The following extract from the ISFR August 2008 Conference by Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH clearly shows increased mental retardation due to fluoride - one needs to be mindful of the of the fact that this shows a drop in IQ of all children but is easily overlooked in most with normal to high IQ. On the flip side, this needless, retardation clearly comes at the expense of those who could be potential genius' in our society - quite a price to pay!
See also:
1. NRC 2006 p 6
2. Lu Y, Sun ZR, Wu LN, Wang X, Lu W, Liu SS. Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence in children. Fluoride 2000; 33:74-8.
2 Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao RO. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 1995;28:189-92.
3 Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR. Effect of a high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 1996;29:190-2.
4. www.Fluoridealeart.org
What follows is a dramatic example on the effects of Fluoride on children.
Chris Gupta
-----------------------
Dr. Doris Rapp, MD, FAAA, FAEM, FAAP,Pediatric allergist and environmental medical specialist discusses one of her patients, an 8 year old girl who becomes depressed from ingesting fluoride.
After removing fluoride from her diet, this child's IQ went from 57 to 125 over a period of about 1 year, and her depression disappeared.
Third Reading of Bill C-6 is scheduled for next week's Senate Hearing. Please keep the letters going we need to delay the passing of C-6. The more we delay the better our chances of killing this bill. See example letters below
"Of course we all want our country to be safe from hazardous products. But let's not get suckered into believing that Health Canada's radical departure from our constitutional form of government is the only way to do it. There are simpler ways to accomplish Health Canada's professed objectives without trampling on our individual rights. We want consumers to be safe - without making business owners unsafe.
C-6 is the most protested piece of legislation in our entire 142-year history. Over 100,000 letters/faxes/emails received by senators and MPs attest to this fact. Listen to the people. We don't want legislation that violates our rights, especially when there are viable options which respect those rights.
Health Canada isn't telling the whole story. Yes, hazardous products do find their way into Canada. Yes, we need ways of minimizing these hazards. What Health Canada neglects to mention is that the Hazardous Products Act is working just fine. Voluntary recalls are up this year over last. What business person in his right mind isn't going to recall a dangerous product when asked to? Killing or injuring your customers isn't good for business.
Health Canada claims that they need mandatory recalls in order to do their job of protecting the public. If so, there is an incredibly simple solution: update the Hazardous Products Act to include mandatory recalls." DR
To send your letter please read the following and use a few introductory notes to the attachment (titled in red) below.
Cc: lebrem@sen.parl.gc.ca, HarpeS@parl.gc.ca, "'Day, Joseph A.'" <DAYJA@sen.parl.gc.ca>, mccoye@sen.parl.gc.ca,
Dear Recently Appointed Senators:
You are able to vote independently on Bill C-6. Please do. It will be much better for Canadians if you vote your conscience rather than follow the party lines which may have inadvertently led us to the brink of a legislative disaster.
Continue reading "C-6 = Legislative Disaster"
CDW Secretariat <water_eau@hc-sc.gc.ca> [CDW = Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, authors of report] Satish Deshpande <Satish.deshpande@ontario.ca> [Ontario Ministry of Environment, Department of Drinking Water Standards] Minister, MOE <minister.moe@ontario.ca> [Ontario Ministry of Environment] Environmental Commissioner of Ontario <commissioner@eco.on.ca>
For over 60 years we have been forced and subjected to water fluoridation without supportable scientific evidence on the efficacy of this substance. Now here again is - the total regurgitation of the same junk science*. It is abundantly clear that the panel for this Health Canada review was chosen specifically to continue this disgraceful tradition by deliberately cherry picking data to support a predetermined outcome!
Given the abundance of excellent science on Fluoride toxicity, it boggles the mind that this, supposed learned, panel could over look the following:
It is common sense, in that, we should not medicate anyone unless the dose is appropriate to the patient. Hence mass fluoride medication cannot be the same for a thirsty diabetic with comprised kidneys, a 3-year-old toddler and a 35-year-old construction worker. All should require different amounts of medication and not be subject to the same tolerances of this (or any) medication.
Clearly this dosage responsibility lies with each individual and her/his practitioner to determine for themselves.
How could this panel, of so called experts claim, such differing dosages are safe for all?
The real concerns of the community namely: the collateral damage such as, "impairments to the liver, kidney, brain, bones, pineal gland, thyroid, and yes - even teeth** (these too are clearly dependent on dosage and have severe effects on those with compromised nutrition, health and/or immune systems) are summarily ignored.
** They tell us that molted teeth from fluoridation of water is just a cosmetic effect. When in fact this is a proof positive sign of bone damage. In the British Medical Journal (B.M.J.), October 7, 2000 it is reported that 48% of children who live in fluoridated communities have developed dental fluorosis (damaged bone) due to fluoride overdose. Now then, if the bone is damaged how are you going to get fewer cavities? This demonstrates that ingesting of fluoridated water to reduce tooth decay is clearly a myth.
What expertize did this panel have on Fluoride's toxicity let alone on the untested waste substance hydrofluorosilcic acid (used to fluoridate) that contains variable quantities of arsenic, lead among other toxic residues?
We are not allowed to adulterate our foods with any amount of lead, arsenic etc. The panel failed to show, why such adulteration of water can be an exception?
Final submissions to the Canadian Drinking Water Secretariat (water_eau@hc-sc.gc.ca) are due this Friday, November 27, 2009. Please consider submitting a response to this document.
The well-known requirements of science are not sufficiently fulfilledin this document:
omission of citations for claims, (e.g., conflicting claims in the English and French translations had no citation to verify which claim was correct);
omissions of research which do not support conclusions, including research by panel members selected to do this review;
a review panel was chosen with conflicts of interest, and who demonstrate a lack of expertise in artificial water fluoridation;
misrepresentation the National Research Council Review 2006;
use of a double standard for claims of benefits and claims of harm whereby poor quality science demonstrating efficacy is accepted uncritically whereas claims of harm are dismissed if the evidence is not of the highest quality.
Any of the following peer-reviewed responses to the CDW secretariat are available for you to submit in whole or in part.
These articles are brought to you strictly for educational and informational purposes.
Be sure to consult your health practitioner of choice prior to any specific use of any of the non drug device or food based medicinal products referenced herein.
The Ads are not a an endorsement of the webmasters or writers on this site
and are simply a means to facilitate our ability bring you more information
not generally available via mainstream media. You are encouraged to take
matters in your own hands with the tools and ideas provided on this site and
elsewhere.
