Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

• 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
• 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
• 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

Thank you for sending references in the Drop Box, but it makes no sense.

Are we on the same page or did you not read the studies?  How am I misunderstanding you?

Lets discuss the first study in your list.  

Olusegun 2013 published in Toxicology.

Fluoride caused a diminished brain weight in rats compared to controls.  

Why do you consider smaller brains to be good or safe or effective?

Certainly the fluoride appears to have had an effect.  Would you consider lower brain weight to be a benefit?  Or safe?  Or effective?

Clearly, fluoride had an effect on the brain by reducing or stunting development.

A smaller brain is BAD.  Is HARM.   NOT GOOD.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

I wish I could share your confidence in tradition, marketing and money.

Science is not stagnant and anchored in stone and we do learn more with time, or at least we should learn more with time.  

Although I agree with the US FDA that the evidence of efficacy is incomplete, I will agree with you that some find the limited evidence adequate to claim benefit of tooth decay reduction with the ingestion of some fluoride.

What about dosage and safety?  

The same evidence suggesting benefit also suggests increasing caries with  an increase in fluoride exposure.  As I posted earlier, there maybe a "sweet" spot of caries reduction with some fluoride exposure and increased caries with less or more fluoride.  

In 2011-2012 NHANES the survey indicates 60% dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride, 2% with moderate/severe fluorosis.  

Many are ingesting too much fluoride and the same research showing possible benefit shows possible increased caries with more fluoride.  

That raises the concern that excess fluoride is increasing dental caries (not to mention fractured teeth, bones, ADHD, lower IQ, etc.)

I'm not impressed with like minded believers having reviews of their beliefs.  I've  started to be a part of one of those sham reviews.  The parameters and limitations, restrictions and cherry picked members made me lose confidence.

The Chair of the NRC 2006 review (which didn't look at benefit) said his committee was unique in that it was the first review to include members who were not fully supportive of fluoride ingestion.  

My question to you is for hard evidence, not digested by cherry picked reviews, but hard evidence on efficacy and safety.  

As you know, there is no high quality evidence on efficacy, no prospective RCT.

As you know there are no quality reviews of safety of fluoride ingestion at ranges ingested in the USA.

I'm looking for facts, research, not tradition, marketing and money.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

Fluoridation began in 1945 as a forced program. Neither Grand Rapids nor Newburgh NY asked for the program. The Safe Drinking Water Act was written long after that and did not ban fluoridation that already had begun. In fact, any person is still today free to fluoridate their own water and drink all the poisonous garbage they want. But the Act intended to prohibit the government from further spreading this abject assault on the personal freedom of innocent. And yet today several States mandate, that is require, fluoridation of water supplies in all their large cities, in complete and grotesque violation and disregard of the law. The SDWA has statutes that prohibit States from being any less restrictive than for the Federal government. But a fluoridationist can't care about Federal water law or else he must stop being a fluoridationist.

Again, San Diego  voted in two separate elections against fluoridation both times. And yet look what was forced onto the citizens.

[rs5526]

So are Graham and Morin now on a list of "quacks" or "alternative health pimps" or are committing "deception" or are "liars" for not "presenting links to support their claim"?

Again, I don't need to provide anything to a person who refers to others by the above titles. Mercola is probably doing what he believes is true. Fluoridationists also probably truly believe that fluoride is useful and harmless during liflelong consumption. They are not "pimps" for not providng links to that statement and they are probably very sincere. It's just that they are sincerely wrong.  You try to help them but it doesn't do much good.

Congress intended fo prohibit the SDWA from being used to impose water fluodation across an innocent and free country.  I interpret that sentence raitonally, so what?

[rs5526]

I am not a lawyer so I consulted with a lawyer who stated what this passage means. I never said Congress intended to halt fluoridation. I said what the lawyer said, that Congress intended that it halt the spread of water fluoridation.  Apparently a published work by a joint team of a doctor and a lawyer are not good enough for, but I was cefrtain that would be hyour position before I even sent the link. Again, the link was not intended for you. It was for objective rational readers of these pages. Anyone can interpret the sentence about Congress any way they want. As for me, I would reject fluoridation on this sentence alone. Fluoridation does not sanitize water. Period. So the CDC has no rights to request its existence.  And it has no useful purpose and is a simple money drain, like a useless Trump wall that couldn't even stop a gopher, let alone a human or a tunnel-digging drug cartel.

