Imperial Party forum

thomas davison

Fluoride May Be Your Next Contraceptive?
October 29, 2013 | 3,528 views
Please Help Support

By Dr. Mercola

In the US, where about two-thirds of drinking water supplies are fluoridated, men may be putting their fertility at risk with every sip of water from the tap.

Research has long linked fluoride in drinking water with sperm damage and other threats to reproductive health, although many Americans remain completely in the dark about the association.

Yet, most of the studies on fluoride use sodium fluoride, which while extremely toxic is pharmaceutical-grade fluoride -- NOT the kind added to water supplies. So researchers set out to determine the toxicity of the fluoride compounds that are actually in most water supplies. Here�s what they found�

Fluoride in Drinking Water May Be Toxic to Sperm

First a bit of background� sodium fluoride was the first of the fluoride waste materials to be used for fluoridation, but now is rarely used. It's the most well known, as this is �pharmaceutical grade� compound used in toxicology studies and other research into the potential health dangers of fluoride.

The other two types of fluoride, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, are the compounds actually used for water fluoridation. Sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are the waste products from the fertilizer industry and are actually classified as hazardous wastes.

The new study compared the toxicity of three fluoride compounds � sodium fluoride and two silicofluorides used for water fluoridation � to determine their effect on the growth, feeding and reproduction of roundworms. They found:1

�Exposure to these compounds produced classic concentration-response toxicity profiles� This suggests that silicofluorides have similar toxicity to NaF [sodium fluoride].�

Since sodium fluoride appears to be equally toxic as the fluoride chemicals added to drinking water, it raises serious concern about another recent study, which found sodium fluoride may damage sperm chemotaxis, the process by which sperm are attracted toward an egg, which plays a critical role in allowing fertilization to occur.2 Though this study involved mice, if the findings apply to humans it could put men at risk of becoming infertile�

Fluoride May Be Dangerous to Male Fertility

Past research, too, has shown that fluoride has potentially disastrous effects on the male reproductive system. The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) reported:3

Exposing ram semen to 0.38 parts per million (20 umol/L) of fluoride for five hours caused a �statistically significant decrease in the motility of spermatozoa� along with other changes that would �undoubtedly affect the physiological function of the sperm.�
Infusing testes with modest amounts of fluoride (4.75 parts per million) inhibited the synthesis of testosterone
Sixty animal studies have found that fluoride adversely impacts the male reproductive system, including:

Decreases in testosterone levels Reduced sperm motility Altered sperm morphology
Reduced sperm quantity Increased oxidative stress Reduced capacity to breed

It�s not only animal studies that have shown an emerging problem, however. As FAN explained:4

�Consistent with the in vitro and animal research, studies of human populations have reported associations between fluoride exposure and damage to the male reproductive system. Most notably, a scientist at the Food & Drug Administration [FDA] reported in 1994 that populations in the United States with more than 3 ppm fluoride in their water had lower �total fertility rates� than populations with lower fluoride levels �

While 3 ppm is a higher concentration than used in water fluoridation programs (0.7 to 1.2 ppm), it is still considered a �safe� level by the EPA. To date, no U.S. health agency has attempted to replicate� [these] findings.

However, three studies of highly fluoride-exposed populations in China and India have found that high fluoride exposure is associated with reduced male fertility. In addition, five studies from China, India, Mexico, and Russia have found that high-fluoride exposure is associated with reduced male testosterone levels.�

Fluoride Is an Undeniable Poison to Your Entire Body

Men of reproductive age may now be thinking twice about the fluoride in their drinking water, but this is not the only population that stands to be harmed.

Study after study has confirmed that fluoride is a dangerous, toxic poison that bio-accumulates in your body while being ineffective at preventing dental decay. For instance, there are 25 studies showing that fluoride reduces IQ in children, and approximately 100 animal studies have also linked fluoride to brain damage.5

One particularly striking animal study6 showed that fluoride ingestion had a profound influence on the animals' brains and altered behavior. Pregnant rats given fluoride produced hyperactive offspring. And animals given fluoride after birth became apathetic, lethargic "couch potatoes." Other research has linked fluoride toxicity with the wide-ranging problems listed below.
Increases lead absorption Disrupts collagen synthesis Increases manganese absorption, which is also linked to lower IQ in children Crippling skeletal fluorosis and bone fractures
Genetic damage and cell death Increased tumor and cancer growth Disrupts immune system Inhibits antibody production
Brain damage, and lowered IQ Dementia Arthritis Severe eye problems, including blindness
Impaired thyroid function Bone cancer (osteosarcoma) Inactivates 62 enzymes Muscle disorders

What�s Better Than Fluoride for Preventing Cavities?

Well, practically anything, since ingesting fluoride in drinking water does NOT decrease rates of tooth decay. In all seriousness, anyone who has ever read Dr. Weston Price�s book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration will soon recognize that diet is the most important factor in dental health.

Dr. Price wrote this book in 1920 and it is full of pictures of cultures with excellent dental health that rapidly deteriorated once processed Western food was introduced. When Dr. Price studied these native diets, he noticed some similarities in the foods that kept them so healthy. Among them:

The foods were natural, unprocessed, and organic (and contained no sugar except for the occasional bit of honey or maple syrup).
The people ate foods that grew in their native environment. In other words, they ate locally grown, seasonal foods.
Many of the cultures ate unpasteurized dairy products, and all of them ate fermented foods.
The people ate a significant portion of their food raw.
All of the cultures ate animal products, including animal fat and, often, full-fat butter and organ meats.

I believe that if you have an optimal diet, without processed foods and sugars from infancy, you can be virtually assured of cavity-free teeth. All of the brushing and flossing in the world will not give you the healthy teeth that following the eating patterns described above will, so if you value your pearly whites, get started eating a healthier diet today.

thomas davison · Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:34 am Post subject:

As the EU Launches Shocking Fructose Health Claim Label, Oreos Are Found to Be as Addictive as Cocaine
October 30, 2013 | 35,171 views

By Dr. Mercola

When you eat refined processed sugars, they trigger production of your brain's natural opioids -- a key ingredient in the addiction process. Your brain essentially becomes addicted to stimulating the release of its own opioids as it would to morphine or heroin.

