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]

CarryAnne,

If anyone missed your last post, please read it below.

How many places in Federal and state laws, poison laws, pesticide laws, FD&C Act, SDWA, clear statements from the FDA and EPA, FOI requests, US Pharmacopia, and all other health regulatory agencies is needed to convince a person fluoride is defined as a drug and to be regulated as a drug when marketed with the intent to prevent disease.  

Also note, the concentration, dosage, efficacy, risks, are not part of whether a substance is regulated by the FDA.  The key is "INTENT" of use.  Even a placebo needs FDA approval.

And the FDA does not go looking for violators (usually), the FDA learned early on that they could not keep up with all the new drugs and claims as policemen.  So the law requires manufacturers to gain FDA approval before marketing.   The burden is on the manufacturers, not the FDA or the consumer.  

Who are the final manufacturers of fluoridated water?  You got it.  Cities and water districts, the fluoridated water purveyors.   Government agencies are slow to have regulatory action against other government agencies. 

The only organizations considering fluoride a nutrient or mineral and not a drug, are frustrated nutritionists, fluoride pushers, and those looking to appease their financial donars.

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride, 60% of adolescents show signs of toxic overdose.  Studies show serious harm from overdose of fluoride.

The best place to reduce overdose for the public at large is to stop fluoridation.  Give people the choice.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

David and All Fluoride Lovers,

Please explain why this does not alarm you?  

Are Canadian women the problem?

Is the fluoridation at 0.7 ppm the problem?

Are American women safe because we have never seriously measured their fluoride urine concentration?   Do you feel that because we have not measured, we are safe?  Burry our heads in the sand and we are safe?

Oh, you say, "trust the experts."   Well, what do your experts say?  

See Bashish. . . these levels of fluoride in the urine also show lower IQ for children.   Is your position that teeth are more important than brains?

Please explain.

NHANES 2010 2011 reported 60% dental fluorosis for adolescents...too much fluoride.

Till et all, Oct. 10 2018, (see below) "Creatinine-adjusted MUF values (mean±SD; milligrams per liter) were almost two times higher for pregnant women living in fluoridated regions (0.87±0.50) compared with nonfluoridated regions (0.46±0.34; p<0.001)."

"Abstract

Background:

Fluoride exposures have not been established for pregnant women who live in regions with and without community water fluoridation.

Objective:

Our aim was to measure urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy. We also assessed the contribution of drinking-water and tea consumption habits to maternal urinary fluoride (MUF) concentrations and evaluated the impact of various dilution correction standards, including adjustment for urinary creatinine and specific gravity (SG).

Methods:

We measured MUF concentrations in spot samples collected in each trimester of pregnancy from 1,566 pregnant women in the Maternal–Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals cohort. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess variability in MUF concentrations across pregnancy. We used regression analyses to estimate associations between MUF levels, tea consumption, and water fluoride concentrations as measured by water treatment plants.

Results:

Creatinine-adjusted MUF values (mean±SD; milligrams per liter) were almost two times higher for pregnant women living in fluoridated regions (0.87±0.50) compared with nonfluoridated regions (0.46±0.34; p<0.001). MUF values tended to increase over the course of pregnancy using both unadjusted values and adjusted values. Reproducibility of the unadjusted and adjusted MUF values was modest (ICCrange=0.37–0.40). The municipal water fluoride level was positively associated with creatinine-adjusted MUF (B=0.52, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.57), accounting for 24% of the variance after controlling for covariates. Higher MUF concentrations correlated with numbers of cups of black (r=0.31–0.32 but not green tea (r=0.04–0.06). Urinary creatinine and SG correction methods were highly correlated (r=0.91) and were interchangeable in models examining predictors of MUF.

Conclusion:

Community water fluoridation is a major source of fluoride exposure for pregnant women living in Canada. Urinary dilution correction with creatinine and SG were shown to be interchangeable for our sample of pregnant women. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3546

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

I described the truth before. I will try again.

San Diego voted twice against fluoridation. The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA). 

The city of LA did the same thing. The response from city officials is the CA state health department under the CDC requested fluoridation. (As though the CDC is the ultimate governmental authority on the subject). 

The CADPH official who requested LA fluoridate told me that he does what  the CDC tells him to do.

So fluoridationists don't have their facts straight.

Forced fluoridation is illegal and the SDWA was written to halt its spread (Graham and Morin). But their blind spot won't let them believe it.

[DavidF928895]

Richard Sauerheber,  this is your statement:

"I described the truth before. I will try again.

