Health Canada On Fluoride & Other Toxins
I am glad to forward your well indoctrinated* responses to deflect, diffuse, confuse and shut any and all discussions pertinent to stop the deliberate adulterating of City water. Your response and attachment to my original inquiry is designed to give an impression of being impartial, factual and authoritative but is likely to confuse, obfuscate or even intimidate the uninitiated. This note gives me an opportunity to set the record straight and educate the readers on the many tactics of those who deliberately keep contaminating our otherwise clean water...
"I am awaiting Health Canada’s review. I am open to persuasion and would suggest that you address your concerns with Dr. Graham Pollett, Chief Medical Officer."
No matter what question is posed to you we all get the above inconsistent response. How are you open to persuasion while in the same breath you shut any dialogue by continually saying that you awaiting Health Canada’s review before any one can even begin to persuade you. It took the threat of a re-election to open this dialogue hardly a demonstration of your seriousness or concern for that matter!
"Let me be very clear. I take the safety of our water supply very seriously. I have reviewed scores of pages of information sent by various members of the community."
From the scores of pages that you reviewed, you are still happy with the practice of adding a toxic waste product to our water while you humor the authorities. Deliberately adding fluoride and its co contaminants which include traces of lead, arsenic, mercury and other byproducts to our water does not show a lot of concern. How did you miss from your review the fact that fluoride is more toxic than lead? Yet you claim you are serious about the safety of our water?
I shudder to think how you should handle more complex issues. Given that all one has to do, in this instance, is to simply stop adding toxins to our water. This has already been done by other enlightened municipalities such as Dryden and others in the Niagara Region. In all cases Health Canada and Board of Health (BOH) tried, their level best, to prevent these municipalities from doing so. As you can see your tactics to deflect this on to Health Canada, BOH and other pro fluoridation organizations are null an void. Certainly you are most welcome to wait for any review in the world but why add this toxin while waiting? What incentive do these organizations have to respond in a timely manner, we have already been waiting for more than 60 years to get a straight answer. If you are "open to persuasion" why are you not taking the city to bat to stop this madness?
"The Ontario Ministry of Environment takes guidance from Health Canada, and Administration will continue to comply with all provincially mandated drinking water regulations."
How is it that other jurisdictions don't comply? It is because the responsibility lies squarely with the city according to the above statement one can only conclude that the Health Canada and Ontario Ministry of Environment are asking the City to purposely violate:
1) Ontario Safe Drinking Water Act, section 20(1,3) - which specifically sates "Dilution no defence". also the food adulteration act
2) The fisheries act by polluting our lakes streams and rivers etc.
3) The Natural Health Products Regulations
4) Medical ethics as one dose does not fit all - ie mass medicating without a prescription
No one can force the city to damage their constituents health and pollute the environment period! Some jurisdictions don't - so why does London?
"Mr. Gupta characterized the Health Canada review as a delay tactic; stating “Amazingly they (Health Canada) are still reviewing this issue when they have already had 60+ years to figure all this out.” Guideline reviews such as this are regular occurrences. The scientific method is based upon the premise that our conclusions must be re-evaluated as new information becomes available. Health Canada conducts periodic reviews of its guidelines in order to include the most recent research in its decision making processes."
Toxicity of fluoride was well established prior to the start of water fluoridation it was known than that this substance is more toxic than lead then so why the need for regular reviews - unless it is, yet again, another ongoing stalling tactic?
For an historic overview see: The Fluoride Deception - Christopher Bryson
For the situation today see: Leading Dental Researcher Speaks out Against Water Fluoridation - Dr Hardy Limeback
For Environmental issue see: An Environmental Professional Speaks Out on Fluoridation
Here is a summary: Professional Prospectives
If you think that Health Canada is some benign and altruistic agency set up to protect the people, I have news for you.
This is the agency that kept trying to foist upon us pesticides on behalf of the industry when many, for years, were concerned about the harmful effects on health and the environment from cosmetic pesticide use. Health Canada used, like they are doing for fluoridation, our tax dollars travelling all over the country to defend the industry and fight the citizen concerns.
This is the same agency which tried their level best to contaminate our milk supply with Bovine Growth Hormone. This rogue agency went as far as firing its most conscientious scientists while attempting to do this! And sees to it that no one comes in its way. For a full account see Dr. Shiv Chopra's detailed account in Corrupt to The Core. The book is available at the London Library.
They already know from their own Health Canada 2009 Draft Review that 1 month old infants drinking powder milk-based formula, exceed the safe limit set by the Institute of Medicine by 3,300%. Have you been told?
As we speak this agency is still making excuses why genetically modified foods should not be labeled; supported the outmoded practice of putting toxic mercury fillings in our teeth; is defending the communication industry rather than protecting innocent children from RF (Radio Frequency) exposure; removing safe effective supplements to reduce competition to pharmaceuticals; holding honest hard working alternate health businesses at gun point while looking the other way on huge carnage from pharmaceuticals many of which they were aware of years before recall. Need I go on?
As for Dr. Pollett he seems to have disappeared never to be seen, heard or found after a presentation on this issue was made to the Board of Health which he chaired in Oct. 2008. He was supposed to get back with a remedy... Why don't you find out why after 2 years he still has not responded? Given that you keep throwing his name all over the place for good measure...
Crux of the matter:
The alphabetic soup agencies endorsements attached with your response are nothing short of an embarrassment. None of them can produce any credible double blind studies that show that hydrofluorosilicic acid is safe and efficacious when diluted at the level in our water. Why? Do you think that we should be adding any substance to our water which after 60+ years still has not got any animal and/or human safety studies?
Do you even wonder why these most basic of studies still have not been done and/or available? Obviously they know what they will find, hell even I can figure that one. Given that any such study can only show harm. Remember this is substance more toxic than lead! The strategy is to first make sure that there's no data at hand, then claim that there is no data on harm. As if absence of data is proof of safety - very clever indeed!
That's why they resort to dishonest plebiscites which don't tell the residents that what they intend to use is an industrial toxin to fluoridate their water. First bait the masses with glories of Fluoride and teeth and claim it a health benefit then switch to an industrial toxin. Do you really think that anyone, in their right mind will vote for or agree on lead, arsenic, mercury etc. being added to their municipal drinking water? Furthermore, one cannot medicate those who don't want to be this way. This will never stand a test in the courts as 51% of the people can't force the remaining to be medicated against their will. They do it because they know we can't afford to take them to court and if by chance we do they can use our tax money to fight back... The City's law department can verify the above, some municipalities in the Niagara Region did and exposed this scam thus removing this toxin in their water. I ask again why not London? See:
Fluorosilicates are a Source Water Concern
Hence your statement:
"London fluoridates its drinking water because the citizens of London voted in favour of fluoridation in a 1966 plebiscite."
is null and void.
I will only pick a few comments from all the diatribe you send from MOH (Ministry of Health)
"The practice of water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century."
What they are really saying is that putting something more toxic than lead not to mention all its co contaminants is the greatest "public health achievement" since sliced bread! My foot!
"Fluoride additives themselves are required to meet rigorous standards of quality and purity before they can be used, and, when added to water at levels recommended in Ontario and across the country, studies have determined that fluoride, is not harmful."
Really? By its own definition this toxic waste product is not pure! - These toxic waste products vary from batch to batch depending on source and location. Again where are the animal and/or human safety studies - not one of the ten studies cited includes such a study? Why? Most of these citations simply fall all over themselves blindly cheer leading each other on this despicable practice under guise of science. As usual their is no mention nor any concern of collateral damage from such a practice. When ever this is pointed out to them, they simply ignore the issue and start the teeth and fluoride equal health mantra and hope they can diffuse the issue. Since when did dentists become experts who can speak for toxicologists and MD's and claim that this practice is a public health measure? Even for teeth there is evidence of harm!
As for all the epidemiological studies spouted off in the in the MOH letter. Such studies are not proof of anything. All one can do with these armchair studies is spin theories from which formal studies maybe designed for proof - none exist! Why?
For Meta analysis such as the York "Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation. UK/International study. 2000" thrown in by the MOH for good measure, also cannot prove anything, at best these can only point towards designing proper studies for proof and at worst many are often used as a basis to show what ever one wants by cherry picking the data.
Finally, apart form all the self serving endorsements and citations in the MOH letter we have the conclusions of an "Expert Panel". These are designed to pull in experts from both sides to create an impression of impartiality. The outcomes are often predetermined usually even before the panel is established. This predetermined conclusion is then published with the name of all members leaving the impression that the panel has reached a consensus! You guessed it these too can't prove anything. At best a fair consensuses (in the case of fluoride it's hardly fair) can only project theories from which proper studies for poof maybe designed - nothing more.
A more in depth response to the MOH is here.
Here is what another constituent Rob Guthrie had to say:
From your reply it seems you would rather take at face value information presented to you rather than do independent research and thinking. If you did, you would discover that:
1. Any effect Fluoride may have in reducing cavities is topical, applied directly to the teeth, and not through ingestion.
2. There is no statistical difference in decline in cavity rates between countries which fluoridate their drinking water and those that do not (WHO). Why would there be? Drinking it is ineffective!
3. No dental or health agency has been able to explain when asked to validate the assumptions and calculations behind this miraculous $38 saving through fluoridation.
4. The CMOH has totally missed the point about poverty. The major correlate to tooth decay in children is family socio-economic status. Children of lower SES families have more cavities than children of higher SES families. This is a fact whether water is fluoridated or not fluoridated."
Chris Gupta P. Eng.
*Paul, it is clear that you and many in the council have been well indoctrinated on how to deal with this issue. Here is an extract from what Dr. Neil Farrell, Dental Director, Middlesex-London Health Unit, has been preaching to the City ever since the city was challenged to show the safety and efficacy of substances it is deliberately adding to our water.
"A small but well organized group of committed anti-fluoridationists has been urging municipal and regional councils to discontinue community water fluoridation claiming that fluoride in the drinking water is harmful. In 2008 alone at least 6 municipalities in Ontario (Dryden, Halton, Hamilton, Norfolk, Niagara Falls and Waterloo) were challenged to discontinue community water fluoridation. Two of these challenges have led to decisions by city or regional councils to not restart community water fluoridation.Concurrently the Government of Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment have also received several petitions from individuals to cease community water fluoridation...."
Extracted from: March 2009 - Hot Topic - Community Water Fluoridation in Ontario
Then they go on to say...
"....Nonetheless the small but vocal group persists in pursuing local authorities to stop community water fluoridation claiming health risks that are not supported in the scientific literature."
Wow, this is a first, we are to take it that something more toxic than lead is not harmful. By definition toxic substances are harmful!
Here is a free book with supporting scientific literature on "Fluoride Fatigue" by Dr. Spittle MB ChB, DPM
They must find it difficult. . .
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority.
Gerald Massey, Egyptologist
"Think for yourself and question authority as arguments from authority are just that and carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities") everything must be proven to be true."
Paul Hubert's response to my letter titled "Cost of adding Fluoride?"
Since you forward your letter to a list of people anonymously, perhaps you would be would also forward my response.
Let me be very clear. I take the safety of our water supply very seriously. I have reviewed scores of pages of information sent by various members of the community. I have met with staff and discussed with the health unit. We raised it at ETC committee of council. To suggest that we have ignored the issue is both factually wrong and blatantly misleading. Mr Chris Gupta has contacted me, members of administration and council on a number of occasions. He continues to ask the same question. He has been given an answer. It is his prerogative whether he agrees or not. I am awaiting Health Canada’s review. I am open to persuasion and would suggest that you address your concerns with Dr. Graham Pollett, Chief Medical Officer. Here is further information.
London fluoridates its drinking water because the citizens of London voted in favour of fluoridation in a 1966 plebiscite. All natural water sources contain fluoride. Water from deep wells can have very high natural fluoride levels, whereas water from surface sources typically has lower fluoride levels. London draws its water from Lakes Huron and Erie, which have relatively low fluoride levels. Controlled fluoridation raises the fluoride content to a more beneficial level for cavity prevention. This optimal level is recommended to the City of London by the Dental Director of the Middlesex-London Health Unit, and meets the guidelines set by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE).
Fluoridation of drinking water for the promotion of dental health is practiced by thousands of water systems in over 30 countries. Research into the health effects of water fluoridation has been ongoing for over 70 years and the world foremost dental and medical organizations support and promote the practice. Attached is a May, 2009 memorandum from the Office of the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Ontario which emphasizes the support for water fluoridation from the leading national and international health organizations.
To properly evaluate the multiple arguments put forward by groups opposed to water fluoridation requires a tremendous commitment of time and effort by informed medical professionals. Health Canada is currently conducting such an exercise, and publicly sought input from all concerned parties. This Health Canada review is evaluating all information available, including arguments such as those that were brought to your attention by Mr. Gupta.
In October 2008, Administration presented a report to ETC and Council advising that we had received correspondence from the Director, Dental Services, of the Middlesex-London Health Unit, suggesting that:
“City officials should reserve any decisions regarding the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, including conducting a public plebiscite, until after the results of the aforementioned review have been published.”
Mr. Gupta characterized the Health Canada review as a delay tactic; stating “Amazingly they (Health Canada) are still reviewing this issue when they have already had 60+ years to figure all this out.” Guideline reviews such as this are regular occurrences. The scientific method is based upon the premise that our conclusions must be re-evaluated as new information becomes available. Health Canada conducts periodic reviews of its guidelines in order to include the most recent research in its decision making processes.
London fluoridates its drinking water because the citizens of London voted in favour of fluoridation. The decision was not made by politicians or bureaucrats.
Health Canada is currently conducting a review of its “Fluoride in Drinking Water” guideline. In 2009, Health Canada posted a draft version of the revised guideline and asked for public comment. Those comments are being evaluated by Health Canada, and City Administration will review the final version of the guideline when it becomes available. The Ontario Ministry of Environment takes guidance from Health Canada, and Administration will continue to comply with all provincially mandated drinking water regulations.
posted by Chris Gupta on Friday October 22 2010
updated on Saturday July 2 2011
URL of this article:
Drinking Water Fluoridation is Genotoxic & Teratogenic
This paper by Prof. Joe Cummins is a very important 5 minute delegation made to London Ontario Canada "Civic Works Committee" public participation meeting on January 25, 2012 on fluoride*. While a bit technical it is short and easy to grasp. A must read as it goes to the heart of the matter regarding the well established toxicity of fluoride which is well in all scientific circles even before water... [read more]
February 06, 2012 - Chris Gupta
Democracy At Work? - PPM On Fluoride
Here is a commentary on the recent (Jan, 25th, 2011) Public Participation Meeting (PPM) on Fluoride in the City of London, Ontario. The meeting started with a strong pro fluoride stance form the City engineer. His lack of knowledge on chemistry of the toxic wastes used to fluoridate water could embarrass even a high school student never mind his own profession. He blatantly violated his "duty to public welfare" as... [read more]
January 29, 2012 - Chris Gupta
Why Remove Fluoride From Phosphate Rock To Make Fertilizer
Here is a bit of history that illustrates why they feed us hydrofluorosilcic acid in our water. Show this to those who ask why should the authorities slow poison us! "One of the main reasons for processing the raw phosphate rock for agricultural purposes is because of the fluoride content – mainly in the form of fluorosilicates/silicon tetrafluoride. Back in the early part of the 20th century when industrial farming... [read more]
June 09, 2011 - Chris Gupta