WMD Britain: How MoD scientists tested chemical weapons including anthrax and the PLAGUE on soldiers and members of the public – and even released dangerous bacteria on the Tube
- Scientists experimented on 21,000 servicemen between 1939 and 1989
- New book reveals horrors of unwitting Ministry of Defence test subjects
- ‘Plague-like’ bacteria spores were even released on London Underground
- Volunteers suffered agonising chemical burns, breakdowns and even death
The gruesome reality of chemical experiments carried out by the Ministry of Defence at a controversial ‘military science park’ over the course of 50 years has been revealed.
Teenager soldiers and servicemen unwittingly volunteered to be human ‘guinea pigs’ for a series of experiments at Porton Down, in Wiltshire, in the hope of a bit of extra cash.
But the unsuspecting volunteers were exposed to Sarin gas, anthrax and even the Black Death, a new book has revealed.
One victim was left convulsing with ‘terrible stuff coming out of his mouth like frogspawn’; another teenage serviceman believed he had a four-hour conversation with a school-friend who had died years before, after being injected with a brain-incapacitating drug.
Incredibly, thousands of members of the British public were also unknowingly exposed by government scientists who released spores of a ‘plague-like’ bacteria on the London Underground in 1963.
Eerie: Volunteers line up to be experimented on at ‘military science park’ Porton Down, in Wiltshire. Scientists exposed volunteers to potentially dangerous gases to measure how much was absorbed by the masks
Controversial: Protesters outside Porton Down, in Wiltshire, where the Ministry of Defence carried out chemical and biological experiments on 21,000 servicemen between 1939 and 1989
Although considered harmless at the time Bacillus globigii – or BG to use its military moniker – can in fact cause food poisoning, eye infections, and even potentially deadly septicaemia.
But none of the London commuters were ever told of the experiment.
Scientists at Porton Down assured their thousands of military volunteers that they were ‘totally safe’ before exposing them to a series of dangerous experiments.
Despite being turned into ‘guinea pigs’ by their own government, 21,000 servicemen between 1939 and 1989 were only offered token payments, a day off, or even just a free bus pass.
Decades later, in 2008, the government finally apologised for the atrocities that had been carried out on human ‘guinea pigs’ and paid compensation to 670 of the victims.
Historian Ulf Schmidt, a leading academic of modern history at the University of Kent, has revealed exactly what the shocking experiments entailed and the horrific effects they had on their ‘participants’.
The historian, who acted as an expert witness in the Porton Down investigation, has revealed his findings in a new book ‘Secret Science: A Century of Poison Warfare and Human Experiments.
Here are some of the most disturbing case studies he has revealed.
Many thousands of Londoners were put at considerable risk by the Ministry of Defence experimentation.
On July 26, 1963, a harmful virus was unleashed on the London Underground.
Spores of the virus Bacillus globigii were released at Colliers Wood, in a tiny box disguised as a make-up compact.
Unknowing test subjects: On July 26, 1963, scientists released spores of the harmful virus Bacillus globigii on the London Underground (right) to test how anthrax spores would travel. The spores were unleashed at Colliers Wood, in a box disguised as a make-up compact (left)
Scientists were trying to discover whether ‘long distance travel of aerosols’ on London’s transport network ‘was due to transportation within trains’ or through the air ventilation systems.
The virus, although considered harmless at the time, has since been proved to cause food poisoning, eye infections and even potentially-deadly septicaemia.
But none of the commuters dusted with the spores were ever warned or contacted afterwards.
Government officials decided that in order to maintain national security, the trial should be kept under wraps.
‘Guinea pig’: RAF engineer Ronald Maddison, 20, unwittingly volunteered to be exposed to Sarin gas, a deadly nerve agent now classified by the UN as a weapon of mass destruction. He died in May 1953
Ronald Maddison, an RAF engineer from Co Durham, was just 20 when he signed up for one of the hundreds of experiments carried out at the ‘military science park’ of Porton Down, in May 1953.
Assured that he was in no danger, he was guided into a gas chamber with five other test subjects, dressed in oversized overalls, woollen hats and respirators for protection.
Scientists applied twenty drops of liquid to two layers of cloth used in uniforms, serge and flannel, which had been taped to the inside of his forearm.
Just hours later the hapless volunteer was dead, the victim of the most severe case of nerve gas poisoning ever recorded in the western world.
He had been exposed to Sarin, a deadly nerve agent that is now classified by the UN as a weapon of mass destruction.
Ambulance driver Alfred Thornhill, who was 19 years old at the time of Maddison’s death, spoke as an eyewitness at the inquest into his death.
‘I had never seen anyone die before and what that lad went through was absolutely horrific,’ he told the inquest.
‘It was like he was being electrocuted, his whole body was convulsing.
‘The skin was vibrating and there was all this terrible stuff coming out of his mouth…it looked like frogspawn.’
He added: ‘I saw his leg rise up from the bed and I saw his skin begin turning blue. It started from the ankle and started spreading up his leg.
‘It was like watching somebody pouring a blue liquid into a glass, it just began filling up.
‘It was like watching something from outer space and then one of the doctors produced the biggest needle I had ever seen.
‘The sister saw me gawping and told me to get out.’
In payment for the trial that killed him, Maddison was offered 15 shillings and three-day leave pass. He had planned to use the money to buy an engagement ring for his girlfriend.
The British government finally consented to an inquest into his death, half a century after the event.
Unwitting volunteers: The chemistry laboratory at ‘military science park’ Porton Down, in Wiltshire. An total of 21,000 servicemen volunteered to take part in experiments between 1939 and 1989, designed to test chemical and biological weapons capabilities
Airman Richard Skinner, a 19-year-old from Aberdeenshire, arrived at Porton in mid-1972 in the hope of earning some extra cash.
He volunteered himself for what was then described as a ‘mild dose of anaesthetic’.
He was actually injected with the new drug T3436, which had been designed as a means to incapacitate the human brain.
At a hearing, 30 years later, he described how his only hazy recollection of the experiment was a long conversation with a dead school-friend.
In video footage of the experiment, the young Skinner can be seen talking to a fire extinguisher for more than four hours.
He is, to this day, convinced that the mind-altering experiment fundamentally changed his personality.
Thousands of servicemen were locked into gas chambers pumped full of potentially lethal toxins, in a series of experiments designed to test protective clothing carried out over the decades.
In one of these life-threatening experiments, in March 1943, six servicemen were exposed to nitrogen vapour for an hour a day for up to five consecutive days.
But all six volunteers had to be removed from the test, after suffering agonising chemical burns to their armpits, scrotums and scalps.
A 20-year-old corporal, Harry Hogg, was one of those exposed to the poisonous gas.
He later spoke out about his experience in the chamber.
Gruesome: Scientists at Porton Down ushered thousands of servicemen into gas chambers pumped full of potentially lethal toxins over the decades, to test protective clothing
‘It seemed like an eternity. They opened the door and we all piled out on hands and knees, groaning and moaning and crying… one man was just like an animal.
‘He was trying to eat grass. He was out of his mind. What we went through was horrendous.’
In 1944, a Porton Down report insisted that most of those involved in the experiment enjoyed their experience.
In February 1995, Labour politician Rachel Squire demanded that the Ministry of Defence investigate Harry Hogg’s case specifically, as Porton Down bosses tried to deny that he was ever there.
Anthrax was also a key feature of Porton Down experiments, as scientists investigated its capabilities for biological warfare, along with venereal diseases and the bubonic plague.
Porton Down scientists launched Operation Cauldron in 1952, to test the potential of the bubonic plague as a weapon.
The trial took place in the Outer Hebrides, aboard the HMS Ben Lomond.
Trial-run: Scientists investigated the bubonic plague as a biological weapon, aboard the HMS Ben Lomond (pictured) in the Outer Hebrides in 1952, as part of Operation Cauldron
But in an unexpected twist the trawler Carella, with 18 people aboard, strayed into the test area.
Rather than warn or offer treatment to those aboard, researchers were ordered to track the trawler as it continued on its course to Iceland, to monitor what happened.
Incredibly, the crew were even allowed to dock for a few days at Blackpool, with no regard for public safety.
If any of the crew members became sick, medical officers had been instructed to diagnose pneumonia.
Luckily, no crew members or members of the public reported any illness, and those involved in the operation were ordered to burn all records of their communications.
Lennox Castle Hospital is one of four Scottish institutions alleged to have been involved
“I was incarcerated with orderlies armed with rubber coshes.
“We were imprisoned, experimented upon, lobotomies, you name it, they did it.
“I was there, I saw it with my own eyes.
We were imprisoned, experimented upon, lobotomies, you name it, they did it
“I believe this happened throughout the UK but I’m referring to Scotland.
“I have this evidence, on paper and on film, and I will hand it to the public inquiry.
“It was like something out of Auschwitz and people will be full of revulsion when they learn the state allowed this to happen.”
Lennox Castle Hospital, which closed in 2002 and is now the site of Celtic FC’s training ground, was home to children and adults with learning difficulties or conditions such as Down’s syndrome, as well as truants, unmarried mothers and wayward teenagers.
Some patients were sent there as children, often for the most trivial reasons, and ended up spending decades locked up.
Conditions improved after a series of damning reports and investigations, including a 1986 World in Action TV documentary which led to questions in the House of Commons.
Last night, Professor Ulf Schmidt of the University of Kent, Britain’s leading expert on human experimentation at Porton Down, said he had never heard of a drug trial programme involving orphans.
He added: “That is not to say these experiments didn’t happen, but I would be very cautious in dealing with these allegations.
“Some stories have appeared and reappeared over the past 50 years, including a similar one about drug testing and euthanasia involving elderly people that was eventually shown to be false.”
Six years ago hundreds of veterans who ‘volunteered’ to take part in tests at Porton Down were offered £3million in compensation.
They were exposed to nerve agents, such as sarin gas, and hallucinogens, such as LSD.
In the most infamous case, from 1953, Ronald Maddison took part in a trial of what he believed was a cold remedy, but died within an hour of having sarin dabbed on his arm.
Other Porton Down experiments included spraying bacteria over the south coast of England and dropping cancer-causing particles from planes.
And Gruinard Island in Wester Ross had to be sealed off for almost 50 years after it was contaminated with anthrax during the Second World War.
Porton Down is the home of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, an agency of the Ministry of Defence.
A spokeswoman said: “We are not aware of any tests involving children at Portown Down and have seen absolutely no evidence to back up these claims.”
Should you believe what the media say?
Retired Neuro-surgeon Dr Russel Blaylock
Aluminum from Geo-engineering causes Alzheimers and dementia
Aluminum from Geo-engineering causes Alzheimers, dementia and Cancer
Dr Dean Burk Fluoride is genocide causes cancer
Retired Neuro-surgeon Dr Russel Blaylock Fluoride causes cancer
Professor Paul Connett Fluoride is genocide causes cancer
Fluoride Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin in World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal
The movement to remove industrial sodium fluoride from the world’s water supply has been growing in recent years, with evidence coming out against the additive from several sources.Now, a report from the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, has officially classified fluoride as a neurotoxin — in the same category as arsenic, lead and mercury.
The news was broken by author Stefan Smyle, who cited a report published in The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, in the March 2014 edition, by authors Dr. Phillippe Grandjean and Philip J. Landrigan, MD. The report, which was officially released in 2014 and published in the journal, can be viewed by clicking here.
