March 21, 2019

Archives for March 2013

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 31-Mar-2013

Treated water the clue to mystery symptoms

By: Chloe Johnson, The New Zealand Herald, Wellington, New Zealand 31-Mar-2013

Every Sunday morning, Stephen Hiscock travels 20 minutes for clean drinking water.

Anyone would think he lived in a Third World country.

But Hiscock, an electrical engineer, lives with his wife and 6-year-old son in the heart of Wellington.

The 38-year-old has suffered from a range of undiagnosed issues including ongoing complications in his stomach, back and eyes.

He says the issues began when he moved to the capital, where the water is fluoridated.

Wellington dentists also placed fluoride-releasing fillings in his teeth which he claims heightened his health issues.

“I lived in Christchurch for 10 years and I was okay down there, but I came here and my health went rapidly downhill,” he says.

Hiscock has spent thousands of dollars on doctors’ visits for a diagnosis of his “broken body”.

Medical specialists have investigated epilepsy, thyroid disease, testicular cancer and auto-immune disease.

But every blood test, scan and examination came back negative.

“I try to be as healthy as possible,” Hiscock says.

“I exercise, eat organic food, I don’t drink at all, don’t smoke or take any kind of drugs.”

Fed up with being sick, and accused of being a hypochondriac, he began researching his symptoms in medical journals and on the internet.

Hiscock believes he is among the small percentage of people who are hypersensitive to water fluoridation.

Hiscock no longer drinks water from the city’s tap. Instead, he travels to Petone where the artesian water supply is non-fluoridated. “There is large reservoir of crystal-clear water in Petone and Lower Hutt, so my wife and I fill up 20-litre bottles each week.

“Since drinking and cooking with exclusively fluoride-free water, almost all of my major symptoms have slowly gone away.”

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 28-Mar-2013


By: The Hot Press Newsdesk, Hot Press, Dublin, Ireland 28-Mar-2013

After considering the evidence, Daniel M. Merfeld, Ph.D. Professor of Otology and Laryngology at Harvard Medical School states that fluoridation is ineffective…

A leading U.S. medical academic has come out strongly against fluoridation of drinking water. Daniel M. Merfeld, Ph.D. Professor of Otology and Laryngology at Harvard Medical School, is the latest influential medical professional to openly oppose fluoridation. Over the past four issues of the magazine, Hot Press has been investigating Ireland’s policy of mandatory fluoridation. Professor Merfeld in effect endorses the views expressed in Hot Press by critics of fluoridation, including the scientist Declan Waugh. “Most European countries do not fluoridate their water, because such mass medication is considered ineffective and unethical,” he states.

Having looked at all the evidence in great detail, Professor Merfeld confirms the view of fluoridation as “mass medication” and outlines why he opposes mandatory fluoridation.

“There are,” he says, “three indisputable facts with regards to fluoridation:

1) “Fluoridation provides an uncontrolled fluoride dose.

2) “Fluoridation began before research showed that fluoride’s benefits were due to topical application not ingestion.

3) “Fluoridation began before all its side effects were known. When water is fluoridated, the dose is uncontrolled as the amount ingested varies with water intake. Can you imagine your health care professional telling you to just put your prescription drugs in your water, ingest the drugged water when you are thirsty, and go ahead and share your drugged water with others? Of course not! In fact, most European countries do not fluoridate their water, because such mass medication is considered ineffective and unethical.”

In his detailed analysis, Dr. Merfeld states that fluoridating water appears neither necessary nor effective.

“The Oral Health Division of the Center of Disease Control (CDC) acknowledges that fluoride’s benefit comes from topical contact. Brushing your teeth with a toothpaste containing fluoride is the most common topical application.

“Swallowing fluoride provides no known benefits,” he adds. “An article in the Journal of the American Dental Association (ADA) indicates no known benefit before the teeth emerge, when topical contact with fluoride becomes possible. So why do some think that fluoridation is effective? The answer appears straightforward – cavity rates decreased and dental health improved after fluoridation began. But better dental care has improved dental health and reduced the number of cavities everywhere, even in communities without fluoride.

“In fact,” the professor states, “research shows no significant difference in the number of cavities for US communities with and without fluoride in the drinking water. As another example, the vast majority of West European countries do not fluoridate; yet the dental health of Western Europe is no worse than for US communities that fluoridate.”

Professor Merfeld also deals with the ethical issue, and how the chemical is known to cause dental fluorosis.

“It is accepted that fluoridation causes severe problems for some individuals,” he points out. “Kidney patients are told to avoid fluoride, and the CDC recommends that bottled water with less fluoride be used when mixing infant formula. Furthermore, fluoride is known to cause dental fluorosis (a developmental disruption of dental enamel that yields tooth discoloration) in millions of children. Finally, while not yet conclusive, there is a growing body of peer-reviewed research, including a very recent publication by colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health, that links higher levels of fluoride in children’s drinking water with reduced IQ.”

Another point that Professor Merfeld addresses is that fluoridating water imposes the uncontrolled delivery of a drug on citizens.

“If you want to ingest fluoride, you can get fluoride tablets from your pharmacy, but you will need a prescription,” he says. “Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It is a medication that the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulates as a drug. If you read the fluoride tablet page in the online Physicians’ Desktop Reference for Consumers, it notes, ‘This drug has not been found by FDA to be safe and effective’. Yet fluoride is mass distributed via water.” (Our emphasis)

Across the world, opposition to fluoridation is growing, and Professor Merfeld makes it absolutely clear that this must be taken seriously by the relevant authorities.

“About 70 communities (in the US) have rejected fluoridation since 2010. Civil rights leaders oppose fluoridation because its negative side effects disproportionately impact poor communities. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters Professionals’ Union, which represents knowledgeable scientists, lawyers, and other environmental professionals, opposes fluoridation. Many scientists, including Nobel Prize winners, oppose fluoridation. Finally, the US National Research Council of the National Academies published a comprehensive review in 2006 that concluded that the current EPA standard was not adequately protecting health and, based on the available evidence at that time, recommended that the maximum contaminant level for fluoride be lowered. This recommendation placed the maximum contaminant level near the level provided via fluoridation.”

The campaign against fluoridation of the water supply in Ireland is gathering momentum. Hot Press writer Adrienne Murphy, who has carried out the Hot Press investigation into fluoridation yesterday appeared on the Today programme on RTE, emphasising the importance of the 27 Questions which Hot Press has asked of the Minister in charge of fluoridation policy, Alex White. Hot Press is currently awaiting answers from the Minister.

“After considering a great deal of evidence, the benefits of fluoridation do not seem to justify the risks. This is my personal decision,” declares Merfeld, before concluding:

“If you decide fluoride is right for your family, I suggest that you consider a topical application by using toothpaste with fluoride. You can even choose to swallow toothpaste, but due to the fluoride content that is not recommended. Given this, does it make sense to swallow water with fluoride? Nonetheless, if you decide that ingesting fluoride is right for you, I respect your decision. Each of us regularly makes personal health decisions, often in consultation with health-care providers, without impacting others. This provides an ethical approach for fluoride as well. Why force fluoride on anyone, especially those who are sensitive to its side effects?”

Read Merfeld’s entire argument, here.

There is further debate, expert international views and coverage in the latest issue of Hot Press available, in shops now.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 28-Mar-2013

Fluoride debate not settled in Windsor

By: Luke Simcoe, Metro Windsor, Windsor, Ontario 28-Mar-2013

Fluoride may no longer be in the city’s water supply, but the debate over the substance is far from over in Windsor.

Speaking with Metro Thursday, Ward 9 councillor Hilary Payne said he was considering asking council to add a question about fluoride to the 2014 municipal ballot.

“We heard from a vocal minority, now we should hear from the silent majority,” he said.

Along with Jo-Anne Gignac and Fulvio Valentinis, Payne voted against ending fluoridation back in January.

“It just wasn’t right,” he said. “It ran totally against the position of all levels of government in Canada. It ran against the opinion of all the dentists.”

Payne is worried the legacy of council’s decision will be poor oral health among the city’s children, particularly those from low-income families that may not have dental coverage.

Before he decides to push for the ballot initiative, Payne said he wants to research fluoridation and also visit Waterloo, Ont., where a 2010 referendum to remove fluoride passed by only 0.3 per cent.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 28-Mar-2013

Two Environmental Groups Oppose Portland Fluoride Plan

By:, Portland, Oregon 28-Mar-2013

Two environmental groups have announced their opposition to Portland’s plan to fluoridate the city water supply. Both the Sierra Club and Columbia Riverkeeper say the health benefits don’t outweigh environmental risks.

Portland voters will decide in May whether the city should go forward with its fluoridation plan.

“The Sierra Club’s position is, we don’t need more chemicals in our water,” said Antonia Giedwoyn, a Sierra Club spokeswoman. “We should be working to reduce the number of chemicals in our water.”

Giedwoyn acknowledged Portland already adds products like chlorine and ammonia to the city’s water, but she said her group does not take a position on chemicals added for potability.

She points to a 1989 study near the John Day Dam. It found fluoride released in the Columbia hindered the survival of wild salmon.

Fluoride supporters argue that study didn’t explore much lower levels of fluoridation.

Mel Rader with Upstream Public Health, a group that supports fluoridation, said adding fluoride at the recommended level would have no measurable effect on the Columbia River.

Another regional group, Willamette Riverkeeper chose not to take a position, given the available research.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 27-Mar-2013

Sierra Club takes stand against Portland fluoride

By: AP and, Portland, Oregon 27-Mar-2013

The Sierra Club is opposing a ballot measure to add fluoride to Portland’s drinking water.
A spokeswoman for the Oregon chapter of the nation’s largest environmental organization said Wednesday that fluoridation would “degrade some of the purest drinking water in the world.”

The Portland City Council last year unanimously approved a plan to add fluoride. Until the vote, Portland was the largest city in the U.S. yet to approve water fluoridation to combat tooth decay.

Opponents, however, quickly gathered more than 30,000 signatures to force a referendum that’s set for May 21.
“Kids are already bombarded with multiple toxins from plastics, pesticides and air pollution,” Sierra’s Columbia Group spokesperson Antonia Giedwoyn said. “Adding fluorosilicic acid, a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, to Portland’s water would be a profound disservice to or children.”

Dental experts say fluoride is effective in fighting cavities.

Opponents of public fluoridation say it’s unsafe and violates an individual’s right to consent to medication.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 27-Mar-2013

Sierra Club opposes Portland fluoridation measure

By: Steven DuBois, Associated Press,, Portland, Oregon 27-Mar-2013

The Sierra Club and two other environmental groups announced Wednesday they are opposing a ballot measure to add fluoride to Portland’s drinking water.

The groups contend that adding fluoride to water would harm people and aquatic life, and outweigh any benefits to dental health.

“Sierra Club opposes fluoridation because it would degrade some of the purest drinking water in the world,” said Antonia Giedwoyn, a spokeswoman for the local chapter of the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental organization. “Kids are already bombarded with multiple toxins from plastics, pesticides and air pollution.”

The Portland City Council last year unanimously approved a plan to add fluoride. Until the vote, Portland was the largest city in the U.S. yet to approve water fluoridation to combat tooth decay. Opponents, however, quickly gathered more than 30,000 signatures to force a referendum that’s set for May 21.

Many in Portland and the state have long opposed public fluoridation, saying it’s unsafe and violates an individual’s right to consent to medication. While nearly 75 percent of the U.S. population drinks water treated with fluoride, the rate is less than 25 percent in Oregon.

The issue presents a clash between liberal desires to improve the dental health of low-income children and refrain from putting anything unnecessary in the water. Giedwoyn, who said the national Sierra Club allows its chapters to take positions on local issues, said the group supports comprehensive dental care for children, “but this is the wrong path to that goal.”

Two other environmental groups, Columbia Riverkeeper and Food and Water Watch, joined the Sierra Club in opposing Portland’s fluoridation measure.

Columbia Riverkeeper said in a news release that the Columbia and many of its tributaries already have “an overload” of toxic chemicals, and Portland has not adequately evaluated the impact of fluoridation will have on salmon.

Mel Rader, the co-director of pro-fluoride Upstream Public Health, responded to coordinated criticism with a statement that notes the Columbia already has naturally occurring fluoride.

“Fluoridation in Portland would not increase the fluoride level in the river by a detectable amount, and would be far less than the natural variability of the river, resulting in no effect on aquatic life, including salmon,” he said.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 27-Mar-2013

Fight over fluoride may hit 2014 municipal ballot

By: Michael Michalski, OurWindsor.Ca, Windsor, Ontario 27-Mar-2013

The fluoride may be gone but the fight may not yet be over.

Windsor city councilor Hilary Payne has told that he is considering asking council to support a measure that would put the question of whether to add (or not add) fluoride to the Windsor water supply on the 2014 municipal ballot.

“I’m thinking about doing that. This way, we can let the public decide,” said Payne. “The evidence supporting fluoridation is so overwhelming that it is beneficial and safe, all the way from Health Canada to the provincial (level) to the local health units.

“Even the dentists – who stand to gain in (removing the fluoride) were in favor of fluoride.

“(Lobbying for a public vote) is certainly an option at this point.”

Fluoridation officially came to an end in Windsor this past Monday, following more than a half-century of inclusion as a means of fighting tooth decay. The move came as a result of city council voting 8-3 to remove the chemical back in late January. Along with Payne, the only other councilors against removing fluoride were Jo-Anne Gignac and Fulvio Valentinis.

Payne, who sits on the board of the Windsor Essex Health Unit, said he is still baffled by the decision to end the practice.

“The vocal minority won out,” he said. “And when I say vocal minority, it really seemed to only be one small family in particular. It really was bizarre.

“No experts (on their behalf) were presented and they really didn’t make a case, yet, council voted for it.

“I have a strong belief that ending fluoridation will mean more tooth decay. All the experts agree with that, and all the experts agree it poses no harm to anyone. It’s going to harm my grandchildren and future generations.”

The Windsor water supply also supplies residents of LaSalle and Tecumseh.

Some $125,000 normally allotted for adding fluoride to the water supply will now be shifted into oral health and nutrition education through the region. However, Payne said the savings will not be nearly enough to offset the increase in alternative methods of controlling and treating tooth decay.

“It’s going to end up costing us much, much more,” he said.

Town (Amherstburg, Ontario) makes removal of fluoride from drinking water permanent

By: Ron Giofu, Amherstburg River Town Times, Amherstburg, Ontario 27-Mar-2013 – The town of Amherstburg has officially decided to remove fluoride from its drinking water for good.

Deputy Mayor Ron Sutherland’s motion to permanently remove fluoride from drinking water and to seek amendments to the water treatment plant’s license was passed at town council’s most recent meeting.

“I think it’s long overdue and time to move ahead with permanently removing fluoride from our system,” said Sutherland.

Town council had placed a moratorium on adding fluoride to drinking water at a meeting in Feb. 2012. Director of engineering, and  infrastructure Lou Zarlenga said the town hadn’t used fluoride in its water dating back to April 26, 2011. Sutherland said the cost of adding fluoride back into the water supply would be “astronomical” and believed it was time to make the absence of fluoride permanent.

Councillor John Sutton agreed it was “time to move to the next step” but wanted to ensure it was because it was due to health considerations and not simply a financial move.

“We’ve got to make sure we’re doing it for the right reasons,” said Sutton.

Sutton said there were numerous studies on both sides of the issue but until a definitive study showing the demonstrable health benefits was performed, he saw no point in adding it back into the municipal water system.

Mayor Wayne Hurst hoped for federal and provincial levels of government to study and give consistent policies and procedures for municipalities to follow.  He said senior levels of government need to “step in and do what they should be doing.”


Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 27-Mar-2013

Environmental groups say no to fluoride in Portland water

By: Steve Law, Portland Tribune, Portland, Oregon 27-Mar-2013

The Portland chapter of the Sierra Club came out Wednesday against the water fluoridation measure on Portland’s May ballot, along with Columbia Riverkeeper and Food and Water Watch.

The Sierra Club’s opposition to Ballot Measure 26-151 should be an important boost for critics, who figure to get outspent in the campaign.

The Sierra Club, the nation’s largest and oldest environmental group, delegated the decision to its local chapter, which spent several weeks studying the measure before issuing its decision.

“Sierra Club opposes fluoridation, because it would degrade some of the purest drinking water in the world,” said Antonia Giedwoyn, spokeswoman for the club’s Columbia Group, in a prepared statement. “Kids are already bombarded with multiple toxins from plastics, pesticides and air pollution,” she wrote. “Adding fluorosiliciic acid, a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, to Portland’s water would be a profound disservice to our children.”

Most environmental groups are staying out of the fight over fluoridation.

The Sierra Club was one of the few environmental groups opposing the Portland City Council’s vote last September to fluoridate Bull Run water, based on the national organization’s position that such matters should be put on the ballot.

The club argues that fluorosilicic acid, a common chemical used by major metropolitan areas for fluoridating, can increase the risk of bone cancer, neurological impairment, thyroid dysfunction and other ailments.

“We can better serve Portland kids by increasing their access to dental care and prevention,” said Sheila Golden, chairwoman of the Columbia Group’s Bull Run Task Force.

Columbia Riverkeeper, which timed its announcement to coincide with the other groups, pointed out that 215,000 pounds of fluoride concentrations will be poured into drinking water each year. “Simply pointing out that our rivers will dilute the fluoride pollution is not a solution,” said Brett VandenHeuvel, the group’s executive director, in a prepared statement.

Historically, he noted, fluoride discharged into the Columbia River by aluminum plants impacted salmon migration.

Food & Water Watch also issued a letter of opposition in tandem with the other two organizations.

Brewer’s ‘Daily Dose’ 27-Mar-2013


By: Adrienne MurphyHot Press, Dublin, Ireland 27-Mar-2013

When Aisling FitzGibbon was alerted to the toxic nature of fluoride, she removed it from her drinking water – with remarkable results in terms of improved health. Now she is taking a case against Ireland’s mandatory fluoridation…

Aisling FitzGibbon had suffered from depression and low energy for several years. A native of Tralee in Co. Kerry, by the time she qualified as an occupational therapist aged 23, FitzGibbon’s mental and physical health were on the point of collapse.

“I was going to doctors, and I was being treated with anti-depressants, but I wasn’t getting better,” she recalls. “In fact I was getting worse, to the point where my whole life-quality had diminished. That’s why I had to seek another solution. I wouldn’t have known about fluoride toxicity unless I’d been forced into finding out about it.”

In a bid to help herself, FitzGibbon enrolled for a course at the College of Natural Nutrition in Exeter, Devon. Here she heard for the first time about the health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. She was advised to filter the fluoride and other contaminants out of the water she used for drinking and cooking back home.

“I started filtering my water, underwent a de-tox programme and came off all medications,” says FitzGibbon. “My energy levels had collapsed, but they started coming back up, and my whole system started to regenerate. After seven months, I was completely better.”

Is there a scientific explanation for the improvement?

“Fluoride interferes with thyroid function,” explains FitzGibbon, who is currently studying nutritional therapy. “People with depression often have either under-active or over-active thyroids, which may not come up in medical tests because they could be at sub-clinical levels. There are huge numbers of people in Ireland and the US, which also fluoridates, who suffer from thyroid illness.

“I’ve met people that didn’t have any thyroid problems until they moved to Ireland and started drinking the water here,” she adds. “It seems to be an epidemic in Ireland – the amount of young people who have depression or thyroid problems, or whose energy levels are impaired. I even met a young person who had to have his thyroid glands removed because they’d become so dysfunctional.”

Spurred into taking a deeper look at the effects of fluoride, Fitzgibbon is convinced of its pernicious impact on people’s health.

“It’s not just the thyroid and mental health,” she continues. “Fluoride causes health problems across the board. It’s only in recent years that people are really beginning to understand the effects that fluoride is a cumulative toxin. It may not harm you over a short period, but it will, over time, build up in the body and cause various problems, depending on your genetics and the different deficiencies that you might have.”

It was FitzGibbon’s own experience of the dramatic health improvement that occurred on removing fluoride from her diet, bolstered by what she subsequently learned through research, which convinced the young Kerrywoman to don the mantle The Girl Against Fluoride.

“I’m determined,” she asserts, “that to help people in Ireland to improve their health, I’m going to work very hard to get fluoride out of the water here.”


Ireland has been fluoridating the water supplies since 1964. “Since then,” says FitzGibboon, “fluoride has never once been tested for safety to assess its impact on human health, even though under the 1960 water fluoridation health act, the government was required to test for possible adverse health effects, should reasons to suggest ill effects arise.

That failure to test represents a blatant dereliction of responsibility on the part of the authorities. Worse than that, however, is the mendacious disregard for the truth which is manifest in the State’s response when their policy is challenged.

“The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, which was set up to advise the government in 2004, keep saying that there are no ill-effects, and that there are no studies worldwide to show there’s any harm,” Aisling says. “So the Department of Health keeps coming back with the same reply – that it’s a safe and effective way to prevent dental decay, and that there’s no scientific evidence to show any ill-effects. But, in fact, the opposite is true. There’s a massive amount of reliable, international scientific evidence showing that fluoride poses a serious health risk.

“The rest of Europe has decided that it is harmful and unethical to mass-medicate a country with chemicals in the water that have never once been tested for safety,” FitzGibbon adds. “And there are huge grassroots campaigns in America, Canada, Australia and other fluoridated countries, that are fighting to get rid of fluoride, and succeeding. Pressure from grassroots movements is the way that it’s being stopped. It may be difficult for governments to turn around and say, ‘Sorry, we’ve been doing this wrong for decades’. But once there’s enough public pressure, they’ll have to stop.”

This summer, The Girl Against Fluoride is taking a case against the Irish State over its mandatory water fluoridation policy, on the grounds that involuntary exposure to fluoride is a breach of her human rights because it interferes with her bodily integrity. FitzGibbon’s legal team are working pro bono, and they are determined to take the case to Europe if necessary.

“Germany stopped fluoridation decades ago on ethical grounds, because it’s unethical to mass-medicate an entire population,” explains FitzGibbon. “No doctor would prescribe the same medication for an infant as they would for an adult, or for a person who has kidney disease or thyroid disease or any other health problems. You don’t even need to debate the science to know that mass-medication is against our human rights. There’s no way you can monitor the amount of fluoride that people are ingesting, or the impact it’s having on an individual person.”


FitzGibbon isn’t the first Irish female to challenge the State on fluoridation. Dublin woman Gladys Ryan – who died last February 23, aged 91 – took a High Court action in the early 1960s to prevent the addition of fluoride to the national water supply, on the grounds that it was unconstitutional to interfere with public water because people had no option but to drink it. Unfortunately for ensuing generations, Ryan lost her challenge.

Gladys Ryan’s bravery has been an inspiration to Aisling FitzGibbon, who says she is taking her own case in Ryan’s honour.

“For the court case to be successful, we need people to back it, not necessarily with money, but with their presence,” urges FitzGibbon. “We need people demanding an end to water fluoridation. We’ve had a massive amount of support so far, via the website and facebook. It’s growing into a strong grassroots campaign. We’re urging more people to come on board and help spread the real information on fluoride, especially since the government is suppressing it. People think fluoride is an innocent substance, because it’s in toothpaste. But the trucks that deliver it to the water treatment plants have a ‘corrosive acid’ warning on their sides. Fluoride is so corrosive that in its raw form it can burn through concrete. The person putting it into the water has to wear a full body suit.

“What we’re saying in our argument is that fluoridation should be stopped on the precautionary principle,” FitzGibbon concludes. “Alarm bells have to ring when you realise that the rest of Europe either never started to fluoridate, or else stopped in the ’70s and ’80s. Countries that don’t have fluoride have better dental decay rates than we do. Thalidomide, tobacco, asbestos – they were all going to be safe, and were pushed on people, and it was only through casualties that society realised how dangerous they were. We owe it to ourselves and our children to put a stop to this now.”

For more information, visit, and Also watch ‘The Fluoride Deception’ and ‘Fluoridegate’ on YouTube.