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
- Help
- Membership
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
- Caregiving
- Caregiving
- Grief & Loss
- Caregiving Tips
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Our Front Porch
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Retirement Forum
- Retirement
- Social Security
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- Travel Forums
- Destinations
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Online Community
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Re: 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
“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
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.”
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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.
- 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.
2012 training for social media trolls
- 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?
"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679