Health Sciences Institute e-Alert,
 August 15, 2005

Dear Reader, Let's face it, Henrik Ibsen is just not as much fun as Neil Simon.

Safe to say that most of us are more familiar with Simon's "The Odd Couple" than Ibsen's "An Enemy of the People" (a dour five-act drama written in 1882). And although it's lean on comedy, this Ibsen script has striking parallels with a current health issue that affects nearly everyone in the U.S.

In "Enemy," a doctor discovers that the public baths in a small Norwegian town are contaminated. At first he's praised for his discovery. But when town officials discover that the baths will be expensive to repair and will need to shut down for two years, they balk at the effect this will have on the local economy. Through misinformation and innuendo the doctor's reputation is attacked, his career ruined and his family shattered. He vows to fight on, but at the end of the play the unhealthy (and possibly deadly) baths remain open.

Like I said: Ibsen is not as much fun as Oscar throwing a plate of Felix's spaghetti at the wall. But I thought of Ibsen's tale of public health pitted against political manipulation when I came across a report that reveals an appalling effect that fluoride may have when ingested by young boys.

Harvard's "odd couple"

As most HSI members are aware by now, nearly every public water supply in the U.S. is treated with fluoride. For six decades this policy has been accepted as a reasonable means of preventing tooth decay. Just one problem: Fluoride isn't good for us. And it's been shown to actually HARM teeth in some cases. Even more troubling: A number of studies have linked fluoride to as many as 10,000 cancer deaths each year, with a high incidence of bone cancer among men exposed to fluoride.

That bone cancer link has been confirmed by research results that have not been published. In fact, it appears that someone may have tried to bury those results.

Last month the Associated Press (AP) reported that Harvard University officials have launched an investigation into a 1992 study that found no statistically significant link between fluoride intake and bone cancer (osteosarcoma). The study was conducted by a Harvard Medical School professor who received a research grant for more than $1 million from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

The investigation was prompted by the recent uncovering of a 2001 thesis paper from a Harvard doctorial candidate in which data showed that boys who drink fluoridated water between the ages of five and 10 may have an increased risk of osteosarcoma. Some of the data in the student's study was taken from the 1992 study, raising the question: Did the professor of that earlier study intentionally bury or ignore data that would point to a link between fluoride intake and bone cancer?

And here's the kicker: The AP reports that the professor is editor in chief of the Colgate Oral Health Report; a quarterly newsletter. Colgate-Palmolive, of course, manufactures fluoridated toothpaste.

Selective oral health reporting

But the situation at Harvard isn't what made me think of the Ibsen drama. There's a much larger dilemma here than the possible misuse of a government grant.

A write up of the Harvard scandal that appeared in the UK newspaper The Observer speculated on fears of a growing recognition of the dangers of fluoride. If court decisions should ever begin to establish harm caused by fluoride, decades of litigation could be triggered throughout the U.S. And all of those costly lawsuits would be aimed at local governments. "Consequently," The Observer notes, "scientists have been inhibited from publicizing any adverse findings."

Just as in the Ibsen play, the identity of "The Enemy of the People" all depends on your perception of who is in the right and who is in the wrong.

And cancer isn't the only concern. In a Daily Dose e-letter titled "Fighting Back Against Fluoride" (10/31/03), William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., listed a few of the other health problems associated with fluoride intake:
In animal trials, fluoride has been shown to enhance the brain's absorption of aluminum (the toxin shown to contribute to Alzheimer's disease) Several osteoporosis studies have associated hip fractures with fluoride intake When too much fluoride is consumed, teeth can become discolored and crumble And how can you tell when you're consuming too much fluoride? You can't! This dental treatment, supplied by your local municipality (whether you want it or not), arrives in an unknowable dosage level. That's like your doctor saying, "You have no choice; you must take this medication. No one knows what the dosage is, so just take a lot of it."

Any doctor who tried that wouldn't be practicing medicine for long.

...and another thing

If the idea of living with fluoride in your body has you thinking about detoxification, that's a good thing. Unfortunately there are no detox procedures that will get rid of fluoride build up in bones and teeth, but an occasional detox CAN clear many other harmful toxins from the body and promote healthy weight loss as well.

If you'd like to try a fast and easy detox method that will help shed a few pounds, there's an excellent new approach to detox dieting developed by HSI Panelist and First Lady of Nutrition Ann Louise Gittleman, Ph.D., C.N.S.

I had planned to tell you a little bit about Dr. Gittleman's new book, titled "The Fast Track One-Day Detox Diet," but while browsing the HSI Healthier Talk community forums I came across several wonderful comments about the book posted by a member named Lolita. So I'll let Lolita give you the basics in her own words:

"I got a copy of Ann Louise Gittleman's new book 'One Day Detox'. It has really helped to rev up my metabolism by following her plan. I think she is on target about the need to cleanse the liver and colon prior to starting a weight loss program. I think even if you are not thinking about weight loss, eating to cleanse the liver and colon are important!

"There is a 7 day prequel to the one day detox. The prequel involves adding in veggies and fruits every day for 7 days into your diet. They are focused on those that help cleanse the liver and colon. Like: lemon and orange juice, dandelion leaves, garlic, onions, daikon radish... for the liver; for the colon, psyllium, flax, carrots, apples...

"On the 8th day you fast for the entire day. There is a cranberry juice mixture with lemon, orange juice plus cinnamon, ginger and nutmeg that you drink 8 oz every hr, and alternate hours you drink 8 oz of filtered water. I really found the fasting to be easy!

"She has lots of helpful suggestions and explanations on how liver, colon, and stomach health affect the ability to lose weight. Especially interesting was her description of low stomach acid impact on bile production, insulin regulation and diabetes/obesity! It seems that low stomach acid could lead a lot of folks to put on weight. Given the number of anti-acid pills on the market, I suspect that there are lots of folks with low stomach acid!"

"The Fast Track One-Day Detox Diet" has obviously won over Lolita, and I'm sure it will do the same for many other HSI members. You can find more information about the book at annlouise.com.

To Your Good Health, Jenny Thompson, http://www.healthiertalk.com

Sources:

"Harvard Looks Into Prof's Cancer Research" Denise LaVoie, The Associated Press, 7/14/05, wireservice.wired.com

"Fluoridated Water Can Cause Bone Cancer in Boys" The Observer, 6/13/05, taipeitimes.com

"Fighting Back Against Fluoride" William Campbell Douglass II, M.D., Daily Dose, 10/31/03, realhealthnews.com

 www.hsibaltimore.com

July 29, 2005

The Fluoride Flip-flop, part two

In the last Daily Dose, I told you about how something is rotten in the much-heralded Harvard University Department of Oral Health Policy. First, a doctoral student at the Ivy League institution concluded in a 2001 thesis that there was a strong link between levels of fluoride in public water and the incidence of bone cancer among boys.

But the head of that department, a man ironically also named Dr. Douglass presented a final report to his research benefactors that starkly contrasted to the conclusions his doctoral student came to about the correlation between osteosarcoma and fluoridated water: Namely, he claimed there was no such statistically significant link.

There's only one problem: His findings are based on some of the SAME RESEARCH that his 2001 doctoral student's fluoride-incriminating conclusion was derived from!

According to a recent Associated Press piece, Douglass' department received a $1.3 million study grant in 1992 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to further research a fluoride/bone cancer link an earlier U.S. Public Health Service study had pinpointed among young men in fluoridated-water areas. The resulting research, spanning 7 years and concluding in 1999, led to two divergent conclusions among researchers within the same Harvard department.

However, one of these researchers is the Editor-in-Chief of a newsletter funded by one of the biggest players in the militantly pro-fluoride toothpaste industry. I'll give you a hint: It's not the grad student.

Yes, you read that right. Despite his good name known for integrity, Mr. ....... is the figurehead mouthpiece for The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly publication paid for by the Colgate/Palmolive Corporation that serves the dentistry and toothpaste industries - and unmistakably promotes fluoride and fluoridation of public water.

Nah, there's no conflict of interest at play, is there?

At least one advocacy group thinks there is. According to the article, they've alleged "scientific misconduct" on the matter, and called on Harvard University to conduct an investigation of Douglass' ties to the fluoride-related industries. A spokesperson for Harvard claims that the school is convening a committee to check into the allegations...

I, for one, wouldn't need some bloated committee to conclude what's happening here. Fluoride-friendly forces have been trying to cover up this industrial toxin's link to bone maladies since 1970. In that year - less than 2 decades after public-water fluoridation became widespread in the U.S., by the way - a New York study showed a higher incidence of bone defects in fluoridated-water communities when compared to those where the water was non-fluoridated.

Couple this with the 1991 U.S. Public Health Service study and the 2001 Harvard thesis I outlined above that the dental industry is trying so desperately to downplay and anyone with half a brain would conclude that there's something about fluoride ingestion that's detrimental to the bones (duh! I've only been claiming this for 30 years).

But NO - before this research can take hold and be seriously considered, Mr. Harvard Department Head climbs out of the rich, silk lining of the dental lobby's pocket long enough to look at the SAME EVIDENCE and spin it into the opposite conclusion. The problem then goes away, because his credentials and connections overpower his former student's. End of story, most likely.

This is just another in a long line of shameless instances in which industry infiltration of the scientific community has resulted in findings favorable to that industry's interests. I'll keep you posted as this brouhaha develops, if it does indeed persist. I hope the story gets some more exposure in the press, but I won't hold my breath.

I'm just hoping the name "Dr. Douglass" isn't permanently sullied by this travesty. Defending my claim, and protecting my name,

William Campbell Douglass II, MD, http://www.realhealthnews.com 

Fluoride Levels Too High - National Academies
(What the Press Release Did Not Mention)

Copyright 2006 by Mary Sparrowdancer

March 26, 2006 - In what many are regarding as a first step in the long-awaited correction of a 60-year old nationwide medical mistake, a study by the National Academies�?National Research Council (NRC), sponsored by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has found that the current maximum levels of fluoride allowed by the EPA in drinking water should be lowered due to concerns over adverse health effects. The current maximum contaminant level of fluoride is 4 mg/L and the secondary maximum contaminant level is 2 mg/L. The NRC found that these levels are too high, “not protective�?of the population and the Council urged further studies.

Although the press release of this fluoride report states, “The report does not examine the health risks or benefits of the artificially fluoridated water that millions of Americans drink…�?the 576-page report cites numerous studies that describe adverse health effects associated with water fluoridation, and after reviewing this evidence, the committee concluded unanimously that the maximum contaminant level of fluoride in drinking water should be lowered. (1, 2)

The press release makes reference to tooth enamel discoloration as a side effect of excessive fluoride consumption, a risk factor for bone fractures and possibly bone cancer. Again, however, the 576-page report contains numerous studies showing an association between fluoride ingestion and a variety of other health problems that are now prevalent and widespread in The United States, where now two-thirds of the people are exposed to fluoridated drinking water. Among those now-prevalent conditions found in Americans of all backgrounds, are thyroid malfunction and GI problems.

Numerous studies are reviewed in the NRC report that indicate subclinical or malfunctioning thyroid is “associated with increased cholesterol concentrations, increased incidence of depression, diminished response to standard psychiatric treatment, cognitive dysfunction, and in pregnant women, decreased IQ of their offspring.�?(Page 198.) Additionally, their study reveals that a number of authors have reported enamel disorders in juveniles suffering from hypothyroidism. Yet, the possibility that dental fluorosis might actually be late-appearing signs of thyroid fluorosis and malfunction has not yet been studied in this country.

The NRC also reported on pages 231 and 236 that fluoride can “stimulate secretion of acid in the stomach…reduce blood flow away from the stomach lining…dilate blood vessels…increase redness of the stomach lining…and cause cell death and desquamation of the GI tract epithelium.�?

In referencing a 1961 study pertaining to GI complaints, the NRC tentatively states on page 230, “Perhaps it is safe to say that less than 1% of the population complains of GI symptoms after fluoridation is initiated (Feltman and Kosel, 1961).�?The “less than 1%�?figure based on the 1961 Feltman and Kosel report does not seem reasonable at the present, however, because we have new and better evidence than in the past of widespread gastric problems including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and acid reflux.

A population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, published in a 1997 issue of Gastroenterology also decried a lack of available data on GERD. “Gastroesophageal reflux is considered a common condition, but detailed population-based data on reflux in the United States are lacking.�?The findings of their study in Olmsted were, “The prevalence per 100 of heartburn and/or acid regurgitation experienced at least weekly was 19.8.�?Olmsted County was fluoridated 1959, and according to the CDC’s records, most of Olmsted is now fluoridated at 1.20 mg/L. (3, 4, 5,)

The IMS Health’s list of top ranking pharmaceuticals sales for 2005 also indicates a much greater prevalence of national GI problems. Two drugs that decrease stomach acid, Prevacid and Nexium, were among the top ten bestsellers, with sales for the combined products totaling 9.7 billion US dollars during 2005. The top seller for 2005 according to this report was Lipitor, a cholesterol-lowering agent, with sales of 12.9 billion US dollars. (6)

According to the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, approximately 27,000,000 Americans have thyroid disorders, but only about half of them are aware of it. In the RxList website’s, “Top 300 Prescriptions for 2004 by Number of US Prescriptions Dispensed,�?Synthroid, a thyroid drug, is ranked as the fifth most popular prescription, with a total of 44,056,176 prescriptions dispensed during that year. Lipitor, had the second highest number of prescriptions dispensed, at 69,766,431. The NRC states on Page 2 of their report that in 2000, there were approximately 162,000,000 people receiving water artificially fluoridated at levels of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. (7, 8)

One report studied by the NRC on page 194 showed “statistically significant changes in TSH concentrations (increased), T3 concentrations (decreased),�?following “prolonged consumption of ‘high-fluoride,’�?at 2.3 mg/L. On page 195, another study examined children in a high fluoride and low iodine area. The “high�?fluoride level in this study was �?.88 mg/L.�?The children were found to have a “lower mean IQ,�?as well as deviations in TSH and T3 levels. An additional study by Susheela et al. (2005), found “well-defined hormonal derangements�?in children with fluorosis from drinking water with �?.1 - 14.3 mg/L�?fluoride. On page 196, the NRC states that “studies showing no effect of fluoride on thyroid function did not measure actual hormone concentrations…did not report iodine intakes,�?and used lower fluoride doses than other studies.

“Thus,�?NRC stated on page 197, “several lines of information�?were reviewed that indicated fluoride exposure had an effect on thyroid function. The effects included decreased production of thyroid hormone, disruption of conversion of T4 to T3, and effects on blood transport - the details of which remain unclear. Also mentioned was the fact that some studies were not available in English.

The historic impact of this extraordinary report is immeasurable. I contacted Dr. Hardy Limeback - BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto - one of the twelve members of the NRC who had co-authored the report. I asked if there were any comments he might have.

His reply was, “I, for one, would look at the graph at the top of page194 and ask, ‘Are undernourished black children in fluoridated cities (1 ppm) more susceptible to thyroid problems than those living in non-fluoridated cities, as that graph might suggest?�?Perhaps. As far as I know, we have no data for this problem in North America.�?/FONT>