- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Atari Talk
- Games Talk
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Entertainment Archive
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
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.
- 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!
I just wrote to the U.S. CDC to ask them to halt fluoridation again. I hadn't written to them in some time. The resaon I wrote again is because the CDC recently claimed that it is fluoride toothpaste that is being consumed by children that causese the endemic dental fluorosis problem in the U.S. I had to show them the Zip[kin study of 1958 before toothpaste fluoride became widely used to show what F content in adult bone where water is 1 ppm fluoride ranged from 1610 - 4920 mg/kg of bone. These were difficult measurements done on live people from bone biopsies and are definitive. This means that along with dental fluorosis (first recognized in teh 1930's as CO brown stain and Texas teeth, tc. in fluoride water areas before F toothpaste was invented) bone fluoride levels were problems, even more concentated than f in toothpaste, in bone where it does not belong. Bone pain in some people occurs at only 1700 mg/kg and the NRC concluded that Stage II fluorosis with pain mobility issues occurs typically in most people at 3,500 mg/kg. So lifelime drinking of the garbage water produces denigrated bone even without fluoridated toothpaste.
But will the CDC do anything about this? Of course not. Am I to remailn silent and ignore the truth? No thanks.
And you can lead a fluoridationist to clean water and he will turn away and consume F'd water anyway because he would think he was missing something and that God didn't Create water properly in the first place. .
Again, how else can one determine the drinking water F concentration to saliva if you don't take saliva samples after the previous materials eaten have been cleared? There is no other way to delineate whether drinking water fluoride has any value in affecting the F content of the oral cavity. And it clearly has no significant role at all.
Richard, it is obvious to me why you have no credible research publication record or experience in designing research studies.
Can you not see how self-defeating it is to insist on subjects who have no fluoride intake in their food or oral treanmtents and then measure only their excreted ductal saliva. When the reality is that people receive intakes of fluoride and other nutrients via food, beverages, water and oral treatment throughout the day. These nutrients are directly transferred to the saliva and other parts of the oral cavity. They play a protective role for teeth - yet you want to design an experiment which specifically ignores such inputs! That is just stupid.
Really, Richard, I really have no patience for such stubbornness. As far as I am concerned this discussion has been exhausted and I will not continue to itneract with you on this specific subject. You are really away with the birds on this issue.
Most all in Broadbent's study had similar fluoride intake and Broadbent, no surprise, did not find a decrease in IQ from fluoride intake.
The Broadbenet study was incapable of detecting an IQ loss.
Regarding Richard's desire for measured evidence such as saliva fluoride concentration, what about measured evidence are you opposed to? Or is herd opinion your choice for science?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, you have simply resorted to a political/ideological statement and refused to respond to my request you provide scientific support. I repeat:
"As it stands it is simply a declaration - which is ideological/political. It is certainly not a substantiated scientific statement.
You could support your claim in either of two ways:
1: Provide the list of samples with the treatments (actually this should be available but not expected to be published);
2: Cite the infinite confidence intervals that would result if this claim were true."
Now, on the basis of the confidence intervals, I know your political/ideological/nonscientific statement is false. And your refusal to respond indicates to me you know that as well.
You can call me all kinds of things. . . but I don't know which statement you are refering to. So your comment is lost on me.
You say, "Political statement? " Yes, I am into politics because politics is forcing me to swallow too much fluoride.
You say, "Ideological?" Several definitions of ideological. Yes, I am fixated (if that is what you mean) on stopping my two professions from harming the public with too much fluoride.
You say, "Nonscientific"? Well, I'm sort of a fundamentalist and simple. How much fluoride is good? How much fluoride is bad? How much fluoride are we getting and is it too much? Sorry if those basic questions are beyond your desire to respond to, but as a practicing prescribing clinician, those are the fundamental questions I must answer on a daily basis.
You want me to respond, to something I don't know what you are referring to. And I keep asking you for the basic facts of dosage and although you say you have responded, I can't find your response. Please post again.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Everyone knows that placing high fluoride varnishes or gels or fluoride salt in one's mouth that the saliva is for that time elevated in F. So what? What is being discussed is the 24 hour continuous permanent lifelong saliva F concentration that bathes teeth topically that is a filtrate of the blood. The blood F level in a fluoridated city is about 0.15 ppm with a filtered saliva F level of 0;016 ppm, useless for affecting caries. Notice that the one link describes the 24 hour saliva fluoride level (without eating F gels or varnishes or F rich foods) did not vary (when the drinking water F was not excessively high). So my point is well made yet again, that all night long the F level in saliva does not vary from this low useless level that bathes teeth topically.
Anyone can brush their teeth with 1500 ppm F paste and change their existing saliva F level for the moment. But this has absolutely nothing to do with fluoridated drinking water, where the F in saliva filtrated from the bloodstream after the water is consumed is useless, as we have been correctly saying for years.
Richard, you may be persisting in discussing freshly exuded duct saliva but that is pure stubbornness on your part. The scientists involved are discussing real-life saliva in the mouth which has elevated concentration of chemical species form consumption of food, water and beverage, and oral treatments. Also, from CaF2 deposited ion the oral cavity.
