Watch AARP’s Movies for Grownups Awards Friday at 9 p.m. ET on PBS’ Great Performances. See A Preview

Reply
Info Seeker

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

109 Views
Message 1 of 66

Hi Carry Anne,

 

I will refer you back to the information that I posted initially regarding the National Research Council's Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html

 

This panel of 12 unpaid experts, led by the top Toxicologist in the U.S., met for 3 1/2 years and reviewed all literature on fluoride in water for impacts that it may have on our health.  

 

The EPA maximum allowable fluoride content in water is set at a point where no adverse health effects are expected to occur and the margins of safety are judged "adequate".  That level is 4mg/L of fluoride in water.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_bri...

 

This panel is assembled every few years to evaluate whether this level is still appropriate considering all available research.  Over 200,000 residents in the U.S. have drinking water that exceeds 4mg/L.  Fluoride is in almost all water at varying amounts.  Ground water picks up fluoride from igneous rocks as the water flows over them.  This study is conducted as part of responsible government looking out for the health of our residents.  The study cost over 4 million dollars.

 

All body organs and systems were evaluated in their 3 1/2 year review. NO adverse health effects were found in any organs or systems at 4mg/L of fluoride in water, except for severe dental fluorosis.

This included:

1. Endocrine system (thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, pineal, adrenal, pancreas....)

2. Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral (IQ, other disorders)

3. Kidneys

4. Immune System

5. Gastrointestinal System

6. Cancer

7. Reproductive and Development

8. Genetic Damage

9. Musculoskeletal System

10. Liver

 

This comprehensive literature review answers all claims that are made by those that oppose community water fluoridation.

 

Community water fluoridation (CWF) contains 0.7mg/L of fluoride.  This is 1/6th of the maximum allowable level set by the EPA as safe to drink (4mg/L).  No adverse health effects have ever been shown to be caused by CWF.  Over 70 years of fluoridation in the U.S. and thousands of research and publications have shown CWF to be safe to drink and effective in reducing cavities by at least 25% over a person's lifetime. It benefits both children and adults.

 

Leading health and scientific organizations endorse community water fluoridation as safe and effective for all.  These include:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

4. American Medical Association

5. Mayo Clinic

6. World Health Organization

 

No credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  Not one.

 

I hope this helps put this issue into perspective for my fellow AARP readers.  A list of credible references is listed below for further information on CWF.

 

 

 

Respectfully,

 

Johnny

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society, non-profit organization of unpaid dentists and physician

www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org

@afs_Fluoride

 

References:

 

American Academy of Pediatrics

CDC

American Fluoridation Society

American Dental Association

 

National and International Organizations that Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Communty Water...

Report Inappropriate Content
Gold Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

130 Views
Message 2 of 66

There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain.” - Dr. Mark Hyman MD, scholar, medical correspondent and author (2016)

 

Dr. Johnny Johnson, 

 

You miss the point. That is just the latest study in a series of studies going back to at least the 1950s that repeatedly prove that fluoride suppresses thyroid function even in low doses. Fluoride was used orally and in baths during the 1930s and 40s to treat hyper-active thyroids. Thyroid doctors frequently tell their patients to avoid fluoride in order to stabilize their thyroid health; at least once they become aware of the medical science. Thyroid disease is just one of several problems affecting the health of senior citizens that is associated with decades of fluoridation exposure.  

 

Thyroid doctor on fluoride studies: http://www.cleanwatersonomamarin.org/get-the-facts/shames-on-fluoridation/ 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Info Seeker

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

143 Views
Message 3 of 66

Carrie Anne,

Take a look at table one from the Kheradpisheh study that you referenced:

 

VariableCase Median(IR)Control Median(IR)*P Value
Fluoride0.07 ± 0.380.07 ± 0.350.94
Temperature0.6 ± 19.36 ± 19.30.16
pH0.63 ± 7.30.56 ± 7.20.24
  1. *IR, Interquartile range.

 

 

Look at the pH. Case median of 0.63+7.3.  Control Median 0.56+7.2.  Do you know what this means?

 

This shows the acidity of the water that the people were drinking.  If indeed these authors reported accurately, which I certainly hope that they did not, it would mean that these families were drinking water that had the acidity of sulfuric acid.  Not only would any health issues be moot, but these people would be dead from the acidity of water.

 

The problem with studies like this is that they are not well peer reviewed and make it into published journals.  This one problem, along with many other issues with their study, will make it highly criticized in the scientific community and possibly retracted from print.