And yes indeed I was accused of having access to millions and why don't I bring a lawsuit if I'm so sure it is illegal. Read my posts because this has already been addressed.

[rs5526]

First, the idea that I am not in a position to make a claim about fluoridated water discharges and the salmon collapse in the Sacramento River because I did not report possible stormwater dilution of wastewater data is laughable. The major contributor to the collapse was the severe drought at the time which concentrates fluoride levels in the River at the discharge tube. There had been no rain for months to dilute it.

Second, if one works for an organization which has members that interacted with others who make errors does not make that person an alternativce health pimp, so the mischaracterization of Dr.Osmunsen is ridiculous.

Finally, I did not send the links to solicit responses. I sent them to help educate the readers and to stop ludicrous responses/attacks by those who don't understand the topic, such as those who side with CDC dental officials, the ADA, the National Sanitation Foundation, the AFS, and many un-informed others.

(And if someone had millions to blow on fluoride litigation against un-informed others, I would recommend instead giving it to those who have been harmed by fluoride ingestion).

[DavidF928895]

Richard says, "First, the idea that I am not in a position to make a claim about fluoridated water discharges and the salmon collapse in the Sacramento River because I did not report possible stormwater dilution of wastewater data is laughable."

Response:  I never said you weren't in any position to be able to do anything.  I said you did not present evidence of your claims . . and you didn't.

[rs5526]

And I am now accused of not filing litigation against fluoridation in a denigrating manner since I supposedly have access to millions of dollars to pay for it say from Mercola. Wow. Ive never met or ever corresponded with mercola. How twisted can a fluoride promoter get? 

And besides, I dont believe in filing lawsuits. I learned that from my parents , that you discuss your differences until they are resolved. I dont object to thode who are in a position to file righteous lawsuits but I dont have such internal ability. So what? And you really think someone would pay me millions to sue the CDC? Please spare us.

[rs5526]

Dr. Osmensen is making the points that dental fluorosis is a major National problem because water fluoridation is so widesped, and that fluorotic teeth, with deficient enamel, is often accompanied by stains from other materials because the enamel does not protect the underlying dentin normally, all due to fluoride consumption. The idea that fluoridated wter is not the major cause of dental and bone fluorosis is absurd..

The fluoride sources for dental fluorosis were reviewed in a paper where it was concluded that the use of fluoridated water under age 6 should be more carefully considered. 

http://www.aapd.org/assets/1/25/Mascarenhas-22-04.pdf

Again, fluoridated water does not decrease dental caries (which most dentists who publish materials on fluorosis do not grasp). Fluoridated water does not work, either topically (Yiamouyiannis, etc. or systemically, U.S.CDC). Poisoning children with this garbage is a mistake.

[CarryAnne]

“It’s hazardous for us to use…. Workers have to protect themselves, including wearing face shields when handling the chemical… It’s worse than battery acid.” - Dover NH Utilities Superintendent Bill Boulanger (2017)

Fluoride is an enzyme poison and neurotoxicant. Fluoride causes neurological damage. Period. Fluoride adversely affects ability to learn, ability to think clearly and behavior.

Dentists & water workers have high occupational exposure to fluoride which contributes to workers' comp claims and higher rates of various disease among dentists, who in some respects echo the circumstances of 19th century 'hatters' who were known as 'mad' because of their exposure to mercury, a substance that is still common in American dentistry although restricted or banned in Europe and elsewhere, much like water fluoridation. 

Studies published in recent weeks on fluoride and dementia aren't the first of this type, but they certainly count among the best.

• It may be too late for some folks with fluoride damaged brains, but shouldn't AARP which claims to advocate for all senior citizens make a statement similar to this month's condemnation of fluoridation by the Children's Health Team? 

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. 

Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland

[rs5526]

Hogwash. One person's "anecdotal observation" is another person's abject eyewitness certainty.  Anecdotal is relative. Anecdotal is for example articles published by fluoridation promoters who claim dental benefit when the error bars overlap between treated and controls, or when diet and brushing habits are not controlled. That may be abject truth to someone, but it is nevertheless anecdotal to a scientist. I visited the child myself and it is not anecdotal. Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Sorry.

[rs5526]

Why do I have to respond to anyone who calls me an "alternative heath pimp"?

The Graham and Morin reference (Highlights in North American Fluoride Litigation) happens to be online at various places. I should say go find it yourself, but to help readers, here it is:

http://whale.to/d/Graham.pdf

And Slott's stupid comments are important and essential to know about. This is one of a host of reasons why fluoridation promoters, at the AWWA, the CDC, the AFS, the ADA,k etc. continue to argue that treating peoples' teeth through public water supplies is not illegal.  You may not care, but we do.

[BillO538145]

Dr. Richard,

You don't have to respond to anyone.  And we should probably not respond to people who openly disparage, demean, belittle, bully, and/or attack without provocation.    

Name calling and attacking the messanger rather than the message is very unprofessional and you have remained professional and respected in your responses. 

I'm also proud of Carry Ann.  An excellent grasp of science, ethics and a kind person with good logic. 

I'm also hopeful for Dr. Johnny and Dr. Chuck that they will once again look at the considerable evidence that many are ingesting too much fluoride. 

However, emotions filter facts and everyone needs to be careful that we always consider facts -- a global view of all facts -- carefull.     

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, 

Have you had time to review Dr. Limeback's deceptive photograph of iron-stained teeth (his diagnosis) of a patient who, according to him, had never drank optimally fluoridated water which appeared in an article about fluorosis on a website dedicated to the abolition of CWF?  I am not denying that the teeth have fluorosis, but I would be interested on your professional and ethical views in this discussion. 

[BillO538145]

David,

I have not read anything in your posts which gives me the feeling that you honestly want my professional opinion on anything.  Your only interest in my comments is to demean me, attack me, try to prove me wrong, misquote, disparge and rip me apart like you have done to others.  Why should I put myself in that position?  I'm not insane. 

Several streams of empirical evidence indicate that many, millions, are hurting because of this public health blunder.  I feel their pain and at times they pay me money because of the public health blunder of excess fluoride exposure.  

Like Trump, you have repeatedly said the same disparaging attack over and over again, "Dr. Limeback's deceptive photograph. . . ."    Have you contacted Dr. Limeback?  Have you asked him to explain his comments?  What has been his response?

David, no gentleman or scholar would use your terms on another professional.  

John Galbraith is reported to have said, "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

Once again, may I request a professional scientific discussion.  

What scientific evidence (facts) do you rely on which gives you confidence no one in the USA is ingesting too much fluoride and water fluoridation is not a contributing factor to too much fluoride exposure?  And if some are ingesting too much, what is your estimate?  

Are you absolutely certain, thousands, tens/hundreds of thousands and millions of Americans are not ingesting too much fluoride?  What is your factual measured evidence?

If you answer by referencing other people rather than scientific peer reviewed published literature, then our discussion is over.   I'm not interested in disparaging terms on anyone.  Just factual evidence, not emotions.

I am willing to modify, change, or alter my position on fluoride exposure if you or anyone can present measured evidence on efficacy and safety at a fluoride dosage range.  

Quotes of tradition, emotion, money, marketing or endorsements do not count.   Facts count.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, sorry I haven't gotten back to you sooner, I just got back from the Carribean.  And I have to say, while there is a lot of poverty in St. Lucia, the teeth of these people appeared to me to be in great shape.  There is no visable decay whatsoever.  I understand this country adds fluoride to its salt. 

This was quite a contrast to other countries where I have stayed.  For example, I spent a considerable amount of time in Afghanistan.  The teeth of those people were / are visibly rotting out of their heads and you can see the pain they are in.  It is a disgrace.  And you should be ashamed of yourself in your efforts to take us back to that point in time where so much suffering exists. 

Your quote (Timestamp ‎01-16-2019 06:31 PM):

"David,

I have not read anything in your posts which gives me the feeling that you honestly want my professional opinion on anything.  Your only interest in my comments is to demean me, attack me, try to prove me wrong, misquote, disparge and rip me apart like you have done to others.  Why should I put myself in that position?  I'm not insane."

Response:  You are wrong.  Please point out to me where I have misquoted you or anyone else in any way and I will be happy to retract and apologize.  For example, I had said that Dr. Richard claimed that water fluoridation killed the salmon in the Sacramento River.   He rightly pointed out to me that he never said that.  He said CWF was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River.  I was very happy to apologize and amend my comment.  

So, just for the record, please point out to me where I have misquoted you. 

Your quote:  "you have repeatedly said the same disparaging attack over and over again, "Dr. Limeback's deceptive photograph. . . ."    Have you contacted Dr. Limeback?  Have you asked him to explain his comments?  What has been his response?"

Response:  If you have bothered to read my comments, you know I have.  For your review, we are discussing Dr. Limeback's photograph on this webpage  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/ .  It is the second photograph in the article. 

This is what Dr. Limeback said about those teeth:  "There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area.   .   .   .    BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel . . "

So, Dr. Bill, I truly would like your professional opinion about this.  I will ask you the same question I have asked him.  Don't you think it is a little deceptive to use a photograph of iron stained teeth (as the most obvious markings have nothing to do with fluoride), diagnose these teeth as having  "Mild Dental Fluorosis" and allow them to be put on a website dedicated to the abolition of community water fluoridation, when the patient himself grew up in a non-fluoridated area and did not have a history of drinking artificially fluoridated water?

Simple question, yes or no.  Do you consider that deceptive?  What is your professional opinion?

[DavidF928895]

Billo says, "You don't have to respond to anyone.  And we should probably not respond to people who openly disparage, demean, belittle, bully, and/or attack without provocation."

William, if you feel that I am bullying you by asking you to defend your comments, or name calling . . please feel free to report it to the AARP admin.  Be warned, however, you will have to provide evidence of your claims.  

If the fact that "Dr. Richard" has trouble comprehending the meaning of a provision in the Federal SDWA, and the fact that I have challenged him on it and pointed out his error, means that I am bullying him, perhaps you all should develop a thicker skin if you are going to continue to make extraordinary claims.

[DavidF928895]

Ok, Richard, I had asked who Graham and Morin are, and you provided a link which answered that question.  (But before we look at that, you had said, "I should say go find it yourself, but to help readers, here it is:"

Response:  You are making an extraordinary claim here.  It is your responsibility to provide evidence of it.  It is not my responsibility to simply believe you or to look up evidence of your claims myself.  This is what documentation is all about.  Based on some previous comments you have made, you don't seem to understand this.  

John Remington Graham:  * B.A., LL.B., of the Minnesota Bar. Federal Public Defender, 1969-1973; Co-Founder, Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Lecturer, Hamline University School of Law, 1972-1980; Special Counsel for the City of Brainerd, 1974-1980; Crow Wing County Public Defender, 1981-1984; Crow Wing County Attorney, 1991-l995; Advisor on British constitutional law and history to the Amicus Curiae for Quebec in the Supreme Court of Canada, 1997-1998. Mr. Graham has served as counsel in major fluoridation litigation in Minnesota, Washington State, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas, 1974-1984

Pierre-Jean Morin:  Ph.D. in Experimental Medicine. Chief Profusionist, Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, 1957-1967; Coordinator for Research in the Heart Institute and Artificial Organs Group, and Lecturer in Medicine, Laval University, 1967-1979; Director of Medical Research, Laval University Hospital, 1973-1979; Senior Scientific Advisor to the Environment Minister and the Prime Minister of Quebec, 1976-l985; Director, Local Community Services Center, Lotbiniere West, 1979-1990. Dr. Morin was scientific advisor to counsel for the plaintiffs in major fluoridation litigation in Texas in l982.

So Graham and Morin are an attorney and a doctor.   

You had said, "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)."

You also directed my attention to footnote # 88.  

In the book you cite, the authors are discussing a case that had reached the Canadian Supreme Court, "Toronto v Forrest Hill."  The authors quote Justice Rand.  And then we see footnote #88:

"88. Id. at 118. The same distinction appears in the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(11), which states, “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” This provision was intended by Congress to prohibit the use of the Safe Drinking Water Act as a means of imposing artificial fluoridation of public water supplies throughout the United States."

Is all of this correct thus far?  

Now let's look at what you said again:  "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)."

Really, Richard?  Do I really need to go through these two statements to prove they are not congruent?  Aside from the fact that your comments are based upon a book by a lawyer and a doctor, nowhere does anybody say - based on this one statute - that the intent and purpose of the SDWA was to stop CWF.

But let's look at the provision itself:  "“No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”

The authors are correct.  This provision simply prevents a federal mandate.  "No national primary drinking water regulation," i.e., nothing from the Federal SDWA, "may require the addition of any substance," i.e., may demand, may force the addition of any substance, "for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.”   This is self explanatory.  

Richard, the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act was not written with the purpose of halting water fluoridation.  The authors of the book you cited, a doctor and a lawyer, never said that.  The Safe Drinking Water Act doesn't say that.  It simply says that the SDWA can't impose anything like CWF on anyone, the SDWA can't require it.  And the SDWA wasn't written for that purpose.  

I hope I won't be seeing this from you again.

[DavidF928895]

Richard, you say, "Why do I have to respond to anyone who calls me an "alternative heath pimp"?"

Response:  Actually that comment was directed toward billo.  He was the former director of the Fluoride Action Network which unashamedly has taken money from the unethical alternative health - multi million dollar alternative health company, Mercola.  Mercola has already received 4 warning letters from the FDA for unethical sales practices.  Mercola also happens to sell a lot of very expensive merchandise, which sells better when people are afraid of their drinking water and afraid of fluoride.

I hope that clears things up.  

I will look at your links and comment on them tomorrow.  Thank you for providing them.

[CarryAnne]

“The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.”- Prof. Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D. (1980)

“People trust authority… It is sobering to realize that human beings blindly trust authority and that authority figures… are the ones most easily duped.” - Stephen Greenspan, author of “Annals of Gullibility: Why We Get Duped and How to Avoid It” who lost $400k of his retirement to Bernie Madoff (2010)

Fluoridation promotion has always been flawed and has always had learned opponents. Going along with the crowd has always been popular, but never any guarantee. 

As to looking in the mirror, there are about 35 seniors opposed to fluoridation on the AARP forum  including several peer-reviewed scientists. The handful of fluoridationists on this thread are members of a well known troop that has overwhelmed local letters to the editors all over the country and abroad with vitriolic character assassination for years - often outnumbered but persistent in their dogged attacks. They include retired or semi-retired dentists. This group descended  on AARP en masse in June 2018. The forum had been proceeding unmolested with periodic activity since Feb 2015.  

For more on the orchestrated efforts of this small band of fluoridationists, see the letter below. Also pay attention to the resources attached to that letter: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

Regardless, fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated products into the the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of adverse impact on individuals for whom consumption is ill advised. Senior citizens are a class of people who have been identified as particularly vulnerable to the ill effects of fluoride consumption as fluoride is an inflammatory drug that accumulates in bones, damages kidneys and has been implicated in plaque formation in hearts & brains. 

 

[rs5526]

Yes. Simply because the EPA does not prohibit drinking water with F below 2 ppm does not give anyone the right to purposely infuse this regulated contaminant into public water. Note that CA state law mandates that driving on the freeway must be at speeds no less than 45 mph. But that does not make it right to drive 45 when someone is on the freeway standing in front of you. Likewise is it legal to force fluoride into public,water supplies that harms  many from bone incorporation and those with iodide insufficiency and kids who don't want to have dental fluorosis when they grow up, among other effects, simply because the law only prohibits drinking water at 2 ppm or higher? Of course not but yet that is how the EPA, and the many court rulings tnat follow the EPA, end up endorsing or allowing something that the SDWA prohibits from being required. Laws can be interpreted the,way one wants but that does not make it right. The fact is that fluoridation, in a fluoride tootbpaste, etc world, is harming people and should be disallowed legally, beyond simply being prohibited from being required. Those who know the facts are not in a position to make the law better fit the facts. So appealing to truth on the part of those who force fluoridation of people is the usual direction to take. But fluoridationists are typically unable to comprehend what it is they force.

[CarryAnne]

“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” - Thomas  Jefferson

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” - Thomas  Jefferson

Multiple judges have ruled that fluoridation is injurious, that the evidence proves it harms many consumers and contributes to cancer but is legal under the law which gives jurisdiction to the legislature with administrative police powers. Judges have advised that under current law, it is up to the legisilature to deal with fluoridation. Consequently, fluoridation has become a political game, and we all know the power of money and marketing in politics.  

It's not just ethics and evidence that are lost in the politicization of fluoridation, it's the very concept of our Republican Democracy that was designed to protect constitutional and individual human rights of all the people. Civil Rights and Suffergette were manifestations of that principle, hard fought as they were. However, the banning of public smoking in order to protect the health of the most vulnerable among us from harm caused by the pollution of a shared resource by 2nd hand smoke is the most accurate analogy.

Per the 2nd Jeffersonian quote above, fluoridation causes billions of dollars in increased health expenses for millions of us in addition to actually breaking the bones of many of us with arthritis & osteoporosis or other bone disease caused or aggravated by chronic fluoride exposure.  Government has a a clear duty to end fluoridation as fluoridation literally breaks bones and picks pockets. 

Fluoridationists can't win with medical, scientific, or ethical arguments - so they prefer politics which is riddled with lies. As a last resort, they claim the courts have found fluoridation safe - another one of the fluoridationists' deceits. 

• This is why it is important that organizations such as the Children's Health Defense Team with its emphasis on environmental risks and government failure to do its duty make a public statement like they did on January 9, 2019.
• This is why it is important for AARP to demonstrate similar professional integrity by issuing a resolution against fluoridation policy per call to action in Open Letter signed by 8 professional organizations published on GreenMed on October 26, 2018.

See quotes below from a few of the judges who heard fluoridation cases: 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: ”That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies… may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Anthony Farris, District Court, Houston, TX (May 24, 1982)

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: ”My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water  supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue...That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

Trial Judge who found CWF unconstitutional: “By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities... arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary's pestle to the patient, without the latter's consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state." - Justice Donworth, dissenting opinion  in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS before Supreme Court of Washington (1954) 

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful:  "Over the course of five months (in 1978), the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

Trial Judge who found CWF harmful: “Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

 It may be legal and it may be political, but there is nothing ethical, scientific or democratic about adding this poison to municipal water.

[rs5526]

And to think that there are people who actually believe that fluoridation is a democratic procedure is absolutely moronic.  The city of San Diego voted twice, --two separate elections over a multi-year period -- against fluoridation and later also passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibts the addition of fluoridation chemicals into our water supplies. And yet when money was placed in front of the city council, all that was ignored and fluoridation was forced on the city anyway in 2011.

Democratic voting most often is opposed to fluoridation as long as a fair campiagn is conducted that includes actual data.  And yet this bone fluoridation program is actually mandated in many states including CA where there was no State wide public vote at all.

Democratic? You've got to be joking.

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

It's called a democratic society, Rich. Democracy.........Not like the party affiliation

[rs5526]

That is correct. So what is your point?

San Diego held democratic elections and they are ignored by fluoridationists.

And the 7 pages of mostly dental officials praising fluoride ingestion are plagued with false statements and none of the sections are referenced.

The Mayo Clnic writer is wrong because fluorine as an element, F2,  does not exist in nature. Fluoride compounds do, but that does not include NaF or H2SiF6.

The opening claim is that fluoride remineralizes teeth. This is a common false notion. Normal teeth enamel contains no fluoride and is a hard crystalline form of hydroxyapatite. And also fluoride does not incorporate into enamel topically or systemically because enamel is too hard. One can force fluoride in by applying HF hydrofluoric acid, acidulated fluoride gels for example, which dissolves enamel and forms an abnormal structure and is not something to be desired. Bone hydroxyapatite of course is a different crystal form and readily incorporates fluoride in exchange for hydroxide when fluoridated water is consumed.

And the late Linus Pauling stopped promoting fluoridation and advocated vitamin D, which increases calcium absorption, for preventing tooth decay. Calcium builds strong teeth, not fluoride. (I was fortunate to have a chemustry class at UCSD from Pauling). So this 7 page list of undocumented claims is far out of date.

Other errors are so numerous that who would want to read all the corrections?

[rs5526]

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.

[rs5526]

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.

[DavidF928895]

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? 

[rs5526]

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.

[DavidF928895]

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.