Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The World "Health" Organization and fluoride

Expand Messages
  • soubresauts
    Here is an updated version of my critique of the WHO s unscientific promotion of fluoridation. The first version is posted at
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 24, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is an updated version of my critique of the WHO's unscientific
      promotion of fluoridation. The first version is posted at
      http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/FluoridePoisoning/message/3528

      I have added various details, particularly about the "experts" who are
      key to the WHO's fluoride push.

      Note also the sham "Green" environmental info website, GreenFacts.

      My paper is very long, but I tried to keep my focus on what is going
      wrong in the WHO, and there is a lot going wrong!

      -- Joe Thornton

      ++++++++++++++++

      The WHO Drinking Water Guidelines and Fluoride

      The World Health Organization (WHO) has drawn up new Drinking Water
      Guidelines (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/guidelines/
      en/), including guidelines on the level of fluoride.

      The WHO record on promoting fluoride is documented in, among other
      places, Barry Groves' book "Fluoride: Drinking Ourselves To Death"
      (Newleaf, 2001). To put it bluntly, the WHO has been part of the whole
      fluoridation fraud since 1958. The current revision of drinking water
      guidelines shows that nothing has improved in the WHO as regards
      fluoride. There is a serious absence of honesty, scientific standards,
      and concern about human health.

      We should remind ourselves that...
      "There is no evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient for
      humans." (Physicians' Desk Reference)
      www.pdrhealth.com/drug_info/nmdrugprofiles/nutsupdrugs/flu_0109.shtml

      The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has also made it clear that
      fluoride is not essential. Here are the last three public statements
      the NAS has made on the "essentiality" of ingested fluoride:

      "These contradictory results do not justify a classification of
      fluorine as an essential element, according to accepted standards."
      SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences. (1989). Recommended Dietary
      Allowances: 10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences, National
      Research Council, National Academy Press. p. 235.

      "Fluoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth
      and development."
      SOURCE: National Research Council (1993). Health Effects of Ingested
      Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. p. 30.

      "First, let us reassure you with regard to one concern. Nowhere in the
      report is it stated that fluoride is an essential nutrient. If any
      speaker or panel member at the September 23rd workshop referred to
      fluoride as such, they misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary
      Allowances 10th Edition, which we published in 1989: 'These
      contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as
      an essential element, according to accepted standards.' "
      SOURCE: Alberts B, Shine K. (1998). Letter from Bruce Alberts,
      President, National Academy of Sciences, and Kenneth Shine, President,
      Institute of Medicine to Dr. Albert Burgstahler. November 18, 1998.
      http://tinyurl.com/5dl2y

      In 1979 the U.S. FDA required the deletion of all government
      references previously classifying fluoride as "essential or probably
      essential" (Federal Register, March 16, 1979, pg. 16006).

      In other words, nobody needs fluoride -- ever. So, given that fluoride
      is a deadly cumulative poison AND is one of the world's most
      troublesome industrial pollutants (see www.fluoridealert.org/f-
      pollution.htm), you would expect that the WHO would be warning us off
      fluoride. But you'd be wrong.


      WHO's BIG MISTAKE #1:

      The WHO guidelines name fluoride as a "nutrient mineral" and
      "essential" for human health. But fluoride is not a nutrient of any
      sort. Not only is it not essential, it should be avoided at all costs.
      The WHO's error (or deception) reinforces the widespread belief in the
      concept of "fluoride-deficient water", a belief that seems to have
      infected all the WHO people involved.

      Many of WHO's web pages name fluoride as "a nutrient" or "essential".
      For example:

      "Chromium, copper, fluoride, iodine, manganese, molybdenum, and
      selenium are essential elements in human nutrition..."
      (www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/S06.pdf)

      And in www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/
      nutrconsensusrep.pdf we find the statement that fluoride is "known or
      suspected to be essential for humans." And: "The optimal drinking
      water concentration of fluoride for dental health is generally between
      0.5 to 1.0 mg/litre and depends upon volume of consumption and uptake
      and exposure from other sources. These values are based on
      epidemiological studies conducted over the past 70 years in
      communities in many countries with natural and added fluoride in their
      drinking water. In this concentration range the maximum caries
      preventative effect is achieved while minimizing the levels of dental
      fluorosis."

      It needs to be said that there is NO scientific basis for such an
      "optimal" concentration of fluoride. Those so-called epidemiological
      studies of the last 70 years do not stand up to scrutiny. (See, for
      example, www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/MD_FN_article.pdf)

      The WHO document goes on:
      "Where the aggregate risk factors for dental caries are low (and are
      remaining low) consuming low fluoride water would probably have little
      or no impact on dental caries, but to guard against possible net loss
      of fluoride from the skeleton, the group felt that consideration
      should be given to maintaining a baseline level of 0.1 to 0.3 mg/l."

      Now that is dangerous lunacy. Really, it's just a false argument for
      universal water fluoridation. Yes, UNIVERSAL. This is the WHO getting
      ready to instruct governments all over the world as follows: "Any
      public water supplies with fluoride levels below 0.1 mg/l (ranging up
      to 0.3 for cooler climates) need to be fluoridated with artificial
      fluoride." (That means MOST water supplies in the world.)

      Don't have any doubt about it: This is a global project to dose every
      human being with unmeasured amounts of toxic waste fluoride (while
      dispersing vast amounts of it in the environment). See Christopher
      Bryson's exposé "The Fluoride Deception" (Seven Stories Press),
      published last year.

      In its nutrition guidelines, the WHO gives an "Adequate Intake" (AI)
      figure as its recommendation for fluoride. (Note the prior error of
      including fluoride in "nutrition guidelines".)

      Q. How do they get the AI figure?
      A. "When there is insufficient information available to calculate an
      EAR (Estimated Average Requirement), an AI value based on
      experimentally derived intake levels or approximations of customary
      mean nutrient intakes by group or groups of healthy subjects, is used
      instead of the traditional RDA (Recommended Dietary Allowance)."

      The WHO report goes on:
      "AIs are provided instead of RDAs when there is insufficient
      scientific information to estimate requirements. The nutrient intake
      of breast-fed infants is usually utilised to set AIs for infants from
      0 to 6 months of age, and for infants 7 to 12 months of age the
      average intake from human milk plus the additional intake provided by
      complementary foods is utilised (WHO/FAO/IAEA 1996; IOM 2002; SCF
      1993)."

      Somehow, in the case of fluoride, this practice of utilizing "the
      nutrient intake of breast-fed infants" was forgotten about. An infant
      fed on formula made up with fluoridated water gets about 100 times as
      much fluoride as a breast-fed infant. The WHO's range of AI figures
      seems to be chosen to fit artificially fluoridated water.

      The WHO's redefining of fluoride as a "nutrient" is truly a "four-
      legs-good, two-legs-better" rewriting of reality. By coincidence, the
      great fluoridation project was being launched in the U.S. just as
      "Animal Farm" was first published in 1945.

      (The difference between PRE-fluoridation statements from the U.S.
      medical establishment and POST-fluoridation statements is startling.
      For example, in 1943, the editorial in the Journal of the American
      Medical Association stated: "Fluorides are general protoplasmic
      poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism
      of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by
      inhibiting certain enzyme systems. The exact mechanism of such actions
      is obscure." -- JAMA, Sept 18, 1943, Editorial. And in 1944, the
      editorial in the Journal of the American Dental Association stated
      that "...drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3 ppm of
      fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as
      osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter". --
      JADA, October 1944, Editorial)

      The WHO defines Guideline Values for chemicals in drinking water
      according to the following definition:

      "A guideline value represents the concentration of a chemical
      constituent that does not result in any significant risk to the health
      of the consumer over a lifetime of consumption."
      See: www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/S02.pdf

      In the new Guidelines, the guideline value for fluoride in drinking
      water remains at 1.5 mg/litre (the same as 1.5 ppm).

      That guideline value is completely outrageous. It must have been
      chosen to protect the policy of fluoridation. To put it mildly, the
      figure is not protective of human health. That is made clear even in
      some of WHO's own recommendations. For example:

      "The Guidelines recommend a GV of 1.5 mg/litre on the assumption that
      the daily per capita consumption of drinking-water is about 2 litres.
      At this level, dental fluorosis may occur in a certain proportion of
      the population." (www.who.int/entity/water_sanitation_health/dwq/en/
      S06.pdf)

      Dental fluorosis is the first sign of fluoride poisoning. Baroness
      Hayman, on behalf of the British Government, stated: "We accept that
      dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity." (Hansard,
      20 Apr 1999 : WA 158)

      When you look over the WHO's history, you see a peculiar logic to
      certain statements about fluoride, suggesting that the WHO people are
      "covering themselves" against possible claims over health damage. In
      their 1971 International Drinking Water Standards, the WHO warned: "In
      the assessment of the safety of a water supply with respect to the
      fluoride concentration, the total daily fluoride intake by the
      individual must be considered."

      And in their 1994 monograph: "Dental and public health administrators
      should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population
      before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries
      prevention." (Fluorides and Oral Health, WHO, 1994)

      In their current documents we find warnings like this: "In setting
      national standards for fluoride or in evaluating the possible health
      consequences of exposure to fluoride, it is essential to consider the
      intake of water by the population of interest and the intake of
      fluoride from other sources (e.g., from food, air and dental
      preparations)."

      But in the last 35 years, few if any public health officials anywhere
      in the world (except possibly India and China) have heeded those
      warnings from the WHO. And the WHO shows no concern about that; it
      just keeps on pushing fluoride.

      So, what is going wrong in the WHO, this organization that is supposed
      to protect public health throughout the world? You might say that,
      since most of the WHO's funding comes from the U.S., we must expect
      them to follow Washington's wishes, that is, fluoridate every human
      being as much as possible. (That is still Washington's line, despite
      the abovementioned correction on fluoride "essentiality" by the FDA.)
      However, we should look further than that -- at the people behind
      these WHO statements and recommendations.


      WHO's BIG MISTAKE #2:

      In drafting the Guidelines, the WHO recruited experts on "nutrient
      minerals in drinking water" (see www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/
      dwq/nutconsensus/en/). Those experts included four dentists who were
      given the task of writing about fluoride in drinking water (even
      though fluoride is not a nutrient): Prof Jan Ekstrand, Prof Michael
      Lennon, Prof Denis O'Mullane and Dr Helen Whelton.

      Leaving aside Ekstrand, who has some right to be regarded as an expert
      (see below), it must be said that enlisting authors like that is known
      as PUTTING THE FOX IN CHARGE OF THE HENHOUSE.

      O'Mullane, Whelton and Lennon are not nutrition experts, nor are they
      medical experts. They are not fluoride experts; they are fluoride
      promoters. Their professional reputation rests largely on their
      association with fluoride -- fluoride as something to be praised,
      promoted, and forced on people.

      Many of the statements in the WHO documents written by Ekstrand,
      Lennon, O'Mullane and Whelton are mind-boggling. For example:

      They write about "the need to ensure an appropriate minimum intake of
      fluoride to prevent loss from bone".

      And this: "In parts [of the UK], such as the South East of England,
      dental caries is mainly under control without water fluoridation; in
      other regions, such as the North West of England, the prevalence of
      dental caries is substantially higher and water fluoridation remains
      an important public health objective." (www.who.int/
      water_sanitation_health/dwq/nutfluoride/en/)

      Lennon (University of Liverpool, and now University of Sheffield) has
      been for some years the chairman of the British Fluoridation Society,
      a "quango" that promotes fluoridation (and, ridiculously, gets UK
      taxpayers' money to do so). Anti-fluoridation campaigners in the UK
      can spell out at length why Lennon should not be advising anybody on
      fluoride in drinking water. See: www.fluorideaction.org/dsyt-2.htm

      A good example of the falsehoods and exaggerations that Lennon
      specializes in is found here: www.who.int/oral_health/publications/
      cdoe319to321/en/

      Lennon was one of the invited speakers at the "National Fluoridation
      Symposium 2005" in Chicago this month, a celebration of 60 years of U.
      S. fluoridation, organized by the American Dental Association. It
      should of course have been an occasion for shame, not celebration.

      Another invitee at the Chicago junket was Poul Erik Petersen, the head
      of the WHO's Oral Health Programme.

      ++++++

      O'Mullane and Whelton are from University College Cork in Ireland and
      are key players in the worldwide fluoridation project.

      O'Mullane, speaking about fluoride (or fluoridation), stated:
      "It harms nobody and it does a lot of good."
      -- Irish Times, Aug 16th, 1999

      Whelton told the Irish Times, May 17th, 1999:
      "There is no cause for concern at the levels of fluoride people are
      getting. There is no reason to remove fluoride from the water." (http:
      //fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/2000/sci1.htm)

      These were not off-the-cuff remarks; they were made deliberately, to
      Ireland's most influential newspaper. Bear in mind that Ireland is the
      only democracy with mandatory water fluoridation. 73% of the public
      water is fluoridated, and exceedances of the legal limit of 1 mg/l
      fluoride are very common. O'Mullane has admitted that 50% of children
      in fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis, the first indicator of
      fluoride poisoning.

      There is little evidence that O'Mullane and Whelton are interested in
      safe drinking water. Their interest is in promoting the use of
      fluoride.

      Those statements by O'Mullane and Whelton show an extraordinary
      ignorance. Yet the WHO regards them as the world's experts on
      fluoride. What is going on in the WHO?

      If you need any more convincing that O'Mullane and Whelton are the
      wrong people to be devising drinking water standards, please read on.
      Then ask yourself: Could anyone really believe that these people would
      make an honest assessment of the hazards of fluoride in drinking
      water?

      Not only is the WHO out of touch, it is out of control. When WHO
      officials are asked awkward questions about fluoride, they simply
      don't answer. For example, the late Jane Jones, Campaign Director of
      the UK National Pure Water Association, put questions to the WHO more
      than four years ago. See: www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/answer.htm

      The answers never came. The silence is eloquent. While they say
      nothing, we can guess what they mean by their non-answers: "Be a good
      girl/boy and take your poison, I mean, medicine, I mean, tooth-
      preserving life-enhancing wonder-chemical, and go away and don't
      bother us with questions that have been asked so many times before.
      Can't you see we have lots of letters after our names and don't
      deserve to be bothered by the likes of you ungrateful troublemakers
      who probably have vested interests in opposing this outstandingly
      successful public health measure?"

      This sort of behaviour by the WHO is aped by national governments (e.
      g., Ireland, U.S., Australia) and even by EU Commissioners. When
      Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom was asked awkward questions
      by Irish environmental group Voice, she stonewalled (see www.voice.
      buz.org/fluoridation/Open%20Letter.htm). And she is now Commissioner
      for Institutions and Communication!

      Prof O'Mullane's long-time collaborator, Dr Seamus O'Hickey, declared:
      "I don't doubt the sincerity of the anti-fluoridation people but I
      think they are being misled by a small number of people who gain
      financially from it." (www.anc.org.za/anc/newsbrief/1997/news0531) Dr
      O' Hickey is the former chief dental officer for the Irish government
      and adviser to the South African fluoridation committee. He is also
      the chairman of the "Expert Body" set up by the Irish Minister for
      Health in 2002 to implement the recommendations of the notorious,
      fraudulent Forum on Fluoridation. (See: www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/
      about_us/chairman.html and www.fluoridealert.org/irish.forum-critique.
      htm)

      A WHO press release last year stated:
      "While it appears to be less severe in most African countries, the
      report [on oral diseases] states that with changing living conditions,
      dental caries is expected to increase in many developing countries in
      Africa, particularly as a result of the growing consumption of sugars
      and inadequate exposure to fluorides."
      (www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2004/pr15/en/)

      As if avoiding fluoride could *cause* tooth decay...

      Consider the following WHO recommendation, in a Feb 1994 press release
      (www.who.int/archives/inf-pr-1994/pr94-14.html):
      "From the public health standpoint, they [the WHO experts] advocate as
      a general rule a strategy of low but regular exposure to fluorides...
      This goal is described in the report adopted in Geneva [1994] as
      'maintaining a constant, low-level of fluoride in as many mouths as
      possible', and when it is attained by adding fluoride to water, salt
      or toothpaste, the change in incidence of dental caries in the
      population in question soon becomes evident."

      That could have been written by O'Mullane and Whelton themselves.
      There's a simple term for "maintaining a constant, low-level of
      fluoride in as many mouths as possible"; it is MASS POISONING.

      Here are recent examples of O'Mullane and Whelton playing down the
      seriousness of fluoride poisoning:

      "The risk [of fluorosis] is of aesthetic concern primarily during the
      period of enamel development of the permanent central incisors,
      although this largely appears to be a cosmetic rather than a public-
      health issue."
      -- Whelton HP, Ketley CE, McSweeney F, O'Mullane DM. A Review of
      Fluorosis in the European Union: Prevalence, Risk Factors and
      Aesthetic Issues. Source: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2004;32
      (Suppl. 1):9-18.
      (www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00134.x/
      abs/)

      On Irish national radio, O'Mullane was asked whether dental fluorosis
      was a problem in Ireland, to which he replied:
      "There is evidence that the level of the, what is termed, 'very mild
      forms' are increasing slightly. That was one of the reasons why the
      forum on water fluoridation recommended certain strategies to make
      sure that that rise, which was at a very very low level, it is a very
      minor change in the appearance of the enamel, that this would be
      controlled." -- Prof Denis O'Mullane, interviewed on the "Future
      Tense" programme, RTE Radio 1, Ireland, 24 Sep 2002.

      +++++++++++++

      Of course all this irresponsibility would not matter so much if the
      WHO did not exercise such an enormous influence on politicians
      throughout the world. Politicians generally act as if the WHO is some
      ultimate authority. And the fluoridators -- those dentist academics
      with many letters after their names, and the spineless public health
      officials who collaborate with them -- constantly remind us that they
      have the backing of the WHO.

      All of this is a fine example of the fluoridation conspiracy in action
      -- the conspiracy that is comprehensively described in Christopher
      Bryson's book "The Fluoride Deception".

      So, what should the WHO Guidelines on fluoride be? It is very simple:
      The WHO should act to MINIMIZE exposure to fluoride. That is the only
      approach that is compatible with medical, scientific, and ethical
      principles. And that is what scientists of principle have been
      pointing out for decades. See for example: www.onlineopinion.com.au/
      view.asp?article=3014

      ++++++++++++

      Prof Jan Ekstrand from Sweden may be making a useful contribution to
      the WHO Guidelines task, but his input needs to be balanced by other
      highly qualified people who understand both the toxicity of fluoride
      and the issue of whether fluoride has any application in human
      healthcare. Unfortunately such people are absent; instead we get
      Michael Lennon, Denis O'Mullane and Helen Whelton.

      Ekstrand made the following significant statements (see www.
      fluoridealert.org/f-sources.htm):

      "Based on this review, we conclude that fluoride intakes of infants
      and children have shown a rather steady increase since 1930, are
      likely to continue to increase, and will be associated with further
      increase in the prevalence of enamel fluorosis unless intervention
      measures are instituted." - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000).
      Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride
      intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health
      Dentistry 60(3):131-9.

      "The prevalence of dental fluorosis in the United States has increased
      during the last 30 years, both in communities with fluoridated water
      and in communities with nonfluoridated water." - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J,
      Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental
      fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to
      infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60(3):131-9.

      "To limit fluoride intake to amounts < 100 ug kg d, it is necessary to
      avoid use of fluoridated water as a diluent for powdered infant
      formulas..." - Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J. (1999). Fluoride intake by
      infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59(4):229-34.

      "The studies presented here show that fluoride also has the ability to
      affect the cells of the human immune system." - Loftenius A, Andersson
      B, Butler JE, Ekstrand J (1999). Fluoride Augments the Mitogenic and
      Antigenic Response of Human Blood Lymphocytes in vitro. Caries
      Research 1999;33:148-155 (DOI: 10.1159/000016509)
      http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?
      Aktion=ShowFulltext&ProduktNr=224219&Ausgabe=225458&ArtikelNr=16509

      However, some of Ekstrand's work is not reassuring:

      http://www.pedresearch.org/cgi/content/abstract/35/2/157
      There is something very worrying about this study because it is
      clearly unethical to give fluoride supplements to infants or children.

      In the same vein, you have to wonder about the ethics of the following
      study by Ekstrand et al in which volunteers ingested mercury amalgam:
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
      cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11926235

      The following study shows he believes in something called "optimal
      fluoride therapy":
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
      cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10777136

      "Doses of sodium fluoride of about 50 mg a day have long term
      beneficial effects on the mineral content of bone and the incidence of
      fracture."
      http://www.slweb.org/spak-1989.html

      And this is also worrying:
      http://www.iadr.com/awards/iawinners.html
      IA2004 IADR Awards & Fellowship Recipients --
      E. W. Borrow Memorial Award
      Sponsored by the Borrow Foundation
      Jan Ekstrand, Karolinska Institute, Sweden

      When you consider what the Borrow Dental Milk Foundation has done, you
      have to wonder about Ekstrand's wisdom in accepting such an award.
      (See www.fluoride-history.de/borrow.htm and www.borrowfoundation.com/)

      And, of course, Ekstrand's collaboration with Lennon, O'Mullane and
      Whelton calls into question his judgement and his integrity.

      ++++++++

      Here are further details about Prof Denis O'Mullane and Dr Helen
      Whelton:

      Prof Denis O'Mullane is Professor of Dentistry in University College
      Cork (UCC). Dr Helen Whelton has been O'Mullane's right-hand person in
      UCC for many years and has now taken over from him as Director of the
      Oral Health Services Research Centre: http://ohsrc.ucc.ie/html/about.
      html

      Irish people who have been campaigning to end fluoridation for some
      years know only too well that O'Mullane and Whelton are at the core of
      the fluoride problem. These arrogant dentists act as if they have a
      divine right to decide what is safe water and as if they are the final
      arbiters of the fluoride levels Irish people are forced to ingest.

      O'MULLANE:

      O'Mullane has directed or been involved in ALL research done on the
      effects of fluoridation in Ireland. However, none of that research was
      looking for health effects other than on the teeth.

      O'Mullane stated in the journal Evidence-Based Dentistry (2000, free
      issue):
      "The benefits of fluoride tablet administration are not in question."

      An interesting contrast with his statement in 2001:
      "It is now well-established that fluoride's primary method of action
      is a topical one."
      And he added:
      "To ensure that fluoride bestows maximum preventive benefit, it is
      important to maintain the ambient level of fluoride in saliva and
      plaque. Clearly, combining fluoride mouth rinses, fluoride
      toothpastes, fluoride tablets, and fluoride gels and varnishes in
      patients in either fluoridated or nonfluoridated communities will help
      maintain fluoride levels."
      (www.lib.umich.edu/dentlib/nihcdc/abstracts/omullane.html)

      For many years O'Mullane allowed his name to be associated with
      statements such as the following from the British Nutrition Foundation
      (a front for the sugar lobby):
      "Water fluoridation is the most effective public health strategy for
      caries prevention."
      (Was available at: www.nutrition.org.uk)

      Note the history of the British Nutrition Foundation:
      Quoting from their website: "The British Nutrition Foundation was set
      up in July 1967... established as an independent organisation to
      stimulate research and education in the field of nutrition. Nine food
      companies provided a financial guarantee for the venture, of which
      Marks & Spencer Ltd, Tate & Lyle Ltd and Unilever PLC are still member
      companies today. Other companies that have remained with us from the
      start include Cadburys, Sainsbury's and Procter & Gamble. [That's
      virtually a roll-call of the big British sweets & confectionery
      manufacturers!]

