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! 

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, before we move on to new issues, wouldn't it be great if we could resolve things you have already brought up . . you know, so they don't get lost.  

For the third time:  

 After I said that there was not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposed water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations.  You said, “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.”  07-27-2018 11:56 AM

In response to that, I asked you:  “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.”   ‎07-27-2018 02:48 PM

You know what, I would also like to see the Hungarian peer-reviewed studies that showed optimally fluorididated water was harmful.  

Either defend your statement, or admit it was false.  Then we can move on and I would be happy to discuss "Freedom of Choice," or anything you would like.

[CarryAnne]

The topic of this thread is concerned with modern science, evolving medical opinion and morality with an emphasis on the health of senior citizens. 

The loophole in the SDWA language is that it is a national law. State laws should be as restrictive, but convoluted language have led to interpretations that result in judges ruling that even though municipal fluoridation schemes are clearly dangerous and ethically corrupt, they are legal. Several trial judges have recommended that legislators and regulatory agencies address fluoridation - and hence the politicization of science with astroturfers & lobbyists who focus on prestige, power & paychecks instead of public health. 

However, re David's tiresome attempt at distraction, repeating a question which has been asked and answered many times..... and even though Dr. Richard Sauerheber already addressed in this thread: 

• (11) No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. SDWA potable: page 370 Section 1412 (2002)

• “Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  SDWA (P.L. 93-523) 

Since the urls for  my two sources above (epw.senate.gov) currently result in 404 errors, here is a copy of the SDWA from 1996. Note the US government is still my source. See top of page 18 for this same exact language. 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT67528/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT67528.pdf 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful but legal: “Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

• LEGAL ANALYSIS: Rita Barnett-Rose, Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent?, 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 201 (2014).  http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/ 
  • EXCERPT: “The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D. 

[DavidF928895]

By the way, "Carrie Anne," how is your "Demand" that the AARP take action against community water fluoridation going?  I can understand why you are frustrated that some of the things you say are exposed for what they are.

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne, thank you for answering my question.  And you are correct.  Dr. Sauerheber has also distorted the Safe Drinking Water Act the way you are now distorting it. 

Let’s look at what you said, and let’s look at what the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act actually says.

Your original quote:  “the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.”   Dr. Sauerheber said the same thing, no question about it.

This is what the Federal SDWA says:  “(11) No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

And you are correct.  This statute is in the Federal SDWA.  What this means is that no Federal authority, in this case it would be the EPA which oversees community water fluoridation, can mandate, can require a State to . . in this case, add fluoride to benefit the health of its citizens.

So what.  This is a States’ Rights issue.  Why would you even bring this up, unless to muddy the waters and be deceptive in some way?  How is it relevant in any way?  Water fluoridation is not a violation of the SDWA, if that’s what you were implying.  States and local governments have every right to fluoridate water, and in most cases it is approved by a vote of the people.  Is that bad in some way?  What is the big conspiracy you are trying to imply? 

In that same comment, you also said, “ The FDA assumes no authority for 'water additives'”

Response:  Why would they?  The FDA has nothing to do with municipal water supplies.  That is within the jurisdiction of the EPA. 

Please take a moment and justify why you would include this deceptive comment which implies that because the FDA doesn't oversee water fluoridation, there must be something wrong with it.  Why would you even say that?  That would be like me saying NASA assumes no authority over ‘water additives.’

Not to be outrageous or abusive, but your tired, deceptive tactics are being exposed for what they are, and the truth is, you don’t like it, do you.

Please explain how the FDA not overseeing water additives to water supplies is relevant in some way.  If you are unable to explain it, I will have to conclude that your statement was not only irrelevant, but deceptive.

[CarryAnne]

"... the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union, WHO/FAO Expert on Science and Ethics in Food Safety (1991)

Fluoridationists are trained to dismiss ethics, deny science, denigrate opposition, disrupt civil dialgoue and distract focus because they don't have evidence that stands up to scrutiny or anything resembling a risk assessement. Consequently, David (apparently recruited to this thread by the American Fluoridation Society (AFS) who realized they were outmatched) is the perfect foil. Since David does not have any scientific or medical credentials to protect, he can be as outrageous and abusive as he wants without bothering about scientific or historical facts and evidence. 

1. Ethics: Using municipal water to mass medicate the population results in worsening the health of millions, plus there is no dose control. Fluoridation contributes to arthritis and other diseases in seniors. 
   
   
2. Science: Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a significant degree but does result in an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children, a lifelong impact which results in costly dental bills and is associated with increased learning disabilities, bone fractures and kidney disease. 
   
   
3. Opposition: Over a dozen credible organizations oppose fluoridation as do thousands of scientists, dentists, doctors, lawyers and other professionals. Selectively citing Wiki and even worse the extremist 'Rational Wiki' or controversial 'Quack Watch' in an attempt to discredit credentialed opposition is slanderous and desperate. 
   
   
4. Discussion: For three years, about 20 AARP members peacably participated in this thread amassing about 60 posts until the trolls attacked it in an effort to disappear that valid discussion from the web and hide coherent comments and personal testimony from AARP. 
   
   
5. Rhetoric: All the claims about fluoridation being 'safe & effective' are smoke and mirrors. Besides from  being untrue, teeth aren't the issue. Fluoridation trolls are taught that instead of honestly discussing science they can't adequately address, to avoid those discussions by 'reframing' the conversation to an argument that emphasizes dental endorsements rather than evidence. In this way, their logical fallacies are more effective in influencing the uneducated who have been primed by toothpaste advertisements to believe the medical myth. It's a political ploy. 

SUMMARY:

Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that benefits corporate financial health by forcing contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of the negative impact on individual consumers or on the environment.  

As an advocate for seniors, AARP should oppose fluoridation policy. 

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne has said, “Consequently, David (apparently recruited to this thread by the American Fluoridation Society (AFS) who realized they were outmatched) is the perfect foil.”  

‎07-27-2018 12:55 PM

“Carrie Anne,” I have every right to defend myself against slanderous lies.  For the record, what you said is a lie, or a libelous implication, or a deceptive statement . . however you want to characterize it. 

For the record, no one has recruited me, asked me, or suggested in any way that I should comment on this page in order to thwart the attempted hijacking of AARP policy (“Demand AARP Take Action”) by an extreme fringe minority. 

I will expect an apology or a recantation.   

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne, the comment that you posted on this date and time   07-12-2018 03:16 PM  said, “the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.” 

Please cite the specific statute in the Safe Drinking Water Act which stipulates this.  This is the second time I’m asking you for evidence to support your statement.

I’m not trying to disrupt the discussion.  I am simply trying to find out how and where you get your information.  If you can’t provide proof of your statements, I’ll be forced to conclude that you tend to push the limits of the truth for some agenda.

I hope you won't consider asking a question to be "outrageous or abusive."  Most normal people would not.

[CarryAnne]

"... evidence has shown that these early researchers had it backwards. It now appears that fluoride acts only on teeth that have already erupted... there are more direct ways of bringing fluoride into contact with tooth enamel. The most common of these is the use of fluoride toothpastes."  - Lahey Clinic website (similar statement on many other medical websites) 

“…. for decades we have believed that fluoride in small doses has no adverse effects on health. …. But more and more scientists are seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride even in small amounts.” -  UNICEF in Waterfront, Issue 13, December 1999

However, despite significant evidence of harm and lack of proof of efficicacy validated by credible objections from reputable organizations and experts who include Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Richard Sauerheber & chemist Susan Kanen on this forum thread, the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates as well as apparently affording some with the emotional satisfaction of engaging in online harrassment. 

Nevertheless, this isn't really about teeth. The issue is fluoride consumption is medically contraindicated for many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and renal disease as well as being ill advised for vulnerable populations who include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any in fragile health.

Consequently, fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that causes misery in millions of consumers who include senior citizens. 

 “… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds … include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems.…” - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1993)

BTW: On the topic of 'holistic dentistry' and cherry picking, the Wikipedia entry David cited includes the purpose of holistic dentistry as adding to dental school curriculum with  'additional options for treatment with a primary goal to teach and to learn' following the 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

That some Wiki author inserted an opinion that fees might be higher and disparages the field doesn't make a healthy diet, avoidance of poison and searching for root cause remedies to gum disease rather than total reliance on treatment of the symptoms an invalid approach to dentistry - it just makes it more holistic.  

[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.

On the other hand, this would be an example of an evidence based statement from the Wiki/Holistic Dentistry article:  " . .  fees charged by such practitioners are generally several times higher than those of mainstream dentists."

Evidence based statements are relevant.

[BillO538145]

David,

Excellent, you are using the term "evidence based."   So much better than "trust based" or "tradition based."  Evidence based health care may reject tradition, such as fluoridation.

"define evidence based - Google Search

1. denoting disciplines of health care that proceed empirically with regard to the patient and reject more traditional protocols."

   Lets look at empirical evidence from the US Centers for Disease Control in their graph below.  The early version of this graph was used in my dental school as evidence fluoridation was working.  The graph has been updated to add additional years. 

   Over time, the percentage of the population on fluoridated water increased and the rate of dental caries decreased.  Wow.  I was impressed.  Caution: just because two events happen, does not mean they are related.  Consider the impossibility that a 17% of the entire population increase in fluoridation would cause a huge, 70% decrease in caries. . . for the entire population?  Not reasonable.  The fluoridation would have had to target only those high risk individuals, not everyone. Possible if fluoridated water were sent directly to high risk individuals.  Not possible if random cities were fluoridated. . . and that is what happened.  

And now lets look at empirical evidence by Colquhoun over a longer time frame.  Indeed, caries have decreased over time significantly.  In fact, most caries declined PRIOR to significant implementation of fluoridation in public water.  The decline in caries remained relatively constant regardless of fluoridation.  So many important questions.

What caused the decline in caries prior to fluoridation and did that cause continue after fluoridation started?   In other words, there was a powerful huge crushing caries reduction unknown which has never been included in any caries research.  Until that huge factor is known and controlled for, any other research is suspect.  

David, the CDC is made up of well meaning people, but sometimes they are wrong.  Showing one graph without a larger time frame, has lead to erroneous conclusions.  Even empirical evidence needs to be used with caution and not cherry picked.  Simply believing in tradition or the empirical evidence of those with vested interests may not be the full picture.

For the CDC to now back up is extremely difficult.  Instead they hunker down and keep saying the same thing over and over.

Add that evidence to the NHANES, FDA, HHS and primary empirical evidence and we realize the evidence of efficacy is mixed and of lower quality. 

Before fluoridation can be introduced, the World Health Organization advises to determine how much fluoride individuals in the community are already getting.  Only if the dosage is inadequate, then supplement the inadequacy.  Well, we don't know an adequate dosage.  And we don't know how much people are already getting in the USA.  Except that 60% of adolescents are show a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.

Good job David looking at empirical evidence.  Now your turn to post empirical evidence.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[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