Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

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

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne]

Dental dogma destines teens for kidney and liver disease. 

The latest study out today identifies markers in American teens that suggest compromised kidney & liver function that could result in chronic disease later in life. These markers are due to fluoride intake growing up in optimally fluoridated American communities. 

Other recent studies have noted the biological damage due to oxidative stress caused by fluoride which has potential for causing all sorts of havoc in the body, including in kidneys, livers, brains and bones. 

Frankly, it doesn't matter if the fluoride caused the organ damage or if genetic predilitictions made these inviduals more vulnerable to fluoride poisoning, there are significant percentages of the population who are harmed by fluoridation policy - harm that begins in utero but manifests over a lifetime as chronic disease, disabilities, and even premature death. 

• Fluoride exposure and kidney and liver function among adolescents in the United States: NHANES, 2013–2016. Ashley J. Malin, Corin Lesseur, Stefanie A. Busgang, Paul Curtin, Robert O. Wright, Alison P. Sanders. Environment International. August 8, 2019 [online ahead of print].  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019309274 

• Lash LH. Environmental and Genetic Factors Influencing Kidney Toxicity. Seminars in Nephrology. Volume 39, Issue 2, March 2019, Pages 132-140.  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0270929518301827 

• Waugh DT. Fluoride Exposure Induces Inhibition of Sodium-and Potassium-Activated Adenosine Triphosphatase (Na+, K+-ATPase) Enzyme Activity: Molecular Mechanisms and Implications for Public Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(8), 1427.  https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/8/1427 

[KenP315323]

This is misleading. The Malin et al study does not identify "markers in American teens that suggest compromised kidney & liver function." In fact, individuals with liver or kidney disease were excluded from the study.

From the paper:

"this study did not aim to determine whether fluoride exposure
is associated with clinical decrements in kidney function among
U.S. adolescents. Rather, this study aimed to examine subclinical
changes in kidney or liver parameters associated with fluoride exposure
among a generally healthy population. For example, the lowest GFR
estimated in this study was 84 mL/min/1.73m2, and therefore none
were below the<75 mL/min/1.73m2 value considered reflective of
abnormal kidney function. Future prospective studies including participants
with and without kidney disease are needed to assess clinical
changes in kidney or liver function."

[CarryAnne]

Fluoride endangers kidneys, threatens thyroids, inflames guts, damages teeth, affects immunity & rewires brains. 

A few other fluoride- kidney studies: 

"F exposure was related to the urinary excretion of early kidney injury biomarkers, supporting the hypothesis of the nephrotoxic role of F exposure."

- Jiménez-Córdova MI et al. Evaluation of kidney injury biomarkers in an adult Mexican population environmentally exposed to fluoride and low arsenic levels. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. May 2018. 

“Oxidative stress is a recognized mode of action of fluoride exposure that has been observed in vitro in several types of cells and also in vivo in soft tissues such as the liver, kidney, brain, lung, and testes in animals and in people living in areas of endemic fluorosis” 

-  Barbier O, et al. (2010). Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Chem Biol Interact. 188(2):319-33

 "....the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant." 
- A. Martín-Pardillos et al. in Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50

"suppression of Bcl-2 expression at both the mRNA and protein levels have been shown to implicate in apoptosis in the NaF-treated renal tubules”

- Agalakova NI, Gusev GP. Molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity and apoptosis induced by inorganic fluoride. ISRN Cell Biology. Volume 2012 (2012).

“NaF induces the apoptosis in renal tubules via activation of the Bax expression and Bcl-2 suppression”

- Xu H, Jin XQ, Jing L, Li GS. Effect of sodium fluoride on the expression of bcl-2 family and osteopontin in rat renal tubular cells. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2006 Jan;109(1):55-60.

“It has been frequently observed that the children suffering from renal impairments also have some symptoms of dental and skeletal fluorosis… A total of 156 patients with childhood nephrotic syndrome were screened and it was observed that 32 of them had significantly high levels of fluoride in urine and serum… Increased levels of apoptosis were observed in high fluoride group compared to normal fluoride group. Various degrees of fluoride-associated damages to the architecture of tubular epithelia, such as cell swelling and lysis, cytoplasmic vacuolation, nuclear condensation, apoptosis, and necrosis, were observed.”

- JA Quadri, S Sarwar, A Sinha, M Kalaivani, AK Dinda, A Bagga, TS Roy, TK Das, A Shariff. Fluoride-associated ultrastructural changes and apoptosis in human renal tubule: a pilot study. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 14 Feb 2018; Volume 37, issue 11, pages 1199-1206.

[KenP315323]

How weird - I quote from Malin et al's paper showing that your claims were wrong and I get a personal attack. That's called playing the man and not the ball. Why not deal with what Malin et al actually say?


As for " globe trotting troop of social media commenters who aggressively promote" something. That sounds like a description of Paul Connett who comes to New Zealand every southern summer to promote his misrepresentation of the science. Politicians are so used to his behavior they refuse to listen to him - and much of the reasonable media is the same.

[CarryAnne]

How weird, those who specialize in vicioualy attacking fluoridation opponents regularly ignore the inconvenient science, like what I mentioned that provides biological plausability for Malin's study. Then KenP complains when after he's previoulsy identified himself as a retired New Zealander who used to work in agricultural chemistry that he is being attacked just for being identified - and then attacks Dr. Paul Connett, to boot, in an apples & oranges comparison.

That's called the Karpman Drama Triangle and involves a never ending Hero-Victim-Villian role playing. It's evoked by the Villian playing the Victim looking for a Hero. In this case, the fluoridationists like KenP trying to deceive the public with deflection and deception.

The Malin paper is high quality and just one of many that provides biological plausabilty for fluoride even in low concentrations such as in 'optimally' fluoridated water causing serious harm in consumers. Even the 2006 NRC commented on the alarming gaps in kidney science that indicated problems.

   

[KenP315323]

You cite the Malin et al., (2019) paper as evidence for your claim that "fluoride even in low concentrations such as in 'optimally' fluoridated water causing serious harm in consumers."

But the fact remains that this paper does not identify any harm at all. It simply reports the range of values for nine liver and kidney parameters in a healthy population. None of these values indicate abnormalities in live or kidney health - none at all. 

Apart from that, extremely weak relationships of one (out of nine) of these parameters with blood plasma F and water F were found. The relationships are so weak they have no predictive value and certainly cannot be used to extrapolate outside the ranges found. 

One could critique the statistical analyses and their validity (for example I find their claim that outlier influence was excluded very unconvincing for water F) but why bother.

As the authors say:

"this study did not aim to determine whether fluoride exposure is associated with clinical decrements in kidney function among U.S. adolescents. Rather, this study aimed to examine subclinical changes in kidney or liver parameters associated with fluoride exposure
among a generally healthy population."

They further say:

"Future prospective studies including participants with and without kidney disease are needed to assess clinical changes in kidney or liver function."

There is no need to critique the quality of the statistical analyses to show you have misrepresented the paper - a simple consideration of these comments from the authors show that the paper in no way should be used to argue that "fluoride even in low concentrations such as in 'optimally' fluoridated water causing serious harm in consumers."

[rs5526]

Unbelievable. This fluoridation promoting person complains about being verbally reprimanded, and then himself announces that Paul Connett yearly performs a "misrepresentation of science". 

Between those who force the fluoridation of peoples' bones, vs those who disagree with this policy of altering peoples' bone structure and quality, I know exactly who is distorting science, and it is not Connett. Paul does the best he can with the available information, knowing that there has never been in all history an actual double blind, placebo controlled, human clinical trial to assess the side effects and dental caries effects of fluoride ingestion.

The facts we do have in well-controlled caged animal studies prove that fluoride ingestion does not decrease dental caries and in fact increases the incidence of abnormal dental enamel hypoplasia some refer to as the abnormal condition fluorosis. Indeed in the U.S. the incidence of this abnormality in teens is overwhelming and caused the CDC to recommend lowering the fluoride allowed in water supplies several years ago. But the infusion of any industrial fluoride into a water supply always increases the incidence of dental fluorosis in all cities treated.There are no exceptions.

The FDA has never approved any fluoride for swallowing and recently ruled that the material is a toxic substance that must be regulated by the EPA under theToxic Substances and Control Act. But the EPA does not want to be involved other than to prohibit water from containing more than 2-4 ppm and argues that the FDA needs to regulate the infusions because they are presumed to be an oral ingestible dental prophylactic.

The FDA has never approved any ingested substance for the purpose of dental caries control.

Lifelong ingestion of fluoride is known, in deceased people examined for it, to accumulate in bone to thousands of ppm where it causes formation of bone of poor quality at levels higher than in fluoridated toothpaste but where it does not belong and hss no functional purpose. Fluoride is not a nutrient. It is a toxic substance.

Do fluoridationists care about any of this? Of course not because they twist facts to their own desire and claim that lifelong eating/drinking fluoride is harmless and that caries rates would be higher if you didn't, not realizing that  flossing and brushing remove the bacteria that actually cause dental caries. Caries are not caused by lack of fluoride.

Fluoridation of people is a mental error, and no government agency accepts liability, not only for visible dental fluorosis but for any adverse effects of the ingested waste material. 

Protect bones in senior citizens because in elderly years bone fractures are most frequently lethal.  Controlled studies with dogs prove that fluoridated  bone takes far longer to heal than nonfluoridated bone. This is not a joke.

[KenP315323]

Richard, you have allowed your emotions to drive you off at a tangent. My response to CarryAnne simply showed how she misrepresented the Malin et al., (2019) study. That study did not show any abnormal liver or kidney parameters in the study group - contrary to her claim.

As for distorting science - Paul Connett is well known for this. Have a read of my scientific exchange with Paul where I exposed so many of the arguments he used as factually misleading. See Connett & Perrott (2014). The Fluoride Debate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate

Paul has, because of his frequent visits here, accumulated a fair amount of suspicion and outright humour regarding his claims and no one credible listens to him now in New Zealand. His attempt last year to hold a meeting in the NZ Parliament Buildings was a complete failure - he was actually shunned by almost every MP.

[CarryAnne]

American reports have documented cataracts as a side effect of fluoridated medications. The fluorosis belts in Africa and Asia have high incidences of blindness, half of which is due to cataracts. Eye diseases are influenced by many factors, but ..... 

Fluoride exposure and fluoridation are implicated as contributing factors in several degenerative eye diseases which primarily affect senior citizens per March 2019 peer-reviewed article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research in Public Health. Metabolic reactions, genetic vulnerability & disturbances, and immunonological responses at play in a perfect storm that is typical of poisonous reactions in biological systems.   

The Contribution of Fluoride to the Pathogenesis of Eye Diseases: Molecular Mechanisms and Implicati...

See comment from the senior citizen care-giver of an elderly woman finding ways to stabilize eyesight that include avoidance of fluoride. 

Aliss on Eye Disease

[sirpac271999]

All the agencies that are supposed to “protect us” are truly there to protect the industry from lawsuits from us, the People! We, the People, have been conned. We are just consumers and filters of their poisons, but we pay dearly for our own demise!

Once these guard dogs have emasculated the agencies, then they set the corporate agenda into policy. This is why we have sugar industry setting dental health policy and Big Pharma imposing health policy in the US. Worse yet, these agencies rubber stamp the corporate agenda and the masses misguidedly trust them. So the people look for these agencies to protect them, when in reality they are enforcing the corporate agenda.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee!

https://www.ecowatch.com/andrew-wheeler-epa-confirmed-2630358470.html?utm_campaign=RebelMouse&social...

[BillO538145]

Ken

Dosage.  How much is needed and how much is too much?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[KenP315323]

Bill, come off it. 

This issue has already been dealt with in my comments comparing F with other nutrients, I, Se, etc. "Dosage" is a completely inappropriate term for these nutrients.

[rs5526]

It is hard to believe that people exist in the United States in the 21st Century who actually hold on to the idea that fluoride is a nutrient. And yet right here in front of our eyes we see just that.

F is not a listed component of the blood because it has no human function or purpose and is a contaminant in man.

The EPA does not recognize fluoride as a nutrient but lists it as a contaminant of drinking water and had to set an MCL for it.

The FDA ruled in 1975 that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods. And fluoride compounds have never been FDA approved for ingestion in the U.S.  And ruled that fluoride is a toxic substance that in water needs to be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Fluoridationists actually believe that fluoride is a nutrient like vitamin C is. Wow. All nutrients exert necessary physiologic actions and exert effects at levels that reach saturation and are fully reversible upon dilution of the nutrient. Fluoride has none of these properties and in fact exerts adverse effects on bone that are not saturable and not biochemically fully reversible

The FDA knows full well that vitamin C is a nutrient and that fluoride is not. No disease entity exists that is caused by fluoride deficiency. Caries are not caused by fluoride deficiency but are caused by bacterial metabolism of sugars to produce acids that attack enamel. Normal enamel can only develop in the absence of blood fluoride and normal enamel does not contain fluoride. It is a clear crystalline hard matrix of calcium phosphate forms called enamel hydroxyapatite, far too hard to incorporate fluoride. Bone  hydroxyapatite does accumulate fluoride to massive amounts during chronic consumption of low concentrations of fluoride mainly in drinking water.

The CDC now recognizes that toothpaste fluoride causes dental fluorosis enamel hypoplasia but has yet to understand that most of the fluoride in the bloodstream in a fluoridated city comes from the treated drinking water, not toothpaste. Some day they might get it but as of now endorse fluoride ingestion as though it were a nutrient although they do not label it as such.  

[sirpac271999]

If the US actually had ‘health’ care, instead of Rockefeller Big Pharma (for profit) sick care, maybe the life expectancy would a bit better. See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-again-a-d...

Isn’t it curious that the sugar industry has dictated US health policy for decades. See https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(16)30331-2/fulltext?mobileUi=0

Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282439972_Plumbosolvency_exacerbated_by_Water_Fluoridation

Sugar industry

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001798

Rockefeller

https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20/how-rockefeller-founded-modern-medicine-and-killed-natural-cure...

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-pai...

[CarryAnne]

“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)

There is nothing ideological about dosage for medication. Neither is there anything ideological about medical instructions to avoid fluoridated water and foods prepared with fluoridated water for those with thyroid, kidney, and other chronic disease - populations who include senior citizens. Both are very pragmatic. 

What is ideological is for the pro-fluoride cartel to publish comments like:

•  "...serious health consequences of lead exposure emerge only after years. By contrast, dental caries causes immediate and tangible problems for children’s teeth…" - Sanders & Slade, 2017
  
  
• Suggestions that doctors need to explain to parents how to use water in food preparation because, "Some infant foods/drinks, when reconstituted with fluoridated water, may result in a F intake in infants above the suggested optimum range (0.05-0.07 mg F/kg body weight) and therefore may put infants at risk of developing dental fluorosis." - Zohoori et al. 2012 

I'm a pragmatist who prefers data and ethics to bickering. To that end, consider: 

Dosage Quiz

[CarryAnne]

“The amount of effort, propaganda, and money the fluoridation-lobby is willing to utilize to cover-up their experiment-gone-wrong is unprecedented.  Their credibility and authority are tied too closely to fluoridation, and there is no letting go for them, regardless of emerging science, of facts, of reality, of anything.  They’re committed to protecting their policy and themselves, not you or your family.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2017) 

1. KenP - The links work. My habit of entering a space after entering the url sometimes confuses this tool. I fixed. You would have had no problem finding them with the citation, but it served your purpose to impugn my character rather than deal with content. 
   
   
2. How can you possibly construe what I wrote as giving up on ethics?! It is absolutely unethical to put a poison in water that causes harm. Evidence, ethics, evolving medical opinion, environmental issues and economics are all against fluoridation policy. The 5 Es. I wrote: "Community fluoridation is a scientifically and ethically corrupt policy."
   
   
3. Rational analysis of data is the basis of risk assessment which provides an ethical basis for banning fluoridation. If there were no ill effect other than very mild mottling on a minority of children's teeth with a trade-off of significant reduction in cavities as promised, that's a rational argument that could be construed as justifying fluoridation. But that has been proved a Big Lie. 
   
   
4. Bashash's 2017 study was the first of three ELEMENT reports with the same findings funded by the NIH and conducted by reknowned scientists at world-class American & Canadian universities. Those findings validate the findings of dozens of other human studies and hundreds of laboratory studies. Even low dose prenatal exposure manifests as learning disabilities on a dose response trend line when those doses are consistent with doses consumed in optimally fluoridated communities.
   
   Taken into consideration with the Canadian study of fluoride doses in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities that find a pretty exact match with the doses in the Bashash study (Till et al. 2018) and in American babies study that found 37% of them exceeded the upper doses assumed safe (Harriehausen et al 2018), it is painfully clear that fluoridation is public harm policy. 
   
   But, I'm not interested in playing a game designed by an agricultural chemist from New Zealand when there are statments like the following on Bashash 2017: 

Expert in Neurotoxicants: “Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously.” -  Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

NTP Director: ”There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before.” - Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

Expert in Pediatric Sensitivity to Pollutants: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

Lead Investigator: “We tested for all the things we could think of that could act on neurodevelopment. But we haven’t found anything else that was a potential confounder... This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.” - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash et al. 2017 

[BillO538145]

As usual, Carry Anne, you provide excellent research and amazing quations from a consensus of some of the top scientists on fluoride and toxicity.

Well done.  

Ethics and science are convincing that many are ingesting too much fluoride causing harm.  A reduction in fluoride exposure is essential.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

Thanks Carry Anne for understanding. I don't know if this complainer doesn't understand the physiologic functions of saliva, one of which is to wash clean the oral cavity 24 hours a day so that foods are transient residents only, or what his problem is.  At least some people get it.

The NRC obviously could care less what temperaory oral cavity fluoride levels are when saliva is mixed with intentionally chewed fluoride placed inthe mouth. That depends on what you are chewing, from NaF rat poisoin to NaF tablets to fluoride insecticide sprayed foods, to toothpaste to fluoride gels and rinses,etc. Who cares ? Everyone already knows that if you put rat poison in your mouth as NaF or if you eat fluoride containing foods that of course it mixes with saliva and elevates the F concentration of the oral cavity fluid. So what?

• The NRC wanted to know how much fluoride is in saliva from drinkng water alone, so the formed saliva was analyzed (without food contaminant of courser) to assess how much fluoride comes from drinkng water into saliva to bathe teeth topicallylly. Fluoride from drinking water has absolutely nothing to do with topical effects on teeth caries because  as the NRC reported saliva has (from drinking water) 0.016 ppmfluoride.  How something so obvious cannot be seen by this complainer is bizarre.

And don't go looking for a quoe fomr the NRC that drinkng water fluoride has zero effects on dental caries because the NRC was not allowed to coment on CWF. It was commissioned to investigate health effecfs at the 2 and 4 ppm MCL's EPA currently allows to exist in water. But fortunately there is plenty of cited data where water is 1 ppm to make the conclusion that saliva contains only 0.016 ppm F (the majority coming from drinking water ingestion, not food), which is useless in affecting dental caries at 94,000 times less concentrated than F in toothpaste and a whopping 750,000  times less concentrated than F in gels applied by some dentists for hoped-for topical effects on teeth.

Who cares if fluoride in the oral fluid after eating a meal might be some value say 5 ppm F.? 5 ppm F mixed with saliva having 0.016 ppm from ingesting community fluoridated water makes no signfiicant difference in the F content of the oral fluid to be of any value whatsoever for affecting dental caries.

I wish this complainer could get the picture but as long as you and the public get it, that's fine. The NRC was not allowed to print this conclusion but they were allowed to print the 0.016 ppm fortunately.

[sirpac271999]

The FDA knows that fluoridated antibiotics, and other fluoride meds, can kill or cause all kinds of harm, but "let’s just change the labels"! Then again, the FDA has never approved any fluorides, because “fluoride” is a protected pollutant. Thus, there has never been any clinical trials for “safety or effectiveness” of fluoride pollution for the stated purpose by the government (note: all fluorides are fluorine compounds). https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm611032.htm

Fluoridation was always a fraud and no-one is liable! The herd is willing to ingest industrial waste in the water supply, when an authoritative body tells them these category 6 poisons (by law) are "good for the teeth'...HA! See Ciprofloxacin (and the other fluoroquinolones) deplete mitochondrial DNA. https://floxiehope.com/2015/02/24/study-finds-that-ciprofloxacin-depletes-mitochondrial-dna/

Also, both the FDA and the CDC are fundamentally corrupt agencies. 

CHECK OUT THE NUMEROUS LINKS BELOW ABOUT CORRUPTION AT THE FDA & THE CDC. Each example will demonstrate when the CDC & the FDA had deliberately altered or withheld scientific evidence in a bid to misinform the public. The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. Note: If any of the links do not work, please just google corruption in the FDA or CDC. 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-app...

Big Pharma Officially Owns The FDA:

http://yournewswire.com/big-pharma-officially-owns-the-fda/

Big contributions to senators who are supposed to question pharma companies:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelatindera/2019/02/26/these-senators-received-the-biggest-checks-fr...

https://gizmodo.com/big-pharma-gives-big-money-to-the-senators-who-will-que-1832891994?fbclid=IwAR0F...

For your protection: The lies and deception of the CDC https://www.sott.net/article/285703-For-your-protection-The-lies-and-deception-of-the-CDC

Total corruption: Drug companies bought their way onto FDA advisory panels.

It is now an undeniable fact that the pharmaceutical industry weaseled its way onto key U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels, which were instrumental in shaping the way drugs are safety tested and approved. According to The Washington Post (WP), a recent public records request has revealed that drug companies purchased special access onto these panels, where they were given the keys to the kingdom in swaying decision-makers about official drug policy.

The FDA continues to be one of the most dangerous government agencies in the United States. The sheer scope of people it affects with its corruption is staggering. Constitutional Attorney on US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Corruption, Disinformation and Cover Up of Health Dangers

http://www.globalresearch.ca/constitutional-attorne…/5430348

FDA Let Drugs Approved on Fraudulent Research Stay on the Market https://www.propublica.org/article/fda-let-drugs-approved-on-fraudulent-research-stay-on-the-market?...

[CarryAnne]

80% of dentists get it wrong! The science can only suggest that fluoride may prevent cavities when applied in strong concentrations to dental surfaces. Fluoridation has little to no benefit. Fluoride's benefits are 'predominantly' topical. (Yoder et al. 2007, Pizzo et al. 2007, Müller et al. 2010)

But many dentists and other fluoridation stakeholders find the medical myth profitable, and so ignore the science and engage in gaslight tactics and disinformation campaigns. 

The only modern saliva reference provided by KenP was a 2012 report from the Wrigley Gum people who said the same thing.... that strong concentrations of fluoride from toothpaste and dental treatments impacts the saliva and may inhibit cavity formation according to the prevailing theory in which there is even less confidence in 2019.

The Wrigley report said nothing about fluoridated water contributing to cavity reduction because it can't. The Wrigley Gum authors wrote that less than 0.2% of that fluoride in water at low concentrations gets into the saliva. They even said that fluoride tablets should be dissolved in the mouth rather than swallowed. Yet, fluoridationists add that report onto their documentation as if to prove otherwise. Plus, the fluoride-lobby calls fluoride a nutrient when the U.S. FDA calls it a drug. 

In other words, neither enamel incorporation nor remineralization from fluoride exposure has been proved to have any but neglible benefit, if that. Fluoride is a poison and poisons bacteria when in concentrated dental products. Period. 

But THIS ISN'T ABOUT TEETH!

Fluoridation cause disease, disability and premature death in millions.

Even if fluoridated water eliminated cavities entirely, it still causes or worsens  thyroid disease, bone disease, kidney disease, autoimmune disease, inflammatory disease, endocrine disease, etc. Fluoridated wastewater also pollutes the planet. 

Community fluoridation is a scientifically and ethically corrupt policy. 

Yoder KM, Maupome G, Ofner S, Swigonski NL. Knowledge and use of fluoride among Indiana dental professionals. J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):140-7. 

http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898

Giuseppe Pizzo, Maria Piscopo, Ignazio Pizzo, Giovanna Giuliana, “Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review,” Clinical Oral invest. 2007, 11:189-193.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17333303

Frank Müller, Christian Zeitz, Hubert Mantz, Karl-Heinz Ehses, Flavio Soldera, Jörg Schmauch, Matthias Hannig, Stefan Hüfner, and Karin Jacobs. Elemental Depth Profiling of Fluoridated Hydroxyapatite: Saving Your Dentition by the Skin of Your Teeth? Langmuir 2010 26 (24), 18750-18759. http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21090577

Agnotology

[KenP315323]

CarryAnne - it is noticeable that your resort to citations is unthought. They often do not support your claim. And you are clearly just pulling them out of a hat without checking is because the links very often do not work. In your last comment, 2/3 did not work.

[RossF715288]

KenP: The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientific near-certainty about its safety.
Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it.
The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientific knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society. (See: Taleb et al., ‘The Precautionary Principle: Fragility and Black Swans’ from Policy Actions, University of East Anglia, 2014)
Grandjean and Landrigan in their paper ‘Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity in the March 2014 issue of the The Lancet stated that epidemiological studies since 2006 had identified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant i.e. a chemical that can injure the developing brain. They warned that untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development and that chemicals in existing use, like fluoride, and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
Choi et al. in their Environmental Health Perspectives paper ‘Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ report results that supported the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment and that future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.
Bashash et al. ‘Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico’ published in September 2017 in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, by a team of investigators at the University of Toronto, McGill, the Harvard School of Public Health, and other institutions found an association between prenatal exposure to fluoride and cognitive development disorders in children.
The study’s findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforced the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children, and to ensure that the benefits of population-level fluoride supplementation outweigh any potential risks.
KenP, In view of these cautions can you cite peer-reviewed research concluding that there is absence of harm from community water fluoridation, in addition to swallowed fluoride from other dietary sources (i.e. in a regime of uncontrolled individual fluoride dosage) that meets the following research criteria?
LEVEL A (HIGHEST QUALITY OF EVIDENCE, MINIMAL RISK OF BIAS)
• Prospective studies that started within one year of either initiation or discontinuation of water fluoridation and have a follow up of at least two years for positive effects and at least five years for negative effects.
• Studies either randomised or address at least three possible confounding factors and adjust for these in the analysis where appropriate.
• Studies where fluoridation status of participants is unknown to those assessing outcomes.
(Definition from McDonagh et al., ‘A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation’, September, 2000.)

[KenP315323]

Ross, the ideologically driven love to talk about the "precautionary principle." Because they can drive it any way they want depending on their baises. They do this by misrepresenting the science. For example, even without a bias, I can produce far more citations related to toxic effects of water or chloride than there are for fluoride. Just imagine where the so-called "precautionary principle" and a biased interpretation could take you with that.

You cite Grandjean and Landrigan as well as Choi et al.  Do you think I am a fool? Do you not relaise that I am familair with both papers and Grandjean and Landrigan contributed nothing new - they simply reported Choi et al.? (Grandjean was part of the Choi et al., team).

The problem here is that they use studies form areas of endemic fluorosis where there is a whole range of serious health problems. Such studies are not relevant to areas where community water fluoldiation is used.

(I have an extra **bleep** about Grandjean because he extended his anti-fluoride bias into preventing publication of a paper of mine in a journal he controls. I complained about this obvious unscientific, and unethical behavoiour and he was reprimanded for it. I published my paper elsewhere.)

You cite Bashash et al. (2017) and seem completely unaware of the limtiations of this paper. The reported relationship for maternal urine F explained only 3% of the IQ variance. (The child urinary F relationship was not significant) Considering they did not include maternal nutrition in their regression it is very possible a more complete regression would show no realtionship wiht maternal urinary F (Malin et al (2018) reported a much better relationship of cognitive factors with maternal nutrition). Don't forget Malin & Till (2015) reported a relationship of ADHD prevalence with fluoridation - explaining up to 32% of the variance. This disappeared when other risk-modifying factors were included - read Perrott, K. W. (2018). Fluoridation and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a critique of Malin and Till (2015). British Dental Journal, 223(11), 819–822. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2017.988

You can read my critiques of Bashash's IQ and ADHD papers at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324216872_Predictive_accuracy_of_a_model_for_child_IQ_based...

and

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

I suggest you do your own work and search for papers you ask of me - but I also suggest you take a lot more care than shown in your use of the Grandjean and Landrigan and Choi et al studies. You have simply not looked at those poroperly.

I also note you appear to be Gish galloping - either that or, perhaps, I should take the fact you simply do not return to your previous arguments as a kudos for me in that you cannot counter my expolanmations. But if you insist on Gish galloping I suggest you do your own searching for specific publications. There is so much avalable and I really don't want to waste my time being sent off on searches by those who seem unable to understand the science anyway.

[rs5526]

But it is simple to criticize and denigrate any study on humans because you cannot put humans in cages to control all other variables. That by the way is why there are so many publications claiming ingested fluoride has some sort of benefit in affecting dental caries when in  fact it does not. You cant ensure all gropus eat the same amount of sugar, etc.  So most are worthless.

As far as the fact that low level fluoride (less than 1 ppm in blood) is correctly classified as a neurotoxin is mostly based on well controlled experiments with mammals (Varner, Reddy, Mullenix, etc). There is no doubt.

And it is also an acute poison at high concentrations where it causes heart failure at around 1-2 ppm in the blood chronically and it causes immedfiate complete heart block at about 3-5 ppm.

Industrial fluorides are toxics and governed by the TSCA which prohibit adding toxic substances into our drinking water. This law stems from the Clean Water Act which is derived form the original Water Pollution Control Act first initiated by President John F. Kennedy.  The misison of the Act section 101a is to maintain the natural chemistry of our nation's waters.

I don't know why it is so hard for those with a fluoridation agenda bias to see the truth, but it just is.

[KenP315323]

No true, CarryAnne. Edgar et al do comment on the protective ability of fluoride in saliva. But the report was about saliva, it was not a contribution to the science of tooth decay reduction. The known protective action of fluoride was simply asserted by reference to the literature - it is a well established scientific fact.

But I notice you have given up on your claim that this is about ethics, not science, and taken to using citations as propaganda without any rational analysis.

Now that you have returned to science perhaps you should now respond to my comments on the Bashash studies that you ran away from.

[rs5526]

So the complainer is walking away from the conversation and that is fine with me because he appears unable to understand it anyway. Using the scientific method, to determiine a role of a particular material in causing an effect it is necessary to isolate that material from other possible independent variable effectors. The role of fluoride in saliva, that is a direct filtrate of the blood that contains fluoride at levels determined mostly by drinking fluoridated water, can only be assessed by examining the product saliva that is not contaminated with foods or other materials. When this was done properly, the NRC Report discussed that study for the saliva contribution of fluoride from drinking fluoride water. The NRC obviously did not include studies in which food was a known contaminant of the saliva since then the role of drinking water fluoride in saliva would not have been able to be determined. .

So I've made the point. Fluoride from fluoridated drinking water that enters into saliva to bathe teeth topically continuously 24 hours a day makes no significant contribution to affect dental caries.

Thank you if the conversation has now ended.

And the claim that I am not an actual  scientist is countered by the fact that I have published over 50 research studies in scientific journals over the last 45 years, so the rationale for that particular complaint is unclear. 

[KenP315323]

No Richard - this is not true - "So I've made the point. Fluoride from fluoridated drinking water that enters into saliva to bathe teeth topically continuously 24 hours a day makes no significant contribution to affect dental caries."

The point you have made is that fluoride in freshly exuded duct saliva (the "direct filtrate of the blood") does not make a contribution. That is, ingested fluoride transferred from the blood to freshly exuded saliva is of so low a concentration it does not contribute to the protective effect of fluoride.

That is something I have never disagreed with. Never. That argument is a straw man and you should be ashamed to have to fall back on it. The dishonesty is that you continue to pretend I am referring to this freshly exuded saliva when I am talking about the whole saliva in the mouth which has received direct inputs of chemical species from food, water, beverages, and oral treatments - throughout the day.

The composition of directly exuded saliva has no DIRECT relevance to the composition of real-world salvia.

It has INDIRECT relevance in that freshly exuded duct saliva causes the lowering of the concentration of chemical species in real-world saliva after every meal, drink, and oral treatment. Just as it causes the lowering of acidity in real-world saliva as a result of bacterial activity after a meal.

But only a fool would argue that this means that acid from bacterial production or fluoride, phosphate, and calcium from food, drink, and oral treatments have no effect on the surface of teeth.

I have never made claims about the "direct filtrate of the blood." I have made that clear again and again. it is dishonest to use this irrelevant situation to deny the real world truth.

[rs5526]

There is nothing dishonest about it. As you say, fluoride from drinkng water that is assmilated into the blood and filters into 24 hour a day continuous fluoridated saliva, at 0.016 ppm, is unable to affect dental caries. Voila. Fluoridated water is useless.

If you want to change the topc to effects on teeth of eating fluoride rich foods, this has nothing to do with fluoride from water. If you want to fight dental decay, stop eating sugar withuot brushing afterward. Eating foods with fluoride has nothing to do with "community water fluoridation". 

It is CWF that we object to on this site. If you want to eat fluoride do so, that is your business.  But everyone has to drink water and when the only source in your home is fluoridated by the cilty, then you are trapped into consuming lifelong something that is useless. And which incorporates into bone to thousands of mg/kg during lifelong drinking. 

End useless CWF. End of story. 

[KenP315323]

Richard, the dishonesty is to use the situation with freshly exuded saliva (as you put it fluoride ingested so that we have "filtered blood") to pretend there is no fluoride (or calcium and phosphate) coming from beverages, water (including fluoridated water) food, and oral treatments and contributing directly (not via the blood) to the chemical species concentration is the real-world whole saliva.

I have never argued against the experimentally demonstrated low F content of freshly exuded duct fluoride - never. So it has no direct relevance to this discussion. It is dishonest to continually revert to that argument as a way of refusing to front up to the role that water, beverages, food, and oral treatments play in increasing the concentration of chemical species in the real-world whole saliva.

[rs5526]

I, nor anyone else, would ever claim there is no fluoride in the oral cavity when you eat fluoride containing foods.  Where do you get this stuff?

I'm making the point, as did the NRC, that fluoride from drinking water has no topical effect on dental caries. I'm not talking about food fluoride, toothpaste fluoride, gel fluoride, or any other source of F. Surely you can eventually grasp this. lt's amazing that anyone could actually think that I have argued that saliva in the mouth would not contain fluoride when you put fluoride in the mouth from other sources.

Wow