- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Charles and David,
Lets look briefly at SCHER and cancer. Several places in the SCHER report report no effect, I will only bring out the point that SCHER did find some evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride. Dose was not determined. For both sides, read the report. I'm only showing one side to refute the idea that there is not evidence of fluoride causing cancer.
In general, fluoride induced mutations in cultured cells at concentrations that were slightly cytotoxic and reduced growth rate.
no significant increase in frequency was observed in human fibroblasts at concentrations below 4.52 mg F/L and for Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells below 226 mg F/L.
Positive genotoxicity findings in vivo were only observed at doses that were highly toxic to animals, . Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in bone marrow cells were observed
Fluoride has only been reported to be positive in genotoxicity tests at high concentrations (above 10 mg/L),
An increase in sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) and micronuclei has been reported in peripheral lymphocytes from patients with skeletal fluorosis or residents in fluorosis-endemic areas in China and India,
Carcinogenesis studies have been conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). The studies SCHER used have been strongly disputed. Rats and mice can tolerate much more fluoride than humans mg/kg bw.
"On the basis of the results from the most adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies, there is only equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride in male rats and no consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in mice (ATSDR 2003)."
SCHER requires unequivocal evidence.
"No carcinogenicity studies have been conducted using (hydro)fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, disodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid." Are we to suggest the lack of studies is proof of safety? No.
"Early epidemiological studies did not find a consistent relationship between mortality from all types of cancer and exposure for fluoride, including the consumption of fluoride- containing drinking water."
That doesn't sound convincing that fluoride exposure is safe. We need more study. Do we keep medicating while we decide whether smoking or fluoride or lead or thalidomide is really harmful?
Two studies from the US found a higher incidence of osteosarcoma among males less than 20 years of age living in fluoridated communities compared with non-fluoridated communities (Cohn 1992, Hoover 1991).
One case-control study found an association between fluoride exposure during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males, but not among females (Bassin 2006).
The Harvard Fluoride Osteosarcoma study was conducted as a hospital based case- control study in 11 hospitals in the USA and was limited to subjects below the age of 20.
SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general."
The weight of evidence needs to get to an almost impossible level. Scientists force everyone to ingest more fluoride because scientists need to do more research to have absolute certainty.
That is an unreasonable standard.
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.
“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.
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
Your opinion is opposite to that in the reports prepared by teams of distinguished scientifoc experts who are selected on the basis of their expertise to look at all scientific sides of issues. These systematic review panels debate the evidence and draft a final report and recommendations.
Since the 2011 California Carcinogen Identification Committee decision by unanimous vote that fluoride does not cause cancer in any concentration. additional systematic reviews finding no risk to cancer from fluoridation has included the Australian National Health and Medical REsearch Council, the Ireland Health Research Board, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the HHS Community Preventive services Task Force and the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks. Perhaps I've missed a few.
The public can have high confidence in the evaluation of the science that occurs through such processes, whatever their findings might be. In the case of community water fluoridation, every such panel of experts that has met to review and critique the evidence has concluded that community water fluoridation is safe and effective.
C. Haynie, M.D.
This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.
Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."
This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.
Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."
Known Carcinogen: Pal (2014): Fluoride, a well-established environmental carcinogen, has been found to cause various neurodegenerative diseases in human. Sub-acute exposure to fluoride at a dose of 20mg/kgb.w./day for 30 days caused significant alteration in pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant status of brain tissue as reflected by perturbation of reduced glutathione content, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, nitric oxide and free hydroxyl radical production and decreased activities of antioxidant enzymes. Decreased proteolytic and transaminase enzymes' activities, protein and nucleic acid contents and associated DNA damage were observed in the brain of fluoride intoxicated rats. The neurotransmitters dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin level was also significantly altered after fluoride exposure. Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative dysfunctions was evaluated. Resveratrol was found to inhibit changes in metabolic activities restoring antioxidant status, biogenic amine level and structural organization of the brain. Our findings indicated that resveratrol imparted antioxidative role in ameliorating fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative stress in different regions of the brain.
Known Carcinogen: McCully (2009) “. . . Depletion of thioretinaco ozonide from cellular membranes is suggested to underlie the carcinogenic and atherogenic effects of fluoride and other electrophilic carcinogens.”
Known carcinogen (increase incidence): Marigold (1969) explained that fluoride has a paradoxical action on cancer. Some of the most effective anti-cancer drugs have contained fluoride and yet other inorganic fluoride compounds are powerful carcinogens such as dimethylaminoazobenzene who’s cancer-producing ability is enhanced seven times as much as by substitution of fluoride with other halogens.
Known carcinogen (chronic exposure - shorter life span): Taylor (1954) carried out a total of 12 experiments involving 645 mice. The data indicated that drinking water containing as little as 1ppm of fluoride shortened the life span of cancer-prone mice by an average of 9%, regardless of whether they died of cancer or another disease. In contrast, 1953, Fleming36 transplanted sarcoma 37 into young adult mice and guinea pigs. For a few weeks, one group received 20 ppm NaF in drinking water and another 1,000 ppm intraperitoneally while controls received no fluoride. The fluoride treated animals lived longer, lost less weight and had tumors inhibited by fluoride. One striking difference between Taylor’s and Flemming’s studies is “time and dosage,” Taylor had chronic low dose exposure while Flemming had acute high dose.
Known carcinogenic: Taylor (1965) reported observations from 54 experiments, 991 mice bearing transplanted tumors and 58 experiments with 1817 eggs implanted with mouse cancer tissue. Sodium fluoride accelerated the growth of cancer tissue. Taylor’s work has been repeatedly confirmed. Note: Talyor’s first study was criticized because he did not control the fluoride in animal feed, probably CaF. His subsequent work did control for total fluoride exposure and the results were confirmed.
Known Carcinogen: Suzuki (1991) “We tested the induction of mutagenic effects by in vivo and in vitro bone marrow micronucleus tests. A significant increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was observed 24 H after intraperitoneal injection of sodium fluoride at a dose of 30 mg/kg body weight. In the in vitro micronucleus test, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was increased significantly at concentrations of 2 and 4 MM. These results indicate that the micronucleus test may be useful in evaluating the cancer risk of sodium fluoride.”39
Known Carcinogen: Pati (1987) “Genotoxicity of Sodium fluoride was evaluated in mice in vivo with the help of different cytogenetic assays.
Known Carcinogen: Tazhibaev (1987) “The test animals were fed with low-grade food during 2-5 months under conditions of acute and chronic action of hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride induced by inhalation, that resulted in the pronounced impairment of the chromosomal apparatus of the bone marrow cells in the rats. A principal possibility has been established of modification of the hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride cytogenetic effect by the alimentary action. In particular, it has been found that the effect is significantly higher when the rats are fed with a low-grade ration than under conditions of balanced nutrition.”
NTP mutagenic: According to the National Toxicology Program “the preponderance of evidence” from laboratory “in vitro” studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound. Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens. As is typical for in vitro studies, the concentrations of fluoride that have generally been tested were usually, but not always, higher (millimolar levels) than the concentrations found in human blood (micromolar levels). In Khalil (1995), the authors found a statistically significant mutagenic effect at a concentration of just 1 micromole (0.019 ppm). This is similar to blood fluoride concentrations among individuals living in fluoridated communities. More recent research has found effects at 24 uM (Zhang 2009) and 34 uM (Tiwari & Rao 2010).
The relevance of the in vitro findings are further amplified by the fact that there are certain “microenvironments” in the body, such as the bones (3,708 ppm Eble DM 1992 JPHD), teeth, kidney (50 fold increase over plasma, NRC 2006), bladder, and pineal gland (21,000 ppm, Luke 1997; 2001), where the cells can be exposed to fluoride levels many times higher than the fluoride levels found in the blood (between none detected and 0.01 ppm).
Bone mineral is regularly broken down by osteoclasts as part of the bone remodeling process, the fluoride sequestered in bones (and other tissues) may be periodically released, exposing bone cells to increased fluoride concentrations. This might help explain why fluoride has been associated, in both human and animal studies, with osteosarcoma (bone cancer). One in vitro study, for example, found that 10 to 19 ppm fluoride caused mutagenic effects in bone cells after 24 to 48 hours of exposure. (Mihashi 1996). According to the authors:
Known Carcinogen: “Significant increases in the frequencies of chromosome aberrations were induced in a dose- and treatment time-dependent fashion when NaF was administered to [rat vertebral bone] cells at 0.5 and 1.0 mM [=9.5 to 19 ppm] for 24 and 48 h. The results indicate that NaF is genotoxic to rat vertebrae, providing a possible mechanism for the vertebrae, as a target organ of NaF carcinogenesis.”
Known Genetic Damage: Humans and apes have been found to be more susceptible to fluoride-induced genetic damage than rodent cells. (Kishi 1993). Chromosome breaks occurred in human and ape cells at fluoride concentrations (19 to 114 ppm) that had no effects on rodent cells. (Note: Fluoride varnish is 22,600 ppm)
Known Mutagenic: 1990 NTP “In summary, sodium fluoride is mutagenic in cultured mammalian cells and produces transformation of Syrian hamster cells in vitro. The reports of in vivo cytogenetic studies are mixed, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured mammalian cells. These mutagenic and clastogenic effects in cultured cells are supported by positive effects in Drosophila germ cell tests that measure point mutations and chromosome breakage. In vivo tests in rodents for chromosome aberrations provide mixed results that cannot readily be resolved because of differences in protocols and insufficient detail in some study reports to allow a thorough analysis. The mechanism(s) by which these effects result from exposure to sodium fluoride is not known.”
Preponderance of Evidence: 2001 Bassin “The effects of fluoride as a mutagen, carcinogen, and antimutagen are inconsistent, but the preponderance of evidence in cultured mammalian cells indicate that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges.”
Capable: 1993 Environment Canada “Fluoride (as sodium fluoride) should be considered capable of inducing chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and sister-chromatid exchanges in vitro in mammalian cells, although the results from such studies have been inconsistent.”
Genotoxic: 1991 HHS “Genotoxicity studies are highly dependent on the methods used… Despite the apparently contradictory reports appearing in the published literature, fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in bacteria (Ames test). In some studies fluoride has been reported to induce gene mutations in both cultured rodent and human cells. Fluoride has also been reported to transform rodent cells in vitro. Although there is disagreement in the literature concerning the ability of fluoride to be a clastogen (induce chromosome aberrations) in cultured cells, it has been suggested that fluoride can cause chromosome aberrations in rodent and human cells. Fluoride induced primarily chromatid gaps and chromatid breaks, indicating that the cells are most responsive in the G stage of the cell cycle, i.e., after chromosome duplication in preparation for cell division. Negative results reported in some cytogenetic studies are likely the effect of inadequate test protocols…. Although the mechanism(s) by which these cellular effects result from exposure to fluoride is not known, a number of possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the genetic activity observed. These mechanisms have been based on the observed reactions of fluoride in solution with divalent cations or necleotides, or the physiological and inhibition protein synthesis, or a result of the direct inhibition of DNA polymerase. Fluoride can react with divalent cations in the cell so as to affect enzyme activities that are necessary for DNA or RNA synthesis, or chromosome metabolism or maintenance; it may react directly with DNA as part of a complex; or it ca disrupt other cellular processes such as cell differentiation or energy metabolism.”
Known Carcinogen: Zhang (2009) “Twenty four agents were used to evaluate this screening assay. We selected the agents, ranging from DNA alkylating agents, oxidative agent, radiation, DNAcrosslinking agent, nongenotoxic carcinogens, precarcinogenic agents, which included . . . sodium fluoride, acrylamide . . . . The results showed that all 20 tested known carcinogenic and genotoxic agents were able to induce gadd153-Luc expression at a sublethal dose.. . . .”
Known Genotoxic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic: Ercivas (2009) “In this study we
concluded that NaF, in 5 and 10 lg/ml NaF concentrations cause genotoxic alterations. So genotoxic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects of NaF need to be carefully screened and evaluated together with other long-term effects using in vitro and in vivo animal test models.”
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.
Dr. Sauerheber has said two different things now. First he said, “The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton in 1945 under the direction of officials from the U.S. military.” ( https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2022558#M753 )
When I challenged him on his claim that the FDA opposed water fluoridation, he says, “The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion.”
Now, these are two different things, Dr. Sauerheber. However, you did provide a citation for your first claim that the FDA opposed water fluoridation. Your claim originates in the book, “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson . . . who also alleges in this book that Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) has its roots in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program.
Do you have any other source beyond Bryson’s book of conspiracy theories to support your claim that the FDA ever opposed CWF? A quotation or a link to an actual FDA website would be adequate verification.
Dr. Sauerheber also said, “Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride, ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug, forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards, and banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women.” (Same comment)
Well there’s a lot here, Dr Sauerheber. First of all, since the FDA does have regulatory authority over fluoridated Bottled Water . . Can you please show me anywhere on the label of Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” bottled water where pregnant women are warned not to drink this product.
Of course you can’t. Your first comment was not true.
Can you show me anywhere where the FDA says that water fluoridation “is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug?”
Of course you can’t. Your comment was false.
Now this is interesting: “(The FDA) forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards . . “
Technically, that may be true. The FDA also forbids calcium, salt, iron, magnesium, or anything for that matter in water that is to be used for kidney dialysis. In other words, only purified water may be used for kidney dialysis. (I won’t call that a lie, but it was certainly deceptive.)
Carrie Anne says something interesting: “Yet, another f-troll heard from . . “ (She’s referring to me.) This is my second comment on this page. Without counting, I am guessing (and we can check) that Carrie has made at least a dozen comments thus far. So . . the definition of a “troll” is someone who disagrees with her? Is that right? Is BillO51 a troll? Of course not. He is scare-mongering against water fluoridation.
Carrie’s full quote: “Yet, another f-troll heard from with his standard "somebody would have sued already and won" response as a denial to scientific evidence which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015.”
She is saying that the Courts are not an adequate standard for deciding the merits, or dangers, of water fluoridation. Fair enough. And yet, for some odd reason, BillO538145 finds it appropriate to present a list of Countries (Political entities are not part of the “scientific evidence which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015.”) as well as such organizations as the Sierra Club, Whistleblowers, International Chiropractors, Center for Health, Environment & Justice (that sounds like we are getting into the purview of the Courts to me). Odd, this double standard, isn’t it.
Lawsuits are flying through the courts in Flint, Michigan, because people WERE poisoned by lead in their drinking water. This is provable. And yet, with all the ailments these people attribute to fluoridated water, I stand in disbelief that no litigation has ever been successful against the practice!
Just so we’re clear. Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen. No legitimate scientific or medical organization says that it is. Neither the American Cancer Society, nor the World Health Organization says that it is. (Holistic Dentistry or medicine does not qualify as such. I will not see a midwife to have my appendix taken out. Steve McQueen died of cancer because he believed in holistic medicine.)
“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:
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.