This addictive nature of sugar and processed food has again been confirmed by a psychology professor and a team of students at the College of Connecticut,1,2 who showed that Oreo cookies are just as addictive as cocaine or morphine.

The study, which was designed to investigate the potential addictiveness of high-fat/high-sugar foods, also found that eating Oreos activated more neurons in the rat brain�s pleasure center than exposure to illicit drugs did. According to professor Schroeder:

�Our research supports the theory that high-fat/ high-sugar foods stimulate the brain in the same way that drugs do. It may explain why some people can�t resist these foods despite the fact that they know they are bad for them.�

The idea for the study originated with neuroscience major Jamie Honohan, who wanted to know how the high prevalence of junk foods in low-income neighborhoods might contribute to the obesity epidemic.

Indeed, it�s quite revealing to note that, in contrast to third-world countries, in the US the poorest people have the highest obesity rates. This seeming contradiction is, I believe, a clear indication that the problem stems from the diet itself.

Something in the cheapest and most readily available foods is creating metabolic havoc, and that�s exactly what researchers keep finding. As reported by Connecticut college:

�...Oreos activated significantly more neurons than cocaine or morphine. 'This correlated well with our behavioral results and lends support to the hypothesis that high-fat/ high sugar foods can be thought of as addictive,' said Schroeder.

And that could be a problem for the general public, says Honohan. �Even though we associate significant health hazards in taking drugs like cocaine and morphine, high-fat/ high-sugar foods may present even more of a danger because of their accessibility and affordability,� she said.�

Please note that I do not agree with the comment that everything that is considered high-fat is bad for you. Oreo cookies and virtually every other processed snack are bad because they use highly processed omega-6 vegetable oils, the wrong type of fat. However it is possible to make a healthy high-fat snack using oils like coconut oil.

Processed Foods Are DESIGNED to Be Addictive

Indeed, scientific research into the addictive nature of certain foods, combined with shocking �insider� expos�s,3 tells us that Americans are not necessarily lacking in self control when it comes to their food consumption. Rather, food companies have perfected food concoctions that are addictive. And they know it.

Most people blindly believe that food companies will do the right thing; that they would never produce food that might be toxic or harmful. This, we�ve learned is not the case.

The food industry is well aware of its role in creating obesity, and they�re not ignorant as to the reason why Americans can�t seem to get enough junk food. They even insist on selling foods to the American market with ingredients that have been banned for health reasons in other countries...

Most processed foods are actually created to be addictive�whether we�re talking about cookies or pasta sauce�through the masterful use of addictive ingredients like salt, fat, sugar and a wide variety of proprietary flavorings.

In a previous New York Times article,4 investigative reporter Michael Moss wrote about the extraordinary science behind taste and junk food addiction, and how multinational food companies struggle to maintain their �stomach shares� in the face of mounting evidence that their foods are driving the health crisis.

In it he mentions a 1999 meeting between 11 CEOs in charge of America�s largest food companies, including Kraft, Nabisco, General Mills, Procter & Gamble, Coca-Cola and Mars, where their role in the increasingly poor health of Americans was addressed head-on. Moss writes in part:

�James Behnke, a 55-year-old executive at Pillsbury... was engaged in conversation with a group of food-science experts who were painting an increasingly grim picture of the public�s ability to cope with the industry�s formulations �

From the body�s fragile controls on overeating to the hidden power of some processed foods to make people feel hungrier still. It was time, he and a handful of others felt, to warn the C.E.O.�s that their companies may have gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns.�

SHOCKING! EU Approves Health Claim for Fructose

With everything we now know about the metabolic disaster that is fructose, it�s absolutely SHOCKING to learn that the European Union has approved a health claim for fructose,5 slated to take effect as of 2014. Many of my readers are scattered through the EU nations, and for you, understanding the ramifications of this label is crucial.

As of 2014, food manufacturers that replace at least 30 percent of the glucose and/or sucrose content in their food with fructose will be allowed to put a health claim on their product, stating that it has a positive effect on carbohydrate metabolism and insulin sensitivity.

There�s no doubt in my mind that such a health claim will promote an avalanche of chronic disease, as food manufacturers start switching from the lesser to the greater of two evils... As reported by Ingredients Network:6

�[F]ood and beverage manufacturers can expect a healthy upward surge in sales for products with fructose from the 2nd of January 2014 when the European Union�s fructose health claim comes into effect. ...[T]he fructose declaration promises to be truly ground breaking for food and beverage manufacturers. Manufacturers who substitute at least 30 percent of glucose or sucrose with fructose can now claim that

�Consumption of foods containing fructose leads to a lower blood glucose rise compared to foods containing sucrose or glucose.� ...fructose�s ability to emphasize fruity flavors also makes the news particularly favorable for manufacturers of beverages, fruit preparations, fruit flavored ice-cream, yogurts and more.

Since the EU�s game-changing step, validating fructose benefits, the industry�s attention has focused with increased urgency on the opportunities presented by incorporating non-GMO crystalline fructose into different food and beverages products...�

Why Fructose Is Worse for You Than Other Sugars

One of the primary problems with refined fructose is that it is isocaloric but not isometabolic. What this means is that while you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or any other nutrient, including glucose, the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count.

While it is true that refined fructose creates a lower glycemic response immediately after eating it, compared to sucrose or glucose, to say that it is therefore healthier for you is a gross and seriously misleading claim that wholly ignores its overall metabolic consequences.

In short, the fact that refined fructose produces a lower immediate glycemic response is completely irrelevant, because the overall metabolic effects are far more destructive. In my view, this label is dangerous, and may set the EU up for an out-of-control spiral of chronic disease.

Refined fructose actually affects your body in ways similar to alcohol, hence the rise in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease�and, again, addiction. Fructose and ethanol both have immediate, narcotic effects associated with their dopaminergic properties. In the same way that alcohol can lead to the downward spiral of compulsive overconsumption, fructose tends to generate an insatiable and intense sensation of pleasurable sweetness, often driving us to consume far more than our body can handle; even while it damages multiple organ systems.

