Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 271 of 1,450

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


Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies, even those at low dose concentrations. Additionally, toxicology guidelines dictate that the animal studies that find damage at 10, 50, and 100 mg/L are sufficient to ban fluoridation as unsafe for vulnerable sub-populations. Since those guidelines are not followed, it seems U.S. EPA scientists are correct when they claim fluoride is a 'politically protected pollutant.' 


  • Fluoridation policy is a reckless public harm policy, that is particularly dangerous to the very young, those in fragile health and senior citizens. Fluoridation policy is scientifically and ethically corrupt. 


"We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.

- From NTEU Chapter 280 statement, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Water Fluoridation” (May 1, 1999)

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Examine the Evidence

Message 272 of 1,450



I agree nutrition is a confounding issue in almost all health studies.  But I would disagree that the few studies showing no neurotox effect of fluoride had good nutrition control and those showing IQ loss were all flawed.  And the NZ study did not compare total fluoride ingestion, water sources were problematic, and other flaws.  The Swedish study had serious flaws.  All have limitations.  


We are looking for safety, not absolute proof of harm.  


Would you agree, dental fluorosis is a sign of excess fluoride ingestion prior to age 8 while the teeth are developing?


Would you agree with the NRC 2006 report that severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health effect. . . harm?


Would you agree with the NHANES 2011-2012 survey in the USA that 2% of adolescents have severe dental fluorosis, 20% moderate or severe?


If so, then you would agree that 2% are being harmed from excess fluoride exposure.  


Is 2% of adolescents (and growing) harmed OK with you?  What percentage of the population harmed would not be acceptable to you?  At what point would you say too many are ingesting too much fluoride?


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH


Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Examine the Evidence

Message 273 of 1,450

I do not have the skill to search back for my response to CarryAnne re the Bashash studies. However, they related to

The statistically poor nature of the reported relationship with maternal urinary F (R-squared of 3%);

The fact maternal nutrition was not considered - despite the fact that Malin et al (2018) showed a much better relationship for this (R-squared greater than 11%) for a subsample of the same child-mother pairs.

It is very possible that the inclusion of maternal nutrition in the multiple regression would show no significant relationship for maternal prenatal urinary F.

The fact that no significant relationship was found with child urinary F.

You can find more detailed critiques from me here:


You say:

"Over the last couple decades there have been about 50 more published studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity.    What is the trend?  "

You omit to mention the vast majority of these studies relate to areas of endemic fluorosis - there are many health problems in these population.

All the studies related to community water fluoridation (in New Zealand and Canada) or populations exposed to similar concentrations (Sweden) show there is no effect of fluoride on IQ. So the trend is clearly to show no effect for CWF.

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 274 of 1,450

RossF715288 I will respond to the several items you raise separately.


1: I do not know who you are or who  ‘r3sponse’ is. Nor am I familiar with the incident you describe related to Victoria. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. As I don't know you,  ‘r3sponse’, or anything about your claim I can not comment further.


2: I will comment on the specifics of your claim about the NZ Oral Health survey when I have checked to pages you refer to (possibly tomorrow). At the moment I can say I am well aware that the document says it is not an in-depth fluoridation study. My usual point in referring to the study, though, is that attempts were made to ensure the collected samples were representative.

I can explain some aspects of this by referring to the data from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) you refer to. I have written about the latest data here, so am familiar with them:

Obviously, the data from the New Zealand school dental service is also not an in-depth study of fluoridation. it is simply a record of treatments for the treated children. No attempt to make the data representative or to overcome problems such as the use of fluoride varnish treatments of children's teeth in unfluoridated areas.

It always amazes me when anti-fluoride activists stoop to using this uncorrected data while rejecting the Oral Health Survey data where attempts were made to ensure the data was representative. Simply pointing to the large numbers in the dental service data is naive to the extreme - or opportunist.

While much more must be done to overcome those sort of problems inherent in such data I have simply corrected for ethnic effects (the preponderance of Pacific Island Children in fluoridated areas skews the total data).

So while the use of the total data, uncorrected for ethnic differences, as you have done  is simply not scientific, once separated along ethnic lines the data shows the following:

For 5-year-olds the 
overall data suggest a benefit of fluoridation to Maōri and “other” children – about 14% for “Other” and 25% for Māori children (using the data for mean dmft).

For year 8 children the DMFT data suggest a benefit of about 30.5% for Māori and 26% for “Other” children.

3: Regarding the ChildSmile programme, and similar programmes in other countries, I have also written about them and am aware aspects of these programmes, which include fluoride varnish treatments for young children, are also part of the health programmes used in New Zealand.

I am therefore interested in Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis you refer to - could you please provide me a link?

Experts agree programmes like this can be successful - but describe them as complementary to community water fluoridation (as it is in New Zealand), not as a substitute.

As always, one must look below the surface to understand such issues, not rely on claims made by biased ideologically driven activists.

4: Could you please back up your claim that we are "adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies." I am aware of the literature used by Connett's crowd in an attempt to shift the debate about negative effects away from dental fluorosis and into IQ but the evidence used in either irrelevant, coming from areas of endemic fluorosis, or extremely weak (the recent Bashash studies). The studies made in New Zealand, Sweden and Canada of fluoride concentrations used for CWF also showed no negative effect. In fact, the Swedish study confirmed a number of positive social effects beyond improvement of oral health (but possibly a result of that improvement).

I will leave it here for tonight but may return to specifics depending on your response.

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Examine the Evidence

Message 275 of 1,450


I accept your apology and with so many dentists opposed to fluoridation, it is easy to get us mixed up.  (See


I have not responded to your comments on Bashash, and need you to post again.  However, we will probably agree on much.  The main area of disagreement will be on a global perspective.  


No research has the entire answer to any public health policy or question.  I think you would agree, that is not how science works.  We try to get a study down to one or two variables, which never answers all questions.


When I first started looking at the fluoridation question, there were perhaps 10 studies on neurotoxicity.  A concern, but not definitive.  Over the last couple decades there have been about 50 more published studies on fluoride's neurotoxicity.    What is the trend?   At first the dosages of fluoride were rather high reporting harm.  With time, the dosages finding harm have decreased and decreased and decreased and still harm is being reported.  


From a global view, the trend becomes more of a concern and yes, a few studies reporting no harm.  


All the studies have limitations, but the trend does not appear to be in the direction of fluoride being safe at low exposure levels for all people at all stages of life.  What are the chances with better accuracy and better studies that we will find the more than 50 studies reporting neurotoxicity are fatally flawed?  I don't think the chance is very big.


The evaluation of benefit for a drug is ethically challenging, but possible.  The evaluation of risk of a drug is ethically very very difficult.   Researches cannot give fluoride to people and measure when they are harmed.  No research ethics review board would permit such studies.  Those were done by Hitler and the USPHS, the last one I know of ended in the 1970's.


But we can't assume everything is safe because we can not ethically test for harm.  The absence of research does not prove safety.  Low quality studies are not proof of safety.  


The main criticism of the Bashish study one of the co-authors (a fluoride promoter) could give was, "we don't know if that applies to the US population because we don't know how much fluoride is in the urine of pregnant mothers in the USA."


Not knowing is not proof of safety.  And we have studies (not enough) on US humans to know a range of urine fluoride concentrations.  And the concentrations overlap with the Bashash study reporting harm.  And we now have 60% of adolescents with a biomarker of excess fluoride.


Ken, if we were discussing fluoride supplements or fluoride toothpaste, I would not waste my time on fluoride because those are free choices.  


Water fluoridation is not by individual consent.


Fluoridation goes to everyone without dosage control.


Fluoridation goes to everyone even though potential benefit is up to the age of 8.  


Clearly, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.


You are correct, research on fluoride exposure is not high quality and has limitations.  I agree.  And that is precisely why we should not give more fluoride to everyone when we do not know the dosage they are already getting, whether it will have any benefit, and is without their consent.


Fluoridation is terrible public health policy.


Back to basics, how much fluoride should a person ingest and how much is harmful.   


Simple basic pharmacology.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 276 of 1,450

KenP challenged ‘r3sponse’ to prove that the Victoria water board and related health authority have taken the drastic measure of disqualifying any peer reviewed science during water fluoridation reviews that do anything but shower praise on dental outcomes of water fluoridation. I’ll let ‘r3sponse’ answer that but that is exactly what happens in New Zealand with its Ministry of Health.
When a National Fluoride Information Service was established under contract between the Ministry and a district health board at a cost of around NZD1.25 million the contract had the laudable aim of maintaining an objective and credible viewpoint when reviewing literature and framing communications on water fluoridation (Service Specification, clause 2.3) yet in that same clause there was a requirement that the contractor would “not act in any way that may contradict or be inconsistent with Ministry policy on water fluoridation or with the MoH publication ‘Good Oral Health for All, For Life” both of which unequivocally advocate fluoridation. There was no room for the widest range of peer reviewed fluoride science.
KenP also asserts that New Zealand data from ‘Our Oral Health: Key findings of the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey’ clearly support fluoridation - but they don’t. The survey itself states that it was not designed as an in-depth water fluoridation study (see ‘Our Oral Health’, XXV)
Also, for 5-year-olds, Figure 3 on page 28 of that survey shows only marginal differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas from 2003 to 2009.
Over the whole six-year time period the figure shows that the prevalence of dental decay rates declined in non-fluoridated areas while the prevalence of dental decay rates increased in fluoridated areas with an acceleration of those trends between 2007 and 2009. At the end of the time period the difference in the mean for (dmft) was ~0.3.
The oft quoted 40 per cent fluoridation induced reduction in caries prevalence coming from ‘Our oral health’ report is derived from an extremely small sample over 16 age groups – 519 from fluoridated areas and 468 from non-fluoridated.
However, it is interesting to note from an Official Information Act disclosure of that data that at ages 16 and 17, of the 52 fluoridated children surveyed the average decayed, missing or filled teeth dmft was 2.46 and of the 55 non-fluoridated children the average dmft was lower at 2.39.
Irrespective of growing and well-researched concern about fluoride as a neurotoxin there is ample evidence that fluoridating community water supplies is an uneconomic way of improving the oral health of a population.
In its recently released ‘Oral Health Improvement Plan’ the Scottish Government states that although water fluoridation could make a positive contribution to improvements in oral health, the practicalities of implementing it determines that alternative solutions are more achievable.
The latest oral health statistics from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) show a small difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cohorts.
The 27,822 children fluoridated were 68.91 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.65 dmft and the 21,405 non-fluoridated children 63.08 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.83 dmft. That is a 5.8% difference in caries free and with dmft the difference is less than one fifth of a tooth.
Attempting to close that small gap by adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies where dosage control from drinking the water is virtually impossible is nuts.
A far less costly, more effective and proven approach is expenditure on individual treatment, persistent early childhood and primary (elementary) school oral health education and ongoing publicity on the bad health consequences of excessive sugar consumption.
All public health authorities should be taking serious note of this month’s paper in the American Journal of Public Health, ‘Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption 3 Years After the Berkeley, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax’, which has determined that consumption of sugary drinks in Berkeley's diverse and low-income neighbourhoods dropped precipitously in 2015, just months after the city levied the nation's first soda tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.
The study, which is the first to document the long-term impacts of a soda tax on drinking habits in the United States, provides strong evidence that soda taxes are an effective tool for encouraging healthier drinking habits, with the potential to reduce sugar-linked diseases like diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay.
In KenP’s own country an Otago dental school masters thesis supports the positive outcomes of Scotland’s Childsmile programme.
Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis, ‘Supervised tooth brushing in Northland’, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Dentistry, concluded that the aim of the study, which was to improve the oral health of Northland children, had proved successful.
Her programme has been the first large-scale, fully evaluated supervised tooth brushing programme to be set up and run successfully in New Zealand. It showed improved caries outcomes at one year for children involved in a supervised tooth brushing programme and reinforced the need for policy to consider this approach to improve children’s oral health in communities that experience high caries and poor oral health. It was also the first study in the world to show that an overall improvement in oral health related quality of life can occur in children who take part in a supervised tooth brushing programme.
In commenting on the Cochrane Collaboration report, Trevor Sheldon, who chaired the advisory group for York Review 2000 says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today nobody would even think about it due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.
He also said that when a public health intervention is applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose.
It is clear, in my view, that current pro-fluoridation policies are an affront to medical ethics and a monstrous waste of money.
In a 22 February letter to Tulsa World, Jim Maxey DDS concluded “Truth decay causes water fluoridation”. What a gem!

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 277 of 1,450

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)


I am happy to engage in a good faith scientific discussion, but that isn't possible with the troop of fluoride trolls who have overwhelmed this site with rhetorical deceits and attempts to bait opponents into endless bickering in order to create a fog of doubt in the minds of decision makers. For whatever reasons, their goals are to puff themselves up with perceptions of personal power and preserve profitable policies instead of protect public health. I've encountered them already in othe venues. Click here and here for my recent AARP responses. I also like SIRPAC's recent entry on this topic. 


Also, debating prenatal studies and diagnoses of dental fluorosis in children isn't particulary on topic for an AARP forum and agricultural scientist KenP's dismissal of Bashash et al. 2017 isn't really worth the effort. For the record, that was the first of three reports published by a multi-million dollar NIH sponsored research project conducted by reknowned experts at world class U.S. and Canadian research universities such as the very pro-fluoride University of Michigan and Harvard School of Public Health, as well as the University of Toronto, McGill University, Indiana University School of Dentistry, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine. All three reports documented significant and sobering neurological damage from low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride


If KenP, who I still maintain has no business on the AARP site where his purpose is to disrupt conversations with vitriol, rather look to universities in his homeland of New Zealand, I suggest the two Sept 2018 presentations by Irish scientists at Otago University are breathtaking. 








Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Examine the Evidence

Message 278 of 1,450

I apologise BillO538145. I always seem to mix you up with Hardy Limeback - who did recently block me.

So a heartfelt apology - especially as at one stage you did agree to participate in an uncensored good faith exchange with me on the scientific issues related to community water fluoridation. I referred to the possibility here:

We actually got started - you sent me a 55-page document which we were discussing with an aim to shorten before posting when you backed out. See

At the time you were the director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and told me you had changed your mind after pressure from your FAN colleagues.


You claim "Instead of focusing on science, you attack individuals." I think readers can make up their own mind from the discussion here  where I have even been called a "demon," have been personally attacked by you Richard and CarryAnne." All because I have been presenting and discussing science.

Neither you nor CarryAnne responded to my objective consideration of the Bashash et al studies.

So, sorry for the mix-up. My incorrect attitude was determined by mistaken identity. So go ahead. I welcome your input to discussing the scientific analysis I gave on the Bashash et al (2018) study in response to CarryAnne's claim and citation.

Please reread my contribution and respond to it here.

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 279 of 1,450

CarryAnne - you say:

"I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them."

Great. Then you should be capable of discussing the science related to the Bashash et al (2018) study you cited and made claims about. Yet you refused to. Why is that? Surely you can understand that it is logical for me to assume that whichever of the claims you make and citations you use that I respond to the response will be the same.

In other words, you refuse to discuss the science. You wish only to make your own claims and will not enter into a discussion of them.

Might I suggest that your refusal to interact with a discussion partner and use of long lists of claim and citations which you refuse to discuss is actually a "Propaganda technique?"

As for "ad hominem attacks" - isn't that what you did with me when I entered the discussion here - attempting to suggest I was hiding my identity, had no right to participate in the discussion and had been involved in research on "pesticides" and "development of high fluoride fertilisers." The last claim was an outright porkie and you later apologised for it.

You clearly are not interested in an uncensored good-faith scientific exchange - yet you continue even now to make claims and link to citations. Claims and citations we know from experience you will refuse to discuss.

Under your own definition aren't you just employing a "propaganda technique" - on a forum which is meant for discussion, not propaganda?

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Examine the Evidence

Message 280 of 1,450



How much fluoride is good (dosage, tooth concentration, urine concentration,  and/or blood concentration) and how much fluoride is harmful dosage, tooth concentration, urine concentration,  and/or blood concentration for all diseases and side effects?


In the context of a lack of consent for the patient, certainly public health officials and promoters should have those basic simple numbers at your finger tips. hierarchical evidence is a house of cards and the fluoridation house of cards is marketed on assumptions and estimates and guessing.  


The most fundamental scientific questions which for two years you refuse to discuss or provide any evidence.


Instead of focusing on science, you attack individuals.  


I never blocked you on social media.  I don't know how to block someone other than my cell phone for telemarketing scam.  True, I quit responding to you because you failed to discuss science but I have never blocked you.


You are assuming and guessing and simply wrong about Carry Anne and me.   Attacking someone is simply unprofessional and proves you do not have basic science evidence on fluoridation.  Focus on the message rather than the messenger.  Fluoridation is not a sparing or debate contest but rather health and disease (for some, life and death.)


You claim to present facts, but this last post as most of yours, does not have one reference or scientific fact or scientific concept.  All about attacking people because you don't have the science.


It appears you want a private conversation with Carry Anne in a public forum.  Of course other people can jump in, and when you attack people, I may jump in if I have time.  


I understand you are frustrated with Carry Anne because she provides so many references and you cannot go into detail on each one.  You would like to "divide and conquer" each study.  And yes, every study has limitation.  Use the same critical thinking on both sides of the controversy.  


And remember, the proof of benefit should have much higher quality research than the proof of harm.  We can have RCT studies on benefit but we cannot have RTC studies on harm. . . simply unethical.  


Now, get back to the basic questions, dosage for efficacy and harm.  




Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask? Check out the Health Tips forum today