on scott the paleontologist and his one sided ways

It seems like our TV is always on some kind of cartoon. Even if no one is watching it, during the day there is always something going on about one kid thing or another. Today after I finally got Rory to lay down..I came into the living room for a little “briana” time. I finally found the remote and sat down to fold some laundry. Dinosaur Train was on and before I turned the channel I got to hear a little bit from Scott the paleontologist. What I heard really made me mad. He was going on about some dinosaur or another that lived 65 million years ago. Not once did he say that this was an estimate based on a principle that cannot be proven.  Whoever said that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in a creator, to me , was completely right and they also must have been aware of just how unscientific evolution is. (that’s right. I said unscientific.. for the sake of time,  click here or here if you would like to  see for yourself ) Now, Im not going to sit here and argue at how scientific creation is  (even though there are tons of factors in our universe that point towards it) because it is not my place to do so..the complexities of life and of DNA are mindblowing. The following was written by Walt Brown Ph. D and he sums it up far better than I could ever try to do..

DNA cannot function without hundreds of preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced only at the direction of DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c Therefore, the components of these manufacturing systems must have come into existence simultaneously.  This implies creation.

Some of these necessary proteins decode the DNA, store DNA (histones spools), transcribe DNA into messenger RNA, and assemble proteins (ribosomes). These systems, present in each cell, are extremely complex.

One of the most studied proteins in mammals, including humans, is called p53. It binds to thousands of DNA sites and influences cell growth, death, and structure. It is involved in fertility and early embryonic development. It also stifles cancers by repairing DNA, suppressing tumors, and killing genetically damaged cells.d How could DNA have survived unless p53 and its many functions already existed?

In each human, tens of thousands of genes are damaged daily!e Also, when a cell divides, its DNA at times is copied with errors. Every organism has machinery that identifies and repairs damaged and mistranslated DNA.f Without such repair systems, the organism would quickly deteriorate and die. If evolution happened, each organism would have become extinct before these DNA repair mechanisms could evolve.

Life’s complexity is mind boggling—not something that random processes could ever produce.

How science claims to understand it all is a mystery to me. Are there not some things that humanity cannot just accept are too intricate for our minds to comprehend? Why are so many people convinced that the only god which exists are themselves? It’s not that Scott the paleontologist  was talking about evolution that upset me. It is the simple fact of how one sided our society is that upsets me. Scott the paleontologist gets to sit there and tell my children that what he is saying is the truth, even though it has not been proven..even though not ONE single-celled fossil has EVER been found yet he gets to tell my children that is what they come from. What upsets me is that teachers and all the “scotts” in this world get to tell my children that something as statistically insane as evolution is fact but when someone is bold enough to say that they believe in creation they are looked at like a fool. To keep your children away from being indoctrinated with the atheistic agenda that runs this world, you either have to pay big bucks for private school or homeschool because most of the public schools that our taxes pay for do not give any other viewpoints..and that is wrong. An article written by Robert L. Simonds, Th.D. addresses this issue, he says:

Today, many in public education are attempting to use the government to censor scientific evidence that refutes evolution and advances the concept of special creation. It is widely believed that scientific creationism cannot be taught in a public school science classroom. This is not true.

The U.S. Supreme Court developed a three-prong test in Lemon v. Kurtzas to when government involvement in religious activity does not violate the establishment clause: (1) The activity must have a secular purpose; (2) its primary effect must be neither to advance nor inhibit religion; (3) it must not constitute excessive entanglement of government with religion.


One would think that rational men of science would want to test, evaluate, and discuss any reasonable scientific theory on any given subject, to ascertain probable, testable data to move the theory to the level of a scientific law.

However, the established scientific community has built an entire system around a straw house. The irrationality of this position has created a scientific “house divided,” as Dr. Henry Morris has thoroughly documented.1

Not only does the theory of evolution not conform to the criteria for science, it is also the foundation of many religions, and it totally fails the Supreme Court test of government non-involvement in religion.

This is nothing less than a spiritual battle for the minds of all America’s children. Evolution, consistently applied, denies God’s existence and His creative acts. It is the central theme of all humanist theory. Without evolution, the entire atheist religion of humanism would fall.

you may think that teaching this would go against the seperation of church and state..however, he goes on to say:


Dr. John Moore, Professor of Natural Science at Michigan State University for over 30 years, pointed out that in creation science:

No new laws are necessary, there is no possible violation of so-called separation of church and state, since no religious teaching is involved.2 But would the United States Supreme Court buy that? Yes. In Edwards vs. Aguiliard, 482 U.S. 96 (1987), they said:

… teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of mankind to school children might be done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.

That ruling also sustained the finding of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as follows:

No court of which we are aware had prohibited voluntary instruction concerning purely scientific evidence that happens, incidentally, to be consistent with a religious doctrine or tenet.

Therefore, the teaching of creation science is solidly supported by law—as long as the court’s rules are followed.


The main argument of the ACLU in the Scopes Trial in 1925 was that “it is bigotry for public schools to teach only one theory of origins (creation).” The argument was against “censorship” of evolution. Now the tables have turned.

A liberal educaton, by definition, requires all sides of every issue to be aired. Truth from any source should not be feared. That is another academic reason to teach “creation science.” Academic freedom permits a teacher to present whatever views he or she deems necessary to clarify a subject.

Censoring out creation science in favor of a religious view of evolution would violate academia’s rules against censorship. Not to allow another valid theorv would also violate the academic idea of a liberal education, and to suppress a teacher’s right to freedom in learning would violate the concept of academic freedom.

My original intention when I began this post was to discuss something completely different; I will just have to write about what I had originally intended to discuss on a different post. When I look at all the double standards in this society and the injustice towards christianity it makes me so upset but it really should make me rejoice. The bottom line is that we are living in the last days..all of this humanism and the widespread denial of God that is is so rampant today..these things were written about as signs of the end days in that book that so many say is just useless junk. Just google bible prophecy or signs of the times..good Lord!.. even an idiot would have the mental capacity to recognize that the events occurring in the world around us are not coincidental.. they were written thousands of years ago. For the first time in history almost everything is lined up..the stage is set. How people living today can really say that there is no God and that the Bible is not a book inspired by him is something that gives even more meaning to the verse that I will close with. If anyone that is reading this scoffs at the idea of God.. I really do challenge you to research how closely the current times in which we live coincide with the Bible. Maybe the facts about our DNA are not enough to cause you to see the hand of the divine creator who lovingly composed your life, but hopefully..possibly.. looking into this will.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,so that people are without excuse.For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles..  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie,and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised.Amen. Romans 1:2o-25

on proverbs 3 and sacrificial lattes

Do not withhold good from those who deserve it when it’s in your power to help them. – Proverbs 3:27

Before you read any more i want you to do something for me..please stop and just look around at the place in which you are sitting. What do you see? I’ll tell you what I see.. When I look around my tiny living room I see my dog  lazily sprawled out on my hand-me-down couch.. my 12 dollar lamp from Ikea sitting on the end table that I rescued from the side of the road a few years back..I see my sweet son playing in his exersaucer that I bought off craigslist..behind him I see the curtains that I found at Goodwill slightly dancing because of the air vent below them.. I see our tv; i wont even begin to describe all the random toys, pictures and knick knacks laying around.. but that just about sums up what I see. Above it all, one thing drastically stands out when I survey my surroundings..I see blessing. I see extreme wealth.

How I can be so thankful for the shabby contents that fill my humble living room may have you puzzled right now. I hope not..but some of you may even feel sorry for my children..sorry that they have to be raised in such circumstances. Please dont feel this way..hopefully by the end of this post you will feel differently.

