Content starts here
CLOSE ×
Search
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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. 

 

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! 

390,546 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

54,722 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

53,466 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

45,143 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 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.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

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. 

 

 

View solution in original post

41,021 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

 

7,971 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

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. 

7,665 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
7,627 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“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. 

2017.12.11_BobEvans.jpg

7,513 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

Excellent comments, Dave.  Thanks.

 

 

 

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
7,603 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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)  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,758 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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 ImpactLifetime 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

6,756 Views
12
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 

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.

 

 

6,815 Views
11
Report
Conversationalist

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

7,193 Views
10
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

7,275 Views
9
Report
Conversationalist

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

7,720 Views
8
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

7,719 Views
7
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

7,791 Views
6
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

7,695 Views
4
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

7,529 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

7,050 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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!

7,034 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

7,353 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

7,371 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

  • 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. 
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,144 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,141 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,166 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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? 

6,195 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,134 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 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.

6,152 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I did not say that no one can label the fluoride content in bottled water. I said the FDA ruled to prohibit labeling (but the FDA) fluoride levels in bottled water. Pure pristine clean drinking water such as in the Pacific Northwest has no detectable F, like water is supposed to be. Again, the FDA ruled this to avoid people thinking that fluoride is a normal ingredient in fresh drinking water, when it most certainly is not.

Trump lying about what he said has nothing to do with statements   on fluoride. Most things Trump says are false

 I dont speak falsehoods. And I am with the majority of Americans who voted for  Hillary. So what? 

No one has proven that F has never caused or exacerbated cancer. 

 Quite the opposite. Read the data published by Dr. Yiamouyiannis.

Also it would serve you well to read the actual full text in the NRC Report 2006. There have been several cases of stage III skeletal fluorosis in the U. S. . It remains rare but stage I is not rare

 The ingestion of fluoridated water for about 20 years even  before the  existence of F toothpaste caused bone F levels of 2500 mg/kg, higher than in toothpaste where it does nor belong Newbrunn)  Many people experience bone discomfort at levels below 2500( NRC).

I don't know Mercola so you may be projecting to someone else. 

I published the racehorse fluoridation breakdown article and the journal of environmental and public health 439490 article

 I haul my drinking and cooking  water from a clean well because fluoridationists  violated the San Diego vote opposed to fluoridation and violated the SDWA and infuses industrial fluoride sources into the water I am forced to buy though it is so treated. Fresh municipal water is no longer available here (IN THE U. S) 

I do not use an RO fluoride water filter. Again, you are projecting. . 

 

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,188 Views
6
Report
Conversationalist

Laws are complex and not everyone agrees on the intent of each law.

 

The best I've been able to do is read the FDA and EPA positions and their intent, contact them and try to understand.   Complex.  I think pulling firm conclusions out of either or both Agencies is problematic, until the courts rule. 

 

Much we don't know and certainly some are being harmed with excess fluoride exposure.

 

Giving people the freedom to choose more fluoride, is a fundamental human right. 

 

If we were dealing with a highly contagious lethal disease, then I am not opposed to my public health profession using police powers.  Dental caries are not highly contagious or lethal. 

 

Give people freedom to choose how much fluoride they ingest.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

6,158 Views
5
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Richard,  Round & Round we go . . where it ends nobody knows.  This is what you just said: 

 

“I did not say that no one can label the fluoride content in bottled water. I said the FDA ruled to prohibit labeling (but the FDA) fluoride levels in bottled water. “  (It’s a bit garbled, but I think I know what you are saying.)

 

And this is what you actually said: 

 

“07-12-2018 03:46 PM

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. “  End quote.

 

So . . if it’s forbidden . . it’s forbidden by everyone.  Forbidden means forbidden.  Where in that comment do you say this only applies to the FDA?   Or is that even what you meant?  Who knows . .

 

Bill Osmunson’s comment is more interesting. 

 

“Giving people the freedom to choose more fluoride, is a fundamental human right. 

 

If we were dealing with a highly contagious lethal disease, then I am not opposed to my public health profession using police powers.  Dental caries are not highly contagious or lethal. 

 

Give people freedom to choose how much fluoride they ingest.”  End quote.

 

Bill, since we know that water containing 0.7 ppm F is harmless to people who drink it (because nobody can seem to provide even one documented case of harm because someone drank optimally fluoridated water – even for as much as a lifetime.)  And we know that water containing fluoride is helpful against dental carries (hell, we’ve known this since Colorado in the early 20th century), then you are literally arguing for the freedom to choose poorer oral health.  --  That is not rational.

 

Let me repeat.  You want the freedom to choose poorer oral health.

 

Moreover, you want to impose your irrational mindset upon entire communities, people who could truly benefit from this health initiative.  And you want to do it to help your millionaire buddy, Mercola, sell his stuff.  (You know, like when you copy/pasted “Kyle’s Story” which was really an advertisement for Mercola shower head filters.)  That’s not cool, man. 

6,144 Views
4
Report
Conversationalist

David,

I agree, we are going in circles.   Given the scientific evidence of harm from too much fluoride and added fluoride adds to the excess, does not seem to be something you understand. 

 

I don't think I can be more clear than saying, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  20% of adolescents with moderate/severe fluorosis is too much.  NHANES 2011-2012. 

 

You ask for proof.  The FDA requires the manufacturer to provide proof of efficacy at a specific dosage and then safety at that dosage.  The FDA rejected the evidence of efficacy as incomplete. 

 

We could argue about gravity the same way.  Science has not "proven" all aspects of gravity. . . or anything.  But you and I know that gravity must exist.  The "degree" of proof is debated. . . global warming etc.

 

And yes, if someone wants to choose poorer health or lower quality of health, that is their choice.  Called informed consent.  As a clinician, I understand that I'm not god and do not have all the answers for each person.  Health is their choice.  If the only source of fluoride were from fluoridation, and if caries were contagious, and if caries were lethal, we would be closer to the same side of this discussion.   

 

However, you are assuming the additional fluoride exposure from fluoridation is reducing dental caries.  However, proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy and the FDA is not convinced.  Yes, we still have to do lots of research on efficacy.

 

For example, the research fails to consider many of these confounding problems:

 

  • A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors
  • B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial   
  • C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
  • D.   Inadequate size
  • E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay
  • F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled
  • G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
    vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.
  • H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
  • I.    Oral hygiene not determined
  • J.     Not evaluating Life time benefit
  • K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
  • L.    Dental treatment expenses not considered
  • M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
  • N.   Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected. 
  • O.   Genetics not considered

 

And may I suggest you read the primary research on fluoride exposure. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

6,153 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, you say, "proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy and the FDA is not convinced."

 

Response:  The FDA has nothing to do with Community Water Fluoridation (CWF), and you know that.  A double blind study for CWF would be nearly impossible to carry out . . and you know that too.  

 

And the FDA is convinced.  According to the FDA, "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]." . . . and that is all "proponents" of optimally fluoridated water have ever claimed.  https://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/ucm073602.htm

6,224 Views
2
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679

AARP Perks