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! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

Really? 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

BMCL

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

• No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 “Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks! 

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real." 

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers. 

• UNSAFE: p. 2:  the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

• HAZARD: p 5:   The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
  
  

• CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
  
  

• VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
  
  

• SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. 

[DavidF928895]

Thank you, Dr. Bill.  I like to look at the evidence too.  That's why my comments, in looking at your motivation are evidence based.

Let's look at the evidence.  There is not one reputable health care or scientific organization in the world which opposes communitiy water fluoridation.  Not One. 

In arguing that fact, you cited several countries and holistic dentists; which as the evidence shows are, in the first case, are not scientific organizations, and in the second, not reputable.  I've shown you the evidence . . you've either denied it or ignored it.

More evidence:  There are over 100 reputable health care and other scientific organizations which have gone out of their way to endorse community water fluoridation.  These include the World Health Organization, the United States CDC, the American Cancer Society, the Mayo Clinic . . . the 8000 character limit prevents me from listing them all.

These reputable health care & scientific organizations represent hundreds of thousands of experts in their fields.

Now, let's look at you.  In the past few exchanges between you and I, you have shown that you are either unable to comprehend what is written (you accused me of citing Wikipedia as an example of a reputable scientific organization -  when I did not), or you don't take the time to read something before you comment on it, or you just say things and you don't care if they are true or not.

So, you are telling me, that of the over 4000 studies which have been devoted to fluoride, somehow you have gleaned the "truth" of the matter of optimally fluoridated water when it has somehow escaped the hundreds of thousands of experts who stand by, and endorse the practice of water fluoridation.  Really?  When you can't even seem to get through two comments, which would have taken under 5 minutes to read, before coming to the wrong conclusion?  Really?

Let's look at some more evidence.  Carrie Anne, one of your commrades, has said the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the addition of anything to water which is intended to treat people.  That was false.  I asked her to show me the evidence and cite the statute.  She was unable to do so.  Dr. Sauerheber has said that according to the FDA, pregnant women are prevented from ingesting fluoride compounds.  I asked him for any evidence of this, because . . we like to base our conclusions on the evidence, and he provided none.  On the other hand, I provided a label from a bottle of FDA regulated fluoridated water.  No such warning appears on any fluoridated water bottles . . which is, again, regulated by the FDA.   And these are only two of very many examples which I have encountered in these recent exchanges.

What I'm getting at is, when an objective reader looks very closely at what you and your fringe, extreme minority organization are saying, much of it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.  

So, since I like to draw my conclusions based on the evidence, it is very unlikely that someone who can't even get through 5 minutes of reading before reaching the wrong conclusion has more credibility than hundreds of thousands of experts who stand by and endorse community water fluoridation.

[BillO538145]

David,

Clearly we do not have the same definition of "evidence based" or "reputable."  

You are still going down the path of "endorsements" rather than "evidence."  

Consider:  The organizations you list do not determine the safety or efficacy or dosage of any substance.  Not one.   Please provide the scientific position paper on fluoride ingestion and/or fluoride supplements of any of the100 organizations you rely on.  But you won't because most don't have scientificly backed position statements, because the scientific evidence is lacking for efficacy, safety, dosage. 

In Contrast: Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage.  They have looked and evaluated the science and primary evidence and rejected fluoridation.   And you have not considered the www.IAOMT.org position paper on fluoride/fluoridation.  Read it and compare with any other organization's position paper.

And you failed to comment on the evidence I presented.   What caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation?  

Until that question is answered, all studies on fluoridation have failed to control for a serious confounding factor and are not significant.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, you say, "Each of the countries I listed have agencies which determine whether a substance is effective and safe at a specific dosage."

Response:  Then you will be kind enough to provide links to the Danish, Norwegian, and Finnish government peer-reviewed studies which find that optimally fluoridated water is harmful.  

I hope you will not consider my asking for evidence of your comments to be outrageous either. 

Your comment:  "And you failed to comment on the evidence I presented.   What caused the decline in dental caries prior to fluoridation?"

Response:  Because when you are proven wrong, or questioned about something that you have said which is incorrect, you simply move on to something else with nothing being resolved.  It is like playing an infinite game of whack-a-mole with you . . we can do that until the end of time.  I would rather concentrate on things that you have already said, and resolve them before moving on.  

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne says, "

"BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited lays out the following basic principles of the holistic approach to dentistry: 

• Proper nutrition for the prevention and reversal of degenerative dental disease
• Avoidance and elimination of toxins from dental materials
• Prevention and treatment of dental malocclusion (bite problems=physical imbalance)
• Prevention and treatment of gum disease at its biological basis"

Response:  Yes, Carrie Anne, these are the PRINCIPLES of holistic dentistry.  Principles are opinions and approaches.  More relevant to empiricism and science, the article also says,

"Many practices and opinions among alternative dentists are criticized as not being evidence-based by the mainstream dental community and skeptics of alternative medicine in general."