You are simply straw clutching to deny what the science is showing, that fluoride in the oral cavity helps inhibit acid attack and repair after acid attack.
You remind me of the silliness Paulk Connett exhibited when I discussed this with hum - tried to claim that when drinking water none of the water touched the teeth or mixed with saliva. You have to be a determined reality denier to claim that.
Such antics really make a person look silly.
The science shows that food, water, beverages, mouth rinses, etc., all increase the fluoride content of the whole saliva. The concentration in the freshly exuded duct saliva does not prevent this - although over time it helps reduce the concentration of chemical species in the whole saliva.
The concentrations you insist on citing are not for normal situations. The subjects need to have a low fluoride diet and stop using fluoridated toothpaste for some time. Collections are also made at a distance from eating and drinking (usually before a meal).
I guess it's easy for some people to simply miss the point.
The girls whose night time saliva F levels were measured continuously until the next morning are indeed a normal situation. (No one eats while they are sleeping all night). And night time saliva washes the teeth and oral cavity.
Of course F levels in the mouth can be high when one goes to sleep for the night after recently eating an F rich material such as toothpaste or dental gel, etc, but again all through the night the F level bathing teeth from the saliva that contains F from 1 ppm drinking water at less than 0.016 ppm in saliva is a useless contribution. Fluoridationists might believe that higher F from foods and gels might topically affect teeth, but this has nothing to do with F infused into drinking water which is worthless as a topical effect.
Only ductile fresh saliva could be used to determine how much F actually comes from the bloodstream of a F'd water consumer. There is no other way to determine it because indeed foods and beverages and gels would contaminate the saliva produced. So what?.
Bottom line, F'd water is useless at affecting caries, either systemically (CDC) or topically from that contained in nascent saliva. These are the facts. Again, the F content in the blood and thus the 24 hour a day produced saliva is mostly determined by the F level in the drinking water (NRC) and only 10% or so is from foods/beverages (p. 60, Report on F in Drinking Water 2006).
”Fluoride 'science' is corporate 'science'. Fluoride science is DDT 'science'. It's asbestos 'science'. It's tobacco 'science'. It's a racket." - Chris Bryson, investigative reporter and author of 'The Fluoride Deception' (2006)
KenP writes 'when have resolutions at union meetings become a substitute for real science' - yet offers his blog posts to claim that the real science published by world experts is 'dishonest.' This specific to an exchange on dose and the EPA scientists' testimony to EPA management on a scientifically justifiable reference dose for fluoride.
KenP writes in his first three days on AARP that several participants are 'dishonest,' 'deranged,' 'liars,' 'unreliable' and 'so intellectually stubborn as to make rational discussion impossible,’ yet consistently writes things like "Bill, I wish you would back away from the personal attacks."
KenP writes that in optimally fluoridated communities dental fluorosis is caused 'mainly by ingestion of toothpaste.' Yet, when I offer two sources with urls and screen shots documenting dental fluorosis that predated fluoridated toothpaste (a 1956 PHS sponsored controlled dose study documenting 'coppery brown' dental fluorosis & 1962 government report that documented the first generation of children raised on fluoridated water had alarming rates of dental fluorosis, disproportionate by race in the same community), KenP replies that 'truth is your last concern,' that I made 'unwarranted claims' and spread 'propaganda' and 'fake news.' Then he says I refuse to enter into honest conversation about science?!
However - fluoridation policy should primarily be about ethics.
- Is it ethical to use municipal water to mass medicate the public?
- Is it ethical to add a poison to water that is medically contraindicated for many consumers?
- Is it ethical to claim more science is needed before ending a program when dozens of human studies and hundreds of animal studies have validated neurological harm from that program?
- Is it ethical for anyone to dismiss the poisoning of vulnerable populations as a political decision?
- Is it ethical for AARP and other organizations that claim to advocate for a constituency to remain silent?
CarryAnne - I agree completely, in the current situation, with your comment that "fluoridation policy should primarily be about ethics."
This is because currently, the science is pretty definite. Community water fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay and there is no evidence of harm. However, like all such social interventions, the issue is political. That is why I say that where there is controversy in the community about fluoridation proposals it should be decided democratically, involving the community. Referenda are good for this.
In my own community, it took a second referendum, confirming the first referendum of overwhelming support for fluoridation, for the local council to reverse its decision to terminate fluoridation. A decision made under pressure from ideologically motivated activists who were distorting and misrepresenting the science - thereby confusing the issue.
If the referenda in my community had opposed the return of fluoridation I would have supported that decision. I support democracy.
In fact, the ethical issue is the best argument anti-fluoridationists have. They discredit themselves when they resort to misrepresenting and distorting the science to make a "sciency" argument - but when they lose at that they resort to the ethical argument. I have seen this sort of behaviour again and again - and now with you. You should start with the ethical argument, stick with it, not attempt to use "science" as a proxy for your ethical or values concerns - and accept the democratic decisions which always decide such ethical questions.
Unlike science - which on the whole deals with factual matters, ethical considerations are based on values. There is no "correct" or factual argument to decide an ethical question. These are decided by the prevailing values - usually, by referenda or simlar democratic decsion.
Anti-fluoridationists will always lose the scientific arguments because it is determined by the facts (that is why you refuse to participate in an honest, good faith scientific exchange) but they can win the ethical one - depending on the previaling ethics of their community.
Finally, you make claims that I have used words that I certainly have no recall of using - and you do not provide any evidence. I am sure I did not use most of those terms - however the charge of describing your claim that in my scientific career I was researching pesticides and developing high fluoride fertilisers I am sure I described as "dishonest" or a "lie" - because it patently was and you admitted it and apologised for making that dishonest claim..
KenP, in claiming that a 2013 (non-binding) referendum provided overwhelming support for his local council to reverse a decision to terminate fluoridation is grossly distorting history. He also asserts that the council decision to stop fluoridation was made under pressure from ideologically motivated activists who were distorting and misrepresenting the science, thereby confusing the issue.
A four-day tribunal style hearing had been held by KenP’s city council with one-and-a-half hour primary presentations from both sides of the fluoridation debate with half an hour for questions from councillors after each presentation.
The case against fluoridation and summing up was given by medical doctors, a doctor of dental surgery and the retired biochemist who had supervised John Colquhoun’s doctoral thesis and co-authored with Colquhoun ‘The Hastings fluoridation experiment: science or swindle?’
The case for was given by a large number of district health board, Ministry of Health and New Zealand Dental Association representatives.
1,385 of submissions asked the council to stop fluoridation with 170 submissions supporting continuation. Of the 141 requests to speak at the hearings only 11 wanted fluoridation to continue.
I watched much of the hearings online and also read many submissions on which the council decision was made.
On the weight of evidence presented at the tribunal there were six factors that influenced the council’s post-tribunal decision to stop fluoridation. They were:
1. Application by toothpaste or other means that directly affect the tooth surface are much more effective at reducing tooth decay.
2. Fluoridation is wasteful – of the 224 litres of water used by the average person each day, less than two litres is used for drinking – 99% goes down the drain (i.e. of the $48,000 per year spent on fluoridation only $480 ends up being fit for purpose).
3. Communities around the world are rejecting the practice – most of Europe does not fluoridate.
4. There is strong evidence that fluoride should not be ingested at all by babies under six months old and bottle-fed babies are therefore at greater potential risk.
5. While fluoridation may have some benefits for some, it isn’t good for everyone and fluoridation of the water supply affects personal choice.
6. Statistical evidence that fluoridation potentially causes harm.
Are these not reasonable factors on which to make a rational decision?
One councillor, also a district health board member, had been excluded from council decision making on the issue because of conflict of interest but within weeks had marshalled the local dental fraternity to garner support for a referendum which was eventually held in October 2013 with only around one third of eligible voters participating. Of those voting, 70 per cent voted for fluoridation while 32 per cent voted against.
The 24,635 voting for fluoridation had determined that the 11,768 against were forced, against their best judgement, to accept addition of a neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor to the water delivered through their household taps.
The district health board spent huge taxpayer funds in advertising.
As well as brochures and posters, their campaign included four huge billboards outside their buildings, three full city-wide letter box drops, two-page newspaper advertisements for four weeks in a row and Google and YouTube advertisements.
All emails from the health board and hospital had pro-fluoride messages as part of the signature, a recorded pro-fluoride message was on health board and hospital telephones and even TV screens at the hospital showed pro-fluoridation videos.
Local newspapers were blatantly pro-fluoridation.
Anti-fluoridation groups were unable to afford counterbalancing public information.
I find it quite bizarre that for KenP to admit that if referendums in his community had opposed the return of fluoridation he would have supported the outcomes. So what happens to his ‘safe and effective’ fluoride science?
Intellectual consistency would surely force him to state that those opposing fluoridation had got it wrong.
Referendums are by far the wrong ways to resolve fluoridation disputes.
Local governments face ethical issues with fluoridation.
A clear majority of pro-fluoridation voters in a poll should not be able to determine that the rest are forced against their will to take a health-affecting toxin in their drinking water.
If you are sick you don’t ask a stranger to vote on your medication so why should fluoridation be any different?
Ross, re the Hamilton city debacle - biased activists are biased activists even if they have degrees. Yes, I know Bob Mann too - and he is an extremist on this issue.
I interacted with many councillors after their initial decision and it was clear to me that they did not understand the science at all - what they understood is that there were two different stories coming from people they thought were experts. They were incapable of discussing the science and they had no idea of criteria to use to judge if a submitter was a real or a fake expert.
It is this confusion caused by activists pressuring councils which lead to the councils requesting, and partially financing, the authoritative NZ Fluoridation Review (https://royalsociety.org.nz/assets/documents/Health-effects-of-water-fluoridation-Aug-2014-corrected... and eventually pressure for legislation to take such decisions away from councils (as councils pointed out - they do not have the skills to make scientific evaluations and they considered the whole issue a "poisoned chalice" for councils). That legislation is still waiting for its second reading in parliament.
The numbers you quote are a symptom of the problem councils saw - cynical form letters and copies of letters given as submissions simply to get numbers. It’s an old activist trick.
Scientific issues should not be considered by councils, but by relevant experts. It's up to democratic bodies to consult such experts for advice - not replace them.
You list issues you claim swung the council (rather a naive understanding considering the stupid politics involved in that council at that time with competition to replace the Mayor). Let’s look at these:
1: Yes, the surface reaction of phosphate, calcium and fluoride at the tooth surface is considered the main mechanism of preventing decay and recovering from acid attack. This results from the presence of these chemical species in saliva, plaque and the oral cavity in general. Fluoridated water and food help provide these and help maintain saliva F, P and Ca concentrations during the day (saliva F from toothpaste drops relatively quickly so restoration of concentrations during the day is important.
2: Your argument for "wasted" treated water is simply an argument for a double reticulation system - one for drinking and one for all other uses. That is extremely wasteful financially and that is why such an approach is only considered for very small reticulation systems.
3: Each country approaches the involvement of F in oral health according to their own situation. CWF is not suitable for many systems (it's not suitable for many systems in NZ) and alternatives like school fluoride rinses, fluoridated salts, natural fluoride levels, etc., come in to play. In the end, each country and region make its own decision according to its situation.
4: Use of fluoridated water is not considered a risk to bottle-fed infants by health professionals - but parents who do have a concern are recommended to sometimes used alternative water sources - simply a "peace of mind" issue. Anti-fluoride propagandists always misrepresent that situation.
While there has been some concern that bottle-fed infants exceed the recommended maximum intake for F the lack of prevalence of moderate or severe dental fluorosis caused experts in NZ and Australia to reconsider the calculations. They found a flaw and there are now new recommendations showing that bottle-fed infants do not exceed the recommended F intake. See:
5 & 6: You don’t explain. However, I have written several articles about the way that anti-fluoride activists distort the evidence and use statistical analyses incorrectly. See for example:
I could say that I find it bizarre that you think my attitude to democratic processes is bizarre. It is simply a matter of democracy for resolution of differences based on values or ethical issues. Yes, the minority "loses" but nothing is "forced" on them. When CWF was stopped in my city I used a mouth rinse. When it was restored many anti-fluoride activists used filters and alternative sources (2 of these provided by the council). This is what sensible people do when they feel the democratic decision doesn’t suit them - they use alternatives.
I think democracy is a win-win situation for this reason. It is simply dishonest to claim that either side is forced into anything. They aren’t
Think about free hospitals or secular education. People who object to these have alternatives and use them - at far more cost than the $250 for a filter or similar amount for a year’s supply of mouth rinse.
You say of my attitude to democracy:
"Intellectual consistency would surely force him to state that those opposing fluoridation had got it wrong.
Referendums are by far the wrong ways to resolve fluoridation disputes."
Of course, I think those opposing fluoridation have got it wrong - just as I believe those voting for certain political parties have got it wrong. But democracy means the majority decision prevails - I accept that and take alternative action if necessary.
No, referenda cannot solve scientific issues - they are not meant to. But they do resolve the values differences - providing decisions suiting most people. And as I say, usually there are alternative actions available for the minority (not for the elected government, though, and we all accept that.
You say, "Local governments face ethical issues with fluoridation." Yes, but isn't it disgusting for ideologically motivated activists to use science (and distorted science at that) as a proxy for their own ethical views. They should be honest - face up to the ethical issues and attempt to win a political decision on those grounds and not distorted scientific claims - recognising there are no black and white, facts or correct decision when it comes to values. Except that the majority should prevail.
But the majority does not prevail. Citizens in San Diego voted twice in two separate elections (before I got involved) to ban fluoridation chemicals from their water supply. And yet the city council ignored that and fluoridated anyway.
The entire L.A. basin is fluoridated even though hundreds of people came to protest at the time designated for public input by the water disrrict. Only one person favored it, the man who wrote the CA fluoridation mandate against the statutes of the Safe Drinking Water Act..
When it comes to fluoridation, money talks, Democracy and truth have nothing to do with it.
For example fluoride in salive in a fluoridated city is only 0.016 ppm, completely useless in affecting calcium phosphate preciptation and the structure of teeth enamel, at 96,000 times less concentrated than in fluoridated toothpaste.. It;'s a scam that makes money for cities and in CA muich of the money comes from Delta Dental who never reimburses a member with more funds than what the member pays into it in the first place The extra money is given to cities to fluoridate. For San Diego it was First Five money from collected tobacco taxes that was supposed to be used for childrens' health programs. Again, money talks, and Democracy and truth walk.
Dental fluorosis is now endemic in the U.S. because of water fluoridation. it is not because of toothpaste fluoride in most cases, as claimed recently by the CDC who are protecting their longheld view that fluoridation is harmless. The original observations were reported by Dean in the 1930's that water fluoride at 1 ppm was causing substantial dental fluorosis in kids at the time, long before fluoridated toothpaste was ever invented.
Yes, Richard, sometimes the majority does not prevail. That is wrong, but it happens. It happened in my city when the council ignored a referendum and several opinion polls they had commissioned to follow the non-scientific claims of an ideologically motivated group - with help from the Connett crowd.
