Content starts here
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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


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


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


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


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



  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞
  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.😞 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞

  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); 

  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.):



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. 



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.

  • 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. 



  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: 
    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:
    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): 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999):
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011):
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

"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: 



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



For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 


View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

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 spursspondylosis, 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"



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

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 Brian 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.




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. 



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

 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:  


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. 




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.  




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. 



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

We've already gone over this. There is no media report that blames the collapse on fluoride discharges that occurred prior to it. I made the claim, not the news media. The news once tried to claim that it is not the fluoridoatn of the water becasue the collapse occurred before fluoridaiotn, but htis is false. The south section of the city began fluoridating before the event that caused the complete collapse of the fishing industry on the river.  The public was not told about fluoridating until the rest of the city did so nearlya year later.

In the 1970's and 80's the salmon leaving the mainstream River routienly numbered 100,000. The number began to decline in 2007 because of, it is argued, a severe drought. This is probably ture among other factors as well. But notice that since Sacramento became fluoridated with a fluoridated water discharge pipe in the river, the number in the main stream has remained dismal until 2017, at or less than 10,000 per season. This is a 90% collapse of the fish that caused a 100% collapse in the fishing industry with loss of thousands of jobs.  This is reported in: but the authors do not know anything about fluoridation or when it began so it is not discussed of course.

We only have an incomplete view of what actually goes on because so many variables are in play, but the point is that it is ludicrous to claim that fluoridation discharges have zero effect on salmon in the face of the Univ. of Oregon data, and flatly false to claim that fluoridation only happened after the complete collapse. And it is absurd to continue fluoridation of the river when the salmon industry has been so destroyed.


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,


Now you are down to, "it is ludicrous to claim that fluoridation discharges have zero effect on salmon," from your original claim that fluoridation was responsible for the collapse.  


You have a theory that effluent with some amount of fluoride in it (now it's) in part was responsible for this.  You have no idea what the average daily discharge is into the river.  You have no idea what the flow of the river is at the point of discharge.  You have no idea what the amount of fluoride is in the effluent, because it's never been measured.  This is important, fundamental data.  


You said that fluoridation began in 2010.  


Thank you for your link  .  On it we see a bar graph which confirms what I already said.  Chinook salmon returns hit an all time low in 2009.  In 2010, the same year that fluoridation began, salmon abundance improved.  And, as I previously said, it improved until 2013.  Take a look at the bar graph.


You have no knowledge of even the most fundamental data required to make such an outrageous claim.  Moreover, historical trends of salmon runs completely debunk the idea.  


There is nothing left to be said about it.  

Bronze Conversationalist

I'm looking at the bar graph. There are there categories in each bar and the mainstream category of salmon returns is what was decimated and remained so all through the years reported, to 2017, just as I said.

The city of Sacramento fluoridates all water supplies to the city, not just some of the water. Just like all other cities that fluoridate, the wastewater contains the same concentration of fluoride as what was put into it at the fluoridation facililty. All discharged water from municipal pipes comes from comercial and residential users that is fully fluoridated. There is no other water source to dilute it. The 1 ppm fluuoridated waste water is discharged directly into the river because the sanitizing treatment is not able to remove fluoride. Fluoride ion is a sphere, the same size as a water molecule, and cannot be filtered.  I don't need to travel by boat to the discharge output point and take a sample of the discharge water to know that it is fluoridated. 

No one can say or has said that only fluoridation is entirely responsible for the full collapse of the salmon fishing industry in Sacramento, and that includes me. Fluoride discharges into the river where they spawn contributed its share to the collapse. It was the last obviously added contributor before the collapse became complete.  Fluoridation began many months before, not during or after, the discovered total collapse. My memory recalls the collapse being full and reported by fishermen and Pacific Fisheries and the news media in late 2010. The fluoridation of Sacramento had already begun many months prior to this, and if I recall in early 2010. The point is that fluoridation was ongoing prior to the reported full collapse.

Fluoridation is still ongoing and those who conduct it care less about the fact that salmon are adversely affected by low level fluoride in water and that Sacramento River salmon are abnormally reduced in number.  Fluoridation promoters appear so gravely concerned about caries reduction that documented effects on human bone (and any effects the discharged wastewater may have on  salmon popoulations) are not a concern.

But eating and drinking fluoride in any amount do not lead to lowered incidence of caries, and adverse effects on human health as well as environmental issues for the treated wastewater are indeed the concern. Fluoridation is unnecessary, harmful, and must be halted.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, your quote:  "I'm looking at the bar graph. There are there categories in each bar and the mainstream category of salmon returns is what was decimated and remained so all through the years reported, to 2017, just as I said."




The Bar Graph is entitled "Figure 1."  There are three categories in each bar.  1.)  Hatcheries, 2.) Mainstem (not mainstream), and 3.) Tributaries.  


All three categories showed improvement after 2009.  I invite all readers of this thread to look at the graph and judge this for themselves.  


You said water fluoridation began in 2010. You also said water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River.  The evidence does not support your outrageous theory.  There is no evidence for it.  Indeed, the evidence debunks your claims. 


Give it up, Richard.  You are embarrassing yourself.  You call yourself a scientist, yet you are unable to accept empirical evidence, the foundation of all science, when it disagrees with your agenda.   

Bronze Conversationalist

Excuse me? I explained the truth, which is beng ignored by fluoridation promoters. 1 ppm fluoricated water lifetime causes bone fluoride to accumulate  to thousands of mg/kg in bone, higher than in fluoridated toothpaste, where it does not belong and where it alters the crystal structure of bone. The NRC data proved that levels above this increase hip fractures compared to the incidence at 1 ppm. This does not translate into the idea that no increased fractures occur at 1 ppm. Thatl is absurd. The NRC did not look at exposures less than 1 ppm. So the clakin that Dr. Osmunson is somehow flawed is incorrect.



Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

I see a report from a salmon fishing tour boat company that now after 8 years since the collapse salmon appear to be increasing in number. But how much of this is advertising to attract more customers I don't know. It is not a scientific assessment but let's hope it is real. This is in the Red Bluff area which is north of Sacramento. So this is good news but again it is possible, as stated before, that those salmon that could spawn in water at levels between 0.2 and 1 ppm (due to fluoridated water discharges) could imprint at this newer set point to be able to return to that water again later..

This does not detract from the claim that fluoride discharges were a final straw that completed the approximately 90% collapse in the first place that the news media reported which caused salmon fishing industries to shut down.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

RS:  "This does not detract from the claim that fluoride discharges were a final straw that completed the approximately 90% collapse in the first place that the news media reported which caused salmon fishing industries to shut down."


Response:  Please provide a link to a news media report which stated this.

Bronze Conversationalist

The returning salmon population in the Central Valley, CA declined to the lowest level in recorded history at merely 60,000 total returns in 2010.  The construction of dams, increased urbanization, plus possible pollution from pesticides are all believed to have been progressively lowering the population until then. Fluoride discharges were another final contribution. In the Sacramento River specifically, which is separate from all the other rivers in the central valley where fluoride discharges are not conducted, the collapse was described in public news sources as essentially complete. The difference between a complete collapse and a huge collapse I attribute to the fluoride discharges.

Disagreement on this cannot come from the fact that there are no measured fluoride levels near the discharge point source because anhyone whol clailms the discharges did not affect salmon wold have the same problem. Prove it by measuring the levels at the discharge point to demonstrate that salmon were not exposed to higher fluoride levels than the 0.2 ppm anywhere in the river where they had to migrate.   Since no such data is available to anyone, logic dictates that the dischages which are significant at the source sealed the collapse to its low level becasue salmon imprinting is so exaquisitelty sensitive. The number of salmon returning to the Sacramento across the discharge zone is not returning to normal as I have ever seen reported. The other rivers in the Central Valley do not have a fluoridated water discharge zone and do not change the argument simply becaue their returns are increasing..

And I am not posting here to discuss fluoridation. I am here to refute false claims about it and to explain what it actually is, a bone fluoridaiton program that does not decrease dental decay and that is a violation of Federal wate law. Nothing needs to be discussed. For example read the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 2013 for a description of what it is and the laws it violates.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

RS, your quote:  "Disagreement on this cannot come from the fact that there are no measured fluoride levels near the discharge point source because anhyone whol clailms the discharges did not affect salmon wold have the same problem. Prove it by measuring the levels at the discharge point to demonstrate that salmon were not exposed to higher fluoride levels than the 0.2 ppm anywhere in the river where they had to migrate."


Response:  We can prove it by using the same simple math formula that Mr. Joe Carroll used to prove that salmon were not affected in the Columbia River by effluent discharge.


You made the claim.  It's up to you to prove it.  You are posting under a thread entitled "Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action."  You are posting here to press any possible argument which might convince the AARP to support your fringe position on water fluoridaton.  Since you refuse to prove it by using a simple math formula, you must already know that the math does not support your argument.  


To your second comment regarding the 2006 NRC, you agree with me.  Your quote:  "The NRC committee was not tasked with assessing community water fluoridation, for either  effectiveness or for safety."


Therefore, when Dr. Bill cites a "Position Statement" against water fluoridation from the iaomt which cites a passage from the 2006 NRC, which you just said was not "tasked with assessing CWF, and that passage stated that "under certain circumstances" bone fractures may occur . . .


And those "circumstances" consisted of drinking water at over 5 ½ times the optimal level for a lifetime.   It is more likely to cause these problems in the population than drinking water with 1 ppm F, (which is also over the optimal level) over the course of a lifetime. 


Your lengthy meandering comment could have easily made the point that, yes, the iaomt Position Statement was indeed deceptive by citing irrelevant and misleading facts regarding water fluoridation in its statement against this health initiative.  The NRC never said that drinking optimally fluoridated water would enhance the likelihood of bone fractures.  


Dr. Bill has presented a misleading statement in his efforts to sway the reader, and he has called it good science.  

Bronze Conversationalist

"The finding supports the epidemiological results that water fluoridation might be responsible for the increasing rate of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women.”  - Kakei et al. (2016)


 “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems… Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in “Toxicological Profile on Fluoride” (1993)


Position Papers are reasoned opinions and much more disciplined than political endorsements of policy. The IAOMT 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with over 500 citations can be downloaded from their webpage. The 2011 LULAC Resolution against fluoridation is based on evidence of disproportionate harm to Latinos and human rights. They are just two of the professional organizatons opposed to fluoridation based on evidence and representative of thousands of doctors, dentists, lawyers, and other professionals who have done their due diligence. 


Scientific evidence of harm to senior citizens includes 21st century studies documenting fluoride as causing or worsening kidney disease, brittle arthritic bones, heart disease and dementia, many published this decade. This information is verifiable and validated. It cannot be disappeared by long-winded rhetorical attacks by fluoride advocates.  


Dr. Bill Osmunson on this forum is one of thousands of  doctors and dentists who formerly endorsed fluoridation who changed their minds based on evidence. Although many still follow the bullet points prepared by marketing gurus and fervant advocacy groups, thyroid and kidney doctors especially advise their patients to avoid fluoride. Many seniors, such as myself and about 30 others who have particiapted on this AARP forum, testify that our health improves when we avoid fluoride; these are not anecdotes, it is our medical testimony. Consequently, there is no consensus of benefit and substantial evidence and opinion upon which AARP can base a resolution opposing fluoridation as an immoral medication of vulnerable populations who include senior citizens harmed by fluoride consumption


Bronze Conversationalist

The NRC committee was not tasked with assessing community water fluoridation, for either  effectiveness or for safety. They were tasked with examining evidence of harm at levels of fluoride that occur naturally (which can range far above fluoridation levels of 1 ppm).There are data in the report for effects at 1 ppm, but again water fluoridation was not specifically assessed. 

The statement that 4 ppm fluoride in water causes increased bone fractures is true, but water fluoridation is limited to 1 ppm. The data the NRC used were from non-fluoridated cities with natural fluoride levels above 1 ppm. Natural fluoride is always accompanied with abundant calcium and magnesium from salts other than fluoride salts in the water, which minimize assimilation of fluoride. Industrial fluoridation does not have this protection and is a different situation, especially in soft water cities and, again, the NRC was not permitted to evaluate community water fluoridation.  There are bone weakening effects at 1 ppm by extrapolation, where the incidence progressively increases above this level. There were no populations examined at fluoride levels near zero to compare with the 1 ppm group and the NRC was not charged to examine health effects below 1 ppm.   

The EPA does not regulate community water fluoridation. The EPA does not monitor caries incidence in fluoridated cities and instead informs people not to drink water at contaminant fluoride levels of 2 - 4 ppm because lifelong this would cause serious harm. No assessment by the EPA has been made for 1 ppm fluoridated water on health or on effectivess in affecting dental caries because the EPA has no interest in regulating community water fluoridation, as stated before. That is the job of the FDA.

Many people do not ever develop dental caries their entire lives. And yet fluoridation promoters force fluoridation of public water supplies to treat all people in a region. This is against medical ethics. Recent data indicate that aspirin does not reduce incidence of heart disease in patients who have no history of heart disesase (while it does reduce incidence in those who do have such a history). Are we to force aspirin on the entire population when only a subset benefits? Of course not.

Community water fluoridation is like this only even less ethical. If some were to experience reduced caries, that would be an argument to treat some (but not all) people in a population. But the bizarre thing is there are no controlled human clinical trials that have ever proved that eating/drinking fluoride ion reduces dental caries. In fact, the vast data we have from observational studies indicates eating/drinking fluoride has no effect on caries at all (Teotia; Ziegelbecker;Yamouyiannis, etc.)

Ironically, the data in the NRC report at 1 ppm do indicate harm especially in iodine deficient or calcium deficient people and in diabetics, etc.  But the Doull claim, made seven years later from memory, bypasses this and does not consider the data that at the time strongly suggested adverse effecfs of blood fluoride on brain. These effects are now more substantiated, while the Doull statement implies that this has been considered fully, when the NRC report most certainly did not. The notion was left as a possibility and was certainly never disproven to justify a claim such as Doull made. He did not do the reasearch in all the investigated areas the NRC discussed and is not in a positon to claim no adverse effects of fluoridation on anyone after lifelong consumption of intentionally fluoridated water. The NRC was not charged with investigating community water fluoridation.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, I am glad to see that you have rejoined the conversation.  


Before I switch issues with you, let's clarify one thing.  You stated that the Salmon industry was destroyed in the Sacramento River in 2010 when water fluoridation began in South Sacramento.  


That's not true is it.  We have seen that the salmon collapse hit an all time low in 2009, and in 2010, the same year that water fluoridation began, the salmon return began to improve, until 2013, when it began to decline again.  Therefore, water fluoridation had nothing to do with declining salmon numbers in Sacramento, did it.  


Moreover, for the record, you had no knowledge of what the average daily discharge of effluent was into that river, you had no knowledge of the volume of river flow at the point of effluent discharge, and fluoride levels had never actually been measured in effluent discharge.  In short, you made a statement with no data to support your theory, other than the fact that you said the river was narrow enough to throw a stone across it, and that was good enough for your kind of science.


Will you now admit that you were wrong about the whole thing?  That since salmon returns increased and improved when fluoridation began, your theory was based on little more than your personal hope that it was true?

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

“People tend to think that it’s settled: But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [water fluoridation] has been going on.” - Dr. John Doull, chairman of 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water (in Scientific American, 2008) 


The thyroid changes do worry me.” - Dr. John Doull, chairman of 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water (in Scientific American, 2008)  


John Doull made his later comment in response to a political request from the project leader who has made a career out of promoting fluoridation and another fluoridationist whose paycheck was likewise attached to promoting fluoridation who were attempting to do damage control


As to the political manipulation of the 2006 NRC, I suggest reading the following by a career EPA scientist: 

Carton RJ. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride 39(3)163–172. July-September 2006 

Bronze Conversationalist

Thank you for your input, Carry Anne.  It is always appreciated.


Since you feel that Dr. Doull's comment was taken out of context, any readers of this thread may freely judge for themselves the meaning and the context of this comment which you have questioned.  Again, here is the comment:  

""I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level."


Again, the full context of his comment may be viewed here.


Readers of this thread may judge for themselves the context of the comment from Dr. Doull which I have provided.  May we see the comments which you have provided from Dr. Doull in their full context so that we may judge for ourselves if those comments are a reflection of his actual views regarding water fluoridation?


I mean, when we follow your link, we see a biased opinion piece which does indeed quote Dr. Doull, but there is no context for his remarks.  

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

I have answered Randy's questions in this AARP thread and on my own local newspaper where the 'rapid response' pro-fluoride team which includes Randy who lives 2,000 miles away  attacked me and every other opponent, just as they do on small town papers from California to Maine. The same small team swarmed  this AARP thread on June 27, 2018. Click here to go to my original comment and use PREVIOUS to advance chronologically. 

Below is one example of what happens when people respond to the fluoride lobbyists' questions online: 



Bronze Conversationalist

It is claimed in the Kumar study that the data prove fluorotic teeth have fewer caries. The mean incidences in the two groups however did not differ by more than observational error, where the standard deviations substantially overlap between groups. The conclusion is false anyway as indicated in the vast data published by teotia and also by ziegelbecker and also by yiamouyiannis, all showing that as water fluoride consumption imcreases, dental fluorosis increases and dental caries are not reduced. The ziegelbecker study included populations exposed to F even as high as  6 ppm, all with no decreases in caries incidence.

Fluorotic teeth have deficient enamel which functions to protect underlying dentin. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

The background level of fluoride in the Sacramento River is 0.2 ppm. This is well published in district water quality reports as required for the public by the SDWA. Fluoridation began in 2010 at 1 ppm before the city would lower it to the HHS requested level of 0.7 ppm.  And 0.7 is greater than 0.3 and 0.5 ppm anyway.


Corrosion inhibiters are most certainly added to prevent contamination of water from corroded metal ions from the deliivery infrastructure. Fluroide has no such action and in fact fluosilicic acid  produces silicic acid that leeches lead from fixtures that contain oxidized lead salts.


The EPA Office of Water does not regulate water fluoridation and has written to me and many others this fact. This is because they have no staff or authority to monitor its effectiveness and they are there to help minimize serious health effects from fluoride contamination of water. This is why the MCL and SMCL are 4 and 2 ppm. These are not intended to allow water disticts to go ahead and "fill er up" with added fluoride on purpose. These are level at which warnings are posted not to drink the water because known serious heatlh consequences would result if it were continuously consumed at these levels.

The EPA does not regulate 1 ppm fluoridated public water and does not advocate consumption of  fluoride and does not guarantee that tooth decay will be reduced by doing so. The EPA has nothing to do with dental care and has correctly wriltten that the FDA is responsible for ingestible fluorides..(and the FDA has banned the sale of all fluoride compoudns intended for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. and ruiled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug and asserts that the EPA should regulate fluoridation because it is the addiition of a known water contaminant into public water supplies).

The rest of the attacks listed are too ridiculuouos to address here.




Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

RS, your quote:  “The rest of the attacks listed are too ridiculuouos to address here.”


Response:  That’s rich.  I ask you relevant things concerning your claim like, ‘What is the flow of the Sacramento River at the point of effluent discharge?’ ‘What is the average daily discharge of effluent we are talking about?’ ‘Has anyone ever measured the fluoride level in this effluent discharge which you claim is 1 ppm . . even though I have pointed out factors which would have reduced that number?’


If you consider these important questions “attacks,” then fluoride in your drinking water is the least of your problems.  You’re not a scientist if you dig your heels in so deep to a belief that you are unwilling, and indeed don’t even find it necessary, to ask and research the fundamental questions underlying any problem. 


Your approach to science seems to be, 'It's true because I said it.  We don't need facts, data, or relevant information.'


The SDWA does not forbid the fluoride additive in drinking water, if that is what you are implying.  You’ve shown us nothing which supports that idea. 


Your quote:  “Fluoridation began in 2010 at 1 ppm before the city would lower it to the HHS requested level of 0.7 ppm.”


Response:  I find that interesting because historical trends of salmon populations hit an all-time low in 2009, showed improvement in 2010 and that improvement of salmon population continued into 2013 when another downward trend began.


So if fluoridation began in 2010, and salmon population showed an improvement in that year, your theory falls flat on its face. 


Give it up, Dr. Sauerheber.  A real scientist isn’t afraid to admit when he is wrong.    

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Astroturfers and social media trolls overwhelm online conversations with comments that emphasize denigrating opponents, dismissing ethics, denying science and distracting the conversation away from the topic at hand in order to advance their agenda. 


Fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated product into bodies of convenient consumers regardless of impact on individuals in vulnerable populations who include senior citizens and many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney disease. Substantial modern science also validates that fluoride consumption contributes to  learning disabilities in children and to dementia, brittle bones, diabetes and kidney disease in seniors. And yes, fluoridation policy also damages the environment. Click here to see a dozen references to those environmental harm items alread posted on this forum thread. 


To read three years of comments in support of an AARP resolution against fluoridation many with hyperlinks to modern science that were posted before the fluoride lobbyists descended on this thread in June, click here and then use the PREVIOUS button to flip through the pages. 




Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – You still have not answered my questions.  You simply provided more quotes (personal opinions) from dozens of individual doctors, dentists and scientists who have studied emerging scientific data and changed their minds and claimed (personal anecdotes) that, many more [doctors, dentists and scientists]… admit that they know fluoridation is ineffective and harmful to some consumers but they won't speak publicly because of fear of retaliation from abusive fluoride trolls, their rabidly pro-fluoride peers, and even their patients.” (08-22-2018 06:59 AM)


Wow, you are claiming these doctors, dentists and scientists actually have credible proof that fluoridation is ineffective and harmful (scientific evidence &/or evidence from their own practices), and yet they choose not to publically speak out and try to change the scientific consensus?  Those are serious accusations that these health professionals are failing to uphold their professional and moral responsibilities.


You stated (07-07-2018 04:49 PM), This thread was begun to share both personal stories  [anecdotes] and modern scientific evidence of harm from fluoridation policy in order to collect data for AARP and (07-20-2018 10:02 AM) This thread is supposed to facilitate  discussion among seniors who have found fluoridation causes illness or worsens their health and youDemand AARP Take Action and (08-10-2018 10:13 AM) advocate for its constituency and craft a policy statement opposed to fluoridation, which is [in your opinion] mass medication using municipal waterIt is obvious that you have no interest in an impartial, rational discussion of the scientifically established benefits and risks of fluoridation.


Challenging the prevailing scientific consensus is one of the foundations of the scientific method.  The only way science has progressed over the last few hundred years is by adjusting (sometimes reversing) the consensus of the relevant scientific communities as new, legitimate, reproducible evidence is discovered and evaluated.  Yes, individual personal biases and sinister motives are possible, and they can influence the way evidence is interpreted.  These all too human traits are precisely why the consensus of relevant experts is critical to science – to identify conclusions based primarily on personal (or group) biases, greed, etc. and enable evidence-based decisions to be made.


However, you still have not provided a rational explanation of why, if fluoridation opponents (FOs) actually have legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims of harm, the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure has not changed in over 70 years.


By scientific consensus, I mean that the majority of relevant experts in a given scientific field agree on the interpretation of the available body of evidence.  The fact that the hundreds of thousand members of over 100 nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations have not rebelled over the last 70+ years of community water fluoridation (CWF) while those organizations publically recognize the benefits of CWF, is a clear example of a scientific consensus.


In contrast, you listed a group of 13 alternate health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (06-28-2018 07:32 AM) that oppose CWF.  That is only a demonstration of the fact that there are always minority opinions whose proponents have been unsuccessful at providing credible scientific evidence to change the majority consensus.


Apparently I need to be more specific in my questions about what you believe constitutes the scientific consensus:

Q1)  Do you accept the fact that the support of CWF by virtually all nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations constitutes the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective?

Q1A) If your response is NO, then answer the following questions:

  1. You claimed (08-21-2018 01:14 PM)Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections. There is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety If your claim has any validity whatever, explain and document exactly how this “political construct” has caused virtually all the major science and health organizations to reject what FOs consider to be legitimate evidence and continue to support CWF?  There are always objections to any scientific consensus – that is how scientific knowledge and theories evolve.  It is the responsibility of those who hold those outlier beliefs to prove their claims with legitimate, conclusive, reproducible evidence.
  2. Explain what you believe the scientific consensus in regard to fluoridation actually is and how it is different from the consensus for other science and health issues. Or if you, like some other FOs, don’t believe the scientific consensus is real or relevant to all specific areas of science and evidence-based health care, then explain exactly the processes the minority of science/health trained FOs employ to determine what constitutes legitimate scientific evidence and how it should be interpreted.  From the anti-F comments and “evidence” provided, it seems as though only those studies that fit (or can be ‘adjusted’ to fit) a pre-determined fixed-belief are considered valid.  As I noted earlier (08-21-2018 09:36 PM), all “evidence” provided by FOs to date has relatively easily recognized and described flaws.
  3. Do you recognize as valid any of the health conclusions and recommendations that are supported by the same organizations that accept scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective? If their members are not able to correctly evaluate the evidence (published and their personal experiences) regarding fluoridation, how can they be trusted to formulate any legitimate conclusions about any aspect of health care?

Q1B) If your response is YES, then answer the following questions:

  1. Is there a difference is between the scientific consensus on CWF and the scientific consensus of relevant experts that supports vaccines, drinking water disinfection, and other public health measures – or any health initiative, for that matter?  If so, how does it differ?
  2. Explain why you accept any health conclusions supported by the mainstream stream CWF-supporting organizations if they have been so inept, ignorant and willfully blind as to support fluoridation (and vaccination, according to other comments). For any evidence-based health care recommendation or procedure, there will be conflicting evidence. But how can the relevant professionals come to any reliable, trustworthy conclusions on anything if they have interpreted the body of evidence on fluoridation completely wrong by concluding CWF is safe and effective when the body of evidence (according to FOs) proves it is ineffective and significantly harmful.
  3. Explain why anti-F activists spend immense amounts of time and resources trying to scare the public into accepting their minority position. Instead, why don’t FOs use those resources to try and convince the scientific community their interpretations of the evidence is legitimate?  If legitimate, reproducible evidence is presented, the consensus will change – that is how science evolves.  So far, that has not happened.
  4. Explain why anti-F activists don’t use their resources to conduct high quality, unbiased research which will provide the evidence necessary to change the current consensus of experts. Even though I am not a dental or medical expert, I am a scientist familiar with conducting and interpreting research, and I can understand the reasons the studies presented by FOs so far have not been sufficient to change the CWF consensus.
    To quote Dr. Haynie, MD (06-27-2018 06:30 PM) ”If [anti-science activists] wish to change positions on fluoridation, Dr. Limeback and others have an obligation to make their case before legitimate scientific forums and not simply bring arguments to lay audiences that have been rejected by experts.”

JoeM (‎07-12-2018 04:30 PM) provided an excellent description of the scientific consensus, “What was obvious is that there are an enormous number of relevant studies out there - I think the York Review identified over 3000 as far back as 2000. In such a situation we have to rely on a synthesis of all the evidence by competent experts rather than selecting bits and pieces of individual studies. This has been carried out now on many occasions in many countries. Thus, I accept this consensus.”


Q2A) Do you accept Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, All the so called "scientific" organizations were all pupets of each other with fluoridation.? 
Q2B) How about the rest of the 100+ organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF – do you believe they are all, so called ‘scientific’ organizations [that] do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists as well?


Q3A) On an important, related subject, (03-14-2017 06:49 PM ) you claim Medical Mandates, whether finagled with financial incentives to fluoridate a community or legislated with punitive actions against any parent who chooses not to follow a vaccination schedule are dangerous to our health and our freedom.”  Since you have gone out of your way to bring vaccination into the fluoridation conversation, do you also believe vaccination policies (to use your 08-24-2018 10:07 AM language) are also an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated product into bodies of convenient consumers regardless of impact on individuals in vulnerable populations who include senior citizens?

Q3B) Do you believe the overall benefits to citizens of vaccines for flu, polio, MMR, DTP, chicken pox, shingles (for elders), etc. outweigh the risks, or are you planning to Demand that AARP Take Action and Ban Vaccinations?  If everyone accepted the fear-mongering propaganda of the anti-vaccination activists (remarkably similar to the anti-F propaganda, search on -- Mercola vaccines -- for example) and chose to avoid vaccinations, what do you believe the consequences would be – a more healthy population?


Q4A) You have not addressed my 08-21-2018 01:00 PM correction to your blatant misrepresentation of the precautionary principle;Your frogs in a pot cartoon misrepresents the precautionary principle which is legitimately used in situations where the risks and benefits are not yet clearly understood.  In the case of community water fluoridation, the burden of proof that the public health measure is safe and effective has been met for 70  years.”  A legitimate cartoon representing the precautionary principle would not show the two frogs already in an obviously dangerous pot of uncontrollably heating water --- that is stupidity, not science, and it is precisely how FOs portray mainstream science and scientists.  I have not yet had time to draw one, but an accurate cartoon would depict the frogs in lab coats [a requirement for science cartoons] who are considering a tub of water they just encountered and measured to be at a comfortable temperature (for a frog).  At that point, they would not know what chemicals might be in the water, what was controlling the temperature, whether the temperature would rise, fall or stay the same, etc.  The cartoon would show them discussing various parameters to measure and processes to resolve the unknowns before determining the benefits vs. the risks.  That is an unknown situation where the precautionary principle is legitimately employed.  After thorough testing by the frogs and by a number of other frog scientists that reliably determined the water was chemically safe, the temperature remained constant, there were health benefits to soaking in the warm water and no negative health issues were observed,  a consensus was established that the benefits to soaking in the tub (as studied) outweighed any risks.
Q4B) You also did not provide an answer to my question,If your claim The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored by FOs  numerous times, that all of the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective and that there are no such organizations that support the anti-F agenda.--- except, of course, by claiming all professionals who don’t publically oppose fluoridation are, greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths”, as claimed in your comments below, which appear to illustrate your disdain for mainstream scientists, health professionals and their professional organizations.


Before I comment further, I would like to make certain I understand exactly what you mean by your claims from several comments:

On (08-22-2018 06:59 AM) you claim, “Willful blindness and financial benefit [greed] affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt and vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions andAgnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that,Most [dentists] 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

You also claim (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) that. 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
You also claim 07-03-2018 07:35 AM),  “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.


Q5) Are these comments an accurate representation of your opinion of the ADA, EPA and ATA and any members who do not publically support the anti-F demands?


Q6) Do you also extend your accusations of ADA and EPA and ATA members as "greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths" to the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF and have not publically denounced CWF?  Or do you have another explanation for why those professional health care providers choose to remain silent or publically support the practice?  As noted, according to your opinion (08-21-2018 06:38 AM), "The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive" and so millions of patients worldwide who drink optimally fluoridated water obviously must be suffering the misery of Cancer, Lowered IQ, Diabetes, Hypothyroidism, GI Effects, Arthritis, Hypersensitivity, Kidney Disease, ADHD, Brittle Bones, etc. –– yet they do not speak out.  If you are correct, we are all in serious trouble as these greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowardly &/or sociopathic health professionals continue to practice.


I believe the only rational explanation to explain the fact that the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF is that a significant majority of their members have actually evaluated the risks and benefits of CWF, have seen the positive consequences of fluoridation (and negligible evidence of the alleged negative consequences) in their practices and accepted the legitimacy of the scientific consensus that the benefits of CWF are far greater than any alleged risks.

Randy Johnson



The title here is "Scientific Consensus; however, your comments are about "Endorsement Consensus."  


Please provide the names and internet links to the top three organizations' position papers on fluoridation.   No.  Why don't you send me links to at least one of the position papers of organizations who endorse fluoriation and lets see the primary research to support fluoridation.


Randy, relying on these organizations for endorsements is quite different than relying on them for quality position papers referenced with primary research.  


Yes, like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.


Compare the lack of primary research and lack of scientific position papers by promoters of fluoride to the IAOMT position paper and you will see the huge difference.


Concensus is not scientific evidence.    I request  facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions as so much of fluoridation is based on.  


Give us some primary evidence on total exposure, desired total fluoride intake, optimal fluoride tooth concentrations, measured cost benefit for the population at large, and safety studies.


With 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe, many are ingesting too much.  Certainly you would agree, like the NRC 2006 report, that severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health risk.  


My concern is that we are way past too much fluoride exposure for most fetuses, infants, children and adults.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH



Trusted Contributor

Dr. Osmunson – Regarding your (08-27-2018 01:40 AM) comment:


Yes, the title (and my claim) is the “Scientific Consensus Continues to Support Community Water Fluoridation (CWF)”.


I appreciate the opportunity to ask you several questions about your comments.


Q1) If you choose to arbitrarily fabricate a different name than Scientific Consensus, then please explain how the “Endorsement Consensus” of a dozen or so alternate health, environmental, spiritual, consumer and cultural organizations you listed by you (07-09-2018 09:40 PM) and CarryAnne (06-28-2018 07:32 AM) is more credible than the “Endorsement Consensus” of the 100+ nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation? 


It does not matter whether the CWF Consensus is called a “Scientific Consensus” or an “Endorsement Consensus”.  It appears to be a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the fact that only a small minority of health care professionals in the world are represented by the organizations you listed as objecting to CWF.  Exactly how many health professionals are represented by the AAEM, ICIM IABDM, IAOMT, HAD and ICA?


Q2)  What group of experts do you and other fluoridation opponents (FOs) accept as a reliable majority of scientists and health professionals who (as a group) are educated and experienced enough to accurately evaluate the 70-year body of evidence and form a legitimate educated consensus about the benefits and risks of CWF?  Obviously (according to FOs), it is none of the mainstream science and health organizations or their members who have not joined the anti-F crusade despite what you believe to be conclusive and obvious evidence of harm.  According to you, these professionals are, “like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.”  Do you accept CarryAnne’s depiction of ADA and EPA and ATA members as "greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths", and do you extend it  to the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF who have not publically denounced CWF?


Q3) If the representatives of those health organizations that publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation who have not publically denounced CWF have completely ignored &/or misinterpreted the body of evidence you believe proves CWF to be a dangerous practice and blindly followed each other, how can you possibly trust any of them to be competent in any other areas of their practices?

These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American  Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on… 
Obviously the same question applies to all of the representatives of the scientific organizations that publically recognize the benefits of CWF and have not denounced the practice.


I agree with your statement, “Consensus is not scientific evidence”, however you seem to be missing the fact that the Scientific Consensus is based on an evaluation of the Scientific Evidence.
Q4) Do you accept the Wikipedia definition of Scientific Consensus as “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.”?
Q4A) If NO – Explain what you would call an agreement of conclusions based on an evaluation of the relevant body of evidence by relevant experts. Then explain whether you would accept that term as applying to the four conclusions outlined below and CWF.
If YES – Explain how you can claim that the anti-F position is in any way, “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study” when only about six health organizations and their practitioners endorse it?
-- Do you accept what I consider a fact that the majority of relevant science or health organizations and practitioners accept the three scientific /health related conclusions below?
-- Do you accept the term Scientific Consensus as applicable to the three scientific/ health related conclusions below that are accepted by the majority of relevant science or health organizations and practitioners? 
(a) The benefits of brushing with fluoridated toothpaste (reducing the risk of tooth decay and improving dental health) outweigh any known risks;
(b) The benefits of adding disinfectants to treat drinking water outweigh risks of ingesting residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts even though, according to anti-F “logic”, there is no “dose control” (07-27-2018 12:55 PM) and “there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) for ingesting sodium hypochlorite, chloroform and other disinfection byproducts, and, as far as I am aware, “There are no prospective randomized controlled trials, good science, supporting your theory for [the safety of]  dilute short contact topical or ‘ingested’ [chloroform and DBPs]” (08-19-2018 02:18 AM).  If you accept the consensus of disinfection, it is difficult to understand how you can dismiss the consensus on CWF;
(c) The benefits of vaccination for members of a community far outweigh the known risks.  Consequences of discontinuing vaccination would be serious – probably catastrophic –  if a majority of individuals chose to skip vaccination for flu, polio, MMR, DTP, chicken pox, shingles (for elders), etc.


The IAOMT constitutes only one of the six alternative health organizations and 6-7 environmental, spiritual and cultural groups  you and CarryAnne listed as supporting the anti-F opinions.

Q5) Have all of the other anti-F groups published “position papers on fluoridation” – if not, are they and their representatives all “like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to [disprove the benefits and effectiveness of] fluoridation”?


Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain


Your requests (08-27-2018 01:40 AM), “Please provide the names and internet links to the top three organizations' position papers on fluoridation.  … Randy, relying on these organizations for endorsements is quite different than relying on them for quality position papers referenced with primary research” remind me of the ‘wizard’ behind the curtain frantically trying to divert attention from reality.


First, take a look at the IAOMT  “Position Paper against Fluoride Use…”.  It is simply a blanket condemnation of exposure to fluoride ions from any source at any exposure level and included newspaper and magazine articles, blogs, etc. provided as “references”.


Correct me if I am wrong, but it does not appear that the IAOMT conducted any of the primary research.  They simply collected and listed all of the studies which had concluded (or could be adjusted to appear as though they concluded) exposure to fluoride ions was harmful and ineffective.  The “Position Paper” was not even a review that compared and evaluated studies with different designs, qualities, conclusions, etc. to present a considered, scientific evaluation.   As David pointed out (08-27-2018 02:14 PM), “So, when I look at that "Position Statement, and see quotes about Bone Fractures and Weakened Bones which may occur under certain conditions, which have nothing to do with water fluoridation, I think a normal person [particularly trained and experienced ‘normal’ health care professionals] would conclude that this statement was cherry-picked and taken out of context.  If you would like to explain what those certain conditions are, and provide primary evidence from the 2006 NRC Report explaining the statement, so that we can all see it in its full context, that would be fine.  But to provide a link to a deceptive opinion piece is hardly ‘primary evidence’ of anything.


The IAOMT “Position Paper” could be copied/pasted by any of the other anti-F groups, and they too would, according to your beliefs, have published a “Position Paper”. 


Your insistence on an arbitrary fabrication of "Endorsement Consensus” to replace “Scientific Consensus” in the specialized area of CWF, your definition of the majority of health practitioners as “a bunch of lemmings” who ignorantly or willingly ignore what you consider “facts”, and your belief that a comprehensive list of anti-F references in a “Position Paper” somehow constitutes all the relevant “facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions” needed to understand all the complexities of CWF are simply diversionary tactics.  You have created a curtain and loudspeaker with towering flames and general chaos designed to hide the fact that fluoridation opponents are a vocal minority of activists who have not been able to provide legitimate evidence sufficient to change the Scientific Consensus (or even the "Endorsement Consensus") that CWF is a safe and beneficial public health initiative. 


It is difficult to imagine you actually believe that because position papers with several thousand references to fluoridation-supporting research is not readily available to the public (most of whom will never read or understand them anyway) means that those thousands of professionals responsible for their patient’s care and wellbeing have not examined reviews and studies like those below and accepted their conclusions as more legitimate than the “Position Papers” of anti-F activists?


References to peer reviewed reviews and studies which support the benefits &/or lack of harmful effects of CWF (with citations of primary research) that you apparently missed.  Unfortunately, comment length limitations prevent the posting of most review conclusions:

The 2018 Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England:



The 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report:




The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health:



The 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water:



The 2016 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report:


The 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation:  A review of the scientific evidence:



 The 2011 European SCHER review, Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water

Genotoxicity –Positive genotoxicity findings in vivo were only observed at doses that were highly toxic

to animals, while lower doses were generally negative for genotoxicity
Carcinogenicity –On the basis of the results from the most adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies,

there is only equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride in male rats and no consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in mice

Carcinogenicity, Epidemiological studies –  “SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic.”

Neurotoxicity –  “SCHER concludes that fluoride at concentrations in drinking water permitted in the EU does not influence the reproductive capacity.”
Mechanism of fluoride action in caries prevention –The predominant beneficial cariostatic effects of fluoride in erupted teeth occur locally at the tooth surface. This could be achieved by fluoridated toothpaste, fluoride- containing water, fluoridated salt, etc. maintaining elevated intraoral fluoride levels of the teeth, dental biofilm and saliva throughout the day.”



According to the 2006 NRC review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water”, the “committee was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects”  The review did not conclude there was ANY REASON (no adverse health effects) to lower the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of fluoride ions in drinking water of 2.0 ppm (nearly three times the optimal level). 


Not a review, but important recent evidence from a study promoted by fluoridation opponents.

The 2018 National Toxicity Program study, An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats:


Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, your quote:  "Compare the lack of primary research and lack of scientific position papers by promoters of fluoride to the IAOMT position paper and you will see the huge difference."


With all do respect, Dr. Bill, your link does not lead to a primary research paper which was conducted by the IAOMT.  As the title suggests, it is a "Positon Paper."  It is an opinion peice against water fluoridation which cherry-picks statements from other sources and uses them out of context.  


For example, this is from your link: 


"In fact, in its 2006 report, the National Research Council (NRC)’s discussion on the danger of bone fractures from excessive fluoride was substantiated with significant research.

Specifically, the report stated: “Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures.” (My emphasis)


While that may be true, this has nothing to do with community water fluoridation.  That is why I say it is taken out of context.  If this statement, was relevant to water fluoridation, the Chair of the 2006 NRC, Dr. John Doull, would never have said:  

"I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level."


Compare this opinion piece by the iaomt to actual primary research and you will see a huge difference.   

0 Kudos

David, David, David,


You confirm my concerns about your lack of reading the evidence.  Have you read the IAOMT document and reviewed the references?  Obviously No.  You simply want to argue and defend your position.  


For you, CWF is like a team sport, not science.  You claim to have more on your team because you refuse to accept the majority of developed countries which have rejected fluoridation.   But that side steps science.


For example, a claim is made, "the concensus here supports the Republican position" if made at the Republican Convention we would agree, but that is not the concensus of all of America.


For example, "concensus supports the Seahawks" while attending a Seahawks home game.  Yes, but not a consensus of all football fans.


For example, "the concensus here is that Catholicisum is the truth," while attending mass.


For example, "consensus is that CWF is safe and effective" while only looking at research supporting one side.  Or only listening to like minded believers.  Or looking at historical evidence.  Or claiming that any scientific organization which does not support CWF are quacks.  Limit the scope under consideration and we can prove anything by rejecting any evidence which does not support what we want.


Like minded believers have like minded beliefs.  Like mindedness is not science.  Looking to science to support a position is not science.  Science looks at all the evidence and uses reasoned judgment.


David, I asked Johnny to provide a position paper based on primary research for one of the organizations which endorse CWF.  


Instead of answering, which is hard to do, you attack those trying to defend themselves, protect their health, asking for freedom to choose, claiming they are being over dosed, and refusing CWF . . . and you demand perfect evidence differing from your belief.  You are like the big chemical and pharmaceutical companies claiming their chemicals and drugs are safe because the patient consumer has not provided absolute proof the chemical/drug is harmful to humans at all ages and degrees of health.


Your standard of evidence makes no sense and is not science.


You don't like IAOMT's consensus statement, voted on by many dentists.   OK, my request is for you to provide the consensus statement which convinces you that everyone needs fluoride supplementation and not getting too much fluoride.   Show me better.  Show me what you think is good evidence.  


Have you paid your $45 plus shipping for the ADA "Fluoride Facts?"  


Have you read the evidence and jurisdiction for the CDC and PHS position?


Have you read the evidence and reservations by the WHO?


For example, go to the NIH National Cancer Institute.  Look at their references on cancer.  They list bogus advertising, such as "I like My Teeth."  And where are the studies listed reporting an increase in cancer?   None.   That is not science, that is marketing.  Public Health Agencies must not cherry pick the evidence to support their jobs.  They are to support health and the public, not vested interests. 


Instead the NIH NCI list research which compared two bone cancers not finding a statistically significant increase of one cancer over the other cancer with fluoridation.  


OK, they measured fluoride bone concentration rather than estimates, very good.  But they did not compare "normal" bone, cancer free bone, fluoride concentrations with cancerous bone.   Age controlled, cancer free people on average have just over 200 ppm fluoride in the bone, those with tumors had about 600 ppm and those with ostesarcoma about 800 ppm.    


Once again:  


Cancer free bone has about 200 ppm fluoride

Tumor bone has about          600 ppm fluoride

Osteosarcoma bone about   800 ppm fluoride


Of course fluoride increased the rate of osteosarcoma.  But to muddy the waters, the researchers compared two cancers and without thinking critically, many fall victim to flawed research. 


These yo yo's are trying so hard to prove fluoridation is safe and effective, they refuse to use simple logic and simple critical thinking.


So David, you think IAOMT is less than your standards for science.  Cool, stick it up with better science or back off.   IAOMT did not list all the research, but they have enough and better than any CWF promoters.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH







Bronze Conversationalist

Please, allow me to put the statement from the IAOMT in its proper context. 


The majority of the Committee concluded that lifetime exposure of fluoride at drinking water concentrations of 4 ppm or greater is likely to increase bone fracture rates in the population, compared to exposure at 1 ppm.


In other words, the “consensus” of the NRC felt that fluoride in drinking water at over 5 ½ times the optimal level is more likely to cause these problems after a lifetime of drinking it, than if someone were to drink water with 1 ppm F, (which is also over the optimal level) over the course of a lifetime. 


This statement from the NRC which has nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water was taken out of context and put in an opinion piece about water fluoridation to support the IAOMT position.  


Isn't that correct?  


So, if you want to provide links to deceptive opinion pieces, call it science, and say, "they (iaomt) have enough and better than any CWF promoters," I would have to respond by saying that "CWF promoters" don't make a habit of using deceptive opinion pieces and calling it science.


0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill,  


While I appreciate your commentary on what a concensus is, it is a bit irrelevant.  


Let's recap so that we don't get lost in your revisionist history.  You said:  


"Compare the lack of primary research and lack of scientific position papers by promoters of fluoride to the IAOMT position paper and you will see the huge difference. 

 Concensus is not scientific evidence.    I request  facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions as so much of fluoridation is based on.  

 Give us some primary evidence on total exposure, . . "  That is what you said.


In response, I simply pointed out that the iaomt link you provided is not "primary evidence," "primary research," or primary anything.  It is a "Position Statement" about fluoridated water.  


So, when I look at that "Position Statement, and see quotes about Bone Fractures and Weakened Bones which may occur under certain conditions, which have nothing to do with water fluoridation, I think a normal person would conclude that this statement was cherry-picked and taken out of context.  


If you would like to explain what those certain conditions are, and provide primary evidence from the 2006 NRC Report explaining the statement, so that we can all see it in its full context, that would be fine.  But to provide a link to a deceptive opinion piece is hardly "primary evidence" of anything.


If you feel that my pointing this out to you is some kind of an attack against you personally, I suggest your objectivity isn't what it should be, and you are too personally involved to call yourself an objective scientist.

0 Kudos



You are correct, I miswrote.  The IAOMT is not THE primary evidence.  It is a compilation of primary evidence studies, some stronger and some weaker studies.  However, adequate to raise serious concerns.   (A list of primary references)


Now, go to those you rely on for your opinion, those who endorse fluoridation.  What is the primary sources they provide?  What is the list of primary references?   Mostly other opinions of like minded believers, reviews, committees of like minded believers and little primary evidence.  


And the NRC 2006 is another example of primary references.    ( A list of primary references)


In each of those, you will find some studies stronger and some weaker.  But the trend is serious concerns with over exposure.


Too much fluoride can be a serious risk.  We now have 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.(NHANES 2011)


David, we must weigh the research and use the same critical thinking for benefit.


You do not appear to accept any risk from excess fluoride because there are no RCTs, which are not ethical.

However, you accept weak studies on benefit and there are no RCT's but could be done.

And you accept weak studies on benefit which the FDA have ruled are "incomplete."


Strikes me as a double standard protecting your bias, based on endorsements of others supporting their positions.


We really do need to look at the studies on neurotoxicity.



0 Kudos
Regular Contributor



Explain to me why you chose to ignore accepted evidence-based research which shows that if a lesion is not cavitated (without pushing an explorer into the lesion) that a sealant should be placed over the occlusal crevices?  Your “bombs” that you showed in Potsdam, NY are an example not of an indictment of water fluoridation, but instead of a situation where a clinician is failing to follow accepted dental therapeutics?





0 Kudos



Do not continue to slander or defame me.  You don't know what you are talking about, i.e. Potsdam.  Call me, email me, but don't make claims about people you have no idea what you are talking about.


You have made serious public allegations that I am doing malpractice, yet you have never seen my patients or my work (that I know of).  You have not talked to me.   Without talking to me you publicly defame me.  Very unprofessional, Johnny.  Are you a currently practicing dentist and in what state?  What is your license number?  How many adult patients have you diagnosed with dental fluorosis.


Failure to diagnose is malpractice.  According to NHANES 2011-2012, we dentists should have over half of our adolescents documented in their charts with dental fluorosis and a third of young adults.  If not, we are failing to diagnose pathology.  Yes, I diagnose dental fluorosis daily and document.


Second, the slides of treated dental fluorosis are not my patients and I did not treat them and have never met them.  You accused me in public of malpractice on patients not of record and I have never seen.  Very unprofessional.  Are you or I or any clinician responsible for patient treatment you or I have never seen?  Of course not.


The work in those photos was exceptional from my friends and mentors and I respect their work and they gave me permission to use their pictures. Cosmetic dentistry is not malpractice.  If a patient is not satisfied with other forms of treatment, or the patient wants the best, porcelain is an accepted option.  Treatment of dental fluorosis is happening and is ethical.  Clearly, you are not a general or cosmetic dentist.  


Goodness sakes, Johnny, people request all kinds of cosmetic surgery and with informed consent, cosmetic dentistry is not malpractice. . . but forced medication without consent is, i.e. fluoridation.


Now specific to your post on sealants.  You tell me the diagnosis of those bombed out teeth?  What is the diagnosis, cavitated lesions, caries, decay, fluorosis?  No dentist in their right mind would put sealants on those teeth instead of fillings, unless they liked endodontics.  With sealants and a typical American sugar diet, I would give those teeth 2 to 4 years before one would hurt.   No dental board would accept sealants over those seriously bombed out cavitated teeth.  No dental school would accept a sealant over those two teeth I showed in my presentation.  My dental school did not permit sealants over deep caries.  Does yours?


Please send reference of the evidence-based research which shows sealants arrest huge caries like the ones shown in the pictures of my presentation.   RCT studies expected.


I question whether you are actually an active practicing dentist or been up at night with emergency patients in pain because some dentist experimented with a sealant over caries and the tooth now needs an endo.   Seen too many failed sealants, and yes, I agree with sealants.  But not for teeth like that.  Sealants may temporarily slow down caries, but not long term.  Sealants prevent caries, and not long term arresting of bombed out carious teeth.  


Research please, to back up your claim those teeth I showed would have had long term success with sealants. 


0 Kudos
Trusted Contributor