Dr. De Villa’s review of the literature on fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness

They also provide strength and conditioning sessions, for those in need of cialis professional price https://regencygrandenursing.com/testimonials/video-testimonials-sandra-barreca it. Reason might be any, cheap viagra 25mg but when one wants residence, one also wants the other things like peace, love and happiness. You should value and care cialis tadalafil 10mg each other’s emotions to give the relation a long way of journey. Actually, it was presented viagra on line pharmacy by Parker’s own trainer known as Teacher Bill (Willie) K.
Click here to read scathing commentary on Dr. De Villa’s review, from Paul Connett, PhD, Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010).

Dr. De Villa’s approach was to assume safety and efficacy of toxic waste in tap water, unless a flawless study of fluoridation at 0.5-1.2 mg/L concentration shows otherwise.  But the required gold standard studies have never been conducted in all these decades.  On this basis, she proclaims fluoridation is “Safe and Effective”. 

This is not science, it’s fanaticism.  It’s disgraceful and not remotely reasonable, especially when so many Peel children already have dental fluorosis – visible proof of harm from over-exposure to fluoride (see below), and when there are >300 human and animal studies showing that fluoride is neurotoxic, and Dr. De Villa admits that there are many serious health issues at higher concentrations.

In Peel Region, in 2001/2002 the prevalence of dental fluorosis among surveyed children was 13% (3% with moderate fluorosis, 1% with severe).  See page 14: https://www.peelregion.ca/health/health-status-report/dental-health/pdfs/dh-full.pdf.  Click here to see photos of moderate and severe dental fluorosis.

Peel’s own 2007 fluoridation study, conducted by Dr. Dick Ito, compared SES-matched samples of 7 year-old school children from fluoridated Brampton and unfluoridated Caledon.  It found no difference in the cavity rates, but double the dental fluorosis in the fluoridated sample (34% vs. 16% for any degree of dental fluorosis; 9% vs. 3.6% for dental fluorosis of “aesthetic concern”).

Even in the unfluoridated sample, 16% of our children had visible proof of harm from over-exposure to fluoride.  One in 3 children in the fluoridated sample!

Where are the updated Peel statistics on dental fluorosis, from the Region’s Public Health Department that condescendingly insists they have been monitoring the situation so carefully and that fluoridation is absolutely ‘Safe and Effective‘?  Taxpayers have been paying for a Fluoridation Committee charged with the responsibility of reviewing this practice since February 2015 (see here and here), and all this time Dr. de Villa has evaded providing updated local statistics.

She and other Ontario Medical Officers typically deal with dental fluorosis by writing it off as ‘largely a cosmetic condition‘.  In Peel’s 2003 Report, dental fluorosis is not even listed under “Dental Disease in Children”, but buried under “Fluorides in Caries Prevention” (see Table of Contents).

In her written report, Dr. de Villa went so far as to create a 3rd category, separate from ‘Safety‘ and ‘Effectiveness‘, just for dealing with dental fluorosis, implying that it is not an adverse health effect.

On page 4.2-5 of she admitted:

“One  systematic  review of 40 studies (59,630 children) reported that in a community  where water is fluoridated to 0.7 ppm, an estimated 12 per cent of children would be  expected to have fluorosis of aesthetic concern; at a water fluoride level of 0.1 ppm,  eight  per cent of children would have fluorosis of aesthetic concern.  A recent, strong quality single study reported 55 per cent of children in the fluoridated  community  had  fluorosis  (of  any  level)  versus  27  per  cent  of  children  living  in  the  non -fluoridated  area.”

How exactly is this not a serious concern??

Instead of providing updated statistics on Peel’s own children, at a recent meeting of the Community Water Fluoridation Committee, Dr. de Villa made distracting, misleading and nonsensical statements, as described in the email below sent on January 7, 2017.

 

Dear Councillor Medeiros and Mayor Jeffrey,

 As shown below, 3 years ago I was requesting updated statistics on dental fluorosis in Peel from Public Health Staff.  Despite having a fluoridation committee for a long time now, and despite her claim that her department is closely monitoring the fluoridation situation, Dr. de Villa continues to evade the issue and still has not released the statistics. In fact, she instead made a thoroughly nonsensical claim (repeated from Health Canada’s website and not supported with any data) to the committee recently regarding moderate and severe fluorosis across Canada (note that most of Canada is not fluoridated).  She stated that the the prevalence across Canada is too to report (no prevalence is too low to report), instead of supplying Peel’s own updated statistics. 

In Peel’s 2003 report, 13% of Peel children had some form of dental fluorosis, 3% had moderate fluorosis and 1% had severe.  Fluorosis is visible proof of overexposure to fluoride. 

This is just one example of how Dr. de Villa’s influence over the committee has interfered with Councillors gaining a proper understanding of the risks to residents, and how taxpayers’ time and money is being wasted as a result.

[HC states that “So few children have moderate or severe fluorosis that, even combined, the prevalence is too low to permit reporting.  This finding provides validation that dental fluorosis remains an issue of low concern in this country.” 

So in addition to claiming that low prevalences cannot be reported, Health Canada feels that the available data across Canada are sufficient for them to “validate” their level of concern but that these numbers cannot be released publicly and we must simply accept their assessment of the situation.  Dr. de Villa repeated this to the committee.]

 

It is unavoidable that increasing exposure to fluoride via tap water increases the likelihood of any type of fluorosis.  A child can figure this out.  Water fluoridation is unavoidably unsafe, at a time when people are already bombarded with toxicity from many sources.

Learn more about fluorosis from Fluoride Action Network and below:

FLUOROSIS AND ASSOCIATED HEALTH ISSUES: 2015 peer-reviewed study by world expert Dr. A.K. Susheela

“In this update the types of fluorosis affecting different tissues / organs / systems in the body… are discussed.”

https://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fluorosis-and-associated-health-issues-2015-peer-reviewed-study-on-fluorosis-by-world-expert-dr-a-k-susheela/