AARP Eye Center
- AARP Online Community
- Games
- Games Talk
- SongTheme
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Earn Activities
- Redemption
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Ask for a Rewards Tip
- Leave a Rewards Tip
- Caregiving
- Caregiving
- Grief & Loss
- Caregiving Tips
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Help
- Membership
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Housing
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Retirement Forum
- Retirement
- Social Security
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Travel Forums
- Destinations
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Online Community
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Re: Major science and health organizations dismiss...
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
SCIENCE REFERENCES
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
- http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
Solved! Go to Solution.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
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.
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.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
“Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)
Well, it as been a busy few weeks!
Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real."
In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers.
- UNSAFE: p. 2: the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.
- HAZARD: p 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
'"It is public health malpractice to continue adding fluoride to community water systems." - Dr. Joseph Ladapo MD, PhD Florida Surgeon General (Nov. 22, 2024)
"This is a human rights issue and public health issue, separate from other public health issues." - Dr. Ashley Malin, PhD (Nov. 22, 2024)
The Surgeon General of Florida announced yesterday that he was "appalled" at the evidence of harm caused by fluoridation policy which has been ignored for years. He announced that he was recommending that all water treatment plants(WTP) in Florida end fluoridation. immediately.
Dr. Ladapo also said he always believed fluoridation was "safe and effective" because that was what he was taught, but that after looking closely at the science as a result of the September verdict agains the EPA and Bobby Kennedy's statements, he realizes that fluoridation is anything but safe and effective. He went on to say that he and his family were taking measures to reduce their fluoride exposure.
Yet, what do the fluoridation profiteers and their corporate partners do? They launch more smear campaigns in the media- against Joe Ladapo, Bobby Kennedy, or anyone else who challenges their profitable tooth-fairy tale.
One of the fluoride-lobby claims, which they offered in court, is fluoride consumption might be harmful if the dose is at 1.5 mg/L or above but fluoridation concentrations in water is half that at 0.7 ppm.
Let's make this clear:
1. Not only do some people drink more water than others, fluoride is in foods prepared with fluoridated water or treated with fluoridated agrichemicals. Dose is dependent on intake, not water concentration
- This is why there is supposed to be a 10x safety factor applied to hazards like fluoride, although 100 is more typical. That would reduce the assumed safe concentration to 0.15 or 0.015 ppm.
2. The assumption of a dose of 0.7 mg/L is based on only one liter of fluoridated water consumed (and with a perfectly calibrated fluoride 0.7 ppm concentration)
3. The dose of 1.5 mg/L recognized as unsafe is reached by consuming a couple of mouthfuls over 2 liters of water
4. The rule of thumb medical advice is that a healthy adult should consume at least eight 8 ounce glasses of water daily (8x8), which provides just under 2 liters. A half glass more (or fluoride from another source) will bring you into the red zone.
5. NASEM recommends fluid consumption, primarily water, be:
- About 15.5 cups (3.7 liters) of fluids a day for men
- About 11.5 cups (2.7 liters) of fluids a day for women
Go to FluorideLawsuit.com to see a copy of the verdict and a hyperlinked annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed science published in credible journals since 2015 documenting that fluoridation is DANGEROUS and INEFFECTIVE. and since it affects brains in the womb and is stored in our bones, fluoridation policy poisons us all from womb to tomb.
Then tell the Surgeon General in your state that he should follow Dr. Ladapo's lead.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
“The amount of effort, propaganda, and money the fluoridation-lobby is willing to utilize to cover-up their experiment-gone-wrong is unprecedented. Their credibility and authority are tied too closely to fluoridation, and there is no letting go for them, regardless of emerging science, of facts, of reality, of anything. They’re committed to protecting their policy and themselves, not you or your family.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2017)
Although Gary Whitford is the fluoridationists' go to science guy for manufacturing questionable reports many of which are published in science journals, I do not believe Whitford's attack piece on Richard Sauerheber's peer-reviewed 2013 publication is published anywhere other than pro-fluoride blog sites promoted by fluoride-stakeholders like JJ and Chuck Haynie.
More importantly, 21st century scientific evidence is very strong that whatever is happening on a chemical level, consuming fluoridated water or foods is bad for thyroids, kidneys, bones, and brains.
THYROID: Even after excluding test subjects diagnosed with thyroid disease, 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of developing 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.
KIDNEY: Not even arsenic is as toxic to kidneys (and livers) as fluoride. Fluoride is kidney poison.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X18302382
- Monica I. Jiménez-Córdova, Mariana Cardenas-Gonzaleza, Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid, Luz C. Sanchez-Peña, Ángel Barrera-Hernández, Iván A. Domínguez-Guerrero, Carmen González-Horta, Olivier C. Barbier, Luz M. Del Razo. Evaluation of kidney injury biomarkers in an adult Mexican population environmentally exposed to fluoride and low arsenic levels. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. May 2018.
