Solved: AARP Online Community and Discussion Forums - Re: Astroturfing on AARP from New Zealand - Page 15

CarryAnne · ‎02-02-2015

“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

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
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.😞

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
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);

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

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

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

Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf

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.”

PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:

a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!

CarryAnne · ‎10-14-2024

“Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks!

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real."

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers.

UNSAFE: p. 2: the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

HAZARD: p 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people.

View solution in original post

DavidF928895 · ‎02-19-2019

aka "Carrie Anne" writes:

"Oh course, if KenP had looked at the history of this thread beginning in Feb 2015, he would see I posted considerable scientific studies with discussion and that approximately 20+ seniors amiably joined in over a period of 3 years. That ended in June 2018 when the fluoride trolls descended en masse."

Response: Glad to see you are documenting movements of the trolls. If you get caught passing the dossier off to Christopher Steele, remind KenP that it was originally paid for by Republicans.

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

Yes, I see you download citations and make claims about them - in bulk. But no discussion.

This is not the place for an extensive exchange on all your citations so I will just respond to one of them - the Bashash et al (2018). I am very familiar with this and have written a document which is relevant:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330897483_Evidence_linking_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_...

While these studies do suffer from the problems of using data not designed for the hypothesis they test and the urinary F spot measures are really inadequate, I have concentrated on the over advocacy of the regression analysis results.

Yes, they were able to find a few parameters (not all they tested) that were significantly related to maternal urinary F but, like the earlier IQ study, the regressions are poor. An R-squared value of only 3% really does not suggest there is a real problem - especially as when more important risk-modifying factors like nutrition are included, the relationship with urinary F would probably disappear. (I found that the Malin and Till 2015 study also suffered from not including relevant risk-modifying factors - when they are included, the relationship with fluodiation disappears completely - see my paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321457780_Fluoridation_and_attention_deficit_hyperactivity_... )

Bashash et al (2018) do acknowledge limitations in their study and specifically mention nutrition as one. They imply they will do more work to include this. As Malin et al (2018) found significant relationships between maternal nutrition and child IQ parameters with a subset of these child-mother pairs it will be interesting to see the results of including maternal nutrition in Bashash et al's regressions. Malin et al (2018) explained more of the variance (R-squared value over 11%) so I look forward to future publication from the group.

By the way, your claim that my "job was to develop fluoride-intensive fertilizers and pesticides" the is an absolute lie. I never worked with pesticides - or the development of fertilisers. You should be ashamed of lying in this way and it certainly undermines any claim you have to credibility.

Please stop such personal attacks and concentrate instead on good faith scientific exchange.

DrChuckHaynie · ‎02-19-2019

Claims that fluoride is related to cancer are mistaken.

An exhaustive review of all the scientific data was done by the California Carcinogen Identification Committee. Full briefs were filed by a number of fluoridation opponents.

The commmittee, composed of a scientists with broad technical expertise voted unanimously that fluoride is NOT ASSOCIATED WITH CANCER AT ANY concentration.

All of the documents considered may be viewed here:

http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/public_meetings/cic092311.html

Formal reviews by expert panels are the highest quality of scientific information. There really is nothing more to discuss re fluoride and cancer.

rs5526 · ‎02-19-2019

I'm a native Californian and am fully familiar with the CA DPH analysis on fluoride carcinogenicity. They did not perform any experiments. They simply analyzed published materials. And again humans cannot be caged so they are limited to the data that was published by those humans who are not caged.

Most important, the Committee did not consider the Yiamouyiannis data because they were only looking for carcinogenic potential, not mortality incidence from extant cancers.

Their conclusion was that the evidence available in man does not prove fluoride causes cancer.

So what?

The Yiamouyiannis data prove that fluoride increases mortality in those who have cancer. lt appears to inmpair ones ability to fight cancer after it develops.

Again what is so difficult for you to grasp? And why is it my fault you cannot grasp it? You call me names but have no justification for it. Give it up.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

I haven't looked too deeply into the fluoride-cancer issue, except for specifically analysing a few papers. But one thing that strikes me is that the reports anti-fluoride activists rely on usually have inadequate statistical analyses. For instance, ignoring the very low explanatory power of the relationships reported (low R-squared values) and ignoring other risk-modifying factors (which when included show that there is no real relationship with fluoride.

I discussed these problems with the Takahashi et al., (2001 paper here:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/08/07/fluoridation-and-cancer/

And the general reliance of anti-fluoride activists on poor statistical analyses here:
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/12/05/anti-fluoridation-campaigners-often-use-statistical-s...

CarryAnne · ‎02-19-2019

1950s

"More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette"
"Ask your dentist, I would recommend Viceroys!"
"Scientific evidence on the effects of smoking - Chesterfields are best for you!"

2018

A Federal Court has ordered Altria, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, Lorillard, and Philip Morris USA to make this statement about the health effects of smoking.

Smoking kills, on average, 1,200 Americans. Every day.
More people die every year from smoking than from murder, AIDS, suicide, drugs, car crashes, and alcohol, combined.
Smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, acute myeloid leukemia, and cancer of the mouth, esophagus, larynx, lung, stomach, kidney, bladder, and pancreas.
Smoking also causes reduced fertility, low birth weight in newborns, and cancer of the cervix.

We all live in our own time and are consequently subject to opinions of those times. We all remember that even after it finally was accepted that smoking kills, the tobacco giants insisted there was no danger from second hand smoke - right up until a few years ago when internal memos revealed they knew for decades that even 2nd hand smoke causes cancer and other disease.

Fluoridation is on its way to having the same reveal, and fluoride players are just as desperately trying to 'win' the argument with disinformation campaigns.

As to the cancer data, cancer isn't my go to but I hate to see tobacco style misdirection from today's fluoridationists that misrepresents historical as well as scientific facts :

“I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started.” - Dr. Dean Burk, biochemist at National Cancer Institute (1982)

"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... 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)

in HIGHLIGHTS IN NORTH AMERICAN LITIGATION DURING THE TWENTIETH CENTURY ON FLUORIDATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES by JR Graham & P Marin, J. Land Use and Envtl. Law, Vol 14:2 (Spring 1999)
- In response to NIH objections: “Dr. Burk and his colleagues had a remarkable answer: The available and pertinent data for the years after 1950, were 1953-1968. Without the trends in these years, nobody would suspect that there is a causal relationship between fluoridation and cancer. In its adjustment, the NCI considered l950 before fluoridation began in the experimental cities, and 1970 after fluoridation had already been initiated in the control cities, and did not consider the years 1953- 1968 which were the whole basis of concern. In other words, the NCI simply derived their CDRo values from data reported for 1950 and 1970, and ignored all else, as if 1953-1968 were unimportant.
- “Having omitted all available and pertinent data in their adjustment, it is not surprising that the NCI came up with the wrong answer. In the same hearings before Congress, it was demonstrated by a colleague of Dr. Burk that, if the adjustment proposed by the NCI is undertaken using all available and pertinent data after 1950, there emerges an impressive association between fluoridation and age-race-sex adjusted cancer mortality.”

License to Kill

DavidF928895 · ‎02-19-2019

"Carrie Anne,"

This is interesting, since you decided to chime in on the cancer issue that Dr. Richard brought up, here is a list of 116 things that can cause cancer. . . I don't see fluoride or fluoridated water anywhere on it. Hmm . . How do you explain that? https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/28/116-things-that-can-give-you-cancer-list

BillO538145 · ‎02-19-2019

David,

Like you, I questioned whether fluoride caused cancer. Instead of going to a historical news society column, I went to PubMed and did a search for the words "cancer" and "fluoride" in the primary literature. Try it.

In reading the articles, I came on one where a pharmaceutical company was testing their cancer TREATMENT drug on live animals. The drug showed promise in curing the cancer.

Of interest to me was how they caused cancer in their test animals. After all, finding a hundred cancer animals of the same age and cancer would be rather difficult with many many hundreds of thousands of animals or millions to find the cancers to test. Imagine raising all those animals and simply testing each animal for cancer, the stage and kind of cancer. An unimaginably massive and cost prohibitive task.

So the pharmaceutical companies CAUSE cancer in the animals. That's right. They cause the cancer so they can test the new cancer drug. Not so human, but at least they get the cancer animals to test in a predictible timely manner.

Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

You guessed it. SODIUM FLUORIDE.

To argue that fluoride does not cause cancer shows a lack of careful evaluation of the literature.

The arguement is dosage, synergistic chemical effects, host sensitivity, genetics, etc.

With two thirds of children showing a toxic overdose of fluoride ingestion, hundreds of new untested chemicals being created each year, synergistic effects of known cancer chemicals, it is long past time to reduce total exposure.

Perhaps the final truth on all science has not been discovered and we need a safety factor, a margin of error, a "we don't know everything" and protect the public rather than assume government scientists are not politically influenced.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

DavidF928895 · ‎02-20-2019

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this is pure fiction:

"In reading the articles, I came on one where a pharmaceutical company was testing their cancer TREATMENT drug on live animals. The drug showed promise in curing the cancer.

"Of interest to me was how they caused cancer in their test animals. After all, finding a hundred cancer animals of the same age and cancer would be rather difficult with many many hundreds of thousands of animals or millions to find the cancers to test. Imagine raising all those animals and simply testing each animal for cancer, the stage and kind of cancer. An unimaginably massive and cost prohibitive task.

"So the pharmaceutical companies CAUSE cancer in the animals. That's right. They cause the cancer so they can test the new cancer drug. Not so human, but at least they get the cancer animals to test in a predictible timely manner.

"Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

"You guessed it. SODIUM FLUORIDE."

If anybody wants to prove me wrong, now's the time.

rs5526 · ‎02-20-2019

Have those here even read the CA OEHHA report on fluoride and cancer below?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwj1pO-x-8rgAhVIj54KHV7sC1k...

A key finidng is that fluoride transforms (converts normal cells to cancer cells) mammalian tissue cultures. The NRC 2006 Report tried to dismiss these data by claiming it has no relevance to humans. The CA review stated that the effrect has been confirmed repeatedly and that there is no evidence to justify the claim that it is irrelevant to humans..

Knowing how difficult it is to control humans in cages, and that it is not possible to study the possible carcinogenic potential of fluoide over lifelong time periods, to determine whether fluoride is carcinogenic or not, the serious effect proven in cultured mamalian cells is far too troubling to be laughed off. .

The Yiamouyiannis data was considered in the report and also in the CDC ATSDR full report 2003. No one can disprove it though many have tried, where fluoride inhibitis the immune system in fighting cancer and increases cancer morlality when it is present.

Get the crap out of our water..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-19-2019

BillO, your comment:

" Instead of going to a historical news society column, I went to PubMed and did a search for the words "cancer" and "fluoride" in the primary literature. "

Response: No doubt. I'm sure there are dozens of studies by authors who have something they want to prove or have some sort of axe to grind . . . Or you could just take a look at the American Cancer Society's list of known and probable carcinogens. It's right here. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

Guess what, fluoride isn't listed. But you're Dr. Bill. I'm sure you are more knowledgable about cancer than the experts at the American Cancer Society.

Your quote: "Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

You guessed it. SODIUM FLUORIDE."

Response: Guess what. Sodium fluoride isn't listed as a known or probable cancer causer either. You need to get the ACS on board with your way of thinking, because, you know, you're a lot smarter than they are.

sirpac271999 · ‎02-19-2019

Wow! Thank you for this insight, Dr. Osmunson!
Sodium fluoride, and probably other fluorides as well, are the chosen means to cause artificial cancer in test animals. This shows knowledge and callous disregard for the fact that fluorides are carcinogenic agents of destruction. And of course, this is directly in violation of the Safe Water Act, which prohibits any addition of chemicals into the water supply, which may cause cancer. I would not trust American Cancer Society, or any other industry affiliated association, to tell the truth as their livelihood depends on certain type of messaging. Just with a quick search I found this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Sodium+fluoride+to+cause+cancer+in+test+animals

US population is subject to mass poisoning without their informed consent! What kind of a country is the United States anyway? What happened to basic freedoms to life, liberty, and justice, when this fluoridation policy is in effect? It appears US population has been conned to swallow the lies of petrochemical-fluoride-sugar industry to use the people as consumers and filters of the most noxious chemical agents without their knowledge and informed consent. Brainwashing does not count as an informed consent. Of course now the industry has launched an attack to hold on to this policy of destruction!

rs5526 · ‎02-19-2019

It is very diffricult to prove in living human beings that a slow acting poison causes or does not cause cancer. I avoid the conclusion that fluoride does so in humans even though much evidence suggests it could, from the in vitro data on its mitogenic properties. Studying fluoride in tissue culture with a particular, convenient cell type also is not much help in deciding whether it does or does not cause cancer in any other tissue. Bone tissue cannot be cultured. It is a dififcult question for any scientist to address in humans. But in animals that can be placed in cages that are perfectly controlled, it most certaintly causes cancer when given for a significant fraction of the animals known lifespan.

As far as effects on dental caries in kids, the same problems arise only more so. Proving fluoride reduces decay or does not is diifficult in humans who cannot be put in cages. The Cochrane review found very few studies that could even be considered semi-decent. and in those no one could control variables such as how much candy one ate between groups, or how well brushing habits were, or so many other variables that affect the oral cavity exposed to the surroundings betwen the control and experimental groups..Experiments with caged animals prove no effect of fluoridated water on spontaneous caries. Period.

Further, when teeth were scored in the original human experiments in Grand Rapids and Newburg, the absence of teeth were scored as absence of dental caries. We now know that fluoride ingestion causes delayed teeth eruption due to probably its effect on the thyroid. So no teeth, no caries, and voila fluoride "reduces dental decay". i could say the same thing if one were to remove my teeth with a hammer. The procedure reduced caries. So what? For this we expose millions of innocent victims to chronic systemic poisoning by fluoride?

Fluoride is a toxic substance at any concentration in the blood. It is not listed in nursing texts, the Merck Manual, or any Clinical Chemistry text as being a component of normal human blood--because it is a contaminant of blood.

At 3-4 ppm in the blood, as during an overfeed where one actually consumes lots of water, death ensues due to heart block as occurred in Hooper Bay from an accidental overfeed.

Aat 1 ppm in blood, as occurs in paitents using municipal fluioride water in kidney dialysis wards, mortality increases over periods of months due to cardiac failure.

At 0.1 pppm as occurs in the average consumer of 1 ppm fluoridated water (NRC, 2006) chronic poisoning occurs. Skeletal fluoride incorporation begins with the very first sip and progresses throughout life, causing formation of bone of poor quailty.

These are the facts.

The fluoridation scam is just that, a misguided attempt to help kids but we now know is actually harming them and everyone else.

The Safe Drinking Water Act prohbits requiring any substance added into U.S. waters other than that required to sanitize the water. Fluoridationists, including the dental officials at the CDC especially, follow the law and leave the rest of society alone please.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

Bill, could you please provide a citation for this paper you refer to - the use of NaF to induce cancer?

I would like to check out the conditions used to assess its relevance to this discussion.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-19-2019

"Carrie Anne,"

Thank you for providing cigarette advertisements from the 1950s. If that is your idea of science, it says a lot about why you take statements from legitimate studies out of context.

Please show me the peer-reviewed studies from the 1950s which demonstrate the positive health effects from smoking.

Here are 3 demonstrating positive health effects from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

1.) Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/?fbclid=IwAR1zG0dD79ylheW-aFjOYuORp8ekEGAR4mnUU...

"children residing in areas with ≥0.7 ppm fluoride in the water supplies had both lower caries prevalence and lower caries experience."

2.) Fluoride Concentration of Drinking Water in Babil-Iraq

http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/jas/2011/3315-3321.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3AuGPkThTk0lwJZWA1X_Yx_ZV2emwK4T...

"... it is found that the level of fluoride is far below the upper level recommended by WHO and by Bureau of Iraqi Standards. To prevent dental caries, it is recommended that drinking water in iraq should be fluorideated."

3.) Water fluoridation in 40 Brazilian cities: 7 year analysis

http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1678-77572013000100013&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=e...

"The majority of samples from cities performing fluoridation had fluoride levels within the range that provides the best combination of risks and benefits, minimizing the risk of dental fluorosis while preventing dental caries"

It is interesting that you would cite Dr. Dean Burk who worked for the National Cancer Institute and who also said water fluoridation leads to cancer, since the National Cancer Institute is on the record saying there is no relationship between water fluoridation and cancer:

"After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water" https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/fluoridated-water-fact-sheet

Oh . . by the way, before I forget, Ken P, a retired chemist living in New Zealand, invited you for a scientific exchange on his blog page, "Open Parachute." The advantage of such an exchange on that forum is that comments won't be lost or buried by other people commenting who are in fact attempting to bury them. You wouldn't know anything about that though, would you.

So I am confused by your response. It is rather vague. Is that a "Yes," you would be delighted to engage in this proposed discourse, or is that a "No," you would rather have your out-of-context citations remain unchallenged, . . . and if challenged, have the corrections buried?

CarryAnne · ‎02-19-2019

Fluoridation advocates and their political partners ”share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.” - A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz in Communicating risk that involve ‘uncertainty bias’… Journal of Risk Research. August 2016.

KenP revealed his identity on 2/18/2019 when he wrote "Read my recent article on.... OpenParachute.wordpress.com...."

The blog posts of a retired chemist living in New Zealand are not science and the efforts of a small team of fluoridationists who overwhelm every online conversation in the English speaking world with vindictive is not ethics. It's an orchestrated disinformation campaign.

If you want to brush your teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, I won't stop you. If you want to buy a gallon of fluoridated water for a buck to drink at your kitchen table, more power to you - but not the power to enact an immoral medical mandate to add this drug to municipal water supplies where it worsens the health of those with arthritis, psoriasis, thyroid disease, kidney disease, etc.

2017 in Revista médica de Chile. The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health (don't - fluoridation causes various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems) https://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28453591

2018 in Scientific Report. Impact of Drinking Water Fluoride on Human Thyroid Hormones (Recommends RO and distilled water because even 0.5 mg/L has an adverse impact): https://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5805681/

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

KenP self identifies as NZ blogger

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

CarryAnne - what a weird response. I comment here with a reasonable offer for you to expand on the numerous claims and citations you have made here. I offer a good faith scientific exchange along the lines of that I had with Paul Connett 5 years ago. I made that exchange available also on Researchgate and it had had numerous downloads and reads. I have been told that people have found it an ideal source becuase of the topics covered and the citations used by Paul and me. Don't forget, at least half of the content was Paul's

And you respond with what looks like a deranged Neo-McCarthyist attack.

Do you understand what astroturfing is? I am picking you don't because, at least on my side, there has never been an example of astroturfing.

And what is this about me "revealling" my identity as if I had something to hide. I registed here with my perosnal information and location - nothing is hidden. I refer to myself, my research, my scientific publications and to my blog articles on this issue. Nothing is hidden from my side. I have an extensive published research record and all that is easily available online and can be accessed at Researchgate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ken_Perrott/research

Perhaps I should make the charge that you are hiding you full name, using a non-deplume and providing no information on your background or expertise (or lack thereof).

Come on! Front up. What is your answer. Will, you particpate in an uncensored free exchange of the science in good faith? If not, why not? At the moment it looks very much as if you are running away from the offer and spreading disinformation to cover your retreat.

CarryAnne · ‎02-19-2019

Astroturfing: An organized activity that is intended to create a false impression of a widespread, spontaneously arising, grassroots movement ...

Troll: A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.

Question 1: Why did a New Zealand blogger infamous for his posts supporting fluoridation & denigrating opponents both on his blog and on letters to the editor across the English speaking world suddenly join the AARP - American Asociation of Retired Persons which is "dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age" with a barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans on the AARP forum?

Answer: He was recruited by a small but organized team of fluoridationists.

Question 2: What would prevent an intelligent person from engaging in a debate on OpenParachute with Ken P?

Answer 1: This is about evidence & ethics, not personalities.
Answer 2: Letting someone who repeatedly describes his opponents in debates as 'dishonest,' 'deranged' and 'so intellectually stubborn as to make rational discussion impossible' and refers to scientific studies and reports that do not support his point of view as 'pathetic,' 'ideologically approved' and 'unscientific' control an online debate on his website under his control is the equivalent of a battered woman giving her husband another chance after getting out of the hospital from a beating. Fatally naive.

Note: Language in quotes from KenP within the last 48 hours directed at AARP seniors.

KenP - 19 comments in 48 hours

.

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

CarryAnne neither of your definitions apply to me. Unlike local (and presumably US) anti-fluoride organisations I have never started a group pretending to represent a grass root movement. Nor have I deliberately started an argument on ine.

Of course, you do not provide examples. I do often participate in online discussions on things related to misrepresentation of scient (anti-fluoridation activity, creationism, religion and the philosophy of science) and political issues (like the US policy of regime change and the Russiagate hysteria in the US).

Your question 1 is of the “when are you going to stop beating your wife?” type. There is absolutely no “barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans” coming from me. No one requested or directed my presence here. Like most exchanges, I came here because I became aware of a discussion that interested me. Not surprising, as I follow Richard, David and Bill on social media and have often “crossed swords” with them. (Bill has now opted out of any discussion by blocking me on social media – so I was surprised he responded to me here). Come to think of it, Bill does fit your description of a troll:
“A person who starts quarrels or upsets people on the Internet to distract and sow discord by posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion, whether for the troll's amusement or a specific gain.”

I was rather pleased when he blocked me because discussion with such trolls always proves useless – especially as it turns away any genuinely interested person.

Your questions 2 and answers is simply a copout. I was clearly asking for a good faith exchange on the science. My example was the exchange with Paul Connett – can you point to anything from me in that exchange which was not about the science and ethics? No. I can reveal that Paul did resort to a personal attack in one extremely long contribution – but removed the attack when he rewrote to reduce the length.

This is the sort of exchange I was offering you. OK, perhaps you feel inadequate with the science so do not wish to accept my offer. I can understand – but please don’t excuse your temerity with personal attacks on me.

My offer was genuine – but I am not surprised you declining it. I have noticed you cite many papers which you do not, and probably cannot discuss. You seem to be typical of the anti-fluoride troll who scans the literature, relies on titles, never reads beyond the abstract, if that, and is incapable of honestly and openly discussing the science involved,

Perhaps Richard would take up the offer. After all, we have similar chemical qualifications so should be able to discuss the science easily.

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

I think the problem with CarieAnne and similar anti-fluoride activists who continually post letters to the editor and online comments is that they get upset about not having things all their own way. They want an open field where they can say anything they like without being confronted with hard scientific facts or being challenged by someone who is familiar with the science.

But, come on. the internet is a wonderful place where different views can be expressed and opinion exchanged. It is rather childish to expect that one can have things their own way. And, after all, those of us that do have some confidence in their scientific understanding of the issue do welcome the chance to exchange opinions and to clarify the science.

BillO538145 · ‎02-19-2019

Ken,

You are not serious are you? Your comments made me laugh out loud with a full belly laugh.

The science posted has been mostly by those who want clean unmedicated water.

And I keep missing your response to my questions on over exposure.

With over 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis (20% moderate/severe) NHANES 2011-2012 at what point will you admit (without humor) that many are ingesting too much fluoride? Would you recommend 5% with severe dental fluorosis, 10% severe, or should everyone have severe dental fluorosis?

So the question is, what of the many sources of fluoride should be reduced?

Fertilizer, pesticides, medications, industry, toothpaste, fluoride added to public water?

Thanks,

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

Bill, I ask for the citation of the paper where you claimed NaF was used to induce cancer in animals. My wish is to assess the relevance of the paper to the issue.

So what do I get in respionse:

"You are not serious are you? Your comments made me laugh out loud with a full belly laugh."

Come on - that is not respectful. I just want to check the paper. Why hide it?

Of course, I miss most of your comments - you blocked me, don't forget.

I seriously question your motives of coming here to respond to my comments when you have refused rational discussion on social media by blocking me.

BillO538145 · ‎02-19-2019

Ken,

I was not laughing at your request for science. I was laughing at the bizzar lack of support for excess exposure. I simply don't have time to read all the posts.

OK, you want a reference for sodium fluoride being used to induce cancer. Don't have one at my fingertips. Obviously, pharmaceutical companies induce cancer to test their drugs. What chemicals do they use? One is sodium fluoride. Look it up on PubMed.

And did you respond to the excess exposure of fluoride?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

Bill, I looked for this on PubMed and found nothing.

I suspect it is a figment of your imagination. Which explains your unwillingness to provide the citation you claim to have found.

Once again you prove to be an unreliable discussion partner.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-20-2019

BillO writes to me: "Instead of going to a historical news society column, I went to PubMed and did a search for the words "cancer" and "fluoride" in the primary literature. Try it."

To KenP, "OK, you want a reference for sodium fluoride being used to induce cancer. Don't have one at my fingertips. Obviously, pharmaceutical companies induce cancer to test their drugs. What chemicals do they use? One is sodium fluoride. Look it up on PubMed."

KenP responds: "Bill, I looked for this on PubMed and found nothing."

WOW!! The unexpected plot twists here are blowing my mind! KenP, have you tried looking in the society column?

BillO538145 · ‎02-19-2019

Ken,

You call me a liar because you are acting like a bully. (You say, "Figment of my imagination").

Just because you did not spend time searching and reading the articles on PubMed, does not give you the right to call me a liar. How rude can you be. Simply search under the words fluoride induced cancer and read the articles. It will take you a few days, but you will learn a great deal. Do not insult me with your lazy sloppy failure to read the literature.

You fail to consider dosage or answer any of my questions on excess exposure (that I can find previously in our discussions or here). You avoid the foundation of fluoride pharmacology. . . dosage.

Fluoridation is a house of cards, built on failure to consider dosage.

Yet you want me to be your research boy and get you research and spoon feed you. . . maybe IV, or should I put the research in your water so you have no choice but to ingest? If I gave you the reference, I doubt you would even read it.

So how do you think the pharmaceutical companies cause cancer in animals? Several methods, including injecting the animals with the cancer cells. And administering fluoride, other toxins, etc.

On another note, I found this research of interest:

Toxicology Ind Health

2009 Feb;25 Fluoride-induced thyroid dysfunction in rats: roles of dietary protein and calcium level. Wang et al. Abstract

"To assess the roles of dietary protein (Pr) and calcium (Ca) level associated with excessive fluoride (F) intake and the impact of dietary Pr, Ca, and F on thyroid function. . . Thus, excessive F administration induces thyroid dysfunction in rats; dietary Pr and Ca level play key roles in F-induced thyroid dysfunction."

Diet is a factor, so is fluoride with tyroid dysfunction. So what is the dosage which causes thyroid dysfunction, cancer, brain damage, etc.?????? With synergistic toxins, host sensitivity, etc?

It is all about dosage and host.

But then, I doubt you will read the article or articles and if you do, I doubt you will understand what you have just read.

Don't call me a liar. A professional is never a bully.

Now. . . think dosage when you read anything about fluoride.

And concentration is not dosage.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

Bill, I did not call you a liar but having done my own search I do not believe you had found a paper you claimed to. A simple way for you to change my mind - provide the citation I asked for.

I have no further interest in hunting down what could be a fictional claim.

Really weird for you to attack me for your inactivity and then to go an provide a citation for something irrelevant to the discussion.

But as I said, you are not a reliable discussion partner. Blocking people becuase they show where you are wrong is hardly good faith discussion.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-19-2019

BILLO writes: "OK, you want a reference for sodium fluoride being used to induce cancer. Don't have one at my fingertips."

WHAT A SHOCK!! I didn't see that one coming.

DavidF928895 · ‎02-19-2019

"Carrie Anne," your quote:

"Question 1: Why did a New Zealand blogger infamous for his posts supporting fluoridation & denigrating opponents both on his blog and on letters to the editor across the English speaking world suddenly join the AARP - American Academy of Retired Persons which is "dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age" with a barrage of insults directed at the senior citizen Americans on the AARP forum?

Answer: He was recruited by a small but organized team of fluoridationists."

Response: Since I am almost the only "fluoridationist" commenting on this website at the moment, it's a reasonable assumption that you are referring to me. I can assure you, "Carrie Anne," that I did not "recruit" KenP. I know him from his blog and I can honestly say that I disagree with him about almost everything, except perhaps this issue. And why would that be odd? Most people in the English speaking world support CWF.

Your little fringe anti-fluoride group is so small that only 4000 signatures were collected Worldwide on the Fluoride Action Network's "Opposition to Fluoridation Statement." That represents a whopping 0.036% of all health care and other professionals who believe what you believe. The fact that KenP and I agree on this issue is completely in line with the odds.

Who recruited KenP? I don't know . . but I can say that they have this really cool thing called "Google Search." It's pretty slick. And since KenP does take an interest in this subject, it is reasonable to assume that he might be in on that neat internet trick "Google Search."

Now I'm going to do what you do. But this has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Paranoid: of, characterized by, or suffering from the mental condition of paranoia.

Paranoia: a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution, unwarranted jealousy, or exaggerated self-importance, typically elaborated into an organized system. It may be an aspect of chronic personality disorder, of drug abuse, or of a serious condition such as schizophrenia in which the person loses touch with reality.

KenP315323 · ‎02-19-2019

Yes, David, I can confirm I have Google and Google Scholar alerts for fluoridation and fluoride and often pick up articles and discussion this way.

I must set up similar alerts for Russiagate and Regime Change.