Natural Hormones from a Fruit

      No Comments on Natural Hormones from a Fruit

It’s been called the greatest experiment ever performed on women. Since 1938, pharmaceutical companies have been pushing synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on women as a “lifestyle drug.” HRT is marketed as a miracle cure-all for women going through menopause, claiming to help improve a woman’s mood while protecting against heart disease, dementia and osteoporosis.

But there was never any proof that HRT was safe. It wasn’t until the 1990s that HRT was finally tested during the Women’s Health Initiative study. The results were so disturbing the trial had to be stopped 3 years early.

Researchers found that women on HRT had significantly higher rates of breast cancer, heart disease, stroke, and blood clots in their veins and lungs. Women started asking: Isn’t there a way to relieve hot flashes, night sweats, and mood swings without the risk of heart disease and cancer?

The answer is yes. It may sound hard to believe, but in ancient times, women used a simple fruit to balance their hormones naturally. Today, modern science is just discovering its power to ease menopause symptoms safely.

With its hundreds of seeds in a bright red pod, the pomegranate fruit resembles a human ovary. And just like an ovary, pomegranate produces three types of estrogen in a woman’s body – estradiol, estrone and estriol. These estrogens work to balance hormone levels and reduce menopausal symptoms.

Estrone and estriol from pomegranate are bio-identical to a woman’s own estrogen. That means it’s the same natural form of estrogen your body makes on its own…not a chemical or synthetic copy.

But estradiol from pomegranate is even better. High levels of a woman’s estradiol – known as 17-beta-estradiol — are associated with breast cancer. That’s why women with a history of breast cancer are often advised to avoid estrogen therapy.

But pomegranate’s estradiol is the mirror image of 17-beta-estradiol, and with its reverse construction, it does NOT promote breast cancer. In fact, one laboratory study found pomegranate juice inhibits the harmful activity of 17-beta-estradiol by 55%.

And unlike synthetic HRT, pomegranate doesn’t increase the risk of heart attack and stroke. In fact, in a 2004 study in Clinical Nutrition, patients taking pomegranate reversed plaque buildup in their arteries by 30%, while lowering their blood pressure by 12%.

Pomegranate also doesn’t cause blood clots in veins and lungs, but instead prevents the clumping of blood platelets that leads to clots.4

If you’re not up to peeling your own pomegranate, you can buy the dried seeds and toss a handful into your salad or yogurt.

Pomegranate juice is also widely available and most studies recommend eight ounces a day to get the health benefits.

Finally, pomegranate extract supplements are available in health food stores or online. Look for a product that uses all parts of the pomegranate – juice, seeds, and peel.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

Slow death by your sofa (Part 2)

      No Comments on Slow death by your sofa (Part 2)

 

Now, you may already know about the dangers of toxins. And you may already do everything you can to avoid them — like eating organic food, drinking filtered water, or   using natural products in your home.  But what you may not know is that even if you take all these  precautions,  your body can still be contaminated.

In one recent study, scientists tested a group of families for 107 different man-made toxins. They tested blood and urine samples from each family member. Every family member was tested including grandparents, parents and children.

Here’s what they found… Every single person from the youngest to the oldest was contaminated with toxins. And the family members with the most toxins in their bodies were between the ages of 58 and 92.

In fact, scientists discovered over 63 different chemicals in the bodies of the oldest generation! They found PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, brominated flame retardants, perfluorinated chemicals, and more.

And these aren’t the only toxins that may be lurking in your body…

A comprehensive survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found 148 different chemicals in the blood and urine samples of 2,400 Americans. More than a quarter of all the samples contained benzo(a)pryene, a toxin found in automobile exhaust fumes. And nine out of ten samples contained a mixture of toxic pesticides.

National Geographic Magazine paid nearly $15,000 to test one of their reporters for the presence of 320 different chemicals as part of an undercover investigation into environmental toxins.   They discovered that the reporter’s level of one flame retardant chemical was so high  it would have been considered alarming, even if the reporter had worked in a plant that   manufactured the chemical!

A Mount Sinai School of Medicine study found a total of 167 different chemicals in the blood and urine samples of volunteers. That’s an average of 91 toxins each. They found lead, dioxins, PCBs, phthalate DEHP, as well as compounds that have been banned for more than a quarter century. Bottom line: every single person in every study was contaminated.

So, if you’re tired all the time, this could be the reason why…

If you suffer from joint pain and inflammation, this could be the reason why…

And if you’re plagued by “senior moments” and brain fog, this could be the reason why…

Be well

Dr Sundardas D Annamalay

How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance and Financial Success

      No Comments on How Poverty Affects Behavior and Academic Performance and Financial Success

There is no shortage of theories explaining behavior differences among children. The prevailing  theory among psychologists and child development specialists is that behavior stems from a combination of genes and environment. Genes begin the process: behavioral geneticists commonly claim that DNA accounts for 30–50 percent of our behaviors (Saudino, 2005), an estimate that leaves 50–70 percent explained by environment.

This tidy division of influencing factors may be somewhat misleading, however. First, the effects  of the nine months a child spends in utero are far from negligible, especially on IQ (Devlin, Daniels, & Roeder, 1997). Factors such as quality of prenatal care, exposure to toxins, and stress have a strong influence on the developing child. In addition, the relatively new field of epigenetics—the study of heritable changes in gene function that occur without a change in primary DNA sequence—blurs the line between nature and nurture.  Environment affects the receptors on our cells, which send messages to genes, which turn various functional switches on or off. It’s like this: like light switches, genes can be turned on or off.

When they’re switched on, they send signals that can affect the processes or structures in individual cells. For example, lifting weights tells the genes to “turn on” the signal to build muscle tissue. Genes can be either activated or shut off by a host of other environmental factors, such as stress and nutrition. These switches can either strengthen or impair aggression, immune function, learning, and memory (Rutter, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2006).

A recent University of British Columbia and Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics  (CMMT) study has revealed that childhood poverty, stress as an adult, and demographics such as age, sex and ethnicity, all leave an imprint on a person’s genes. And, that this imprint could play a role in our immune response.

The study which was published in a special volume of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that looks at how experiences beginning before birth and in the years after can affect the course of a person’s life.

Recent evidence (Harris, 2006) suggests that the complex web of social relationships students experience—with peers, adults in the school, and family members—exerts a much greater influence on their behavior than researchers had previously assumed. This process starts with students’ core relationships with parents or primary caregivers in their lives, which form a personality that is either secure and attached or insecure and unattached.

Securely attached children typically behave better in school (Blair et al., 2008). Once students are in school, the dual factors of socialization and social status contribute significantly to behavior. The school socialization process typically pressures students to be like their peers or risk social rejection, whereas the quest for high social status drives students to attempt to differentiate themselves in some areas—sports, personal style, sense of humor, or street skills, for example.

Socio-economic status forms a huge part of this equation. Children raised in poverty rarely choose to behave differently, but they are faced daily with overwhelming challenges that affluent children never have to confront, and their brains have adapted to suboptimal conditions in ways that undermine good school performance. (the word EACH is a handy mnemonic):

  • Emotional and Social Challenges.
  • Acute and Chronic Stressors.
  • Cognitive Lags.
  • Health and Safety Issues.

Combined, these factors present an extraordinary challenge to academic and social success, and eventual financial success. Feel free to download my e-book called “Discover Your Wealth Blueprint” which looks at the psychology of wealth creation.

Image

http://drsundardas.wix.com/wealthbp

Slow Death by your sofa (Part 1)

      No Comments on Slow Death by your sofa (Part 1)

When many people think about toxic pollution, they think about smog, polluted rivers, or landfills. But today, the worst toxins aren’t found “out there” in toxic waste dumps and polluted rivers… Today the worst toxins are found right here in our own homes, in the ordinary objects we use every day — like sofas, skillets, shower curtains and even rubber ducks!

That’s because we are all soaking in a toxic marinade of chemicals. Every day a  whopping 42 billion pounds of chemicals are manufactured or brought into the U.S. That’s enough toxins to fill 623,000 tanker trucks in a line that could straddle the globe three times. And every day more and more of these chemicals slowly seep into our bodies.

Scientists have been studying the health effects of toxins for years. But until now, no one had ever studied the cumulative effects of the thousands of low-level toxins we come into contact every day.

So two scientists and entrepreneurs decided to turn themselves into Guinea pigs. First, they took samples of their blood and sent them to a lab to be tested for toxins.