BONE: Chemisty inside people relevant to genetic profiles confirms that some of us are more likely to have ill effects which include abnormal bone chemistry which can lead to fractures and bone cancer. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-016-0756-6
- Gandhi, D., Naoghare, P.K., Bafana, A. et al. Fluoride-Induced Oxidative and Inflammatory Stress in Osteosarcoma Cells: Does It Affect Bone Development Pathway? Biol Trace Elem Res. 2017;175: 103.
BRAIN: Fluoride doesn't just 'harden teeth' - it causes brain inflammation, which results in a whole slew of injuries.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10753-017-0556-y
- Chen, R., Zhao, LD., Liu, H. et al. Fluoride Induces Neuroinflammation and Alters Wnt Signaling Pathway in BV2 Microglial Cells. Inflammation. 2017;40: 1123.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
CarryAnne – Your most recent post (10-20-2018 09:59 AM) carries the mistaken implication that that “21st century scientific evidence” supports the anti-F agenda. Exactly how do you explain the fact that this sampling of 21st century studies and reviews does not support the anti-F opinions? http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html
The most recent studies you and other anti-F activists have listed are no more credible (or prove the anti-F opinions are valid) than the other studies which have been trotted out for the last 70 years. Despite all of the anti-F opinions presented in this discussion, I have seen no rational explanation for why, if the evidence against community water fluoridation (CWF), as interpreted by fluoridation opponents (FOs), is even remotely legitimate or credible, virtually all of the major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF. If any of the anti-F opinions were reliable and accurate, one might reasonably expect a significant number of the hundreds of thousands of members of these organizations to rebel and munity against CWF and their organizations’ suupport – they have not.
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Consensus.html
I have asked you and other FOs several times in this discussion to explain – and provide proof – exactly why the major science and health organizations (and their members) would continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF if there was a reasonable probability CWF was actually ineffective or caused significant and obvious harm.
Instead of specific, supported reasons you have described various CWF supporters as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”
Please clarify – do you believe all CWF supporters are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”? Is that your only explanation for why the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF or do you have other explanations?
These are your specific comments:
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group”
(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis]. Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”
(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates”
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.” Provide specific evidence of your claim these professionals are “cowards”.
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics. The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontario … and other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…”
I would like to thank you for posting a quote from the US Public Health Service on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM in an effort to provide support for your opinions.
Those comments provide an excellent example that exposes and highlights a disingenuous, fear-mongering tactic regularly employed by anti-science activists (ASAs) and bias-science activists (BSAs) to peddle their propaganda. They also help explain why ASAs & BSAs can come up with what appear to be long lists of references that appear to support their anti-science opinions – and explain why those opinions are dismissed by the majority of relevant scientists.
The tactic: Extracting out of context content from published papers, which may appear to support their position, when the actual study design or conclusions of the study don’t. ASAs & BSAs not only cherry pick the studies they believe support their opinions (whether the study has anything to do with optimally fluoridated water or not), they cherry pick and present specific sentences out-of-context or cite completely irrelevant studies in their ongoing efforts to frighten the public.
Your quote included everything in the paragraph from the US Public Health Service review EXCEPT the last two sentences, which you conveniently scrubbed out – and which actually support the scientific consensus that fluoridation does not cause adverse health effects. Here is the actual quote in context.
“Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems. For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride. Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163)
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf
That example clearly demonstrate why fluoridation opponents (FOs) have not been able to change any relevant scientific consensus. Unlike most members of the public –– who don’t have the training, experience, time or inclination to track each anti-claim to its source and understand the context –– actual scientists and health professionals can identify the erroneous claims of FOs for what they are – “adjusted evidence” manufactured and deployed in fear-mongering campaigns.
That is precisely why virtually all major science and health organizations in the world (and their members) support fluoridation and why fluoridation opponents have no support for their paranoid opinions besides INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points.", Natural News: Mike Adams, and a handful of alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you and others have listed as opposing CWF.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Randy, Randy, Randy,
You have put together several studies on Cyber-nook which support fluoridation but the bias is so strong as to be unbelieveable. http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html
Your background in chemistry and biology is commendable. However, even the first quotation of NTP 2018 is incomplete and biased. The NTP study you reference did not report harm, true, but that is one of three major steps the NTP is taking. What about the first and third phase of the review??????
Do not cherry pick science to prove a point. Twisting and manipulating science and claiming it says something it does not, is not scientific.
I hope you did better teaching your students critical thinking than simply memorization.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Bill, Bill, Bill – You stated (10-21-2018 04:14 PM) exactly the same thing I claimed, “The NTP study you reference did not report harm, true…” Thank you for the confirmation. You ask about the first and third phases of the review??? The second phase of the study (referenced in my list) was conducted, in part, because of the findings of the first review phase – it helped correct the lack of specific studies on the neurological effects of exposure to fluoride ions, and found none at levels relevant to community water fluoridation (CWF) and above. Any speculations about the third major NTP step is liable to be as accurate as the anticipation of FOs that conclusions the 2018 NTP study I cited would support their opinions.
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/1363-2/ - NTP study author.
In the past I have asked you specific questions which have gone unanswered. I will try again and number the seven questions so you can specify which ones you are answering.
Q1) Explain exactly what you mean by your accusation, “…even the first quotation of NTP 2018 [on the web page referenced] is incomplete and biased.” That is a direct quote from the abstract – if you believe it to be incomplete and biased, take the issue up with the authors.
The point of that list of reviews (and some studies) is to refute the argument of FOs that there is no evidence that supports the scientific consensus that fluoridation as safe and effective. If dispute the fact that those reviews and studies support the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and/or effective or are biased, then provide the specific proof to the contrary. Here are several hundred more studies that support the consensus. If you disagree, please feel free to present specific evidence of why they should be disregarded.
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm
It is quite interesting that you accuse me of “cherry pick[ing] science to prove a point.” when earlier in this comment section 9/4 – 9/5 you seem to have picked every “cherry” possible out of the mud to try and prove fluoridation causes cancer – of course none of them had anything to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water.
If you have such an excellent understanding of carcinogens, why not present your case (your ‘professional’ analysis of the evidence) to the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute instead of online to a group of non-experts? Neither organization has concluded that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes cancer, but perhaps they missed evaluating the studies you listed. What is your explanation – Do you believe members of the ACS and CCS are "the best in their fields", but they can’t get it right when evaluating the carcinogenic risks of CWF?
You still seem to endorse your 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim that the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing.”, and “the credibility of those so called 'scientific' organizations has been seriously tarnished. They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“ and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science.”
Q2) I will ask you specifically, what makes you a better expert in fluoridation than the members of all the organizations that continue to support CWF? It could be argued that you are a lemming, follower, part of a herd of FOs that allow their irrational fear of fluorine to bias their selection, evaluation and presentation of the scientific evidence.
Q3) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – Do you apply your above evaluation of the ADA, AAP and CDC to all members of all the organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF who either publically support CWF or have not publically accepted the anti-F position?
Q4) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – What is your explanation for the fact that virtually every major science and health organization in the world either publically recognizes the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure, and the hundreds of thousands of members of these organizations have not rebelled?
Q5) I will take this opportunity to ask another question – do you accept CarryAnne’s description of the ADA, EPA and most dentists?
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and “vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and “Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group”
(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”
Do you apply those descriptions to everyone who does not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate?
Q6) Provide a rational explanation (besides claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a lemming) that explains why only extremist groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) and a small contingent of outlier, alternative health organizations and some environmental, marketing, spiritual and cultural organizations support the anti-F opinions.
Fluoridation supporters claim that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay (and related health problems) in communities, and that consensus is the reason the 100+ science and health organizations recommend the practice.
Q7) What is your response to that claim and what you would consider a definition of scientific consensus as it relates to CWF. Would that definition be applicable to the scientific consensus on vaccination (that they are safe and effective)? Alternately, provide a logical alternative to replace accepting the scientific consensus when the public is evaluating complex, scientific conclusions. Why trust FOs instead of the major science and health organizations???
Unfortunately two of your previous claims, 09-04-2018 02:04 PM, are true, “Marketing can change public opinion” – Anti-Science Activists simply throw out masses of fear-laced misinformation and misdirection and try to scare the public into trusting their conclusions, and because of that mistaken trust, “the masses can be wrong“, which continues to remind me of Kaa's attempt to hypnotize Mowgli into trusting him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDs57R6MYsY
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
FDA recalls drugs all the time, so discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring: https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=005528
Banning fluoride would be more appropriately compared to these historical events:
- Removing asbestos from school buildings. Asbestos use began in the 1940s, same time as fluoridation.
- Removing lead from gasoline. It took over 40 years of protests for that to happen.
- Establishing public smoking bans to protect the most vulnerable among us from ill effects. Again, took decades in the face of fierce resistance from tobacco stakeholders who insisted that there was no harm.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
"Carry Anne" says:
"FDA recalls drugs all the time, so discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring"
Response: Then you should tell your friends, Drs. Osmunson & Sauerheber, to stop bringing up this red herring by making blatantly false claims about them.
By the way, since the FDA has nothing to do with water fluoridation, your comment, "FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility," is itself a red herring.
That would be like me saying, "Discussions about NASA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility . . "
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
David,
By now you should be starting to understand the complexity of fluoridation jurisdiction. All agencies try to hide from their responsibility. Local water districts tend to rely on the CDC and EPA. However, CDC does not determine the safety of fluoridation and legal counsel for the EPA in effect put jurisdiction with the FDA. However, legal counsel for the FDA in effect put jurisdiction of fluoridation onto the EPA.
