Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Toxic dumping
- Clare Dimmer (7 October 2000)
-
Is Government trying to justify mass medication - contray to Human Rights - with this study?
- John P Heptonstall (10 October 2000)
-
alternatives to fluoride
- Wendy McLean (11 October 2000)
-
The York review
- Paul Connett (11 October 2000)
-
York Study studied
- Don Caron (12 October 2000)
-
Fluoridation: the Politics
- Jane Jones (12 October 2000)
-
Does it help those who brush?
- Roger Schlafly (13 October 2000)
-
Re: The York review
- Michael Innis (13 October 2000)
-
Re: Does it help those who brush?
- Jane Jones (14 October 2000)
-
Fluoride
- Sheila L M Gibson (7 November 2000)
-
Remember there are snakes in earthly paradise
- Piero Stratta (21 November 2000)
-
Bottled water for Aussie hospitals-March 16 2005
- Phillip J. Colquitt (16 March 2005)
|
|
|||
|
Clare Dimmer, Secretary, Breast UK Freeleance
Send response to journal:
|
Why is it considered medically ethical to put fluoride in the public drinking water when companies who produce it have to pay to get rid of it as a toxic by-product unless, of course, they are lucky enough to be able to sell it to a Water Company for compulsory medication of the public. If people want fluoride they can get it from their toothpaste. America bans fluoridated toothpaste for use by the under 5's due to its high toxicity and yet this is the age group this country appears to be targetting. Exactly who benefits from this strange paradox apart from the corporations who can profit from a toxic by-product and the nations dentists when children need their fluorosis covered up? |
|||
|
|
|||
|
John P Heptonstall, Director of The Morley Acupuncture Clinic and Complementary Therapy Centre West Yorkshire
Send response to journal:
|
Editor This week has seen a rash of media reports, and debates, about 'impending fluoridation of water supplies' that are based on the results of 'the new York study'. Unless there is a study I've missed, from New York, which actually serves the proposal to 'mass medicate with fluoride' I fail to see how this York study would in any way support such a proposal. At best it provides sound reasoning why governments should quickly set up a team of properly qualified and experienced researchers capable of achieving a scientific consensus on 1. If fluoridation does reduce dental problems and 2, If it is safe and cannot cause short or long terms health problems in the 'mass medicated'. by using the most appropriate tools such as prospective and retrospective studies of UK areas already 'medicating' through water supplies against those 'without such medication'. A check on dental caries, ongoing and past health and development of particular age groups ought to bring sound information through well-designed studies set to achieve consensus over say 10 years. Only then can a government or health body report accurately on this situation, what the British Dental Association are currently saying mystifies me when scientific support for their stance just does not exist. At the moment areas are being 'medicated with fluoride' under the misapprehension that some dental benefit is being derived when clearly the York study shows there can be no sound conclusion reached either way. Fluoridation should be ceased immediately until it can be shown to be useful, and safe. Basic human rights would argue against 'mass medication' of any kind; but to medicate without strong evidence or sound reason is a crime against humanity; the York study satistifactorily shows there can be no clear evidence for fluoridation at this point in time. To use the authors' admission "What is already known on this topic" it becomes clear:- 1. 'Artificial water fluridation has been used as a community intervention to reduce the prevalence of dental caries for decades in some communities, but its use remains controversial' - the political power behind this 'mass medication' should now be brought to book by the International Court of Law (currently chasing Molosovic I believe) for medicating without scientific or any other sound reason, hence without legal justification. 2. 'A systematic review of water fluoridation reveals that the quality of evidence is low' 3. 'Overall, reductions in the incidence of caries were found but they were smaller than previously reported. Interestingly the team highlighted the fact that 'number needed to treat' is 6 to benefit one person's caries; ironically they also found that for every 6 treated, one develops serious fluorosis and another 25% 'aesthetic concerns of fluorosis' - could it be the same person whose caries benefit from fluoride who develops serious fluorosis?! A kind of tit for tat. 4. 'The prevalence of fluorosis is highly associated with the concentration of fluoride in drinking water' 5. 'An association of water fluoride with other adverse effects was not found'....... or as we say in the trade It's The Way You Tell 'Em!! ........what is meant here is that the team's study of potential adverse effects of fluoridation on health in terms of cancer, Alzheimers, senile dementia, Down's Syndrome, goitre, IQ, bone fractures was no use either way - or to use the team's words "We could not formally pool results". Kind regards John H. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Wendy McLean, retired
