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! 

[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

[DavidF928895]

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.

[rs5526]

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.

[rs5526]

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.

[CarryAnne]

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

[BillO538145]

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

[rs5526]

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.

[DavidF928895]

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.

[BillO538145]

David.  

By your our response I can tell you have not read enough on the web site.  

FDA reviews drug applications.   

If no one makes application, no approval or denial on the FDA site will be found.  

Look for sodium fluoride pills and no approval will be found.  

You will either find approval or nothing.  

And the approval is specific with dosage warnings contraindications etc.  

listen to tv adds on drugs.  All the warnings and contraindications and side affects.   

Nothing on fluoride ingestion but there is on toothpaste.  

Your question makes no sense in the drug regulatory process.  

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, 

Could you remind us all again how you would undertake an RTC with community water fluoridation?  

And why exactly would the practice of community water fluoridation need FDA approval?  Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we talking about optimally fluoridated water?  Could you show me anywhere on this FDA regulated product (bottled water - the FDA has regulatory authority over bottled water because it is considered a "food") where the word "Drug," or the phrase "Drug Facts" are used?  This is the label from a bottle of optimally fluoridated water.

https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

Could you please cite any Federal Regulatory Authority which considers optimally fluoridated water a "Drug"?

[BillO538145]

Hi David,

Such good questions.  Unfortunately, you seem to either fail to read my posts or read so fast you miss the answers.  I have responded repeatedly on your two questions.  Please slow down and read carefully.

To your first question on how to do a prospective RCT, consider several options.  

a.   Easiest to do an RCT with fluoride pills  The intent of fluoridation is to increase fluoride exposure (increase background dosage).  Fluoride pills have the same alleged benefit as putting the fluoride pill in water and swallowing the water.   In other words, have two sets of pills, one a fluoride pill and another a placebo pill.  Give the pills to people and keep track of who gets which pill  If an RCT were done with pills and demonstrated effective at a specific dosage and safe at that dosage, FDA approval could be applied for and approved.   Make swallowing fluoride legal with FDA approval.   If fluoride pills were legal, promoters of fluoridation would have a rather strong case.   The biggest problem would be to gain ethical approval.  With so many studies demonstrating harm, I doubt a university human studies ethics board would approve the study.   If an RCT is unethical, certainly forcing people to ingest the fluoride without consent should be questioned.

b.  There are communities in the North of Canada/Alaska and other remote communities in countries where water is trucked to the community.  A prospective RCT could be done with these communities. Again, the biggest hurdel would be ethics approval.  Too many studies showing harm.

David, we put a man on the moon, certainly we can make the swallowing of fluoride with the intent to prevent disease. . . legal and supported by the best of science.  The biggest problem to an RCT would be ethics.

To your second question of why fluoride used with the intent to prevent disease requires FDA approval.

   FDA approval is required by both Federal and all state laws.    21 USC 321 (g)(1)(B) states, "Articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease."   

The intent of fluoride is to prevent dental caries, a disease.   

If one argues that fluoride is not a drug, then fluoride is regulated under poison laws.  However, fluoride is exempt from poison laws when regulated under drug laws.  No exemption is made when diluted with water.

Fluoride is listed as a drug in all Pharmacopias and laws define drugs as those listed in the US Pharmacopia.

Fluoride is called a drug by the FDA.  See FDA.gov.   You can contact the FDA and ask the FDA if ingestion of fluoride is FDA approved whether in pills or liquids or disolved in water.

Note:  Drug Digest in 1975 notified 35 fluoride manufacturers:  

“. . .there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling. . . marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.”        

Read the FDA web site on Drug approval.  See FDA.gov Look under "drugs."  Then look at resources on the left side.   Look at how the FDA defines "drugs."  No exception to a drug just because it is diluted with water.  The intent of use defines the substance as a drug.

Now look at your toothpaste.  If fluoride is added, the toothpaste has a label, "Drug Facts."

Fluoride is approved in toothpaste with the label "Do Not Swallow."   Because, swallowing fluoride is not approved.