      "... Above all the British Nutrition Foundation remains an impartial
      voice in the current nutritional debate." [What a joke!]

      And under "Key Facts / Oral Health", we found:
      "This is a summary of the findings from the BNF conference on 20
      January 1999, which launched the BNF Task Force report Oral Health:
      diet and other factors. Speakers were Dr Jack Edelman (Chairman of the
      Task Force), Professor Mike Edgar (University of Liverpool), . . . and
      Professor Denis O'Mullane (University College Cork). Professor Robert
      Pickard, Director-General of the BNF, chaired the meeting."

      And there's more:
      "The British Nutrition Foundation provides independent [!!??] and
      authoritative scientific information on the relationship between food,
      nutrition and health."

      Talking of Unilever, who make vast profits from sales of high-sugar
      foods and drinks as well as fluoride dental products... In the late
      1990s, they provided the funding to set up the "Unilever Dental
      Faculty", a pro-fluoride website resource for dentists. This website
      claimed to offer "independent" and authoritative scientific
      information. And, surprise, surprise, it also carried advertising for
      Unilever products. But the main man behind the website -- its first
      chairman -- was none other than Prof Denis O'Mullane. Fortunately for
      his reputation the website is no longer to be found; it used to be
      here:
      http://www.dentalfaculty.org/

      And this study published in the journal Caries Research in 2000: http:
      //content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?
      Aktion=ShowAbstract&ArtikelNr=16576&ProduktNr=224219&Ausgabe=225464
      shows that O'Mullane has been collaborating with Unilever more
      recently. Two of the authors are from Unilever Dental Research in
      England.

      One of the key players, along with O'Mullane, in the Forum on
      Fluoridation was Dr Wayne Anderson of the Food Safety Authority of
      Ireland (www.fsai.ie). Anderson was largely responsible for the
      debacle in the Forum over its recommendations for reconstituting
      infant formula with fluoridated water (see www.fluoridealert.org/FSAI-
      infant.formula.htm and Cf. www.fluoride-journal.com/97-30-2/302-125.
      htm). Before all that, Anderson, a specialist in food science, spent
      ten years working for Unilever (see www.safefoodonline.com/full_bio.
      asp?article=594).

      The Biomed1 project, with funding from the European Union, has been
      one aspect of O'Mullane's research activities (was described at www.
      ucc.ie/dru/biomed1/partners.html, and see www.ucc.ie/research/ohsrc/
      html/staff_director.html). Among others involved with O'Mullane's
      research are the abovementioned Dr Seamus O'Hickey (see also below)
      and Dr Miriam Wiley who featured with O'Mullane in the Fluoridation
      Forum set up by Health Minister Micheal Martin.

      O'Mullane has been very actively involved in the International
      Association for Dental Research (IADR), which is allied with big
      industry. Another of O'Mullane's long-time collaborators, Prof John
      Clarkson, head of the Dental School in Trinity College Dublin, was the
      President of the IADR for some years and is one of the high priests of
      global fluoridation. Clarkson also featured prominently in the
      Fluoridation Forum.

      One of O'Mullane's many affiliations is the European Association of
      Dental Public Health (EADPH). He ran the show at their annual congress
      in Ireland in 2000:
      "2000 Cork, Ireland: 13th to 15th September hosted by EADPH Co-
      President 2000 and BASCD President, Professor Denis O'Mullane." (www.
      dundee.ac.uk/eadph/news154.htm)


      O'Mullane is on the Prize Committee of ORCA, the European Organisation
      for Caries Research. He is also a past president of the organization.
      ORCA's list of Corporate Members is revealing: 3M, The Borrow
      Foundation, Coca-Cola, Colgate, Danisco Sweeteners, Johnson & Johnson,
      Masterfoods, Procter & Gamble, SaraLee, The Sugar Bureau, Unilever,
      Wrigley, etc. (www.orca-caries-research.org/corporate.html)

      O'Mullane's influence is enormous, and not just on the dental students
      in Cork (one of only two dental schools in the Republic of Ireland).
      Those dental students are not taught the truth about fluoride. This is
      attested to by the growing number of Irish dentists in the
      organization Irish Dentists Opposing Fluoridation (www.idof.net).

      O'Mullane was prominent at the IADR conference in South Africa in
      1997. This conference seemed to lay the groundwork for the
      fluoridation push in South Africa. In the same year, O'Mullane's long-
      time associate Dr Seamus O'Hickey (Trinity College Dublin and the
      Irish Dept of Health) spent time in South Africa doing fluoridation
      propaganda and preparing the report that persuaded the government to
      go for mandatory fluoridation.

      Over the years, O'Mullane has been collaborating with many of the
      best-known fluoride promoters -- among them Clarkson and Prof. Dr.
      Thomas Marthaler in Switzerland. O'Mullane and Clarkson have a lot to
      do with Ireland remaining the only democracy in the world with
      mandatory water fluoridation, while Marthaler has a lot to do with
      Switzerland's embracing of fluoride (http://bruha.com/pfpc/html/
      switzerland_i.html).

      Shortly before the Forum on Fluoridation, Clarkson published a paper
      (with his colleague Dr Jacinta McLoughlin) entitled "Role of Fluoride
      in oral health promotion" in the International Dental Journal (2000)
      (www.fdiworldental.org/assets/pdf/commission/97_6_1.pdf). It contained
      the following advice:

      Fluorosis and infant formulas
      The risk of fluorosis resulting from the use of infant
      formulas has been reduced considerably as a result of
      the action of manufacturers in reducing the amount of
      fluoride in these products. However, infant formulas
      should still be prepared using non-fluoridated water.

