Are you deficient in nitric oxide, the most critical molecule for cardiovascular health?

 

Ethan Huff of Natural News

(Natural News) One of the key components of cardiovascular health that many people overlook is a molecule called nitric oxide, or NO, which according to Nathan S. Bryan, PhD, is involved in virtually every organ system of the body.

Almost every form of cardiovascular disease begins with the loss of NO production in the body. The same is true of pretty much every chronic disease and age-related illness, whether it manifests in the kidney, the brain, the heart, or the liver.

All of these conditions have a vascular component, Bryan says. An international leader in the molecular medicine and NO biochemistry, Bryan says the common underlying factor for most chronic illnesses is a lack of oxygen-rich blood reaching certain body parts, NO being the molecule that makes it all happen.

“The lack of NO production can lead to high blood pressure, sexual dysfunction, and chronic inflammatory vascular disease leading to heart attack, stroke, or heart failure,” explains a report from The Epoch Times that cites Bryan’s work.

“The body naturally begins to produce less nitric oxide as we age but this gradual loss of NO can be sped up or slowed down based on individual lifestyle and diet.”

Nitric oxide is essential for improving vasodilation, fighting inflammation, and preventing the formation of arterial plaque

Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn, the renowned director of the Heart Disease Reversal Program at the Cleveland Clinic, is another expert who says that the single most important factor impacting cardiovascular health is NO.

Its most important function throughout the body is vasodilation, which is the relaxation and widening of the inner muscles of your blood vessel. Vasodilation helps more oxygen-rich blood to travel freely throughout your body and get to where it needs to go in order to keep you healthy, fit, and strong.

 

Two other things Esselstyn says NO helps with is:

• Fighting inflammation by preventing arterial thickening, which can restrict blood flow, cause hypertension, and increase the heart’s workload

• Preventing the formation of plaque by reducing the “stickiness” of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and other elements that can build up in arteries and cause serious health problems.

Alzheimer’s disease and other forms of dementia are another class of illness for which NO can provide remedial and preventive benefits. Since the common denominator in these diseases is lack of blood flow to the brain, NO’s vasodilation, anti-inflammatory, and blood-thinning properties are a powerful weapon against dementia.

By now, you are probably wondering how you can improve your body’s NO stores, as well as how to minimize exposure to things that damage them. Here is what we know:

1) The body relies on a healthy balance of oral and gut bacterial microbiomes. Eating more probiotic-rich foods or taking probiotic supplements may help in this regard.

2) Beets, leafy green vegetables, garlic, meat, citrus fruits, nuts and seeds, and dark chocolate all contain nutritional components that help boost the body’s ability to naturally produce NO.

3) Working out, meaning exercise and rigorous activity, tells the body’s endothelial cells to produce more nitric oxide – so get moving!

“There is concrete evidence that physical activity enhances NO [nitric oxide] production,” concluded a 2021 study published in The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness.

4) Increasing your exposure to the sun, which will also help boost your body’s vitamin D stores.

Some signs that your body may already be deficient in NO and in need of help include:

• Increased blood pressure

• Erectile dysfunction in men

• Vasculogenic sexual dysfunction in females

• Arterial plaque and inflammation

If an NO deficiency persists for too long, it can result in a heart attack or stroke, which are the leading killers of both men and women worldwide.

More related news that you can use to help support your health naturally can be found at Remedies.news.

READ MORE>>>>

‘Holy grail’ of cancer detection predicts tumors a year before they form

 By Hannah Sparks of The New York Post

The future of cancer treatment — hailed as the “holy grail” of early detection — is now being put to the test.

Following a radically successful trial on cancer patients, a new blood test that promises to predict tumors more than a year before they begin to form is now being applied in hospitals across the United Kingdom.

“This is the first pan-cancer blood test,” said Ashish Tripathi, founder and CEO of Tzar Labs as well as chairman of Epigeneres Biotech, the Indian firm where the test was first developed in 2021. An updated report on their findings was published this month in the journal Stem Cells.

“We can detect [cancer] earlier than other known technologies … before the tumor has physically formed,” Tripathi continued during a new interview with author and medical advocate Deepak Chopra.

“Not only can I actually detect it at this stage — I can actually tell you which cancer and where it is forming, straight from a blood test.”

