AARP Members Enjoy Exclusive Discounts on Travel, Dining and More. Join Today

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 58
Registered: ‎01-26-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[ Edited ]
Message 21 of 59 (6,879 Views)

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Oz!"  - Professor in the Wizard of Oz

 

Pew, in association with the CDC and various dental health coalitions, has taken the lead in the creation of a series of "effective messaging" trainings which are based in psychological manipulation of public opinion rather than science. 

 

  1. Poisoning Minds: The Pew training includes advice on 'inoculating' key community stakeholders with pro-F literature and warnings about fluoridation opponents.

  2. Sales Literature: Pew provides 'media packets' aimed at editors and reporters, essentially writing articles and editorials for them, i.e. creating infomercials to sell a product. These materials emphasize authoritative endorsements and dismissively ignores contrary evidence. 

  3. Astroturfing: Pew also provide sample letters to the editor and sample comments for local fluoridationists to copy and paste. Dentists, dental hygienists, dental students and members of local Boards of Health have been their traditional shills. However, they are expanding into high school youth groups with 'mentoring' programs. 

  4. Bullying: Pew emphasizes inserting "outrage and anger" into local conversations. That particular intimidation technique scares some locals away from commenting on line or otherwise speaking out about their opposition to fluoridation, while tainting the science for for those who might be receptive to objectively looking at the facts. To underscore their promotional intitiative, members of the Pew sponsored "Rapid Response Team" comment on every local article and letter published in the English speaking world. Perhaps ten to twelve folks, the RRT team is primarily made up of older dentists and members of the ironically named "skeptics" group, and of course a few irregular "intranet trolls" who simply enjoy being abusive. 

Pew and CDHP Fluoridation Advocacy Reporthttps://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf 

 

AARP - Speak up! 

Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 58
Registered: ‎01-26-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[ Edited ]
Message 22 of 59 (6,662 Views)

“A good scientist spends his whole career questioning his own facts. One of the most dangerous things you can do is believe.” - Nigel Noriega, Environmental Scientist and Endocrine Biologist (2011)

 
There is no argument that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, nor that it causes inflammations and has an impact on the immune system. Fluoridationists argue that water concentrations are too low to trigger those effects, despite the visible evidence of dental fluorosis in approximately half of today's children, many of whom also drink filtered and bottled water which reduces their dosage. 
 
  1. - This summer, yet another study confirms fluoride inflames the immune system and AT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN ARTICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER! 
    Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. I. Gutowskaa, I. et al. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661–1668. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605 

  2. - Another study proves for the first time that the central nervous system, spinal column and brain, has an immune system susceptible to inflammation. This likely explains why those with autoimmune diseases also complain about neurological symptoms. 

    Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Louveau A. et al. Nature. 2015 Jul   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524 

     
 
Regardless of what anyone believed the science proved in 1949, leadership should be making decisions based on MODERN SCIENCE
 
AARP, the ADA and CDC are in too deep to do an about face. Be a LEADER.... speak up
 
Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 58
Registered: ‎01-26-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 23 of 59 (6,609 Views)

"....infants fed formula made with fluoridated water suffer higher rates of dental fluorosis."

- Dr. Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry and founder of the Fluoride Action Network (see post on infant exposure

 

NysCof posted a link in a comment above to a blog post that describes how the f-lobby got the mandatory California fluoridation on the books, then bragged about their secretive tactics to avoid public input and debate. In that post, it mentions a CA team led by Howard Pollick team that studied 2,520 California preschool children. A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.They report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

 

Pollick also reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that "infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth." That is consistent with many studies that show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.

 

Yet, Pollick remains committed to fluoridation, even when his own dental research proves it has no benefit, and causes permanent harm to infants and young children. Pollick assidiously avoids exploring any of the neurological, thyroid, or kidney damage science attached to childhood exposure. Pollick is also committed to back room dealings of questionable ethics, both on a state and national level. See following extracted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) email communications released this year. 

CDC Clearance Chain: 2010 email collaboration between Steven Levy and Gary Whitford of IFS, Jay Kumar of NY DPH and ADA staff with CDC regarding wording of a 2011 ADA report on infant formula  supposedly based on IFS data revealed a less than scientific approach to decision making. The collusion softened the language and obfuscated findings so as to remain supportive of  CDC fluoridation policy. A concern voiced in the email trail was not to provide “fodder to antifluoridationists.” This biased “wordsmithing” by individual authors and ADA with CDC input calls into question the scientific integrity of dental researchers, IFS project and ADA.  The peer review of the report by JADA found the report to be too confusing. The JADA editor suggested that the authors focus on major findings, include less data, and articulate clearer conclusions, which ironically was what the group was trying so hard not to do.  

 

I particularly like the comment by Howard Pollick of the University of California, San Francisco on June 4, “We should say something about why we are recommending fluoridated water, even though there has been no or little research on the benefits of fluoridated water in infant formula in the prevention of dental caries.” This led to discussion about the inclusion of endorsements of fluoridation to justify recommendations not supported by data, a puzzling action for a panel claiming to promote an “evidence-based approach” to care for national implementation. Including any of those endorsements, like the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), provides the textbook example of circular logic. The AAP based their endorsement on PHS/CDC endorsements of dietary fluoride from the discredited 1940s and 1950s trials…. trials that IFS was trying, unsuccessfully, to substantiate. 

 

Also in this email trail, Krishna Aravamudhan, the Asst Director of Evidence-Based Dentistry, on 2/22/2010 suggested it might be better to phrase the report so as to let the reader wonder if there was a connection between formula and fluorosis rather than imply it, although he stated on 3/2/2010 that there was a statistically significant association between elevated fluorides and reconstituted formula. On 5/3/10, Krishna states the thorny questions of the group on a call included, ‘How can we say mostly mild dental fluorosis in the report when 3% of the fluorosis cases in the Iowa study are moderate to severe?’ It seems that Krishna was personally fine with using “mostly” as the qualifier. 

 

Another email trail in these FOIA documents concerned the ADA and CDC co-sponsoring recommendations for topical fluorides, a continuation of the ‘successful  ADA-CDC collaboration on many project over the last few years.’  Krishna Aravamudan of the ADA specifically complimented CDC staff, Dr. Barbara Gooch, Dr. Eugenio Beltran and Dr. Jennifer Cleveland of the CDC for their assistance to the ADA in their endeavors, most of which seem to be for the purpose of fluoride promotion.  Jane McGinley, ADA Manager of Fluoridation and Dr. Wm Bailey of the Chief Dental Officer of the PHS were other primary stakeholders in these collaborations. 

Baby Boomers, if you figure it's too late for you..... consider your grandchildren. 

Tell the AARP you want a Position Paper in opposition to fluoridation! 

Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 58
Registered: ‎01-26-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[ Edited ]
Message 24 of 59 (6,508 Views)

"....infants fed formula made with fluoridated water suffer higher rates of dental fluorosis."

- Dr. Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry and founder of the Fluoride Action Network (see post on infant exposure

 

NysCof posted a link in a comment above to a blog post that describes how the f-lobby got the mandatory California fluoridation on the books, then bragged about their secretive tactics to avoid public input and debate. In that post, it mentions a CA team led by Howard Pollick that studied 2,520 California preschool children. A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.They report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

 

Pollick also reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that "infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth." That is consistent with many studies that show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.

 

Yet, Pollick remains committed to fluoridation, even when his own dental research proves it has no benefit, and causes permanent harm to infants and young children. Pollick assidiously avoids exploring any of the neurological, thyroid, or kidney damage science attached to childhood exposure. Pollick is also committed to back room dealings of questionable ethics, both on a state and national level. See following extracted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) email communications released this year. 

  • CDC Clearance Chain: 2010 email collaboration between Steven Levy and Gary Whitford of IFS, Jay Kumar of NY DOH and ADA staff with CDC regarding wording of a 2011 ADA report on infant formula  supposedly based on IFS data revealed a less than scientific approach to decision making. The collusion softened the language and obfuscated findings so as to remain supportive of  CDC fluoridation policy. A concern voiced in the email trail was not to provide “fodder to antifluoridationists.” This biased “wordsmithing” by individual authors and ADA with CDC input calls into question the scientific integrity of dental researchers, IFS project and ADA.  The peer review of the report by JADA found the report to be too confusing. The JADA editor suggested that the authors focus on major findings, include less data, and articulate clearer conclusions, which ironically was what the group was trying so hard not to do.  

 

  • I particularly like the comment by Howard Pollick of the University of California, San Francisco on June 4, “We should say something about why we are recommending fluoridated water, even though there has been no or little research on the benefits of fluoridated water in infant formula in the prevention of dental caries.” This led to discussion about the inclusion of endorsements of fluoridation to justify recommendations not supported by data, a puzzling action for a panel claiming to promote an “evidence-based approach” to care for national implementation. Including any of those endorsements, like the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), provides the textbook example of circular logic. The AAP based their endorsement on PHS/CDC endorsements of dietary fluoride from the discredited 1940s and 1950s trials…. trials that IFS was trying, unsuccessfully, to substantiate. 

 

  • Also in this email trail, Krishna Aravamudhan, the Asst Director of Evidence-Based Dentistry, on 2/22/2010 suggested it might be better to phrase the report so as to let the reader wonder if there was a connection between formula and fluorosis rather than imply it, although he stated on 3/2/2010 that there was a statistically significant association between elevated fluorides and reconstituted formula. On 5/3/10, Krishna states the thorny questions of the group on a call included, ‘How can we say mostly mild dental fluorosis in the report when 3% of the fluorosis cases in the Iowa study are moderate to severe?’ It seems that Krishna was personally fine with using “mostly” as the qualifier. 

 

  • Another email trail in these FOIA documents concerned the ADA and CDC co-sponsoring recommendations for topical fluorides, a continuation of the ‘successful  ADA-CDC collaboration on many project over the last few years.’  Krishna Aravamudan of the ADA specifically complimented CDC staff, Dr. Barbara Gooch, Dr. Eugenio Beltran and Dr. Jennifer Cleveland of the CDC for their assistance to the ADA in their endeavors, most of which seem to be for the purpose of fluoride promotion.  Jane McGinley, ADA Manager of Fluoridation and Dr. Wm Bailey of the Chief Dental Officer of the PHS were other primary stakeholders in these collaborations. 
  • 2011 Infant Formula Report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243832  
  • 2001 CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
  • 2007 Over 80% dentists got it wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898 
  • 2015 FOIA: http://nidellaw.com/wp-content/uploads/FOIA2.pdf (formula exchange near end) 

Baby Boomers, if you figure it's too late for you..... consider your grandchildren. 

Tell the AARP you want a Position Paper in opposition to fluoridation, now! 

Gold Conversationalist
Posts: 58
Registered: ‎01-26-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[ Edited ]
Message 25 of 59 (6,004 Views)

 “Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth!”  - Dr. Joel Kauffman, Professor Emeritus in Chemistry (2006)

 

Fluoridation is unfair: 

  1. 1. Since fluoridation causes approximately double the dental fluorosis in non-white populations, it is a Civil Rights and Environmental Justice issue.

  2. 2. Since fluoridation is harmful to susceptible populations that include the elderly, the very young, those with prolonged illness, and those with insufficient protein, calcium or vitamin C in their diets (the poor),  it is a Human Rights issue. 

  3. 3. Fluoridation ignores our rights & freedoms that include freedom of choice & informed medical consent.   
    1. a. When fluoride is in municipal water, it is ubiquitous in our food supply making it impossible for us to avoid this drug. 
    2. b. Fluoride is also absorbed through skin, and is an irritant for those with eczema and other skin conditions. 
  4. 4. Fluoridation is NOT necessary to provide fluoride to the public. Saying so creates a false choice, i.e is  flawed logic
    1. a. If someone wants to ingest fluoride, they still have that option by adding drops to their own drinking water.  
    2. b. Since fluoride is available in toothpaste and the only confirmed actual science of benefit states that high concentrations as in toothpaste make cavity causing bacteria “less sticky,” the 1940s justification for fluoridation is no longer valid.
    3. c. The argument about fluoridation benefiting poor children has been rejected by both the 2000 York Review and 2015 Cochrane Review of dental literature purporting SES benefit.  

2015 Cochrane Review featured in Newsweek: 

http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

 

AARP, now is the time to take action. The science this century proving harm is robust and staggering. The 2014 and 2015 science alone is justification for writing a position paper opposing fluoridation. 

Info Seeker
Posts: 4
Registered: ‎07-13-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[ Edited ]
Message 26 of 59 (6,163 Views)

  Thanks. Yes the media do not often report fluoridation overfeeds. I recall one newspaper reporting an overfeed in Wisconsin where the water official said, "it's only 50 ppm, so it's not a big deal if people drink it because when they do they will just vomit it up anyway." Nevertheless since the water was deemed unsuitable for drinking, the entire treated amount, scores of  thousands of gallons, were dumped into a local field. The casual treatment of industrial fluoride ingestion is amazing.  Also, in drought-laden CA, water waste like that would result in a huge fine. 

  Well, the FDA wrote to me last week and stated that the fluoridated water ban petition FDA-2007-P-0346 and its supplemental letters of support (83 in total) will, rest assured, be carefully evaluated -- and that no further comment can be made until the reveiw committee reaches a decision. The petition was accepted for review in 2007 and we have not given up hope that it will, at least in part, be honored.

 Thus far, the FDA remains the only U.S. government body that has made a number of official rulings against fluoridation of water supplies. One ruling was that it must not be used in kidney dialysis equipment because whole body dialysis in kidney disease patients results in too high a blood fluoride level which is associated with increased morbidity in those who have been so treated. We are hoping this nonsense can all be disposed of with a formal ban on the sale or production of industrial fluoride compounds intended to be ingested. Fluoride compounds have of course never been FDA approved for ingestion, but we hope the FDA can help us a little bit more, with a ban. 

   The Erin Brockovich legal group has officially come out against fluoridation, but we are asking AARP and other organizations to also examine the evidence in full.  

  And congratulations to the people of Juneau and also Fairbanks, AK. My sister lives in Anchorage where help is still needed to halt this ineffective, harmful, illegal waste of taxpayer dollars. 

Richard Sauerheber
Info Seeker
Posts: 1
Registered: ‎09-27-2009

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 27 of 59 (6,153 Views)

That's interesting.  I watched on the internet as the San Diego City Council voted to fluoridate even though they didn't want to, didn't understand it and the voters rejected it several times.  The reason they voted in favor was that they were told if they didn't, they would be fined daily or weekly for not doing so.

 

Fluoridation was foisted on Californians in a stealthy manner - deliberately avoiding notification so citizens couldn't object and then they bragged about it in the California Dental Association journal

See:  http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-dentists-manipulate-legislators-to.html

 

Nelson was one of the nastiest of fluoridationists.

Info Seeker
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎07-19-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 28 of 59 (6,173 Views)

Richard, our overspill was in Juneau and was never publically acknowledged. It took me about 2 years to put two and two together and figure out what happened to us. I did eventually get private confirmation from a contact at the water utility who was a friend of a friend. They have since stopped fluoridation there after a long battle.

 

I don't think most toxic overspills of fluoride are ever publically acknowledged, and they are a lot more common than people think. After all, fluoride is extremely corrosive and eventually all fluoridation equipment malfunctions for that reason. Small towns with small municipal budgets have difficulty keeping up with the maintenance, but instead of stopping the fluoridation until they can maintain the equipment properly - they just keep on putting it in the water. It's crazy!

Info Seeker
Posts: 4
Registered: ‎07-13-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 29 of 59 (6,184 Views)

  My understanding is that the litigation over the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed is still not resolved. The city blames the State for making them fluoridate, and the State blames the city for doing the fluoridating.

  It should be noted that in CA, the State chief fluoridaiton officer David Nelson (now retired) helped write the CA fluoridation law and forced Los Angeles to fluoridate in 2007. He actually told me that the Hoper Bay accident was not the fault of the water treatment facility. He claimed it was the victim's wife's fault!  This is because she is a nurse and "should have known that the first sign of fluoride overdose is vomiting, so she should not have given him more water when he asked for more after vomiting."

  I responded by saying there are many causes of vomiting, and why would anyone suspect the water supply when you tell cities that fluoridation is perfectly harmless? And are you telling me the wife went around the whole town of Hooper Bay and gave them fluoride poisoned water to drink so that all 302 people would be poisoned by it?

  He realized how foolish he was being, stopped discussing it, and then said, "I only do what the CDC tells me to do."

  Hence CA remains a state where fluoridation is an attempted mandate. But remember that there is no law that can mandate what violates Federal water law. And the CA law does not mention the source of fluoride material to be used, so the law is not actionable and is null and void. Further, the first line in the law makes the assumption that fluoride in water decreases incidence of caries. This has been fully disproven in vast studies, so the mandate has no actual meaning, is not legally binding, and is basically a worthless historical anecdote.

  In fact, the CA Department of Public Health has written that no city is litigated if it does not fluoridate, and in their view it is the city itself that decides whether to fluoridate.

  So all you CA city councils out there, go ahead and halt fluoridation, and nothing wrong will happen. Caries will not increase, because they were not reduced in the first place, and there is no State law that forces you to infuse this industrial hazardous waste.

 

Richard Sauerheber
Info Seeker
Posts: 3
Registered: ‎07-17-2015

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 30 of 59 (5,945 Views)
Many Alaskans know of the dangers of water fluoridation with many Alaskan cities and towns are fluoride free. We in the Facebook Group: Fluoride Free Alaska, hope to make our state water fluoridation free!