”
Most of us who have fought for this updated FDA amalgam policy for the past decade are still in shock that it finally happened, and without any significant forewarning. That said, it is fantastic good news, and we extend our thanks to all of you who have fought this battle with us.
The FDA’s updated recommendations change everything, because once amalgam is recognized as a hazard for specific high-risk groups, it doesn’t take much to expand that logic to include all people.
Reproduced from original article:
by: Sara Middleton, staff writer | October 2, 2020
(NaturalHealth365) Here’s the thing about environmental toxins: it doesn’t always take much to create havoc on the human body … sometimes it’s simply being exposed to small amounts again and and again that will eventually lead to long-term damage – even if the absolute levels are within so-called “tolerable limits.” In fact, recent research offers a perfect example of this when it comes to fluoride exposure.
In 1945, Grand Rapids MI started adding fluoride to public drinking water as a way to “improve” the dental health of its residents, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Soon thereafter, other cities followed suit.
But now this data out of the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai adds to a growing list of evidence calling into question this “mass fluoridation” of our nation, especially when it comes to protecting child and adolescent health.
Fluoridated water can cause organ damage in kidneys and the liver of young children
About a year ago, a team of researchers published the results of their investigational study in the journal Environment International. The study, which analyzed the relationship between fluoride levels in drinking water (for 1,742 children) and blood (of 1,983 children) and liver and kidney function, involved participants from the well-known National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a large group of studies used to evaluate health in the U.S.
Here were the worrisome results:
There is a dose-dependent relationship to fluoride exposure and diminished liver and kidney function in children. This means that the more exposure you have the worse off your organ damage can become over time.
Do NOT ignore the health dangers linked to toxic indoor air. These chemicals – the ‘off-gassing’ of paints, mattresses, carpets and other home/office building materials – increase your risk of headaches, dementia, heart disease and cancer.
Get the BEST indoor air purification system – at the LOWEST price, exclusively for NaturalHealth365 readers. I, personally use this system in my home AND office. Click HERE to order now – before the sale ends.
The authors found this relationship even when the exposure to fluoride was considered chronic and low-level (exactly how it is for most of us who drink public water). And to make matters worse, kid with poor liver and kidney function may end up absorbing even more fluoride.
Beyond liver and kidney damage, additional issues that may be caused by fluoride exposure include impaired protein metabolism, thyroid dysfunction, and lowered IQ.
We hate to say it but this isn’t necessarily ground-breaking news. Organ damage due to fluoride exposure has already been observed in adults as well as animal models.
And it turns out that a young child’s body isn’t as effective at excreting fluoride as an adult’s body – only about 45 percent of fluoride is cleared by kidneys via the urine in kids, whereas 60 percent of it is cleared by adults.
In other words: we can’t say we’re surprised to hear that fluoride is damaging to child health.
Nearly three quarters of the U.S. public water system contaminated with fluoride – here’s how you can reduce your kids’ exposure to this chemical
If you’re frustrated by the idea that the government is forcing mass exposure to a potentially harmful toxin on your family, we don’t blame you. In fact, up to 74% of the U.S. public drinking water contains fluoride. But clearly, drinking water is a must for health.
So what to do?
- Install a high quality water purification system in your home
- If you’re going to use bottled water, look for the highest quality brand possible (Tourmaline Spring water from Maine is one of the best in the nation we’ve found)
- Eat your water: Feed yourselves and your children plenty of hydrating fruits and vegetables (organic and locally sourced, whenever possible)
Sources for this article include:
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked October 03, 2020
- After a four-year process, a landmark fluoridation trial was held in federal court in June 2020. Fluoridation’s neurotoxic risk to vulnerable subpopulations was confirmed, along with the U.S. EPA’s failure to take action to protect citizens from these risks
- A collection of some of the strongest fluoride studies in history have been published in 2019 and 2020, showing that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk and hazard to all, but to fetuses and infants in particular
- A landmark U.S. government-funded study published in 2017 found a strong relationship between pregnant women’s exposure to fluoride and the subsequent IQ of their offspring. The higher the fluoride levels of the urine of the women, the lower the IQ of the children
- A 2020 Canadian study reported that children who were bottle-fed in fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century when, in reality, it’s one its greatest failures. Yet, in the face of solid scientific evidence of harm, politics and public relations have kept the practice alive.
Proponents such as the American Dental Association and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control have spent millions of dollars on promotion1 and public relations2 to sell fluoridation using half-truths and misleading talking points.
While the U.S. is still trying to hold on to the fallacy that water fluoridation is a public health service, it’s one of the most widely rejected health interventions in the world, with 95% of the global population consuming nonfluoridated water.
Now, thanks to an abundance of new research, a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the sustained education efforts of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and its supporters, it looks like we may finally be looking at an end to this toxic practice.
In the video above, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., chairman of Children’s Health Defense, interviews Michael Connett, an attorney for FAN who is leading the lawsuit against the EPA.
Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Act
Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows citizens and nongovernmental organizations to petition the EPA to remove toxic substances found to pose an “unreasonable risk” either to the general population or a subset of that population.
What’s more, it allows citizens and watchdog groups to present their case before a judge. That is what FAN did in this case, and it’s the first time a citizen’s group has ever brought a Section 21 TSCA petition all the way through to trial.
It began November 22, 2016, when a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individuals, filed a petition3,4,5 calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the TSCA.
The petition was made on the grounds that a large body of research demonstrates fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities, and included over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing these health risks.
The EPA denied the petition6 February 27, 2017, on the grounds that it had failed to present “a scientifically defensible basis” to conclude that anyone had in fact suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of fluoride exposure. In response, FAN and its coalition partners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, legally challenging the EPA’s denial of their petition.
Fluoride on Trial
The trial began June 8, 2020.7 During the trial, Connett argued the EPA must, based on the evidence, eliminate the unreasonable risk of neurotoxicity posed by fluoride by banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water.
Interestingly, among the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses were the EPA’s own in-house experts on fluoride who, when asked to comment on the latest evidence, agreed that the animal data support the biological plausibility that fluoride causes neurotoxic effects in human beings.
Joyce Donahue, an EPA scientist with the Office of Water, also admitted that studies showing harm to the brain warrant a thorough reevaluation of the theory that bone and teeth are the most sensitive to fluoride damage.
Depositions by CDC officials, which took place in 2018, also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects. Neither does the EPA have safety data on fluoride intake and effects on the brain.
Connett asked the EPA to identify all studies that demonstrate or support the neurological safety of prenatal fluoride exposure. They produced one: A 1995 study in which the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride was assessed in rats.
Ironically, this study, Connett points out, shows that neonatal fluoride exposure actually is neurotoxic to rats, and EPA scientists confirmed that this was indeed the case.
Recent Studies Confirm Harms to Children
The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there are only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant.
In reality, the scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. In fact, the level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.
“There is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure … especially when the exposure occurs during early development.” ~ Dr. Philippe Grandjean
Evidence brought forth during the trial included some 300 animal and human studies, including several published in 2019 and 2020 that show water fluoridation poses a significant risk to children’s brains and lowers IQ.
