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. 

[CarryAnne]

'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. 

[rs5526]

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?  

[CarryAnne]

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.” 

[BillO538145]

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

[RandyJ913440]

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.

[BillO538145]

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

[rs5526]

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.   

[BillO538145]

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

[rs5526]

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. 

[BillO538145]

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

[rs5526]

 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.

[BillO538145]

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

[BillO538145]

Once again, lets look at the EPA's graph almost a decade old.  Most children ingest too much fluoride during part of their life.  

Remember, this graph represents the 90th percentile.  10% of the public is ignored.  Infants are ignored.  No margin of safety is included.  The graph is based on a 33% increase in the so called safe dosage.  And the so called safe dosage of fluoride is the same mean exposure which research is now showing to cause harm to the brain with lower IQ, thyroid, cancer, bone fractures and more.  

The percentage of children above the black line are over exposed by the EPA's definition of too much.

The best place to reduce over exposure is a cessation of fluoridation.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

[CarryAnne]

“Dental dogma and authoritative pronouncements aside, fluoride is not a nutrient of any kind - essential, non-essential or micronutrient. Consumption does not provide any dental benefit, and there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. Fluoride is best characterized as a poison that is used as a drug in a misguided attempt to prevent cavities.” - prologue to “Open Letter to Nutritionists About the Fluoride Deception” published October 26, 2018 by GreenMedInfo LLC 

Fluoride trolls who overwhelm social media with confusing rhetoric are experts in just one thing - deception. On the other hand: 

1. Scientists are increasingly speaking out against fluoridation based on scientific evidence of harm. Here and here and here.
2. Legal experts and ethicists have found fluoridation policy to be an infringement of constitutional rights and violation of human dignity, although U.S. courts have upheld the legality of fluoridation policy based on ‘police powers’ using ‘rational basis’ examination. 
3. About 30 seniors on the AARP forum have testified to the personal harm caused them by fluoridation policy. 

What is most in short supply is organizational integrity. AARP, based on emerging science, evolving medical opinion and personal testimony, it is time for you to do your due diligence and draft a resolution opposing fluoridation policy as an immoral medical mandate that compromises the health of millions of your constituents.  

[rs5526]

The only safe concentration of artificial fluoride lacking calcium is zero. This is because many people live 30 years longer than the expected average of 70-75 years. Fluoride accumulation in bone for an extra 30 years is not considered in the EPA allowed daily intakes.

And that is because the, EPA has no ability to monitor fluoridation for lifelong safety or its ineffectiveness on caries. The,EPA is not a dental or a health organization. They are an environmental group.

[rs5526]

The work of Kumar cited did not conclude that fluorosis causes fewer dental caries. The article merely made the suggestion. Other studies of Kumar also typically report mean differences that are not even outside measurement error so the suggestions have little power. On top of that, these studies on teeth are plagued by the fact that the oral cavity is so directly affected by the environment. There are so many confounding variables as to make such studies nearly meaningless. No one can force children to all eat the same kind and amount of sugary foods or beverages, nor can one control all groups for toothbrushilng time and duration, etc.  It is not possible to put children in cages to control stuch studies.

The facts are obtained from well-controlled animals which indicate that ingesting fluoridated water has no effect whatsoever in decreasing dental caries.  And the massive studies over 30 years time by Teotia and Teotia show that caries iincidence is highest in populations where fluoride is high and calcium in the diet is low; and the large population studies of Ziegelbecker showed no effect on caries when ingesting fluoride in wter even up to 6 ppm natural levels; and the large studies of Yamouyiannis showing no effect in populations at all age groups studied;and the very large NIDR study of CA children showing no difference in caries incidence between fluoridated vs nonfluoridated cities. There are no detectable decreases in dental caries due to ingesting fluoride.  The original correlation by Dean of a small number of cities that suggested this to him turned out to be a false correlation. Correlation does not causation make.

[rs5526]

The density of bone, that first begins to be fluoridated, is temporarliy increased, yes. But the strength of the bone due to this effect is not increased. That has been amply studied by NIH investigators. The crystal structure that forms is abnormal. And the effect is overshadowed by the decrease in bone strengh as fluoride continues to accumulate during lifelong intake. We have no person in the U.S. yet who has consumed fluoridated water for the average full lifetime of 75 years.