No Federal agency accepts jurisdiction for determining the dosage, safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to public water with the intent to prevent dental caries.
That is one reason HHS stepped in and the parties agreed to have the PHS recommend 0.7 ppm of fluoride in water. A compromise, but a serious admission that too many were ingesting too much fluoride for many years.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Dr. Bill says: "No Federal agency accepts jurisdiction for determining the dosage, safety and efficacy of adding fluoride to public water with the intent to prevent dental caries. "
Response: There was a woman, Mrs. Cathy Justus, who made the outlandish claim that her horses were killed because of optimally fluoridated water. Her dogs died, her horses died . . yet in every fluoridated city in the U.S. people are raising happy healthy dogs. Only on her ranch did deaths like this occur. And these were expensive horses.
Now, if there was any merit to her story, she could have sued the EPA which allows up to 4 ppm in drinking water. She said her horses died from drinking water with 1 ppm of fluoride, and the EPA allows 4.
The EPA, which allows more than 4 times the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water, would have been responsible for the deaths of her pets . . . if there was any truth to the story.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Billo says:
"By now you should be starting to understand the complexity of fluoridation jurisdiction."
Response: Not really. There is nothing complex about it unless, like you, one is conspiracy-theory oriented. I have the same complete understanding of the "complexeties" now, as I did before you tried to enlighten me. But I thank you for your condescending remark.
Since I've shown that both you and Dr. S have made blatantly false statements, your "complexeties" are wasted on someone who has both feet in reality.
Be Careful, Dr. Bill! According to "Carry Anne":
"discussions about the FDA not banning fluoridation for which it takes no responsibility is a red herring:"
I can say from personal experience, I wouldn't want to be on her bad side if I were you.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
David,
Science is about facts, empirical evidence.
Instead of calling people names dealing in speculation, scientists look for factual evidence and honestly face the facts rather than avoid the uncomfortable facts.
FACT: NHANES 2010-2011 (National Health and Nutrition Survey) found 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis.
Undisputed FACT. Too many are ingesting too much fluoride as measured with the increase in dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride. NHANES 2010-2011. Two more recent NHANES surveys have be done and all data reported to the public except dental fluorosis. Why? Why the delay in reporting only the fluorosis data? Does the data suggest more or less dental fluorosis? I would suggest if the data showed less fluorosis the data would be out ASAP.
Undisputed FACT. HHS lowered the concentration of fluoride in water because too many were ingesting too much fluoride. Was lowering the total fluoride exposure as HHS suggests by an average of about 14%, adequate? In my opinion, no. Still too many are being harmed.
And much more. . . .
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Billo, before you gish gallop to other issues, I'd like an answer to the question I just posed.
Is there a massive conspiracy of silence between and among every Federal U.S. Agency - none of them, Not One, classifies optimally fluoridated water as a drug.
Or is it simply that optimally fluoridated water is not a drug, any more than salt with iodine added, or bread with folic acid are drugs?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
David,
You are asking me to speculate on what government agencies think and why.
Lets talk facts we know.
No Federal Agency has accepted jurisdiction to determine the dosage, efficacy and safety for fluoride added to water. You ask, "why?"
The answer is in the responses from those agencies. EPA says the FDA has jurisdiciton. FDA says EPA does. CDC says they do not determine safety. Surgeon General has said they do not determine dosage, safety or efficacy of any substance.
No, I do not think it is a conspiracy, I think it is politics. No one wants to be the "bad guy" and stop fluoridation. . . because so many people have swallowed the theory that fluoride is safe and effective. And, there is big money pushing fluoride use. Industry, agriculture, foods, medications, dentists, pediatricians, pharmaceutical companies, toothpaste manufacturers, etc.
Who does not get some financial reward from more fluoride? The public, the patient. And who is standing up for those being harmed?
The answer to your question is two fold. Money and ethics.
Now, your turn to get back to the facts and answer my question.
Too many are ingesting too much fluoride. Of the many sources of fluoride, which one should be reduced to lower excess exposure?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Billo, we've discussed this. Your problem is that you don't want to listen.
The EPA would be responsible if any harm came to any person who drinks optimally fluoridated water. Again, since you missed it the first time: The EPA allows 4 parts per million of fluoride in our drinking water. That's on them.
If any person were documented to have been harmed by drinking water with only 1 part per million of fluoride, they would have every right to sue the EPA for negligence. And guess what - people sue the EPA all the time.
The FDA has nothing to say about optimally fluoridated tap water, because the FDA doesn't consider it a drug. No Federal U.S. Agency Considers optimally fluoridated water a "drug."
Again, since you seem to have missed it every time it is mentioned, the FDA has regulatory jurisdiction over bottled water because it is considered a "food." Bottled water does not fall under the same jurisdiction as tap water (as in CWF), even though it is the same product.
You will not see the word "drug" on this label of FDA regulated fluoridated water. https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2
You will not see the word "drug" on a label of bread with folic acid added. You will not see the word drug on a gallon of milk that has vitamin D added, you will not see the word drug on a package of Morton Salt that has iodine added to help prevent goiter.
The only people who call optimally fluoridated water a drug are those sad true believerrs, and you, people who are trying to raise the level of paranoia about water fluoridation so that the Fluoride Action Network's donors can sell their expensive alternative health junk.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Some in the current FDA consider fluoride in water to be a poison, and not a drug, that should be regulated by the EPA, that is true. However others in the FDA recognize that the U.S. Pharmacopia labels fluoride, when intended for ingestion to treat caries, as a drug.
In fact, the fight over whether the switch from using sodium fluoride (a USP Drug) to fluosilicic acid was precisely over this, since fluosilicic acid is not a USP drug (it's just another source of fluoride for its use as though it were a drug). The usual published argument from fluoridation advocates is that there is no need to use USP grade sodium fluoride drugs in water fluoridation because the amount of arsenic in the product water might be higher than when using fluosilicic acid. But this is of course nonsense because all USP grade drugs are made under GMP conditions that do not allow impure source materials.
The point is, no one has a right to reject Dr. Osmunsen for calling fluoride a drug.
The US Pharmacopia also says it is. So complaints could be addressed to them.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Dr. Sauerheber,
As usual, your rant is backed up with no objective evidence. It is nothing more than a rant and any objective reader of this thread sees it for what it is.
Your quote: "The point is, no one has a right to reject Dr. Osmunsen for calling fluoride a drug.
The US Pharmacopia also says it is."
Response: Your comment is deceptive. U.S. Pharmacopia does not say that optimally fluoridated water is a drug. If it does, please provide evidence.
U.S. Pharmacopia does not call bread with folic acid a drug. Nor does it call salt with iodine to prevent goiter a drug. Nor does it call milk with vitamin D a drug.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Sorry but folic acid and vitamin D are essential vitamins, essential for normal health. They have nothing to do with toxic fluoride, which is not a component of normal human blood and which is not a nutrient, having no physiologic purpose of any kind. The absence of fluoride does not cause dental caries. Caries are caused by leaving sugars on teeth so that streptococcus.mutans metabolic acids dissolve enamel.
And of course the USP does not list fluoridated water as a drug because water itself is not a drug. But the fluoride added into the water from USP sodium fluoride is already certainly labeled a drug.
And again, whether fluoride infused into water to treat dental caries is argued to be only a mineral and not a drug can be debated, but what cannot be debated is the fact that the forced whole body fluoridation of citizens is harmful, useless, and illegal as published in references previously submitted (Top 10 Contributions on Environmental Health, Chapter 8, AVID Science, 2018) at: http://www.avidscience.com/book/top-10-contributions-on-environmental-health/
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Dr. Sauerheber,
Once again you have shifted the issue at hand. We are not talking about what is essential. That is a discussion that you have already lost previously in this thread. We are talking about what is considered a "drug."
Again, there is no federal agency which considers optimally fluoridated water, or any of its ingredients, a drug. Again, for the 4th time, this is a label from the FDA regulated product "Dannon's Fluoride to Go" fluoridated bottled water https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2
Where does the word "drug" appear on this label? The FDA doen't consider this product to be a drug in any sense of the word. Only you do.
Regarding your link. This was to a non-peer reviewed paper that you wrote. On it you claimed affiliation to the Department of Chemistry at the University of California. That is a lie. You have no affiliation with the the Chemistry Department at any University.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Arguing with a fluoridation advocate is pretty bizarre. Whoever the one here is, he acts like he is the authority on the subject but yet provides no credentials, and nevertheless accuses me of not being forthcoming with credentials. Pretty slick.
The latest version of the article that is now under attack was an invited book chapter that updated the orginal article published under rigorous peer review at the Jour. of Env. and Pub. Health 2013. I stand by my work.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Thank you Dr. Sauerhaber, Dr. Osmunson, and CarryAnne! I agree that these fluoride promoters, who apparently have never done any fluoride research themselves, take the audience as fools. They merely rely on the corrupt opinions of some authoritative bodies only, which have neither done any fluoride research themselves, nor take any responsibility for the harms caused by fluoridation, such as the ADA.
Since there has been multiple recent peer reviewed studies regarding fluoride harms, these fluoride promoters are nothing but science deniers, who think their opinion is somehow more valuable than science. Opinions, let alone lay opinions, do not stand in court, since they are worthless. Science speaks for itself and is not just an opinion, even if an opinion by some brainwashed dentist.
Here is a brand new study from Canada, which clearly shows a causal link between fluoridation and thyroid damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30316182/
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Thank you for the Canada study. It looks very well done, considering that one cannot place people in cages to control all potential confounding variables. The sampe size was large and the difference between groups were clearly between non-fluoridaed (0.2 ppm fluoride in water average) and fluoridated (0.6 ppm) and the urine fluoride measured reflected these levels accurately. The elevated TSH due to iodine deficiency plus fluoride exposure was, as stated, very likely an underestimate because those with clinical hypothyroidism (likely most vulnerable to fluoride toxicity) were excluded from the study.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
We've also gone over the other complaint before. Dr. Groth of the FDA originally ruled that fluoride levels were not to be listed on bottled water because that would give the public the impression that fluoride belongs in water.
And labeling bottled water with fluoride a drug would condemn many water supplies that contain fluoride naturally in calcium-rich water supplies.
AGAIN, the FDA ruled that adding fluoride into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug (letter from FDA chief Edna Lovering, 1963). In 1963 there were no "links" to this fact. But the absence of links does not change the fact.
Understand?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
We've gone over this before (and I won, I didn't "lose").
My affiliation with UCSD is long-standing. I completed my BA and PhD there and have done graduate work there over the years. The listing of UCSD on the original article (peer reviewed by Dr. Stephen Peckham for the Journal of Environmental and Public Health) is through the late Dr. Andrew Benson. He assisted with the article and provided help with it eventually being published. He also taught on the toxicity of synthetic fluoride compounds in my earlier education. He completed his Ph.D. at UC Berkeley on the fluoridated derivatives of thyroxine. His work lead to the Nobel Prize in biochemistry for discovering the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis and the development of the Calvin Benson cycle.
Since his passing I no longer work with anyone at UCSD other than the alumni association. So what?
From what is stated, one would assume that because I cited the works, of Ziegelbecker and of Teotia and Teotia and of Yiamouyiannis and of Sutton, that their work must be rejected? And suddenly my data on the conversion of fluoride to HF over a broad pH range (down to stomach pH levels) is also not peer reviewed and somehow suspect? How cute.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
I assume by "Billo" you are referring to Dr. Osmunsen? If so, understand that there are many communmications between citizens and EPA officials that are not placed in an online link.
Second, the 4 ppm allowed by the EPA, because some calcium-rich waters contain that naturally, is to prevent stage III severe skeletal fluorosis with inability to walk due to spicules extending from bone. And the 2 ppm MCLG was set to prevent severe dental fluorosis where teeth are so disfigured from fluoride ingestion as to be a gross deformity.
What does this have to do with water fluoridation? Water fluoridation is not regulated by the EPA. That is because it is the intentional discharge of fluoride into water to treat people which is rightfully the responsibility of the FDA (who also refuses to accept that responsibility). No Federal Agency regulates water fluoridation and accepts liabliity for any of its hazards. The NRC was commissioned by the EPA to investigate the relevance of their old 4 and 2 ppm standards and were specifically told NOT to investigate water fluoridation (again, because the EPA takes no responsibility for water fluoridation).
There are however data in the NRC report on 1 ppm fluoride in water that have proven harm to consumers, and the conclusion was that the old levels of 2 and 4 do not protect all consumers from all harm. This is not difficult to understand, right?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
And the CA state law that purportedly "mandates" water fluoridation is not even actionable. No mention is made for what source chemical to use for fluoride. Does this mean we can use arsenic fluoride, fluosilicic acid for fluoride, anything with fluoride? Of course not, but no source is even stated. AND the tacit assumption in the opening of the law states that ingesting fluoride (no source identified) reduces caries. This of course has always been false, based on a correlation with natural calcium fluoride in water that never was causative (as described previously, fluoride absence does not cause caries and dental enamel is so hard that fluoride cannot enter its matrix, and saliva fluoride at 0.016 ppm from water ingestion is 96,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste). So the State "Mandate" has no meaning.
I encourage cities in CA to halt fluoridation because all those that have are not under any penalty or punishment of any kind. In fact, CA DPH officials wrote to me saying that CA DPH does not require cities to fluoridate. That decision is made by city officials themselves. We do not oppose it and we do not endorse it.
So don't worry cities, just stop the program, save your funds for something useful, and go back to delivering clean fresh drinking water as you always had done before the "mandate" that has no interpretable meaning.
[One city in CA that is listed as fluoridated is actually not , becasue the water operator stopped ordering the hazardous waste and his suprvisor didn't care either. Some cities have rational officials].
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Hi Richard,
There are only 3 fluoride water additives approved for use in the US by the American Water Works Association. Specifying which of these three that has to be used doesn’t allow the fluoridation decision-makers the flexibility to choose which they feel would work best for their community. The equipment design and costs vary depending on which fluoride additive that they choose.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm
As for for statements about calcium fluoride, the low salivary fluoide content, and fluoride not being able to enter the enamel matrix has been addressed in detail by Dr. Gary Whitford, a dentist, toxicologist, and researcher. Your statements have been scientifically been debunked:
http://www.fluoridescience.org/assets/FullReview_Sauerheber2013.pdf
Your encouragement of cities to stop water fluoridation because it doesn’t work is not supported in credibly conducted scientific research that has been published in credibly recognized peer-reviewed journals.
The overwhelming consensus based upon the preponderance of the literature continues to confirm the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation at the low fluoride levels of 0.7ppm in water fluoridation. To promote stopping fluoridation is a willful disregard for families who suffer cavities and the pain and suffering that goes along with it. Do you oppose vaccinations as well?
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
President, American Fluoridation Society
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
My work has never been "debunked" although fluoridationists certainly wish they could. The poisoning in Hooper Bay was due to a sodium fluoride water feed that corroded a pump valve. When did I ever say the same system is used in other public water systems? And yes fluoridationist blogs have attacked the analysis but failed. I never said that using calcium fluoride in soft water lacking calcium, rather than NaF, would make a significnat impact in lowering blood and urine fluoride levels from the consumed water. Instead, the fact is that if calcium fluoride had been used in Hooper Bay, no one would have died and none of the 300 people would have had to have been evacuated to distant hospitals for their severe GI pain.
The reason this is so is because the solubility of calcium fluoride is limited to about 8 ppm. No natural fluoride in fresh water, even in Turkey or India or China where severe bone fluorosis is endemic, could immediately kill with heart block because the water does not contain added industrial soluble fluorides. Natural fluoride is calcium fluoride that is always accompanied with plentiful calcium from other calcium salts. Blood fluoride levels cannot achieve lethal concentrations even when water is 8 ppm natural fluoride.
But NaF is a different matter with infinite solubility in water.This is why the corroded pump valve produced 100 ppm fluoride in the drinking water. The bizarre thing is that the Public Health Service refuses to accept ANY liability for the death and poisonings and instead blames the city for doing it, when the PHS made the city fluoridate in the first place! Hooper Bay now rightfully refuses fluoridation even though the PHS still requests that they do. I defend their rights to deny fluoridation and abhorr that it is being forced on cities around the country against their express will -- so are youi going to shoot me?
Everyone knows that there are three currently used starting materials rubber stamped by the NSF. So what? They are all fully solubile in water to high concentrations and are all manufactured with industrial processes that do not follow GMPs required by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act as recently upgraded to include all supplements used in the U.S.
The idea that fluoridation is merely adjusting "water properties" and thus is not a supplement or a drug is false. The express purpose of water fluoride infusions (Conshow vs Escondido, 2005) as testifed by CADPH official David Nelson is to elevate the fluoride level in blood to attempt to prevent dental caries. The purpose is not to adjust the natural conditions of the water. The purpose is to alter the water so that blood fluoride levels will rise.
Whole body fuoridation is a crime--especially whole body fluoridation of infants in the womb where the U.S FDA banned the sale of all flouride compounds intended to be sold for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. This is all reviewed in the JEPH 2013 article. And yet there are vast numbers of pregnant U.S. women who consuime artificially fluoridated water in treated cities today, because current NSF personnel know nothing about nor care about the FDA ruling. NSF is a private money-making for-profit group. It is not a nonprofit governmental agency that is run by U.S. citizens through the voting will of the public.
"Debunk" this all you want, but such thoughts have no meaning.
And if yo want to debunk something, debunk the idea that blood fluoride somehow reduces caries when it doesn't. Even the CDC published research indicating that the effect of fluoridated water on caries (they believe occurs) is NOT mediated by systemic blood fluoride. Again, catch up with the truth because one day it will catch up to all.
The real problem is that infusing minute levels of a toxic material into public water supplies (which avoids acute toxicity through use of expensive electronic metered infusion systems in most U.S. water supplies today) fulfills the prediction of Buck (The Grim Truth about Water Fluoridation, 1960). He wrote that such a program would not be able to be proven as causing direct harm and thus those running such a program will not be stopped and chronic toxicity will prevail. I hold the view however that with enough time one day it could be stopped. I don't give up on hope.
Again, CA AB733 does not have sufficient deetail to be meaningful. The purpose of blood fluoride is to lower caries (as stated underoath in court by one of the key authors of the law), but the CDC after that law was passed reported that blood fluoride does not lower caries.
And the use of calcium fluoride would prevent adverse acutely toxic overfeeds. I can't change the facts.
I usually say I'm sorry, but with this crowd, I pass on that..
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Dr. Johnny Johnson,
I'm still waiting for your apology for slander. And what about 60% of adolescents (20% moderate/severe) having dental fluorosis a biomarker of excess fluoride, is safe?
Stop ignoring research, such as:
A new study led by York University researchers has found that fluoride levels in urine are twice as high for pregnant women living in Canadian cities where fluoride is added to public drinking water as for those living in cities that do not add fluoride to public water supplies.
The study “Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada” was published today in Environmental Health Perspectives. It is the first study in North America to examine how fluoride in water contributes to urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women. The research was conducted as part of a larger study funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigating whether early life exposure to fluoride affects the developing brain.
“We found that fluoride in drinking water was the major source of exposure for pregnant women living in Canada. Women living in fluoridated communities have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in non-fluoridated communities,” said Christine Till, an associate professor of Psychology in York’s Faculty of Health and lead author on the study.
The Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study recruited 2,001 pregnant women between 2008 and 2011. The women lived in 10 large cities across Canada. Seven of the cities (Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Sudbury, Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg) added fluoride to municipal water while three (Vancouver, Montreal and Kingston) did not.
Urine samples were collected during each trimester of pregnancy for over 1,500 women. Fluoride levels in municipal water treatment plants that provided water to each women’s home were obtained. Information about each woman’s demographics, lifestyle and medical history was also collected.
In addition to fluoridated water, sources of fluoride can include toothpastes, mouth rinses, as well as processed beverages and food, especially those made with fluoridated water. Beyond water, products such as tea have previously been found to have high concentrations of natural fluoride.
In this study, fluoride level in water was the main determinant of fluoride level in the women’s urine. Higher consumption of black tea was also correlated with higher levels of urinary fluoride in pregnant women.
The levels of fluoride among pregnant women living in fluoridated communities in Canada were similar with levels reported in a prior study of pregnant women living in Mexico City where fluoride is added to table salt.
“This finding is concerning because prenatal exposure to fluoride in the Mexican sample has been associated with lower IQ in children. New evidence published today in Environment International also reported an association between higher levels of fluoride in pregnancy and inattentive behaviours among children in the same Mexican sample,” said Till.
The research team, including experts from Simon Fraser University, Université Laval, Indiana University, University of Montreal and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, is investigating whether prenatal exposure to fluoride in Canadian children results in IQ deficits, similar to the Mexican study.
Fluoride has been added to public drinking water in Canadian and American communities since the 1940s as a means of preventing tooth decay. Today, about 40 per cent of Canadians and 74 percent of the U.S. population on public water supplies receive fluoridated water.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
It is an easily verifiable fact that this author's opinions are opposite to the the support of fluoridation from America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians, Internal Medicine specialists and public health experts.
Readers must choose between a lone-wolf opponent and mainstream scientific opinion.
It is this opponent's wishful thinking that the California (and other state mandates) law is not actionable.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
For anyone interested: While we are on the subject of being fraudulent, let's review what happened to force CA to fluoridate all cities with more than 10,000 water connections.
As mentioned, David Nelson helped write the fluoridation mandate law that was not put up for public vote and was passed by the State Legislature anyway. Nelson in discussions with us citizens in L.A. responded to complaints about the Hooper Bay, AK fluoride water poisoning disaster by saying "that was not the fault of water fluoridation." I said why? He said "because the wife of the man killed, it was her fault". Why? "Because she is a nurse and should have known that when he vomited the water he drank, that it must have had too much fluoride and she should not have given him more water when he asked for it".
Note: Dominic Smith, the deceased Coast Guardsman at the time, was very thirsty when the fluoride overfeed (to about 100 ppm) occured from a fluoride-corroded valve, and there are many causes of vomiting besides high fluoride in water, and Nelson always claims that fluoridation is totally safe for all consumers at all times.
So as the author of an article on the incident, I responded by saying "do you mean this event that poisoned 300 people was the wife's fault, not the fault of the water district for a fluoridation overfeed? Did she go around town and purposely give water to all these victims, really?" He caught himself in his own false story and pulled the usual reponse "Richard, I just do what the CDC tells me to do" and abruptly ended the discussion.
This of course does not mean the CDC wanted the man to be killed. It does though mean that people are harmed from the operations required for water fluoridation and that officials in charge are the first to invent fraudulent stories to protect the bone fluoridation program which itself causes harm, is useless in preventing caries, and is illegal.
I found that Nelson truly believes in his heart that whole body fluoridation of kids is good for them. He even accused us, for opposing fluoridation, as hating children for depriving them of good dental care. I'm not kidding! (And no, this is not a tirade, it is a summary of facts). Nelson is now retired after taking 1 million yearly to force cities in CA to fluoridate. He had been convicted of dental malpractice and after leaving dentistry he took a job with the CA DPH to promote fluoridation of the State of CA, as desired for the country by dental officials in the Oral Health Division of the CDC..
Get the picture?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679