Reply
Conversationalist

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. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 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
     
  2. 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.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 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

  4. 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); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 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. 

 

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

  1. 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 
    1. 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 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    1. 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.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

205,422 Views
1473
Report
Regular Contributor

So, okay, Bill, you claim the CDC/NHANES data used for the graph to be “bogus, an exageration and simply cherry picked science.” and that “they [CDC] persist in telling lies.”  in regard to the inverse relation of fluoridation and dental decay incidence depicted in the graph.....yet you seem to have no probem with NHANES data when you believe it supports some point you deem important about dental fluorosis.   Hmm.....there seems to be a bit of confirmation bias occurring in your thinking.

 

As you, yourself, noted, the NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered only the severe level of dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect.  As far as your patient whom you claim wants treatment for moderate or mild dental fluorosis, in all likelihood, any perception of “harm” and request for treatment would be driven by your own bias and recommendations to the patient, not by an initial complaint or desire of  that patient.  Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated such fluorosis to have little or no negative impact on oral health related quality of life of patients or their families.

 

“Using a population- and person-centered perspective, we conclude that dental caries in school-aged children in North Carolina is a much bigger public health concern than enamel fluorosis.  The prevalence of fluorosis is less than caries, and it had no impact on the OHRQoL of children or their families. Dental car-
ies had a negative impact on OHRQoL for the majority of students and their families.”

 

—Effects of Enamel Fluorosis and  Dental Caries on Quality of Life

U. Onoriobe, R.G. Rozier, J. Cantrell, and R.S. King

J Dent Res 93(10):972-979, 2014

 

Your personal bias, perception of what you personally deem to be “harm”, and treatment recommendations you make to your patients based on your own perceptions, are not valid reasons to deprive entire populations of the very valuable disease preventive benefits of water fluoridation......especially in view of the fact that the alternative to fluoridation is risk of significant increase in dental decay, which does, indeed have a negative impact on quality of life.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13,150 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Steve,

 

I'm amazed at your thought processes and ability to change the subject and twist the concepts.  

 

I do not dispute the CDC/NHANES data.  In fact, it appears better than surveys done in other countries.  For example, some countries only look at dental fluorosis of the front teeth, whereas NHANES evaluates all teeth. . . much better data. 

 

I dispute the CDC Oral Health Division use of the data to suggest a random 17% increase in CWF caused a huge decline in caries nation wide.  There is no common cause, simply not possible.   Yes, twe events happened but they are unrelated.

 

What is so hard about that to understand?????

 

Steve, you appear to be "all or nothing."   You do not seem to have an ability to make value judgments.    Yes, I do use and respect NHANES data, it is the best we have.  However, I don't respect trying to force the data to fit the policy.

 

Not everyone is all "right" or all "wrong."   We all make mistakes but that does not mean we are all bad.   I give the CDC credit for their surveys, but I am highly opposed to the CDC - Oral Health Division's total effort to protect policy rather than protect people.  

 

When you see heavy metal or chemical or other clinical signs in the mouth of harm, do you tell the patient?  Of course.  

 

Failure to diagnose pathology is malpractice.  A dentist who fails to diagnose dental fluorosis and advise the patient not to swallow toothpaste and reduce their fluoride exposure is failing to provide the standard of care necessary to protect the patient.  True, the DF signs were caused when young, but their body has had too much fluoride and current exposure may still be too high.  What they swallowed causing the DF maybe still a habit.

 

The half life of fluoride in the body is about 20 years.  A patient with a biomarker of excess fluoride in their bodies must be told options for reducing the excess.

 

Some patients will say they don't like the white spots on their teeth and others like them.  I don't push people to treat dental fluorosis if they have it.   I do diagnose.  The same with TMD.  Diagnosis is not an option, treatment is much less.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

Bill,

 

”change the subject and twist the concepts”?  Hmmmm......your graph and your words, Bill.  All I do is respond to your claims point-by-point. The subject changes are all yours, not mine.   If you are having trouble keeping up with all your claims then perhaps you should consider reducing them to a number which you can manage.