  Standing there with the hot sun beating down upon his head, almost as if they were trying to find some relief in the sweat that poured from his brow, the flies relentlessly buzzed around him. The things his senses processed that day would paint a memory onto his mind that would never be erased.  As he stood there, on the primitive tarmac waiting to board his plane, the overwhelming odor of jet fuel lingered in the stagnant air that surrounded him. Just as he was about to board his plane he felt a hand tugging on his shirt..turing around, his eyes fell upon a woman closely clutching her baby to her breast. “please sir, please sir take my baby with you,” she pleaded as she extended the crying baby towards him. In the eyes that bulged from the infant’s sunken face and in the pleading eyes of the child’s mother the man saw the same thing – hopelessness. Looking out the tiny window, as he sat in that plane, the sight of that mother weeping for the baby that she could not feed..weeping for the baby that she could not keep alive flooded his soul with a pain that, even now, he cannot forget.

The man in that story is my father. Some years ago, he went to Haiti on a missions trip and this is what happened when he was at the airport waiting to fly back home. Can you imagine a future so grim..so hopeless? Can you imagine looking into the eyes of your crying son or daughter and seeing no tears because they are so dehydrated from the diarrhea and vomiting caused by the tainted water that is all you have to give them? Can you imagine a world that gives such a small hope of survival..a world so barren that the loving mothers living within it would beg for their children to be taken from them..just so their children could be swept far away from the cold poverty into which they were born? This is a way of living that even the poorest American cannot imagine. In Haiti people are so starving that they eat patties made from mud, oil and sugar. My children might have a lot of tuna casserole and PB&J’s in their future..but i am so lucky..so blessed to say that they will never have to eat mud just so their tummies will quiet down. In America we have food stamps and wic to lean on in times of trouble..however, think of the billions of people all over this planet who have nothing. Approximately 25,000 people die of hunger every DAY, about 9 million people per year.

The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them; that’s the essence of inhumanity. – George Bernard Shaw

How much good could we do? The answer to that is endless. What if you gave up buying a new pair of sunglasses..a drink at the bar..or gave up Starbucks once a week, and instead gave that money to a good charity. Do you know how much good your simple sacrifice could do..how many deserving children and adults could have food one more day because of the few dollars you spared.  Or, if you are like me and do not have the extra money lying around for sunglasses and lattes..im almost positive that you still have an extra can of food in your pantry that you could spare..ALL of us has a voice that can spread this message. If we all made it a point to not withhold good from those who deserve it..if we refused to ignore the plight of our fellow man..i cannot correctly sum up the overflow of joy and happiness that would fill our lives. Our world could be a different place..a place were innocent children did not silently waste away from hunger..a place where good people did not die from simple diseases, diseases that the pharmacy shelves in America are piled high with the medicine needed to cure them..a world where people had hope. Life.

if you want to start today..here are some links to several charities, all of which have the highest ratings given for financial accountability and moral practice. I am not affiliated with any of them and neither is my church..these are just a few of the ones I found while searching online. If you would like to search for yourself, http://www.charitynavigator.org/ is a great site that you can search and compare different organizations.





a beautiful follow up from saturday

I know that I am supposed to begin my journey into the book of Proverbs, but I feel that i must dwell on this topic for just one more post. Yesterday after church we went to lunch with my parents. My mother told something that caused my mind to be filled with wonder at how good our God is. He truly is wonderful. If you have not read my post from Saturday, you may want to before you read this. (ill make it easier for you..here it is) Saturday night I rolled around in bed for a good while..i was scared that my blunt honesty in that days post might have upset my family..i mean, i was talking about my mother’s grandfather. I know that they agree 100% with the post..it is because of how they raised me that I feel so much passion about the subject..but, still to see in writing that your grandfather may be in hell is not an easy pill to swallow. Thankfully, she was not upset by my unwillingness to censor my tongue and yesterday at lunch my mother shared something with me for the first time. My great grandfather was born in Pickens County, South Carolina in 1912. He lived a hard life and raised his family through the heart of the great depression. He worked his fingers to the bone in the cotton fields and continued to work hard until the day he died. What ultimately caused his death was pneumonia , however what caused his ordeal to begin was, while burning trash in his front yard, he caught himself on fire..a 91 year old man out burning trash..like I said, he was a hard worker until the day he passed. He was flown to the burn center in Augusta, Georgia. Even in his critical state, he managed to pitch a huge fit when he found out who his nurse was going to be. The things he yelled at that kind woman I dont even want to know.. just because of her skin color she had to endure such pain from the mouth of my great grandfather. Nonetheless, the outcome of this story is beautiful..our God is beautiful. I wish I knew her name..but I dont. What I do know about her is that she was a steadfast christian lady who showed my great grandfather great love. Week in and week out she nursed my great grandfather back to health and loved him the whole time. After his skin graphs he was able to go home. Once he got home, sitting in his living room..sitting in that same old blue chair that as a child I always remember seeing him in..that same chair that he had spoken such hateful things from for all those years..as he was sitting there, tears began to fall down his weathered face. He cried out to God..he told him to please let him see that nurse again so he could tell her that he was sorry. He cried out to God in repentance.. telling him that all these years he had been wrong. A few days later, God answered his prayers. He came down with pneumonia and his skin graphs began to show problems.. he had to go back to the hospital, this time he would never leave there alive. He would, however, get to ask that sweet nurse for forgiveness.. to tell her that he had been wrong. in a previous post, the beauty that pain can bring, I talked about how wonderful our God is and that even if his plan for us is painful we still need to pray through it and seek the beauty that lingers silently behind our struggles. I wonder if that beautiful nurse knows how much God worked through her..i wonder if she knows that, besides the blood Jesus shed on Calvary, she is the reason that my great grandfather made it to heaven. I cant begin to imagine the pain that she felt as my great grandfather cast upon her soul fiery arrows of hate just because God created her with a different skin color than him. I cant imagine how much she probably dreaded going into work because of it all..but praise the Lord for her! She prayed through it..she walked in there day after day and shared nothing but the love of Jesus with him. She WAS Jesus. “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do”…these were some of the last words that our savior cried out from the cross..from that place of pain and abandonment. Almost everyone had turned their back on Jesus but still he prayed for them..he loved them, and it is because of that love that any of us can make it to heaven. That nurse suffered through persecution but never did she stop praying and loving my great grandfather. The pain that my great grandfather endured those last few weeks, im sure, was something that very few of us know. Its hard to see much beauty when you think of an old man being burnt to death..even though, it was this exact situation that saved him from an eternity of fire. God in his MERCY, allowed him to go through such a terrible ordeal because God loved him..God knew that it would take such a painful end for my great greatfather’s hardened heart to be changed. I wish so badly that I could send this to that nurse..i want her to know how grateful my family is for what she did. Her pain..my great grandfather’s pain..from out of it all such beautiful grace flows. I cant wait for her to make it to heaven..i know that when that day comes my great grandfather will be waiting for her. He will see no color..he will only see her as a beautiful child of God..the woman that, through her pain, forgave him and led his heart to heaven. In closing, may I just say that it is my prayer..my never ending hope for the church…that we all begin to see one another as beautiful children of God. We cannot wait until our heavenly eyes make this change..because without making this change on our own, i am afraid to say that heaven probably will not be an option.

Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. – John 2 : 9  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. – Galatians 3 : 28

“That doll is the wrong color, little girl”

this will be a short post..and it is not a part of my proverbs thing. I have a bridal shower at 1 today..and I am running around here like a mad woman trying to get everything ready..however, what just happened enraged me by such great measure..I just had to write about it real quick.


Today Trinitee, Rory and I loaded up and headed to the Dollar Store for a last minute card and giftbag. I had a little extra money so I let Trinitee pick out a Barbie; she picked out a beautiful ballerina Barbie doll and was so overjoyed by it. As we were checking out the man behind me in line said something that made my blood boil..i almost beat up an old man today. Thankyou Lord for giving me self control and wisdom today that stopped me from doing so. “That doll is the wrong color, little girl”…WHAT! I was furious. There was a black man and his young son right behind him in line too. This man just so happened to have on a christian t-shirt, thankfully..because it was his t-shirt that allowed me to think quickly without punching him. “How dare you say something like that to my little girl”, i said. “Are you a christian?..i see you have on a christian t-shirt” i asked him. Of course he said he was indeed a christian..”how can you call your self a christian and break one of the most important commandments that Jesus Christ himself gave us..are you not aware that Jesus told us first to love him with all of our hearts and second to love our neighbor?” I went on to say..”what if the man standing behind you moved his family into the house beside yours..would you continue to not love him just because he is darker than you..how dare you tarnish my Lord’s name by wearing that t-shirt and saying things that are evil and go against what he teaches..If you are really a christian I demand you to apologize to my little girl and tell her that you were wrong.” The old man looked shocked..the cashier stood there speechless..the gentleman and his son just looked at the old man waiting for his response. The old man stuttered a minute and finally said, “Im sorry little girl, your doll is fine.”

I walked out of that store today on fire..christians of all colors need to remember that racism is a SIN. I have grown up hearing my mother tell stories of my great grandfather and how racist he was..i remember as a small child hearing him at thanksgiving calling people on tv very bad things just because of their skin color. My great grandfather went to church..he was what many would call a prayer warrior..a pillar of his church. i hate to say this..this breaks my heart to say this..but unless my great grandfather repented before he died..unless he allowed the Lord to change his heart..unless he did these things, he did not make it to heaven. You cannot stroll into heaven with hatred engulfing your heart. You cannot stand before Jesus if you have broken the very important commandment he gave to us. Just because you are from the south..or  because thats just how things are in your family..nothing you can try to say to make racism ok justifies it in the eyes of God.  Any christians reading this who harbor racism in their heart..please know that unless you change your ways and repent.. it is very unlikely that you will make it to heaven. Hating a person and spreading your hate IS A SIN.

my stepdaughter, Trinitee and her sister

you are not the father

Today has been rough; Rory has a stomach virus..I have been blessed with a healthy child.. except ear infections this is the first time he has ever really been sick. wow, having a sick baby is not fun! (even though it is nice for him to cuddle with me so much..lately i try to make him be mommy’s little baby again but he just bucks like a wild bull) Earlier today, after hours of him screaming and me trying to force pedialyte down his throat, he finally dozed off. During a final fussing fit before he thankfully succumbed to his afternoon naps call, he managed to kick the remote off of the couch..and there was no way I was going to move after finally getting him to sleep. So, I had no choice but to watch whatever it was that was on TV. Just my luck…it happened to be the Maury show. I used to watch Maury almost everyday..I loved it.  Recently though..Maury has not been allowed in my house. Its just a personal conviction, but i just don’t want the little ears and eyes running around my house to hear about the negative mess that the Maury show consists of. The time when trinitee looked up from a coloring book (that i assumed she was so involved in) to ask me, “why is that boy dressed like a girl?”..that was when i decided no more Maury. Well.. today as i took a stroll down lovers lane with my dear old pal Maury, it made me realize that i haven’t been missing much. Of course it was a “whose my baby daddy” episode (paternity drama is the only topic that Maury covers other than shocking videos or the occasional cross dressing parade) ..that show makes it blatantly obvious how corrupt our society has become..seriously..shows that get good ratings are repeated and we all know how good ratings happen. Apparently daytime America absolutely loves stories about fatherless children..i, however, do not. All the uproar and hoopla over two adults fussing about a subject that is so very sacred and important blows my mind. What seems to really get the crowd going is, “you are not the father”..that is disturbing. Yeah..there goes the once  demanding woman running off the stage..”ohh she’s trashy”..the man once accused of having a child dances around with glee. Seriously!? We like this? What about the child sitting backstage..they don’t care about drama and back-flips. All that matters to them is that they still don’t have a daddy.

Maury might not be all bad though.. it was suffering through his show today that made me think about a little girl that I love dearly. I had the privilege of becoming a part of this little girl’s life a few years ago; she is a beautiful child. She has a good mother..a mother who loves her very much and does her best to provide. This sweet little girl also has a father who refuses to acknowledge her..a man that she has never even met. He lives around here but his exact location is a mystery. The only way that her mother can try to contact him is through facebook..and when she sent him a message there was no response..he simply blocked her. What a selfish coward he is..hiding in silence from his own flesh and blood. He is robbing an innocent child (HIS innocent child) of a relationship that she desperately needs..that every child needs.

and he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children… – Malachi 4:6 

To all the fathers reading this..take a few seconds and really think about how important you are to your children. Your presence will forever be a mark upon their head..mark them with love..mark them with integrity..mark them with worth. Be a Godly force within your home and within your children’s lives. How old your children are matters not, if you look back on the time when your children were small with regret, don’t agonize over it..start now. As many of you know, my husband was not in trinitee’s life until she was three..it was a complicated situation that now, is of little importance. What is important is the present..he takes her to church every Sunday..day in and day out he strives to be a Godly influence in her life..regardless of the past, trinitee now knows that she has a daddy who loves her. If standing up and accepting the responsibility of being a father is something that scares you..don’t run from it, doing this will only lead you to a lonely deathbed filled with regret. Instead, look to God, if you seek, you shall find the strength and courage needed to be a father who will impact your children for the good. For all the Godly men without children..i urge you to not let your influence go to waste. There are countless fatherless children out there who need your guidance and prayers.

He tends his flock like a shepherd: He gathers the lambs in his arms and carries them close to his heart; he gently leads those that have young… He gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak.  Isaiah 40: 11 and 29

To all the single mothers out there struggling day in and day out..don’t be discouraged. Don’t ever feel alone..don’t ever give up. Stand firm in the Lord for your children.. teach them about Jesus..let your actions BE Jesus. The absence of a loving father in the lives of your children is not something to worry about..it is a challenge for you to show them who their heavenly father is. A child who knows their heavenly father has a future full of love..full of guidance..full of hope. Don’t put the well being of your children at risk by being in a relationship that you shouldn’t be in. Don’t compromise yourself. .your worth far exceeds this..you are beautiful. you are priceless. If you are are in a relationship with a foolish man..run. Don’t let a man that bears bad fruit influence your children’s future..their salvation. Make your relationship with Jesus Christ the most important thing in your life..let him gently lead you. Pray that if he wants you to have a relationship, then please would he send you a Godly man..a strong and righteous man. A man that will lovingly direct your children down the right path. Regardless of any man..if you give your children Jesus you give them the most loving father that they could ever have..you give them a future full of promise.

I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. – John 14: 18
And I will be a Father to you, and you shall be My sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty. –  2 Corinthians 6:18

I have touched every aspect of this equation but one..finally, let me write to the fatherless children that may be reading this. Maybe your father abandoned you, maybe he passed away..maybe the father you grew up with hurt you. The situation you were born into does not have to define who you are. No matter how alone you may feel in this world..you are not fatherless. You do have a father. You have a father that molded you..a father who knit you together with intricate care. A father who put you on this earth for a purpose. Like i said before..how old you are isnt important..if you have never met him you still can. He is patiently waiting for you.

In closing may i please ask that you pray for the little girl i mentioned above. I sent her father an email a few weeks ago and i am just praying that it touches his heart..nothing i can say would be enough to soften his heart..it is only the Lord who can..so please say a prayer that God will work in this situation.


my thoughts on fluoride

This post will just share some different articles that I have found on the dangers of fluoride. Many people, myself included.. until just recently, never think twice before filling  a glass up with water from the tap and taking a big ole swig of it. I know we are so blessed to live in a country that water is so convenient when, at this very moment, there are millions of people walking great distances and struggling just to have dirty contaminated water to drink..but that is a different tragic matter all together. I am trying not to be ungrateful for the blessings I have.. for some reason or another God decided that I should be born into a country that is blessed with water..so I am thankful, but I am also entitled to be upset because my family and I are being unethically medicated without choice.  I am not going to write much..i am just going to share some information from articles. This is obviously my opinion and in no way am I forcing anyone to read this..but staying informed on a matter that numerous studies have shown to be harmful is important..at least it is to me. My main objections to fluoride are simple..the water i pay for is full of the toxic by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry (not the naturally occurring fluoride that many think is in their water).. even after 50 years of research, the FDA still rates it an “unapproved drug”..it is illegal to dump the SAME chemicals that fluoridate our water into the ocean (if something is too harmful to fish..why the heck is it ok for my children to be exposed to it!)…and finally even if it is beneficial to teeth (which if you read below you will see some of the most recent findings that show the supposed benefits of fluoride are untrue) I should be given the choice to take it..dont worry about my teeth..theyre MY teeth! I am tired of spending money on gallons of water just so my family wont be exposed to fluoride. Please dont automaticly close your mind to this just because of what youve been told. Do your own research and please let me know your thoughts below.

The following is from an article that you can find here

Updated August, 2011 

By Paul Connett, PhD and other members of the Fluoride Action Network (including James Beck, MD, PhD, Michael Connett, JD, Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, David McRae and Spedding Micklem, D.Phil.)


Fluoridation is the practice of adding a fluoride compound to the public drinking water supply ostensibly for the purpose of fighting tooth decay. The levels used range from 0.6 to 1.2 milligrams of fluoride ion per liter (or parts per million, ppm). The practice began in the U.S. in 1945 and was endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) in 1950. Very few countries have adopted this practice to any significant extent. Only eight countries in the world have more than 50% of their populations drinking artificially fluoridated water (Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the U.S.). In Europe, only Ireland (with 73% of the population fluoridated), the U.K. (10%) and Spain (10%) fluoridate some of their water supplies. In the U.S., about 70% of the population is drinking fluoridated water – that is approximately 200 million people and about half the number of people drinking artificially fluoridated water worldwide. Some countries have areas with high natural fluoride levels in the water. These include India, China and parts of Africa. In these countries measures are being taken to remove the fluoride because of the health problems that fluoride can cause.

Fluoridation is a bad medical practice

  1. Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.
  2. Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients. While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way: Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will)?
    • The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden:

    “Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication — of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day — to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy” (Carlsson 1978).

  • Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (National Research Council [NRC] 1993; Institute of Medicine [IOM] 1997, NRC 2006). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. It has never been shown that ingested fluoride is needed to produce decay-free teeth. Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). In combination with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with signals from growth factors, hormones and neurotransmitters (Strunecka & Patocka 1999; Li 2003). More and more studies are indicating that fluoride can interfere with biochemistry in fundamental ways (Barbier 2010).
  • The level in mothers’ milk is very low. Considering reason #6 it is perhaps not surprising that the level of fluoride in mother’s milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006). This means that a bottle-fed baby consuming fluoridated water (0.6 – 1.2 ppm) can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. There are no benefits (see reasons #11-19), only risks (see reasons #21-36), for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).
  • Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride they ingest each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006).
  • No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (e.g., individuals with kidney disease).
  • There has never been a single randomized clinical trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized studies are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
  • Swallowing fluoride provides no (or very little) benefit
    • Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.
    • Fluoridation is not necessary. Most western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries. (See data from World Health Organization presented graphically in Figure 1).

    Tooth Decay Trends

    • Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing their entire lives in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface, and less than 1% of the 100+ tooth surfaces available in a child’s mouth. Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004). None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of the teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Komarek 2005). A one-year delay in eruption of the permanent teeth would eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.
    • NIH-funded study on individual fluoride ingestion and tooth decay failed to find a significant correlation. A multi-million dollar, U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) -funded study (Warren 2009) found no relation between tooth decay and the amount of fluoride ingested by children. This is the first time that tooth decay has been investigated as a function of individual exposure as opposed to mere residence in a fluoridated community.
    • Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years. Despite some claims to the contrary, water fluoridation cannot prevent the oral health crises that result from rampant poverty, inadequate nutrition, and lack of access to dental care. There have been numerous reports of severe dental crises in low-income neighborhoods of US cities that have been fluoridated for over 20 years (e.g., Boston, Cincinnati, New York City, and Pittsburgh). In addition, fluoridation has been repeatedly found to be ineffective at preventing the most serious oral health problem facing poor children, namely “baby bottle tooth decay,” otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992; Shiboski 2003).
    • Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel & Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).
    • Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. Modern research (e.g., Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced in Australia and New Zealand and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized (see Figure 2). Many other factors influence tooth decay.

    Number of Decayed Teeth Per Child

    Figure 2. The number of decayed teeth in 5-year olds in New Zealand, over the period 1930-1990. The percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water and the percentage of the total toothpaste sold containing fluoride are shown on the right hand axis (Colquhoun, 1993).

    • The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942 (Ziegelbecker 1981).

Children are being over-exposed to fluoride

  • Children are being over-exposed to fluoride. The fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e., to lower dental decay rates while limiting the occurrence of dental fluorosis (a discoloring of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its very mild form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). In 2010, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 41% of American adolescents had dental fluorosis, with 8.6% having mild fluorosis and 3.6% having either moderate or severe dental fluorosis (Beltran-Aguilar 2010). As the 41% prevalence figure is a national average and includes children living in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, the fluorosis rate in fluoridated communities will obviously be higher. The British Government’s York Review estimated that up to 48% of children in fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms, with 12.5% having fluorosis of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).
  • The highest doses of fluoride are going to bottle-fed babies. Because of their sole reliance on liquids for their food intake, infants consuming formula made with fluoridated water have the highest exposure to fluoride, by bodyweight, in the population. Because infant exposure to fluoridated water has been repeatedly found to be a major risk factor for developing dental fluorosis later in life (Marshall 2004; Hong 2006; Levy 2010), a number of dental researchers have recommended that parents of newborns not use fluoridated water when reconstituting formula (Ekstrand 1996; Pendrys 1998; Fomon 2000; Brothwell 2003; Marshall 2004). Even the American Dental Association (ADA), the most ardent institutional proponent of fluoridation, distributed a November 6, 2006 email alert to its members recommending that parents be advised that formula should be made with “low or no-fluoride water.” Unfortunately, the ADA has done little to get this information into the hands of parents. As a result, many parents remain unaware of the fluorosis risk from infant exposure to fluoridated water.

Evidence of harm to other tissues

  • Dental fluorosis may be an indicator of wider systemic damage. There have been many suggestions as to the possible biochemical mechanisms underlying the development of dental fluorosis (Matsuo 1998; Den Besten 1999; Sharma 2008; Duan 2011; Tye 2011) and they are complicated for a lay reader. While promoters of fluoridation are content to dismiss dental fluorosis (in its milder forms) as merely a cosmetic effect, it is rash to assume that fluoride is not impacting other developing tissues when it is visibly damaging the teeth by some biochemical mechanism (Groth 1973; Colquhoun 1997). Moreover, ingested fluoride can only cause dental fluorosis during the period before the permanent teeth have erupted (6-8 years), other tissues are potentially susceptible to damage throughout life. For example, in areas of naturally high levels of fluoride the first indicator of harm is dental fluorosis in children. In the same communities many older people develop skeletal fluorosis.
  • Fluoride may damage the brain. According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” In a review of the literature commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fluoride has been listed among about 100 chemicals for which there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). In total, there have now been over 100 animal experiments showing that fluoride can damage the brain and impact learning and behavior. According to fluoridation proponents, these animal studies can be ignored because high doses were used. However, it is important to note that it takes 5-20 times more fluoride to reach the same plasma levels in rats as reached in humans (Sawan 2010). In fact, one animal experiment found effects at remarkably low doses (Varner 1998). In this study, rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water (the same level used in fluoridation programs), using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits which are associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Other animal studies have found effects on the brain at water fluoride levels as low as 5 ppm (Liu 2010).(For a complete listing of these studies.
  • Fluoride may lower IQ. There have now been 24 studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g., 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency. In the absence of iodine deficiency, another research team (Xiang 2003a,b) estimated that fluoride may lower IQ at 1.9 ppm, while a recent preliminary study (Ding 2011) found a lowering of IQ in children drinking water at levels ranging from 0.3 to 3 ppm. The authors of this latter study reported that for each increase of 1 ppm fluoride measured in the urine there was a loss of 0.59 IQ points. None of these studies indicates an adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking artificially fluoridated water from this affect. According to the National Research Council (2006), “the consistency of the results [in fluoride/IQ studies] appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” Except for an early and small IQ study from New Zealand (Shannon et al., 1986) no fluoridating country has investigated the matter for themselves.
  • Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects. Reduced IQ is not the only neurotoxic effect that may result from fluoride exposure. At least three human studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired visual-spatial organization (Calderon 2000; Li 2004; Rocha-Amador 2009); while three other studies have found an association between prenatal fluoride exposure and fetal brain damage (Han 1989; Du 1992; Yu 1996).
  • Fluoride affects the pineal gland. Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) show that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis, Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997). Consistent with Luke’s findings, one of the earliest fluoridation trials in the U.S. (Schlesinger 1956) reported that on average young girls in the fluoridated community reached menstruation 5 months earlier than girls in the non-fluoridated community. Inexplicably, no fluoridating country has attempted to reproduce either Luke’s or Schlesinger’s findings or examine the issue any further.
  • Fluoride affects thyroid function. According to the U.S. National Research Council (2006), “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.” In the Ukraine, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water. In the middle of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). According to a clinical study by Galletti and Joyet (1958), the thyroid function of hyperthyroid patients was effectively reduced at just 2.3 to 4.5 mg/day of fluoride ion. To put this finding in perspective, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS, 1991) has estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day. This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the United States and other fluoridated countries. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease. In 2010, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid (sodium levothyroxine) which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid.
  • Fluoride causes arthritic symptoms. Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis (a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa), mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation published in Chemical & Engineering News, “Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed” (Hileman 1988). Few, if any, studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis – CDC, 2002) and other fluoridated countries is related to growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. Even when individuals in the U.S. suffer advanced forms of skeletal fluorosis (from drinking large amounts of tea), it has taken years of misdiagnoses before doctors finally correctly diagnosed the condition as fluorosis.
  • Fluoride damages bone. An early fluoridation trial (Newburgh-Kingston 1945-55) found a significant two-fold increase in cortical bone defects among children in the fluoridated community (Schlesinger 1956). The cortical bone is the outside layer of the bone and is important to protect against fracture. While this result was not considered important at the time with respect to bone fractures, it did prompt questions about a possible link to osteosarcoma (Caffey, 1955; NAS, 1977). In 2001, Alarcon-Herrera and co-workers reported a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in both children and adults in a high fluoride area in Mexico.
  • Fluoride may increase hip fractures in the elderly. When high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a higher number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, often leading to a loss of independence or a shortened life. There have been over a dozen studies published since 1990 that have investigated a possible relationship between hip fractures and long term consumption of artificially fluoridated water or water with high natural levels. The results have been mixed – some have found an association and others have not. Some have even claimed a protective effect. One very important study in China, which examined hip fractures in six Chinese villages, found what appears to be a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001) offering little comfort to those who drink a lot of fluoridated water. Moreover, in the only human epidemiological study to assess bone strength as a function of bone fluoride concentration, researchers from the University of Toronto found that (as with animal studies) the strength of bone declined with increasing fluoride content (Chachra 2010). Finally, a recent study from Iowa (Levy 2009), published data suggesting that low-level fluoride exposure may have a detrimental effect on cortical bone density in girls (an effect that has been repeatedly documented in clinical trials and which has been posited as an important mechanism by which fluoride may increase bone fracture rates).
  • People with impaired kidney function are particularly vulnerable to bone damage. Because of their inability to effectively excrete fluoride, people with kidney disease are prone to accumulating high levels of fluoride in their bone and blood. As a result of this high fluoride body burden, kidney patients have an elevated risk for developing skeletal fluorosis. In one of the few U.S. studies investigating the matter, crippling skeletal fluorosis was documented among patients with severe kidney disease drinking water with just 1.7 ppm fluoride (Johnson 1979). Since severe skeletal fluorosis in kidney patients has been detected in small case studies, it is likely that larger, systematic studies would detect skeletal fluorosis at even lower fluoride levels.
  • Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma). A U.S. government-funded animal study found a dose-dependent increase in bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in fluoride-treated, male rats (NTP 1990). Following the results of this study, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed national cancer data in the U.S. and found a significantly higher rate of osteosarcoma (a bone cancer) in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover et al 1991a). While the NCI concluded (based on an analysis lacking statistical power) that fluoridation was not the cause (Hoover et al 1991b), no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found osteosarcoma rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies of varying size and quality have failed to find this relationship (a summary of these can be found in Bassin, 2001 and Connett & Neurath, 2005). There are three reasons why a fluoride-osteosarcoma connection is plausible: First, fluoride accumulates to a high level in bone. Second, fluoride stimulates bone growth. And, third, fluoride can interfere with the genetic apparatus of bone cells in several ways; it has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage, and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in both cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993; Mihashi 1996; Zhang 2009). In addition to cell and tissue studies, a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans has also been reported (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997; Joseph 2000).
  • Proponents have failed to refute the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. In 2001, Elise Bassin, a dentist, successfully defended her doctoral thesis at Harvard in which she found that young boys had a five-to-seven fold increased risk of getting osteosarcoma by the age of 20 if they drank fluoridated water during their mid-childhood growth spurt (age 6 to 8). The study was published in 2006 (Bassin 2006) but has been largely discounted by fluoridating countries because her thesis adviser Professor Chester Douglass (a promoter of fluoridation and a consultant for Colgate) promised a larger study that he claimed would discount her thesis (Douglass and Joshipura, 2006). Now, after 5 years of waiting the Douglass study has finally been published (Kim 2011) but in no way does this study discount Bassin’s findings. The study, which used far fewer controls than Bassin’s analysis, did not even attempt to assess the age-specific window of risk that Bassin identified. Indeed, by the authors’ own admission, the study had no capacity to assess the risk of osteosarcoma among children and adolescents (the precise population of concern). For a critique of the Douglass study, click here.
  • Fluoride may cause reproductive problems. Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system – it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a,b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002; Zakrzewska 2002). In addition, an epidemiological study from the US found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 ppm or more fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), two studies have found reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996; Barot 1998), and a study of fluoride-exposed workers reported a “subclinical reproductive effect” (Ortiz-Perez 2003). While animal studies by FDA researchers have failed to find evidence of reproductive toxicity in fluoride-exposed rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), the National Research Council (2006) has recommended that, “the relationship between fluoride and fertility requires additional study.”
  • Some individuals are highly sensitive to low levels of fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967; Waldbott 1978; Moolenburgh 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Many individuals have reported suffering from symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, rashes and stomach and gastro intestinal tract problems, which disappear when they avoid fluoride in their water and diet. Frequently the symptoms reappear when they are unwittingly exposed to fluoride again (Spittle, 2008). No fluoridating government has conducted scientific studies to take this issue beyond these anecdotal reports. Without the willingness of governments to investigate these reports scientifically, should we as a society be forcing these people to ingest fluoride?
  • Other subsets of population are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. In addition to people suffering from impaired kidney function discussed in reason #30 other subsets of the population are more vulnerable.to fluoride’s toxic effects. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993) these include: infants, the elderly and diabetics. Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g., calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodine deficiencies and protein-poor diets. See: Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998).

No Margin of Safety

  • There is no margin of safety for several health effects. No one can deny that high natural levels of fluoride damage health. Millions of people in India and China have had their health compromised by fluoride. The real argument is about whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses that have been shown to cause harm in published studies and the total dose people receive consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and non-water sources of fluoride. This margin of safety has to take into account the wide range of individual sensitivity expected in a large population (a safety factor of 10 is usually applied to the lowest level causing harm). Another safety factor is also needed to take into account the wide range of doses to which people are exposed. There is clearly no margin of safety for dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010) and based on the following studies nowhere near an adequate margin of safety for lowered IQ (Xiang 2003a,b; Ding 2011); lowered thyroid function (Galletti & Joyet 1958; Bachinskii 1985; Lin 1991); bone fractures in children (Alarcon-Herrera 2001) or hip fractures in the elderly (Kurttio 1999; Li 2001). All these harmful effects are discussed in the NRC (2006) review.

Environmental Justice

  • Low-income families penalized by fluoridation. Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition, and thus more likely to be more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects, are the poor, who unfortunately, are the very people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While at heightened risk, poor families are least able to afford avoiding fluoride once it is added to the water supply. No financial support is being offered to these families to help them get alternative water supplies or to help pay the costs of treating unsightly cases of dental fluorosis.
  • Black and Hispanic children are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. According to the CDC’s national survey of dental fluorosis, black and Mexican-American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than white children (Beltran-Aguilar 2005, Table 23). The recognition that minority children appear to be more vulnerable to toxic effects of fluoride, combined with the fact that low-income families are less able to avoid drinking fluoridated water, has prompted prominent leaders in the environmental-justice movement to oppose mandatory fluoridation in Georgia. In a statement issued in May 2011, the Rev. Andrew Young, a colleague of Martin Luther King, Jr., and former Mayor of Atlanta and former US Ambassador to the United Nations, stated:

“I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist…My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation.” (see: http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Georgia/Atlanta-Civil-Rights-Leaders-Callfor- Halt-to-Water-Fluoridation)

  • Minorities are not being warned about their vulnerabilities to fluoride. The CDC is not warning black and Mexican-American children that they have higher rates of dental fluorosis than Caucasian children (see #38). This extra vulnerability may extend to other toxic effects of fluoride. Black Americans have higher rates of lactose intolerance, kidney problems and diabetes, all of which may exacerbate fluoride’s toxicity.
  • Tooth decay reflects low-income not low-fluoride intake. Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for low-income families. The highest rates of tooth decay today can be found in low-income areas that have been fluoridated for many years. The real “Oral Health Crisis” that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

The largely untested chemicals used in fluoridation programs

  • The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they largely come from the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these silicon fluorides are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000). Arsenic is a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level. This one contaminant alone could be increasing cancer rates – and unnecessarily so.
  • The silicon fluorides have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. Proponents claim that once the silicon fluorides have been diluted at the public water works they are completely dissociated to free fluoride ions and hydrated silica and thus there is no need to examine the toxicology of these compounds. However, while a study from the University of Michigan (Finney et al., 2006) showed complete dissociation at neutral pH, in acidic conditions (pH 3) there was a stable complex containing five fluoride ions. Thus the possibility arises that such a complex may be regenerated in the stomach where the pH lies between 1 and 2.
  • The silicon fluorides may increase lead uptake into children’s blood. Studies by Masters and Coplan 1999, 2000, 2007 show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children’s blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the developing brain, this is a very serious finding. Nevertheless, it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries. This association received some strong biochemical support from an animal study by Sawan et al. (2010) who found that exposure of rats to a combination of fluorosilicic acid and lead in their drinking water increased the uptake of lead into blood some threefold over exposure to lead alone.
  • Fluoride may leach lead from pipes, brass fittings and soldered joints. Maas et al (2007) have shown that fluoridating agents in combination with chlorinating agents such as chloroamine increase the leaching of lead from brass fittings used in plumbing. While proponents may argue about the neurotoxic effects of low levels of fluoride there is no argument that lead at very low levels lowers IQ in children.

Continued promotion of fluoridation is unscientific

  • Key health studies have not been done. In the January 2008 issue of Scientific American, Professor John Doull, the chairman of the important 2006 National Research Council review, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards, is quoted as saying:

What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long really—and now we need to take a fresh look . . . In the scientific community people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the top 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.

The absence of studies is being used by promoters as meaning the absence of harm. This is an irresponsible position.

  • Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published (see chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride for the significance of this PHS endorsement for the future promotion of fluoridation). Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science.
  • Review panels hand-picked to deliver a pro-fluoridation result. Every so often, particularly when their fluoridation program is under threat, governments of fluoridating countries hand-pick panels to deliver reports that provide the necessary re-endorsement of the practice.

In their recent book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted toward fluoridation, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede this point when they write:

There is one anti-fluoridationist charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944 and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977 and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.

The most recent examples of these self-fulfilling prophecies have come from the Irish Fluoridation Forum (2002); the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and Health Canada (2008, 2010). The latter used a panel of six experts to review the health literature. Four of the six were pro-fluoridation dentists and the other two had no demonstrated expertise on fluoride. A notable exception to this trend was the appointment by the U.S. National Research Council of the first balanced panel of experts ever selected to look at fluoride’s toxicity in the U.S. This panel of twelve reviewed the US EPA’s safe drinking water standards for fluoride. After three and half years the panel concluded in a 507- page report that the safe drinking water standard was not protective of health and a new maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) should be determined (NRC, 2006). If normal toxicological procedures and appropriate margins of safety were applied to their findings this report should spell an end to water fluoridation. Unfortunately in January of 2011 the US EPA Office of Water made it clear that they would not determine a value for the MCLG that would jeopardize the water fluoridation program (EPA press release, Jan 7, 2011. Once again politics was allowed to trump science.

More and more independent scientists oppose fluoridation

  • Many scientists oppose fluoridation. Proponents of fluoridation have maintained for many years— despite the fact that the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists—that the only people opposed to fluoridation are not bona fide scientists. Today, as more and more scientists, doctors, dentists and other professionals, read the primary literature for themselves, rather than relying on self-serving statements from the ADA and the CDC, they are realizing that they and the general public have not been diligently informed by their professional bodies on this subject. As of July 2011, over 3700 professionals have signed a statement calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide. This statement and a list of signatories can be found on the website of the Fluoride Action Network (see: www.FluorideAlert.org). A glimpse of the caliber of those opposing fluoridation can be gleaned by watching the 28-minute video “Professional Perspectives on Water fluoridation” which can be viewed online at the same FAN site.

Proponents’ dubious tactics

  • Proponents usually refuse to defend fluoridation in open debate. While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they usually refuse to defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the U.S. EPA (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, “Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view” (Easley, 1999). In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that, “the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues” (Martin 1991).
  • Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation. Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain (Mullenix 1995); and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Many dentists and even doctors tell opponents in private that they are opposed to this practice but dare not speak out in public because of peer pressure and the fear of recriminations. Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific and ethical grounds.


When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a sixty-year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials and dental leaders have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.

Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?

While fluoridation may not be the greatest environmental health threat, it is one of the easiest to end. It is as easy as turning off a spigot in the public water works. But to turn off that spigot takes political will and to get that we need masses more people informed and organized. Please get these 50 reasons to all your friends and encourage them to get fluoride out of their community and to help ban this practice worldwide.

The following article was written by a doctor and can be found here

I regularly get asked questions about the dangers of fluoride and water fluoridation (often misspelled as flouride and flouridation). In fact, one of my employees was recently speaking with me about the sodium fluoride drops his daughter’s pediatrician had prescribed.

In response to the questions and concerns, I’ve put together this article which is loaded with information about fluoride (flouride), symptoms of fluoridation, and the dangers of consuming fluoride.

I hope this helps answer your questions!

  • The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug”. The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we’re already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association’s recommended daily amount.#
  • The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.#
  • Newsweek Magazine advised the public that “political decisions [about fluoridation] were at odds with expert advice” and “fluoride from your tap may not do much good-and may cause cancer.” Then, in 1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related article, “Is Science Censored?, a look at how political considerations influence what scientific studies get published.”#
  • The first noticeable signs of excessive exposure to fluoride in contaminated water, air, and food products include discolorations of the enamel. Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds. Abnormalities in mineralization processes affect by and large the osteoarticular system and are associated with changes in the density and structure of the bone presenting as irregular mineralization of the osteoid.*
  • Children’s sodium fluoride anti-cavity supplements were never found safe or effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).They were never even tested.So why are these prescription drugs allowed despite no FDA approval? Because fluoride supplements were “grandfathered in” before the 1938 law was enacted requiring drug testing.So, products on the market before 1938 were presumed safe by the FDA who allowed grandfathered drugs to be sold without any testing. Once a drug is on the market for any reason, doctors can use them to treat any disease or condition.Sodium fluoride was on the market pre-1938, but not to stop cavities and not for any medical reason. Sodium fluoride sold as a rat poison.

