Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

363,436 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

27,612 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

View solution in original post

26,356 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

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

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

18,033 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Really? 

 

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

 

BMCLBMCL

 

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

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

 

 

View solution in original post

13,915 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“I was speaking with a public health dentist on the phone about 10 years ago regarding fluoridation.  He said, ‘we will promote fluoridation until a judge tells us otherwise.’  I asked about scientific evidence.  He responded, 'I don't care about science and I don't care if it is right or wrong, I only care if a judge tells me the policy is wrong.'"- Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2018)

 

“When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr.  Andrew Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)

 

"It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers.” - Dr John Colquhoun, former chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand (1993)

 

I read everything. I answered all of the fluoride proponents questions multiple times here and elsewhere already. Their goal is to bury science and rational answers in order to discourage new readership of this thread and intimidate the uneducated into silence. 

 

All three ot those quoted above promoted fluoridation until they actually did their homework. John Colquhoun was the leading dental officer for the country of New Zealand. His experience makes fascinating reading.  http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

 

Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation. Just north of us, Parry Sound, Ontario  voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week. Vive le Canada! However, fluoridationists will continue to do what they do motivated by power, prestige and paychecks. 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
7,017 Views
6
Report
Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne You claim to have answered my specific questions: (10-20-2018 05:45 PM) & (10-20-2018 01:56 PM) (09-03-2018 10:26 PM), (08-30-2018 04:12 PM), (08-26-2018 05:47 PM) (08-21-2018 09:36 PM). 

 

I have been unable to find those specific answers.  Provide links to those specific answers as I have done below (or simply copy/paste your answers), because unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists I do not wish to quote you out of context or make unjustified, unsupported comments about your claims.  I would like to see your specific answers to my specific numbered questions in your specific words – that way there will be no confusion or misunderstanding.  If you do not understand a specific question I will try and clarify it for you.  Some questions ask essentially the same thing in different ways – again, so there is no confusion about your answers.

 

Q1 – Please clarify your rather broad accusations – do you believe your description of CWF supporters as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” is descriptive of all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate or only the ADA, EPA and most dentists? The descriptions can be found in context here: (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) (07-25-2018 11:30 PM)
 If your description is not inclusive of all CWF supporters, describe exactly which of the 100+ organizations and their members fall into which categories and why?


Q 2 – If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be support by all the major science and health organizations if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege?


Q 3a – Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined. 
Q 3b – If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example. 
The only “answer” of yours I could find was on (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) where you stated, “Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections.  There  is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety.”  
That hardly answers my question – if there “is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation then I ask yet again, how do you explain the FACT that the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF?

Q 4 – Why did you leave out the final two sentences in the US Public Health Service review you quoted on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM  & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM which concluded, “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” and completely contradicted the point you were apparently trying to make in your quote.  Unless you can provide another explanation, I will keep in in my list of examples of how anti-science activists deliberately distort evidence to try and scam the public.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf (P 162-163)

 

Q 5a – How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years as evidenced by nearly universal support from the science and health communities?  If you don’t believe there is such support, then provide specific, verifiable evidence that proves the majority of relevant experts actually agree with the anti-F opinions – all I have seen are quotes from some professionals and a list of .

Q 5b – If the evidence against CWF is legitimate, obvious and compelling, explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of that evidence.

 

Q 6 – If you mean what you said in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals. 

The progress and knowledge gained in every field of science was made possible by challenging a current scientific consensus with new, legitimate evidence with conclusions different from the consensus.  That legitimate evidence, if evaluated and tested by experts and found to be valid, eventually led to changes and advances in all areas of science and health care.  The issue of CWF is no different – there has been no significant change in the consensus in over 70 years because the majority of relevant experts have found no legitimate evidence to abandon it. 

As noted elsewhere, the conclusions of studies that show a possible suggestion of potential correlations between low levels of fluoride ions and some health issue do not evaluate or adequately consider relevant potential confounding factors (other potential reasons that can explain the possible correlation), and they do not provide sufficient evidence to change the expert consensus.  Those study conclusions, however, are sufficient in many cases (particularly when the study limitations are ignored and health effects inflated) to create unwarranted fear and change public perceptions.  Also, studies that confirm the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste, rinses and other fluoride treatments do not disprove the effectiveness of CWF as an effective public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay in communities – particularly in those individuals who may not have access to good dental care.

 

Q 7 – Provide specific links to the comments where you claim I went “on and on about the legality of fluoridation”.

 

Your philosophical/moral bias is evident when you arbitrarily claim (‎08-21-2018 03:40 PM) that “even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication“, and your statement highlights the importance of personal, non-scientific beliefs to anti-science activists when evaluating and interpreting the evidence.  By your “logic” those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument.
 
Q 8a – At what point with public health measures do you agree that benefits outweigh the risks, and what criteria do you employ to make your decisions?  Do you use your personal opinions or the consensus of relevant science and health experts??
Q 8b – Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/chlorine-a-dangerous-addition-to-everyday-life/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/anti-chlorine-activists-hope-politics-will-trump-science

Q 8c – Do you believe that even if vaccination does help prevent diseases, vaccination policies could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??

 

There are more specific questions that I would like to have your specific answers on, but this will do for now.

 

Bottom Line:  So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful at changing the scientific consensus.  Your only option then, is to carefully select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted.  You just stated (10-23-2018 07:34 AM), that “Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation.  Parry Sound, Ontario voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week.”  That sounds suspiciously like a change made by public opinion instead of empirical data. 


Unfortunately fear is an extremely strong motivating factor – Honest and intelligent people who are not scientists or health professionals and don’t understand the limitations and suggestions of weak possible correlations the actual empirical data, would have every reason to be scared to death if a group of vocal activists presented exaggerated claims as “scientific evidence” that “proved” CWF lowered IQ, caused cancer, thyroid problems, arthritis, diabetes ADD stained and brittle teeth, etc.

 

Three more quotes from FOs are not evidence of anything – that is precisely why understanding the scientific consensus is critical to understanding how best to interpret the existing body of evidence.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
7,026 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

Randy, Dr. JJ, and All,  (provides partial answer to some of your questions)

 

PARRY SOUND – Parry Sounders have spoken; they do not want their drinking water fluoridated.   Hardy Limeback,  PhD, DDS wrote an opinion letter answering fluoridation claims.    Very concise and clear.

 

Quote:

"I read the Oct. 5 opinion letter by a group of local doctors trying to convince Parry Sounders to vote in favour of fluoridation in the upcoming plebiscite.

As one of the persons derogatorily labeled as a “so-called expert,” I’d like to offer some corrections and facts in response based on science, not politics or endorsements.

 

Claim1: “As health professionals we serve as first-hand witnesses to the impact that poor dental hygiene has on the overall health of the community.”

This is an odd statement, since physicians do not practice dentistry and are not familiar with dental science.

 

Fact: poor dietary choices (frequent sugar intake) cause cavities. “Poor dental hygiene” is a not a major factor in the prevalence and severity of dental decay.

 

Claim 2. Cavities cost Canadians over a billion dollars a year.

Sounds impressive, but that’s only $27/person/yr.

Fact: Other dental costs, including cosmetic dentistry to treat the dental fluorosis side effects of fluoridation, are 12 times higher.

 

Claim 3. The truth is, fluoride in drinking water has been scientifically studied for over 70 years without ever finding evidence that the low levels recommended in municipal drinking water have any negative health effects

Fact: While fluoridation has been in place for 70 years, studies have not been conducted to show safety. Our expert review panel (the National Academies of Sciences Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water) reviewed over hundreds of studies on fluoride toxicity. See https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards We found several problems with fluoride in drinking water because fluoride accumulates in the body, primarily the skeletal system.

Our own study (Chachra et al, 2010) published after our NAS Review of 2006 comparing the bones of fluoridated Torontonians with the bones of the non-fluoridated Montrealers showed that the people in Toronto had more fluoride in their bones and the physical properties of their bones had changed. Fluoride accumulation in bones weakens them.

But if you don’t look for problems you won’t find them.

There has never been a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial to see if fluoridation actually works. This kind of study is required for every drug that seeks approval from Health Canada or the US FDA.

 

Claim 4. In recent years, when communities have voted to remove fluoride from drinking water, cavity rates have risen.

Fact. This is incorrect. Nearly all studies, including in Canada, showed that where fluoridation was halted, dental decay continued to drop. The increased dental decay claimed was anecdotal and could not be backed up with good science. We published a critique of the findings in Calgary after it stopped fluoridating in 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28994462)

 

Claim 5. It is true that swallowing too much fluoride toothpaste can cause your teeth to stain (known as fluorosis); an uncommon finding even in those who brush regularly and have fluoride in their town water.

Fact. Dental fluorosis occurs when too much fluoride is ingested from birth to age 6 years. It is the total fluoride that is ingested that is important. By far, fluoridated water is the largest contributor, especially when a baby is given infant formula made with fluoridated tap water. Unfortunately dental fluorosis, a permanent scarring of the teeth, is now a very common side effect of fluoridation. Some estimates are that 1 in 10 children have unsightly dental fluorosis in fluoridated areas.

 

Claim 6. The point is, there are no known negative health effects from the amounts of fluoride added to municipal drinking water, despite decades of study on the topic.

 

Fact: The good doctors are obviously not up on their science. There are 4 studies published in the last two years that linked prenatal exposure to fluoride to lowered IQ in the children later in life. One study showed that dental fluorosis was associated with lowered IQ. This is not ‘misinformation’ as the doctors suggest. These are peer-reviewed studies from highly respected international researchers.

 

Claim 7. Will updating our fluoridation system cost money? Yes, but not as much as it will to deal with all the cavities we will face if we don’t.

 

Upgrading Parry Sound’s fluoridation system to current standards will cost taxpayers at least $350,000. Add to that $150,000 over the next 15 years to maintain and run the system. The total cost is at least $0.5 million.

 

What are the dental cost savings Parry Sound families can expect after 15 years of fluoridation?

 

Fact: The most up-to-date peer-reviewed study (Slade et al, 2018) shows that 0.5 teeth might be saved per teenager exposed to fluoridated water since birth.

There are about 850 teens in Parry Sound. Saving 0.5 tooth/teen from decay will save families in Parry Sound about $85,000.

 

Spending $0.5 million to save $85,000 in dental costs is not wise way to spend taxpayers’ money.  I was told that the cost to fluoridate will be recovered from increases in Parry Sound water bills.

 

Claim 8. It’s worth noting that no Canadian town has ever removed fluoride from water because of actual health concerns related to these low levels of fluoride

This is another unsupported claim. When Canadian towns have the opportunity to weigh the risks vs the benefits and look at all the health concerns, they usually vote to discontinue the practice.

 

Fluoridation is medication, as ruled by Supreme Court of Canada. You cannot control the dose. Everyone is obliged to take it whether they need it or not. It will harm the most susceptible even if they do not provide consent to this ‘medical treatment’.

 

In most medical schools graduates are asked to uphold the oath “primum non nocere” which is “first do no harm”.

 

But then those advising you to vote for fluoridation, including your medical officer of health and the group of doctors who wrote the OpEd letter, are not liable for any harm that fluoridation will cause your family.

 

Because of the Fluoridation Act of Ontario, if the answer to the referendum is in the affirmative, a majority of 51% of the community can tell the other 49% they have to contribute to the cost of fluoridation, pay for fixing dental fluorosis their children will get, pay for a home filtration system that removes unwanted fluoride and try and avoid foods made with fluoridated drinking water including foods served in the restaurants and coffee shops of Parry Sound.

 

This time Parry Sounders have a say whether or not they want fluoridation. It’s not up to the council, whether for or against.

 

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD (Biochem), DDS
Professor Emeritus and former Head of Preventive Dentistry
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
Past member of the US NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
McKellar Township"

 

Randy,

Note the Supreme court of Canada.

Note the lack of cost savings.

Note the harm to just the teeth.

Note the harm to the brain.

 

And he never seriously covered excess exposure.

So much more to be added.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

7,080 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

I have also answered most of your questions but you fail to read, or at least fail to respond to the answers.  I understand there is a mountain of info here and I too am unable to devote full time to reading and responding.  Perhaps if you picked one question, we could focus on one, but you would need to respond.  I don't want to simply play intellectual exercises.  I'm too busy.  

 

If you get one question, it is fair that I should have one.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
7,018 Views
3
Report
Trusted Contributor

Bill - Here are three related questions from my most recent request for specific answers.

 

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 publicThey 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.” 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?  

 

And please provide some evidence, and not just your opinions.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
7,177 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The question of why people agree with fluoridationists' claims has been answered before (i.e. The Fluoride Deception, Bryson) but apparently the answers are being ignored. Is the book simply too detailed?

For a more trivial introduction to fluoridation see for example the Fluoride Debate stating the following:

 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (Sept. 18, 1943) states that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons — they inhibit enzyme systems, and water containing 1 part per million (ppm) or more fluoride is undesirable. This was the AMA's stand on fluoridation shortly before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed nationwide fluoridation.

 

Industrial fluoride waste was industry's menace until Oscar Ewing, an Alcoa Aluminum lawyer, became head of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1947.  Alcoa was one of the largest producers of hazardous fluoride waste at that time. Under Ewing, the U.S. Public Health Service proceeded to conduct the fluoridated drinking water experiment on thousands of people without their consent, even though they knew at the time that there was little or no margin of safety between the hoped-for therapeutic dose and the toxic dose that causes dental fluorosis for children and skeletal fluorosis over lifetime exposure.

Ten years later, by reading the statistics incorrectly they claimed a "65% reduction in tooth decay," and moved on to fluoridate more cities. Newburgh and Kingston were two of the original test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after nearly 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh's children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston. ("New Studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits," by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News. Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989).

Today there is a great deal of scientific agreement that ingested fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. The largest study of tooth decay in America, by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-1987, showed that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,207 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in the 84-city study. The study cost the U.S. taxpayers $3,670,000, yet very few Americans are aware the study was ever performed. ("New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits." Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989).

 

So the scientific consensus of 1943 has been validated with the scientific consensus in 2018. The plain fact is that industrial fluoride has always been an insidious poison, cumulative in its effects when ingested in minimal amounts, unable to affect dental decay significantly, and this remains unchanged no matter how many claim otherwise.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
7,366 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Randy, 

 

I just answered your question again, in my response to Dr. Chuck.  Both of you are having the same thought process.

 

You asked,

 

"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."

 

If there is one thing I don't want, is for people to blindly follow any persen, people, organization, or me.  

 

Become "EVIDENCE BASED" rather than "human based, individual, organization based."  

 

I was raised in a religious cult where the profit died and the followers lied and became very dishonest in order to protect "God."  At lest their theory of God.

 

When the evidence became clear that the cult was based on fraud, lies, and mistakes, I left the cult.  It has taken a couple generations for the cult to slowly change.   Change is hard for one individual, extremely hard for organizations. . . takes generations.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
7,320 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.  (2014)

 

In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again. Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay. 

 

Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion. Science is supposed to be the best faith effort to interpret reality, i.e. truth. Unfortunately, like the law and all activities of men, science is often corrupted by bias and politics. 

 

Regardless of law, science or politics - the truth validated by empirical data and reported in scores of scientific articles is that fluoridation compromises kidneys, endangers thyroids, inflames guts, damages bones and poisons the developing brains of infants in the womb and bottle-fed babies. Modern citations for these assertions of fact and evolving medical opinion against fluoridation policy have been repeatedly detailed in this forum, ex: here and here and here

8,745 Views
8
Report
Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – Remarkable, now you are comparing the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate water with the decision to allow or ban abortions – really?

 

I suggest a more rational comparison – the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate water with the decision to disinfect or not disinfect drinking water – or the decision to implement or not implement vaccination programs.  These decisions are based on decades of research with thousands of studies of varying relevance, quality and bias – and varying conclusions on the risks and benefits of implementing or not implementing these public health measures.

 

You made one correct statement, “science also changes”.  However, that truth is evidence that confirms the current scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective health measure.

 

The scientific consensus of all these public health measures is that the benefits of implementing fluoridation, disinfection, and vaccination are significantly greater than any known or suspected risks.   That is why the major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of these programs.  The overall body of scientific evidence continues to support their overall benefits.

 

The lack of legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions is the reason opponents to these public health measures have been unable to change the scientific consensus or the position of the relevant science and health organizations.  The absence of legitimate evidence and their inability to change the scientific consensus are the reasons that fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists must resort to “adjusting” the evidence as selected and presented in hopes of scaring the public into believing their propaganda.

 

 You have still not answered my specific questions: (10-20-2018 05:45 PM) & (10-20-2018 01:56 PM)

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
8,738 Views
7
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Legal rulings come and go, and change with time for many issues. 

The chief evidence I've seen of making false conclusions and turning data into propaganda is from those who promote fluoridation as though eating fluoride somehow reduces dental decay when it doesn't. The average study claiming benefit for example usually cites means that are not outside experimental error. Currently caries reduction is not sufficient to counter sugar consumption in causing decay with fluoridated toothpaste at 1,500 ppm. So some manufacturers are considering elevating it to 5,000 ppm. But data that are reliable from volunteers indicate no significant decrease in caries by going to this level. And why ecpect otherwise, knowing that  fluoride even at 12,000 ppm in gels does not incorporate into rock-hard enamel.

 

And  eating fluoride water at 0.7 ppm which produces a dismal 0.016 ppm in saliva is of course topically worthless for teeth. The modern invented idea is now that this small level works by incorporating into plaque on teeth surfaces where it "helps" toothpaste fluoride. This was invented because it is known that enamel is too hard to incorporate fluoride into its matrix. But plaque is something that most dentists remove from teeth and advise patients to remove regularly.

 

Fluoride ingested from water and foods does not systemically or topically affect dental caries.

On the other hand, whole body fluoridaiton of systemic fluid leads to gross incorporation of fluoride into bone. So the story was invented that since fluoride "is good" then it must strengthen the bones it enters.  But this was proven false (NIH, FDA) so most fluoridationists don't discuss much about fluoridation of bone except to sweepingly claim that there is no proof of harm. But altering the crystal structure of bone hydroxyapatite into fluoroapatite which is bone of poor quality, and eventually forming exostoses of bone that did not belong there in the first place, are indeed harmful.

 

So facts emerge over time, yes. And investigators modify positions based on those facts. But facts themselves are immutable. As it turns out scientists in the 1940's who concluded that the data they had then indicated that fluoride ingestion would be harmful have been fully validated.  Read for example the FDA opposition to fluoridation (based on that data) when fluoridation first began, as described in Bryson, C. The Fluoride Deception. 

 

   .  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
8,745 Views
6
Report
Trusted Contributor

rs5526 – Several specific questions:

 

  • What does your response about “legal rulings” that “come and go, and change with time for many issues” have to do with anything?
    The entire issue of fluoridation rests on the scientific consensus, not “legal rulings”.  The entire point of the scientific method (not legal rulings) is to create and continually adjust the scientific consensus in all areas of science and health care based on legitimate scientific evidence.  The scientific consensus also is not the same as ethical beliefs or legal decisions based on personal interpretations of the consensus.

  • Do you agree with CarryAnne’s (10-22-2018 09:52 AM) comparison of decisions to allow or ban abortions with decisions to fluoridate or not fluoridate drinking water? If so, explain exactly and specifically in what ways you believe those issues and decisions are alike.
    In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again. Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay.”

  • What is the point of your fluoridated toothpaste discussion? Do you believe fluoridated toothpaste has no effect on reducing dental decay?

  • Do you believe there is a scientific consensus that the benefits of implementing disinfection and vaccination are significantly greater than any known or suspected risks and that those public health measures should be supported and promoted by the major science and health organizations?

  • Another question: If the “alleged evidence” provided by fluoridation opponents is as legitimate and obvious as you seem to believe, what is your explanation for the fact that over 100 national and international science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation?  What is your explanation for the fact that the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of those organizations have not rebelled if they were presented legitimate scientific evidence that their patients and fellow citizens were being mass poisoned by a public health measure?

The facts are:  
1) The scientific consensus in all scientific fields/areas does change as legitimate scientific evidence is presented that provides new, relevant information that would require a change in perception &/or conclusions. 


2) The scientific consensus has not changed significantly regarding fluoridation for over 70 years of anti-F activists presenting their alleged “evidence”.  It has been tweaked, however.


3) Because the anti-F “evidence”, when evaluated by most relevant experts does not support a change in consensus, that “evidence” must be “adjusted” and presented to the public in a way that will effectively scare them into accepting the anti-F opinions as legitimate.


4) The “legal rulings” you seem to be focused on are not a scientific consensus, and may not reflect the scientific consensus at all.. Similarly,decisions by various local governmental bodies regarding fluoridation may reflect public opinion that has been effectively “adjusted” by anti-F propaganda instead of the scientific consensus.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
8,741 Views
5
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The point is that laws have changed for many issues, only one being fluoridation.

And the statement posted here by this fluoridation promoter is correct:

 

"The “legal rulings” you seem to be focused on are not a scientific consensus, and may not reflect the scientific consensus at all."

 

That is true. The legal ruling of the appealed case in Escondido that allowed fluoridation, and overturned the earlier ruling by the judge, does not reflect scientific consensus at all.   A scientist knows full well that adding industrial fluoride into drinkng water alters the bodily chemistry of the consumer. It not only elevates the incidence of dental fluorosis abnormality but also causes incorporation of fluoride into bone to thousands of ppm over decades consuming it, causing formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal structure.  So when the case was ruled to alter body chemistry, it was correct. But when fluoridationists appealed the case and the judge then overturned the earlier ruling, that ruling was incorrect and certainly has nothing to do with scientific consensus. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
8,850 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“They have no conscience, no compassion about the people who are being made ill by fluoride, and they have no social responsibility. It’s purely an ‘I’m all right Jack’ situation – ‘it’s just business’. And they’ll gas-light the people by saying, ‘No no, it’s good for your teeth’ – when really what they’re saying is, ‘Shut up and don’t stop my cash-flow’.” - Thomas Sheridan, author of ‘Puzzling People: The Labyrinth Of The Psychopath’ (2017)

 

Randy and his troop of propagandists were going on and on about the legality of fluoridation. My point is the law is maleable, imperfect and has nothing to do with emerging scientific evidence of harm. The issues are emerging evidence of harm, evolvig medical opinion against fluoridation and testimony of victims

 

Moreover, social media trolls and advocacy groups who engage in astroturfing in order to gaslight the public, politicians and whomever else falls victim to their ploys are neither scientists nor lawyers, although they play act as such online. 

 

AARP - You should be too smart to fall for these ploys. Do your due diligence. 

8,753 Views
3
Report
Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – Your Thomas Sheridan quote (10-22-2018 03:50 PM) would only make sense if the body of scientific evidence actually supported the opinions of fluoridation opponents (FOs) that community water fluoridation (CWF) was ineffective and harmful.  If that were reality, however, the consensus would change. 

 

The reality, as described repeatedly, is exactly the opposite.  The majority of relevant experts have concluded (for over 70 years) that CWF is a safe and effective measure to protect the health of citizens by reducing dental decay in communities.  Because of that scientific consensus, virtually all major science and health organizations publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  I have asked you (several times without success) to explain this fact. 

 

I have also asked you to explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of the evidence.  A more accurate rendering of the quote based on current accepted science would be, “FOs have no conscience, no compassion about the people who at an increased risk of dental decay in communities with low levels of fluoride ions and poor diets and poor dental care, and they have no social responsibility.”

 

You have a remarkable ability to twist reality.  You claim “Randy and his troop of propagandists were going on and on about the legality of fluoridation.”  Did you even look at the comments which address the ”legality of fluoridation”?  Virtually every comment over the past couple of months about the ”legality of fluoridation” was posted by FOs (mostly rs5526  and BillO) trying to make the case that fluoridation is illegal.  My focus is on the scientific consensus – any legal rulings should be based on that consensus.

 

If you mean what you say in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals.  So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful.  Your only option then, is to select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted.

 

You still have not answered my specific questions.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
8,780 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"relevant experts" mentioned here are those who do not opppose fluoridation.

This ignores experts who oppose fluoridation including John Yiamouyiannis (Fluordie the Aging Factor); Ziegelbecker;Teotia and Teotia;Sutton; and others who found that fluoridated wter is useless in reducing caries and instead is most efficient at causing abnormal fluorotic teeth enamel in children.

This also ignores experts who found that water fluoridation harms consumers, elevating TSH, PTH and calcitonin, and converts normal bone into fluoroapatite (published by the NRC committee 2006), and as published in many studies lowers IQ.

As far as answering the ludicrous question of how could so many experts and agencies be deceived?  You fail to recognize the power of false correlation. If you want to get a glimpse of how so many have been deceived since 1945 read Bryson, C. The Fluoride Deception. This is a chronicle of what took place to attempt to prove ingested fluoride is useful, as reported by this news reporter.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
8,458 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

Sure . . Yiamouyiannis is the guy who claimed that fluoride, not a virus causes AIDS. . .(Readings in American Health Care: Current Issues in Socio-historical Perspective (1995) p 135) In the book you refer to. Yiamouyiannis claimed that fluoride harms the immune system, cause colds, premature aging, birth defects and of course cancer.

Dr. Y is well representative of the "experts" who believe the water fluoridation is neither beneficial nor safe.


0 Kudos
13,290 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

My friend Jeff Gren organized the suit. And I live in the outskirts of Escondido

 Yes you can read the verdict 5bat caused the city tovf lyorifat it's citizens. 

And just like I said, this,was the appealed case. The original case ruled against whole  body fluoridation of citizens because the intelligent judge agreed that the city water district  had no rights to alter the bodily chemistry of anyone. The purpose for whole body fluoridation is to adjust the composition of systemic fluid with a contaminant that is not a component of normal human blood

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
14,693 Views
4
Report
Regular Contributor

An appealed case overturned is a lower court judge deemed mistaken. There have been a few such cases. None have been upheld on appeal.


0 Kudos
14,601 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

That's my point. Court rulings against fluoridation are always overruled eventually. The justice system is wrong on several issues but rational judges know the truth on fluoridation

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
14,384 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

It isn't realistic for you to believe that lower court judges are rational yet appeal court judges are uniformly mistaken. An in any case, appeals are always possible unless you lose at the Supreme Court level.

0 Kudos
13,265 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

It is completely rational for one knowing the truth  to know if a ruling is correct or not. Many court cases are ruled incorrectly.. Many people are in jail,who,are innocent.

And being wrong on one issue doesnt mean a judge is irrational on any other issue. 

It is difficult to be a  judge and none are correct all the time. Many simply rule based on precedent or earlier rulings and incorrect decisions can spread widely particularly for a Federal progeam such as fluoridation which is illegal. The SDWA was written to halt the spread 8f fluoridation.   but who can find a high level judge who knows this today? Especially with so many fluoridation advocates who don't believe it.

 

 

 

 

 

,who vicallrcadset5 otgerwis4.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,275 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

And to be clear, CA AB733 does not mention ANY fluoride source, notthat you are free to choose form a list of three, nor that there are three, less, or more.  The discussion presented is meaningless since one cannot buy "fluoride". Fluoride is only always accompanied with its corresponding cation.  All soluble fluorides are listed poisons (all three of the NSF rubber stamped allowed source materials) on poisons registries, while calcium fluoride is not a listed poison because of its finite solubility. Ironically Nelson refused to accept the use of calcium fluoride because he felt the solubility would be too cumbersome to work with. Note: one country in South America that fluoridates uses calcium fluoride; and the original listed source materials for fluoridation by the CDC included calcium fluoride, but such records are getting harder to find in public now..

Ease to fluoridate first, long term safety last.

