- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
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.
- 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
- 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.😞
- 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
- 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);
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- 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.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
Most all Californians I know don't care that much to lose local salmon in their diets. We are not like Alaska where many peoples' and animals' sustenance depends on salmon such as many native tribes, orcas, and other marine life.
I should know something already?
You honestly think that CalEpa has the power to demand the city of sacrmento stop discharging its wastewater into the Sacramento River and to build all new infrastructure to dump it somewhere else? And for some complaining salmon fishing companies?
And you say it's that simple? Be my guest.
RS: "You honestly think that CalEpa has the power to demand the city of sacrmento stop discharging its wastewater into the Sacramento River and to build all new infrastructure to dump it somewhere else? And for some complaining salmon fishing companies?"
That's not what I said. The Environmental Protection Agency of the State with the toughest environmental laws in the country has the power to stop water fluoridation if your claim, that effluent discharge from CWF communities is harmful to the environment, had any merit. You bet they do!
They have the power to force the auto industry to submit to California emmissions laws.
RS: "And you say it's that simple? Be my guest."
Why would I. I don't believe a word you are saying. You refuse to prove it mathematically. You refuse to submit your data to the DTSC and allow their scientists, toxologists and other environmental experts to review it. You simply lift up your hands and say, 'Ah, what's the use.'
That's the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.
RS: "Most all Californians I know don't care that much to lose local salmon in their diets. We are not like Alaska where many peoples' and animals' sustenance depends on salmon such as many native tribes, orcas, and other marine life."
I will let your low opinion of your fellow Californians and their poor diets speak for itself. That is really a pathetic comment.
For a city to stop discharging into nearby rivers would cost a veritable fortune to reroute waste through constructed facilities and pipes etc. Once an estabolished practice exists its nearly impossible to get a city to stop. They would rather argue the law, get exemptions, and push papers than to construct all new waste facilities. This is old news.
In a heartbeat? Please.
Cities have historically discharged treated wastewater into the rivers. That is why no one skis in Needles and why soap suds line the hanks of the colorado river after he discharge pipe. And calepa does absolutely nothing to fight this longstanding city practice n CA.
A heartbeat? Come on
CalEpa may he tough by some standards but it is not tough when it comes to fluoridation. Most cities near rivers in CA and Nevada dump treated wastewater into rivers. I've complained but to no avail. Now fluoridatjon makrd the practice more problematic because the sanitizing does not remove fluoride.
The fact is that CalEpa will do and has done absolutely nothing but support cities that fluoridate their citizens because nor to do so would be taking on the U. S. CDC. and calepa wont do it. We have tried to get them to for many years.
If you think you can achieve something with them then please do so.
It is insane that a "river" this small has a discharge tube that dumps the city's sanitized but fluoridated waste water into it. This is what happens when cities let dental officials control what is allowed in public waterways. The late Dr. A. A. Benson said this also, after he learned that San Diego began fluoridating the city even though citizens voted twice against it. Dr. Benson discovered the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis, the Calvin Benson cycle. He is sorely missed.
"Regulatory gaps are lobbyist created Grand Canyons designed to cheat the system.” - Erin Brockovich (2016)
Plenty of things are legal that are not scientifically justified. Asbestos products and leaded gasoline were legal until they weren't. California is rewriting the book on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide sold as RoundUp which is used heavily on GMO foods. Following the recent $289m judgment against Monsanto in a CA court for maliciously deceiving the public regarding purported 'safety' that resulted in one man's terminal cancer, I expect there will be more changes across the country.
The details of the Monsanto trial mirror the banning of public smoking because of the risk to vulnerable populations. Tobacco fought that one all the way. Second hand smoke bans are an apt analogy for fluoridaton opposition.
Fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that pollutes a shared resource necessary to life with a toxin that compromises the health of vulnerable populations as well as poses an environmental threat to other species.
AARP should be a leader in opposing fluoridation policy based on evidence and ethics.
Thank you for your input, Carry Anne.
Considering the fact that California has some of the strictest environmental laws in the world, certainly in the United States, and since the State of California is responsible for issuing discharge permits, I was curious about Dr. Sauerheber's concerns regarding discharge from South Sacramento into the Sacramento River.
I would be interested in whether or not he contacted California's Department of Environmental Protection, specifically the DTSC, and what the reply from that department was.
Is there anything objectionable with the question?
And the EPA and state agencies under it decide maximum contaminant levels for humans .not for salmon. No one knows how much arsenic and lead and other contaminants in combination that are in fluoridation chemicals that are needed before salmon runs collapse. The EPA doesn't have the data to act on fluoridated wastewater for salmon
As long as the EPA prohibits discharges of known regulated contaminants, such as arsenic and lead, cities agree to comply. But when it was decided not to prohibit infusions of the fluoride EPA contaminant at an allowed level, then cities decided on their own how to act. Some allow fluoridation, others dont. The state mandate convinced many to comply. But just like the titanic, passengers followed instructions from the crew but only until it became dangerous and the it was everyone had to defend oneself and family. Similarly for fluoridation cities must and most do go on their own.
Municipalities are not allowed to write their own discharge permits. It's that simple.
If there was any evidence that municipal discharge from a fluoridated community posed any threat to the environment, the State would have the authority to shut it down.
I gather from your answer that you have not contacted the California Environmental Protection Agency or the DTSC with your grave concerns. These are some of the toughest environmental agencies in the world, and you haven't taken advantage of them?
Why is that?
RS, your comment: "This is what happens when cities let dental officials control what is allowed in public waterways."
Cities have nothing to do with it.
The State of California issues Discharge Permits. If you have a concern you should contact the California Environmental Protection Agency. Specifically, you should contact the DTSC. You should know this already.
If you do know this, please provide the text of the letter you sent to that office, and I would be interested in seeing the reply that was sent to you.
This has been a long ongoing problem. The CA DPH and CA Environmental protection agency has accepted what CDC officials have declared, that fluoridation is requested to he done.
Letters from the state EPA repeat what the Federal EPA Office of Water says Which is they are not responsible for fluoridation but if a city decides to do so they do not prohibit it. The Office of water states that the responsibility lies with the FDA.
City discharges require a NPDES permit yes. But all cities have their own excuse for discharging fluoridated water. Most say incorrectly that they have the permit but such permits are supposed to be temporary. (for cleaning and maintenance issues for example) not permanent permits. Some cities argue that fluoride is. A Food and needs no permit. Every city is different.
City municipal efflueluent requires a State discharge permit. California environmental laws are more strict than federal laws. Neither the FDA nor the EPA has anything to do with municipal discharge permits.
RS: "Letters from the state EPA repeat what the Federal EPA Office of Water says Which is they are not responsible for fluoridation but if a city decides to do so they do not prohibit it."
The California EPA may not be responsible for fluoridation, but they are responsible for discharge into the environment. If there was merit to your claim, they could shut down municipal discharge of fluoridated water in a heart-beat.
I gather from your answer that you have not contacted the California Environmental Protection Agency's DTSC whose Mission Statement reads: "The mission of DTSC is to protect California’s people and environment from harmful effects of toxic substances by restoring contaminated resources, enforcing hazardous waste laws, reducing hazardous waste generation, and encouraging the manufacture of chemically safer products."
I find it amazing that someone who is so hell-bent on proving that fluoridated water is harmful to the environment, who has at his fingertips, an agency which has, "Over 1,000 scientists, engineers, toxicologists, chemists, geologists, attorneys, criminal investigators and administrative staff," has not bothered to contact that agency with his grave concerns. And this is an agency which is tasked with investigating and enforcing some of the strictest environmental laws in the world.
Why is it that you haven't even brought this matter to the attention of one of the toughest environmental agencies in the world, whose sole purpose it to assist you and your environmental concerns?
We just crossed the Sacramento River where it enters the city. As I said, most anyone can throw a stone across it since it is very small for a river. Industrial fluoride chemicals are still discharged by the city into it continuously and the former thriving salmon fishing industry remains nonexistent. And what else would one expect?
This is the last day of my month long travel through British Columbia and Alaska. I'm happy to say that all of B. C. is now fluoridation free. All of Alaska also is except for Anchorage which adds industrial fluoride materials into water to treat citizens in what constitutes a bone fluoridation program. . I provided their city assembly copies of the new book chapter on fluoride toxicology. The group Fluoride Free Alaska wrote several thank you's.
It is time to understand that truth is true and facts are immutable. Stop fluoridating U.S. citizens. I am not interested in retribution for this but simply expect the madness to stop. Our children need help, not an artificial burden to avoid.
I've discussed the poisonings with scientists still here. Dr. krook has passed away. I answered the math argument earlier. Please read it.
Altitude may have been a factor too but F use in extremely soft water is the more significant problem.
calculating the discharged F level after full dilution is simplistic. there is no math formula that describes the dilution dynamics of a substance dumped into a solution. It does not dilute from 1 down to 0.2 in an instant.
I teach math in college and i assure you there are vast cases where math is used improperly and with incorrect assumptions. False conclusions backed up with improper math is very common. Computing what the level will be after it dilutes into the volume of water flowing during the infusion period does not indicate the actual level salmon are exposed to while approaching the discharge pipe section.
The evidence I've seen indicates calcium and magnesium have a greater effect on caries than fluoride. Just looking at fluoride is far too simplistic. Other minerals need to be evaluated. However, regardless of fluoride between 0.1, 0.7 and 1 ppm, cavity rates were at 1.7 per child.
CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation thing fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk.
That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Yes. The largest study we have by teotia and teotia, a 30 year effort, indicated the lowest caries incidence for people in a high calcium low fluoride area, and the highest incidence was in a high fluoride low calcium area. There is no doubt that calcium builds strong teeth, not fluoride. And what else would one expect when enamel is a calcium phosphate matrix devoid of fluoride?
We need to teach the truth not only for seniors but for kids to protect their future. That's the key reason for me to explain the facts. I have protected my grandson so far but it is not easy. In a fluoridated country
Sorry. I recall now the original message was not sent because The Skagway library wifi did not allow full access to the AARP site.
I arrive home Tuesday and would have access to a computer instead of fingerling a cell phone
I don't think any officials who could change city fluoridation are reading this anyway.
Other Pagosa ranchers were on well water. The analysis by fluoride toxicologist Dr. Krook was accurate. .
The justus's moved there from CA and had no Idea use of city water for livestock could be harmful. It is always prevailing conditions that need to be considered
This reminds me of a local F supporter on the water board who said don't worry when we start Fluoridating. It won't affect water quality and you can't taste it. I merely asked if it doesn't affect water quality then why would you add it? He did have a conscience and he resigned from the board, knowing he couldn't change the policy.
Sorry but the LA racehorses at Hollywood Park and Los Alamitos board at the track full time. most their entire life after delivery from breeders. Louisville Churchill Downs has no such facility. I visited there. Horses only visit for their race and they are sent back to pasture. One must not generalize.
The Pagosa springs problem is the water there has virtually no calcium to impede fluoride assimilation (less than 5 ppm) . Down river the water picks up significant calcium. also the Justus horses drank from a metal trough where water was present for long time periods. Fluoridated soft water leaches metal ions from such materials.
In Alaska it also appears that fluoridated water will never be dumped into any stream or river where salmon spawn. The city knows such discharges would be crazy.
So the Sacramento river type collapse will be less acute there. The salmon have disappeared in numerous waterways in the Seattle area. Seattle has long fluoridated surrounding towns and F enters the waters where salmon years ago would spawn.
Direct discharging is in my opinion the final straw that collapsed the salmon industry in sacramento
Dr. Sauerheber, you're back.
Then you are saying that Dr. Bill is wrong. Elevation had nothing to do with Cathy Justus' horse & 4 dogs dying. Correct? It would be great if your anti-fluoride doctors could get your science to agree, wouldn't it.
By the way. You had made the outrageous claim that the salmon industry in Sacramento, CA was ruined because the City began to fluoridate its drinking water. When I asked you to prove it, you said that it couldn't be proved.
Similar claims had been made about the Columbia River in Oregon. Mr. Joe Carroll had proved that this was impossible using a simple mathematical formula. I posted his letter & his mathmatics in an earlier comment, and you had read them.
This is how you prove that salmon were killed in Sacramento by fluoridated water discharge. Use the same mathmatics as Mr. Carroll used. Determine the speed of the Sacramento River in cfs. You would multiply that number x 7.48 to determine gps. You would multiply that number by 8.34 to determine weight which would be needed for a simple determination of how much actual chemical was being discharged using 0.6 ppm F at discharge which Mr. Carroll used, (although I felt his number was high, since he didn't account for dilution from infiltration). After that, you would determine city discharge of effluent at the time of the salmon collapse. Since you are familiar with Sacramento, a simple check of water records would provide that. You would have to determine the background fluoride in the river. A simple upstream check, found in California Department of Environmental Quality would have that. You already know that salmon are sensitive to fluoride at 0.5 ppm F. After that it is a simple matter of addition to prove that salmon were indeed harmed by effluent discharge.
That should be simple enough for a chemist with your credentials. Mr. Carroll easily proved that discharge in Oregon was not harmful to salmon using that same formula. Have you done the math yet, since you seem so hell-bent on proving that community water fluoridation somehow harms the environment? If not? Why not?
“They have no conscience, no compassion about the people who are being made ill by fluoride, and they have no social responsibility. It’s purely an ‘I’m all right Jack’ situation – ‘it’s just business’. And they’ll gas-light the people by saying, ‘No no, it’s good for your teeth’ – when really what they’re saying is, ‘Shut up and don’t stop my cash-flow’.” - Thomas Sheridan, author of ‘Puzzling People: The Labyrinth Of The Psychopath’ (2017)
As I said, I speak for myself. I have no relationship with Dr. Mercola and my relationship with the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) which is only one of common goals began after over a year of being accused by an international troop of trolls of copying from FAN when I was doing my own research and writing my own words primarily in my own local newspaper. Again, there is no difference between an advocacy group or an activist group as they are both motivated by points of view and my interest is based in scientific evidence and ethics. Behavior of group membership and integrity are other matters. My research aligns me with FAN because that is where, based on my analysis and experience, my moral compass pointed me.
As to who financially gains from fluoridation policy, they are too numerous to list but include fluoridated toothpaste manufacturers and fluoridation marketeers hired to create astroturf materials for social media fluoride-trolls.
Then there are the dentists whose big bucks are earned from treating dental fluorosis. I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose. Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks.
Thankfully, many dentists who include Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Hardy Limeback and Dr. David Kennedy have had the professional courage to speak out openly despite the pressures brought to bear on them by dental organizations and their peers. Regardless, the facts per the images below are self evident.
"...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)
"Politics makes strange bedfellows." - Unknown
Threats, whether overt or veiled, like ad hominem attacks have no place in scientific debate. I have experienced both from fluoridationists, including on this AARP forum thread. That is not to say that I agree with every word spoken by every other person opposed to fluoridation. On the other side, the logical fallacies which include strawmen misrepresentation of historical and scientific facts as well as ad hominem attacks favored by fluoridationists are neither science nor justification for fluoridation.
However, these rhetorical distractions have nothing to do with either factual modern fluoride science or the immorality of using municipal water supplies to deliver uncontrollable doses of a drug which is medically contraindicated for many senior citizens.
OPEN ACCESS MODERN SCIENTIFIC REVIEW:
Peckham S, Awofeso N. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2014, Article ID 293019. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
Mark Diesendorf. The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature. 07/1986; 322(6075):125-9
"Fluoridation: breaking the silence barrier" by Mark Diesendorf. Published in Confronting the Experts (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1996), pp. 45-75.
2014 Interview with Dr. Diesendorf on fluoridationist politics which suppresses science unfavorable to fluoridation policy. This talk specific to doses for infants, another vulnerable population:
REPRINTS: 5 journal articles on the suppression of fluoride science & opponent voices
This is all baseless scare-mongering, plain and simple. But what motivation would the anti-water fluoridation folks have to push a scare-mongering agenda? Let’s look at some facts.
It is a fact that the Fluoride Action Network, the energy behind this scare-mongering, is part of Mercola’s Health Liberty conglomerate. (And please, correct me if any of these things are wrong.)
It is a fact that Mercola makes millions of dollars every year selling expensive Alternative Health products as well as expensive fluoride free toothpaste . . really expensive in home water filter systems . . fluoride de tox, fluoride free oral health care, expensive shower filter heads . . you know, stuff that people would want to buy if they were afraid of fluoride.
It is a fact that Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola#FDA_warning_letters
It is a fact that Mercola funnels money to the Fluoride Action Network through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project. https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
And it is a fact that the more paranoia the Fluoride Action Network generates about fluoride and strictly regulated safe tap water, the more stuff Mercola sells.
Is any of that incorrect? If not, then please connect the dots.
"Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true, but it is the foundation of both propaganda and marketing." - Unknown
”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
At least four of the six groups JJ mentions who endorse fluoridation, CDC, ADA, AAP and WHO, are not only endorsing their own 1950s policy, they have budgets and paychecks connected to fluoridation promotion. I'll never forget one WHO paper I read where the references of that glowing recommendation were other opinion statements. If I remember correctly, 16 of those references were by the main author (a WHO dentist) and 8 by his co-author. Didn't Shakespeare write something along these lines in a few of his plays?
For those of you who'd like to read the 60 comments from about 20 seniors supporting an AARP resolution against fluoridation policy, I suggest you read in chronological order rather than trying to plow through the hundreds of windy comments generated by the half dozen fluoridation promoters who descended on this thread on June 27, 2018. Just click the 'previous' button to advance thorugh the pages of comments begun by the initial February 2015 entry.
You might also want to check out recent opposition statements from this century written by a few of the dozen or so reputable organizations opposed to fluoridation:
- International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT): https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fluoride-Position-Paper.pdf
- American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM): https://www.aaemonline.org/chemicalsensitivity.php
- Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ): http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf
- Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water
- League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC): http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medica...
BTW: The Mayo Clinic like most hospitals has published words to the effect of 'Early researchers had it backwards. Fluoride works topically on teeth after they've erupted.' This in response to modern science and a 1999 CDC admission. In other words, brush with the stufff if you want. It is an enzyme poison so will inhibit cavity causing bacteria, but spit don't swallow!
"...laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." - CDC MMWR. October 22, 1999