Then they shut themselves up in a condo for two days surrounded by everyday things. Everyday things that are manufactured in our modern world with modern day chemicals that are supposedly safe for us… Things like couches, carpets, shower curtains, skillets, and shampoo.

These scientists-turned-Guinea-pigs didn’t do anything extreme. They didn’t eat massive amounts of mercury-loaded fish. They didn’t inhale bottles of perfume. They lived an ordinary life for two days in a modern condo surrounded by the everyday things we all use.

Then at the end of the two days, the two men again sent their blood samples to the lab to be tested for chemical toxins in their blood. And what they found scared the living daylights out of  them.

In just two days surrounded by these ordinary everyday objects, one of the men increased his urine levels of monoethyl phthalate (MEP) 22 times, his levels of bisphenol A 7.5 times and his levels of triclosan a mind-blowing 2,900 times.

In fact, he was so disturbed by the test results that he put the clothes he had worn for the two days into a plastic bag and took them home and washed them over and over again. Until his wife asked him what the heck he was doing. He cringed when he realized how absurd it was to think he could wash away the contamination in his body by washing his clothes!

Be well

Dr Sunardas D. Annamalay

Fetal damage from VDU’s.

      No Comments on Fetal damage from VDU’s.

 

1. In 1979, four out of seven pregnant VDU operates who had worked on the classified advertising department of the Toronto Star gave birth to infants with defects.  One had a club foot, another a deft palate, a third an underdeveloped eye and the fourth had multiple heart abnormalities. None of the mothers had smoked or taken  drugs during the pregnancies.During that period, three other employees at the Star who didn’t work on VDU’s gave birth to normal babies.

2.  Due to excessive fetal retardation and birth defects among the off-spring of women and animals exposed to radioactive fields in Eastern Europe, pregnant women in  Czechoslovakia have been specifically prohibited from  working in areas where the “safe” level of micro-waves  was exceeded. The Czech standard is one-thousandth the recommended American guideline.

The following items also possess a significant electromagnetic field; television, electric razors, electric  blankets, electric-power transmission and distribution  networks, fluorescent lights, electric clocks, hair dryers  and electric heaters, microwave ovens, personal radio  transmitters not to mention handphones. Research done by Dr. Robert O. Becker M.D.  appears to indicate that all of the above appliances at times  have radiation levels that sometimes exceed current safety  levels of radiation.

The rise of phenomena such as electromagnetic – hypersensitivity syndrome has been verified by several  scientists, like Robert Becker M.D. and Dr. William Rae. It  refers to the phenomena whereby an individual develops an  allergy due to electro-magnetic fields. Chronic-fatigue syndrome has also been linked to electro-magnetic fields.

Dr. Hans-Anne Hanson of the Institute of Newsbiology at the University of Goteborg, Sweden began experimenting a newborn experimental animals. Brief exposure to microwaves, resulted in damage to nerve-cell structures that became visible, as a latent effect, only two to four months  following the exposure.  The nerve cell damage was visible in the brain, retina, optic nerve and cerebellum. It is interesting to note that clinical studies done by Dr. E.  Courchesne of the Neuropsychology Research Laboratory at Children’s Hospital Research Center, San Diego, report finding a specific pathological lesion in the cerebellum in fourteen of the eighteen autistic children be examined.

Years ago, I had the interesting experience of working with mum to be who was a newscaster. She mentioned that all her female colleagues who worked with her had had babies with congenital birth defects. She wanted a diet and nutrition programs that her baby would be normal. She came in about six months before her intended time to get pregnant, so I put her on a tailored program of diet and supplements to support system. Her baby when she delivered was normal.

A brain surgeon in Singapore recently commented that he noticed a higher incidence on brain tumours in young children. Would anybody wonder if this was related  to radiation hazards perhaps?

 

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

 

 

 

 

Are you microwaving your brain?

      No Comments on Are you microwaving your brain?

The most basic fact about cell phones and cell towers is that they emit microwave radiation; so do Wi-Fi (wireless Internet) antennas, wireless computers, cordless (portable) phones and their base units, and all other wireless devices. If it’s a communication device and it’s not attached to the wall by a wire, it’s emitting radiation.

Most Wi-Fi systems and some cordless phones operate at the exact same frequency as a microwave oven, while other devices use a different frequency. Wi-Fi is always on and always radiating. The base units of most cordless phones are always radiating, even when no one is using the phone. A cell phone that is on but not in use is also radiating. And, needless to say, cell towers are always radiating.

Why is this a problem, you might ask? Scientists usually divide the electromagnetic spectrum into “ionizing” and “non-ionizing.” Ionizing radiation, which includes x-rays and atomic radiation, causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation, which includes microwave radiation, is supposed to be safe. This distinction always reminded me of the propaganda in George Orwell’s Animal Farm: “Four legs good, two legs bad.” “Non-ionizing good, ionizing bad” is as little to be trusted.
An astronomer once quipped that if Neil Armstrong had taken a cell phone to the Moon in 1969, it would have appeared to be the third most powerful source of microwave radiation in the universe, next only to the Sun and the Milky Way. He was right. Life evolved with negligible levels of microwave radiation.

** An increasing number of scientists speculate that our body’s own cells, in fact, use the microwave spectrum to communicate with one another, like children whispering in the dark, and that cell phones, like jackhammers, interfere with their signaling.

** In any case, it is a fact that we are all being bombarded, day in and day out, whether we use a cell phone or not, by an amount of microwave radiation that is some ten million times as strong as the average natural background. And it is also a fact that most of this radiation is due to technology that has been developed since the 1970s.

As far as cell phones themselves are concerned, if you put one up to your head you are damaging your brain in a number of different ways. First, think of a microwave oven. A cell phone, like a microwave oven and unlike a hot shower, heats you from the inside out, not from the outside in. And there are no sensory nerve endings in the brain to warn you of a rise in temperature because we did not evolve with microwave radiation, and this never happens in nature.

Worse, the structure of the head and brain is so complex and non-uniform that “hot spots” are produced, where heating can be tens or hundreds of times what it is nearby. Hot spots can occur both close to the surface of the skull and deep within the brain, and also on a molecular level.

Cell phones are regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, and you can find, in the packaging of most new phones, a number called the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, which is supposed to indicate the rate at which energy is absorbed by the brain from that particular model. One problem, however, is the arbitrary assumption, upon which the FCC’s regulations are based, that the brain can safely dissipate added heat at a rate of up to 1 degree C per hour.

Compounding this is the scandalous procedure used to demonstrate compliance with these limits and give each cell phone its SAR rating. The standard way to measure SAR is on a “phantom” consisting, incredibly, of a homogenous fluid encased in Plexiglas in the shape of a head. Presto, no hot spots! But in reality, people who use cell phones for hours per day are chronically heating places in their brain. The FCC’s safety standard, by the way, was developed by electrical engineers, not doctors.

Be well

Dr Sundardas

If you want to be learn more please click the following link.

https://www.facebook.com/againstradiation

Electromagnetic toxicity and illness (Part 1)

      No Comments on Electromagnetic toxicity and illness (Part 1)

As the computer visual display (VDU) unit became more common in the workplace, the issue of radiation hazards associated with the prolonged use of VDU’s were tested by reputable laboratories and found to emit no detectable levels of X-  rays. A similar study by Canadian Radiation Protection. Bureau researchers arrived at the same conclusion. World  Health Organisation (WHO) experts endorsed similar findings. Given such reassurances, the temptation has been to  conclude that VDU’s are harmless. However, deeper more haunting statistics suggest that health problems from VDU’s could arise from electromagnetic radiation.

The early research did not consider all the relevant data. Since 1979 small clusters of miscarriage and birth defects among VDU users in a dozen or more office locations have been reported. Due to the low level of X-ray radiation around VDU’s, authorities often dismissed the increased incidence of these abnormalities as chance occurrences, while  others argued alternately that the reported defects could be  hereditary.

In 1982 Delagado and others reported powerful inhibitory effects on chicken embryos produced by weak 100 H2 {28}  electromagnetic fields. The following year Ubeda and others also observed ‘teratogenic” changes or monstrous mutations to chicken embryos exposed to low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields of 100Hz. The most deterious effects  were observed with a weak magnetic field strengths of about 1  micro Tesla, with stronger and weaker fields less effective.   Since the original work of Delgado and co-workers, several more recent studies have confirmed that weak  electromagnetic fields are capable of interacting with  biological systems of specific frequencies and intensities. Since magnetic field strength pulses of up to 400,000 microtesla have been reported with VDU’s it follows that weak  magnetic pulses will exist even at a considerable distance  from the units.

