Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

359,412 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

23,588 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

22,332 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

14,009 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

 

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

 

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

 

Really? 

 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

 

 

View solution in original post

9,887 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,364 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
3,303 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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! 

3,821 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

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

3,345 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
3,394 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
3,335 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

0 Kudos
3,478 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
3,572 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,903 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

0 Kudos
3,489 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,440 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

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. 

3,895 Views
12
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

3,419 Views
6
Report
Regular Contributor

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



0 Kudos
3,494 Views
5
Report
Moderator
Moderator

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

 

 

3,487 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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..

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,873 Views
3
Report
Regular Contributor

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.
0 Kudos
4,106 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

3,896 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
4,141 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

3,812 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

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.

4,292 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
4,029 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

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

0 Kudos
3,764 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill:  "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."

 

Response:  I don't have to contact them.  It's right here:  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm

 

" In 1979, EPA executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish and clarify areas of authority in controlling additives in drinking water. FDA has regulatory oversight for food additives, which includes bottled water, and EPA has regulatory oversight of direct additives in public drinking water supplies."

 

Now, in case you want to muddy the waters on this also, it is saying EPA has oversight of additives in drinking water supplies.  There is no mention of intent.  It simply says EPA has oversight.  

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

0 Kudos
3,790 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Vote on whether a town wants to fluoridate or not?  Wow. What planet do you live on?

San Diego citizens voted in city wide elections against fluoridation of water TWICE. AND passed a city ordinnace prohibiting addition of fluoridation chemicals into water. .And yet the CDC recommendation to fluoridate, which led to the CA State "mandate", caused the city to capitulate regardless of how their own citizens voted.

 

A request from the CDC, a Federal agency, is identical to a requirement because who is to challenge the supposed head agency on the issue?

 

And the point is that thre are no controlled clinical trials for ingested fluoride in man and thus no FDA aqpproval can be granted for the ingestion of the substance, regardless of whether it is called a supplement, drug, etc. 

The CDC is requesting and promoting a bone fluoridation program that has no proven experiments to defend it and that is forbidden from being Nationally required anyway (as stipulated in the SDWA).

 

Regardless of what the FDA or anyone calls the substance and the program, there are no data that prove ingesting fluoride decreases caries. In fact the rigorous experiments we have that are well-controlled are mammals in cages given fluoridated water. There are no reduction in caries incidence from fluoridation.  But when the CDC ignores the facts, this is what we are dealt--correlations that suddenly are argued to be proven facts wihtout actual proof, which is luldicrous.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
4,330 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I have the letter from E. Lovering, the head if the FDA, stating in writing what I posted. Perhaos you could contact the FDA if you refuse to accept the truth from me.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
4,414 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

It's not even half way through the month, and look at the newest studies damning fluoridation as a public harm policy in just the past few days. 

 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities at risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and do 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

 

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 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

 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children who were individually tested had attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride. 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. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

 

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume in 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 also 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 

 

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

4,536 Views
13
Report
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

Thank you for those studies.

 

No one actually reading the research regarding the dosage of fluoride we are getting and the serious harm to our brains from too much fluoride would promote ingesting even more fluoride.  Makes no sense to intentionally harm brains.

 

Combine the current fluoride neurotoxic studies along with past studies and fluoridation will and must stop.  

 

To make matters worse, some attempt to reassure us that fluoride is effective in mitigating dental caries.  Unfortunately the research makes claims more by default, estimates, and assumptions rather than good research evidence.  The claim is often, "caries declined, so the effect must have been fluoride."   

 

It is time for promoters to provide RCT studies and gain FDA approval, show the evidence or stop forcing people to ingest excess fluoride.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
4,530 Views
12
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

This has been addtessed repeatedly in earlier posts. The FEW  ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved dtug. 

And regardless of whether one prefers  to call fluoride , which is added to treat human tissue , either a drug or a supplement, is irrelevant since the FDA has sole authority to regulate both drugs and supplements -- regardless of the method of dissemination.

Some argue fluoride is,a food but the FDA ruled that fluoride is not considered safe to add to foods.

Current FDA staff considers fluoride to be a toxic agent under  the toxic substances control act and that the EPA needs to deal with the problem, while  the EPA states that fluoride is added to mitigate caries and thus needs to be regulated by the FDA. Neither agency currently regulates fluoridation. 

This ,is  all old news.

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
4,472 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber for your barely legible response.  

 

For the m-teenth time now, could you please provide a link and a citation to an FDA website in which the FDA calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug?"  Since this was the entire premise of your rant, that would be necessary to back up what you were trying to say.

 

You haven't been able to provide such evidence before, so I don't expect miracles now.

4,429 Views
1
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

NEW: AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays! This week, achieve a top score in Bubble Shooter and you could win $100! Learn More.

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays