Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

16,173 Views
1449
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

One more thing, Dr. Bill, you said:  

 

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

 

The problem here is that the Freedom of Information Act was created so that previously unreleased , or hidden records could be made available to the public.  That's what it does.  

 

You are saying that you contacted the EPA for clarification of a statute in the SDWA.  For all I know, what you cited above could be a quotation from a FIOA Request to the EPA, not a response from the EPA. 

 

Hmmm . . it does say this is a Request, doesn't it.  I guess I could argue that unicorns exist, make an FOIA Request, and in that request I could say, "Unicorns have been sited in various locations."  

 

Then, I could do what you did.  I could quote the very thing I wrote and use it as evidence for the thing I was arguing.  And to make it sound official, I could cite the FIOA Request that I had made and make the claim that I provided documented evidence of something.

 

0 Kudos
935 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You don't believe a word I say and refuse to do your homework to find out for yourself.  

 

Contact the EPA yourself.  

 

You are spending a ton of time arguing, but refuse to simply contact the EPA.  They will answer your question.

 

I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

Bill:  "I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous."

 

Response:  No, you don't agree with me.  The Safe Drinking Water Act is very clear and very precise.  

 

This is the statute you seem to be having trouble with:   “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

How is that not clear?  It means that the Federal Government can't require it.  They can't impose a mandate.  How do you get "Prohibit" from that? 

 

The Federal Government can't require that everyone in my home town eat vegetarian food.  But the Federal Government can't prohibit us from being vegetarians either.  How is that not clear?

 

Please, copy and paste the entire exchange you had with the EPA so that we may all see it here.    I'd love to see it.

 

And you never answered the question:  Since your name is plastered all over Attorney James Deal's "Fluoride Class Action," . . . and you & Dr. S. claim to have some documentation which proves the illegality of water fluoridation, why are you arguing about it on an internet website?  Why aren't you guys in court with your documents?

 

 

0 Kudos
424 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

An amazing compilation of powerful documentation raising serious concerns with fluoride exposure.  

 

In the last 3 years, this evidence has not been refuted.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

The quote in question from the Cochrane review is as follows:
"We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults."

In other words, there was no determination made because the published work claiming benefit is not scientific. Scientists already knew this because all the studies were not controlled -- humans cannot be put in cages. So these thousands of publications on water fluoridation (97% were rejected) have little to no meaning.

The Ziegelbecker massive, inclusive studies, plus the 30 year massive study by Teotia and Teotia, and the detailed, meticulous studies published by John Yiamouyiannis are the best human observations we have and are completely consistent with the actual science on research animals in controlled environments in cages, proving that eating fluoride does not reduce caries while fluorosis incidence increases. The scientific case has been closed for a long time. You might get some benefit by reading Fluoride the Aging Factor by Yamouyiannis. It is very good biochemistry and the best human epidemiology we have on the subject.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

If the statement was intended to mean that all studies indicate that adults benefit from fluoridation, then you need to read the actual science as described in the textbook known as the Bible of pharmacology, Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics. In the section on ingested fluoride the correct statement is "fluoride is of no benefit to adult teeth".

The scientific consensus nsus in the 1940's and still today is correct. Fluoride found use as a rat poison and has always been considered unsafe to add to foods at any concentration. And in recent studies we know eating fluoride is ineffective in lowering tooth decay and causes skeletal and enamel harm. 

The consensus remains the same. 

The Kumar studies have been discussed before. The claim of caries reduction is not scientific. The slight difference is not even outside measurement error. A scientist does not accept a difference as being real, rather than an artifact, with data like that. 

Sorry

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

My opinions about why fluoride advocates  believe eating fluoride is effective and harmless are not important. But statements I make about the fallacy of fluoridation are certainly important. 

The comparison of fluoridation of people with the sanitizing.effect of chlorination is absurd. Chlorine is necessary to kill pathogens in water to avoid immediately lethal disease when it is consumed later.

Fluoridation does not sanitize water but is adds to treat humans to elevate fluoride blood levels in an attempt to affect caries when the proper method is to brush after eating sugar or drinking  sugar laden beverages, and to keep teeth clean. 

And as stated before, chloride has a an essential electrolyte in blood. Fluoride  is a contamunant un blood. 

There is  consensus on the usefulness of chlorination. The is no scientific  evidence that fluoride ion reduces decay  or is harmless. The scientific evidence using controlled animals proves fluoride in blood at water fluoridation levels does not reduce caries and indeed causes harm (fluorosis of both bone and teeth). 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

I do recall the following sweeping statement made in the Cochrane review.:

"We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in the vast majority (97%) of the studies."  The report also concluded that there is zero evidnece proving that caries are reduced by water fluoridation in adults.

Many studies indeed found caries were reduced in children, but just  like modern studies by Kumar and others who make the same claim, the observation error and bias are problems, coupled with the fact that again humans cannot be put in cages to control candy eating, teeth brushing, diet, etc. Kids with dental fluorosis are typically embarrassed by it and naturally brush their teeth more than kids without fluorosis, in an attempt to help their disfigured teeth. So it would not be surprising to see fewer caries in fluoridated areas because brushing is not controlled between the groups.

This has everything to do with brushing and fluorosis, and has nothing to do with any intrinsic ability of fluoride to somehow reduce caries. There is no known mechanism for fluoride to reduce caries. Enamel is too hard for fluoride to penetrate into its matrix.

Again, humans cannot be caged, and this is largely why 97% of the studies making these claims of effectiveness have no power. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

Rich,

Do you really understand what the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) was saying about the 20 studies that met their strict inclusion criteria out of over 4,000 studies that they quieried from various scientific databases?

 

None of the studies which met their strict inclusion criteria showed that adults didn't benefit from CWF.   They never said that there was no benefit from CWF to adults.

 

You might be interested to know that this same COHG reviewed the studies that the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force was using to make its recommendations on CWF. This COHG approved the studies which they used, many of which were exactly the same as was used in their own study in 2015.

 

The U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmed in 2013 their recommendation of fluoridation based on strong evidence.  They used contemperary studies, similar to the one you referenced by Jay Kumar, to draw their conclusions from.  The COHG had not included these in their 2015 report on CWF.

 

I attended a meeting in London with the COHG and scholars from academia, research, and many others where we discussed their report.  Their report was so egregiously being misrepresented by those opposed to CWF that they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary so that could no longer be done.

 

Observational studies produce essentially the same results as Randomized Controlled Trials per one of the articles by a Cochrane researcher:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2/epdf/full

 

Using information from groups like Cochrane without truly understanding what it was that was being stated is how so much misinformation has been spun by those who oppose CWF.  

 

Thanks for bringing up the COHG.  It's nice to be able to share the true facts of their findings with you.


Warm regards,

 

Johnny

Conversationalist

Johnny,

 

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.   Send me one other dentist who claims I did malpractice or the treating doctors did malpractice.  Send me their name and contact info.

 

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

 

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

 

 

Conversationalist

Johnny,

 

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.

 

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

 

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

 

 

Conversationalist

Johnny,

 

Your words, "true facts" made me laugh.  

 

You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public appology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an appology of your errors.

 

Johnny,  the ingestion of fluoride might have some benefit, might not.  Take the weight and amount of caries prevention possibility  and add to the evidence of risk for brain, thyroid, bones, teeth, cancer, kidney from many studies, then weigh the evidence of increased caries and risk from excess exposure and the lack of freedom of choice and individual dosage.   When you stack all those issues  together and weigh all of those factors, CWF becomes unacceptable.  

 

Research by nature takes one or as few variables as possible and tries to measure the variable.  Public Health Policy must take a look at the big picture, all the studies, all the possible benefits, risks, dosage, along with the lethality and contagious nature of the disease before people are forced to ingest the medication/treatment.  The big picture must be considered.

 

The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm.  

 

Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.

 

"Authors’ conclusions
Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are ver y similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have
reached similar conclusions; on average, the re is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies
and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study de sign, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions.
Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs
and observational studies. O ur results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level
of he terogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects
might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness."
 