San Diego voted twice against fluoridation. The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA)."

Response:  That is incorrect. 

This is the statute from the SDWA to which you refer, is it not?:

  “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

But you say:  "The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA)."

The city council of San Diego is not a "national primary drinking water regulation "   A city council is not a national anything.  The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act does not make the scenario you have described "illegal," because that statute is a reference to the Federal government.  

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

[rs5526]

I was sent a direct email from the CA Dept. of Health officer who demanded that MWD fluoridate the L.A. basin. His  name is D. Nelson who is now retired. When he was unable to answer splecific questions, he wrote "Richard, I do what the CDC tells  me to do".

The U.S. CDC and associated figureheads, the U.S. Surgeons General, regularly declare fluoride to be a top public health achievement and request that waters in the U.S. be infused with fluoride.  CDC officials recognize that it is illegal for them to require it (SDWA) so their official wording is very careful so as to maintain deniabilitly of any liability or responsilbity for requesting it. 

If one doesn't understand that the CDC is responsible for various States mandating fluoridation because of their official request, then that person is stuck at square one with a long way to go.

The CDC requests National fluoridation which is an action that cannot be required by any Federal Agency and at the same time refuses to accept liability or the resonsibility for fluoridation and its adverse effects, including but not limited to widespread dental fluorosis in teens.  .

[rs5526]

Wrong.

The city council in San Diego and the Metropolitan Water District Board in Los Angeles all used the same rationale to overturn the voting will of the public. It was stated that the CA State Board of Health under request from the U.S  Centers for Disease Control requested the aciton. The U.S. CDC is indeed a Federal or National agency.

We need the whole story, not a portion thereof that suits a special interest...

[DavidF928895]

Richard, your statement:

"The city council in San Diego and the Metropolitan Water District Board in Los Angeles all used the same rationale to overturn the voting will of the public. It was stated that the CA State Board of Health under request from the U.S  Centers for Disease Control requested the aciton. The U.S. CDC is indeed a Federal or National agency."

Response:  Even if what you say is true, none of this is a violation of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  Again, here is the statute which you are using:

 “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control has nothing to do with "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations."  We have already gone over this.  The Statute in question is a reference Safe Drinking Water Act itself (national primary drinking water regulation) and The CDC has nothing to do with the SDWA.  

There is nothing illegal going on in your story.

[rs5526]

When a Federal agency, namely the CDC, still claims fluoridation is a "great public health achievement" and requests that the eniter country's water districts fluoridate, that is the same as a mandate. A request from an authority is a mandate. It is illegal, and forced fluoridation against the voting public, as continues in CA, is illegal.

The SDWA is an offshoot of the CWA which is a modernized derivative of the WPCA which states its mission (section 101A) is to maintain the natural chemistry of all U.S. waters.

Get a grip, fluoridationists.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:  

"When a Federal agency, namely the CDC, still claims fluoridation is a "great public health achievement" and requests that the eniter country's water districts fluoridate, that is the same as a mandate. A request from an authority is a mandate. It is illegal, and forced fluoridation against the voting public, as continues in CA, is illegal."

Again, this is the statute from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act that you doctors are trying to make confusing:  

 “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

Doctor Sauerheber, there is nothing in that statute which mentions the CDC.  The CDC has nothing to do with "National Primary Drinking Water Regulation"s.   The Statute is referring to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act itself.  This would fall under the domain of the EPA, and the EPA takes no official position on community water fluoridation.  There is nothing illegal, in any way, about this.  

Now, your blatant attempt to muddy the waters of a very clear and understandable statute is nothing short of deception.  

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

[CarryAnne]

The Hunt for Red October 

The baiting of Dr. Osmunson, a dentist and peer-reviewed published researcher, and Dr. Sauerheber, a chemist and peer-reviewed published researcher, is a strategy in the troll playbook to distract focus and bury substantive social media comments, such as my comment on the fluoride studies published ahead of print this month, all focusing on medical data such as  urine and blood measurements. 

Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X

• Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674.

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking  'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt).  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116302808

• Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2018. 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children were individually tested. Study found attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride specific to dose. This is the 3rd report out of the NIH sponsored 12 year study that seems to have been designed with the intention of showing no ill effect, but instead has three times to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

• Morteza Bashash, Maelle Marchand, Howard Hu, ChristineTill,  Angeles Martinez-Mier, Brisa N. Sanchez, Niladri Basu, Karen Peterson, Rivka Green, Lourdes Schnaas, Adriana Mercado-García, Mauricio Hernández-Avila, Martha María Téllez-Rojo. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 658-666

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4 % of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7 

• Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987718308600

• Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118325673  

• P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! 

[BillO538145]

David,

You keep asking for "proof" and yet I don't see that you are looking at the facts.

I have given you many studies on fluoride's effect on cancer, the human brain, and thyroid.  

Once again, read CarryAnne's post on the recent published research on fluoride.  Repeating:

"Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. 

• Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status.Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674.

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking  'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt).  

• Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2018. 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children were individually tested. Study found attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride specific to dose. This is the 3rd report out of the NIH sponsored 12 year study that seems to have been designed with the intention of showing no ill effect, but instead has three times to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. 

• Morteza Bashash, Maelle Marchand, Howard Hu, ChristineTill,  Angeles Martinez-Mier, Brisa N. Sanchez, Niladri Basu, Karen Peterson, Rivka Green, Lourdes Schnaas, Adriana Mercado-García, Mauricio Hernández-Avila, Martha María Téllez-Rojo. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 658-666

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4 % of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. 

• Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. 

• Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting.  

• P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

Remember, 60% of adolescents are ingesting too much fluoride.  It is time to reduce the fluoride exposure for the next generation. . . if we value their brains and thyroid function and bones and teeth.

Severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk and has reached over 2% of adolescents.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill says:  "Once again, read CarryAnne's post on the recent published research on fluoride. "

Ok, let's look at the first thing in her post.  

"THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. "

I'll ask you the same thing I asked her:  

Who?   You would have us believe that 18% of Canadians who drink fluoridated water are at risk of thyroid problems?  Who, Dr. Bill?

18% is almost One in Five of Canadians drinking this stuff.  We are talking about millions of people here.  Who?  Name one.  Of the Millions of People that "Carry Anne" has cited, there must be at least one documented case of some Canadian somewhere who actually had thyroid problems because they drank perfectly fluoridated water.  

Who was it?   Do you have a Freedom of Information Act request for that one too, that, for some reason, you can't copy-paste here?  

Who?  Please cite one docuemented case of any human being who has ever had thyroid problems as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

[BillO538145]

David,

You keep asking for "proof" and yet I don't see that you are looking at the facts.

I have given you many studies on fluoride's effect on cancer, the human brain, and thyroid.  

Once again, read CarryAnne's post on the recent published research on fluoride.  Repeating:

"Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X

• Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status.Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674.

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking  'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt).  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116302808

• Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2018. 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children were individually tested. Study found attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride specific to dose. This is the 3rd report out of the NIH sponsored 12 year study that seems to have been designed with the intention of showing no ill effect, but instead has three times to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

• Morteza Bashash, Maelle Marchand, Howard Hu, ChristineTill,  Angeles Martinez-Mier, Brisa N. Sanchez, Niladri Basu, Karen Peterson, Rivka Green, Lourdes Schnaas, Adriana Mercado-García, Mauricio Hernández-Avila, Martha María Téllez-Rojo. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 658-666

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4 % of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7 

• Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987718308600

• Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118325673  

• P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

Remember, 60% of adolescents are ingesting too much fluoride.  It is time to reduce the fluoride exposure for the next generation. . . if we value their brains and thyroid function and bones and teeth.

Severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk and has reached over 2% of adolescents.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Carry Anne says, "AARP . . .  Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

Response:  This is another great example of the bullying tactics from a very small, fringe, vocal minority, most of whom are graduates of the highly esteemed University of Google, who because of their internet research, believe they are more informed about community water fluoridation than over 100 of the World's most Highly Respected medical organizations.

It is a dangerous thing to allow laymen to hijack any proven public health policy.  We see internet researchers spreading fear and paranoia about vaccinations, which can be dangerous to the larger community. 

This is akin to letting gratuates of the U. of Google build and fly the plane you are about to board.  Would any sane person allow that to occur?

[DavidF928895]

Carrie Ann,

Are there any documented examples of people who have had thyroid problems because they drank optimally fluoridated water?  

Are there any documented examples of pregnant women who have had health problems because they included optimally fluoridated water as part of their diets?  

The answers will be no, since optimally fluoridated water has not been shown to be harmful to those who drink it.  

By the way, despite your overly suspicious mindset, I am not baiting either Dr. Osmunsun or Sauerheber.  I am asking them for evidence to support their unbelieveable comments.  

Dr. Sauerheber, the FDA has never claimed that optimally fluroridated water is a drug, in any sense of the word, and you have been able to provide no evidence to the contrary.

Dr. Osmunson, The Safe Drinking Water Act does not prohibit community water fluoridation, despite your misrepresentation of one statute which does prohibit a federal mandate.  States and local jurisdictions are free to do what they choose in this regard.

[rs5526]

Fluoride that is unavoidable from natural contamination of fresh water is a mineral, but it has no nutritional value.

Also it is not lying to repeat what officials from the EPA or FDA have writen, whether a link to such a written statement exists or not. Truth is not all contained in computer links..

Most people know the SDWA wording that prohibits a national requirement for adding fluoride. But fewer understand that the Act was written to halt the spread of water fluoridation Graham and Morin).

The FDA allowed wording on bottled water does not constitute approval for the intentional addition of fluoride into water for ingestion. Fortunately the FDA still cannot approve any such substance for ingestion without controlled clinical trials data.

And the notion that ingesting fluoride MAY reduce dental caries (because many people claim so) has no meaning. Fortunately it is stated to not be intended for ingestion by infants.

The FDA ban petition for the country is still pending under review. Pray it will happen, to end all this lack of knowledge gross propaganda.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber says: 

"Also it is not lying to repeat what officials from the EPA or FDA have writen, whether a link to such a written statement exists or not. Truth is not all contained in computer links..

Most people know the SDWA wording that prohibits a national requirement for adding fluoride. But fewer understand that the Act,was written to halt the,spread of water fluoridation ."

Dr. S., I will respond to you exactly as I have responded to Dr. Osmunson.  Since I see both of your names plastered all over a website called "Fluoride Class Action," why doesn't your friend, Attorney James Deal take this case to court?  With all this documentation which you claim exists, even though you can't seem to provide evidence of it here, that would seem to be a natural solution.  Isn't that what Attorney Deal is supposed to be doing?

https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/

By the way, I've asked Dr. Osmunson, but I can't seem to get an answer.  How much money does  Attorney Deal take from prospective clients whom you've made afraid of fluoridated water?  .  .  And how much has he actually collected for them?

[rs5526]

Sorry, but many people, even in government, believe false claims, including the notion that fluoride is an "essential nutrient." The old notion posited by fluoridationists was that fluoride, which "must be good," therefore in bone "must strengthen bone." But the FDA commissioned the NIH to study this and found that fluoride in bone does not strengthen bone at any concentration. The claim is false, and in fact fluoride in bone causes the formation of bone regions of poor quality and abnormal crystal structure. Moreoever, the hallmark of a nutrient is that when it is lowered in concentration its effect is reversible. Fluoride in bone has such a very long half life that it may be considered irreversible through normal biochemical means. It is a chronic cumulative poison, which is why "community water fluoridation" is actually a permanent, chronic bone fluoridation program.. .

Second, detailed controlled experiments with mamals in two U.S. labs and one in the U.K. proved that raising animals in the complete absence of fluoride for lifetimes does not cause any adverse condition (as reviewed in: Yiamouyiannis, J., Fluoride, the aging factor, 1985). Hence fluoride is correctly not listed as an essential nutrient. Internet sites exist that claim the opposite but have no basis in fact.

Third,  controlled experiments indicate that providing fluoride water to mammals does not decrease the incidence of spontaneous dental caries. The entire idea that somehow fluoride "strengthens" teeth enamel but without actually being able to penetrate into the enamel matrix is false and always has been a false correlation. Correlation of coincidental lower caries rates with fluoride in water does not prove causation, and this is a prime example. Lower caries rates in some areas with fluoride in water were presumed to be related, but were not..

Finally, James Deal has stated that he has never taken any fluoride case to court, namely because 1) of the difficulty of dealing with people who believe the myth, such as the person who accuses me of presenting falsehoods on this site, and 2).proving harm from fluorldated water in a victim who was not kept in a cage to know for certain where his fluoride exposure was from, or at least monitoring the person during his chronic exposure, is nearly impossible, other than for dental fluorosis from exposure in youth, which is readily visible. The known effects on increasing TSH levels and elevating both PTH and calcitontin levels simultaneously whilch is pathologic, as published for populations on 1 ppm fluoride in water described in the NRC 2006 Report, are very difficult to exlusively blame in any particular person on drinking water. This is because of other sources of fluoride that could be blamed instead which are difficult to prove never occurred. The legal expense of fighting such cases is prohibitive, when dealing with a low dose chronic very long term poison. In any event, the answer to your ridiculous question is zero funds have been collected from fluoridation lawsuits by James Deal because he has never litigated any. The title of his fluoride class action site, which reflects the hope that one day such a case could be brought to a high court, really bothers some people, but I say, so what?.The truth really hurts, doesn't it?

[DrChuckHaynie]

Clearly fluoride can be .

A natural mineral in drinking water
A mineral nutrient
A water additive
An over the counter medication
A prescription medication
An industrial chemical
An industrial pollutant
A fumigant
Used as a rat poison

Each of these statements is true.  There are important, critical distinctions between each use, each concentration, and the purity standards which define the various incarnations of "fluoride."   Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use.

The willful refusal to acknowledge these clear and easily understood distinctions is an important element in fluoridation opponents misleading the general public.

--------

I've made this point before her (June) but am repeating it because of the claim continues to be repeated. 

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluble vitamins (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvy with Vit. C.).

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DrChuckHaynie]

Not all nutrients are essential. I didn't claim F- to be an essential nutrient.

Although you disagree, fluoride ions are generally believed to be of benefit to teeth and the skeletal system (see especially Li et al 2001) and therefore should and is considered a mineral nutrient.

The pharmacy (USP) standards would not specifically guarantee purity as does Standard 60 which water additives must meet. USP has only a global total maximum for heavy metals, Std 60 specific standards for each. Additionally, the USP standard demands no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. Actual testing of fluoridated water shows no evidence of detectable changes in the levels of regulated micro-contaminants. Arsenic has been specifically analyzed. The incremental intake of arsenic from fluoridation is a minuscule fraction (2/1000) of normal dietary arsenic. (see Peterson et al 2015 and Dietary Reference Intakes 2001).

There are also physical granularity standards in the NSF/ANSI water additive regulations which protect water utility workers that USP doesn't cover.

see: https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm

[Underbat]

Hello everyone,

We are a community of people with diverse beliefs, opinions and backgrounds, so please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

[rs5526]

This is inane. Comparing USP standards for drugs with the private organization NSF Standard 60 is elevating a private criminal enterprise to the statuure of drugs regulated by the Federal FDA.

USP regulations for drugs are applied only for substances that are FDA approved or allowed, and by definition are manufactured under well-controlled conditions that are completely sanitary, knowing that the intent from the outset is for eventual human ingestion.

The NSF is a private organization that rubber stamps fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as being an acceptable "water purification agent", as claimed on their inserts with the material. The hazarodus waste silicon tetrafluoride gas scrubbers at fertilizer plants is NOT prepared using the Good Manufacturing Practices required for drugs under USP regulations by the FDA. The fluosilicic acid chemical material contains radioactive elements, and many substances that are not yet even identified because the starting materials are contaminated fluoride-rich rock. USP drugs are synthesized de novo from sterile materials of known purity in controlled laboratories with strict GMP procedures. 

And by the way, since when must a population be forcerd against their will to ingest a substance that is not necessary for human nutrition, as stated here even from a fluoride promoter?  San Diego citizens know the truth and voted against fluoridation twice. And yet the city is fluoridated anyway. What un-American, anti-Democratic nonsense that amounts to oppression and an unlawful operation.. Fluoridation of peoples' bones is a scam that some have come to believe is actually somehow useful, when it is useless, harmful, and illegal..

I have an acuaintance who consumes fluoridated water and eats soups, etcd. made with it in Escondido which ha been fljuoridated since 2005 without Federal monitoring of effectiveness, bone accumulation, urine levels, or any other health measure. Now he had to have a knee replaced. There is no way to prove that fluoridation caused the knee joint pain but please understand that consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water that is not particularly hard for 13 years is known to accumulate fluoride in bone to about 2,000 ppm on average. This level of accumulation has caused bone pain in many individuals as listed and described in the NRC 2006 report. But can he successfully litigate the city for this damage to his bone that fluoridation of bone causes? Of course not. How does he prove that he drank city water all these years?How does he prove he did not over-use fluoride toothpaste all these years, etc.?

There is no legal recourse for him. He lives with a phoney knee and that's that, al lwhile fluoridation gets a free pass and a claim that it is some useful mineral. A pretty sick joke becaue no one I know is laughing..

[DrChuckHaynie]

Both USP and NSF are independent non-governmental organizations well established as reliably enforcing standards for drugs, products and systems. There are many similarities and nothing whatsoever to suggest either is asleep at the wheel with respect to the public's safety as you apparently believe. As private organizations both own their respective logos used to identify certification America trusts both for good reason.

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

I agree with you that we should trust agencies as "reliable;" however, I am certain when it comes to fluoride and fluoridation, we MUST verify the statements and agencies positions.   Trust but verify.

I briefly touched on sulfuryl fluoride, a post-harvest fumigant called Profume by Dow and here is more which directly applies to the EPA's MCLG and fluoridation. 

As you may know, SF Profume, a post-harvest fumigant was introduced a few years back.  We don't like bugs in our food and we don't want to throw away bug infested foods.  You can read the history at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/19/2011-917/sulfuryl-fluoride-proposed-order-granti...

We objected to the EPA's permitting additional fluoride in foods in large part because too many are ingesting too much even without additional fluoride. The case went to an administrative review judge.  Please read the decision at http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/sf-nov.2006.pdf

So much information in that decision which should be carefully reviewed and understood.   The judge was not kind to the EPA. . . and neither should we when it comes to fluoride.

Summarizing the judge:

“EPA agrees that aggregate exposure to fluoride . . . does not meet the safety standard in FFDCA section 408.”

Too much fluoride.

 “The fluoride MCLG is not protective of the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones;”

Very important to consider, MCLG refers to the fluoride concentration in water. 

"The fluoride MCLG is not protective of other neurotoxic, endocrine, and renal effects of fluoride;

EPA has not adequately protected children;

EPA cannot determine the safety of sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride in the absence of a developmental neurotoxicity study;

EPA has underestimated exposure to fluoride; and

  EPA has committed procedural errors in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq"

 However, Congress overrode the EPA Judge and has permitted sulfuryl fluoride on foods.

We should not blindly trust the EPA until they correct the gross errors.  Even with the judge telling the EPA they are not protecting the public the MCLG still remains unchanged. 

Politics trumps science.

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  A reduction in exposure must start with a cessation of water fluoridation.  At least Profume provides a very useful function, killing bugs and preserving food.  Water fluoridation does not provide any benefit to the water. 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

Please. NSF's Standard 60 prohibits adding into water any substance recognized as an EPA contaminant to a level higher than 10% of its EPA MCL. The MCL and MCLG for fluoride are 4 and 2 ppm and 10% of 4 is 0.4 ppm, and yet NSF certifies fluosilicic acid for the treatment of water to 0.7-1 ppm fluoride. NSF doesn't even follow its own regulations.

Nor does NSF have any legal authority to regulate drugs or supplements sold for human ingestion in the first place. NSF personnell have no clue about official GMPs (good mahufacturing practices) required for all synthetic substances to be taken internally by humans.  Fluosilicic acid form sulfuric acid dissolved rock that produces hazardous wastre siicon tetrafluoride that is then scrubbed as an aqueous solution and relabeled suddenly not a hazardous waste but instead a water purification agent is not made under sanitary controlled conditions as required by law. Period.

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluable vitamines (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvey with Vit. C.).

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[RossF715288]

One statement is not true

A nutrient is defined as a substance that provides nourishment essential (please note essential) for the maintenance of life and for growth.

There is no evidence that fluoride fits that definition, even for teeth.

[DavidF928895]

Ross says:  

"One statement is not true

A nutrient is defined as a substance that provides nourishment essential (please note essential) for the maintenance of life and for growth."

Response:  

I'll bet you got your information from an anti-fluoride website . . perhaps the Fluoride Action Network?

To your comment,  .  .  .  And yet fluoride does occur naturally in the body.  Dr. Paul Connett will be the first one to admit that an amount of fluoride does exist naturally in mother's milk.  

Ross, are there any examples of anyone who has had the fluoride removed from their bodies and lived to tell the tale?  Of course not.  You are simply parrotting what FAN has spoon fed to you without thinking about it.  

"Fluoride is the ionic form of the naturally occurring fluorine element. The anion increases the structural stability of teeth and bones through interactions with calcium phosphates."  https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/fluoride

"The fluoride AI and UL for 0-8 year olds were updated in 2017. The following updated reference bodyweights were used when the NRVs were expressed in mg fluoride/day; 0-6 months 6 kg, 7-12 months 9 kg, 1-3 years 12 kg, 4-8 years 22 kg."  .  .  "Rationale: The purpose of the AI for infants and young children is to provide information on the level of intake that provides protection from inadequate intake, .  .  "  https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/fluoride

[BillO538145]

David,

There are many opinions on the internet, contact the EPA an FDA on who has jurisdiction over fluoride when used with the INTENT to prevent disease.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH