- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Atari Talk
- Games Talk
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Entertainment Archive
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
Bill, the dishonesty of your comments and posts are self-evident, as I have amply demonstrated. In accordance with your bizarre Trump analogies, you seem to be playing by his playbook.....make outrageous claims enough times and people will begin to believe them, regardless of their lack of validity. I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers of these comments to easily ascertain your dishonesty.
I have not felt any need to comment on many of your personal opinions as they are completely unsubstantiated. Your graphic analyses of data prepared by some unnamed sources are valid evidence of absolutely nothing. It is neither my, nor anyone else’s, responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated claims.
The bottom line is that there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects on anyone from total fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources of fluoride. You have provided nothing to contradict that fact.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You attack the messanger but have no comment on the message.
Many, millions, are exposed to too much fluoride. Your lack of response to that most critical point is evidence of the lack of science behind the continued addition of fluoride to public water. Why give more fluoride when half of our youth have too much?
HHS lowered their recommendation. Another government agency or the courts will lower it some more. Where are the good scientists with responsible ethics calling for a reduction in total fluoride exposure?
I am not interested in going into the risks of excess fluoride exposure because you simply will not acknowledge the fact that too many are ingesting too much. When you acknowledge that 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis is too many, 20% with moderate/severe is too many, then we need to discuss the source of fluoride which needs to be reduced.
Topical has some benefit.
Systemic has mixed evidence of benefit.
The first step is for you and Johnny Johnson and the American Fluoridation Society to recommend a source of fluoride which needs to be reduced or stopped to reduce the rapid rise in dental fluorosis.
What is your recommendation and the American Fluoridation Societies official position on excess exposure? Stop Medications with fluoride? Foods with fluoride? Air with fluoride? or fluoridation of public water?
The answer is obviously public water fluoridation. All the other sources of fluoride have significant benefits (and risks), only water fluoridation is without a benefit.
Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, I notice that as antifluoridationists become more and more frustrated with the facts and evidence presented debunking their claims, they begin making inane personal comments and project their own personality traits unto the commenters who are frustrating them. If you need anger management courses, that’s your business, but try not to project your problems unto me.....okay?
Your unsubstantiated personal opinions on the peer-reviewed scientific evidence you have requested, and which I have provided, is unqualified and obviously of no relevance. What value you seem to believe there to be to some uncited graphs of something or other will remain a mystery known only to you, I suppose.
The bottom line is that I can and do provide valid scientific evidence to support my claims. You cannot, and do not, for your own.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You asked for any peer reviewed evidence fluoride at 0.7 -1.4 ppm (Oh, that was lowered because HHS found it was not safe) now 0.7 ppm.
NHANES 2000 and 2011-12 showing 20% of adolescents have moderate/severe dental fluorosis. Remember, all members of NRC 2006 report on fluoride for the EPA unanimously agreed severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health risk, in other words, harm.
The question is not one of whether people are being harmed with the addition of fluoride in public water which is over exposing them to fluoride. The question is "how many" are over exposed.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
1. No, Bill, I did not ask “for any peer-reviewed evidence fluoride at 0.7-1.4 ppm” whatever in the world you deem that to mean.
2. The US DHHS did not lower anything, nor find anything unsafe, in regard to water fluoridation. These are yet more false claims to add to your ever growing list of such.
3. A FAN claim as to what NHANES data has shown does not constitute proper evaluation of this data by any qualified, reliable entity.
4. Yes, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered severe dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect. This is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water. As this same committe clearly stated in its final report, severe dental fluorosis does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.
5. Neither you, nor anyone else, has provided any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that anyone, anywhere, is being “harmed by the addition of fluoride in public water”. Your inexplicable unsubstantiated personal opinion to the contrary obviously does not qualify as such evidence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Your statements that the cost effectiveness and safety of fluoridation are without question is unprofessional and unscientific.
For good scientists, everything is in question, even gravity and life itself. When a person claims a theory and policy is "without question," that means the person is not looking at all the evidence.
Science questions. Religion is without question.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Invoking “religion” again, I see, Bill. I fail to understand the constant attempt of antifluoridationists to mingle religion into water fluoridation, however, to each his own, I guess.
1. Your personal opinion of what constitutes “unprofessional and unscientific” is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.
2. Again, as I have clearly demonstrated, the cost savings and safety of water fluoridation are without question. Constant attempts by antifluoridationists to create “controversy” and “question” with unsubstantiated claims, false assertions, misrepresented science, and misinformation, does not constitute “good scientists”.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
There are so many flaws in your posts, it is hard to know where to start.
For example you state, "A zero level of arsenic is neither attainable nor likely to be desirable. The EPA maximum allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion."
I agree zero level of arsenic is not likely. However, the EPA has zero as the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). What scientific evidence can you provide the EPA is in error and some arsenic is desirable?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
There are no flaws in my posts, as evidenced by your inability to to provide any valid evidence to demonstrate any such “flaws”. Your unsubstantiated personal opinion obviously does not qualify as such.
The EPA, as a matter of policy, sets the MCLG at zero for substances which can be carcinogenic, regardless the level at which carcinogenicity may occur. Arsenic at high levels can be carcinogenic.
In regard to the undesirability of a zero level of arsenic:
“Definition of specific biochemical functions in higher animals (including humans) for the ultratrace elements boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic still has not been achieved although all of these elements have been described as being essential nutrients. Recently, many new findings from studies using molecular biology techniques, sophisticated equipment, unusual organisms, and newly defined enzymes have revealed possible sites of essential action for these five elements.”
—Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.
FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Please cut the derogatory comments. Attacking the messanger rather than the message is a bully tactic used by Trump. Or did you go to the University of Trump to learn how to be a bully? If so, you must have a PhD in bully.
Speculation arsenic is an essential nutrient. As long as you agree the quality of speculation evidence is just speculation, lets go more to the facts on fluoride and not speculate. Don't get me wrong, speculation can lead to some great inovation, but speculation is not a strong scientific reason to eat arsenic.
I'll stick with EPA's "zero MCLG" until the evidence is stronger than speculation.
And even if someday a physiologic function for arsenic is found, the beneficial and harmful dosage will need to be determined. A great deal more research on arsenic needs to be done.
SPECULATION: The need for fluoridation is stronger than the need for arsenic in the diet. However, the same flawed logic that arsenic is essential is used to claim fluoride is essential.
Speculation is low quality evidence, along with conspiracy theories. I reject both and so should you.
For efficacy, stick with RCT studies like the FDA does.
For risk, the precautionary principle and freedom of choice MUST be seriously considered.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Stop your childish whining, Bill. Attempting to divert attention from exposure of your false claims and misinformation, with groundless, kindergarten complaints of “bullying” is a transparent tactic frequently employed by antifluoridationists who become frustrated with the facts and evidence, having nothing with which to counter them. Now, please refrain from such tactics and stay with facts and evidence you can provide.
1. “Stick with” whatever you please. You asked for scientific evidence to support my claim that a zero level of arsenic is undesirable. I provided it. Live with it.
2. Fear-mongering about arsenic is yet another diversionary tactic which has no merit. The amount of arsenic in water at the tap which has been fluoridated with HFA is not even detectable unless 10 times the manufacturer’s recommended single use amount of HFA is utilized in order to get some sort of reading.
Neither arsenic, nor any other contaminant in fluoridated water at the tap is in an amount to be of any concern, whatsoever.
3. Yes, as I have been stating, your constant speculation and unsubstantiated personal opinions are valid evidence of nothing. At some point you need to understand that science is evidence-based, not Bill Omunson personal opinion-based.
4. The precautionary principle applies when there is no scientific consensus of the safety of an initiative. Water fluoridation has been in effect for 73 years, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, with no proven adverse effects. The public health benefits of fluoridation are publicly recognized by the US CDC, the US National Academy of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world. There is not one credible organization in the world which opposes fluoridation. Clearly there is scientific consensus of the safety of this initiative.
Obviously, the precautionary principle does not apply to fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“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/
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.
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.
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.
1. Endocrine system (thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, pineal, adrenal, pancreas....)
2. Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral (IQ, other disorders)
4. Immune System
5. Gastrointestinal System
7. Reproductive and Development
8. Genetic Damage
9. Musculoskeletal System
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.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society, non-profit organization of unpaid dentists and physician
Dr. Johnson isn't telling you the whole story about the 2006 National Research Council's (NRC) Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.
The NRC reports that there is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland.
According to a co-author of the NRC Report “Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency,” says Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, “The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals,” says Thiessen.
Robert Carton, PhD, an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years for the U.S. government including managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, says “fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male.” (the levels recommended in public water supplies)
Among many others, the NRC Report cites human studies which show
- fluoride concentrations in thyroids exceeding that found in other soft tissues except kidney
- an association between endemic goiter and fluoride exposure or enamel fluorosis in human populations
- fluoride adversely affects thyroid and parathyroid hormones, which affect bone health
Further, Scientific American quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, “The thyroid changes do worry me.”
In fact, both the ADA and CDC have voiced concerns about fluoride's toxic thyroid effects. And the National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation endosement because of the evidence presented in the 2006 NRC report.
It is a straightforward fact that the final NRC opinion was that the EPA's maximal allowed fluoride of 4 ppm (nearly 6x higher than fluoridation) protects human health from disease save for severe enamel fluorosis.
Anyone who wants to verify exactly what the NRC concluded can listen to the summarization in this press conference:
It is an easily verifiable fact that America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and Internal Medicine Specialists along with well over 100 other groups of sophisticated, committed legitimate scientists and professionals are on easily verified public record affirming this decision. Fluoridation at the optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm prevents cavities, saves tons of money with lower dental bills and is completely safe.
The concerns and opposing arguments raised here have been dissected with reviews of all the relevant science in many systematic reviews done both in the US and around the world. There is a unanimity that fluoridation prevents cavities and is safe. Many older people can no longer brush their teeth well and if in a residential care facility may have minimal or no oral health care. The only dental care they receive is from their tap water.
Given the overwhelming professional and scientific consensus in support, how can a mainstream organization like AARP even consider opposing. If they wish to change positions on fluoridation, Dr. Limeback and others have an obligation to make their case before legitimate scientific forums and not simply bring arguments to lay audiences that have been rejected by experts.
Anyone wishing to learn more about the importance of community water fluoridation should start here:
American Academy of Pediatrics
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
American Fluoridation Society
British Fluoridation Society
American Dental Association
While community water fluoridation (CWF) is not a silver bullet, it importantly decreases the oral health disparities which come with economic disadvantage. To argue against CWF is to argue for greater pain, suffering, greater health inequality and lifelong oral health disadvantage for people of all ages.
C. Haynie, M.D.
It appears there are many trolls holding DDS decrees, on the fluoride question community. The American Fluoridation Society is a trolling group created to deceive the public into believing the fluoridation fraud. Fortunately there is a lawsuit pending in the Federal Court (9th), which is barely covered by the corporate media to stop forced water fluoridation in the United States. The details are available from Bloomberg law, see https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro....
Although this case has been in discovery for months, the EPA has not been able to provide any valid science to support water fluoridation, which is banned in most of Europe and Japan among other nations. Also, the industrial fluoride waste is labeled as category 6 toxic poison by law. See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/lawandcourts/pa-law-poison.html Yet, the trolls claim that there is some science supporting fluoridation, when there is none!
Hello Sirpac & Carrie Anne,
First, dentists possess dental degrees, not decrees in the U.S. and around the world as I know it. We are Doctors if Dental Medicine (DMD) and Doctors of Dental Surgery (DDS).
Secondly, we do not state
personal opinions in disseminating evidence-based scientific research. We are held to a higher standard of ethics and moral behavior as doctors. We have to accurate and evidence-based in our world of scientific expertise. We can’t simply quote our interpretations of the literature. Others may choose to do so. And when they do, their feet are held to the fire by the scientific community.
Someone once said that the truth only hurts once. Another said don’t go away mad, just go away.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society, a not for profit organization of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credible evidence-based scientific research that has been published in credible recognized peer reviewed scientific journals
P.S. Have the courtesy to use your real names as we do. Hiding behind fake names and attacking the folks here is cowardly
“There is no doubt in my mind that fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay and the risks for harm to several organ systems, including the brain, are so significant as to make fluoridation a practice that can now be considered ineffective and unsafe.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)
Speaking of trolls, the president of the AFS published a disingenous taunt on Dr. Bicuspid this week. See the reply from Dr. Hardy Limeback to JJ who has also started trolling this thread with his disinformation.
Yes, please do see Dr. Limeback’s false claims, half-truths, and personal attacks in regard to the article by Dr. Johnson. His claims are fully addressed and corrected in subsequent comments on that page, as are those of other fluoridation opponents who chose to post irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims on that page. Your choosing to pluck and post Limeback’s erroneous claims here, implying that they are somehow credible, without posting the rebuttals to those claims, puts you in the same, irresponsible category as those opponents posting on Dr. BIscupid.
Limeback’s comment as well as the evidence-based rebuttals to his vlaims may be found:
In addition, if you can produce any valid evidence, whatsoever, that any of what Dr. Johnson has posted on this page is “disinformation”, as you claim, then do so. Your inevitable failure produce any such evidence will be further evidence of your dishonesty and attempt to intentionally deceive the AARP membership.
In the future, you might also consider having the courage to disclose your real name instead of posting your attacks while hiding behind pseudonyms.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
"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!
- 2018 Thyroid study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20696-4#ref-link-section-d17e615
- 2017 Pregnancy Resources: http://pregnancyandfluoridedonotmix.com/index.html
- 2016 Letter to ATA with citations: http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf
Take a look at table one from the Kheradpisheh study that you referenced:
|Fluoride||0.07 ± 0.38||0.07 ± 0.35||0.94|
|Temperature||0.6 ± 19.3||6 ± 19.3||0.16|
|pH||0.63 ± 7.3||0.56 ± 7.2||0.24|
- *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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
Certificate in Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit group of all volunteer dentists and physician
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.
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
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
“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:
“Infants, children and adolescents are at high risk of diseases due to over intake of fluorides, through drinking water and/or fluoridated milk, as the deterioration of health is proportional to the dose and time of exposure.” - Romero et al. in “The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health.” Revista médica de Chile (Feb. 2017)
“Fluoride toxicity symptoms are threatening to steal away the golden years of the 'baby boomers,’ the first generation to be experimental subjects to lifelong water fluoridation.” - Susan Kanen, biochemist formerly with Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct, water treatment plant for Washington, DC, whistleblower on lead in drinking water (2016)
The latest meta review of fluoridation is from Chile and published in their major medical journal. Like all modern scientific reviews (but not those sponsored by political organizations in the US, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia defending their policy), the Chilean team of scientists found fluoridation of salt, milk and water to be ineffective in preventing cavities, but causal for asthmatic, skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin diseases. You know, things like arthritis & brittle bones, learning disabilties & dementia, eczema & psoriasis, and thyroid disease & diabetes.
- The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health. Verena Romero, Frances J. Norris, Juvenal A. Ríos, Isel Cortés, Andrea González, Leonardo Gaete, Andrei N. Tchernitchin. Rev. méd. Chile vol.145 no.2 Santiago Feb. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872017000200012
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). 😉
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??? ;-(
“This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it... Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected...” - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto (Sept. 2017)
“Children are the primary victims of our failed fluoridation policy, and mothers are our last line of defense. To protect your baby's brain, we recommend mothers avoid drinking fluoridated water, swallowing fluoride supplements or toothpaste, and avoid fluoride dental treatments during and before pregnancy.” - Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2017)
The 12 year multimillion dollar study sponsored by the NIH, NIEHS, and EPA that was conducted by internationally renowned researchers at University of Toronto, University of Michigan, McGill University, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Harvard School of Public Health was designed to disprove any prenatal impact on IQ. It did the opposite. The study controlled for confounders and validated dozens of less rigorous human studies and I don’t know how many animal studies with the same findings - prenatal fluoride exposure damages the brain and reduces IQ by as much as 6 points on a dose-response trend line consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities. However, in typical research fashion, it concluded with “more research is needed.”
Think about this. We have the evidence of harm and they want to do more studies on pregnant women? Get your own sisters, wives, and daughters to volunteer the brains of their unborn children for your experiment and leave my family alone, thank you very much!
Community water fluoridation is human experimentation and must be ended immediately!
Call your Congressman and the AARP. Tell them they work for us and we don’t want poison in our water!
“Evidence has shown that these early researchers had it backwards. It now appears that fluoride acts only on teeth that have already erupted.” - Lahey Clinic website (current)
“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority (2013)
If you haven't already, sign this petition directed to Congress and the National Acadmy of Medicine about the controversial 1997 decision to include fluoride on the Dietary Reference Intake table (DRI) without any special considerations because the NAM board of nutritionists depended on dental testimony that there was no adverse impact up to and including 10 mg/day and ingestion, per dentists, was good for teeth. They were not only wrong, they were manipulated by one or more bad actors. It is time the Food & Nutrition Board corrects their mistake.
Sign and share: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/dietary-fluoride-and.fb48
In 1999, the CDC admitted that the ingestion theory about dental benefit from consumption was invalid, although they couched their language by using the term "predominantly topical." There is absolutely no scientific evidence of any systemic benefit from consumption or "remineralization" either, which was the substitute theory dentists advanced. The only evidence of any benefit is from poisoning cavity causing bacteria when used topically in high concentrations, like in toothpaste.
Since 1997, the evidence of harm is significant:
- In 2006, the US EPA found 4 ppm as a MCLG to be UNSAFE.
- In 2009, the US EPA found fluoride to be a “developmental neurotoxicant” with substantial evidence of harm, one of approx 100 chemicals known to cause brain damage during critical periods of brain development
- In 2010, the US CDC released a report that approximately half of US 15 year olds have some level of dental fluorosis, with 4% having mod-severe which likely result in expensive cosmetic dentistry including crowns and veneers because of both the brittle nature of these teeth and unsightliness
- In 2015, scientists from that same EPA 2009 team found fluoride to be one of only 21 chemicals with “gold standard” verification of human harm
- Since 1995, multiple animal, in vitro, epidemiological, and case studies have proved that fluoride consumption adversely impacts memory, i.e. ability to learn. Moreover, modern studies have correlated dental fluorosis with genetic predisposition, kidney disease, and learning disabilities. Fluoride induced thyroid hormone suppression seems to play a significant role. Higher rates of low-thyroid disease is also correlated with fluoridation.
W. Mundy, S. Padilla, T. Shafer, et al. Building a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants: Evidence from Human and Animal Studies. EPA, RTP, NC 27711; Curriculum in Toxicology, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514; NCEA/ORD, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 20460; Cellumen, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. 15238; 5U.S. EPA, Region 7, Kansas City, KS, 66101. 2009. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/epa_mundy.pdf
W. Mundy, S. Padilla, J. Breier, at al. Expanding the test set: Chemicals with potential to disrupt mammalian brain development. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Volume 52, Part A, November– December 2015, Pages 25–35. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036215300362
In the 21st century, chemical water fluoridation is totally outdated. It is based on the myth that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay. It's junk science, a holdover from the 1950s when doctors recommended smoking cigarettes. It's time to end it.
The Cochrane Collaboration review, the gold standard of scientific rigor in assesing effectiveness of public health policy, in its 2015 review concluded..."Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth,"or baby teeth, The review criticized studies supporting fluoridation as being weak, biased and of poor quality. It found no evidence to support the efficacy of ingesting fluoride to reduce cavities.
Fluoridation chemicals are industrial waste products collected from pollution control scrubbers primarily from the phosphate fertilizer industry. This acid is caught in scrubbers because it is so lethal and corrosive that releasing it into the air, a lake, a stream or any body of water, is an environmental crime. However it is somehow, "legal," to dispose of this corrosive poison in municipal drinking water. Fluoridation benefits industry. Rather than paying the high cost of disposing of it's toxic waste, it earns a profit on it.
Fluoride is not a nutrient and has no use in the human body. Forcing toxic fluoridation chemicals on the population is unethical and illegal. Fluoride is a drug. If it's not in your municpal water, you can only obtain fluoride with a doctor's prescription. Your doctor cannot administer fluoride to anyone without informed consent. However, citizens are denied the right to informed consent when it comes to flouride in our tap water. Although fluoride is a drug that is a known developmental neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor and carcinogen, it is forced upon the entire citizenry without informed consent and with no regard to dose, age or medical condition.
Public health policy must be based on sound science. It needs to be effective and safe for everyone, including vulnerable subpopulations. It's clear that artificial water fluoridation does not meet any of those criteria and that artificial water fluoridation must end.