Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

• 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
• 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
• 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 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.  

BMCL

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. 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 “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. 

[RandyJ913440]

Bill – It didn’t take long for you to not-answer my Y/N questions and provide yet another set of weaves and dodges to escape having to answer what are not at all convoluted questions and can easily be answered Yes or No. 

For example, I have no problem answering my extremely straightforward questions:

1. Yes, over 100 reputable science and health organizations support community water fluoridation (CWF).
2. Yes and Yes
   • Yes – the only organizations (not governmental decisions) I have seen you or CarryAnne list are about 6 alternative health organizations and 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations posted by FOs in these comments, (Bill, 07-09-2018 09:09 PM & CarryAnne, 06-28-2018 07:32 AM)
   • Yes – I got the numbers from the FAN website today, and although the number of practicing dentists, MDs, pharmacists and nurses in the world might be off a bit, that will not change the miniscule percentage of professionals who publically accept the position of anti-science activists.
3. Yes and Yes
   • Yes – I accept the scientific consensus that exposure to fluoride ions when applied topically reduce the risk of dental decay
   • Yes – I accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of all non-fluoridation water treatment processes far outweigh any known or suspected risks. I also accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of CWF far outweigh any known or suspected risks.
4. Yes and Yes
   • Yes – I believe the WHO, which represents 191 countries, is a reputable, trustworthy science-based health organization with the goal of improving and protecting health worldwide?
   • Yes – I agree with the very clear, in context conclusions of the World Health Organization reports on the effectiveness and safety of CWF referenced below.
5. Yes – From everything I have read, I believe my summary of your explanations for why specific science and health organizations publically support CWF is accurate and you would happily apply them to all science and health organizations in the world – If you disagree, please feel free to explain.  Your specific comments are referenced below.

Your turn.

If you believe I have provided “tabloid convoluted questions which are partly yes and partly no and leave out substantive aspects which end up making no sense”, please be a bit more specific.

If you believe I “would like to divert the discussion away from science and onto people” then please explain who it is that evaluates the scientific evidence.  Last time I checked it was people. 

If I were to depend on an accurate evaluation of the evidence, the people I would trust would be the scientists and health professionals represented by the 100+ organizations that support CWF as a safe and effective public health measure.  I would not trust a bunch of outlier anti-science activists or members of the public, most of whom don’t have relevant science or health care training and who have been scammed into accepting the anti-science propaganda by deceptive and disingenuous tactics like misrepresentation of the evidence and fear-mongering.

As referenced many times previously, the World Health Organization 2016 report, Fluoride and Oral Health, concluded, in part,
~> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.” (p78)

~> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.” (p78)

~> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.” (p79)

https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf?ua=1

A 2016 editorial by Petersen and Ogawa in Community Dental Health, described the 2016 WHO study and stated,

~> “The use of fluoride for population based prevention of dental caries has been endorsed officially by WHO since the late 1960s.”, and concluded, “Based on the modern conception of evidence for public health the report emphasizes the effectiveness and appropriateness of different fluoride administration forms in communities and specifies the practical impact of implementation of combined administration of fluoride.”
http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_prevention_dental_caries_through_use_fluoride.pdf

Bill’s specific explanations:  I have made every attempt to quote them accurately and in context, and I have previously requested clarification if I missed something – and received no reply.

(08-19-2018 02:18 AM) “The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.“

(08-19-2018 07:15 PM) “CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation think fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk.  That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.”

(07-09-2018 09:09 PM) the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”and  “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.” and “the credibility of those so called ‘scientific’ organizations [AAP, ADA, CDC] has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.”  and “They were silent because they never looked at the science.”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“

CarryAnne’s specific explanations:  I have made every attempt to quote them accurately and in context, and I have previously requested clarification if I missed something – and received no reply.

 (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…”

[BillO538145]

Randy,

You really don't get it, do you.  I would recommend some basic science courses and I don't have time to get into it, but let me use an example.

Would you agree, 2+2=4????   A simple math equation.  That is math, not people.   Do we need to ask 100 reputable scientific organizations their opinion?  Or are we as individuals smart enough and have enough background to confirm the equation and at least answer?   Yes, in my experience.   And if you provided all the reputable scientific organizations in the world which said 2+2=3, then I would question those organizations.  Neither these organizations nor Trump has the final word on "truth" for me.

You have a mind, use it.  Science is (should be) factual, empirical, evidence based.  Yes, some science is memorization of names and the language of science and thought process of science, but those are the tools and language which help us communicate scientific concepts.

Science is not faith or belief based.  Science is facts and when there are no facts we need to admit the lack of facts.  Science is not defined by concensus.

Science is not a democracy nor dictatorship, science is facts, data, numbers, math.  Good scientists, if given the same set of facts, should come to similar conclusions.  If the facts are cherry picked and biased, there will be greater scientific controversy.

If science were based on a vote, the world would still be declaired flat.  Instead a few individuals spoke out against the majority and said the world was not flat.  Neither the majority nor tradition are always reliable. 

Science is not settled and not unanimous and should always be questioned and "never "(not a scientific word) carved in stone.  Remember, 50% of what we scientists know to be "true" is actually false.  Our job and challenge is to discover which 50%.  Sometimes a theory can be partly true and with research improved.

So lets look at one of your questions of which I have repeatedly answered and you have failed to understand.

You asked,

1. "Yes, over 100 reputable science and health organizations support community water fluoridation (CWF)."

The knee jerk reaction is, " yes, maybe, sort of, in a crude non-scienetific sort of way and who cares?"  They support fluoridation for various reasons, but not current scientific facts.  None.  None have skin in the game.  None will individually place their professional license on the line.  They do not provide quality supporting research for their faith based marketing endorsement because no such research exists.  Pick five (not ADA AMA CDC PHS) of the 100 and lets look at it closely at the primary research which supports their position.   Each relies on others.  Even the ADA, AMA, CDC, PHS, SG, and EPA rely and reference each other and not primary research.

And Randy, what about the fact that most developed countries do not add fluoride to their water?????  Fewer than half the developed countries in the world, most of them English speaking, promote and support artificial fluoridation.

If you are going to have a faith based health care practice, who are you going to trust, the few countries supporting fluoridation or the majority who do not?  But neither the minority nor the majority are scientific evidence.  

You mistakenly assume these organizations have done careful scientific evaluation of artificial fluoridation.  Well, I had the exact same trust as you for years and I promoted fluoridation, fluoride supplements, fluoride topical, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride pesticides, fluoride post-harvest fumigants, fluoride etc. etc.  I was wrong for trusting.  I felt, certainly these reputable scientific and health organizations could not all be wrong.  Then I read both sides of the science for myself and asked basic scientific questions which these organizations do not answer and cannot answer.   For example, what government agency accepts jurisdiction for determining dosage, safety, and benefit?  Where do they list the safety studies for fluoride exposure?  Is 60% of children with dental fluorosis too much?

Randy.  Once again, remember, my Masters Degree is in Public Health.  I am one of them.  And in my courses, which they still teach, they are firm and clear that we Public Health Officials are NOT to question the policy and science policy.   That is not our job.  We are to educate and ensure the public follows policy.  Our job as public health experts is marketing, not science evaluation.

We must ask, "who evaluates the science policy and practice?"    Good question.  In many cases corrections do not come out until the courts or media wind up the public.  Tradition takes generations to change.

For example, we have known for decades that tobacco use was harmful and second hand smoke harmful, and other countries limited public use of tobacco long before the USA.  We in the USA are sometimes very slow to protect the public.

You asked if I felt the Tuskegee study and Fluoridation study are comparable.  Yes, indeed, there are some comparisons and some not.  Lets compare.  

Tuskegee study had about 400 African Americans.  

Fluoridation has about 220,000,000 African Americans and mostly other races.

Tuskegee study had individual consent, but not informed consent.

Fluoridation does not have individual consent.

Researchers lied to the cohorts in both studies.

Tuskegee study was started by the US Public Health Service/SG about 1932.

Fluoridation study was started by the US Public Health Service/SG about 13 years later.  Same mind set.  

"The strategies used to recruit and retain participants were quite similar to those being advocated for HIV/AIDS prevention programs today."https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.81.11.1498

The strategies used to recruit and retain participants were quite similar to those being advocated for fluoridation. (Help the disadvantaged)

Tuskegee study did not continue to evaluate the research nor stop the study when the research no longer had value.

Fluoridation study has continued dispite research showing excess exposure and harm to teeth, bones, brains, thyroid, enzymatic systems, mitochondria and all tissues and lack of benefit to teeth.

The intent of the Tuskegee study was in part to learn about the risks of syphalis.

The intent of fluoridation is the mitigation of dental caries.

The USA taxpayers are still paying for damage to the families of those sharecroppers, at least a generation later.

The USA taxpayers will pay for the damage of excess fluoride (based on the animal study I read a few years ago) for at least one generation after fluoridation stops.  

The similarities turn my stomach.  We in dentistry and public health must have better scientific ethics.

So the answer to your question is an incomplete yes.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[RandyJ913440]

In response to your 11-04-2018 03:57 PM mostly non-answers to my specific questions 11-04-2018 10:11 AM & 11-04-2018 02:38 PM.

Bill – You really don’t get it, do you?

I would recommend you pay attention to what you should have learned in your basic science courses – not to mention graduate courses.  Of course you “don’t have time to get into it”, you are too busy trying to push your interpretation of evidence onto the general public and scare them into distrusting all major science and health organizations and fearing community water fluoridation (CWF) ––  a safe and effective public health measure.

You claim to be a scientist trained in public health and yet you violate every principle that makes the processes of science work by employing these tactics:

• You completely ignore the scientific consensus because of your strongly held beliefs.
• You claim to have legitimate scientific evidence to support your beliefs, yet you don’t work with other scientists and use that evidence to change the consensus. The reason you don’t work within the relevant scientific communities is because your “evidence” does not support your beliefs.
• Since your “evidence” does not convince the relevant experts to change the scientific consensus, you take your battle to the public with the knowledge that most will not understand the science, but many will respond to deceit and fear.
• You blur the border between ethics and science to set up false moral arguments – for example, dismissing fluoridation because you believe it is an unsanctioned form of mass medication. That is not science – that is not even a supportable belief – yet it fuels the chaos you promote.
• You make public, libelous claims against the scientists and health care professionals who disagree with you, sowing confusion and encouraging public distrust of the scientific processes and the science and health communities, as evidenced by your most recent comment (11-04-2018 03:57 PM) I address below and many others I have referenced.
• You cite inconclusive studies and deliberately distort conclusions of legitimate scientific evidence – as demonstrated repeatedly – before spinning it out to the public.
• You utilize fear-mongering techniques to try and change public opinion and spread discord.
• You manipulate your followers, who don’t fully understand the complexities of science, to Trust in You, Only You, and not the overwhelming majority of other scientists and health care providers who don’t accept your interpretation of current scientific evidence.
• You utilize Gish Gallop to create questions that require textbooks worth of explanations to answer and dump piles of meaningless content into the discussion (like your 14 comments of so-called “cancer evidence”) to bury any rational dialog and the fact that you fail to answer specific questions.
• You focus all attention on mistakes made by scientists and health care providers (to create distrust), and you seem not to realize that it is precisely the processes of recognizing and correcting mistakes and integrating legitimate, new scientific evidence into the consensus that is the foundation of how knowledge in all scientific fields progresses.

You claim that none of the 100 organizations or their members that support CWF can be trusted.  You state “They support fluoridation for various reasons, but not current scientific facts.”  None have done primary research, none are qualified to interpret the primary research, none have skin in the game, none have done careful scientific evaluation of artificial fluoridation, all employ faith rather than science to reach conclusions.

Is that the “science” you learned in graduate school?  It is my opinion and experience that those are the deplorable tactics of anti-science activists, not legitimate scientists.  

Legitimate scientists and health care professionals don’t employ the tactics outlined above in their efforts to educate the public on the benefits and risks of science-based conclusions – in any area of science or health care.  Consequently, they are at a serious disadvantage when forced to confront and counter fear-inducing claims based on whatever presentation of the “evidence” will grab people’s attention and scare them into accepting the claims.

I remembered your story (10-23-2018 03:00 PM), “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.”, and I realized where you had probably learned your Tactics Of Persuasion.

In that same comment you stated, “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.’”  That is a most ironic admission. 

Most members of the public who have not spent their lives studying and working in science and/or health care fields are effectively blind when it comes to accurately understanding and interpreting the complexities of an entire body of scientific evidence (no disrespect intended).  They must, to varying degrees, trust, believe in and accept the interpretations of the evidence as presented by a trusted authority. 

Most legitimate scientists and science-based health care providers exchange and discuss the mountains of evidence relatively quietly, informing politicians, regulatory bodies, the public etc. of their conclusions and evidence-based suggestions as required.  They, often mistakenly, assume their authority will be accepted and trusted by those affected by their conclusions because of their relevant training and experience – which is not shared by most of those receiving their conclusions and recommendations. 

Anti-science activists take advantage of the complexity of the scientific evidence, the processes of science and the fact that legitimate scientists don’t employ the tactics outlined above to scare and scam the unwitting public into accepting them as legitimate Authorities.  

Bill, those members of the public you successfully convince to accept your opinions will NOT have become “EVIDENCED BASED”, they will have become “BILL OSMUNSON BIAS BASED” by blindly following your dogmatic proclamation of Your Truth.

I know those facts are true all too well.  It took until I was in graduate school to understand enough about science for me to finally shatter the protective armor around extremely strongly held beliefs I had considered “science-based”.  I knew for years my beliefs conflicted with the scientific consensus but vigorously defended those beliefs and disparaged my undergraduate science mentors.  After several decades of study and soul-searching, I finally realized my beliefs were actually completely anti-science dogma.  Turns out I had blindly followed a Trusted Authority that used many of the tactics above to misrepresent the actual scientific evidence.  Personal, deep-rooted beliefs are extremely powerful and can cause severe focused blindness even in scientists, but particularly in non-scientists, no matter how intelligent, caring, and honest they are.

I would have expected your experiences to have immunized you against cults of all kinds, but here you are decades later, one of the leaders of a group of anti-science activists, using the same tactics you probably experienced in your youth, trying hard to convince the public to Trust in You, Only You and not those pesky “lemmings, followers, not scientists” who pretend to be scientists and health care providers and pretend to care for your well-being, but really, “They do not protect the public ” and they “don't think for themselves or review the research”.

Despite the fact that fluoridation opponents in these comment sections have tried to not answer any questions and bury examples of their disingenuous tactics under more irrelevant comments, it is fairly easy to go back and read explanations of the scientific support of CWF and examples of how the anti-science activists have distorted it.  These are science promoters and educators who recognize and try to expose the tactics of anti-science activists and their distortions of science.

David F, Chuck Haynie, MD, Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS, Randy Johnson, MS, Joe Mullen, BDS,  Steven D. Slott, DDS

I wrote more regarding your most recent non-answer to my questions, but the comment above will do for now.

[BillO538145]

Randy,

I am in favor of evidence based science.  You are in favor of consensus based science, as long as the consensus agrees with your opinion (leave out the Europeans, etc). 

We disagree and I'll leave it there.  

A new study came out which is worth considering.  Again, many are ingesting too much fluoride.

British Journal of Nutrition   Fluoride retention in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas: effects of weaning    Zohoori, et al.   Published online: 05 November 2018

"Abstract

Limited knowledge is available on total fluoride exposure, excretion and retention in infants, despite the first year of human life being the critical period for dental development and risk of dental fluorosis. This study investigated total daily fluoride intake (TDFI), excretion (TDFE) and retention (TDFR) in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated water areas at pre- and post-weaning stages of development. Healthy infants, aged 0–12 months, were recruited and their TDFI (mg/kg body weight (BW) per d), from diet and toothpaste ingestion, was assessed over a 3-d period using a dietary diary and tooth-brushing questionnaire. TDFE (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by collecting 48-h urine and faeces. TDFR (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by subtracting TDFE from TDFI. A total of forty-seven infants completed the study: sixteen at pre-weaning and thirty-one at post-weaning stages, with a mean age of 3·4 and 10·0 months, respectively. TDFI was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P=0·002) but higher in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFE was mainly affected by type of feeding, with higher excretion in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFR was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P<0·001) but higher in formula-fed infants (P=0·001). In conclusion, a relatively large proportion of fluoride intake is retained in the body in weaned infants. This is an important consideration in fluoride-based prevention programmes, with goals to maximise caries prevention while minimising the risk of dental fluorosis."  Emphasis added.

This research is consistent with other studies and appears reasonable.  The authors do not go into the elephant in the room questions.   

What is the optimal fluoride urine fluoride concentration for infants to prevent caries later in life?  I have not seen studies on the question.

What urine fluoride concentration is too high for infants and shows harm to brain, thyroid, teeth, bones, etc. later in life?  No studies here either.

Fluoridation may appear safe if questions are not answered and answers are not required.

The authors report, "Limited knowledge is available on total fluoride exposure, excretion and retention in infants, despite the first year of human life being the critical period for dental development and risk of dental fluorosis."

With limited knowledge, we cannot call fluoridation "safe."

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[RandyJ913440]

Bill, I am still astounded and nauseous that you would equate the Tuskegee study with community water fluoridation (CWF) (11-04-2018 03:57 PM.)  You are absolutely correct - we disagree on almost everything when it comes to the responsible practice of evaluating scientific evidence, drawing conclusions and presenting those conclusions to the public.

It is remarkable, based on my comments that you can conclude I am not in favor of evidence based science, but that is another perfect example of your bias blindness. 

As my comments clearly demonstrate to those who actually read and understand them, I am in favor of evidence based science, and I am in favor of consensus based science.  A legitimate scientific consensus can only be based on a careful and unbiased evaluation of all the evidence (evidence based science).  The two are inseparable as any scientist clearly understands. 

Where did you say you went to school? 

Your statement of 08-19-2018 02:18 AM (link is one page off) is most interesting:  “My mentor reminded me, "50% of what we know in health care is wrong, but we do not know which 50%.  Always be a humble student of science, we are wrong and need to find out where."

You should request a refund, because your mentor apparently did not provide effective guidance on how to honestly and impartially evaluate “what we know in health care”, or how to work collectively to formulate a consensus, or how present a considered, accurate representation of the evidence to the public.  According to your anti-science claims, when contrasted with the scientific consensus and the agreement of over 100 national and international science and health organizations (which you ignore), what you now “know” and accept about fluoridation has gone from 50% wrong to more than 95% wrong.

You made an interesting claim about me (11-04-2018 10:43 AM ), “He would like to divert the discussion away from science and onto people.”  I am not sure exactly what you mean by that, but it is my understanding that it is people who examine and evaluate the scientific evidence and formulate conclusions.  It is people who must determine who to trust when making decisions based on science or health care conclusions they do not fully understand – people who have relevant training and experience (experts) who have formed conclusions based on a considered evaluation of all the evidence or anti-science activists who selectively present “edited evidence” and employ the tactics I described in my previous (11-06-2018 11:49 AM) comment.

The only “evidence” you seem to be in favor of and accept as worthy of consideration, as I mentioned in my previous comment, and as you clearly demonstrate in most of your comments, has been carefully selected, edited, presented and interpreted by you.  That is not evidence based science, it is BILL OSMUNSON BASED BIASED anti-Science.

For example, the abstract you just presented (11-06-2018 04:23 PM) does not make or confirm any claims of damage to the health of infants, and it concludes, “This is an important consideration in fluoride-based prevention programmes, with goals to maximise caries prevention while minimising the risk of dental fluorosis."  That has been the stated goal of scientists and health care providers for over 70 years. 

Question 1) Do you believe authors didn’t “think for themselves or review the research” when they wrote that statement and were just “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”?  YES or NO? 

You concluded your previous comment with a typical anti-science activist statement, “With limited knowledge [only 70+ years], we cannot call fluoridation ‘safe’”  That, of course, brings up the “elephant in the room questions” I have been repeatedly trying to get you and other anti-science activists to answer. 

Question 2) Can you cite any study that has been performed that proves the disinfection byproduct (DBPs) created by adding chlorine, chloramines or any other disinfection method are perfectly safe?  YES or NO?

DBPs are found in drinking water and in food. and there is evidence they can cause cancer and other harm when ingested.  Unlike fluoride ions, however, there are absolutely no studies that show they are beneficial to health or “safe” – as used in the context of anti-science activists.  I have read of no random controlled trials on the health effects of DBPs.

By your “logic” and your apparent definition of “evidence based science”, 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. 

Question 3a) Do you agree??  YES or NO? 

Question 3b) 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 believe the scientific consensus of relevant science and health experts  or the so-called  “evidence based science” of anti-science activists??  YES or NO? 

Question 3c) Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral mass poisoning??   YES or NO? 

They certainly have a right to promote their “evidence based science”, and demand the cessation of disinfection, don’t you agree?

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

https://www.infowars.com/12-toxins-in-your-drinking-water/

https://www.naturalnews.com/025996_water_chemicals_toxic.html

Question 3d) Do you believe that even if vaccination does help prevent diseases, vaccination policies could legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral mass poisoning??  YES or NO? 

If you believe I have provided “tabloid convoluted questions which are partly yes and partly no and leave out substantive aspects which end up making no sense” (11-04-2018 10:43 AM), please be a bit more specific. 

I believe my questions of (11-04-2018 10:11 AM) and others I have asked are extremely simple and straight forward like those I am asking now.

If I were to depend on an accurate evaluation of the evidence, the people I would trust would be the scientists and health professionals represented by the 100+ organizations that support CWF as a safe and effective public health measure.

I would never trust a bunch of outlier anti-science activists who denigrate legitimate scientists by labeling them lemmings, puppets, not scientists, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards, sociopaths, etc.

Information from World Health Organization publications is frequently used out of context by FOs (Ross, 10-26-2018 04:28 AM & Bill, 07-26-2018 12:57 PM).

Question 4a) Do you believe the WHO, which represents 191 countries, is a reputable, trustworthy science-based health organization with the goal of improving and protecting health worldwide?  YES or NO?

Question 4b) Do you agree with the very clear, in context conclusions of the World Health Organization reports on the effectiveness and safety of CWF quoted below?   YES or NO? 

As referenced previously, the World Health Organization 2016 report, Fluoride and Oral Health, concluded, in part,
~> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.” (p78)

~> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.” (p78)

~> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.” (p79)

https://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf?ua=1

A 2016 editorial by Petersen and Ogawa in Community Dental Health, described the 2016 WHO study and stated,

~> “The use of fluoride for population based prevention of dental caries has been endorsed officially by WHO since the late 1960s.”, and concluded, “Based on the modern conception of evidence for public health the report emphasizes the effectiveness and appropriateness of different fluoride administration forms in communities and specifies the practical impact of implementation of combined administration of fluoride.”
http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_prevention_dental_caries_through_use_fluoride.pdf

[BillO538145]

Randy,

You wrote, "It is remarkable, based on my comments that you can conclude I am not in favor of evidence based science. . . ."

You are correct.  Because your questions and comments involve sponsors and endorsements of proponents and I do not remember when you quote science, I find no basis in your postings that you rely on science.   You are correct, your actions speak loudest.  

Please, if I am wrong, correct my missunderstanding by commenting on the two research articles I have just posted.  Or post your own research on which you rely for confidence that people are not ingesting too much fluoride, that the dosage they are receiving is beneficial and no risk to the tissues and cells of the body.     

If you favor evidence based science, as you suggest, provide the research.  Not advertisments or belief statements, primary research.   

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck, Dr. Johnson, Randy, et al,

Dental fluorosis and lower IQ appear to be related as is urine fluoride concentration and lower IQ, especially for the high IQ individuals. (Other studies evaluated low IQ). 

Fluoride lowers IQ and there does not appear to be a lower threshold for either dental fluorosis or urine fluoride concentration. 

Concensus of scientific studies, both human and animal, appears to be that excess fluoride causes brain damage.  Of the 60 human studies on fluoride and the brain, 53 report harm.   Naturally, "excess" has not been determined, is patient specific, includes age, amount of water consumed, other sources of fluoride, synergistic chemicals and health of the patient.  One size does not fit all.  Mean is not protective of all. 

Consider one of those studies by Yu et al.

Yu X, Chen J, Li Y, Liu H, et al. (2018). Threshold effects of moderately excessive fluoride exposure on children’s health: A potential association between dental fluorosis and loss of excellent intelligence. Environment International, Jun 2; 118:116-124.

Location of Study:  In endemic and non-endemic fluorosis areas in Tianjin, China.

Age of Subjects:  7 to 13 years

Size of Study:  2,886 resident children

Source of Fluoride: Drinking water

Water Fluoride Level: The water fluoride concentration ranged from 0.20 mg/L to 1.00 mg/L, with a mean value of 0.50 ± 0.27 mg/L in the normal fluoride exposure group, and from 1.10 mg/L to 3.90 mg/L, with a mean value of 2.00 ± 0.75 mg/L in the high-fluoride exposure group (Table 1).

Type of IQ Test:  We examined the dose-response effects of low-to-moderate fluoride exposure on dental fluorosis (DF) and intelligence quotient (IQ), and evaluated the potential relationships between DF grades and intelligence levels using piecewise linear regression and multiple logistic regression, respectively.IQ scores were measured using the second edition of Combined Raven’s Test–The Rural in China (CRT-RC2) (Liu et al., 2009) for children aged 7 to 13 years. The CRT-RC2 is a validated test for basic cognitive abilities, and has been widely adopted in China after modifications, as it is non-verbal and less affected by language, and cultural and ethnic differences (Sun et al., 2015).Dean’s fluorosis index (WHO criteria) (Molina-Frechero et al., 2015) was used to estimate the prevalence and severity of DF. Each participant was examined by two qualified and independent experts, who had rich experience on examination of dental fluorosis… The final diagnosis was made only when judgments from the two experts were in agreement; if not, a third expert would join in and offer suggestion. For repeatability, 10% of participants were double checked and the Kappa value was 0.82.

Results: The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of DF were 2.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02 to 2.48) for every 0.1 mg/L increment in the water fluoride concentration in the range of 0.80 to 1.50 mg/L, and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.32 to 2.93) for every 0.5 mg/L increment in the urinary fluoride level up to 1.80 mg/L. Every 0.5 mg/L increment in the water fluoride level was associated with a reduction of 4.29 in the IQ score (95% CI: -8.09 to -0.48) in the range of 3.40 to 3.90 mg/L, and a decreased probability of developing excellent intelligence (IQ ?130, OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.77) in the range of 0.20-1.40 mg/L, respectively. Every 0.5 mg/L increment in the urinary fluoride level was related to a decrease of 2.67 in the IQ scores (95% CI: -4.67 to -0.68) between 1.60 mg/L to 2.50 mg/L. Excellent intelligence decreased by 51% in children with higher urinary fluoride, and by 30% with each degree increment of DF.

Conclusions:In conclusion, chronic exposure to excessive fluoride, even at a moderate level, was inversely associated with children’s dental health and intelligence scores, especially excellent intelligence performance, with threshold and saturation effects observed in the dose-response relationships. Additionally, DF severity is positively associated with the loss of high intelligence, and may be useful for the identification of individuals with the loss of excellent intelligence. Thus, it is important to monitor water quality, and supply fluoride-free drinking water to safeguard children’s health.

(Emphasis added.)

Ethically, the promotion of adding fluoride to public water must stop.  We are frying our children's brains.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

Further to my question on total fluoride exposure, Erdal et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719/ in 2005 is over the 10 years I suggested, but is of interest.  "A Quantitative Look at Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Intake in Children Using a Health Risk Assessment Approach"

In their Figure 1, and assuming EPA's RfD, Infants are receiving excess fluoride from just water or formula made with fluoridated water.  And children 3-5  yr olds are receiving excess from toothpaste.

In the discussion the authors include, "a significant finding of our analysis is that, for both age groups living in nonfluoridated areas, although under the CTE scenario the cumulative intake is within the optimum range (0.06 mg/kg-day for children, 0.08 mg/day for infants), under the RME scenario the cumulative intake estimates are higher (0.21 mg/kg-day for children, 0.11 mg/kg-day for infants), exceeding the optimum range. This raises questions about the continued need for fluoridation in the U.S. municipal water supply to protect against the risk of fluorosis."

And I would dispute their assumption that "optimum" range is 0.06 mg/kg-day for children, 0.08 mg/day for infants.   After all, mother's milk has no detectible fluoride in most samples.

There is no evidence infants benefit with more fluoride than children or that the developing brain, thyroid, and bones are safe at those dosages.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

;

[BillO538145]

David,

You call three people liars.  Stop it.  We are not liars.

You sound like Trump, a bully.   Be professional.

And you "call out" Carry Anne because she changed her statement.  Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list.

Then you change your statement and say "US Federal Agency. . . ."    Look in the mirror David.  You changed your statement.  OK, give others the space to change their statements if need be.  But that does not make anyone a liar.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

billo, your comment:  

"Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list."

Response:  In the context of this discussion . . you guys are making up stuff about the EPA, the FDA, the CDC, NSF, even the USDPH . . in the context of this discussion, to respond with something like "Japan," is reaching for an answer.  I think you know that.

[BillO538145]

David,

And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA.

You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA. 

Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again.

You have fun picking other people apart, but refuse to answer which agency accepts jurisdiction.   Remember, you want everyone to be given extra fluoride regardless of their choice, how much they get from other sources, regardless of any government Federal agency accepting responsibility for determining dosage, efficacy and safety.  Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient).

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, your comment:  "And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA."

Response:  I don't know what that means or how it is relevant.

Your comment:  "You don't acknowledge when you are wrong.  You have no intent to learn, just argue."

Response:  For some reason, you seem to believe you have a monopoly on knowledge.  You are condescending in your remarks.  You refuse to admit the reality that no Federal Agencey (and we know what this means) considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.  You are straining to make an argument against the face of reality.  Please, open your mind and get real.

Your comment:  "You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA.  I'm not a mind reader.  Comments were specific and then you made a broad generalizing comment which was blatently wrong, and you know it.:

Response:  Dr. Bill, I have, in previous comments used the phrase "U.S. Federal Agency."  That is just a fact, and you are free to re-read my unedited comments to verify that fact.  You are harping on one instance in which I did not include the adjective "U.S."  That is pathetic, in the context of this discussion, in which no foreign entities have been mentioned, you are claiming that you believe the nation of Japan is a Federal Agency and that you are not a mind reader - How could you have known that I didn't mean "Japan" when I requested a Federal Agency that didn't consider optimally fluoridated water a "drug?"  

You accuse me of being "trump-like?"  There is no way, in the context of this discussion, that you could have interpreted my request for an example of a "Federal Agency" as meaning a foreign country.  And now, you are playing the victim who is "not a mind reader."  Pathetic.  Who are you trying to fool?

Your comment:  "Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again."

Response:  Sure, I'll give you two.  1.)  The EPA has set the Maximum Contaminant Level for Fluoride in drinking water at 4 parts per million.  If any person were ever to have been harmed because they drank water with 0.7 ppm F (the optimal level - i.e., water fluoridation) the EPA itself would be responsible for that harm.  No question about it.  But there has never been even one authenticated, documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 ppm F. 

2.)  States.  In my state, The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality oversees and enforces strict guidelines for Community Water Fluoridation.  If a local municipality were to "overdose" its citizens with fluoride, a few things would happen.  First, the MDEQ would have to be notified . . It then would oversee proceedures for informing citizens and flushing water mains.  It would be illegal, per the SDWA, for citizens not to be notified.  This is in the SDWA.  Don't you know that?  

If any person was harmed, that municipality would be liable.  If negligence was found to be the cause, the guilty party would be held accountable.

Do you imagine this is just a Helter Skelter setup with no one in charge?  Because that's the picture you're trying to paint.  That's why I say you are "deceptive," to say the least.

Your quote:  "Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient)"

Response:  Your comment implies that optimally fluoridated water is a "drug."  That's what you're saying.  You are being deceptive.  In fact you are lying.  In the United States of America, where this discussion is taking place, optimally fluoridated water is not considered a "drug," a "medicine" or anything that would prompt you to claim to be a "patient."  There is no reason for you to call yourself a "patient" because you drink optimally fluoridated water, other than your ambition to generate paranoia about safe tap water.  

I hope that clears things up for you.

[DavidF928895]

Bill, really?

"You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list.

Then you change your statement and say "US Federal Agency. . . ." 

Response:  You gave me a list?  No you didn't.  Japan is not a federal agency.  The Netherlands is not a federal agency.  Isreal is not a federal agency.  Sweden is not a federal agency.  Finland, Austria, or Belgum are not federal agencies.  

By the way, I didn't edit my reply to cover up what I had originally said, and then attack someone. 

[CarryAnne]

Fluoride trolls play with language for rhetorical deceits. My original was gramatically correct, but could be misinterpretted which DavidF did..... so I repeated the subject ' EPA' in the second part of of that phrase.

ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF." 

FOR CLARITY: "...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

Now how about the documentation I provided about that timeline?

[DavidF928895]

"Rhetorical deceits."  Hilarious.  You made a statement that was factually incorrect.  I called you out on it.  You edited your own comment - to cover up - and then attacked me for pointing it out.  

Get real.  And now you are re-writing history.  "ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."   --  i.e., they (the FDA, when taken in context of the entire sentence.)

I stand by my statement that you are dishonest, and it has been fully documented here.

Now what's the problem with your NSF timeline?  The NSF water additives program began in 1985 because that is when it was contracted by the EPA.  So what?  

As for the rest of your attachment.  I don't see the problem.  You are talking about what they didn't know in 1983 about the health effects of fluoride in water at over 4 times the optimal level.  4 times the optimal level of fluoride is not relevant to community water fluoridation.  That's like saying, my doctor prescribed 2 aspirin, so I took 8 instead - same thing, right?  Now why am I throwing up blood?  

Am I missing something?  If so, please explain.

[CarryAnne]

DavidF's default is always to call other people liars. 

NSF timeline from their own website shows they began working with the EPA on establishing standards for plumbing equipment in 1980 and assumed responsibility for water additives per EPA agreement in 1985: http://www.nsf.org/about-nsf/mission-values-history 

Another important thing to realize is that in 1983, the Surgeon General created a special committee to ascertain just how big a deal dental fluorosis was. The committee told him in May that yes, dental fluorosis is an 'adverse health effect' and confirmed the MCL should remain at 2.4. Yet, the Sept. report of those committee proceedings inexplainably said dental fluorosis was a 'cosmetic effect' and in 1984 the EPA process began to increase the 2.4 MCL/MCLG to 4 ppm, which wouldn't have been possible if dental fluorosis was listed as an adverse health effect. That change was implemented in 1985 without any scientific backing from the EPA who simultaneously contracted with the NSF to oversee water additives. http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/epa/timeline/

Here is an excerpt from that May 1983 report out that was altered in Sept 1983 by unknown parties order to facilitate changes that endangered public health but were politically expedient for players. Latest government figures confirm that over half of American teens have dental fluorosis, with 1 in 5 having moderate to severe dental fluorosis (est. 800,000 severe): 

[DavidF928895]

Very good, Carrie Anne,  

This was your original comment:  

"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "

As I said, that is incorrect.  The FDA does not contract with NSF.

When I just took a look at your original comment I see that you have corrected yourself.  This is your edited comment:

" Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

That is correct.  EPA contracts with NSF.  I'm glad to see you listened to me and corrected your error.

[rs5526]

Get some rest and let your false claims stand? In your dreams.

The Ketchikan hatchery is knowledgable about fluoride and salmon. And I've visited Sacramento many times and I stand by my posts on the problem.

Also Einstein was indeed wrong about time dilation. You always say you need links to prove a point. So check the links below to the articles published in Physics Essays and in Optick. If you don't believe the published studies then take it up with those two journals.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324511962_Characteristics_of_Light_Velocity_Massless_Energy...

and http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/147-12-richard-d-sauerheber-on-the-nature-of-light...

[rs5526]

The ketchikan hatchery spokesman knew of the decimated salmon population that chronically persists for the last many years during the fluoridation of sacramento. There are no salmon hatching eggs by the discharge tube where the ciry dumps its fluoridated wastewater.

So where is the lie?

[DavidF928895]

Richard, your comment is so garbled and so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a response.  Get some rest.

[CarryAnne]

Fluoridation is the dosing of municipal water with a drug that is harmful to millions of consumers.

Repeating: In 1995, the FDA wrote there was no consensus about fluoride as a nutrient, so "RDI should not be established for fluoride” plus in the case of consumption, FDA wrote fluoride is "regulated as drugs because of their intended use (to prevent disease) and, therefore are not subject to the food labeling regulations." https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf

FDA says fluoride may be listed as an ingredient in bottled water that "may" have dental benefit so long as that water is not marketed to infants. FDA  allows sale of prescriptions of fluoride as an "unapproved drug" which means it is not warranted by the FDA for safety or effectiveness. (Topical use of fluoride is handled separately.) 

Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. 

So if the FDA won't allow fluoridated bottled water to be marketed to infants with claims of dental benefit and has all sorts of restrictions around other use, why should we believe fluoridationists who claim fluoridation is safe for babies and good for kids let alone safe for seniors who have been consuming it for decades and are suffering with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney diseases known to be caused or worsened by fluoride? 

[DavidF928895]

By the way, "Carry Anne," this comment from you is also wrong:

"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "

It was the EPA which outsourced some of its workload to NSF.  The FDA has nothing to do with community water distribution systems or anything that is added to its water.  Again - EPA.  FDA has nothing to do with NSF - Period.  That would be the EPA. 

http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-international-sustainability-standards-included-in-epa-recommendatio...

It must be a confusing world for you with all of these factual inaccuracies with which you try to impress the reader.

[BillO538145]

Slow down David,

EPA legal office says FDA is responsible.

Remember, I posted previously a quotation from the EPA's attorney, Steven M. Neugeboren, Associate General Counsel, Water Law Office, February 14, 2013, 

I can email you the entire letter if you give me your email address.  Too long to write it out here for you.   But let me quote more,

"EPA does not have responsibility for substances added to water solely for prevetative health care purposes, such as fluoride, other than to limit the addition of such substances to protect public health. . .  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acting through the FDA, remains responsible fo rregulating the addition of drugs to water supplies for health care purposes."

Go to the FDA website and learn the definition of a drug.  

In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug.   One way is "INTENT" of use.  FDA considers a placebo a drug.  Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug.   

Even if the manufacturer does not make a health claim, if the public at large considers or it is well known to the public that a substance may cure, treat or prevent disease, then the FDA defines that substance as a drug.    

Read the FDA documents.  

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

billo, let's take a look at what you just said:

Your quote:  "In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug.   One way is "INTENT" of use.  FDA considers a placebo a drug.  Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."

This is a quote from a Mayo Clinic website:  

" A high-fiber diet may also help reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes."  

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/high-fiber-foods/...

You say the INTENT makes something a drug.  The Mayo Clinic says if you eat Apples, Beans, Bran, Oranges, Carrots . . . as part of a high-fiber diet, you are helping yourself reduce the risk of diabetes.  

According to what you just said, if you want to stay heart-healthy, you're drugging yourself when you eat an apple, because your INTENT has medical consequences. 

Do you fully appreciate what a joke your argument is?  

[BillO538145]

David,

Two items here.  

A.  You raise the issue of "foods" vs "drugs" and reference an opinion of the Mayo Clinic rather than the FDA.  The FDA is more precise.  But lets look closer.  The FDA regulates industry claims and has given precise wording.  Read their web pages, many of them.  

And is a high fiber diet listed in the US Pharmacopea?  No.  

You are correct, there is a difference between foods and drugs and the fine line can be confusing.  For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison.  Fluoride is highly toxic and if not regulated under pesticide laws or drug laws is regulated under poison laws. 

And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral.  Read the toothpaste labels. 

You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods.  You think the FDA is funny because you have not read their web pages or gone through the approval process.  I have with an approved device and the FDA is excellent and fair.   They are not a joke.  You think they are a joke because you don't understand their rules.

Now to the second point.  Don't be a bully.  Be professional and use professional words.  Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar.  Derogatory personal attacks don't look well on you.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

[DavidF928895]

Ah, no dr. bill, you have completely re-written history with your comment.

You originally said . . (you know, because you wanted to make the argument that optimally fluoridated water was a drug) . . you said, 

"In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug.   One way is "INTENT" of use.  FDA considers a placebo a drug.  Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."

That flawed statement is the only thing I was addressing in my comment.  

Now you say, "For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison."

Irrelevant to your statement.  Toxicity was not part of your definition of the word "drug."

You now say, "And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral.  Read the toothpaste labels."

Irrelevant.  Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water.

You say, "You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods."

No.  I called your argument a joke.  The FDA does not consider optimally fluoridated water - you know, what we are talking about here - to be a drug.

You say, "Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar."

Response:  You seem to have a problem with accepting reality.  It is you who lack understanding, and you have demonstrated it many times.  You don't understand the purpose of the FOIA, you don't understand clear statutes in the SDWA. And to this discussion, there is not one federal U.S. agency which considers optimally fluoridated water a drug - in any sense of the word, and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

[DavidF928895]

billo, we were talking about "Carry Anne"'s false statement that the FDA outsourced its workload to NSF. Your comment here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Nevertheless, the EPA has never said that the FDA is responsible for adding fluoroscilic acid to water distribution systems.  What you just said is a blatant lie.  If you have some kind of problem with reality, or you think something illegal is going on, the correct forum for that is a Court of Law, not the comment's section of an AARP website.  

Oh, sure, it's easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an AARP website administrator, but not so easy in court where you would have to face informed parties.  

You know, I'm surprised that a legal genius like yourself would make such a laughable blunder as to lie about a supposed Freedom of Information Act Request that you made to clarify the meaning of a clear statute in the SDWA.  The FIOA doesn't exist to clarify law.  It exists to request documents which have been hidden from the public.  

[DavidF928895]

"Carry Anne," I asked you to provide one example of any Federal Agency which considers optimally fluoridated water - what we are talking about here - a "drug," or a "medicine." 

You provided none.  

No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.  

What you did was to provide evidence that people consider Fluoride itself is a drug.  So what.  Here is evidence that Oxygen is a drug:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688103/    or this, http://epmonthly.com/article/oxygen-is-a-drug-act-accordingly/  But no sane person considers optimally oxygenated air a drug.  

Again, please provide any example of any federal agency which calls optimally fluoridated water a drug or a medicine.  Again, the only people who do that are people like you who are attempting to generate paranoia.

[BillO538145]

David,

You stated, "No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug."

CONSIDER:

1.  Netherlands determined Fluoride added to water is a drug.

“. . . at present the addition of chemicals to drinking water is prohibited by law in the Netherlands. This law came into effect because it was widely perceived that drinking water should not be used as a vehicle for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, fluoridation of drinking water would conflict with the freedom to choose for natural drinking water. This principle of freedom of choice is considered as an important basic principle in the Netherlands.”  (but not for David)

SOURCE: 2007 – RIVM report 270091004/2007 for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

2.  Supreme Court of Canada ruled fluoride a drug (regardless of dilution.)  

3.  US FDA has testified to Congress that fluoride is a drug.  Congressional Investigation 2001

4.  Read your FDA approved toothpaste label and www.FDA.gov on drugs.  FDA requires the warning "DO NOT SWALLOW."

5.  “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS   (g)(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”  

Note:  there is no law which exempts FDA regulation of a drug because the drug is diluted in public water.  If so, drug dealers could dilute meth or any other drug in public water and bottle it exempt from FDA oversight.  Nothing about dilution is part of the drug laws.  Fluoride is listed in the US Pharmacopoeia, Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia.

“. . .there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling. . . marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.”         FDA Letter to 35 Companies           DRUG THERAPY 1975

Congress defined drugs:  Articles INTENDED for use in the . . . prevention of disease. . .  " 21 USC 321 (g)(1)(B)

Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added

Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.

Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of       caries....“

Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries

Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark.“

Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated“

Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!

Netherlands REJECTED: Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgment overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.

Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.

Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

Israel SUSPENDED mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects.: June 21, 2006 “The labor, welfare and health Knesset committee”

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Billo, your quote:  

"David,

You stated, "No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.""

That is correct.  And nothing in your comment has disproven that.  The Netherlands is not a Federal Agency.   Nor is any foreign country a U.S. Federal Agency.

Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water.  Pure fluoride is not optimally fluoridated water . . . just as pure oxygen, an FDA approved drug, is not optimally oxyginated air.  Air is not a "drug" simply because 20.95% of it is an FDA approved theraputic drug.

Oh, by the way, as you people love to point out, endorsements don't prove a thing.