Rethink your job search and find opportunities for experienced workers with the AARP job board.

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
881
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

881 Views
Message 1161 of 1,248
Appeal and Supreme Courts across the US have ruled that fluoridation is not mass medication, forced or otherwise. Three of the reasons are:
1. No one is forced to consume tap water.
2. Fluoride ions are naturally present in tap water. Fluoridation is the adjustment of a naturally occurring mineral.
3. Fluoride is an approved water additive regulated in the same manner as all the some 45 others.
4. There is no constitutionally guaranteed individual right to choose the chemical composition of tap water.
5. Water providers have a right and obligation to determine the composition of their product within the standards defined by law.

Here are some representative quotes from the Oregon Supreme Court.
BAER v. CITY OF BEND

"the fluoridation measure passes the test of reasonableness."

(fluoridation is) "no more practicing medicine or dentistry or manufacturing, preparing, compounding or selling a drug, than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet."

"But the liberty secured by the Constitution ..does not import an absolute right in each person to be ..wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good."

"Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy."

"Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
881
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
899
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

899 Views
Message 1162 of 1,248

Neither legal doublespeak nor argument over the quality of specific studies has anything to do with the purpose of the AARP forum or this thread. 

 

  1. Fluoridation is medically contraindicated for many, ill advised for others and an immoral medical mandate.
  2. Fluoride is an inflammatory drug that builds up in bodies, brains and bones, making it particularly harmful to Baby Boomers who have consumed it for decades. 

Senior citizens with arthritis, kidney disease, dementia, thyroid disease, cancer, IBD, etc. should not be consuming fluoridated water. Period

 

 P.S. Also immaterial is whether someone is a member of an advocacy group like AFS or an activist group like FAN. Integrity on the other hand is material.
AARP - where do you stand?  

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
899
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
919
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

919 Views
Message 1163 of 1,248

Bill, as a point of clarification, while you may claim to be a “former fluoride promoter” at some point in the past,  the fact is that you are the former Director of the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN.

 

Yes, there were two decisions, by the NZ Supreme Court.  I have, of course, seen both, and understand, as apparently you do not, that both rulings rejected the arguments of the antifluoridationists, and upheld the lower rulings that:

 

1.  The Tanaki Council did, indeed, have the authority to fluoridate its water system,

 

2.  That the fluoridation substances are not medicine under the Medicine Act.  

 

What you have posted here are out-of-context opinions of justices, not their ruling.  You have also conveniently omitted the opinion of the other justice which differred from them.  However, none of them  “confirm” anythng, and are simply opinions expressed to explain their reasoning in reaching a final ruling against the antifluoridationists.  The following is the summary in complete and proper context:

 

“After a series of cases that have been running since 2014, the Supreme Court has released two decisions dismissing New Health New Zealand Inc's various challenges to drinking-water fluoridation.

The Court dealt with the claims in two separate judgments. In the first judgment the Court addressed New Health's challenge to South Taranaki District Council's decision to fluoridate drinking-water supplies in Patea and Waverley. In particular, the Court addressed New Health's claims:

  • That the Council did not have the necessary statutory powers to fluoridate drinking-water supplies
  • That mass water fluoridation breached the right to refuse medical treatment, as set out in section 11 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (BORA).

Although their reasoning sometimes differed, all of the Justices except Elias CJ agreed that the Council did have the necessary statutory powers to fluoridate drinking-water supplies.

On the BORA point, the analysis was complex. William Young J agreed with the Court of Appeal's finding that water fluoridation is not a medical treatment for the purpose of section 11. In contrast, the other Justices found that drinking-water fluoridation is a medical treatment. However, O'Regan and France JJ concluded that, despite engaging section 11: "the provisions authorising the fluoridation of drinking water limit the s 11 right only to an extent that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society for the purposes of s 5 of [the BORA]". Glazebrook J also agreed section 11 was engaged, but in contrast, noted that satisfaction of section 5 would depend on local conditions and declined to analyse the point further. Overall, while the Justices were divided in their reasoning, the majority agreed that the appeal must be dismissed. Elias CJ differed, giving a minority judgment which concluded that "an interpretation of the legislation which recognises an implied power to add fluoride to water is inconsistent with s 11 of the [BORA]".

In the second judgment, the Court addressed New Health's challenge to the validity of the Medicines Amendment Regulations 2015, which had declared that fluoridating agents for use in water supply were not medicines for the purposes of the Medicines Act. The Court was united in dismissing this appeal, finding, in essence, that because the Regulations were made for a lawful purpose (clarity) and were prospective in nature, they were valid. The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeal that New Health's other challenges to the Medicines Act were moot, and the appeal was dismissed.”

 

 

Now, with that settled, Bill, do you care to comment on the recently released results of the National Toxicology Program study which you, yourself, instigated, and which your FAN promoted and pledged to closely monitor?  It’s probably no coincidence that FAN has chosen to remain deafeningly silent on these results, given that they reject, in no uncertain terms, the claims of FAN. 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
919
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
895
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

895 Views
Message 1164 of 1,248

Dr. Johnson

 

When a person lacks evidence to support a theory, they attack the person and people rather than the issues.

 

Many aspects of dentistry and public health are in the dustbin of history.  Fluoridation will soon be considered on of public health's greatest blunders.

 

When fluoridation first started, public health authorities (Burk et al) assured the public only about 10-15% of the public would get dental fluorosis, a biomarker of too much fluoride.

 

Dental fluorosis increased at the turn of the century to 41% of adolescents with dental fluorosis.  The latest NHANES 2011-2012 dental fluorosis CDC survay released, shows 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate and severe.  Clearly, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

One of the unknowns is, "where is the excess fluoride coming from?"  Water fluoridation and toothpaste do not seem to have increased enough to cause such high rates of dental fluorosis.  Are there synergistic chemicals, other fluoride products or what?  Indeed, HHS recommended reducing the concentration of fluoride in water to 0.7 ppm, but HHS suggests that will represent about a 14% decrease in exposure.  Still too much fluoride ingestion. 

 

Fluoride does not magically go just to the teeth.  Most cells and tissues and organ systems appear to be affected.   

 

First consider dosage.  What fluoride concentration is desireable in the tooth?  How much fluoride does it take to get that concentration? 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
895
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
901
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

901 Views
Message 1165 of 1,248

Dr. Slott,

A couple NZ court cases.  The Human Rights case is most interesting and you may have only seen one case.   The court confirmed that adding fluoride to water is compulsory medical treatment without the option to refuse.  May I quote:

 

"[99] Applying this approach, we find that fluoridation of drinking water is the provision of medical treatment.  It involves the provision of a pharmacologically active substance for the purpose of treating those who ingest it for dental decay.  We agree with the Courts below that people who live or work in areas where fluoridation occurs have no practical option but to ingest the fluoride added to the water.  So the treatment is compulsory.  While drinking water from a tap is not an activity that would normally be classified as undergoing medical treatment, we do not consider that ingesting fluoride added to water can be said to be qualitatively different from ingesting a fluoride tablet provided by a health practitioner.
[100] We conclude that fluoridation of drinking water requires those drinking the water to undergo medical treatment in circumstances where they are unable to refuse to do so.  Subject to s 5, therefore, s 11 of the Bill of Rights Act is engaged."

 

In the USA, the FDA has agreed  before Congress fluoride is a drug.  However, they sidestep the issue by claiming the EPA regulates the water.  EPA kicks the jurisdiction back to the FDA saying they are prevented from adding anything to water for the treatment of humans. 

 

The court cases have something for both sides and I'm sure neither side will call these court cases definitive. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

A former fluoride promoter

Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
901
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
898
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

898 Views
Message 1166 of 1,248

No, Karen.  The New Zealand Supreme Court did not make any such ruling as you and your New Zealand antifluoridationist counterparts falsely claim.  A court ruling is a final decision on specific claims brought before the court  to be resolved.  The decision dispenses the questions one way or the other, and is enforceable as law.  

 

To what  you and your New Zealand counterparts erroneously  refer as “rulings” are nothing more than the personal opinions of judges on which they base their final consensus ruling, or decision.  In the NZ case, antifluoridationists appealed to the Supreme Court  to overturn a lower court decision which had gone against them.  They based this appeal on 2 points of law.  The final ruling by the Supreme Court was that their points did not have merit, that the  lower court ruling was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.  

 

No court of last resort has ever ruled in favor of the antifluoridationist nonsense of “forced medication”.

 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
898
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
3
Kudos
914
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

914 Views
Message 1167 of 1,248

I do not consent to be forcibly medicated through the water supply with chemicals that are not there to treat the water, but the end consumer. Even if there were any benefit, which I am convinced there is none, who has given anyone the right to forcible feed chemicals down our throats? Also, science is overwhelmingly showing multiple harms due to bioaccumulation of Fluorine compounds in to bodily tissues. The fact that many dentists are supporting such practice is outrageous and surely these dentist are not there to monitor the daily dose. Such dentist have no credibility in my book and I do not consent to any artificially forcefed water fluoridation! What has happened to dental ethics? What kind of “free” nation would engage is such practice? Obviously not free!

Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (2)
3
Kudos
914
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
863
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

863 Views
Message 1168 of 1,248

“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
863
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
864
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

864 Views
Message 1169 of 1,248

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
864
Views
Conversationalist
3
Kudos
872
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

872 Views
Message 1170 of 1,248

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
872
Views