Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1081 of 1,450

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?

Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1082 of 1,450

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. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1083 of 1,450

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  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1084 of 1,450

“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. 


2017 Job Post for 3 New Hires2017 Job Post for 3 New HiresDFwQuotes.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1085 of 1,450

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.


It is a fact that Mercola funnels money to the Fluoride Action Network through the nonprofit American Environmental Health Studies Project.


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.

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1086 of 1,450

"...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



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. 


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






Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1087 of 1,450

Dr. Bill,


In my previous comment, I provided a few of the many examples of anti-water fluoridation folks who had threatened & bullied people and organizations.  My feeling is that the mindset behind this extreme behavior is brought about by a tendency toward conspiracy theories and some paranoia which has undoubtedly been exacerbated by the energizing Fluoride Action Network.  I, myself, have been called a “stalker” in these threads simply because I have the audacity to question some of the things which have been written here.


Among that list of bullies was one Cathy Justus, of Pagosa Springs, Colorado, who claimed that her horse and 4 dogs were killed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  She buffaloed the City with the threat of lawsuits and they were indeed intimidated by her.  Your response to that example jumped out at me.  Here it is prefaced by my original comment: 


DavidF “Mrs. Cathy Justus, is a Pagosa Springs, Colorado resident who claimed that her expensive horses & four dogs died as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water.  (Never mind the fact that the water in Louisville, Kentucky is fluoridated, and the owners of very, very expensive racehorses there allow those horses to drink that water with no harm to them.) . . .

“Again, never mind that this “angle” has been brought before the Supreme Court 13 times, and 13 times the Supreme Court refused to review the arguments for lack of merit.  But she bullied, buffaloed and intimidated the City of Pagosa Springs, and they caved.”  (08-17-2018 09:44 PM)


Response from BillO:  “You bring up another good example of Cathy Justus.  You need to see the video, read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut and paste.  One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.  You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”  (08-17-2018 11:11 PM)


I would like to respond to each point in that comment.  “You need to see the video,”

Response:  I’ve seen the video.  That is why I question the fact that for some reason Mrs. Justus’ dogs died from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . yet in almost every major city in the U.S. (except Portland) dog owners are raising healthy happy pets who drink fluoridated water every day.  That seemed odd to me.


“. . read the Vet reports and actually look at the evidence rather than cut & paste.”

Response:  Which vet report?  Mrs. Justus went through a multitude of vets before she finally found somebody who told her it was fluoride in the water.  Do you mean that vet report, or the other, more conventional reports that she skipped over?


(And this was the best part) BillO:  “One big flaw in your comment is elevation.  Cathy is very in a very high elevation and apparently, fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.  Read the research.  Kentucky is at a much lower elevation.”

Response:  Elevation??  Thank you!  You just invalidated the work of your fellow anti-fluoridationist, Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who claimed that optimally fluoridated water was responsible for problems with racehorses in Los Angeles which has an elevation of 285 feet.   


Dr. Sauerheber must be wrong since Louisville has an elevation of 466 feet, higher than Los Angeles, and horses are not harmed in Louisville.  So they can’t possibly be harmed in Los Angeles, since according to you, “fluoride causes greater harm at higher elevation.”  Maybe you should “read the research” of your fellow anti-fluoridationists . . that way you won’t trip all over yourselves and contradict one another like you just did here.


One more thing about your response to those examples of anti-fluoride bullying.  You said, “Your comments are about people, not science.” 

Response:  That’s not exactly right.  While my comments are about the people behind your agenda.  My comments are also about the mindset of people who misrepresent and manipulate the science. 


For example, in another AARP thread on this same topic, Dr. Limebeck admitted that he photographed a picture of iron-stained teeth of a patient who had never drank optimally fluoridated water in his life.  The picture was featured in an article by Michael Connett on the Fluoride Action Network, and diagnosed as “Mild Dental Fluorosis.” 


Now, to be sure, Mild DF can be associated with optimally fluoridated water.  But as Kumar demonstrated, these teeth are healthier as they are more resistant to decay.  They are characterized by barely noticeable white spots which are usually dried and put under special lighting for the condition to even be photographed.  Mild dental fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay diminishes quality of life.


So, the implication of Dr. Limebeck’s photo of iron-stained teeth which had never touched optimally fluoridated water is, ‘this is what happens when you drink this stuff.’  For Dr. Limebeck to use this photo as an example of Mild DF is deceptive any way you look at it.  So, Dr. Bill, my comments were about the science, and the misrepresentation of it.


Oh, before I forget, you also asked, “You say "this angle" has been brought to the Supreme Court 13 times.  I had not heard that.  Can you please give citations/references?”


Well, I really shouldn’t, since you said, “. .  you need to search for yourself.   I can't do your homework for you.” (‎08-14-2018 12:30 AM)  But I won’t play your game.  Since my comments are verifiable, here you go:


J Public Health Dent. 1986 Fall;46(4):188-98.

Antifluoridationists persist: the constitutional basis for fluoridation.

Block, LE


Alkire v. Cashman, cert. denied, 414 US 858 (Ohio 1973)


Birnel v. Town of Fircrest, 335 P.2d 819 (Wash. 1959), appeal dismissed, 361 U.S. 10 (1959), reh'g. denied, 361 U.S. 904 (1959);


Chapman v. City of Shreveport, 74 So. 2d 142 (La. 1954), appeal dismissed, 348 U.S. 892 (1954),


City of Canton v. Whitman, 337 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1975), appeal dismissed, 425 U.S. 956 (1976);


De Aryan v. Butler, 260 P.2d 98 (D. Cal. 1953), cert. denied, 347 U.S. 1012 (1954);


Dowell v. City of Tulsa, 273 P.2d 859 (Okla. 1954), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 912 (1955);


Kraus v. City of Cleveland, 116 N.E.2d 779 (Ohio Com. P1. 1953), aff'd, 127 N.E.2d 609 (Ohio 1955), appeal dismissed, 351 U.S. 935 (1956);


Mary Bellassai et al v. James McAvoy et al (Ohio, 1982), cert. denied, 459 US 971 (1982)


Minnesota State Bd. of Health v. City of Brainerd, 241 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976), appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803 (1976);


Paduano v. City of New York, 257 N.Y.S.2d 531 (Sup. Ct. 1965), aff'd, 24 A.D.2d 437 (N.Y.A.D. 1965), aff'd, 218 N.E.2d 339 (N.Y. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1026 (1967);


Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co., 352 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. 1961), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 371 U.S. 8 (1962), reh'g denied, 371 U.S. 906 (1962);


Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston, 661 S.W.2d 190 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983), appeal dismissed, 469 U.S. 801 (1984);


Schuringa v. City of Chicago, 198 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. 1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 964 (1965)


Now, Dr. Bill, this is the Last Time I am going to do your homework for you.

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1088 of 1,450

Dr. Johnson,


You hit on several important topics and sound like an echo of David. . . or is it the other way?


You have failed to address over exposure.  Just because a little might be good, does not mean more is just as good or even safe.  Many are ingesting too much fluoride. 


You are correct about the aging process and more root caries, although my geriatric patients seldom have root caries, it is a problem, especially for those with poor diets.  


Here is the serious flaw in your theory.  Fluoride has some topical benefit like toothpaste, not systemic. Fluoridated water has too short of a contact time and too dilute to have topical benefit. There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for dilute short contact topical or "ingested" fluoride.  If 0.7 ppm fluoride concentration had topical benefit, makes no sense to give people 1,500 parts per million topical.  And if my memory is correct, drop down to below 500 ppm fluoride in toothpaste and the benefit drops off.  A significant topical benefit from fluoridated water makes no scientific sense and is not backed by research.   


Fluoride ingestion with intent to prevent caries is not FDA approved because the science is still incomplete. . . and the studies could be done and probably have.  But they don't show benefit. 


97% of Western Europe is fluoridation free and your comment echoing David that there is not a single credible organization opposed to fluoridation is simply wrong, and you know it. . . . unless the definition of "incredible" requires that they support fluoridation.  Then you have a catch 22, circular logic.


And you go back to endorsements.  Endorsements are not science.  But lets look at some of those "credible" organizations you raise.


1.  Please provide a link to each of those organizations and the references to the primary research supporting their position.  Then we can discuss their science.


2.  The American Dental  Association testified in court that they owe no duty to protect the public.  Seriously Johnny, the ADA exists to protect its members, dentists, not the public.  For example, the ADA support mercury fillings which are illegal due to toxicity for me to throw in the trash or dump in the sewer or send in the mail.   What about the human mouth makes them safe?  Nothing.  Tradition is more important than public safety.  Even the mercury filling manufacturers have greater warnings than the ADA.   We cannot trust the ADA to protect patients, they protect dentists. 


3.   The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.  CDC does not determine the dosage, efficacy or safety of any substance used to prevent disease.


4.  WHO is clear that a determination must first be made whether there is inadequate fluoride in a community before more is recommended.  As of 2011-2012 we had 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis and 20% with moderate/severe. . . far too much fluoride.  Certainly more should not be administered when so many show a biomarker of excess exposure.


Now to the AARP.


If you had science on your side, you would welcome a scientific debate, discussion, forum, review and white paper.  Seniors get too much fluoride with medications, their kidneys are often compromised, their bones brittle.   Why add more to their diet?   If you want topical, I will not argue.  But swallowing the fluoride harms seniors and does not help their teeth.


No conspiracy, Johnny.  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.


My mentor reminded me, "50% of what we know in health care is wrong, but we do not know which 50%.  Always be a humble student of science, we are wrong and need to find out where."



Bill Osmunson DDS MPH







Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1089 of 1,450

"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: 



  1. International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT):

  2. American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM):

  3. Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ):

  4. Sierra Club:

  5. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC):


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

Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1090 of 1,450



Leading health and medical organizations around the world endorse community water fluoridation as effective and safe for everyone.


A few examples of endorsements come from:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

4. Mayo Clinic

5. American Academy of Family Physicians

6. World Health Organization


Not a single credibly recognized organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  Not one.


It is a pipe dream to think that the AARP would take a stand opposing credibly recognized scientific and health organizations.  As a dentist yourself, you know that this will never happen.  


AARP is a credibly recognized advocate for our country's aging like myself.  Why would they recommend stopping community water fluoridation for the very population that benefits greatly from it's cavity fighting natural mineral, fluoride?  


As we age we tend to get receeding gums.  The softer surfaces of our roots become exposed.  As a dentist, you know that these surfaces get cavities far greater and easier than the harder enamel of the crowns of our teeth.  And as a dentist you know that these are the most difficult fillings for us to place and to retain in place because of their being mostly on the multi-rooted molars.  Many times this results in tooth loss for our aging population.


To suggest that AARP recommend harming our population because a handful of boisterous opponents wish it so is to show disrespect for our families, including yours.


Thank you AARP for allowing this thread which shows what lengths people with a conspiratorial position will go to to create a false fear in our aging population.  




Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry


Report Inappropriate Content
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask? Check out the Health Tips forum today