- 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
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
- 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!
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.
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.
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.
“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.
"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.
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/
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.
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
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.
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.
That is 3 times the level of fluoride at which community water fluoridation is fluoridated at, 0.7mg/L.
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.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
In response to your statement: "Not a single, credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation. NOT ONE."
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
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....“
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.
“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)
- Main D. Fluoridation may not prevent cavities, scientific review shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015. http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
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)
- 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)
- Boseley S. Senior doctors allege lack of evidence on fluoride safety. The Guardian. 4 Oct 2007. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/oct/05/health.politics
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)
- Rothbard M. Fluoridation Revisited. The New American. 14 Dec 1992.
Diesendorf M. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature. 07/1986; 322(6075):125-129. (Global Data)
- Interview with Dr. Mark Diesendorf on censorship, fluoridation and infant formula. August 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxftzkwogVk&t=10s
“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus (1998)
"Follow the money." - Deep Throat (1972)
“Children with dental fluorosis were burdened more by dental disease and had more treatment needs (dental caries, fluorosis, periodontal disease and gingivitis) when compared to those without dental fluorosis.”
- Mildred ndoti Mavindu, Gladys N Opinya, Richard Owino and Edith Ngatia. Oral Hygiene Habits and Dental Treatment Needs of Children with Dental Fluorosis and Those Without .... Mod. Approach to Dental Oral Hygiene. 2(2)-2018.
- Study of 248 teens in Kenya, matched for age and gender with 1:1 ratio for with:without dental fluorosis. Most children were consuming 1 ppm concentration in water, some less and some more. All children had similar brushing patterns of twice a day.
- Over half of American teens have dental fluorosis and one in five has moderate to severe fluorosis (Wiener et al. 2018). Children & the elderly are among the 'vulnerable subpopulations' for fluoride intoxication (chronic posioning).
Since lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), they typically have other complicating issues. Elite whistleblower attornies Stephen & Michael Kohn won a lawsuit against the EPA in the 1990s on the wrongful termination of senior EPA scientist and toxicologist Dr. Wm. Marcus who wrote a memo about management interference for manipulation of cancer data in order to disappear the evidence of carcinogenicity in a fluoride study.
The ADA and friends who have no liability for fluoridation even though they aggressively promote it, frequently threaten and sometimes bring lawsuits against vocal opponents. I especially like the story told by medical correspondant and NYC celebrity dentist, Dr. Gerry Curatola. Apparently, he made a comment against fluoridation as ineffective and unsafe and the ADA got it into its head to either threaten or to actually bring a lawsuit against him in order to shut him up. Well, Dr. Curatola has money and wasn't going to be intimidated. He stood up to the fluoridationist bullies. He paid his legal fees and provided science to document that fluoridation was ineffective and harmful and demanded the ADA provide science to document their claims against him. The ADA backed down. I don't know if that particular story is in any of Dr. Curatola's many recordings on YouTube, but he tells it in various venues.
- Kohn & Marcus et al. (64 min): http://fluoridegate.org/about-dr-kennedy/
- Dr. Curatola (5 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE4hre_PCiE
- FAN TV collection: http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/
Ms. Butterfly - Systematic reviews are the most reliable category of information for evidence based medicine.
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.
"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:
Acad for Sports Dentistry
Acad of Dentistry InterNatl
Acad of General Dentistry
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 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
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
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
Water Fluoridation: An Analysis of the Health Benefits and Risks
Scientific Advisory. Institut national de santé publique, Quebec
June 2007, p 47.
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
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
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
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
The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton in 1945 under the direction of officials from the U.S. military. U.S. Sugeons General in the CDC have historically recommended the practice since that time. The original material used was industrial waste sodium fluoride but the starting material since 1985 has been fertilizer industry waste fluosilicic acid, after Rebecca Hamner of the EPA wrote that this use in public water supplies would be an ideal solution to dilute the waste material, assuming it would have dental benefit to consumers.
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. The FDA requires Good Manufacturing Practices for all consumed materials used to treat human tissue, but GMP rules are not followed by fertilizer production faciltiies that generate the waste used to fluoridate consumers through water supplies. Please read the Journal of Enviornmental and Public Health 439490 for details: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
Fluoridationists at the CDC rely on the EPA MCL to claim the intentional infusions are somehow legal, but the EPA only regulates contaminants, not nutrients or drugs purposely added into water to treat humans. The EPA consistently states that fluoridation is the legal responsibility of the FDA since it it is added intentionally to treat humans, rather than its presence in a chemical spill or when present naturally as a contaminant in water. The current FDA staff has no understanding how to enforce FDA rulings on fluoridation of water supplies. Critics argue that the FDA has no "rights" to regulate water supplies, but the FDA is the only Federal agency approved by Congress to regulate any substance intended for ingestion to treat humans, regardless of how the ingestible substance is disseminated. Fluoride promoters will not voluntarily follow the law and, as seen here, have no interest in following GMP regulations or existing FDA rulings.
R. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Dr. Saueheber - - you make a number of allegations which if true, surely would have actionable legal consequences.
The current EPA is clearly "mindful of the public health significance of reducing the incidence of dental caries in the U.S. population." This quotation is from the EPA rejection of the FAN petition to apply section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to "prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies."
The undeniable fact is that in 2014 74.7% of US citizens on community water supplies drink fluoridated water. Quite obviously none of your points have ever successfully challenged this very important public health program in any court room. No state mandated fluoridation obligation has ever been withdrawn for these reasons.
Since you believe fluoridation to be illegal, my advise is for you to bring suit against New York City. If you were to prevail, one action would cease fluoridation in our largest city. Isn't it a bit inappropriate to argue legal views which, to the extent they have been formally contested, have always been rejected by US courts?
“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell!” - Carl Sandburg
It makes little difference if a group is an advocacy group like the AFS and "I Like My Teeth" or an activist group like FAN. What matters are the facts of the matter, not opinions, endorsement of policy or well-funded marketing campaigns. What also matters are integrity and good behavior.
FAN provides a database of ALL fluoride science mostly listed in PubMed for ease of use by those not familiar with scientific research, while AFS and friends specialize in loudly singing the praises of endorsements most of which originated in the 1950s as part of organizational policy statements and have been rubber stamped for decades. The fluoride advocates also simultaneously and aggressively denigrate any who disagree with them. They also offer questionable selections of science and politics pretending to be science.
For example, AFS member Chuck Haynie just pointed to the EPA 2017 response to a citizen's petition from six organizations including FAN. That EPA response was so poor that a judge in a federal lawsuit brought against the EPA threw it out. The judge essentially said that the EPA arguments lacked common sense, were contrary with their agency mission and regulations, and were internally inconsistent. The TSCA lawsuit will be heard in federal court in August 2019. Like the petition, the lawsuit is specific to neurotoxicity science.
I expect the EPA will pound the table and yell like crazy in defense of their fluoride MCL, while the plaintiffs who include FAN will argue the facts. Much like what has been happening on this thread the past few days.
The difference between FAN and the Campaign for Dental Health (CDH) could not be starker.
CDH is the organization behind ilikemyteeth.org and is part of the American Academy of Pediatrics which in turn is composed of many thousands of practicing pediatricians. The mission of CDH and their web site is to promote dental health, especially children's.
The EPA suit is reminiscent of the action FAN and collaborators brought to the California Carcinogen Identification Committee claiming this would be the end of fluoridation. In fact a unanimous vote found that fluoride is not related to cancer at any concentration.
FAN predicted and promoted the National Toxicology Programs planned animal studies as "finally" showing low fluoride exposures to harm developing brains. No effect at all was found. The promotion before the fact of the EPA suit seems similar.
The EPA suit decisions thus far have been strictly on procedural grounds. The merits of the suit have not been considered. The monograph the EPA published in the Congressional Record contains core arguments and issues which will be judged if the case proceeds to full trial. I'm betting that if FAN et al loose in Federal Court they will just look for the next set of claims. Courts are hesitant to over-rule scientific decisions made by venerable and responsible bureaucracies. While I am reasonably confident, we will just have to wait and see how it turns out.
Your picture of pounding on the table is incredibly out of step with reality of Federal Court proceedings.
To return to the point of these many posts, it is not reasonable for AARP to oppose well established and widely supported public health programs for any the points in your last message.
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
Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus:
“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.”
The standard that I use for a carcinogen is: Does the substance cause cancer. The World Health Organization, and The American Cancer Society both have presented lists of known and probable cancer causers. Over 100 substances are listed. Nowhere on either list is fluoride mentioned. If indeed Dr. Marcus actually said that he is wrong, according to both the WHO & the American Cancer Society. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html
Carrie Anne then attempts to answer a question posed by Charles H595927, “Dr. Saueheber - - you make a number of allegations which if true, surely would have actionable legal consequences.”
Carrie Anne says, “Since lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), they typically have other complicating issues.”
Nonsense. Any good attorney with financial motivation would take a case of “poisoning via water fluoridation” pro bono – for free. After all, if anything merits a lawsuit it would be the intentional poisoning of citizens by a local government through its water system. No deep pockets to sue? I wonder why lawsuits are flying throughout the city of Flint, Michigan, where the City actually is being sued because local citizens were poisoned through the water system.
Carrie Anne is trying to defend comments by Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who also said, “The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton . . “ Not true. The FDA has never opposed community water fluoridation. Show me anything from the FDA to prove me wrong.
Dr. Sauerheber also says, “Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride,” Not true. While the FDA has no regulatory jurisdiction over community water fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water. The FDA does allow the sale of Fluoridated Bottled Water. (For example, Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” bottled water is regulated by the FDA which allows Dannon to sell it.)
The list of untruths goes on and on. Time and space limit a proper response, but these examples illustrate the accuracy of these anti-fluoride arguments, and the lengths that people will go to in order to generate paranoia about safe drinking water.
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.)
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.”
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.
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.
Because hydrofluorosilicic acid and its salts completely and irreversibly dissociate in water, there is no need to study that because fluoridated water has only fluoride ions. It has been conclusively proven by the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance work of Finney et al (2006) (Reexamination of hydrofluorosilicic hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement) that there is complete decomposition of fluorosilicate species at neutral pH values on dilution in water. They also showed the presence of surviving fluorosilicate species at low pH values (3 and below) which is irrelevant for water treatment which by quality regulation is neutral pH..
It is disappointing that fluoridation opponents continually demand specific study of hydrofluorosilicic acid in drinking water when the complete decomposition and Finney's NMR study has been explained many many times. HFSA components are simply not in a simple equilibrium relationship following hydrolysis. One cannot study something that doesn't exist.
C. Haynie, M.D.
Bill O & Dr. Sauerheber,
The World Health Organization and the IARC have presented lists of known and possible carcinogens, categorized into 5 groups. The lists are comprehensive and exhaustive. The IARC list includes 1006 substances, and the WHO list includes 983 substances. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/26/the-carcinogens-identified-world-health-organization/Ad...
Group 1 includes substances that are known to cause cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens
Group 2A includes materials in which the Agency is less certain about cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens
Group 2B includes substances in which there is even less certainty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens
Group 3 includes materials which are “non classifiable.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_3_carcinogens
And there is one material listed in Group 4 which is considered “probably not carcinogenic.” It is Caprolactam.
You will not find Fluoride on any of these all-inclusive, far reaching lists. I suggest you take your spin to the IARC, the World Health Organization, or the American Cancer Society and try to convince them. They all disagree with you, as do all experts in the field of Cancer Research.
Yes. And notice that fluoride is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen. This is because the cancer causation demonstrated in animals is not necessarily adequately known to occur in humans. Note the recognized description for group 3:
"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."
Why ask me to contact the WHO? I didn't do the research work with fluoride on animal cancers. And intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical. There is no method of growing bone cells in culture to do fluoride cancer caausing screening assays, so one can put all their eggs in one basket and rely on standard tissue culture tests and hope that bone cells would also follow the same result, but I wouldn't. Bone tissue is far different than other tissues and accumulates fluoride like a sponge compared to other tisssues.
So the WHO leaves it listed as a group 3 carcinogen but this is because everyone wants to have the full answer immediately, even when the full answer may never be known.
As for me, I do not accept that fluoride had absolutely no involvement in any way with Ted Kennedy's son getting bone cancer in Boston after fluoridation began there when he was a young child . Yes lethal bone cancer is extremely rare (thank God), but the most efficient way to generate it in animals is with chronic fluoride exposure for years. I don't rely on organizations to make a final decree for any issue that is technically nearly impossible to fully prove beyond doubt.
Fluoride is not a nutrient and is only a contaminant in the human body. It is in bone where it does not belong and causes formation of poor qualty bone structure. I choose not to ingest it, but certainly wish the water district would leave my kitchen sink alone, with sterile water that is otherwise clean and devoid of added chemicals, rather than what they insist on me buying, or else I get no tap water at all because fluoridationists insist (unlawfully) it be fluloridated.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Your point is taken, Dr. Sauerheber. However, substances are placed into Group 3 when “there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.”
You are quite right when you say that, “intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical.”
Nevertheless, strong evidence does exist that using tobacco causes cancer. Where does this evidence come from? No one is intentionally, unethically exposing people to tobacco to come up with an answer. The evidence comes from stats like this: As of 2014, 16.8% of the population of the United States used tobacco. A lot of people use this stuff. That’s how we know.
But what about fluoride?
In the U.S., 69% of the population (224,733,000 people) expose themselves to a substance which has about 2000 times more of a concentration of fluoride in it than optimally fluoridated water (which is what we are talking about here). This substance, toothpaste, is brushed up against and into the teeth and into the thin membrane of the gums, in proximity to the upper and lower jaw bones.
Many of these people use electric toothbrushes which serve to more efficiently grind this substance into the thin lining of the gums.
Now think about that. About a quarter of a billion people (in this country alone) are brushing 2000 times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water directly into their teeth and gums twice a day, every day, for their entire lives, against the mandible and maxilla, simply by brushing their teeth.
We know that chewing tobacco will cause bone loss simply because users place it into their mouths. So we know that the mandible is injured by tobacco via the thin lining of the gums. In light of that fact, I have to wonder why toothpaste doesn’t cause this bone cancer, in the same area that chewing tobacco injures bone, that you are so worried about.
With a Quarter Billion people who grind toothpaste into their teeth & gums every day, why don’t we know that toothpaste (with 2000 x the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water) causes bone cancer in the upper & lower jaw bones? We don’t know it because it doesn’t happen. This is why hospitals aren’t over-run with bone-cancer victims who brush their teeth every day. And I would consider a Quarter Billion people unharmed, who use a high concentration of fluoride every day, twice a day, “strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity does not operate in humans from the use of fluoride.