But, sometimes democracy has to be fought for. That is what happened in our community and the people, in the end, won.
But local body politics is pathetic. Driven by all sorts of egos, commercial interests, and political infighting.
I think we have discussed the issue of the fluoride concentration of saliva. You ignore completely that this is determined by things like the F content of food and beverages or water - directly. As well as by regular toothbrushing.
You are relying on a figure for freshly excreted saliva and ignoring completely the direct effects of food, beverage, and toothpaste.
As for dental fluorosis of concern. Research shows this to be due to ingested fluoride, mainly from toothpaste and not from fluoridated water.
Ken – Thank you for all of your recent comments highlighting the tactics of anti-science activists and requesting they stop their Gish galloping and actually discuss the “evidence” they claim to have instead of copy-pasting snippets of anti-science propaganda. I appreciate your continuing exposure of the way
I agree, in principle, with your statement, “my attitude to democratic processes … is simply a matter of democracy for resolution of differences based on values or ethical issues.” I don’t see any good alternative to a democracy, where citizens at least have some oversight over those who govern them – only extremely bad options like anarchy, monarchy, a totalitarian dictatorship, etc. where citizens have no control or oversight. However, the democratic process has significant limitations when the citizens (&/or the government officials they have elected) make their ethical or value based decisions and cast their votes on important issues based on complex scientific evidence they do not understand.
The democratic process is compromised even further when it is hijacked by anti-science activists who claim to have legitimate evidence supporting their anti-consensus beliefs. However, they do not use this alleged “evidence” and work within the scientific community to change the consensus – they go directly to the public and try to hijack the democratic process by using a variety of disingenuous tactics to scare well-meaning citizens into accepting their beliefs and voting for their agendas.
As you have patiently pointed out in your comments, if the anti-science activists would agree to actually discuss the strengths and weakness of all the available evidence fairly and in context, members of the public would have a fair chance at understanding some of the science underlying their decisions and actually making informed decisions. Of course if they actually understood the scientific evidence, the majority of citizens would reach the same conclusions as the overwhelming majority of scientists and health professionals in the world who do understand the science and continue to accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay and protecting health.
Anti-science activists have yet to come up with a rational explanation for why virtually all major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation (CWF) and no such organizations accept the anti-science alternatives as legitimate. The detailed explanations I have seen from CarryAnne and Bill Osmunson (referenced below) are nothing more than personal opinions designed to spread distrust of mainstream science and health organizations. However, they clearly highlight the disdain for the science and health communities exhibited by anti-science activists.
Neither CarryAnne nor Bill Osmunson has answered my questions asking each of them whether their descriptions of the EPA, ADA, CDC and AAP apply only to those specific organizations referenced or whether they would also accuse members of the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the Australian Department of Health, The New Zealand Ministry of Health, Health Canada, and all the other 100+ organizations that support CWF of “willful blindness”, of being “morally corrupt” and “ignorant”, of acting to knowingly and willingly “ protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”, that they “don't think for themselves or review the research” and “They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”. These are libelous accusations, but they have not provided a logical, rational reason why there is nearly universal support of CWF in the science and health communities and no such support for the anti-science beliefs.
Bottom Line: Anti-science activists do not play by the rules of impartial, fair-minded scientific discourse – they can’t. They have taken advantage of the fact that “a lie can travel halfway around the world – particularly when powered by fabricated fear – while the truth is still putting on its shoes”
The comments below highlight how anti-science activists attempt to discredit mainstream scientific and health organizations so their opinions might be seen to have some legitimacy. The links might not lead to the exact page, but they should land close to the time/date noted.
Example of CarryAnne’s assessment of the ADA and EPA:
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt”
and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”
and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group”
(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis]. Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”
(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates”
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics. The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water ﬂuoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the ﬂuoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontario … and other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be ﬁled, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientiﬁc integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…”
Example of Bill Osmunson’s assessment of the CDC, ADA and AAP
(08-19-2018 02:18 AM) “The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.“
(08-19-2018 07:15 PM) “CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation think fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk. That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.”
(07-09-2018 09:09 PM) the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing.”
and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science.”
and “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations [CDC, ADA, AAP] has been seriously tarnished. They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. ”
and “They were silent because they never looked at the science.”,
and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“,
and "Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."
Of course, the same arguments could be made, with far better credibility, to explain the endorsements and support of the anti-F opinions by the few alternative health organizations that regularly support various anti-science agendas.
In addition to vilifying the scientific and health communities, as noted, another common tactic of anti-science activists is to extract out-of-context content from studies in an effort to manufacture “evidence” they believe will support their inflexible, extremely biased interpretation of issues. The tactic: Extracting out of context content from published papers, which may appear to support their position, when the actual when the actual study design or conclusions don’t. anti-science activists not only cherry pick the studies they believe support their opinions (whether the study has anything to do with optimally fluoridated water or not), they cherry pick and present specific sentences out-of-context or cite studies completely irrelevant to in ongoing efforts to frighten the public.
CarryAnne provides a perfect example of this tactic as discussed by Ken’s references to her non-stop quoting of content without any attempt at context or discussing obvious issues. For example, she posted a quote from the US Public Health Service on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM .
This provides an excellent example to expose and highlight the disingenuous, fear-mongering tactic regularly employed by anti-science activists to peddle their propaganda. It also helps explain how anti-science activists can come up with what appear to be long lists of references that appear to support their anti-science opinions – yet those opinions are dismissed by the majority of relevant scientists.
In this example, her quote included everything in the paragraph from the US Public Health Service review EXCEPT the last two sentences, which she conveniently scrubbed out – and which actually support the scientific consensus that fluoridation does not cause adverse health effects. Here is the actual quote in context.
“Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems. [the sentences left out] For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride. Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163)
This example also clearly demonstrates why anti-science activists have not been able to change any relevant scientific consensus. Unlike members of the public –– most of whom don’t have the training and experience to track each anti-claim to its source and understand the context –– actual scientists and health professionals can identify the erroneous claims of anti-science activists for what they are – “carefully adjusted (or fabricated) evidence” employed in their fear-mongering campaigns.
When you use the phrase "anti-science" I presume you are refering to fluoridationists.
Why those supporting fluoride would avoid all the science and cherry pick just what supports themselves . . . makes no sense and no good science.
Fluoridationists refuse to talk about dosage, and dosage is the foundation of pharmacology.
Fluoridationists cherry pick the people and studies to do the reviews and fail to be inclusive of all science.
Fluoridationists violate ethical research.
Fluoridationists violate freedom of choice.
Indeed, fluoridationists are anti-science, anti-ethics, and anti-health.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
No, Bill, you presume wrong - but then, in the world of anti-science activism, presumption is equivalent to proven facts. When I use the phrase “anti-science activists” I am referring specifically to you, CarryAnne and the other activists who continually distort science in an attempt to hijack the democratic process.
Another anti-science activist asked in a recent exchange how an educated professional scientist who held views contrary to the scientific consensus could suddenly morph overnight into an anti-science activist.
My answer applies to your comments by describing the difference between legitimate scientists and health care professionals who have strongly-held views different from the scientific consensus and those who have morphed into anti-science activists.
The first fact is that scientists who hold views different from the scientific consensus are precisely those individuals who are responsible for the evolution of science from trial and error experimentation of humans many thousands of years ago to the society we have today where the lives of most citizens of the world depend on an accurate, scientific understanding of the natural world and the adjustments to that world in areas of health care, agriculture, technology, etc. made possible by that understanding.
Without those pro-science activists we would live in a completely different world. Both pro- and anti-science activists have very strong beliefs that their interpretation of the existing scientific evidence is accurate – even though those beliefs differ from the consensus of the majority of relevant experts.
However, there are several important characteristics that differentiate pro-science activists from anti-science activists.
A) The beliefs of legitimate scientists – including pro-science activists – are modifiable and depend on the evidence. Again, that principle that a scientific consensus will change with sufficient, legitimate, reproducible evidence is the foundation of all scientific progress.
B) The beliefs of anti-science activists are inflexible, and the selection and interpretation of evidence is controlled by those beliefs.
A) The evidence of pro-science activists that conflicts with an accepted scientific consensus is discussed within the relevant scientific community with other experts, and the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals.
~> It is the responsibility of the scientist(s) challenging the consensus to produce and defend relevant, legitimate, reproducible, properly interpreted evidence from well-conducted experiments or observations.
~> If the evidence is legitimate and convincing, the consensus will change – that is the only way science works. If not, again it is the responsibility of the challengers to either provide better, more convincing arguments or evidence to the scientific community so the consensus will change.
~> Pro-science activists will keep fighting within the scientific community to change the consensus until they either succeed with better evidence &/or better interpretations or they will continue to fail.
B) The “evidence” of anti-science activists that conflicts with an accepted scientific consensus has been presented to the experts in the relevant communities, and it has not been of sufficient quality or reproducibility to convince those experts to modify the consensus.
~> At this point, anti-science activists abandon the scientific processes of trying to change the relevant scientific consensus. They take their “evidence” directly into public forums to try and hijack the democratic process.
~> The goal of the anti-science activists is to convince intelligent, caring, well-intentioned members of the public that their anti-science selection and interpretation of the evidence is legitimate, that mainstream science and health organizations (and their members) can’t be trusted to care for or protect their health, that they should join the fight to end a science-based public health measure like community water fluoridation, vaccination – or other agenda topic.
~> These anti-science activists have abandoned scientific protocol, and their goal is to promote their agenda by employing whatever tactics have been proven by scam-artists throughout the ages to be effective at modifying public opinion. Three of the main anti-science tactics, exemplified by your comments and those of CarryAnne, Richard Sauerheber and a few others, are:
1) Disingenuous distortion, misrepresentation and fabrication of the available evidence when presented to the public in hopes that most citizens will not have the training, experience, time or inclination to track the references (or opinions) to their source and personally evaluate the studies, reviews or opinions. Those distortions of evidence as it relates to fluoridation can be found on Ken’s blog, https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/, as well as on the websites of major health organizations and others that support fluoridation.
