Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

223,603 Views
1473
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Absolute horse puckey. Most of the fluoride in the bloodstream of consumers in fluoridated communities is from fluoridated water consumption. The rest is from foods and toothpastes, etc. (NRC 2006).  Dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every fluoridated city. There are no exceptions. This is old  news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Thanks carryanne. Indeed , the safe drinking water act was written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water. Fluoride promoters not only deny this, they misinterpret the law the way they want. And the CDC dentists who assume it is useful and somehow harmless promote it, knowing it cannot be legally required.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard Sauerheber,

 

I laugh every time I hear you repeat this (one of so many) falsehood:  “ Indeed , the safe drinking water act was written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water. Fluoride promoters not only deny this, they misinterpret the law the way they want.”  Timestamp:  01-14-2019 02:37 PM

 

Below your odd interpretation is “Carry Anne,” as she is known in this thread, quoting from the Safe Drinking Water Act:  “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.”  Timestamp:  01-14-2019 02:07 PM

 

Aside from the fact that the statute that “Carry Anne” quotes does not prohibit community water fluoridation, I have to wonder, Richard, since you seem to have such an enlightened perspective of the law, why you present these interesting legal opinions to the attention of the AARP in a discussion thread.  Do you believe that after accepting your legal opinion, the AARP has the ability to change the law? 

 

I’m just thinking out loud here, but wouldn’t your expert legal opinion be better served in a Court of Law where actual results may occur? 

0 Kudos
2,943 Views
16
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I think readers understand that AARP is not an organization that spends time in attempts, usually futile, to change laws, as neither am I in such a position. 

But it is the trurh that matters.

A friend I hadn't seen in years has a child in Temecula who has consumed fluoridated water since it began there in 2007 and now has substantial dental fluorosis that is unsightly.  I am upset that I was unable to explain to them the truth about fluoridation. 

Another source of fluoride in bone is general anesthesia where 10 % of the drug is metabolized to the ion. To answer Dr. Osmunsen's question about what fluoride sources should be removed to curtail these problems from fluoride exposure, it is obviously fluoride in water which has no benefit at all, as proven in controlled animal studies and in the largest human studies we have.

It was claimed that Delta Dental is knowledgable enough to believe in fluoridation. But the truth is that DD is a business that collects premiums and pays from that part of peoples' dental bills, but never more than what is paid in, so massive amounts of money are accumulated which are regularly given to city councils to coerce cities to undergo this bone fluoridartion program where it is argued to be "mandated by law". DD believes in what they are doing but people would be better served if their premiums were used in full to pay dental bills, like a real insurance company does such as AAA auto insurance. They replace the whole car, not part of a wrecked car. That way DD would be insulated ftom the useless harmful fluoridation scam.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
2,923 Views
15
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard says,  "I think readers understand that AARP is not an organization that spends time in attempts, usually futile, to change laws, as neither am I in such a position."

 

Change laws?  You just said the SDWA, which is the law, was written to halt the spread of water fluoridation.  If it is the law . . as you say . . you don't need to change anything.  You need to get the Courts to impliment the law.  

 

You're not in a position to do that?  Because that would take money, right?  Don't tell me there is no money behind your fear-mongering campaign.  Mercola invested $1 Million into an anti-water-fluoridation fear-mongering campaign in Portland, Oregon.  That sounds like there is plenty of money behind your paranoia crusade.  

 

Well is water fluoridation against the law or isn't it?  Was the SDWA really "written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water," or wasn't it?  .  .  No, of course not.  These are very strange comments by people who are motivated by a bias so intense that it warps reality.  

 

And . . your undocumented, anecdotal story about somebody in Temecula is meaningless.

0 Kudos
2,894 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I'm being asked whether fluoridation is illegal or not, with the pretense to actually want to learn something from me. The answer will not be received, but it is this: The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph). However the wording of the law covered all substances (other than those required to sanitize water) where it prohibited any National requirement to add such substances This allowed fluoridationists to twist the law and claim it does not prevent specifically fluoridation (with various excuses provided, see below).

So my statement in the earlier post was that it would be best if the law could be written more forcefully, namely a stated disallowing of fluoridation period, rather than the prohibiting of a requirement. The requirement provision was obviously insufficient to halt the spread of fluoridation. So the anwer is yes it is illegal because it does not sanitize water, but all laws can be broken when enough rewriting and excuses are made.

