Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action - Page 42

CarryAnne · ‎02-02-2015

“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

2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞

2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);

2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.

1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf

EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008

Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf

Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”

PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:

a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!

rs5526 · ‎07-12-2018

It is necessary to read and understand accurate well-collected scientific data, not articles written by those with biases. How many in the government have taken the time to read the Teotia and Teotia 30 year study showing that caries incidence is highest in populations that have high fluoride and low calcium in their diets?

Or the Ziegelbecker study demonstrating that the original correlation by Trendley Dean with natural fluoride water was mistakenly taken from a limited data set, where considering all data there is no caries efffect of flouride in water over a broad concentration range to 6 ppm.

Or the Yiamouyiannis study of U.S. fluoridated cities showing zero effect on dental caries in massive population sets as a function of age.

Or the Sutton textbooks demonstrating how the false conclusions were made in the original Grand Rapids and Newburgh fluoridation trials?

How many have read the Fluoride Deception that traces the actual reasons why fluoridation trials were begun in the first place without FDA approval and with FDA opposition?

Dean confessed in court under oath that the evidence correlating water fluoride with caries incidence had no basis in fact.

Why does the government continue it? I don't know. You seem to suggest that you know they would stop if they knew the truth. When a government program starts, who can stop it? I can't.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

JoeM785706 · ‎07-12-2018

Richard - I don’t work in the area of fluoridation any longer but I did spend the best part of 20 years in this area, particularly in regards to dental public health. I did take the time to read every text I could access which opposed fluoridation because I felt that this public health policy did require justification and needed to be questioned constantly. While I came to disagree with them, I have always recognized that anti-fluoride advocates were utterly sincere in their opposition. What was obvious is that there are an enormous number of relevant studies out there - I think the York Review identified over 3000 as far back as 2000. In such a situation we have to rely on a synthesis of all the evidence by competent experts rather than selecting bits and pieces of individual studies. This has been carried out now on many occasions in many countries. Thus, I accept this consensus.

rs5526 · ‎07-12-2018

You again make an incorrect extrapolation.

I've informed the FDA several times that allowing fluoride in bottled water contradicts their own ruling to ban the sale of fluorides intended to be ingested by pregnant women. Their response is that they don't authorize adding the fluoride ilnto bottled water and in most cases it is naturally there and not intentionally added. Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

DavidF928895 · ‎07-13-2018

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, “Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water.”

That is odd, because on this label of bottled water http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2 I see that there are 23 mcg of fluoride per 30 gram serving. That comes to 0.77 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, which is very close to the optimal level for maximum benefit and no harm.

I’m going to start keeping track of your false statements, Dr. Sauerheber J .

CarryAnne · ‎07-12-2018

Where did you get your medical degree, David? And remind me, when did I see you for a medical consultation? Or is your degree in bioethics?

My allergist told me to avoid municipal water because of my rashes and other symptoms, based on skin and blood tests, as well as clinical examination. He had a packet of information that he handed to many of his patients on this topic. He mentioned there are 'many different chemicals' used to treat water that can set some one off. This in 1983.
My MD told me to 'watch what I ate' for my gastrointestinal complaints and to learn to live with the arthritis. This in the 1990s.

When it's in water, it's in everything. It took me decades to find out exactly what the problem was. Once I knew and could take more comprehensive steps to avoid fluoride, after decades of misery - my 'allergies,' IBS and arthritis are gone. Also gone are my more recent kidney and liver problems - all of which are documented as being indicative of fluoride posioning.

Fluoride is not added to water to treat water - it is added to treat people. Although they allow a limited amount in bottled water, fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.' The FDA assumes no authority for 'water additives' and the EPA leaves fluoridations decision to states and municipalities where the issue becomes politicized - because the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people. Fluoride is the only substance ever added to treat people.

Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health!

“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)

1978 Checklist:

http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/flier_waldbott_symptoms_ftgd.pdf

2015 Report w/checklist:

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

DavidF928895 · ‎07-13-2018

Carrie Anne,

Where did you get your Water Treatment Operator’s License?

You say, “. . . SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.” Clearly you are talking about the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, since states do not have authority over the Federal Government.

Could you please cite the specific statute which says this? Of course you can’t. Your comment is false.