The EU Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies even spells out the consequences in their Opinion paper,7 while still agreeing with the proposed health claim for fructose:

�The Panel considers that in order to bear the claim, glucose or sucrose should be replaced by fructose in sugar sweetened foods or beverages. The target population is individuals who wish to reduce their post-prandial glycaemic responses. The Panel notes that high intakes of fructose may lead to metabolic complications such as dyslipidaemia, insulin resistance and increased visceral adiposity.� [Emphasis mine]

What You Need to Know About Fructose versus Glucose Metabolism

Again, while refined fructose creates a lower glycemic response in the short term, compared to other sugars, in the long term, it causes greater metabolic havoc than sugar. This has been repeatedly demonstrated in scientific studies. One of the most recent ones, published in the journal Nature,8 again concluded that while refined fructose and glucose have the same caloric value, they are metabolized differently, and fructose causes more harm of the two. Below is a summary of the main differences between glucose and fructose metabolism, which explains why I keep repeating that fructose is by far the worst type of sugar there is:
With fructose, 100 percent of the metabolic burden rests on your liver. But with glucose, your liver has to break down only 20 percent When you eat 120 calories of glucose, less than one calorie is stored as fat. 120 calories of fructose results in 40 calories being stored as fat. Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!
Every cell in your body, including your brain, utilizes glucose. Therefore, much of it is "burned up" immediately after you consume it. By contrast, fructose is turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat The metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and causes gout
The fatty acids created during fructose metabolism accumulate as fat, both in your liver and skeletal muscle tissues, causing insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance progresses to metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes Glucose suppresses the hunger hormone ghrelin and stimulates leptin, which suppresses your appetite. Fructose has no effect on ghrelin and interferes with your brain's communication with leptin, resulting in overeating
Fructose is the most lipophilic carbohydrate. In other words, fructose converts to activated glycerol (g-3-p), which is directly used to turn FFAs into triglycerides. The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose does not do this In addition to fructose's dopamine modulating activity, there appears to be a fructose-opiate connection. While both glucose and fructose are capable of creating pain killing effects, researchers have found that fructose is more potent than glucose in accomplishing these effects, suggesting it may be more addictive

Cancer Researcher Issues Stark Warning

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.

In the video above, Dr. Lewis Cantley, a cancer researcher and head of the Cancer Center at New York�s Weill Cornell Medical College, explains why a high-sugar diet is so dangerous�in particular to children. First, it�s important to know that the factor that links obesity, diabetes, and cancer is insulin and leptin resistance. Insulin and leptin resistance, and even full-blown type 2 diabetes, is now becoming increasingly prevalent in children and teens�something that was virtually unheard of 50 years ago. As Dr. Cantley says, type 2 diabetes is referred to as �late onset diabetes� for the precise reason that it typically didn�t strike until you were in your 60s.

If diabetes at 60 is evidence of a lifetime of higher-than-ideal sugar consumption, then the fact that teenagers are now developing type 2 diabetes tells us that the amount of sugar in the average diet, starting from infancy, is exceptionally high�so high that the ramifications become evident several decades sooner than before! This in turn exponentially increases the child�s risk of developing cancer at some point in his or her life. Dr. Cantley warns:

�This correlation of earlier and earlier type 2 diabetes, that means you now have 20, 30, 40 years of high insulin levels, which could potentially drive the growth of tumors. It really does make us very worried that advances we�re making in treating cancer is going to be completely offset by this dramatic increase in cancers that are associated with diabetes and obesity... The more I learn about it, the more compulsive I become about avoiding sugar.�

Think about it... Sugar used to be available to our ancestors only as fruit or honey�and then only for a few months of the year�compared to today, when fructose (primarily in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is added to virtually all processed foods and drinks; even items you normally would not think of as being high in sugar. Tragically, many infant formulas even contain more than 50 percent sugar! This, I believe, gets your child hooked on sweets virtually from day one, and sets the wheels in motion for metabolic dysfunction.

If you received your fructose only from vegetables and fruits (where it originates) as most people did a century ago, you'd consume about 15 grams per day. Today, the average is 73 grams per day, which is nearly 500 percent higher a dose and your body simply can't tolerate that type of biochemical abuse. Furthermore, in vegetables and fruits, the fructose is mixed in with fiber, vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and beneficial phytonutrients, all of which help moderate the negative metabolic effects.

This is why, as a general rule, I advise keeping your daily fructose consumption, from ALL sources, including whole fruit, below 25 grams per day. If you are overweight and/or have insulin resistance, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure or other chronic disease, you�d be wise to limit it further�down to 15 grams a day.

Take Control of Your Health, and Don�t Fall for Grossly Misleading Fructose Health Claims

For the first time in history, "lifestyle" diseases -- diabetes, heart disease, and some cancers -- are killing more people than communicable diseases. According to GreenMedInfo.com, scientific studies have linked fructose to about 78 different diseases and health problems.9 Select the hyperlinks provided to review how fructose may:
Raise your blood pressure, and cause nocturnal hypertension Insulin resistance / Type 2 Diabetes Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)
Raise your uric acid levels, which can result in gout and/or metabolic syndrome Accelerate the progression of chronic kidney disease Intracranial atherosclerosis (narrowing and hardening of the arteries in your skull)
Exacerbate cardiac abnormalities if you're deficient in copper Have a genotoxic effect on the colon Promote metastasis in breast cancer patients
Cause tubulointerstitial injury (injury to the tubules and interstitial tissue of your kidney) Promotes obesity and related health problems and diseases Promotes pancreatic cancer growth

As previously reported in a New York Times10 opinion piece on the dramatic health care savings promised by healthier lifestyle habits and diet:

"The INTERHEART study of 30,000 men and women in 52 countries showed that at least 90 percent of heart disease is lifestyle related; a European study of more than 23,000 Germans showed that people with healthier lifestyles had an 81 percent lower risk.�

Treating these entirely preventable illnesses costs more than one-seventh of the US gross domestic product (GDP). It stands to reason then that preventing these diseases could save the US health care system around one trillion dollars a year!11 One of the primary, and likely most effective ways of preventing these diseases would be to curb the outrageous over-consumption of sugar.

