AARP Eye Center
- AARP Online Community
- Games
- Games Talk
- SongTheme
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Earn Activities
- Redemption
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Ask for a Rewards Tip
- Leave a Rewards Tip
- Caregiving
- Caregiving
- Grief & Loss
- Caregiving Tips
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- AARP Help
- Membership
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Housing
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Retirement Forum
- Retirement
- Social Security
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Travel Forums
- Destinations
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Online Community
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- More Irrelevant Distractions
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
- http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#
It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.
Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines.
When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge.
Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case.
On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment.
Really?
Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.
But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand:
- No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
“Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)
Well, it as been a busy few weeks!
Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real."
In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers.
- UNSAFE: p. 2: the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.
- HAZARD: p 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
'"It is public health malpractice to continue adding fluoride to community water systems." - Dr. Joseph Ladapo MD, PhD Florida Surgeon General (Nov. 22, 2024)
"This is a human rights issue and public health issue, separate from other public health issues." - Dr. Ashley Malin, PhD (Nov. 22, 2024)
The Surgeon General of Florida announced yesterday that he was "appalled" at the evidence of harm caused by fluoridation policy which has been ignored for years. He announced that he was recommending that all water treatment plants(WTP) in Florida end fluoridation. immediately.
Dr. Ladapo also said he always believed fluoridation was "safe and effective" because that was what he was taught, but that after looking closely at the science as a result of the September verdict agains the EPA and Bobby Kennedy's statements, he realizes that fluoridation is anything but safe and effective. He went on to say that he and his family were taking measures to reduce their fluoride exposure.
Yet, what do the fluoridation profiteers and their corporate partners do? They launch more smear campaigns in the media- against Joe Ladapo, Bobby Kennedy, or anyone else who challenges their profitable tooth-fairy tale.
One of the fluoride-lobby claims, which they offered in court, is fluoride consumption might be harmful if the dose is at 1.5 mg/L or above but fluoridation concentrations in water is half that at 0.7 ppm.
Let's make this clear:
1. Not only do some people drink more water than others, fluoride is in foods prepared with fluoridated water or treated with fluoridated agrichemicals. Dose is dependent on intake, not water concentration
- This is why there is supposed to be a 10x safety factor applied to hazards like fluoride, although 100 is more typical. That would reduce the assumed safe concentration to 0.15 or 0.015 ppm.
2. The assumption of a dose of 0.7 mg/L is based on only one liter of fluoridated water consumed (and with a perfectly calibrated fluoride 0.7 ppm concentration)
3. The dose of 1.5 mg/L recognized as unsafe is reached by consuming a couple of mouthfuls over 2 liters of water
4. The rule of thumb medical advice is that a healthy adult should consume at least eight 8 ounce glasses of water daily (8x8), which provides just under 2 liters. A half glass more (or fluoride from another source) will bring you into the red zone.
5. NASEM recommends fluid consumption, primarily water, be:
- About 15.5 cups (3.7 liters) of fluids a day for men
- About 11.5 cups (2.7 liters) of fluids a day for women
Go to FluorideLawsuit.com to see a copy of the verdict and a hyperlinked annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed science published in credible journals since 2015 documenting that fluoridation is DANGEROUS and INEFFECTIVE. and since it affects brains in the womb and is stored in our bones, fluoridation policy poisons us all from womb to tomb.
Then tell the Surgeon General in your state that he should follow Dr. Ladapo's lead.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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
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?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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?
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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,
- Water Fluoridation Basics
- Water Fluoridation Guidelines & Recommendations
- Water Fluoridation Data & Statistics
- Water Fluoridation Promotional Resources
- Community Water Fluoridation FAQs
- Water Operators & Engineers
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.
"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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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/
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…. Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” - United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, Sec.2.7, April 1993)
Fluoridationists have been organized and trained by marketing gurus to frame the conversations around teeth or whatever minor or discredited piece of science that can create doubt. However, the fact of the matter is the weight of the scientific evidence supported by testimony of seniors as well as evolving medical opinion is that fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that causes disease, disability and even death in millions of consumers.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
The U.S. EPA correctly lists fluoride in water as a contaminant that must be regulated. At 4 ppm fluoride (naturally present as a contaminant in water) consumption is prohibited by the EPA because doing so chronically causes severe skeletal fluorosis. For water at 2 ppm the EPA requires warnings to be issued not to drink, where it is clear that doing so chronically during childhood causes severe dental enamel fluorosis (hypoplasia).