You also say, “fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.'” As I pointed out to Dr. Sauerheber, while the FDA does not have regulatory authority over Community Water Fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water. This includes fluoridated bottled water.

This is a label from the FDA regulated product “Dannon’s Fluoride to Go” bottled water: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2 . Under “Nutrition Information” you will see that Fluoride is listed as a Mineral. It is not identified as a “Drug.” Could you please show me any place on this FDA regulated product where the word “drug” exists? Of course you can’t. The FDA doesn’t classify, identify, consider, or label optimally fluoridated water as a drug.

Could you please show me anything, on any FDA website, which identifies optimally fluoridated water as a drug?

So, when you say, “Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health!” you can’t be referring to optimally fluoridated water, since neither the FDA, the CDC, the EPA, . . No Federal Agency considers fluoridated water to be a “drug.” People who try to generate paranoia about safe drinking water call fluoridated water a drug. And they’re the only ones who do so.

Moreover, if you claim that you have gotten “fluoride poisoning” by drinking water with 1 ppm of fluoride in it, you would be the first person in history to suffer from such an ailment. . . . Oh wait, there was a guy, about 50 years ago, from the 1950s to the 1970s (his name escapes me at the moment) who did have some anecdotal stories about people who allegedly suffered from drinking fluoridated water, but it never really panned out. Someone would develop a rash, they moved out of the city, and the rash disappeared. Imagine that. Besides, you like to look at post-2015 science don’t you.

There was one other guy, Hans Moolengurgh, whose idea of science was to take a baby bottle away from a screaming baby to see what would happen. lol

rs5526 · ‎07-12-2018

Yes, wouldn't it be great if every scientist were only good, unbiased, and exclusively truth-seeking?

The evidence that fluoride does NOT cause any bone cancer in humans is incomplete and in fact is in disagreeemnt with other data suggesting it might. The term "strong" is a weighted opinion or educated guess in cases such as this because, again, there are no such things as bone cultures with which one can directly and scientifically attempt to address the question of whether it is causative or not. No mortal human on earth, no matter how good a scientist he thinks he is, understands how bone cells cause the orchestrated formation of bone with the precisly proper shape necessary to serve the purpose it has at any particular bodily location. No one understands.

To say that fluoride does not cause bone cancer would be over-the-top speculation, being in the face of a complete lack of such experimentation even being possible with human tissue that grows during formative years in youth. The idea that there is strong evidence to support such a claim is a group consensus opinion that led to its placement in group 3, and it remains an opinion, in particular since it opposes the animal results that are scientifically demonstrated.

The FDA goes the proper extra mile. When a substance is known to cause adverse health effecs in anmals, the agency assigns that substance into Category X. This category forbids the use of that substance by pregnant women In this group is where fluoride belongs, and indeed in 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intendced for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. This is because of the known harm to animals at blood levels comarable to that in a fluoride water consumer, coupled with the absolute fact that newborn offspring have zero benefit from beilng fluoridated in the womb. Yes, the CDC and WHO are not the only organizations that make decisions based on group think and consensus. It is a part of life, and frequently wrong and harmful decisions have been made especially in the case of a low level chronic poisonous substance affecting overall health and longevity.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

DavidF928895 · ‎07-12-2018

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, “in 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intendced for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S.”

That is interesting. All bottled water falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA. Isn’t that right? This is a label from Dannon’s fluoridated water: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

If what you said was correct, then I would expect the FDA to have put some kind of warning that this product is not intended to be consumed by pregnant women. Could you please point out that warning on this FDA regulated product, fluoridated water, which is intended for ingestion?

Of course you can’t. The FDA doesn’t warn pregnant women not to drink fluoridated water.

CarryAnne · ‎07-12-2018

“We too often bind ourselves by authorities rather than by the truth.” - Lucretia Mott (1793-1880)

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” —Albert Einstein

Truth doesn’t change. What changes is how people, including doctors and scientists, see the truth - how they interpret the data. We've several scientists on this forum thread and thousands of scientists across the country who are definitive in their professional and scientific evaluation of the evidence, that fluoridation is a harmful policy - and that includes scientists in essentially every organization supporting fluoridation. Two dentists and a doctor in my town have privately encouraged me to keep up the fight because they know the truth is fluoride is harmful to health and does not provide any dental benefit, but none of them will say so publicly.

