From travel insurance to fraud protection, AARP has you covered. Take a closer look at your member benefits.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1061
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,061 Views
Message 1271 of 1,351

“Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed. - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988 comment on 1978 decision)

  

I have to agree that the NZ Supreme Court rulling is more of the same - a mixed lot that doesn't make much of a difference. The New Zealand Supreme Court, without considering the latest evidence from multiple studies and analysis of US data, ruled that fluoridation chemicals were medicine and that fluoridation process is mass medication in violation of their Bill of Rights - but legal under other statutes that exempts them from regulation. 

 

In the 20th century, there were several US court rulings that fluoridation was undoubtedly harmful, but legal under US law. US courts advised that fluoridation decisions rightfully should be left to regulatory agencies and legislators rather than the courts. Sadly, regulatory agencies and politicians have been captured or/and corrupted by the fluoridation lobby who deceives them with Tooth Fairy Tales of magic potions and insists on slavish obedience to dental dogma.

 

I suggest that  if the evidence of harm and dental disagreement are too much for the courts and politicians to consider, then they at least should pay attention to international human rights statutes. 

 

  • ”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

  • ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

 

  • “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)

 

  • “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

However, there is a pending August 2019 US lawsuit against the EPA in federal court under the TSCA regulations. That lawsuit should consider the most recent findings that prove both an increase in dental fluorosis and a decline in IQ on a dose-resposne trend line plus a correlation between dental fluorosis severity and learning disabilties. God help us all if the law of the land continues to be contorted to make it legal to poison people.  

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (1)
3
Kudos
1061
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1067
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,067 Views
Message 1272 of 1,351

Wow!!!   I’ve seen a mountain load of misrepresentations by antifluoridationists, but this one by the New Zealand antifluoridationist group has got to go to the top of the list.  The NZ Supreme Court did not make any of the rulings claimed by this New Zealand subsidiary of FAN, in its “press release”.  The court simply rejected the appeal by another New Zealand antifluoridationist group, New Health, of lower court rulings against the antifluoridationists.  While the Supreme Court  provided summaries of its discussions and reasoning, the dismissal of the antifluoridationist  claims was its only ruling.  It most certainly did not rule that fluoridation is mass medication, compulsory, or any of the other egregious claims made in this ridiculous “press release”.

 

A summary of the NZ Supreme Court ruling  against the antifluoridationists was prepared by the Justices.  It may be viewed:

 

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1806/S00307/fluoridation-new-health-nz-v-south-taranaki-dc.htm

 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1067
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
1074
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,074 Views
Message 1273 of 1,351

JUNE 28, 2018  

 AARP Read this and Please take action- to help STOP Fluoridation! 

Below is a press release from Fluoride Free New Zealand on the NZ Supreme Court's recent ruling on fluoridation of the public water supply:

Fluoridation is Mass Medication, New Zealand Supreme Court Rules

Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that fluoridation is a medical treatment as claimed by opponents for over 60 years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as claimed by the Ministry of Health.

The impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water makes it compulsory in practice, the majority also ruled.

Three judges held that there was conflicting scientific evidence, confirming that the science is NOT settled.

Chief Justice Sian Elias then held that fluoridation was not prescribed by law (i.e. is unlawful), applying section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act. That was the correct decision in Fluoride Free NZ’s view.

The rest of the majority held that it was prescribed by law, and it was then necessary to apply a balancing test to determine if the breach of the right – not to be subject to medical treatment without consent – was justified in the case of fluoridation.

Justice Glazebrook held that it was for a local authority to do this when making its decision, potentially taking into account specific local circumstances.

On the balance of information before the Court – the misinformation promulgated by promoters that water fluoridation measurably reduces tooth decay and presents no real health risk – two judges held that it was justifiable. This is despite the court reiterating that it is now accepted that benefit for fluoride is from topical application, not from ingestion.

The Court did not consider information published since the original High Court case, and the recent US Government multi-million-dollar study by Bashash et al, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, carried out by top scientists and researchers in top North American universities – had not yet been published. This study found that children exposed to fluoride at the same levels as New Zealanders had significantly reduced IQ, which could easily have shifted the Justices’ perception of safety.

Importantly, the Court held that this question of whether fluoridation is justifiable is to be determined on the balance of probabilities. There is no requirement for absolute proof of harm, as long-maintained by the Ministry of Health. As a question of fact, the two judges’ conclusion is not binding on any lower court or any statutory decision maker. With the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that water fluoridation is ineffective and poses significant health risks, this opens the door to end the practice at any time.