      This was good advice for once from Clarkson. However, when the Forum
      finished in 2002, Clarkson, O'Mullane, Anderson and the others had no
      difficulty in signing up to the Forum's advice which was completely
      contrary:

      "Question 3. Should I use fluoridated water to make up my baby's
      feeds?
      Answer: Yes. The Forum recommends that parents continue to prepare
      baby feeds with boiled tap water and to follow the manufacturers'
      instructions.
      Question 4. Is it okay to use bottled water to make up feeds?
      Answer: The Forum recommends that you do not use bottled water to make
      up your baby's feeds. Bottled water on sale in Ireland may contain
      salt which is not recommended for babies."

      (was at www.doh.ie/publications/fluoridation/faqpar.html; full report
      at www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html)

      (Staff Profile of Clarkson: http://ddsh.learnol.net/index.php?
      option=content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=94)

      One of the most significant episodes in the history of fluoridation in
      Ireland was a session of the Parliamentary Committee on Health and
      Children on July 10th, 2003. (See: www.irlgov.ie/oireachtas/
      Committees-29th-D%C3%A1il/jchc-debates/Jhc100703.rtf)

      The Committee was inquiring into the Fluoridation Forum which was
      controversial. O'Mullane testified:
      "I have been measuring the effectiveness of water fluoridation for 32
      years; I carry out studies to establish whether water fluoridation
      reduces dental decay. All the studies have shown that it does."

      However, he and Whelton had previously stated:
      "In the last national survey of adult dental health in the Republic of
      Ireland [carried out by O'Mullane & Whelton in 1989-90] it was shown
      that there was a substantial increase in caries prevalence in subjects
      in the age groups 16-25. It was postulated that this increase was due
      to the dramatic decline in caries in subjects up to the age of 15
      leaving more surfaces at risk." -- O'Mullane, Whelton, 2001 "The Use
      Of Combinations Of Caries Preventive Procedures" (www.nidcr.nih.gov/
      NR/rdonlyres/4653D7D3-87DE-46C3-966D-AC5740FBEE22/0/Helen_Whelton.pdf)

      In the Parliamentary Committee, O'Mullane went on:
      "I showed photographs of how things were in the 1960s and I also
      demonstrated what we are talking about in regard to fluorosis. It is
      a mild alteration in the colour of the teeth. As Professor Clarkson
      pointed out, we did not know at the time there would be mild changes
      in the colour of teeth. A point was made about the topical effect as
      against the systemic effect. There is no doubt that our knowledge of
      how fluoride works has altered quite a lot in the last 30, 40 or 50
      years. I did not say, Deputy Gormley, that there was no systemic
      effect. There is some systemic effect but the topical effect has been
      understated."

      (O'Mullane's unscientific opinion that there is "some systemic effect"
      seems to be the justification for the ongoing fluoridation of the
      Irish population.) O'Mullane then responded to a question about the
      failure to deal with the 50 issues raised by Prof Paul Connett.
      Connett had been invited to address the Forum in October 2000 and,
      even though all Forum members agreed that the issues were important
      and needed to be addressed, the Forum report (which arrived a year
      late) managed to avoid mentioning Connett altogether.

      O'Mullane testified:
      "When one looks at the body of the fluoridation report, almost all of
      these questions are addressed one way or the other."

      No, they're not! Of course, if Connett's questions were addressed in
      the report, O'Mullane could simply have compiled a list of the
      appropriate page references. That would have entailed just a few hours
      work -- if the information was there. But the Connett questions are
      not addressed in the report (just like most of the important questions
      about fluoridation).

      O'Mullane went on to say:
      "A document is now being prepared addressing specifically the 50
      questions which will be ready in due course."

      In due course! Dr Seamus O'Hickey was employed by the Forum in October
      2001 to edit that document -- the responses to Connett's arguments.
      The next we heard of O'Hickey was that the Minister for Health had
      given him the task of chairing the group of people known as the
      "Expert Body" to implement the recommendations of the Forum. That was
      more than three years ago. Not one of the recommendations of the Forum
      has been implemented.

      The latest news is that the famous missing document -- the responses
      to Connett's arguments -- has apparently seen the light of day at
      last, just a few weeks ago (May 2005)! The website of the Irish
      Government's Department of Health & Children has such a document in
      pdf format (in two parts) here: www.dohc.ie/issues/dental_research/
      No authors, date or publication details are given with the document.
      The document is hopelessly unreadable, misleading, full of red
      herrings, and thoroughly unhelpful. It is not clear that this is the
      "official" response to Connett.

      This Dr O'Hickey is the same man who was adviser to the South African
      fluoridation committee. One of his arguments, which the South African
      government apparently found persuasive, was: "[Fluoridation is]
      equitable, in that rich and poor would benefit equally."

      O'Mullane stated, in the parliamentary committee: "The spread of decay
      in society is not even. It is very much a phenomenon of poverty as
      much as of anything else."

      That echoes a clumsy pronouncement by O'Hickey's successor as Chief
      Dental Officer in Ireland's Dept of Health, Dr Gerard Gavin: "We will
      not always need fluoridation but we have large areas of social
      deprivation and there is a link with this group and oral ill-health."
      -- Irish Independent newspaper 30 Nov 1999. See www.idof.net for more
      about Gavin (who has now left the civil service for the private
      sector). The specious argument that fluoridation is "needed" for poor
      people is also used by senior medical figures in Ireland.

      Later in the parliamentary committee session, referring to research on
      fluorosis, O'Mullane described himself as "an objective scientist".
      That committee record is also notable for several outrageous pro-
      fluoride comments from other members of the Fluoridation Forum.


      WHELTON:

      University College Cork: Senior Lecturer in Dental Public Health &
      Preventive Dentistry since 1998. Director of the Oral Health Services
      Research Centre since 2002.

      Whelton is involved in the same things as O'Mullane: the IADR, EAPHD,
      and the usual pro-fluoridation research.

      Whelton was, for ten years until 2002, the only dentistry
      representative on the Health Research Board, the Government agency
      that controls health research in Ireland.

      The university magazine, UCC's "College Courier", lists some research
      grants awarded to O'Mullane and Whelton in 2001/2:

      http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/info/courier/144/page26.html
      Professor Denis O'Mullane/Dr Helen Whelton, IR£459,857 from the
      Eastern Health Board [the health board that purchases all the fluoride
      for Irish fluoridation]
      Dr Helen Whelton, IR£40,000 from the Health Research Board [of which
      Whelton was at that time a member]

      http://www.ucc.ie/ucc/info/courier/142/page24.html
      Dr Helen Whelton, IR£35,240 from the Health Research Board.

      On the Health Research Board web site, we found:

      Research Project Grants (General) 2002
      "Economic Modelling of Services Utilisation Data and Epidemiological
      Data for Oral Health Services"
      Dr Helen Whelton
      Oral Health Services Research Centre
      University Dental School, Cork

      Health Research Board of Ireland
      Research Programmes Grants Awarded by HRB in 2002
      13. Water Fluoridation and Health: The Benefits and Risks of Fluoride
      on the
      Island of Ireland
      (Principal investigator: Professor Denis O'Mullane, University Dental
      School and Hospital Cork)

      Note: This is what a recent Internet search turned up. O'Mullane and
      Whelton have probably received many other grants of public money.

      O'Mullane and Whelton have done a lot of research over the years, but,
      in 41 years of Irish fluoridation, nobody has every researched the
      health effects other than on teeth. This is despite the face that the
      fluoridation law (passed in 1960) requires that such research be
      carried out.

      O'Mullane/Whelton research invariably comes up with the following
      "findings":

      * Fluoride is wonderful.
      * Fluorosis is only a "minor, cosmetic problem".
      * More research is needed. (Real meaning: More money is needed by
      O'Mullane, Whelton and their associates for their "research".)

      In the world of O'Mullane & Whelton, every improvement is due to
      fluoride and every problem, except "minor, cosmetic" fluorosis, is due
      to something else. See, for example, www.rte.ie/news/2003/0613/
      fluoride.html

      O'Mullane & Whelton have recently been applying their "expertise" to,
      among other places, Pakistan -- "determining the optimal concentration
      of fluoride in drinking water in Pakistan". As if that country didn't
      have enough problems. See: www.blackwellpublishing.com/abstract.asp?
      ref=0301-5661&vid=32&iid=3&aid=2&s=&site=1
      Khan AA, Whelton H, O'Mullane D. Determining the optimal concentration
      of fluoride in drinking water in Pakistan. Community Dent Oral
      Epidemiol 2004; 32: 166–72.

      See also:
      Ayyaz A Khan, Helen Whelton, Denis O Mullane, Sharea ljaz.
      Decision-making for a National Program of Community Fluoride use in
      Pakistan
      J Pak Dent Assoc Sep 2002;11(3):155-60.
      Community Dentistry, Lahore Medical & Dental College, Lahore

      What a sick concept -- "Community Fluoride use"!

      The most astonishing part of O'Mullane & Whelton's Pakistan
      collaboration is the following paper:
      www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
      cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15503849
      Int Dent J. 2004 Oct;54(5):256-60.

      Is the fluoride level in drinking water a gold standard for the
      control of dental caries?

      Khan AA, Whelton H, O'Mullane D.
      Shaikh Zayed Federal Postgraduate Medical Institute, Lahore, Pakistan.
      ayyazk@...

      AIM: To obtain baseline knowledge of levels of dental caries in 12-
      year-old children residing in areas with varying levels of fluoride in
      drinking water in Pakistan; and to observe a dose-response
      relationship between the prevalence of dental caries at different
      concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.
      METHOD: Clinical examination of children and analysis of samples of
      drinking water.
      RESULTS: The maximum reduction of caries in relation to fluoride
      levels in Pakistan was witnessed between the fluoride concentrations
      of 0.00-0.33ppm.
      CONCLUSIONS: There are no gold standards for setting up a universal
      optimal level of fluoride in drinking water and each country needs to
      determine the concentration of fluoride in their drinking water in
      accordance with its socio-economic and climatic conditions, dietary
      and oral hygiene habits of its population, and local research to
      determine how much fluoride is beneficial in the control of caries.

      PMID: 15503849 [PubMed - in process]


      There is simply no way that those results and conclusions can be
      reconciled with O'Mullane & Whelton's statements and actions for the
      WHO and for Irish government agencies. And it is clear that their
      Pakistan experience has not changed the way O'Mullane & Whelton
      operate in Ireland. They (along with three or four other key people)
      are keeping the Irish people fluoridated at 1 ppm fluoride in their
      drinking water.

      Whelton is currently on the board of the Women's Health Council, a
      statutory body that advises the Irish Minister for Health on all
      aspects of women's health. See www.whc.ie/about/board.html Whelton
      was appointed to the WHC by Health Minister Micheal Martin who was
      responsible for the infamous Forum on Fluoridation. Martin's Alma
      Mater is University College Cork.

      Whelton was also last year appointed to the National Task Force on
      Obesity by the same Health Minister. Since in the past she has shown
      little interest in the effects of sugar consumption, you have to
      wonder what she might have to contribute there.

      This report in the Irish Examiner newspaper, 22 Nov 2004, shows the
      close interplay between Whelton and Martin:
      http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/11/22/story262587870.asp

      +++++

      We have already made reference to the 1994 WHO monograph about
      fluoride:
      "Fluorides and oral health" [The title alone gives the game away!]
      WHO Technical Report Series No. 846.
      World Health Organization, Geneva.

      A new version of this monograph is in the works. The editor is Dr
      Deborah Chapman, an environmental scientist from, surprise, surprise,
      University College Cork. Yes, the same UCC of O'Mullane, Whelton, and
      Martin fame (Micheal Martin, the former Irish health minister who
      championed fluoridation).

      According to the WHO website, Dr Chapman is the editor of the WHO-
      sponsored series of guidebooks on water resources management and has
      ensured compatibility on issues such as Water Quality Assessments,
      Water Quality Monitoring, Water Pollution Control and Toxic
      Cyanobacteria in Water.

      For the sake of public health throughout the world, we have to hope
      that Dr Chapman doesn't pay too much attention to her dentist
      colleagues. But since fluoride has NO positive role in human health,
      including oral health, it is clear that Dr Chapman has failed to grasp
      the fundamentals.

      +++++

      The UCC part of the story doesn't end there. There are other UCC
      academics who have involved themselves with the global fluoridation
      project.

      The UCC biochemist Prof Albert Flynn (www.ucc.ie/academic/faculties/
      foodfac/flynn.htm) serves on the Scientific Committee of the European
      Food Safety Authority (www.efsa.eu.int). One of the opinions they have
      published is on fluoride:
      www.efsa.eu.int/science/nda/nda_opinions/851_en.html To put it simply,
      a lot of what they have written about fluoride is dangerous nonsense.

      This committe has issued opinions on Tolerable Upper Intake Levels on
      a variety of substances, nutrients in the main, but that ubiquitous
      impostor, fluoride, is included --- encouraged no doubt by the
      fluoride addicts in Cork.
      The substances are Potassium, Iron, Boron, Vanadium, Nickel, Fluoride
      and Vitamin C. See the committee's opinion (EFSA-Q-2003-018 Adopted on
      22 Feb 2005) on a TUIL for Fluoride: www.efsa.eu.int/science/nda/
      nda_opinions/851_en.html

      It is interesting to note that the 'scientific' opinion begins:
      "Fluoride is not essential for human growth and development but is
      beneficial in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) when
      ingested in amounts of about 0.05 mg/kg body weight per day and when
      applied topically with dental products such as toothpaste."

      The opinion then attempts to justify a TUIL for what the committee
      describes elsewhere (the EFSA CONTAM committee) as a contaminant in
      the food chain. See EFSA-Q-2003-034, adopted on 22 Sept 2004. That
      opinion on fluoride in animal feed, issued by the CONTAMinant
      committee, also makes the outrageous unscientific claim:

      "Fluorine is considered as an essential element in various animal
      species as experimental diets, low in fluorine resulted in growth
      retardation, impaired fertility and reduced dental enamel strength in
      various animal species, and also in humans."

      Clearly, the fluoride deception has infiltrated the EU Food Safety
      Committees.

      The following document from the Irish Department of Health shows that
      Prof Albert Flynn has recently been collaborating with his UCC
      colleagues O'Mullane and Whelton on fluoride promotion:
      www.dohc.ie/issues/dental_research/fluoride.pdf

      Prof Flynn is also heavily involved in the aforementioned Food Safety
      Authority of Ireland.

      Another UCC pro-fluoridation academic is biochemist Prof William
      Reville (www.ucc.ie/ucc/depts/biochemistry/staff/wreville.html).
      Reville has for many years been writing the weekly science column in
      the Irish Times. Using that influential platform he has written
      approvingly of fluoridation.

      So, that is quite a group: O'Mullane, Whelton, Martin, Chapman, Flynn
      and Reville, all exerting influence in the global fluoridation
      project. And all from the same little university in the little city of
      Cork.

      Another interesting coincidence is that Prof Denis O'Mullane's uncle,
      the late Tadhg O'Mullane, was for many years the Chief Chemist of the
      Irish Sugar Company (a state company) at its main factory in Thurles
      in the south of Ireland. Following that job, Tadhg O'Mullane was, for
      26 years from 1961, Professor of Dairy and Food Microbiology in UCC
      where he was a very influential figure, including serving as a member
      of UCC's Governing Body (of which Whelton is now a member). See
      obituary: www.ucc.ie/ucc/info/courier/146/noticeboard/page27.html


      Of course there are many non-UCC "experts" who have worked on the
      WHO's fluoride promotion project; their scientific credentials and
      records must be called into question. I must point out one
      particularly interesting case. This is the British "independent"
      environmental consultant John Fawell (www.johnfawell.co.uk) who
      "coordinated" the WHO Drinking Water Guidelines, in which task he
      collaborated with O'Mullane, Whelton and Lennon. One of the most
      disturbing facts about Fawell is that he wrote (or edited) the
      Fluoride section of the website www.greenfacts.org. GreenFacts.org is
      a sham "environmental information" website set up a few years ago and
      funded by the Solvay Group, a giant chemicals and pharmaceuticals
      manufacturer with 30,000 employees. Solvay market a big range of
      fluoride chemicals and pharmaceuticals. (Most pharmaceutical drugs are
      fluorinated to enhance their biochemical activity.) Solvay have an
      enormous vested interest in giving fluoride a benign image.
      Unsurprisingly, the information about fluoride on that website (see
      www.greenfacts.org/fluoride/about-fluoride.htm) is presented so that
      fluoride is shown in a good light.

      GreenFacts bases its fluoride information on a report by IPCS (the
      International Programme on Chemical Safety, a joint venture of the UN,
      ILO and WHO) entitled "Environmental Health Criteria for Fluorides"
      (EHC 227). GreenFacts pretends that everything from the IPCS is gospel
      truth (it isn't) and that it represents scientific consensus on
      fluoride (it doesn't -- see www.fluoridealert.org/health/, www.
      fluoride-journal.com/ and www.jpands.org/vol10no2/kauffman.pdf).
      GreenFacts' bias is also shown in its list of links: they ignore,
      among others, the Fluoride Action Network (www.fluorideaction.net) and
      Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children (http://bruha.com/pfpc/).

      GreenFacts' claim that it is "an independent non-advocacy non-profit
      organization" is a deception.

      Not unrelated to GreenFacts is www.eurofluor.org, the website of the
      main European fluoride producers. There, as you would expect, the lies
      about fluoride are more barefaced: for example, their statement that
      "there is no doubt that controlled levels of ingested fluoride are
      many times more effective [against caries] than any topical
      application." (See page under Applications/ Consumer Products.)


      One last question:
      How can intelligent people fail to understand the simplest of facts?
      Fluoride is not a nutrient; it is a poison. Tooth decay is caused by
      sugar, and nothing else!

      = = = = = =

      -- Joe Thornton, July 2005
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.