However, forget about the scientific evidence for a moment. Consider the morality - what right does anyone or any group have to add a drug to my water that is medically contraindicated for me and my grandchildren because they believe it might prevent a cavity in some neighbor's kid who doesn't brush his teeth!

JoeM785706 · ‎07-12-2018

Hello CarryAnn - I don't think Einstein was arguing that scientific consensus should be ignored, he was arguing against unthinking acceptance of unsupported opinions from those in authority.

In the case of water fluoridation, the scientific consensus from very many major reviews by experts is that water fluoridation is beneficial and does not cause harm.

It seems to me that we should need very good reasons not to accept the consensus of the scientific community, particularly in public health.

DavidF928895 · ‎07-12-2018

Carrie Anne,

You say, “ what right does anyone or any group have to add a drug to my water.”

To that I would say, if you believe a minute amount of fluoride in your drinking water is somehow “drugging” you, then you will have to take your argument up with either God of Nature, depending on what you believe, since all drinking water on Earth has some degree of fluoride in it already, and they have been “drugging” you for your entire life.

This is a nonsensical argument you make, Carrie. You are not being “drugged” when you eat breakfast cereal fortified with vitamins & minerals, when you eat bread with folic acid, or when you drink milk fortified with Vitamin D. But I understand it’s easy to frighten people by telling them they are being “drugged.”

rs5526 · ‎07-12-2018

I listed the evidence against fluoride causing human bone cancer already, that prompted the insertion into Group 3. But it is not strong or conclusive. Bone cancer prior to water fluoridation was essentially non-existent in the U.S. Now we have cases of it. In 1989 there were 1,300 lethal cases. I don't know if fluoride was involved, I can't prove it veyonod doubt of course, but I also cannot use the fact that over 99% of the population don't get it proves that no one has or will. In mammals it takes fluoride exposure for typically 1/3 of its entire lifespan to induce it significantly. These are well controlled experiments with caged creatures, only possible with lab animals.

Yes, fluoride in toothpaste is over 2,000 times more concentrated than that in fluoridated water, which demonstrates why fluoride in water is useless in preventing caries. But it is not an argument that fluoride cannot cause bone cancer. First of all, enamel is a covering that efficiently protects underlying bony dentin, and fluoride ion is unable to pass through enamel into dentin. Topical fluoride through oral surfaces can enter the bloodstream of course, but only ingested systemic fluoride substantially accumulates into bone (i.e. from swallowing toothpaste or drinking/eating fluoridated water and foods). Of all the fluoride in the blood of a consumer living on 1 ppm fluoridated water, only 15% comes from toothpaste use (NRC, 2006).

The reasons to denounce water fluoridation are massive, and cancer is not one that necessarily needs to be argued. For example, fluoride ingestion does not significantly affect dental decay (Teotia;Ziegelbecker;Sutton;Yiamouyiannis, etc), but does efficiently cause bone quality deterioration from lifelong ingestion. Why would anyone marginilize bone health when there are excellent simple methods to maintain dental health without fluoride ingestion? (brushing after eating sugar or avoiding sugar, etc.). Normal enamel is calcium phosphate and does not contain fluoride as a necessary ingredient. Same with bone- - fluoride is a contaminant, not a nutrient.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

JoeM785706 · ‎07-12-2018

Richard - It is clear that the international scientific consensus is that fluoride is not a carcinogen. It is also clear that the strong consensus is that fluoridated water is beneficial to oral health.

It is also clear that the benefits of fluoridation extend into older age, with greater numbers of retained teeth and lower levels of root caries. Epidemiological studies of dental health consistently report improved dental health for residents of fluoridated areas, regardless of toothbrushing.

If either of these points was untrue, public health authorities would not be promoting water fluoridation.

CarryAnne · ‎07-12-2018

Joe - Tell me, why did an Irish dental fluoridationist join and begin commenting on the website of the American Academy of Retired Persons, which is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age?

Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room. I hear Sligo-Leitrim is only a train ride away from Dublin, yes?

Myself, I prefer to limit my activities to my side of the Atlantic and let environmental scientist Declan Waugh and biologist Doug Cross deal with the trolls in the UK.

DavidF928895 · ‎07-13-2018

Carrie Anne, you say, “Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room.”

You may be confusing Chuck Haynie with me. The first time I brought up "cancer" it was in response to one of your comments. This is my exact quote:

“Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus:

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” “

Since you want to talk about “Cancer,” where would you like to get a room?

JoeM785706 · ‎07-12-2018

CarryAnn - that’s a bit abusive isn’t it? You do realize that this discussion is online and can be viewed from anywhere? If you simply resort to insulting people who have a different view to yours it tends to devalue your own arguments.

CarryAnne · ‎07-12-2018

Joe -

While I agree your response to me was a more subtle put down, I suggest you read what Chuck, David, Steven & Johnny have been writing about Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Sauerheber, SIRPAC and me since 6/27. Their choice of language is trully abusive.

But yes - I feel and expressed some righteous indignation that the AFS imported an Irishman to weigh in on this American website whose membership is supposed to be American, not international. I've already had plenty of dealings with abusive trolls from the southern hemisphere on my small town newspaper, but I only found out they weren't local by digging into their online identities - so I now dig into everyone who seems not to belong. Other AARP members might not have been tipped off by the referenc to SCHER and the BDS post-nomial, but I knew it meant you might not be an American.

Joe, read my posts about my experience which has nothing to do with cancer - a distraction from the purpose of this thread which chugged along unmolested for three years with about 60 posts until 6/27. Chuck and David jumped on the passing reference to cancer to derail the conversation, which it has with your help, while he and company denigrate me and belittle my testimony of harm.

For the record: Einstein wasn't hailed as a brilliant hero from the get go. He up ended lots of 'consensus' - which is a political construct without scientific basis. See what a former fluoridationist had to say about so called fluoridation consensus;

“I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.” - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)

Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century. I'm sure there are a few in Ireland, too:

IAOMT 2017 Position Paper with 500+ citations AGAINST any fluoride use: https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fluoride-Position-Paper.pdf
AAEM 2015 cosigner of letter with Erin Brockovich et al: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf
CHEJ 2015 Position of Lois Gibbs, Nobel Prize nominee and environmentalist: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf
Sierra Club 2008 on damage to environment: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water
EWG in 2011 to HHS on evidence of harm: https://www.ewg.org/news/testimony-official-correspondence/proposed-federal-fluoride-cap-too-high
LULAC 2011 Resolution on Medical Consent & Environmental Justice: http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medica...

JoeM785706 · ‎07-12-2018

CarryAnn - Thank you for your reply. For the record, I very rarely contribute to online discussions, and I am a public health official making statements that are consistent with WHO and public health bodies generally. I am not sure why that would qualify me as a “troll”!

While I still work as a public health official, I am not directly involved in fluoridation these days. However, I am aware of a lot of work concerning fluoridation and older people within Ireland at present. Perhaps this may be relevant.

JoeM785706 · ‎07-12-2018

CarryAnn - that’s a bit abusive isn’t it? You do realize that this discussion is online and can be viewed from anywhere? If you simply resort to insulting people who have a different view to yours it tends to lessen your own arguments, don’t you think?

DavidF928895 · ‎07-12-2018

Dr. Sauerheber

You say, “I listed the evidence against fluoride causing human bone cancer already, that prompted the insertion into Group 3. But it is not strong or conclusive.”

No, . . . that is not what prompted its insertion into Group 3. Let’s take a look at the definition of Group 3 which you have already used. Your quote, copy/pasted from your comment:

“"agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans."

Nowhere in that definition is there any mention of any evidence of cancer in humans. To the contrary. Read it. The definition of a Group 3 carcinogen is that there is “inadequate” evidence of cancer in humans. It doesn’t say there is “weak or inconclusive” evidence. It also says there is Strong Evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity does Not operate in humans. In other words, there is strong evidence against the possibility of cancer being caused by the substance. These are two distinctly different things.

Caffeine is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen.

I would think that a true scientist would look at the facts as they are and objectively draw a conclusion instead of twisting and distorting definitions in order to fit an agenda.

CarryAnne · ‎07-11-2018

“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 Council panelist (2017)

Chuck - you misrepresent my response to your post in which you challenged Dr. Sauerheber to file a lawsuit. My response was about lawsuits, not about cancer. One lawsuit example I used was about falsification of data in a cancer study which ended up in a lawsuit. Senior EPA scientist Dr. Wm. Marcus won that lawsuit against the EPA for wrongful termination prompted by his memo about the scientific fraud at the EPA in that cancer study. The legal decision provided remedy to Dr. Marcus but didn't impact the fraudulant study which was allowded to stand, which is one of the reasons cancer isn't my go to subject. I also gave examples of other lawsuits. But again, legal cases aren't my go to either.

My go to is: at least 15% of the population is intolerant of fluoride but misdiagnosed as having gastrointestinal disease, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, autoimmune disease, etc. Some of us eventually figure it out. The science supports all of these symptom clusters as consistent with fluoride toxicity. Kidney disease and neurodegenerative symptoms are also well documented symptoms of chronic fluoride intoxication, even from 'optimal' water concentrations. All of these issues are particular concerns for senior citizens who have been consuming fluoridated water for decades and consequently are carrying a heavy load of fluoride in their bodies, brains and bones.

Joe - Among other interesting things, the 2010 SCHER also states:

"...in older adults (more than 65 years of age), a significant decline in renal clearance of fluoride has been reported consistent with the age-related decline in glomerular filtration rates."

Reduced clearance means heavier fluoride retention in the body where it can cause or worsen inflammatory and other symptoms. I have a bunch of kidney fluoride science items, even a couple from this year, but I think this image of a few items from the 2006 National Resource Council will make the point:

Folks - This AARP forum is meant to be a place to share stories and advice relevant to our experiences which also could be of interest to AARP as senior citizen advocates. This social media thread is not for armchair criticism of studies that are not supportive of a point of view, not for interpretting legal cases and most certainly not for personal attacks on AARP members whether they are scientists or individuals who share their personal health history and the remedies that have improved their quality of life.

JoeM785706 · ‎07-11-2018

In relation to Dr Haynie's comment, I was involved in the presentations to the European Union's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risk (SCHER) in 2011. This was a comprehensive review by a panel of scientists who were primarily toxicologists by training. Their comment on cancer was as follows:

"SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in
drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from
animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic."

This is just one of many comprehensive reviews by experts in their field, none of which have concluded that fluoride causes cancer, and certainly not at the levels found in fluoridated water.

The SCHER report is available online at https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf.

Joe Mullen BDS

BillO538145 · ‎07-11-2018

Charles and Joe,

I do appreciate and respect your comments; however, based on my education and experience, I have strong reservations about "trusting" those chosen to support policy when they have unrealistic paramaters set on them.

Bias in some reviews is serious. For example, SCHER 2011 accepted cariostatic benefit weight of evidence of "less convincing" and exposure based on "estimates" but required "unequivocally substantiated" evidence of harm.

The duplicity of these reviews is unscientific and unethical. They did not ask knowledgeable opponents to be on the committees. Like minded people supported like minded conclusions.

For example, the NRC 2006 members were instructed to have confidence of harm strong enough that they would "bet the farm" on. The SCHER 2011 uses the term "unequivocally" meaning leaving no doubt, unambiguous. The abstract, "Limited evidence from epidemiological studies points towards other adverse health effects following systemic fluoride exposure, e.g. carcinogenicity, developmental neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity; however the application of the general rules of the weight-of-evidence approach indicates that these observations cannot be unequivocally substantiated."

Until we have absolute certainty of harm, fluoride is considered safe? Makes no sense.

EPA uses the 90th percentile of water drinkers, obviously the 10% of the population drinking the most water are crazy to drink that much water, we don't include them in determining "safety."

And EPA omits all fetuses and those under six months. Why?

And EPA proposes to raise their RfD to 0.08 mg/kg bw from 0.06 mg/kg, a 33% increase. Why? (RSC 2010)

Why? to not make things looks so bad. The EPA still shows a quarter to almost all children are ingesting too much fluoride. But EPA has not changed their MCLG even though they report many are ingesting too much with their MCLG.

The terms "bet the farm" and "unequivocally" are absolutes such as "never" and "always." Those absolutes are not scientific terms. What happened to the EU's precautionary principle? I would suggest there is nothing in science that has absolute confidence and if there is, we need to look again.

When scientists consider "benefit" we can do prospective RCT studies and intentionally cause benefit. When scientists consider "harm" we can not intentionally cause harm and RCT studies are unethical. Our confidence in the weight of evidence of benefit should be higher than the evidence of harm. Yet SCHER 2011 had the opposite.

SCHER 2011 based exposure on estimates. Come on guys, we measure fluoride in urine and blood. SCHER 2011 wanted the members to accept estimates of exposure and unequivocally substantiated risk.

EFSA was trusted. One scientist trusts the next. Few question and dig into the evidence. SCHER 2011 abstract: "The upper tolerable intake level (UL), as established by EFSA, was exceeded only in the worst case scenario for adults and children older than 15 years of age at a daily consumption of 2.8 L of drinking water, and for children (6-15 years of age) consuming more than 1.5 L of drinking water when the level of fluoride in the water is above 3 mg/L. For younger children (1-6 years of age) the UL was exceeded when consuming more than 1 L of water at 0.8 mg fluoride/L (mandatory fluoridation level in Ireland) and assuming the worst case scenario for other sources. For infants up to 6 months old receiving infant formula, if the water fluoride level is higher than 0.8 mg/L, the intake of fluoride exceeds 0.1 mg/kg/day, and this level is 100 times higher than the level found in breast milk (less than 0.001 mg/kg/day)"

Clearly, younger children and infants on fluoridated water can easily get too much fluoride, 700 times more fluoride for infants on formula made with fluoridated water than breast milk. . . WOW.

Weight of evidence. Is that not heavy enough weight? But proponents still keep pushing ever more fluoride, regardless of peoples' desires and total exposure. Simply makes no sense.

Topical benefit is strong, systemic is "less convincing." What about the "weight of evidence" for benefit?

Did the SCHER committee bet the farm on systemic benefit? No way.

Did the SCHER committee use the term unequivocally beneficial? No.

The same standard of evidence for benefit and risks were not used. Benefits slid in with less convincing but risk had to have unequivocal evidence.

Sorry, but I don't have blind "TRUST" for those kinds of reviews of science.

I find the evidence that scientists/pharmacologists testing new cancer treatment drugs, cause cancer in animals with fluoride, so the researchers have cancer animals to treat.

I'm out of space for this post. More later.

Hang in there, I'll get to the cancer part in just a bit.

Bill

rs5526 · ‎07-11-2018

The references for the statements, on the FDA ruling against fluoridated water in dialysis wards due to increased fluoride-inducedd morbidity when it is used, and the position statement of Edna Lovering at the FDA that fluoride added into water is "an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug," are in:

Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 (2013) at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

By the way fluoride was ruled in two separate U.S. court cases to be a carcinogen in man. But since bone cancer fortunately remains rare and fluoride promoters incessantly demand absolute proof that they would accept for this, which is never sufficient, I discuss instead the adverse effects that fluoride causes in all consumers, namely abnormal bone structure of varying degree depending on length of exposure and other factors.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

ss2896 · ‎07-12-2018

There will always be a few cranks in any organization who will take contrarian positions. The simple facts are these:

1. The vast majority of peer-reviewed studies in quality journals support the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing dental decay. This includes the prevention of root-surface decay in older individuals.

2. Every major health-care organization with a position on fluoridation of drinking water supports the practice, as did every U.S. Surgeon General for decades.

3. The U.S. Centers for Diease Control and Prevention hailed community water fluoridation as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 20th Century.

Don't let the fear-mongers fool you.

CarryAnne · ‎07-11-2018

“The evidence of adverse health effects is of such magnitude and human being so varied in their individual constitution state of health at any moment, eating and drinking habits, etc., that it is inappropriate to say that fluoridation is a totally healthful and safe practice for all.” - Dr. Brian A. Dementi, toxicologist Dept of Health, VA (1980)

"We know fluoridation harms some people. That doesn't matter, they are collatoral damage for the greater good. That decision was made decades ago." - chair of a Board of Health (2014)

Another one of the well known fluoride trolls has joined AARP and posted "somebody would have sued already and won" as a denial of scientific evidence documenting harm which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015. In a previous life, some of these folks may have been part of the Pope's court of scientists who condemed Galileo.

Several lawsuits have found fluoridation harmful, but legal under the law of the land - legal to condem Baby Boomers and their descendents to accumulate fluoride in bones where it causes or worsens arthritis and increases brittleness, to accumulate in brains where it disrupt brain function on a cellular level and calcifies the pineal gland contributing to sleeplessness, and to contribute to age related diabetes in service of a dental myth that it might reduce cavities in some children with lousy diets who don't brush their teeth.

Here is a collection of 23 scientific affidavits from credentialed experts condemming fluoridation as harmful that were filed in one such 1993 lawsuit in Wisconsin:

Safe Water Association Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs Fond du Lac County (Defendant)

Also see the legal memo and attached scientific affidavit from a Canadian lawsuit filed in 2014 that is being held up by all sorts of political machinations.

CarryAnne · ‎07-07-2018

"If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc." - Michael Taras, DMD, Fellow in the Academy of General Dentistry (2015)

“Fluoridation advocates talk BS (bad science.)” - Dr. Stan Litras, BDS, BSc, Past President NZDA Wellington Chapter (2013)

This thread was begun to share both personal stories and modern scientific evidence of harm from fluoridation policy in order to collect data for AARP. Between Feb 2015 and Feb 2018, this thread proceeded unmolested gathering about 60 comments. Since June 27th, the thread has been overwhelmed by three members of a fluoridation advocacy group.

Contrary to what the president of this group would have you believe, it is they, the fluoridationists, who are the fear mongers. They insist there will be a dental Armageddon if we stop fluoridation. They are masters of deception and denigration who deny scientific and historical facts that contradict their agenda and who demand obedience to dental dogma. They also are experts at logical fallacies and are willfully blind to ethics. (Gesser-Edelsburg & Shir-Raz 2016; Barnett-Rose 2014)

The facts are anyone who does not feel fluoridated dental products are sufficient for his needs can buy a gallon of fluoridated drinking water for a buck. However, seniors with medical reason to avoid fluoride cannot when it is in municipal water because fluoride cannot be cheaply removed from water and fluoridated water permeates everything. Fluoride even inflames rashes during bathing. Consequently, AARP should act as advocates for seniors. AARP should issue a policy statement in opposition to fluoridation policy.

My Story:

As a pregnant woman, I almost lost my child when my city began fluoridation.
As a young woman, I experienced rashes, arthritis and gastrointestinal conditions that were untreatable.
As a senior, I experienced chronic kidney pain and a liver crisis that scared me into abandoning my water filter in favor of no-low fluoride bottled water.
As a researcher, I then belatedly did my homework on fluoride.

Bottom Line: Now in my 60s, my arthritis of decades duration, as well as my chronic allergic cough, dry gums, IBS, nerve pain, etc., have all disappeared - and they did so in less than two weeks of my switch to no-low fluoride water. No more kidney pain and no more liver episodes, either - and I've found the scientific and medical documentation validating my experiences.

“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts.” - Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel Laureate

P.S. Most countries do not fluoridate. Over a dozen credible professional organizations oppose fluoridation in the 21st century. The IAOMT published a Position Paper Against Any Fluoride Use in 2017, downloadable here: https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts/

Drjohnnyjohnson · ‎07-07-2018

Hi Bill,

You have continued with the stock questions that are constantly asked by those who oppose community water fluoridation.

Bill, as the past Executive Director of the anti-fluoridation group, FAN, you know full well that these questions are widely distributed by the opposition as claims to pose, and pose, and pose. And you know the answers to them. Then you pose additional claims, and more, and more. It is a game of whack-a-mole.

THE FACTS:

Leading heatlh and scientific organiztions around the world back community water fluoridation as safe and effective. Just a few examples of these are:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC

4. Mayo Clinic

5. World Health Organization

Not a single, credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation. NOT ONE.

TRUST:

Who should our families in the U.S. and around the world trust? Do we trust the pediatricians who care for our most precious possessions, our children, or do we place our faith in a group of opponents who use the internet to promote doubt and fear? We choose to trust our respected and credibly recognized health and scientific organizations who do the research on this and all other topics.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

You and CarryAnne can continue to work to scare our families here with fear tactics. No matter how many claims that you make, you both know that the effort to give scientifically accurate answers is time consuming. Even the post below by CarryAnne is a group of references to attempt to fool our families. Dr. Hardy Limeback was on the 2006 National Research Council that she is referring to. Dr. Limeback signed off on the final document that there are absolutely no health harms from fluoride in our water at 2 mg/L.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_bri...

That is 3 times the level of fluoride at which community water fluoridation is fluoridated at, 0.7mg/L.

Summary:

Like vaccination oppenents, the opponents to water fluoridation throw out a plethora of claims that are not supported by credibly conducted research that has been peer reviewed and published in credibly recogniized scientific journals.

As best said by a past U.S. Senator:

Have a great weekend Bill and CarryAnne. I will be busy again for several days working to unscare communities where you and your groups have scared families with unsubstantiated claims. It is more difficult to unscare people than it is to scare them.

Warm Regards,

Johnny

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society
Web: www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org
Twitter: @afs_Fluoride

BillO538145 · ‎07-09-2018

Hello Johnny,

In response to your statement: "Not a single, credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation. NOT ONE."

I disagree.

First, I would agree that most USA science and health organizations endorse fluoridation. But not all.

And, I do not put much scientific weight on endorsements. Most endorsements are not backed by a good scientific review of all sides of the literature, rather they reference each other. CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing. For that matter, you could reference me, but you would need to date it prior to 2000. To put weight on an endorsement, review their scientifically referenced position papers (if they have one) and consider the date. The IAOMT's position paper is more scientific than the ADA or AAP's. I can assure you, I have not personnally reviewed every organization's and country's position on fluoridation.

Second: Which of the scientific organizations promoting a range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm fluoride in water, reviewed the total exposure and high prevelance of over exposure, recommended lowering the concentration of fluoride in water before HHS's recommendation. They were silent because they never looked at the science. When HHS finally lowered their recommendations, ALL the scientific and health organizations were wrong until they obediently fell in line with 0.7 ppm. But NONE, NOT ONE, reviewed the NRC, EPA DRA and EPA RSC, NHANES and recommended reducing fluoride exposure before HHS recommendation.

All the so called "scientific" organizations were all pupets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science. Finally HHS did, and I am told the decision was very controversial, but finally pushed through at 0.7 ppm. I do not think any of them, NOT ONE, are credible scientific organizations because NOT ONE reviewed the science. Even the ADA waited for HHS. And HHS does not fluoridate, but they were more on top of fluoridation than any so called scientific organization.

Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust.

Those allegidly "credible" scientific organizations promoting fluoridation at 1 ppm have not and did not review the science and follow the science. They all waited for someone else to stand out from the herd and protect the public.

I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation. Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation. Just because a person is an expert in one area of science, does not make them an expert in all scientific areas. A Pedodontist is the best of the best for my grandchildren's oral health, but I am not taking my daughter to one to deliver her baby or do open heart surgery. And how many bicuspids did I take out on the recommendation of Orthodontists, before we began to consider airway? We all have made mistakes, following the herd is the most common. Daily I see the adverse effects of closing down the size of the mouth and airway.

Third: In my 41st year as a practicing dental clinician and public health, I have seen times when the "herd of organizations" have made mistakes because they protected their professions rather than the public. Change is very slow when following the herd. Change is faster when following science.

Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion. Apparently some have interest in endorsements, here are some health and scientific organiztions opposed to fluoridation, and I have not read all their position papers:

International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology. https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
International College of Integrative Medicine
International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
Holistic Dental Association
Environmental Working Group
Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Sierra Club

International Chiropractors Association
Organic Consumers Association
Food & Water Watch
The National Whistleblower Center

Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added

Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.

Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of caries....“

Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries

Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark.“

Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated“

Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!

Netherlands REJECTED: Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgment overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.

Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.

Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

Israel SUSPENDED mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects.: June 21, 2006 “The labor, welfare and health Knesset committee”

China BANNED: "not allowed“

France Was 50% now 30% fluoridated Salt, but no food service salt.

Ireland 74% Fluoridated

UK 9% Fluoridated

Canada had about two thirds fluoridated and now about one third, from what I hear. British Columbia has almost no fluoridation and their caries rates are lower than Oregon with 19% fluoridated and Oregon is lower (in most surveys) than Washington State with about 2/3rds fluoridated.

Bill