Little evidence is not no evidence.  And observational studies are important.  RCTs are still considered the gold standard and to my understanding are usually required by Cochrane reviewers and FDA, etc.  
 
Here are a few limitations often found in the observational studies on fluoridation:
 
  • A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors such as serious decline in caries of 5 teeth per 12 year old prior to fluoridation.  What caused the decline and control for that unknown.
  • B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials are required due to serious unknowns.   
  • C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
  • D.   Inadequate size 
  • E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay
  • F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 
  • G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
    vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 
  • H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
  • I.     Oral hygiene not determined 
  • J.     Not evaluating Life time benefit 
  • K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
  • L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered 
  • M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
  • N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  
  • O.    Genetics not considered

 

Cochrane did find benefit for children from observational studies.  But those studies did not control for all of the concerns above.  

 

Pressure on Cochrane by fluoridationists so you say "they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary"

 

Obviously, if political pressure is placed on someone after their studdied written opinion, that is bias.  Perhaps the original version was their true conclusion and under pressure they changed.  Seen that often with fluoridation.  Preventing publications, can't find peer reviewers, delay in publication and out right junk research published.

 

Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing.

 

Regular Contributor

William,

 

Let me make an attempt to explain where you have not been clear in public presentations.  While you may expect an apology and your feelings are hurt, that is on you.  I have merely reacted to information that you presented in at least 2 communities where we have presented opposite each other.

 

William:

"You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public apology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an apology of your errors."

 

Johnny:

William, a letter was written to the editor of Neurotoxicity Research challenging the findings of the NTP report by fluoridation opponents.  Since you may not be aware of this letter, the link to it is below.  The editor, Dr. Jean Harry, responds to those challenges:

"In summary, far from generating “false results” that may “misinform the public”, our data utilize an exposure level near the recommended level for human exposure and provide an extensive, systematic evaluation of sensory, motor, and cognitive function in a relevant animal model.  Instead of misleading regulators and the public, the results of the McPherson et al (2018) help clarify a generally confusing database and can only facilitate decisions concerning the safety of fluoride exposure through the drinking water."

https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/1363-2/

 

While this robust study looked at all fluoride intakes from food and water, followed in utero development of male offspring to adulthood, and clearly and definitively found no evidence of neurological damage, you are choosing to minimize the study which you promoted and pushed for.  This study, along with that of Dr. Gary Whitford, were of high quality with clear results.  The studies that have been used by fluoridation opponents to attempt to get the EPA to stop water fluoridation were found to be highly biased and failed to show neuorological damage at levels of fluoride used in community water fluoridation.

 

William: 

"The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm."  

 

Johnny:

See the above.

 

William:

Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.

 

Johnny:

From the Document:

"As such, we have reached similar conclusions--there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of drug studies."

https://www.cochrane.org/MR000034/METHOD_comparing-effect-estimates-of-randomized-controlled-trials-...

 

I repeat their findings as this paper was discussed with the COHG in London in July 2015. 

 

Quality of the evidence

"The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence within the review. GRADE has developed over recent years as an internationally recognised framework for systematically evaluating the quality of evidence within both systematic reviews and guidelines. It aims to overcome the confusion that arises from having multiple systems for grading evidence and recommendations, and, because of this key aim, the GRADE working group discourages the use of modified GRADE approaches. However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area."

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/full

 

 William:

"Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing."

 

Johnny:

William, I invite anyone to watch and listen to your presentation that you gave in Potsdam, NY, recently.  It is easily found on YouTube by using the search words Potsdam NY Fluoride.

 

You stated earlier in this thread that the slides of the teeth with fluorosis and the veeners that were placed were from friends and colleagues of yours.  You never stated this in the presentations.  Giving credit to the appropriate person for using their slides is commonplace.  The presentation does not give the impression that these patients aren't yours.  As such, I commented on the treatment of these teeth appropriately.  

 

Secondly, you showed "Fluoride Bombs" in molars which again were not attributed to another person.  If they aren't your patient(s), then acknowledging that is commonplace.  You asked me earlier about my suggestion that if frank cavitation (an open, visual hole in the tooth) were not present, a sealant should be placed.  

 

I direct you to the "American Dental Association's Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry" for specific guidelines on how to approach pits and fissures of molars like you have shown.

https://ebd.ada.org/en/evidence/guidelines/pit-and-fissure-sealants

 

The specific review is entitled "

"Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants"

One of the specific sections addresses your questions about sealing over non-cavitated teeth, as well as incipient caries (decay).  Long term studies have been conducted in which caries was sealed over and found to have arrested this decay.  Yes, I have seen this in my 30 years of practicing pediatric dentistry in Florida as a Pediatric Dentist.

 

Potential Role of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants in Primary and Secondary Prevention

"From a primary prevention perspective, anatomic grooves or pits and fissures on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars trap food debris and promote the presence of bacterial biofilm, thereby increasing the risk of developing carious lesions. Effectively penetrating and sealing these surfaces with a dental material—for example, pit-and-fissure sealants—can prevent lesions and is part of a comprehensive caries management approach.11



From a secondary prevention perspective, there is evidence that sealants also can inhibit the progression of noncavitated carious lesions.9 The use of sealants to arrest or inhibit the progression of carious lesions is important to the clinician when determining the appropriate intervention for noncavitated carious lesions."

 

At this point, William, I choose to end this back and forth interaction with you.  You have started to become demanding when someone doesn't agree with you.  As the late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan said so well, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."

 

Warm regards,

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society - a not for profit group of all volunteer healthcare professionals who do not take a penny for their work to disseminate credible, evidence-based science that has been peer reviewed and published in credibly recognized scientific journals

Conversationalist

Johnny,

 

Further to the list of studies below evaluating the mechanism of fluoride's neurotoxicity, here are a few studies specifically affecting the fetus.  These become even more significant when we add the Bashash et al study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28937959 and their conclusion:

 

"CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6-12 y. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP655."

 

They did not report a "no effect" urine fluoride concentration.   

 

Johnny, science has demonstrated for years that brain damage is happening to the developing brain from the increased fluoride exposure caused by fluoridation.  

 

 

 

FETUS

Mechanism of Low Learning and Memory Abilities: Niu (2014)“Both fluoride and lead can cross the blood-brain barrier and produce toxic effects on the central neural system, resulting in low learning and memory abilities, especially in children. In order to identify the proteomic pattern in the cortex of young animals, from the beginning of fertilization to the age of postnatal day 56, pregnant female mice and pups were administrated with 150 mg sodium fluoride/L and/or 300 mg lead acetate/L in their drinking water. Two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) combined with mass spectrometry (MS) was applied to identify differently expressed protein spots. Results showed that there were eight proteins in the cortex that significantly changed, whose biological functions were involved in (1) energy metabolism (Ndufs1, Atp5h, Atp6v1b2), (2) cytoskeleton (Spna2, Tuba1a, Tubb2a), (3) glycation repair (Hdhd2), and (4) cell stress response (Hspa8). Based on the previous and current studies, ATPase, Spna2, and Hspa8 were shared by fluoride and lead both as common target molecules.”

 

Potential Toxicity: NRC (2006) p 164, In general, average cord blood concentrations are approximately 60% of maternal serum concentrations, with proportionally lesser amounts present as higher maternal serum concentrations. . . . Therefore potential toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus in the setting of high maternal ingestion of fluoride has been a concern evaluated in both animal and humans.” 

 

Harm to Fetus: Yu (1996 and English 2008) “The mothers of the ten fetuses that formed the subject group for this study all had dental fluorosis, with a corresponding increase in urinary fluoride, indicating that these pregnant women were suffering from chronic fluoride poisoning. The excess fluoride of the mother was passed through the placental barrier into the fetus, and from there through the blood-brain barrier to accumulate in the fetal brain, leading to a significant rise in bone and brain fluoride levels. Our results are consistent with earlier reports. Previous experiments have shown that the brains of fetuses from endemic fluorosis areas as well as fluoride-poisoned rats manifest morphological changes. Following experimental testing of the monoamine neurotransmitters in fetuses from fluorosis endemic areas, the present study found lowered levels of norepinephrine and elevated levels of epinephrine. The presence of norepinephrine in the brain allows the organism to become alert, and guards against the intensification of reflex reactions and other behavior. Norepinephrine also plays a role in the regulation of complex response mechanisms, emotions, cerebrocardiovascular function, etc. When norepinephrine levels drop the ability to maintain an appropriate state of activation in the central nervous system is weakened. The elevated levels of epinephrine could be due to a blockage of the pathway that transforms epinephrine into norepinephrine or possibly due to suppression of the relevant metabolic enzymes, causing the brain levels of epinephrine to increase, and the levels of norepinephrine to decrease.”

 

Mechanism of Harm to Fetus:  Dong (1993) “The contents of five types of amino-acid neurotransmitters and three types of monoamine neurotransmitters in the brains of fetuses aborted through induced labor in a chronic fluorosis-endemic area were determined. Findings revealed that the content of the excitatory amino acid, aspartic acid, was significantly lower than in the fetuses from the non-endemic area whereas the content of the inhibitory amino acid, taurine, was significantly higher; the content of the major spinal cord-inhibitory glycine was significantly reduced. Among the monoamine neurotransmitters, the content of norepinephrine was significantly reduced; the contents of 5-hydroxytryptamine in the frontal and the occipital lobes were elevated and the content of 5-hydroxytryptamine in the parietal lobe (precentral and postcentral gyri) was reduced.”

 

Harm to Fetus with Stunted Neuronal Development: Du (1992) “It is known that fluoride can cross the placenta from the mother’s blood to the developing fetus. However, the theory there is a direct link between fluoride effects and brain cell damage is still controversial due to lack of adequate evidence. In order to determine if there are any adverse effects on the developing human brain, especially starting from formation of the embryo, fetuses from an endemic fluorosis area at the 5th–8th month of gestation were compared with those from a non-endemic area. RESULTS: Normal Purkinje cells from the non-endemic fluorosis area were observed in single or parallel lines and were well organized in the fetal cerebellum. Purkinje cells of fetuses from the endemic fluorosis area were abnormally disorganized and had a thicker granulated layer in the cerebellum. Other dysmorphology, including higher nucleus-cytoplasm ratio of brain cones, hippocampus cones, and Purkinje cone cells, supports the theory that fluoride has an adverse effect on brain development. SEM analysis also found reduced neurons of brain cortex, decreased numerical density, volume density, and surface density in those fetuses from the endemic fluorosis area. In summary, the passage of fluorine through the placenta of mothers with chronic fluorosis and its accumulation within the brain of the fetus impacts the developing central nervous system and stunts neuron development.

 

Toxic to Nerve Development:  Li (2004) “The effects of excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy on neonatal neurobehavioral development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. Ninety-one normal neonates delivered at the department of obstetrics and gynecology in five hospitals of Zhaozhou County, Heilongjiang Province, China were randomly selected from December 2002 to January 2003. The subjects were divided into two groups (high fluoride and control) based on the fluoride content in the drinking water of the pregnant women. . . . There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. . . . [N]eurobehavioural capability and agonistic muscle tension from the high fluoride group were impaired, resulting in a statistically significant lower overall (total) assessment score than in the control group (p<0.05). . . . [V]arious neurobehavioral capabilities, such as non-biological visual, biological visual, and auditory directional reactions of the neonates from the high fluoride group lagged behind those of the control group with differences that are statistically significant (p<0.05). . . . NBNA examination can help to detect mild damage to brain functions. The results of the examination indicate that high fluoride levels can cause adverse effects in the neurobehavioral development of neonates. . . . The present observations indicate that fluoride, as a toxic material to nerve development, can have an adverse impact on the neurobehavioral development of neonates and can cause abnormal changes of neurobehavioral capability during the neonate period with a negative impact on the future development of both the body and intelligence of the neonate. Therefore, in endemic fluoride areas, great effort should be made to reduce fluoride level in the water.

Conversationalist

Johnny,

 

I've pulled together a few research studies on the mechanism of fluoride neurotoxicity.  As toxiclologists and scientists know, a key aspect to understanding toxicity of a substance is to understand the mechanism of how the substance affects the body, organs and cells.    Due to limits on space, here are a few incomplete clips from studies for your consideration.  Although brief, you will get the idea. . . .

 

 

Mechanism, Low Glucose Utilization and Neurodegnerative changes:  Jiang (2014) “Fluorine, a toxic and reactive element, is widely prevalent throughout the environment and can induce toxicity when absorbed into the body. This study was to explore the possible mechanisms of developmental neurotoxicity in rats treated with different levels of sodium fluoride (NaF). The rats’ intelligence, as well as changes in neuronal morphology, glucose absorption, and functional gene expression within the brain were determined using the Morris water maze test, transmission electron microscopy, small-animal magnetic resonance imaging and Positron emission tomography and computed tomography, and Western blotting techniques. We found that NaF treatment-impaired learning and memory in these rats. Furthermore, NaF caused neuronal degeneration, decreased brain glucose utilization, decreased the protein expression of glucose transporter 1 and glial fibrillary acidic protein, and increased levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in the rat brains. The developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride may be closely associated with low glucose utilization and neurodegenerative changes.”

 

If fluoride reduces glucose utilization, would fluoride increase obesity?  Just asking.   Good research project.

 

Mechanism: Object Recognition Memory: Han (2014) “This study aimed to investigate the effects of long-term fluoride exposure on object recognition memory and mRNA expression of soluble N-ethylmaleimidesensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptors (SNARE) complex (synaptosome-associated protein of 25 kDa (SNAP-25), vesicle-associated membrane protein 2 (VAMP-2), and syntaxin 1A) in the hippocampus of male mice. . . . Taken together, these results indicated that long-term fluoride administration can enhance the excitement of male mice, impair recognition memory, and upregulate VAMP-2 mRNA expression, which are involved in the adverse effects of fluoride on the object recognition memory of nervous system.”

 

Mechanism of Neurodegenerative diseases:  Pal (2014) “Fluoride, a well-established environmental carcinogen, has been found to cause various neurodegenerative diseases in human. Sub-acute exposure to fluoride at a dose of 20mg/kgb.w./day for 30 days caused significant alteration in pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant status of brain tissue as reflected by perturbation of reduced glutathione content, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, nitric oxide and free hydroxyl radical production and decreased activities of antioxidant enzymes. . . .  Resveratrol was found to inhibit changes in metabolic activities restoring antioxidant status, biogenic amine level and structural organization of the brain. Our findings indicated that resveratrol imparted antioxidative role in ameliorating fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative stress in different regions of the brain.”

 

 

Mechanism of Harm and Amelioration of Harm:  Sardar (2014)  “Beneficial effects of oleanolic acid on fluoride-induced oxidative stress and certain metabolic dysfunctions were studied in four regions of rat brain. Male Wistar rats were treated with sodium fluoride at a dose of 20 mg/kg b.w./day (orally) for 30 days . Results indicate marked reduction in acidic, basic and neutral protein contents due to fluoride toxicity in cerebrum, cerebellum, pons and medulla. DNA, RNA contents significantly decreased in those regions after fluoride exposure. A. . .  Appreciable counteractive effects of oleanolic acid against fluoride-induced changes in protein and nucleic acid contents, proteolytic enzyme activities and other oxidative stress parameters indicate that oleanolic acid has potential antioxidative effects against fluoride-induced oxidative brain damage.”

 

Mechanism of Known Harm: Hamza (2015) “Sodium fluoride (NaF) intoxication (brain, kidney, liver, oxidative stress, reproductive toxicity, testes, anti-oxidants) is associated with oxidative stress and altered antioxidant defense mechanism.”  

 

Mechanism of Known Damage: Zhang (2015) “To explore the mechanisms by which chronic fluorosis damages the brain, we determined the levels of the advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), the receptor for AGE (RAGE), NADPH oxidase-2 (NOX2), reactive oxygen species (ROS) and malondialdehyde (MDA) in the brains of rats /and or SH-SY5Y cells exposed to different levels of sodium fluoride (5 or 50ppm in the drinking water for 3 or 6 months and in the incubation medium for as long as 48hr, respectively).. . . In conclusion, our present results indicate that excessive fluoride can activate the AGE/RAGE pathway, which might in turn enhance oxidative stress.”

 

Mechanism of Locomotor Activity, Exploratory Behavior Suppression, Spacial Learning and Memory Loss:  Zhang (2015)  “Results showed that in rats with chronic fluorosis compared with the controls, locomotor activity and exploratory behavior were significantly or very significantly suppressed, spatial learning and memory ability were significantly declined;. synaptic membrane fluidity and the protein level of PSD-95 of hippocampus were greatly decreased. The data indicated that the changes of synaptosome membrane fluidity and PSD-95 expression level in hippocampus might be the one synaptic mechanism of learning-memory injury induced by chronic fluorosis in brain.”

 

Mechanism of Deficit in Learning and Memory: Dong (2014): “To reveal the molecular mechanism of deficit in learning and memory induced by chronic fluorosis, the expression of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) and oxidative stress were investigated. . . . Our results suggest that the mechanism for the deficits in learning and memory of rats with chronic fluorosis may be associated with the decreased expressions of M1 and M3 in mAChRs, in which the changes in the receptors might be the result of the high level of oxidative stress occurring in the disease.”

 

Mechanism of Central Neural System Injury: Niu (2014) “Fluoride and lead are two common pollutants in the environment. Previous investigations have found that high fluoride exposure can increase the lead burden. In this experiment, in order to study on the molecular mechanisms of central neural system injury induced by the above two elements, differently expressed protein spots in hippocampus of male mice treated with 150 mg sodium fluoride/L and/or 300 mg lead acetate/L in their drinking water were detected by two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) and mass spectrometry (MS). The behavior tests showed that 56 days of fluoride and lead administration significantly reduced the vertical activity and lowered the memory ability of mice. In addition, results of 2-DE and MS revealed that nine spots demonstrated above a twofold change in the same trend in all treatment groups, which were mainly related with (1) energy metabolism, (2) cell stress response/chaperones, (3) cytoskeleton development, (4) protein metabolism, and (5) cell surface signal transduction. The findings could provide potential biomarkers for lesion in nervous system induced by fluoride and lead exposure.”

 

Mechanism of Apoptosis: Lou (2014) “The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of chronic fluorosis on apoptosis and the expression of Bax and Bcl-2 in the cerebral cortices of rats in an attempt to elucidate molecular mechanisms. . . . The results showed that the animal model of chronic fluorosis was successfully established in the study. In the cortices of the rat brains with chronic fluorosis, as compared to controls, the percentage of apoptotic neurons was significantly increased, with a dose-dependent tendency between the rate of apoptosis and the F contents in drinking water. The expression of Bax and Bcl-2, at both the protein and mRNA levels, was clearly elevated in the rat brains with chronic fluorosis. . . . .”

 

Mechanism of Neurotoxicity: Zhou (2014) “A significant decrease of TGF-B1 was found, in both the gene and protein levels, while no significant change occurred in the levels of IL-4, IL-1B, IL-6, and TNF-a gene. Fluoride may damage the hippocampus by significantly decreasing the expression of TGF-B1 gene and protein, possibly by an unknown post-transcriptional mechanism. . . . .”

 

Mechanism and Known Harm:  Reddy (2014) “Aims: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of sodium fluoride (NaF) in inducing neuroimmunological, oxidative and antioxidative damage. . . .  Results: Increase in the NaF concentration resulted in increased fluoride deposition in brain tissue. This increased fluoride content led to increased levels of certain neurotransmitters such as epinephrine, histamine, serotonin and glutamate and decreased levels of norepinephrine, acetylcholine and dopamine in a dose-dependent manner. NaF exposure led to the decrease in the levels of CD4, NK cells and IgG1 coupled with marked increase in lipid peroxidation and impairment of the antioxidative defense system.  Conclusion: The result of the study emphasizes the toxic role of high NaF doses on the neurological and immunological functions.”

 

Chromosomal anomalies and Primary DNA Damage: Tiwari (2010) “Our study has supported the role of As [arsenic] and F [fluoride] as potent genotoxic agents, since in vitro exposure of both caused increased chromosomal anomalies along with primary DNA damage, in human peripheral blood cultures.”

 

Known Harm Measured by Deficits in Attention, Auditory Retention, Physicial Dexterity and Acuity and Emotional States:  Guo (2001, English translation 2008) “In recent years, the damage fluoride inflicts on nonskeletal organs, and in particular the nervous system, has received a great deal of attention. . . .  RESULTS: The results of the NCTB testing in this investigation revealed significant differences among the fluoride-exposed groups for various indices as compared to reference standards and the controls, with particular deficits in attention, auditory retention, and physical dexterity and acuity as well as abnormal emotional states.  . . . There is a definite relationship between the damage caused by fluoride and the level of exposure.”

 

Mechanism of DNA Damage: Zhang (2008) “Some recent studies have suggested that DNA damage may be a potential neurotoxic mechanism of fluoride. The tail length, as measured by an ocular micrometer, is increased in fluoride-treated human embryonic hepatocytes in a previous study carried out to investigate the geneotic effect of fluoride (Wang et al., 2004). In the present study, we performed OTM and percentage of DNA in the tail as indices of DNA damage. OTM, multiplication of the tail length and percentage of DNA in the tail, objectively and sensitively reflects the effect of fluoride on DNA damage. Our findings showed that fluoride-induced DNA damage and OTM was more a sensitive measure than percentage of DNA in the tail. The correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between ROS formation and OTM level (r2=0.583, P < 0.05), which indicated that ROS might play an important role in the course of DNA damage.”

 

Known Genotoxic: Zhang (2009) “Twenty four agents were used to evaluate this screening assay. We selected the agents, ranging from DNA alkylating agents, oxidative agent, radiation, DNAcross- linking agent, nongenotoxic carcinogens, precarcinogenic agents, which included . . . sodium fluoride, acrylamide . . . . The results showed that all 20 tested known carcinogenic and genotoxic agents were able to induce gadd153-Luc expression at a sublethal dose.. . . .”

 

Known Genotoxic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic: Ercivas (2009) “In this study we concluded that NaF, in 5 and 10 lg/ml NaF concentrations cause genotoxic alterations. So genotoxic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects of NaF need to be carefully screened and evaluated together with other long-term effects using in vitro and in vivo animal test models.”

 

Mechanism of Known DNA Damage: Wang(2004)“As cells were exposed to higher doses of fluoride, the percentage of L-02 cells with DNA damage increased. This result is consistent with other studies... Therefore, considering previous studies, we think that fluoride can cause lipid peroxidation, DNA damage and apoptosis, and that there is a positive relationship among these changes.”

 

Mechanism of Known Harm: Aardema (1989) “Based on these results and those previously reported for NaF and APC, it is proposed that NaF-induced aberrations may occur by an indirect mechanism involving the inhibition of DNA synthesis/repair.”

 

Mechanism of Known Harm: Lasne (1988) “Sodium fluoride was found to induce morphological transformation of SHE cells seeded on a feeder layer of X-irradiated cells at high concentrations (75-125 micrograms/ml). When the cells were seeded in the absence of a feeder-layer, the transformation frequencies increased in a dose-dependent manner with the concentrations of sodium fluoride ranging from 0 to the highly toxic concentration of 200 micrograms/ml. In the BALB/3T3 cell system, sodium fluoride was negative in the standard Kakunaga procedure, while through the experiment designed by table L8 (2(7] of the orthogonal method, an initiating-like effect and a weak promoting activity were detected within the concentrations ranging from a 25 micrograms/ml to a 50 micrograms/ml concentration which is highly toxic for BALB/3T3 cells. From these results, it is suggested that, besides a genetic mode of action, sodium fluoride could possibly act through a non-genotoxic mechanism.”

