Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 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
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 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
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  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

1. 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 
1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[rs5526]

The study from Poland brings up a key point. The original corrlatiion by Dean that fluoride in water caused decreased dental decay was misinterpreted, as proven by the Ziegelbecker more thorough analylsis. But in addition, in any small sample that may have had fewer caries in children compared to children on similar diets in another sample, one needs to control for the fact that kids with dental fluorosis are embarrassed by the discoloration. It was called Colorado brwwn stain. And hence those kids were most likely brushing their teeth more often and longer, thinking that it was their own poor care of their teeth that caused the stains. This would need to be factored into any study deternining whether fliuoride ingestion had anything to do with caries reduction. In short, published studies in small samples claiming benefit are not worth much in spite of how nuerous they are. Animals studied in cages are the most reliable and proved beyond doubt that ingesting fluoride has zero effect on reducing spontaneous dental decay in mammals..

[rs5526]

Nice try to avoid any significance of the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry. And overfeeds do still occur with some regujarity anyway. It's entropy driven, and the tendency for concentrated chemicals to disperse, and most easily for those that are corrosive as are fluorides.

Moreover, chlorination doe not treat pepole. Chlorine is added to sterilize water that otherwise could contain dangerous microbes. If chlorination overfeeds were able to kill people by drinking their kitchen sink water, then we could do away with it and boil our own water if we had to. But fluoridation does not clean the water. It is exclusively added under the disproven belief that eating and drinking  fluoride somehow through an unknown mechanism decreases dental decay even though in saliva it is at 94,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste. And even though the level in blood lifelong cauases bone fluoridation to several thousand ppm, higher than in toothpaste which is a bone abnormality that eventually produces pain similar to arthritis. All who consume it accumulate bone fluoride. There are no exceptions.  Sorry.

[DavidF928895]

Again, Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:  “the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry.”

Millions of dollars?  No.  I have pointed out that redundancies are mandated to prevent incidents like this.  Check it out.  That’s what I said.  So, what is necessary to prevent such an incident?  Two things (thus the redundancy).  A feed pump activates when the main pump energizes.  This is what existed in Hooper Bay.  However, to prevent an accidental over feed, for a few hundred dollars, a flow switch in inserted into the water line and will only “make” when there is water flow.  An additional paddle flow switch would have prevented the Hooper Bay incident, it would have only cost a few hundred dollars to install, and they are part of modern chemical feed equipment. 

How much fiction from you must I disprove before you will resort to telling the truth?

[sirpac271999]

In addition to the Gulags in the former Soviet Union, Stalin used to fluoridate East Germany, which was under the iron curtain before the wall went down in 1989. Since the wall went down, East Germany ceased water fluoridation, 16.11 million people, with the following results:

Abstract

In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This trend corresponded to the national caries decline and appeared to be a new population-wide phenomenon. Additional surveys (N=1017) carried out in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg (N=9042) and Zittau (N=6232) were carried out in order to support this unexpected epidemiological finding. Pupils from these towns, aged 8/9-, 12/13- and 15/16-years, have been examined repeatedly over the last 20 years using standardised caries-methodological procedures. While the data provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48% on average), it has also provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may continue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply from about 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F. Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased during the years 1993-96, following the cessation of water fluoridation. In Spremberg, DMFT fell from 2.36 to 1.45 (38.5%) and in Zittau from 2.47 to 1.96 (20.6%). These findings have therefore supported the previously observed change in the caries trend of Chemnitz and Plauen. The mean of 1.81 DMFT for the 12-year-olds, computed from data of the four towns, is the lowest observed in East Germany during the past 40 years. The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, however, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis of future caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to be necessary.

Reference Information:

Künzel, W., Fischer, T., Lorenz, R., Brühmann, S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dental Oral Epidemiology, 28(5):382-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028005382.x 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11014515/

or

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pubmed/11014515-decline-of-caries-prevalence-after-the-cessation-o...

[rs5526]

How does anyone attempt a lawsuit for chronic fluoride poisoining?  How do you prove beyond doubt that our particular case of arthritis is from bone fluoride alone?  Pull out a chunk of bone to assay it for fluoride?  How does one prove his IQ would have been higher if he had not been exposed to fluoride for long time periods?  He can't go back in time and udno it to see what his IQ would have been.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. The absence of successful lawsuits proving chronic damage does not mean there is no chronic damage. 

