Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

• 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

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

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[BillO538145]

David, David, David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Have you read the evidence and reservations by the WHO?

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

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

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

Once again:  

Cancer free bone has about 200 ppm fluoride

Tumor bone has about          600 ppm fluoride

Osteosarcoma bone about   800 ppm fluoride

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

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

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

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

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

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

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

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

Isn't that correct?  

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

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill,  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BillO538145]

David,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

William,

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

yours,

johnny

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RandyJ913440]

Dr. Osmunson – Your grumbling about perceived slander or defamation is a good opportunity to revisit the questions I have been asking for several weeks now (without answer) about your slanderous accusations of the CDC, ADA and AAP on 7-9-2018: “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.”

You must know that those three organizations are a small fraction of the well 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. These organizations include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American  Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), and so on…

Q1) I will ask you again – do you also claim that, because all these organizations and their members accept the scientific consensus of relevant experts that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure, “They do not protect the public?”  Do you also claim that all these organizations and their members “are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”?

Q2) I ask you again to explain how you can possibly claim, “Yes, they [any of the organizations and their members you recognize as’ lemmings’] are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation”  All of these educated, experienced professionals (many with patients who drink optimally fluoridated water) who are “best in their field” will have training on evaluating evidence, they will have better access to and understanding of the scientific literature on fluoridation than the general public, they will hear the anti-F accusations continually, and they will evaluate it long enough to recognize the anti-science distortions of that evidence. I am not a health professional, but I can recognize the way fluoridation opponents have distorted and reinterpreted their alleged “evidence” for presentation to the public after it has been thoroughly rejected by the relevant scientific/health communities.

Q3) I ask you again to explain why only a small group of outlier, alternative health organizations support the anti-F opinions – in contrast to all major science and health organizations (and their members) that either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure.  Do you really believe the opinions accepted as gospel by the 13 alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you listed as opposing CWF constitutes or defines a scientific consensus?  By the way, you might want to add two additional anti-F organizations to your list, 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." and Natural News: Mike Adams

Q4) I ask you again to explain your understanding of the scientific consensus as it relates to fluoridation and other conclusions made about safe and effective health initiatives.  If you dismiss the concept of scientific consensus, explain what you accept to replace generally agreed upon conclusions about a scientific issue.  Two examples:
~> Do you accept the scientific consensus that vaccinations are safe and effective? 
~> Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of drinking water disinfection outweigh the risks of the created disinfection byproducts?

Actually, challenging the current Scientific Consensus (or Expert Consensus) with new, legitimate evidence is a critical element of the scientific method.  If fluoridation opponents had legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions, the consensus would change.

Ethan Siegel: What Does 'Scientific Consensus' Mean?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/24/what-does-scientific-consensus-mean 

Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists:

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

https://vialogue.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ted-naomi-oreskes-why-we-should-trust-scientists/

The entire agenda of anti-science activists (ASAs) is to propagate distrust of mainstream science  and promote their outlier agendas to the general public bypassing the processes of science.

Q5) What is your professional 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:
the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815826/
the 2018 study, Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents;
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022034518774331
the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England;
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report-for-england-2...
the 2018 study, Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries – Australia;
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdoe.12384
the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report;
https://www.fsai.ie/news_centre/tds_fluoride_30042018.html
the 2018 CDC Statement on the Evidence Supporting the Safety and Effectiveness of Community Water Fluoridation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584000

the 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

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Hi William,

Do this for me and I will answer your points below.

Please address the findings of the National Toxicolgy Program's Report "An Evaluation of Neurotoxicity Following Fluoride Exposure from Gestational Through Adult Ages in Long-Evans Hooded Rats".  You were ecstatic when the NTP agreed to study fluoride intakes at 0ppm fluoride in water, 10ppm (equivalent to 0.7ppm of fluoride in community water fluoridation), and 20ppm fluoride in water (equivalent to the EPA's MCL of 4mg/L [ppm]).

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12640-018-9870-x

They found “no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance” for any of the nine different tests they conducted.

Nor were thyroid hormone levels were affected.

No IQ changes, organ changes, and no brain cell death.

Since this study has come out, there has been no mention of it by you or FAN.  Why is that?

Warmly,

Johnny

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

I responded to your request regarding the NTP study, but still have not received your promised response to my concerns of your slander, defamation, and diagnosis of dental caries.

You asked, why has FAN not responded to the NTP animal study?  

1.   There are many animal studies, NTP's was just one.

2.  There are many individuals in FAN and many of us have responded to the animal study.  I just did in my last email and have in other places.  

3.  The NTP study is just one of many animal studies and, like all, had limitations.  It is just one phase of the NTP review.  The NTP study has minimal significance because it was only filling in a gap in the existing animal research, not a definitive comprehensive study, nor as significant as all the other animal studies or human studies.

Does that answer your question?

Bill 

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

I responded to your request regarding the NTP study, but still have not received your promised response to my concerns of your slander, defamation, and diagnosis of dental caries.

You asked, why has FAN not responded to the NTP animal study?  

1.   There are many animal studies, NTP's was just one.

2.  There are many individuals in FAN and many of us have responded to the animal study.  I just did in my last email and have in other places.  

3.  The NTP study is just one of many animal studies and, like all, had limitations.  Because it is just one phase of the NTP review.  The NTP study has minimal significance because it was only filling in a gap in the existing animal research, not a definitive comprehensive study, nor as significant as all the other animal studies or human studies.

Does that answer your question?

Bill 

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

The picture above is the picture you suggest evidence based dentistry would do a sealant instead of a filling. 

Please provide your evidence, RTC study.  But of course there are no such studies.  At least find one clinical practicing dentist who agrees with you that a sealant on this tooth would stop the caries.

Bill

I'll get at your question on NTP this evening. 

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

William,

I'll wait on your NTP response.  This should be priceless.  

Warmest persoanl regards,

Johnny

[BillO538145]

You say this informtion is priceless. . . well maybe you can give me some of your Delta Dental money????

NTP Study. Johnny, you are only looking at one phase of the NTP review.

 I asked NTP to review the evidence on fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity.  NTP agreed.  The review usually takes 2 or 3 years. 

The first phase is a review of current animal literature.  The result reported a “moderate” confidence of developmental neurotoxicity from fluoride.    Actually, that is quite strong and raises serious concerns but not definitive.

The second phase of the NTP review was an animal study to fill in weak areas of current research. NTP failed to fully appreciate that rats are 5 to 10 times less sensitive to fluoride than humans.  And NTP chose a strain of rat which is least sensitive.  And NTP failed to give the rats fluoride during the most sensitive early part of life when the brain is developing.  In other words, the study had little chance of finding developmental neurotoxicity.   For more details ask.

The third phase of the NTP review are the human studies.  In emails with Linda Birnbaum at NTP, she said the final report would be out at the end of 2017, then Spring of 2018 and this summer she said the report would be out by the end of this year because they were waiting for the results of another human study.  

With a “moderate” result for animals and if there is a “moderate” for humans, that will result in a determination that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant.   In just a couple months we should know more.   

Of course you can cherry pick just the data which you like, or you can be inclusive.

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Hi William,

I have been a bit busy and unable to keep up with your frequent posts.

Your post about the NTP is lacking in accuracy.  The first phase found mild to moderate confidence in the data that they reviewed.

The second phase, which was the definitive and rock solid phase of their evaluation, showed no neuorological effects from fluoride ingestion of regular chow, low fluoride chow, or 0ppm, 10ppm, or 20ppm fluoride in the water fed to the pregnant rats during the 6th day in utero and testing of the offspring male rats to adulthood.  This is where the train runs off the track with the anti-fluoride group's arguement with the NTP's  methodology.

For a full response to the letter that was sent to the main author of the NTP Report, please click on the link below.  The NTP was an authoritative study which measured both intakes of all foods and liquids ingested.  The outcomes of these intakes were evaluated at the highest level that this group always performs. Yet, you didn't like the results.   Opinions do not equate with facts:

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

Warm regards,

Johnny

[DavidF928895]

Carry Anne, 

With all due respect, trying to get readers of a thread to "click" away from comments which question your fringe position doesn't exactly give that position any credibility.  

[rs5526]

I don't publish in the journal of GE, and yes it is low caliber, but does contain some decent articles. My two articles on the topic were pubslished in "mainstream" journals -- Optics, which is published by Elsevier publishing in the Netherlands, and Physics Essays published in Canada.

But you need to realize that the truth of a finding is not determined by the journal, good or poor, in which it is printed. It is in the data and its proper analysis.

Many people claim that time dilation has been confirmed experimentally but it has not been confirmed by reliable experiment. The GPS time differences you mention, like so many others who claim it confirms time dilates due to motion, is most easily explained by the fact that orbiting satellites send a signal along a dilfferent distance path than a received signal from a location on earth. This is because the detector position is on the earth's surface, not the center of the orbit that the satellite follows.around the earth. Of course it takes a different time for EM radiation to travel two diffrent path lengths. This has nothing to do with the dilation of absolute time. Time doesn't have a brain to decide to slow down because an object moves, or speed back up when it stops moving. You may want to read the textbook published by the former Chairman of the Stanford Physics Dept. Arther Otis called Light Velocity and Relativity (Burckel and Asso. Yonkers on Hudson, NY, 1960). This thorough refutation of time dilation was published at the time the Physics text by Beiser came out promoting time dilation theory, but colleges decided to use the Beiser text because it contained other useful information that was good..

I have no access to areas along the Sacramento River near the discharge pipe, to do the sampling necessary to meet needs for absolute proof of harm to salmon. I would have to use vacation time or take time off work and travel there and rent a boat for access to that area, etc. Also my fluoride electrode is currently in need of repair and such studies are all done on my own private funds. And more than likely, attempting to sample the river near the discharge pipe without auuthorization would get me arrested.

I attempted a similar thing at Lake Skinner 30 miles North of me. The area I found is under camera and armed guard surveillance and is protected with barbed-wire-topped fencing, and anyone near it gets pulled over for loitering or potential trespassing. The horse ranch across the street from the fluoride tanks moved out because of the facility. Fluoridation facilities are highly police-protected. Just standing near the area looking at it caused two security guards in separate vehicles to stop and view my every move. Fluoridation has long been a police-state action that is assumed to be a case-closed, non-debatable position, and anyone questioning it is viewed as some sort of fringe lunatic. And officials at CalEPA have no desire to be so labeled.   

[DavidF928895]

RS:  "Fluoridation facilities are highly police-protected. Just standing near the area looking at it caused two security guards in separate vehicles to stop and view my every move. Fluoridation has long been a police-state action that is assumed to be a case-closed, non-debatable position, and anyone questioning it is viewed as some sort of fringe lunatic. And officials at CalEPA have no desire to be so labeled."

Response:  Given the history of bullying, and sometimes violent behavior of this fringe anti-fluoride faction with whom you have associated yourself (see my comment timestamped 08-17-2018 09:44 PM), I don't blame any facility for taking precautionary measures for the protection of its property, and possibly the environment.  

This has nothing to do with a "police-state action" but rather it sounds like a common sense approach for the protection of what could be highly dangerous materials if they were to be blown up by some maniac with a bomb. 

Perhaps if you were to let someone at the treatment facility know what you were doing instead of lurking around covertly and looking suspicious, things might go a little easier.  After all, isn't this common practice?  

I doubt that the California Environmental Protection Agency has any concerns about being labled "fringe lunatics" given its history of strict strict environmental stuardship and taking on any industry which threatens that environment.  

[rs5526]

But I did present myself to the personnel at the facility. I delivered published information on fluoridation to them. It was at an armed gate where I was not permitted to enter. The guard took the materials reluctantly to officials inside. After that I merely stood outside the fenced facilty on public property on the side of a public highway, to look at the lake and facility where I used to camp as a child, to see the massive fluoridation and caustic soda tanks surrounded by large buffer zone acreage, and the security guards zoomed around to watch, even though I had presented myself at the front gate. 

There is no possilbilty of getting the city of Los Angeles to change its views about fluoridation by studying the environmental impacts of their facility at Lake Skinner or any of the other treatment plants. As i said, the horse ranch moved out because of the toxic storage facility right next to the ranch and the city of Los Angeles could care less. I've presented materials to the Water District board and have written to them since 2007 but all the comments are ignored, never responded to other than "the EPA is responsible for fluoridation safety."   But the EPA is not, and has written that the FDA is responsible for regulating fluoridation (and this includes the views of the EPA underling CalEPA)..