Your Lifestyle Will Make or Break Your Health

Unfortunately, processed foods are HUGE business with great profit margins�maximized, I might add, by designing foods with addictive qualities, through the use of salt, sugar, fat and other secret, proprietary flavor formulas. The food industry as a whole has NO incentive whatsoever to switch to selling and marketing whole foods�unless the market absolutely demands it.

I believe the current situation can change, but only if enough people understand the simple truths of healthy eating and refuse to buy sugar-laden processed foods. If you want to protect your health, and the health of your family, my most urgent recommendation is to do just that�replace the processed foods with homemade meals, made from scratch using whole ingredients.

Remember, insulin and leptin resistance are core factors in obesity, which in turn is a risk factor for cancer and may boost tumor growth. Insulin and leptin resistance is also at the root of most other chronic diseases. To safely and effectively reverse insulin and leptin resistance, you need to:

Avoid, sugar, fructose, grains, and processed foods
Eat a healthful diet of whole foods, ideally organic, and replace the grain carbs with:
Large amounts of vegetables
Low-to-moderate amount of high quality protein (think organically raised, pastured animals)
As much highly quality healthful fat as you want (saturated and monosaturated). Most people need upwards of 50-70 percent fats in their diet for optimal health. Good sources include coconut and coconut oil, avocados, butter, nuts, and animal fats. Also take a high-quality source of animal-based omega-3 fat, such as krill oil

thomas davison · Posted: Tue Nov 05, 2013 9:23 am Post subject:

Zilmax: Slaughterhouse Observations Raise New Concerns about This Growth-Promoting Drug
November 05, 2013 | 23,070 views

By Dr. Mercola

One of the reasons I stress the importance of only eating organic, grass-fed beef is because animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are given unnatural inferior feed loaded with antibiotics (i.e. grains instead of grass, and most of it genetically engineered at that), along with a variety of veterinary drugs.

Many of these drugs are administered for prophylactic purposes to prevent illness, and others are given as growth promoters.

Zilmax (Zilpaterol) is one such drug. It�s a beta-adrenergic agonist, also known as beta-agonist; a class of non-hormone drugs used in animals to promote growth. It, and others like it are fed to cattle in the weeks prior to slaughter to increase weight by as much as 30 pounds of lean meat per cow. Beta-agonist drugs, as a class, have been used in US cattle production since 2003.

While 26 countries currently allow beta-agonists in food production, America�s use of such drugs, which also includes the beta-agonist ractopamine, for promotion of growth and lean-meat yield has created challenges in the global market, including current trade barriers in Russia1. Now, Zilmax is also causing trouble on our own turf. As reported in the featured article2:

�Zilmax became the focus of attention in the livestock industry after Tyson Foods Inc said on August 7 that it will stop buying Zilmax-fed cattle for slaughter beginning next month. Tyson, the biggest US meat processor, said it was concerned about Zilmax potentially causing health or behavioral problems for some cattle.

Merck's Animal Health unit announced on August 16 that it would halt US and Canadian sales of Zilmax, pending additional company research and review.�

Merck has no plans on discontinuing the product, however; recently telling Reuters3 that it is in fact pushing to bring the drug back to market both in the US and Canada. The company says it stands behind the safety of the drug and is working on developing a quality control program to ensure its proper use.

Zilmax Causes Serious Side Effects in Horses, So Why Use It In Cattle?

Zilmax is already banned for use in horses due to severe side effects, including muscle tremors and rapid heart rates that can last as long as two weeks after stopping the drug4. It�s not a major stretch to imagine similar problems might occur in cattle. According to a 2008 veterinary case report5 involving three horses that were given Zilmax:

�Within 90 minutes the horses had muscular tremors which began in the skeletal muscles of the neck, shoulder, and foreleg and spread throughout the visible skeletal muscles. Intermittent visible muscular tremors continued for up to 1 week after the initial dose of zilpaterol.

They also all had certain changes to their blood chemistry, such as elevated BUN, creatinine, and glucose and mild hyponatremia and hypochloremia... Liver and kidney changes were also noted.�

Ractopamine, another beta-agonist, is yet another drug used in the US, even though it�s been banned in 160 other countries due to its potential health hazards. The researchers also noted that Zilmax is about 125 times more potent than ractopamine, saying this may be why side effects were overlooked in connection with ractopamine studies.

In an email to Reuters, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated it had received �a very small number of reports of lameness or lying down� in cattle that had been fed Zilmax6. According to a Wall Street Journal7 report:

�A growing number of cattle arriving for slaughter at US meatpacking plants have recently shown unusual signs of distress. Some walked stiffly, while others had trouble moving or simply lay down, their tongues hanging from their mouths. Some even sat down in strange positions, looking more like dogs than cows.�

Since the animals� diet in general was unchanged, livestock scientists started suspecting the suddenly odd behavior might be associated with the addition of the beta-agonist drug, which has only recently become widely used among cattle ranchers.

Is it Really Safe to Listen to �Experts� that Were Wrong Before?

Not surprisingly, conflicts of interest are rampant among supporters of the drug, who oftentimes have direct ties to the drug companies manufacturing it.

For example, Richard Raymond8, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief responsible for promoting Zilmax is not only a paid food safety and public health consultant for Elanco9, the Animal Health branch of Eli Lilly that produces two ractopamine products; he was also the chair of the US Codex Policy Committee, which provides guidance to US delegations on the Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Raymond has also been a defender of rbST/rbGH milk10, 11�another Elanco product12. This artificial growth hormone has been banned in Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand due to cancer risks and other health concerns. Although it isn�t generally well-known, rbST is connected to the beef industry, in that rbST also increases muscle area and reduces fat thickness―basically what Zilmax does�as described in a 2001 study13.

