Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

355,682 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

19,859 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

View solution in original post

18,603 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

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

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

10,280 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Really? 

 

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

 

BMCLBMCL

 

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

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

 

 

View solution in original post

6,158 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard says, " Here is the Graham and Morin monograph, pleese consult footnote #88."

 

Response:  Again, who are Graham and Morin?  Where is footnote #88?  (Perhaps you meant to attach a link.  Please do so now if you would, please.)

 

RS:  "The U.S. Congress expected the SDWA to halt the spread of water fluoridation.  And yet I am denounced for making this statement. When do I throw up?"

Response:  I am not denouncing you.  I am asking who Graham and Morin are, what they are talking about, and why you believe CWF is illegal.  I don't know when you throw up.

 

RS:  "So the data point I provided is not "anecdotal"."

 

Response: 

 

"an·ec·do·tal

/ˌanəkˈdōdl/
adjective
 
  1. (of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
     
    You provided a personal account with zero documentation.  Yes, your tale is anecdotal. 
0 Kudos
4,374 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Billo, you began your rant with two false statements so I stopped reading:  

 

"Consider 3 main catagories of evidence strongly affecting most people.

 

1.  Marketing/money are the most powerful.

 

2.  Tradition is almost as powerful as marketing and money."

 

Wrong.  Fear and pain are the strongest human motivators.  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-main-ingredient/200909/the-most-powerful-motivator

 

Food and sex are the first things human beings notice and are attracted to.  https://spoonuniversity.com/lifestyle/food-and-sex-are-the-same-to-your-brain

 

Bill, your little stories, which appear to have no basis in fact, are of no interest to me.

0 Kudos
4,779 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

It is not possible to communicate with you when you fail to read.  Approaching each post with hostility, makes a person miss critical points.

 

Read my post again.  You went balistics off topic.  I was not talking sex or attraction but evidence.  This is a discussion about fluoridation, not sex.  However, if you want to go to the science on fluoride and sex, I would be pleased.  

 

Is it possible for you to move off of fear, pain, sex and attraction and go back to evidence?   Or is that too much to ask?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

4,564 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

billo - what are you talking about:  "Read my post again.  You went balistics off topic.  I was not talking sex or attraction but evidence.  This is a discussion about fluoridation, not sex.  However, if you want to go to the science on fluoride and sex, I would be pleased.  

 

Is it possible for you to move off of fear, pain, sex and attraction and go back to evidence?   Or is that too much to ask?"

 

For the record, my comment wasn't about fear, sex, pain or food, Calligula.  You made a false statement and I corrected it.  End of story.  

 

If you would care to begin your comments with facts, then you have my attention.  

0 Kudos
4,414 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

If you believe the law is on your side bring a suit. The law is exactly what the judges say it is and so far the judges have ruled that adjusting fluoride ion concentration to be that associated with optimal oral health is a proper exercise of powers which Cities and Water Districts enjoy.

I invite you to bring a case if you believe otherwise.

Chuck
0 Kudos
5,133 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

You recommend going to court.   

 

Again, you are relying on other people rather than facts.  

 

Science is based on facts, data, evidence, not on opinions or even the law. 

 

Sometimes the facts change and do not fit the law.  For example, a city may have fluoridated their water at 1 ppm, by law.  The facts showed too many people were ingesting too much fluoride and a recommendation was made to lower the concentration of fluoride in water.  The city laws were changed to more accurately reflect the new facts.  However, the "30%" reduction was estimated by HHS to be about 14% exposure reduction.  In my opinion, the minor reduction was not enough.

 

Judges do not like to rule against government agencies. 

 

Judges like to rule on matters of law, rather than science.

 

And indeed, we have found a judge who appears to be willing to review the evidence from experts.  Of course, courts are slow.  I'm confident both sides will have a fair hearing.  Depending on the government shut down, we might see a ruling this year.

 

Look at the facts, not emotions or public opinion which is often based on tradition and marketing.

 

Think FACTUAL evidence, examples:

 

A.     60% dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe.   Too much fluoride.

 

B.     Urine fluoride concentrations in the USA often exceeds 0.85 mg/L.  

 

Bashash et al Dec 2018   

"Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City. - PubMed - NCBI

RESULTS:

Mean MUFcr was 0.85 mg/L (SD = 0.33) and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 0.46 mg/L. In multivariable adjusted models using gamma regression, a 0.5 mg/L higher MUFcr (approximately one IQR higher) corresponded with significantly higher scores on the CRS-R for DSM-IV Inattention (2.84 points, 95% CI: 0.84, 4.84) and DSM-IV ADHD Total Index (2.38 points, 95% CI: 0.42, 4.34), as well as the following symptom scales: Cognitive Problems and Inattention (2.54 points, 95% CI: 0.44, 4.63) and ADHD Index (2.47 points; 95% CI: 0.43, 4.50). The shape of the associations suggested a possible celling effect of the exposure. No significant associations were found with outcomes on the CPT-II or on symptom scales assessing hyperactivity.

CONCLUSION:

Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention as measured by the CRS-R in the offspring."

 

Another:  Bashish et al 2017.

 

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico. - PubMed - NCBI

RESULTS:

We had complete data on 299 mother-child pairs, of whom 287 and 211 had data for the GCI and IQ analyses, respectively. Mean (SD) values for urinary fluoride in all of the mothers (n=299) and children with available urine samples (n=211) were 0.90 (0.35) mg/L and 0.82 (0.38) mg/L, respectively. In multivariate models we found that an increase in maternal urine fluoride of 0.5mg/L (approximately the IQR) predicted 3.15 (95% CI: -5.42, -0.87) and 2.50 (95% CI -4.12, -0.59) lower offspring GCI and IQ scores, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6-12 y."

 

Excess fluoride is frying the fetus and children's brains.

 

What is your recommendation for reducing excess fluoride exposure?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

5,076 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Bill,

 

Have you critically evaluated these Bashash literature pieces?  Granted, they are excellent researchers. But doesn’t something strike you as fundamentally missing?

 

You are a reasonable person. Take a look at the shortcomings of both studies. And of the Canadian study of pregnant women drinking CWF. Be truthful with what you see. You are savvy enough to call in others for help with the shortcomings. 

 

Get back with me ONLY on this one commonality when you’re ready with your facts. Talk to the researchers if need be. Don’t quote pieces in the media. 

 

I’ll be waiting......

 

Johnny 

0 Kudos
4,887 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnny,

 

Wow, we are on the same page.  I'm impressed.  Finally a fluoridation promoter who is willing to evaluate research rather than tradition.

 

However, my point is, "too many are ingesting too much fluoride."   You failed to address that key point.   Pick any measurement of dosage you want and many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

 EPA "Dose Response Analysis 2010, ignores 10% of the population drinking the most water, all fetuses and all infants and still about a third of children are ingesting too much fluoride even with their calculations of 33% more dosage (RfD). (See 2010 EPA)  Too much fluoride for too many.  

 

Changing the subject to the studies. 

 

Urine fluoride concentrations in the USA are commonly above 0.85 mg/L which is where we find risk.  As we focus more on possible risk of fluoride dosages considering age, gender, measurement methods and types of neurologic harm,we are finding more harm at ever lower dosages.  The research is over 50 human studies reporting harm and few having found no harm.  

 

To expect the trend in the research to start to claim fluoride is safer and safer is simply unrealistic.

 

What consitutes proof in science.  Several high quality studies. 

 

BENEFIT has lower quality and historical studies with mixed conclusions.   

SAFETY has not been seriously studied safety (until recently) and likewise, studies are lower/moderate quality but the quantity showing harm at ever lower dosages raises concern.  A public health intervention without adequate evidence either on efficacy or safety.  Amazing marketing of tradition. 

 

Think about that Johnny, everyone dosed with a highly toxic substance (low but uncontrolled dosages) and no careful safety evaluation.  Even EPA admits no neurotoxicity evaluation has been done on fluoride in public water. (Legal review of EPA fluoride Post-harvest fumigant)

 

Ethically, risk/safety evaluation is much more complex than benefit because we cannot ethically intentionally cause harm. 

 

Nor can we claim "all safe because we don't know." 

 

Lack of evidence is not proof of safety.

 

If you are willing to accept poor/moderate quality of evidence as "proof" of fluoridation's efficacy, then you must accept poor/moderate quality of evidence as "proof of excess fluoride's risk and lack of safety.  

 

Specifically to the Bashish studies.  I talked to a co-author who claimed the research was good although not applicable to the USA.  The major fault was that we had no national USA data on urine fluoride concentrations, "we don't know what we have here."  That makes zero sense on several fronts, especially administering without consent because we don't know how much we are getting.   Crazy public health logic.

 

True, not everyone in the USA has had urine fluoride concentration measured, but public health policy is not made on everyone in the USA being tested.  And reverse the logic.  If we call fluoride safe until everyone is tested, should we not avoid administering the fluoride until everyone is tested.   Do NOT administer or call it safe when we don't know.  

 

We have studies in the USA on urine fluoride studies with controls and subjects and the controls sometimes have over 0.85 mg/L. No lower maternal fluoride urine concentration threshold for the fetus has been shown.  Maybe one day we will, but I would put money it is below 0.3 mg/L urinary fluoride concentration.

 

Yes, we always need more studies, but more than 50 human studies reporting harm should be a big red public health flag for AARP, water purveyors, HHS, EPA, CDC, PHS, FDA, you and me.

 

The absence of evidence is not proof of safety.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

5,023 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson (1787)

 

This is about individual human rights and medical science, not a simplistic majority rule interpretation of democracy. Individual biological integrity is a fundamental principle of law. Yet, fluoridationists politicized community fluoridation policy in an effort to confuse and deceive the public. My neighbor should not have the right to add a known enzyme poison to municipal drinking water - the water I drink and in which I bathe because they believe it might  'prevent cavities' in some poor kid who doesn't brush his teeth when that substance threatens my thyroid, compromises my kidney and inflames my gut.

 

That there are very profitable business plans behind fluoridation practice and fluoridation promotion which fund the political campaigns to fluoridate is immaterial to ethics and evidence of harm. 

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 

 ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

 

Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)

 

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)

5,304 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

In the cited link notice on page 5 that states "these data are preliminary". Of course they are preliminary because humans cannot be controlled, as animals can in cages, for variables such as sugar consumption, brushing habits, etc. In short the data have no reliable meaning, as has always been the case with fluoridation-promoting literature.

It is immoral to approve infusing a non-nutrient substance into water to treat humans, especially as for fluoridation, without double blind controlled studies AFTER conducting well-controlled animal studies. The fluoridation of Grand Rapids MI and Newburgh NY took place in 1945 without EITHER of these pre-conditions. It later became a government sponsored program and the case has been closed since then. But now we have controlled animal studies that prove fluoridated water does not reduce the incidence of spontaneous dental decay. For ingestible substances, the purpose of human studies is to confirm a positive outcome from animal studies. But we don't have a positive outcome from animal studies--they are negative, so the idea that human studies need to be done to prove that the decision to fluoridate in 1945 was correct is simply preposterous.

In fact, we have the Ziegelbecker epidemiologic data indicating that decay is not affected significantly even up to 6 ppm fluoride in water.

Meranwhile, there is no blood fluoride concentration low enough to prevent incorporation into bone in a pathologic process that, if continued lifelong and one lives long eough, leads to bone pain and other adverse consequences.

