The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has ordered Prexige, available in the UK since December 2005, to be withdrawn from the market...amid concerns that it may cause liver damage.
________________________________________________________________________
This seems to represent a very responsible attitude on the part of the MHRA. It has not waited for a definite Yes or No while risking peoples' health; the likelihood of it causing a serious health condition has been enough for the agency to exercise its function to have the drug banned completely. So what does it have to say about silicofluoride which some regional health councils have mandated as a blanket addition to their water supplies? This, without consultation; without signed consent and without regard to world-wide condemnation of the practice! It says that 'fluoride', being unlicensed, is not a medicine, therefore it is of no concern to the agency.We may ask why the agency has not seen fit to grant it a licence when is is being used overtly for a medicinal purpose - the reduction of tooth decay in minors. Possibly for fear of litigation? The 'fluoride' currently administered to 9 per cent of the population of Britain and Ireland is an untested industrial waste of which the EEC Directive on Dangerous Substances once stated: Do not let this material enter the environment; dispose of it only under controlled conditions. Containing, as it does, measurable traces of lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, silicon and two radioactive elements, it really should have no place in anything even remotely connected with public health, at whatever concentration. The graph of a 25 year Swedish survey conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, plotting the general decline in tooth decay throughout European countries, shows upward/reverse trends only in those countries where fluoridation has been promoted and adopted, suggesting that fluoride actually causes dental decay instead of preventing it as is claimed. In so far as arthritis is implicated, the cause and effect of fluoride on that condition was established in 1993 by Dr Robert Carton, a risk assessment manager for the US Environmnental Protection Agency. Carton had conducted research based on the medical records of several hundred thousand post-65 white women, some of whom had been exposed to fluoride in the water. Those that had been so exposed suffered from arthritis - all of them; but those living in unfluoridated communities and states, were free of that condition. Our Government's attitude to that research; and more like it from other countries including Australia, New Zealand, China India and Japan, has been to ignore it. The MHRA is obviously content to follow that policy along with the Health & Safety Executive, the Drinking Water Inspectorate, the British Dental Association, the BMA and successive health ministers of both main political parties, The history of fluoridation has been characterised internationally by droves of distinguished 'experts' and learned bodies side-stepping their public responsibility to tell the truth.
Bernard J Seward
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Saturday, 24 November 2007
Latest meeting: Nuffield, Dentistry, Stall and more
Thursday saw us meet in Stroud - only seven of us but in some ways more productive - great coffee as usual - and lots talked about including...
Nuffield Council: launch of report in London Hopefully there will be other blog entries on this soon as Bernard Seward, one of our members, was able to go to London for the launch as both the Safe Water Campaign and individual members submitted reports to the enquiry.
However the results of that enquiry are deeply disappointing as they seem to ignore even the York Reviews calls for caution - more on that soon. The photo left shows our listing in the bodies who submitted reports.Letter to Health Authority
Our final draft of a very detailed letter is now complete and was approved by members - we are awaiting it to be typed and hopefully it will appear on this blog soon - it has been researched in great detail and refers to recognised reports - and completely discredits any argument in favour of water fluoridation.
Stall on SaturdayWe planned bits and pieces re a stall - and infact had the stall today in Stroud to encourage more signatures and members - it was very cold and not as many as we hoped stopped to talk - but still a great opportunity to remind people we are still here and the issue has not gone away. It was also a chance to release our updated local leaflet re water fluoridation with this blog address on it - plus some beer mats still available (see previous blogs for info on that).
Dentistry magazine
The November edition has an extraodinary editorial comment which was sent to the group by a dentist who opposes water fluoridation. In it, the piece argues that "the anti-fluoridation lobby has been silenced. It must have conceded that consumer water fluoridation is entirely beneficial to the health of the public."
Julian English, the editor, wants to see health authorities penalised if they don't fluoridate - he also wants to see a political party adopt water fluoridation in their manifesto - in fact the Green party already have - the only party to have a policy although it is against water fluoridation - not what Mr English perhaps wants to see. Anyhow the group are planning a response to that so hopefully that will also appear here.
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
Bombshell: Did Kidney Foundation leave millions at risk by failing to warn about Fluorides and Fluoridated Drinking Water?
Ellijay, GA, October 9, 2007
The National Kidney Foundation’s alleged failure to warn kidney patients that they are particularly susceptible to harm from ingested fluoride from drinking water and other sources is the subject of a precedent-setting letter to the Foundation from a legal firm. Coming at a time of increased public suspicions over the operations of large national nonprofit organizations, the letter is sure to draw the attention of many of the 20 million American adults that the Foundation says have chronic kidney disease. The letter lists both the Foundation itself and its officers and directors individually as being potentially liable for not telling kidney patients important, state-of-the-art fluoride information. For decades, water agencies have added fluorides to drinking water supplies as a means to help prevent cavities. But recently, major cities such as Juneau, Alaska and Quebec have voted to halt fluoridation amid increased public concern and growing evidence of fluoride’s serious unwanted side effects on kidneys, bones, teeth, and perhaps even other organs such as the thyroid. Kentucky attorney Robert Reeves’ letter to the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) cites an authoritative report from the National Research Council issued last year that admits that, “Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” The NRC report also identifies kidney patients as a “susceptible subpopulation” that is particularly vulnerable to harm from fluorides. Reeves asks the Foundation, “Why has NKF not publicly and effectively notified its constituent kidney patients and care givers of the National Research Council’s statement…?” He also questions why NKF has not openly disseminated news of the link between kidney impairment and possible skeletal fluorosis from fluoride depositing in bones, and about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new efforts to measure amounts of fluoride ingested by Americans from foods and beverages. “We believe the kidney patient community and also jurors will find deep pause in consideration of these questions,” he writes. Reeves’ letter may be viewed at: www.fluoridealert.org/NKF_letter01.pdf
A search of the National Kidney Foundation’s website for the word “fluoridation” did not return any results, and a search for “fluoride” showed only five results, none notifying families of the NRC’s findings. Daniel Stockin, a public health professional with The Lillie Center, Inc., a firm working to educate Americans about harm from fluorides, questions why there are redundant filtration systems for water used in kidney dialysis machines, to remove fluoride and other harmful substances, but kidney patients are allowed to drink fluoridated water. “It makes no sense. How many people with renal disease who did not need dialysis and were hoping to avoid it, were kicked over into needing a lifetime of dialysis by fluoride ingestion?” He points out that dialysis center patients have died or become fluoride-poisoned due to accidental overfeed of fluoride at a water plant or failure of filters on dialysis machines. “Overfeeds of fluoride happen a lot more often than most people know, but fortunately poisonings at dialysis centers are very rare, and dialysis centers provide an extremely valuable service,” he says. “But kidney patients’ lives and quality of life are at stake on and off dialysis machines, and even before their condition worsens to the point of needing dialysis. What could justify not telling kidney patients they are particularly susceptible to harm from fluoride intake? Is it fear of lawsuits? I would hope not.” “The letter to the National Kidney Foundation is only the tip of the iceberg,” Stockin says. “The kidney and diabetes lawsuits are about to begin. Employers, water agencies, food and beverage sellers and manufacturers, you name it -- I would suggest they immediately halt use or sale of fluoridated water or products containing it.” Attorney Reeves’ letter supports this tip-of-the-iceberg assessment. Insurers, employers, contractors, unions, and outdoor workers will also want to be made aware of the issue. Reeves notes that workers in hot jobs who drink water or other beverages to replace lost fluids may find that their pre-existing kidney conditions become exacerbated by continued ingestion of fluoridated beverages when working. Legal actions also threaten to engulf the Centers for Disease Control, a key federal agency facing increased questioning over its continued promotion of fluoridation. Reeves’ letter points out that CDC’s ethics committees received a detailed ethics complaint over CDC’s promotion of water fluoridation in August, the news of which piqued his interest. Now, kidney patients are beginning to contact him. He has offered NKF an opportunity to officially change its current, outdated position on water fluoridation, but won’t wait much longer. “People on dialysis, or who have chronic kidney disease, who have transplanted kidneys, or who have kidney stones have trusted the National Kidney Foundation,” he says. “Why hasn’t NKF told them about fluoride?”
Press Release from The Lillie Center Inc.
The National Kidney Foundation’s alleged failure to warn kidney patients that they are particularly susceptible to harm from ingested fluoride from drinking water and other sources is the subject of a precedent-setting letter to the Foundation from a legal firm. Coming at a time of increased public suspicions over the operations of large national nonprofit organizations, the letter is sure to draw the attention of many of the 20 million American adults that the Foundation says have chronic kidney disease. The letter lists both the Foundation itself and its officers and directors individually as being potentially liable for not telling kidney patients important, state-of-the-art fluoride information. For decades, water agencies have added fluorides to drinking water supplies as a means to help prevent cavities. But recently, major cities such as Juneau, Alaska and Quebec have voted to halt fluoridation amid increased public concern and growing evidence of fluoride’s serious unwanted side effects on kidneys, bones, teeth, and perhaps even other organs such as the thyroid. Kentucky attorney Robert Reeves’ letter to the National Kidney Foundation (NKF) cites an authoritative report from the National Research Council issued last year that admits that, “Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” The NRC report also identifies kidney patients as a “susceptible subpopulation” that is particularly vulnerable to harm from fluorides. Reeves asks the Foundation, “Why has NKF not publicly and effectively notified its constituent kidney patients and care givers of the National Research Council’s statement…?” He also questions why NKF has not openly disseminated news of the link between kidney impairment and possible skeletal fluorosis from fluoride depositing in bones, and about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s new efforts to measure amounts of fluoride ingested by Americans from foods and beverages. “We believe the kidney patient community and also jurors will find deep pause in consideration of these questions,” he writes. Reeves’ letter may be viewed at: www.fluoridealert.org/NKF_letter01.pdf
A search of the National Kidney Foundation’s website for the word “fluoridation” did not return any results, and a search for “fluoride” showed only five results, none notifying families of the NRC’s findings. Daniel Stockin, a public health professional with The Lillie Center, Inc., a firm working to educate Americans about harm from fluorides, questions why there are redundant filtration systems for water used in kidney dialysis machines, to remove fluoride and other harmful substances, but kidney patients are allowed to drink fluoridated water. “It makes no sense. How many people with renal disease who did not need dialysis and were hoping to avoid it, were kicked over into needing a lifetime of dialysis by fluoride ingestion?” He points out that dialysis center patients have died or become fluoride-poisoned due to accidental overfeed of fluoride at a water plant or failure of filters on dialysis machines. “Overfeeds of fluoride happen a lot more often than most people know, but fortunately poisonings at dialysis centers are very rare, and dialysis centers provide an extremely valuable service,” he says. “But kidney patients’ lives and quality of life are at stake on and off dialysis machines, and even before their condition worsens to the point of needing dialysis. What could justify not telling kidney patients they are particularly susceptible to harm from fluoride intake? Is it fear of lawsuits? I would hope not.” “The letter to the National Kidney Foundation is only the tip of the iceberg,” Stockin says. “The kidney and diabetes lawsuits are about to begin. Employers, water agencies, food and beverage sellers and manufacturers, you name it -- I would suggest they immediately halt use or sale of fluoridated water or products containing it.” Attorney Reeves’ letter supports this tip-of-the-iceberg assessment. Insurers, employers, contractors, unions, and outdoor workers will also want to be made aware of the issue. Reeves notes that workers in hot jobs who drink water or other beverages to replace lost fluids may find that their pre-existing kidney conditions become exacerbated by continued ingestion of fluoridated beverages when working. Legal actions also threaten to engulf the Centers for Disease Control, a key federal agency facing increased questioning over its continued promotion of fluoridation. Reeves’ letter points out that CDC’s ethics committees received a detailed ethics complaint over CDC’s promotion of water fluoridation in August, the news of which piqued his interest. Now, kidney patients are beginning to contact him. He has offered NKF an opportunity to officially change its current, outdated position on water fluoridation, but won’t wait much longer. “People on dialysis, or who have chronic kidney disease, who have transplanted kidneys, or who have kidney stones have trusted the National Kidney Foundation,” he says. “Why hasn’t NKF told them about fluoride?”
Press Release from The Lillie Center Inc.
Letter to the Times.........
Folic acid added to our flour is on the same wavelength as Fluorosilicate (fluoride) added to our water. Since MPs have had 'choice' on their lips so often when debating health issues, one wonders what is in it for them that they so lightly sweep it aside. What's in it for us? I can't speak for folic acid, but fluoride will depress our immune systems and our children's IQ; and that's just for starters. Ministers concerned about under achievement in schools and those wrestling with increasing demands on our health service, should ponder this.
Bernard J Seward
Bristol
Bernard J Seward
Bristol
An insidious threat to us all?
When, many years ago, I attended a public meeting of the old Bristol Community Health Council, I asked a question during a discussion on fluoridation. The BCHC had pledged its support for fluoridation to Avon Area Health Authority and I asked why. I also asked whether the American experience, practice and evidence had been taken into account in reaching that decision. Their response was a deafening hush; they hadn't the slightest idea as to what I was talking about. This is just one small piece of the relevant evidence which has transpired over several decades of global fluoridation policy, to have been stifled from public scrutiny. Fluoridation : A health bonus for children, or an insidious threat to us all? Its about time we had an answer - an honest one with no spin attached.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