In an August 2, 2013 article14 penned for Facts About Beef, Raymond states he believes beta-agonists can help improve global food security, seeing how the drugs lead to six to seven pounds of additional meat per pig and 30 pounds of additional meat per market cow.

He also claims there�s no published data showing that beta-agonists have an effect on animal welfare―despite the fact that such studies do indeed exist, such as the one referenced above, published in the Journal of Equine Veterinary Science in 200815.

Do Beta-Agonists in Meat Pose Human Health Hazards?

According to an article published in the Journal of Animal Science in 199816, there�s data on �human intoxication following consumption of liver or meat from cattle treated with beta-agonists.� (In the case of the beta-agonist clenbuterol, pharmacological effects might be expected after consuming 100-200 grams of contaminated product.) The authors write:

�The use of highly active beta-agonists as growth promoters is not appropriate because of the potential hazard for human and animal health, as was recently concluded at the scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production (Nov. 1995, Brussels).�

Similarly, before it was approved, scientists worried that beta-adrenergic agonists illegally used could result in increased cardiovascular risk for consumers17. Today we don�t have to worry about eating illegally treated meat, since these drugs are approved and widely used, but should we be concerned about cardiovascular health risks from non-organic meat products? As for Richard Raymond, with regards to such questions of safety, he writes, in part:

�It is... estimated that over 700 million pigs have been supplemented with beta-agonists since its approval 14 years ago. I am not an Ag Economist, but I can do the simple math that says if each of those 700 million pigs produced an additional 6 pounds because of beta-agonist supplementation, that would be over 4 billion additional pounds of pork, or put another way, an additional 16 billion four ounce servings of protein.

As the former Undersecretary for Food Safety at USDA, I also know that in those billions of servings of pork and beef, not one single incident of a foodborne illness or side effect in a human has been reported. That should make us feel confident as far as human safety goes.�

My question is, since beta-agonist drugs do not affect biology in the way a pathogen like, say, salmonella or E-coli might, just how would you know that a meat product contaminated with drug residue has affected your health? Especially if we�re discussing about side effects like weight gain, or even heart- and muscle-related problems similar to those experienced by horses?

Barring an acute reaction, how would you actually pin beta-agonist side effects to any particular piece of meat in your diet? This is why you need to perform scientific studies to assess effects and risks. Clearly, to say that lack of foodborne illness reports18 is a statement about the drug�s safety for use in food animals is ludicrous, and I think he really should know better. But, for a lazy reader, such a comment just might put them at ease.

It may be worth noting that, in humans, beta-agonists are used to treat asthma, among other things. Interestingly enough, stubborn weight gain is a common complaint among asthma patients using Advair (a beta-agonist drug)�so much so that the manufacturer has added weight gain to the post-marketing side effects. Other adverse reactions to beta-agonist drugs include increased heart rate, insomnia, headaches, and essential tremor. As you can see, these are eerily similar to those experienced by horses, and it appears, some cows.

According to Randox Food Diagnostics19, which has created tests for Zilmax residue in beef, use of beta-agonists prior to slaughter is of particular concern �as this poses a risk to the consumer and may result in consumer toxicity.� Research findings to this effect include:

A 2003 study in Analytica Chimica Acta20: Residue behaviour of Zilmax in urine, plasma, muscle, liver, kidney and retina of cattle and pig was assessed. Two heifers and 16 pigs were treated with Zilmax and slaughtered after withdrawal times varying from 1 to 10 days. The drug was detectable at each point of time examined in all matrices except plasma after a withdrawal period of 10 days. It�s worth noting that in the US, the recommended market window is three to 10 days after discontinuing Zilmax21
A 2006 study22 on residues of Zilmax in sheep found detectable levels in liver and muscle tissues up to nine days after discontinuation of the drug

thomas davison · Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:30 am Post subject:

The Age of Antibiotics is Coming to an End, as Wider Variety of Bacteria are Now Impervious
November 09, 2013

By Dr. Mercola

Believing an antibiotic will cure your illness is taken for granted by most people nowadays, but that is rapidly changing. According to the experts, the age of antibiotic drugs is coming to an end. And the implications are dire.

There are two primary reasons for this drug demise.

First, many strains of bacteria are becoming resistant to even our strongest antibiotics and are causing deadly infections. The bacteria are evolving faster than we are.
Secondly, drug companies have all but abandoned the development of new antibiotics because of their poor profit margins.

The fact that the drug industry is showing no interest is itself an ominous sign! Big Pharma is much more interested in selling you drugs from which they can make a handsome profit, such as those marketed for cancer, heart disease, arthritis, diabetes, depression, Alzheimer�s and erectile dysfunction.

Experts have been warning about the implications of antibiotic resistance for years, but never before have their warnings been so emphatic. Dr. Arjun Srinivasan, associate director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said to PBS Frontline:1

�For a long time, there have been newspaper stories and magazine articles that asked 'The end of antibiotics?� Well, now I would say you can change the title to 'The end of antibiotics, period.'"

Nature has found a way around every antibiotic we�ve come up with, and we�re quickly running out of options. We now face the perfect storm to take us back to the pre-antibiotic age, and there is no comprehensive plan going forward. If our few remaining effective antibiotics fail, we can expect significant casualties.

Thankfully, there is a lot you can do to fend off infection naturally�and prevention is key, NOW more than ever!

Superbugs 23,000� Humans Zero

According to a landmark �Antibiotic Resistance Threat Report� published by the CDC2 earlier this year, 2 million American adults and children become infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria each year, and at least 23,000 of them die as a direct result of those infections. Even more die from complications.

According to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA), just one organism�methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, better known as MRSA�kills more Americans each year than the combined total of emphysema, HIV/AIDS, Parkinson�s disease, and homicide.3

This death toll is really just an estimate, and the real number is likely much higher. The true extent of superbug infections remains unknown because no one is tracking them�at least not in the US.

Hospitals here are not required to report outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, unlike in the EU where they are at least making efforts to track them. The US is in desperate need of a surveillance program for reporting and tracking this growing threat.4

What we�re seeing is the evolution of bacteria. Basically, microorganisms have learned to teach each other how to outsmart the best pharmaceutical drugs we have to offer, and they are definitely winning the battle.

