Content starts here
CLOSE ×

Search

Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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

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

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

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

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

355,903 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

20,079 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

View solution in original post

18,823 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

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

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

10,500 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Really? 

 

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

 

BMCLBMCL

 

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

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

 

 

View solution in original post

6,378 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Thanks susan. It is not sirprising that fluoride cohld fo this with lead dalts that are akeays predent on old plumbing woth oxidized lead. Ion exchange of a hydroxide with flioride to form these precipitates remimds one of the fact that fluoride in blood,at only 0.15 ppm partixipates in an ion exchange process with hydtoxide in hydroxyaoatite, converting bone into abnormal fluoroapatite. Fluoride does this at concentrations far belpw the solubility product concentratipn required to precipitate calcium fluoride.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
14,137 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Correct David. It's always worth checking when people make citations to support their claims.

13,944 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

This isn't about teeth. This is about the stupidity of adding small amounts of poison to municipal water that increase the dissolution of other metals into water all of which accumulate in bodies and environment.

 

The fluoride (and other metals associated with fluoridation) that build up in bodies, bones and brains over the years lead to kidney disease, arthritis and dementia in many consumers

 

In the news 16 Feb 2019https://www.ksl.com/article/46492528/sandy-city-delayed-notifying-state-public-of-contamination-wate... 

Excerpts:  Contaminated drinking water sickened a 3-month-old baby and several other people in an area of Sandy where a no-drink order is in place pending lab results on levels of copper and lead.
 
Owens said the impacted area has expanded in size twice since the initial discovery and now includes as many as six schools, care centers and a recreation center. More than 450 households are impacted.
 
... the pump sent undiluted high concentrations of fluoride into the system for about 36 to 48 hours.
 
Nate Roe, the father of 3-month-old Henry, said he talked with multiple city employees by phone after the infant vomited his formula twice on Wednesday. His wife was sick as well, and the water tasted metallic.
 
A city worker visited his home and suggested the problem was a malfunctioning water softener. Roe said he doesn't have a water softener.
 
Workers told him to repeatedly flush his system and call the Utah Poison Control Center to report medical issues, but assured him the water was safe to drink.
 
The [Poison] center, however, could not advise him of what to do unless he knew the level of fluoride exposure. He said the city later told him it was 150 times what it should be.
 
When the city declared the water safe to drink, the Roe family resumed using tap water in their home by Feb. 11. "Then we found out yesterday (Friday) from a news article that there is lead and copper in the water," he said. "It is infuriating. Nobody told us about copper. Nobody told us about lead."
 
A Sandy City mother, who asked for her name to be withheld to protect her 3-year-old daughter's identity, said the girl tested "high" for levels of lead her pediatrician's office and they were referred for a full blood screening at a hospital lab for lead and copper.
 
Dr. Mike Moss, medical director of the Utah Poison Control Center, said multiple calls came after the initial burst of fluoride hit the drinking water system and they are still fielding calls from residents concerned over potential lead or copper exposure.
 
He said a friend and neighbor who is a chemist ran a pH test on the tap water that came back at 3.89, which is extremely acidic.
13,943 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Nonsense. I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu will develop CO brown  stain  It takes high iron ingestion along with fluorosis to develop that. Fluorotic teeth may he subject to a variety of stains depending on where you live and what you consume.

Please stop the deceptipn as though fluorosis is,desirable. You quote kumar wjo publishes data that have means that do not differ beyond standard etror and proclaims that a fluorotic tooth is resistant to decay. That is deception

The point of all this is all enamel fluorosis is abnormality. And such teeth can be subject to discoloration depending on where you livev and what you ingest, the severity of the fluorosis etc.

We dont need  a treatise on the subject and instead advocate for no fluiride in rhe diet as much as possible . This means stopping fluoridaton where fluorosis increases in every fluoridated city and there are no exceptions.

Enough said.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,942 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, your quote:  "I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu will develop CO brown  stain  It takes high iron ingestion along with fluorosis to develop that. Fluorotic teeth may he subject to a variety of stains depending on where you live and what you consume."

 

Response:  I never claimed you said this.  You say you have a Ph.D.  Surely you can comprehend the meaning of my comment.  We are discussing the deceptive use of a photograph taken by Hardy Limeback.  Please try to stay focused.  

 

I am sorry to have to keep repeating myself, but you seem distracted.  Dr. Limeback's photo of stained teeth, which you have claimed have Colorado Brown Stain, falls into the category of Moderate Dental Fluorosis according to the standard Dean's Index.  

 

Again, Moderate Dental Fluorosis, which is not associated with CWF, is defined as, "All enamel surfaces of the teeth are affected and surfaces subject to attrition show wear. Brown stain is frequently a disfiguring feature."

 

The photo of these teeth which appear in an anti-CWF article by attorney Michael Connett are diagnosed as having Mild Dental Fluorosis.  By implication, the photo suggests that this is what can happen by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  PLEASE NOTE:  You didn't say that.  The photo in that context deceptively implies this.  

 

I find it odd that you would spend roughly one third of your response on Dr. Jay Kumar's peer-reviewed work.  It is not central to the discussion.  Indeed, after citing it I added, "but that is irrelevant to this discussion."

 

Of course you would disagree with Dr. Kumar's peer-reviewed work.  It disagrees with your bias.  If you can show me some peer-reviewed work that demonstrates teeth with Mild Dental fluorosis are more subject to decay, please present it. 

 

But the fact is that teeth with Mild Dental Fluorosis are less resistant to decay than teeth without this condition . . as demonstrated by - well, right here:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

Where's your peer-reviewed work demonstrating the contrary?

 

You simply saying something doesn't make it true.  It's like you saying that CWF is responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River without  . . . 1.)  knowing background fluoride levels in the river . . . 2.)  checking fluoride levels in the river downstream of effluent discharge . . . 3.) knowing the flow of the river . . . 4.)  knowing the amount of daily effluent discharge . . . 5.)  any examination of any actual dead salmon . . .  6.)   and maybe a real environmentalist who actually agrees with your unique hypothesis.  

 

You seem to have a habit of just saying things with no evidence to support it.  It is interesting that Dr. Bill has compared me to the President.  Maybe he hasn't been reading your non-evidence based comments.  https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/593844812/trump-admits-to-making-up-trade-deficit-in-talks-with-canad...

0 Kudos
13,936 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

In colorado springs the brown stain was also attributed to iron that gained access to teeth interiors because of fluoride in drinking water. Regardless of the source of fluoride ingestiin during childhood, fluorosis is an undesired abnormality.

It is,deceptive to claim it is something to be desired to reduce caries, when thinned enamel cannot protect against caries. 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
13,977 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

You are claiming that there is nothing deceptive about this photograph of teeth belonging to someone who has never drank artifically fluoridated water being used as an argument against it.  

 

Ok.  Well that says a lot about your standards regarding the level of deceptiveness you are willing to accept (provided the deceptiveness in question supports your bias).

 

Beyond that obvious deception, these teeth have been diagnosed by attorney Michael Connett as having Mild Dental Fluorosis.  You are telling me that the obvious stains on them are Colorado Brown Stain.  Photographer Limeback said they were orange stains which he believed were iron.  I suppose the color is irrelevant here.

 

But Wait!  There is even more deceptiveness about this photograph.  This article is all about arguing against Community Water Fluoridation (CWF).  And it is true that Very Mild and Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with CWF.  (Kumar has demonstrated that these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay - but that is irrelevant to this discussion.)  So the implication that is being made with this photograph is - this is what happens from drinking water which has been fluoridated to the optimal level. 

 

According to standard and widely accepted Dean's Index used for the diagnosis of Dental Fluorosis --

 

Very Mild Dental Fluorosis is defind as teeth having, "Small, opaque, paper white areas scattered irregularly over the tooth but not involving as much as approximately 25% of the tooth surface. Frequently included in this classification are teeth showing no more than about 1 – 2mm of white opacity at the tip of the summit of the cusps, of the bicuspids or second molars."

 

Nothing about Colorado Brown Stain there.

 

Mild Dental Fluorosis , which is what these teeth are defined as having, is, "The white opaque areas in the enamel of the teeth are more extensive but do involve as much as 50% of the tooth."

 

Hmmm . . Nothing about Colorado Brown Stain there either.  Isn't that interesting.

 

Moderate Dental Fluorosis, which is not associated with CWF, is defined as, "All enamel surfaces of the teeth are affected and surfaces subject to attrition show wear. Brown stain is frequently a disfiguring feature."

 

Colorado Brown Stain, which you seem convinced that these teeth have, is a characteristic of Moderate Dental Fluorosis . . . But these teeth are diagnosed as having Mild Dental Fluorosis - which, again, can be associated with CWF.  

 

This photograph is not an example of what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water.  This photograph is a lie.

 

Still want to stick with your story that there is nothing deceptive about the use of this photograph as an argument against CWF on a website whose sole motive is to generate fear and paranoia about CWF?

0 Kudos
13,949 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Stained fluorotic teeth are common in areas of Colorado where fluoride is significant in drinking water. The name Colorado brown stain" was given for the affliction in the 1930's. So why is that "deceptive" to give an example of what can commonly happen to flurotic teeth since fluorosis leaves teeth with enamel hypoplasia (thin enamel) that is more subject to staining than normal teeth which do not contian fluoride?

This is not deceptive at all.

The observatiuon of good teeth in one country and poor teeth in another is not due to fluoride ingestion. Fluoride ingestion has nothing to do with dental caries, as proven in detailed perfectly controlled animal studies and in our largest epidemiiologic human studies. The presence of flujoride salt and the absence of fluoridated water are an anecdotal coincidental correlation.There are many regions where caries are lower when the water is devoid of fluoride and higher when the water is high in fluoride. This is because eating fluoride has absolutely nothing to do with dental caries. It is calcium content of the diet and the lack of sugar in the diet that have the largest effect., as prove4n inthe 30 year massive study by Teotia and Teotia.

What is deceptive is to claim that low levels of fluoride that are harmless even to salmon can somehow magically harden the hardest substance in the body, teeth enamel.

And what is deceptive is the article that was published by the Asso.Press this week by the CDC, who bames the high incidence of dental fluorosis in U.S. teens on kids using too much toothpaste when brushing. Wow. No mention of the fact that the CDC endorses water fluoridation which is responsible for 80% of the fluoride ion found in one's bloodsream in a fluoridated city (NRC, 2006). Unbelievable stupidity at best, and at worst downright deception and finger pointing to avoid litigation and any possible correction of following a deceptive false correlation to its full course..

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
16,134 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,  

 

Dr. Limeback had said, "There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area."

 

So what we have here are the iron stained teeth of a young man who grew up in a non-fluoridated area.  The man had a history of not drinking artifically fluoridated water.  

 

The photograph of these iron stained teeth are being used as an unsightly example on a website dedicated to the abolition of community water fluoridation.  

 

You don't see that as deceptive?  Interesting.

0 Kudos
16,186 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“In large measure, those marred by dementia are showing the results of toxicity from mercury, aluminum, lead, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals. Their neurons have been poisoned. They are turned into Alzheimer’s victims directly through the efforts of dentists who blindly follow the party line of their trade union organization, the ADA.” - Dr. Morton Walker, DPM (1994)

 

Fluoride, too, Dr. Walker. This month, January 2019, the Alzheimer's Association had enough. They demanded its name be removed from the ADA & CDC lists of fluoridation supporters. 

 

Fluoridated water poisons from womb to tomb, with those on either end of that spectrum counting among the vulnerable sub-populations because of several factors, most notably their reduced kidney function to eliminate the toxin and increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier. 

 

Fluoridationists will continue to do their song and dance, but it's as futile as rearranging chairs on the Titantic. 

Alzheimer's Assoc off ADA listAlzheimer's Assoc off ADA list

16,935 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“Official stories exist to protect officials.“ - Liam Scheff, investigative journalist and author of “Official Stories: Counter-Arguments for a Culture in Need” (2012)

 

Senator Ted Kennedy led the Congress in condemming the CDC, NMA & AMA sanctioned Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment that withheld diagnosis & treatment from infected men and their families 'in the interest of the greater good' which was to study the progression of untreated syphllis. 

 

The 1974 National Research Act and 1979 Belmont Report came out of that effort. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was also created in 1974. It would never occur to people in general to have to write laws saying that doctors and government agencies should behave ethically and not cause suffering and spread of an infectious disease by using self-serving and immoral justifications - but there we had it. The CDC, under the direction of the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) and with the support of independent associations of doctors, who also endorse fluoridation, perpetuated a fraud that did exactly that.

 

The only reason that three decade 'experiment' ended was a public health service employee got fed up with trying to get the public health service to act ethically since 1966 and leaked the story to the New York Times and Senator Kennedy in 1973. 

 

This month, Sen. Kennedy's nephew, human rights activist & environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr, through the Children's Health Defense which he chairs has issued a condemnation of fluoridation as a human experiment that must end! RFK who recently won a case against Monsanto that included unearthing documents proving EPA & Monsanto collusion to hide evidence that RoundUp causes cancer has also filed fraud and obstruction of justice charges against the DHHS and its DOJ attorneys this month on another issue. 

 

Now tell me again how we should trust endorsements from the CDC, DHHS, AMA, etc. and how ethical these fluoridationist are. Also, explain how the authors of the SDWA didn't have ethics in mind when they inserted the language they did about not using water to dose people, albeit hampered by federal vs. state jurisdictional constraints. 

  • The question at hand is whether the AARP has the integirty & courage to do the right thing like the PHS employee who leaked the story to the NY Times?
17,036 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” - Albert Einstein 

 

I got curious so went looking for that study on fluoride reducing brain size in rats that Chuck apparently sent Bill in error. I didn't find it, but I found two others that I found interesting given that I had been experiencing alarming liver problems between 2012-2014 that disappeared overnight without returning when I got very strict about avoiding fluoride, even using no-low fluoride water to brush my teeth. My gastrointestinal, kidney and arthritic symptoms that plagued me for decades also diappeared not to return. Ditto for my high cholesterol which began in my 20s concurrent with all those other symptoms and the fluoridation of my town. 

 

Fluoride messes with lipids which are the body's main energy store and associated with the liver as well as messes with the immune system. (Afolabi et al. 2013)

 

Low doses of fluoride damages good antioxidants that protects cells and increases lipid peroxidation which is damaging to cells, particularly the liver. (Yamaguti et al. 2013)

 

We don't need any more studies: Fluoride is poison in any dose, more dangerous to some people than others, but particularly dangerous to the bodies, bones and brains of senior citizens who have consumed it daily for decades. 

17,075 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Regarding the effect of fluoride on the brains of rodents, the abstract of a paper titled ‘Neurotoxicity of fluoride: Neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice’ (Bhatnagar et al., 2002) published in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology reads:

“Light microscopic study of hippocampal sub-regions demonstrated significant number of degenerated nerve cell bodies in the CA3, CA4 and dentate gyrus(Dg) areas of sodium fluoride administered adult female mice. Ultrastructural studies revealed neurodegenrative characteristics like involution of cell membranes, swelling of mitochondria, clumping of chromatin material etc. can be observed in cell bodies of CA3, CA4 and dentate gyrus (Dg). Fluoride intoxicated animals also performed poorly in motor co-ordination tests and maze tests. Inability to perform well increased with higher fluoride concentration in drinking water.”

See full paper at IJEB 40(5) 546-554.pdf

17,073 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

 

Ross, 

 

A good study supporting the consensus of other studies.  

My friends just put together a few more items on fluoride and the brain.

 

FLUORIDATION’S NEUROTOXICITY

There is no question that fluoride is neurotoxic, damaging the brain and central nervous system, as documented by hundreds of studies. Extensive scientific evidence, including studies at exposures caused by fluoridated water, show it can harm children. It can NOT be declared safe.

 

2006: The National Research Council published Fluoride in Drinking Water1, the most authoritative review of

fluoride’s toxicity. It stated unequivocally that “fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body” and “the chief endocrine effects of fluoride include decreased thyroid function.”

 

2012: A Harvard-funded meta-analysis2 found that children ingesting higher levels of fluoride tested an average 7 IQ points lower in 26 out of 27 studies. Most had higher fluoride concentrations than in U.S. water, but many had total exposures to fluoride no more than what millions of Americans receive.

 

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.”

Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, Harvard study co-author, Danish National Board of Health consultant, co-editor of Environmental Health, author of over 500 scientific papers.

 

2015: A study3 covering nearly all of England found that populations drinking fluoridated water had nearly twice as

high prevalence of hypothyroidism (low thyroid level), known to be linked to IQ deficits. The study’s authors concluded there is substantial cause for public health concern.”

 

2017: A petition to EPA4 to end fluoridation found fluoride caused neurotoxic harm in 57 out of 61 human studies (mainly lowered IQ), several at levels in fluoridated water, and 112 out of 115 animal studies. EPA denied the petition, triggering a lawsuit going to trial in federal court in 2019.

 

2017: A National Institutes of Health - funded longitudinal study5 in Mexico covering 13 years, one of the most robust ever done, found that every one part per million increase in fluoride in pregnant women’s urine – approximately the difference caused by ingestion of fluoridated water6 - was associated with a reduction of their children’s IQ by an average 5-6 points. Leonardo Trasande, a leading physician unaffiliated with the study, said it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water.” 7

 

2018: A Canadian study8 representing 6.9 million people found iodine-deficient adults (nearly 18% of the population) with higher fluoride levels had a greater risk of hypothyroidism. The study’s lead scientist, Ashley Malin, said “I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure.” 9

  1. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards),

  2. Choi et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/

  3. Peckham et al http://jech.bmj.com/content/69/7/619

  4. http://fluoridealert.org/content/content-bulletin_3-1-18/

  5. Bashash et al https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/

  6. Till et al https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP3546

  7. Newsweek, Sept. 19, 2017, https://www.newsweek.com/childrens-iq-could-be-lowered-drinking-tap-water-while-pregnant-667660

  8. Malin et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=till+malin+fluoride+thyroid

  9. Environmental Health News, Oct. 10, 2018, https://www.ehn.org/we-add-it-to-

 

 
17,068 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“In my book, ‘Health and Nutrition Secrets,’ I have a long chapter on the fluoridation issue in which I cite and discuss a great number of real scientific studies which show conclusively that the fluoridation of public drinking water to prevent cavities is not only a scam but that it is also quite harmful, especially being linked to significant brain pathology.” -  Russell L. Blaylock MD, board certified neurosurgeon and  Editor-in-chief of Neuroinflammation section of Surgical Neurology International  (8 Jan 2019)

 

One of the online strategies of the fluoridationists is to bury substantive comments with lots of rhetorical noise. Here are four major points with hyperlinks to supporting detail that they are trying to hide from AARP and seniors on this forum: 

 

  1. Many scientists, doctors, dentists and professionals have come to the conclusion based on the evidence that fluoridation provides little to no dental benefit, but harms bodies, brains and bones. Click here and here

  2. Groups particularly vulnerable to ill effects from fluoridated water include pregnant women, bottle fed babies, senior citizens and any with chronic health conditions. 

  3. Many plants and aquatic species have low tolerance for fluoride which builds up in the environment from waste water where it persists a millions years or more along with the tramp contaminants included in fluoridation chemicals which are the waste product of industry. Click here.

  4. Judges have determined that fluoridation is harmful but legal under US law and should be dealt with by the legislative branch of government or regulatory agencies, but the well-monied fluoride stakeholders who include Big Pharma & Big Sugar as well as the ADA and industrial fluoride interest, pay millions to lobbyists, (and even fund social media campaigns) in order to perpetuate the profitable deceit. Click here

 

Hence, the condemnation of fluoridation from organizations of integrity like the Chlldren's Health Defense, LULAC, IAOMT, and AARP is very important. Click here.

 

DentistsDoctors1.jpgDentistsDoctors2.jpg

 Bottle fed babiesBottle fed babies

16,011 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Reviews don't counter the primary data, as published for animal studies, and human studies by Ziegelbecker and by Teotia and Teotia and by Yiamouyiannis and in the large CA Dental research study. Reviews also do not include the analysis by Sutton that demonstrate all the original trials purporting to see effectiveness are uncontrolled.

Dr Paul Connett knows better than to claim that fluoridafion is either significantly effective or harmless.  In fact if you read his published book "The Case Against Fluoride; How Hazardous Waste Ended up in our Drinking Water and the Politics that Keep it There" you might learn facts that Paul knows and teaches.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,711 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

How in the world could the drafters of the SDWA have known ahead of time that in the future there would be such unscrupulous people as to force fluoridate the country by making the ludicrous claims that 1) ingesting fluoride into the bloodstream somehow improves rock-hard teeth enamel but yet 2) at the same time is totally harmless to softer bone that accumulates fluoride readily. All wihtout provided links or proofs for such outlandish claims.

If the drafters had known this, would they then have simply outright prohibited the practice of fluoridating other peopless' drinking water (other than that which oneself drinks)? I don't know but we now know they should have.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,600 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

Richard and AARP,

 

You are absolutely spot on the mark.  

 

SDWA (and EPA in my communication with them) are clear and precise, adding anything to water for the treatment of people is prohibited. 

 

The amount of water people drink is not controlled and therefore dosage is not controlled. 

 

On the other hand, the FDA has not approved ingesting fluoride (through the regulatory process) because the evidence on efficacy is incomplete.

 

AARP should take the scientific and ethical high road and facilitate the review of science on fluoride ingestion.   Good scientists, reviewing data will usually come to similar conclusions.  Consensus is possible.

 

The big problem is the "shut down" of Government.  Not the current shut down, but the shut down of scientific evaluation by government agencies.  Open scientific investigation is simply not permitted if the evidence raises questions on tradition. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

6,569 Views
4
Report
Regular Contributor

If you are correct about this is should be trivial in court to demand the "proper" action. Community water fluoridation has been reviewed and reviewed.

Here's a link to a graphic listing of just under 20 such reviews.

http://tinyurl.com/y8gpuuos

I know for a fact that Paul Connett personally testified before some of these expert panels. In fact, excellent scientists selected specifically for their expertise all came to similar conclusions: fluoridation prevents cavities and is safe.
0 Kudos
6,588 Views
3
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

I had a closer look and over 200 peer reviewed published studies reporting harm to the brain from fluoride exposure.

 

Simply made no sense that you would be sending me so many articles on harm to the brain from fluoride in an effort to convince us that fluoride is safe.

 

I thought, certainly Dr. Chuck has not read these studies and still supports fluoridation.

 

Studies through a number of years, smaller brains, with potential treatments such as vitamin therapy and other methods to try and ameliorate the brain damage.

 

Studies on learning diminished.  Studies on intelligence diminished.

 

And then I discovered the possible catch.  The link you sent took me to my Drop Box but must not be the references you intended.   Please send the references again.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

7,919 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

7,884 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

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

7,051 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,509 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,492 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,487 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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).

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,234 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

0 Kudos
6,267 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,208 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

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.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,189 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“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 WonderlandMad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland

6,177 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

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

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays

More From AARP