 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Dentistry / September 2005Fluorosis UP - Cavities UP
American Children are Fluoride Overdosed - Formula Fed Infants Most At Risk New York - September 3, 2005 -- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that 1/3 of six to nineteen year-olds are fluoride overdosed and display dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow or brown and sometimes pitted or crumbly teeth. (A) Over 42% are afflicted if the CDC's "questionable" category is included. (B) In 1945, dentists projected water fluoridation would create fluorosis (discolored teeth) in 10% of the population in its mildest form - white spots. But now, according to the CDC, not only do 1/3 of six - nineteen-year-olds suffer from fluoride overdose, but 4% of it is severe fluorosis - yellow or brown stained and/or pitted or crumbly teeth, which actually decays faster than healthy dentition. Fluorosis occurs more often in blacks (42% see table 20) who also have the highest tooth decay rates (43% of 2 - 11 year-olds). (B) "Since blacks have the most dental fluorosis and the most cavities, if anything, this report shows fluoride is an ineffective cavity fighter," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. Infant formulas prepared with fluoridated water increase dental fluorosis risk, according to research published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition (JACN) (1) and elsewhere. JACN study co-author Marshall told Reuters Health, "Very young infants are unlikely to benefit from the caries-prevention effects of fluoride...They may be at increased risk of dental fluorosis." (1a) To prevent this tooth staining, researchers caution against mixing infant formulas with fluoridated water. Fluorosis is the too-late warning sign that babies overdosed on fluoride, creating a new lucrative market for dentists - covering up those fluorosed teeth (6). Neither a nutrient nor essential to health, fluoride, can also damage bones.(1b) Researchers Marshall and colleagues found more fluorosed teeth in children who consumed the most fluoridated water either alone or through infant formulas (1). In a different study, researchers, Brothwell and Limeback, urge breastfeeding, or mixing infant formula with non-fluoridated water, to avoid dental fluorosis, in a November 2003 Journal of Human Lactation study. They found three times more fluorosis in children consuming 1 milligram per liter fluoridated water compared to those who drank non-fluoridated water.(2) Breastfeeding does not increase cavity risk, according to a recent Journal of the American Dental Association study (3). Another researcher AK Mascarenhas, also advised parents to avoid fluoridated water for infant formula preparation to prevent fluorosis, in a 2000 Pediatric Dentistry study (4). At least eleven other studies link reconstituted formula with fluorosis.(5a-k). "Neither the CDC nor the American Dental Association, who heavily promote fluoridation warns parents to avoid fluoridated water for infant feeding. Why not?" asks lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "Are they protecting fluoridation or children?" However, the Academy of General Dentistry does recommend against mixing infant formulas with fluoridated water. (6a) Formula prepared with optimally fluoridated water provides 100 times more fluoride than the amount in breast milk (7). And newborns do not have "fully developed renal handling capacity for fluoride at this early stage of life..."(8) which can lead to dangerous bone-fluoride build up and more. Not only is infant fluoride intake risky, it's unnecessary. According to the CDC, "Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted?" (9). Further, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration never safety-tested fluoride for ingestion (10). In 2000, after extensively reviewing fluoride and health studies, a panel of British scientists report, "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide," (11) despite incorrect news reports disseminated by prominent fluoride proponents about this review (12). New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. PO Box 263, Old Bethpage, NY 11804 nyscof@aol.com http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof References: http://groups.google.com/group/Fluoridation-News-Releases/browse_frm/thread/f931 c30e9a299ca9 Curiously, this was in the CDC press release http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050825.htm Press Release For Release: August 25, 2005 Noon ET Contact: CDC's National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of Communication 770-488-5131 New Report Finds Improvements in Oral Health of Americans.......................... The oral health status of Americans has significantly improved during the past decade, according to a report released today ..................... There was a 15 percent decrease in the prevalence of tooth decay in permanent teeth for children and adolescents aged 6 to19 years. This ranged from a 4 percent decrease in decay for Mexican-American children/adolescents to an 18 percent decrease in white, non-Hispanic children and adolescents. > Curiously, this was in the CDC press release > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > from a 4 percent decrease in decay for Mexican-American children/adolescents > to an 18 percent decrease in white, non-Hispanic children and adolescents. CDC Pronouncements Mislead Americans on Oral Health Improvement and Fluoride Benefits (based on CDC's own statistics) The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) distributed misleading information to Americans via their 8/25/05 press release, which claims increased tooth retention among older adults, and less children's cavities (A). Actually, more recent CDC statistics show adult tooth loss and preschoolers tooth decay rates worsening despite widespread fluoride use. The CDC report, highlighted in the 8/25 press release, "New Report Finds Improvements in Oral Health of Americans," is based on two old studies culled during years 1988-1994 and 1999-2002, which claims no change in cavity rate in baby teeth of children, aged two - eleven and less tooth loss in the elderly. Actually, tooth loss in the over-65 crowd increased from 17.6% in 2002 (B) to 21.2% in 2004 (C), according to the CDC's own website. And cavity experience in two - four-year-olds is getting worse, according to a 3/17/04 CDC "Oral Health Progress Review." (D) In 1945, dentists projected water fluoridation would create fluorosis (discolored teeth) in 10% of the population in its mildest form - white spots. But now, according to the CDC, not only do 1/3 of six - nineteen-year-olds suffer from fluoride overdose, but 4% of it is severe fluorosis - yellow or brown stained and/or pitted or crumbly teeth, which actually decays faster than healthy dentition. Fluorosis occurs more often in blacks (42% of blacks; see table 20) who also have the highest tooth decay rates (43% of 2 - 11 year-olds). "Since blacks have the most dental fluorosis and the most cavities, if anything, this report shows fluoride is an ineffective cavity fighter," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "We are appalled that government officials take every opportunity to extol the virtues of fluoridation, without the scientific evidence to back it up," says Beeber. This CDC report didn't even attempt to link cavity rates with fluoride use but CDC officials imply it does. The director of the CDC's oral health division, Dr. William Maas told Reuters Health, "This reduced decay in all ages is really a reflection of the widespread availability of fluoride." (E) Within minutes the American Dental Association (ADA) jumped on the fluoridation bandwagon issuing a news release that says about the CDC report, "It tells us that preventive measures such as dental sealants, water fluoridation, regular dental visits and programs to promote good oral hygiene practices are having a positive impact on the nation's overall oral health." (F) Actually the report proves none of the above. The ADA and CDC really can't tell whether better diet, food fortification, better dental care or something else caused a cavity decline. Maybe it was just creative math. If fluoridation is truly responsible for a cavity decline, one would expect decay rates to be lower in more highly fluoridated states. But that's not the case. However, cavity rates are associated with low income (G) For example, CDC statistics show that: Despite a 60% fluoridation rate, Arkansas has the most third-graders suffering with tooth decay (72%) and the highest number of poor children (45%) Oklahoma third-graders endure the second worst cavity rate (69%) even though 3/4 of the state is fluoridated. But 41% are poor, the second poorest state on the CDC's list. Similarly, 89% fluoridated South Dakota reveals the third worst decay rate (68%) where 41% are poor. At the low end: Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont third-graders have the least decay - 49%, 45% and 44%, respectively, and the smallest amount of poor children (26%, 32% and 31%), Fluoridation rates: 63%, 75%, and 54%, respectively. While the ADA and CDC brag about fluoridation, tooth decay crises are taking place in most, if not all, large U.S. fluoridated cities. (H) Tooth decay has become the new American caste system, according to best-selling author Malcolm Gladwell who writes in the New Yorker that rotted teeth are the single most common complaint of America's uninsured which keeps them in bad jobs, bad health, eating bad diets and generally keeping them down. (I) One hundred and eight million Americans lack dental insurance. Two poor-diet-related diseases, cavities and obesity, go up as income goes down.(J) The states with the most obese residents have the highest rates of tooth loss despite higher rates of water fluoridation. The leaner states enjoy less tooth loss and lower fluoridation rates. (K) "Tooth loss is a result of a poor diet and lack of dental care and has nothing to do with fluoride ingestion," says Beeber. "Fluoride added to water supplies is linked to cancer, bone damage, thyroid dysfunction, kidney problems and damaged teeth," says Beeber. "We join with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Employees Unions asking for a moratorium on water fluoridation." (L) If you agree, please sign the petition supporting 11 EPA Unions, representing 7,000 EPA employees including scientists, toxicologists and other health professionals, in asking Congress to stop fluoridation until further study shows fluoridation's benefits are worth the expense and risks. http://petition.powalliance.org/index.html END New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF) PO Box 263 Old Bethpage, NY 11804 www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof References: A) U.S. Centers For Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of Communication, "New Report Finds Improvements in Oral Health of Americans," 8/25/05 http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r050825.htm B) 2002 tooth loss statistics http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=OH&yr=2002&qkey=6605&state=All C) 2004 tooth loss statistics http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=OH&yr=2004&qkey=6606&state=All D) Oral Health Progress Review 3/17/04 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/ppt/hpdata2010/focusareas/fa21.ppt (slide 5) E) "Tooth decay in US falls sharply in kids, teens - CDC, August 25, 2004, Source: Reuters, by Paul Simao http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N25251530.htm F) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=1545 G) U.S. Centers For Disease Control, "Caries Experience Percentage of 3rd Grade students with Caries Experience (treated or untreated tooth decay) http://www2.cdc.gov/nohss/IndicatorV.asp?Indicator=2 H) http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof2/_pgg6.php3 I) http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050829fa_fact J) http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger&obesity.htm K) Obesity Rates by State http://healthyamericans.org/newsroom/releases/release082305.pdf Fluoridation Rates by State http://www2.cdc.gov/nccdphp/doh/synopses/WaterFluoridationV.asp?Year=2004 Tooth Loss by State http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/list.asp?cat=OH&yr=2004&qkey=6606&state=All L) "EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up," August 18, 2005 http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm >>Curiously, this was in the CDC press release >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > fighter," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State > Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. It shows nothing of the sort, counselor, unless you can demonstrate that the populations are matched for any number of confounding factors, and that the patients with dental fluorosis are using fluoride supplements as intended. "We are appalled that government > officials take every opportunity to extol the virtues of fluoridation, > without the scientific evidence to back it up," says Beeber. Paul--will you ever disclose on your website what individuals and organizations are involved with NYSCOFF? I'd be curious to know where your funding is coming from--and I think your supporters and donors have a right to know. Steve > This CDC report didn't even attempt to link cavity rates with > fluoride use but CDC officials imply it does. The director of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > care or something else caused a cavity decline. Maybe it was just > creative math. ...just as the report cannot tell you that differences in diet, food fortification, better dental care or something else may account for the relative caries incidence in disparate populations, rather than the putative ineffectiveness of fluoride. > If fluoridation is truly responsible for a cavity decline, one would > expect decay rates to be lower in more highly fluoridated states. But [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > August 18, 2005 > http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm  SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > Paul--will you ever disclose on your website what individuals and > organizations are involved with NYSCOFF? I'd be curious to know where > your funding is coming from--and I think your supporters and donors have > a right to know. I'm just wondering - a postbox and some stamps don't strike me as requiring much "funding" (unless of course this organization regularly sends out letters to all New York households)... can anyone explain? I'm not very familiar with NYSCOF. Is Paul representing this organization as a volunteer, or has he been hired as a lawyer to represent NYSCOF? >>Paul--will you ever disclose on your website what individuals and >>organizations are involved with NYSCOFF? I'd be curious to know where [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > organization as a volunteer, or has he been hired as a lawyer to > represent NYSCOF? As far as I know, Paul Beeber IS NYSCOFF. There is also Sally 101 who posts here occasionally. Paul of course has every right to post whatever he wishes. If he wishes to refer to himself in the third person, that's fine too. ;-) However, if NYSCOFF=Paul Beeber, I think it's fair to state that the materials going out under his letterhead are the political and medical opinions of an attorney, and not a cadre of highly respected scientists in the field. If there are a cadre of highly respected scientists in the field represented by NYSCOFF--especially for attribution--it seems to me that publicizing their names can only help Paul's cause. Steve SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 Steve, > opinions of an attorney, and not a cadre of highly respected scientists > in the field. If there are a cadre of highly respected scientists in > the field represented by NYSCOFF--especially for attribution--it seems > to me that publicizing their names can only help Paul's cause. Are you saying there are "highly respected scientists" among the fluoridation sellers? Who would "highly respect" them??? Steve, I rarely saw you that pathetic. Best, Peter > > Paul--will you ever disclose on your website what individuals and > > organizations are involved with NYSCOFF? I'd be curious to know where [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > organization as a volunteer, or has he been hired as a lawyer to > represent NYSCOF? We work with most of the same groups and people as the Fluoride Action Network. Names and groups are listed there. www.fluorideaction.net NYSCOF works on a shoe string budget and the truth. Fluoridationists have lobbiests, federal and private grants, corporate money and support, people in every state whose job is to promote fluoridation. The whole national institutes of dental research, the CDC's oral health division. If fluoridationists have problems with our little group of truth tellers, maybe fluoridation isn't really the panacea they claim it to be. Some fluoridationists lie, distort the truth and use name-calling, using the knowledge and stategies taught to them in school and fluoridation pep-rallies, rather than science to support their claims. Everyone in the NYSCOF works pro bono and it's no one's job to do this. NYSCOF was formed and incorporated in the 1970's to successfully thwart a bill to mandate fluoridation in New York State. It also helped create a NYS law called the "local rule bill" that requires a vote by a legislative body rather than any other entity (like a health commissioner) from mandating fluoridation. NYSCOF works very closely with elected officials whenever the need arises. Funding comes from a once a year appeal from supporters. The proper tax forms are filled out. But since the amount we receive is so small, you probably won't see it in any databases. The question you should be asking us is how much does it cost each of us to work for NYSCOF. New York State Coaltion Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof >Fluoridationists have lobbiests, federal and private grants, corporate >money and support, people in every state whose job is to promote >fluoridation. The whole national institutes of dental research, the >CDC's oral health division. So.... why do you think they are pusing flouride in the water..simple mistake or what? >>Fluoridationists have lobbiests, federal and private grants, corporate >>money and support, people in every state whose job is to promote [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >So.... why do you think they are pusing flouride in the water..simple >mistake or what? Who is pusing flour ... ide? > >Fluoridationists have lobbiests, federal and private grants, corporate > >money and support, people in every state whose job is to promote [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So.... why do you think they are pusing flouride in the water..simple > mistake or what? I used to think it was just a big fat stupid mistake, flamed by PR and trust in the dental profession. The dentists who first discovered that calcium fluoride in water reduced cavities neglected to factor in the calcium. Fluoride was a known tooth discolorer. So when those discolored teeth also had less cavities, they believed fluoride was the reason and convinced others of the same, more through PR, than science. An objective look at the early studies will show how poorly done they were. For instance, the only study to look at health effects was the Kingston Newburgh study. They exluded any child from examination who was sick two weeks prior to examination - eliminating the very test subjects who might show fluoride's adverse effects It was a time when nutrients were being discoverd to "cure" diseases such as vitamin C preventing scurvy. So dentists thought they had their magic nutrient that prevented tooth decay. Fluoridation certainly gave dentistry the credibility and respect they never had before and is the foundation for the National Institutes of Dental Research that continue to feed dentists grant money to study fluoride in every which way - but little for fluoride's adverse health effects. Why tooth specialists such as dentists are considered the experts on fluoride's effects to the body is still a mystery to me. Toxicologists seem more appropriate. I always thought it was a simple mistake; but a recent book, "The Fluoride Deception," tells a different story about how fluoride was waste produced by contracters producing parts and elements for the top-secret Manhattan Project which produced the atomic bomb that ended WW 2. So it's interesting that Dr. Harold Hodge was very involved in the Manhattan Project and in fluoridation. He might have been the dentist whisperer that inflated organized dentistry's ego and pushed them to do his dirty work. In any event, dentistry has been duped. And maybe it's no coincidence that this year marked the 60th anniversary of both water fluoridation and the Manhattan Project. New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof >> >Fluoridationists have lobbiests, federal and private grants, corporate >> >money and support, people in every state whose job is to promote [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I used to think it was just a big fat stupid mistake, flamed by PR and >trust in the dental profession. I agree. I am against pusing flour-ide. >> So.... why do you think they are pusing fluoride in the water..simple >> mistake or what? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >top-secret Manhattan Project which produced the atomic bomb that ended >WW 2. If I undderstand you correctly, you now believe fluoride use was a method to dispose of waste products during the Manhattan project. if so, why did it continue once there was public knowledge of the bomb. There are many waste products disposed of on site at the old national labs Let's suppose it was the original reason. Why does it continue now? > If I undderstand you correctly, you now believe fluoride use was a > method to dispose of waste products during the Manhattan project. if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Let's suppose it was the original reason. Why does it continue now? I don't really know the answer to that question. The scientific literature shows the harm fluoride can do to the human body and I don't know why organized dentistry ignores it. But, of course, I have my unproveable theories so I won't dodge your question. Among them are: 1) To admit fluoridation is harmful would open up government agencies and dental unions to lawsuits. 2) There's a synergistic relationship between dentistry and the billion dollar international fluoride industry (toothpaste, etc) To admit any negative about fluoride would not be in, for example, Procter & Gamble's best interest. (It's known that magazines will delete negative stories or edit negative paragraphs from articles that impugn a drug who's maker is one of their advertisers.) Dentistry get loads of money from comapnies such as Colgate, Johnson & Johnson, P&G, etc for symposiums, grants, journals, etc. Their names are even etched on the fluoridation monument in Grand Rapids, Michigan. 3) Most in the dental profession truly believe the studies they quote are scientifically valid; but they are not. Even a textbook geared to dentists, by Burt and Eklund admit fluoridation is based more on belief than science. 4) From reading many dental posts on the internet, it seems that dentists are just told what to believe in school and not to question - which is what they do about fluoridation. So most of their intentions are well-meant and from the heart believing, as they do, that what they were taught in dental school must be true or else they wouldn't have had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to learn it. 5) Dentists were give very little crediblily and respect before fluoridation. Fluoridation is the foundation that built the National Institutes of Dental Research which funnels millions of dollars to dentist/researchers to study fluoride's effects to the teeth, total fluoride intake, every which-new-way to deliver fluoride and more. Who among them will say enough, if it means their grants will dry up. In publishing it's publish or perish. If fluoridation is admitted to be the super-failure it is, no legislator will ever trust a dentist again. The dental unions get lots of goodies from legislators who trust them. That's all I can think of right now. NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof >>If I undderstand you correctly, you now believe fluoride use was a >>method to dispose of waste products during the Manhattan project. if [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > the super-failure it is, no legislator will ever trust a dentist again. > The dental unions get lots of goodies from legislators who trust them. Goodies? Steve > That's all I can think of right now. > > NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation > http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 george1234 schrieb: > If I undderstand you correctly, you now believe fluoride use was a > method to dispose of waste products during the Manhattan project. if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Let's suppose it was the original reason. Why does it continue now? Your story of the Manhattan Project would be: - they build two bombs, dropped them over two Japanese cities, disbanded, and - that´s it -- ? Relative to fluoride there´s more to it, however. True, they needed fluorine and fluorides to prepare uranium hexafluoride to be used for isotope separation. UF6 is very aggressive, so the pipes and filters had to be made of special material - fluorocarbons. The fittings? Teflon. In the "National Nuclear Energy Series" of books on the Manhattan Project, one (VII-1) is entirely devoted to fluorcarbons used in that project. 850 pages with formula after formula, descriptions, ways of preparation. Several University departments were connected to such research (Purdue a.o.). Inustrial and Engineering Chemistry published a review on fluorine chemistry in that context too. One of the authors (involved in that research) says: "fluorine and its compounds, not so long ago mere academic curiosities, are big business today". Book series after book series have been published since then on fluorine and its compounds ("Fluorine Chemistry" Vols. 1-5, "Advances in Fluorine Chemistry", and so on). The Freons, used for refrigeration (necessary in the Manhattan Project too), air conditioning (also in mines!), and a reliable product for the production of pure uranium tetrafluoride. Now you have them everywhere. Once you leafe through the "MInerals Yearbook" series you will find that fluorides (fluorspar, cryolite) as well as phosphates (high in fluoride) are substances important for "national security", because they are needed also for production of steel, aluminum, magnesium, and a lot of chemicals (among them also the nerve agents). No reason then to downgrade the toxic potential? Peter ----- History of Fluorine, fluoride and fluoridation: - http://www.fluoride-history.de - ----- letsconnect wrote > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote > > Paul--will you ever disclose on your website what individuals an > organizations are involved with NYSCOFF? I'd be curious to kno wher > your funding is coming from--and I think your supporters and donor hav > a right to know > > I'm just wondering - a postbox and some stamps don't strike me a > requiring much "funding" (unless of course this organizatio regularl > sends out letters to all New York households)... can anyone explain > I'm not very familiar with NYSCOF. Is Paul representing thi > organization as a volunteer, or has he been hired as a lawyer t > represent NYSCOF We work with most of the same groups and people as the Fluoride Actio Network Names and groups are listed there. www.fluorideaction.ne NYSCOF works on a shoe string budget and the truth Fluoridationists have lobbiests, federal and private grants, corporat money and support, people in every state whose job is to promot fluoridation. The whole national institutes of dental research, th CDC's oral health division. If fluoridationists have problems wit ou little group of truth tellers, maybe fluoridation isn't really th panacea they claim it to be Some fluoridationists lie, distort the truth and use name-calling using the knowledge and stategies taught to them in school an fluoridation pep-rallies, rather than science to support their claims Everyone in the NYSCOF works pro bono and it's no one's job to d this NYSCOF was formed and incorporated in the 1970's to successfull thwar a bill to mandate fluoridation in New York State. It also helpe create a NYS law called the "local rule bill" that requires a vote b legislative body rather than any other entity (like a healt commissioner) from mandating fluoridation NYSCOF works very closely with elected officials whenever the nee arises Funding comes from a once a year appeal from supporters. The prope ta forms are filled out. But since the amount we receive is so small yo probably won't see it in any databases The question you should be asking us is how much does it cost each o us to work for NYSCOF New York State Coaltion Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc www.orgsites.com/ny/nysco letsconnect wrote: > Mark & Steven Bornfeld wrote: > > Paul--will you ever disclose on your website what individuals and > organizations are involved with NYSCOFF? I'd be curious to know where > your funding is coming from--and I think your supporters and donors have > a right to know. > > I'm just wondering - a postbox and some stamps don't strike me as > requiring much "funding" (unless of course this organization regularly > sends out letters to all New York households)... can anyone explain? > I'm not very familiar with NYSCOF. Is Paul representing this > organization as a volunteer, or has he been hired as a lawyer to > represent NYSCOF? We work with most of the same groups and people as the Fluoride Action Network. Names and groups are listed there. www.fluorideaction.net NYSCOF works on a shoe string budget and the truth. Fluoridationists have lobbiests, federal and private grants, corporate money and support, people in every state whose job is to promote fluoridation. The whole national institutes of dental research, the CDC's oral health division. If fluoridationists have problems with our little group of truth tellers, maybe fluoridation isn't really the panacea they claim it to be. Some fluoridationists lie, distort the truth and use name-calling, using the knowledge and stategies taught to them in school and fluoridation pep-rallies, rather than science to support their claims. Everyone in the NYSCOF works pro bono and it's no one's job to do this. NYSCOF was formed and incorporated in the 1970's to successfully thwart a bill to mandate fluoridation in New York State. It also helped create a NYS law called the "local rule bill" that requires a vote by a legislative body rather than any other entity (like a health commissioner) from mandating fluoridation. NYSCOF works very closely with elected officials whenever the need arises. Funding comes from a once a year appeal from supporters. The proper tax forms are filled out. But since the amount we receive is so small, you probably won't see it in any databases. The question you should be asking us is how much does it cost each of us to work for NYSCOF. New York State Coaltion Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.