The 18 Most-Dangerous Pathogens of 2013

The majority of the highly dangerous bacteria are in the Gram-negative category, because that variety has body armor that makes it extremely tough. Some forms are now exhibiting �panresistance��meaning, resistance to absolutely every antibiotic in existence. In the CDC�s report �Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States, 2013,� the following 18 superbugs are identified as �urgent, serious and concerning threats� to humankind:5
Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE): A family of Gram-negative bacteria that are prominent in your gut growing increasingly resistant to nearly all types of antibiotics
Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae: The sexually transmitted disease gonorrhea is becoming increasingly resistant to the last type of antibiotics left to treat it, having already become resistant to less potent antibiotics. Strains of the disease that are resistant to the class of antibiotic drugs called cephalosporins have appeared in several countries.
Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter: Appeared in the US after Iraq and Afghanistan war vets returned home. Tough enough to survive even on dry surfaces like dust particles, making it easy to pass from host to host, especially in hospital environments
Drug-resistant Campylobacter: Campylobacter is the fourth leading cause of foodborne illness in the US. Campylobacter bacteria are unique in that they secrete an exotoxin that is similar to cholera toxin.
Fluconazole-resistant Candida (a fungus)
Extended spectrum beta-lactamase producing Enterobacteriaceae (ESBLs): ESBLs are enzymes produced by certain types of bacteria, which renders the bacteria resistant to the antibiotics used to treat them. ESBL-producing E. Coli, for example, are resistant to penicillins and cephalosporins, and are becoming more frequent in urinary tract infections
Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus (VRE): Increasingly common in hospital settings
Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Linked to serious bloodstream infections and surgical wounds, can lead to pneumonia and other complications; some are resistant to nearly every family of antibiotic
Drug-resistant Non-typhoidal Salmonella and Salmonella Typhi
Drug-resistant Shigella: An infectious disease caused by Shigella bacteria
Clostridium Difficile (C. Diff): Can live in the gut without causing symptoms but attacks when your immune system is weakened; C. Diff is on the rise�infections increased by 400 percent between 2000 and 2007�and is becoming increasingly antibiotic-resistant
Methicillin-resistant and Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA and VRSA): Gram-positive bacteria infecting about 80,000 people each year, can lead to sepsis and death. Increasing in communities, although decreasing in hospitals over the past decade; recent evidence points to factory-scale hog CAFOs as a primary source; MRSA is also a significant risk for your pets
Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae: A leading cause of pneumonia, bacteremia, sinusitis, and acute otitis media
Drug-resistant tuberculosis: Extensively resistant TB (XDR TB) has a 40 percent mortality rate and is on the rise worldwide; tuberculosis is one of the most infectious diseases because it�s so easily spread through the air when infected people cough or sneeze
Erythromycin-resistant Group A and Clindamycin-resistant Group B Streptococcus

Armed and Extremely Dangerous: NDM-1 and KPC

NDM-1, or �New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase 1,�� is a bacterial gene that confers �super-resistance� to conventional antibiotics. This gene is carried by a rising number of bacteria and makes them virtually unstoppable. What makes NDM-1 such a force to be reckoned with is that it can easily be passed from one bacterium to another, like a kid sharing his lunch�turning your ordinary bacteria into superbacteria. NDM-1 has now reached 48 countries. In the US, the CDC identified 16 cases in 2012, and that number has already doubled for 2013. Another type of highly drug-resistant bacteria is KPC, or Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemase (KPC)-Producing bacteria. Both KPC and NDM-1 infections are highly lethal, causing death in about half of those diagnosed.

How the Modern Food System has Created an Unbeatable �Army� of Superbugs

Antibiotic overuse and inappropriate use bears a heavy responsibility for creating the superbug crisis we are facing today. According to Dr. Srinivasan, as much as half of all antibiotics used in clinics and hospitals �are either unneeded or patients are getting the wrong drugs to treat their infections.�1

The pervasive misuse of antibiotics by the agriculture industry is particularly reprehensible. Agriculture accounts for about 80 percent of all antibiotics used in the US. 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics are administered to livestock in the US every year for purposes other than treating disease, such as making the animals grow bigger faster. In other parts of the world, such as the EU, adding antibiotics to animal feed to accelerate growth has been banned for years. The antibiotic residues in meat and dairy, as well as the resistant bacteria, are passed on to you in the foods you eat. Eighty different antibiotics are allowed in cows� milk. According to the CDC, 22 percent of antibiotic-resistant illness in humans is in fact linked to food. In the words of Dr. Srinivasan:

�The more you use an antibiotic, the more you expose a bacteria to an antibiotic, the greater the likelihood that resistance to that antibiotic is going to develop. So the more antibiotics we put into people, we put into the environment, we put into livestock, the more opportunities we create for these bacteria to become resistant.�

Unfortunately, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has again reneged on its plan to withdraw approval of penicillin and tetracycline antibiotics for use in food-producing animal feed. By bowing to industry pressure, the FDA is allowing an unsafe practice to continue at the expense of your health.

Another contributing factor is the genetic engineering of our foods. As Jeffrey Smith explained at the recent GMO Summit, it�s possible that GMOs from food can transfer genetic material to your normal gut bacteria, conferring antibiotic resistance and turning them into superbugs. GMOs have been scientifically proven to activate and deactivate hundreds if not thousands of genes. We have no idea about the gravity of this risk, as no one has yet studied it.

Is Tainted Meat the �New Normal�?

Previous research suggests you have a 50/50 chance of buying meat tainted with drug-resistant bacteria when you buy meat from your local grocery store. But it may be even worse. Using data collected by the federal agency called NARMS (National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System), the Environmental Working Group (EWG) found antibiotic-resistant bacteria in 81 percent of ground turkey, 69 percent of pork chops, 55 percent of ground beef, and 39 percent of raw chicken parts purchased in stores in 2011.

EWG nutritionist and the report's lead researcher, Dawn Undurraga, issued the following warning to the public:6

�Consumers should be very concerned that antibiotic-resistant bacteria are now common in the meat aisles of most American supermarkets... These organisms can cause foodborne illnesses and other infections. Worse, they spread antibiotic-resistance, which threatens to bring on a post-antibiotic era where important medicines critical to treating people could become ineffective.�

Recalls, Recalls, and More Recalls

This is a Flash-based video and may not be viewable on mobile devices.

You would expect this widespread contamination of the food supply to make a lot of people sick�and that is exactly what we�re seeing. With so much contaminated food, it isn�t surprising that food recalls are an increasingly frequent segment on the nightly news. An ongoing outbreak of �Salmonella Heidelberg� has already sickened at least 472 people this year, who consumed tainted Foster Farms chicken from three central California processing plants. People have fallen ill across 20 states, from Washington State to Puerto Rico.7 Forty-two percent have required hospitalization, which is an uncommonly high rate due to the virulence of this strain.8 Why is it so virulent?

The Salmonella bacteria cultured from the ill were found to be resistant to combinations of the following antibiotics: ampicillin, chloramphenicol, gentamicin, kanamycin, streptomycin, sulfisoxazole, and tetracycline. The CDC warned, "Antimicrobial resistance may increase the risk of hospitalization or possible treatment failure in infected individuals."9

Big Pharma is Washing its Hands of the Crisis it Helped to Create

The drug industry has all but abandoned antibiotics research because these �wonder drugs� of the last half-century are becoming ineffective�and Big Pharma knows it. The �antibiotic bubble� has burst.10 According to Paul Stoffels, head of Johnson & Johnson:10

"The market for a new antibiotic is very small, the rewards are not there and so the capital is not flowing. In cancer, people pay $30,000, $50,000 or $80,000 (per patient) for a drug, but for an antibiotic it is likely to be only a few hundred dollars."

Developing a new drug can take a decade of clinical trials and reportedly cost between $800 million to one billion dollars.11 Not only are antibiotics relatively inexpensive for you, but you are only required to take one for a week or two, which limits profits for the manufacturer. Why put money into a cheap drug that is only taken for a couple of weeks when they can focus their efforts on expensive drugs that people will believe they need to take for the rest of their lives? I guess, for the drug industry, antibiotics now fall into the �Why Bother� category.

Rather than being guided by improved patient outcomes, the industry is wholly guided by its endless quest for profits. According to the ISDA, the number of new systemic antibiotics approved by the FDA has plunged from 16 between 1983 and 1987 to JUST TWO in the past five years.9 Only four pharmaceutical companies are still working on developing new antibiotics. In terms of fighting gram-negative superbugs, there were only seven antibiotics in an advanced stage of development as of early 2013�and one belongs to a drug company that recently filed for bankruptcy.10

Visions of a Post Antibiotic-Apocalypse

Medicine has very few options when the antibiotic pipeline completely dries up. Hospitals are already resorting to some very unsavory treatments, resurrecting old drugs that were abandoned for good reasons.

For example, they have resurrected a toxic bug-killing chemical called Colistin12 (first introduced in 1952 and known to cause kidney damage) as a last-ditch effort to treat multidrug-resistant Gram-negative infections. Then there is the strategy of cutting off (or cutting out) the infected body part, which sometimes has to be performed several times, a few inches at a time as the infection migrates further into the patient�s body.

The bottom line is, if ALL antibiotics fail, it will in effect mark an end to modern medicine as we know it�and we are quickly heading in that direction.

Common illnesses such as bronchitis or strep throat may turn into deadly sepsis. Surgeries previously considered low risk or �routine,� such as hip replacements, might suddenly be too risky without antibiotics. And complex surgeries like organ transplants would essentially not be survivable.

So What�s the Solution?

The impending superbug crisis has a three-prong solution:

Better infection prevention, with a focus on strengthening your immune system naturally
More responsible use of antibiotics for people and animals, with a return to biodynamic farming and a complete overhaul of our food system
Innovative new approaches to the treatment of infections from all branches of science, natural as well as allopathic

There are some promising new avenues of study that may result in fresh ways to fight superbugs. For example, Dutch scientists have discovered a way to deactivate antibiotics with a blast of ultraviolet light before bacteria have a chance to adapt, and before the antibiotics can damage your good bacteria.13

And British scientists have discovered how bacteria talk to each other through �quorum signaling� and are investigating ways of disrupting this process in order to render them incapable of causing an infection. They believe this may lead to a new line of anti-infectives that do not kill bacteria, but instead block their ability to cause disease.14 But the basic strategy that you have at your disposal right now is prevention, prevention, prevention�it�s much easier to prevent an infection than to halt one already in progress.

Avoiding antibiotic-resistance is but one of several good reasons to avoid meats and animal products from animals raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFO�s). This is in part why grass-fed pastured meat is the ONLY type of meat I recommend. If you�re regularly eating meat bought at your local grocery store, know that you�re in all likelihood getting a low dose of antibiotics with every meal... and this low-dose exposure is what�s allowing bacteria to adapt and develop such strong resistance.

What You Can Do Now

Fortunately, Mother Nature gives us a cornucopia of botanicals that put antibiotic drugs to shame in the battle against pathogenic microbes. Natural compounds with antimicrobial activity such as garlic, cinnamon, oregano extract, colloidal silver, Manuka honey, probiotics and fermented foods, echinacea, sunlight and vitamin D are all excellent options to try before resorting to drugs. Best of all, research has shown that bacteria do not tend to develop resistance to these types of treatments. Perhaps nature is smarter than most would like to think.

The basic key to keeping your immune system healthy is making good lifestyle choices such as proper diet, stress management and exercise.

Remember, opt for clean, whole foods (animal and plant based), organically raised without antibiotics and preferably locally sourced. Antibiotics simply aren�t needed when healthy animals are raised properly. One chicken farmer has demonstrated that even large-scale animal farms can manage without routine administration of antibiotic drugs by using an herbal remedy of oregano oil and cinnamon instead!

By taking control of your own health and building a strong immune system, you�ll minimize your risk of acquiring an antibiotic-resistant infection.

thomas davison · Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 8:37 am Post subject:

Chocolate Better for Your Teeth Than Fluoride
November 19, 2013 | 4,411 views

By Dr. Mercola

Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste product that is a poison to your body even in trace amounts, yet it is added to the majority of US water supplies using the rationale that it helps prevent dental cavities.

The archaic practice continues even though it is now widely recognized that fluoride�s only justifiable benefit comes from topical contact with teeth � and even that is debatable.

To put it simply, there are FAR better options for decreasing tooth decay than ingesting a harmful industrial pollutant or using a topical poison like fluoride� in fact, new research suggests even chocolate extract would would make a better alternative.

Chocolate Toothpaste Works Better Than Fluoride

A recent study presented at the American Dental Association (ADA) 2013 Annual Session pitted fluoride toothpaste against a new toothpaste that contains the naturally-occurring cacao extract theobromine.

This test determined which product better repaired and re-mineralized exposed dentin (the tissue that makes up the bulk of your teeth below the enamel). Exposed dentin is a leading cause of tooth hypersensitivity.

The results showed that patients who brushed their teeth with the cacao-extract toothpaste twice a day for one week had �100 percent dental occlusion� with their tooth dentin becoming re-mineralized or repaired. According to a press release:1

�The comparison to toothpastes containing fluoride - one as much as 5,000 ppm [parts per million] - validates what our research has shown all along: that Rennou [the cocoa extract] � is more effective and safer than fluoride, which can be toxic if ingested."

Past research has also shown that the chocolate ingredient theobromine works better than fluoride. When lesions in artificial enamel were treated with theobromine, remineralization occurred at a greater rate than when they were treated with fluoride.2 The study found, in fact, that theobromine made teeth less vulnerable to bacterial acid erosion that could lead to cavities.3

Scientists Now Questioning Whether Fluoride Works to Fight Cavities

With potential alternatives like theobromine, which, unlike fluoride, are not harmful when swallowed, it�s unfortunate that fluoride can still be found in a vast assortment of toothpastes, mouthwashes and professionally applied fluoride treatments. It's even added to your drinking water for this purpose, as mentioned.

Yet fluoride, long heralded as the answer to decaying teeth, is receiving increasing scrutiny � and for good reason.

A groundbreaking study published in the journal Langmuir4 uncovered that the fluorapatite layer formed on your teeth from fluoride is a mere six nanometers thick. To understand just how thin this is, you'd need 10,000 of these layers to get the width of a strand of your hair!

Scientists now question whether this ultra-thin layer can actually protect your enamel and provide any discernible benefit, considering the fact that it is quickly eliminated by simple chewing. They wrote:

� �it has to be asked whether such narrow� layers really can act as protective layers for the enamel.�

Fluoride Toothpaste Can Be Deadly to Children

I'm not a fan of fluoridated toothpaste for adults or children, but if you do decide to use it, it�s probably best to keep it safely out of the reach of your children. Fluoride toothpaste is often the largest single source of fluoride intake for young children, and is a major risk factor for disfiguring dental fluorosis.

This is because children swallow a large amount of the paste that they put in their mouth. In fact, research has shown that it is not uncommon for young children to swallow more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is recommended as an entire day's ingestion from all sources.5

If you have a young child, it�s recommended that you use a non-fluoride toothpaste. If, however, you do use fluoride toothpaste, it's very important that you supervise your children while they brush to make sure they use no more than a "pea-sized amount" of paste, and that they fully rinse and spit after they finish.

And, lastly, do not purchase candy-flavored toothpaste (e.g., bubble-gum and watermelon) as these toothpastes (which still contain adult-strength concentrations of fluoride) increase the risk that your children will swallow it (and actually want to swallow it). Still, it�s hard to ignore the absurdity that poison control should be called if you swallow a quarter milligram of fluoride from toothpaste while just ONE glass of water can contain this amount of fluoride.

The Insanity of Swallowing Fluoride to Prevent Cavities

Apply toxic fluoride topically to your teeth is bad enough from a health (and lack of effectiveness) perspective, but swallowing it daily in your drinking water takes this fluoride insanity to a whole other level.

The science clearly demonstrates that fluoride is a toxic chemical that accumulates in your tissues over time, wreaks havoc with enzymes, and produces a number of serious adverse health effects, including neurological and endocrine dysfunction.

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure. Scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency�s (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity," 25 studies have now reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children.

Studies have shown fluoride toxicity can lead to the following wide-ranging problems. To learn more, watch the documentary film Fluoridegate, below.
Increases lead absorption Disrupts collagen synthesis Hyperactivity and/or lethargy Crippling skeletal fluorosis and bone fractures
Genetic damage and cell death Increased tumor and cancer growth Disrupts immune system Inhibits antibody production
Brain damage and lowered IQ Dementia Arthritis Severe eye problems, including blindness
Impaired thyroid function Bone cancer (osteosarcoma) Inactivates 62 enzymes Muscle disorders

The Safest Solution to Better Dental Health?

Toothpaste containing natural ingredients, like theobromine and others, appears to be more effective and safer than fluoride-containing toothpastes. Water fluoridation, too, is ineffective and may offer no benefit at all for your teeth, not to mention placing your overall health in jeopardy. There�s no reason to risk it. Here are my basic guidelines for optimizing your dental health, safely and naturally:

Avoid fluoridated water and fluoridated toothpaste.
Minimize your sugar and grain consumption. Keep your fructose intake to less than 25 grams per day. Avoid processed foods.
Make sure you consume a diet rich in fresh, whole foods, fermented vegetables, and grass-fed meats, which will ensure you're getting plenty of the minerals that are so important for strong bones and teeth.
Practice good oral hygiene and get regular cleanings from a mercury-free natural dentist.
Consider oil pulling with coconut oil, which is a powerful inhibitor of a large variety of pathogenic organisms.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you're stuck with whatever your community puts in your water, and it's very difficult to filter out of your water once it's added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation, both in the United States and Canada. Clean, pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, support the anti-fluoride movement by making a donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.