Report Inappropriate Content
Gold Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

170 Views
Message 4 of 66

"It was found that F impacts human thyroid hormones, especially TSH and T3 even in the standard concentration of less than 0.5 mg/L." -   Kheradpisheh et al. 2018

 

“…thyroid disorder during pregnancy is a danger to both mother and baby. For mothers, the risks include preeclampsia… For babies, the risks include preterm birth, decreased mental abilities, thyroid disorder and even death.” - March of Dimes

 

I recently spoke with a woman who is unable to consume fluoride due to a thyroid condition. She developed thyroid disease as a child while being treated with fluoride to prevent cavities. All three of her children were low birth-weight and preterm - and she narrowly survived toxemia. Preeclampsia and toxemia are a poisoning of the placenta, and fluoride build up is one suspected cause. 

 

The latest fluoride study looking at impact on thyroid hormones found that  0.5 mg/L (which is less than half what my city considered 'optimal' between 1981 and 2015) depresses thyroid hormones. This is consistent with research going back to at least the 1950s. The thyroid is very sensitive to fluoride exposure at any level. On a population level, you see ill effect above 0.3 ppm. The ppm designation is typically used for concentration and is the equivalent of mg/L which refers to dose.

 

Since 2015, the current US 'optimal' fluoride concentration in drinking water is 0.7 ppm. India considers any concentration over 0.5 ppm to be 'excessive.' I believe the actionable Indian contaminant level for fluoride removal is 1 ppm. The US EPA has an action threshold of 4 ppm. The politically set US EPA MCL/MCLG is eight times what is documented to cause harm to the thyroid. 

 

Call your politicians in your cities, state and in Washington, call the American Thyroid Association and call the AARP. Tell them enough is enough - get the F- out of our water!

 

ThyroidEpidemic.jpg

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Info Seeker

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

125 Views
Message 5 of 66

Dr. Hardy Limeback was one of twelve experts who served on the National Academy of Science, National Research Council’s (NRC) 2006 review of Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html

 

Dr. Limeback’ statements are his own opinions, not the conclusions of the NRC Committee which he served on, and the document which he signed off on (above hyperlink to the document).

 

The NRC Committee was reviewing the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of fluoride in water that the EPA sets as safe to drink, NOT community water fluoridation (CWF). 

 

A Contaminant is anything in water other than water molecules. This includes odor, cloudiness, etc.

 

MCL definition:

The maximum contaminant level (MCL) is the enforceable standard that is set as close to the MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) as possible, taking into consideration other factors such as treatment technology and costs. For fluoride, the MCLG and the MCL are both 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm [parts per million]).

 

The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is a health goal set at a concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected to occur and the margins of safety are judged “adequate.” 

 

The NRC Committee concluded that the ONLY adverse health effect at 4mg/L of fluoride in drinking water was severe dental fluorosis, a enamel effect which results in brown discoloration and pitting in the tooth enamel.

 

They also concluded that at 2mg/L, severe enamel fluorosis was virtually zero. 

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_bri...

 

All body organs and systems were evaluated in their 3 1/2 year review. Again, NO adverse health effects were found in any other organs or systems at 4mg/L of fluoride in water, except for severe dental fluorosis. This included IQ, endocrine, reproductive, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or any other claims being made here. 

 

Community water fluoridation is set at 0.7mg/L, a level 1/6th that of the MCL. 

 

Community water fluoridation is set at 0.7mg/L, a level 1/3rd of that where severe fluorosis disappeared. 

 

Just setting the the record straight for my fellow AARP members. 

 

Sincerely,

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Certificate in Pediatric Dentistry 

President, American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit group of all volunteer dentists and physician 

www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org

Twitter: @afs_FLUORIDE

Report Inappropriate Content
Gold Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,146 Views
Message 6 of 66

“…children who develop asthma or allergies later in life have altered immune responses to intestinal bacteria in the gut mucosal environment at an early age… also… the mother’s immune system may play a role in the development of asthma and allergies in children.” - Andreu Prados (2016)

 

Since autoimmune and inflammatory disease are my thing, I particularly like this latest study by Kuang et al. on adverse impact of prenatal and early postnatal exposure to fluoride on the spleen looking at immunology and mRNA (messenger RNA). Although focusing on the biology of dysfunction, it hints that a contributing factor to epidemic of autoimmune disease among American children may be from early fluoride exposure, which could possibly be from prescription fluoride drops for newborns and/or infant formula made with tap water. Apparently, fluoride interferes with  proper development of the spleen which has a life long impact on immune function. 

 

I agree with sirpac271999 that this study is particularly interesting to those of us with allergies and autoimmune disease because it suggests in more detail than ever before how fluoride causes the immune responses it does in the genetically vulnerable. This seems to be new information and is utilizing the latest science in biochemistry and epigenetics. Pay attention, folks - this isn't just about teeth. 

 

Peer reviewed, valid science published in a credible science journal in November 2017:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28846973/

Report Inappropriate Content
Info Seeker

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,156 Views
Message 7 of 66

Absolutely! Water fluoridation is industrial waste management by dilution. There are hundreds of empirical articles available regarding fluoride induced pathology. However, many researchers report that they cannot get their articles published without some fluoride promoting language included. Thus, many articles start with some “fluoride promoting language”, but there is rarely any citation to these statements or there is a citation, but it leads to another unsubstantiated article or mere statements and not empirical evidence. Therefore, these promotional statements are just unsubstantiated blur to get the article published and the rest of the article is where the substance lies. For example see:

Fluegge, K. J. (2016). Community water fluoridation predicts increase in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence of diabetes in 22 states from 2005 and 2010, Journal of Water Health, 14(5), 864-877. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27740551/?i=1&from=%22hexafluorosilicic+acid%22%5BNM%5D#fft
and

Kuang, P., Deng, H., Cui, H., Chen, L., Fang, J., Zuo, Z., Deng, J. & Wang, X. (2017). Sodium fluoride (NaF) causes toxic effects on splenic development in mice, Oncotarget, 8, 4703-4717. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.13971

Report Inappropriate Content
Info Seeker

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,296 Views
Message 8 of 66

There is no valid science to prove water fluoridation is either safe or effective, as noted by the Gold standard Cocgrane review, which noted that water fluoriation is based on very low quality pre-1975 observation only studies and non-clinical trials (Iheozor-Ejiofor, Worthington, Walsh, O'Malley, Clarkson, Macey, Alam, Tugwell, Welch & Glenny, 2015). Also, the FDA has never approved fluorides or conducted clinical trials for any safety or effectiveness. However, it has been shown that life expectancy has taken a nose dive in the United States, compared to other rich (non-fluoridating) countires (Case & Deaton, 2015). Thus, fluorides are un-approved drugs and we are forcibly fed such drugs without informed consent, which is a violation of basic ethical principles and multiple ethics codes, in addition to being the main culprit of multiple maladies and neurocognitive problems.

 

Informed consent arose from the Nuremberg Code (i.e. Nürnberger Kodex), which is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War (Schuster, 1997). Although it appears such principles pre-existed the Code (Chooi, 2011), the Nuremberg Code made these principles internationally known and ratified. It seems water fluoridation practice violates the Nuremberg Code, as well as several other ethics codes, because fluorides are unapproved drugs (i.e. not approved by the FDA) meant to treat the end consumer and not the water itself. Although water fluoridation is not Federally mandated and each state or local water board has its own policy, these governmental entities have not obtained individual consent from each person treated and have no way to control the dosage of such forced medication. Thus, it appears, water fluoridation is in violation of the Nuremberg Code, the UNESCO Code of Medical Ethics (WMA, 2013), the Helsinki Declaration, and the Safe Water Act, in addition to multiple other ethics codes, and basic ethical principles, such as the right to individual informed consent. 

 

Also, it appears fluorides and aluminum have a causative link to Alzheimer's disease. Mirza, King, Troakes and Exley (2017) provide a hands on study in reference to aluminum. An interesting point about any metal, such as aluminum, is that aluminum cannot pass the blood brain barrier (BBB) without an adjuvant, such as a fluoride, being present. The fact is that fluorides readily bind with aluminum or any other metal that then passes through the BBB (Dec, Łukomska, Maciejewska, Jakubczyk, Baranowska-Bosiacka, Chlubek, Wąsik & Gutowska, 2016).

 

Finally, a big fluoridation issue is policy-maker bias, because of political and venal interests. In researching fluoridation policy in Israel, Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz (2016) discuss ‘uncertainty bias’, or their term for the behavior of policy-makers, who do exactly what they accuse laypeople of doing, which is framing uncertainty in biased terms. Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz (2016) found that in order to establish mandatory regulation, health ministry officials in Israel expressed information in an unbalanced format, promoting the topic of fluoridation by framing it in exclusively positive terms. Thus, despite the lack of scientific support for fluoridation, and noted uncertainty regarding the efficacy or safety of water fluoridation, health officials continue to communicate it as 'unequivocally' safe and effective.

 

References:

Case, A. & Deaton, A. (2015). Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. PNAS, 112 (49), 15078–15083, doi:10.1073/pnas.1518393112 Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full

Dec, K., Łukomska, A., Maciejewska, D., Jakubczyk, K., Baranowska-Bosiacka, I., Chlubek, D., Wąsik, A. & Gutowska, I. (2016). The Influence of Fluorine on the Disturbances of Homeostasis in the Central Nervous System, Biological Trace Element Research, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s12011-016-0871-4 Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12011-016-0871-4

Gesser-Edelsburg, A. & Shir-Raz, Y. (2016). Communicating risk for issues that involve 'uncertainty bias': what can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research, 1-22. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343 Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332

Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z., Worthington, H.V., Walsh, T., O'Malley, L., Clarkson, J.E., Macey, R., Alam, R., Tugwell, P., Welch, V. & Glenny, A. (2015). Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD010856. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2 Retrieved from http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

Mirza, A., King, A., Troakes, C. & Exley, C. (2017). Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology , 40, 30-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2016.12.001. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159219

Schuster, E. (1997). Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1436-1440. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006

World Medical Association (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053 Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1760318

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Gold Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,513 Views
Message 9 of 66

“Research published in 2010 identified that the concept of ‘fluoride strengthening teeth’ could no longer be deemed as clinically significant to any decrease in caries linked to fluoride use. Furthermore, research has suggested that systemic fluoride exposure has minimal (if any) effect on the teeth, and researchers have also offered data that dental fluorosis (the first sign of fluoride toxicity) is higher in U.S. communities with fluoridated water as opposed to those without it.” - IAOMT 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use, p. 41

 

Although I'm not on board with all this screaming about 'fake news,' the self-censorship in our media is astounding. In September, there were two major stories that were all but unmentioned by the media. Apparently, even though the Washington Post and New York Times were each offered an exclusive on the findings of major NIH/NIEHS/EPA sponsored multi-year, mult-million dollar study on the impact of prenatal exposure to fluoride on IQ of children that validates the findings of dozens of  human and hundreds of laboratory studies - yes, any fluoride exposure even in extremely low doses consistent with doses of those living in 'optimally' fluoridated communities lowers IQ by up to 6 points - the major news desks declined the scoop and didn't say a word on the report.

 

The exceptions were mealy mouthed reports in CNN and Newsweek. I have it on good authority that the only reason those two wrote anything was because of insider support. The apparent reason why the rest of the major media outlets ignored this bombshell is because of sponsorship dollars from vested interests like Big Pharma and the toothpaste folks. The sugar industry also supports the myth of fluoride as a magic potion in order not to hurt their market. 

 

That the IAOMT Position Paper Against Fluoride Use was published just three days after the NIH report should have given the media a case of whiplash - but I haven't seen any news reports on this paper by a large international professional dental association based in the United States. Their position paper includes over 500 scientific citations documenting the harm done by the dental dogma around fluoride and recommends it not be used even in dental offices because of adverse impact on people and planet. 

 

Any reporter who cared to look would have found that per U.S. governement most recent statistics from 2011-12, over half of today's 15 year olds have some degree of dental fluorosis with more than one in five having at least two teeth with moderate to severe fluorosis which essentially guarantee crowns in young adulthood because these teeth are badly stained, brittle, and even pitted or deformed. Dental fluorosis is caused by fluoride poisoing during childhood and is associated with increased learning disabilities, bone breaks, and kidney disease. Kidney disease is also up per 2011-12 US statistics. 

 

God forbid a major news agency should report on this - it might hurt toothpaste and candy sales! 

 

2017 IAOMT: https://iaomt.org/for-patients/fluoride-facts/

2017 NIH IQ review on independent site:  http://www.mintpressnews.com/ada-study-fluoride-health-impacts/

2017 Dental fluorosis: 

http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2017/05/09/DC85141

2017 Politics: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/science-and-alternative-facts-about-fluoridation-false-dilemmas-and...

Report Inappropriate Content
Info Seeker

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,531 Views
Message 10 of 66

Thanks for posting......I've heard of this before and believe its' true!   Now, for something else you probably ingest that WILL affect you.....read this below.

People need to know that the chemical sweetener Aspertame (also goes by other names) has been found to be the cause of Alzheimer's-type symptoms in many people.  People who eat and drink a lot of "diet" drinks and foods that have the Aspertame sweetener in them (including many yogurts) need to stop ingestion of that product immediately. Scientists (including Mercola) have found that by stopping the usage of Aspertame products, many of these patients bounce back to their near-normal selves again after a short period of time.  If you have been using Aspertame sweetened products, stop using them NOW. 

Here's a few links to verify:   (You're welcome).   ;-)

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/26/aspartame-methanol-alzheimers.aspx

https://www.theherbprof.com/InfoAspartameDisease.htm

http://wnho.net/prevalence_of_alzheimers.htm

The question is this:  If Aspertame is so dangerous to our health, WHY is still being produced and sold in the US?

My answer is this.....(sad to say) there's WAY too much tax money that would be lost if they did......just like all those Tobacco products that are being sold!!   Isn't that SICKENING???    ;-(

Report Inappropriate Content