2) Fear sells. If members of the public can be motivated by successful fear-mongering tactics of presenting false and exaggerated claims, scam artists can be extremely successful in peddling their con. Which statement is most likely to capture the public’s attention? Fluoride is a poison that reduces IQ and causes cancer --- or --- Fluoride reduces the risk of dental decay in communities with optimally fluoridated water.
3) Casting doubt on the scientific and health communities. To effectively sell the “Fear Factor” it helps for anti-science activists to claim that scientists and health care professionals who support the scientific consensus: “don't think for themselves or review the research”, are “all puppets of each other” “do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists”, “are either ignorant or willfully blind” are “morally corrupt … doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”. Do these accusations sound familiar?
So, Bill, if you are convinced you have legitimate scientific evidence to support your position, why are you not spending your valuable time presenting your “evidence” to the relevant experts in an all-out effort to change the scientific consensus? Why are you trying to change public opinion instead of the consensus of scientists who can change policy? I can only think of a couple of answers…
For that matter, would you please describe your interpretation of the scientific consensus, and since you have indicated a disinclination in the past to admit the concept of a scientific consensus is real or relevant, please describe any alternative you might have for how scientists and members of the public should determine the most accurate interpretation of decades of very complex scientific evidence?
You have provided your opinion of members of the CDC, ADA, and AAP as I highlighted earlier – as has CarryAnne. Do you apply those same descriptions to all the members of the World Health Organization and the other 100+ organizations that continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation or do you have other explanations? I have asked this question a number of times without response.
Do you have any explanations for why only a small handful (about 6?) of alternative health organizations along with various conspiracy groups like INFOWARS [Alex Jones] and Natural News [Mike Adams] support the anti-science, anti-Fluoridation opinions? I have also asked this question without response.
In specific response to your 02-28-2019 12:24 AM comment:
~> The overwhelming evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation
~> The “dosage” of fluoride is controlled in the same manner as the safe “dose” of all chemicals/elements in treated drinking water – by the amount of water it is possible to drink without harm. Fluoride ions, unlike many of the other regulated chemicals in water, have been demonstrated by over 70 years of research to be safe and effective at reducing dental decay at about 0.7 ppm.
~> Why do anti-science activists listen to and select/interpret the evidence of only other anti-science activists and ignore any evidence they do not agree with? That “evidence” has been demonstrated to be flawed over and over.
~> Explain and provide proof for your claim, “Fluoridationists violate ethical research”.
~> Fluoridation is no more a violation of freedom of choice than are any other water treatment processes or seat-belt laws, etc. Anyone who dislikes ingesting fluoride ions – or any other residual contaminants – in drinking water are free to find other water sources or remove any contaminants they choose not to ingest.
Reading through the post on what distinguishes science from anti-science is pretty generic and non specific. People opposed to fluoridation based on facts are not spreading fear and distortion but rather explain the truth, plain and simple. The initial misunderstanding by Dean in a study demonstrating a correlation of water fluoride and tooth decay in a few midWest cities has misled many. Correlation does not prove causation and in fact more thorough examinations of the effect of fluoride water consumption on caries has demonstrated in detail its lack of effectiveness, while being very effective at increasing the incidence of dental fluorosis enamel deficiency. Teotia and Teotia and Ziegelbecker and Yiamouyiannis are scientists who have studied the phenomenon in detail in man. And most importantly, the scientific experiments on mammals that are well controlled and definitive all demonstrate that eating/drinking fluoride have no impact whatsoever on dental caries incidence. These are the unarguable scientific facts proven in three separate labs, two in the U.S. and one in the U.K. There are no scientific controlled mammalian experiments demonstrating the opposite..
.Is describing these facts spreading fear, where fear mongering "sell"s? Of course not. Facts are immutable, they never change, period. One can eat fluoride all day long and it will not correct a single dental cavity because the scientific data prove it. And by scientific data I mean those experiments that have controls. If the Broadbent study has no controls,how can anyone refer to it as being scientific? You can't.
And the experiments with mammals by Varner and by Reddy and by Mullenix and others clearly prove that fluoride ingestion causes brain degeneration at blood fluoride levels common in consumers of fluoridated drinking water..
I go with the actual data, the science gleaned from controlled prospective experiments using the scientific method. I do not support distortion of the truth.
And referring to fluoride as though it were a nutrient is the ultimate distortion of fact. Fluoride has no physiologic function of any kind in the human system. It is a contaminant and mostly accumulates in bone where it does not belong and changes the crystal structure of bone which is bone of poor quality. There is no way to escape these truths
I explain this to the general public as well as government agencies and other scientists because everyone needs to know the truth about what they ingest into their system. Everyone needs to drink water to live, so why would I withhold the truth from anyone? Doing so would be criminal. And distorting the truth to force innocent people to consume a worhless substance is mistaken..
Yes. An Associated Press article came out last week stating that the CDC now claims that kids are using too much toohtpaste because of the endemic of dental fluorosis. So the followers of the CDC also accept this. But yes water fluoridation began causing dental fluorosis long before fluoride toothpaste was ever invented. The original correlation that attempted to claim fluoride in water reduces caries was in the 1930's where substantial dental fluorosis was observed in communites with fluoride at 1 ppm in water. Toohtpaste with fluoride was not available until the 1950's.
The CDC has a mission to protect the Surgeon General's claim that fluoride ingestion is safe and effective, so obvsiouly it must be that toohtpaste be blamed for what is mostly done by water fluoride..But both now are involved in causing the high incidence of fluorosis enamel hypoplasia.
The bizarre thing is that there is no credible well controlled evidence in man or animals proving that fluoridation even works to lower dental caries. And yet vast effort and funds are put into fluoridating the country. Pretty disgusting and when this is called out, all you will get from fluoridationists is that you are somehow the 'scaremonger.'
"Sticks and stones...."
"Repeating a lie doesn't make it true."
The controlled dose study in the 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste documented coppery brown staining and and thin enamel in some of those children. (Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. Dental Digest. August 1956.)
The 1962 govt memo from the first fluoridation trial city documented a disproportionate dental fluorosis impact well in excess of what predicted, again from before fluoridated toothpastes, i.e. 15% white v. 35% black children. This is why fluoridation policy is an environmental justice issue and opposed by many human rights activists.
“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed.
Look only and solely at what are the facts.”
- Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel laureate on evidence and data analysis (1959)
CarryAnne - you should take your own advice - "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true."
You make unwarranted claims and provide citations which often do not support them. That is simply propaganda.
Now, if you were actually willing to enter into good faith, uncensored, open exchange of the science of your claims and citations that would be different. But I think you are aware of that and your demonstrated refusal to enter into a normal human exchange indicates you are very aware you are simply in the propaganda business - truth is your last concern.
Naturally, people have built up immunity to propaganda like this. We can recognise fake news when we see it.
And F has no physiologic role in urine or blood and is in urine because the kidneys,are eliminating a toxic waste from the system. Unfortunately fluoride accumulates in bone before the kidneys can eliminate it all.
”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)
CarryAnne - you claim "Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies."
Considering the subject under discussion and normal use of the word I am assuming you mean community water fluoridation.
Could you please cite a couple of these hundreds/thousands of studies?
I am aware of several studies investigating harmful effects from community water fluoridation - the New Zeland, Candian and Swedish studies are examples. None of these showed any evidence of harm -quite the contrary.
So I am curious what hundreds and thousands of studies on community water fluoridation you have picked up and I have missed.
And since when have resolutions at union meetings become a substitute for real science?
“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.
- Vyvyan Howard, toxico-pathologist on thyroid science & prenatal/postnatal exposure to fluoride: (26 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0o3kxZNXCw
- Declan Waugh, environmental scientist on science & political dirty tricks (43 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7JUYXNVmiw
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!
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.
”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology… If you drink it, you are running the risk of all kinds of toxic actions… Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923-2018)
For the record, I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them. From my study, I agree with Dr. Carlsson quoted above. I also understand the propaganda techniques that make heavy use of ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies in order to promote an agenda, techniques which are favored by fluoridationists, bloggers and trolls. I have also given honest testimony to my own health experiences which are consistent with fluoride poisoning. I speak for myself. Over 20 other seniors made similar reports about their own health experiences on this AARP thread before it was overwhelmed by fluoride trolls in June 2018.
My preference is to discuss data and ethics rather than argue opinions on specific scientific minutea or personalities. To that end, consider that 2018 reports from US NHANES data document that over half of American teens have experienced fluoride overdose during early childhood evidenced by dental fluorosis in permanent teeth (Wiener et al. 2018). Also consider that American reports publishd in peer-reviewed scientific sources validate that at least 37% of American babies exceed the upper tolerable level of fluoride exposure assumed safe (Harriehausen et al. 2018) plus all the other studies I've summarized in this forum thread that have been ignored by the fluoridationists or selectively & spuriously dismissed.
Then consider the suggestions of scientists that doctors should educate parents not to use too much fluoridated water in prepared cereals, etc. for their young children because of risk of fluoride overdose (Zohoori et al. 2012) and pro-fluoride scientists contorted efforts that argue in favor of fluoridated tap water because cavities are a more immediate threat than lead poisoning to children (Sanders & Slade 2017). Really?!
I suggest it's those who promote fluoridation who are intellectually challenged when they can't see, as does Nobel Laureate Dr. Arvid Carlsson, that adding a drug to water that renders water unsafe for many consumers as well as increasing the lead exposure for all consumers is an immoral & shameful action.
- See Sandy, Utah news for a current example of what can go wrong with fluoridation.
- See image below for a demonstration of how inappropriate it is to assume there is any dose control over a drug added to water supplies.
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?
To our Online Community Members,
We wanted to let you know that our Community Guidelines and Terms of Service have been updated. The changes are intended to foster more civil discussions in AARP’s online communities. The issues discussed in these communities – including healthcare, retirement and politics – are serious and stir up strong emotions. We should have spirited debates about all of them, but those debates should always be respectful, on topic and fact based. We will be applying these standards in our online communities as we work together, with all of you, to address the challenges that face older Americans. Thank you.