The majority held that tooth decay was a condition in the community that a local council could address (through fluoridation) under section 23 of the Health Act. It necessarily follows that any aspect of health in the community, good or bad, must also fall under section 23. This includes the current IQ level of inhabitants. Therefore a local council is required to protect that condition under section 23. So if, on the balance of probabilities, water fluoridation reduces IQ significantly – and half a standard deviation (5 points on the scale used in recent studies) is significant – a council must not implement fluoridation, and in fact must cease it if it is currently in place. Arguably, this mandatory requirement would override any direction that a District Health Board might give a council under the proposed legislation currently before Parliament.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled fluoridation is medical treatment without consent, and with the mounting evidence that it is ineffective and carries significant health risks, it is time for politicians and the health sector to rethink the practice. Its days are clearly numbered following this judgment.

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1074
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
946
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

946 Views
Message 1274 of 1,351
"Thousands" ??? The last time I checked (2014) there were exactly 341 dentists who had signed FAN's world-wide promoted petition to end fluoridation. The reason there are so few is that community water fluoridation is safe, effective and inexpensive.

In 2014 there were about 175,000 dentist in the US alone. dentists. 341/175000 = 0.2%
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
946
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
971
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

971 Views
Message 1275 of 1,351

For the purpose of disclosure, the commenter who hides behind the psedonym “CaryAnne” on this site, and other pseudonyms on other sites all over the internet, is Karen Spencer, a Massachusetts activist who is closely affiliated with the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, a group notirious for disseminating large amounts of misinformation about the public health initiative of water fluoridation.  

 

Ideological opposition to water fluoridation has existed amongst small pockets of ultra-conservatives since the post WW II anti-government paranoia of those such as the John Birch Society at the very beginning of this initiative 73 years ago.  Current antifluoridation activists are simply the latest generation of those who have attempted to keep this ideology alive through the decades.  The advent of the internet has accorded these little groups unfettered and immediate access to a worldwide audience, and constant, collaborative contact with each other to a degree never having before been possible.  As Spencer notes, in recent years, this heretofore unfettered dissemination of misinformation has become more and more challenged by those such as the American Fluoridation Society whose members have the knowledge and expertise to fully expose the fallacies and dishonesty of their claims.  The result is frustrated personal attacks and libelous claims such as that put forth by Spencer. 

 

There is little, if anything, in Spencer’s personal attack against the American Fluoridation Society and its members which bears any resemblance to the truth.  As a non-profit, the organization is fully transparent, with information about the organization and its members readily  available  on its website:

 

www.americanfluoridationsociety.org

 

The members of AFS are all healthcare providers who volunteer their time, efforts knowledge, and expertise for no compensation, to provide evidence-based facts which correct and counter the mountain of false claims and misinformation about fluoridation constantly imposed upon the public by antifluoridation activists such as Spencer and her FAN.

 

In contrast, in addition to the aforementioned concealing by these activists of their true identities while posting libelous personal attacks and misinformation, the group FAN, with which they are affiliated, cloaks its financial information and activities beneath an umbrella organization, while refusing to disclose the  individuals and organizations who drive their funding and agenda.  Readers are encouraged to seek underlying information about this group, and discern for themselves the degree to which it is hidden.   What is known is that the leaders of FAN are paid for their efforts to disparage fluoridation, that the group has a paid lobbyist, that it receives significant funding from natural food salesmen such as the dubious Joseph Mercola, and that it’s misinformation has been promoted by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his “Infowars”.  

 

So, the question here is whether AARP members would rather trust evidence-based information on a healthcare issue provided by healthcare providers who are fully open and transparent about who they are, and who rely upon the latest, most up-to-date peer-reviewed science, authoritative information from those such as the  US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics......or upon the unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentations, and misinformation of activists who have no healthcare education, training, or experience, who hide their true identities, who are paid for their services, who are backed by dubious individuals and organizations, who fail to disclose anything whatsoever about themselves or their organization, and who employ name-calling and personal attacks when backed into a corner by facts and evidence?

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
971
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
971
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

971 Views
Message 1276 of 1,351

Hi CA, or Karen Spencer, or whomever is hiding behing this name,

 

Your list speaks volumes about those opposed to water fluoridation. 

 

Take the IAOMT. The definition of this group from RationalWiki sums it up best:

 

"The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the "smoking tooth" video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's and autism. They sell filling removal kits for "dentists" along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed "research," and supports "health freedom." 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology

 

Thanks for bringing forward your group of opposition.  Now our readers truly can understand who these folks are and what they stand for.

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
971
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
973
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

973 Views
Message 1277 of 1,351

“While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public.” - Judge Peter Vallone, Jr., former Chair of the NYC Public Safety Committee (2012) 

 

Thousands of scientists and dentists oppose fluoridation based on 21st century evidence. The IAOMT is a professional organization with a scientific mission. IAOMT membership is dentists, oral medicine doctors & toxicologists. See their 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use for Dental and Medical Practitioners, Dental and Medical Students, Consumers, and Policy Makers. They are one professional organization from over a dozen who openly oppose fluoridation in the 21st century. 

 

Thousands of professionals object, and this thread begun in February 2015 includes quotes from many of them. Moreover, it is an individual human right to choose what substance to take into one's own body. Fluoridation policy is medical treatment without individual medical consent that conveniently ignores those who have medical contraindications, which includes many senior citizens. For a small troop of trolls to insinuate that they are the only experts in an attempt to shut down this conversation in support of fluoridation decrees that poison baby boomers is bullying 101. 

 

  • I encourage anyone new to this thread to go to the oldest posts to read science and testimony of senior citizens harmed by fluoridation. Going forward, this thread will be pretty useless, as I stated in my last entry re the troll attack. 

 

See just a couple of pages of those dentists, doctors and scientists with integrity and courage who openly oppose fluoridation based on evidence of harm. More on FluorideAlert.org:

DentistsDoctors1.jpgDentistsDoctors2.jpg

 

 

 

 

and a page of community leadership quotes from 2017: 

PoliticiansOpposed.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
973
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
982
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

982 Views
Message 1278 of 1,351

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. 

 

Just sayin’

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

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 

www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org

 

P.S.  Have the courtesy to use your real names as we do. Hiding behind fake names and attacking the folks here is cowardly

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
982
Views
Conversationalist
2
Kudos
727
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

727 Views
Message 1279 of 1,351

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
727
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
952
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

952 Views
Message 1280 of 1,351
Fluoridation policy is a medical mandate that forces contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of harm caused to millions with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney diseases.  
The narrative promoted by fluoridation policy suppresses emerging science, silences evolving medical opinions and stifles the voices of victims. 

 

It seems the troop of trolls who for the past decade or so has overwhelmed every letter to the editor in small town newspapers across the country with scores of vitriolic personal attacks and reams of copy and paste disinformation in order to bully community members into silence has found this thread about the medical contraindications of fluoride consumption, particularly for senior citizens.

 

This 'rapid response team' was originally organized by Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their special interest funded fluoridation initiative. The team is sent daily email alerts with sample comments. The media consultant in charge recommends inserting 'outrage and anger' into comments in order to shut down civil dialogue. The North Carolina dentist on this thread once posted 179 vitriolic comments out of 215 comments on a social media thread in Massachusetts. The pro-fluoride machine also employs social media experts and astroturfers for the purpose of 'expanding and protecting community water fluoridation.'

 

A couple of years ago, the most active trolls founded their own non-profit advocacy group in order to monetize their hobby. Apparently Delta Dental made the first $50,000 donation. I am given to understand the members may contract their services personally to assist pro-fluoridation entitities with political style attacks on fluoridation opponents. Consequently, unless AARP bans Johnny Johnson, Steve Slott, Chuck Haynie and the rest of their gang of gunslingers when they show up, the usefulness of this thread from here on out is ended.

 

  • Therefore, I encourage those who are interested in fluoridation science to go the the oldest posts and read in chronological order so as to get the benefit of the AARP members who have told their personal stories as well as useful scientific information relevant to senior citizens. 

 

To track all fluoride science, see the Study Tracker on the Fluoride Alert website and the IAOMT webpage that includes their 2017 position paper against any fluoride use with 500 citations. 

 

Organizations Openly Opposed to Fluoridation include:

  1. AAEM: American Academy of Environmental Medicine 
  2. ICIM: International College of Integrative Medicine
  3. IABDM: International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
  4. IAOMT: International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
  5. HDA: Holistic Dental Association
  6. EWG: Environmental Working Group
  7. CHEJ: Center for Health, Environment & Justice
  8. Sierra Club: Environmentalists 
  9. ICA: International Chiropractors Association
  10. OCA: Organic Consumers Association
  11. FWW: Food & Water Watch
  12. CAAP: Coalition of African American Pastors
  13. LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
952
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark