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. 

[DavidF928895]

"CarrieAnne" says, "I'm losing count of how many times DavidF copies and pastes the same character attack in this thread on Dr. Hardy Limeback"

Response:  It's not a character attack if it's true.  If there is anything I have said about anti-water-fluoride leader Dr. Limeback that is incorrect or untrue, please point it out to me and I will be happy to apologize and retract it.

[BillO538145]

David,

I answered your question about Dr. Limeback.  

You are in such a hurry with your bias, that you fail to read the answers to your questions.   

No sense in responding to you when you don't appear to want to listen.

David, why don't you present your definition of mild dental fluorosis and what you think the patient has?   

You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself.  I can't speak for someone else.  I have not seen the patient.  Looks like dental fluorosis to me and in better light it might be moderate, but certainly mild.  

Hardy wrote the best dental school text book on preventive dental care and is the worlds authority on dental fluorosis.   You need to be very slow and confident to dispute Hardy.

I don't think you have the credentials, experience, or references to dispute Hardy or anyone else on these comments.

Bottom line, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

Dean JA (10 August 2015). McDonald and Avery's Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent (10th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-323-28746-3.  is reasonably consistent with others in defining the degrees of dental fluorosis. 

Dental fluorosis is discoloration inside the tooth and in some cases, actual physical damage to the teeth.  Severity is dependent on the age, dose, duration, of the individual during the exposure.

The "very mild" form of fluorosis, has small, opaque, paper white usually lateral streaks or areas scattered irregularly over the tooth, covering less than 25% of the clinical crown.  

In the "mild" form of the disease, these mottled patches can involve up to half of the surface area of the teeth.

In the "moderate" more than half of the tooth and all surfaces are affected and teeth may be ground down and/or brown stains frequently "disfigure" the teeth.

"Severe" fluorosis is characterized by brown discoloration and discrete or confluent pitting; brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-looking appearance.

Diagnosis coding of the disease Is, ICD-9-cm 520.3, ICD-10 K00.3  (ICD is International Classification of Disease)  

Does the picture look like more than 25% of the tooth has white lines? I think so. . . at least mild.

Does the picture look like more than 50%.  With careful evaluation of the patient, dry the teeth, get the light good and we might see more than 50% of the tooth showing white lines and that would be moderate.

I would rule out very mild or severe dental fluorosis for that patient based on the picture.

However, not all teeth fit thedefinition.   For example, I have see mild dental fluorosis with pitting and brown stains in just a small area.  Because it is so small, I would call it mild instead of moderate.  And just saw a patient last week where another dentist called the patient's dental fluorosis mild and she did not have brown stains but significant pitting.  

You have fixated on something you are not competent to argue, simply in an attempt to discredit and argue.

Have a happy holiday and relax.  Ponder on why 60% of children have dental fluorosis and why?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

BillO, your quote:  

"I answered your question about Dr. Limeback.  

 You are in such a hurry with your bias, that you fail to read the answers to your questions.   

 No sense in responding to you when you don't appear to want to listen."

Response:  Please provide the time-stamp reference in this thread where you addressed the deceptive behavior of Dr. Limeback.  I don't see it.  

The issue, if you had bothered to read my comment, was that Dr. Limeback allowed a photograph of teeth, which he took, to appear in an article written by attorney Michael Connett.  The teeth were diagnosed by unqualified Mr. Connett as being "Mild Dental Fluorosis."  The most prominent feature of these teeth were orange-brown stains which are believed to be Iron stains.  .  .  .  Please re-read my comment - SLOWLY - so that you can take time to understand what is being said, rather than responding with your classic knee-jerk reaction of trying to establish your superiority.  .  .  Then you may respond to my comment which you said you responded to, but never really did.

Your quote:  "You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself.  I can't speak for someone else.  I have not seen the patient.  Looks like dental fluorosis to me and in better light it might be moderate, but certainly mild."

Response.  Looks like dental fluorosis to you.  Since you failed to answer the primary issue, and since you are claiming to be an authority on the issue, let me ask you:  Don't you find it a little deceptive to put a photograph of teeth, whose most noticeable feature are iron stains - which have nothing to do with fluoride - on a website dedicated to abolition of Community Water Fluroidation?   And don't you find it deceptive to put these iron-stained teeth on this Website --- When These Teeth Have Even Never Touched Optimally Fluoridated Water?  

Your quote again:  ""You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself."

Response:  Dr. Limeback refused to engage me when I caught him in a second lie. 

He had said, "And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors.”

 07-24-2018 09:37 PM of this thread - https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/td-p/2021...

I pointed his attention to two studies, one by Professor Gary Slade of Adelaide University.  The other demonstrating the benefits of fluoride toothpaste on adults & seniors. 

To that, he responded, “This study . .  was a cross-sectional ecological study and not a randomized clinical trial. It stopped at about 40 years of exposure and found only one tooth difference between fluoride and non-fluoride exposed.”

To be clear, when he said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors,” he was fully aware of at least one study which did show benefit to adults & seniors.  Because, how could he explain how he could not be aware of a study and truthfully say that there were no studies of this kind; yet comment on the merits of that study.

In that Limeback lie, there were two logical solutions to the obvious paradox that I caught him in:   1.) Either he was not truthful in his first comment -- He was aware of that study while saying no such study existed; or 2.) he was truthful, he hadn't been aware of the study, and yet he commented on the merits of this study about which he had no knowledge. 

It seems that, like most of those in the anti-water-fluoridation fringe group, when his comments are put under scrutiny, Dr. Limeback refuses to engage in discussion and sees the futility of defending what he has said. 

[BillO538145]

David,

I answered your question about Dr. Limeback.  

You are in such a hurry with your bias, that you fail to read the answers to your questions.   

No sense in responding to you when you don't appear to want to listen.

David, why don't you present your definition of mild dental fluorosis and what you think the patient has?   

You don't appear to like my response, so ask Hardy yourself.  I can't speak for someone else.  I have not seen the patient.  Looks like dental fluorosis to me and in better light it might be moderate, but certainly mild.  

Hardy wrote the best dental school text book on preventive dental care and is the worlds authority on dental fluorosis.   You need to be very slow and confident to dispute Hardy.

I don't think you have the credentials, experience, or references to dispute Hardy or anyone else on these comments.

Bottom line, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

Dean JA (10 August 2015). McDonald and Avery's Dentistry for the Child and Adolescent (10th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-323-28746-3.  is reasonably consistent with others in defining the degrees of dental fluorosis. 

Dental fluorosis is discoloration inside the tooth and in some cases, actual physical damage to the teeth.  Severity is dependent on the age, dose, duration, of the individual during the exposure.

The "very mild" form of fluorosis, has small, opaque, paper white usually lateral streaks or areas scattered irregularly over the tooth, covering less than 25% of the clinical crown.  

In the "mild" form of the disease, these mottled patches can involve up to half of the surface area of the teeth.

In the "moderate" more than half of the tooth and all surfaces are affected and teeth may be ground down and/or brown stains frequently "disfigure" the teeth.

"Severe" fluorosis is characterized by brown discoloration and discrete or confluent pitting; brown stains are widespread and teeth often present a corroded-looking appearance.

Diagnosis coding of the disease Is, ICD-9-cm 520.3, ICD-10 K00.3  (ICD is International Classification of Disease)  

However, not all teeth fit that definition.   For example, I have see mild dental fluorosis with pitting and brown stains in just a small area.  Because it is so small, I would call it mild instead of moderate.  And just saw a patient last week where another dentist called the patient's dental fluorosis mild and she did not have brown stains but significant pitting.  

You have fixated on something you are not competent to argue, simply in an attempt to discredit and argue.

Have a happy holiday and relax.  Ponder on why 60% of children have dental fluorosis and why?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[CarryAnne]

 “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.”  - Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, MD (1993)

This AARP forum is not about the diagnoses of fluorosis in children's teeth. It is about the harm caused to senior citizens due to chronic exposure of decades duration which includes damage to immune systems, thyroids, kidneys, guts, bones and brains. It is also about the hubris of self-proclaimed experts who deny the evidence of harm and disregard the ethics relevant to individual medical consent, the human right to bodily integrity and the failure of AARP to advocate for its constituency.

See image and videos for why only about 2% of Europe fluoridates and that's mostly in the Republic of Ireland where citizens are protesting in the streets against the national mandate. Fluoridated salt is a choice in a handful of European countries that perhaps reaches another 10% of the population, although most of that salt is actually used in institutional settings, i.e. military and prisons. 

2018 Interview with Eli Dahi, PhD: 

https://youtu.be/fwukipamdxQ 

2014 Interview with Hans Moolenburgh, MD: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw3xbtS4vpM 

 Dutch Deliberations

[DavidF928895]

"CarryAnne" says:   "This AARP forum . . . is about the harm caused to senior citizens due to chronic exposure . . . It is also about the hubris of self-proclaimed experts who deny the evidence of harm and disregard the ethics . . "

Response:  It is also about the dishonesty and deception of anti-water-fluoridation folks.  For example, in another thread on this AARP website I asked your own anti-fluoride spokesman, Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

[rs5526]

The egregious dishonesty and deception I see is from those who demand water be tainted with industrial fluoride, a toxic calcium chelater in a program that is the bone fluoridation of masses of people without consent.

And here we have one such person, complaining about "deception" from innocent people who merely want clean water not intentionally infused with an EPA contaminant.

Totally nuts.

[rs5526]

The sarcasm is mistaken. The two articles describing experiments disproving time dilation were published in physics essays and in optics. The idea has been disproven theoretically, mathematically and,experimentally. This ,was brought up to remind readers that even regarded  experts make mistakes. 

But continuing with a mistake, such as fluoridation, in the,face of facts proving so, is harmful bias.

Einstein was a scientist who today would correct the idea.  Unfortunately CDC fluoridationists teject facts and refuse to correct their problem. 

[rs5526]

The careful controlled stidies by Spittle and those by Burgstahler and others. My own work on racehorse breakdowns . And the NRC report describing that 1 ppm F water causes elevated TSH in iodine deficient consumers and elevates both PTH and calcitonin at the same time pathologically, the only known substance tlthat does this bizarre IIIaction, and consumers who have bone pain at F levels in bone of only 1700 mg/kg.

What other effects would you like to discuss?.

[rs5526]

I don't have a problem with the studiy. It is what it is. My conclusion is justified.

The point I made about IQ is that fluoridationists are so busy trying to prove a useless substance effective that they have little time to consider its chronic toxicity.

Ive seen many effectiveness studies by kiumar but little from him of chronic toxicity studies to justify the fluoridation of people he, so widely defends. 

Bone fluoridation is not harmless.

[DavidF928895]

And what peer-reviewed studies about the dangers of optimally fluoridated water do you have to offer?  It seems you have no problem criticizing other peer-reviewed scholars for what they haven't done when you, yourself have nothing to offer.  

Oh yeah, I forgot, you do have a scholarly work in which you argue that Einstein got it all wrong about Time Dilation.  My bad.

[BillO538145]

David,

For some time I've tried to understand what you are saying, but I'm at a loss.  I can't figure out what Time Dilation has to do with excess fluoride exposure.   Makes no sense.

You ask a good question about peer-reviewed studies and "optimally fluoridated water."  

Several problems.  

1.   What concentration of fluoride in water is marketed "optimal"?   A moving target, wouldn't you agree?  0.7-1.4 ppm, 0.7 ppm, ???? 

2.  Fluoride added to water is just one source of fluoride.  No research would only considering one source of fluoride.  If they did, the peer-reviewers would throw it out.  

So both your research question makes no sense.   If your question refered to total fluoride exposure, then we could start to discuss. 

3.  Who's responsibility is it to provide the research on any product?   The patient/consumer?  The government? Or the manufacturer marketing the product?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill O, 

This comment is addressed to you.  It begins with your name.  You may chime in on this:

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

[rs5526]

The insanity is mind boggling. Promote dental fluorosis thin enamel, to attempt to fght dental caries, when enamel is what protects underlying dentin ftom caries in the first place.

A cavity is the destruction of enamel by bacterial acid. Enamel does not cause a cavity. It is the absence of enamel that is a cavity.

So absence if fluoride doesn't cause a cavity. It is not brushing after eating sugar that does. This is,ancient news.

[rs5526]

How convoluted can one person be? Here we have a fluoridation advocate blaming toothpaste for dental  fluorosis, but who then admits that "mild fluorosis" is caused by water fluoridation without toothpaste. What?  Both toothpaste and fluoridated water contribute together to cause the current fluorosis endemic. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.  And that is precisely why you cannot sue and win against a water district because they will say the straw that broke the camel's back was toothpaste which came later (as this person here claims). While toothpaste people continue to sell their wares by assuming as long as you don't intentionally or accidentally swallow it, then water fluoridation is the main culprit. Again, they are both contributors, and it's mainly water, as published by the NRC. The toothpaste people are correct. Why argue with the exposure data the NRC tabulated and published? Original studies by Ziegelbecker indicate that fluoride in drinkng water causes dental fluorosis which increases progressively as the fluoride a concentration in water increases. Even fluoridationists accept that all fluoridated cities have increased incidence of dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia. There are no exceptions.

And the data on fluorotic teeth and caries are dismal. The notion that they have fewer caries is ludicrous because the studies published are limited, and the means have standard devations that always overlap. There is no significnat decrease in caries due to fluorotic enamel hypoplasia (as one would expect with thinned enamel.) This is a waste of time since we've gone over this stuff over and over.It's a joke.

[DavidF928895]

Richard,

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias.  Some scientist.

[BillO538145]

Iida

David,  

You said,

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias."

Iida's data does show an increase in dental fluorosis with increased water fluoride concentration.  However, when the data is graphed (see above), the claim of benefit you make is hard to detect.

Your claim of benefit lacks serious consideration, based on this study.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

[rs5526]

I accept studies that present good data. I reject those that don't. So what?

Another fact that dentists seem to not consider is that people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding since people can mistakenly think that it was poor dental care that led to the spots in the first place, or that if better care were used perhaps the teeth would be improved or at least will not worsen in structure. So the study you presented, where fluorotic teeth had a lower average caries incidence than nonfluorotic (but with error bars that overlap) is also degraded because brushing habits and diet do affect caries incidence. It is not the fluorosis, but the brushing habits and frequency of consuming sugars, etc. that actually affect caries incidence. Neither of these were controlled. or are controllable since humans cannot be caged like animals to conrol these variables. Animals have so been examined in perfectly controlled experiments, and fluorosis does not lower caries incidence. Fluoridated water is useles in fighting caries. It is great at causing bone fluorosis. One need not be a scientist to understand..

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber,

I love how you just say things without presenting a shread of evidence to support your claims.  This for example:  " . . people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding . . . "

Well, you said it so it must be true.  That's good enough for me.

Why am I not shocked that you have problems with the Kumar Study.  But this was the unexpected part that I liked the best which perfectly demonstrates the odd lengths you will go to for some kind of argument that supports your viewpoint:

"And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals."

Yes, that is a great observation, because as everyone knows when studies were conducted that proved Asbestos leads to Lung Cancer, the first thing they checked was bone strength and the IQs of the subjects.

[DavidF928895]

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed ten comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

[rs5526]

  Yes I'm happy to be an actual scientist. And I can tell you that the biased views of fluoridation promoters cause gross misinterpretation of data. The study you cited is one I've looked over before and it proves nothing. The confidence intervals for caries incidence in the fluorotic and nonfluorotic molars grossly overlap. The lower end of the interval for the nonfluorotic is 0.74 and the uper interval end for the fluorotic is 0.89. The profluoride ingestion comments are therefore insignificant. As always.

  And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals. Of course, because of the pre-occupation of those who agree with fluoridation to convince others that fluoridation works.  It does not work, nevr has,and neer will. Fluorosis develops in childhood from the blood-borne ion interfering with normal enamel formation. Normal enamel is devoid of fluoride, which is a contaminant of the bloodstream. It is entirely possible that fluoridationists might never understand this. A total mess.

[rs5526]

Yet another website by Crest toothpaste manufacturers arguing that dental fluorosis spots on childrens' teeth are from drinking water

https://crest.com/en-us/oral-health/life-stages/kids/white-brown-spots-baby-teeth

Need more?

[DavidF928895]

Richard, please . . . 

Your quote:  "Excuse me? On what basis does this person claim a "lie"?"

Excuse me. this is where I used the word lie:  "Either admit you were mistaken, you misspoke, or you lied.  And then we can move on."  

I know it must be enjoyable to play the injured victim . . but it is not warranted in this case.  

So, you said:   'Toothpaste makers argue the bulk of blame goes to fluoridated water.'   No they don't.  You made the original claim in the context of lawsuits - toothpaste manufacturers blame water distributors, water distributors blame toothpaste . . and no one can get sued.  That was the context of your mis-statement. 

This is from the link you just provided:  "Another possible culprit of white spots on baby teeth is fluorosis, the white staining that develops when children’s developing teeth are overexposed to fluoride via drinking water or oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."

Again:  "Oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."  Crest is taking responsibility.  Crest is not "putting the bulk of the blame" on fluoridated water.  

Now either admit that you misspoke, you were in error, or you lied, and then we can move on.

Your link also says, "However, there’s a surprising silver lining to excess fluoride intake. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), experiencing fluorosis as a child can actually make your teeth better equipped to avoid future decay."

As you know, teeth with mild and very mild fluorosis are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Your own link says that.  Mild fluorosis, which is associated with CWF, does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay does.  So this paranoia that you want to generate is meaningless.   One can only surmise what your reasons for doing it are.

[BillO538145]

Richard,

Thank you for looking up the links.  On how to prevent the white spots, Crest suggests,

" Fostering proper brushing habits with Crest Kids Cavity Protection Sparkle Toothpaste, paying attention to fluoride intake, curbing the consumption of sugary liquids, and maintaining a balanced diet will all contribute to keeping your child’s smile healthy and beautiful for years to come."

Vague platitudes.  "Paying attention to fluoride intake."   Exactly what does that mean?  No practical advice and one step above worthless advice.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

[rs5526]

The facts are that 85% of the fluoride in the bloodstream of a fluoridaed community of consumers comes from fluoridated water consumption, not from toothpaste. Toothpaste use accounts for about 15%, as published in detailed exposure studies published by the NRC in 2006. Or are the NRC reviewers lying too?.

[rs5526]

Continuing, there is no link or paper or official statement anywhere I know of that states water fluoridation ends up being a bone fluoridation program. But that is, indeed what water fluoridation is because 98% of  swallowed fluoride ends up permanently in peoples' bones. So I refer  to water fluoridation as actually bone fluoridation. Is there a link I can provide for that? Of course not. It is a factual deduction..no links, and so what?

[BillO538145]

Richard and David,

You both raise interesting concepts which I would like to consider further.

For benefit, the manufacturers always say, "look at me."

For risks, the manufacturers almost always say, "not me, someone else is responsible."   No one likes to take responsibility for harm, risks, damage, hurt.

Obviously, if fluoride toothpaste is not swallowed, the toothpaste would not be a highly significant source of excess fluoride.  Unfortunately, research (Dec. 2010 HHS) indicates the directions are not usually followed and children swallow their toothpaste.   

However, David, the question also screams, what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?

What is/are the source or sources in the population at large for the excess fluoride causing so much dental fluorosis for most children?

And the more important question, "what do we do to reduce the excess exposure of fluoride for children?"   Where do we cut back on the fluoride exposure? 

The clear, obvious answer is to stop water fluoridation and cut back on other sources of fluoride.

However, bias prevents metacognition and critical thinking. 

Market the benefits, blame others for the risks. 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

[BillO538145]

Richard and David,

You both raise interesting concepts which I would like to consider further.

I have not seen advertisements of toothpaste with a full brush of paste on them for a long time.  Advice to use smaller amounts of toothpaste are more clear.  And the advice not to swallow is clear.  If people actually did not swallow the toothpaste, they would have limited absorption of fluoride.  And research on the benefits of topcial fluoride treatment from toothpaste is certainly stronger than ingested fluoride.  And FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste but not fluoride supplements.

If the directions are followed, which research shows is usually not followed and children swallow their toothpaste, then toothpaste should not be a significant source of fluoride exposure.   And it follows that water would be the greatest source of fluoride. 

However, David, the question also screams, what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?

What is/are the source or sources for the excess fluoride causing so much dental fluorosis?

And the more important question, "what do we do to reduce the excess exposure of fluoride for children?"   Where do we cut back on the fluoride exposure?  

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

[DavidF928895]

Two things, Dr. Bill.  First this from you:  "If the directions are followed, which research shows is usually not followed and children swallow their toothpaste, then toothpaste should not be a significant source of fluoride exposure.   And it follows that water would be the greatest source of fluoride."

You are saying if you brush your teeth with toothpaste, which has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, spit it out, . . . then you won't be exposing yourself to a significant amount of fluoride.  Correct?  

By "significant" I think we can agree that we mean - not enough to cause any effect, negative or positive.  Correct?

Ok.  Try this.  Brush your teeth with something that has 1500 ppm arsenic in it, spit it out, do it two times a day, every day for your entire life, and let me know how you feel in ten years - if you're still alive.

You also asked, "what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?"

I think we are seeing something that we have never seen before.  We didn't see it in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s . . . we didn't see it during the period of growth for water fluoridation in the U.S., which doesn't support what you were getting at.

What is different today than during those decades is that now toothpaste manufacturers and marketers make toothpaste flavors that cater to the tastes of kids.  Why?  So that they will brush their teeth. 

So now we have grape flavored, cotton-candy flavored, bubble-gum flavored toothpaste.  It stands to reason that an unsupervised 2-year old who gets his hands on a tube of this stuff will think it is some kind of candy and eat the entire tube - because it tastes good.  And it stands to reason that no parent can watch their toddler every minute of every day, and some parents are likely to leave a tube of toothpaste on a bathroom sink within reach of a toddler.  

That's what I think about it.  I hope this answers your question.