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. 



  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞
  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.😞 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞

  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); 

  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.):



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. 



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.

  • 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. 



  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: 
    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:
    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): 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999):
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011):
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoridation promoters argue that it does not matter that dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every city that fluoridates its people and that there are no exceptions.  Their idea is that white spots are not pathologic.  But fluorosis is properly named because it is an abnormal condition of deficient enamel layered at the fluorosed location. A surface cut which eventually heals is still labeled a pathologic trauma that requires inflammation to occur to repair. But fluorosis is permanent damage that cannot be repaired and is thus worse than simple pathology. it is a permanent abnormality. Many are affected with reduced employment oportunites because of it. And no one actually goes out and seeks for or desires it because it is an abnormality.

It is downplayed by fluoridiaotnists becuase it is the chief visible outcome of the fluoridation of people that is a recognized side effect. It is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. The Kumar chart is in agreeement with many other studies that show as water fluoride increases, dental fluorosis incidence increaes progressivley while dental caries are not affected outside experimental error (as in Ziegelvecker and by Teotia and others).

Second, although the NRC estimated a half life of bone fluoride at 20 years, note that it is only marrow and otehr soft tissue regions in bone that are able to have fluoride removed upon transfer to fresh clean drinking water. Fluoride removal from compact bone is not a biochemically reversible process. Fluoride is a poisonous insult to bone and has of course no function there.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

"The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” - Wiener et al. (2018)


Apologies to the senior citizens who must be disgusted by now with all the scientific vitriol since Thursday. However, since JJ brought up dental fluorosis and used a picture, I thought I'd share a picture - with excerpts from studies and citations for those of you who have noticed stains on your grand-kid's teeth, albeit more prevalent and with worse severity in Black & Hispanic populations because of a genetically determined lower tolerance to fluoride.


What has changed over the years is more and more communities are fluoridated. Dental fluorosis is a lagging indicator of overexposure from 10-12 years earlier, a predictor of increased learning disabilities during childhood, and a leading indicator of increased dental bills - for a lifetime.


DFwQuotes.jpgTo confirm the numbers, here are links to the source documents: 

2010 CDC:  
2018 31% increase in a decade:


BTW: My little daughter (white) who consumed fluoridated tap water from age one to age 3 had mild dental fluorosis on several of her teeth, diagnosed by her dentist who was positively gleeful when he saw it. I was not happy with those white stains. Since I figured out that it was the water causing rashes and stomach problems in both my children and myself, I switched to bottled water for a decade and my children's adult teeth were fine.


However, when I started using a filter about 10 years later, all sorts of other health effects emerged in my family. Sadly, I did not connect them to the water until after decades of misery. 

Regular Contributor

As a senior citizen, member of AARP, and a Pediatric Dentist, you should apologize to those that may still be reading this thread.


You are misrepresenting the findings of credibly conducted science.  You are also in need of a definitive diagnosis of your "rash", as optimally fluoridated water has never been indicated as a cause of allergic dermatitis.   You should see a Board Certified Allergist.  You would be an interesting case report in their journal.


Additionally, with >3 decades of clinical private practice in pediatric dentistry, your pictures and snippets of articles does not represent in what is seen in practice.  Having seen thousands and thousands of patients over my career, from birth to mid-20's, there has never been one that required treatment for the mild to very mild dental fluorosis that is slightly higher in fluoridated communities than those which aren't.  None has EVER required dental veneers costing thousands of dollars as you state.


It is very easy to pull information from the internet and claim that it supports your perspective.  If those reading your posts are clicking on your hyperlinks, they will readily see that many do not apply to community water fluoridation as practiced in the U.S.  Additionally, many are misquoted.


Leave this to the dental and medical professionals to discuss.  Writing confusing pieces to mislead my families here is unforgivable.


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit group of medical and dental health professionals formed to disseminate the credible evidence-based science on community water fluoridation


Johnny Johnson,


You said, "as optimally fluoridated water has never been indicated as a cause of allergic dermatitis."  The word "never" is not a word which is used very often in science, and then it is a red flag.


Yes, there are some people who are chemically sensitive who develop a rash taking a shower or bath in fluoridated water.  I know of three.  


The cases are rather interesting.  One keeps moving when fluoridation is started in her community.


Another has a child who develops allergic dermatitis.  The teenager is in sports and they travel to different communities and stay in hotels.  Mom has made it a habit to look at her teenager's skin after a shower.   Whether or not there is a rash, mom calls the water department to confirm the hotel is or is not getting fluoridated water.  So far the results have been consistent.  No rash with no fluoridated water and a rash with floridated water.  


More common is a rash from topical use.  I do have patients who have been advised not to use fluoride toothpaste and their rashes have stopped.  


Perhaps more common than we know, but we must be careful in science when someone uses the word "never."   


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH


 Fluoride is capable of producing any number of symptoms. They include drowsiness, profound desire to sleep, dizziness, nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, coughing, wheezing (asthma), chest pain, hives, and various intestinal symptoms. Most of the information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication.” - Hobart Feldman, MD, American Board of Allergy and Immunology (1979)


How dare you! You are crossing a whole other line in offering me off the cuff medical advice and  diagnosis without a consultation that derisively dismisses me on a public forum, JJ.  


My children and I did see allergists and other MDs. Our rashes were diagnosed as eczema, psoriasis, allergic urticaria odd 'lesions' in allergic hive variety, IBS, etc. and I was advised by my doctors to only consume spring or filtered water because 'some people are sensitive to the chemicals in the water.' Also, to watch my diet in order to avoid things that set me off.  Everything set me off, because water is in everything.  15% of the population is like my family, misdiagnosed & dismisssed. 


At least a couple of those doctors were deceptive  - they knew. Their choice of language and odd treatment gave them away, although it took me a long time to figure it all out. The literature as you well know documents rashes including the odd lesions as a very distintive type of hive specific to fluoride sensitivity that a minority of women and children get in the preclinical stage of fluoride poisoning called Chizzola maculae - a symptom that the fluoridation lobby has successfully succeeded in hiding from most medical practioners. 






20th Century Science: 

Feltman R. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Dental Digest. August 1956. pp 353-357. 


Feltman R,  Kosel G. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report. R Journal of Dental Medicine. October 1961; 16(4):190-198. 


Fluoride dentrifice and stomatitis. Douglas TE. Northwest Medicine. Sept 1957, 56:1037-1039. 


Waldbott GL, Zacks MN. Blood Clotting in Patients with Chizzola Maculae. Fluoride. 1977; Vol.10, No. 1.  


G. L. Waldbott & V. A. Cecilioni (1969) “Neighborhood” Fluorosis, Clinical Toxicology, 2:4, 387-396,


Allergy to Fluoride. Shea JJ,  Gillespie SM, Waldbott GL. Annals of Allergy, Volume 25, July, 1967. 


Spittle B. (1993) “Allergy and Hypersensitivity to Fluoride.” Fluoride. Volume 26. 


Gibson S. (1999) “Effects of fluoride on immune system function.” Complementary Medical Research. Vol 6: 111-113.


Case Studies 


21st Century Science 

See database for recent science tagged by topic: 








Don't let Johnny Johnson intimidate you because you don't have a dental or medical degree.   And you are not offering off the cuff medical advice.  


If we are going to start that kind of intimidation, then we could charge all the dentists and physicians talking about fluoride with malpractice because none of us are licensed in every state where people are reading these posts.


Johnny is only trying to make you feel inferior.  A bully, such as Trump, uses intimidation and public threats and intimidation.  He especially likes to pick on those with less power, such as children, especially immigrant children because they can't fight back.


Your posts, facts, and references are most reasonable.  I think we can all agree that a Cochrane review of RTC studies has more weight, but because fluoridationists refuse to do those studies, we have to use trials and reports with lower confidence.  


You have better judgment when evaluating the evidence than some on this forum blinded by bias.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Regular Contributor



Yes, all seniors need to do is observe how much “stain” they have noted on their grandkids’ teeth.  In doing so, they will note very little discernible discoloration which can in any manner, be attributable to fluoride exposure.  Why?  Because dental fluorosis is not a problem in regard to optimally fluoridated water, and is certainly not a problem that antifluoridationists have attempted to pump it into being.  The only dental fluorisis considered to be an adverse effect is severe.  This level of dental fluorosis is rare in the US, and does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content less than 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.  


Steven D. Slott, DDS



You asked for references for the CDC Figure 1.  Note the CDC has 5 references for their data.


And you said only "severe" dental fluorosis is an adverse affect.  And if a patient comes in and wants treatment for moderate or mild DF, am I supposed to say they have a monosymptomatic hypochdriacal psycosis and send them out the door?  


Harm is in the eye of the beholder.  If I scratch your car, the car will run just fine and I'm sure you would not call that severe damage, so it is only cosmetic and does not need to be repaired, right?   Wrong.  If I scratched your car, it is harm.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH



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














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



”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




"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







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



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


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 arthritis 

Databased of science: 

Arthritis numbers 


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



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.”—-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 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





















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 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

Regular Contributor



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:

Image of normal tooth with semi-translucent structure and smooth, glossy, pale cream color.
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.
Image of mild fluorosis. Teeth show white opaque areas covering an extensive portion, but not as much as 50%, of the total surface.
Image of moderate fluorosis. All surfaces of teeth affected with opaque areas and teeth show marked wear and brown staining.
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.


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.


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.




Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society


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.  




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









Periodic Contributor

Thank you for this informative post.
0 Kudos



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



“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:


Regular Contributor



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 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 

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


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:


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

















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.

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