A principle, or an approach, which is not evidence based is worthless.  I didn't cherry-pick.  I didn't cite holistic dentistry "principles" because they are irrelevant.  The principle behind Crystal Healing is to free the flow the energy throughout the body and allow healing.  So what.  It doesn't work.

What is relevant, and evidenced based, about Holistic Dentistry is this:  " . .  fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists."  

[CarryAnne]

Expert in Brain Chemistry: ”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete.…. Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923 - 2018)

It seems that the American Fluordiation Society (AFS), which is an advocacy group, is much better funded than the activist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN) - not that funding should have anything to do with science or honesty.  

The honest medical science is that kidney function declines in our senior years, resulting in greater retention of fluoride in our bodies, bones and brains. Considerable science just this decade supports the testimony of countless seniors who have discovered that fluoridated water makes them sick in all sorts of ways - as reported by AARP contributors to this thread. 

• Monica I. Jiménez-Córdova, Mariana Cardenas-Gonzaleza,  Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid, et al. Evaluation of kidney injury biomarkers in an adult Mexican population environmentally exposed to fluoride and low arsenic levels. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. May 2018.   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X18302382 

  • ”In conclusion, F exposure was related to the urinary excretion of early kidney injury biomarkers, supporting the hypothesis of the nephrotoxic role of F exposure.”

• Perera T. et al. Effect of fluoride on major organs with the different time of exposure in rats. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine (2018) 23:17.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/perera-2018.pdf
  • "...findings indicate that there can be some alterations in liver enzyme activities at early stages of fluoride intoxication followed by renal damage"

• Natalia Ivanovna Agalakova and Gennadii Petrovich Gusev, “Molecular Mechanisms of Cytotoxicity and Apoptosis Induced by Inorganic Fluoride,” ISRN Cell Biology, vol. 2012, Article ID 403835, 16 pages, 2012   https://www.hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2012/403835/ 
  
  • "(Fluoride) activates virtually all known intracellular signaling pathways... whole cascade of events involved in the development of fluoride-induced cytotoxicity and cell death."
    
    

• Barbier O, Arreola-Mendoza L, Del Razo LM. Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Chemico-Biological Interactions. 2010 Nov 5;188(2):319-33. 

  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20650267

  • "Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its 'good reputation' ... However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular systems even at low doses."
    
    

• A. Martín-Pardillos et al. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004    

  • "....the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant."

  etc. 

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne says, “It seems that the American Fluordiation Society (AFS), which is an advocacy group, is much better funded than the activist group Fluoride Action Network (FAN) - not that funding should have anything to do with science or honesty.”

I don’t know how much funding the AFS gets . . and I’ve been trying to get a straight answer from Dr. Osmunson about Mercola’s funding of FAN, but I he doesn’t seem to want to answer the question. 

Try a little experiment:  Ask Dr. Johnson or Dr. Slott how much Delta Dental Insurance funds them as see if they are as evasive as Dr. Osmunson has been about his funding.  That might go toward that “honesty” thing that you brought up.

I guess the difference between the two, is that while FAN is part of Mercola’s “Health Liberty” conglomerate (whose membership also includes an Anti-vaccine group), the paranoia that FAN generates helps Mercola sell his expensive stuff.  You know, like really expensive in home water filter systems . . really expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive fluoride de tox.  (It’s weird how that “natural” stuff is always way more expensive than normal stuff, isn’t it.)

So, FAN gets you paranoid about your strictly regulated, safe tap water, and of course you’re going to want a water filter.  See how that works?

In contrast to funding going toward a sales gimmick, Delta Dental is an Insurance Company.  Insurance companies do three things: they make money, they study data and statistics to help them make money, and they pay out claims.  They really like to make money and they really hate to pay out claims. So, what they do, is study all of the available data on any given issue to help them make money and to help them reduce the risk of paying out claims.

Delta Dental believes that paying out grants toward community water fluoridation will improve the overall health of a community’s citizens, thus reducing money paid out in claims.  That is why Delta also provides grants to Smoking Cessation Programs.

See how that works?

Are you going to tell us that Delta paying for Smoking Cessation Programs is also part of some conspiracy Carrie . . I mean Karen?

Moreover, Mercola has already received 4 Warning Letters from the FDA for unethical sales practices.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters

 Has Delta Dental received any warning letters from the FDA for its unethical behavior Carrie . . . I mean Karen?  (The answer is No.  They have not.)

So to your point, Karen, “not that funding should have anything to do with science or honesty,” I think it’s clear that the Source of the funding certainly has a lot to do with not only motive, but the honesty behind that motive. 

I hope that clears things up for you.

[sirpac271999]

It is truly very interesting how the 'official' fluoride story is so distorted and does not take into account all the historical facts that were known about fluorides prior to Colorado Brown Stain. Also, please note there is a difference between artificial silicofluorides, sodium fluoride, and naturally occurring calcium fluoride. Talking about these Fluorine (F) compounds as one single subject (i.e. fluoride) is also somewhat deceptive, unless it is made clear all fluorides are the same, which of course is not the case. However, all fluorides are highly toxic, where the true issue is the addition of artificial fluorides into the public water supplies, which is reckless disregard of any informed consent and mass medication with no margin of safety.

1855 Smelters in Freiburg, Germany first paid damages to neighbors injured by fluoride emissions. (See 1893) 

1893 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany paid out 80,000 marks in damages for fluorine contamination injuries and 644,000 marks for permanent relief. (See 1855, 1900, 1907). 

1900 The existence of the smelting industry in Germany and Great Britain is threatened by successful lawsuits for fluorine damage and by budensome laws and regulations. 

1907 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany (see 1893) are identified as the cause of cripplied cattle in the area since 1877, and fluorides are identified as the culprit. 

1916 The first evidence of brown mottling of teeth is reported in the United States, and would be eventually found to be caused by fluorides in water. 

1922 Aluminum production (along with production of toxic by-product sodium fluoride) increases. Aluminum cookware is mass introduced in the US, beginning the gradual accumulation of aluminum in the brains of Americans. Additional aluminum is injected into society in "antacids" and toothpaste tubes, which aggrevate the action of toxic fluorides. 

1928 The equivalent of the U.S. Public Health Service is under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA aluminum, a major producer of toxic fluoride wastes. Mellon would step down from control of the Public Health in 1931. 

1928 Edward L.Bernays, nephew to Sigmund Freud, writes the book Propaganda, in which he explains the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and how it is manipulated by those who wish to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. Says Bernays, "those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, largely by men we have never heard of." Bernays represents another connection to Germany and would be essential in the fluoride campaign in the United States. Wrote Bernay's, "if you can influence group leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway." (See Bernay's, 1947, and the fluoride campaign). 

1930 Kettering Laboratory is founded from gifts from Ethyl Corporation, General Electric and DuPont (all who have interlocking relationships with I.G. Farben in Germany) to "investigate chemical hazards in American industrial operations" under contract, with provision that research "shall not be released to the public without the consent of the contracting company." During the mid-20th century, Kettering dominated the medical literature on the toxicology of fluorides, but information was not released into the public domain. 

1931 A considerable portion of Kettering Laboratory's facilities are dedicated to the study of fluorides. Under contract, the studies are not releasable to the public. (See also 1939, Mellon Institute) 

1931 Three independent groups of scientists determine that fluoride in the water is the cause of dental mottling. Research teams from ALCOA Aluminum (who have fluorides as a hazardous by-product of aluminum manufacture) and the University of Arizona. Also shown by North African investigators and others. Dr. Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute, owners of ALCOA, would later solve the expensive disposal problem with toxic fluorides by convincing others that it could be dumped in the public water supply as a "preventative" for tooth decay. 

1931 Under an agreement with I.G. Farben, ALCOA accepts a restriction on the production of magnesium in the U.S, hampering the war effort, while Germany itself stepped up production. Most of the U.S. production was shipped out of the country to Germany. 

1931 Public Health Service dentist H. Trendley Dean is dispatched by ALCOA founder Andrew Mellon to certain remote towns in the Western U.S. where water wells have a naturally high concentration of calcium fluorides. Dean's mission would be to find out how much fluoride people could physically tolerate before obvious visible damage to their teeth. Dean publishes a purposely skewed and deceptive study which purports to show that at 1ppm, flourides result in the "reduction of tooth decay". (See Gerald Cox, 1939) 

1931 The Mellon Institute is ALCOA's Pittsburgh research lab. 

1931 From 1931 to 1939, the U.S. Public Health Service seeks to remove fluorides from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. ALCOA's fluoride proposals have not been bought into by the public or government yet. 

1931 I.G. Farben and Alcoa Aluminum sign Alted Agreement pooling patents, which would continue through 1939 and beyond. I.G. Farben complex begins large contributions to fund Nazi cause. 

1933 A study is published in which it is shown that fluorides inhibit the action relative to lipase on ethyl acetate in vivo 50 percent at a concentration of one part in 15 million. (McClure, F.J., "A Review of Fluorine and its physiological effects", Physiological Review, 13: 295-297, July 1933). 

1933 According to a study by Freni in 1994 (71), in 1933 and again in 1984 that fluorides produce cumulative generational effects on biological organisms. 

1937 U.S. Public Health Service publishes material indicating that fluoride concentrations in many U.S. cities varied between 0.6 ppm to 8.0 ppm. A concentration of 0.9 ppm means that over 10% of children have mottled teeth and tooth deformities. 

1937 A clinical hygienic study by K. Roholm in 1937, Fluoride Intoxication, published by H.K. Lewis, London. Roholm is convinced that fluorides cross the placental barrier into the fetus. (70). This realization is echoed in 1951 by an M.D. and chemist from the University of Oregon Medical School. 

1938 Dr. Wallace Armstrong and P.J.Brekhus at the University of Minnesota Department of Biochemistry publish a study in which they claim that the enamel of sound teeth had a significantly greater fluoride content than the enamel of teeth with cavities. Armstrong was to admit that these results were false. In a followup study in 1963, Dr. Armstrong found no difference in the fluoride contents of the enamal of sound or decayed teeth. 

1938 The University of Mexico Bulletin, August 1, 1938, in an article entitled "Menace of Fluorine to Health", states "Solutions of sodium fluoride with a fluoride content as low as one part in 15 million may inhibit the action of the lipase (pancreatic juice) as much as 50 percent." 

1939 The ALCOA company, the world's largest producer of sodium fluoride,transfers it technology under the Alted Agreement to Germany. Dow Chemical follows suit. 

1939 ALCOA-sponsored bochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridates rats in his lab and mysteriously concludes that "fluoride reduces cavities". He makes a public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies. Cox begins to tour the United States, stumping for fluoridation. 

1939 Scientists at I.G. Farben prepare the first sample of fluorinated nerve gas Sarin. 

1939 On September 29, 1939, Mellon Institute scientist Gerald J. Cox plays a major role in the promotion of fluoridation by saying "the present trend toward removal of fluorides from food and water may need reversal. Water engineers had been recommending a maximum allowable fluoride contaminant level of 0.1 part per million (ppm), maintaining a tenfold margin of safety. (When fluorides were eventually added to water through corporate pressure, that safety factor would be thrown out and the level raised tenfold beyond the engineering recommendations in 1939, when fluoride was properly recognized as a toxic contaminant. Note: Mellon Institute was founded by Andrew and Richard Mellon, former owners of ALCOA Aluminum, plagued by disposal problems of toxic fluoride by products. ALCOA also had a relationship with I.G. Farben in Germany) 

1939 U.S. Public Health Service regulations state "the presence of fluorides in excess of 1 ppm shall constitute rejection of the water supply." (Yet, when water fluoridation is instituted, levels are set at a minumum of 1 ppm) 

1939 Volume 9 Report to the House Un-American Activities Committee delves deeply into the alleged use of fluoridation to keep the American people docile, so they would accept the changing of their system of government to a socialist state. 

1940 "Fluoride inhibits neuromuscular activity". Ref: Russo, G. Att.Acad. Sci. Nat.., 1940. 

1940 Soviet concentration camps maintained by fluoride administration to inmates to decrease resistance to authority and induce physical deteriorization. 

1942 "Fluorine may cause anoxia in the newborn and shorten the period of their survival" Ref: Himwich, H.E., et al., American Journal of Physiology, 1942. 

1942 Germany becomes worlds largest producer of aluminum (and Sodium Fluoride). Fluoride is used in the concentration camps to render the prisoners docile and inhibit the questioning of authority. 

1943 Researchers from the US Public Health Service examine the health of residents of Bartlett, Texas to see if the 8ppm fluoride in the drinking water was affecting their health. It was checked again in 1953. They find that the death rate in Bartlett was three times higher than a neighboring town which contained 0.4 ppm fluoride. 

1943 A special New York State Health Department Committee is appointed to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburg's drinking water, chaired by Dr. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project. 

1943 The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, contains an article, "Chronic Fluorine Intoxication", which states, "fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanism of such actions, it was said, are obscure. The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine, fluorine compounds used as insecticidal sprays for fruits and vegatables (cryolite and barium fluoro- silicate) and the mining and conversion of phosphate rock to superphosphate, which is used as a fertilizer. That process alone releases approximately 25,000 tons of pure fluorine into the atmosphere annually. Other sources of fluorine intoxication is from the fluorides used in the smelting of many metals, such as steel and aluminum, and in the production of glass, enamel and brick." 

1943 Environmental pollution by toxic metals, including fluorides, affects forests, livestock, and urban residents, but coverage remains on local levels. 

1944 "Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep" (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944. 

1944 The city manger of Grand Rapids, Michigan announces that the Michigan State Department of Health is planning a long range experiment with fluoridated water and that Grand Rapids was selected as the location for the experiment. The city commission approves a motion to fluoridate on July 31, and decides it is to begin in January 1945, despite the warning issued three months earlier, ironically, by the American Dental Association. Grand Rapids becomes the first city in the United States to conduct this experiment. It was to serve as the test city to be compared against un-fluoridated Muskegon for a period of ten years relative to tooth decay, "at which time it would be determined whether or not fluoride was "safe and effectiv." Dr. H. Trendley Dean was put in charge of the project. The experiment was terminated early, after the control city was fluoridated, ruining the validity of the experiment, with the pronouncement that fluorides in public water supplies was "safe".See 1945. 

1944 The Pentagon Scientific Research and Development Group further pursued the project to fluoridate the drinking water of Newburg, New York. Members included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Manhattan Project medical section, John W. Fertig, SRDG, Dr. Hodge, and David Ast, chief dental officer of the New York State Health Department, who was placed in charge of the Newburg Project. The group sought information on cumulative effects, which was also a goal of the Manhattan Project. (See below) 

1944 Through 1948. Previously classified documents from Manhattan Project which indicate the government knew the physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, as a result of studies connected with determining the effect of uranium hexafluoride processing on workers, as well as studies in defense of litigation against the project by tree growers who experienced fluoride damage from airborne pollutants connected with the project. Ref: Declassified documents from the National Archives published in 1997. 

[rs5526]

Thanks Bill. We appreciate the correct information. Also it is good to read Johnsons heartfelt arguments that have correct parts Iin the reference, namely the brief description of some of the events leading to fluoridation, and the fact that even mild fluorosis is a devopmental abnormality. Fluorosed teeth however are not more resistant to decay and do not incorporate F into the enamel matrix as occurs in fluorotic bone. Teeth instead are deficient in enamel that leads to more crumbly dentin interiors throughout life as written by dentist George Heard who treated the kids in Texas and Colorado and apologized for going along with with the McKay theory for the PHS.

I am not deceiving anyone on this site. F ingestion is not FDA approved. Systemic F in the blood has zero ability to fight decay but is indeed efficiently incorporated into bone. The ziegelbecker data are complete and demonstrate the McKay correlation of F with decay was mere scatter that is not causative even up to 6 ppm in water, while the effect on fluorosis is indeed causative. 

[CarryAnne]

“Fluoride is a drug and any drug is dose dependent. Human susceptibility to dosage of drugs is different for each individual, depending on the state of their immune system, age and weight.” - John A. Rothchild, DDS, MAGD, DAAPM, IMD, NMD (2016)

Dentists who are members of ADA have privately told me that they know fluoridation does no good for teeth and is harmful to some consumers including causing dental fluorosis which results in veneers and crowns, but that they will not speak publicly because they fear repercussions, not least of which is loosing the financial benefits they are afforded by ADA membership. Dr. Bob Evans and the ADA mutually agreed to part ways when he confronted them about the fluoridation fraud. Since only about half of the dentists in the US belong to the ADA and many are intimidated into silence, well.... CBS has a new TV show on Friday nights called "Whistleblowers" - hopefully someone in the ADA will eventually get a conscience and speak up. That's an episode I'd like to see! 

In the meantime, read the December 2017 testimony of Dr. Bob Evans. 

[RandyJ913440]

Excellent comments, Dave.  Thanks.

[rs5526]

Excellent idea. 

And stopping drinking F water and using natural toothpaste without F would eliminate 85% of the F in the bloodstream (about 15% comes from food in a fluoridated city.) :(NRC)  

[CarryAnne]

This thread is supposed to facilitate  discussion among seniors who have found fluoridation causes illness or worsens their health, not to facilitate online harrassment.

I suggest new vistors read the oldest 60 comments posted between Feb 2015 - Feb 2018, before the fluoride-trolls descended and overwhelmed the thread with their vindictive rhetoric. 

Lifetime Impact

For more, see:

Life Decay: http://pregnancyandfluoridedonotmix.com/lifedecay.html

2016 Diabetes Model: 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160817132107.htm 

2015 Thyroid Study: 

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-02-fluoridation-england-linked-higher-underactive.html 

Dental Damage per 2011-12 US surveillance:

http://jdh.adha.org/content/92/1/23

etc.  

* Review of 2006 NRC report is very readable:  http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne says   . . . 

"This thread is supposed to facilitate  discussion among seniors who have found fluoridation causes illness or worsens their health, not to facilitate online harrassment.

I suggest new vistors read the oldest 60 comments posted between Feb 2015 - Feb 2018, before the fluoride-trolls descended and overwhelmed the thread with their vindictive rhetoric."

Response:  This thread, entitled, "Re:  Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action," is another attempt to bully/harrass/"Demand" that a reputable, distinguished, and highly respected organization, the AARP, submit to the dangerous agenda of a fringe group.  

Karen doesn't like it when her views are questioned.  Here she's attempting censorship by (in her mind) exposing the enemy.  I wouldn't be surprised if she has a dossier on me and other people who have openly contradicted her with facts.  She would do well in countries where freedom of speech is illegal . . as long as her views were the "official" views of the State.  

I say dangerous because a proven health initiave is being hijacked by a fringe (Fringe:  4500 out of roughly 7 million health care and other professionals oppose water fluoridation, about 0.036%, and Karen calls it a concensus) anti-science, alternative medicine group.

Much, if not all, of the misinformation about water fluoridation ultimately has its roots in the Fluoride Action Network, which is part of Mercola's Health Liberty conglomeration.  According to Wikipedia, Joseph Mercola brought in nearly $7 million in 2010 with his online business, selling such things as water filters, fluoride-free toothpaste, fluoride de-tox.  All of which fit in nicely with the anti-fluoride propaganda, because the paranoia that Karen, and people like her spread, help Mercola sell his stuff.  

Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales practices.  Meanwhile, he spreads fear & paranoia about vaccines, micro waves & wi fi, and of course fluoridated water (You think Wi Fi is dangerous too, don't you Karen?) . . all which is designed to sell stuff.

Thank you Karen for your consistancy.  Your words speak for themselves.

By the way, there has never been one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

[BillO538145]

David,

You suggest 4,500 professionals opposed vs 7 million in favor of fluoridation as though quantity makes right.

First, please send me a list of the 7 million professionals and their signatures that they support fluoridation.  You assume they support fluoridation.  I can give you the list of those opposed, but you assume everyone else is in favor.

Second, how many of those alleged 7 million have read the primary research?

Rather than speaking about trust, assumptions and a faith based health care, may I suggest you read the primary research and start looking at the factual evidence.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill, you say,

"You suggest 4,500 professionals opposed vs 7 million in favor of fluoridation as though quantity makes right.

First, please send me a list of the 7 million professionals and their signatures that they support fluoridation.  You assume they support fluoridation."

Response:  I assume they don't oppose water fluoridation.  As you know, the Fluoride Action Network has a list, "Professionals Opposed to Water Fluoridation."  It has between 4500 - 5000 signatories, isn't that correct?  These are people who are opposed to water fluoridation.  It's that simple.  

Now slow down and take a look at my comment.  Here it is:  " a proven health initiave is being hijacked by a fringe (Fringe:  4500 out of roughly 7 million health care and other professionals oppose water fluoridation, about 0.036%, .."  End quote.

You are a fringe.  Here's the definition of fringe:  "not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme."  You aren't part of the mainstream.  Moreover, you aren't part of the mainstream in scientific circles.  There is no reputable scientific organization, which is aware of the scientific literature, which opposes community water fluoridation.  (Chiropractors don't count.  Neither does the Aroma Therapy Association of America.)  The Mayo Clinic, the CDC, the FDA, the EPA, the US Department of Health . . over 100 in all support water fluoridation.  You are a fringe.  There is no other way to spin it . . but I'm sure you'll try.

[BillO538145]

David,

You keep repeating, "There is no reputable scientific organization, which is aware of the scientific literature, which opposes community water fluoridation."

If your definition of "reputable" is everyone who agrees with you, than you must be correct.  And if your definition of "reputable" is limited geographically and in agreement with you, then again you are probably correct.  

The IAOMT, IABDM (and other reputable scientific organizations) and most developed countries do not support fluoridation.  \

Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China BANNED: "not allowed“

France Was 50%  now 30% fluoridated Salt

Ireland 74% Fluoridated

UK 9% Fluoridated

However, David, we need to look at the primary research rather than other people's opinions.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill Osmunson, again, while you were the director of the anti-fluoride organization, Fluoride Action Network, how much did Mercola fund you?  This is the second time I’ve asked the question.

Ok.  I said, “There is No reputable scientific organization in the world which opposes Community Water Fluoridation.  You are a fringe group, even in scientific circles.”

Please allow me to respond to the examples you presented which were intended to dismantle my comment:

Austria is not a reputable scientific organization.

Belgium is not a reputable scientific organization.

Finland is not a reputable scientific organization.

Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden are not reputable scientific organizations.  Nor are the Netherlands, Hungary, Japan or China.  You do know that, don’t you, or were you hoping to pull the wool over some reader’s eyes?

You also mentioned the IAOMT.  In case any readers are not familiar with IAMOT, here is an article from Quackwatch dedicated to that organization:  https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/iaomt.html

You also mentioned the IABDM, the International Academy of Biological Dentists . . or Holistic dentistry.  Guess what . . Quackwatch did a report on them too.  “This article responds to this concern and evaluates pseudoscientific practices that many of these dentists use.”  http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/holisticdent.html

As I said, there is No reputable scientific organization in the world which opposes Community Water Fluoridation. 

And how much money did the anti-fluoride organization, Fluoride Action Network get from Mercola, as funding, while you were the director of that fringe organization?

[BillO538145]

David.  

Repeating again.  I dont know how much anyone donates.  That is confidential and I did not ask.  Profluoride organizations get tax and corporate money.  But again you evade science and prefer tabloids.  

What organizations do you think are reputable?

Quack watch is certainly not reputable.  

Bill Osmunson. DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

BillO

By the way, for anyone interested in what you consider to be a "reputable organization," here is a Wikipedia article on Holistic Dentistry:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holistic_dentistry

From the article:  "Some critics of holistic dentistry practice also note that the fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists. Some claim that alternative dentistry is merely the exploitation of niche health beliefs and gimmicks to justify higher fees."

"A significant part of the critique of holistic dentistry is related to the unsubstantiated use of certain services and treatments, many of which have either been investigated and found ineffective, or have not been researched enough to be declared safe and effective for practice."

So, when I say that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization in the world which opposes Community Water Fluoridation, and you give me the IABDM, holistic dentists, which you claim is a reputable health organization which does oppose water fluoridation . . . 

Well, any intelligent reader can see your comment for what it was.

[BillO538145]

David, 

I asked you for the names of  reputable scientific organizations you accept.

You provided Wikipedia.  Wikipedia never crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.  Thanks for letting me know your opinion.  I need say no more. . . . .    But I will.  Wikipedia is based on people's opinions and not primary research.  I don't know of any scientists who accept Wikipedia as reputable science.

Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?

May I suggest you review the primary evidence for yourself.  Trust encourages a person to be gullible.

By the way, more and more of main stream dentistry are using holistic dental procedures.  Often called other terms such as cosmetics, but the holistic procedures are grounded in the leading edge of science.  Tradition changes with a few brave people stepping out from the herd and trying to improve the system.  The least expensive alternative is not one size which fits all humans.  

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill O,  You say: 

“I asked you for the names of  reputable scientific organizations you accept.

You provided Wikipedia.  Wikipedia never crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.”

And, "Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?“

Response:  Thank you, Bill, for proving my point that you cherry-pick information and take things out of context.  I did not cite Wikipedia as a reputable scientific organization.  I used Wikipedia and Quackwatch to expose problems with your so-called reputable organization, Holistic Dentistry, which uses pseudo-scientific approaches which have never been scientifically proven, and indeed can be harmful to patients.  And they over-charge their clients. 

I cited the Mayo Clinic, the American Cancer Society, and the World Health Organization as reputable scientific organizations . . all of which support community water fluoridation.

(My comment for your review:  “ . .  if I don’t see them listed on Quackwatch that’s a plus.  For example, you won’t see the Mayo Clinic on Quackwatch.  The Mayo Clinic is a reputable organization . . and they endorse water fluoridation.

The American Cancer Society isn’t listed on Quackwatch.  That is also a reputable organization, which, by the way, also endorses water fluoridation.   

How about the World Health Organization.  I can’t find an article about the WHO on Quackwatch . . and guess what.  They also endorse community water fluoridation.”) ‎

07-25-2018 11:19 AM  Please, feel free to review the comment.

Do you seriously believe that any reader of this thread is unable to go back and review comments for themselves?  Wow!

By the way, How much did Mercola fund the Fluoride Action Network while you were the director of that fringe organization?

[DavidF928895]

Bill O, you say,

"I asked you for the names of  reputable scientific organizations you accept.

 You provided Wikipedia.  Wikipedia never crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.  . . .

. . . Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?"

Response:  Thank you, Bill, for proving my point that you cherry-pick informaton, and take things out of context.  You asked me which organizations I consider reputable.  I cited the World Health Organization, the Mayo Clinic, and the American Cancer Society.  

(My quotes from my response:  " The Mayo Clinic is a reputable organization . . and they endorse water fluoridation. . . . . The American Cancer Society isn’t listed on Quackwatch.  That is also a reputable organization, which, by the way, also endorses water fluoridation.   . . . . . How about the World Health Organization.  I can’t find an article about the WHO on Quackwatch . . and guess what.  They also endorse community water fluoridation.")  07-25-2018 11:19 AM

I used the Wikipedia article to expose the problems with your so-called reputable organization which is opposed to water fluoridation.  According to Wikipedia and Quackwatch, Homeopathic Dentists, who are also opposed to Water Fluoridation use pseudo-scientific approaches which have never been scientifically proven, and indeed can be harmful to health, and they over charge their gullable clients.  I did not cite Wikipedia as a scientifically reputable organization, and anyone who can read knows that.

Do you seriously believe that any objective reader of this thread is unable to go back and look at previous comments?  Wow!

[BillO538145]

David, 

I asked you for the names of who YOU think are reputable scientific organizations.

You have listed Wikipedia.  That organization never even crossed my mind as either scientific or reputable.  Thanks for letting me know.    

Any other organizations you accept as "scientifically reputable?"    Are there any other scientists in the world, besides you, who accept Wikipedia as scientifically reputable?

May I suggest you review the primary evidence for yourself.

By the way, more and more of main stream dentistry are using holistic dental proceedures.  Often called other terms, but the holistic proceedures are grounded in the leading edge of science.  Tradition changes with a few brave people stepping out from the hurd and trying to improve the system.  The least expensive alternative is not one size which fits all humans.  

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill O says, "But again you evade science and prefer tabloids."

Response:  Anyone who cares to read through this entire thread can see your defense of cherry-picked and out-of-context conclusions for what it is.  You have gone round and round with Drs. Slott, Hayne, and Johnson.  You have been proven wrong again, and again, and again by them.

Dr. Sauerheber and Carrie Anne have been proven wrong countless times by me because of his false claims about the Safe Drinking Water Act, FDA policy, labeling on FDA regulated products, the relationship between the EPA, FDA and water fluoridation. . I mean it never ends with you guys.

So I encourage any reader who is curious about your ideas of science to read the back-and-forth between you, Sauerheber, Slott, Johnson, and Hayne, and Dr. Joe Mullen.  We don’t need to do that anymore.

Right now I am examining your motives.  You were the Director of the Fluoride Action Network and nobody seems to know how much money Mercola funded to you.  Well, somebody must know. 

You ask, “What organizations do you think are reputable?” 

Response:  Well, for starters, if I don’t see them listed on Quackwatch that’s a plus.  For example, you won’t see the Mayo Clinic on Quackwatch.  The Mayo Clinic is a reputable organization . . and they endorse water fluoridation.

The American Cancer Society isn’t listed on Quackwatch.  That is also a reputable organization, which, by the way, also endorses water fluoridation.   

How about the World Health Organization.  I can’t find an article about the WHO on Quackwatch . . and guess what.  They also endorse community water fluoridation.

So, when I say there are no reputable scientific or health organizations in the world which oppose water fluoridation, I mean reputable.  Maybe you don’t believe in Western Science (as you plug away on your computer), and maybe that’s why you would cite Holistic Dentistry.  But I like my dentist who believes in Western Science.  It’s working out for me.  I’m 59 years old, still have all my teeth, and have only had one cavity in my entire life.  How’s your Holistic dentist working out for you?

I hope this helps answer your question about my standards for what I regard as a reputable organization.

[rs5526]

• I'm on the train heading north on my trip to Alaska. We stopped at Klamath Falls Oregon where the massive fresh water lake is devoid of any measurable fluoride, great drinking water. And yet fluoridationists would have you believe that this pristine water is somehow deficient because if you don't add fluoride compounds into it, you will get dental decay. Total nonsense. Many people (including my uncle and many acquaintances) .never had a single cavity their entire life by not eating sugar and brushing with baking soda daily, all without fluoridated water. . Clean water is to be desired and appreciated because the purpose of drinking water is to hydrate tissue (with H2O), not to be confused with a purpose of being a decay preventive dentifrice as is advertised for fluoride in toothpaste.
• There appear to be two different world views, those who appreciate natural foods and pristine water, and those who advocate artificially adulterating water with synthetic fluorides and foods made with such water. These two views are incompatible.Tbe CDC and FDA are at odds and I support the efforts of the FDA as described earlier. 

[rs5526]

The FDA is quite careful on this issue. . The 1975 ruling  that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods is proper. Who would add a dash  of something used as rodent poison, no matter how small the dash, when it would have no useful purpose? Eating fluoride does not affect dental decay. Likewise, fluoride water is mot an effective ingestible decay preventive dentifrice..Again, the accurate data on man and caged animals that we have adequately demonstrate this. 

[rs5526]

The notion that no adverse effects ever occur after drinking   fluoridated water for a lifetime has never been proven. In fact it is absolutely certain  that F accumulates in bone where it has no functional purpose after ingesting the first sip. Just because a pin pick doesnt produce noticeable health consequences doesn't mean one should continue doing it Lifetime.

Halting  fluoride Ingestion does not deprive kids of dental health. The absence of F does not cause caries. They are caused by eating sugar and not cleaning teeth afterward F has no intrinsic ability to fight caries. The Zeigelbecker data prove the 1930s correlation was not causation. What F causes is fluorosis of bone and teeth. Dental caries are prevented by good dental hygiene. 

 F Is useless for this purpose and  has no physiologic role in man and animals. Fluoridation alters kids bone structure and strength so let's protect kids from that while promoting good dental hygiene. 

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Richard, you say, "The notion that no adverse effects ever occur after drinking   fluoridated water for a lifetime has never been proven."

That is a nonsensical con.  It has never been proven that drinking pure pristine water over a lifetime will cause no adverse effects.  It has never been proven that breathing pure air does not cause adverse effects.  It has never been proven that anything is completely safe.  You can't prove the absolute safety of anything.

But the fact that hundreds of millions of people drink optimally fluoridated water on a daily basis, and there has never been any documented harm from it, makes it a pretty sure bet that there are no adverse effects.

Mercola tanning beds aren't safe because there are documented cases of people getting cancer from them.  That's why the FDA gave Mercola a warning letter about unethical sales practices . . well, actually, Mercola has already gotten 4 warning letters about its unethical practices. 

The Fluoride Action Network is part of Mercola's Health Liberty conglomerate, isn't it? 

[rs5526]

The FDA requires specific FDA labeling of various aspects of food, such as various mineral contents, calories. etc. But FDA labelimg of fluoride in water is prohibited because fluoride does not belong in  water and  It is not a nutrient mineral. Private companies that make their own  labels for F content in bottled water are on their own. 

 The FDA does not arrest them. But the FDA makes it clear it is not an FDA label for F on water bottles. FDA labels for F are on toothpaste boxes stating do not swallow  or use in children under 6. But FDA labeling for F on water  is prohibited by the FDA. It ruled its addition into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug but does not demand it be removed  and does not approve of its addition. F is allowed in foods  But the FDA ruled that F is considered unsafe to (intentionally) add to foods.in 1975.

[DavidF928895]

 You are saying that the FDA calls artificially fluoridated water "an uncontrolled use of anunapproved drug."  End quote.

Show me anything on any FDA website, anything official from the FDA, in which this government agency has identified optimally fluoridated water a "drug."

You say, "There appear to be two different world views, those who appreciate natural foods and pristine water, and those who advocate artificially adulterating water with synthetic fluorides and foods made with such water."

Response:  Corn is a genetically modified food.  If the original food had not been "adulterated" by man, you would still be eating grass.  If water wasn't "adulterated" by man, millions of people would be dying from typhys, cholera, and other water-borne diseases.  And if nature wasn't "adulterated" by man, you would be walking to Alaska instead riding on a nice train.

There are two schools of thought.  There are people who haven't thought it through, because they would still be living in caves instead of houses if they had never "adulterated" nature, and people who are intelligent enough to realize that we were given a brain so that we could use it and make our world better.