Don't fluoridate peoples' bones. The cited reference admits that "more studies are needed" on the accumulation of fluoride from fluoridated water into bone. What the authors don't appear to realize is that we have massive amounts of scientific data already on this problem and it is not good. Bone fluorosis symptoms are known to develop in some individuals at bone fluorde levels as low as 1,500-1,700 mg/kg. And this level, comparable to the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste but in bone where it does not belong, is reached typically after about 20 years consuming fluoridated water.

Get rid of it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,294 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“It’s clear to anyone who has looked at this in any depth that tooth decay is linked to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and access to health care, not to water fluoridation… Fluoride science is BS (bad science)!” - Dr. Stan Litras, BDS, BSc, Past President NZDA Wellington Chapter  (2016)

 

Whether they are opposed to or in favor of fluoridation, dentists focus on teeth. Fluoridationist Johnny Johnson neglected to include in his signature that he is the president of a fluoridation advocacy group he founded in 2015 with a small group of vocal  & vitriolic social media commenters who have trolled online platform for years. They specialize in rhetorical deceits.  

 

This isn't about teeth and this isn't about opinions. This is about the science, data, and testimony that fluoride in drinking water worsens the health of millions with inflammatory, autoimmune, thyroid and kidney disease. Fluoridation illnesses include arthritis, psoriasis, learning disabiities & dementia. 

 

The Children's Health Defense Team led by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. issued a condemnation of fluoridation policy on Jan. 9, 2019. Although they don't say it in their statement, the CHD is well aware that fluoridation is not only harmful to people, but also pollutes the planet. 

 

RFK is an environmental attorney whose most recent high profile win was the 2018 multi-million dollar case against Monsanto for colluding with the U.S. EPA to hide evidence of cancer caused by the weed killer Round-Up. EPA insisted it was safe. RFK also led the battle against the pollution of the Hudson River and won against General Electric (GE). 

 

This isn't about teeth. This is about the need for professional & organizational integrity in order to protect people & planet. AARP - are you listening? 

 

See 100+ citations in this October 2018 letter signed by leadership at 8 organizations with integrity or check out the image below with 6 citations from 2018 about fluoride as a brain poison - womb to tomb.  

http://www.multibriefs.com/briefs/icim/nutrition.pdf

 

Brain PoisonBrain Poison

5,470 Views
5
Report
Regular Contributor

I note you cite some obscure person in New Zealand. On the other side are just over 140 prestigious organizations and societies going on record that fluoridation prevents cavities, is important and is safe. America's Pediatricians have a convenient reference where many of these statements can be read: http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
5,263 Views
3
Report
Regular Contributor

Regarding "I note you cite some obscure person in New Zealand. . . . ".

 

A response from New Zealand reads:

 

“Everything appears obscure when you keep your eyes shut. Dr. Chuck should try opening his.”

5,203 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

Ross F,

 

It is so funny, yet sad, how the opposition to CWF discounts anyone who doesn’t agree with them. My father always told me if you think everyone is wrong, it’s time to look in the mirror. 

 

Just sayin’

 

Johnny

0 Kudos
5,070 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

Science is factual, data, not endorsements.

 

You keep looking for endorsements and who is on which "team."   

 

Look at the facts, the data, rather than the people.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

5,366 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Hi CA,

Stick to the topic. Systematic Reviews conducted by Credibly Recognized Scientific Panels. 

 

Per 2006 NRC Panel: “At 4mg/L of fluoride in water, no health issues whatsoever except severe dental fluorosis. At 2mg/L severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero”. That included ALL HEALTH ISSUES. 

 

Per U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force:  

”Although bone fractures and skeletal fluorosis have been associated with lifetime exposure to higher naturally-occurring fluoride concentrations (e.g. 4 mg/L), no association has been observed at levels used for CWF. The broader literature speculates about harms associated with higher levels of fluoride in water (e.g., cancer, lowered intelligence, endocrine dysfunction). Research evidence, however, does not demonstrate that CWF results in any unwanted health effects other than dental fluorosis. While harms have been proposed, most have no biological plausibility or insufficient evidence to draw conclusions”

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

Please read the conclusions of these documents. Don’t cherry pick tidbits from the entire reports. The 2006 NRC Committee all signed off on the conclusions above, including Dr. Hardy Limeback. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

 

Proud President of the American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit organization of healthcare professionals who do not accept a penny for our work. We are funded by a grant to travel to communities to defend, protect, and initiate water fluoridation based on the overwhelming body of 70+ years of evidence and Systematic Reviews which continue to demonstrate water fluoridation is effective and safe. That company is Delta Dental Foundation of California. 

 

We will NEVER let you and your group invoke fear and scare tactics to mislead the public into thinking water fluoridation is harmful in any way. It is a public heath initiative that benefits the entire public. All public policies exist for the the entire community and cannot be tailored to the whims of a few people who do not want it. We live in a democratic society, not one in chaos. The greater good is what this country is built on. 

 

5,842 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Dismiss ethics, deny science, denigrate opposition, distract focus and disrupt the conversation." - Blueprint for Disinformation Campaigns, aka Propaganda

 

This conversation is about the evidence and ethics surrounding fluoridation, and the evolving professional opinion against fluoridation policy based on emerging peer-reviewed science and relevant data. 

 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) is a successful environmental attorney and human rights activist who serves as president of the board of Waterkeeper Alliance, a non-profit environmental group that he helped found in 1999, as well as chairman of the board of the Children's Health Defense Team. RFK was the senior attorney for the  Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) between 1986 - 2017 and is a law professor emeritus at Pace University where he was supervising attorney and co-director of Pace Law School's Environmental Litigation Clinic for many years. I could go on. 

 

Stephen Barrett, who the fluoridationists frequently quote, is a failed doctor who found a way to monetize his opininated vitriol with a blog he named quackwatch. He is frequently sued for defamation and frequently loses. It is assumed that he has special interest backers funding him. See: http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm 

 

Chuck Haynie, who brought Barrett into this conversation in keeping with disinformation campaign protocol, is one of a small group of globe trotting fluoridationists whose favorite ploy is disparagment in online venues. See: http://www.crescentcitytimes.com/beware-of-newly-formed-the-american-fluoridation-society/ and http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

 

As to fluoride science specific to neurological damage that should interest the AARP and seniors, see this sampling of science items from 2018: 

 

ADULT BRAINS: First long term NaF animal study (10 weeks) using moderate levels of fluoride finds a number of histological changes including in parts of the brain associated with memory and learning, as well as chemical changes affecting brain function. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518317508  

  • Pei Jiang, Gongying Li, Xueyuan Zhou, Changshui Wang, Yi Qiao, Dehua Liao, Dongmei Shi. Chronic fluoride exposure induces neuronal apoptosis and impairs neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity: Role of GSK-3b/b-catenin pathway. Chemosphere. Volume 214, January 2019, Pages 430-435. 

 

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: Describes impact of fluoride-induced stress and inflammation in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and demonstrates the mechanism for cell death in the progressive worsening of the disease over time.
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965 

  • Goschorska M, et al. Potential Role of Fluoride in the Etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19 (12), 3965. 

 

DEMENTIA: Describes the chemical mechanism by which the effectiveness of the two most popular drugs used to treat Alzheimer’s & other neurodegenerative dementia disease is reduced or blocked by fluoride induced oxidative stress. 
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/1/10/htm
 

  • Marta Goschorska, Izabela Gutowska, Irena Baranowska-Bosiacka, et al. Influence of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors Used in Alzheimer’s Disease Treatment on the Activity of Antioxidant Enzymes and the Concentration of Glutathione in THP-1 Macrophages under Fluoride-Induced Oxidative Stress. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019, 16(1), 10. 

 

 

6,057 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“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 

 

On January 9, 2019, the Children's Health Defense Team (CHD) led by environmental attorney and human rights activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a public statement opposing fluoridation as an unethical human experiment that needs to end. The CHD has answered the call to action in the October 2018 letter signed by leadership in 8 other organizations and in so doing joins a growing list of scientists, medical professionals and organizations who have read the science and oppose fluoridation as a public harm policy. 

 

  • The question is, will the AARP demonstrate the same professional integrity and committment to its constituency? 

 

CHDCHD

5,997 Views
6
Report
Regular Contributor

Thanks so much for posting this.   It well illustrates they nature of fluoridation opponents.  Mr. Kennedy also opposes vaccination.  The Fluoride Action Network brags about relationships with many groups taking positions opposite to the overwhelming mainstream consensus. 

 

Successful alt-med marketer, Joseph Mercola is a prime example.  He has a $5.2mil restitution settlement with federal regulators for false advertising.  Read about fluoridation opposing Mercola here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola and here:

 

https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html

 

Paul Connett has multiple YouTube appearances with conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.  Jones has been removed from multiple social media platforms for his discriminatory and hateful content and dehumanizing language.

 

Paul Connett has been a guest speaker for the 9-11 "truther" Uncensored Magazine,

AARP's policy board as well as average citizens must decide whether to believe America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and over 140 other prestigious organizations and societies or the likes of Mr. Kennedy and the handful of individuals who oppose what the CDC believes to be one of the great Public Health achievements of the 20th Century.

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

6,021 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

"If one can't dispute the facts, attack the messanger or rely on the messanger" appears to be fluoridationists foundation and basis to support fluoridation for everyone regardless of excess exposure.  

 

Neither of you have seriously addressed excess exposure.  60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe.  

 

When is too much fluoride, too much?   And what public health measure should reduce excess exposure?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

6,047 Views
4
Report
Regular Contributor

Bill,

Still pushing the fluorosis angle?

 

Statistics on moderate and severe dental fluorosis are combined as severe fluorosis is so low in the US that it essentially non-existent 

 

Per NRC 2006 Report: “At 2mg/L of fluoride in water, severe dental fluorosis is virtually zero”. 

That is 3 times the fluoride level in optimally fluoridated water, 0.7mg/L (ppm). 

 

Per U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force:

”Task Force Finding (April 2013)
The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends:

1. Community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations.

2. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF. 3. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis.


Evidence indicates the economic benefit of CWF is greater than the cost. In addition, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the size of the community population.”

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

The studies used by the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force were reviewed and approved by the Cochrane Oral Health Group, the exact same members that wrote the review on water fluoridation. 

 

No severe fluorosis, Bill. None. Two widely respected scientific health organizations. 

 

If you disagree, obtain funding to conduct a Randomized Control Trial that the opponents to water fluoridation so urgently want. You and Dr. Limeback should have no problem securing this funding. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry 

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

0 Kudos
6,006 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnny,

 

Your data is historic.  The 2011-2012 NHANES reports about 2% of adolescents with SEVERE dental fluorosis, at the time 2% would be several hundred thousand adolescents and with time that will grow to millions of people in the USA.

 

When fluoridation started the public was assured the mildest form of fluorosis would not exceed 10% or maybe 15% of the population.  We are looking at 60% and don't have the more recent numbers from NHANES surveys.  

 

And severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk, NRC 2006.

 

Johnny, read the NRC 2006, especially the section by Thiessen on exposure, not just cherry picking the conclusions.

 

Based just on the public health iatrogenic epidemic of dental fluorosis, we need to reduce fluoride exposure.

 

Then look at urine fluoride concentrations, much too high.  The same in the USA/Canada as reported with lower IQ.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride from too many sources.   Total exposure must be considered, not just one source.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Proud advocate for less toxic fluoride in our water.  

Attacking the fake facts, not individuals. 

 

 

5,829 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Hi Bill,

 

Historic data is what you are referring to.  But humor me for a moment.

 

To say that conclusions are cherry picking is quite humorous.  The 2006 NRC looked back at 10 years of literature on fluorides when they evaluated the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG).

 

The Committee considered three toxicity end points for which there were sufficient relevant data for assessing the adequacy of the MCLG (4 mg/L) for fluoride to protect public health:

1. severe enamel fluorosis

2. skeletal fluorosis

3. bone fractures.

(NRC Report, page 346)

 

Conclusions:

1. ONLY adverse health effects at 4mg/L of fluoride in water was severe enamel fluorosis.  No other organs, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, carcinogenicity, endocrine.....nothing!  This is a level 6 times higher than water fluoridation, 0.7ppm

 

2.  At 2mg/L, severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero.

 

US Community Preventive Services Task Force: (2013)

Community water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis.

 

It baffles me that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that severe dental fluorosis isn't caused by community water fluoridation.  But that's ok.  I've backed up my material with references that opponents use frequently to cherry pick from, the 2006 NRC Review.

 

Thanks for the exchange, Bill.  Have to go defend another community under attack from the opponents of community water fluoridation.

 

Johnny

 

5,871 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnny,

 

You are puzzled that I can't wrap my head around the safety of fluoridation.  

 

And I'm puzzled that you can't wrap your head around excess fluoride exposure.

 

If water fluoridation were the only source of fluoride exposure, I would not be so concerned.  

 

8 years ago NHANES reported 20% of adolescents had moderate/severe.  Two other National surveys have been done and dental fluorosis recorded, but not released.  All other data from these newer surveys have been released but not fluorosis.  I don't know why fluorosis data is being withheld, do you?  

 

Hundreds of thousands, millions are showing signs of excess fluoride exposure.  Where do you recommend a decrease in fluoride expsure?  

 

Toothpaste?  Topical has some benefit and is FDA approved.

Fluoride antibiotics?  Save lives

Fluoride pesticides? Reduces waste

Fluoride post-harvest fumigants?  Preservative

Fluoride from mechanically deboned meat?  Reduces processing cost. . . .

Fluoride in manufacturing?  I'm not sure that would be a significant reduction in exposure.

Fluoride in water?  Serves no other purpose than alleged caries reduction.  

 

HHS/PHS reduced fluoridation concentration because too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

 

Yes, too much fluoride and many are still ingesting too much fluoride based on fluorosis and urine, serum, and bone fluoride concentrations. 

 

What source of fluoride do you recommend we reduce to reduce excess exposure?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

5,817 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“Compared to dentists, a growing and well-informed public is far more educated about the scientific facts of fluoride and fluoridation. These knowledgeable folks are the same ones the ADA instructs its dentists to denigrate.” - James Maxey, DDS

 

I'm losing count of how many times DavidF copies and pastes the same character attack in this thread on Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, DDS, PhD, recently retired head of Preventative Dentistry at the University of Toronto. This is consistent with the tactics of fluoridationists and social media trolls who use  denigration as an emotional ploy in order to sow discord and disrupt conversations

 

I suggest Dr. Limeback can speak for himself. See his December 2018 interview wih an FBI analyst about his experience:  https://www.gallico.co/episode-1-hardy-limeback

 

Then there is the position of the IAOMT whose 2017 heavily cited paper can be downloaded from its website. The IAOMT membership is among the thousands of dentists, doctors and scientists opposed to fluoridation based on scientific evidence of harm. Like Dr. Limeback, the IAOMT demonstrates discipline, integrity and courage:  https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts

 

6,118 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"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.

0 Kudos
6,365 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

 

 

6,394 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

 

  

0 Kudos
6,388 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

 

 

 

 

6,359 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 “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 DeliberationsDutch Deliberations

 

 

 

5,908 Views
2
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

NEW: AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays! This week, achieve a top score in Atari Asteroids® and you could win $100! Learn More.

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays

More From AARP