Send response to journal:
|
One of the objectives of this study was said to be a comparison of water fluoridation and other strategies. Sadly this this was simply a comparison of water fluoridation with fluoride from other sources. There are other methods of preventing dental decay and they are more effective than flouride, although probably more expensive. Kowash et al have shown(1) that a long term health education programme for mothers with young children improved not only the dental health of the children but that of the mothers. Xylitol, a natural substance extracted commercially from birch bark, has been shown to give a 93% long-term caries risk reduction when children chew gum containing it for at least a year before the permanent teeth erupt (2). If mothers chew gum containing xylitol they can prevent, or at least delay, the transmission to their children of the bacteria that cause decay (3). Opponents of water fluoridation have argued that flouride simply delays the eruption of teeth and postpones decay. If this is true - and the authors of the York review found only one study that properly investigated this - even the uncertain benefits found in the review may prove to be illusory. They are certainly smaller than the benefits of using xylitol. 1. Effectiveness on oral health of a long-term health education programme for mothers with young children MB Kowash et al British Dental Journal 188(4) Feb26 2000 2. The optimum time to initiate habitual xylitol gum chewing for obtaining long-term caries prevention Hujoel et al J Dent Res 1999 Mar 78(3) 797-803 3. Influence of maternal xylitol consumption on acquisition of mutans streptococci by infants Soderling et al J Dent Res 2000 Mar 79(3) 882-7 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry St. Lawrence University,
Send response to journal:
|
Dear Editor, As an invited peer reviewer of the York Review of fluoridation, please permit me to add a few concerns about this report and the spin it has been given in the press. While a number of people have correctly pointed out that this York Review deals a very serious blow to water fluoridation based upon the findings of a much lower benefit for caries reduction than claimed by promoters, and a much higher level of dental fluorosis than is acceptable, I am very disturbed that the authors are not making it clear that dental fluorosis is in fact an indication of a toxic effect of fluoride, in a similar fashion that the blue line on teeth was an early indicator of lead poisoning. The fact that neither tooth mottling nor the blue line causes any obvious pain is beside the point. Tooth mottling indicates that fluoride has poisoned the enzyme involved in removing protein from between the mineral prisms prior to enamel formation (DenBesten, 1999). It raises - or should raise -the obvious question of what other enzymes might have been poisoned by fluoride which have no visible effects. British researcher Jennifer Luke (1998) may have answered this question in her Ph.D thesis. It would appear that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland and experiments in animals indicate that fluoride lowers melatonin levels. Unfortunately, the York reviewers didn't consider Luke's work, nor others' work on the thyroid gland or many animal experiments conducted over the last 10 years which wave very large red flags of concern about fluoride's potential health effects. I have reviewed many of these concerns elsewhere (see http://www.fluoridealert.org). Turning to an issue that the York team did examine, the authors claim that there is no evidence of a relationship between increased hip fracture in the elderly and exposure to fluoride in drinking water. I feel that properly interpreted the current literature provides considerable evidence of such harm. Paul Wilson of the York team is quoted in an Associated Press report (Oct 5, 2000) as saying that "the studies he examined tracked the effects of up to 4 mg per liter in drinking water". This is not accurate. In their review of hip fracture the York team included an unpublished study by Li et al (1999) which they indicated showed no association between fluoride and hip fracture. The York team was only able to draw this conclusion because they limited their comparison to hip fractures in the village with low fluoride levels with the hip fractures at 1 ppm (i.e. 1 mg per liter). When I reviewed this study, as part of my invited review, I found Li et al examined the hip fracture rates in six Chinese villages with different water fluoride concentrations: 0.25 - 0.34 ppm; 0.58 - 0.73 ppm; 1.00 - 1.06 ppm; 1.45 - 2.19 ppm; 2.62 - 3.56 ppm, and 4.32 - 7.97 ppm. The authors chose the village with 1 - 1.06 ppm fluoride for their baseline for comparison. Their reported odds ratios for hip fracture were 0.99; 1.12; 1.00 (control); 2.13; 1.75 and 3.26. In other words they found an approximate doubling of the hip fracture rate for fluoridation levels over 1.5 ppm and tripling for water levels over 4 ppm. In my view, the York team did a disservice by confining themselves to hip fractures in villages with fluoride concentrations at 1 ppm or below. Paul Wilson compounds this disservice by claiming that they actually considered studies which looked at effects up to 4 ppm (4 mg per liter), when in this critical case they clearly did not. Paul Wilson further distorts the scientific record when he claims in the same AP report that, the fear of osteoporosis has never been based on strong evidence. In actual fact, since 1990 there have been 18 studies (4 unpublished, including one abstract) which have examined a possible association with hip fracture in the elderly and fluoride in the drinking water. 10 of these found a positive association (increased hip fracture rates) and 8 did not. Moreover, these studies were prompted by the fact that when fluoride (50 - 80 mg per day) was used to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture, it was found that the treatment increased not decreased hip fracture rates (Hedlund and Gallagher, 1989 and Riggs et al, 1990). The fact that 50% of all the fluoride that we swallow accumulates in our bones should give us pause. Increased hip fracture in the elderly is not a minor problem. One in four of those suffering a hip fracture in the U.S.are dead within a year of their treatment and one in two never regain an independent existence. It is unfortunate that the York team has managed to convey the message that there is "no evidence of harm" when in actual fact there is "mixed evidence of harm". A critical difference. They also beg the question of how one should resolve mixed epidemiological findings when one is giving advice to a government which is considering putting a toxic substance into the drinking water of every man, woman and child in the population. The precautionary principle says "If in doubt, leave it out". As far as hip fractures are concerned, the York Team says, based upon meta-analysis of a mixed bag of poor studies, we find no evidence of harm. Not very reassuring and not very helpful when they themselves avoided the key piece of dose-reponse evidence presented by Li and co-workers. Dr. Paul Connett,
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Don Caron
Send response to journal:
|
Editors. Last week news of the “York Study” came out of Great Britain intended to reassure us that water fluoridation was perfectly safe. I guess the York Study wasn’t actually a study as studies go, because this study didn’t study animals or people, it simply studied studies. Although this was touted to be the study to end all studies, almost immediately both the Green Party and the Fluoride Action Network published their studies of the York Study. These were then studies of the study that studied the studies. The studies of the study that studied the studies pointed out that this study that had studied the studies had left some 3000 studies unstudied, and they called for a study of studies that would study all studies and therefore not necessitate a study of the study of the studies as this study had done. They were quick to stress that funding for studies is difficult to obtain and that while studies that study studies are not so unusual, almost no one will give grants to do a study of studies that study studies. It would be even more difficult to obtain funding to study the studies not studied by a study which studied the studies such that people studying the issue won't know which studies have been studied and which studies were excluded in the studies that studied the studies. Study, schmuddy just don’t put it in my water. Don Caron
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jane Jones, Campaign Director National Pure Water Association Ltd
Send response to journal:
|
In 1983, when Lord Jauncey ruled that fluoridation was unlawful (Mrs C. McColl v. Strathclyde Regional Council)at the Edinburgh Court of Session, after the longest running case in the history of Scotland, (201 days), that should have been the end of the matter.
At that time, the West Midlands and North East had been artificially fluoridated for almost 20 years. Although the Jauncey verdict held no sway in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the implications were clear: Westminster could be in breach of the law for illegally mass-medicating millions of people for almost twenty years, whether individuals agreed or not . . . to achieve a claimed reduction in tooth decay! What happened next can best be described as "bizarre". The Tory Government moved to legalise fluoridation. In a supposedly free vote in the House of Commons, the final ballot figures on the Water (Fluoridation) Bill, 1985 were: For F - 165; Against F - 82; Abstained - 399, excluding the four Tellers. Even known anti-fluoridation MPs either voted with the Government, or abstained, leaving observers to question whether the vote had, in fact, been free. Two thirds of the British electorate were effectively disenfranchised on that day. Kenneth Clark assured the House that this would not signal the start of any campaign to promote fluoridation. However, the Dept. of Health continued to fund the British Fluoridation Society with taxpayers' money to promote it. Over the next decade, fluoridation 'battles' raged across the north of England and in N. Ireland and the practice was robustly rejected, but this did not deter health authorities from asking the water companies to fluoridate. It was apparent that the Government was not prepared to take NO for an answer. But many water companies said NO, stating that Government indemnities to them were "insufficient" and that their customers did not want it. It is, after all, the job of a water company to provide potable drinking water. It is not the job of water companies to convey medication or treatment to its customers. In 1998, in the High Court in London, Justice Collins ruled that Northumbrian Water was perfectly entitled to refuse to fluoridate. With breathtaking arrogance, a spokesman for Newcastle and North Tyneside Health Authorities commented: "Well, we'll have to change the law." In October, 1998, the NPWA presented the (then) public health minister Tessa Jowell with 30,000 signatures, quickly gathered, calling for a full, independent public inquiry into water fluoridation. The government's response, in 1999, was to commission "a once and for all . . . unchallengeable . . . systematic review" (Frank Dobson). The White Paper on health stated that there would be a review of the effects of fluoride on HEALTH. If properly conducted, this would have examined the effects of fluoride exposure from all sources, such as from food, beverages, toothpaste, mouth rinses, drops, tablets, gels, medicines, anaesthetics, herbicides, pesticides and even from the polluted air that we breathe. It would also have examined the PRODUCT which is widely used in artificial fluoridation schemes - which contains Arsenic, Lead, Beryllium, Cadmium, Vanadium, Mercury and even Radionuclides. It would have fulfilled the recommendations of the World Health Organisation: "Dental and public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride programme for caries prevention." But what happened? We see, published in BMJ, a review whose narrow criteria excluded all animal studies, all biochemical studies, all mathematical models and all investigations of fluoride exposure except from water fluoridation! The review made no distinction between naturally-occurring Calcium fluoride and hexafluorosilicic acid, the industrial toxic waste product of the phosphate fertiliser industry. Government advisers still refuse to make any distinction between these two "fluorides" and no safety testing data exists to show that H2SiF6 is safe for human consumption. The criteria for the York review were further narrowed to exclude more than 100 studies on the adverse effects of fluoride on the thyroid gland, submitted by Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children, based in Vancouver. (There are more than 40,000 studies on the adverse effects of fluoride on health, which were not considered by the review.). Despite the structural inadequacy of the review it found that 48% - nearly half - of populations living in fluoridated areas exhibit dental fluorosis to some degree, 12.5% of which is "aesthetically concerning." The victims had no possibility of avoiding the risks that a "public health measure" had visited upon nearly half of the fluoridated population. Baroness Hayman conceded to Parliament on 20 April 1999 that "dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity." Bodily poisoning. This concurs with the published scientific evidence, but government advisers and dentists dismiss this visible evidence as "merely a cosmetic effect." Mass medication or treatment for non-contagious, non-lifethreatening conditions is a direct violation of the Convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine. Tooth decay is caused by poor nutrition and/or inadequate oral hygiene. This should be addressed as a public health education issue. There is no scientific evidence of "fluoride deficiency" but there is a vast body of published evidence of adverse health effects resulting from fluoride exposure. Even the York review found that it damages people. How much fluoride have you and your patients been exposed to today, or this week, or this month? If you do not know the answer, then what 'dose' could you possibly prescribe for your patients? And if your patients refused to take it, do you have the right to force it down them? Water fluoridation contravenes the ethics of medicine and science. We are renewing our call for a full, independent public inquiry. The medical profession should support us. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Roger Schlafly California
Send response to journal:
|
I'd like to see a study that distinguishes between those who brush their teeth with a fluoride toothpaste, and those who do not brush at all. Also, whether the benefit is systemic or topical. Such information is of practical utility to those who live in an unfluoridated area. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Innis, Director Medisets International Home
Send response to journal:
|
Editor. Dr Paul Connett points out that the Review by McDonagh et al avoided mention of the crucial dose-response evidence of the association between hip-fracture and fluoridation obtained by Li and his co-workers. Had this evidence been presented it would have been impossible for McDonagh et al to conclude that there was no clear evidence of negative effects of fluoridation other than dental fluorosis. The report of Li et al; as outlined by Dr Connett, so clearly establishes a causal association between hip-fracture and fluoridation that to deny it would be illogical. The reports of Phipps et al. and that of Professor Hausen, in the same issue of the BMJ, are also rendered transitory aberrations of Science by Li's report. Michael Innis FRCPath; FRCPA |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jane Jones, Campaign Director National Pure Water Association Ltd
Send response to journal:
|
I hope that Roger Shlafly MEANT to say that he'd like to see a study to compare results between fluoride toothpaste-brushers and non-fluoride tooth-paste brushers (rather than those who do not brush at all!). However, I'd go even further. Let's have a study on those who brush with fluoride toothpaste and those who brush with non-fluoride toothpaste - and those who brush with no toothpaste at all. Then we'll know whether the multi-billion dollar toothpaste hype is about something or nothing. I don't suppose industry would rush to fund such an experiment. There is no law which says that one must use fluoride toothpaste. Not only would it be unworkable, but it would be preposterous. Yet there is a law which allows force-treatment of whole populations via the drinking water 'to reduce the incidence of tooth decay.' Might we soon have some "expert" advocating dosing the water with aspirin to reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes? If you think that sounds mad, remember the press reports about an American psychiatric "expert" who seriously advocated adding valium to the drinking water 'to calm people downn.'! |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sheila L M Gibson
Send response to journal:
|
Sir - The long-awaited systematic review (1) indicates that the benefits and risks of water fluoridation balance each other in that a median of 6 people would need to receive fluoridated water for one to benefit while 6 people would have to be exposed to it for one additional person to develop dental fluorosis. The report also shows that in artificially fluoridated areas on average 48%, nearly half of the population, suffers from this condition. Since dental fluorosis, whether of aesthetic concern or not, is the first visible sign of poisoning by fluoride, which is as toxic as arsenic or lead, this shows that about half the population in these areas is suffering from some level of harm. This suggests that water fluoridation is an unacceptable method of reducing dental decay. The benefits, however, may be over-estimated while the risks may be grossly under-estimated. A confounding factor which was repeatedly pointed out to the review panel, but which failed to be taken into account, is that fluoride delays tooth eruption. In comparing children of similar age, this biases the results in favour of fluoride (2). The York review does point out the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride on the thyroid gland. Since fluorine displaces iodine from its compounds, this finding is not surprising. It is likely that this effect of fluoride on the thyroid is at least one of the factors, if not the major one, in causing the delay in tooth eruption. It may also be a factor in increased neonatal death rate described by Schatz in a fluoridated area of Chile (3), a paper which was submitted to the review but which seems not to have been commented on. Birmingham and the West Midlands, fluoridated since the early 1960s, have one of the highest neonatal death rates in Britain (4) and also an exceptionally high level of diabetes (5). Since the established view is that fluoridation is "perfectly safe", little research into possible adverse effects has been carried out on human populations drinking artificially fluoridated water, and correlations fail to be made between increasing prevalences of illness and water fluoridation. There is, however, a large body of experimental and animal evidence, studies which fell outwith the remit of the York review, which attest to the toxic effects of fluoride on the stomach, kidneys, pancreas, thyroid gland, brain and immune system, as well as on bones and teeth. Since animal studies are the gold standard of drug safety testing, this evidence should be considered before mass medicating any further sections of the community. If the York review shows anything, it is that there should be a moratorium on all current fluoridation schemes until clearer evidence of benefits and risks becomes available. Sheila L.M. Gibson, M.D., B.Sc, M.F.Hom. Robin G. Gibson, M.B., F.R.C.P., D.C.H., B.D.S., F.F.Hom. Glasgow G41 5PJ. References. 1.McDonagh, M.S., Whiting, P.F., Wilson, P.M. et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ 2000, 321, 855-859. 2.Gibson, S.L.M. and Gibson, R.G. Authors did not compare like with like. (Letter). BMJ, 1998, 316, 231. 3.Schatz, A. Increased death rates in Chile associated with artificial fluoridation of drinking water, with implications for other countries. J. Arts, Science and Humanities, 1976, 2, 1-17. 4.Stillbirth and neonatal death 1991-1994. Report of the National, Regional, District and Unit mortality rates. West Midlands Perinatal Audit. 5. Diabetes. Partners in Health, 1992. Chapter 2. West Midlands Regional Health Authority. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Piero Stratta
Send response to journal:
|
Editor - An excellent paper recently focused on advantages and possible negative side effects of water fluoridation 1. It recalls to our minds the fascinating story of humans and environment: they continuously look for the best milieu for their life, they think to do the safest choice, but…in the Earthly Paradise a snake might be hidden. Could you imagine an Earthly Paradise better than that of Minamata bay, facing the Shiranui Sea in Japan? Blue sea, white sand, green shrubs, burning sun , lightening stars . But… in the mid-1950, some unexplainable occurrences brought panic to Minamata: birds were strangely dropping from the sky, cats committed "suicide", people began to notice a " strange disease" enclosing numbness in limbs and lips, speech slurring, vision constriction, incontrollable shout, involuntary movements, unconsciousness. The snake had been constituted by 27 tons of mercury compounds dumped into Minamata bay from 1932 to 1968 by a company developing plastic, drugs and perfumes through the use of acetaldheyde, which is produced using mercury as a compound. Over 3000 victims have been recognized as having Minamata disease, due to a degeneration of the nervous system 2,3. A dream was crushed: good health in a pure, uncontaminated area is not allowed in the absence of safety controls. Then humans thought they have learned the lesson and pointed to construct safer and safer buildings, as a modern Earthly Paradise with any comforts and far from environmental risks. But….in the mid 1970, some unexplainable occurrences brought concern : somatic and psychological symptoms of people living in recently built houses, enclosing arthralgia, eye/ throat irritation, cough, rash, pruritus, enhanced/ abnormal odor perception, visual disturbances, mild to sever headache, nausea, vomiting, restlessness and sleeplessness. Some volatile component of the building material or some biological contaminant ( endotoxin, mycotoxin, trace elements?) might be causing this unique systemic syndrome, the so-called sick building syndrome 4,5. Another dream is crushed: good health in an artificial, sophisticated structure is not allowed also in the presence of the better available safety controls, or perhaps, by the presence of modern devices such as humidifiers and ventilation system. Nature is less perfect and more vulnerable than we used to surmise: for humans living on the earth crust, each Earthly Paradise has its snake. Is there any chance of winning for human people against environment? Nothing is due, neither the assumption that water fluoridation is just useful without any side effect…. Piero Stratta, Alessandra Messuerotti and Caterina Canavese
Piero Stratta
References 1) Mc Donagh MS,Whitny PF, Wilson PM,Sutton AJ,Chestnutt J, Cooper J,Misso K,Bradley M,Treasure E, Klejnen J. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ 2000: 7265:855-859 ( 7 October) 2) Minamata Disaster http://gurukul.ucc.american.edu/ted/MINAMATA.HTM 3) Minamata, and then…. http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/Mercury/Culture/Events/minamata.html 4) Bourbeau J, Brisson C, Allaire S. Prevalence of the sick building syndrome symptoms in office workers before and after being exposed to a building with an improved ventilation system. Occ Envir Med 1996; 53: 204- 210 5) Redlich CA, Sparer J, Cullen MR. Sick building syndrome. Lancet 1997;349:1013-1016 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Phillip J. Colquitt, RN Independent Comment
Send response to journal:
|
Sometime in the last two weeks, bottled water replaced the tap water supplied to patients in my local public hospital - one of several large hospitals in the Brisbane metropolitan area. Brisbane tap water isn't flouridated, but still tastes of chemical treatment with chlorine. Patients have often complained of the taste of the tap water. bottled water should be an improvement, but it will be interesting to see if there are any cases of mild dehydration resulting from the more complicated process of obtaining water - eg. you simply can't get it from the tap in the room. Competing interests: None declared |
|||