[DavidF928895]

Wow!  Dr. Sauerheber you are something else.

Let me see if I’ve got this right.  First you say, “ “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water . . “  The word “are” indicates the present tense, correct?

Now your story is that, “The FDA cannot order a label for fluoride on water . . “  Despite your garbled wording, I assume you mean that the FDA can’t regulate how bottle water distributers label their product?  This is very confusing. 

On one hand fluoride levels are forbidden from being listed on bottled water . . and on the other, they can’t be forbidden from labeling fluoride levels? 

Your quote:  “What do you want from me?”

Response: Please cite one successful lawsuit for health reasons because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

How do you prove that?  I don’t know . . ask Erin Brockovich, she seems to have accomplished this.  Ask all the attorneys in Flint, Michigan.  They’re proving it.  Any other questions?

[rs5526]

All the very many successful lawsuits against cities were won based on varied reasons. One key one though is the Safe Drinking Water Act. Anyone who thinks that fluoridating the bones of citizens, by chemically treating water supplies, is legal should consult attorneys who have litigated these cases and proved what the SDWA actually says, and what it was originally written to achieve (namely to halt thge spread of fluoridation across the country). Those who insist on fluoridating people have corrupted the Act and legal analysts are usually required to prove this to a judge, and it takes an expert to achieve it and it isn't always successful because so many "experts" in dentistry are out there to oppose anything against their freedom to fluoridate others (for what they presume is for the peoples' "own good" because the people simply are not experts and thus "don't understand").

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, the following comments, from you, are classic you.  Can anyone take you seriously?

“ “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water,”  07-13-2018 04:58 AM

After I proved to you that you were lying, you changed your story to this”

“The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.”   ‎07-13-2018 11:16 AM

[rs5526]

Both statements are true. Dr. Groth was the original FDA official in charge of deciding whether to allow fluoride labeling on water or not. And those are his words. He did not want to give the impression to the public that fluoride is a normal ingedient requried to be in water at any level.. The FDA recognizes intentionally aded fluoride as an unapproved drug and natural fluoride in water (often in bottled water) is unavoidable and thus not banned from being sold as long as it is 1 ppm or less. When Groth did not allow FDA to require fluoride labeling, it was for these reasons.

The fact that some bottlers do label it is not the FDA's fault or concern The FDA cannot order a label for fluoride on water because of Dr. Groth's work there. Nor does the FDA ban the sale of water that those bottlers choose to label for fluoride content.  If bottlers made a claim that the fluoride would reduce dental decay by ingestion, then the FDA would indeed ban the sale of such water. The  FDA is a stickler for false labeling.

What do you want from me?  I can't change the FDA.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber.  Your comments wreak of desperation.   I am pretty sure you can read, and I believe you are able to comprehend what you read.  Go back and review the comments between Carry Anne and myself.  You seem to enjoy blurring issues, so it appears I should be very specific.

There has never been one successful lawsuit, anywhere on Earth, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water even for as much as a lifetime.  Period.  This has nothing to do with the Safe Drinking Water Act.  It has nothing to do with a philosophical argument about “mass medication,” (and I’m certain there has ever been a successful lawsuit based on that either). 

I mean really, have you been reading these comments?  Carrie has been complaining about all her alleged ailments. . none of which have been proven in court.  And now you bring up the Hooper Bay incident?  Seriously?  I believe it was in the 1950s, is that correct?  There was a fluoride overfeed.  Well, Dr. Sauerheber, here’s a newsflash.  This is the 21st Century and redundancies are now mandated to prevent such an incident.  Your “Hooper Bay” reference is irrelevant.  Moreover, more people have been killed by chlorine, by a factor of thousands, which is also added to water to safeguard people. 

So, since you seem to want to wander off into irrelevant territories, allow me to be as specific as possible.  Please show me one successful lawsuit for health reasons, anywhere on the planet, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even by drinking it as much as a lifetime.  It has never been proven in court because it doesn't happen.

[rs5526]

You honestly expect me to find all the successful lawsuits? Jeff Green was the head of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and headed many lawsuits. God rest his soul. Victories occured in Poughkeepsie, in Gilroy, Sant Cruz, and Selmer, Tenn, and other locations. But these are long, arduous struggles conducted by legal experts against municipalities and were not even attempted if city councils were unanimously controlled and sold on the policy to fluoridate people. The larger the city, the harder the task the lawsuit becomes.  The L.A. suit is still ongoing now for 11 years and is expensive.

Even the suit in Hooper Bay Alaska where a fluoridation overfeed killed a 42 year old Coast Guardsman is still not resolved. The city argues it is the State Board of Health's fault for making them fluoridate. The State argues it is the city's fault because the system was improperly operated.

I personally don't believe in suing people. My folks taught me to discuss a problem and get it resolved with facts to get reparations instead. Anyone who doesn't heed facts and morals is not worth suing anyway.  So don't expect me to sue anyone to get anything done. I admire Jeff though for doing all he could because fluoridation will not stop without such action since so many peple have been led to believe swallowing fluoride is useful and harmless, when in fact it is ineffective and chronically harmful.

[rs5526]

Oh, please. Your argument falls flat on its face. There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation. The one in Los Angeles is still ongoing and requires a team of legal experts to even have a chance of getting very far. A few cases are won such as in Poughkeepsie New York but victories are rare especially  in large cities. Common cilizens have no ability to successfully sue ciites such as Los Angeles. Are you kidding?

The man in the White House of course has been sued a lot, but as a single person, not a suit against the Government, which is required to halt fluoridation in any city.  And even there what did all the suits against this man achieve? He is still in office.

Are you serious right now?

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, "There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation."

Response:  I stand corrected.  I should have said, 'Where are all the Successful lawsuits?'

[rs5526]

The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.  The original directive waa authored knowing that fluoride is a contaminant in water, not a required ingredient.   

The FDA described fluoride added into water as an "uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug." I have a personal copy of the FDA letter stating so. You don't have to believe me, but regardless this is true.

Luride (sodium fluoride) is a drug listed in the PDR, and is regulated by prescription, and has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA, but likewise is not banned. It is an allowed drug, not an approved drug. There are many such substances that the FDA is aware are being used. The FDA rules on minerals are now also the same as traditionally for drugs. So if one dislikes ruling fluoride as a drug, fine, call it a mineral, the result is the same. The FDA ruled that prescription fluoride should not to be used in areas where water fluoride exceeds 0.6 ppm (PDR, 2017). Adding fluoride ion into water to treat humans also fits the Congressional definition of a drug.

I'm sorry  if you have a hard time understanding this, but I don't think the fault is onb my end. And whoever said you are keeping track of statements of mine, that's great. This is written for the general public.

The SDWA exact words are "no National requirement for the addition of any substance into water other than to sanitize the water" may be made. So the CDC gets around this law by claiming the CDC only requests fluoridation, they don't actually require it. The original statutes approved by Congress also state that U.S. States can be "no less restrictive." So State attempts to mandate fluoride are in violation of Federal water law. But who follows laws when one is convinced that eating and drinking fluoride is necessary for a population and is a great health achievement, if only others would come to their senses?  Laws become something to argue against. The SDWA indeed was later modified to delineate exceptions for fluoride, which allowed keeping this desired action as though it is indeed now lawful. Treating people without their permission through altering natural water supplies is unlawful. The action even violates the original Water Pollution Control Act section 101 that was instituted by President John Kennedy, where the mission of the law was to maintain the natural chemistry of drinking waters in the U.S.  If a natural supply contains high levels of a dangerous contaminant, then the substance can be removed (Clean Water Act). But intentionally adding any substance into drinking water violates this law. It was adjusted later with the SDWA to allow for adding chemicals such as chlorine to sanitize water of microbes. The adiditon of other substances however is prohibited. It is unlawful even to add vitamin C into public water supplies, let alone a diluted hazardous waste simply becuse it contains fluoride.

[CarryAnne]

“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..... this can hasten health calamities.”  - Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, MD (1993)

Case studies abound, but stubborn doctors refuse to admit their existance. I remember when weighing only 90 something pounds, chronically ill and really frightented, I first asked my GP if the small clusters of coin sized bruises on my arm were hives. He leaned back in his chair across the desk from me to put more distance betwen us and said, "they're bruises." I said, you can't see that well from there and started to get up to go around to his side of his massive desk "Stay seated!" he demanded, "I can see from here" - I said, "my daughter has them, too," holding out her tiny arm. "Some people bruise easily"  - I pulled open my shirt to reveal one on my chest "I think I'd remember if I got bumped here?" Shrug - then I asked, "Could it be something in the water?" That got him out of his chair - waving his arms and yelling at me "Who put you up to this!" and complaining about people coming into his office to tell him there was something the matter with the water - he yelled me and my two small children out of his office - last time I saw him.

He was the chair of the BOH who ordered fluoride into the water begun two years earlier. I knew nothing about that, then. It was a subsequent doctor who diagnosed my 'bruises' as a 'lesion' an odd allergic hive.... which is well documented in case studies as a unique type of hive some women and children get in the early stages of fluoride poisoning - Chizzola maculae. But I didn't find that out till over 30 years later. But he knew, why else would a doctor refuse to examine odd clusters of 'bruises' that a patient complained about? He didn't want to admit he had made a mistake that poisoned the women, children and senior citizens who were apparently streaming into his offices. 

See 1993 affidavit of and 2014 interview with Dr. Hans Moolenburg, a medical doctor who actually paid attention to the people who started streaming into his office from one of the two communities he served - the one recently fluoridated. He and his fellow doctors conducted a study that resulted in the cessation of the fluoridation experiment in the Netherlands.  

Case Studies: 

1993 Literature Review: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/spittle-1993/ 

1998 Collection: http://www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm

1967: http://www.nofluoride.com/allergy.cfm 

1969 "Neighborhood Fluorosis":  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15563656908990948 

1957 topical: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/16804/ 

International collection:  http://fluoridefree.org.nz/information/research/fluoride_allergy/ 

US self-reports: http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/mom-fluoride-stories

Contaminants & Concentrations

In India, 1.0 ppm is considered the threshold of an 'excessive' fluoride concentration in drinking water. The U.S. EPA sets 4 ppm as the actionable safety threshold. The rule of thumb is that there should be a factor of 10 between the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) and safe for vulenerable populations. It is well documented that 0.5 ppm causes adverse effects. Consequently, a 'safe' level of this poison should be below 0.05 ppm or 0.1 ppm or 0.4 ppm per accepted practices - but no government or health authority in fluoridating countries pays attention to those rules because it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm - which is doubled the dose documented to cause adverse impacts. 

1990: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853

2015: http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf

BTW: From my reading of the scientific and medical literature, 5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure. That may take a couple of months, a couple of years, or a couple of decades - but in the US where 75% of the population consumes fluoridated water and essentially 100% of the food is fluoridated, that means  approximately 50 million Americans suffer from fluoride poisoning, about 1 million in my state and  4,500 in my city - whether they know it or not.  

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne has said,

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus (1998)

         "Follow the money." - Deep Throat (1972)  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

And, “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.”

Carrie Anne has also said, “Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room.”  (Timestamp 07-12-2018 03:53 PM)

Response:  I take it now that you Don’t wish to discuss cancer and water fluoridation, which you originally brought up in the first place, before complaining that the issue was a distraction.  Is that correct?

Carrie Anne has also said:

 “ . . lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), . .”  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

And, “ . . it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm . .”  (Timestamp:  ‎07-13-2018 06:36 AM)

Response:  If it is big business to add fluoride to water . . there must be some deep pockets to sue.  Which is it?

Carrie:  “Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century.”

Response:  The Fluoride Action Network has a list of professionals, about 4500, who have signed the opposition to fluoridation statement.   

In the U.S. there are over 860,000 physicians, 2.8 million nurses, nearly 170,000 dentists and about 3.2 million PhD’s, or about  7 million.  If the list is accurate, then 0.064% or 1 in every 1555 oppose fluoridation. 

In other words, 0.036 % of all Health Care and other professionals are NOT opposed to water fluoridation.  I understand that about 25% of the US list of Professionals Opposed to fluoridation are from outside the US, so the actual percentages opposing fluoridation might be even lower if that is the case. 

0.036% can in NO WAY be considered a consensus!

Carrie, with all due respect, you and Dr. Sauerheber lack a certain credibility.  You have said blatantly false things about the Safe Drinking Water Act and what is in it.  Dr. Sauerheber has said the FDA bans  pregnant women from drinking fluoridated water.  He said, “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water,” Which has been proven false, and on, and on, and on.

I bring these points up because now we have to take you at your word that you were harmed (rashes, gastro-intestinal problems, etc.) from drinking optimally fluoridated water.  There is no documentation.  You have cited Hans Moolenburgh . . he has a Youtube video in which he literally says, “We know it was the fluoride causing these problems because we took their baby bottles away from them and they stopped crying.”  It’s laughable.

You've cited something from Waldbott, from 1971, ("Chizzola" Maculae) to prove that people do get sick from drinking fluoridated water . . while in another comment you have complained to me that I am not looking at the "current science" (post 2015).  You are inconsistant and you have come to lack credibility.

Now you say, “5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure.”

Ok, let’s look at that.  According to the CDC, in 2014 there were 211,393,167 people who were drinking fluoridated water.  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2014stats.htm  5% of that would be over 10.5 million people.  According to you, over 10 million people are intentionally being poisoned by their local governments and suffering great harm because of it.   If anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that. 

Where is this Class Action Lawsuit with 10 million plaintiffs?  You are right.  This is my standard response . . because it is so obvious!  We are blessed to live in a country that is so lawsuit crazy that the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot!!

You have said there is too much money behind water fluoridation and it is not possible to sue for that reason.  Odd!  I can think of a Billionaire who holds the record for being on the receiving end of more lawsuits than any other sitting U.S. president in history. 

You have said that it is too expensive to sue.  Many attorneys will not charge a fee until there is a payout.  I don’t get it.  There are no successful lawsuits by anybody who claims to have all these ailments that you allege.  You seem to be afraid to prove it in court . . where such a win could actually change U.S. policy.   A lot of people sue the EPA and win.  The EPA does have jurisdiction over CWF.  I would start there.

If nothing more, drinking optimally fluoridated water does appear to have a correlation with hypochondria, and I think you’ve proven that. 

[sirpac271999]

David,

As you must be well aware, the EPA is currently being sued, due to water fluoridation policy, by multiple environmental organizations. See https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro...

This type of lawsuit is completely beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, as you must understand. Very few attorneys would take on such a lawsuit, because there will not be any money damages from the EPA, but this is a lawsuit just to enjoin fluoridation in the United States. Thus, it is an injunctive action.

Private attorneys would not take on such a suit, because it takes magnificent resources and they would not get paid. Thus, your claim that private parties have access to such lawsuits, when there are no deep pockets to sue, is blatantly false!

In sum, people are being forcefully medicated, either unknowingly or by propaganda, that such forced medication somehow benefits them, in the United States, which is supposed to be the land of the “free”. The fluoridation policy makes such “freedom” highly questionable.

[rs5526]

But the truth is that It is the Institute of Public Health which published the report 'Inequalities in Health' that actually highlighted the very diffetences in burden of diseases and mortality between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.

It is the National Cancer Registry of Ireland and Northern Ireland that highlighted the significantly higher incidences of cancer in the Republic, which is fluoridated.

[JoeM785706]

Richard - since you mention them, check out the National Cancer Registry’s own statement on this at https://www.ncri.ie/tags/water-fluoridation which states how it’s data has been misused by antifluoridation campaigners and that there is no link between their cancer findings and fluoridation. The Institute of Public Health showed similar or lower levels of chronic diseases in the Republic, see lots of detail at http://chronicconditions.publichealthwell.ie/ . Waugh’s material did not take into account different definitions and different data collection systems in both jurisdictions. For example, the primary cause of deal the for a diabetic with pneumonia might be recoded as diabetes in the South and pneumonia in the North. Simple misunderstandings like these are constantly made by people with no qualifications in epidemiology and no knowledge of the systems of data collection. Other examples of these types of mistakes are comparing prostate cancer rates which have to be much higher in the Republic due to PSA screening, which detects preclinical lesions, which is not carried out in the North, or comparing Down Syndrome birth rates where abortion was outlawed in the South but freely available in the UK, where the large majority of such pregnancies are terminated. Such are the pitfalls of comparative health statistics, they are really much better left to the professionals. 

[rs5526]

And I'm not willing to toss out the significance of data sets analyzed by Declan Waugh comparing disease incidence in Southern Ireland vs Northern Ireland.

Or the data on hypothyroidism incidence by Peckham.

Or data on ADHD incidence by Malin and Till.

Or data correlating the blood fluoride concentration with degree of IQ lowering.

And it is an absolute certrainty that fluoride accumulates in bone to thousands of ppm, higher than what is in toothpaste, in a nonphysiologic manner where it does not belong, over a chronic period of consumption of about 20 years, all forming bone of poor quality.  

And I stand by my own studies of the effects of fluoridated water on racehorse fatalities in Southern California (Racehorse breakdowns and artificially fluoridated water in Los Angeles, Fluoride 46:170-177, 2013 at:

 https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/racehorse-breakdowns-and-artificial...

.

[JoeM785706]

Richard - Regarding Irish health stats, you need to check the official data published by the OECD, EU and the cross-border Institute of Public Health. These indicate better general health in the Republic. Not to mention better oral health.

Richard, CarryAnn and other contributors, I am leaving this discussion unless any issues arise re Irish or European research. Nice to chat with you all.

[rs5526]

It's a free country and you can believe what you want. And so can I. I trust the published information I know. Enamel exposed even to 20,000 ppm fluoride does not incorporate fluoride into it. At this level, calcium fluoride globules form on teeth that are readily dissolved with a meal afterward. 

At 0.016 ppm fluoride there is no such precipitation and it is now argued to somehow work by incorporating into dental plaque "to help" toothpaste fluoride (a recent CDC position).

But dentists here request that plaque be removed from teeth regularly. So all the vast literature praising the wonders of fluoride on caries needs to be considered more carefully. There is no actual proof that fluoride has some intrinsic ability to fight caries--other than coating teeth with high levels above the solubility product for calcium phosphate, where  it might act much like a coat of paint would.  But of course 0.016 ppm is far below this level.

The scientific data that is perfectly controlled is with caged mammals where diets were rigorously regulated. Animals given fluoridated water do not have any reduction whatsoever in spontaneous dental caries compared to nonfluoridated water (done in two U.S. labs and one lab in the U.K as reviewed by Yiamouyiannis). These data you can bank on. 

Those who want to fluoridate people though will dismiss this all by arguing that animals are not humans. But I can include it in my analysis because teeth enamel in mammals is similar to that in man.

Many studies claiming benefit report differences that are not outside experimental measruement error, and so many others were not with humans that volunteered to eat exaclty the same foods between fluoride water and no fluoride water groups. It is simply a mess with massive numbers of studies claiming benefit that are not well done. The textbooks by the dentist statistician Sutton are a necessary read for people wanting to see if fluoride added into drinking water can actually affect caries-- It doesn't.  

[rs5526]

Most all countries of the world reject fluoridation. In India, Dr. Susheela, a scientist who has studeid the effecs of fluoride on the people of India here entire career, cannot believe that the U.S. intentionally adds this non-physiologic substance into water, when India spends vast sums to remove it from contaminated water. In Ireland, the South followed U.S. dentists and fluoridated their country while the North does not. The health disparities between the two countries are atrocious there. Australia fluoridates, and that is about it. Most of Canada is canceling fluoridation and the rest of the world has rejected it.

The reason I mentioned the Teotia study (a 30 year examination) and the  Ziegelbecker and Yiamouyiannis studies is that they are so much more thorough and comprehensive than studies published widely iln dental journals.  Moreoever, there is no mechanism by which fluoride from drinking water can decreases caries in the first place. Fluoride cannot penetrate into the enamel matrix. it is simply too hard and a different structure than the hydroxyapatite in bone which readily accumulates fluoride. The level in saliva from drinking fluoridated water that continuously bathes teeth is only 0.016 ppm (NRC, 2006)  This is 93,750 times less concentrated than fluoride in toothpaste (1,500 ppm).  And the CDC already realizes and published that systemic fluoride does not affect caries. So people are scrambling to invent a new mechanism to explain what they have long accepted, that somehow drinking fluoride in water decereases decay. But it does not, which is consistent with the above facts.

[JoeM785706]

Richard - Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. The mechanism for caries prevention is very well understood and the epidemiology around the reduction in decay levels in fluoridated areas is copious. The general health in the Republic of Ireland compares very well with Northern Ireland and with Europe generally. The official comparative data can be accessed on the OECD and EU websites. 

[rs5526]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[JoeM785706]

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

[rs5526]

You again make an incorrect extrapolation.  

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

[DavidF928895]

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

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

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

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)

1978 Checklist: 

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

2015 Report w/checklist: 

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

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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