Thought For The Day
“Every Time You Eat or Drink You Are Either Feeding Disease
or Fighting It”
Two Major Legal Victories in Federal Court Case to End Water
Fluoridation
Article on Mercola.com
Key Points:
- · After years of effort to get the EPA to reconsider the safety of Fluoride in our drinking water, citizens groups have finally won legal victories forcing the EPA to release its data that it has tried to hide and allowing the case to proceed to court
- · New government studies prove that fluoride lowers the IQ level in children
- · Studies and evidence show that fluoride is a neurotoxin that effects the brain
- · New mothers can now be told the truth about the negative effects of fluoride
Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is among a coalition of
environmental, medical and health groups suing the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to ban artificial water fluoridation
FAN has recently won two major legal victories, defeating
efforts by the EPA to dismiss the case and limit the evidence that can be
considered
Legal experts say the lawsuit will be precedent setting and
increase other challenges to EPA chemical rules by environmental watchdog
groups
By Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network
In November 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) together
with a coalition of organizations and private citizens, including Food &
Water Watch, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy
of Oral Medicine & Toxicology, and Moms Against Fluoridation, presented a
petition1 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling on the
agency to exercise its authority to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals
to the public’s drinking water supplies under Section 21 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA).
FAN’s petition was made on the grounds that a large body of
animal, cellular and human research shows that fluoride is neurotoxic at doses
within the range now seen in fluoridated communities, and included over 2,500
pages of scientific documentation detailing these health risks.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows individuals
to petition the EPA to regulate and prohibit the “particular use“ of a chemical
if the petitioner can show that it presents an unreasonable risk to the general
public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA specifically gives the EPA the
authority to prohibit drinking water additives.
However, in an attempt to put up an unreasonable roadblock
the EPA dismissed our petition based on a questionable interpretation of
Congress’s recent amendments to TSCA. In response, FAN and our coalition
partners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California legally challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition.
It also prompted the Natural Resources Defense Council to
file an amicus brief challenging EPA’s strained interpretation of the law.2
Since challenging the EPA in court, a lot has happened to move us closer to a
successful outcome. We have won our first two battles in federal court, new
government-funded research has been published which strengthens our case, and
our day in court has been scheduled.
Two Legal Victories as EPA Tries to Dismiss Case and Limit
Evidence
The EPA’s motion to dismiss FAN’s petition was heard
November 30 by federal Judge Edward M. Chen, of the Northern District Court of
California in San Francisco. Our attorney, Michael Connett, argued the motion
on behalf of FAN. Only days before Christmas, the judge gifted us our first
legal victory. December 21, 2017, Chen denied the EPA’s motion3 to dismiss the
case. This ruling was covered by Reuters4 and various legal and regulatory
journals.
Two and a half weeks later, on February 7, 2018, we won a
second major legal victory. This time, the EPA tried to put up another
roadblock by limiting the scope of discovery. In other words, EPA worked to
prohibit our attorneys from obtaining internal EPA documents, and to prohibit
our experts from relying upon recently published studies. According to Chen:5
The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose and the
legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a
limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court
therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.”
Connett noted: If you look at the legislative history,
Congress wanted a robust mechanism for citizen oversight over EPA. This court’s
decision highlights for environmental groups that Congress created a powerful
tool. Had the EPA prevailed we would have been prohibited from including any
new fluoride neurotoxicity study published after our petition was submitted in
November 2016, including the landmark U.S. government-funded 12-year study7 by
Bashash et al. published in September 2017. This study is critical in
demonstrating that fluoride is neurotoxic and has no place in the public water
supply.
New Government-Funded Research Links Fluoride to IQ Loss
It is difficult to overstate the importance of this new
study, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, linking
fluoride levels in the urine of pregnant women with lower measures of
intelligence in their children. This is especially true because it was funded
by the following U.S. agencies: National Institutes of Health, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA. As noted by the
authors:
“In this study, higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride
during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range
of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as
well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of
cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old.”
The authors from several universities in Canada, the U.S.
and Mexico followed over 300 mother-child pairs in Mexico City for a 12-year
period. They found a strong relationship between the mothers’ exposure to
fluoride (as measured in their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at 4
and again at 6 to 12 years of age. The urine levels of the pregnant woman in
the study were the same as is found in pregnant women in the U.S. (0.5 to 1.5
mg/Liter, or ppm). At these levels the authors reported a staggering loss of
six IQ points.
Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and
1.5 mg/L. Studies have found that adults in the U.S. have between about 0.6 and
1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the
high end is a difference of 1 mg/L, which is what caused the five to six
IQ-point difference in the children of the study mothers.
Furthermore, the study was very carefully conducted by a
group of researchers who have collectively produced over 50 papers on the
cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.
The lead investigator of this study, Dr. Howard Hu from the
University of Toronto, commented on the quality of the study in the Canadian
National Post, “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny
it. It directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment
of children.”
This new study thus helps to confirm the health risks
described in our petition, and will be an invaluable piece of evidence for our
attorneys as they develop our case over the next year.
It has also inspired a FAN campaign called Moms2B Avoid
Fluoride. We launched the campaign in April to advise pregnant women to avoid
fluoride, particularly fluoridated water, because of the potential for harm to
the brain of the fetus. With your help, we can educate the next generation of
parents, so they can take action to avoid fluoride exposure during this
critical time in the development of their child.
Colorectal cancer patients boost survival rates
I've been writing a good bit recently about the importance
of omega-3 fatty acids found in cold-water fish like salmon. Most people know
they dramatically reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, heart attack, and
stroke. They also benefit brain health and help reduce chronic inflammation in
the body.
And now—we know omega-3s even offer significant protection
against cancer. Even if you've already been diagnosed.
For a new study, Harvard researchers analyzed data from the
well-known Nurses' Health Study (NHS) and Health Professions Follow-up Study
(HPFS).
Specifically, they looked at dietary habits and death rates
in a cohort of 1,659 patients who developed colorectal cancer. Overall, they
found a strong link between higher omega-3 intake and lower risk of dying from
colorectal cancer.
To be more specific, patients who consumed just 300 mg of
omega-3s per day had a 41 percent lower risk of dying from colorectal cancer
compared to those who consumed 100 mg per day. (More on the importance of dose
in a moment.)
Furthermore, patients who began consuming more omega-3s
after their diagnosis gained even greater protection...
Death rates slashed with higher omega-3 intake after diagnosis
After getting colon cancer, patients who increased their
intake of omega-3s by at least 150 mg per day had a whopping 70 percent lower
risk of dying from colorectal cancer.
So, clearly, it's never too late to increase omega-3 intake.
Even after developing cancer, patients still gained major benefits. Plus, there
was a dose-response effect. In other words, the higher the dose of omega-3s,
the lower the risk of dying.
This was an observational study. So, the researchers can't
explain exactly how or why omega-3 intake benefits colon cancer patients. But
previous research shows the omega-3s eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA),
docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and docosapentaenoic acid (DPA) can suppress tumor
growth and curb blood supply to malignant cells (anti-angiogenesis).
Interestingly, in the study's abstract, the researchers say,
"the influence of omega-3s on colon cancer survival is unknown."
Really?
Once again, we have researchers backing away from their own
findings. This confuses the casual reader, who may walk away thinking omega-3s
don't do anything for cancer. Another reminder of the importance of reading
past the headlines!
And before I go, just a note about dose...
This study found major benefits to colon cancer patients who
just consumed a few hundred more milligrams of omega-3s per day. Even this
miniscule amount increased survival rate by 41 to 70 percent!
But according to more recent research, I believe you should
now aim to supplement with at least 3,000 to 4,000 mg of omega-3s per day.
Now, I know that dosage may sound high. But remember, we
need to think of omega-3s in food quantities, not in supplement quantities. And
you get 3,000 to 4,000 mg when you eat a serving of fatty fish. So, it's also
the amount you should strive for when supplementing, unless you eat fish on a
daily basis.
(If you do eat fish on a daily basis—or eat richer sources
of omega-3s like anchovies or sardines at least two to three times per week—you
can probably get along with a 2,000 to 3,000 mg daily dose)
But remember—not all fish oil is created equal. Any omega-3
supplement formula you choose should contain both EPA and DHA, the active forms
of the essential fatty acids.
What EVERY Gout Patient Needs To Know ASAP
It's one of the FIRST pieces of advice a doc will give you,
especially if you're prone to gout.
And it's not only wrong... It's DEAD wrong!
Docs will urge you to keep your uric acid levels down low,
low, low. Makes sense, right?
That's the stuff found at the scene of the crime. Uric acid
can dry up, form tiny shards, and build up around a joint -- usually the big
toe -- where those shards stab you from the inside.
Next thing you know, your foot is on fire.
But while you DO want to keep tabs on that uric acid, you
absolutely DON'T want to chase it all away, and new research shows why.
Levels that are too low could also hurt you... wreck you...
and maybe even KILL you!
The new study confirms what we already know: High levels are
bad news. Along with triggering flare-ups so painful that you'll be tempted to
hack your own foot off, high uric acid will more than DOUBLE your risk of death
from any cause if you're a guy and nearly QUADRUPLE it for ladies.
But here's what may shock you: When those levels drop too
low, the same thing happens, minus the flare-ups.
The risk of death jumps by nearly 60 percent in men and 80
percent in women!
It's more proof that the stuff in your body isn't always
"bad," even when your doc says it is. In the case of uric acid, you
need SOME of it to keep your blood vessels in tip-top shape.
When you don't have enough... well, just look at the new
study.
This also helps to explain one of the notorious side effects
of certain gout drugs: People who take them occasionally drop dead. Talk about an alarming side effect!
The other side effect is that while many of these drugs DO
lower uric acid levels, they DON'T always cut the risk of painful flare-ups.
You're essentially getting the worst of all worlds.
Don't worry, I've got an answer that'll bring everything
back under control. It'll eat up that uric acid without wiping it out
completely... cut the risk of flare-ups... and end the pain.
And you're not gonna believe how easy it is.
Vitamin C gobbles up uric acid , but it's slower than meds,
so you'll keep levels right where they need to be without going high enough to
trigger gout or so low that your life will be on the line.
Just don't get most of it from orange juice.
Sugar -- especially the fructose in fruits such as oranges
-- will cause uric acid levels to soar, and the vitamin C can't possibly keep
up. Fruit juice is the worst culprit. Take a supplement instead.
One good option is to take Rose Hips, which contain high levels
of natural vitamin C and the added benefit of naturally reducing belly fat.
Very few things are effective at reducing belly fat, so anything that can do
that AND provide high levels of vitamin C is a winner. And best of all, Rose
Hips are very inexpensive. Here is a link for Swanson Vitamins where I buy
mine: https://www.swansonvitamins.com/swanson-premium-rose-hips-500-mg-120-caps
or buy them at any Super Supplements store.
My Comment:
You can take Rose Hips several times a day. By spreading it
out you can avoid the possibility of loose stools which is a result of taking
too much vitamin C at one time. Taking natural vitamin C is one of the best
ways to protect your health. Especially if you or your children are getting
vaccines. If you are, then take high doses of vitamin C two days before and two
days after any vaccines to protect your children from dangerous vaccine side effects.
One word of caution though, many vitamin C supplements are
labeled Vitamin C with Rose Hips. That is not what you want. You want Rose Hips
as the only or main ingredient. Manufacturers use ascorbic acid as much as
possible because it is the cheapest form of Vit. C. While ascorbic acid is generally
referred to as Vit. C, it is not the whole natural form of the vitamin and will
not be as effective as real whole food vitamin C.
Until next time, stay healthy and happy
JD Roma
The information on this blog is provided for educational
purposes only. It is not a substitute for professional medical care, and
medical advice and services are not being offered. If you have, or suspect you
have, a health problem you should consult your physician (preferably a
Naturopath).
No comments:
Post a Comment