Paul working for you.

Friday, August 30, 2019

Study raises questions about fluoride and children’s IQ

Study raises questions about fluoride and children’s IQ


(iStock)

A study of young children in Canada suggests those whose mothers drank fluoridated tap water while pregnant had slightly lower IQ scores than children whose mothers lived in non-fluoridated cities. But don’t dash for the nearest bottled water yet. Health experts at the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Dental Association cautioned that public policy and drinking water consumption should not change on the basis of this study.

“I still stand by the weight of the best available evidence, from 70 years of study, that community water fluoridation is safe and effective,” said Brittany Seymour, a dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association. If we’re able to replicate findings and continue to see outcomes, that would compel us to revisit our recommendation. We’re just not there yet.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics, likewise, recommends fluoride in toothpastes and tooth varnishes for children because the mineral prevents tooth decay. In drinking water, “fluoridation has been incredibly protective,” said Aparna Bole, a pediatrician who chairs the Council on Environmental Health at the American Academy of Pediatrics. Fluoridation reduces the prevalence of cavities by about one-fourth, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC considers water fluoridation one of the 10 top health achievements of the past century, on par with vaccines and antismoking campaigns.
Bole called the new study, published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics, “an important addition to our body of knowledge. It supports the public health community’s ongoing reevaluation of optimal fluoridation levels in drinking water.”

In January 1945, researchers added fluoride to municipal water in Grand Rapids, Mich., the first program to enlist fluoride to protect a city’s teeth. Opponents of fluoridation have since raised concerns both ludicrous — fluoridation is not a communist plot — and legitimate, such as fluorosis. In the mild form of fluorosis, faint white streaks appear on the teeth of young children. Severe fluorosis, which is much rarer, damages bones.

Dozens of cities in the United States and Canada, such as Portland, Ore., and Vancouver, do not add fluoride to city water. Elsewhere in the United States, fluoridation is the norm. As of 2014, per CDC data, two-thirds of people in the United States had fluoride in their drinking water. In 2015, to reduce the risk of mild fluorosis, the Department of Health and Human Services cut its fluoride recommendations almost in half, from 1.2 milligrams per liter to 0.7 milligrams per liter.

Few older studies addressed potential risks, or the lack thereof, associated with fluoride exposure during pregnancy, said study author Christine Till, a neuropsychologist at Toronto’s York University. She added that “whether we found an effect or not, the data would be really relevant because we would then address that gap in our knowledge.”

Friday, August 23, 2019

The Manufacturing of Bone Diseases: The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia

The Manufacturing of Bone Diseases: The Story of Osteoporosis and Osteopenia

Views 189439
The present-day definitions of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis were arbitrarily conceived by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 90's and then projected upon millions of women's bodies seemingly in order to convince them they had a drug-treatable, though symptomless, disease.
Osteopenia (1992)[i] and Osteoporosis (1994)[ii] were formally identified as skeletal diseases by the World Health Organization (HTO) as bone mineral densities (BMD) 1 and 2.5 standard deviations, respectively, below the peak bone mass of an average young adult Caucasian female, as measured by an x-ray device known as Dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA, or DEXA). This technical definition, now used widely around the world as the gold standard, is disturbingly inept, and as we shall see, likely conceals an agenda that has nothing to do with the promotion of health.

Deviant Standards: Aging Transformed Into a Disease

A 'standard deviation' is simply a quantity calculated to indicate the extent of deviation for a group as a whole, i.e. within any natural population there will be folks with higher and lower biological values, e.g. height, weight, bone mineral density, cholesterol levels. The choice of an average young adult female (approximately 30-year old) at peak bone mass in the human lifecycle as the new standard of normality for all women 30 or older, was, of course, not only completely arbitrary but also highly illogical. After all, why should a 80-year old's bones be defined as "abnormal" if they are less dense than a 30-year old's? 
Within the WHO's new BMD definitions the aging process is redefined as a disease, and these definitions targeted women, much in the same way that menopause was once redefined as a "disease" that needed to be treated with synthetic hormone replacement (HRT) therapies; that is, before the whole house of cards collapsed with the realization that by "treating" menopause as a disease the medical establishment was causing far more harm than good, e.g. heart disease, stroke and cancer.

As if to fill the void left by the HRT debacle and the disillusionment of millions of women, the WHO's new definitions resulted in the diagnosis, and subsequent labeling, of millions of healthy middle-aged and older women with what they were now being made to believe was another "health condition," serious enough to justify the use of expensive and extremely dangerous bone drugs (and equally dangerous mega-doses of elemental calcium) in the pursuit of increasing bone density by any means necessary.  
One thing that cannot be debated, as it is now a matter of history, is that this sudden transformation of healthy women, who suffered no symptoms of "low bone mineral density," into an at-risk, treatment-appropriate group, served to generate billions of dollars of revenue for DXA device manufacturers, doctor visits, and drug prescriptions around the world.

The Manufacture of a Disease

WHO Are They Kidding?

Osteopenia is, in fact, a medical and diagnostic non-entity.  The term itself describes nothing more than a statistical deviation from an arbitrarily determined numerical value or norm.   According to the osteoporosis epidemiologist Dr. L. Joseph Melton at the Mayo Clinic who participated in setting the original WHO criteria in 1992, "[osteopenia] was just meant to indicate the emergence of a problem," and noted that "It didn't have any particular diagnostic or therapeutic significance. It was just meant to show a huge group who looked like they might be at risk."[iii] Another expert, Michael McClung, director of the Oregon Osteoporosis Center, criticized the newly adopted disease category osteopenia by saying ''We have medicalized a nonproblem."[iv]
In reality, the WHO definitions violate both commonsense and fundamental facts of biological science (sadly, an increasingly prevalent phenomenon within drug company-funded science).  After all, anyone over 30 years of age should have lower bone density than a 30 year old, as this is consistent with the normal and natural healthy aging process.  And yet, according to the WHO definition of osteopenia, the eons-old programming of our bodies to gradually shed bone density as we age, is to be considered a faulty design and/or pathology in need of medical intervention.  
How the WHO, or any other organization which purports to be a science-based "medical authority," can make an ostensibly educated public believe that the natural thinning of the bones is not normal, or more absurdly: a disease, is astounding. In defense of the public, the cryptic manner in which these definitions and diagnoses have been cloaked in obscure mathematical and clinical language makes it rather difficult for the layperson to discern just how outright insane the logic they are employing really is.
So, let's look closer at the definitions now, which are brilliantly elucidated by Washington.edu's published online course on Bone Densitometry, which can viewed in its entirety here.

The Manufacture of a Disease through Categorical Sleight-of-Hand

bone mineral density loss
The image above shows the natural decrease in hip bone density occurring with age, with variations in race and gender depicted.  Observe that loss of bone mineral density with age is a normal process.
Bell Curve Bones
Next, is the classical bell-shaped curve, from which T- and Z-scores are based.  T-sores are based on the young adult standard (30-year old) bone density as being normal for everyone, regardless of age, whereas the much more logical Z-score compares your bone mineral density to that of your age group, as well as sex and ethnic background.  Now here's where it gets disturbingly clear how ridiculous the T-score really system is....

WHO definitions osteoporosis
Above is an image showing how within the population of women used to determine "normal" bone mineral density, e.g. 30-year olds, 16% of them already "have" osteopenia" according to the WHO definitions, and 3% already "have" osteoporosis! According to Washington.edu's online course "One standard deviation is at the 16th percentile, so by definition 16% of young women have osteopenia! As shown below, by the time women reach age 80, very few are considered normal."
Osteopenia and Osteoporosis Rates with Age
Above you will see what happens when the WHO definitions of "normal bone density" are applied to aging populations. Whereas at age 25, 15% of the population will "have" osteopenia, by age 50 the number grows to 33%. And by age 65, 60% will be told they have either osteopenia (40%) or osteoporosis (20%).  
On the other hand, if one uses the Z-score, which compares your bones to that of your age group, something remarkable happens: a huge burden of "disease" disappears!  In a review on the topic published in 2009 in the Journal of Clinical Densitometry, 30-39% of the subjects who had been diagnosed with osteoporosis with two different DXA machine models were reclassified as either normal or "osteopenic" when the Z- score was used instead of the T-score. The table therefore can be turned on the magician-like sleight-of-hand used to convert healthy people into diseased ones, as long as an age-appropriate standard of measurement is applied, which presently it is not.
Bone Scans or Scams? How Dense Bones Can Harm Your Health

Bone Mineral Density is NOT Equivalent to Bone Strength

As you can see there are a number of insurmountable problems with the WHO's definitions, but perhaps the most fatal flaw is the fact that the Dual energy X-ray absorpitometry device (DXA) is only capable of revealing the mineral density of the bone, and this is not the same thing as bone quality/strength
While there is a correlation between bone mineral density and bone quality/strength – that is to say, they overlap in places -- they are not equivalent.  In other words, density, while an excellent indicator of compressive strength (resisting breaking when being crushed by a static weight), is not an accurate indicator of tensile strength (resisting breaking when being pulled or stretched).
Indeed, in some cases having higher bone density indicates that the bone is actually weaker. Glass, for instance, has high density and compressive strength, but it is extremely brittle and lacks the tensile strength required to withstand easily shattering in a fall. Wood, on the other hand, which is closer in nature to human bone than glass or stone is less dense relative to these materials, but also extremely strong relative to them, capable of bending and stretching to withstand the very same forces which the bone is faced with during a fall.  Or, take spider web. It is has infinitely greater strength and virtually no density. Given these facts, having "high" bone density (and thereby not having osteoporosis) may actually increase the risk of fracture in a real-life scenario like a fall.
Essentially, the WHO definitions distract from key issues surrounding bone quality and real world bone fracture risks, such as gait and vision disorders.[v] In other words, if you are able to see and move correctly in our body, you are less likely to fall, which means you are less prone to fracture. Keep in mind also that the quality of human bone depends entirely on dietary and lifestyle patterns and choices, and unlike x-ray-based measurements, bone quality is not decomposable to strictly numerical values, e.g. mineral density scores.  Vitamin K2 and soy isoflavones, for instance, significantly reduce bone fracture rates without increasing bone density.  Scoring high on bone density tests may save a woman from being intimidated into taking dangerous drugs or swallowing massive doses of elemetal calcium, but it may not translate into preventing "osteoporosis," which to the layperson means the risk of breaking a bone.  But high bone mineral density may result in far worse problems....
High Bone Mineral Density & Breast Cancer

High Bone Mineral Density & Breast Cancer

One of the most important facts about bone mineral density, conspicuously absent from discussion, is that having higher-than-normal bone density in middle-aged and older women actually INCREASES their risk of breast cancer by 200-300%, and this is according to research published in some of the world's most well-respected and authoritative journals, e.g. Lancet, JAMA, NCI. (see citations below). 
While it has been known for at least fifteen years that high bone density profoundly increases the risk of breast cancer  -- and particularly malignant breast cancer -- the issue has been given little to no attention, likely because it contradicts the propaganda expounded by mainstream woman's health advocacy organizations. Breast cancer awareness programs focus on x-ray based breast screenings as a form of "early detection," and the National Osteoporosis Foundation's entire platform is based on expounding the belief that increasing bone mineral density for osteoporosis prevention translates into improved quality and length of life for women.
The research, however, is not going away, and eventually these organizations will have to acknowledge it, or risk losing credibility.
Journal of the American Medical Association (1996): Women with bone mineral density above the 25th percentile have 2.0 to 2.5 times increased risk of breast cancer compared with women below the 25th percentile.
Journal of Nutrition Reviews (1997): Postmenopausal women in the highest quartile for metacarpal bone mass were found to have an increased risk of developing breast cancer, after adjusting for age and other variables known to influence breast cancer risk.
View additional citations on the breast cancer-bone density link.

High Bone Density: More Harm Than Good

The present-day fixation within the global medical community on "osteoporosis prevention" as a top women's health concern, is simply not supported by the facts. The #1 cause of death in women today is heart disease, and the #2 cause of death is cancer, particularly breast cancer, and not death from complications associated with a bone fracture or break.  In fact, in the grand scheme of things osteoporosis or low bone mineral density does not even make the CDC's top ten list of causes of female mortality. So, why is it given such a high place within the hierarchy of women's health concerns? Is it a business decision or a medical one?
Regardless of the reason or motive, the obsessive fixation on bone mineral density is severely undermining the overall health of women. For example, the mega-dose calcium supplements being taken by millions of women to "increase bone mineral density" are known to increase the risk of heart attack by between 24-27%, according to two 2011 meta-analysespublished in Lancet, and 86% according to a more recent meta-analysis published in the journal Heart. Given the overwhelming evidence, the 1200+ mgs of elemental calcium the National Osteoporosis Foundation (NOF) recommends women 50 and older take to "protect their bones," may very well be inducing coronary artery spasms, heart attacks and calcified arterial plaque in millions of women. Considering that the NOF name calcium supplement manufacturers Citrical and Oscal as corporate sponsors, it is unlikely their message will change anytime soon.
Now, when we consider the case of increased breast cancer risk linked to high bone mineral density, being diagnosed with osteopenia or osteoporosis would actually indicate a significantly reduced risk of developing the disease. What is more concerning to women: breaking a bone (from which one can heal), or developing breast cancer? If it is the latter, a low BMD reading could be considered cause for celebration and not depression, fear and the continued ingestion of inappropriate medications or supplements, which is usually the case following a diagnosis of osteopenia or osteoporosis.
We hope this article will put to rest any doubts that the WHO's fixation on high bone density was designed not to protect or improve the health of women, but rather to convert the natural aging process into a blockbuster disease, capable of generating billions of dollars of revenue.  
Learn more on the GreenMedInfo database: 

References

[i] WHO Scientific Group on the Prevention and Management of Osteoporosis (2000 : Geneva, Switzerland) (2003). "Prevention and management of osteoporosis : report of a WHO scientific group" (PDF). Retrieved 2007-05-31.
[ii] WHO (1994). "Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. Report of a WHO Study Group". World Health Organization technical report series 843: 1–129. PMID 7941614.
[iii] Kolata, Gina (September 28, 2003). "Bone Diagnosis Gives New Data But No Answers"New York Times.
[iv] Ibid
[v] P Dargent-Molina, F Favier, H Grandjean, C Baudoin, A M Schott, E Hausherr, P J Meunier, G BrĂ©art Fall-related factors and risk of hip fracture: the EPIDOS prospective study. Lancet. 1996 Jul 20;348(9021):145-9. PMID: 8684153
Originally published: 2017-11-18  

Government-funded Study Links Fluoridated Water During Pregnancy to Lower IQs in Offspring

BREAKING: Government-funded Study Links Fluoridated Water During Pregnancy to Lower IQs in Offspring

Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | August 19, 2019


The world’s premier pediatric journal has published a new government-funded study confirming our worst fears, linking exposure to “optimally” fluoridated water during pregnancy to lowered IQ for the child.

You can repair a cavity, but you cannot repair a child’s brain.

The American Medical Association’s journal on pediatrics (JAMA Pediatrics) has published the second U.S. Government-funded study linking low-levels of fluoride exposure during fetal development to cognitive impairment.  The observational study, entitled Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada, was led by a team at York University in Ontario, Canada and looked at 512 mother-child pairs from six major Canadian cities.  It was funded by the Canadian government and the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Science. 

The scientists assessed fluoride exposure two ways. They measured fluoride in women’s urine samples during pregnancy. They also calculated fluoride consumption based on how much is in a city’s water supply and how much women recalled drinking. They found that a 1 mg per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5 point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls. When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women’s fluid intake, they found lower IQs in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7-point IQ deficit among both genders.

READ THE STUDY ONLINE / PDF VERSION

Making the publication of this study even more impactful is that it is accompanied by an editor’s note, a podcast featuring the journal’s editors, and an editorial from world-renowned neurotoxicity expert Dr. David Bellinger.  This reaction by the JAMA editors shows just how important the study is, as most studies in their journal don’t receive this treatment.

For the first time in his career, the editor of Pediatrics included an editorial note, knowing fluoridation proponents would attack the study without justification. He noted the study’s rigor, triple-checking of the data, and definitive nature of the evidence:

This decision to publish this article was not easy. Given the nature of the findings and their potential implications, we subjected it to additional scrutiny for its methods and the presentation of its findings. The mission of the journal is to ensure that child health is optimized by bringing the best available evidence to the fore. Publishing it serves as testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be. That said, scientific inquiry is an iterative process. It is rare that a single study provides definitive evidence. This study is neither the first, nor will it be the last, to test the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive development. We hope that purveyors and consumers of these findings are mindful of that as the implications of this study are debated in the public arena.
A must-hear twelve-minute podcast featuring AMA Pediatrics Editor in Chief, Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH, and Frederick Rivara, MD, MPH, Editor in Chief of JAMA Network Open, was also released alongside the study.  The editors express how “very concerning” and “startling” the evidence is against fluoridation, and how the neurological damage is “on par with lead.”

Thursday, August 22, 2019

Portland Police: 'We Wish There Were Some Kind Of Organized, Armed Force That Could Fight Back Against Antifa'

Portland Police: 'We Wish There Were Some Kind Of Organized, Armed Force That Could Fight Back Against Antifa'
 








PORTLAND, OR—In a press release earlier this week, Portland police chief Danielle Outlaw (her actual name), appearing somber and exhausted, said she just wishes there were some kind of group with the firepower and authority to fight back against Antifa.

In a candid moment, Outlaw (seriously, her actual name) said there was just nothing the police could do, as they'd need to have some kind of organized, armed force specifically created to protect and serve the people.

"Like, what if we took money from everyone to fund a force that could then defend them in a time of need?" she pondered aloud. "They could have patrol cars, firearms, and attack dogs. Maybe even some tanks. That would be so frickin' rad. They could have a badge to show their authority. Then, when a rogue group like Antifa shows up to take over our city every weekend, they could be repelled using force if necessary."

"I know it sounds crazy, but a girl can dream, right?" she added wistfully.

Sadly, there is no such force in Portland, so citizens have been forced to turn to an even crazier idea: taking responsibility for their own safety and well-being, and maybe even buying a gun to protect themselves.


A Babylon Bee subscriber contributed to this report. If you want to get involved with the staff writers at The Babylon Bee, check out our membership options here!

Readers of the Bee,

If just a small fraction of our visitors became subscribers, we'd have enough funding to stop running ads and reduce our dependence on big tech companies like Facebook and Google. Will you partner with us to make this possible?
Learn More

District Wide meeting results -

District Wide meeting results -

An amendment to the main motion was made by the Templeton Board of selectmen presented by Mike Currie. The amended figure was $19,500,000 . The original motion $19,786,889.

After discussion to move the question, the amended motion passed YES 190 NO 110

Paper ballot vote was defeated YES 32. NO 267

Standing vote on the $19,500,000 YES 203. NO 107
passes by majority vote.

Not one school Committee member vote YES on anything.

Stay tuned-

School Committee meets on Tuesday.


Magic 8 Ball says:

See you again in 45 days! 

School Committee will try to pack the next district wide meeting !

Monday, August 19, 2019

Meetings the Week of August 19, 2019

Meetings the Week of August 19, 2019
 

Monday    8/19/19

Sewer                                   Reservoir St                           4:30 pm
Conservation                   PCS Town Hall*                   6:00 pm
Tuesday   8/20/19


Elem $$$                          PCS Town Hall*                 5:00 pm
Elem                                 PCS Town Hall*                 6:00 pm
 District Wide Meeting

August 21, 2019

 Please Attend
* Pauly Cosentino Sr. Town Hall  
 

Paper Ballot Information for District Wide Meeting

Paper Ballot Information for District Wide Meeting

In reading over the material posted for the upcoming District Wide meeting, I had a few questions regarding the procedure to request paper ballots. I contacted the moderator, Kevin Flynn.

The request:

Good morning Kevin,

I have reviewed the documentation provided for the District wide meeting. I have a question about the secret ballot process. In the documentation provided it states :

"This ballot will only be used if requested and voted by majority at this meeting for a paper ballot vote and declared by the Moderator."

What is the process to request a paper ballot? 
When is the request made?  
How is the request made for a paper ballot?
Is the amendment form used?

Thank you for your help in addressing these questions.
 
Julie Farrell
24 Myrtle St
Baldwinville, MA 01436
Precint B Templeton
 
The response:
 
Julie,

Your should let me know as soon as possible. Presumably since you are asking you intend to request a paper ballot. If you do, please just send me an email and confirm it the night of the meeting in person. You do not need to submit the amendment form. When the time comes I will note your request.

Just so you fully understand what is involved, a request for a paper ballot requires a standing count vote with a majority in favor. We do this row by row, first the ayes, then the nays, by section. If there are overflow voters in the gymnasium we do the same there. The numbers are totaled by the Town Clerks and I announce the results.  Then for the paper ballot itself, each voter marks the ballot they were given when they checked in, then they come down front, row by row by section, to deposit their ballot, receive a new color ballot, and return to their seats; the center section goes last and they file out one side and return by the other side. It looks something like what happens at the end of a funeral mass when the ushers/funeral directors escort the mourners to pay their respects to the family.  Everyone returns to their seats and waits while all votes are cast and counted. Again, if there is overflow in the gymnasium, they follow the procedure depositing ballots in the box there, which the tellers retrieve and bring to the auditorium to be counted. Then the clerks count the ballots and provide me with the grand total for and against. If a voter is unable to come down front due to physical infirmity, the election official will bring their ballot to the box down front and return them a new colored ballot. This process is designed to ensure the security of the vote, but it is lengthy and can be uncomfortable. My family lived in Templeton from 1986-2000. I know the reasons why people seek a paper ballot. I strongly advise you to avoid it.

Kevin
 
 Please read the material for the process of the District Wide meeting.

To contact the moderator: Kevin Flynn
 
I made the request for paper ballots. 
 
If you feel strongly about this issue, you should too.

Please attend the 
District Wide Meeting 
 
August 21, 2019
 
7 pm