 

Known Mutagenic: 1990 NTP “In summary, sodium fluoride is mutagenic in cultured mammalian cells and produces transformation of Syrian hamster cells in vitro. The reports of in vivo cytogenetic studies are mixed, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured mammalian cells. These mutagenic and clastogenic effects in cultured cells are supported by positive effects in Drosophila germ cell tests that measure point mutations and chromosome breakage. In vivo tests in rodents for chromosome aberrations provide mixed results that cannot readily be resolved because of differences in protocols and insufficient detail in some study reports to allow a thorough analysis. The mechanism(s) by which these effects result from exposure to sodium fluoride is not known.”

 

Preponderance of Evidence: 2001 Bassin “The effects of fluoride as a mutagen, carcinogen, and antimutagen are inconsistent, but the preponderance of evidence in cultured mammalian cells indicate that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges.”

 

Known DNA Damage: Chen (2000) “To investigate the effects of fluoride on DNA damage as well as the effects of selenium and zinc against fluoride respectively or jointly in pallium neural cells of rats, single cell gel electrophoresis was used to detect the DNA damage of neural cells prepared in vitro. The results showed that the degree of DNA damage in the fluoride group and the selenium group were significantly greater than that in control group (P < 0.01). The damage in the fluoride group was even more serious. The damage in the fluoride + selenium group and fluoride + zinc group was slighter than that in the fluoride group but with no significant difference. The extent of DNA damage in the fluoride + selenium + zinc group was significantly slighter than that in the fluoride group(P < 0.05). It suggested that fluoride and selenium could induce DNA damage in pallium neural cells of rats respectively.

 

Known Genotoxic Rivedal (2000) ”In the present work, 13 compounds [chlordane, Arochlor 1260, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,1,1-trichloro-2, 2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane, limonene, sodium fluoride, ethionine, o-anisidine, benzoyl peroxide, o-vanadate, phenobarbital, 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol 13-acetate and clofibrate] have been tested for their ability to induce morphological transformation and affect intercellular communication in Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cells... In vitro morphological transformation of SHE cells is now one of the most frequently used cell transformation systems. Around 500 chemicals have been tested in this system, and a good correlation has been obtained with the ability of compounds from different chemical groups to cause tumours in animals and humans. The SHE cell transformation assay also responds to tumour promoters and carcinogens not detected by tests for genotoxicity... [N]ine of the 13 tested substances (TPA, o-vanadate, DEPH, phenobarbital, Arochlor 1260, clofibrate, o-anisidine, limonene and NaF) are considered positive for induction of morphological transformation.” 

Conversationalist

Johnny,

 

Background:  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  60% of adolescents show signs, biomarker, of excess fluoride exposure.

 

 

A. A recent review of fluoride for the Irish Department of Health, Sutton (2015).   “The evidence base examining the association between health effects and community water fluoridation is scarce”  and “Having examined the evidence, and given the paucity of studies of appropriate design, further research, would be required in order to provide definitive proof. . . .“    

 

For 70 years Governments have continued to dispense fluoride based on a “paucity of studies of appropriate design.”  Intentional fluoride exposure under police powers, solely for therapeutic intent, should be suspended until such proof of efficacy and safety is provided.  

 

B. The Public Health Service recommendation in 2015 (PHS 2015) estimates about 60% of fluoride exposure for adults and 40%-70% for children is from water fluoridation.  The PHS (2015) does not mention infants on formula with fluoridated water who would get close to 100% of their fluoride from water at 0.7 ppm or greater. 

 

C. There are some streams of evidence the FDA should consider which are fundamental to common sense even though they may not fit within a prescribed research format such as PECO and protocol approach, such as intent of use, lack of physiologic requirement, ethics, mother’s milk, and the FDA’s withdrawal of NDA and fluoride dental products’ warnings, etc.

1. For example, mother’s milk: Only the NRC 2006 report seriously addressed mother’s milk which has undetectable fluoride in most samples and mean concentration of 0.004 ppm.  Infants on formula made with 0.7 ppm fluoridated water are ingesting 175 times more fluoride than mother’s milk.   Perhaps the survival of our species has been dependent on mother’s milk.  The paucity of high quality studies on fluoride’s safety and efficacy do not outweigh the historical record of mother’s milk.  Mother’s milk is considered the nutritional standard for infants against which all other substitutes are judged.  Reviewers of science usually omit or avoid the most fundamental, historical, obvious scientific evidence of nature’s dosage of fluoride for infants, in part because dosage of 175 times more than mother’s milk of a highly toxic substance without consent sounds hellish.  

The undisputed evidence of the virtual lack of fluoride in mother’s milk must be the dosage considered optimal for infants unless overwhelming proof that mother’s milk is deficient or defective is provided. 

 

CDC reports about 13% of infants are exclusively breast fed through six months.

Hujoel (2009) provides the graph below confirming an increase of dental fluorosis in formula fed infants.

 

Primarily, English speaking Government agencies dispense fluoride with assumed dental caries reduction and without any high quality studies.  Yet promoters  demand high quality “proof” of harm.  

 

2. Another stream of evidence  is the FDA . The FDA requires a label (variable wording) on fluoride toothpaste because fluoridated toothpaste makes a therapeutic claim that it “helps protect against cavities.  Fluoride is a drug,   The label says, “Drug Facts.”  “do not swallow,” use a “pea size.”  The pea size pictured is about twice the size the FDA is referring to.  A pea size of toothpaste has 0.25 mg of fluoride, the same as each  glass of fluoridated water.  Diluting a quarter milligram of fluoride in a glass of public water does not make the fluoride safe. 

 

Governments do not make sense when they warn not to swallow the same amount of fluoride as they require each person to swallow in each glass of water.

 

 

3. We should consider Congress as a stream of evidence.  

“21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”  Sodium Fluoride is listed in the 2007 US Pharmacopoeia pages 3194-3196.   Congress and the President have clearly defined drugs, and fluoride is listed as one of the drugs.  Fluoride is exempt from Federal and state “poison” and “highly toxic” laws as a drug and not exempt as a food. State Board’s of Pharmacy have determined fluoride is a drug.

 

The ingestion of fluoride with the intent to mitigate dental caries is not approved by the FDA CDER and is therefore an unapproved drug.

 

D. Reviews of potential harm from fluoride ingestion have a selection criteria usually limited to human studies and usually conclude, “Ecological studies are not adequate to infer causality.”  

 

Reviews have in part been a house of cards, narrow in focus, assumed efficacy, and/or failed to consider evidence from all streams of evidence. 

 

E. Prospective Randomized Controlled Human Trials (RCT) testing children to see how much, for example, their IQ decreases, at various ages, dosages, synergistic chemicals, health status and nutritional variables would certainly increase confidence but would be unethical.  Determining the toxicological endpoint of chemicals such as fluoride for a public health (population wide) non contagious disease by dispensing of toxicants requires a significant factor of uncertainty to protect everyone, especially when benefit is controversial.  Therefore, the FDA should review the science with the premise, “if in doubt, do no harm.”

 

F. Ethically, clinical evidence for efficacy for toxic substances administered with therapeutic intent must be a different scientific standard and methodology than evidence of safety and harm for random or unavoidable toxins.   Fluoride is different than an industrial toxic product because it is administered by Governments without individual consent, label or legend and without efficacy and toxicity oversight. 

 

 

G. “Weight of evidence” for an ecological study maybe stronger than an individual study when the bigger picture is evaluated such as: sample size, precision of measurements, choosing an appropriate sample, avoiding biases such as confounders, age, gender, race of cohorts, objective or subjective evidence, etc.   

 

 

 

H. Current human studies have centered on IQ as a measurement tool of neurotoxicity for humans.  Rocha-Amador (2009) reminds us that IQ is only one form of testing for chemical neurotoxicity:

“Intuitively, though it might seem that an IQ test would be an ideal measure [for determining the neurotoxic effects of a chemical], this assumption would be ill founded, because some toxicants could affect only specific functions, such as attention, memory, language, or visuospatial abilities without clear decrements on IQ scores. Furthermore, the exposure dose as well as mixtures of toxicants are important factors that also need to be considered.”  

 

Yazdi et. al. concluded that “neurobehavioural testing is useful for detecting impairment of psychomotor performance and memory that is associated with occupational F exposure.” 

 

I. A neurotoxic substance has been defined as a substance which alters the normal activity of the nervous system in such a way as to cause damage to nervous tissue.  Symptoms of this alteration may appear immediately after exposure or be delayed. The range of symptoms include loss of IQ but also include limb weakness or numbness, loss of memory, vision, uncontrollable obsessive and/or compulsive behaviors, delusions, headache, cognitive and behavioral problems, sexual dysfunction and pain. 

 

J. Although research on the neurotoxicity of fluoride is robust enough to suspend artificial fluoridation, the research finding harm is in its infancy.  Research will become more refined, focused and demonstrate even higher risk for subpopulations.  An uncertainty factor must be included for safety.   Each day of delay, leaves many at risk.  

Conversationalist

Johnny,

 

You desire to end the back and forth because you do not have the decency to apologize for slandering and defaming me to city councils.   If you look at my slides, I gave credit for the photos.  Cosmetic dentistry of a Pedodontist might be malpractice, I am not making that judgment.  But General Dentists do cosmetic dentistry every day.  We could go into details, but your apology is requested.

 

However, whether ingesting fluoride makes teeth harder and less caries prone is a secondary issue to the EXCESS EXPOSURE.   Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

You have not disputed nor have you disagreed with the fundamental issue that 60% of adolescents with various degrees of dental fluorosis is too much.  

 

You have to agree that water fluoridation supplements the fluoride exposure from other sources.  With 60% getting too much fluoride, a cessation of water fluoridation is essential.  

Johnny,

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

Bill

Bronze Conversationalist

Thank you Carry Anne. Yes nothing more needs to be said for normal rational people. 

As far as my opinion on the motives and reasons why one would support fluoridation, they are all different, and my opinion is not particularly important, nor anyone's business anyway. 

Endorsements that do not provide the experimental data and methods behind it are not science. Drug companies that promote the sale of a drug  to the general public without presenting the side effects data, the experiments, methods, snd results with error, and the structure and its mechanism of action, are nor science. They are advertisements based on opinions. Simply because such advertisements are rampant does not make it a scientific consensus. Far more is needed  for that. 

And when the CDC and ADA claim fluoridation is effective and harmless for consumption for generations  to come in perpetuity, when vast data demonstrate otherwise, this is advertisement, not science and certainly not a scientific consensus. 

There is no mechanism by which swallowed fluoride can improve the structure of normal hard crystalline  enamel that forms only when fluoride is not significant in the bloodstream during  tooth formation. Fluoride in saliva bathing teeth us 93000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste and even paste manyfacturers want to raise it to 5000 ppm because it is ineffective at existing levels of 1500.

Fluoridating people is hopeless at preventing caries. The problem is people think it works because of vast published literature which is nor controlled because humans cannot be placed  in cages where groups have identical  brushing habits, have all agreed to stop eating candy and sweets, etc. . The cochrane review by actual scientists recognize no studies that are sufficiently controlled to conclude any benefit exists scientifically  The science with caged animals prove no effect at all on caries while fluorosis increases. . 

Stick to the science and oppose fluoridation of man. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Trusted Contributor

rs – While it is true, your "opinion is not particularly important", that fact has not prevented you from continually presenting your speculations and opinions. 

 

Q1) Stop with the distractions and explain why you believe (and provide conclusive proof) that all scientists who do not recognize the opinions of anti-science activists are “not trained scientists who actually do controlled experiments using the scientific method”? 

 

Q2) What relevance does your rant about “drug companies that promote the sale of a drug to the general public…” have to do with community water fluoridation (CWF)?  Are you actually accusing all the organizations and institutions represented in the references below and all the organizations (mentioned repeatedly) that publically recognize the benefits CWF of presenting “advertisements based on opinions”?

 

Q3) You seem to have an opinion that “There is no mechanism by which swallowed fluoride can improve the structure of normal hard crystalline enamel…”  Your opinions must be better than the conclusions of all authors in the references presented below.  You claimed the 2015 Cochrane review, Water fluoridation to prevent tooth decay, “recognize no studies that are sufficiently controlled to conclude any benefit exists scientifically yet”.  Have you actually read the Cochrane review?  If you had, you were wearing your anti-science activist blinders, because you completely missed the first “Key result” which states in part, “Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth.” These conclusions were based on studies that met Cochrane’s very stringent review criteria and were mostly published before 1975.  The reviewers listed study limitations, yet they concluded the evidence demonstrated the effectiveness of CWF largely before the use of fluoridated toothpaste, rinses, etc. became widespread.  How would that conclusion be possible if “There is no mechanism by which swallowed fluoride can improve the structure of normal hard crystalline enamel…”  Do you believe the Cochrane review is just another “advertisements based on opinions”?

https://fluorideexposed.org/norman-rockwell-fluoride-toothpaste

 

Q4) Also, as requested previously, explain the fact that if the anti-F opinions about the allegedly obvious and dangerous health effects of CWF were even remotely legitimate, the overwhelming majority of scientists and health professionals continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – as evidenced by the fact that all major, recognized science and health organizations in the world (not just the CDC and ADA as you seem to believe) accept that consensus. 

 

Q5) Explain why, if the anti-F opinions about the allegedly obvious and dangerous health effects of CWF were even remotely legitimate, only Natural News, INFOWARS, and a few other alternative health organizations listed in previous anti-F comments reject the scientific consensus.  If you don’t accept the concept of a legitimate scientific consensus agreed upon by the majority of relevant experts, provide your “not particularly important” opinion of how the conclusions regarding the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation should be determined – and by what group (or groups) of experts.

 

Q6) What is your evaluation of the reviews and studies published since 2000 that have unanimously concluded that community water fluoridation reduces dental decay?  None of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis.  The reviews/studies include:

rs – While it is true, your "opinion is not particularly important", that fact has not prevented you from continually presenting your speculations and opinions. 

 

the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815826/
the 2018 study, Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents;
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022034518774331
the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report-for-england-2...
the 2018 study, Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries – Australia;
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdoe.12384
the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report;
https://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/tds_fluoride_30042018.html
the 2018 CDC Statement on the Evidence Supporting the Safety and Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/guidelines/cdc-statement-on-community-water-fluoridation.html

the 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water;
https://www.ifau.se/globalassets/pdf/se/2017/wp2017-20-the-effects-of-fluoride-in-the-drinking-water...
the 2017 National Health and Medical Research Council 2017 Public Statement – Water Fluoridation and Human Health in Australia;
https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e44-0
the 2017 EPA Response:  Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water; TSCA Section 21 Petition
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/27/2017-03829/fluoride-chemicals-in-drinking-water...

the 2017 history of public health use of fluorides in caries prevention

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5329778/

the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health;
http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/
the 2016 (update) Best Practice Approach - Community Water Fluoridation -  Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors

https://www.astdd.org/bestpractices/BPAFluoridation.pdf

the 2016 systematic review of published studies:  Does cessation of community water fluoridation lead to an increase in tooth decay?

https://jech.bmj.com/content/70/9/934

the 2015 Manual of Dental Practices, Council of European Dentists;
https://cedentists.eu/library/eu-manual.html
the 2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries;  Demonstrates how the scientific consensus changes based on legitimate evidence – not fearmongering.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547570/
the 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review;
https://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay
the 2015  Health Effects of water Fluoridation - An Evidence Review.  Ireland Health Research Board

http://www.hrb.ie/fileadmin/publications_files/Health_Effects_of_Water_Fluoridation.pdf

the 2014 AAP Clinical Report: Fluoride Use in Caries Prevention in the Primary Care Setting
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/134/3/626

the 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation;
http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Health-effects-of-water-fluoridation-Aug2014.pdf
the 2013 Congressional Research Service, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues;
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33280.pdf
the 2013 Community Guide Systematic Review, Dental Caries (Cavities): Community Water Fluoridation

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/dental-caries-cavities-community-water-fluoridation

the 2011 SCHER Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water:
https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf
the 2011 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document – Fluoride

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/healthy-living/guidelines-canadian-drin...

the 2007 Dutch Ministry of Health and Welfare and Sports:  Economic evaluation of prevention: further evidence, GA de Wit;
https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/270091004.pdf
the 2006 Australian NHMRC systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584000
the 2003 US Department of Health and Human Services, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine.

https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf

the 2000 York, Systematic review of water fluoridation;
https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7265/855.full.print
the 2000 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation
https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/Oral-Health-Fluoridation-Archive.pdf

 

Q7) If your evaluation of the literature cited above is, "The problem is people think it works because of vast published literature which is nor controlled because humans cannot be placed  in cages where groups have identical  brushing habits, have all agreed to stop eating candy and sweets, etc.", can you cite any scientific studies that meet your criteria for inclusion that support the anti-F opinions?

0 Kudos
1,190 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

... however if you really want to get into the scientific part of what exactly happens when you add fluoridation chemicals to the water, I suggest this item has some very useful information. 

Chemistry HWChemistry HW

0 Kudos
1,171 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

MuddledMottled.jpg

 

Fluoridation does not prevent cavities but does cause dental fluorosis, but even if that wasn't the case... it is still immoral mass medication that doses municipal water with a contaminated product that causes or worsens disease and disability in many consumers. 

 

Moreover, fluoridation chemicals are harmful to the environment. There is nothing more to say about it. 

0 Kudos
1,200 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

No. Even fluoride at 0.7 ppm is fully converted to HF at pH 2. This is the means by which fluoride gains entry into the blood from the acidic stomach. If it were the charged ion, very little  would be able to penetrate the stomach lining. 

After HF (which is hydrophobic and able to penetrate any lipid membrane) enters  the blood at pH 7.3, it of course  is reionized to the fee fluoride ion. This is indeed how ingested   fluoride accumulates in bone. 

This is scientific fact  (and consensus)  

The problem with advertisements from the ADA and dental officials at the CDC  and others is that these ar not trained scientists who actually do controlled experiments  using the scientific method. These groups merely interpret data from published materials that are usually not sufficiently controlled because humans cannot be placed in cages to control diets, hygiene, etc to make proper judgments on whether eating fluoride affects caries. Controlled animal studies prove caries are not  affected by fluoridated water use, all while dental fluorosis incidence is elevated. This confirms human studies that were more objectively done by Ziegelbecker, and by Teotia, and by Yiamouyianns. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,092 Views
3
Report
Trusted Contributor

rs – No one is questioning the scientific fact that fluoride ions, dissociated from whatever the source (natural minerals, fluoridation chemicals or foods) are absorbed in the GI tract.  What on earth is your point? That nonsense has absolutely nothing to do with the questions I asked BillO. 

 

You have also continued to dodge my questions about your understanding of CarryAnne’s libelous descriptions of fluoridation supporters as, “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths" and BillO’s derogatory descriptions as, “the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public…  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists

 

Do you agree with these claims about several of the organizations that publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF), and do you apply those descriptions to all organizations that support CWF and their members?

 

It is noted that you and other anti-science activists (ASAs) like Mike Adams (Natural News) and Alex Jones (INFOWARS) make claims like “The problem with advertisements from the ADA and dental officials at the CDC and others is that these are not trained scientists

 

The problem with that claim – as has been pointed out repeatedly – is that there are only a relatively few outlier trained “scientists” and “health professionals” who have dogged personal beliefs and severe fluorine paranoia which require them to dismiss the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

 

There are many ASAs who believe vaccinations are dangerous and should be banned – or who believe they have seen or been abducted by aliens – or that the world is ruled by a reptilian elite – and the list goes on….  Should they all be believed because they have strong personal biases and beliefs?

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/10/how-spot-reptilians-runing-us-government/354496...

 

Stop with the distractions and explain why you believe (and provide conclusive proof) that all scientists who do not recognize the opinions of ASAs are “not trained scientists who actually do controlled experiments using the scientific method”?  Also, as requested in the past, explain the fact that if the anti-F opinions about the allegedly obvious and dangerous health effects of CWF were even remotely legitimate, the overwhelming majority of scientists and health professionals continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – as evidenced by the fact that all major, recognized science and health organizations in the world accept that consensus.  Then explain why only Natural News, INFOWARS, and a few other alternative health organizations reject the scientific consensus. 

0 Kudos
1,127 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

I stand by my statements because you do not provide evidence to the contrary.   If you would spend more time checking the endorsements rather than simply regurgitating the mantra, you would be shocked.

 

Circular referencing is a huge problem.  

 

Chuck provided some of his favorite endorsements.  Lets look at the first one, the Hispanic Dental Association policy statement located at:  http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/FLResources_Hispanic_Dental_Association_Endor...

 

HDA references other endorsements as their evidence for their position.  For example, they reference the CDC, Surgeon General, and USPH.  However, no primary research is provided.

 

The CDC is slightly better with a longer list of cherry picked endorsements from other like minded organizations.  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/organizations/index.htm

 

CDC goes further with a list of links, 

 

Community Water Fluoridation

collapse

Randy, maybe you could help me out here.  CDC lists basics, guidelines and recommendations, data and statistics, promotional resources, FAQ, and operators and Engineers.  What do you see missing???  Science.  Well that is hidden under Guidelines and Recommendations, as Scientific Reviews and Reports: Assessing the Evidence.    CDC did not assess the evidence, they rely on reviews and report which allegedly assess the evidence.    Lets, very briefly in summary look at their references.  

 

The Community Preventive Services Task Force,  (Cherry picked members who support fluoridation and avoided much science not supporting their position.)

 

NRC 2006  (CDC cherry picks the 2006 report.  And severe DF is now over 2%, or about 4-7 million people being harmed, known and undisputed harm, and CWF is a contributing factor, not the only factor.  NRC has too many reservations and concerns with recommendations for further study than space permits here.  Read the report and remember it is 12 years old, so read the last 12 years of research on each topic.)

 

US PHS.  ( USPHS references the CDC, circular logic and again cherry picks research.)

 

CDC. (CDC references itself, circular logic.)

 

IOM  (IOM's dietary guidelines for 1997.  What is the current IOM dietary guideline for fluoride?  Look it up.)

 

Cochrane review of 2015.  (See below)

 

Australian NHMRC (Again, cherry picked evidence)

 

WHO 2005  (WHO recommendations are not followed.  WHO advises to determine how much fluoride people are getting before starting fluoridation.  To my knowledge, no community, city, state, or country has determined with empirical measured evidence the current fluoride exposure prior to starting fluoridation.  They blindly start to fluoridate based on endorsements, not science.)

 

In my opinion, the Cochrane and NRC 2006 review need to be taken together, because Cochrane looks at "benefit" and NRC looks at "exposure" and "risk."  

 

Cochrane with my emphasis in bold. 

 
Authors' conclusions: 

"There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.

 

Randy, "very little contemporary evidence" does not give me confidence.  When we see huge increases in fluoride exposure from other sources, certainly we need contemporary evidence.  And the mother of all confounding factors which decreased dental caries by 4 to 5 teeth prior to fluoridation is not considered.  What was it?  Maybe that confounding factor is what caused caries to decline and not fluoridation.  With very little contemporary evidence, my confidence in mass medication evaporates.  We need good contemporary evidence to support fluoridation before fluoridation is continued.

 

Continuing with Cochrane Authors' conclusions;

 

"The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.

There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.

There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation."

 

Randy, is that what you call a robust endorsement of fluoridation?  I would say you need to read and weep.  But the CDC references Cochrane as evidence every single person, infants, adults, elderly, all ages, all health conditions, even those without teeth must ingest more fluoride. . . even without consent.

 

Trusted Contributor

BillO – Apparently I need to ask short, specific questions in hopes of obtaining specific replies.  I have actually examined the evidence responsible for the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective, and I am shocked that fluoridation opponents (FOs) can manipulate it with no regard for accuracy.

 

Q1) Do you apply your libelous “circular referencing” “They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.” critiques (07-09-2018 09:09 PM) to all the other 100+ organizations and their members who support CWF and don't accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate? 

 

Q2) Do you accept the concept of scientific consensus as the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study?  If so, how do you recognize and accept a scientific consensus?

 

Q3) Do you accept the scientific consensus that disinfection is a safe and effective public health measure to protect the health of citizens and the "DOSE" of residual disinfectants and DBPs is sufficiently regulated to protect the health of those who drink the treated water?

 

Q4) If you accept the scientific consensus that disinfection is safe and effective, how do you dismiss the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure and the "DOSE" of fluoride ions is sufficiently regulated to protect the health of those who drink the treated water??  Fluoride ions actually have a health benefit while there are no health benefits (only risks) from ingesting DBPs. 

 

Q5) If a water treatment process is effective at protecting the health of citizens, why does it matter whether the treatment chemicals added are called poisons or medicines or additives or water treatment chemicals? 

 

Q6) You complain that “CDC did not assess the evidence, they rely on reviews and report which allegedly assess the evidence.”  Please provide a specific example of what you mean by “assess the evidence” and provide details of an anti-fluoridation organization that assessed the evidence and did not rely on reviews and reports which allegedly assess the evidence.

 

Q7) Do you accept the 28 references (2000 – 2018) I just posted in response to the comment by rs as endorsements or as legitimate scientific studies and reviews?  All of them concluded that community water fluoridation was effective at reducing dental decay, and none concluded there were any health risks – the only risk listed for drinking water containing 0.7 ppm was the recognized increased risk of minimal dental fluorosis.

 

Q8) You state, “In my opinion, the Cochrane and NRC 2006 review need to be taken together, because Cochrane looks at 'benefit' and NRC looks at 'exposure' and 'isk'."  Really?  Explain the following:
~> The 2006 NRC Fluoride Review committee (which included at least three dedicated FOs) “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 listed absolutely no harmful health-related finding or recommendation for water containing fluoride ions at the SMCL of 2.0 mg/l – three times the optimal level for CWF.  Provide the exact citation in the 2006 NRC review that concluded CWF guidelines (or water containing three times the guidelines) caused any adverse health effects.
~> You, like rs, have apparently not read the Cochrane review – or you were wearing your anti-science activist blinders, because you completely missed the first “Key result” which states in part, “Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth.” These conclusions were based on studies that met Cochrane’s very stringent review criteria and were mostly published before 1975.  The reviewers listed study limitations, yet they published the conclusion that evidence demonstrated the effectiveness of CWF largely before the use of fluoridated toothpaste, rinses, etc. became widespread.  How would that conclusion be possible if there was no evidence that CWF was effective?  Did fluoridation magically become ineffective post-1975?  The fact is that the complexity of the Cochrane review makes it an easy target for conclusion manipulations by FOs.

 

Q9) How do you explain fact that fluoridation opponents have no support for their paranoid opinions besides INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points.", Natural News: Mike Adams, and a handful of alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you listed as opposing CWF?

0 Kudos
1,188 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

People who oppose fluoridation are in complete agreement with the scientific consensus. The consensus indicates that half of all ingested fluoride is assimilated into the bloodstream after conversion to hydrofluoric acid HF in the acidic stomach. And that of all the retained fluoride in man, 95% is retained in bone where fluoroapatite has a different crystal structure than normal hydroxyapatite.

The idea spread here that fluoridation opponents are not following this mainstream science is ridiculous. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

You seek to pose isolated factoids that are unimportant to the public health decision.  I suspect that at the concentration of 0.7 ppm the fluoride and hydrogen atoms are completely dissociated but it really is utterly irrelevant whether undissociated molecules of HF exist there or not.

 

Here is a convenient place to read what the many restigious scientific and prefessional organizations advocating fluoridation have to say, in their own words.  For reader's convenience I've attached a small sample.  These quotations well reflect the scientific consensus supporting fluoridation.

http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

2013 Organizations Recognizing Fluoridation in their Own Words.jpg

 

 

0 Kudos
1,378 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Chuck,

 

May I make a suggestion. 

 

When in contact with scientists, fluoridationists do not make sense when they talk about 0.7 ppm of fluoride in water.  No sense at all.

 

You see, fluoridationists don't understand the difference between dosage and concentration, or perhaps they desire to confuse the public.

 

Do your home work and talk about the range of dosages humans ingest at all ages and all quantities of water consumed.  

 

Then add the amount of fluoride from other sources.

 

Then determine whether the supplementation of fluoride in water is still safe for all people or just half or 90th percentage of the population.  How many people harmed is acceptable to fluoridationists?

 

Your endorsements don't make sense either.  What about the many organizations which do not support or endorse supplementing fluoride through public water to all people without their consent?

 

Cherry picking your evidence is a glaring admission of a house of cards.

 

Bill 

Trusted Contributor

BillO - FOs invent irrelevant distractions

 

The benefits of adding disinfectants to treat drinking water outweigh risks of ingesting residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (DBPs) 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 DBPs, 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).  Then there is no control for the "amount of DBPs [ingested] from other sources.” (09-15-2018 09:14 AM). 

https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseaction/display.highlight/abstract/204/report/F

 

If you accept the consensus that disinfection is a safe and effective process to protect the health of citizens and the "DOSE" of residual disinfectants and DBPs is sufficiently regulated, it is difficult to understand how you can dismiss the consensus on CWF.  Fluoride ions actually have a health benefit while there are no health benefits (only risks) from ingesting DBPs.

 

Dr. Slott already addressed (07-01-2018 01:09 PM) your previous post of this recycled anti-F claim: “The intake, or dose, of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled.  For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg fluoride is ingested.  The average water consumption of adults is 2-4 liters per day.  Ten liters is roughly 2.5 gallons.  If you know of anyone ingesting 2.5 gallons of water on a daily basis you should caution him/her  about the dangers of water toxicity.  No public health initiative is expected to account for extreme behaviors such as this.”

Prior to attaining the daily limit of  fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.  When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not a concern in regard to adverse effects.  Presumably you understand this as you seem to have no problem with any “uncontrolled” dose of chlorine, ammonia, or any of the other substances routinely added to public water supplies.”

 

This is just another of your distractions and arm-waving tactics to try and divert attention from the fact that you have no logical explanation for why fluoridation opponents have been unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years or why over 100 recognized and respected (except by anti-science activists) science and health organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of representatives) that continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation for protecting public health. 

 

You also have no rational explanation for the fact that fluoridation opponents have no support for their paranoid opinions besides INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points.", Natural News: Mike Adams, and a handful of alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you listed as opposing CWF

 

Oh, and you still have not answered my questions about your libelous claims, “CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.” and "Johnny, the credibility of those so called ‘scientific’ organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust." and

"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation." and

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."

 

Do you apply those critiques to the other 100+ organizations and their members who support CWF and don't accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate?

 

“Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

0 Kudos
1,398 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I don't think the animals in the NTP study developed significant dental fluorosis. so Ithe exposure was not as high as what is happening to the fluoridated human population. We now  have nearly 70% of kids developing fluorosis.in the US,  Studies that don't develop the same blood fluoride level as seen in man and studies of short duration are insufficient to claim that lifelong fluoridation is harmless.

And if any study in animals finds significant harm, fluoride promotets will not halt fluoridation anyway. We already have massive proof of harm in research animals from fluoridated water, and yet fluoridation continues. 

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.