These studies are among the strongest yet, and are obviously relevant to water fluoridation as they were conducted in communities that have what the ADA considers an “optimal level” of fluoride in drinking water:
|Green 20198 — Published in JAMA Pediatrics, this study reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.|
|Riddell 20199 — Published in Environment International, this study found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.|
|Malin 201910 — Published in Environmental Health, it linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.|
|Malin 201911 — Published in Environment International. A second study by Malin’s team reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride. The CDC funded this study.|
|Till 202012 — Published in Environment International, this study reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.|
|Uyghurturk 202013 — Published in Environmental Health, it found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019, and Bashash et al, 2017.14,15
The Bashash study,16,17 funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA, followed pregnant women and their babies for 12 years, measuring the fluoride in their urine, which reveals total exposure, regardless of the source. They found a strong relationship between the fluoride level in mothers’ urine and IQ scores in their children at the ages of 4, and between 6 and 12.
Fluoride Is Neurotoxic
What’s more, a draft systematic review published in 2020 by the National Toxicology Program, which included 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, concluded that fluoride was a “presumed” neurotoxin based on the large number, quality and consistency of brain studies.
This review did not include the three most recent neurotoxicity-related studies: Till 2019, Riddell 2019 and Uyghurturk 2020, the addition of which renders the evidence for neurotoxicity even more compelling.
While the draft NTP review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. This fact was also highlighted in a letter18 published in Pediatric Research by the co-authors of the 2019 JAMA Pediatrics study, who wrote:19
“Over the past 75 years, health authorities have declared that community water fluoridation … is safe. Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent.
When a Canadian study reported that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women was associated with lower IQ scores in young children, critics attacked the methodology of the study and discounted the significance of the results.
Health authorities continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe, despite four well-conducted studies over the last 3 years consistently linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in offspring …
The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs impedes the response to early warnings about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride, especially for the fetus and infant for whom there is no benefit.”
Similarly, in a 2019 review,20 Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean concluded:
“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.”
As early as 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) looked at the toxicology of fluoride, concluding that, based on the studies available at that time, fluoride poses a threat to the brain.21
Fluoride Suppresses Thyroid Function
As noted by Connett in the interview above, studies have also demonstrated that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor22 that suppresses thyroid function. This too can help explain some of the neurological damage seen from fluoride exposure.
For example, it is known that hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) during pregnancy can result in lowered IQ and other neurological deficits in their offspring. Studies23,24 have also shown fluoride can promote and exacerbate iodine deficiency.
In 2015, British researchers warned that 15,000 people may be needlessly afflicted with hypothyroidism in the U.K. as a result of drinking fluoridated water.25,26,27 Areas with fluoride levels above 0.3 mg/L had a 30% higher rate of hypothyroidism than nonfluoridated areas.
Fluoride’s Toxic Past
In the interview, Connett and Kennedy also review and summarize the sordid history of how fluoride chemicals came to be added to water supplies in the first place. During the Manhattan Project, enormous amounts of fluoride chemicals were used in the processing of uranium for the atom bomb.
Records clearly show fluoride was a highly dangerous substance causing significant environmental harm. In 1946, farmers in Salem County sued the U.S. government for $400,000 in damages to peach crops caused by fluoride fumes traced back to a facility involved in the bomb-making process. Cattle were also killed.
As noted by Connett, the aluminum and bomb-making industries realized they had a serious problem on their hands and were facing staggering liability for fluoride pollution. As a result, you start to see a shift in the science at that time. Harmful effects on human health were suppressed, and potential benefits were being introduced — even before there was any safety data available whatsoever.
Too Much Fluoride Causes Dental Fluorosis
The fact of the matter is that fluoride is a toxic substance with no known biological imperative. Researchers have even questioned its efficacy as a topical anticaries prophylactic.28
Dental caries is caused by demineralization of your teeth by the acids formed during the bacterial fermentation of dietary sugars. Demineralization is countered by the deposit of minerals from your saliva. However, the remineralization process is a slow one, and fluoride is said to prevent dental caries by enhancing this remineralization.
The problem is your teeth do not actually rely on fluoride for remineralization. What’s more, research29 has concluded that the protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. It has long been believed that fluoride changes the main mineral in tooth enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more decay-resistant material called fluorapatite.
However, the researchers found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick — meaning it would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. As noted by the authors, “it has to be asked whether such narrow … layers really can act as protective layers for the enamel.”
Meanwhile, fluoride has been shown to cause significant systemic harm when ingested. This is why, in 2019, the CDC warned that 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 6 use potentially dangerous amounts of toothpaste. As reported by the Chicago Sun Times:30
“Brushing with too much toothpaste can damage enamel, as children could swallow too much fluoride while their teeth are developing, the CDC says. This can cause dental fluorosis, white marks and discoloration of teeth.”
If you look closely, you’ll find fluoride-containing toothpastes have a warning on their label stating that “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”
This warning was made mandatory for fluoride-containing dental products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in April 1997.31 Ironically, while swallowing toothpaste is recognized as a cause for concern, we’re supposed to believe that drinking fluoridated water at any quantity is not only safe, but beneficial for our teeth.
In reality, studies have found that children with fluorosis have increased rates of cavities32,33 — a finding that suggests more fluoride is definitely not better, not even when it comes to protecting against cavities.
Current Status of the Lawsuit
After the closing arguments were presented, the judge made several comments on the record, including that the evidence presented by plaintiffs raises serious questions about the policy to fluoridate water supplies, and that the EPA had illegitimately denied FAN’s 2016 petition for TSCA action. The judge also noted that “the EPA, during these years of litigation, has used the wrong standard to assess this evidence,” Connett says.
In the end, the judge asked that the two parties agree to give the EPA the chance to reassess the evidence correctly, using the right standard of review. Connett expressed his concern to the Court that the EPA has a history of dragging its feet on this issue and that there’s enough evidence to take immediate protective action.
The judge in turn noted that he expects the EPA to conclude its re-evaluation within months, not years. Connett hopes they will be able to come to an agreement with the EPA, but if they don’t, the judge has made it clear that he has the evidence and will make a ruling, if needed.
So, we still have to wait for the conclusion to this groundbreaking trial, but clearly, we are closer than we’ve ever been to seeing an end to this tragic and unnecessary poisoning of millions of individuals.
- 1 ADA.org December 8, 2014
- 2 Fluoridealert.org December 21, 2014
- 3 EPA Petition November 2016
- 4 Fluoride Alert November 30, 2016 Press Release
- 5 Fluoridealert.org November 22, 2016 Petition to the EPA (PDF)
- 6 Office of the Federal Register February 27, 2017
- 7 Fluoridealert.org August 24, 2020
- 8 JAMA Pediatrics; August 2019; 173(10): 940-948
- 9 Environmental International October 22, 2019; 133 Part B
- 10 Environmental Health December 9, 2019 [Epub ahead of print]
- 11 Environmental International November 2019; 132: 105012
- 12 Environmental International January 2020; 134: 105315
- 13 Environmental Health April 6, 2020; 19(1): 38
- 14, 16 Environmental Health Perspectives September 19, 2017; 125(9)
- 15, 17 Fluoridealert.org October 2017
- 18 Fluoridealert.org, May 22, 2020
- 19 Pediatric Research May 22, 2020
- 20 Environmental Health December 19, 2019; 18: 110
- 21 National Research Council of the National Academies 2006, page 205
- 22 Fluoride Action Network, National Research Council Findings 2006
- 23 Springerplus 2014; 3: 7
- 24 Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 1989;4(4):251 (PDF)
- 25 J. Epidemiol Community Health 2015; 69: 619-624
- 26 Patch March 17, 2015
- 27 Fluoridealert.org February 24, 2015
- 28, 29 Langmuir 2010 Dec 21;26(24):18750-9
- 30 Chicago Sun Times February 4, 2019
- 31 FDA CFR Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
- 32 Caries Res. 2013;47(4):299-308
- 33 Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;32(5):337-44
© 31st July 2020 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter
Reproduced from original article:
Posted on: Thursday, July 30th 2020 at 7:00 am
Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
This article is copyrighted by GreenMedInfo LLC, 2020
Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising…
Fluoride’s neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From ‘conspiracy theories’ about it being first used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the pineal gland — the traditional ‘seat of the soul’ — many around the world, and increasingly in the heavily fluoridated regions of the United States, are starting to organize at the local and statewide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from municipal drinking water.
A compelling study published in the Pharmacognosy Magazine titled, “Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence,” adds experimental support to the suspicion that fluoride is indeed a brain-damaging substance, also revealing that a natural spice-derived protective agent against the various health effects associated with this compound is available.
The study was authored by researchers from the Department of Zoology, University College of Science, M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur, India, who have spent the past decade investigating the mechanisms through which fluoride induces severe neurodegenerative changes in the mammalian brain, particularly in cells of the hippocampus and cerebral cortex.[i] [ii]
The study opens by describing the historical backdrop for concern about fluoride’s significant and wide ranging toxicity:
“Fluoride (F) is probably the first inorganic ion which drew attention of the scientific world for its toxic effects and now the F toxicity through drinking water is well-recognized as a global problem. Health effect reports on F exposure also include various cancers, adverse reproductive activities, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases.[1,2]”
The study focused on fluoride induced neurotoxicity, identifying excitoxicity (stimulation of the neuron to the point of death) and oxidative stress as the two main drivers of neurodegeneration. It has been observed that subjects with the condition known as fluorosis, a mottling of tooth enamel caused by excessive exposure to fluoride during tooth development, also have neurodegenerative changes associated with a form of oxidative stress known as lipid peroxidation (rancidity). Excess lipid peroxidation in the brain can lead to a decrease in total brain phospholipid content. Owing to these well-known mechanisms of fluoride associated neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration, the researchers identified the primary polyphenol in the spice turmeric — known as curcumin — as an ideal agent worth testing as a neuroprotective substance. Previous research on curcumin indicates that it is capable of activing as an antioxidant in 3 distinct ways by protecting against: 1) singlet oxygen 2) hyrodxyl radicals and 3) superoxide radical damage. Also, curcumin appears to raise endogenous glutathione production in the brain, a major antioxidant defense system.
In order to assess the neurotoxic effects of fluoride and prove curcumin’s protective role against it, researchers randomly divided up mice into four groups, for 30 days:
- Control (no fluoride)
- Fluoride (120 ppm): fluoride was given in distilled water drinking water without restriction.
- Fluoride (120 ppm/30 mg/kg body weight) + Curcumin: Oral dose of curcumin dissolved in olive oil along with fluoride in drinking water
- Curcumin: (30 mg/kg body weight)
In order to ascertain the effect of treatment, the researchers measured the malondialdehyde (MDA) content in the brains of the different treated mice. MDA is a well-known marker of oxidative stress/damage.
As was expected, the fluoride (F) only treatment group showed significantly elevated MDA levels vs. the non-fluoride treated control. The F + Curcumin group saw reduced MDA levels vs. the fluoride only group, demonstrating curcumin’s neuroprotective activity against fluoride associated neurotoxicity.
The study concluded,
“Our study thus demonstrate that daily single dose of 120 ppm F result in highly significant increases in the LPO [lipid peroxidation, i.e. brain rancidity] as well as neurodegenerative changes in neuron cell bodies of selected hippocampal regions. Supplementation with curcumin significantly reduce the toxic effect of F to near normal level by augmenting the antioxidant defense through its scavenging property and provide an evidence of having therapeutic role against oxidative stress mediated neurodegeneration.”
This is far from the first study to demonstrate curcumin’s remarkable brain-saving properties. From the perspective of the primary research alone, there are over two hundred peer-reviewed published studies indicating that curcumin is a neuroprotective agent. On our own turmeric database we have 115 articles proving this statement: Turmeric Protects The Brain. We have also featured studies on turmeric’s ability to protect and restore the brain:
- How Turmeric Can Save the Aging Brain From Dementia and Premature Death
- Turmeric Produces ‘Remarkable’ Recovery in Alzheimer’s Patients
Considering the many chemical insults we face on a daily basis in the post-industrial world, turmeric may very well be the world’s most important herb, with over 800 evidence-based health applications. Visit our Turmeric Research database — the world’s largest, open access turmeric resource of its kind — to view the first hand published research on the topic.
[i] Bhatnagar M, Rao P, Saxena A, Bhatnagar R, Meena P, Barbar S. Biochemical changes in brain and other tissues of young adult female mice from fluoride in their drinking water. Fluoride. 2006;39:280–4. [Ref list]
[ii] Bhatnagar M, Sukhwal P, Suhalka P, Jain A, Joshi C, Sharma D. Effects of fluoride in drinking water on NADPH-diaphorase neurons in the forebrain of mice: A possible mechanism of fluoride neurotoxicity. Fluoride. 2011;44:195–9. [Ref list]
Written by Brenton Wight, Health Researcher
Updated 10th September 2020, Copyright © 1999-2021 Brenton Wight. All rights Reserved.
What is Fibromyalgia?
Fibromyalgia is a chronic condition, typically very painful, especially in response to pressure, and sometimes patients have symptoms like stiff muscles, joints and connective tissues.
Other symptoms often include depression, anxiety, sleep disturbance, difficulty swallowing, bowel and bladder problems, numbness and tingling, muscle spasms or twitching, weakness, nerve pain, palpitations,
cognitive dysfunction (“foggy thinking”).
Around 2% of the population are affected, usually between the ages of 20 and 50, although not all patients have all symptoms.
Women are nine times more likely than men to suffer from the condition, giving weight to the theory that hormones play a big part in the cause and treatment.
Diagnosis is difficult because there is no formal test. Symptoms are vague and similar to many other conditions.
Often patients with celiac disease are mistakenly diagnosed with Fibromyalgia, and do better on a gluten-free diet.
In fact, nearly everyone will do better on a gluten-free diet, or even better, a diet free from all grains, flour and any other product of grains, regardless of refined, wholemeal or any other form.
Some medical specialists say it is “all in the head” but few patients would agree with this!
Although there is no formal testing for fibromyalgia, the following tests should be arranged by the doctor to eliminate some factors that may indicate or aggravate Fibromyalgia:
- Ferritin (Iron Study) – A serum ferritin level under 50 ng/ml means a 650% increased risk for Fibromyalgia
- Thyroid Function – If autoimmune hypothyroidism is present, it should be treated first to see if Fibromyalgia symptoms subside
- Other autoimmune conditions – Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis and others can resemble Fibromyalgia symptoms and should be treated first
- CRP (C-Reactive Protein) – An inflammation marker. Source of any inflammation should be treated first
- The FM/a blood test (plasma and PBMC (Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cells) – Tests cytokine concentration. Low cytokines may indicate Fibromyalgia
Doctors say there is no known cause or cure. However, some approaches can be very effective in reducing symptoms, including:
- Prescription medications may help, including DHEA (“mother of all hormones”), Pregabalin, duloxetine, thyroxine, and milnacipran (most effective), however many patients found zero benefit from any medications
- Acetyl L-carnitine
- DIM (diindolylmethane)
- Magnesium Glycinate
Fibromyalgia patients typically have lower magnesium levels than others
- Zinc with Copper
- D-Ribose. Studies show a 66% benefit for patients of Fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome
- Coconut oil
- Active Folate
- Vitamin C
- Vitamin D3 deficiency is common in fibromyalgia patients, especially those with anxiety and depression
- B-group vitamins
- Astaxanthin (powerful antioxidant, 500 times better than vitamin E)
- CoQ10 (Co-Enzyme Q10) 40% lower levels of Coenzyme Q10 are found in fibromyalgia patients, indicating probable benefit by supplementation, plus discontinuance of any statin medication
- Glutathione or
NAC (N-Acetyl Cysteine) precursor to glutathione
- Digestive enzymes
- Baking soda
- Krill Oil
- Fish Oil
- MSM – Methylsulfonyl Methane reduces pain as well as improving tolerance to pain
- Apple cider vinegar
- Dark Chocolate (with at least 70% cocoa)
- Black Pepper
- Cayenne pepper
- Hydrogen Peroxide
- Acupuncture – Acupressure or a TENS machine can help on the “hot spots” which can help de-sensitise those areas
- Physical Therapy. Often a Physiotherapist or even a Massage Therapist can help de-sensitise nerves and reduce tight muscles. Some Physiotherapists are aslo Acupuncturists
- Exercise will usually help relieve symptoms, even though this is the last thing that sufferers want to do
- Weight loss often helps, as the condition is more prevalent in overweight people
- Deep breathing – increases oxygen, decreasing inflammation and pain
- Mindfulness Training reduces psychological distress and depression
- Yoga, Tai-Chi and other stretching exercises are helpful as they stimulate the lymph glands, increasing our HDL (good cholesterol), improving waste product and toxin removal, also reducing pain, fatigue, mood, cortisol levels and improves coping ability
- Raw Food has been shown in studies to significantly improve the majority of fibromyalgia patients
- Vitamin C and Broccoli consumption in a study found that the combination of 100mg of vitamin C from food, plus a 400mg broccoli supplement reduced pain by 20% and decreased 17% in Fibromyalgia impact scores
Things to avoid
Exposures to toxins definitely increase fibromyalgia risk:
- Breast Implants have been linked to cancer, autoimmune disease, fibromyalgia and chronic pain
- Aspartame (an artificial sweetener) should be eliminated from the diet, as it turns into formaldehyde in the body, which can aggravate fibromyalgia.
Natural sweeteners such as Erythritol, Xylitol and pure Stevia are healthy alternatives
- MSG (MonoSodium Glutamate) should be eliminated from the diet. Known to cause headaches and fibromyalgia
- Vaccine Adjuvants containing mercury or aluminium have been shown to cause musculoskeletal pain conditions like fibromyalgia
- Fluoride comes from fluoridated tap water, foods irrigated with fluoridated water, toothpaste, dental treatments and antibiotics, and must be avoided. A fluoridated water supply should be switched to rainwater and/or install a Reverse Osmosis water system for all drinking and cooking. Ordinary water filters do not remove fluoride, and even boiling water makes little difference
Prescription Medications increase risk
Many prescription medications increase risk of fibromyalgia, or actually cause it.
- Statin Drugs reduce CoQ10 and vitamin D3, causing hundreds of health problems, including fibromyalgia and muscle pain, vastly outweighing any benefit in many cases
- Prescription antidepressants like Celexa (Citalopram), Paxil (Paroxetine) and Prozac (Fluoxetine) include fluoride which makes fibromyalgia even worse, and causes weight gain.
Antidepressants increase risk of cancer by over 40%, and most of the time do not work any better than a placebo
- Many drugs contain bromide, which is even worse than fluoride, and more easily displaces iodine from the thyroid gland
- Antibiotics destroy many bad bacteria, but also much of the good bacteria as well, compromising our immune system, which can take up to two years to rebuild
- Paracetamol, Panadol, Tylenol and other names for acetaminophen should be avoided as studies show them to start causing liver issues even at the recommended dose two 500 mg tablets four times a day (4000 mg) for a few days. Unfortunately, patients who experience a lot of pain invariably over-dose, and just a 50% increase starts causing severe liver damage. The advertising slogan “safe and effective” is one of the biggest lies of the drug industry, and the most common cause of liver poisoning in the Western world. The majority of all patients on the liver transplant waiting list are there because of Panadol overdose. Panadol also reacts with an enzyme in the body to destroy our natural glutathione, which is one of the body’s main defenses against pathogens, often called the “master antioxidant”. Less glutathione means more Fibromyalgia
Here is a list of some drugs commonly prescribed that contain Fluoride or Bromide, two halogens that displace iodine from the thyroid and cause hypothyroidism, Hashimoto’s disease, depression, weight gain, hair loss, cancer, and will aggravate Fibromyalgia:
- Advair (fluticasone) – fluoride
- Alphagen (brimonidine) – bromide
- Atrovent (Ipratropium) – bromide
- Avelox (moxifloxacin) – fluoride
- Adovart (dulasteride) – fluoride
- Celebrex (celecoxib) – fluoride
- Celexa (citalopram) – fluoride and bromide
- Cipro (ciprofloxacin) – fluoride
- Clinoril (sulindac) – fluoride
- Combivent (from the ipratropium) – bromide
- Crestor (rosuvastatin) – fluoride
- Diflucan (fluconazole) – fluoride
- DuoNeb (nebulized Combivent) – fluoride
- Enablex (darifenacin) – bromide
- Flonase (fluticasone) – fluoride
- Flovent (fluticasone) – fluoride
- Guaifenex DM (dextromethorphan) – bromide
- Lescol (fluvastatin) – fluoride
- Levaquin (levofloxacin) – fluoride
- Lexapro (escitalopram) – fluoride
- Lipitor (atorvastatin) – fluoride
- Lotrisone topical cream – fluoride
- Paxil (paroxetine) – fluoride
- Prevacid (lansoprazole) – fluoride
- Protonix (pantoprazole) – fluoride
- Prozac (fluoxetine) – fluoride
- Pulmicort (budesonide) – fluoride
- Razadyne (galantamine) – bromide
- Risperdal (risperidone) – fluoride
- Spiriva (tiotropium) – bromide
- Tobra Dex (from dexamethasone) – fluoride
- Travatan (travoprost) – fluoride
- Triamcinolone – fluoride
- Vigamox (moxifloxacin) – fluoride
- Vytorin (from eztimibe) – fluoride
- Zetia (eztimibe) – fluoride
An immune response to intestinal bacteria may cause some symptoms, so an alkaline diet with plenty of enzyme-rich raw vegetables and fresh fruit may help, along with a little cheese, yogurt, whey, fermented vegetables such as Sauerkraut, and/or supplemental probiotics such as Acidophilus
to build up beneficial intestinal bacteria. 75% of our immune system is in the gut, and this is where the immune system often first breaks down.
MSG (monosodium glutamate) has been shown to aggravate symptoms, so most processed food, which contains MSG, often hidden in the ingredients list by being called other names or chemicals, should be eliminated.
Eliminating yeast from the diet may also help. Yeast is a raising agent found in most breads and other flour-based baked foods, also Vegemite. Changing to a fresh food diet of vegetables and fruit can eliminate yeast, lose excess weight, build immunity and improve general health.
Casein from milk and other milk products may also help, although some people are sensitive to dairy products and do better with no milk or other dairy products.
Food allergies can be a problem and I would start by eliminating wheat, flour, bread, cakes, anything made from flour, sugar, soy, milk, corn, eggs and nuts for at least a week or two.
If that helps, introduce them back into the diet one at a time (except sugar, which should be omitted forever, and all flour products), until the culprit is found.
If that is not enough, see my Vaccinations article and read about the relationship between Panadol, Vaccinations, Glutathione and Autism.
Many Fibromyalgia patients also suffer from IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome), CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome), RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis) and SLE or Lupus (Systemic Lupus Erythematosus), but the above treatments can improve all of these conditions.
While these natural alternatives may not work for everyone, nearly all patients report improvement in their condition, and of course, these are all good for weight loss, fighting diabetes, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease, better sleep, improved mood, reduced pain, better pain tolerance, building muscle and reduced cancer risk. Many patients are deficient in GH (growth hormone) so high-intensity exercise and weight loss will help by increasing natural production of Growth Hormone.
Copyright © 1999-2021 Brenton Wight and BJ&HJ Wight trading as Lean Machine abn 55293601285. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact Checked July 17, 2019
- Children are being used as guinea pigs and virtual poison detection devices. Oftentimes, it’s only after decades of toxic exposure that effects become apparent, at which point countless children have already paid the price with their health
- Research has shown elevated fluoride exposure from drinking fluoridated water can contribute to a seven-point drop in a child’s IQ score, on average, and that’s just one of the thousands of chemicals children are exposed to on any given day
- The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates as many as 24 million U.S. residences built before 1978 still contain lead, a potent neurotoxin known to cause cognitive and behavioral deficits
- Our food supply has become a notorious source for toxic exposures, ranging from herbicides and pesticides to antibiotics and food additives of questionable safety
- Other common sources of toxic exposures include cosmetics and personal care products, furniture and other household items treated with flame-retardant chemicals, nonorganic clothing, toys, car seats, household cleaning products, sunscreen and nonorganic diapers and tampons
Children experience greater exposure to chemicals pound-for-pound than adults and have an immature and porous blood-brain barrier, which allows greater chemical exposures to reach their developing brain. As a result, early exposures can have devastating, lifelong ramifications.
For example, as noted in the scientific review,1 “Neurobehavioral Effects of Developmental Toxicity,” published in the March 2014 issue of The Lancet, elevated fluoride exposure from drinking fluoridated water can contribute to a seven-point drop in a child’s IQ score,2 on average, and that’s just one of the thousands of chemicals children are exposed to on any given day.
As reported by c&en in 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 85,000 chemicals found in the marketplace,3 and the list keeps getting longer. Of those, a mere 1% have been tested for safety.4
The Lancet paper identified 11 industrial chemicals known to disrupt brain development and cause brain damage, neurological abnormalities, reduced IQ and aggressiveness in children and, according to the authors:5
“We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy.
Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.”
Despite legislation, EPA weakens stance on toxic chemicals
Alas, to this day, a truly comprehensive global prevention strategy to protect children from toxic chemicals has yet to be implemented. Ditto for efforts to increase protections within the U.S. In 2010, then-U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg announced he would introduce a safer chemicals bill to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).6 As reported by Safer Chemicals at the time:7
“In opening remarks, Senator Frank Lautenberg said ‘the American public is a living breathing repository for chemical substances,’ and that as a result of inadequate testing of toxic chemicals, children have become test subjects.
‘Our children should not be used as guinea pigs,’ said Senator Lautenberg … Senator Lautenberg said his new bill would give the EPA the tools it needs to protect the public from unsafe chemicals by requiring testing of all chemicals in commerce and collecting data about harm to human health before chemicals can be added to consumer products.”
The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act8 was signed into law June 22, 2016,9 thereby amending the TSCA. It requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to perform risk-based chemical assessments and “evaluate existing chemicals with clear and enforceable deadlines.”
EPA is not protecting you and your family
Alas, by the time 2018 rolled around, it became clear the updated TSCA had accomplished nothing. As reported in an Environmental Defense Fund blog post, dated February 5, 2018:10
“Last August, Scott Pruitt announced that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would reverse course in its conduct of risk reviews of new chemicals under the reforms made in 2016 to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by the Lautenberg Act.
The changes will effectively return the program to its pre-Lautenberg state — under which few chemicals were subject to any conditions and even fewer to any testing requirements — or make it even weaker.”
The blog describes some of the political wranglings that led the EPA to reverse course under the influence of the American Chemistry Council. A December 19, 2017, article in The New York Times also reported on the rollback, stating:11
“The Environmental Protection Agency will indefinitely postpone bans on certain uses of three toxic chemicals found in consumer products, according to an update of the Trump administration’s regulatory plans.
Critics said the reversal demonstrated the agency’s increasing reluctance to use enforcement powers granted to it last year by Congress under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
E.P.A. Administrator Scott Pruitt is ‘blatantly ignoring Congress’s clear directive to the agency to better protect the health and safety of millions of Americans by more effectively regulating some of the most dangerous chemicals known to man,’ said Senator Tom Carper, Democrat of Delaware and the ranking minority member on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee.”
Neurotoxicity remains overlooked
Unfortunately, neurotoxicity tends to be largely overlooked because the effects are not as readily and visibly demonstrable as birth defects, for example. As noted in The Lancet paper:12
“David P Rall, former Director of the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, once noted that ‘if thalidomide had caused a ten-point loss of intelligence quotient (IQ) instead of obvious birth defects of the limbs, it would probably still be on the market.’
Many industrial chemicals marketed at present probably cause IQ deficits of far fewer than ten points and have therefore eluded detection so far, but their combined effects could have enormous consequences.”
To put it bluntly, children are being used as guinea pigs and virtual poison detection devices. Oftentimes, it’s only after decades of exposure that the effects become apparent, at which point countless children have already paid the price with their health.
While some sources of toxic exposure may be readily apparent, a vast majority is not. Most parents don’t consider the possibility of children’s toys, nursing pillows or car seats being a source of continuous toxic exposure, for example. Just how pervasive are the toxic exposures to our children? Read on to find out.
Lead exposure still rampant
Most recently, a June 26, 2019, article13 in The Guardian reports that “hundreds of thousands of children in the U.S. remain at risk of exposure to lead, which causes cognitive and behavioral deficits.” Of the 31 states that have reported statistics on the percentage of children with elevated lead levels, Louisiana and Kentucky are among the worst.14
As noted in this article, many older homes still contain lead-based paint. Anna Almendrala tells the story of a young mother whose 2-year-old son developed the habit of gumming the window sills.
Initial blood testing revealed her son, who was already diagnosed with autism, had a lead level of 24 micrograms per one-tenth liter of blood, “almost five times higher than the reference point the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses to recommend a lead intervention,” Almendrala writes.15
Further testing revealed his blood level was 49 mcg, nearly 10 times higher than the recommended intervention threshold. Lead abatement inside the home revealed “lead hotspots on the door frames, window sills, and in her son’s bedroom closet.”
This story may sound like an anomaly, as lead-based paint was banned for use in housing in 1978.16 However, there are many older homes, and few families ever consider it might contain toxic remnants from years past.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates as many as 24 million U.S. residences built before 1978 still contain lead hazards, and in June 2019 announced $330 million in grants will be distributed to clean up lead and other safety hazards in low-income housing communities.17 Almendrala writes:18
“When it comes to lead exposure in America, we still don’t have a clear picture of how many children are being exposed to the neurotoxin and where they are.
This leaves hundreds of thousands of children vulnerable to the dangers of lead, and compounds inequality in the form of cognitive and behavioral deficits that can hamper communities for generations. Experts say that it’s possible to eradicate lead from American infrastructure, but that we don’t prioritize it.
‘We are currently doing things backwards [by] using children’s blood as detectors of environmental contamination,’ said Dr Mona Hanna-Attisha, the pediatrician who famously uncovered elevated levels of lead in her pediatric patients and linked it to a new water source in Flint, Michigan. ‘The screening that needs to happen is in the environment before children are ever exposed.’”
Nonorganic food supplies daily dose of poison
Our food supply has also become a notorious source for toxic exposures, ranging from herbicides and pesticides to antibiotics and food additives of questionable safety (having never undergone safety testing). For a list of some of the most common food additives to avoid, see “What Chemical Cocktail Is in Your Food?”
Tests have indeed confirmed that those who eat nonorganic foods as a general rule have far higher levels of toxins in their system.19 In 2015, Joseph E. Pizzorno, founding president of Bastyr University, told The Sydney Morning Herald that toxins appear to be a primary culprit in most chronic diseases, and that “Pesticides used on the food people eat are a better predictor of Type 2 diabetes than any other factor we have today.”20
David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, has expressed similar concerns. According to his estimates, published in 2012, based on a population of 25.5 million American children, 16,899,488 IQ points have been lost due to exposure to organophosphate pesticides. Another 22,947,450 IQ points have been lost to lead exposure, and an additional 284,580 IQ points have been lost from methylmercury exposure.21,22
Of these, pesticides and methylmercury are both found in our diet (fish and seafood being the primary route of exposure for mercury23), while drinking water is an increasingly common source of lead.
In 2015, a report24 by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics25 warned that mounting chemical exposures now represent a major threat to human health and reproduction, stating that “prenatal exposure to chemicals and poor health outcomes are increasingly evident.”
The CHAMACOS Study26,27 is among those showing that very small amounts of pesticides may be harmful, in this case to children’s brains. It followed hundreds of pregnant women living in Salinas Valley, California, an agricultural mecca that has had up to a half-million pounds of organophosphates sprayed in the region per year.
The children were followed through age 12 to assess the impact the pesticides had on their development. It turns out the impact was quite dramatic. Mothers’ exposure to organophosphates during pregnancy was associated with:28
- Shorter duration of pregnancy
- Poorer neonatal reflexes
- Lower IQ and poorer cognitive functioning in children
- Increased risk of attention problems in children
Brenda Eskenazi, chief investigator of the CHAMACOS study, also noted that the effects of combined chemical exposures need further attention, as we still know very little about the synergistic effects of different chemicals.29
Endocrine disrupting chemicals are everywhere
In 2015, an Endocrine Society task force also issued its second scientific statement30 on endocrine-disrupting chemicals, noting that the health effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals are such that everyone needs to take proactive steps to avoid them. The statement also calls for improved safety testing to determine which chemicals may cause problems.
As far back as 2002, a paper31 in Environmental Science & Technology warned that endocrine disrupting 4-nonylphenols (NPs) “are ubiquitous in food,” but that’s certainly not the only source. As noted by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:32
“A wide range of substances, both natural and man-made, are thought to cause endocrine disruption, including pharmaceuticals, dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls, DDT and other pesticides, and plasticizers such as bisphenol A. Endocrine disruptors may be found in many everyday products — including plastic bottles, metal food cans, detergents, flame retardants, food, toys, cosmetics, and pesticides.”
One class of endocrine disrupting chemicals, per- and poly- fluorinated alkyl substances (PFAS),33 commonly used in a wide variety of products, including nonstick food wrappers and containers, are also pervasive in the U.S. food supply, and at levels far exceeding the advisory limit for PFOA and PFAS in drinking water (there are currently no limits in food).
The testing, conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, was performed in 2017 as part of its Total Diet Study34 and presented35 at the 2019 meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. PBS reported the findings, noting:36
“The levels in nearly half of the meat and fish tested were double or more the only currently existing federal advisory level for any kind of … PFAS. The level in the chocolate cake was higher: more than 250 times the only federal guidelines, which are for some PFAS in drinking water …
PFOS, an older form of PFAS no longer made in the U.S., turned up at levels ranging from 134 parts per trillion to 865 parts per trillion in tilapia, chicken, turkey, beef, cod, salmon, shrimp, lamb, catfish and hot dogs. Prepared chocolate cake tested at 17,640 parts per trillion of a kind of PFAS called PFPeA.
The FDA presentation also included what appeared to be previously unreported findings of PFAS levels — one spiking over 1,000 parts per trillion — in leafy green vegetables grown within 10 miles (16 kilometers) of an unspecified eastern U.S. PFAS plant and sold at a farmer’s market.”
Other common sources of daily toxic exposures
In truth, to create a comprehensive list of common toxic exposures, let alone a listing of all potential ones, would require far more space than can be afforded here. That said, here’s a sampling of toxic exposure routes you may not have thought of before.
To protect yourself and your family — especially your little ones — consider addressing some of these exposures; replacing them with nontoxic alternatives. You can read more by following the hyperlinks to previous articles, where I also provide suggestions for replacements.
|Cosmetics and personal care products||Household cleaning products|
|Furniture, mattresses and upholstery containing flame-retardant chemicals||Nonorganic diapers, menstrual pads and tampons|
- 1, 5, 12 The Lancet March 1, 2014; 13(3): 330-338
- 2 The Lancet March 1, 2014; 13(3): 330-338, Newly recognized developmental neurotoxicants
- 3 c&en February 27, 2017; 95(9): 23-24
- 4, 6 CNN October 26, 2010
- 7 Safer Chemicals February 4, 2010
- 8 Govtrack.us HR 2576: Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
- 9 EPA.gov Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act
- 10 Environmental Defense Fund February 5, 2018
- 11 New York Times December 19, 2017 (Archived)
- 13, 14, 15, 18 The Guardian June 26, 2019
- 16 CDC.gov Lead
- 17 HUD.gov June 27, 2019
- 19 Environmental Health Perspectives May 1, 2015 DOI:10.1289/ehp.1408197
- 20 Sydney Morning Herald April 16, 2015
- 21 Environmental Health Perspectives April 1, 2012, DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1104170, Table 2
- 22 The Atlantic March 18, 2014
- 23 Journal of Toxicology 2011; 2011: 983072
- 24 FIGO.org October 1, 2015
- 25 FIGO.org
- 26 Environmental Health Perspectives 2011 Aug; 119(8): 1189–1195
- 27 Center for Environmental Research and Children’s Health, CHAMACOS Cohort Exposure Studies
- 28 Health Research for Action UC Berkeley, The CHAMACOS Cohort Study Project Summary
- 29 The Nation March 31, 2014
- 30 Endocrine Reviews December 1, 2015; 36(6): E1-E150
- 31 Environmental Science & Technology 2002; 36: 1676-1680
- 32 Niehs.nih.gov Endocrine Disruptors
- 33 The Endocrine Disruption Exchange PFAS Resources
- 34 FDA.gov Total diet study
- 35 EWG.org June 3, 2019
- 36 PBS June 3, 2019
Reproduced from original article:
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
July 20, 2019
This video unavailable here: To view video, go to original article above.
- Over half of U.S. adults now have chronic health conditions like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke
- Prevention of chronic health conditions is not a priority of traditional medicine
- Statins only address one risk factor of heart disease and pose serious health risks
- The herbicide glyphosate has been linked to liver, bile duct and thyroid cancers
- High fructose corn syrup is correlated with metabolic syndrome and nonalcoholic liver disease
- Fluoride acts as an endocrine disrupter and lowers IQ in children
Six in 10 U.S. adults now have chronic health conditions like cancer, heart disease, diabetes and stroke, and 4 in 10 have two or more of these diseases, according to the CDC.1,2
While many of these diseases can be blamed on drinking, smoking or overeating — in other words, “lifestyle” choices, most people don’t realize that much of their health care and subsequent wellness depends solely on corporations that value their profits over your well-being –– corporations like insurers, health benefit managers and food and drug makers.
It’s a sad fact that prevention of chronic health conditions is not a priority of these organizations –– healthy people do not need medical care, so no money is made by getting or keeping the population healthy.
According to the documentary, “The Big Secret,” unethical profiteering on the public’s health can be traced back to John D. Rockefeller, (1839–1937) a wealthy U.S. industrialist credited with creating much of our current medical system. Specifically, Rockefeller’s foundations along with the Carnegie foundation, revamped medical schools to emphasize the use of drugs made by companies they owned, instead of a less-drug intensive model that had been in use in schools.3
This “drugs first” approach to health care continues today at medical schools and in traditional medical practice, both of which are enmeshed with Big Pharma. The “patent medicines” Rockefeller pushed have simply been replaced by brand name drugs.
The sham of statins
A good example of our current medical system’s misplaced preference of drugs over prevention can be seen with statins. Statins have been a blockbuster for Big Pharma since they were first introduced, with4 Lipitor being the best-selling drug in the history of the pharmaceutical industry.5 Today, more than 1 in 4 Americans over age 45 are on a statin.6
Since statins lower cholesterol, it’s assumed they lower the risk of heart disease, yet cholesterol levels are only one risk factor in heart disease and, therefore, statins are much less effective than touted. In fact, studies show that less than half of those on statins actually ever reach the cholesterol goals intended.7
The real truth is cholesterol is found in every cell in your body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones (including the sex hormones testosterone, progesterone and estrogen) and bile acids that help you digest fat. It’s also important for the production of vitamin D.
Additionally, as experts point out in “The Big Secret,” cholesterol serves positive functions in the brain, hormone systems and many other parts of the human body, Moreover, there are negative effects from lowering it too much.
As I have written in my newsletters many times, statins are also associated with many dangerous side effects, from muscle aches and damage to inhibiting the enzyme that produces CoQ10 and ketones, which are crucial nutrients to feed your mitochondria. Statins also inhibit the synthesis of vitamin K2 which protects your arteries from calcification and plaque.
Doctors speak out against statins
Dr. Barbara H. Roberts, author of “The Truth About Statins,” served as director of the Women’s Cardiac Center at the Miriam Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, and associate clinical professor of medicine at the Alpert Medical School of Brown University. She also spent two years at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), where she was involved in statin clinical trials. This is what she had to say in 2012 about the use of statins in clinical practice:8
“Every week in my practice I see patients with serious side effects to statins, and many did not need to be treated with statins in the first place. These side effects range from debilitating muscle and joint pain to transient global amnesia, neuropathy, cognitive dysfunction, fatigue and muscle weakness.
Most of these symptoms subside or improve when they are taken off statins. There is even growing evidence of a statin link to Lou Gehrig’s disease.
There is no question that many doctors have swallowed the Kool-Aid. Big Pharma has consistently exaggerated the benefits of statins and some physicians used scare tactics so that patients are afraid that if they go off the statins, they will have a heart attack immediately.
Yet high cholesterol, which the statins address, is a relatively weak risk factor for developing atherosclerosis. For example, diabetes and smoking are far more potent when it comes to increasing risk.”
Rather than statins, simply donating blood reduces the risk of stroke by 70%, says Dr. Jonathan Wright in “The Big Secret.” For more information on how this could be true, I encourage you to watch the video accompanying this article — you’ll be shocked at how something as simple as a blood donation can work as well as or better than a drug.
Food that doesn’t nourish
In 1971, President Richard Nixon’s secretary of agriculture, Earl Butz, debuted a dangerous method of farming that continues today, in the form of the use of heavy synthetic fertilizers. With the advent of chemicals to “feed” it, farmland was no longer given a rest but tilled incessantly, resulting in serious mineral depletion.9
As a result studies show that fruits and vegetables today have less nourishing nutrients, thanks to this emphasis on size and quick growth of produce that Butz instituted. Of course, GMOs were to follow. Not surprisingly, Butz served as a board member on agribusiness companies that made the chemicals he promoted.
The drop in nutritional values in crops stems from widely used pesticides and herbicides which kill the bacteria that would otherwise predigest minerals and make them available to crops, says Peter Glidden, a naturopathic doctor featured in “The Big Secret” documentary.
What’s worse, glyphosate, the ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, is highly correlated with liver, bile duct and thyroid cancers and stroke. And now, thanks to subpoenaed evidence produced in lawsuits against Roundup’s manufacturer Monsanto, it’s been proven that Monsanto (now Bayer) buried negative studies and attacked whistleblowers who tried to expose the danger of its popular herbicide.
The farmers are suffering too: Thanks to contracts forced on them by Monsanto and other agribusiness giants like DuPont and Syngenta, farmers can no longer save their seeds for planting or buy unpatented seeds, says farmer Paul Porter.
And, the environment suffers: Despite farmers’ best efforts to avoid the harm of glyphosate and the many GMO seeds developed to survive the herbicide, glyphosate “drift” affects farmers who earnestly want to opt out of chemically produced food. Traces of glyphosate are now found everywhere, says the documentary –– in the soil, air, rain and even in most people’s urine.
A dangerous sweetener made from corn
Another point “The Big Secret” makes is that the ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), used to sweeten soft drinks and many other processed foods, is also a result of an agriculture secretary’s decision-making. John Block, who served from 1981 to 1986 under President Ronald Reagan, abruptly ceased sugar imports when he took office, and boosted the use of HFSC, made from government subsidized corn.
One problem with HFCS, though, is that it’s highly correlated with metabolic syndrome –– the type of obesity in which fat is concentrated at the waist, resulting in more health risks than mere obesity –– and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
As an example, the documentary highlights a study of residents of a county in Texas where only soft drinks with real sugar were available. With no access to HFCS, these people had significantly less fatty liver disease, obesity and diabetes — highlighting the probable, deleterious effects of HFCS.
Next up on this revealing documentary’s list is the U.S. government’s campaign against fat, which began in 1980 and resulted in the low-fat craze — a move that got the science practically backward, says Dr. Robert Lustig. In this debacle, fat was blamed for the cardiovascular disease while fructose, the real culprit, was exonerated. “You would never think about giving your kid a beer, but you don’t think twice about giving them a Coke. They do the same thing,” he asserts.
The soft drink lobby has huge power
I know it’s hard to believe that governments would not protect their constituents from harmful food. But, time and again industry wins over any concern government may express for your health. For example, soft drink makers wield a huge amount of economic power. This is how Mother Jones described the conundrum in 2016:10
“Soda companies give big bucks to groups that promote public health — while at the same time lobbying against laws that are trying to do the same.
That’s the takeaway from a study [that showed] Coca-Cola and PepsiCo donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to groups like the American Diabetes Association, American Heart Association and Save the Children from 2011-2015. The two companies, represented by American Beverage Association, also spent millions lobbying to defeat legislation aimed at reducing soda consumption across the country.
Coke gave the National Institutes of health nearly $2 million in recent years while also spending $6 million each year from 2011 to 2015 to fight efforts on implementing soda tax in cities like Philadelphia.”
The bottom line is, government is literally taking handouts from the very industries that are making you sick! When you consider that the chief agency in charge of your health — the CDC — has been caught in a cozy relationship with Coke, to the point of allowing the beverage giant to influencing research, it makes you wonder just who to trust when it comes to health and wellness.
Real food provides natural weight control
Here’s an interesting thought that “The Big Secret” poses: What happens when food still contains all the minerals and nutrients it was meant to have — foods that haven’t been depleted by chemical farming and genetic engineering? The answer is people stop eating when they have had enough and do not overeat, Glidden says.
You see, overeating and obesity are a direct result of consumers failing to receive the nourishment they crave. In other words, the body seeks nourishment that is not there and you just continue eating.
This “missing nutrient” effect may be seen, for example, with artificial sweeteners. Research in Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism suggests that artificially sweetened beverages may paradoxically cause people to gain, not lose, weight.11
“The negative impact of consuming sugar-sweetened beverages on weight and other health outcomes has been increasingly recognized; therefore, many people have turned to high-intensity sweeteners like aspartame, sucralose, and saccharin as a way to reduce the risk of these consequences.
However, accumulating evidence suggests that frequent consumers of these sugar substitutes may also be at increased risk of excessive weight gain, metabolic syndrome, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.”
Artificial sweeteners also might be addictive unto themselves, according to a 2011 study conducted at the University of Bordeaux in France.12 Researchers found that rats, when they were given a choice between an artificial sweetener and cocaine, always picked the artificial sweetener. In fact, even cocaine-addicted rats chose the artificial sweetener.
Municipal fluoridation imperils public health
For many years I have warned against the dangers of fluoride in drinking water and its widespread use in municipal water systems, so you’re probably aware of how industry has overtaken the very water you drink. Fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting chemical13 and linked to the rising prevalence of thyroid disease which, in turn, is linked to obesity, heart disease, depression and other health problems.
Research in Environmental Health also suggests a link between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents in the United States, which has become epidemic, and exposure to fluoridated water.14
“State prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007 and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status.
A multivariate regression analysis showed that after socioeconomic status was controlled each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011.
Overall state water fluoridation prevalence (not distinguishing between fluoridation types) was also significantly positively correlated with state prevalence of ADHD for all but one year examined.”
Municipal fluoridation, says “The Big Secret,” saves local governments money by disposing of the neurotoxin while sparing the aluminum industry connected with its production, financial responsibility or harm.
There is also evidence that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can affect your bones, brain, thyroid, pineal gland and even your blood sugar levels.15 Importantly, it’s a known neurotoxin shown to lower IQ in children.16,17 It’s just another example of corporations and governments placing their profits over the public’s well-being –– many of which are well described in “The Big Secret.”
The message is clear: Many medicine practices, as well as popular foods and drugs are designed to make money, not protect public health.
About the Directors
I believe in bringing quality to my readers, which is why I wanted to share some information about the filmmakers, Dr. Susan Downs and Alex Voss, from “The Big Secret.” Here is a little more about them and what went in to making this film. Thank you, Susan and Alex, for sharing with us.
Susan Downs, MD
Susan is boarded in integrative medicine and in psychiatry in the U.S. and is on the consultant registry in the U.K. To further her goals of getting health information to the public, she hosts the radio show, “Occupy Health,” on Voiceamerica.com and is president of the cutting-edge Silicon Valley Health Institute.
Previously, she worked in 10 countries: for the NHS in the U.K.; as an assistant professor at INSEAD European School for Business Administration; and as a foreign service officer managing alternative energy projects in Asia. She has masters’ degrees in engineering from MIT and Stanford and a Master in Public Health from Loma Linda Medical Center. Her interests include medicine, economics, spirituality and making the world a better place.
Alex is a national and regional Emmy award-winning SBE-certified broadcast engineer, documentary film producer and video producer with more than 45 years’ experience in television and radio production. Some of his work includes PBS news and documentary programs, with topics on people and drugs and “The Big Secret” documentary. He is also a member of The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
What was Voss’ and Downs’ inspiration for making this film?
“The Big Secret” is the latest work by five-time Emmy Award-winning producer Alex Voss and multi-award-winning filmmaker and integrative physician, Susan Downs. What started as a personal journey to regain his health, Alex came face to face with the sad reality concerning the influence that big money has on our health and well-being.
In looking at the history of medicine in the U.S., Voss and Downs were disappointed in the influence that wealth and power have on doctors’ decisions concerning medical care. This shocking documentary is the result of research and personal interviews with leading experts in the fields of medicine and nutrition.
“Our goal is to empower people with knowledge and start a conversation that will ultimately lead to life-saving changes to our personal health, and reform in our healthcare system,” they explained.
However, “The Big Secret,” Voss and Downs have been threatened online and targeted by U.S. thought police censors. “The Big Secret” was removed from Amazon Prime and health videos were removed from Voss’ YouTube channel and cited as spam. Their IMDB page and accounts were hacked. Downs and Voss remain committed to get health information to the public and question why “book burning” is condoned by our government.
What was their favorite part of making the film?
Our goals are to get health information out to the public as the allopathic model of a symptom management is not serving us well. We strongly believe that health information should not be censored.
Where do the proceeds of the film go?
As we have funded the film ourselves, any proceeds will be put into our next film, “Toxified,” which will cover the health effects of the toxic soup we all are exposed to, such as EMF and toxins in food.