Again, AB733 is meaningless, vague, and deceptive in assuming that eating fluoride reduces caries and that mandating it by request of the CDC is somehow not in violation of the SDWA when it is. States can be no less restrictive than the SDWA, as stated in the original SDWA statutes approved by Congress.  But in today's world, who cares about laws?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,489 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

And by the way the 0.016 ppm fluoride level in saliva of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water is a measurement published by the NRC that was also confirmed in,writing from NRC committee member Dr. K. Thiessen.

 This is indeed 96500 times less concentrated than in toothpaste at 1500 ppm. 

So how pray tell did this lead to the idea that  somehow my work is debunked? If you want to lash out about that, then do so with the NRC committee.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
14,856 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoridationists who use rhetorical deceits and come up with childish acronyms so as to use obscenities to describe those who campaign against the immoral use of municipal water systems to dose the population with an inflammatory drug aren't scientists. I suggest if winning is so important to them, rather than using social media as a tool to villify and victimize senior citizens and children, they should attend Friday night football games. 

 

From the lead investigator: “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous…" - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From an international leader in environmental poison research: “Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously.” -  Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From the Director of the US National Toxicology Program: "There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before.” - Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

 

From a pediatrician who studies links between environmental exposures and health problems: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande,  pediatrician & associate professor at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al., Sept 2017

 

BTW: I have never quoted Alex Jones or Infowars for anything - ditto for Mike Adams. I prefer scientific evidence and professional opinion to entertainment. However, I can also recognize a put up job and never trust organizational endorsements until I verify their data. 

Philip R.N. Sutton is one of my fluoridation heroes. A statistician and dental researcher, he assumed the 1940s fluoridation trials were legitimate, until he did his due-diligence. His report  contains the following:

 

"...the evidence tendered in favor of fluoridation reveals two disturbing features. The first is that what must be essentially a statistical study does not appear to have been planned as such. The second is that even when sufficient information is presented, no comprehensive attempt at statistical evaluation has been considered." - Dr. Philip R.N. Sutton in “Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions in Experimental Trials” (2nd ed. 1960)

  

13,605 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – Interesting response.  If you are replying to my comment I noticed that you provided no answers to my very specific questions regarding your previous comments. 

 

Unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists (ASAs), I try very hard not to take comments out of context.  As I demonstrated with your US Public Health Service quotes, FOs and ASAs extract and present any portion of a comment out context if it can be adjusted to fit their agenda.  BTW: You apparently accused me of claiming that you quoted Alex Jones &/or Mike Adams.  I have never made such an accusation – I simply stated that their organizations are among the few that oppose CWF, and their tactics and arguments are the same as those employed by FOs and other ASAs.  When did I use an “obscenity”, and what “rhetorical deceits” did I employ?  I simply asked several questions about comments you have made and pointed out where you had used an out-of-context deceitful quote.

 

I am trying to get straight answers in your words so I don’t misinterpret your position.

 

That is why I asked you very specific questions about very specific comments you have made about those who support community water fluoridation (CWF).  I will try again.

 

The fact is that over 100 major science and health organizations with hundreds of thousands of members continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  The members of those organizations have not initiated a revolution to stop that recognition. The questions reference this fact – if you dispute it, let me know.

 

  • Please clarify – do you believe all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate, are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”?  If not, which groups and supporters fall into which categories and why?
  • If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be such support if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege? 
  • Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined.  If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example.
  • How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years.

 

Five quotes from FOs are not evidence of anything – that is precisely why understanding the scientific consensus is critical to understanding how best to interpret the existing body of evidence.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
13,801 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“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. 

 

 

 

13,562 Views
3
Report
Trusted Contributor

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, Ontarioand 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.

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
13,595 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

14,800 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

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 publicThey 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 corruptandvested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millionsandAgnotology: 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

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
13,359 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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:

  1. Removing asbestos from school buildings. Asbestos use began in the 1940s, same time as fluoridation. 
  2. Removing lead from gasoline. It took over 40 years of protests for that to happen. 
  3. 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.

Air-Water AnalogyAir-Water Analogy

13,114 Views
35
Report