 

1.  Seems that it’s fine with you that FAN “interprets”  NHANES data then claims it to be “what NHANES data shows”, yet when some other entity interprets the data contrary to your desires, you lash out deeming  that to be “cherry-picking”, and making a groundless accusation that the CDC is lying.  Again, there seems to a good bit of confirmation bias occurring on your part

 

3.  Mild dental fluorosis is not pathology.  It is simply a barely detectable cosmetic effect which requires no treatment.  “Diagnosing” a non-existent pathology, then recommending expensive, invasive treatment to the patient for such “pathology” is unethical at the very least.  In addition, given that mildly fluorosed teeth have been demonstrated by peer-reviewed science to be more decay resistant, by performing an unecessary, invasive treatment on such teeth you are making them weaker, more susceptible to decay, and subject to a lifetime of replacement restorations and treatments.  Regardless of how pure you’ve convinced yourself are your motives, such treatment of patients is a detriment to their their health and fosters a justifiable lack of trust in the profession of dentistry. 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

14,328 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

"Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson 

 

July 1, 2018 New York Times Obituary:

Arvid Carlsson, Who Discovered a Treatment for Parkinson’s, Dies at 95

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, a Swedish scientist whose discoveries about the brain led to the development of drugs for Parkinson’s disease and earned him a Nobel Prize, died on Friday. He was 95...... 

 

... Dr. Carlsson was an outspoken critic of fluoridating water supplies to prevent cavities. He said that fluoride produces side effects, such as mottled teeth, and that fluoridation was contrary to the principles of modern pharmacology because there was no way to regulate the amount of fluoride individuals received. He argued that individualized preventive care was a better approach.

 

Note: Dr. Carlsson was a world-renowned scientist who specialized in neurodegenerative diseases that primarily affect senior citizens. He was one of thousands of scientists who oppose fluoridation based on evidence of harm. His country of Sweden, like most of Europe & the world, is unfluoridated because of his integrity & courage

 

 

 

 
 

 

Conversationalist

Some good scientists on fluoridation policy which should be of special interest to seniors

 

Expert in Risk Assessment: “One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Committee panelist (2017)

 

Expert in Medical Chemistry: “Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth!”  - Professor Joel Kauffman, chemistry innovator and multi-patent holder (2006)

 

Expert in Environmental Toxins: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water. These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration," - Dr. Leonardo Trasande MD, New York University Langone Health on 2017 NIH sponsored longitudinal study on IQ and prenatal exposure to fluoride by Bashash et al. (2017)

 

Expert in Chemical Analysis of Water: “Fluoride has a very short life in blood, is quickly sequestered in bones and excreted through the urine. This is a biological clue that the body regards fluoride as highly dangerous.”  - Susan Kanen, biochemist formerly with Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct, water treatment plant for Washington, DC, whistleblower on lead in drinking water (2016)

 

Expert in Medical Journalism: “In large measure, those marred by dementia are showing the results of toxicity from mercury, aluminum, lead, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals. Their neurons have been poisoned. They are turned into Alzheimer’s victims directly through the efforts of dentists who blindly follow the party line of their trade union organization, the ADA.” - Dr. Morton Walker, DPM (1994)

 

Expert in biochemistry with a particular interest in toxicology: “When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr.  Andrew Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)

 

And excerpts from recent studies.

Study ExcerptsStudy Excerpts

Regular Contributor

“CaryAnne”

 

Karen, do you seriously believe that a handful of unsubstantiated personal opinions constitutes valid evidence of anything, whatsoever?  

 

Sigh..... I will be glad to provide you with a page full of opinions to the contrary from some of the most highly respected healthcare professionals and organizations in the world if that’s your argument.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

14,340 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

A diagnosis of Skeletal Fluorosis was observed in patients with fluoride intake as low as 0.355 mg/day with urinary fluoride levels of just 0.485 mg/L. In fact, the majority of SK cases had fluoride intake < 10 mg/ day with a large number < 5 mg/day.

  • “Fluoride toxicity depends on the following factors: (i) the total dose ingested, (ii) the duration of exposure, (iii) the nutritional status, and (iv) the body’s response… genetic factors, especially SNPs, which may affect bone metabolism, may influence the pathogenesis of fluorosis… related with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)… subjects showed different degrees of fluorosis when exposed to the same degree of fluoride… suggested that the individual genetic susceptibility to fluorosis would benefit from further research… ” in Chinese study (2017) 

The team of trolls from the 'American Fluoridation Society' who overwhelmed this site a few days ago would have you believe there isn't any valid science about fluoride and arthritis or any other ailment. Well, we seniors understand about arrogant doctors, misdiagnoses, and medical malpractice. Case in point, American & Canadians studies that found attempts to treat osteoporosis with purified NaF (a clean version of what is dumped in many water systems) caused gastrointestinal complaints, aggravated arthritic symptoms and didn't prevent fractures (that's because even though fluoride makes bones more dense & hard, it is low quality bone that increases brittleness): 

 

Although there is less American research on fluoridation and arthritis than there should be, there is more than enough science to prove fluoridation policy is harmful rather than helpful. Moreover, there are a wealth of government reports in mainstream American press that Baby Boomers have more arthritis at younger ages than our parents ever did. 

 

“'This is not your mother's arthritis': Most cases found in younger Americans” by Jen Christiansen. CNN. March 7, 2017. 

 

Excerpts on arthritishttp://www.slweb.org/CDC-arthritis.html 

Databased of science: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/ 

Arthritis numbershttps://www.arthritis.org/about-arthritis/understanding-arthritis/arthritis-statistics-facts.php 

 

BTW: The reason there isn't more American research specific to arthritis & fluoridation is that everything there is documents fluoride causes or worsens arthritis in people of all ages. Consequently, more documentation only increases liability risk and threatens a profitable industry.

 

Fluoride causes or worsens many types of arthritis, most notably osteoarthritis & rheumatoid arthritis. After 23 years of going to bed in pain every night, my arthritis ('chronic Lyme') ended in less than two weeks of assidious avoidance, even using spring water instead of filtered water to brush my teeth. Avoidance is very difficult when it's in municipal water. AARP - pay attention! 

 

 

 

Regular Contributor

“CaryAnne”

 

Karen, please stop fear-mongering about skeletal fluorosis.  Aside from the mound of misinformation you’ve posted, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you have no idea as to the difference between dose and concentration of fluoride, much less the effect of either.

 

Once again, skeletal fluorosis is not a concern in regard to optimally fluoridated water.  If it was, this disorder would be rampant in the nearly 75% fluoridated US by now.

 

From the US Department of Health and Human Services:

 

“Several of the more recent reviews on the safety of fluoride intake have discussed skeletal fluorosis, which is extremely rare in the United States. Epidemiological studies in the U.S. of communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water 3.3 to 8 times the amount in optimally adjusted water supplies found no evidence of skeletal fluorosis. Pages 45-47 of the 1991 Department of Health and Human Services document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks discusses the topic of skeletal fluorosis topic in more detail and provides references. Only 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis have ever been reported in the U.S. In these cases, the total fluoride intake was 15 to 20 mg./fluoride per day for 20 years.”

 

https://aspe.hhs.gov/cdc-—-fluoridation-hhs-response-rfr

 

 

In regard to your other claims:

 

1.  Your attempt to equate your own ignorance of the facts with the knowledge of all other seniors.....i.e. “we seniors understand”...... is an insult to the intelligence of seniors everywhere.  Unsubstantiated claims as to what you think you know, have no foundation in fact, much less any valid evidence to support them.

 

2.  Because a study has the word “fluoride” in it, does not make it relevant to the minuscule amount of fluoride in optimally fluoridated water.

 

a.  In the 1991 study you cite, the osteoporosis treatment consisted of administering 22 mg of fluoride per day.  Yeah.... no kidding.....with  that incredibly massive dose of fluoride, there would undoubtedly be problems.  

 

The amount of fluoride obtained from consuming one liter of optimally fluoridated is 0.7 mg.

 

b. Neither is the  2002 study you cite of any relevance.  It is in regard to guidelines in the management of osteoporosis.  Water fluoridation is not intended, or expected to prevent osteoporosis.  Fluoridation is simply the adjustment of the level of existing fluoride in water to that concentration at which has been determined to result in significantly reduced amount of dental decay in the populations served by that water.

 

c. In your third cite.....an opinion piece posted  on an antifluoridationist website.....long time fluoridation opponent, Hardy Limeback, expresses his “concern” about fluoridation effects on human bone.  Limeback’s own 2010 study demonstrates there to be no effect on human bone from fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated:

 

“Many decades of epidemiological studies have shown minImal evidence of any effects of fluoride administration on bone, and it is therefore very unlikely that municipally fluoridated water affects adults with healthy bone. In this study, no
effects of fluoride on mineralization (by BSE) and no substantive negative effects of fluoride administration on bone mechanical properties were observed”
 


—The Long-term Effects of Water Fluoridation on the Human Skeleton

Chacra, Limeback, et al.

Journal of dental research 89(11):1219-23 · November 2010

 

3.   Unsubstantiated claims of some phantom “science” you believe to  exist somewhere or another, are obviously meaningless.

 

4.  Studies on arthritis are irrelevant to water fluoridation.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of optimally fluoridated water with arthritus.

 

5.  Anecdotal claims and self-diagnoses  of your own perceived ailments are of no relevance.  If you have valid, documented diagnoses of the cause of any medical condition you may have, from qualified, properly licensed and credentialed healthcare providers, feel free to present it at any time. In the meantime, you are probably exacerbating any such medical conditions by failing to obtain proper diagnoses and treatment.  

 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15,110 Views
6
Report
Conversationalist

Steve,

 

I would like to look at some research which is powerful questioning support of fluoride ingestion.  The Figure 1 reproduced from the CDC Oral Health Division web page is an example of cherry picked evidence.  In dental school I was shown the early renditions which were used to convince me fluoridation caused caries to decline.  

Evidence settled, some might say.  However, look and think about the evidence.  Caries declined from 4 DMFT to just over 1 DMFT.  Very impressive, 75% reduction in caries.  The graph seems to claim the huge decrease resulted from an increase in about 17% of the ENTIRE USA population fluoridated.   Not possible.  Even a halo from heaven could not do that.  Fluoride would have to have been targeted on the 17% of the population most at risk, not randomly added to public water in various cities.  The CDC knows their evidence is bogus, an exageration and simply cherry picked science.  But they persist in telling lies.

CDC Web Page 2017CDC Web Page 2017

Now lets look at a longer time frame as presented in the graph below which includes the CDC timeline with the same decline.  However, a longer timeline helps put perspective on fluoridation.  Caries declined from over 11 cavities for a 12 year old in 1930, to about half by the time fluoridation became significant.  

 

What cause the huge decline in caries prior to fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste?   Please answer Steve?   

 

Once you know what caused the decline, based on research, then explain how that huge caries crushing cause all of a sudden stopped when fluoridation started and the credit for caries reduction can be given to fluoridation.

 

Any benefit from fluoridation, based on the population at large is simply pipe smoke speculation and assumptions.  

 

Yes, two events happened but the evidence does not show common cause.  Any study comparing two groups may simply be comparing the random decline which we could say is a natural ebb and flow of all diseases.   

 

Colquhoun 1997 ISFRColquhoun 1997 ISFRAnd please, stick to the evidence.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

Bill, given that the graph you posted claiming to be something from the CDC, has no citation to its original location, and no context, whatoever, how you expect any valid conclusion to be drawn from such “information” based solely on your unsubstantiated personal assertion of what you deem to be shown in this graph....is anybody’s guess.

 

You need to learn what constitutes properly cited, valid scientific evidence.  Your reliance upon such nonsense as you post is probably one good reason why you have so little understanding of this issue, and can provide no valid evidence to supprt your claims.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

13,203 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Bill,

 

How about we stick with clinical dentistry for the present moment Bill.  And perhaps a bit of evidence-based science thrown in.

 

1.  You stated in your testimony in Cortland, NY, that you place veneers over teeth that are showing fluorosis from CWF.  You did not show any before or after pictures.  You know that the only fluorosis attributed to CWF is very mild to mild.  Why don't you show pictures of before and afters of patients you've treated from CWF that needed veneers?  I'd like to see them.  Please refer to the CDC figure below:

Normal
Image of normal tooth with semi-translucent structure and smooth, glossy, pale cream color.
Questionable
Image of questionable fluorosis. Teeth show some slight differences from normal translucent appearance. Some white spots are apparent but not enough to warrant a diagnosis of very mild fluorosis.
Very mild
Image of very mild fluorosis. Teeth with small, paper-white opaque spots over a small area.
Mild
Image of mild fluorosis. Teeth show white opaque areas covering an extensive portion, but not as much as 50%, of the total surface.
Moderate
Image of moderate fluorosis. All surfaces of teeth affected with opaque areas and teeth show marked wear and brown staining.
Severe
Image of severe fluorosis. All enamel surfaces of teeth are affected and the teeth do not exhibit normal development. The teeth are pitted and brown staining is also apparent.