Now look at the Safe Drinking Water Act:

SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ”42 USC 300g-1(b)(11):

For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 

Some have suggested they are simply adjusting the natural concentration of fluoride in water, and that is true.  But the intent, saying again, "INTENT" of use makes fluoride a drug and drugs are under FDA jurisdiction.   If fluoride were added to kill bacteria, then it would be legal, but fluoride is added to prevent disease.

At one time the natural concentration of lithium concentration was considered.  Lithium was considered so safe, safe for everyone, and would help those in need.  But lithium addition to water was stopped because it is a drug and found not safe for everyone.

Many other substances are found naturally in water but are not safe in larger quantities, concentrations.

Thanks for your questions, go to FDA.gov and they have much more.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, 

Your quote:  "Unfortunately, you seem to either fail to read my posts or read so fast you miss the answers.  I have responded repeatedly on your two questions.  Please slow down and read carefully."

Response:  Actually, I have read your responses, and you were kind enough to repeat them here.  Let's look at what you propose for an RCT for Community Water Fluoridation (CWF).

Let's look at your proposal B first.  Your Quote:  "There are communities in the North of Canada/Alaska and other remote communities in countries where water is trucked to the community.  A prospective RCT could be done with these communities. Again, the biggest hurdel would be ethics approval."

Response:  You are correct.  Ethics would be a problem here since your proposal is a clear violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires each supplier of drinking water to supply its customers with written notification of the results of analysis on that water.  Under your proposal, people who drink water which is "trucked to the community" would not be privy to analytical results.  That is illegal.  

Moreover, your proposal is not an RCT, it is a prospective cohort study.  An RCT invokes random selection from within a population, not comparing 2 self-selected populations, so they would have to combine the names from both town, then randomly select people into the F and non-F groups, and force them to live in their assigned town for 5+ years.  That would split up a lot of families!

Now let's look at your proposal A.  Your Quote:  "Easiest to do an RCT with fluoride pills  The intent of fluoridation is to increase fluoride exposure (increase background dosage).  Fluoride pills have the same alleged benefit as putting the fluoride pill in water and swallowing the water. "

Response:  Pills.  You are suggesting that pills would somehow replace authentic community water fluoridation to determine that teeth are protected in the same way as a constant supply of drinking water.  

For the readers of this thread who may not be accustomed to your loose relationship with facts, let me illustrate how absurd this idea is.  

First of all, any study like this would fail an objecive peer review process.  Why?  

They are not the same things.  You want to test apples by applying oranges.  Allow me to illustrate the problem with your idea.  

I get up at 3 o'clock in the morning to go to the bathroom, and I drink some fluoridated water which not only neutralizes the acids in my mouth which have been accumulating since 9 pm' these are acids which would normally lead to decay.  Correct?  

In your scenario, instead of drinking water at 3 am, 6 am (when I get up), 7 am, in my coffee, and throughout the day in which 0.7 ppm F are bathing and remineralizing my teeth, .  .  .  you suggest that I take a pill once a day.  

You are literally nuts.  That is the most insane proposal I have ever heard.  It would in no way ever pass a peer-reviewed process as a substitute for community water fluoridation.  

It is simply not the same thing!  

So while you whine and say, "It is time for promoters to provide RCT studies," you must realize that your own ill-advised proposals lack any substance whatsoever.  

To your second point about FDA approval, I couldn't help notice that you have failed to provide any quotation, any citation, from any Federal Health Authority which has deemed optimally fluoridated water "A Drug."  

The only people in this county who call optimally fluroidated water a drug is YOU.  You at the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which takes money from Alternative Health companies who profit from the paranoia that FAN generates, .  .  .  and You at Fluoride Class Action, you and Dr. Sauerheber, who have your own web pages on that site.  

Interesting question. Both you and Dr. Sauerheber are all over the website "Fluoride Class Action."  My question is, how much money has Attorney James Deal taken from prospective clients as part of his fluoride paranoia campaign?  

Next question:  How much money has he actually collected from legitimate lawsuites filed against those responsible for the proven health initiative Community Water Fluoridation?  

You deceptively cite this from the SDWA:  "SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

Response:  So What.  All this says - when applied to water fluoridation - is that the federal government can not mandate it.  The Federal government can not require water fluoridation.  It is normally voted upon by the people, and in some cases states can mandate it, but your interpretation is . .  deceptive to say the least. 

The following quote from you is a blatant lie.

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

That is a lie, Dr. Bill.  Please provide documentation of what you just said here.  

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

There is no such

[BillO538145]

David,

You call me a liar because I quote the FDA with reference.   Those are not my words, those are the EPA's.  Why don't you contact the EPA and ask them to explain the law on fluoride to you?

I asked you to read what I wrote and you made me laugh because right after you call me a liar you demand documentation.  May I quote:

"That is a lie, Dr. Bill.  Please provide documentation of what you just said here.  

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

Read that again David.  Do you see the documentation right after your tirade.  The EPA's response to my FOIA.  Contact the EPA and ask for a copy of their response, the number is right there.   See it????    FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10

May I repeat FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 Contact EPA for a copy.

You are so focused on ripping me apart you fail to see the documentation in your own cut and paste of my quote.  

Contact the EPA, Contact the FDA, do your homework.   I did my homework before I spoke out against fluoridation.  I respect you not wanting to have blind belief, but you do have blind belief in the fluoridation public health blunder.  

I do not have time to argue with you on RCT methodology and requirements.  

You do not understand the theoretical action of fluoride ingestion benefit to teeth.  

Yes, there are some differences between the same dose in a pill or diluted in water.  And there are more differences because pills have dosage controlled whereas fluoridated water does not have doseage controlled.  Some drink very little water and some drink a great deal.  A study with pills would be better controlled and higher quality.  But RCT with water could be done.

Another option for a good study would be fluoride urine and serum fluoride concentrations and caries rates.  Measured results are so much better than evidence by default.  These should have been done long ago and they have not.

Like I said before, go to the FDA and read the definition of a drug, how a drug is approved, etc.   

Even a placebo is considered a drug by the FDA because of the intent of use.

Do your homework, go to the source.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, I called you a liar because you aren't telling the truth.  

BillO:  

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

I had asked you to provide documentation of what you just said so we may all read the whole thing in context.  

Again, please provide a link which supports what you just said.

I said you were lying because the statute from the SDWA which you cited clearly does not prohibit water fluoridation.  It says the Federal Government can not Require it.   That's a little bit different than prohibiting it.  

A link please?  

Moreover, if what you are saying was true, take the EPA to Court.  Take every state regulatory authority which oversees water fluoridation to court. 

It should be easy for a guy like you.  I see your name, and Dr. Sauerheber's name plastered all over a website called "Fluoride Class Action."   Isn't that the sort of thing Attorney James Deal is supposed to do?   How much money is that guy taking from potential clients?   You never answered that question, did you.

Your deceptive quote:  "Now look at your toothpaste.  If fluoride is added, the toothpaste has a label, "Drug Facts.""

Response:  We are not talking about toothpaste.  We are talking about optimally fluoridated water.  Do you understand that there is a difference between these two products?  

Again, The FDA is the regulatory authority which oversees Bottled Water.  This is a label from the FDA regulated product, "Dannon's Fluoride to Go" bottled water:  Please show me the word "Drug" or "Drug Facts" on this FDA regulated product, . . fluoridated water . . you know, what we're talking about here.  

This label lists fluoride as a Mineral Nutrient.  That's an FDA regulated product.  

By the way, the FDA has approved the ingestion of optimally fluoridated bottled water.  It allows the Health Claim to be put on its bottled water: The claim language is: "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]." 

 https://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/ucm073602.htm

That's what a link looks like.  I look forward to seeing the link to your  FOIA, or the upcoming lawsuit against those whom you are claiming are violating the SDWA.

The FDA does not consider optimally flouoridated water a drug in any sense of the word.  You know that is true and yet you deceptively talk about toothpaste.  That is why I call you a liar.

[BillO538145]

David, 

Contact the EPA and ask for a copy of the FOIA.

You wrote, "I said you were lying because the statute from the SDWA which you cited clearly does not prohibit water fluoridation.  It says the Federal Government can not Require it.   That's a little bit different than prohibiting it."

I agree with you, the statute is not very clear, to me either.  OK, we need to understand that if Congress does not require something and pay for it, then I presume the Agency is prevented from doing it. . . . maybe???

Because I was uncertain, I asked the EPA to explain the statute and they responded.  Of course I added a reference to the EPA.  And if I sent you a copy of the letter you would say I forged it.  So the best course of action is for you to do your own home work.  Clearly you have plenty of time with all the posts, so contact them.  

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

One more thing, Dr. Bill, you said:  

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

The problem here is that the Freedom of Information Act was created so that previously unreleased , or hidden records could be made available to the public.  That's what it does.  

You are saying that you contacted the EPA for clarification of a statute in the SDWA.  For all I know, what you cited above could be a quotation from a FIOA Request to the EPA, not a response from the EPA. 

Hmmm . . it does say this is a Request, doesn't it.  I guess I could argue that unicorns exist, make an FOIA Request, and in that request I could say, "Unicorns have been sited in various locations."  

Then, I could do what you did.  I could quote the very thing I wrote and use it as evidence for the thing I was arguing.  And to make it sound official, I could cite the FIOA Request that I had made and make the claim that I provided documented evidence of something.

[BillO538145]

David,

You don't believe a word I say and refuse to do your homework to find out for yourself.  

Contact the EPA yourself.  

You are spending a ton of time arguing, but refuse to simply contact the EPA.  They will answer your question.

I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill:  "I agree with you, the SDWA is not crystal clear and that is why I contacted the EPA back in 2010 to find out how they interpreted the SDWA.  Their response was unambiguous."

Response:  No, you don't agree with me.  The Safe Drinking Water Act is very clear and very precise.  

This is the statute you seem to be having trouble with:   “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

How is that not clear?  It means that the Federal Government can't require it.  They can't impose a mandate.  How do you get "Prohibit" from that? 

The Federal Government can't require that everyone in my home town eat vegetarian food.  But the Federal Government can't prohibit us from being vegetarians either.  How is that not clear?

Please, copy and paste the entire exchange you had with the EPA so that we may all see it here.    I'd love to see it.

And you never answered the question:  Since your name is plastered all over Attorney James Deal's "Fluoride Class Action," . . . and you & Dr. S. claim to have some documentation which proves the illegality of water fluoridation, why are you arguing about it on an internet website?  Why aren't you guys in court with your documents?

[BillO538145]

CarryAnne,

An amazing compilation of powerful documentation raising serious concerns with fluoride exposure.  

In the last 3 years, this evidence has not been refuted.

“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! 

[rs5526]

The quote in question from the Cochrane review is as follows:
"We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults."

In other words, there was no determination made because the published work claiming benefit is not scientific. Scientists already knew this because all the studies were not controlled -- humans cannot be put in cages. So these thousands of publications on water fluoridation (97% were rejected) have little to no meaning.

The Ziegelbecker massive, inclusive studies, plus the 30 year massive study by Teotia and Teotia, and the detailed, meticulous studies published by John Yiamouyiannis are the best human observations we have and are completely consistent with the actual science on research animals in controlled environments in cages, proving that eating fluoride does not reduce caries while fluorosis incidence increases. The scientific case has been closed for a long time. You might get some benefit by reading Fluoride the Aging Factor by Yamouyiannis. It is very good biochemistry and the best human epidemiology we have on the subject.

[rs5526]

If the statement was intended to mean that all studies indicate that adults benefit from fluoridation, then you need to read the actual science as described in the textbook known as the Bible of pharmacology, Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics. In the section on ingested fluoride the correct statement is "fluoride is of no benefit to adult teeth".

The scientific consensus nsus in the 1940's and still today is correct. Fluoride found use as a rat poison and has always been considered unsafe to add to foods at any concentration. And in recent studies we know eating fluoride is ineffective in lowering tooth decay and causes skeletal and enamel harm. 

The consensus remains the same. 

The Kumar studies have been discussed before. The claim of caries reduction is not scientific. The slight difference is not even outside measurement error. A scientist does not accept a difference as being real, rather than an artifact, with data like that. 

Sorry

[rs5526]

My opinions about why fluoride advocates  believe eating fluoride is effective and harmless are not important. But statements I make about the fallacy of fluoridation are certainly important. 

The comparison of fluoridation of people with the sanitizing.effect of chlorination is absurd. Chlorine is necessary to kill pathogens in water to avoid immediately lethal disease when it is consumed later.

Fluoridation does not sanitize water but is adds to treat humans to elevate fluoride blood levels in an attempt to affect caries when the proper method is to brush after eating sugar or drinking  sugar laden beverages, and to keep teeth clean. 

And as stated before, chloride has a an essential electrolyte in blood. Fluoride  is a contamunant un blood. 

There is  consensus on the usefulness of chlorination. The is no scientific  evidence that fluoride ion reduces decay  or is harmless. The scientific evidence using controlled animals proves fluoride in blood at water fluoridation levels does not reduce caries and indeed causes harm (fluorosis of both bone and teeth). 

[rs5526]

I do recall the following sweeping statement made in the Cochrane review.:

"We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in the vast majority (97%) of the studies."  The report also concluded that there is zero evidnece proving that caries are reduced by water fluoridation in adults.

Many studies indeed found caries were reduced in children, but just  like modern studies by Kumar and others who make the same claim, the observation error and bias are problems, coupled with the fact that again humans cannot be put in cages to control candy eating, teeth brushing, diet, etc. Kids with dental fluorosis are typically embarrassed by it and naturally brush their teeth more than kids without fluorosis, in an attempt to help their disfigured teeth. So it would not be surprising to see fewer caries in fluoridated areas because brushing is not controlled between the groups.

This has everything to do with brushing and fluorosis, and has nothing to do with any intrinsic ability of fluoride to somehow reduce caries. There is no known mechanism for fluoride to reduce caries. Enamel is too hard for fluoride to penetrate into its matrix.

Again, humans cannot be caged, and this is largely why 97% of the studies making these claims of effectiveness have no power. 

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Rich,

Do you really understand what the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) was saying about the 20 studies that met their strict inclusion criteria out of over 4,000 studies that they quieried from various scientific databases?

None of the studies which met their strict inclusion criteria showed that adults didn't benefit from CWF.   They never said that there was no benefit from CWF to adults.

You might be interested to know that this same COHG reviewed the studies that the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force was using to make its recommendations on CWF. This COHG approved the studies which they used, many of which were exactly the same as was used in their own study in 2015.

The U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmed in 2013 their recommendation of fluoridation based on strong evidence.  They used contemperary studies, similar to the one you referenced by Jay Kumar, to draw their conclusions from.  The COHG had not included these in their 2015 report on CWF.

I attended a meeting in London with the COHG and scholars from academia, research, and many others where we discussed their report.  Their report was so egregiously being misrepresented by those opposed to CWF that they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary so that could no longer be done.

Observational studies produce essentially the same results as Randomized Controlled Trials per one of the articles by a Cochrane researcher:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2/epdf/full

Using information from groups like Cochrane without truly understanding what it was that was being stated is how so much misinformation has been spun by those who oppose CWF.  

Thanks for bringing up the COHG.  It's nice to be able to share the true facts of their findings with you.

Warm regards,

Johnny

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.   Send me one other dentist who claims I did malpractice or the treating doctors did malpractice.  Send me their name and contact info.

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

Your words, "true facts" made me laugh.  

You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public appology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an appology of your errors.

Johnny,  the ingestion of fluoride might have some benefit, might not.  Take the weight and amount of caries prevention possibility  and add to the evidence of risk for brain, thyroid, bones, teeth, cancer, kidney from many studies, then weigh the evidence of increased caries and risk from excess exposure and the lack of freedom of choice and individual dosage.   When you stack all those issues  together and weigh all of those factors, CWF becomes unacceptable.  

Research by nature takes one or as few variables as possible and tries to measure the variable.  Public Health Policy must take a look at the big picture, all the studies, all the possible benefits, risks, dosage, along with the lethality and contagious nature of the disease before people are forced to ingest the medication/treatment.  The big picture must be considered.

The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm.  

Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.

"Authors’ conclusions

Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are ver y similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have

reached similar conclusions; on average, the re is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies

and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study de sign, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions.

Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs

and observational studies. O ur results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level

of he terogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects

might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness."

Little evidence is not no evidence.  And observational studies are important.  RCTs are still considered the gold standard and to my understanding are usually required by Cochrane reviewers and FDA, etc.  

Here are a few limitations often found in the observational studies on fluoridation:

• A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors such as serious decline in caries of 5 teeth per 12 year old prior to fluoridation.  What caused the decline and control for that unknown.
• B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials are required due to serious unknowns.   
• C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
• D.   Inadequate size 
• E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay
• F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 
• G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
  vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 
• H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
• I.     Oral hygiene not determined 
• J.     Not evaluating Life time benefit 
• K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
• L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered 
• M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
• N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  
• O.    Genetics not considered

Cochrane did find benefit for children from observational studies.  But those studies did not control for all of the concerns above.  

Pressure on Cochrane by fluoridationists so you say "they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary"

Obviously, if political pressure is placed on someone after their studdied written opinion, that is bias.  Perhaps the original version was their true conclusion and under pressure they changed.  Seen that often with fluoridation.  Preventing publications, can't find peer reviewers, delay in publication and out right junk research published.

Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing.

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

William,

Let me make an attempt to explain where you have not been clear in public presentations.  While you may expect an apology and your feelings are hurt, that is on you.  I have merely reacted to information that you presented in at least 2 communities where we have presented opposite each other.

William:

"You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public apology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an apology of your errors."

Johnny:

William, a letter was written to the editor of Neurotoxicity Research challenging the findings of the NTP report by fluoridation opponents.  Since you may not be aware of this letter, the link to it is below.  The editor, Dr. Jean Harry, responds to those challenges:

"In summary, far from generating “false results” that may “misinform the public”, our data utilize an exposure level near the recommended level for human exposure and provide an extensive, systematic evaluation of sensory, motor, and cognitive function in a relevant animal model.  Instead of misleading regulators and the public, the results of the McPherson et al (2018) help clarify a generally confusing database and can only facilitate decisions concerning the safety of fluoride exposure through the drinking water."

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

While this robust study looked at all fluoride intakes from food and water, followed in utero development of male offspring to adulthood, and clearly and definitively found no evidence of neurological damage, you are choosing to minimize the study which you promoted and pushed for.  This study, along with that of Dr. Gary Whitford, were of high quality with clear results.  The studies that have been used by fluoridation opponents to attempt to get the EPA to stop water fluoridation were found to be highly biased and failed to show neuorological damage at levels of fluoride used in community water fluoridation.

William: 

"The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm."  

Johnny:

See the above.

William:

Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.

Johnny:

From the Document:

"As such, we have reached similar conclusions--there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of drug studies."

https://www.cochrane.org/MR000034/METHOD_comparing-effect-estimates-of-randomized-controlled-trials-...

I repeat their findings as this paper was discussed with the COHG in London in July 2015. 

Quality of the evidence

"The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence within the review. GRADE has developed over recent years as an internationally recognised framework for systematically evaluating the quality of evidence within both systematic reviews and guidelines. It aims to overcome the confusion that arises from having multiple systems for grading evidence and recommendations, and, because of this key aim, the GRADE working group discourages the use of modified GRADE approaches. However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area."

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/full

 William:

"Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing."

Johnny:

William, I invite anyone to watch and listen to your presentation that you gave in Potsdam, NY, recently.  It is easily found on YouTube by using the search words Potsdam NY Fluoride.

You stated earlier in this thread that the slides of the teeth with fluorosis and the veeners that were placed were from friends and colleagues of yours.  You never stated this in the presentations.  Giving credit to the appropriate person for using their slides is commonplace.  The presentation does not give the impression that these patients aren't yours.  As such, I commented on the treatment of these teeth appropriately.  

Secondly, you showed "Fluoride Bombs" in molars which again were not attributed to another person.  If they aren't your patient(s), then acknowledging that is commonplace.  You asked me earlier about my suggestion that if frank cavitation (an open, visual hole in the tooth) were not present, a sealant should be placed.  

I direct you to the "American Dental Association's Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry" for specific guidelines on how to approach pits and fissures of molars like you have shown.

https://ebd.ada.org/en/evidence/guidelines/pit-and-fissure-sealants

The specific review is entitled "

"Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants"

One of the specific sections addresses your questions about sealing over non-cavitated teeth, as well as incipient caries (decay).  Long term studies have been conducted in which caries was sealed over and found to have arrested this decay.  Yes, I have seen this in my 30 years of practicing pediatric dentistry in Florida as a Pediatric Dentist.

Potential Role of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants in Primary and Secondary Prevention

"From a primary prevention perspective, anatomic grooves or pits and fissures on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars trap food debris and promote the presence of bacterial biofilm, thereby increasing the risk of developing carious lesions. Effectively penetrating and sealing these surfaces with a dental material—for example, pit-and-fissure sealants—can prevent lesions and is part of a comprehensive caries management approach.11

From a secondary prevention perspective, there is evidence that sealants also can inhibit the progression of noncavitated carious lesions.9 The use of sealants to arrest or inhibit the progression of carious lesions is important to the clinician when determining the appropriate intervention for noncavitated carious lesions."

At this point, William, I choose to end this back and forth interaction with you.  You have started to become demanding when someone doesn't agree with you.  As the late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan said so well, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."

Warm regards,

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society - a not for profit group of all volunteer healthcare professionals who do not take a penny for their work to disseminate credible, evidence-based science that has been peer reviewed and published in credibly recognized scientific journals

[BillO538145]

Johnny,

Further to the list of studies below evaluating the mechanism of fluoride's neurotoxicity, here are a few studies specifically affecting the fetus.  These become even more significant when we add the Bashash et al study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28937959 and their conclusion:

"CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6-12 y. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP655."

They did not report a "no effect" urine fluoride concentration.   

Johnny, science has demonstrated for years that brain damage is happening to the developing brain from the increased fluoride exposure caused by fluoridation.  

FETUS

Mechanism of Low Learning and Memory Abilities: Niu (2014)“Both fluoride and lead can cross the blood-brain barrier and produce toxic effects on the central neural system, resulting in low learning and memory abilities, especially in children. In order to identify the proteomic pattern in the cortex of young animals, from the beginning of fertilization to the age of postnatal day 56, pregnant female mice and pups were administrated with 150 mg sodium fluoride/L and/or 300 mg lead acetate/L in their drinking water. Two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) combined with mass spectrometry (MS) was applied to identify differently expressed protein spots. Results showed that there were eight proteins in the cortex that significantly changed, whose biological functions were involved in (1) energy metabolism (Ndufs1, Atp5h, Atp6v1b2), (2) cytoskeleton (Spna2, Tuba1a, Tubb2a), (3) glycation repair (Hdhd2), and (4) cell stress response (Hspa8). Based on the previous and current studies, ATPase, Spna2, and Hspa8 were shared by fluoride and lead both as common target molecules.”

Potential Toxicity: NRC (2006) p 164, In general, average cord blood concentrations are approximately 60% of maternal serum concentrations, with proportionally lesser amounts present as higher maternal serum concentrations. . . . Therefore potential toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus in the setting of high maternal ingestion of fluoride has been a concern evaluated in both animal and humans.” 

Harm to Fetus: Yu (1996 and English 2008) “The mothers of the ten fetuses that formed the subject group for this study all had dental fluorosis, with a corresponding increase in urinary fluoride, indicating that these pregnant women were suffering from chronic fluoride poisoning. The excess fluoride of the mother was passed through the placental barrier into the fetus, and from there through the blood-brain barrier to accumulate in the fetal brain, leading to a significant rise in bone and brain fluoride levels. Our results are consistent with earlier reports. Previous experiments have shown that the brains of fetuses from endemic fluorosis areas as well as fluoride-poisoned rats manifest morphological changes. Following experimental testing of the monoamine neurotransmitters in fetuses from fluorosis endemic areas, the present study found lowered levels of norepinephrine and elevated levels of epinephrine. The presence of norepinephrine in the brain allows the organism to become alert, and guards against the intensification of reflex reactions and other behavior. Norepinephrine also plays a role in the regulation of complex response mechanisms, emotions, cerebrocardiovascular function, etc. When norepinephrine levels drop the ability to maintain an appropriate state of activation in the central nervous system is weakened. The elevated levels of epinephrine could be due to a blockage of the pathway that transforms epinephrine into norepinephrine or possibly due to suppression of the relevant metabolic enzymes, causing the brain levels of epinephrine to increase, and the levels of norepinephrine to decrease.”

Mechanism of Harm to Fetus:  Dong (1993) “The contents of five types of amino-acid neurotransmitters and three types of monoamine neurotransmitters in the brains of fetuses aborted through induced labor in a chronic fluorosis-endemic area were determined. Findings revealed that the content of the excitatory amino acid, aspartic acid, was significantly lower than in the fetuses from the non-endemic area whereas the content of the inhibitory amino acid, taurine, was significantly higher; the content of the major spinal cord-inhibitory glycine was significantly reduced. Among the monoamine neurotransmitters, the content of norepinephrine was significantly reduced; the contents of 5-hydroxytryptamine in the frontal and the occipital lobes were elevated and the content of 5-hydroxytryptamine in the parietal lobe (precentral and postcentral gyri) was reduced.”

Harm to Fetus with Stunted Neuronal Development: Du (1992) “It is known that fluoride can cross the placenta from the mother’s blood to the developing fetus. However, the theory there is a direct link between fluoride effects and brain cell damage is still controversial due to lack of adequate evidence. In order to determine if there are any adverse effects on the developing human brain, especially starting from formation of the embryo, fetuses from an endemic fluorosis area at the 5th–8th month of gestation were compared with those from a non-endemic area. RESULTS: Normal Purkinje cells from the non-endemic fluorosis area were observed in single or parallel lines and were well organized in the fetal cerebellum. Purkinje cells of fetuses from the endemic fluorosis area were abnormally disorganized and had a thicker granulated layer in the cerebellum. Other dysmorphology, including higher nucleus-cytoplasm ratio of brain cones, hippocampus cones, and Purkinje cone cells, supports the theory that fluoride has an adverse effect on brain development. SEM analysis also found reduced neurons of brain cortex, decreased numerical density, volume density, and surface density in those fetuses from the endemic fluorosis area. In summary, the passage of fluorine through the placenta of mothers with chronic fluorosis and its accumulation within the brain of the fetus impacts the developing central nervous system and stunts neuron development.”

Toxic to Nerve Development:  Li (2004) “The effects of excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy on neonatal neurobehavioral development and the neurodevelopment toxicity of fluoride were evaluated. Ninety-one normal neonates delivered at the department of obstetrics and gynecology in five hospitals of Zhaozhou County, Heilongjiang Province, China were randomly selected from December 2002 to January 2003. The subjects were divided into two groups (high fluoride and control) based on the fluoride content in the drinking water of the pregnant women. . . . There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral neurological assessment score and neonatal behavioral score between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. . . . [N]eurobehavioural capability and agonistic muscle tension from the high fluoride group were impaired, resulting in a statistically significant lower overall (total) assessment score than in the control group (p<0.05). . . . [V]arious neurobehavioral capabilities, such as non-biological visual, biological visual, and auditory directional reactions of the neonates from the high fluoride group lagged behind those of the control group with differences that are statistically significant (p<0.05). . . . NBNA examination can help to detect mild damage to brain functions. The results of the examination indicate that high fluoride levels can cause adverse effects in the neurobehavioral development of neonates. . . . The present observations indicate that fluoride, as a toxic material to nerve development, can have an adverse impact on the neurobehavioral development of neonates and can cause abnormal changes of neurobehavioral capability during the neonate period with a negative impact on the future development of both the body and intelligence of the neonate. Therefore, in endemic fluoride areas, great effort should be made to reduce fluoride level in the water.”