MedicalConspiracies- Bone Cancer & Hip Fracture Fluoride Connection

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

Subject:	[Health_and_Healing] File - Bone Cancer & Hip Fracture Fluoride Connection
Date:	1 Sep 2014 12:43:18 -0000
From:	Health_and_Healing@yahoogroups.com

The Bone Cancer, Fluoride Connection    http://www.mercola.com/2006/apr/25/the_bone_cancer_fluoride_connection.htm   ____________________________    A Second Look at Fluoride Exposure & Hip Fractures    http://www.fluoridealert.org/ifin-138.htm  ____________________________    Canadian Dental Association Advises AGAINST   Fluoride Supplements in Young Children     http://www.mercola.com/2000/aug/13/fluoride_supplements.htm  ____________________________________    The Bone Cancer, Fluoride Connection         Dr. Elise Bassin, while working on her PhD in epidemiology at Harvard University, conducted a study that found a significant relationship between fluoride and osteosarcoma, the most common type of bone cancer.     The study found that boys who drank fluoridated water at ages 6-8 were five times more likely to develop the cancer. The water looked at in the study had only a fourth the maximum allowable level of fluoride considered "safe" by the EPA.      These findings contradict those of Bassin's dissertation adviser, Chester Douglass, whose $1.3-million, 15-year study did not find a link between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma. He claimed Bassin's study was a subset of his study, and that he had not been able to replicate Bassin's results.     However, Douglass has received widespread criticism for defending the use of fluoride while a paid editor of the Colgate Oral Care Report, a newsletter funded by the toothpaste maker. Harvard and the National Institutes of Health are investigating whether Douglass misrepresented his research findings.     The Harvard Crimson April 10, 2006    Boston Herald April 6, 2006     ------------------------------------      Dr. Mercola's Comment:        Fluoride is not one of my favorite ways to improve bone density or decrease cavities, as you may realize if you read my last article about the toxic risks of fluoride and its connection to a higher risk of bone cancer.     When I last wrote about the bone cancer link, it was a bit tricky to find a copy of the study, since the proof was contained in a then-unpublished dissertation. However, Dr. Bassin's findings finally became public not long ago, and have caused a bit of an uproar.    Of course, her former advisor didn't particularly want her findings to come out -- he's being paid to have a different opinion. Not only is he the editor of a dental newsletter for Colgate, but the NIH, which funded his study, is a leading promoter of water fluoridation, and has been so since the first government endorsement of fluoridation in 1950.    Never doubt that money influences results. For example, surveys of the medical literature have consistently shown that studies paid for by drug companies are more likely than those with other sponsors to show results favorable to the product tested.    And there certainly seem to be those who think Dr. Douglass' behavior is suspicious enough to warrant an investigation. Interestingly, in a commentary Douglass wrote for the journal in which Bassin's article appeared, he now admits that he looked at the data she used and did find "some" effect of fluoride increasing osteosarcoma risk.  This contradicts his previous statements that he had not found any effect.      One piece of information he didn't publicize widely is that when he said his study found no increase in the risk of osteosarcoma, he was comparing it against children with other forms of bone cancer. In other words, if fluoride can increase the risk of many different types of bone cancer, as previous studies have indicated, then it isn't too surprising that he found no difference -- fluoride could have caused all of the bone cancers he looked at.    As far as I am concerned, considering that kids are being harmed by the toxicity of fluoride in their bones and teeth, you have more than ample reason to eliminate fluoride from your home. However, should you remain skeptical, I urge you to check out my fluoride links page.    There may be a justification to use fluoride topically to limit the spread of cavities but there is no question that it should never be used systemically in water. The problem with using it "topically" is that invariably some of it is absorbed into the body where it can only cause harm.      -----------------------------------------------    Canadian Dental Association Advises AGAINST   Fluoride Supplements in Young Children        To avoid permanent tooth discoloration, the Canadian Dental Association (CDA) is now advising AGAINST fluoride supplement use for children before their permanent teeth have erupted, usually at about 6 or 7 years of age.     The CDA states in its revised guidlines:    There is "...weak scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of fluoride supplements."     "The use of fluoride supplements before the eruption of the first permanent tooth is generally not recommended,"   Anti-fluoridation forces had plenty to say on the matter. Lawyer Paul Beeber is President of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.    "Studies show that tooth decay is declining in both fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas while dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow or brown stained and sometimes crumbly teeth) is increasing, more so in fluoridated areas. Furthermore, fluoride poses harmful systemic damage as well as dental damage," he states.     The American Dental Association (ADA), which still recommends fluoride supplements for children from 6 months to 16 years old in non or low-fluoridated communities, "is clinging to outmoded ideas," says Beeber. "And they are trailing behind the CDA by failing to protect our children."    "Fluoride supplements and water fluoridation must stop immediately," says Beeber.    One of Canada's leading fluoride authorities is dentist Hardy Limeback, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, and past-president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.     "New research shows that swallowed fluoride carries little, if any, benefit. Fluoride's enamel strengthening effects are primarily topical, or when fluoride touches the outside of the tooth," Limeback states.    Additionally, "Fluoride's adverse effects occur upon ingestion. Fluoride gets into every cell of the body and can especially damage the bones and teeth."    "Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age," says Limeback.     "Studies have linked fluoridation to hip fractures and high levels of naturally-occurring water fluoride to crippling skeletal fluorosis, a bone deforming arthritic-type disease endemic to India," says Limeback.    A study in progress by Limeback shows that residents of fluoridated Toronto have double the fluoride in their hip bones than residents of non- fluoridated Montreal.     "Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones," says Limeback. Ironically, "Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver, which has never fluoridated, has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's," says Limeback.    "We are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we would spend treating new decay if water fluoridation halted," says Limeback.    "The safety of long-term fluoride ingestion has not been proven. The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in non-fluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether." says Limeback.   Children may get fluoride from many different sources:    food and beverages made in fluoridated cities   fluoridated dental products   fluoride containing pesticide residues in food   industrial fluoride air emissions   fluoride-containing medicines, anesthetics and other products.   Fluoride is also inhaled via ocean mist, showers and humidifiers and is found naturally in some foods such as tea.    Canadian Dental Association Board of Governors March, 2000 and other information obtained from the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation    Other Fluoride News  Ireland considering ending mandatory water fluoridation  Ireland is considering relaxing current laws that require the fluoridation of all drinking water due to mounting controversy and growing public concern over the possible health risks.    Michael Martin, the Irish health minister, has appointed a committee of environmental and health specialists to examine the evidence on fluoridation and make recommendations.     If Ireland does decide to changs it's fluoridation practices, it will not be alone:    Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland banned water fluoridation during the 1970s and 1980s because not enough was known about the long term health effects.     Germany rejected the practice in 1975 as "foreign to nature, unnecessary, inefficient, irresponsible and harmful to the environment."     A year later, the Dutch rewrote their constitution to outlaw fluoridation. France's chief of public health declared in 1980 that fluoridation was "too dangerous."     Ireland is currently one of the only countries in the European Union to insist on mandatory fluoridation of piped water supplies    British Medical Journal June10, 2000; 320: 1560       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------  Dr. Mercola's Comment:    The new recommendation of the CDA is an excellent step in the right direction although clearly not enough. Fluoride should simply not be used at all by anyone who is interested in health. There are far better options of improving one's dental health and the primary one includes the foods you eat. Link to diet.     If you are not yet convinced of the need to avoid fluoride I would suggest reviewing the links page on fluoride when you have some time, as there are literally thousands of pages documenting the problems with fluoride and the reason you want to eliminate it for you and your family.     The Fluoride Action Network, which is the first link on the links page, is an excellent and up-to-date site. They have great articles on the relationship between fluoride and hip fractures and many other great stuff, including a news tracker page, which gives you current news stories from around the world.     The diet is the most important issue in preventing cavities. If you want another outstanding book for your library you can obtain Dr. Weston Price's book 'Nutrition and Physical Degeneration'. He was one of the most prominent dentists at the turn of the century and wondered why so many children were getting cavities.    He realized that it was the introduction of processed foods. So he traveled all over the world and documented how the introduction of processed food severely damaged the teeth. One does not even have to read the book as the pictures tell the whole story. The book was written in 1920 and is very true still today.    How You Can Help Support The Web Site Development    One of the ways that you can help support this web site is that you can now purchase books through Amazon.com by clicking through on my web site. I obtain a tiny percentage of the sale and that will help support my ability to provide high quality content at no charge to you. However this will only work if you click on one of the links above. It does not work if you go directly to Amazon. I am only recommending books that I would purchase for my own home library.   _____________________________________________________    A Second Look at Fluoride Exposure & Hip Fractures  	     International Fluoride Information Network    August 8, 2000    IFIN Bulletin #138: A Second Look at Fluoride Exposure & Hip Fractures    Dear All,    In critiquing the York Review I spent a considerable time reading the literature on Hip Fractures and exposure to fluoride. I thought readers would find it helpful to have an up-to-date list of the studies published since 1990. While the evidence from these human epidemiological studies is mixed, when the issue is examined in the context of the Precautionary Principle the case for not putting fluoride into our drinking water, with the commensurate build-up of fluoride in our bones over a lifetime, is overwhelming in my view. What do you think?    Paul Connett.    A SECOND LOOK AT FLUORIDE EXPOSURE AND HIP FRACTURES.    1. When people first hear about a possible link between water fluoridation and an increase in hip fractures among the elderly it usually doesn't excite the same kind of reaction as the possible relationship with diseases like cancer, or damage to the central nervous system. However, any increase in hip fractures in the elderly is very serious indeed. According to Jacobsen (1992) "Hip fractures constitute a major cause of morbidity and mortality in persons aged 65 and older. An estimated 200,000 hip fractures occur in the United States each year, with an associated cost of over $7 billion. According to Phipps (1995), "As a result of osteoporosis-related hip fractures, as many as 50,000 people will die and as many as 20 per cent will be admitted for long term care in a nursing home". To see what this could mean in terms of increased deaths from water fluoridation consider the paper by Jacobsen et al who examined over 200,000 hip fractures in men and women over 65 in the US and compare  d the number of fractures in fluoridated counties compared to non-fluoridated counties. They found a relative risk ratio of 1.08 for women and 1.17 for men which were both statistically significant. If we ignore all the caveats about these findings, a RR of 1.08 for women means an 8% increase in hip fractures. If we now assume that half the 200,000 hip fractures in the US for people of 65 and older, are for women (it is actually a larger fraction, as women are more prone to hip fractures after menopause) then an 8% increase represents an extra 8,000 hip fractures. If we now assume that one in four of these women will be dead in less than a year after the fracture (the national average, see Phipps, 1995) then fluoridation could contribute to 2000 extra deaths for women over 65. Thus a lot hinges on whether the findings of Jacobsen et al are valid. Clearly, this is a very important issue to resolve.    2. To date (August, 2000), since 1990, there have been 18 studies investigating the relationship between fluoride exposure via the water supply (both natural and artificial) and the incidence of hip fracture in the elderly. The lead authors of these studies are Jacobson (1990); Cooper (1990, revised in a 1991 letter to JAMA); Sowers (1991); Keller (1991, unpublished); May (1991, unpublished); Jacobson (1992); Danielson (1992); Suarez-Almazor (1993); Jacobson (1993); Cauley (1995); Jacqmin-Gadda (1995, letter to JAMA); Karagas (1996); Jacqmin-Gadda (1998); Lehmann (1998); Phipps (1999, unpublished); Li (1999, unpublished); Hellier (2000), and Hegmann ( 2000, abstract). The full references are given below.    3. Of these 18 studies, 4 are unpublished, 1 is only available as an abstract, 2 appear as letters to the Journal of the American Medical Association. Of the 18, 10 studies show an association between fluoride exposure and increased hip fracture, but 8 do not. Some studies show an association for both women and men, some for women only and some for only certain age ranges. Some studies show an increased risk for increased time of exposure, some do not. One (Li (1999, unpublished) shows a linear increase in risk with level of fluoride concentration in the water from 1 ppm up to over 4 ppm. Some authors (e.g. Jacobson and Cooper) have co-authored studies which have found an association in one study, but not in another.    4. Clearly, the issue has not been proved one way or the other. What has hindered a more definitive conclusion is the almost universal failure (Hellier is an exception) to couple the outcomes with some kind of biomarker of fluoride exposure. Instead, most authors have used the level of fluoride in the water as an indicator of exposure (i.e. dose) which, in the case of countries where fluoride is present in processed foods, beverages, pesticide residues and dental products, is not a good assumption. This underlines the incredibly incompetent failure of governments (particularly the US government) to track the build up of fluoride in the bones of the public. These levels could have been tracked as a function of fluoride levels in the water, hardness or softness of water, diet, disease status, age, sex, race etc. These bone levels would have been invaluable when probing the cause of hip fractures and other bone problems. Unfortunately, both governments and researchers are in the dark a  s to what our bone levels are. This is unnecessary and inexcusable.    5. So what does one do in the situation where epidemiological studies produce mixed results. One answer which is achieving growing support among a number of European governments and non-governmental organizations is to apply the Precautionary Principle. Wrapped up in this principle are four questions, which when addressed should resolve the issue of whether a population should be knowingly exposed to a toxic substance or process. These four questions are:       1. What is the weight of evidence from all the studies (e.g. biochemical, animal, tissue culture and epidemiological) on the debated outcome of concern?     2. How serious is the outcome of concern if you proceed with the course of action?     3. How large is the benefit being pursued?     4. Are there satisfactory alternatives to the course of action proposed which would avoid the outcome of concern?    6. I will now attempt to address these four questions in the case of the hip fracture outcome.    7. The weight of evidence.    7.1 Fluoride and the biochemistry of bone.    It is well established that about 50% of all the fluoride we ingest each day ends up in our bones and that it accumulates over a lifetime. The author of a textbook on Human Biology states: " Perhaps because of their strength and durability, it is a popular misconception that bones are static, unchanging structures Nothing could be further from the truth. Bone is a living tissue and an extremely active one at that" (DeWitt, 1989). Fluoride has the ability to interfere with many of the enzymes in the numerous bone cells which provide different functions in bone growth and turnover. The possibilities are enormous and complicated. A brief glimpse of the complexity of this matter can be gleamed from a paper by Krook and Minor (1998). Commenting on the use of fluoride to treat osteoporosis patients, in the context of their findings in animal studies at the College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, they state:        "Fluoride is a potent enzyme poison. The concept that fluoride is a specific stimulus for bone formation is preposterous…Furthermore, because fluoride injures all the cells involved in bone formation and degradation, it is not surprising that a poor quality of bone accumulates in patients treated with fluoride…It is unfortunate that many physicians who treat osteoporosis with fluoride do not realize that they are prescribing a drug that is toxic for all active bone cells".    7.2 Bone mineral density and bone quality.    While it is true that treatment with fluoride (either short term with doses of 40 - 75 mg of fluoride, or long term with fluoridation of the water supply) can lead to an increase in bone mineral density. This turns out to be a crude index of bone health, and bone performance. Dr. Miklos Bely (1998, 2000) has performed elegant studies using a variety of microscopic and electron microscopic techniques to show the damage that fluoride does to the bone cells producing collagen and the eventual collagen formed. He concludes that while fluoride might lead to increasing the quantity of the bone, it damages its quality.    7.3 Animal studies.    Studies have shown that when rats are treated with fluoride their bones become more brittle (Wolinsky et al, 1972, Bohatyrewicz, 1999).    7.4 Human trials.    In human trials with patients with osteoporosis, it has been shown that high doses of fluoride (40 -75 mg per day) lead to more brittle bones and increased hip fracture rates (Hedlund, 1989, Riggs et , 1990).    7.5 Taking all of the above into account, as well as the mixed results from the epidemiological studies, the weight of evidence would suggest that it is highly plausible that exposure to water at 1 ppm (and the concurrent exposure to other sources of fluoride in modern life) over a whole lifetime will damage human bones and ligaments. It is also probable that this damage will at least lead to the sub-clinical symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, possibly arthritis as well as to hip fractures. This may not be true for everyone but it will probably be true for a significant minority, especially those who have a poor diet, who drink excessive quantities of water and other beverages made with fluoridated water, and those who have poor renal clearance.    8. Is the outcome of concern serious?    The outcome of increased hip fracture in the elderly is very serious. Each year some 200,000 elderly people in the US have hip fracture. The annual costs of treatment are estimated as high as 10 billion dollars. Treatment is highly traumatic for the elderly. One in four of the elderly who suffer a hip fracture are dead within one year of their operation.    9. How large is the benefit being pursued?    The reduction of dental caries ascribed to water fluoridation is not very great when compared to communities which have not fluoridated their water. Surveys in the US, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand are indicating very little difference in dental decay in children from fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities ( Ziegelbecker (1981), Diesendorf (1986), Colquhoun (1987, 1994), Yiamouyiannis (1990), De Liefde (1998)). Most countries in Europe do not fluoridate their water and their children's teeth are as good if not better than those of children in fluoridated countries.    10. Are there alternatives which achieve the benefit without triggering the same risk?    Yes there are. Some would argue that fluoride is neither necessary nor essential for healthy teeth. That a combination of a good diet, minimizing sugar consumption, and regular brushing with any kind of toothpaste or toothpaste substitute (salt, baking soda, even soap) is just as effective. Others would argue that fluoride is beneficial to achieving good teeth, especially where it is difficult to get children to limit their input of sugar and sugary foods, but that applying the fluoride in the form of fluoridated toothpaste is more effective and more appropriate, than swallowing the fluoride in drinking water. This is reinforced by leading dental researchers like Dr. Hardy Limeback , who stress that the benefits of fluoride are topical not systemic. Thus topical application of fluoride maximizes the perceived benefit while minimizing the risks of hip fracture and other possible diseases, which are caused by fluoride acting systemically. While some researchers like Dr. Susheela (who   has published over 100 papers on fluoride) argue that fluoride can be absorbed through the gums from fluoridated toothpaste, I would argue that these risks are still lower than those obtained from swallowing the stuff wholesale from the water. That alternatives exist, and work, is supported by the fact that the majority of European countries do not fluoridate their drinking water and yet their childrens' teeth are just as good, if not better, than those of fluoridated countries. Some European countries also use fluoridated salt, milk and other topical treatments as part of their strategy in fighting tooth decay    11. Thus on all these counts, an application of the Precautionary Principle would require a government to reject water fluoridation on the outcome of hip fracture alone.    12. An important aspect of the Precautionary Principle is that it builds a bridge between scientific analysis and ethical judgement. Even if only a small minority of people have their bones affected as a consequence of water fluoridation, it would raise several ethical questions. How big does this minority have to be before the ethical arguments kick in? How can one justify the protection of the teeth of one section of the community, while damaging the bones of another? Are people being given the opportunity for "informed consent" to this trade off? How can one justify even the possibility of this damage when there are known alternatives to protecting teeth as well as known ways of delivering fluoride which do not involve cumulative systemic exposure?      «¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»    § Health_and_Healing - PULSE ON 21st CENTURY ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE & WORLD NEWS    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Health_and_Healing    Subscribe send email to:   http://Health_and_Healing-subscribe@yahoogroups.com     Alternative Health and Old Time Cures:   http://ElementsOfHealth.webs.com     Sacred Geometry Health Pendants / LIVING CALCIUM GREEN BENTONITE CLAY, SO PURE IT IS FOOD GRADE FOR INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL USE.  http://www.HolisticEnergyStore.com/    THE OPEN LINE NEWSPAPER, HEALTH NEWS, SPIRITUAL, ENVIRONMENT, ETC. http://WWW.THEOPENLINE.ORG