    So, in effect, the FDA says – since sodium fluoride safely and effectively killed rats before 1938, the FDA considers it is safe to give to little children to prevent tooth decay.From a 1951 American Dental Association brochure:
    “There is no proof that commercial preparations such as tablets, dentifrices, mouthwashes or chewing gum containing fluorides are effective in preventing dental decay. Unfortunately such preparations are being offered to the public without adequate scientific evidence of their value.”*

  • 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.^
  • Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and ’50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical” (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.^
  • Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses attainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:
    • Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
    • Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)
    • Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)
    • Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)
    • Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)^

prayers for forgotten children

The time now, as I begin this post is 12:09 pm. It will be hours before I post this..I have to write when my motherly duties (which, by the way, I am so grateful to be able to do again now that my back is feeling a great deal better) will spare me a few moments. Again, it is 12:09 pm, Trinitee got up this morning at 8:30..since then she has had cheddar cheese grits (with real bacon bits in them..just the way she likes) a large glass of milk, a pack of grilled cheese Lance crackers, a juice box, and a string cheese. Like clockwork, we normally eat lunch at noon but on Saturdays Jonathan gets off work at one..so on Saturdays we snack a little after breakfast and wait until he gets home to eat lunch. Without failure, every Saturday, regardless of the snacks she has had, “mommy I’m starving” is what I hear shortly after the clock strikes 12..and today, just a few minutes ago, it was her saying those exact words that sparked my mind to write this.

Throughout the day, i usually spend my free time roaming the internet for articles and for things i feel are worth the few moments of “me” time that i get. Most of the time i end up on websites that drive me into a mad rage..to what degree these things upset me is pointless because no matter what i do..i cant force people to agree or to wake up and take notice. These websites, Jonathan says, have turned his wife into a conspiracy theorist. (Ha..he knew what he was getting into before he married me) Sometimes i try to be normal and do normal things like play games or search around on ebay (how is a girl with no extra money supposed to look on ebay?…i am not capable of “window shopping” without morphing into this “woe is me” jealous person) ive even tried to start a pintrest thing. None of my “normal” endeavors are ever successfull..i always feel like im wasting precious time and short-changing my brain by investing in things that just don’t matter. So…i end up reading articles about fluoride or about the corruption that drips from planned parenthood and other things that i cant change..things that just upset me..things that, according to the authors, only Ron Paul can stop..unfortunatly the probability of most of these things changing is the same as Ron Paul actually becoming president (media black-balled ) so i get all fired up and it usually fizzles out half an hour or so after i get in bed and finally calm myself down enough to sleep. I have sent emails and made phone calls to senators from time to time but, im not an idiot, i know this doesnt do anything. In the perfect manner of this dark earth, yesterday i stumbled upon an article that i cannot shake..an article that, after reading it, has made me come to the conclusion that i will never be the same.

I was only 10 when these things happened..I was off in my peachy little world of no worries and lisa frank trapper-keepers..I had no clue of what it feels like to love a child, or how precious a childs worth is. I know that there are many who do remember this when it happened..something that makes the soul ache, to such severity, is not easily forgotten. I attempt to really understand what makes this world go ’round..I try, with shallow results usually, to really understand politics,…i always come up short, even still, with my limited political knowledge, I can see how this matter should (17 years later) still be a relevent concern.

The article I read was about the 1995 documentary called, “The Dying Rooms.”  Three British film makers, over the course of two years, posed as orphanage workers (with hidden cameras) in several chinese state-run facilities. The footage is shocking, to say the least, I was sick after watching it. It all seems too monstrous to be reality. Here are some exerts from the article:

Mei-ming has lain this way for 10 days now: tied up in urine-soaked blankets, scabs of dried mucus growing across her eyes, her face shrinking to a skull, malnutrition slowly shrivelling her two-year old body. The orphanage staff call her room the “dying room”, and they have abandoned here for the very same reasons her parents abandoned her shortly after she was born. She is a girl.

When Mei-ming dies four days later,it will be of sheer neglect. Afterward, the orphanage will deny she ever existed. She will be just another invisible victim of the collision between China’s one-child policy and its traditional preference for male heirs. She is one of perhaps 15 million female babies who have disappeared from China’s demograph

Two years ago, the South China Morning Post gave the world evidence of dying rooms at Nanning orphanage, in the Guangxi autonomous region. Staff and regular visitors freely admitted that 90 percent of the 50 to 60 baby girls who arrived at the orphanage each month would end their lives there. Nanning orhanage was then overhauled, and the dying rooms there ceased to exist. Sadly, though, the British team’s harrowing report suggests that attitudes toward baby girls so prevalent at Nanning two years ago are rife elsewhere.

To proect those who helped the team gain access to orphanages and whom Blewett interviewed, the documentary does not riamc any of the orphanages In one, a dozen or so baby girls sit on bamboo benches in the middle of a courtyard. Their wrists and ankles are tied to the armrests and legs of the bench. A row of plastic buckets is lined up beneath holes in their seats to catch their urine and excrement. The children will not be moved again until night, when they will be lifted out and tied to their beds.

“They had no stimulation, nothing to play with, no one to touch them,” says Blewett. In one scene, a handicapped older boy walks up to one of the girls tied to a bench and begins head-butting her relentlessly. The girl doesn’t move or make a sound. Such is the lack of stimulation for the children that few of them will ever learn to speak. An endless rocking is the only exercise, the only stimulation, the only pleasure in their lives.

An official of the orphanage tells Blewett that last year, the orphanage had some 400 inmates. They were kept five to a bed in one airless room. The summer temperatures soared to around 100 degrees. In a couple of weeks, 20 percent of the babies died. “If 80 children died last summer, there should be 320 left,” Blewett says to one of the assistants, “but there don’t appear to be more than a couple of dozen children here. Where are the others?” The girl replies; “They disappear. If I ask where they go, I am just told they die. That’s all. I am afraid to ask any more.” 

Brutal neglect is the common theme of many of the orphanage scenes. In one sequence, a lame child sits on a bench near the orphanage pharmacy. It is full of medicines, but none of the staff can be bothered to administer them. The child rocks listlessly back and forth. The camera focuses on her vacant face, trails down her skinny body, and settles on her leg. It is swollen with gangrene. The worst orphanage, the home of Mei-ming, was in Guangdong, one of the richest provinces in China. When the documentary team arrived,there were no children to be seen or heard. Then from under one of the blankets laid over a cot. there was the sound of crying. Lifting the blanket and unwrapping a tied bundle of cloth, Blewett found a baby girl. The last layer of her swaddling was a plastic bag filled with urine and feces. The next cot was the same, and the next and the next. Many of the children had deep lesions where the string they were tied with had cut into their bodies. One child, described by staff as “normal,” was suffering from vitamin B and C deficiencies, acute liver failure, and severe impetigo on her scalp. All the non-handicapped children were girls.

After the documentary aired there was an uproar that spread across the world..it aired in 26 different countries and won several awards even an American Emmy. Chinese officials flat out denied any existence of such “dying rooms,”   (it is spoken about here) they stated that the documentary was a complete fabrication, even though, if you watch it (warning: its tough to handle) it is hard to imagine how such a thing could have been faked. There are also damning reports from the chinese physician Zhang Shuyun, who fled the country with evidence she had collected between 1988 and 1993 proving the rumors of systematic abuse and fatal neglect to be true. Here is a bit from an article that speaks of  Zhang Shuyun’s findings..

The evidence of barbaric behaviour came from detailed official records smuggled out of the country by a doctor, Zhang Shuyun: she worked at the Shanghai Children’s Welfare Institute from 1988 to 1993, and escaped from China last March. Numerous case studies document deliberate starvation, torture and sexual assault over many years. The records indicate that between 1986 and 1992 at this one Shanghai institution alone, more than 1,000 children died unnatural deaths.  

Only after The Dying Rooms thrust these deplorable exterminations into the world spotlight did things start to improve in these state funded orphanages..well at least things improved at the orphanages we are allowed to know about. One report states..

 From 1999 to 2004, the numbers of child welfare homes and residents almost doubled.. Another change during this period is that the central government enacted policies regarding the right to protection for children and social welfare for orphans and children with disabilities, such as, the enactment of the Law of Adoption and the establishment of guidelines for work with orphans and children with disabilities by the central government. Recent efforts have been on promoting relative caring and foster homes supplemental to child welfare homes.

An orphanage in Wuhu, in eastern China’s Anhui province in Aug. 2009.

As you see in the picture above, the conditions in this orphanage have greatly improved from the earlier circumstances where sometimes six infants would be crammed in one rusty crib. Things look so much better..it gives you a sense of hope and relief…until you look to the far right of this picture and see the infant laying there who is nothing but skin and bone. It is wonderful that these  babies are being fed and that their basic needs are being met, however, many studies have proven that babies desperately need to be touched and loved to thrive..even to the point that some infants can lose the will to live because they are not nurtured. it rips my heart apart to think of babies..just like my priceless baby..who dont have anyone to love them. Thankfully adoption has given many of these unwanted children a life where they are wanted.. where they are loved.

Im sure it seems that i have gone on and on about this..but really, what I have written is only the tip of the iceberg. Some are probably thinking right now..why the heck would somebody write about this..that was 17 years ago! Well my response is..why the heck would i not write about this!

Why i am writing this..why i think it still matters, is simple, even for me to understand.(that means pretty simple) You gotta remember that china is a communist country. We see what they allow..what they want us to see. The same force that was in charge while all the documented abuse took place..they are still in charge today. Most recently with the Chen Guangcheng story, the world has been exposed to the gut wrenching stories of the women who are kidnapped and forced to have abortions, many times in their ninth month of pregnancy..the black veil of communism has parted enough for us to see the callous faces of these men..these men who tie women down during labor and wait for the baby to be born..these men who take a newly delivered baby and throw it into a bucket of water like worthless trash.. while gasping for breath in a cold bucket of water, the first and last sound these beautiful babies will  hear is their mother crying helplessly for the baby she never got to touch..all because, to these men, life means nothing. Thank goodness for the millions of good people living in China and for the outside influence that, to some degree, holds the Communist Party of China accountable.. without them, I am afraid to think of how these sweet children would be treated..because to Hu Jintao and the Communist Party of China, these orphans are illegal.. these blameless children are guilty of breaking the law before they are even born.

Let me just requote something from an above article..

Two years ago, the South China Morning Post gave the world evidence of dying rooms at Nanning orphanage, in the Guangxi autonomous region. Staff and regular visitors freely admitted that 90 percent of the 50 to 60 baby girls who arrived at the orphanage each month would end their lives there. Nanning orhanage was then overhauled, and the dying rooms there ceased to exist. Sadly, though, the British team’s harrowing report suggests that attitudes toward baby girls so prevalent at Nanning two years ago are rife elsewhere.

As this shows, these deplorable acts were first exposed in 1993..two years later when this was published nothing had changed. The orphanage in question was reformed but nothing was done to help the innocent life trapped in any of the other institutions. My only prayer is that, in the places kept from the world, history is not being repeated. According to China Daily and ministry statistics there are currently 100,000 abandoned children (mostly girls) living in chinese orphanages. For a country with 1.3 billion people (and, not to mention, a strict population control policy and, especially in rural areas, a strong cultural tradition that values only male heirs) i find it almost impossible to believe that calculation. The Mystery of China’s Orphans, A 2007 piece from The New York Times reaffirms my suspicions..

 According to a U.S. State Department report released last week, American citizens adopted 6,493 children from China in 2006, a decline of 18 percent from the previous year’s total of 7,906. And yet,over a month ago, The New York Times reported that China had prepared strict new criteria for foreign adoption applications because the country claimed it lacked “available” babies to meet the “spike” in demand.

China has always limited foreign adoptions, and it does not publish reliable statistics on the number of children in its orphanages. So how is one to know whether the decrease in adoptions reflects a lack of supply or a lack of demand?

In the week following the report on the new guidelines, more than one bewildered person said to me, “But I thought there were lots of babies in orphanages in China!” My response was to helplessly reply, “So did I.” My understanding of this was based not on conjecture, but on having been to China twice to adopt, having seen orphanages with my own eyes, and on research and other eyewitness accounts. Many hundreds and perhaps thousands of orphanages operate in China, most of them full of girls.

According to a February 2005 report in the Weekend Standard, a Chinese business newspaper, demographers in China found a ratio of 117 boys per 100 girls under the age of 5 in the 2000 census. Thanks to China’s one-child policy, put into effect in 1979 in order to curb population growth, and a strong cultural preference for male children, this gender gap could result in as many as 60 million “missing” girls from the population by the end of the decade.

And what happened to these girls? According to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (a term that takes on a whole new meaning when referring to China), there are about 7 million abortions in China per year, 70 percent of which are estimated to be of females. That adds up to around 5 million per year, or 50 million by the end of the decade; so where are the other 10 million girls? If even 10 percent end up in orphanages — well, you do the math.

The issue of abandoned and institutionalized children remains a taboo subject in China, a problem the government does not even acknowledge exists.

China has announced the lifting of restrictions for foreign journalists in preparation for the 2008 Olympics. Perhaps this will allow reporters to look for answers to some basic questions: How many children are there in institutions in China? Why do visitors need approval to visit orphanages? Why are only certain orphanages allowed to participate in the international adoption program, and what is going on in the ones that are not?

So what am I supposed to do? How are my tears going to infiltrate the hearts of those in charge. After reading these things.. my spirit was badly broken..thankfully, Trinitee and Rory were at my moms so they didnt witness my sadness. I seriously had a small mental break..crying and screaming at God..asking him how He could let things happen like this. God wasnt too upset by my screams..he never gave me that answer I was looking for..but a sudden peace flooded my soul, and I was reminded that every one of those “forgotten” children were now in the loving arms of Jesus..no matter how unwanted or unloved they were here..in heaven they are held..they are touched..they are priceless.

Today is the first time i have thought about these little children in quite sometime. Usually when Trinitee tells me she is starving I just laugh it off and tell her she’s being silly because she has had plenty to eat. I mean, she’s a child..her precious little mind is set on the schedule that I have put her on..I can’t get upset with her for being over dramatic or naively ungrateful. But today was different…Today when she told me how starving she was..the images of those little girls from The Dying Room flooded my mind.. I immediately started crying. She looked up at me, her eyes full of love..she hugged me..”whats wrong mommy?” I explained to her that she doesnt need to say she’s starving anymore..i told her how blessed she was..that there are children who really are starving. She asked me..”what is starving” i tried to explain it the best i could..telling her that some children are so hungry they die. This may seem extreme to some..but I want to raise her to know the truth. I found a picture on my phone of a child who was truly starving..and i showed it to her…”this is what starving means,” i said. She picked up my phone and held it close..almost as if she was trying to look into the child’s soul. A few more silent seconds passed..as she put the phone down I noticed the tears that quietly fell down her sweet little face. She looked at me and said, “im not starving, mommy.” I held her in my arms for a minute before she popped her head up and said, “lets pray for that little girl.”  In our little living room, we held hands and trinitee prayed for that little girl. Her prayer was simple..but so pure..i know the Lord heard Trinitee’s prayer because I felt his presence fill our little living room as she prayed today. We may not be able to win all the battles of this world..but we can pray. We may not be able to save all the innocent little children in China..or all the neglected children across this planet..but Trinitee reminded me today that WE CAN PRAY. We have a God who listens to our prayers..we have a God who is mighty. If any of you have actually read to this point (i know this is way too long..but i cant help myself) please stop and pray…pray for all the innocent children who are alone in this world. Im not sure why I felt the need to write this..but hopefully, God will place a fire inside your soul like he did in mine.