But what fluoridation promoters fail to grasp is that the EPA does not regulate intentional infusion of industrial fluorides into water (artificial water fluoridation), where the EPA Office of Water writes that this is the purview of the U.S. FDA because it is an attempt to use fluoride as an ingestible, to treat human tissue. So the EPA does not examine the long term effects of consuming water with artificially added fluoride at 1 ppm (or at 0.7 ppm). These effects are not known with certainty to the EPA, and the EPA does not attempt to discover them either.
So what must be emphasized is that fluoride assimilation causes permanent accumulation of fluoride into bone where it is a contaminant that alters the crystal structure of bone in a pathological process. it is not biochemicallay reversible. Assimilatled fluoride is thus a cumulative poison. This means that the high stage bone fluorosis (usually with severe bone pain and bones being more subject to fracture) that is caused over several decades of drinking 4 ppm fluoride water can also be achieved by consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water by those consumers who happen to live long enough to accumulale fluoride to the bone level that 4 ppm water produces in decades.
So it must not be claimed that consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water is safe and harmless, even while assimilatling the fluoride for one's entire lifetime and for the life of their descendants in all perpetuity. Although this positiojn is posited by fluoridation advocates, it is false because, as stated, fluoride is a cumulative poison.
Pre-clinical, symptom-less bone fluorosis actually begins with the first sip of fluoridated water. This is because there is no concentration of blood fluoride that is low enough such that ALL fluoride is eliminated into the urine before ANY fluoride accumulates into bone. The concentrated calcium in bone hydroxyapatite strongly electrostatically attracts systemic fluoride ion. There is no escape that would allow anyone to claim that ingesting fluoridated water is harmless during liefelong continuous drinking. The claim is simply absurd. The FDA is also correct in its assessment ruling that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods and that fluoride ingestion has never been FDA approved.
The fact that easily noticed symptoms may be absent after long term fluoridated water consumption in many people does not mean it is "harmless" during lifelong consumption.
Understand?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Two that come to mind, where work was done at two institutions that was go at published when they were paid.by the second institution.
Im sure it happens when work spans a transfer between labs.
But the questions I asked remain unanswered. Why for one is a person "fringe" for being the first to discover something?
Why should someone get no health treatment from a professional who happens to misunderstand one item while understanding other items well?
What gives a person a right to label someone as not opposing fluoridation simply because he does not conjoin FAN (even to the tune of a presumed seven million)?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
So there you have it. One cannot refer to a person as being "fringe" unless there are a majority who oppose him. No majority opposes my view that fluoride discharges in rivers where salmon spawn can, and did, affect salmon populations.
So the view is not "fringe." it is merely an observation made first, where others don't bother to even look. Pretty simple really.
Claude Bernard was ostracized as some phoney when he discovcered that glucose is in the bloodstream even in people who eat no sugar. He turned out to be correct since humans metabolize glucose from consumed foods. We now know he was not "fringe" but instead observed something that was correct. Just because someone is alone in thinking does not make him "fringe" as though he is in error.
And no one (except on this site) has criticized or disagreed with the deduction on fluoride discharges and salmon. So the "fringe" label is pretty absurd.
Likewise, the idea that just because someone does not oppose fluoridation (or even may agree with it) does not mean he can't be trusted to do anything else. Two dentists I have gone to do very well with teeth repair or pulilnhg teeth, etc. But they assume that fluoride gels at 12,000 ppm might help teeth so they use it on those who allow it. He is wrong about the gels (all the fluoride that is not spit out is eventually swallowed since it only forms calcium fluoride globules on teeth surfaces that are easily dissolved upon eating/drinking). But neverftheless they are great at providing other services. The same is true for a doctor who can be excellent in many areas but wrong about one.
I don't see why anyone would stop getting help from someone who simply doesn't know everything. In fact, no one knows everything. But because that is the case, we should not go for help from anyone because no one knows everything? Again, absurd..
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons, but who you are improperly counting in the seven million who didn't sign the FAN petition.
They do not want to affiliate with FAN or do not endorse all that FAN has written, or many other reasons.
So?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
By the way, Richard, for the 6th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material? Anybody?
Are you having a problem with the question, or are you really a fringe minority of one who believes this is an acceptable practice?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
David,
Not all schools are the same and knowing where a person received their degrees can be helpful. Those from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and other Ivy league schools tend to do it more. I sometimes list the school where I went to because we have our strengths in public health, international and areas of prevention.
However, we should probably more often or always list the schools we went.
By the way, did you receive your degree from Trump University? Just kidding. You can take a joke, right?