Fluoridationist S. Slott for example argues that fluoridation is comparable to chlorination because chlorine and fluoride are both toxic at high concentrations but are added to treat water at lower concentrations for a benefit, so this is consistent with the SDWA. This is in complete denial of the intent of the Act and is chemically incorrect also.  Chlorine is added to kill bacteria to make water potable and nonlethal. Fluoride has nothing to do with sanitizing water which the Act allows. Fluoride is added to treat human beings. Slott then retorts that fluoride does not treat humans, it treats the water, but this is of couse nonsense. There is no reason to add fluoride to water to support hydration. If a community had good dental care with no caries problem, why would anyone add fluoride to the entire water supply of the city? (The irony here of course is that eating fluoride all day long does not affect caries anyway).

Is this clearer?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard says, "The Safe Drinking Water Act intent, its purpose, was to halt the spread of water fluoridation (as described by Graham and Morin in their fluoridation litigation detailed monograph)."

 

Response:  Who are Graham and Morin?  Please provide a link and documentation so we know what you are talking about.

 

RS:  "However the wording of the law covered all substances (other than those required to sanitize water) where it prohibited any National requirement to add such substances"

 

Response:  Please provide the wording of the law, and document, so we know what you are talking about.

 

The remainder of your comment appears to rest on the premise of these first two.  Please clarify your meaning on those and then we can move on.  I am not interested in fluoridationist Slott.  I am interested in why fluoridation is illegal.  Please stay on topic.

 

 

0 Kudos
2,500 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

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.

 

3.  Current facts/science which changes our paradigm has less power for most people (like Donald Trump).  However, facts and science should have the most impact for critical thinking individuals.  

 

Which of those do you think Delta Dental and other dental insurance companies put emphasis, rely on?  Money, marketing, profit, unless alittle waste would upset tradition, their base.  Delta Dental support tradition so they can lower fees paid to dentists.  They don't want to totally anger dentists and other insurance companies go along.  8 years ago I twice asked Delta for their numbers on cost benefit of fluoridation, reduced caries and/or costs in fluoridated communities.  Delta said the numbers were soon to be published.  8 years later and nothing published.  I bet the numbers don't show cost reduction so they don't publish.  A few clicks on their computers would show the difference in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.  Facts don't support tradition so silence.

 

What about organizations other NGO and Governments and Public Health?  What do they rely on?  Tradition?  Lots of work to review the science.

 

What about you?  Your emails keep going to tradition and marketing/money.

 

Fluoridation had great marketing and money, little science, when it started.

 

NGO's jumped in, partly to "do good."  

 

Tradition keeps fluoridation going inspite of the new science showing lack of benefit (probably because other sources of fluoride and excess fluoride increases caries) and serious risks.

 

David, when you reference money, marketing or tradition, I pay little attention and for those opposed to fluoridation I expect they turn off their hearing.  We should not abandon tradition on a whim, but on science and facts.

 

If you would start to provide science within the last 20 years, I'm listening.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Billo, 

 

Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I truly do not understand how you would think anybody reading this thread could take any of you so-called anti-fluoride experts seriously.  .   .  And I'm not attacking you people.  I am criticizing the deceptiveness of your comments and actions.

 

You've got Limeback who photographed iron-stained teeth, which had never touched optimally fluoridated water, putting his picture in an article about mild dental fluorosis.  .   .  An article written by an attorney.  (See photograph 2 here http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/ )

 

You've got "Carrie Anne," or whatever name she is going by in this thread.  

 

You've got Sauerheber who - with no evidence - a lone reed in the wind - proclaiming that water fluoridation killed all the salmon in Sacramento.  .  .  Who claims that the SDWA was written with the specific intent of halting water fluoridation . .  I mean -  Come on.

 

And we've got you, who just appears to pull facts from . . I don't know . . wherever.  Sorry, Bill, if I dismissed you so quickly, but when I see false, meaningless, undocumented statements from people pushing your agenda, to me it's just another load of junk from you alternative health pimps.

0 Kudos
2,598 Views
7
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

And here is yet another lie. I have never written that water fluoridation in Sacramento killed all the salmon in the River. What nonsense. I provided the evidence that a large salmon collapse was prolonged after fluoridation began in Sacramrento and explained why this could be, and that there are no salmon depositing eggs near the outflow tube that discharges the city fluoridated waste water. If you wnt to make an issue of this, stick to the facts. We don't need even more lies.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard:  "And here is yet another lie. I have never written that water fluoridation in Sacramento killed all the salmon in the River."

 

Response:  You are right, Richard, and I apologize.  You said water fluoridation was responsible for the salmon collapse in Sacramento.  My mistake.

 

RS:  "I provided the evidence that a large salmon collapse was prolonged after fluoridation began in Sacramrento and explained why this could be, and that there are no salmon depositing eggs near the outflow tube that discharges the city fluoridated waste water."

 

Resonse:  No, you provided zero evidence.  You couldn't tell me the background level of fluoride in the river, you didn't account for stormwater infiltration dilluting fluoride discharge, you couldn't tell me the flow of the river, you couldn't tell me the amount of discharge into the unknown volume of the river.  You didn't account for temperature variations because of discharged effluent into the river.  You provided no autopsey reports on dead fish.  

 

Richard, exactly what evidence did you provide?

0 Kudos
2,537 Views
0
Report
Moderator
Moderator

Hello everyone,

Please remember to post according to the community guidelines, and refrain from insults and inflammatory comments.

Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

Conversationalist

David,

 

Your apology is accepted, and then you attacked assuming deception.   Calm down.  Get off the personal attacks.  Read what is said.  

 

Again, you list several people and attack them personally.  But you fail to provide the data on which you base your scientific opinions.  You should be knighted by Donald Trump.  The two of you have similar thought processes, you go with your gut and the facts be ignored.

 

When concepts and statements do not fit into your box of tradition, you reject the person as "deceptive."  Again, attack the facts, not the people.   Could it be a problem of communication and understanding or is it moral intentional deception?   Calm down.  Good people on both sides of this discussion.  Calm down.

 

You have repeated ad nausium photos and Limeback.   

 

Are you a dentist?  In what state are you licensed?  My memory says you denied being a dentist.

 

Are you licensed to diagnose any dental disease? DO, MD, DDS, DMD or ?   I don't think so.

 

Do you know the name of the patient in the photograph?  I'm guessing no.

 

Do your really know, factually, scietifically, with measured evidence that the patient never touched fluoridated water?  Impossible.  Fluoridation is ubiquitous in water, processed foods, etc.  Your statement, "photographed iron-stained teeth, which had never touched optimally fluoridated water," is absolutely 100% unscientific, without evidence and makes no sense.  Calm down.    You are 100% wrong, on that statement. 

 

OK.  Let me try to understand your intent.  Iron stains can be polished off.  I saw these stains more in the past when people used iron pots and pans.  I have not seen iron stains for some time.    Did you try polishing the stains off so you can assure me they are iron stains?   And does iron cause intrinsic stains?  If so, show me the research with photographs.  

 

Take what a person says and try to understand what they are saying.  I'm trying to understand you, but your personal attacks make you sound very angry and with no intent to review science. 

 

I don't lump you in with others, don't lump me in with others.   Everyone makes mistakes and with time learns more.  Building walls does not help people overcome their misunderstanding. 

 

Give me good science that Dr. Limeback has misdiagnosed those photographs.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Bill, you argue that I never read your comments, yet you never read mine.

 

Your quote:  "

You have repeated ad nausium photos and Limeback.   

 

Are you a dentist?  In what state are you licensed?  My memory says you denied being a dentist.

 

Are you licensed to diagnose any dental disease? DO, MD, DDS, DMD or ?   I don't think so.

 

Do you know the name of the patient in the photograph?  I'm guessing no.

 

Do your really know, factually, scietifically, with measured evidence that the patient never touched fluoridated water?  Impossible."

 

Response:  I know that this patient had never touched optimally fluoridated water because Dr. Limeback said he grew up in a non-fluoridated area, but took fluoride pills.

 

Am I a licensed MD, DDS? 

 

No, but a licensed DDS, who photographed the teeth, said he believed the teeth were iron stained, and that the patient didn't drink optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Your condescending remarks speak to the fact that you have never bothered to read the points I was making, or took the time to consider the issue at hand.

 

It says more about your closed mind than it does about mine.  

0 Kudos
2,789 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Just like I said, I was asked a question, but obviously merely for the purpose of being assailed, not for the purpose of learning something. Now the claim is that there is no reference provided about the intent of the SDWA. Wow.  Here is the Graham and Morin monograph, pleese consult footnote #88.

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?

 

And BTW I object to any child having to live with the embarrassment of dental fluorosis, no matter how severe, not just my friends' kids. So the data point I provided is not "anecdotal". The Bible says kids have angels who look directly in the face of God Himself. So stop fluoride poisoning our kids, where the major contributor to the dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia is water fluoridation. Get rid of it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
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
2,476 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
2,882 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

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
2,505 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
3,227 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

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
2,983 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

 

 

 

 

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)

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.
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

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/
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.”

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
3,175 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

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679

AARP Perks

More From AARP