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/dental_fluorosis/index.htm

 

2.  The US Community Preventive Services Task Force stated that severe fluorosis does not occur from CWF.  The literature review that they undertook was reviewed by the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG), the same COHG that published their report in 2015 on CWF.  They gave their stamp of approval to the studies used.

 

The USCPSTF findings:

Task Force Finding (April 2013) The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends

1. community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations.

2. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF.

3. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis. Evidence indicates the economic benefit of CWF is greater than the cost.

4.In addition, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the size of the community population.

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

Lastly, your mixing of facts and snippets of information based on the typical anti-fluoridation 101 handbook should be somthing left to a person that is outside of our profession, especially someone with an MPH after their name.  Stick with the facts.

 

Show me before/afters of the last 10 patients that you treated with veneers that were required by fluorosis that you relate to CWF.  It's time to become a dentist here, Bill.  Let the other non-dental commentors use the double talk that you are putting out.  Let's make this about clinical experiences.

 

Respectfully,

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society

14,520 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnny Johnson,

 

Before I respond to your comments, let me once again express my admiration for Pedodontists.  I worked in a rural area where there were no specialists and I took children to the hospital for treatment.  Moving on to a larger center, the first thing I did was find a good Pedodontist to take my children.  

 

Adults usually know why they have problems and accept treatment.  Children don't understand and too often suffer with fear, pain, and the unknown.  I hurt for the kids and was just as stressed as they.  I would not have lasted long drilling holes in children.  God bless Pedodontists.  And yes, I gave the kids fluoride before I knew it was frying their thyroids and brains.

 

Yes, I treat dental fluorosis.  Some try bleaching, which can have some benefit.  Some try smoothing and recalcification, but they don't follow through well.  Some want composite veneers and some porcelain veneers.

 

Johnny, those (CPSTF and others) who say that severe fluorosis does not occur with CWF. . . make no sense and have their heads buried in the sand.

 

CWF is a contributing factor for total fluoride exposure.   No one has done a study on humans removing all other sources of fluoride.  Humans don't consume ONLY CWF water and no foods, medications, dental products or any other sources of fluoride.  CPSTF is probably correct, if the only intake of fluoride were CWF, the person would die from lack of food and air. . . never developing DF.  Many sources of fluoride and we don't live in isolation living on CWF alone.

 

The statement is not real world, reality, and is theoretical abstract non-sense.  

 

CWF contributes to total fluoride exposure.  

 

My concern is TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE.  

 

20% of adolescents have moderate/severe DF.  When CWF started, Burk assured us perhaps only 10-15% of children would get DF and then only the mildest forms.   We now have 60% with 20% moderate/severe.  In my judgment, too many children are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

As a public health professional, it is urgent that we reduce total fluoride exposure.  Do we do that by removing fluoride medications, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, or ??????   Clearly, adding more fluoride to the diet with CWF is the most reasonable step to reduce exposure.  In fact, HHS agreed, lowering the concentration to 0.7 ppm.   They estimated a 14% reduction in exposure.  A great start, but not enough.   Getting the CWF to 0.4 ppm would still not be enough.  We need a cessation of CWF AND also determine where additional fluoride is coming from or is the DF a synergistic effect from other chemicals?

 

CDC needs to release the data on the next two dental fluorosis surveys after 2011-2012 NHANES.  Yes, they have done two more and have released the data on everything except DF.   Why????  Why not release all the data ASAP?   

 

How many of the USCPSTF members have reservations about CWF?  No, the members were cherry picked for their support of CWF.  Because of their belief in CWF, they did not demand high quality evidence.  Cochrane reviews are better/higher quality.

 

You suggest my comments are mixing facts and snippets, but I can say the same for your comments.    

 

Indeed, some evidence is stronger than others.  Each needs to be weighed and the weight of each added for a judgment.

 

1.   Many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

2.  Stopping CWF will still not reduce total exposure enough to get DF under control.

 

3.  The evidence for efficacy of ingesting fluoride is not adequate to gain FDA approval.  Ingesting fluoride may not work, topical has some benefit.

 

4.  The evidence of risk is ever increasing and rapidly now that researchers know how to focus their research to areas of concern.  