Bill
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Richard Sauerheber – Your comment, "I know many people who oppose fluoridation for many reasons", brings the conversation back to the questions you seem to be avoiding, for example the comments by by CarryAnne and Dr. Osmunson about those professionals who support community water fluoridation (CWF) or don't publically condemn the practice:
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group”
You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”
(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates”
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”
And comments To Dr. Johnson by Dr. Osmunson (07-09-2018 09:09 PM):
"CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing."
"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."
"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."
"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 accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims against the organizations they referenced and also, as I have asked them, against all members of the 100+ respected (except by anti-science activists) organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?
Whether you answer yes or no, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations? If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are ignorant, willfully blind, mindless lemmings when it comes to the issue of fluoridation –– and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation –– how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?
Several additional questions about the scientific consensus:
~> What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF?
~> If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?
~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative?
~> What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?
How would you describe the hundreds of thousands of members of the organizations who support CWF and have not publically denounced it?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Me calling attention to fluoride discharges in rivers during a salmon collapse is claimed here to be extremist and out of the mainstream. But finding something others have nor noticed is not being extremist. It is simply being attentive.
There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem. None.
And yet I am argued to be wrong and extremist?
This discussion is quite amusing.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Richard, this is a joke: "There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem."
Response: Yeah. There is also not a single scientist who has published that Sunspots have nothing to do with ongoing salmon population problems either.
Love your reasoning.
Show me a scientist who agrees with your fringe position that water fluoridation caused this. As of now you are a fringe minority of One.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation. This is a typical mistake people make when analyzimg population data.
I don't mind being labeled fringe by one who knows my results are unconventional but correct. I of course am not fringe when the definition means being an extremist who is incorrect.
The study in JEPH was first conceived after the fluoridation overfeed killed a coastguardsman in Alaska in 1992. The analysis. and the writeup took a very long time to complete and by the time it was published finally after lengthy reviews and discussions and encouragement from my mentor and collaborator Dr. Benson was published 2013. So from conception to finish it took my spare unpaid time over a 19 year span to finish. So what?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
By the way, for the 5th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material? Anybody?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Sauerheber, your quote: "Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation."
Response: First of all, I never said they endorse or promote fluoridation. They are not opposed to it. You are. You are fringe.
You say, ""Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to,"
Response: If somebody is opposed to water fluoridation in this country, they are familiar with the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert. They just are. That is were almost all of the misinformation & paranoia comes from. So, if somebody is visiting that site, they have been asked to sign the statement.
That 4500, or maybe it's up to 5000 now, represents the sum total of those whom FAN calls "professional" & "health care" workers. It includes some doctors, some nurses, a few dentists, aromatherapists, chiropractors, among others, lawyers (for obvious reasons). That's it.
Face it, you are fringe, and your "Demand" of the AARP here is nothing more than a lame attempt to make you look more mainstream.
You call optimally fluoridated water a "drug" in your attempt to generate paranoia. No U.S. health agency agrees with you on that. Not the CDC, not the FDA, not the EPA, not the USDPH, nobody.
You have actually said that the Safe Drinking Water Act was originally written to halt the spread of fluoridation across the country. (this thread 07-13-2018 12:46 PM)
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
For anyone reading these posts, there are two key definitions of the term fringe. I would refer to a few of my 51 research articles published in scientific journals since 1972 as fringe, with a first definition, that is, the data are "unconventional, but correct."
I do not however publish articles that are classed with the second definition of fringe, which is being used here as a criticism, to mean "extremist and false." I have no such articles. I stand by all the data I have published and yes there are several that are fringe because the results surprise many people in the field. 1. It is true that insulin stimulates glucose transporters present in the plasma membrane, rather than an opposing 'recruitment' view held by many in power at the NIH. 2. It is true that type II diabetes does not require drugs to correct the condition in all classical cases, in spite of the widespread use of drugs to treat it in the U.S. 3. It is true that time passes continuously, regardless of human acitvities or motion of observers, as revealed by real experiments published, in spite of widespread teachings otherwise. 4. It is true that swallowing fluoride from industrial sources, including from fluosilicic acid and sodium fluoride, without plentiful calcium, causes the protonation of all fluoride ion into hydrofluoric acid HF in the acidic stomach in man, as published in the JEPH article to which is being labeled here with the false definition of fringe, when the data are nevertheless correct.
I've already addressed the reference to UCSD in some of my articles, and it has nothing to do with what has been claimed. It is proper, not improper, to list an institution where work was initiated or completed even when it is published later when the author also works at a different institution. Taylor & Francis publishing group reviewed this and also agreed. The four articles on the Calculus were completed after initial work was done at UCSD. The two articles on time dilation were only able to be published, with heavy arguments from 5 physicist editors, because of the original concept that germinated to completion at UCSD. The fluoride toxicology articles were only published because Benson, my collaborator at UCSD, asked me to do so. My letters to institutions and to anyone who asks scientific questions usually list UCSD as the location where my degrees were earned, along with the institution where I now work.
I challenge any critic to describe any error in any work I have published, including the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490, 2013 article to which these posts mostly refer.
Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding. It is precisely for this reason that I have not published any information in scientific peer-reviewed journals on the likelihood that fluoridation chemicals discharged by cities into rivers where salmon spawn are deleterious to salmon. Even though I am confident that this is the case based on deduction and other published work, I cannot prove the specific point for the Sacramento River because much more work would be required to prove it beyond doubt, where all other environmental variables are so difficult to control. This does not mean however that dumping fluoride into a particular river be harmless to salmon simply because it harm has not been proven beyond doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to publish in science journals that are well peer-reviewed, as for all the articles that I have in the end actually published. Scientists are all human and all very different from each other. OK?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Gosh, Dr. Sauerheber, I didn’t realize you would be so defensive about being called a fringe activist. If you don’t like being called fringe, don’t be fringe.
“Fringe: adjective
not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.”
You publish papers that oppose community water fluoridation. Opposing Community Water Fluoridation is unconventional, peripheral, and extreme. Why do I say this?
The Fluoride Action Network, the foremost contributor to misinformation about water fluoridation in the U.S., has a list of professionals who have signed their “Opposition to Fluoridation Statement.” The list has about 4500 signatories.
In the U.S. there are over 860,000 physicians, 2.8 million nurses, nearly 170,000 dentists and about 3.2 million PhD’s, or about 7 million. If the list is accurate, then 0.064% or 1 in every 1555 oppose fluoridation. In other words, 99.936% of Health Care and other Professionals are not opposed to water fluoridation enough to take 10 seconds to sign a statement.
I understand that about 25% of the US list of Professionals Opposed to fluoridation are from outside the US, so the actual percentages opposing fluoridation might be even lower if that is the case.
99.936% of all Health Care & Other Professionals don’t consider water fluoridation enough of a hazard to bother to sign a statement opposing it, which would take all of 10 seconds. If your extreme minority position isn’t fringe, nothing is.
But it goes beyond that with you. You believe Einstein got it all wrong about time dilation. You come up with weird stuff about the FDA & the EPA which is all provably wrong. And not one other environmentalist attributes the salmon collapse in Sacramento to water fluoridation. Not one. You are a minority of one. You are fringe my friend.
And you never answered the question. For the 4th time, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works?
Your quote: “Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding.”
This is what another scientist, one of your peers, had to say about your time consuming work. You’ve seen it before:
“19 year study? Really. Surely the data you presented could have been produced in an afternoon in a high school chemistry lab. It is essentially just a school project to confirm already known relationships between Ca, F and pH. What took you 19 years?” https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/03/calcium-fluoride-and-the-soft-water-anti-fluoridation...
I am surprised you would challenge any critic to find errors with your work.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Is it not utter cracpottery for fluoridation opponents to allege that America's Family Physicians (who did their own independant systematic review) oppose community water fluoridation as part of a financially based perversion on the part of dentists (ie the ADA).
Ditto the Australia New South Wales Dept of Health, the British Dental Assn, the Canadian Medical Association, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, just a few of the 150 or so prestigious organizations who have clearly advocated that drinking water be fluoridated.
Fluoridation opponents believe that state and federal health agencies aided by organizations such at these are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens.
Rather than a far reaching and 100% effective disinformation campaitn opponents allege Isnt' it more likely that fluoridation receives such support is because it does exactly what it's supposed to - It decreases cavities.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
But it is completely rational to oppose a fluoridation promoter who continues to endorse increased fluorosis incidence in U. S. children if he is discussing treatments for the fluorosis he endorses. This is a gross conflict of interest.
And it is rational to not oppose a man who discusses treating fluorosis who also fights against fluoridation that causes it.
If you can't see that then I can't likely help you.
It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Dr. Sauerheber, you say:
"It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts."
Yeah. For the third time now: Do you know of any other scholar who does it? When Dr. Sagan published work he listed Cornell as his affiliated University. That is because Cornell paid him, funded his work, and published his material. That's the norm.
Carl Sagan graduated from the University of Chicago, yet on none of his work (other than his dissertation) did he cite the U. of C. That's because the U. of C. had nothing to do with his work. You, on the other hand, think this practice is ok. It kind of implies that your alma mater, the UCSD, stands behind your work. But the UCSD has no idea what you are writing or publishing, does it.
I only raise this point to show the AARP what kind of people are making "Demands" of them.