In a trial of 1,000 participants — 500 non-cancer and 500 cancer patients — researchers were able to accurately anticipate the formation of tumors across at least 25 types of cancer, including all of the most prevalent and deadly varieties, such as breast, pancreatic, lung and colorectal. Even some participants within the presumed “non-cancer” group were found to have a predisposition for future cancer diagnosis.

“We did not get even one false negative, not even one false positive,” Tripathi noted.

Hospitals in the UK have already begun to implement the new technique for further proof of concept, while researchers hope to take it to the United States soon.

Dr. Sherif Raouf, a gastro­intestinal cancer specialist who will lead a trial at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, said, “Picking up cancer at the earliest stage is the holy grail of cancer medicine.”

“Normally this is not an easy process. Many patients currently undergo scans, biopsies and clinic appointments. To have one blood test to detect the presence of cancer at the earliest stage — or even before it develops — could save many lives. This could be a game-changer.”

Despite the numerous blood-based cancer screening methods that have recently been in development, Tripathi’s team’s approach differs by zeroing in on stem cells with a biomarker for cancer, as opposed to searching for full-blown tumor cells that may already be present. This allows them to determine whether cancer is on the horizon well before those cells have progressed to form a tumor.

All cells, good or bad, begin as stem cells, and those that go on to form tumors possess genetic markers that prompt them to do so.

It takes 1 billion cancer cells to form a tumor that measures just 1 cubic centimeter — a very small mass to detect even for CT scanners. But inside the body, that initial tumor is shedding cancerous cells as it grows, which enter the bloodstream and begin seeding for new tumors, or metastasizing, in various other organs.

Most of the previously developed blood tests for cancer diagnosis were made to find fully fledged tumor cells traveling through the blood. This method is prone to false negatives, according to Tripathi, because not every sample of blood will turn up those particular cells.

“Here lies the breakthrough that we’ve made: Every liquid biopsy company that you’re aware of … they were looking for these [tumor cell] fragments in peripheral blood,” Tripathi explained. Unfortunately, “very few” tumor cells are circulating in the early stages of cancer.

And by Stages 3 or 4, when cancer cells have proliferated throughout the bloodstream, enough to be detected by conventional means, it’s often already too late for treatment.

The new “prognostic” test not only sees cancer at Stages 1 or 2 but also knows whether a patient’s stem cells are fated to become cancerous well before the first stage — up to 18 months ahead. This gives doctors a huge advantage in terms of targeted treatments to prevent the formation of tumors.

It’s good news for those who have already been diagnosed with cancer too. Whereas traditional tissue biopsies may help determine whether or not a tumor is metastatic, the new blood test can say exactly which organ(s) the would-be tumor cells will target, noninvasively and well before the first tumor has amassed.

READ MORE>>>>

Lovemaking can boost your heart, clear a stuffy nose, and even fight off Covid, study shows

 Have more sex is unlikely to be the advice you expect to receive from your GP.

 HELEN FOSTER FOR THE DAILY MAIL

But to judge from the latest studies, an active sex life could be as important as watching your diet, moderating alcohol intake and quitting smoking to boost health.

'Granted "improving your health" is not usually at the top of your mind when you're thinking about sex, but immunity, cardiovascular health and depression are just some of the areas where studies suggest that sexual activity might have a benefit,' says Kaye Wellings, a professor of sexual and reproductive health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Research shows that it can help reduce the risk of heart disease and incontinence.

 

And last year, a study published in the journal Fertility and Sterility showed that sexual activity at least three times a month was linked with a milder Covid-19 infection. 

The theory is that it primes the body to handle pathogens more effectively.

This followed a 2004 study in the journal Psychological Reports which found that intercourse once or twice a week increases levels of immunoglobulin A, part of the antibody response of the immune system that defends us against infection.

Another study suggested that orgasms can clear a stuffed-up nose as effectively as a nasal spray, reported the journal Ear, Nose & Throat last year — probably because exercise has also been shown to be a decongestant, as the resulting increase in body temperature loosens mucus while the increase in circulation encourages the flow of nasal discharge.

And research from University College London found that women engaging in sexual activity at least monthly had a later menopause than those who weren't sexually active. 

The researchers suggest that if sexual activity is not detected, the body deprioritises ovulation, triggering the menopause.

It can also be good for mental health. A study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine in January found that people who maintained a sexual relationship during lockdown — whether they were living with their partner or not — were 34 per cent less likely to experience depression than those who didn't.

In fact, some experts believe sex to be such an important barometer of general health that it should be more widely discussed by doctors with their patients — yet this rarely happens.

'As a doctor, you're happy to ask women about their menstrual cycle, yet sexual activity is something we rarely discuss,' says Geoffrey Hackett, a urologist and a professor of men's health at Aston University in Birmingham.

'And the issue is even worse with men, yet knowing if a man has regular erections tells me an awful lot about his health.'

An inability to get an erection can have a number of causes but may occur as a result of blockages in the arteries supplying the penis, a potential sign of furred arteries elsewhere in the body.

Being physically able to have sex also indicates a certain level of fitness. 

'We estimate that 20 minutes of sexual activity in a man is the equivalent of walking a mile, and that's a reasonable amount of physical effort if you do it often enough,' says Professor Hackett.

When having sex, men burned on average 100 calories and their heart rate rose to as much as 170 beats per minute — this helps strengthen the heart — according to research published in the Archives of Sexual Behaviour in February.

Men having sex two to three times a week have a 45 per cent lower risk of a heart attack compared with those having sex once a month or less, reported the American Journal of Cardiology in 2010. 

Professor Hackett points to the Caerphilly Heart Disease Study, set up in 1979, involving 914 men aged 45 to 59, which found that deaths from heart disease over 20 years were double in men having intercourse once a month compared with those having sex twice a week.

READ MORE>>>>

The World Has a Plastic Problem, as New Study Into ‘Plasticosis’ Disease Reveals.

 "WE INGEST ABOUT A CREDIT CARD'S WORTH OF PLASTIC EVERY WEEK."

BY RAW EGG NATIONALIST

Plasticosis” is the name a group of scientists have given to the damage caused by ingestion of plastics. The research these scientists carried out is based on seabirds, but has clear implications for other animals, including us.

It has been estimated that humans may now be consuming as much as a credit card’s worth of plastic every week, with negative implications that are now starting to become worryingly clear.

The international team, with scientists from the UK and Australia, studied the effects of plastic consumption on flesh-footed shearwater fledglings and show that it causes severe scarring of the birds’ stomachs, interfering with digestion, which can lead to stunted growth and, in some cases, death. Other inorganic materials that were also consumed by the birds, such as pumice, caused no such scarring, highlighting the “unique pathological properties of plastics”.

While the scale of plastic pollution has been a matter of concern for some time now, there is growing concern about the effects of microplastics in particular. These are tiny pieces of plastic, including pieces invisible to the naked eye, that are produced either deliberately or inadvertently as larger pieces of plastic are broken down due to environmental exposure. Scarcely a week passes without a new microplastic study revealing the extent our environment, including the air we breathe and our homes, is contaminated with plastic, and the worrying effects exposure to this contamination is having on living creatures.

Microplastics, as vectors for harmful endocrine-disrupting chemicals like PFAS, BPA and phthalates, are also directly implicated in the global collapse of human fertility we have been witnessing in recent decades. Sperm counts, sperm quality and testosterone levels are all declining precipitously, at the same time as a variety of birth defects, such as genital shrinkage and malformation, are on the rise.

This crisis of fertility was one of the principal subjects of the recent Tucker Carlson documentary The End of Men, which focused on the dire social and political knock-on effects of these widespread biological changes. As much as left-liberals may welcome and even encourage the biological changes that are taking place – Avatar director James Cameron recently described testosterone as a “toxin that you have to slowly work out of your system” – the truth is that, if left uncorrected, they will surely spell disaster for our civilisation and the world.

PLASTICOSIS – WHAT IT IS.

Plasticosis, as identified by the researchers, is a type of fibrotic disease. Fibrosis is caused by excessive scarring in an area, as a result of repeated inflammation which prevents proper wound-healing.

After an injury, scar tissue forms to help in healing. If, however, an area is inflamed repeatedly, more and more scar tissue can form, which reduces the flexibility of the tissue affected, causing changes to its structure that may have serious negative effects.

The researchers had previously looked at the effects of microplastics on animal tissues, and found them in organs such as the spleen and kidneys, where they were found to be associated with the symptoms described in the previous paragraph. The team already knew that the flesh-footed shearwaters which live on Lord Howe Island, some 600km off the coast of Australia, were suffering from acute plastic contamination, and decided to consider them further.

In their latest research, the team found that plastic ingestion caused serious damage to the proventriculus, the first chamber of the birds’ stomachs. It’s this damage that the researchers decided to label “plasticosis”, since they found it to be specifically associated with the consumption of plastic. Although “plasticosis” is not a totally new term – it was already used to describe the breakdown of plastics in artificial joint replacements – it had never been applied in this way before. Other fibrotic diseases caused by inorganic materials such as silicone and asbestos have similar names – silicosis and asbestosis, for instance.

The effects of plasticosis on the birds are extremely unpleasant. As levels of scar tissue in the proventriculus increase, the tissue becomes more and more swollen, eventually starting to break down.

“The tubular glands, which secrete digestive compounds, are perhaps the best example of the impact of plasticosis,” explains study co-author Dr Alex Bond.

“When plastic is consumed, these glands get gradually more stunted until they eventually lose their tissue structure entirely at the highest levels of exposure.”

If the birds lose these important glands, they become more susceptible to infection and also lose the ability to absorb and digest key nutrients. In extreme cases, particularly with young chicks, they can starve to death as their stomachs fill with plastic.

The researchers found that growth was directly linked to levels of plastic in the birds’ bodies. The length of the wing was associated with the amount of plastics the bird had consumed, as was the bird’s overall weight.

It was also clear that it was consumption of plastic, and not other inorganic items, such as pumice stones, that was causing the damage. Pumice itself did not cause scarring. It did, however, help to break plastic down into smaller pieces in the birds’ stomachs, leading to further damage.

THE PLASTIC CRISIS.

By providing evidence that consumption of plastic is associated with a clearly identifiable pathology, and by giving those negative symptoms a specific name, the researchers behind this latest study will provide further impetus to consider plastic pollution a specific threat to life on earth. This is only to be welcomed.

The scale of the plastic threat is truly mind-boggling. Over the last 70 years, just nine percent of the 8.3 billion metric tonnes of plastic produced has been recycled. The remaining 91 percent has either been incinerated or made its way into the environment, where weathering and aging will break it down into smaller pieces, and eventually into microplastics.

Almost everywhere we care to look, we now find plastic. It circulates on the wind and water like a force of nature. A recent study of the coastal city of Auckland, in New Zealand, for instance, suggests that 74 metric tonnes of microplastic fall on the city each year. That’s the equivalent of three million plastic bottles, raining down. We find microplastics in world’s most remote places, at the bottom of the oceans, in Antarctic snow and on mountain-tops. Around 3,000 tons of microplastics are estimated to fall in snow over Switzerland annually. 

Plastic is in our drinking water, our food, and in our homes. At home, we may be inhaling microplastics at levels hundreds of times higher than previously predicted. The young are at particular risk of exposure, as they chew plastic toys and crawl around in carpets made of synthetic fibres that trap dust and microplastic particles. Through analysis of stool samples, babies and infants have been found to have up to 15 times more microplastics in their bodies than adults.

While this new research focuses only on the stomachs of seabirds, there are clear indications that plasticosis is unlikely to be limited to the digestive tissues of birds. Instead, it’s probable that fibrosis will be the response of many other tissues, in many other creatures, to repeated inflammation by plastic particles. Microplastics have been found deep in human lung, liver, kidney and spleen tissue – even in the placentas of pregnant women – and they’re also known to cross the blood-brain barrier.

If its ubiquity is the defining feature of plastic pollution today, there are still things you can do to mitigate your exposure, even if you can’t eliminate it totally. Reduce your reliance on plastics in every aspect of your life, including bottles, Tupperware and clothing; filter your water; ditch processed food and buy locally produced organic food whenever possible, or even start to produce some yourself – doing any or all of these things will absolutely help to reduce the levels of harmful plastic you ingest.

In the long term, though, only a determined political movement can deal with the global scale of the problem. While individual entrepreneurs such as Boyan Slat, whose Ocean Cleanup company has been tasked with removing the enormous Great Pacific Garbage Patch, are trying to take the matter in hand with new technologies, their admirable work cannot address the underlying fact of our modern thralldom to plastic. Yes, we need innovation – to clean our air, water and soils of the plastic that is already there – but there are also sensitive issues around plastic use and disposal that can only be addressed from the top, with political pressure. What good, for instance, are bans on plastic straws in the West when 90 percent of the plastic that ends up in the world’s seas comes from 10 rivers, eight in Asia and two in Africa?