With approximately half the workforce using VDU’s being women of childbearing age, the health implications are enormous.  McDonald and co-workers who studied births in the Montreal area in 1984, reported, that the rate of spontaneous  abortion in 2609 current pregnancies with no VDU use was 5.7%  compared to 8.3% for 588 with weekly exposure of less than 15  hours and 9.4% for 710 pregnancies with VDU use greater than 15 hours per week.

In 1988 Goldhaber and co-workers found in a case control study of pregnancy outcome that there exists:  “Significantly elevated risk of miscarriage for working women who using VDU’s for more than 20 hours per week during the first trimester of pregnancy compared to other working who reported not using VDUs”. The increased risk could not be explained by age, education, occupation, smoking, alcohol consumption on other maternal characteristics.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

 

Are we drinking a liquid pharmacy?

      No Comments on Are we drinking a liquid pharmacy?

Like all animals, we have a natural instinct to drink water. It’s a basic drive to survive. For most of our history on this planet, we naturally looked at our drinking water as a source of life and had no reason to fear it.

Today we live in a different world. The Environmental Working Group reports  316 contaminants in U.S. tap water. For the first time in human history, we need to stop and think before we drink.

That’s not a natural thing for us to do but it’s a discipline we need to learn. In the modern world, our instinct to drink water might just get us into trouble.

You see, many of the chemicals in our water are over-the-counter and prescription medications. That’s right. Drink from the tap at home and you could be taking drugs without even knowing it.

A 2008 investigative study from the Associated Press found 56 different drugs in Philadelphia’s water supply. They detected antibiotics, cholesterol drugs, and blood pressure medications, as well as psychiatric drugs for depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, epilepsy, and schizophrenia. They also found lots of veterinary medicines.

It’s not just Philly. The AP found over 100 different types of drugs and human hormones in the water supplies of 23 other municipalities affecting 46 million people.

How do all these drugs get into our water supply?

Every year:

  • Drug companies and healthcare facilities dump tons of drugs into the water supply, landfills and down the drain.
  • Consumers flush unused or expired prescriptions down the toilet.
  • Animals and people excrete medications into sewer systems and surface waters.

Once in the system, pharmaceuticals pretty much stay there. Most municipal treatment plants are designed to remove bacteria and pathogens… not drugs. The pharmaceuticals go right back into our drinking water supply.

Amounts found so far have been small. The study measured concentrations way below any medical dose. But what happens when you take a low level of 50 drugs over decades? No one knows. Just last month a study in the journal Science, found low levels of oxazepam, a psychiatric drug for anxiety, insomnia and alcohol withdrawal, changed the way wild fish fed and how they socialized.

Another fish study suggested that low levels of psychoactive drugs found in drinking water could potentially trigger an autism gene.

It’s hard to believe but the US federal government has never set safety limits for pharmaceuticals in our water supply. Most municipal water systems don’t even test for drugs.

And you can’t rely on bottled water since 40% of it comes straight from the tap with a fancy label slapped on.

The best way to protect yourself from other people’s medicine is through a home filtration system. There are two types that most experts recommend.

Reverse Osmosis Systems. These are generally considered the most effective way to filter out just about everything in your water, including arsenic and pharmaceuticals. The drawback is the steep price of the systems which usually require professional installation and frequent filter changes. If you can afford it, this is the way to go.

Carbon Systems. Most home filtration systems use more cost-effective carbon filters. And here’s the good news… Brita claims internal test results show that its pitcher filters can remove 96.7% of pharmaceutical compounds found in tap water.

PUR brand filters claim to filter out 99% of pharmaceuticals, including painkillers, antibiotics, hormones, steroids, antidepressants, and anti-anxiety medications.

You can choose something as simple as a filtration pitcher for your refrigerator, a faucet mounted model, or even a whole house filter system. And you might want to consider a shower-head filter because taking a 10 minute hot shower is like drinking a gallon of water. Even if you never swallow a drop.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

The Fluoride Myth (Part 3)

      No Comments on The Fluoride Myth (Part 3)

The year before water fluoridation began in the United States, the entire dental profession recognized that fluoride was detrimental to dental health. In fact, in 1944 the Journal of the American Dental Association reported that using between 1.6 and 4 ppm (parts per million) fluoride in water would cause 50% of adults to need false teeth. On top of that, the world’s largest study looked at 400,000 students, revealing that tooth decay increased in over 25% with just 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water

Yet still, in 1945, fluoride was put into municipal water systems in Newburgh, New York, and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Over the next 50 years, more than 60 percent of the U.S. population was “fluoridated” at a minimum of 1 ppm. Currently, over 75% of the United States water supply contains this deadly toxin.

One part of the hoax, “fluoride helps with tooth formation,” was removed from the “American Fluoride Campaign” early on. Realizing this might expose the entire campaign as fraudulent, the FDA and CDC simply removed that language, but kept the masses believing that fluoride keeps dental cavities at bay.

Over 70% of America still clings to the multi-faceted myth;

Research proves that fluoride is an extremely neurotoxic chemical which interrupts basic functions of nerve cells in the brain and can lead to Alzheimer’s, atherosclerosis (hardening of the arteries), infertility, birth defects, diabetes, cancer and lowered IQ. The aluminum “tricks” the blood-brain barrier and allows chemical access to brain tissue.

Think fluoride is used by the rest of the world? France, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Finland, India and Great Britain have all rejected its use after special commissions and health secretaries reviewed the negative evidence.

Think fluoride cleanses the water? Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in military nerve gas. Sodium fluoride is a hazardous waste by-product from the manufacture of aluminum and fertilizer, and it is a common ingredient in roach and rat poisons.

Think fluoride fights cavities and strengthens bones? Dental fluorosis is often caused by over-exposure to fluoride when the dental enamel is mineralizing during childhood. Fluoride is unique in its ability among acids to penetrate tissue, causing soft tissue damage and bone erosion as it leaches calcium and magnesium from the body.

Think fluoride evaporates from water? Fluoride does not evaporate from water left sitting out. Also,boiling or freezing won’t help at all, and basic filters like Brita do not remove it. Reverse osmosis does remove it, and natural spring water does not contain it.

Because the ADA maintains a stranglehold on the dental profession, no dentists are ever openly critical of fluoride. The ADA can influence State Dental Boards which can take away a dentist’s license, so you won’t hear anything negative about it from your dentist. Most brands of toothpaste contain at least 1,000 ppm fluoride, so if a child were to eat an entire tube, he/she would die.

Fluoride has never received FDA approval and does not meet “requirements of safety and effectiveness.” The FDA states that fluoride is a prescription drug. Because this “drug” is put in municipal water, there is absolutely no control over individual dosage.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay

How Fluoride was transformed from a toxic waste to a “National Saviour” (Part 2)

      No Comments on How Fluoride was transformed from a toxic waste to a “National Saviour” (Part 2)

Dr. Frederick S. McKay was born in 1874 in Lawrence, Massachusetts. He was a 1900 graduate of the Dental School University of Pennsylvania and came to Colorado Springs in 1901. Partially because he had the inquisitiveness of a recent graduate and partially because he was not a native of Colorado Springs, Dr. McKay was intrigued by the number of patients whose teeth were stained with white or brown spots; and in severe cases, the enamel was pitted.

 Image

Following years of observation and study, McKay determined that it was high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the drinking water that was causing the mottled enamel. McKay’s deductions were researched by Dr. H. Trendley Dean, a dental officer of the U.S. Public Health Service.  Dean designed the first fluoride studies in the United States. These early studies were aimed at evaluating how high the fluoride levels in water could be before visible, severe dental fluorosis occurred.

Now Dean remembered McKay’s claims that fluorosis victims mottled, discolored teeth were especially resistant to decay. He came up with the notion that fluoride added to the water supply at the magic threshold dosage of 1 ppm would prevent tooth decay, while avoiding damage  to bones and teeth. He recommended further studies to determine whether his hypothesis  was  true.

Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s Pittsburgh industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. There, biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: “The case should be regarded as proved.”

In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims and burdened by the odious expense of disposing tons of toxic industrial waste (fluoride).

Cox began touring the country, stumping for fluoridation. Dean would go on to carve out a nice career for himself as the “father” of public water fluoridation. He became the first dental scientist at the National Institute of Health, advancing to director of the dental research section in 1945.

Be well

Dr Sundardas D. Annamalay