Reply
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! 

30,714 Views
1449
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard Sauerheber, you had said, "Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed."

 

And I had asked, " Could you please provide a statement from any toothpaste manufacturer in which water districts are blamed for excess fluoride?"

I am trying to read through, and understand, your brief response.  I believe this was your answer: 

 

"Toothpaste makers know that dental fluorosis,is caused only by bloodborne fluoride and that 80% of the fluoride in the bloidstream in thos3 in a fluoridated community comes from the fluoride,swallowed from municipal fluoridated  drinkimg water."

To be clear, are you saying that you are unable to support your claim with evidence.  You are unable to provide a citation in which toothpaste manufacturers blame water districts for excess fluoride of any kind.  

Thank you.  I believe you've answered my question, "Where did you get this information?"

0 Kudos
3,064 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Here is a tyypical link describing sources of fluoride causing fluorosis in children. The top listing is municipal fluoridated water. But in children under 4 or 5, 48% of the fluoride ingested comes from using fluoride toothpaste. Both are involved in the endemic of fluorosxis that we now have in the U.S. Treatments for the abnormal hypoploasia are also described. and are all not necessary if fluoridated water and fluoridated paste had never been invented in the first place.

Toothpaste manufacturers continue to make fluoride toothpaste and are now proposing increase the level to 5,000 ppm ! becaue caries are still not solved by use of 1,500 ppm. Dental fluorosis is presumed by them to be the fault of drinknig fluoridated water since toothpaste is not supposed to be swallowed, as listed on their packaging. Try going to court and blaming toothpaste makers for fluorosis and you wil find that water fluoridation is listed by them as the number one source of the problem.

Try  taking city water districts to court and you wlil find that they list all sources of fluoride and blame everyone else but themselves. It's human naure, I understand, but it is all wrong. The intentional addition of industiral fluoride into materials that enter the mouth of a child is unethical and a useless procedure. There is no way to win a suit (as was suggested here) against either toothapse makers or water distircts . One could tyry to sue both for their contributions, but again, good luck with that..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
2,988 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard,

 

Thank you for your response, but it is irrelevant to the single question I had asked, twice now.  

 

You had said, "Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed."

 

And again, two comments down, you said, "Dental fluorosis is presumed by them (toothpaste manufacturers) to be the fault of drinknig fluoridated water since toothpaste is not supposed to be swallowed, as listed on their packaging."

So, for the third time now, since you continue to make this claim, I will ask again:  Could you please provide a statement from any toothpaste manufacturer in which water districts are blamed for excess fluoride?

I hope that is clear enough.  This is the only thing from your link that even remotely approaches your claim.  From Colgate:  "Most cases of fluorosis result from young children taking fluoride supplements or swallowing fluoride toothpaste when the water they drink is already fluoridated."  That is not a toothpaste manufacturer placing the blame of excess fluoride on water districts.

 

I belong to the Old School, and I don't ascribe to current trends.  I still believe that words matter.  I believe that if someone makes a statement, it should be presumed to be truthful.  If someone makes a truthful statement, evidence of that truthfulness should be easy enough to provide.

 

Unfortunately, in today's world there are so many untruths coming at us that people have become numb to it and have learned to accept it.  I haven't.  If you are discussing something with me, and you make a statement that sounds unbelieveable, you had better be prepared to provide evidence of its truthfulness.

 

0 Kudos
2,959 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Many suits gave been filed against water districts for fluoridation damage usually the successful suits,are overturned later. How does one win such a case when water fluoridationists claim that excess fluoride is the fault of toothpaste manufacturers since fluoridation started first so go sue toothpaste makers.. 

Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed.

Good luck  with a lawsuit,against a city when they argue fluoride is,food or an oral dental prophylactic, etc and they should be given a prize for their "gteat public health achievement."(

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,398 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard Sauerheber, you say, "Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed."

 

Where did you get this information?  Could you please provide a citation for that comment?  Could you please provide a statement from any toothpaste manufacturer in which water districts are blamed for excess fluoride?  

0 Kudos
3,362 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

It has been claimed here that if one only had 0.7 ppm fluoride water as a total exposure to fluoride, that this would be safe, this needs to be clarified. Yes it would be more safe than having additional exposures from other sources. But  there is no blood concentration low enough to prevent fluoride incorporation into bone. So if one otherwise might have lived to be 95-100 or more,  fluoride water consumption would cause bone adversity long before such a duration of exposure. It is,a cumulative poison and it is not a normal component of human blood. It is a contaminant calcium chelator. The lower the exposure the better.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,524 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

“It causes problems with the brain. It's bad for people with thyroid issues. It's bad for diabetics. It's bad for people with kidney problems. You're not supposed to mix infant formula with fluoridated water. It's corrosive. You put it in water, and it leaches lead out of the plumbing." - Andy Anderson, president of the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority in Arkansas (2016)

 

A big red flag is the term "most individuals." There are others that are alerting those of us who are paying attention that fluoridation policy is based on mythology and pseudo-science. 

 

Safety studies often exclude people with diabetes, kidney disease, and any other chronic health condition, and then say it is safe for 'most' of their test subjects, i.e. 95%.... well what about that 5% and the rest of the people who researchers excluded because they knew we were likely to have an adverse reaction? This is what happened with fluoride studies I've seen that often included an asterisk to mention the excluded populations. 

 

That type of testing might pass muster in a prescription drug study where you include caveats in the inserts and montior the effects on individuals, but when you add this drug to water systems, it is a deceit. Most doctors haven't a clue and most people don't know that fluoridated water and foods made with fluoridated water are NOT safe for everyone.  

3,567 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Nonsense.  Without using fluoridated tea or fluoridated toothpaste and only consuming water with 0.7 ppm fluoride has zero chance of affecting a single dental cavity. The blood level of fluoride would be less than 0.1 ppm and the level in saliva bathing teeth topically would be less than 0.01 ppm.This is 150,000 times less concentrated than fluoride in toothpaste.

Good luck with that.

But meanwhile the fluoride wold accumulatein bone to about 1400  ppm in about 25 years.  Fluoridationists care less, but we opposed  to artificial fluoride water infusions certainly care.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,683 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

"I was conned by a powerful lobby.” - Richard G. Foulkes, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Calgary, AB and former Canadian fluoridationist  (1992)

 

I do not drink tea or use fluoridated dental products and haven't done so for decades. Neither do I drink wine or cosume any grape products since I don't tolerate them. I used a high quality filter that reduced the fluoride in my 'optimally' fluoridated water. I had suffered from decades of arthritis and gastrointesintal issues (among other things).... 

 

Switching to bottled water in a desperate attempt to alleviate chronic pain, an attempt I thought was a waste of time, eliminated the debilitating arthritis in my foot in less than 2 weeks, as it did my IBS. My stiff neck and back quickly resolved, too. Now in my 60s, I no longer have arthritis and the only change was my water. 

 

Denying my testimony and the testimony of about 30 seniors on this forum, as well as the scientific studies documenting our experience, is bullying behavior. The risk of adverse health effects from 'optimal' doses was documented back in the 1950s by Public Health Service researchers, but the PHS didn't want to admit a mistake. They preferred condemming millions to decades of misery, just like fluoridationists in the 21st century. 

 

  1. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. Dental Digest. August 1956. pp 353-357.
    1. The best study done in that time period, the researchers determined a portion of the allergic population had a low tolerance that manifested as serious adverse effects in their test subjects. PHS researchers had to drop those test subjects and advised if in water, fluoride avoidance would be difficult. Researchers used controlled doses equivalent to fluoridated water and confirmed with placebo, it was the fluoride.
    2. I believe the allergic population was about 10% of Americans then, now it is closer to 50% of us. 

  2. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. & George Kosel, B.S., M.S. Journal of Dental Medicine. October 1961; 16(4):190-198.
    1. This final report noted that fetal fluoride levels were approximately twice, tripled and quadrupled the control group dependent on type of fluoride used in the controlled dose. Researchers had no idea what the long term implications could be in the children (12.9 mcg/L v. 26.85, 32.68, and 44.8 mcg/L).
    2. Feltman & Kosel also unexpectedly noted moderate-severe dental fluorosis in their child test subjects which is evidence of fluoride poisoning. They also noted delayed tooth eruption in the children that they suspected was due to thyroid suppression.
    3. The PHS pulled further research funding with the statement, they ‘considered fluoridation settled.’

A few case studies from 'optimaly' fluoridated communties:  http://www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm

A few more testimonies: https://momsagainstfluoridation.org/stories

 

3,652 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

"CarrieAnne"

 

I am always interested in claims of actual documented harm from optimally fluoridated water, and while I did comment on your link to the antecdotal stories from the 1950s to the 1970s by George Waldbott, to which you provided a link, I seem to have failed to comment on your link which, I believe, was intended as further evidence of harm from fluoridated water.   And for my failure, I apologize.  Please allow me to rectify that now.

 

This was the link you provided:  https://momsagainstfluoridation.org/stories

 

At the top of that page we see this disclaimer:  "Moms Against Fluoridation is not responsible for the content or the accuracy of these stories and makes no health statements or claims regarding them. All information on this page and this website is not intended to diagnose or treat any symptoms or disease."

 

Again:  " "Moms Against Fluoridation is not responsible for the content or the accuracy of these stories . ."

 

This begs the question, if Moms Against Fluoridation will not even vouch for the accuracy of these stories, why do you believe you can?

0 Kudos
3,040 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

"CarryAnne," the link you provided to case studies from fluoridated communities, by George Waldbott, were from studies from the 1950s-1970s.  I am always curious why people who claim to rely on the latest science to support their position, always point to cases from 50 years ago when they are asked for documented examples of people who have been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  I just find that odd.

 

I am also curious about your own testimony of suffering because of the drinking of fluoridated water.  I have never been able to understand why you never chose to sue your local municipality for "poisoning" you.  If successful, if you could prove that water fluoridation has harmed you, and you could end the practice in the U.S.  Isn't that your goal? 

 

Lawsuits have been won because coffee was too hot!   And yet, with all the suffering you have undergone . . no lawsuit . . no documentation . . just anecdotal stories in discussion threads on the internet.  

0 Kudos
3,410 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

A 79-year-old's joint pain markedly decreased after stopping fluoride ingestion from tea, fluoridated water & toothpaste and her mobility considerably improved enabling her to have a long-awaited trip overseas.
 
 
4,196 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

 “It is foolish to be convinced without evidence, but it is equally foolish to refuse to be convinced by real evidence." - Upton Sinclair

 

”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

 

Because of the gross over-fluoridation of our society which involves essentially all packaged foods and even fresh or dried foods, the evidence of fluoride poisoning in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities is undeniable. However, despite wishful thinking from fluroidationists who do their best to manufacture scientifically invalid reports, there is more 'overdose' with corresponding damage in fluoridated communities. The only rational move is to immediately end fluoridation in order to stem the tide of dental damage, disease & disability.

 

Forgive me for repeating myself, but since fluoridationists are willfully blind to evidence and try to bury it with their comments, allow me again to address your attention to these recently published studies. 

 

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4% of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride due to consumption of products made with fluoridated water. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, which is associated with increased incidence of learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease.
http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7
 

  • Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018. [Online Ahead of Print]

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities have a heightened risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine metabolism. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they are mildly hypothyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Study excluded those already diagnosed with thyroid disease.
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. [Online Ahead of Print]

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking  'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt). Excluded those with health conditions such as kidney disease as well as considered confounding factors such as tea consumption. 
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/EHP3546
 

  • Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. October 2018.
4,163 Views
0
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

This patient did not have a fluoridated public water system.  (first paragraph next to last sentence) This case, if indeed the symptoms were from fluoride in tea and toothpaste is consistent with recent data which shows that enamel fluorosis rates are the same in fluoridated and not fluoridated towns

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608443

 

and from New Zealand

 

https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/our-oral-health-key-findings-2009-new-zealand-oral-health-sur... .. page 1 of summary, bullet point #10

 

The data is that community water fluoridation prevents cavities in both baby and adult teeth.  Further, the effects of too much fluoride come from the inappropriate use of fluoride containing products, toothpaste, mistakenly prescribed supplements and tea (especially green tea) being at usual sources.

696 New Zealand Oral Health Survey no difference in fluorosis v2.jpg

0 Kudos
4,193 Views
3
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

Hey Chuck - Thanks for the fact-check.  It's rare that Chuck and I agree on anything.  But clearly he admits that people can get way over recommended doses of fluoride simply from brushing their teeth and drinking their tea.  Logically, that means there is no need for water fluoridation.

4,173 Views
2
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

The danger from 0.7 ppm fluoride is zero.   Children improperly brushing and using toothpaste as candy and adults drinking large amounts of tea are those who are harmed by their mistaken and usually aberrant consumptions. 

 

Even this case illustrates that these conditions are not related to the tiny amount of fluoride in drinking water.   This person with arthritis water was not fluoridated. 

0 Kudos
3,819 Views
1
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

If we exclude infants on formula, I would agree with your statement to a significant degree: "The danger from 0.7 ppm fluoride is zero."

 

A.  IF and I must repeat IF, the only source of fluoride were water  (Not happening) 

B.  IF, I must repeat IF, infant formula were made with fluoride free water (Not happening)

C.  IF mother's to be and pregnant mother's had low fluoride in their bodies (urine) (not happening). 

D.  And if we assume the only risk is from excess fluoride is moderate and severe dental fluorosis.

 

Without those concerns, water alone as the only source of fluoride at 0.7 ppm would not cause problems to most individuals.

 

To suggest there is zero danger is simply not scientific.  "Never" and "always" are red flags in science.

  

With 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride,  and 20% with moderate or severe dental fluorosis, we must admit that total exposure is more than optimal.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

3,635 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

 “One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)

 

This is an excellent animal experiment that finds there are observable differences in the brain tissue of rats who consumed relatively moderate amounts of fluoride 'long term' which for an experimental rat is 10 weeks. These changes were observed in the part of the brain having to do with memory and learning. 

 

The risk assessment rules for determining a 'safe reference dose' for human populations using a no observable effect level (NOEL) in an animal experiment is reducing the concentration by a factor of 100 for occassional exposure and by 1,000 for chronic exposure. So, for 50 ppm in an animal experiment, we could predict that any fluoride in drinking water above 0.05 ppm is harmful to senior citizens - except that this wasn't a NOEL. They did observe an ill effect at 50 ppm, so that concentration should be further reduced, cut in half or more... so any fluoride in drinking water concentration above 0.02 ppm consumed long term is  potentially damaging to brains

 

Chronic fluoride exposure induces neuronal apoptosis and impairs neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity: Role of GSK-3b/b-catenin pathway. Pei Jiang, Gongying Li, Xueyuan Zhou, Changshui Wang, Yi Qiao, Dehua Liao, Dongmei Shi.  Chemosphere. Volume 214, January 2019, Pages 430-435. [Online ahead of print]  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518317508 

 

NINJA EDIT: I originally calculated an uncertainty factor of 100 to get 0.5 ppm, but that would be for occassional exposure. In drinking water, the reference dose would be 0.05 ppm for chronic exposure. 

4,192 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

'If you can't explain something in an honest manner on one page, you don't understand it.' - Paraphrasing many scientists 

 

In reaction to Randy's 2,075 word comment in which he redirects readers to both his personal blog and other wordy combative posts he's made on this AARP site, I have two things to say. 

 

  • Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that benefits corporate players by forcing a contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of harm caused to either the environment or the millions with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney diseases for whom fluoride is medically contraindicated or to vulnerable populations such as pregnant women, bottle-fed babies and senior citizens for whom fluoride consumption can lead to neurological damage and chronic illness. 

 

4,349 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

And of course when people are whole body fluoridated with a toxic, calcium-free, fully soluble source for fluoride, then toxic effects occur. Why would anyone expect somehow a total lack of toxicity due to artificial community water fluoridation?  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,192 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Vulnerable subpopulations who are more susceptible to adverse effects from low dose exposure to 'optimally' fluoridated water include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and those with chronic health conditions. 

 

Studies have predicted a majority of bottle-fed babies are fluoride overdosed. The ADA disingenously suggests parents not use tap water every time as if poisoning their babies sometimes is acceptable. The most recent U.S. 2018 study that actually tested indiviudal infants found 37% of infants 0-12 months were overdosed above the presumed safe upper tolerable fluoride limits (UL) and likely are at risk for dental fluorosis, which dentists cavalierly dismiss as 'mostly mild' and only 'cosmetic.'

 

The most recent U.S. 2018 report using government data documented that over half of U.S. teens have dental fluorosis. One in five American teens has moderate to severe dental fluorosis on at least two teeth, which will likely result in costly veneers or crowns. Dental fluorosis is visible evidence of cell death in developing teeth and is associatd with increased incidence of learnig disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. As an enzyme poison that easily passes the blood brain barrier, has an affinity for bone, and is a known 'burden to kidneys,' fluoride is a biologically plausible cause for all these conditions. 

 

A few studies relevant to bottle-fed babies. 

  1.  Harriehausen CX, Dosani FZ, Chiquet BT, Barratt MS, Quock RL. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. October 2018. 
    • American study: “This study aimed to assess fluoride intake in infants from formula reconstituted with water, with fluorosis risk in mind… All infants consumed formula reconstituted with minimally fluoridated water (0.0– 0.3 ppm). 4.4% of infants exceeded the recommended upper limit (UL) of 0.1mg/kg/day. … with optimally fluoridated water (0.7ppm) resulted in 36.8% of infants exceeding the UL. Conclusions: Optimally fluoridated water may increase fluorosis risk for patients younger than six months.”

  2. Zohoori, F., Omid, N., Sanderson, R., Valentine, R., & Maguire, A. (n.d.). Fluoride retention in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas: Effects of weaning. British Journal of Nutrition. November 2018. 
    • UK study of healthy infants 0-12 months. Pre-weaning, the only positive fluoride retention was for formula-fed babies living in fluoridated communities. Study found that although the breast milk of mothers living in fluoridated regions had five times more fluoride, fluoride concentration was still quite low and the breast-fed infants had a negative fluoride balance, i.e. they excreted more than they took in, apparently purging themselves of fluoride absorbed during pregnancy as fluoride crosses the placenta and is stored in fetal tissue.

  3. Rácz R, Földes A, Bori E, et al. No Change in Bicarbonate Transport but Tight-Junction Formation Is Delayed by Fluoride in a Novel Am.... Frontiers in Physiology. 2017; 8: 940. 
    • Laboratory study: “Enamel fluorosis is a developmental disturbance caused by intake of supraoptimal levels of fluoride… We can hypothesize that fluorosis is due to a combination of direct cytotoxic effects causing cell death, the delayed development of tight junctions, which are necessary to form a sealed barrier between apical and basolateral surfaces, and a direct inhibitory effect of fluoride on vectorial calcium and/or bicarbonate transport.”

  4. Cressey P. Dietary fluoride intake for fully formula-fed infants in New Zealand: impact of formula and water fl.... J Public Health Dent. 2010 Fall;70(4):285-91.
    • New Zealand study of bottle-fed babies found, “Infants fully formula-fed on formulae prepared with optimally fluoridated water (0.7-1.0 mg/L) have a high probability of exceeding the UL for fluoride and are at increased risk of dental fluorosis.”

  5. Siew C, Strock S, Ristic H, Kang P,  et al. Assessing a Potential Risk Factor for Enamel Fluorosis: A Preliminary Evaluation of Fluoride Content.... J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140;1228-1236. 
    • American study found “most infants from birth to age 12 months who consume predominantly powdered and liquid concentrate formulas are likely to exceed the upper tolerable fluoride limit if the formula is reconstituted with optimally fluoridated water (0.7 to 1.2 ppm); however, the validity of this upper tolerable limit in protecting against moderate-to-severe fluorosis is uncertain.” 

  6. Shiboski CH, Gansky SA, Gomez FR, Pollick H. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity among California Preschool Children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63(1):38-46 · February 2003.  
    • California Head Start study of cavity experience: Ethnicity, diet and habits made a difference but, ”Our analysis (of caries) did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.” 
3,243 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

To my Fluoridation Friends:

 

Consider tobacco smoking.   Certainly you would agree smoking tobacco has risks.

 

On the other hand, smoking has benefits.  One must weight the benefits vs risks.  My position, smoking is very bad.  Risks=cancer, death, and more.

 

Like fluoride has benefits/risks, lets look closer at the benefits of tobacco smoking.  

 

Smokers may have fewer knee surgeries, perhaps due to less obesity.

Smokers may have less Parkinson's.

Smokers may have less obesity.

Smokers may react better to angioplasty.

Smoking may help the heart drug clopidogrel work better

Smoking reduces bleeding gums.

 

Most reasonable people would NOT accept the risks of smoking to achieve the possible benefits.  However, I've known dentists who promoted smoking to reduce bleeding gums.

 

Given the vast amount of research on both smoking and fluoride, most reasonable people would not accept additional fluoride with fluoridation for everyone throughout their lives:

 

when the potential benefit is up to age 8,

other methods of dispensing fluoride are simple and cheaper,

60% are showing signs of too much fluoride (an enzymatic reactor),

freedom of choice is lacking,

and the risks of lower IQ, damaged thyroid, fractured hard tissue, damage to mitochondria, etc etc etc are serious.  

 

An unbiased researcher looking at all streams of evidence would never accept fluoridation anymore than forcing tobacco on everyone because tobacco may have some benefit.

 

Fluoridation must be stopped, at least until quality research is provided on safety, efficacy and dosage.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

3,294 Views
3
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

Bill, you wrote on (11-07-2018 06:57 PM), “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.” and again on (11-10-2018 03:06 PM), “This time when I posted research, my fluoridationist friends have once again gone silent for a few days.  Something about research is hard for fluoridationists to digest.

 

It is remarkable that you are now a ”psychic mind reader”, presuming to know why I and others have not answered your comments.  Actually, I have been waiting to see if your memory had returned and whether you were willing to admit that I had, in fact, presented evidence that clearly supports the scientific consensus.  However, It appears that your memory is as selective as your remarkable ability to not answer my questions (or to only “answer” your reinterpretations of my questions).

 

I provided links to some of the evidence (several hundred studies and reviews) you and other fluoridation opponents have ignored, and I requested you provide specific evidence of why the studies should be ignored on 10-20-2018 01:56 PM and 10-21-2018 09:44 PM.  I’ll re-reference them along with some other resources I’m working on that will help readers who are attempting to make sense of this carefully staged illusion of a "fluoridation debate" understand the tactics employed by fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists to scare and scam the public.

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationReferences.htm

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Consensus.html

 

Unlike you and other anti-science activists, who seem to think providing your interpretation of carefully selected evidence in a public discussion forum is somehow proof that your version of reality is correct, my goal is to highlight the importance of the scientific consensus and expose the disingenuous tactics used by anti-science activists to con the public into accepting their outlier interpretation of the few studies they believe support their anti-consensus conclusions. 

http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-AntiScienceTactics.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/06/24/what-does-scientific-consensus-mean/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hostility-towards-scientific-consensus-a-red-flag-identifying-a-cra...

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/developing-supporting-scientific-consensus/

 

Thank you for your two recent comments which highlight the critical importance of evidence based health care and the scientific consensus – and not individual interpretations of evidence.  I’m not sure what you are trying to demonstrate by your 11-11-2018 07:20 PM smoking comment except that in this one instance you apparently accept the scientific consensus that the risks of smoking far outweigh any benefits – Congratulations.  

Q1a) Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh any risks?  YES or NO?

Q1b) Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of water disinfection (the addition of poisons to the water and the formation of disinfection byproducts) outweigh the risks?   YES or NO?

 

It is wiser to accept the scientific consensus in all areas of science and evidence based health care than to blindly believe the highly biased opinions of anti-science activists like those who support tobacco use and who deny the benefits of water disinfection, fluoridation, and vaccination outweigh the risks.  All anti-science positions are completely contrary to the scientific consensus.

 

What you have clearly demonstrated in your 11-11-2018 02:11 PM comment (selectively and disingenuously excluding early smallpox treatments and slippin’ in your out-of-context mercury and fluoride references) is that a bunch of very early “medical treatments” (narcotic syrups, heroin, lobotomies, blood letting, tape worm eggs, trepanation & tobacco) were, in fact, debunked by the evolving processes of science.  These were all basically uncontrolled, unregulated experiments initiated long ago, before there existed any supporting scientific consensus; before there were uniform scientific processes in place to rigorously test the safety and effectiveness of any “medical treatment”; before there were effective monitoring and regulatory organizations.  The negative consequences of those “treatments” were, in fact, revealed by the processes of science to be far more harmful to health than beneficial and they were eliminated.  Similarly, the apparent effectiveness of some early non-scientific alternative health practices like homeopathy were revealed by the processes of science to be placebo effects – as are many claims made today by anti-science practitioners.

 

The discovery of vaccination is an excellent example of how a scientific consensus changes based on constantly evolving scientific knowledge.  While Edward Jenner’s experimentation at the turn of the 19th century on smallpox (a horrific killer) prevention would be considered unethical today, his discoveries and the eventual development of the smallpox vaccine has saved countless lives.  Should Jenner be hailed as a savior or condemned as an unethical smear in the history of health care?  By the time Dr. Jonas Salk began working on a polio vaccine in the first half of the 20th the body of scientific knowledge (scientific consensus) surrounding disease-causing organisms and possible treatment methods had evolved significantly – and the knowledge continues to evolve.  Like community water fluoridation (CWF), the scientific consensus is clear that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks.

https://www.cdc.gov/smallpox/history/history.html

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/scientific-method-vaccine-history

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/salk-announces-polio-vaccine

https://futurism.com/the-evolution-of-medicine-a-history-of-life-and-death

Oh, and as an example how the scientific consensus evolves based on actual evidence, you might want to read:
https://www.webmd.com/heart/news/20040628/leeches-cleared-for-medical-use-by-fda  

 

Unlike your question dodging, I will answer your questions – I believe that all of the so-called scientific evidence you and other anti-science activists have dumped into this comment section have been presented and interpreted completely out of context – of the study itself and of the entire body of evidence as has been pointed out repeatedly.  When the studies are read and understood in their entirety and in context, they (like your most recent deceptive description of historic so-called “medical practices”) do not provide any evidence that proves your opinions that CWF is ineffective or unsafe are true. 

 

Again I ask:

Q1a)  If you believe your interpretation of the evidence is valid, why did you dump 14 comments of what you believe to be fluoride-related “cancer evidence” into the discussion instead of working with cancer experts to change the scientific consensus?   As noted previously, cancer organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Canadian Cancer Society, Ireland National Cancer Control Programme, Australian Cancer Council have not concluded CWF causes cancer?
Q1b)  Do you believe you have more training and experience in the causes of cancer than members of the listed organizations?  YES or NO?
Q1c)  Do you really believe most members of the public ever read your version of “evidence” and/or have the training and experience necessary to understand the entire body of cancer evidence and reach well informed, accurate conclusions?  YES or NO?

 

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).

 

I have specific questions for Bill, CarryAnne, Richard, and other anti-science activists related to just one specific organization which I have asked several times (11-07-2018 11:36 AM, 11-04-2018 02:38 PM, 10-26-2018 11:13 AM) without a reply

 

Q2a)  Do you believe the World Health Organization, which represents 191 countries, is a reputable, trustworthy science-based health organization with the goal of improving and protecting health worldwide?  YES or NO?

 

Q2b)  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? 

 

The 2014 World Health Organization document, Assessment of Renal Fluoride Excretion in Community Prevention Programs for Oral Health was referenced  by RossF 10-26-2018 04:28 AM, in an apparent attempt to try and support some anti-F opinion.  However, if one examines the context of his deliberately misleading comment, one will quickly (in the first 3 paragraphs of the introduction, p6) recognize the disingenuous anti-F tactic of selective extraction.

Fluoride is a natural constituent of all types of human diet and is present, in varying amounts, in drinking water throughout the world. Because of its value in preventing decay (i.e. formation of dental caries), fluoride is increasingly being used for this purpose in several countries. Enamel fluorosis (unsightly mottling of the teeth) is the only untoward effect of the use of fluoride, and the condition is known to occur in regions worldwide wherever drinking water contains high levels of fluoride naturally. ... The goals of community-based public health programmes should be to implement measures that raise the fluoride concentration in as many mouths as possible as often as possible, using the most appropriate method.  Effective methods are water, salt or milk fluoridation either alone or in combination with fluoride-containing toothpaste, all of which make fl uoride available to the population in a manner that does not require cooperative effort or direct action.”

 

As noted 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) 

 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

 

You continue to avoid answering this question: 

Q3a)  Explain why, if there were no scientific consensus that fluoridation was safe and effective (or if there was legitimate evidence to support anti-F opinions) the World Health Organization and virtually all of the major, respected scientific and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of fluoridation – and their hundreds of thousands of members have not rebelled.

Q3b)  Explain why there are no reputable science or health organizations that accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate.

 

The most disturbing thread running through your long diatribes, and the main point of my comments, is to highlight how you (like other fluoridation opponents and all anti-science activists) try to influence public opinion by your disingenuous misrepresentation of the actual science in an effort to support your strongly held beliefs – yes, that is hacking the democratic process.

 

Democracy depends on an accurately informed public.  Democracy is sevelely compromised by all duplicitous fear-mongering tactics employed by all anti-science activists.  These tactics are carefully designed to scare and scam caring members of the public, who do not have the science and/or health care training and experience to accurately evaluate thousands of complex scientific studies, into distrusting the overwhelming majority of science and health care organizations and their members and blindly accepting the illusion of their carefully constructed anti-science alternative.

0 Kudos
3,186 Views
2
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

I'm beginning to understand more about your position on fluoride.  Tabloid items, not primary research.

 

Please provide one primary research study (US National Library of Medicine is a good example, https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pmresources.html) and give a short summary of what you like about that research, what rings true to you, what the limitations you find in the research.  Lets talk research, not newspaper editorials and tabloid opinions.

 

Cybernook, Forbes, Science Based Medicine, Skeptical Raptor are tabloids, news, and not science research. 

 

Instead of long cut and paste, simply present ONE study, primary research, which you have read and why you agree with it.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

3,403 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

I have never met a single person who is opposed to fluoridation who also supports smoking or opposes sterilization of water supplies. So the accusation that those opposed to fluoridation are "anti science" is simply false. 

I also know of no one opposed to fluoridation who argues that the WHO should not be trusted for health advice on other issues. Since when however is any organizaiton totally immune to any error whatsoever?  Everyone makes mistakes. And the WHO position that supports fluoridation is not accepted by most countries in Europe. Are those countries opposed to science? Of course not. These countires want the truth, like everyone should want the truth.

How long did it take for scientific evidence that smoking is harmful to be accepted? About 60 years, that's how long.  And the scientific method has existed since Isaac Newton in 1665, and yet this is how long it took to finally achieve a scientific conssensus that smoking is harmfl The reason this took so long, as is also true of fluoridation, is that adverse effects from a diluted, chronic, cumulative poison is difficult to prove beyond doubt in humans with scientific investigation.

The WHO, and other health agencies that typically do not do their own direct scientific experimentation and instead rely on others, will take a long time to come to the truth on the issue of fluoridation, but this does not change the truth.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,312 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

The research you provided is once again supporting the concept that too many are ingesting too much fluoride, especially infants and children.    It does not take a special scientist to understand that if over 60% of our young have dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure, that we must reduce exposure.  

 

Fluoridation is contributing to the 700,000 children with SEVERE dental fluorosis as reported by HHS sponsored NHANES 2011-2012.    

 

Where is the MEASURED evidence that infants and children need fluoride supplementation in their water and that it is effective or safe?     

 

Yes, marketing has produced endorsements but the endorsements are not supported with peer reviewed measured evidence. 

 

Fluoride treatments will soon be relegated to the dust bin of insane medical treatments, such as:  

 

Mercury for the treatment of dental cavities, syphalis, vaccines, etc.  (mercury may have worked, but not safe)

 

Children's soothing syrups great for quieting a baby or child with various forms of narcotics.  (may have worked, but not safe)

 

Bayer's over the counter Heroin for caugh supression.  (may have worked, but not safe)

 

Lobotmies for depression  (may have worked, but not safe)

 

Bloodletting 

 

Tape worm eggs for diet pills

 

Trepenation for head aches.

 

Tobacco for mitigation of periodontal disease

 

Fluoride supplements or fluoridation (may have worked, but not safe)

 

And the list could go on and on.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

3,220 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

If the posed questions were from a friend I might spend some time answering them. But knowing their source, spending the time will likely be a waste of time.  The very first question has an obvious answer but the questioner will not likely accept the answer.  The answer is yes, healthcare workers are not scientists.  

Does that mean healthcare workers who do not oppose fluoridation are "lemmings?". That's an entirely different question within the question and cannot be answered without knowing the particular health care worker.

The discussion could be endless just on the material buried in the first question.

 

Moving on, the comparison of fluoridation with chlorination is laughable. Chlorine at least works and does its assigned job of killing pathogens in public water systems. The whole body fluoridation of people however doesn't even work. It does not reduce caries incidence (as published in the best and largest human studies we have, not the anecdotal small samples with means that are not outside experimental error, and as found in perfectly controlled caged mammals). Fluoridation does not lower dental caries significantly but does indeed harm bone and increases the incidence of dental enamel hypoplasia in all treated cities without exception. 

And by the way the lowering of IQ that progressively enlarges with increasing blood fluoride concentration is not likely an accidental correlation. For example Mullenix first observed the brain altering effects of fluoride in controlled studies of mammals with blood fluoride concentrations comparable to that in fuoridated humans. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,218 Views
4
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

It appears we 45 published peer reviewed studies on fluoride . . . so far this year, 2018.  And the flood gates of fluoride research are just beginning, almost all reporting harm and little or no benefit. 

 

We are rapidly learning that even small amounts of fluoride cause harm to some or many people.  Although there is much to learn, we know many are ingesting the same amount of fluoride research has shown to be harmful. 

 

Richards et al, should never have started their research of fluoride supplements on pregnant mothers.  We have enough research fluoride ingestion during pregnance crosses the placenta and lowers the infant IQ. 

 

And Richards should understand that very little of the developing dentition is forming during pregnancy.  Fluoride during pregnance does not really have the potential to help the infant's teeth resist caries.   

 

However, the question remains, does fluoride benefit the baby's teeth?  If a person felt their children's teeth are more important than brains, they could ingest fluoride, if there was benefit. 

 

Richards lowered the cohorts' IQ and reported no benefit to teeth. 

 

"Conclusions: There is no evidence that fluoride supplements taken by women during pregnancy are effective in preventing dental caries in their offspring."

 

"Abstract

Data sources: Cochrane Oral Healths Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Medline, Embase, LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library CINAHL US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases.

Study selection: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including quasi-randomised and cluster-randomize trials of fluoride supplements (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) given to women during pregnancy with the aim of preventing caries in the primary teeth of their children were selected.

Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. No data synthesis was possible.

Results: Only one RCT met the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference in decayed or filled primary tooth surfaces (dfs) or % of children with caries at three years or five years. Risk ratio (RR) at three years = 1.46, (95% CI; 0.75 to 2.85) and RR at five years = 0.84, (95% CI; 0.53 to 1.33). At five years the incidence of fluorosis was similar between the groups.

Conclusions: There is no evidence that fluoride supplements taken by women during pregnancy are effective in preventing dental caries in their offspring."

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

3,218 Views
3
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

 The reason the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended to be ingested by pregnant women in the U.S. is because of lack of effectiveness on caries in offspring.

  I argued with a local dentist about this fact when she placed an ad in the public newspaper for women to bring in their newborn infants so that fluoride gel could be applied to their gums.

  I explained that sodium fluoride is a poisonous substance and putting it into the mouth of an infant would cause it to be swallowed since infants cannot be told to spit it out.

  She responded by saying that the fluoride treatments were to "prepare the gum tissue for the upcoming eruption of the teeth," to "get a head start on protecting teeth from caries."

  I forwarded much scientific data demonstrating the LD50 for sodium fluoride orally ingested (only 65 mg/kg) and described in more detail that even fluoride treatment of teeth directly does cause incorporation of fluoride into the enamel matrix but rather forms calcium fluoride globules on teeth surfaces that are later swallowed, among other facts. 

   Eventually the advertisement was pulled from the paper thank God.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
3,160 Views
2
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck, Dr. Johnson, Randy, and my Fluoridationist Friends,

 

The last time I posted research, my fluoridationist friends went silent for several days.

 

This time when I posted research, my fluoridationist friends have once again gone silent for a few days.

 

Something about research is hard for fluoridationists to digest.  Research does not support the flawed theory of fluoridation.

 

What is your advice when the research and the endorsements are at odds?  Yes, you have suggested to change those endorsing and recommending fluoridation, in other words, those with jurisdiction over fluoridation.   Problem.  No agency recommending fluoridaiton takes responsibility for reviewing the dosage being ingested, the safety along with the possible benefit.    Hard to hold  someone accountable when there is not that "someone" or agency.  They all point to others.  

 

Remember in history, the authorities said the world was flat.  They endorsed a flat world as fact.   With time the evidence became strong that the world was not flat.   Who should a person trust, the facts or the authorities?  Verify, verify, verify.

 

We have many more research studies reporting harm from very low levels of fluoride.  If there were just the two I last posted, we would not have significant grounds for concer.  However, there are hundreds of studies reporting harm, enough to take action and reduce exposure.  

 

Should we blindly follow tradition or improve on tradition based on evidence?

 

Many are ingesting too much fluoride.  Over 60% showing a biomarker of excess fluoride.  It is past time to reduce so much exposure.  What is the best source of exposure to reduce?????

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

3,059 Views
1
Report
Reply