The FDA also says the EPA is in charge. In reality, no agency has accepted responsilbity of liablity for any damage from fluoridation--environmental, dental, or health related. This is because these agencies know fiull well that it is illegal to require and to enforce fluoridation. The SDWA prohibits such a requirement for a substance being placed into water since it does not sanitize or purlify water.

[DavidF928895]

Doctor Sauerheber . . . .

Your quote:  “ it appears to be fluoride discharges that were the final straw that caused the huge salmon collapse in Sacramento, does not need water fluoride measurements in order to be made. We already know the narrow river with the city's discharge pipe in its center releases mass quantities of 1 ppm fluoride since 2010, which was soon followed by the collapse.”

Response:  “We already know . . ?”  How do we know the discharge line puts out effluent at 1 ppm?  Has it ever been measured?  How could a city that keeps 0.7 ppm F in its drinking water discharge water with 1 ppm?

Moreover, we know that there is partial removal of fluoride from solid waste.  And we also know infiltration from storm water runoff further dilutes that already reduced level of effluent fluoride.  So, please explain how “We already know” anything about it.  All we have is your word for it, and that falls apart when the statement is scrutinized. 

Ok, let’s assume that salmon are affected at 0.3 ppm F.  What is the background level for fluoride in the Sacramento River?  You wouldn’t need to break any Trespass laws to determine that.  Do you even know?  The discussion can’t even begin until we know that. 

But as I pointed out in an earlier comment, Limnologist, Joe Carroll calculated discharge into the Columbia River, and its effect on that river, where this exact argument was previously replayed.  He calculated that discharge affected fluoride levels by 0.000004 ppm F (or 4 one millionths of a part per million).  https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf  In other words, using your figure of 0.3 ppm for a harmful effect on salmon, the background fluoride level would have to already be 2.999996 ppm F for salmon to be affected.

What was the background level for fluoride in the Sacramento River again?  Do you even know?  I must say, I find it odd that someone who calls himself a scientist would expect anybody to believe anything with absolutely ZERO evidence of anything, other than your word.

Mr. Carroll did his work on the Columbia River.  Where is your work?

What is the amount of discharge released?  What is the flow of the river at the point of discharge?  We need to know these things.  On one hand you say the river is so narrow you could throw a stone across it, on the other hand you say you would need a boat and a year to collect and do analysis on all the samples required.  (The way you initially described the point of discharge, I would have thought you could have done it with a pair of waders.) 

Your quote:  “But I did present myself to the personnel at the facility. I delivered published information on fluoridation to them. It was at an armed gate where I was not permitted to enter. . . . “

I don’t get it.  What were you trying to accomplish?  I thought you were attempting, “a similar thing at Lake Skinner 30 miles North of me.”  Similar to collecting river water samples . . that’s what we were talking about, right?  It’s nice that you knocked on the door first, but you didn’t need to supply them with any published information.  A public lake is public domain, unless it is surrounded by private property.  Why would you have to get near their caustic death containers? 

And, despite your talent for gish galloping, ok, let’s go, your quote:  “The SDWA prohibits such a requirement for a substance being placed into water since it does not sanitize or purlify water.”

Response, again, the SDWA does require certain substances to be added to water which do not sanitize of purify it.  As I pointed out before, in populations greater than 50,000, corrosion control additives are required.  Corrosion control additives do not sanitize or purify water.  Your statement is false.  (See 141.81, (a), (1)  https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/141.81 )

So that was incorrect. 

And this business about the FDA & the EPA which you and I have discussed ad nauseam is insane.  In a nutshell, you argue that a 1979 agreement between the EPA & the FDA, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which established EPA jurisdiction over water fluoridation was dissolved in 1985.  As proof of this dissolution of the agreement, you have provided a document which involved nothing more than the EPA’s declaration that it would outsource some of its workload to the Private Sector, and specifically to NSF. 

You also claimed to have some private correspondence from some law firm which supported your claim. 

So, when you say, “The FDA also says the EPA is in charge. In reality, no agency has accepted responsilbity of liablity for any damage from fluoridation--environmental, dental, or health related,” it is just insane.  There is no other word. 

The EPA oversees water fluoridation in the U.S.  States enforce EPA policy.  So, for example, in Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for enforcing EPA guidelines.  A municipality could not, for example, pump 20 ppm F into its water supply without the MDEQ holding it liable and enforcing certain rules, which would include prompt notification of its water consumers. 

This notion that you are trying to imply, that this is just a helter-skelter operation, nobody’s in charge, nobody cares, nobody enforces anything, speaks for itself.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber,

I am amazed that a guy who has the ability to out think Einstein can't figure out a way to take simple fluoride samples from a river.  You can purchase a new Fluoride ISE probe from USA Blue Book for under $500.  And since you seem to be hell bent on proving that municipal discharge with under 0.7 ppm F is somehow harmful to the environment, I would think this would be a necessary tool.  Since you claimed affiliation with UCSD when discussing the issue with Dr. Ken Perrott under his Open Parachute article, "Fluoridation and horses – another myth"

 perhaps UCSD can fund your research.  

I'm hearing a lot of excuses about why you can't prove CWF harmed the salmon industry in the San Diego River, but I'm not seeing any solutions.  So far, all we have is your word, and absolutely ZERO science, to support this interesting claim of yours.  

[rs5526]

The statement, that it appears to be fluoride discharges that were the final straw that caused the huge salmon collapse in Sacramento, does not need water fluoride measurements in order to be made. We already know the narrow river with the city's discharge pipe in its center releases mass quantities of 1 ppm fluoride since 2010, which was soon followed by the collapse. 

I accept the data that levels as low as 0.3 ppm begin to narcotize salmon signififcantly. The 0.5 mentioned in these posts is able to narcotize all salmon. CalEPA will not do such testing and yet I am blamed for not somehow proving the assertion with such measurements. i have three fluoride ion specific electrodes that have been heavtily used over the years and are not operable. I don't own a boat and Sacramento is a 10 hr drive from here. But most important, fluoridation should be banned because of what it does to innocent human beings, both young and old. The ban does not depend on spending a year proving beyond any doubt that salmon are also being harmed. it took sweven years to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that racehorses in L.A. were being harmed by fluoridated water. And as noticed the policy of fluoridation is not and will not be altered because of this fact. And neither will a proven fact that salmon are harmed, whre we already know this beyond reasonable doubt. Salmon sense of chemical detection of metal ions and all components in the steram where they were imprinted is far beyond the capability of chemical instrumentation. it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that salmon know full well that the river after having fluoride discharges with its contaminant metals is not the same water as that in which they were spawned and imprinted. Imprtinting is an exquisite method used by salmon that takes many months for their brain to know the exact chemical composition of their own personal stream so that they will recognize it and only it after their journey out to sea. This biologic capablity is far behyond our abililty to fully describe. 

[rs5526]

The Hafele Keating experiment reported a difference in time measured by atomic clocks under two different sets of conditons that was not outside the measurement error of the clocks. But you need to read the small print to see it. Further, the dilation formula requires the velocity of the moving clocks be known. The planes flew in a circular path and had a velocity (net displacement per second) that was not used in the computation. Instead, ground speed of the plane was used. You might want to examine my published work on the subject in Physics Essays vol. 27(1) pp. 116-125, 2014 and in Optik, International Journal for Light and Electronic Optics, volume 168, pp. 974-986, 2018, or simplly read the journal of Galilean Electrodynamics where time dilation is repeatedly and routinely proven to be false.  Absolute time cannot sense motion of an object, including clocksd and peopole. So traveling in a spececraft does not make one age slower. Absolute time, again, simply marches on regardless of human activity. But the false concept prevails, much like fluoridation prevails in spite of the truth.

Biology teachers use the argument that lightning strikes cause the formation of the first amino acids that would eventually combine to make proten and that over millions of years could form the first RNA molecules capable of self replication and hence life would eventuallhy arise from inanimate matter. Modern colleges and universities are trapped in these views. Common sense high schools, which are not so common, avoid teaching the subject of lilfe's origins. Modern College teachers however use academic freedom to claim the extreme view, that it must be factual because life does indeed exist. The theory of naturalistic macroevolution, including that all liife macroevoled from some premordial bacterial species, is taught routinely as fact, much like fluoridation is taught to be a health benefit in spite of the truth, simply because of endorsements and printed media, etc.

[DavidF928895]

Sorry to keep harping on this, but what you've said in your comment, about time and motion, is entirely new to me.  At your suggestion, ("simplly read the journal of Galilean Electrodynamics where time dilation is repeatedly and routinely proven to be false.") I took a look for it.  I found this review of the periodical itself: 

" So let’s say you’ve got a theory. You have decided you cannot keep quiet any longer — you have to expose why Einstein was wrong. (In particular, you think he ties his shoes bass-ackwards.) But no one in the establishment will listen to you, despite your advanced degree in personal finance and that you own a calculator. So how are you going to get your ninety-four page article accepted in the mainstream? . . . 

"Just like our friends over at Autodynamics, who founded a society to advance their own theory, the folks at Galilean Electrodynamics founded a journal to publish articles for their friends, and presumably for anyone else who can’t get their theories published in mainstream journals. Cobble together some papers, publish them in your latest journal, and presto biz markie, you can now claim that you’ve been “published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”." 

The Journal gets bad marks for "Terrible English," "All science is Wrong," "Irritated, Emotional Language," "One Extremely Long & Ugly Webpage," and "Completely New Definitions."  http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=298

I will say this for you, Doctor, your science is consistant.  

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, we're a little off topic here, but I find your position on Relativity, interesting, to say the least.  If nothing more, you've given me an excuse to take a second look at the original experiment of the 1970s.  

I see that the theory behind the original experiment has been applied time and time again.  All results were consistant with Einstien's predictions.  In 2005 gravitational time dilation was measured from the top of Mt. Rainer over the course of a weekend using HP 5071A cesium beam clocks.  In 2016 the experiment was repeated from the top of Mt. Lemmon.  The results were consistant, and predicted. 

In 2010, more precise instrumation allowed time dilation to be measured at speeds below 36 kilometers per hour.  At that speed, velocity time dilation was measured at 10 to the negative 16th power level. 

That being possible, I also see that gravitational and velocity effects are incorporated into global positioning systems that we use today. 

I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but since the theory has been applied to various experimentation, results have been predicted and confirmed again and again and again, which is what we like to see in science, and the fact that we take advantage of a practical application of that theory to assist modern technology, which I use every day, I have no problem accepting the theory as fact.  In fact, I don't consider it a theory as long as my GPS doesn't get me lost.  

By the way, have you considered measuring fluoride levels in a grid pattern upstream and downstream of effluent discharge in the Sacramento River to prove your theory?  CalEPA would, of course, have to confirm the results.  

[DavidF928895]

Thank you, Dr. Sauerheber.  This would explain why the new "Planet of the Apes" films didn't start out in the future, but followed a consistant timeline starting in the present.  

You've given me something to look into.

[rs5526]

Chlorine is NOT added to treat human tissue. It is added to kill pathogens that commonlyl exist in water supplies. Caustic soda is added to remove organic matter from water, to purify the water. Aluminum is added to ;purify materials in the water.  Fluoride does not need to be added to any water system because it does NOT sanitize or purify the water. Fluoride is added for the specific purpose of elevating the fluoride level in the bloodstream of human consumers with the intent to alter the structure of teeth. But the program backfired and should be referred to as a bone altering fluoridation program. After 70 years of use in the water supply in Grand Rapids, MI we still have no controlled human clinical trials to determine if it is effective and if it is harmless. In fact, we now have massive publsihed work including controlled studies with animals and detailed broad epidemiologic studies and observational studies that prove that the program is ineffective and abnormal.

[sirpac271999]

Regardless of what the CDC or the ADA claim, they have no science to support the practice of water fluoridation. On the contrary. In comparison, in Europe, the only country that fluoridates their water supply to a greater decree is the Republic of Ireland, where Northern Ireland dos not fluoridate their water. The Republic of Ireland has one of the worst dental health in Europe, whereas Northern Ireland does not. So what has all the fluoridation done for the Irish dental and overall health? It has decreased it and damaged the brains, teeth, and bones of the Irish. 

Also, in addition to the Gulags in the former Soviet Union, Stalin used to fluoridate East Germany, which was under the iron curtain before the wall went down in 1989. Since the wall went down, East Germany ceased water fluoridation, 16.11 million people, with the  result of both dental and overall health significantly improving after water fluoridation was stopped. Thus, the ADA or the CDC have very little credibility. See:

Abstract

In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This trend corresponded to the national caries decline and appeared to be a new population-wide phenomenon. Additional surveys (N=1017) carried out in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg (N=9042) and Zittau (N=6232) were carried out in order to support this unexpected epidemiological finding. Pupils from these towns, aged 8/9-, 12/13- and 15/16-years, have been examined repeatedly over the last 20 years using standardised caries-methodological procedures. While the data provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48% on average), it has also provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may continue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply from about 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F. Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased during the years 1993-96, following the cessation of water fluoridation. In Spremberg, DMFT fell from 2.36 to 1.45 (38.5%) and in Zittau from 2.47 to 1.96 (20.6%). These findings have therefore supported the previously observed change in the caries trend of Chemnitz and Plauen. The mean of 1.81 DMFT for the 12-year-olds, computed from data of the four towns, is the lowest observed in East Germany during the past 40 years. The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, however, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis of future caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to be necessary.

Reference Information:

Künzel, W., Fischer, T., Lorenz, R., Brühmann, S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dental Oral Epidemiology, 28(5):382-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028005382.x 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11014515/

or 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pubmed/11014515-decline-of-caries-prevalence-after-the-cessation-o...

[CarryAnne]

“I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.”  - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)

It took over 70 years and the dogged persistence of Clair Patterson to get the lead out of gasoline. Leaded gasoline, like asbestos and fluoridaton, was defended by the Kettering Institute under the direction of Robert Kehoe for whom the infamous Kehoe Paradigm was named. I already referenced over a dozen credible organizations with scientific, environmental or human rights missions who oppose fluoridation in the 21st century and provided links to several documents from EPA scientist unions likewise opposed to fluoridation and the politically set EPA MCL/MCLG. 

I've also quoted dozens of individual doctors, dentists and scientists who have studied emerging scientific data and changed their minds - a few of whom have openly opposed fluoridation on this forum. Many more, like several in my home town and even some sitting on boards of medical organizations, admit that they know fluoridation is ineffective and harmful to some consumers but they won't speak publicly because of fear of retalitation from abusive fluoride trolls, their rabidly pro-fluoride peers, and even their patients. A lawyer I know called me this week to tell me that another lawyer is threatening to file charges against him with the bar if he continues to openly oppose fluoridation. Dentists are even more vulnerable to this sort of bullying as the ADA will revoke their membership if they persist and the ADA provides financial business benefits to dentists just as fluoride interests provide financial benefits to the ADA. Bullying is effective - but only for so long. 

Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt. I provided a quote from Dr. David Michaels, author of "Doubt Is their Product" and referenced the $289 million award last week to a man with cancer that unveiled the duplicitous deceit by vested interests that involved collusion between Monsanto with professional liars for hire and the EPA. I also provided a link to a relatively recent revelation that the sugar industry subverted dental authorities from pursuing sugar as a cause of cavities by diverting their attention to  fluoridation; here's another that straignt out says that public health officials should recognize the sugar industry as an adversary. I also provided scads of links to modern science documenting harm, a number of which actually include words to the effect of 'in light of these findings, we suggest municipal fluoridation schemes require a fresh re-examination' and a few of which are more blunt 'avoid the fluoridation of drinking water.' 

Emerging modern science, evolving medical opinion and the persistant voices of victims will end fluoridation. I'm doing my part to protect people & planet, just as vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions. 

2016: Uncertainty Bias & Agnotology 

2014: Controversy Manual

Agnotology

 AARP - Your voice as an advocate with lobbying power matters. Oppose fluoridation! 

[skanen144]

As a chemist formerly with the Army Corps of Engineers and whistleblower on lead in drinking water, I appreciate chemistry professor Dr. Sauerheber’s contribution to fluoride science  and am disgusted with DavidF’s personal attacks on this forum. AARP should pay attention to science and take a position against fluoridation. 

Texas is beginning to get the number for the fluoridationists who emphasize ridicule and rhetoric. Fluoridation is harmful to consumers and ethically corrupt. I won’t even use fluoridated water for drinking, bathing, cooking, or even to grow and wash vegetables or water houseplants. Our pets, particularly large dogs given to hip problems, should not be given intentionally contaminated fluoridated water. AARP should  issue a resolution against fluoridation. Seniors are often recommended highly fluoridated toothpaste and prescription drugs and are easily over consuming fluoride.

Fluoride is a poison that hurts people, animals, plants and fish.

Susan Kanen

Biochemist