Thu. Dec 3rd, 2020

BY DONNA WESTFALL

Almost two months ago I sent my last e-mail to one of the “prestigious” organizations that continues to endorse water fluoridation, the American Academy of Pediatrics.  As you read through our e-mail correspondence, you will notice that the spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics does not appear to know his subject very well.  After nearly two months of no response, I doubt that any further response will be forthcoming from AAP.

Here is a list (not complete) of other organizations that have stopped their endorsements or couched it in terms of “We neither endorse nor reject water fluoridation.”:

The American Heart Association

National Kidney Association

American Chiropractic Association

American Civil Liberties Union

American Cancer Society

American Academy of Allergies & Immunology

Society of Toxicology

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network

Here starts the e-mail exchange with the American Academy of Pediatrics

From: Donna Westfall <donnawestfall@yahoo.com>n
Subject: Re: endorsement of water fluoridation
To: “Hollis Russinof” <HRussinof@aap.org>
Date: Friday, August 31, 2012, 3:55 PM

LEGEND: HR = HOLLIS RUSSINOF, AAP response to Donna Westfall’s e-mail of 8/15/12 

KK = KATHERINE KELLY, PROPONENT OF MEASURE A IN CRESCENT CITY, CA. A moratorium to stop fluoridation until the supplier UNIVAR (formerly Basic Chemical Solutions)provides proof their product is safe for everyone and effective along with toxicological reports and a listing of contaminants.

 

DAW = DONNA WESTFALL, COUNCILWOMAN, CRESCENT CITY, CA

August 31, 2012

TO: Hollis RussinofAmerican Academy of Pediatrics141 Northwest Point Blvd.Elk Grove Village, IL 60007-1098hrussinof@aap.org

HR: Your observation that there is nothing on our Web site about hydrofluorosilic acid is correct. Hydrofluorosilic acidDAW:  (HFSA FOR SHORT) 

HR:  is one of three possible additives used by community water systems in the United States. (For an explanation of these additives, please see http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm). It is derived from a variety of sources and is, along with other products used in the treatment of drinking water, evaluated based on criteria set by NSF/ANSI Standard 60 (http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/standard61_overview.asp?program=WaterDistributionSys.) About half of all community water systems use hydrofluorosilic acid, and maximum levels of any/all additives are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Information on this can also be found at the CDC link above.

KK:  Wrong. HFSA is used in 90% of fluoridation schemes. It also comes from a specific source, by design, to dispose of difficult and expensive toxic waste. It comes DIRECTLY from the wet scrubbers of phosphate fertilizer factories. This product is more toxic than lead, nearly as toxic as arsenic, but has a protected pollutant status. There is no federal or state agency that vouches for the safety of the product (classified by EPA as a water CONTAMINANT and by the FDA as an UNAPPROVED DRUG). NSF admits it does not conform to NSF/ANSI Standard 60 (in Congressional testimony) and due to the arsenic content many batches contain more arsenic than is allowed in the water. How do they get away with this? They choose long intervals between testing for arsenic (in our case in Crescent City every 9 years).

HR:  Because we trust the science behind the work of the Centers for Disease Control,

KK:  The dental division of the CDC is a propaganda arm of the fluoridation movement, and they are financially and professionally invested

HR:  the Environmental Protection Agency

KK:  The EPA has no authority over putting this in the water, they only provide MCL and that is not protective as all other additives

HR:  and the National Science Foundation, we disagree with the assertion that the fluoride in use in the US is a “toxic soup.”

KK:  Look into HOW this stuff is created, the contents of the final “product” and then you will see that it is comprised of ALL toxic ingredients, better known as toxic waste byproducts.

HR:  To your question about toxicological reports on the effects of hydrofluorosilic acid over a lifetime, if you perform a Google search, as I did, you’ll find that the results will include information that both supports and disputes its toxicity. Again, we find that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the use of fluoride in drinking water.

KK:  Wrong again –The ONLY two toxicological studies on this particular product show that it doubles the amount of lead in children’s blood.

DAW:  Lead poisoning can cause learning, behavior and health problems in young children. Lead can cause high blood pressure and kidney damage in adults.

HR:  Dr. Wellman may have been referring to a caries rate of 70% for the entire state of California, specifically 3rd graders (see: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/OHSurveyDetailV.asp?StateID=6), dating from a survey in 2004-05. A rate of 70% would indeed be quite high.

KK:  It is 70% for just the Del Norte county area after 45 years of fluoridation.

HR:  Given the complexity of obtaining accurate local data on the prevalence of caries, and the fact that these data vary by the definition of severity, age range, race/ethnicity and income level, I would hesitate to draw a single conclusion –in this case, that fluoride has been ineffective. If the 70% rate is accurate for Crescent City alone, I would want to look into all the possible factors.

KK:  The “possible factors” are high starch and sugar processed foods and beverages with poor dental hygiene routines. Tooth decay is not caused by a deficiency of fluoride.

HR:  To the best of my knowledge, data on each city in America showing reduced caries rates after starting fluoridation and following those cities for 20, 30 and 40 years do not exist. Several specific studies are cited in this brief review article http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm, which also provides a historical perspective on community water fluoridation.

Our nation’s children do not suffer from a 41% rate of fluorosis.

KK:  Yes they do

DAW:  DITTO, YES THEY DO AND THEY’RE GOING UP– THAT’S HOW WE GOT THE FLUORIDE LEVELS REDUCED TO .7 PPM LAST YEAR AT THE CITY COUNCIL, WHY DON’T YOU KNOW THIS?

HR:  Please see http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm#prevalence. Adolescents aged 12-15 in 1999-2004 had a higher prevalence of dental fluorosis than the same age group in 1986-1987. The increase in dental fluorosis that we have seen in the US, due to an increase in the number of different sources of fluoride, is most prevalent among this age group. Within this age group, however, there was a 2.3% increase in moderate/severe fluorosis, a 4.5% increase in mild fluorosis, and an 11.3% increase in very mild fluorosis. The distinction between these levels is critical to an accurate understanding of the ‘disease’and the level of severity in the population.

I hope that you now have a more complete understanding of why the American Academy of Pediatrics endorses community water fluoridation. The controversy around fluoride is neither new nor will it soon be settled, so I trust that our conversation can conclude here.

DAW:  HOW CAN IT BE CONCLUDED OR SETTLED WHEN YOU HAVEN’T BEGUN TO DO THE RESEARCH? ARE YOU AWARE OF ALL THE SIDE AFFECT OF HFSA? WOULD YOU TAKE YOUR CHILD TO A DOCTOR THAT DIDN’T MONITOR THE DOSE OR KNOW THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE MEDICATION PRESCRIBED? YET YOU SO CAVALIERLY WANT TO POISON MILLIONS OF CHILDREN WITHOUT KNOWING THESE THINGS. WHY IS THAT? HOW CAN ANYONE IN AMERICA TAKE YOUR ORGANIZATION SERIOUSLY? DID YOU KNOW THAT SEIZURES ARE ONE OF THE SIDE EFFECTS? HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF YOU HAD TO BE ON ANTI-CONVULSANTS THE REST OF YOUR LIFE BECAUSE YOU WERE ALLERGIC TO HFSA? IT’S ABSURD TO THINK ORGANIZATIONS LIKE YOURS WHO DON’T KNOW HOW INEFFECTIVE HFSA IS FOR KIDS TEETH IS ENDORSING THE PRACTICE.

 

KK:  You are using the CDC as your only source of information and negating the mountain of science that goes against the agenda of an agency that protects putting pollution into our otherwise clean water and telling us it’s good for us. Studies show it does not reduce decay. All tooth decay trends are local. Globally the decay rates decreased at the same time for all areas of the WORLD after WWII. The so called studies that showed a decrease were of no value after you factor in the fact that fluoride delays eruption and after the tooth erupts the rate is the same for fluoridated vs nonfluoridated. The Grand Rapids/Muskegeon study and the Kingston/Newburgh studies are proof of this. The studies were halted when they started to show that fluoridation was not working. That is why there are no long term studies….they would not show a benefit.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Nature does not provide fluoride so high in breast milk. How arrogant of you to think you know more than Nature. Fluoridated water contains 200x more fluoride than breast milk FOR A REASON. It helps other toxins cross the blood/brain barrier. It also disrupts the eruption of teeth and formation of strong bones. See the New England Medical Journal, a study called Fluoride Treatment for Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis, the definitive word on the effect of fluoride on the bones, and you will see there is a strong link to making bones brittle.

FYI…a bit of irony: The CDC states that the preventative action of fluoride is topical, no need to swallow the stuff. But then they stand so staunchly for fluoridation. The American Dental Association and the CDC both say infants should not consume ANY fluoride. Yet both advocate putting it in our water and not bother to tell new parents. If you can’t put two and two together, if you insist on regurgitating political propaganda that has been PROVEN wrong, then maybe you should rethink your position as someone who is giving advice that is HARMING children. Are you aware that there are 25 studies showing a link between low IQ and fluoride? You SHOULD know this!!!!! Negligent is what you are. Do some real research and look at the real studies. It’s easy to say there are no studies showing harm if you do not look for yourself.

DAW:  ABOUT THE DOSE. DID YOU KNOW THAT WE’RE SUPPOSED TO BE CONSISTENTLY AT .7PPM. INSTEAD WE RUN AT .8 – 9+PPM. SO, WE HAVE OUR LOCAL WATER/HEALTH DEPTS THAT DON’T KNOW THE HEALTH HISTORY OF THEIR CONSUMERS, DON’T KNOW WHO IS ALLERGIC, DON’T PROVIDE A LIST OF THE SIDE EFFECTS OR CONTAMINANTS, AND DON’T KEEP THE DOSE CONSISTENT. IF YOUR DOCTOR DID THAT TO YOU, KNOW WHAT? YOU WOULD SUE THEM FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE. SO WHEN THE CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS START IN THE FUTURE, ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO OBJECTED TO BEING MEDICATED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT ARE GOING TO JUMP ON THAT BANDWAGON.

One thought on “BEWARE OF “PRESTIGIOUS” ORGANIZATIONS THAT ENDORSE HFSA/FLUORIDE”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.