Reply
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! 

52,645 Views
1449
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Woa!! – Hold on there!  One thing at a time.  We’re not talking about racehorses here . . whatever that has to do with anything. 

 

So, after you made the incredible claim that water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the Salmon industry in Sacramento, I asked you for some documentation, a newspaper article, anything to show this actually happened.  .  .  Correct? 

 

Instead of providing any documentation, you are now saying, “The Sacramento disappearance was  not described as being caused by F because the advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse.” 

 

The advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse of the salmon industry.

 

Nevertheless, you believe water fluoridation killed all the salmon in Sacramento because, “ . . detailed records indicate south sacramento was fluoridated the year  before the collapse and the rest of the city followed suit a year later. .”

 

Response:  Aside from accusing you of jumping to conclusions, because as Dr. Bill has already said, “Caution: just because two events happen, does not mean they are related.” ( 07-26-2018 12:57 PM ), I would also have to point out that you provided ZERO documentation of what you are saying. 

 

Let’s see what you’ve got.  Show me documentation of exactly when Fluoridation began in Sacramento, or as you say, South Sacramento.  I haven’t looked at any maps yet, but let’s assume there is a river in South Sacramento.  Show me documentation that a salmon industry existed there, documentation of when it collapsed, and documentation of when fluoridation began in that city. 

 

Also, it would be great if you could show me fluoride levels in river water before and after the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.

 

This stuff should be easy for you to provide, since, according to you, it seems to be common knowledge.  You said, “I visited the salmon ranch in Juneau and they understand that the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation.”  End quote.

 

So, let’s see what you’ve got that led you to this incredible conclusion.

  

Bronze Conversationalist

Thank you, Dr. Sauerheber.  I took the liberty of looking up Salmon Fishing in Sacramento.  I am always grateful when something causes me to add to my knowledge.

 

There is a salmon industry in Sacramento.  Who knew . . It took a hit in 2003 because of drought:  "the return of drought-ravaged winter-run Salmon hit rock bottom this summer and that is likely a precursor of what to expect in the months to come, when commercial fall-run salmon are fished."

 

I'll still want to see that documentation I asked for which proves this was caused by water fluoridation.

Bronze Conversationalist

The SDWA also stipulates that States can be no less restrictive. So it is also unlawful for any State government to require fluoridation. It is not legal to add into public water supplies any foodstuff, or drug, or nutrient, or any chemical substance for the purpose of treating humans. Period. Again, no one can require or mandate the addition of even a banana peel or vitamin C because this would be added for a purpose other than to sanitize the water. This includes fluoride which is not added to sanitize water. I am now in Alaska where the state capital Juneau does nor fluoridate its citizens. Nor does Ketchikan, Skagway, Fairbanks or obviously Hooper Bay. We passed through British Columbia which is now entirely free of the burden of fluoridation. I visited the salmon ranch in Juneau and they understand that the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation. Juneau respects the salmon population and will not fluoridate thankfully. Pressure to do so is always there but the hatchery supervisor said "if people want to protect their teeth why don't they do as I do and simply brush and keep their teeth clean? I said "exactly".

The FDA, not the EPA, is mandated with authority to regulate substances used to treat humans. The EPA has no staff with the authority to evaluate oral ingestibles used with the intent to treat human tissue. The EPA Office of Water has written this repeatedly. The current FDA staff are not anxious to get involved with fluoridation of people through drinking water but the ban petition remains intact and under review. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

David, Carie, Richard,

 

The discussion of EPA made me smile.  

David, Carie, Richard you are all correct regarding the SDWA.  I contacted EPA for an explaination of what they thought it ment.  EPA responded that SDWA "prohibited" EPA from requiring anything be added for the treatment or prevention of disease in humans or animals.

 

EPA keeps MCLG for fluoride artificially high, not protective, so local agencies can fluoridate.

 

However, local agencies think the EPA is correctly evaluating the toxicity of fluoride and rely on the EPA, but EPA is failing to protect the public.

 

I hope the courts require the EPA to follow their own proceedures and scientific evaluations, rather than roll over to politics.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, I’d like to take the liberty of whacking one more mole in your last comment if I may. 

 

You said, “EPA keeps MCLG for fluoride artificially high, not protective, so local agencies can fluoridate.

 

However, local agencies think the EPA is correctly evaluating the toxicity of fluoride and rely on the EPA, but EPA is failing to protect the public.”

 

Just to be clear, you are saying that based on the Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride, which we agree is 4 parts per million.  You are saying this is not protective, because local agencies, the people who fluoridate water, believe they can take fluoride levels to dangerously high levels.    Is that correct? 

 

Then you must also know that the Secondary Limit for fluoride is 2 parts per million.  And you must also know that if 2 parts per million is exceeded by anyone adding fluoride to water, then corrective action must be taken.  Do we agree on this?

 

So, right away, we know that no one who is adding fluoride is taking up to the MCL.  Correct?

 

And you must also know that anyone who adds fluoride to water must sample and perform analysis from several points in the distribution system (the number depending upon the population) On A Daily Basis

 

And you must also know that anyone who does not fluoridate water is only required to sample for fluoride once per year.  Do we agree on these things?  Feel free to dispute anything you disagree with.

 

So, with that in mind, you must know that the Safe Drinking Water Act requires that all owners of community water systems must supply Water Reports, or Community Confidence Reports, to customers detailing analysis results.  These Reports are available for all to see on the Internet. 

 

Here’s my point.  You are claiming that the MCL of 4 ppm F endangers the public, when the fact is that when the secondary limit of 2 is exceeded, corrective action must be taken.  So right away, your fear mongering is baseless. 

 

But let’s go farther. 

 

Feel free to go online, check out some of these Water Reports from communities who fluoridate their water, and show me ONE water report from last year in which the average of 1.5 is exceeded.  I’d like to know if 1.5 was exceeded at all by any of them. 

 

A community near my home, Petoskey, Michigan doesn’t fluoridate its water.  They sample for fluoride once per year, and their average is a little higher than 1.5 ppm.  I live right outside Boyne City, Michigan which fluoridates its water.  They send out monthly fluoridation reports from all their wells, and they actually under fluoridate (although I’m not sure why). 

 

My point is that your fear mongering about public safety is just that, baseless fear mongering.  Go ahead, show me one community which fluoridates it’s water and is exceeding 1.5 ppm.  Those water reports are out there.  We can all see them.  Here is Boyne City’s http://www.cityofboynecity.com/water-quality-reports-253/

0 Kudos
1,891 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You say I'm "fear mongering," yet you provide no evidence based research that fluoridation is not over-dosing, effective or safe.  You keep asking me to trust.   You are harming the public when you expect us to "believe" you.  

 

You use cute unscientific phrases like "whack a mole" claiming you have answered my questions, when you have failed to answer my questions.  

 

1.    Is it the patient/publics' responsibility to do the research to prove safe and effective or is it those selling the product and promoting the product?  The answer is: You the promoter has the responsibilty to provide quality research, primary evidence, not only endorsements.

 

2.    What percentage of the population showing excess fluoride exposure is OK?  If any?  How many people can be harmed before you have concern?  20% of adolescents have moderate/severe flluorosis.  At least those are being harmed for sure, no dispute.

 

3.   What concentration of fluoride in the tooth is needed to prevent/mitigate caries?  No one knows because both teeth with and without caries have the same range of fluoride.

 

Start answering questions David.   You go in circles without answering the most significant questions.  Show us the research.  But I doubt you have research when the CDC, ADA, APA, and HHS do not have the evidence or answers.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, I see we are back to playing your favorite game of whack-a-mole.  You bring something up, I ask for evidence of it.  You can’t provide evidence for what you said, and you move on.

 

Just to recap:  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

 

No answer from Dr. Bill.  Time for Dr. Bill to move on to a new litany of weird stuff.  Maybe we could just agree that your statement was false so that we can move on to this irrelevant EPA / SDWA nonsense which Carrie Anne brought up.

 

Oh, before we do, just to speed things up, you know, maybe so we can whack 2 moles at once . . .

 

Dr. Sauerheber, you just made an incredible claim:  “the salmon industry was decimated in Sacramento when the city began fluoridation.”  07-27-2018 07:19 PM

 

Could you please provide some documentation of this?  A newspaper article?  A lawsuit from the Salmon industry?  Court documents?  Anything to substantiate this story?  (Sorry, a blog post from “Moms Against Fluoride” isn’t really documentation.  You know, I’m looking for something real.)  This sounds like Big News.  Did CBS cover it?

 

After we all agree on the validity of this claim, I will be happy to discuss the EPA, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the NSF and water additives, and whatever you like.

Conversationalist

David,

 

You are absolutely correct.  Fluoridation is like you say, "whack-a-mole."

 

If there was just one mole, I would might be in favor of fluoridation.  But the yard is jam packed with hundreds or thousands of moles right next to each other, endless as far as we can see..  The list of fluoridation's problems is so long I can't and haven't kept track or remember all of them.  The more I review the primary evidence, the more concerned I become.

 

Each "mole" or "red flag" needs to be considered.  Dig as deep as you can on each mole hole.   And then add that mole to the next mole and then judgment.  The judgment part appears to be most difficult for staunch believers in fluoridation.   Each trusts each other to review the evidence.  And anyone who seriously reviews the research either goes silent or becomes opposed to fluoridation.

 

Clearly you have not dug deep into the science.  I don't know your education background, but the science is not too complex.

 

First consider freedom of choice.  If we gave everyone freedom to chose how much fluoride they ingest, could an individual get fluoride easily?   Oh, YES.  As simple as swallowing a pea size of fluoride toothpaste.  It would be cheaper for a water district to pass out fluoride toothpaste to those who cannot afford it.

 

The reason public health fluoridates is because public health thinks people are too dumb to ingest fluoride.  Instead we, in effect, use police powers to medicate everyone without their consent.  The same as sending the police to each house and forcing them to swallow a fluoride pill.   The reason we don't is because that would be too expensive.  We do it for TB.

 

Anyway, freedom of choice is a first step.  Then move on to dosage, how much do you want a person to ingest at what age?  How much are they ingesting without fluoridation (WHO question)? 

 

And so many more mole holes to go down. . . endless.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Conversationalist

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.govcurrently 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/ 
    • EXCERPTThe 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. 
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
1,840 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Conversationalist

"... 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. 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

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.   

Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Conversationalist

"... 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)

 

Family.jpg

 

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.  

Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Conversationalist

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.  
     

 

CDC graph Caries F-page0001 II.jpgAnd 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.  

page0001.jpgDavid, 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

Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Conversationalist

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

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

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.  

Bronze Conversationalist

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."  

 

 

 

Conversationalist

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. 

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.

 

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. 

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.
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

Trusted Contributor

Excellent comments, Dave.  Thanks.

 

 

 

0 Kudos
2,438 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.
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