Fluoride Classified Along with Mercury, Lead and Others
As noted in the summary of the report, a systematic review identified five different similar industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene.
The summary goes on to state that six additional developmental neurotoxicants have also now been identified: manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. The authors added that even more of these neurotoxicants remain undiscovered.
Also in the report, they note that neurodevelopmental disabilities, including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, are now affecting millions of children worldwide in what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.”
Because of the documented health risks of fluoride, many people have launched campaigns to remove the chemical from their water supplies, to varying degrees of success.
Such initiatives usually begin through the are often controversial and emotionally charged because of the reputation fluoride still enjoys among mainstream dentistry practitioners.
In addition to fluoride in city water supplies, the substance can also be found in certain foods, especially in heavily processed brands of tea that may be grown in polluted areas (see this list for more info).
If you’ve ever noticed the warnings on toothpaste labels you probably know just how serious fluoride poisoning can be, especially for children if they swallow too much at one time.
Because of this threat, many parents have begun eschewing fluoridated toothpaste brands altogether and are using more natural brands such as Earthpaste, Desert Essence, Uncle Harry’s ToothpasteDr. Bronner’s toothpaste line, or even making their own from a combination of ingredients such as coconut oil, organic neem leaf powders, essential oils like peppermint or cinnamon, and other natural ingredients.
The fluoride added to our water supply is mostly seen as a cumulative toxin that accumulates in our bodies and can manifest itself in problems over time, including dental fluorosis, or far worse health problems.
Global Fluoride Prevention Strategy Recommended
In the Lancet report, the authors propose a global prevention strategy, saying that “untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.”
They continue: “To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.”
The report coincides with 2013 findings by a Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health that concluded that children in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores that those who live in areas with low amounts of fluoride in their water supplies.
Sodium fluoride in drinking water has also been linked to various cancers. It is functionally different than the naturally-occurring calcium fluoride, and commonly added to drinking water supplies and used by dentists who posit that it is useful for dental health.
Fluoridation is Actually Uncommon in Europe
Currently, fluoride is added to water supplies across much of North America, but as this list of countries that ban or reject water fluoridation shows, the practice is actually not too common, or banned entirely throughout most of Europe and in several other developed nations across the world.
Since most places in America still add fluoride to the water a high quality water filter is recommend to filter out the fluoride, and it can be especially important to avoid exposing yourself to too much fluoride in your daily shower or bath.
Johnson & Johnson must pay $72 million for cancer death linked to talcum powder: Lawyers
Johnson & Johnson faces claims that it failed for decades to warn consumers that its talc-based products could cause cancer.
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) was ordered by a Missouri state jury to pay $72 million of damages to the family of a woman whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to her use of the company’s talc-based Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for several decades.
In a verdict announced late Monday night, jurors in the circuit court of St. Louis awarded the family of Jacqueline Fox $10 million of actual damages and $62 million of punitive damages, according to the family’s lawyers and court records.
The verdict is the first by a U.S. jury to award damages over the claims, the lawyers said.
Johnson & Johnson faces claims that it, in an effort to boost sales, failed for decades to warn consumers that its talc-based products could cause cancer. About 1,000 cases have been filed in Missouri state court, and another 200 in New Jersey.
Fox, who lived in Birmingham, Alabama, claimed she used Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for feminine hygiene for more than 35 years before being diagnosed three years ago with ovarian cancer. She died in October at age 62.
Jurors found Johnson & Johnson liable for fraud, negligence and conspiracy, the family’s lawyers said. Deliberations lasted four hours, following a three-week trial.
Jere Beasley, a lawyer for Fox’s family, said Johnson & Johnson “knew as far back as the 1980s of the risk,” and yet resorted to “lying to the public, lying to the regulatory agencies.” He spoke on a conference call with journalists.
Carol Goodrich, a Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman, said: “We have no higher responsibility than the health and safety of consumers, and we are disappointed with the outcome of the trial. We sympathize with the plaintiff’s family but firmly believe the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence.”
Trials in several other talc lawsuits have been set for later this year, according to Danielle Mason, who also represented Fox’s family at trial.
In October 2013, a federal jury in Sioux Falls, South Dakota found that plaintiff Deane Berg’s use of Johnson & Johnson’s body powder products was a factor in her developing ovarian cancer. Nevertheless, it awarded no damages, court records show.
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc (VRX.TO) now owns the Shower to Shower brand but was not a defendant in the Fox case.
The case is Hogans et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al, Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, No. 1422-CC09012.
Fluoride in drinking water may trigger depression and weight gain, warn scientists
Around 15,000 people could be suffering needlessly from thyroid problems because of fluoride in drinking water, the University of Kent has warned
A study of 98 per cent of GP practices in England found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30 per cent more likely in areas of the greatest fluoridation.
It could mean that up to 15,000 people are suffering needlessly from thyroid problems which can cause depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.
Last year Public Health England released a report saying fluoride was a ‘safe and effective’ way of improving dental health.
But new research from the University of Kent suggests that there is a spike in the number of cases of underactive thyroid in high fluoride areas such as the West Midlands and the North East of England.
Lead author Professor Stephen Peckham, Centre for Health Service Studies, said: “I think it is concerning for people living in those areas.
“The difference between the West Midlands, which fluoridates, and Manchester, which doesn’t was particularly striking. There were nearly double the number of cases in Manchester.
“Underactive thyroid is a particularly nasty thing to have and it can lead to other long term health problems. I do think councils need to think again about putting fluoride in the water. There are far safer ways to improve dental health.”
In England, around 10 per cent of the population (6 million) live in areas with a naturally or artificially fluoridated water supply of 1 mg fluoride per litre of drinking water.
The researchers compared areas to records from 7935 general practices covering around 95 per cent of the English population in 2012-2013.
Rates of high underactive thyroid were at least 30 per cent more likely in practices located in areas with fluoride levels in excess of 0.3 mg/l.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in water in varying amounts, depending on the region and it is also found in certain foods and drinks, including tea and fish. It helps combat tooth decay by making enamel more resistant to bacteria.
But previous studies have found that it inhibits the production of iodine, which is essential for a healthy thyroid.
The thyroid gland, which is found in the neck, regulates the metabolism as well as many other systems in the body.
An underactive thyroid can lead to depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles and affects 15 times more women than men, around 15 in 1,000 women.
The researchers say councils must rethink public health policy to fluoridate the water supply in a bid to protect the nation’s tooth health.
However Public Health England said that previous evidence overwhelmingly showed that fluoride in water was safe.
Dr Sandra White, Director of Dental Public Health at Public Health England, said: “Public Health England regularly reviews the evidence base for water fluoridation.
“The totality of evidence, accumulated over decades of research, tells us that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure, and shows no association with reduced thyroid function.”
Other experts also warned that the study may have been skewed by population bias, a claim denied by the authors.
Prof David Coggon, Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, University of Southampton, said: “It is quite possible that the observed association is a consequence of other ways in which the areas with higher fluoride differ from the rest of the country.
“There are substantially more rigorous epidemiological methods by which the research team could have tested their idea”
The research was published in the BMJs Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
New research shows there is a strong correlation between water fluoridation and the prevalence of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, or ADHD, in the United States.
It’s the first time that scientists have systematically studied the relationship between the behavioral disorder and fluoridation, the process wherein fluoride is added to water to prevent cavities.
The study, published in the journal Environmental Health, found that states with a higher portion of artificially fluoridated water had a higher prevalence of ADHD. This relationship held up across six different years examined. The authors, psychologists Christine Till and Ashley Malin at Toronto’s York University, looked at the prevalence of fluoridation by state in 1992 and rates of ADHD diagnoses in subsequent years.
“States in which a greater proportion of people received artificially-fluoridated water in 1992 tended to have a greater proportion of children and adolescents who received ADHD diagnoses [in later years], after controlling for socioeconomic status,” Malin says. Wealth is important to take into account because the poor are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, she says. After income was adjusted for, though, the link held up.
Take Delaware and Iowa, for instance. Both states have relatively low poverty rates but are heavily fluoridated; they also have high levels of ADHD, with more than one in eight kids (or 14 percent) between the ages of four and 17 diagnosed.
In the study, the scientists produced a predictive model which calculated that every one percent increase in the portion of the U.S. population drinking fluoridated water in 1992 was associated with 67,000 additional cases of ADHD 11 years later, and an additional 131,000 cases by 2011, after controlling for socioeconomic status.
“The results are plausible, and indeed meaningful,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, a physician and epidemiologist at Harvard University. This and other recent studies suggest that we should “reconsider the need to add fluoride to drinking water at current levels,” he adds.
Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst who studies endocrine disruptors—chemicals that interfere with the activity of the body’s hormones, something fluoride has been shown to do—says that this is “an important observation in part because it is a first-of-a-kind. Given the number of children in the U.S. exposed to fluoridation, it is important to follow this up.” Since 1992, the percentage of the U.S. population that drinks fluoridated water has increased from 56 percent to 67 percent, during which time the percentage of children with an ADHD diagnosis has increased from around seven percent to more than 11 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Others felt more strongly. “The numbers of extra cases associated with a one percent increase in the 1992 artificial fluoridation [figures] are huge,” says William Hirzy, an American University researcher and former risk assessment scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency, who is also a vocal opponent of fluoridation. “In short, it clearly shows that as artificial water fluoridation increases, so does the incidence of ADHD.”
But scientists were quick to point out that this is just one study, and doesn’t prove that there is necessarily a causal link between fluoridation and ADHD. They also noted a number of important limitations: Individual fluoride exposures weren’t measured, ADHD diagnoses weren’t independently verified and there may be other unknown confounding factors that explain the link.
Dr. Benedetto Vitiello, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health, says that the link between the two may not be a causal one and could be explained by regional or cultural factors. Charles Poole, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, says that this research suggests fluoride should be more carefully studied, but doesn’t show much of anything by itself. “I think the authors were quite cautious in their interpretation… and [accurate] in their statement of the study’s limitations,” he says. “So it would be ludicrous to draw a strong conclusion based on this study alone.”
Nevertheless, previous research has suggested that there may be several mechanisms by which fluoride could interfere in brain development and play a role in ADHD, says Dr. Caroline Martinez, a pediatrician and researcher at New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital.
Animal studies in the 1990s by researcher Phyllis Mullenix, at the Harvard-affiliated Forsyth Research Institute, showed that rats exposed to fluoride in the womb were much more likely to behave in a hyperactive manner later in life. This could be due to direct damage or alteration to the development of the brain. (Mullenix’s adviser told her she was “jeopardizing the financial support” of her institution by “going against what dentists and everybody have been publishing for fifty years, that [fluoride] is safe and effective,” and she was fired shortly after one of her seminal papers was accepted for publication, according to Grandjean and a book by investigative journalist Christopher Bryson called The Fluoride Deception.)
Multiple studies also suggest that kids with moderate and severe fluorosis—a staining and occasional mottling of the teeth caused by fluoride—score lower on measures of cognitive skills and IQ. According to a 2010 CDC report, a total of 41 percent of American youths ages 12 to 15 had some form of fluorosis. Another study showed structural abnormalities in aborted fetuses from women in an area of China with high naturally occurring levels of fluoride.
There have also been about 40 studies showing that children born in areas home to water with elevated levels of this chemical (higher than the concentrations used in U.S. water fluoridation) have lower-than-normal IQs. Grandjean and colleagues reviewed 27 such studies that were available in 2012, concluding that all but one of them showed a significant link; children in high fluoride areas had IQs that were, on average, seven points below those of children from areas with low concentrations of the substance.
One recent small study of fewer than 1,000 people in New Zealand suggested that water fluoridation didn’t decrease IQ. But that study had some serious errors, according to Grandjean, who writes that “a loss of 2-3 IQ points could not be excluded by their findings.” And only a small percentage of people in the study actually lived all their lives in areas without fluoridation, and even less didn’t use fluoride toothpaste, severely limiting the validity and relevance of the findings, he says.
About 90 percent of the fluoride that is added to the water takes the form not of pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride but of a chemical called fluorosilicic acid (or a salt formed using the acid). This material is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing, according to the CDC. Several studies have suggested that this form of fluoride can leach lead from pipes, says Steve Patch, at UNC-Asheville. Other work shows that children in fluoridated areas have elevated blood lead levels, and fluoride may also increase the absorption of lead into the body, says Bruce Lanphear, an epidemiologist at Simon Fraser University. Lead itself is a potent neurotoxin and has been shown to play a role in ADHD, Lanphear adds.
There is also good evidence the fluoride impairs the activity of the thyroid gland, which is important for proper brain development, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments for a variety of environmental contaminants. This could indirectly explain how the chemical could impair attentional abilities, she says.
Just last month, a study was published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, which found that there were nine percent more cases of hypothyroidism, or underactive thyroid, in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated locations in England.
“Fluoride appears to fit in with a pattern of other trace elements such as lead, methylmercury, arsenic, cadmium and manganese—adverse effects of these have been documented over time at exposures previously thought to be ‘low’ and ‘safe,’” Martinez says.
Grandjean concurs, citing a 2014 study he co-authored with researcher Philip Landrigan in The Lancet that characterizes fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin. Others, like Lanphear, prefer to call the chemical a “suspected developmental neurotoxin.” One problem, he says, is that there is no formal process for determining whether or not something is toxic to the brain.
The CDC declined to comment on the study, but maintains the fluoridation is “safe and effective,” and calls fluoridation one of the “ten great public health achievements” of the twentieth century for its role in preventing tooth decay. The American Dentistry Association says that the process reduces decay rates by 25 percent. It should be noted, though, that in recent decades rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation—and the United States is one of the few Western countries besides Ireland and Australia that fluoridate the water of a majority of the populace.
Limitations aside, the study suggests that there is a pressing need to do more research on the neurotoxicity of fluoride, Lanphear says. In fact, every single researcher contacted said that fluoridation should be better studied to understand its toxicity and low-dose effects on the brain. Some deemed the lack of research on the chemical concerning and surprising, given how long it’s been around—fluoride was first added to water supplies beginning after World War II.
Regarding whether or not fluoridation is a sound public health practice, he says that he “can’t make that decision for the public, but I’d certainly recommend that more studies are done, in an urgent fashion.”
Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ
A recently-published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.
In a 32-page report that can be downloaded free of charge from Environmental Health Perspectives, the researchers said:
A recent report from the U.S. National Research Council (NRC 2006) concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory …
To summarize the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on increased fluoride exposure in drinking water and neurodevelopmental delays. We specifically targeted studies carried out in rural China that have not been widely disseminated, thus complementing the studies that have been included in previous reviews and risk assessment reports …
Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence … The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults …
Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls …
In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should formally evaluate dose-response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders.
Studies Have Repeatedly Linked Fluoride to Reduced IQ and Brain Damage
There are so many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your body, it’s truly remarkable that it’s NOT considered a scientific consensus by now. Despite the evidence against it, fluoride is still added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.
It amazes me that the medical (and dental) communities are so stubbornly resistant to connect the dots when it comes to the skyrocketing increase of cognitive decline in adults and behavioral issues in children (ADD, ADHD, depression and learning disabilities of all kinds). In fact, there have been more than 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage. Fluoride can also increase manganese absorption, compounding problems, since manganese in drinking water has also been linked to lower IQ in children.
Reported effects of fluoride on your brain include:
• Reduction in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors
• Damage to your hippocampus
• Formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer’s disease)
• Reduction in lipid content
• Damage to purkinje cells
• Exacerbation of lesions induced by iodine deficiency
• Impaired antioxidant defense systems
• Increased uptake of aluminum
• Accumulation of fluoride in your pineal gland
Six Facts You Need to Know About Water Fluoridation
Harmful Effects Have Been Known for Half a Century
What is perhaps most surprising is that the harmful effects of fluoride have been known by conventional medical organizations for over half a century. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated in their Sept. 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes. And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association on Oct. 1, 1944, stated:
Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.
Part of the problem is that it’s an accumulative toxin that, over time, can lead to significant health problems that are not immediately linked to fluoride over-exposure. In a 2005 paper entitled “Fluoride — A Modern Toxic Waste,” Lita Lee, Ph.D. writes:
Yiamouyiannis’ book, Fluoride, The Aging Factor, documents the cumulative effect of tissue damage by fluoride, commonly seen as aging (collagen damage), skin rashes and acne, gastrointestinal disorders, and many other conditions, including osteoporosis. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and the Safe Water Foundation reported that 30,000 to 50,000 excess deaths occur in the United States each year in areas in which the water contains only one ppm fluoride …
Fluoride suppresses the immune system: Fluoride inhibits the movement of white blood cells by 70 percent, thereby decreasing their ability to reach their target. Yiamouyiannis cites 15 references in his pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation, that document immunosuppressive effects of as little as 10 percent of the amount of fluoride used in fluoridated water … Immunosuppressive effects run the gamut, from a cold that won’t go away to increased risk of cancer and other infectious diseases.
Studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including:
• Increased lead absorption
• Disrupts synthesis of collagen
• Hyperactivity and/or lethargy
• Muscle disorders
• Thyroid disease
• Bone fractures
• Lowered thyroid function
• Bone cancer (osteosarcoma)
• Inactivates 62 enzymes and inhibits more than 100
• Inhibited formation of antibodies
• Genetic damage and cell death
• Increased tumor and cancer rate
• Disrupted immune system
• Damaged sperm and increased infertility
Suppressed Science: Fluoride Link to Cancer
Long-lost research linking fluoride to cancer has resurfaced in a Dutch film clip featuring Dr. Dean Burk, who in 1937 cofounded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and headed its cytochemistry department for more than 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,” referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it. The study demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.
“Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans” (National Research Council, 2006).
Karimzade et al (2014) concluded that “The study found that children residing in a region with a high drinking water F level had lower IQs compared to children living in a low drinking water F region (p<0.001). The differences could not be attributed to confounding educational, economic, social, cultural, and general demographic factors“.
Trivedi et al (2012) concluded that “the present investigation concludes that the three villages of Chhasara, Gundala, and Mundra, are F-contaminated villages. Because of high F concentrations in the [groundwater], children in these villages have greater exposure to F that may lead in to low IQ as compared to the nearby villages of Baroi, Zarpara, and Pragpar, which have low F in their [groundwater]“.
Zhang (2012) concluded that “In summary, we found that negative correlations exist between child IQ and both blood serum and urine fluoride concentrations in areas with fluoride poisoning“.
Seraj et al (2012) concluded that “Since all potentially confounding factors were adjusted, the difference in IQ scores may reveal the potential effect of high fluoride exposure on the intellectual development of children“.
Saxena et al (2012) concluded that “This study indicates that exposure to fluoride is associated with reduced intelligence in children. We have found a significant inverse relationship between intelligence and the water fluoride level, and intelligence and the urinary fluoride level. After adjusting for confounders, urinary fluoride was the significant predictor for intelligence“.
Ding et al (2011) concluded that “our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis“.
Poureslami et al (2011) concluded that “Based on the findings, chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride can be one of the factors that influence intellectual development“.
Eswar et al (2011) concluded that “Though there was a trend in our study towards lower IQ in a greater number of children from high F village than in the low F village, probably the small sample size of the present study failed to establish a statistically significant difference“.
Shivaprakash et al (2011) concluded that “Previous studies had indicated toward decreased Intelligence in children exposed to high levels of fluoride and our study also confirmed such an effect“.
Li et al (2009) concluded that “High exposure to fluoride most definitely has an adverse effect on the development of intelligence in children, in particular on the capability of abstract inference“.
Rocha-Amador et al (2007) concluded that “We found that exposure to F in urine was associated with reduced Performance, Verbal and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounders. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable. . . . The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.
Wang et al (2007) concluded that “This study indicates that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with neurotoxic effects in children“.
Trivedi et al (2007) concluded that “In agreement with other studies elsewhere, these findings indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence“.
Fan et al (2007) concluded that “Exposure to high levels of fluoride is likely to cause a certain level of harm to a child’s level of intelligence“.
Seraj et al (2006) concluded that “Based on the findings of this study, exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence“.
Wang et al (2005) concluded that “High fluoride burden has a definite effect on the intellectual and physical development of children“.
Xiang et al (2003a) concluded that “In endemic fluorosis areas, drinking water fluoride levels greater than 1.0 mg/L may adversely affect the development of children’s intelligence“.
Li et al (2003) concluded that “we found that the average IQ of children in a fluoride endemic area was somewhat lower than the control, but the result was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). The percentage of children with fluorosis, however, was higher as compared to the control, and this was very significant statistically“.
Shao et al (2003) concluded that “The results suggest that some cognitive function limitations exist in those suffering from chronic fluoride poisoning, and its biologic basis may be related to the levels of SOD and NO [indices of oxidative stress]“.
Wang et al (2001) concluded that “High iodine and high fluorine have certain influence on children’s intelligence and thyroid function“.
Hong et al (2001) concluded that “The IQ results of this study show no significant difference between the average IQs of those children from the high fluoride only areas and the high fluoride/high iodine areas, however the result from the high fluoride/low iodine group show statistically significant differences as compared to that of the low fluoride/low iodine group. In short, it appears that the presence or lack of iodine is a more significant factor in both the prevalence of goiter and average IQ“.
Lu et al (2000) concluded that “The findings of this study thus replicate those of earlier studies and suggest that a real relationship exists between fluoride exposure and intelligence“.
Zhang et al (1998) concluded that “Even though there were differences in the results from the 10 year-old subjects from the normal comparative group, in contrast to subjects from the high fluoride high arsenic group and the high fluoride group, these results might not be overtly representative as less number of subjects from the high fluoride group has been tested“.
Yao et al (1997) concluded that “These results show that water improvement and defluoridation can improve the mental and physical development of children in a fluorosis area“.
Yao et al (1996) concluded that “The results of the intelligence tests show that a high level of fluoride influences children’s IQ, which is consistent with some previous data. It is worth mentioning that the higher the degree of dental fluorosis, the more negative the impact on the children’s intelligence level. This is an issue which merits utmost attention”.
Zhao et al (1996) concluded that “The results of this study indicate that intake of high-fluoride drinking water from before birth has a significant deleterious influence on children’s IQ in one of two similar villages“.
Wang et al (1996) concluded that “The results show that a high fluoride intake has a clear influence on the IQ of preschool children, manifesting itself primarily as damage to performance intelligence“.
Duan et al (1995) concluded that “it may be determined that industrial fluorine poisoning has gradually progressive effects on the normal function and metabolism of the adult brain and other aspects of the nervous system. With the progression of the course of fluorosis, neurological damage gradually worsens, with the degree of damage closely related to the length of exposure to fluorine, nail fluorine content, and other factors. Damage from high concentrations of fluorine not only affects bones and ligaments, tendons, and other soft tissue, but is also quite widespread throughout the entire nervous system. This is of major significance for worker protection and other areas“.
Li et al (1995) concluded that “A high fluoride intake was associated with a lower intelligence“.
Xu et al (1994) concluded that “The number of children whose level of intelligence is lower is significantly increased in regions of high fluoride/iodine, regions of high fluoride only, regions of high fluoride/low iodine, against their respective comparative groups. . . . This could be demonstrative of the fact that fluoride acts to increase the toxicity and worsen the occurrence of thyroid swelling“.
Li et al (1994) concluded that “As shown in this study, the mental work capacity (MWC) of the two groups of children with grade 3 dental fluorosis was lower than the two groups with no dental fluorosis. . . . This indicates that early, long-term exposure to excess fluoride causes deficits in memory, attention, and reaction time, but 12–13 year-old children with only recent exposure show no major effects. Studies [on human fetuses] have already shown that the developing brain is one of the ripest targets for disruption by fluoride poisoning. Given that before six years of age the human brain is in its fastest stage of development, and that around seven and eight basic structural development is completed, therefore the brain is most vulnerable to damage from excess fluoride intake before this age“.
Yang et al (1994) concluded that “An excess of fluoride and a lack of iodine in the same environment has been shown to have a marked effect on child intellectual development, causing a more significant intellectual deficit than lack of iodine alone“.
An et al (1992) concluded that “The results show that the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students from the high fluoride area and that of primary and secondary students from the non-high fluoride area had very significant differences, proving that high fluoride has adverse effects on the mental development of students. The higher the water fluoride is, the lower the level of IQ“.
Lin et al (1991) concluded that “The significant differences in IQ among these regions suggests that fluoride can exacerbate central nervous lesions and somatic developmental disturbance caused by iodine deficiency“.
Guo et al (1991) concluded that “In summary, although diminished intellectual ability can result from a multitude of factors (both innate and acquired) that influence neural development and cell division in the cerebrum, the comparison conducted in this study of two areas where the other environment factors are basically the same shows clear differences in IQ, and it [is] probable that this difference is due to a high fluoride environment“.
Chen et al (1991) concluded that “The results of this study indicate that there is significant difference between the intellectual ability of the 7–14 year old children from the [fluorosis] endemic area and those of the control, and moreover that the average IQ of the children from the endemic area is clearly lower“.
Sun et al (1991) concluded that “From these results, it can be concluded that excessive consumption of fluorine and aluminum in the early stage of development directly impacts the development of the human brain, which causes the delayed intellectual development seen in children living in the endemic areas“.
Qin & Cui (1990) concluded that “All of these finding serve to indicate that both high and low fluoride can affect the normal development and function of the cerebrum as well as the entire nervous system causing a decrease in intellectual ability“.
Ren et al (1989) concluded that “From the results it is evident that disrupted child intellectual development is among the effects on the human body from a harmful environment containing both high fluoride and low iodine, and this disruption is clearly much more serious than the effects of iodine deficiency alone“.
Abby Martin on Russia Today said that Fluoride is poison, it increases the risk of cancer and is a money making scam. 97% of Europe do NOT fluoridate their drinking water. Fluoride is a chemical waste from the aluminum industry, the same aluminum that is sprayed from planes during Geo-Engineering that decreases IQ and increases the risk of cancer.
According to Dr Dean Burk Phd (deceased) of the National Cancer Institute, Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale, it is a crime of attempted murder to put Fluoride in the drinking water. Burk said that it is conclusive that in his 50 years of research Fluoride induces cancer in man. This is echoed by Professor of Chemistry Paul Connett who said that Fluoride is genocide.
According to Paul Connett Fluoride is a hazardous waste, it can’t be dumped into the sea because of international law, it can’t be dumped locally because it’s too concentrated, but if someone buys it, the hazardous waste label is removed and it becomes a product. The Water board buys it and then put it in the drinking water. Fluoride as it accumulates effects the bones, it makes the bones more brittle and increases risk of fracture. Connett says that over a hundred studies show that Fluoride damages the human brain. Connett also says that a British researcher found that Fluoride accumulates then calcifies the human pineal gland, reduces Melatonin and brings on puberty in children. We have for many years had paedophiles working in the British and American governments, this is the reason Fluoride is in the drinking water, to dumb down children and bring on puberty so the children can be raped by government paedophiles.
According to PressTV (2013), scientists at the World Health Organization say that the world is facing a tidal wave of cancer, they say the cancer cases are predicted to reach 24 million by 2035.
According to BBC (2003) Health spokesman Martyn Shrewsbury “The general trend in the world is against fluoridation. It’s quite incredible that Tony Blair would want to fluoridate Britain“
Plans for fluoride ‘in all water’
Ministers are planning to allow fluoride to be added to all drinking water in England and Wales it is being reported.
The move is being considered to help reduce tooth decay among children in “deprived” areas, according to The Sunday Times.
Such a measure would prove controversial as critics fear fluoride could be linked to increased risks of cancer, hip fractures, kidney trouble and birth defects.
But the government has previously insisted there is no evidence to support claims of health risks from adding chemicals to drinking water.
Only about 11% of the population currently receive fluoridated water.
Health authorities may get powers to increase fluoridation in drinking water rather than water companies under amendments to the Water Bill later this month, according to the paper.
It says it has seen a letter from health minister Hazel Blears and environment minister Elliot Morley dated in April to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, in his role as chairman of the domestic affairs Cabinet committee.
The letter read: “Those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water.”
It went on: “Experience of oral health promotion projects shows that it is much harder to establish regular tooth-brushing in deprived areas, because of the costs of toothpaste and, perhaps, because of the less ordered lifestyles lived by families.”
It said the minority who opposed the move should not be allowed to stop fluoridation by continuing to insist on more research.
Cabinet members may be allowed a free vote on the issue, according to the paper.
The campaign director of the National Pure Water Association, Jane Jones, said: “There will undoubtedly be a huge row about the renewed proposal to add fluoride to the drinking water on a wide scale in the UK.
“This is nanny statism. It is outrageous.
“To medicate the whole population against their will is not the way to deal with tooth decay.”
The Green Party is also among those opposing such a move.
Health spokesman Martyn Shrewsbury said: “The general trend in the world is against fluoridation.
“It’s quite incredible that Tony Blair would want to fluoridate Britain”.
He said this proposal would be against medical ethics as a patient must give consent to medication under the European Convention of Human Rights.
Mr Shrewsbury also argued there was no proof that fluorinated water reduced the risk of tooth decay comparing fluoridated Gateshead with non-fluoridated Liverpool saying that they had the same level of tooth decay.
A Department of Health spokeswoman said last September Ms Blears had stated a report on fluoridation by the Medical Research Council contained “nothing to suggest any reason why water fluoridation should not be considered as a public health measure in areas where dental health remains a serious problem”.
Ian Wylie, chief executive of the British Dental Association, said: “It’s tragic that, in 2003, there are still children as young as five having most or even all of their teeth removed under general anaesthetic as the result of tooth decay.
“Water fluoridation is a positive step in narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist.
“Targeted water fluoridation is the one public health measure that would cause the largest improvement in the oral health of those in greatest need.
“The BDA strongly supports any change that would allow the introduction of water fluoridation, after full consultation and with the agreement of the local community.”
Russia Today & Dr Devra Davis Cell phones cause cancer
Royal Navy weapons expert Barrie Trower Wifi causes cancer
PressTV Two insecticides, may affect the development of human brain
Vaccines cause brain damage in soldiers
Dr David Ayoub Mercury, Autism, & vaccines
Journalist Kihura Nkuba deaths of black people & vaccines
Professor Boyd Haley Mercury & vaccines
Retired Neuro-surgeon Dr Russel Blaylock
GMOs cause problems with the human body, cause cancer
Retired Neuro-surgeon Dr Russel Blaylock
GMOs are worse than we thought, increase risk of cancer
Hay fever and Sleeping tablets linked to increased risk of Alzheimers and dementia
Increased risk of breast cancer with Oral Contraceptives
Mobile phones ARE linked to cancer, study claims: Long-term use ‘is associated with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, headaches and skin irritation’
- Radiation from wireless devices such as phones and tablets could be linked to a number of health risks, a new review of studies has claimed
- Scientists claim radiation causes oxidative stress in the body – a damaging process thought to be closely linked to degenerative diseases
- Study authors say mobile phone use should be minimised to prevent harm
- Official guidelines state the devices could ‘possibly’ cause cancer
Mobile phones pose a ‘very real risk’ to human health, a new study claims.
Radiation from wireless devices such as phones and tablets could be linked to a number of health risks, from cancer to diseases of the brain such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, the researchers state.
They claim this is because the radiation causes an ‘imbalance’ – or oxidative stress – in the body.
Oxidative stress is a damaging process thought to be closely linked to degenerative diseases.
The new study is a review of experimental data on the effects of radiofrequency radiation in living cells – basically how mobiles phones may damage a person’s DNA.
Warning: Radiation from wireless devices such as phones and tablets could be linked to a number of health risks, from cancer to diseases of the brain such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, a new study claims (file pic)
Dr Igor Yakymenko, from the The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, claims the oxidative stress due to radiofrequency exposure could explain the link between wireless devices and cancer.
After long-term exposure, it is also linked to other minor disorders such as headache, fatigue, and skin irritation, he says.
His argument is based around reactive oxygen species – chemically reactive molecules containing oxygen.
They play an important role in cell signalling and the control of internal conditions such as temperature.
When reactive oxygen species levels increase dramatically, this can cause significant damage to cell structures – this is known as oxidative stress.
The article argues that while reactive oxygen species are often produced in cells due to aggressive environments, they can also be provoked by ‘ordinary wireless radiation’.
‘These data are a clear sign of the real risks this kind of radiation poses for human health,’ Dr Yakymenko said.
He told the New York Daily News that using your phone for just 20 minutes a day for five years increased the risk of one type of brain tumor threefold, and using the phone an hour a day for four years upped the risk of some tumors three to five times.
He told the paper: ‘(Our) data were obtained on adults who used cell phones mostly up to 10 years as adults.
‘The situation can dramatically differ for children who use cells phone in childhood, when their biology much more sensitive to hazardous factors, and will use it over the life.’
And despite the risk of cancers of the bran being low, he insists care is still needed because some health implications only appear decades later.
As a result, he suggests Yakymenko and his colleagues call for a precautionary approach – such as using phones less and going hands-free to keep the frequency away from the head area.
The study, published in the journal Electromagnetic Biology & Medicine, is the latest in a long-running exploration of mobile-phone safety.
It was done in collaboration between scientists at Indiana University, the University of Eastern Finland and the University of Campinas in Brazil.
Over the past 15 years most investigations have failed to turn up conclusive results either way, although several have suggested a link between a type of brain tumour called a glioma and intensive, long-term use.
The latest official stance is that radiofrequency (RFR)/microwave radiation has a ‘possible carcinogenic effect’.
Over the past 15 years most investigations into the safety of mobile phones have failed to turn up conclusive results either way. However several have suggested a link between a type of brain tumour called a glioma and intensive, long-term use
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified mobile phones for the first time in their ‘gold-standard’ rating system.
Scientists there said the devices could ‘possibly’ cause cancer in humans but there was not enough evidence to come to a clear conclusion.
The type of radiation used in communications, electronic and other devices is called non-ionising radiation.
Most non ionising radiation has less energy than ionising radiation, this means it doesn’t have enough energy to change our cells in the same way as ionising radiation.
According to Cancer Research UK, the scientific evidence currently shows it’s unlikely that mobile phones could increase the risk of brain tumours, or any other type of cancer.
But the charity concedes that not enough is known to ‘completely rule out a risk’.
Last year another study claimed that people who used their phones more than 15 hours each month appears to have a higher risk of developing certain types of brain cancer.
The French researchers said these users were at two to three times higher risk of developing glioma and meningioma tumours.
WHAT IS OXIDATIVE STRESS?
One way that our cells can become damaged is when they encounter oxidative stress.
And preventing or repairing cell damage from oxidative stress is helpful against ageing.
This stress happens when there is higher-than-normal production of free radicals, unstable molecules that carry a loosely bound extra electron.
When the free radical encounters another molecule, this extra electron is passed along in a rapid chain reaction from molecule to molecule.
When it reaches the end of the chain, it can break apart connections between atoms within important components of the cell, like the cellular membrane, essential proteins or even DNA.
Could incense be more toxic than cigarette smoke? As they burn, ‘sticks release compounds that are linked to cancer’
- Researchers compared the effect of incense-smoke and cigarette smoke
- Found incense smoke is more mutagenic, genotoxic and cytotoxic
- This means it causes genetic mutations in cells which may lead to cancer
- Experts hope the study will lead to an evaluation of incense products
From temples in Asia, to hippy hangouts in the West, incense is burned all over the world.
But the smoke coming from those fragrant sticks may be more toxic to the body’s cells than cigarette smoke, new research warns.
A study found that can incense-smoke is more mutagenic, genotoxic and cytotoxic than cigarette smoke.
That means it is able to cause genetic mutations and cause changes in cells’ DNA, all of which can lead to cancer.
When burned, incense releases compounds which can cause genetic mutations in cells, which can lead to cancer, a study found
The researchers hope the study will lead to an evaluation of incense products.
However they cautioned the study was small in size and conducted only in rodents – and so firm conclusions about the health effects cannot be drawn from it.
And commenting on the study, Dr Nick Robinson, medical adviser to the British Lung Foundation, said it reiterated that many forms of smoke, including that from incense, can be toxic.
Given the study’s findings, it might be wise for people with lung disease to avoid burning incense, as well as parents with children whose lungs are developing, he said.
When incense, which is usually made of bamboo sticks coated in sawdust and essential oils, is burned, particles are released into the air.
If these are breathed in they can become trapped in the lungs, and are known to cause an inflammatory reaction.
Until now, not much research has been done on incense as a source of air pollution, although it has been linked to the development of lung cancer, childhood leukaemia and brain tumours.
The researchers wanted to assess the health hazards associated with using incense smoke in the home.
Led by Dr Rong Zhou, of the South China University of Technology, they decided to test the effect of incense smoke on cells and compare it to the effects of cigarette smoke.
They tested two types of incense. Both contained agarwood and sandalwood, which are among the most common ingredients used to make this product.
They then compared the effects of incense-smoke and cigarette smoke on ovary cells from Chinese hamsters and tester strains of Salmonella.
Incense smoke was found to be more mutagenic, cytotoxic and genotoxic than the cigarette smoke tested in the study.
This means it contains chemical properties that can change genetic material, such as DNA in cells, and therefore cause mutations..
Moreover, mutagenics, genotoxins and cytotoxins have all been linked to the development of cancers.
Smoke from the incense sticks used in the study was made up of ultrafine and fine particles, and as they are breathed in easily, is therefore likely to have adverse health effects, researchers said.
Taken together, smoke from the four incense sticks analysed contained 64 compounds.
While some of these are irritants or are only slightly harmful, ingredients in two of the sticks tested are known to be highly toxic.
Dr Zhou said: ‘Clearly, there needs to be greater awareness and management of the health risks associated with burning incense in indoor environments.’
He added that he hopes the results will lead to an evaluation of incense products and help to introduce measures to reduce people’s exposure to the smoke.
However, he warns one should not simply conclude that incense smoke is more toxic than cigarette smoke.
The small sample size, the huge variety of incense sticks on the market and differences in how it is used compared to cigarettes must be taken into account, he said.
The research, which was also carried out by the China Tobacco Guangdong Industrial Company, was published in the journal Environmental Chemistry Letters.
Incense smoke is more toxic to the body’s cells than cigarette smoke, the researchers revealed, although they warned the study had limitations
DON’T BURN INCENSE AROUND CHILDREN, DOCTOR ADVISES
Commenting on the study, Dr Nick Robinson, medical adviser to the British Lung Foundation said people with lung disease should avoid burning incense and parents should avoid burning the sticks around children.
He told MailOnline: ‘Smoke from any source has an effect on the lungs, and it has a particularly bad effect on developing lungs.
‘The main cause of lung disease is cigarette smoke, but there are other types of smoke.
‘Biomass smoke, from cooking and heating, is a big cause of lung disease across the world.’
He added: ‘This study shows incense smoke has toxic effects, in a laboratory setting.
‘In a “real-life” setting this might be different because how harmful the smoke is doesn’t depend on its actual composition but about how it’s used.
‘People are usually exposed to less incense smoke.
‘The sensible advice that comes from this is that people with lung disease should avoid burning incense.
‘And parents should be careful burning incense around children.
‘If you were going to be suspicious, you would say that this study is funded by a tobacco industry.
‘I wouldn’t want people to conclude that cigarette smoking is as harmless as burning incense.
‘The study is not novel, it’s another confirmation that different types of smoke, including that from incense, are toxic.’
How RICE may cause cancer: Traces of arsenic are found on grains sold in UK shops – but cooking it in a coffee percolator removes the risk, say scientists
- Arsenic is getting into rice from old industrial pesticides, experts warn
- Rice products in the UK found to contain levels damaging to children
- Exposure can lead to health conditions including lung and bladder cancers
- Scientists in Belfast found steam in coffee percolator decontaminates it
Parents have been advised to change the way they cook rice in order to flush out traces of the poison arsenic.
The chemical gets into the rice as a result of industrial contaminants and pesticides that were used in the past and can remain in the flooded paddy fields where the rice is grown for decades.
British researchers have found the contaminant in rice and rice products sold in this country at levels that could pose a health risk to children.
Risk: traces of arsenic have been found in rice being sold in the UK as a result of old industrial contaminants and pesticides
Now, they have discovered that cooking rice in a coffee percolator, rather than a pan, successfully flushes away up to 85per cent of the poison.
The European Commission is currently drawing up new safety limits that will reduce the amount of arsenic permitted in rice and rice products.
However, academics at Queens University in Belfast say families can take proactive action to protect children by using the coffee percolation method for cooking.
Britain’s leading expert on rice and contamination, Andy Meharg, the professor of plant and soil sciences at the university, prevented his own children from eating some rice products because of the arsenic levels.
Typically, rice has ten times more inorganic arsenic than other foods and the European Food Standards Authority has reported that people who eat a lot are exposed to worrying concentrations.
Chronic exposure can cause a range of health problems including developmental problems, heart disease, diabetes and nervous system damage. However, most worrying are lung and bladder cancers.
Professor Meharg said the current method for cooking rice, essentially boiling it in a pan until it soaks up all the liquid, binds into place any arsenic contained in the rice and the cooking water.
By contrast, cooking it in a coffee percolator allows the steaming hot water to drip through the rice, washing away contaminants. There was a 57per cent reduction in arsenic with a ratio of 12 parts of water to one of rice and in some cases as much as 85per cent.
Coffee filter: Parents are being advised to change the way they cook rice, with the steam from percolators found to decontaminate it
Prof Meharg, whose study findings are reported in the journal PLoS ONE (correct), said: ‘We just took something that’s in everybody’s kitchen and applied it to show a principle.
‘We discovered that by using percolating technology, where cooking water is continually passed through rice in a constant flow, we could maximise removal of arsenic.
‘This is a very significant breakthrough as this offers an immediate solution to decreasing inorganic arsenic in the diet.’
The Belfast team are investigating using the discovery to create new types of rice cookers that will reduce all contaminants, which can also include lead. These would be particularly useful in countries like Bangladesh where both the rice and water can be contaminated.
Queen’s is seeking a patent for its rice cooking percolation system, which, it said: ‘means consumers could soon have this technology in their own kitchen’.
Tests carried out by the university last year found that 47 out of 81 rice products sold in the UK had higher levels of arsenic than the EU’s new tighter limits, which are due to come into effect next summer.
These included popular breakfast cereals and products designed for babies and toddlers.
The levels of arsenic in rice vary by type, country of production and growing conditions. Generally, brown rice has higher levels because the arsenic is found in the outer coating or bran, which is removed in the milling process to produce white rice.
Higher levels have also been found in rice milk with the result the Food Standards Agency advises parents not to give it to young children.
‘Gender bending’ chemical in food tins may cut male fertility
The kind of tins that contain baked beans and some baby bottles are among containers with BPA which can cause infertility in men
A ‘gender bending’ chemical in food and drinks containers could be behind rising male infertility, scientists say.
Men with high levels of Bisphenol A (BPA) in their bodies are more likely to have low sperm counts, according to a study.
BPA is widely used to harden plastics and is found in baby bottles, CD cases, plastic knives and forks and the lining of food and drink cans.
The chemical mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen and interferes with the way hormones are processed by the body.
Although some animal studies have shown it is safe, others have linked it to breast cancer, liver damage, obesity, diabetes and fertility problems.
Experts estimate BPA is detectable in more than 90 per cent of people.
It is one of the world’s most widely manufactured chemicals, with more than 2.2million tons made each year.
Earlier this year, Denmark became the first EU country to ban the chemical in food and drink containers for children under three.
Canada and three U.S. states have also brought in bans.
Scientists have now discovered it could be lined to poor sperm quality and concentration.
Professor John Meeker, who led the study at the University of Michigan in the U.S., said: ‘Much of the focus for BPA is on the exposures in utero (in the womb) or in early life, which is of course extremely important, but this suggests exposure may also be a concern for adults.’
In one of the first human studies, Professor Meeker and co-author Russ Hauser, from the Harvard School of Public Health, recruited 190 men through a fertility clinic.
The researchers compared thelevels of BPA in urine samples with the men’s sperm quality and concentration.
They also looked for signs of DNA damage in their sperm.
Men with the highest levels of BPA had sperm concentrations 23 per cent lower than those with the least.
‘The results also suggested a 10 per cent increase in sperm DNA damage,’ said Professor Meeker.
But the researchers stressed that their findings, published in
the journal Reproductive Toxicology, needed to be repeated with a larger sample size.
Elizabeth Salter Green, of the Chemicals, Health And Environment Monitoring Trust, described the study as ‘another nail in the coffin’ for BPA and called for it to be banned.
‘There are now hundreds of research papers that indicate BPA is not good for our health, linking exposure to fertility problems, cancer, diabetes and obesity,’ she added.
The Food Standards Agency insists there is no evidence BPA is harmful.
The toxic truth about vegetable oil: Cooking with ‘healthy’ fats increases the risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer
- Dr Aseem Malhotra is a consultant cardiologist, advisor on the National Obesity Forum and contributor to the Hippocratic Post
- Cooking vegetable oils at high temperatures changes chemical compounds
- Studies found it can produce potentially harmful levels of adelhyde
- Experts: Dairy products and olive oil are more beneficial to heart health
When I go to my local curry restaurant, I always ask the waiter to make sure my chicken jalfrezi, spinach curry and lentil daal is cooked in ghee, not vegetable oil.
They know me now so I don’t get rolling eyes and shrugs any more.
It helps that I leave a generous tip. But it’s worth it.
As a cardiologist with an interest in obesity and heart health, there is no way I am going to put my health at risk by eating poisonous compounds that are created when vegetable oils are cooked at high heat.
When Dr Aseem Malhotra orders a lentil daal (pictured), he insists it is cooked in ghee, not vegetable oil. This is because vegetable oils can produce dangerous chemical compounds when cooked at high temperatures
Unfortunately, curry lovers in the UK, and the vast majority of Indians on the subcontinent are doing just that – they have abandoned traditional ghee (a kind of clarified butter) in favour of ‘healthier’ vegetable oils.
The outcome of this trend has been disastrous – driving higher rates of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and cancer.
GOLDEN RULES FOR SAFE COOKING
So what can you do to minimise any potentially harmful effects?
Professor Martin Grootveld, works in bio-analytical chemistry at De Montfort University in Leicester, came up with the following tips.
- Cut down on frying, particularly at high temperatures or above the so-called ‘smoke point’. If you are frying, minimise the amount of oil you use.
- To reduce production of harmful aldehydes, go for a product high in mono or saturated fat (preferably greater than 60 per cent) and low in polyunsaturates (less than 20 per cent).
- The ideal compromise for cooking purposes is olive oil ‘because it is about 76 per cent monunsaturates, 14 per cent saturates and 10 per cent polyunsaturates’.
- If cooking, there is no health benefit paying extra for extra virgin olive oil.
- In view of its high saturate content, coconut oil is also recommended.
- Always keep your oils in a cupboard, out of the light, and try not to reuse oils because that leads to the accumulation of nasty side products.
Studies now show that sunflower oil, corn oil and other vegetable oils are unstable at high temperature and quickly break down into toxic adelhyde which is linked to an increased risk of developing getting cancer among other things.
A recent study showed that cooking in vegetable oil for just 20 minutes, produced 20 times the permitted levels of adelhyde recommended as a maximum limit by the World Health Organisation.
When I see someone who is otherwise healthy frying healthy kale and tofu in sunflower oil, I despair how good intentions can go so wrong.
For years, we have thought that vegetable oils, including sunflower oil and corn oil, were better than butter and animal based fats.
But the tide of opinion has changed and the latest scientific evidence reveals that dairy products actually protect against heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
Sadly, the news has come too late for the millions of people who now shun full-fat milk and butter because they think it is bad for them.
I now always advise my patients to actively avoid eating any industrial vegetable oils.
Cold pressed extra virgin olive oil however will protect your heart and give you a bit of a boost when it comes to antioxidants which help to mop up damaging free radicals in the blood.
But the vast majority of vegetable oils are not going to help, despite claims that they help reduce cholesterol.
A recent BMJ analysis found that even if cholesterol levels do decline on a diet of vegetable oil margarines, there is no knock-on benefit to heart health and a more worrying trend to increasing the risk of death.
So my message is drizzle your cold pressed olive oil on your chorizo to your (healthy) heart’s content but stick to butter (and ghee) when you want to create a bit of a sizzle.
This article has been reproduced with the permission of The Hippocratic Post.
WHY COOKING OIL AT HIGH TEMPERATURES CAN STOP THEM BEING ‘HEALTHY’ – By Michael Mosley
The problem is that when fats and oils are heated they change, and as they do so they produce chemicals that may cause heart disease and cancer.
Take olive oil, for example, championed by so many as the reason why the lucky folk of the Mediterranean live such long, healthy lives.
When fats and oils are heated they change, and as they do so they produce chemicals that may cause heart disease and cancer
This has a lower ‘smoke point’ – the point at which an oil begins to smoke and change – than some other oils, meaning it will start to alter more quickly.
As olive oil heats up and reaches its smoke point, the beneficial compounds start to degrade, and potentially health-harming compounds form.
At least, that was the accepted theory before we began our research – that the lower the smoke point, the more dangerous the oil as the more quickly it will start producing harmful chemicals when heated.
The dangers of turning up the heat
It is this assumption that has consistently seen health experts warn people not to cook with olive oil and advise that vegetable and sunflower oil are safer for cooking as they have a higher smoke point, so can resist greater heat without producing cancer-causing agents.
That point is 225c for sunflower oil and 230c for corn oil, compared to 160c to 190c for extra virgin olive oil.
A study found that cooking fats at high temperaturesleads to oxidation – they react with oxygen in the air to form substances such as aldehydes and lipid peroxides – linked to heart disease and cancer
That was the theory when we began our research.
To test it out we asked some volunteers, local residents in Leicester, to use a variety of fats and oils, provided by us, in their everyday cooking.
The volunteers were asked to collect any leftover oil after cooking, which we would then have analysed.
They were given sunflower oil, vegetable oil, corn oil, cold-pressed rapeseed oil, olive oil (refined and extra virgin), butter, goose fat and lard.
Samples were then sent to De Montfort University in Leicester, where Martin Grootveld, professor of bio-analytical chemistry and chemical pathology, got to work in the lab analysing their contents.
His team also ran a parallel experiment where they heated up these oils and fats to frying temperatures.
The findings were surprising, to say the least.
Indeed, for many who have followed traditional advice on cooking with oils and fats it will prove to be a case of ‘everything you think you know is wrong’.
What about olive oil?
Cooking with olive oil could be better than was previously thought, a study found
Is cooking with olive oil a no-no? Not according to Professor Grootveld.
In fact, it is, on balance, unquestionably the best compromise.
Sunflower oil, supposedly the healthier alternative, is far worse. Even lard, so demonised it has entered common usage as an insult, is preferable to sunflower oil and its closely related cousin, corn oil.
To understand why, we must look closely at what happens to fats and oils when heated to a high temperature.
They undergo what is called oxidation: they react with oxygen in the air to form substances such as aldehydes and lipid peroxides. At room temperature something similar happens, though more slowly.
When fats go rancid they have been oxidised, and it results in the same by-products. It is these aldehydes they form that are the problem.
Consuming or inhaling them, even in small amounts, has been linked to increased risk of cancer and heart disease.
‘We found that oils which were polyunsaturated-rich – corn oil and sunflower oil – generated very high levels of aldehydes,’ Professor Grootveld told me.
This surprised me. Like so many others, I had always thought of sunflower oil as being healthy.
‘Sunflower and corn oil are fine, but only as long as you don’t subject them to heat, such as frying or cooking,’ said Professor Grootveld.
‘It’s a simple chemical fact that something which is thought to be healthy for us is converted into something that is unhealthy at frying temperatures.’
Aldehydes, which are known promoters of cancer, heart disease and dementia when eaten or inhaled, were present in levels up to 20 times higher than recommended by the World Health Organisation.
Not only that, but Professor Grootveld’s team also identified two previously unknown aldehydes in the samples of these oils – a world first and cause of some excitement for scientists, but bad news for consumers.
Cooking with sunflower oil and corn oil was found to produce even more toxic compounds than ever before
Put simply, cooking with these oils is producing even more toxic compounds than has ever before been realised. In contrast, the olive oil and cold-pressed rapeseed oil produced far fewer aldehydes, as did butter and goose fat.
The reason being that these fats are richer in monounsatured and saturated fats, and are much more stable when heated.
‘Far lower levels of toxic compounds were generated by these oils and the compounds that were are actually less threatening to the human body,’ says the professor.
And as one in the eye for those who have eschewed old-fashioned fats, his research also suggests that when it comes to cooking, frying in animal fats may be preferable to sunflower or corn oil.
The study showed that cooking in vegetable oil for just 20 minutes produced potentially dangerous levels of toxic compounds
His personal cooking choice is unequivocal. ‘If I had a choice between lard and polyunsaturates, I’d use lard every time,’ he says.
Staying true to the science, it must be stressed that as long as they are not heated, polyunsaturated fats (vegetable and sunflower oils) are still seen as a healthy option.
These fats reduce bad cholesterol and lower the risk of stroke and heart disease.
And while the most stable fats of all are the saturated ones, such as butter, these should still be used sparingly as they can increase bad cholesterol and the risk of narrowed arteries and heart disease.
So far, so interesting, but the discoveries were not over.
Along the way our study had thrown up additional bad news about the destructive compounds hidden in our food – even storing oils in the wrong way can change them, as sunlight creates the same damaging chemical reactions as heat, only more slowly.
So storing oils in a dark cupboard is highly recommended to avoid formation of these dangerous by-products.
The research hasn’t just changed my thinking on oils – it’s changed the way I use them, too. I am considering giving lard a try – and I never thought I would hear myself say that.
Indigestion drugs including omeprazole ‘increase the risk of suffering a heart attack’, experts warn
- Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drugs increase risk of heart attack by 20%
- Include omeprazole and lansoprazole – some of the most popular drugs
- Experts warn link between drugs and heart attack is ‘very worrisome’
Proton pump inhibitor, or PPI, drugs, have been found to increase the risk of suffering a heart attack by 20 per cent, scientists warned
Indigestion pills taken daily by millions raise the risk of having a heart attack, doctors fear.
A major study showed that those who take proton pump inhibitor, or PPI, drugs are around 20 per cent more likely to suffer a heart attack than others.
Even otherwise healthy, middle-aged people are at risk.
The US analysis of the records of three million patients doesn’t prove the highly popular pills are at fault but the study’s authors say the link is ‘very worrisome’.
Lead researcher Dr Nicholas Leeper, a heart surgeon, said: ‘These drugs may not be as safe as we think.
‘Heart disease is by far the leading cause of death in the western world and PPIs are so commonly prescribed.
‘This is potentially a big deal from a public health perspective.’
PPIs including omeprazole and lansoprazole are some of the most popular drugs in the world.
More than five million prescriptions are written out each year in England alone.
Many more Britons buy them over the counter in the pharmacy, where brand names include Zanprol and Pantoloc Control.
Any long-term use is meant to be subject to regular review and over-the-counter pills are meant to be limited to two weeks.
However, some people find PPIs so helpful that they take them for years.
The tablets cut the amount of acid produced by the stomach and are used to treat acid reflux, in which stomach acid travels up the food pipe, causing a burning sensation in the chest.
They are also prescribed to people with stomach ulcers.
They have long been considered harmless – but recent studies have produced hints they may damage the heart.
To find out more, teams from Stanford and Houston Methodist universities in the US, scoured the medical records of three million patients to find people who had been diagnosed with heartburn.
They then compared the heart health of those taking PPIs with that of sufferers not on the drugs.
This revealed that those on PPIs were 16 to 21 per cent more likely to have a heart attack.
It is thought that the drugs harm the heart by cutting levels of nitric oxide, a gas that keeps the arteries flexible and healthy.
The researchers said the link between the pills and heart attacks was ‘clear and significant’ but said more research is needed to prove the tablets are to blame.
They stressed that people should speak to their doctor before coming off PPIs, or switching to a second type of heartburn drugs called H2 blockers, which were not linked to heart attacks.
PPIs including omeprazole and lansoprazole are some of the most popular drugs in the world. More than five million prescriptions are written out each year in England alone
Stanford researcher Dr Nigam Shah said the results should be taken seriously.
He added that those who buy them over the counter, should tell their doctor they are taking them, especially if they need them for more than the recommended two weeks.
Other recent research has linked PPIs to a higher risk of hip fractures.
Maureen Talbot, of the British Heart Foundation, said: ‘All medications, whether prescribed or bought over the counter, have potential risks as well as benefits and a full understanding of what these are should be given by a doctor or pharmacist before a person takes them.
‘It has been identified in the past that PPIs are sometimes prescribed or taken for far longer than intended; they should be used as a short term treatment for heartburn only.
‘Despite that, this study suggests if you’re taking PPIs to treat heartburn, there is a greater risk of having a heart attack than if taking alternative treatments.
‘If you are taking PPIs and are concerned, it is worth discussing the issue with your GP.’
Indigestion drugs ‘can raise brittle bone risk,’ researchers warn
Drugs used by millions of patients in Britain to treat indigestion and heartburn can increase the risk of the ‘brittle bone’ disease osteoporosis, researchers warn.
Their study shows long-term use of the medication is linked to weakened bones later in life.
The drugs are called proton pump inhibitors, or PPIs, and are available both on prescription and over the counter in low doses.
Drugs such as Zanprol are used to treat indigestion
The research by a team in Canada found those using them regularly for five years had a 44 per cent higher chance of a hip fracture.
The NHS spends around £400million a year in England on PPIs such as lansoprazole and omeprazole – sold over the counter as Zanprol – to treat indigestion, heartburn and peptic ulcers.
The number of prescriptions issued in the UK for the drugs has doubled in recent years to more than eight million a year and they are among the biggest- selling drugs in history. They come in capsules or pills and work by blocking the action of cells called proton pumps, which produce stomach acid.
Though very effective, they should only be used for short periods.
The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence recommends patients use PPIs for two to four weeks for indigestion.
Patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disorder, a more serious condition involving chronic heartburn that affects one in three Britons at some point in their lives, have to take them daily for up to two months. But many end up staying on the drugs permanently to keep heartburn symptoms at bay.
The researchers at the University of Manitoba in Canada studied more than 60,000 adults aged over 50, including nearly 16,000 who had suffered a fractured hip, spine or wrist due to osteoporosis.
When they analysed prescription records, they found those with hip fractures were 62 per cent more likely to have used PPIs for five years or more than those with healthy hips.
Among those on the drugs for seven years or more, the risk of a fracture soared by more than 400 per cent, according to the study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.
It’s not clear how the drugs might damage bones. One theory is that by blocking acid production, they stop the body from absorbing calcium needed to build strong bones.
Osteoporosis affects around three million Britons. One in three women and one in 12 men develop the bone-wasting disease at some point in their lives.
The researchers said for patients with severe stomach problems, such as bleeding ulcers, the benefits of the drugs will still outweigh the risks. But those using the drugs routinely to control mild indigestion should seek medical advice.
Earlier this year, doctors at Manchester Royal Infirmary published research showing PPIs may also increase the risk of acquiring the superbug Clostridium difficile.
Other studies have also linked the drugs with an increased risk of pneumonia.
Professor Chris Hawkey, president-elect of the British Society of Gastroenterology, said: ‘These are very safe drugs but there are some areas where they are probably overused, such as for minor indigestion.’
Professor Ingvar Bjarnason, gastroenterology expert at King’s College London, said that despite guidance calling for short-term use of the drugs, many patients were on them permanently.
‘In the real world, as soon as you stop taking them, the symptoms reappear. There has always been a concern about the long-term suppression of stomach acid because this can affect the absorption of calcium and lead to osteoporosis.
‘But the risk of fractures among patients on the drugs is still very low and I believe the benefits still outweigh any risks.’
Sleeping pills TREBLE the risk of lung cancer: Common drugs including Xanax and Valium trigger ‘worrying’ rates of disease
- Study of nearly 30,000 people found common sleeping tablets benzodiazepines and z-hypnotic drugs raise the risk of lung cancer
- Drugs are taken by one in 10 people in Britain and 5% people in the US
- People taking pills twice a week had a 2.5 times increased risk of cancer
- Those using the drugs for 3 or more years trebled their risk of cancer
Sleeping pills taken by millions of people across the world could treble the risk of lung cancer, alarming new research shows.
The study warns that taking the drugs on a regular basis is linked to a higher rate of deadly tumours.
Findings from nearly 30,000 people also revealed they raise the risk of cancerous growths in the mouth, nose and windpipe.
Sleeping pills taken by millions of people could treble the risk of developing lung cancer, a study found
Scientists said that the more sleep medication a person takes and the longer they are on them, the greater the danger.
Those regularly using sleeping pills at least twice a week were nearly two-and-a-half times more likely to develop cancer of the airways than non-users.
And in those using the drugs for three years or more the risk appeared to treble.
The 20-year study, involving scientists from Norway, Finland and the UK, is thought to be the largest yet to highlight the cancer risk from using medicinal sleep aids.
A number of smaller studies have suggested a link but were too small to draw firm conclusions.
The research does not prove the popular pills, called benzodiazepines and ‘z-hypnotic drugs’, are carcinogenic.
But in a report on their findings the scientists warn: ‘Further research is urgently needed to determine whether current sleep medications increase cancer risk.’
Around one in ten Britons uses sleeping tablets, with doctors prescribing £50 million of the pills every year.
Temazepan is the benzodiazepine that’s often prescribed for insomnia in the UK.
And other common brand names include Xanax and Valium.
Annual prescriptions of these drugs, which include zolpidem, zaleplon and zopiclone, total around five million.
And in the US, as of 2008, a study found 5.2 per cent of American adults were taking the drugs.
But they have been dogged by safety concerns.
Benzodiazepine drugs have been linked to Alzheimer’s.
And in 2013, scientists warned Z-hypnotic drugs increased the risk of heart attacks by up to 50 per cent.
They have also been linked with dangerous sleep behaviours.
For the latest study, a team led by scientists at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health analysed the records of thousands of public sector employees.
Each was regularly quizzed on lifestyle topics, including sleeping patterns and the use of all types of sleeping pills, and followed up over nearly 20 years.
The results showed only a slight increase in the risk of all types of cancer if sleep drugs were used regularly.
In those using the drugs for three years or more the risk of cancerous growths in the mouth, nose and windpipe appeared to treble. Pictured is a human lung cancer cell under the microscope
But when scientists looked at respiratory cancers – those affecting the airways – they found a worrying rise in risk.
Sleeping pills have been linked to a higher number of infections which may allow cancer cells to flourish.
The researchers stressed that the results may also have been affected by smoking rates.
They said: ‘The association between the use of sleep medications and an increased mortality risk has been documented in more than 20 studies.
‘Although most research has focused on all-cause mortality, a few studies have found that sleep medications are specifically associated with cancer deaths.’
Responding to the findings Cancer Research UK said it is still too early to draw conclusions about the dangers of sleeping pill use.
Health information manager Sarah Williams said: ‘The best advice to reduce the risk of cancer remains the same – not smoking, eating a balanced diet, keeping a healthy weight, cutting down on alcohol, being active and enjoying the sun safely.’
WHAT ARE BENZODIAZEPINES AND Z DRUGS?
Benzodiazepines are tranquillisers that can reduce anxiety and promote calmness, relaxation and sleep.
These medicines should only be considered if you have severe insomnia or it’s causing extreme distress.
Benzodiazepines will make you feel sleepy and can lead to dependency.
Therefore, only short-acting benzodiazepines (with short-lasting effects) should be used to treat insomnia.
Temazepam is the benzodiazepine that’s often prescribed.
Benzodiazepines can have many potential side effects.
Z medicines are a newer type of short-acting medicines that work in a similar way to benzodiazepines.
Source: NHS Choices
Antidepressants: Safety warning over Britain’s most common drug
A warning has been sounded over antidepressant drugs taken by more than a million patients in Britain.
A study for medical regulators found that the drugs increase the risk of heart problems which can cause sudden death.
Doctors have been told to lower the maximum dose of the UK’s most widely prescribed antidepressant, Citalopram, for all patients.
However, regulators have admitted that it is not clear whether the lower dose is safe — as this was not tested.
Although GPs were informed of the health risk when it emerged last autumn, and may have explained the matter to patients, no public warning was issued.
Last night, experts criticised the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the prescriptions watchdog, for failing to make a public announcement — as it has done over other alerts, such as the PIP breast implant scandal.
Citalopram is used to treat depression, anxiety and obsessive compulsive disorders. More than 13 million prescriptions were issued in England and Wales last year — more than twice as many as those for Prozac-style antidepressants.
In the study, carried out for the European Medicines Agency (EMA), it was found to be three times more likely to cause cardiac abnormalities than other types of antidepressants.
The study of healthy volunteers found that the likelihood of electrical defects in the heart rose dramatically as the dose was increased. The abnormalities — known as QT prolongation — makes people vulnerable to heart arrhythmias and to Torsade de Pointes, a rare speeding of the heart rhythm which can be fatal.
The research found the risk of Torsade de Pointes also rose threefold with the drug, when compared with the antidepressants fluoxetine (better known as Prozac), paroxetine (Seroxat) and sertraline (Lustral).
A second study found that a variant of Citalopram known as escitalopram, often sold as Cipralex, for which a million prescriptions were issued last year, also increased risks to the heart.
Prescriptions for antidepressants are normally issued for one to two months, meaning that between one million and two million patients are affected by the safety warnings.
Peter Walsh, from Action Against Medical Accidents, a patient safety charity, criticised the failure by regulators to alert the public.
Mr Walsh said: “We need assurances that the necessary steps to protect patients from adverse effects of these drugs have actually been put in place. It is particularly disappointing that there has been so little transparency with patients and the public about this.”
In the study, electrocardiogram measurements showed that when volunteers were given a 60mg dose of Citalopram, it took twice as long for their hearts to recover from each beat, than when they were given a 20mg dose.
As a result, the EMA issued advice that the maximum dose for the drug must be lowered from 60mg to 40mg, and to 20mg for elderly people, who are vulnerable to toxic effects from drugs.
However, in documents seen by this newspaper, regulators admit that it is not clear whether a 40mg dose is safe, as the study did not examine such dosage.
Similar patterns were found with escitalopram, at a dose of 30mg. It already has a maximum dose of 20mg, which remains unchanged, except for patients over 65, where the safe level is 10mg.
Dr Amanda Varnava, a consultant cardiologist from Imperial College Healthcare trust, said: “I don’t think GPs should stop prescribing these drugs, but they do need to be more aware of the risks from upping the dosage.”
Data obtained by this newspaper discloses 6,386 reports of cardiac problems and seizures among patients who took Citalopram.
The reports, which were considered by the EMA, show 569 cardiac arrests and 112 sudden deaths among patients taking the pills. In 124 cases, patients suffered Torsade de Pointes.
Since Citalopram started being prescribed in the UK in 1995, 8,600 adverse reactions have been reported to the agency, including 155 deaths. In total, 223 cardiac disorders were recorded and 1,703 disorders of the nervous system.
An MHRA spokesman said its enforcement of the EMA’s recommended restrictions enabled health care professionals to give appropriate advice to their patients, and that the agency had ensured information leaflets were updated.
Nuclear power station cancer warning: Breast cancer rates are FIVE TIMES higher at Welsh plant – and twice as high at Essex and Somerset sites, experts reveal
- Studies looked at rates of various cancers in people living close to Trawsfynydd, Bradwell and Hinkley Point power stations
- At the Welsh plant breast cancer rates were five times higher than expected
- At Bradwell and Hinkley Point they were twice as high as UK average
- Researchers warned their ‘very clear’ findings are ‘remarkable’
Women living downwind from nuclear power plants are at five times greater risk of developing breast cancer, experts have warned.
In three separate studies, a team of scientists looked at the rates of various cancers in populations living close to Trawsfynydd power station in North Wales, Bradwell in Essex and Hinkley Point in Somerset.
They discovered breast cancer rates, in particular, were higher than expected national averages at all three sites.
At Trawsfynydd, rates of the disease were five times greater than average, while in Essex and Somerset women had double the risk of developing breast cancer.
Women under the age of 60, who live downwind from the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station in North Wales (pictured) are at five times greater risk of developing breast cancer, experts have warned
Researchers assessed the rates of various cancers at three nuclear sites including Trawsfynydd (above), which ceased operation in 1993, as well as at Bradwell power station in Essex and Hinkley Point in Somerset
The research, supervised by Dr Chris Busby, who was previously based in Aberystwyth but is now attached to the Latvian Academy of Sciences in Riga, also found other types of cancer were recorded at double the rate in Trawsfynydd.
The Welsh plant is the only nuclear power station built inland in the UK.
It acts as a cooling water source and is also a sink for radioactivity released from the plant.
A significant amount of radioactive material exists in the lake bed sediment.
The power station ceased operation in 1993 but has yet to be fully decommissioned.
The prevailing winds at the site are south westerly and more than 90 per cent of those living downwind of the power station were surveyed by researchers working for Dr Busby.
The paper, published this month by Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, states: ‘Trawsfynydd is a “dirty” nuclear power station.’
‘As it has carbon dioxide, gas-cooled graphite block reactors, its releases into the air are higher than most other types of nuclear reactor.
At the Essex and Somerset power plants breast cancer, pictured, rates were found to be twice the national average
‘In addition, all the liquid releases are discharged to the lake, where they have accumulated to the lake body sediment,’ the researchers noted.
‘Results show very clearly that the downwind population has suffered because of these exposures.
‘This is most clear in breast cancer in the younger women below 60, where the rates were almost five times the expected.
‘Additionally we see a doubling of risk in those who ate fish from Trawsfynydd lake, which supports the conclusion that it is mainly a nuclear power station effect that is being seen.’
Other forms of cancer showing elevated levels included prostate, leukaemia, mesothelioma and pancreas.
Altogether, 38 people in the area researched were diagnosed with cancer between 2003 and 2005, against an ‘expected’ level of 19.5.
The report said: ‘These results are remarkable and relevant to political decisions about nuclear energy.’
In a separate report, also published in the Jacobs Journal of Epidemiology and Preventative Medicine, Dr Busby’s team revealed their findings of a similar study close to the Bradwell nuclear plant in Essex.
The plant is located on the south side of the River Blackwater in Essex.
In order to arrive at their conclusions they compared populations in wards adjacent to the River Blackwater with a control population living nearby in an uncontaminated area close to the River Crouch.
The researchers concluded: ‘Between 1995 and 2001 breast cancer mortality was significantly higher in wards adjacent to the River Blackwater in Essex than in wards which were inland.
‘The Blackwater wards which had measured radioactive contamination from the Bradwell nuclear power station had about twice the breast cancer mortality than a control group of wards on the uncontaminated River Crouch.’
The researchers concluded: ‘These results are remarkable and relevant to political decisions about nuclear energy.’ Pictured, breast cancer under the microscope
They added: ‘We have also studied breast cancer mortality in the wards near the Hinkley Point nuclear site in Somerset, using the same approach as this study, and have found the same result, a doubling of risk.’
All three nuclear power plants are managed by Magnox Ltd, a company owned by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which is ‘responsible for the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK’s civil nuclear sites on behalf of the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change’.
A spokesman for the UK Government’s Department for Energy and Climate Change said Public Health England
Dr Jill Meara, director of Public Health England’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (CRCE), said: ‘Identification of disease clusters are matters for local public health teams.
‘If those teams needs specialist support, such as in radiation epidemiology, they can talk to CRCE for assistance.’
Public Health Wales said it was liaising with local health teams covering Traswfynydd to see whether any cancer clusters had been identified in the area.
An, J, et al, (1992). The effects of high fluoride on the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 7(2):93-94. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/an-1992.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
BBC, (2003). Plans for fluoride ‘in all water’. British Broadcasting Company. United Kingdom. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3018313.stm Accessed 03/07/2014
Chen, Y, X, et al, (1991). Research on the intellectual development of children in high fluoride areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 6(Suppl):99-100 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:120–24). http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/chen-1991.chinese.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Ding, Y, et al, (2011). The relationships between low levels of urine fluoride on children’s intelligence, dental fluorosis in endemic fluorosis areas in Hulunbuir, Inner Mongolia, China. Journal of Hazardous Materials 186(2-3):1942-46. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21237562 Accessed 19/07/2014
Duan J, et al, (1995). A comparative analysis of the results of multiple tests in patients with chronic industrial fluorosis. Guizhou Medical Journal 18(3):179-180. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/duan-1995.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Eswar, P, et al, (2011). Intelligent quotients of 12-14 year old school children in a high and low fluoride village in India. Fluoride 44:168-72. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/eswar-2011.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Guo X, et al. (1991). A preliminary investigation of the IQs of 7-13 year old children from an area with coal burning-related fluoride poisoning. Chinese Journal of Endemiology 10(2):98-100 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41(2):125–28). http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/guo-1991.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Karimzade, S, et al, (2014). Investigation of intelligence quotient in 9-12-year-old children exposed to high- and low-drinking water fluoride in West Azerbaijan province, Iran. Fluoride 47(1):9-14. Iran. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/karimzade-2014.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Li, Y, et al, (1994). Effects of high fluoride intake on child mental work capacity: Preliminary investigation into the mechanisms involved. Journal of West China University of Medical Sciences 25(2):188-91 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:331-35). http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/li-1994.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Li, X, S, et al, (1995). Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28:189-192. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/li-1995.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Li, Y, et al, (2003). Effects of endemic fluoride poisoning on the intellectual development of children in Baotou. Chinese Journal of Public Health Management 19(4):337-338 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:161-64). http://www.fluorideresearch.org/412/files/FJ2008_v41_n2_p161-164.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Li, F, et al, (2009). The impact of endemic fluorosis caused by the burning of coal on the development of intelligence in children. Journal of Environmental Health 26(4):838-40. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/li-2009.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Lin, Fa-Fu, et al (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Endemic Disease Bulletin 6(2):62-67 (republished in Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7(3):24-25). http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/lin-1991.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Poureslami, H, R, et al, (2011). Intelligence quotient of 7 to 9 year-old children from an area with high fluoride in drinking water. Journal of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene 3(4):61-64. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/poureslami-2011.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
PressTV, (2013). EU warned that two insecticides, may affect the development of human brain. PressTV. Iran. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ72o0FkTII Accessed 31/08/2014
Qin, L,S, & Cui, S, Y, (1990). Using the Raven’s standard progressive matrices to determine the effects of the level of fluoride in drinking water on the intellectual ability of school-age children. Chinese Journal of the Control of Endemic Diseases 5(4):203-04 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:115–19). http//www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/qin-1990.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Ren, D, et al, (1989). A study of the intellectual ability of 8-14 year-old children in high fluoride, low iodine areas. Chinese Journal of Control of Endemic Diseases 4(4):251 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:319-20). http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/ren-1989.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Rocha-Amador, D, et al, (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/rocha_amador-2007.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Saxena, S, et al, (2012). Effect of fluoride exposure on the intelligence of school children in Madhya Pradesh, India. Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice 3(2):144-49. http://www.ruralneuropractice.com/article.asp?issn=0976-3147;year=2012;volume=3;issue=2;spage=144;epage=149;aulast=Saxena Accessed 19/07/2014
Seraj, B, et al, (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. [Study in Persian] Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/seraj-2006.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Shivaprakash, P, K, et al, (2011). Relation between dental fluorosis and intelligence quotient in school children of Bagalkot district. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 29(2):117-20. http://www.jisppd.com/article.asp?issn=0970-4388;year=2011;volume=29;issue=2;spage=117;epage=120;aulast=Shivaprakash Accessed 19/07/2014
Sun, M, et al, (1991). Measurement of intelligence by drawing test among the children in the endemic area of Al-F combined toxicosis. Journal of Guiyang Medical College 16(3):204-06. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/sun-1991.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Trivedi, M,H, et al, (2007). Effect of high fluoride water on intelligence of school children in India. Fluoride 40(3):178-183. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/trivedi-2007.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Wang, G, et al, (1996). A study of the IQ levels of four- to seven-year-old children in high fluoride areas. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 11(1):60-6 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:340–43). http://www.fluorideresearch.org/414/files/FJ2008_v41_n4_p340-343.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Xu, Y, et al, (1994). The effect of fluorine on the level of intelligence in children. Endemic Diseases Bulletin 9(2):83-84. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/xu-1994.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Yang, Y, et al, (1994). The effects of high levels of fluoride and iodine on intellectual ability and the metabolism of fluoride and iodine. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 15(4):296-98 (republished in Fluoride 2008; 41:336-339). http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/yang-1994.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Zhang, J, et al, (1998). The effect of high levels of arsenic and fluoride on the development of children’s intelligence. Chinese Journal of Public Health 17(2):119. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/zhang-1998.pdf Accessed 19/07/2014
Learn more about the British police https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/01/21/how-much-do-you-think-you-can-trust-the-british-police/
Learn more about people trying to murder you and your family https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/proof-someone-is-trying-to-damage-the-human-body-brain-and-cause-cancer-to-kill-people-slowly/
Learn more about Freemason paedophile rings https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/02/04/international-freemason-paedophile-rings-america-britain-france-holland-jersey/
Learn more about the paedophile ring thats been operating inside the British and American intelligence agencies https://jewishpaedophilia.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/opilluminatuspiedpiper-northamptonshire-police-helping-cover-up-unitarian-paedosadist-with-satanic-royal-connections-mp-cyril-smith-scandal-because-of-his-royal-connections-force-said-secur/