 

Question Johnny,  "What concentration of fluoride in the tooth is optimal?"  Teeth with caries and without caries have similar concentrations of fluoride, except for topical application on the surface of the tooth.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Document5-001.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

Periodic Contributor

Thank you for this informative post.
0 Kudos
13,358 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Steve,

 

Your response to CarryAnne does not really make "judgment" sense.

 

You say skeletal fluorosis is "not a conern."  

 

Yet provide research saying skeletal fluorosis in the USA is "extremely rare."

 

I consider rare cases of disease still a concern.  Many diseases are extremely rare and a serious concern for the person with the disease.

 

I agree overt severe crippling skeletal fluorosis is extremely rare.   Early cases are difficult to diagnose because they resemble arthritis like symptoms.   Science has much to learn.  With huge increases in dental fluorosis, I am concerned for skeletal fluorosis.

 

The lack of benefit and lack of cost effectiveness of adding more fluoride to the diet is a serious concern.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Conversationalist

“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.- European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)

 

“Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age" - Dr. Robert Carton,  EPA Scientist (1993)

 

"Drinking water: 1.0 mg/L is the upper limit the body may tolerate; less the better as fluoride is injurious to health." - Bureau of Indian Standards, 2012

 

There are essential nutrients and non-essential nutrients. Fluoride is neither in any form despite dental assertions to the contrary. The best American dentists got was convincing some folks in the 1990s to call it a beneficial element with no known adverse effects up to 10 mgs per day - but that ship has sailed.  

 

Fluoride is an enzyme poison and inflammatory drug that accumulates in bones, bodies and brains. In this century, it has been scientifically determined that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (brain poison) even in low doses previously considered safe and that  0.5 mg/L disrupts thyroid function and that 1 mg/L is nephrotoxic to struggling kidneys. Fluoride penetrates the brain where it can disrupt sleep patterns when it calcifies the pineal gland.  If you drink 3 liters of water a day at 0.7 ppm, assuming you aren't using any fluoridated dental products or have any other exposure and have healthy kidneys, your dose would be 2.1 mg. 

 

* About 40% of Americans over age 60 develop bone spurs - Stage 2 Skeletal Fluorosis. 

* About 70 million Americans suffer from gastrointestinal disease

                  Individual susceptiblity to fluoride poisoning varies

 

2015 Review: 

http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf

SkeletalFluorosis.jpg

Regular Contributor

“CaryAnne”

 

1.  Fluoridation was never intended, or expected to compensate for any “fluoride deficiency”.  It is simply a measure that adjusts the existing level of  fluoride in water  to that concentration at which maximum dental decay prevention has been established to occur in populations served by that water, with no adverse effects on anyone.

 

2.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of association of optimally fluoridated water with arthritis.  

 

The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.  The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm.  The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.  Nothing else.  Had this committee deemed there to be any  concerns of arthritis, or anything else with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly.  It did not. 

 

Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

 

In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

 

"I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”

 

---John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

 

3.  A nonsensical, unsubstantiated claim you attribute to the of Bureau of Indian Standards notwithstanding, the US National Academy of Medicine established daily upper limit of fluoride intake  before adverse effects is 10 mg.  For every one liter of optimally fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg fluoride is ingested.  Before the daily upper limit could even be neared from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with all other normal sources of fluoride intake, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

 

4. The benefits of water fluoridation have been clearly demonstrated in countless peer-reviewed  studies right up through 2018.  I will gladly provide you with as many such studies as you would reasonably care to read.  Your lack of knowledge  of the scientific literature on fluoridation does not mean  it does not exist.

 

5. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of an association of optimally fluoridated water with any of the litany of  nonsense you proclaim....as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence to support your claims.

 

6.  That you have no idea what you are talking about is clearly obvious in your confusion of dose and concentration.   Dose  is expressed in mg, not in  mg/L.  Concentration is expressed 

in mg/L.  Consuming 3 liters of optimally fluoridated water would result in ingestion of 2.1 mg fluoride, far below the US National Academy of Medicine established daily upper limit of 10 mg before adverse effects.

 

7.  If skeletal fluorosis was in any manner attributable to water fluoridation, this disorder would be rampant in the nearly 75% fluoridated US by now.  Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the US as to be nearly non-existent.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS 

15,179 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride is not a mineral. Please read the Journal of Environmental and Public Health  439490 article in its entirety. Fluorite is a mineral but fluoride is not isolatable itself and is always accompanied with another cation.

Natural minerals containing fluoride that can be found in the ocean or as a contaminant in some fresh waters is calcium fluoride with limited solubility. The EPA regulates any calcium fluoride in drinking  water to prevent serious illness but does not insist that levels be low enough to prevent all adverse health effects. All added fluoride sources are synthetic, made in industrial processes. Fluoride is not a normal component of human blood and is not a nutrient. Fluoride accumulation in bone lifetime is a pathologic process, not a physiologic one and is not biochemically reversible. 

The use of sodium fluoride tablets in fluoridated cities violate FDA prescription instructions. And infants have no teeth so fluoridating infant bone is abuse. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

Richard.....no.

 

1.  The paper which you urge people to read is one written by you, rife with errors and misconceptions.  It is difficult to imagine how this paper appeared in any publication, respected or otherwise.   A review of the paper by highly respected researcher Gary Whitfird, PhD, DMD details your unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and erroneous scientific assertions.  This review may be viewed:

 

http://fluoridescience.org/commentary/physiologic-conditions-affect-toxicity-ingested-industrial-flu...

 

2.  Contrary to your claim that fluoride “is always accompanied with another cation”, fluoride is not a cation. A cation is a positively charged atom. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine.  An anion is a negatively charged atom.  Fluoride is indeed isolatable and  exists in water in free, ionic form.  

 

3.  You confuse the compound calcium fluoride with fluoride.  To what you are referring are free fluoride ions, not calcium fluoride.  CaF  is simply one of countless chemical compounds  containing fluoride ions, and does not exist in water.  Like fluoride, calcium exists in water in a free, ionic form.  Any combination of these two ions would form the compound calcium fluoride whose solubility is too low to exist in water.  It would thus, precipitate out.  However, there are too few fluoride ions  in water for such combination and precipitation to occur.

 

Given these facts, the EPA obviously does not “regulates any calcium fluoride in drinking water to prevent serious illness but does not insist that levels be low enough to prevent all adverse effects”.  In your context, it regulates the concentration of free fluoride ions.  

 

4. All fluoride ions, regardless the source compound from which they are released, regardless of whether they are termed “naturally occurring” or otherwise....are identical.  This is basic chemistry.  It therefore makes no difference through what “processess” fluoridation substances are produced.   The fluoride ions they release into water are identical to those which already exist in that water.

 

5. Due to the fact that fluoride is a normal constituent of the environment and in most foods that humans eat, fluoride is most certainly a normal component of human blood.  

 

6. Your claim that fluoride accumulation in bone is a pathologic process and not “biologically reversible” is patently false.

 

First of all, there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects resultant of bioaccumulation of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated.  

 

Second, it is a well established fact of fluoride pharmacokinetics that fluoride is incorporated and removed from long term storage in bone in response to its equilibrium with blood plasma fluoride concentration.

 

“Chronic dosing leads to accumulation in bone and plasma (although it might not always be detectable in plasma.) Subsequent decreases in exposure cause fluoride to move back out of bone into body fluids, becoming subject to the same kinetics as newly absorbed fluoride. A study of Swiss aluminum workers found that fluoride bone concentrations decreased by 50% after 20 years.”

 

—Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards (2006)

NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water 

pp 92

 

7.  The use of sodium fluoride tablets in fluoiridated cities does not violate any “FDA prescription instructions”.  Fluoride supplements require prescription in order to ensure, as much as possible, that the fluoride content of the primary water source of the patient is verified prior to dispensing any further fluoride.  Simply because a community is fluoridated does not mean that all residents obtain their water from the public water supply, or that they consume water from their taps.  It is the responsibility of the prescribing dentist or physician to make these determinations, and to prescribe accordingly.

 

8.  Infants do, indeed, have teeth.  Human teeth begin developing in the fetus, continuing to the age of 8 years.  Incorporation of fluoride into the developing teeth results in strengthening these teeth against decay for a lifetime.

 

Abuse of children is denying them the increased dental decay resistance provided by water fluoridation, based on nothing but unsubstantiated claims, false assertions, and misinformation put forth by misguided, uninformed activists.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15,200 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength,  Fluoride is Gin, and America is a Gulag! 

No free nation dumbs artificial industrial waste into the water supply using the ruse that the worthless garbage benefits teeth. We may as well ingest lead and say it makes humans beautiful. Lol! 

Dentist with venal interest have no credibility, since everywhere you look in America, you see spotted teeth. Good business for dentist!

Bronze Conversationalist

Two more points. Yes there is no Constitutional right for anyone to decide what the chemical composition of their drlnkin water is--that is not specifically itemized in the Constitution. So why then do fluoride promoters presume the right to force homeowners to accept water treaed with exogenous fluoride from fluosilci cacid waste? There is no Constitutional right for it.

 

Second, the NRC concluded that the current EPA allowed maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water is not fully protecifve of human health and should be lowered (p. 352). This is because longterm fluoride intake at that level is known to cause stage II skeletal fluorosis. The tabulated data indicaed bone pain at levels far lower than the aveage lbone level listed in the text for cuasing bone pain. 

And the secondary macimum contaminant level also was concluded to not completely prevent modeate dental ene mal fluorosis (which is enamel hypoplasia).

The committee was not allowed to evaluate water fluoridation at 1 ppm but did publish much daa of advese heatlh effects in consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water. At this concentration, parathryod hormone and calcitonin are both elevated in consumers, as is thyroid stimulating hormone particularly in those with insufficient dietary iodine, and ingested fluoride at any concentration accumulates in bone,  forms bone of poor qualit,y and is not removable with normal biochemical mechanisms. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

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?  

 

 

Regular Contributor

Gee, Karen.  So now correcting the patently false claims made by you and your New Zealand antifluoridationist counterparts, is somehow “legal doublespeak”??  

 

Because you fail to understand legal rulings which you garble and misrepresent, does not mean that intelligent readers have the same failing.  

 

Now, in regard to the false claims you have posted in this latest comment:

 

1.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any medical contraindication for consuming optimally fluoridated water, and the only thing “ill-advised” associated with fluoridation is according any credence, whatsoever, to the false claims and misinformation put forth by activists such as you who have no regard for truth and accuracy.

 

2.  The “immoral mandate” is that attempted by antifluoridatinsts who seek to impose their decades-old personal ideology onto entire populations, thereby depriving those citizens of the very valuable dental decay prevention benefitting nearly 75% of the United States.

 

3.  Fluoride ions have  always existed in water.  To suddenly proclaim them to be a drug, is obviously ludicrous.

 

4.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of fluoride build up from optimally fluoridated water, or of any harm to anyone, anywhere who “have consumed it for decades”.

 

5.  Aside from the obvious health danger of so doing, your recklessly dispensing medical recommendations to senior citizens when you have no credentials, knowledge  or qualifications to do so could be considered to be practicing medicine without a license, thereby potentially exposing you to criminal prosecution, and liability claims.  That you are doing so is especially egregious and dangerous given the the recommendations you are providing are contradictiry to accepted medical standard of care.  

 

The reality is that there  is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect from optimally fluoridated water on senior citizens, or anyone else, “with arthritis, kidney disease, denentia, thyroid, cancer, IBD, etc”.  It is against the standard of care to recommend against consuming fluoridated water.  

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

15,024 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Say America's pediatricians through the American Academy of Pediatrics: "Fluoride plays a very important role in the prevention of dental caries."

"Water fluoridation is a cost-effective means of preventing dental caries, with the lifetime cost per person equaling less than the cost of 1 dental restoration. In short, fluoridated water is the cheapest and most effective way to deliver anticaries benefits to communities."

America's Internal Medicine specialists whose main mission is the medical care for older people agree. The American Academy of Family Physicians did their own systematic review before deciding to advocate for fluoridation.

Physicians are not stupid lemmings. They only wish the best for their patients. If the views in this "discussion" were the truth the physician's support of fluoridation would evaporate.

These arguments well illustrates that fluoridation opponents actually believe that somehow state and federal health agencies, aided by these many expert scientific communities are lying and helping to poison over 2000 million Americans.

This is pure crackpottery.
Trusted Contributor

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!

Regular Contributor

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."
Conversationalist

“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.  

 

Conversationalist

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

Regular Contributor

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

15,519 Views
0
Report
Periodic Contributor

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.

Regular Contributor

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

 

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know
More From AARP