Some individuals experience bone pain at only 1,700 mg/kg fluoride in bone. The NRC has reviewed the work on the effects of fluoride on bone in the more complete context of all other studies that demonstrate no improvement in bone strength due to fluoridation. Some people are known to have stage II skeletal fluorosis at fluoride bone levels expected after lifelong drinking of fluoridated water, especially since other sources of fluoride in bone are also present including toothpaste, foods, beverages made with fluoridated water, etc. .

The longer the fluoride exposures occur, the more flujoride incorporates into bone because it is not a vitamin-like physiologic effect; it is a pathologic effect of the cumulative poison that incrporates into bone that is biochemically not reversible.

As far as dental fluorosis goes, a fluoridation advocate dentist published that all cities that fluoridate have increased incidence of dental fluorosis-- there are no exceptions and not all cases are "mild". And at the same time fluoridation of bone is also occuring of course at this young age.Fluoride's pathologic effect on causing this formation of abnormally thin enamel (enamel hypoplasia) only occurs during teeth development, but bone fluoridation continues to accumulate lilfetime. 

[skanen144]

Richard is absolutely correct! Time will tell the inevitable arthritic pain of those people consuming ‘optimally’ fluoridated water for a full 75 years. I am now 65, lifelong ‘optimal’ fluorided water consumer up to 60 years old. I have veneers on my fluorosed front teeth. A hip replacement in 2013, produced an ashed bone sample at 1500 ppm F. I have much arthritic pain being diagnosed with degenerative hip and spine on xray also with documentation of calcification of interosseous membrane of the forearm (also diagnostic for F poisoning).

Richard rightly states water fluoridation programs are better called bone fluoridation and I might add: arthritis enhancement programs.

AARP should speak out against fluoride harm continuing to be done to seniors and encouage an investigation including rates of bone fractures and joint failure in water fluoridated vs non fluoridated regions including analysis of fluoride content of bones. 

Fluoridation advocates, please provide me with a medical laboratory to send human bone and kidney stone samples for fluoride analysis. Why is this not readily and routinely available to joint failure patients?

Susan Kanen

Biochemist

[rs5526]

And flujoridce ion is not a food. It has no digestible caloric content.

Fluoride is not a vitamin. There is no physiolgoic function or enzyme that fluoride modulates in a reversible dose dependent manner that all vitamins have.

Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient. There is no adverse pathology that develops in any human or animal birthed, developed, and grown lifetime in the complete absence of fluoride. 

Fluoride is not a water purifying agent. Fluoride in water does not kill microbes or decrease any known water contaminant or have any other desirable effect that water is required to have. . .

Fluoride is a toxic calcium chelator. Whether it is concentrated enough in the blood to lower the activity of ionized caclium, or whether it is so low a concentration in blood that its main effect is to attach to calcium in bone hydroxyapatite, it associates preferentially with calcium, causing adverse sequelea as a result.

Some claim it is a drug for valid reasons. Others argue it is a contaminant used as though it were a drug but without being an official drug. Who cares?  Its ingestion is useless, harmful, and is not endorsed or officially approved or required in water by the FDA or the EPA. The CDC requests it but knowws full well the SDWA prohibits them from requiring it. Any such Federal or State mandate requiring it is unlawful.   

[rs5526]

I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar." Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar."

Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar."

Between us and this criticizer, I know who is trying to pull the wool over readers.

And the Office of Water most certainly wrote that adding chemicals to treat people, rather than the water, as for fluoride, is the resonsibility of the FDA, not the EPA. The joint MOU between the EPA and FDA, that FDA requested to attempt to avoid regulating fluoridation, was dissolved long ago.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, please.

"I looked at the facts on salmon in Sacramanto, made a deduction and since that was against a fluoridation belief system I was called "a liar.""

No, you were claiming to be making a declarative fact, not a deduction.  You call yourself a scientist and you make outrageous claims with absolutely no evidence whatsoever.  No fluoride levels measured in the river, no fluoride levels measured in the fish, no measurement of fluoride levels in effluent discharge . . you just know it.  Ok, I won't call you a liar, but you're no scientist either.

"Carry Ann clarified a post so that it would not be misinterpreted again by someone who wants to misinterpret it, and she is also called "a liar.""

Response:  No, I called out "Carrie Anne" because of an error of fact that she had made.  "Carrie Anne" then edited her original post to cover up her original statement and then attacked me for pointing out her error of fact.  That's about as dishonest as it gets.

"Now Dr.Osmunsen who correctly states that the U.S. Pharmacopia lists fluoride if ingested as a drug (since it is not a normal bodily component), and Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics lists fluoride in water as a drug, and the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, and yet he also is called "a liar.""

Response:  No U.S. Federal Agency calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug" - Period.  No matter how much you twist and squirm and try to spin it, that is the simple fact.  We are talking about water fluoridation here.  Anything else is irrelevant.  

Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,"

Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive.

[BillO538145]

David, 

You wrote,  "Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,""

You responded, "Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive".

Sorry.  I don't remember giving you a quote from the head of the FDA in 1983.  Other quotes, but I don't remember that one.  My memory is not good, but I don't hide my own Easter eggs. . . yet.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

billo, your comment:

"You wrote,  "Your quote:  "the head of the FDA in 1983 wrote that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug,""

You responded, "Response:   Was he speaking on behalf of the FDA?  Are you saying this is the FDA's official position?  If so, show me the link.  If not, your comment is nothing short of deceptive".

Sorry.  I don't remember giving you a quote from the head of the FDA in 1983.  Other quotes, but I don't remember that one.  My memory is not good, but I don't hide my own Easter eggs. . . yet."

Response:  That was a response to Dr. Sauerheber.  Please look at the top of a comment, to whom it is addressed, if you feel confused.

[rs5526]

The insinuaiton is that somehow I'm not only guilty of making false claims but also a liar. I have the letter from the FDA head Edna Lovering in my posession. The reason her claim is important, that fluoride added into water is an "uncontrolled use of a drug" is because of the claim on this site that no Federal agency labels fluoride a drug, as though no one in the FDA or EPA argues that it is.

There are many people in the FDA and the EPA who define the use of toxic industrial fluorides for the treatment of caries as a drug. Just because there is no official announcmenet on their websites does not mean no one has made the statement.  

The insinuation that we have no right to make the statement that fluoride in water can be labeled a drug because there is no evidence for it from Federal agencies is false. The head of the FDA wrote it. But we are not allowed to write it? 

Preposterous.

And again, I don't care if fluoridation is labeled a drug or if it is labeled a toxic substance, or a contaminant, or a mineral used for some perceived benefit to tissue. What matters is that it is not a nutrient and in fact exerts chronic toxicity especially in bone.

No one has rights to make the claim that it is not a drug AND at the same time claim it is not a calcium chelator or a poisonous substance with longterm side effects. It cannot be said to have zero adverse side effects in the entire population who ingests it during their entire lifetime. 

Don't call it a drug, fine. Then call it a poisonous substance because it is a contaminant of the bloodstream, not a physiologic ingredient in normal blood.  You can't have it both ways.

Either state that it is a drug with side effects, or state that it is not a drug and instead is a calcium chelator with side effects. The idea of not calling it a drug so as to claim it is either a food or a nutrient or a vitamin, etc. is false. It is either a taxic contaminant used as a drug, or it is a contaminant used as a mineral for believed effects on teeth.  Either way it is not innocent from side effects though fluoridation promoters claim so.  Again, what are we supposed to tell elderly people who have consumed fluoridated water lifetime when their bones are painful? Lie and claim that fluoridated bone has no ability to cause or exacerbate that?  No way.  

[DavidF928895]

Richard Sauerheber, get some rest.  You are embarrassing yourself.  

[rs5526]

Ha Ha. Very funny.

Statements of facts are not embarrasing.

And yes people have been harmed drinking fluoridated water. We've already gone over that. Altering the structure of bone is harm. Dental fluorosis is harm.

I think someone else needs some rest, not me.

[DrChuckHaynie]

I have not followed the thread re the embarrassment but both of your assertions here are false.

Fluoride exposure from the concentration of water fluoridation decreases the risk of fracture. This is one of the few times that harm of any degree is reliably disproven for community water fluoridation because it has been shown that low fluoride and high fluoride in drinking water are both harmful; the best skeletal health is associated with optimized drinking water fluoride.

see:
J Bone Miner Res. 2001 May;16(5):932-9. Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Li Y, et al; Loma Linda University School of Dentistry, California 92350, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11341339

The enamel fluorosis which can reasonably be attributed to community water fluoridation is almost all mild and less in degree. Teeth with all degrees of enamel fluorosis have fewer cavities than those without. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, this effect is considered by many to not even be undesirable, much less harmful as you believe.

see:
J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62. The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren. Iida H, Kumar JV. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

Further analysis of the effect of enamel fluorosis and cavities on objective measures quality of life show that cavities severely harm the quality of life yet even severe fluorosis which is never due to community water fluoridation carries no harm to quality of life assessments.

see: J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):972-9. U Onoriobe, et al

and

Risk of Fluorosis in a Fluoridated Population. David G. Pendrys, The Journal of the American Dental Association 12/01/95 (126)1617-1624 http://jada.ada.org/content/126/12/1617.abstract

C. Haynie, M.D.; FACS

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

Thank you for bringing in research with these discussions.  I’m so tired of talking about people and opinions.

You suggested we look at Li from my alma mater, good suggestion. 

Li reported an increase in “hip” and “all” bone fractures at dosages of fluoride received in the USA. Li's study confirms my claim that many are ingesting too much fluoride.

Think “dosage” rather than comparing water fluoride concentrations between China and the USA. 

 Let me explain further:

1. Li’s study does add to our understanding of fluoride and bone fractures. The concept does make sense because most fluoride is stored in bones and teeth, although the pineal gland has the highest concentration of fluoride.
2. Li’s first sentence, “Findings on the risk of bone fractures associated with long‐term fluoride exposure from drinking water have been contradictory” acknowledge the issue of bone fracture is controversial.
3. What about TOOTH fracture. Comparing 3 studies (not very reliable) the concern is valid. (outside this studies scope and has never been seriously studied)
4. When looking at “overall” bone fractures, the study found a slight lower risk at 1 ppm fluoride in water, which equates to about half the dosage received in the USA.
5. The study was done in China in an area where little other fluoride was reported. This is similar demographics to the neurotoxic studies which reported lower IQ with increased fluoride.  If we are going to suggest this study has merit, we should also accept some merit for the brain studies.
6. Estimating fluoride exposure from water is not as good as measuring urine or serum fluoride concentration or even dental fluorosis, but the data should still be considered.
7. When applying the China cohorts with the USA, keep in mind estimated dosages rather than measured fluoride concentration in water. USA residents use much more fluoride toothpaste, fluoride medications, fluoride dental products, fluoride post harvest fumigants, fluoride pesticides, etc.  Li’s study is good, just remember that in rough numbers, half the fluoride consumed (study suggests 60-70%) in the USA is from water.  Therefore, we ingest in dosage closer to what the Chinese study cohorts ingest with 1.45-2.19 ppm fluoride in their water.  However, our increased dental fluorosis rates to 60% raise the concern that these estimates are seriously low.  The authors confirm this concern, “Thus, it is erroneous to use the community water fluoride level as the sole indicator for long‐term fluoride exposure.”
8. All Bone Fractures. Li’s findings show a significant decrease in all bone fractures at a “sweet” spot of about 3.37 mg F/Day.  At  0.7 ppm in water or 1.62 mg F/Day and all bone fractures increase and increase the dosage above 3.37 mg F/Day and all bone fractures increase.  How does that apply to the USA?  3.37 mg F/Day is what many people get without artificial fluoridation. 
9. When looking at hip fractures, consumption of fluoride above 1 ppm reported an increase in fractures but lower than 1 ppm did not report increased fractures. Again, comparing with the USA total exposures, to reduce hip fractures in the USA, fluoride ingestion would need to be reduced.   
10. EPA RfD (Reference Dose sort of their term for safe) is 0.06 mg/kg/day with proposal to increase that to 0.08 mg/kg/day. A 80 kg person should be OK with 5.6 mg of fluoride a day, the same dosage as Li reports an increase risk of bone fracture and all fractures.
11. Li considered alcohol consumption, smoking and exercise. A highly significant increase in bone fractures takes place with extremely strenuous exercise.  Slight increase with alcohol and being male.  (However, the extremely strenuous exercise may have been more males).
12. The paper appropriately does not have a “Conclusion” because no “conclusion” can be made from this study, but rather a Discussion section.
13. Authors agree the number of hip fractures was relatively small and not possible to review all confounding factors.
14. Self reported fractures.
15. No serum, urine, bone or dental fluorosis measurements.

The significant value in this study does demonstrate an increase in bone fractures with fluoride exposures for many in the USA on fluoridated water.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[RandyJ913440]

For those just reading these comments, the specific questions below are based on Bill’s and CarryAnne’s previous specific accusations and explanations – in their own words – for why they believe several specific organizations (CDC, ADA, AAP and EPA) accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure.  These organizations are among the 100+ science and health organizations worldwide that all agree CWF is safe and effective.

It is obvious to me that they believe those libelous charges and explanations apply to the specific organizations mentioned and all members who don’t accept the opinions of fluoridation opponents (FOs) as valid. 

However, I do not wish to use out-of-context quotes, so I have requested confirmation and/or clarifications of their specific accusations many times without success. 

Bill and CarryAnne.  I have asked you both numerous very specific questions to clarify understanding of specific anti-fluoridation claims you have made (you can find and read them here).  You have either not answered my questions, or you have re-interpreted and answered your interpretation of my question – then you buried the entire set of questions and un-answers under piles of Gish Gallop nonsense.

Both of you have made libelous and completely unsupported claims about why you believe specific organizations and their members continue to support CWF as a safe and effective public health measure, yet you will not answer highly relevant questions related to those claims. 

I will try again with some very simple Yes or No questions that are related specifically to your explanations of why virtually all relevant science and health organizations support CWF and only a few outliers hold the opposing opinion.

Question 1) Do you accept the fact that over 100 reputable science and health organizations, like the World Health Organization, AMA, AAP, ADA (that represent hundreds of thousands of members worldwide) publically recognize the health benefits of CWF for Preventing Dental Decay?   YES or NO?

https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridat...

Question 2a) Do you agree that the only organizations (not governmental or municipal decisions based on political or public opinions) you have been able to list that accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate are roughly 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 or NO?   

Question 2b) Do you accept the fact that the FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation, initiated in 2007, had collected about 4,700 signatures worldwide by March, 2015, and by November 2018 a whoppin’ 4,804 signatures had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental and scientific professionals in the world?  For example:

** 378 dentists worldwide signed the petition – that is less than 0.02% of the 1.8 million practicing dentists in the world.

** 582 physicians signed the petition – that’s less than 0.005% of the 10-15 million practicing physicians in the world.

** 106 pharmacists signed the petition – that’s less than 0.005% of the more than 2 million practicing pharmacists world-wide.

** 860 nurses signed the petition – that’s less than 0.005% of the more than 19 million practicing nurses in the world.

YES or NO? 

Question 3a) Do you accept the scientific consensus that exposure to fluoride ions when applied topically in toothpaste, rinses, dental treatments, etc. at recommended levels is effective at reducing the risk of dental decay?   YES or NO? 

Question 3b) Do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of all other water treatment methods (disinfection, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation), regardless of how they work, far outweigh the risks – even though they all require the addition of chemicals (many of which are highly toxic poisons) and create other contaminants like disinfectant byproducts (chloroform, trichloromethane, trichloroacetic acid, etc.)?   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).

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 here?   YES or NO? 

I have asked the specific questions below to Bill (most recently 10-30-2018 09:42 AM) and CarryAnne (most recently 10-30-2018 11:23 AM) repeatedly without receiving any answers.  The questions are compiled from their specific accusations against specific science and health agencies quoted in context below.

Bill, Question 5a) Is an accurate summary of your explanation for why the CDC, ADA and AAP and their members continue to recognize the benefits and safety of CWF that they all “don't think for themselves … No conspiracy….  Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science.  All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation”, YES or NO?
BQ5b) Based on your (10-30-2018 12:49 AM) comment/question, to which I answered NO!; do you actually believe community water fluoridation is the ethical equivalent of the Tuskegee Syphilis study?  YES or NO?
BQ5c) Do you believe your explanation above applies to all science and health organizations in the world (described in Q1 above) that recognize the benefits of CWF and their hundreds of thousands of members who have not rebelled?  YES or NO?
If you believe your description applies only to the CDC, ADA and AAP, what are your specific explanations you believe account for the acceptance of CWF by the other 100+ organizations that support the public health measure?

BQ5d) Do you accept CarryAnne’s description below that explains why she believes science and health organizations support CWF is accurate?   YES or NO?

CarryAnne Question 5a) Is an accurate summary of your explanation for why the ADA and EPA and their members continue to recognize the benefits and safety of CWF that they are all “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” willing to , “protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” ?   YES or NO? 

CAQ5b) Based on your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM) Comment, “In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again.  Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay“, do you actually believe scientific conclusions currently supported by virtually all science and health organizations and based on the evaluation of 70 years of scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of CWF are in any way like political decisions or religious beliefs about abortions based entirely on ethical opinions and considerations?   YES or NO?

CAQ5c) Do you believe your explanation above applies to all science and health organizations in the world (Described in Q1 above) that recognize the benefits of CWF and their hundreds of thousands of members who have not rebelled?   YES or NO?

CAQ5d) Do you accept Bill’s description above that explains why he believes science and health organizations support CWF is accurate?   YES or NO?

If you believe your accusations don’t adequately, accurately or fully explain why virtually all the major, recognized science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the safety and benefits of CWF (or don’t accept the anti-F opinions) then provide other specific explanations – preferably with evidence that proves your accusations, and not just your personal opinions.

I can only think of three reasons why hundreds of thousands of trained and experienced scientists and health professionals would either continue to support CWF or not speak out against the public health measure if the “evidence” presented by anti-science activists was even remotely as damning as they allege. 

• They do understand and have witnessed the serious health dangers to their patients and fellow citizens and have chosen to ignore them and keep silent for some reason(s). FOs have suggested they have been bribed to keep silent, they are too scared or embarrassed to admit their mistake and simply continue to promote a harmful public health measure, or they are sociopaths who enjoy causing pain and watching people suffer.
• They have chosen to just blindly follow tradition without bothering to scrutinize and evaluate any of the actual evidence. They completely ignore and dismiss any claims that the evidence actually proves CWF is ineffective and dangerous without bothering to examine the evidence.  Evidence is meaningless to them – they are happy just earning their paychecks.  If their patients and/or fellow citizens are suffering, so what.
• They are too ignorant to understand the evidence and simply misinterpret it – concluding the body of evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of CWF when it doesn’t.

I don’t accept any of those reasons, or any variations anti-science activists choose to employ.  I accept the alternate explanation that the vast majority of scientists and health care professionals have the best interests of their patients and fellow citizens in mind, they use their training and experience to improve the condition of humanity to the best of their collective abilities, they invest the time and effort to investigate serious claims that conflict with the scientific consensus, and in the case of CWF, they have determined that the overall body of evidence continues to support the safety and effectiveness of the public health measure.

As noted before, anti-science activists are a relatively small group of outliers who have extremely strong beliefs which prevent them from impartially understanding or evaluating scientific evidence.  Most anti-science activists don’t have scientific training or experience, don’t understand how science works and depend exclusively on the proclamations of an even smaller group of “scientists” whose passionate beliefs give them the right to ignore whatever scientific principles and practices to achieve their goals of promoting their beliefs.

There are three particularly disingenuous practices employed by anti-science activists:

• The use of malicious, unsupportable slander to cast doubt on mainstream science and health care professionals, organizations and any scientific consensus or conclusions they disagree with.
• Since anti-science activists have no legitimate scientific evidence to support their outlier beliefs, they don’t work within the scientific community and, instead as noted above, work tirelessly to sow distrust of mainstream scientists and health care professionals into the public consciousness.  Legitimate scientists who disagree with an established consensus, and have legitimate conflicting evidence, work within the relevant scientific communities to change the consensus.
• Since there is no legitimate evidence sufficient to change the scientific consensus, anti-science activists must try and convince the general public to start a revolt and bring down the evil science and health care empire. They do this by manipulating (and fabricating) the evidence and presenting it to the public using disingenuous fear-mongering techniques to scare the people into accepting their twisted version of reality instead of the version accepted the vast majority of scientists and health care professionals.

Length limits prevented including some references, including the actual quotes from Bill and CarryAnne, but they can be found here

.

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

Thank you for bringing in research with these discussions.  I’m so tired of talking about people and opinions.

Randy has asked tabloid convoluted questions which are partly yes and partly no and leave out substantive aspects which end up making no sense.  He would like to divert the discussion away from science and onto people.  

Randy assumes everyone who has not called for a cessation of fluoridation has spent hundreds of hours in careful review of the science.  He assumes scientists in other countries not fluoridating are stupid and have no credibility.  His questions make no sense and cannot be accurately answered with yes or no..   Endorsements are of tabloid interest and not science.

So lets get back to science.

Li's research you referenced seems reasonable and should be considered as one of the streams of evidence.  

Question:  Do you know of any research within the last 10 years which indicates all individuals on artificial fluoridated water when all sources of fluoride exposure are included are not ingesting too much fluoride?  

When I read the literature, either the issue of excess is not addressed or the evidence confirms there is excess fluoride exposure for at least part of the population.  

Too often our minds focus on the "mean" or "median" or "average" or "90th percentile" or "concentration" rather than fully appreciating most are not at the mean and concentration is not dosage.

Any primary research you can think of which addresses total exposure of fluoride would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH