Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

• 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
• 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
• 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

• a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
• b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Saturday, Jan 13th, 8 PM EST live stream: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

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

• Document Fraud at CDC:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377152337_Document_Fraud_at_CDC/

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

• Kumar P, Gupta R, Gupta A. Vitamin D deficiency in patients with diabetes and its correlation with water fluoride levels. J Water Health. 2023 Jan;21(1):125-137.

• Meng X,  et al. Relatively low fluoride in drinking water increases risk of knee osteoarthritis (KOA): a population-.... Environ Geochem Health. 2023 Sep 16.

• Dhapola R, et al. Insight into the emerging and common experimental in-vivo models of Alzheimer's disease. Lab Anim Res. 2023 Dec 11;39(1):33.

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

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

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

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

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

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

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

MODERN SCIENCE: https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really!!!!! 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

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

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? 

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

BMCL

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

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

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, 

`1.)  You have made a claim with which every expert who has looked at the situation disagrees.  Environmental experts have determined that drought hurt the salmon industry in Sacramento.  No environmental expert has ever claimed that municipal effluent has had any impact on Sacramento salmon.  What exactly are your qualifications?

2.)  Your comment below implies that there is zero flow in the Sacramento river, and that municipal effluent is jetted across a non-flowing river, creating this barrier you claim exists.

3.)  Have you bothered to do any calculations to support your far fetched theory?  For example, in my comment below you will see that Mr. Carroll has determined that the flow of the Columbia River is 200,000 cubic feet per second.  a.)  What is the flow rate of the Sacramento River?  And please provide documentation of your answer as Mr. Carroll did.  b.)  What was the municipal effluent discharge of South Sacramento when you claimed this happened?  Again, provide documentation of your answer.  

4.)  According to Mr. Carroll's calculations, an average discharge of optimally fluoridated water at 900,000 per day into a river flowing at 200,000 cfs, creates an environmental impact of 4 one-millionths of a part per million.  With a background fluoride level of 0.1 - 0.2 parts per million F, and salmon being sensitive at 0.5 ppm, we see that the impact was not even 1 one-hundred-thousandths of a part per million.  Moreover, Mr. Carroll's calculations may have been high, since he didn't account storm water run-off and other non-municipal infliltration which must be included into effluent discharge.

Have you done the math?  So far, all we've seen from you is some far fetched theory that supports your anti-fluoride agenda that no other expert agrees with.  And we have your word, with no documentation, that all these things happened silmultaniously.  

Perhaps you ascribe to the theory that if you say something enough, people will begin to believe it.  Sorry, math doesn't lie and science doesn't work that way.  Used car salesmen work that way.

5.)  One more thing.  I took the liberty of taking a look at the Sacramento River which you claim "is barely a stone throw wide."  According to Wikipedia, "The Sacramento River is the principal river of Northern California and is the largest river in California."  

I must say, Dr. Sauerheber, if "the largest river in California" is barely a stone throw wide, California must have some pretty tiny rivers.  I'll need to see those calculations and that documentation supporting it.

[rs5526]

In my opimion the burden of proof for administrationering a drug or supplement into the public water supply is on the supplier, not the consumer. There is no proof that 1 ppm water, discharged into a river where salmon spawn, is harmless. The reason I argue the sacramento collapse was due to fluoridation is because of two facts 1) 0.3 ppm in controlled studies in soft water proved it narcotizes salmon  to prevent upstream chemo-location. 2) The second fact is the disastrous salmon collapse in sacramento occurred for the first  run after Sacramento began fluoridation. The deduction that fluoride water discharges (where F is the size of a water molecule and cannot be filtered by water treatments that sanitize waste water prior to discharge) at 1 ppm into the River caused the subsequent collapse is reasonable.

Anyone else is free to not believe, but no one can claim proof that fluoridation had no involvement in what  happened. There is no such proof. 

It requires digging into city records to find the details of how/when fluoridation began. 

 Unannounced to the public, the south section of the city began fluoridation in 2010. The collapse occurred after that, when there was no nusual drought. Then  later the rest of the city began fluoridating  which was announced to the public. 

I am not going to relocate the city records documents simply because someone demands it. The 

deduction stands, and fluoridation was a mistake for vast reasons far beyond environmental issues. 

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, in response to your undocumented, unproven claim that water fluoridation caused the destruction of the salmon industry in Sacramento (which was attributed to drought) allow me to first cite passages from your last comment: 

“There is no proof that 1 ppm water, discharged into a river where salmon spawn, is harmless.”

Response:  There is no proof it is harmful.  You are the one who made the outlandish claim disagreeing with the official version of events.  The burden of proof is on you.

“ 1) 0.3 ppm in controlled studies in soft water proved it narcotizes salmon  to prevent upstream chemo-location. 2) The second fact is the disastrous salmon collapse in sacramento occurred for the first  run after Sacramento began fluoridation. The deduction that fluoride water discharges (where F is the size of a water molecule and cannot be filtered by water treatments that sanitize waste water prior to discharge) at 1 ppm into the River caused the subsequent collapse is reasonable.”

Response:  Yes, it would be reasonable if there were no water in the Sacramento river to begin with.  However, there is water in rivers where salmon dwell. 

This nonsensical issue came up in Oregon, and Limnologist, Joe Carroll of Water Quality Consulting actually did the calculation/math on this for the Hood River, where the issue was raised in the face of rationality.  You may view his entire letter here:  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

Salient points made in his letter to the Hood River News: “Fluoride background levels in the Columbia River, based on NOAA Fisheries peer reviewed articles from the 1980’s, were established in the 0.2 ppm (parts per million) range. Corps of Engineer water quality sampling completed in 1999 established fluoride background levels for Columbia River waters near The Dalles Dam to be around 0.1 ppm. The earlier NOAA Fisheries articles found Salmon to be sensitive to 0.5 ppm F . .”

“The resulting fluoride concentration associated with the normal Hood River water usage and subsequent release into the Columbia River is approximately 0.000004 ppm.  (note:  This equals 4 parts per million of a part per million) This is based on a daily waste effluent of 900,000 gallons per day, an average Columbia River flow of 200,000 cfs (cubic feet per second), and assuming a reduction in the fluoride concentrations from 1 ppm to 0.6 ppm due to partial removal by the solid waste.”

Moreover, “The river background fluoride levels are expected to be in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 ppm so how could an additional 0.000004 ppm result in any effect on the biological communities?”

To simplify his comments, background fluoride in the river was 0.1-0.2 ppm F.  Water fluoridation effluent added 0.000004 ppm.  Salmon are sensitive to fluoride at 0.5 ppm.  The resulting fluoride in the river after fluoridation, then, was 0.100004 - 0.2000004 ppm.  Fluoride levels hadn’t even been raised a 1/1000th part per million and were still well below salmon sensitivities.  Salmon are not affected in any way because of community water fluoridation. 

You are free to believe anything you want, but your ideas do not stand up to the math or the science, or rationality.  There is no evidence that the salmon industry was harmed by community water fluoridation in Sacramento.  You were unable to provide any evidence of such harm when asked for it.  And any intelligent moderator from the AARP can see your comments for what they are. 

[CarryAnne]

"Many municipal water sources inject fluorine (at 1 ppm) as an additive to prevent tooth decay. Use of this water for irrigation can result in toxicity symptoms on sensitive plants."  - in Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU 

This thread is about establishing a foundation of evidence that fluoridation is dangerous to senior citizen health - we have done that. Although fluoridation does not provide significant benefit to teeth and instead has damaged the teeth of over half of American teens (Wiener et al. 2018), it wouldn't matter if fluoride consumption was beneficial to teeth when it also damages kidney, thyroid, bone and gut health in many consumers. 

Environmental impact is just more evidence of harm, which stresses that fluoridation opposition should be about actual evidence and modern science rather than rhetoric and political campaiging.

Speaking of political campaigning, the first item on David's list is by Howard Pollick. Mr. Pollick is one of two persons identified by the ADA as its official pro-fluoridation spokespersons. Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities.

Despite his bias, Pollick was unable to prevent the inclusion of language in a large 2003 California Head Start study on cavities and ethnicity that noted that fluoridation had no impact on cavity experience among these low-income high risk children. However, FOIA requests revealed that while wordsmithing the ADA infant formula statment in 2010, Pollick witheld that information and instead suggested using circular reasoning and endorsement to justify CDC pro-fluoridation policy and to downplay the evidence of damage. 

Bottom line: We can argue science all day, but the evidence is that fluoridation is harmful to many consumers and some aquatic species, consequently adding it to water supplies is immoral and unsustainable. That is why AARP and other professional organizations should oppose fluoridation. Buy it for a buck a gallon if you want to drink it and don't believe toothpaste is enough, but don't subject the general population and the planet to this poisonous policy. 

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne,

You say, "Since you are so concerned about funding, David, you should know Pollick is known in some quarters as the 'million dollar dentist' because of his activities."

Yes, I am concerned with funding.  Please provide some evidence that Dr. Pollick is compromised in some way because of funding.  I have already shown that the Fluoride Action Network takes money from Mercola, an unethical company that has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for its behavior.  So I would be interested in seeing proof of what you've said.

Nothing's been proven here other than some anecdotal stories.  Please tell me about your symptoms so that we may discuss them in detail and attempt to ascertain the accuracy of your claims.

[BillO538145]

Whack a Mole.

David, I no longer have time to simply argue with a believer.  Sort of like trying to change the Pope's belief in the virgin birth.  Religious freedom is important and I will not try to stop you from your belief in selected organizations which have no jurisdiction over fluoride exposure.

In closing, fluoridation is very much like Whack a Mole because there are many, many factors to consider.  Judgment must be used and bias affects judgment.  In summary:

1.   I do not hear dispute that 20% of adolescents with moderate/severe dental fluorosis is too much.  Excess exposure in and of itself is reason to reduce exposure. 

The most logical place to reduce excess exposure is a cessation of fluoridation.  Other sources have benefit, such as pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, medications, toothpaste, manufacturing, etc. 

2.  The organizations you rely on do not have primary evidence for how much fluoride in the tooth reduces tooth decay.  We don't know how much is effective.

3.  Over 50 human studies are reporting harm from fluoride to the developing brain and many tissues appear to also be harmed. . . at very low dosages.   Bones, pineal gland, teeth, nerves, mitochondria, and more. 

Take the evidence and use judgment.  With other sources available, why treat everyone even if they don't have teeth, have chemical sensitivities or ingesting too much fluoride from other places. 

The primary evidence is compelling, enough so that HHS even lowered the concentration of fluoride in water.  Was not enough, but a good start and clearly indicates excess exposure.

Perhaps I could suggest some science courses which might give you a greater appreciation for factual evidence rather than a simple belief system.

Fluoridation is not an evidence based public health intervention.

Cheers,

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Just so we are clear here, Dr. Bill, you appear to be bowing out of this discussion when you are pressed to present evidence supporting one of your claims. 

To recap: after I stated, factually, that there is not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposes water fluoridation, you provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations. 

In defense of your list, 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

I also asked you for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in your list. 

Moreover, this comment which you just made is factually incorrect and you know it:  “The primary evidence is compelling, enough so that HHS even lowered the concentration of fluoride in water.”

In response to that false statement I will factually say that 0.7 ppm is currently the target range.  It has been refined from 0.7 – 1.2 ppm to the more narrow range.  0.7 ppm was always part of that target, as it has been since the early 1960s.  It is a target, that is all.  It is not enforceable.  The maximum contaminant Level has not been lowered.  The secondary MCL hasn’t been lowered. You know these things.  And yet you deceptively imply that now the HHS is worried about fluoride over-exposure. 

Due to more sophisticated monitoring equipment available with today’s technology, a more refined target is possible.  And yet you try to imply that this is part of some sort of conspiracy.

We can discuss everything else you’ve brought up in your last comment (whack-a-mole), but what we see here is someone who touts evidence based conclusions, yet when pressed for evidence of his own statements chooses to bow out and make excuses. 

I think the AARP, as well as any other objective reader, can easily distinguish truth from falsehood in this discussion.

But the bottom line here is that you are part of a fringe outfit trying to con the AARP into supporting your agenda, for whatever purposes; and when your own statements are scrutinized Carrie Anne becomes defensive and alleges that those who dare to ask for evidence of what you are saying are trolls.

[CarryAnne]

“Due regard is to be given to the interconnection between human beings and other forms of life, to the importance of appropriate access and utilization of biological and genetic resources, to respect for traditional knowledge and to the role of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.”  - UNESCO documents on Bioethics;  Protection of the Environment, the Biosphere and Biodiversity, Article 17 (2005)

“... a fluoride concentration as low as 0.5 mg F-/l can adversely affect invertebrates and fishes, safe levels below this fluoride/l concentration are recommended in order to protect freshwater animals from fluoride pollution.” - JA Camargo in “Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review” (2003) 

Purpose: This thread is intended to provide evidence why AARP should take a position against fluoridation as harmful - particularly to their constiuency, senior citizens. 

Method: Provide personal testimony, modern science and evidence of harm that supports an AARP policy statement in opposition to fluoridation policy. 

Approximately 20 AARP members contributed  about 60 comments in support of such an action over a period of three years.  Then on June 27, 2018, a team comprised of three founding members of a fluoridation advocacy group swarmed this thread, overwhelming it in days with rhetoric and vitriol. 

Evidence of environmental harm from fluoride is on topic. Although not as specific to senior citizen health, scientific evidence of harm to pets, animals, fish, plants and the ecosystem is of concern to seniors who wish to leave a healthy world for their descendents. The AARP would be totally justified in including concerns about the environment in any resolution they craft in opposition to fluoridation policy. 

Here are just a dozen modern references relevant to environmental harm caused by fluoridation policy. I included two studies authored by Dr. Sauerheber who David has personally attacked with ad hominem smears on this thread: 

1. Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-66.  
   
   
2. Camargo, J.A. 2003. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review. Chemosphere, 50:251-264. 
   
   
3. Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU. 
   
   
4. Karina Caballero-Gallardo, Jesus Olivero-Verbel and Jennifer L. Freeman. (2016) Toxicogenomics to Evaluate Endocrine Disrupting Effects of Environmental Chemicals Using the Zebrafish Model. Current Genomics. 17:6. 515-527.
   
   
5. Jianjie C Wenjuan X, Jinling C, Jie S, Ruhui J, Meiyan L. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicology. 2016 Feb;171:48-58.
   
   
6. AW Burgstahler, RF Freeman, PNJacobs. Toxic effects of silicofluoridated water in chinchillas, caimans, alligators, and rats held in captivity. Research report. Fluoride 41(1)83–88 January-March 2008. 
   
   
7. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007  Sep;28(5):1023-31. 
   
   
8. Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. 
   
   
9. Kausik M and Sumit N. Fluoride Contamination on Aquatic organisms and human body at Purulia and Bankura District of West Bengal, India. Bull. Env. Pharmacology. Life Sci., Vol 4 [7] June 2015: 112-114. 
   
   
10. Sauerheber R. Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2013:439490.  
    
    
11. Sauerheber R. Disabled Horses: Racehorse Breakdown and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles. Fluoride 46(4)170–179 October-December 2013. 
    
    
12. Kalisinska E, et al. Fluoride Concentrations in the Pineal Gland, Brain and Bone of Goosander (Mergus Merganser) and Its Prey in Odra River Estuary in Poland. Environmental Geochemistry and Health 36 (2014): 1063–1077.

Many environmental groups quietly oppose fluoridation policy. 

2008 Position Against Fluoridation of Sierra Club: 

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Anne,

In response to your interesting take on my comments, you seem frustrated that I am asking for evidence of some pretty far-fetched things that are being said here.

Dr. Sauerheber said that the practice of community water fluoridation caused the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.  Are you seriously saying that it is an offense for anyone to ask for evidence of things Dr. Sauerheber says?

After looking, I have found no evidence to support this story.  Am I not allowed to ask for any evidence he may have which supports his story?

Regarding Dr. Bill, after I presented the fact that there was not one reputable scientific or health organization which opposed water fluoridation, he provided a list of countries which do not fluoridate their water, and of course, countries are not reputable scientific organizations.  He 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 him:  “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

I also asked him for the Hungarian government agency’s peer-reviewed study that found optimally fluoridated water harmful.  All these countries were included in Dr. Bill's list.

I thought you guys were all about evidence.  It appears you only want to discuss cherry-picked evidence which supports your agenda. 

Regarding Salmon in Sacramento, the only thing you provided which even remotely comes close defending Dr. Sauerheber’s story was this:  Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. 

This appeared in the anti-fluoride magazine “Fluoride” in 1994.  Moreover . . .

1.)  It is irrelevant to anything that ever allegedly happened in Sacramento.  Drought appears to be the cause of the Salmon collapse there. 

2.)  When I look into this issue with more scrutiny, I see there has never been one case, not even one, in which any community maintaining the minute optimal level of fluoride of 0.7 ppm in its drinking water has had any measurable effect on any waterway due to its discharge. 

In light of this fact, I am well within my rights to ask Dr. Sauerheber for evidence supporting his story.  He did mention the factual event of an industrial accident in Oregon, which had nothing to do with community water fluoridation. 

By the way, regarding this subject, you may be interested in the following:

Water Fluoridation and the Environment:  Current Perspective in the United States

Int J Occup Environ Health 2004;10:343-350.  HF Pollick

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/pollick.pdf

The Puyallup Tribe Certified the application for discharge of fluoridated waste water into the Puyallup River.  Surely no people are move reverentially protective of Salmon.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/0/596179085f928d9b88256c5d00587fc7/$FILE/WA0039578%20FS.PDF

Am J Public Health. 1990 Oct;80(10):1230-5. Evaluating the impact of municipal water fluoridation on the aquatic environment.  Osterman JW.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2400035

2005 Letter by Limnologist Joe Carroll re Hood River, OR fluoride wastewater

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf

Criticism of Damkaer and Dey - North American Journal of Fisheries Management 9:154-162, 1989.  Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982-1986

The Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, Chairman: Dr Seamus O’Hickey, May 2012

Appraisal of "HUMAN TOXICITY, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WATER FLUORIDATION"  (author Mr. Declan Waugh).  Section 4b.

http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf

Blog comment by EPA staff to citizen concern re fluoride discharges.  http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/synthetic-female-hormones-in-sewage-are-toxic-to-male-fish-over-gen...

"Fluoride at high levels can be toxic to fish and wildlife. It also occurs naturally in groundwater and surface water. Some streams have naturally high levels of fluoride in the water, and the toxicty also depends on the species of the fish, temperature, and the water chemistry. EPA does include fluoride levels in discharge permits when appropriate and has standards for fluoride to protect human health and the environment."

[rs5526]

Newspapers in sacramento covered the collapse heavily. The salmon industry collapsed on the Sacramento River in a manner similar to the  published collapse in the 1970s on the Columbia River when an aluminum factory stupidly discharged its F waste into the river elevating the F level to a mere but  significant  0.3 ppm. The experiments done at the university of Oregon proved that this F level in soft water narcotizes Salmon and they cannot navigate upriver to spawn. This resulted from observations at the John Jay dam. The Sacramento disappearance was  not described as being caused by F because the advertised start of fluoridation was a year after the collapse. But detailed records indicate south sacramento was fluoridated the year  before the collapse and the rest of the city followed suit a year later. . Salmon detect minute changes in mineral content of the water and only return to the particular stream they recognize from imprinting when they spawned. 

The effects of F water on racehorse breakdowns is also ignored by F proponents. One city mayor said "who cares if horses might he harmed by fluoride water, we don't have horses in the city."

So salmon collapses likewise dont end fluoridation. But Juneau so far has escaped it. I  visited the salmon hatchery to give them information to try to help them continue to use clean pristine water at the hatchery and not to succomb to fluoridation.

[DavidF928895]

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.

[DavidF928895]

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.

[rs5526]

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. 

[BillO538145]

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

[DavidF928895]

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/

[BillO538145]

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

[DavidF928895]

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.

[BillO538145]

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

[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