Take a look at how people age around the world with this AARP special report: A New Age.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
935
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

935 Views
Message 1051 of 1,248

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

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
935
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1039
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,039 Views
Message 1052 of 1,248

"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/ 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1039
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1024
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,024 Views
Message 1053 of 1,248

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

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1024
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1096
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,096 Views
Message 1054 of 1,248

When scientific sunshine hits fluoridaiton, proponents go silent.

 

Another day without response from proponents of fluoridation.

 

Two questions were asked and proponents fell silent without fully answering.

 

What do you consider to be the upper limits of fluoride ingestion for infants and children?  (SAFE)  Although Steven responded 10 mg/kg/bw, each new scientific study usually finds harm at ever lower dosages.  10 mg/kg/bw is historical and we now know that dosage is not safe, especially for the unborn and infants.  In the not too distant future, fluoride will be in the same category of lead and arsenic with zero ingested is best.

 

What dosage of fluoride is required or recommended to prevent dental caries? (EFFECTIVE)  As a dentist with public health training, I am disappointed my professions have promoted fluoride ingestion without knowing how much fluoride is beneficial.  The focus has been on water fluoride instead of tooth fluoride concentrations.  

 

If the only source of fluoride were water fluoridation, proponents would have a much stronger case.  

 

If proponents encouraged open discussion, academic freedom and sincere scientific discovery, we could all learn and improve the health of the public.  Instead, proponents work using one side of the evidence, cherry picking the evidence, using endorsements and in the dark, behind the scenes, convincing city councils and water districts to add fluoride.  Once the elected leaders are on board, the proponents railroad policy.  

 

Portland, Oregon, has been used as an example with one paper's Editor in support of fluoride.  Working behind the scenes and without public input, proponents convinced the city to fuoridate the water.  The short hearings did not permit science to be discussed in depth.  It became an emotions and power struggle rather than a candid evaluation of science and laws.  Fluoridation passed in spite of the tremendous push back.   However, a great deal of money was spent on both sides to go to the public and 2 out of 3 of the public voted no fluoridation.  

 

Give people the time to contemplate medicating their neighbors and most chose freedom.   It would be wonderful to be able to trust my dental and public health professions on their position of fluoridation, but the evidence has been growing that the fluoridation policy is flawed and rather change, proponents dig in deeper.  HHS recommended lower fluoride concentration, but lowering is not enough.  A complete cessation of fluoridation is required.  Even that will not reduce fluoride intake to safe levels.  But it will give people more freedom to choose.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1096
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1061
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,061 Views
Message 1055 of 1,248

Steve Slott and Johnny Johnson,

 

It has been three days since I've heard from you and I trust you had a good 4th of July.  I'm in Eastern Washington working on a farm for a couple days.  Good exercise, dry and hot.  

 

We were discussing total fluoride exposure and a desired exposure or total dosage to prevent dental caries.  How much fluoride do you want a person to ingest.  What is the "optimal dosage" for a person, not the water, but an individual?

 

Without an "optimal individual dosage," we can't determine if that dosage is "safe" for each individual.   FDA determines efficacy first, then safety at that dosage, so should we.

 

I was amazed and shocked when Dr. Limeback told me both teeth with caries and teeth without caries have similar tooth fluoride concentrations (except on the outer few microns).  

 

In other words, we don't know a desired or "optimal" concentration of fluoride for the tooth which reduces dental caries.

 

And we don't know how much fluoride should be in the blood to achieve the "optimal" tooth fluoride concentration.

 

And we don't know how much fluoride a person should ingest to achieve the unknown blood fluoride concentration, for the "optimal" tooth concentration.

 

And we don't know how much an individual is ingesting from non-water sources

so that we can supplement the unknown individual exposure with fluoridated water, to achieve the unknown total fluoride exposure, for the unknown blood fluoride concentration, and then the unknown tooth fluoride concentration.

 

Instead, public health scientists treat the water to achieve 0.7 ppm, they talk about water like we are treating water rather than humans who drink an unknown amount of fluoride.  

 

It is time to stop adding fluoride to water.  So much we don't know.  Avoid fluoride and reduce sugar intake.  Brush and floss, eat healthy foods.

 

If a person chooses to ingest more fluoride they can get a prescription, or swallow a small pea size of fluoride toothpaste, drink a couple cups of tea or wine, eat non-organic foods

 

Adding more to water makes no sense and is harming people.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1061
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1056
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,056 Views
Message 1056 of 1,248

Sirpac,

 

I agree.  A review of both sides is compelling and many health organizations agree.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

Many researchers write in their research that fluoride is a KNOWN carcinogen.  

 

One study explained how they induced cancer in the animals with fluoride so they could test the cancer treatment drugs.  Anyone who claims fluoride is not a carcinogen has not read the research.

 

As scientists learn where the potential risks from fluoride are found, more detailed and higher quality studies will be done.  The new studies will be focused more on how much fluoride causes harm and to which sub-populations.  

 

Are children, infants, or the fetus harmed most?

 

Which gender is harmed more?

 

Which race is harmed more?

 

What synergistic chemicals are confounding risks?

 

On the "efficacy" side of the problem, the quality of research is unacceptable.  We have data on costs for dental treatment and Delta Dental assured me 10 years ago they were going to publish data showing reduced costs with fluoridation, but they have not.  Clearly, their evidence would not support fluoridation.

 

Here are a few concerns with the fluoride research on efficacy:

 

A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors (for example, what reduced dental caries from 11 cavities to 5 cavities before fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste were introduced?)

B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial  (They can be done and maybe have been done, but none published.) 

C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled (Wealth and health are related and must be controlled)

D.   Inadequate size 

E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay (Not every dentist diagnoses a cavity at the same degree of damage.)

F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 

G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 

H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined (Urine fluoride concentration is not difficult to measure and not invasive)

I.     Oral hygiene not determined 

J.     Not evaluating Life Time benefit (How do those without teeth benefit?)

K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.  (Many drink bottled water, very little water and some drink over 10 liters/day.)

L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered with measured evidence 

M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded (Mother's milk usually has no detectable fluoride)

N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  

O.    Genetics not considered

P.     Synergistic effects not considered

 

No wonder the FDA has not approved the ingestion of fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries.  The evidence, as they generously say, is "incomplete."

 

Based on incomplete evidence of benefit, no water purveyor should add fluoride to public water until we have confidence of efficacy and safety.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1056
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1100
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,100 Views
Message 1057 of 1,248

It is truly a shame that so many associations have been conned to support the water fluoridation policy. These organizations have obviously not looked into the recent science or have failed to see the low quality of the earlier studies.

I spent the last 3 years reading and annotating all the fluoridation science there is and it is more than clear SCIENCE IS VERY ANTI-FLUORIDE. There is not even a question in scientific consensus: fluorides are neurotoxic endocrine disrupting carcinogens. Thus, who cares about the teeth, if brains are at stake?

Also, there is not that much evidence for any benefit to teeth either, only harm to multiple bodily organs and the biome, from fluorides. It is more than obvious these associations have been fooled or are just too lazy to read current science. It is truly a shame!
Not so in most other countries: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/countries.pdf

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1100
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1071
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,071 Views
Message 1058 of 1,248

“Cochrane eliminated over 4,000 studies at the start because they were either unrelated to the topic or couldn’t meet Cochrane’s minimum level criteria for having confidence in their results. These are the bulk of the “thousands” of studies pro-fluoridationists cite as evidence of its effectiveness. For those studies making the first cut, they eliminated another 112 because of “inappropriate study design,” including “absence of data from two time points,” “unsuitable control group” or “absence of concurrent control group.” And of the 155 studies left, 97% were still at a high risk of bias.”  - Rick North, former Executive Vice President of the Oregon American Cancer Society and former Project Director of Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility’s Campaign for Safe Food  (2015)

 

I agree that systemic reviews by independent parties are the most valuable. I also understand the difference between fact and opinion as well as understanding that endorsement of policy by organizations are biased and highly suspect. Similarly, I understand organizational reluctance to acknowlege the validity of new evidence proving them wrong and political whitewashes. #Hubris 

 

Fluoridation Reviews worth reading

Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O'Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R, Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny A. Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD010856. (2015 Cochrane Review)
http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay 

 

National Research Council. Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA's standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006. (2006 NRC Review of EPA MCL/MCLG)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571
 

  • Carton RJ. Review of 2006 USNRC report on fluoride in drinking water. Fluoride. 39(3)163-172. July-September 2006. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf 
  • "Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone….” National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006 p 336

 

McDonagh Marian S, Whiting Penny F, Wilson Paul M, Sutton Alex J, Chestnutt Ivor, Cooper Jan, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ 2000; 321:855. (2000 York Review)
http://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/crdreport18.pdf  

 

Yiamouyiannis JA. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: Results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U. S. school children. Fluoride. 1990 Apr;23(2):55-67.  (NIDR Data Review)
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/232/files/FJ1990_v23_n2_p055-067.pdf 

 

Diesendorf M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature. 07/1986; 322(6075):125-129. (Global Data)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/19639179_The_Mystery_of_Declining_Tooth_Decay

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1071
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1049
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,049 Views
Message 1059 of 1,248

Ms. Butterfly - Systematic reviews are the most reliable category of information for evidence based medicine.

see:
https://guides.lib.uci.edu/ebm/pyramid

Random quotations from individuals with no mention of expert qualifications isn't even on the list of information sources considered for quality.

All systematic reviews published in the last two decades have concluded that fluoridation doesn't cause cancer.  The most definitive and profound analysis was in 2011 when the California Carcinogen Identification Committee decided by unanimous vote that fluoride doesn't cause cancer in ANY concentration.


"Follow the money" you say!  Conspiracy theories like this are a standard part of science denying gospel.  Those denying the importance of vaccination, the reality of human caused global warming, that cigarettes cause cancer and biologic evolution use similar rhetorical devices:  fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible research demands and expectations, cherry picking scientific literature and conspiracy theories.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

"Following the money" creates no trail to America's pediatricians, registered dental hygienists, clinical nutritionists or any of the other 140 organizations which support community water fluoridation:

AFL CIO
Acad for Sports Dentistry
Acad of Dentistry InterNatl
Acad of General Dentistry
Alzheimer's Assn
Am Acad of Family Physicians
Am Acad of Nurse Practitioners
Am Acad of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology
Am Acad of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Am Acad of Pediatrics
Am Acad of Pediatric Dentistry
Am Acad of Periodontology
Am Acad of Physician Assistants
Am Assn for Community Dental Programs
Am Assn for Dental Research
Am Assn for Health Education
Am Assn for the Advancement of Science
Am Assn of Endodontists
Am Assn of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons
Am Assn of Orthodontists
Am Assn of Public Health Dentistry
Am Assn of Women Dentists
Am Cancer Society
Am College of Dentists
Am College of Physicians-Am Society of Internal Medicine
Am College of Preventive Medicine
Am College of Prosthodontists
Am Council on Science & Health
Am Dental Assistants Assn
Am Dental Assn
Am Dental Education Assn
Am Dental Hygienists' Assn
Am Dietetic Assn
Am Hospital Assn
Am Institute of Nutrition
Am Legislative Exchange Council
Am Medical Assn
Am Nurses Assn
Am Osteopathic Assn
Am Pharmaceutical Assn
Am Pharmacists Assn
Am Public Health Assn
Am School Health Assn
Am Society for Clinical Nutrition
Am Society for Nutritional Sciences
Am Student Dental Assn
Am Veterinary Medical Assn
Am Water Works Assn
America's Health Insurance Plans
Assn for Academic Health Centers
Assn of Am Medical Colleges
Assn of Clinicians for the Underserved
Assn of Maternal & Child Health Programs
Assn of State & Territorial Dental Directors
Assn of State & Territorial Health Officials
Australia New South Wales Dept of Health
Australian Dental Assn ADA
Australian Health Ministers' Conference
Australian Natl Health & Medical Research Council
British Dental Assn
British Fluoridation Society
British Medical Assn
Canadian Assn of Dental Public Health
Canadian Dental Assn
Canadian Dental Hygienist Assn
Canadian Medical Assn
Canadian Nurses Assn
Canadian Pediatric Society
Canadian Public Health Assn
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Child Welfare League of America
Children's Dental Health Project
Coalition Of Physicians for Social Justice
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Federation of America
Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologists
Delta Dental Plans Assn
Dental Assn for disabled people
European Organization for Caries Research
Federation of Am Hospitals
Food & Drug Administration FDA
Food & Nutrition Board
Fédération Dentaire InterNatle FDI
Great Britain Ministry of Health
Health Canada
Health Insurance Assn of America
Health Resources & Services Administration HRSA
Hispanic Dental Assn
Indian Dental Assn U.S.A.
Indian Health Service
Institut Natl de santé du Québec
Institute of Medicine
InterNatl Assn for Dental Research
InterNatl Assn for Orthodontics
InterNatl College of Dentists
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
Mayo Clinic
McGill University Faculty of Dentistry
Montreal Children’ Hospital Child Development Program
Montreal Children’s Hospital Council of Community Pediatricians
Montreal Public Health Dept
Montreal Research Centre on Social Inequalities in Health
Montreal, Laval, Laurentides et Lanaudiere
Natl Acad of Science
Natl Assn County & City Health Officials
Natl Assn of Community Health Centers
Natl Assn of Dental Assistants
Natl Assn of Local Boards of Health
Natl Assn of Social Workers
Natl Cancer Institute
Natl Council Against Health Fraud
Natl Dental Assistants Assn
Natl Dental Assn
Natl Dental Hygienists' Assn
Natl Down Syndrome Congress
Natl Down Syndrome Society
Natl Eating Disorders Assn
Natl Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
Natl Head Start Assn
Natl Health Council
Natl Health Law Program
Natl Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
Natl Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research
New Zealand Ministry of Health
Nutrition Directors
Oral Health America
Pan Am Health Organization
Public Health Assn of Australia
Quebec Assn of public health dentists
Quebec Federation of family physicians
Quebec Order of dentists
Quebec college of physicians
Quebec dental Acad
Quebec Dept of environment
Quebec Dept of health & social services
Quebec order of dental hygienists
Quebec order of pharmacists
Québec Assn of Pediatricians
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Royal College of Physicians London
Society for Public Health Education
Society of Am Indian Dentists
Special Care Dentistry
St-Justine Hospital Dept of pediatics
St-Justine Hospital university center
The Children's Health Fund
The Dental Health Foundation of California
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Surgeon General
U.S. Dept of Defense
U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs
University of Montreal Dept of social & preventive medicine
Water Fluoridation: An Analysis of the Health Benefits & Risks
World Federation of Orthodontists
World Health Organization

Reference:
Water Fluoridation:  An Analysis of the Health Benefits and Risks
Scientific Advisory.  Institut national de santé publique, Quebec
June 2007, p 47.  
http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/705-WaterFluoration.pdf


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1049
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1051
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,051 Views
Message 1060 of 1,248

Charles,

 

Indeed, the difference between FAN and CDH is significant.  Carefully examine the research references of FAN and CDH?

 

For example, both quote and agree with the Bashash study that fluoride lowers inteligance.  However, the "judgment" of CDH and FAN are significantly different.

 

CDH and FAN AGREE that the study found "a 0.5mg/L increase in prenatal urinary fluoride was associated with 3.15-point drop in GCI scores (p=0.01, N=287)."  and GCI and IQ have significant correlation.

 

CDH recommends further studies, as all good studies recommend further studies.   

 

CDH fails to put the pieces of the puzzle together, as FAN has done, adding the other 50 human studies and animal studies to make a reasonable judgment.  We have plenty of studies for judgment on fluoridation.

 

CDH takes the position that we need more studies.

 

FAN takes the position that since mothers with higher fluoride concentration have children with lower intelligence, and those urine fluoride concentrations are similar to those found in the fluoridation population, and the Bashash study did not find a "lower limit" or "safe" urine fluoride concentration, and the Bashash study is consistent with more than 50 human studies, then from a public health and individual policy, we must cut back on our total fluoride exposure. 

 

The best place to reduce total fluoride reduction in the population at large is fluoridation cessation.

 

Charles, need I tell you that dentists and public health officials do not treat IQ?  

 

Brains are more important than teeth?  

 

Your comment on cancer will be touched on next.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1051
Views