About as good as a paper straw, actually.

SOURCE>>>>

Is Fluoride Bad for You? It’s Not Just in the Water

 

The Plain Truth has featured the negative and dangerous impacts of Fluoride on children's brain development here but let's dig even deeper...

By Rebekah Edwards of draxe.com

• What Is Fluoride?
• Sources of Fluoride You Probably Don’t Know About
• 6 Researched Dangers of Fluoride
• How to Detox Your Body of Fluoride
• Alternatives to Fluoridated Water

There are two sides to any story, and that is definitely true in the case of fluoride. Since being introduced into the public water supplies of much of the U.S. (and several other countries) in the 1960s, a consistent debate has existed on whether or not fluoride is truly safe as a water additive or dental health product.

It’s more complex than you might believe at first. On the one side, many public health organizations hail fluoride as a near-miracle for dental health and insist there are no questions or contrary pieces of evidence whatsoever.

For example, the Centers of Disease Control (CDC) states on their website, “Because of its contribution to the large decline in cavities in the United States since the 1960s, CDC named community water fluoridation one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” (1) The American Dental Association and American Academy of Pediatrics agree, and have since the beginning of public water fluoridation in the mid 1900s. (2, 3, 4)

Pretty convincing, right?

Unfortunately, the answer isn’t that simple.

The controversy over fluoride in water has been the main point of contention for anti-fluoridationists for the last several decades, since it was introduced widely in 1960. (5) Is it just kooks and conspiracy theorists that are continuing the pointless complaining about a public health victory?

Quite the opposite proves to be true after a bit of digging. A growing body of research has existed since before fluoride was ever approved for dental use finding it has the ability to cause long-lasting negative health effects in various bodily systems. (6)

What Is Fluoride?

“Fluoride” refers to any compound containing a fluorine ion. Sporting a chemical symbol of “F” and an atomic number of 9, fluorine is one of the well-recognized elements on the periodic table. As a pure gas, fluorine is “the most reactive and electronegative of all the elements.” It has extremely damaging effects to any living organism with which it comes into contact. (7)

In nature, calcium fluoride (CaF2) is found in soil and water. Spring water in areas without industries that regularly use fluoride generally contains about .01-.03 ppm (parts per million, also known as milligrams per liter or mg/L) of calcium fluoride naturally, while seawater is closer to 1.3 ppm. (8) These amounts vary greatly depending on location — in some parts of the world, calcium fluoride is found up to 10–20 ppm in water supplies, which is universally recognized as an unsafe ingestible amount of the compound.

Despite the insistence of various organizations to tell the public that this same compound is what’s added to their drinking water, this isn’t actually true. Calcium fluoride is not well-absorbed into the body, whereas sodium fluoride (NaF) is. This chemical compound does not occur in nature and was generally considered industrial toxic waste until 1950, when it was announced as a new dental health initiative.

1945 marked the start of studies in several cities across the U.S. to compare the prevalence of cavities (dental caries) between children and adults drinking fluoridated or unfluoridated water. According to the CDC, dental caries were reduced 50–70 percent in fluoridated communities during the 13–15 years of these “studies.” (9)

However, no data is available for the amount of cavity reduction experienced by the “control” communities in these experiments. As dental health has improved steadily in both fluoridated and unfluoridated communities of the U.S., this data would be very worthwhile but, unfortunately, does not exist or is not readily available to the public. (10)

As of 2014, about 74.4 percent of people in the U.S. with community water systems were provided with fluoridated water. (11) This is a 0.2 drop in the previous 2012 statistic, resulting partly from community efforts of citizens urging their leaders to remove fluoride from public drinking water.

Unlike you may expect, though, the fluoride used in your drinking water is not calcium fluoride nor sodium fluoride. Now, in 90 percent of our fluoridated water, it’s a compound known as hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS or FSA). HFS is a by-product of the process used to create phosphate fertilizers that used to be considered toxic waste and is now (more than likely) an additive in your family’s water. (12)

In a petition submitted in 2013 by a former EPA scientist, J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., and colleagues requested the EPA to discontinue the use of HFS in public water due to the proven adverse effects it may have on human health, including issues via the presence of arsenic. (13)

That’s correct: The additive used to improve your dental health also contains arsenic, which, incidentally, is allowed in measures of .010 ppm in water by EPA standards, although the MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal) is zero, due to arsenic’s cancer-causing impact. (14, 15)

Not only does hydrofluorosilicic acid contain arsenic, it also leaches lead from piping at much greater rates than sodium fluoride, although both compounds have this effect. (16) Lead crosses the blood-brain barrier — as well as to unborn children in pregnant mothers — and has no known safe level of contamination that won’t cause harmful effects, such as cancer. (17)

Is fluoride safe for you?

According to the CDC and other governmental bodies, there is only one known cosmetic issue that occurs from too much fluoride in water or from other sources: fluorosis (which I’ll discuss a little later). (18) In another section of the CDC’s website, they provide a toxicology guide for fluorines, fluoride and hydrogen fluoride. This guide sets a “minimal risk level” of fluoride at .05 mg/kg/day for chronic exposure, which defines the amount of fluoride that would cause issues when chronically ingested. (19) That figure can be translated to .11 milligrams per pound of weight per day.

Doing the math: This means that a 160-pound person drinking an optimal amount of water (80 ounces) from a fluoridated source would ingest 1.66 milligrams of fluoride from that water alone. The CDC’s given “minimal risk level” of .11 mg/lb/day (.05 mg/kg/day) means that same person should not consistently consume 3.65 milligrams of fluoride each day, or may suffer adverse effects.

Not only is that far too close a margin, in my opinion, but this metric doesn’t consider the additional fluoride from toothpaste, mouthwash, food and drinks that the same person would also regularly ingest. It also is considering a full-grown adult who understands how to not swallow toothpaste, which can’t always be said for a small child brushing his teeth with fluoridated toothpaste with 1,000 times the fluoride as tap water per volume.

The adverse effects this includes should just be that one “cosmetic” problem, though, right? Not quite — the CDC has finally included a prevalence of “increased bone fractures in the elderly” related to drinking fluoridated water after they could no longer avoid the evidence. This is not listed on the community fluoridation material they distribute.

A growing number of professionals have doubted the safety of water fluoridation in its current state for many decades. This problem exists, in part, because the amount of long-term, high-quality, unbiased research available is limited to non-existent.

For example, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (a British governmental body) looked at the evidence about the carcinogenic potential of fluoride. Their results were tentative at best, and they stated at the end of their compilation that, “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.” (20)

In 2006, the National Research Council conducted a review entitled “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” Their research led them to a few conclusions about the safety of fluoride according to available data at that time, such as: (21)

• Athletes, outdoor workers and people with certain medical conditions such as diabetes insipidus and poor kidney function are more sensitive to water’s fluoride content.
• Infants and children are daily exposed to fluoride three to four times more than adults on a body weight comparison basis.
• Even with the “insufficient” data regarding fluoride’s impact on the central nervous system, they felt the results of the existing warranted more investigation.
• They acknowledged effects to the endocrine system caused by fluoride, although they referred to them as “subclinical” and not “adverse,” but agree that they deserve more research, particularly because these issues may impact the sexual development of children consuming fluoride within the US’s current guidelines.
• They point out the major gaps in the scientific evidence regarding fluoride and make several recommendations for future study focus.

Another expert who spoke out about concerns of the safety of fluoride is John Colquhoun, a dentist in New Zealand who was appointed to Principal Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand’s largest city. Dr. Colquhoun, once passionately pro-fluoridation, re-examined the facts and studies available on fluoridation and wrote an explanation of his staunchly anti-fluoridation stance in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine in 1997.

He explains that this dedication to fluoride as the savior of dental health, particularly for low-income families who do not receive regular dental care, is based, in his opinion, on a determination to “bend over backwards to explain away new evidence,” specifically evidence opposing the common view. Colquhoun claims that flawed studies contributed to this issue greatly, but that when he was presented with the evidence of the decline of tooth decay in totally non-fluoridated communities, his conclusion was that fluoride actually does far more harm (to the teeth and other parts of the body) than it ever does good. (23, 24)

As with most things, this view is opposed by many. Herschel S. Horowitz, DDS, MPH, a former Chief of the Community Programs Section of the National Institute of Dental Research, wrote a rebuttal to John Colquhoun’s letter. He concluded that the letter contained poor references to junk science and remains convinced that community water fluoridation is totally safe. (25)

READ MORE>>>>