- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- 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
- Solo Travel
- 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
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- 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!
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.
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.
Big Pharma Officially Owns The FDA:
Big contributions to senators who are supposed to question pharma companies:
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
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?...
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.
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
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.
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.)
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Richard, good to see you have moved on and will no longer rely on your irrelevant argument about freshly exuded ductal saliva. You now accept that there is a direct transfer of chemical species to real-world whole saliva from water, bevergaes, food, and oral treaments.
You no appear simply to be denying that fluoride in the oral cavity has a beneficial effect in reducing tooth decay.
Please cite the "NRC" (or more appropriately the original paper) for your claim "that fluoride from drinking water has no topical effect on dental caries."
Because that simply conflicts with a huge amount of research showing that commoinutyw ater fluopdiation is effective in reducing tooth decay.
Come on - a citation - not a poltical/ideological/nonscientific unsupported claim or statement.
“I am a retired dentist and a doctor of integrative medicine. I see both sides of the story. In my less informed days, I fed my older child fluoride pills to prevent decay. By age 7 she developed Hashimoto's thyroiditis. And this was pharmaceutical grade stannous fluoride, not hydrofluorosilicic acid! Since then I have seen many cases of thyroid damage and lowered IQ's in my practice in clients who have not filtered fluoride out of their drinking water." - Oksana M. Sawiak, DDS, IMD, MAGD, AIAOMT (2019)
Essentially every opponent of fluoridation began believing fluoridation was safe & effective. It is only those who do their due diligence and also have professional integrity and personal courage who speak out. Some like Dr. Sawiak above and Dr. Evans below learned the harms the hard way, by causing damage to their own children through blind obedience to dental dogma.
Those who cling to the medical myth are no different than the papal experts who tortured Galileo or those who so aggressively argued against Einstein. Consensus is not science. Neither are name calling or other logical fallacies employed by fluoridaitonists a scientific debate - it is an orchestrated disinformation campaign.
However, the consensus is changing. The Alzheimer's Association quietly demanded its name be removed from the ADA list in January. It's not the first, and won't be the last to remove its name from that marketing tool. I don't know whether it was the half dozen dementia studies published in the last few months that moved the Alzheimer's Association to take action or the call to action from a cross section of 8 out of over a dozen professional organizations openly opposed to fluoridation (IAOMT, AAEM, etc.) and many more activist organizations i.e. FAN.
See FAN TV for a few interviews with some of the experts who changed their minds: http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/
And the reason the AARP site is a most appropriate place to discuss the bone fluoridation CDC government endorsed program is because the elderly have have been exposed to,substantial amounts of the cumulative toxic substance and are in the most precarious position from chronic exposure. Bone levels can only go so high until preclinical skeletal fluorosis turns into stage II with bone pain and mobility problems. The elderly have been exposed to fluoride long enough.
And the reason the AARP site is a most appropriate place to discuss the bone fluoridation CDC government endorsed program is because the elderly have elderly have been exposed to,substantial amounts of the cumulative toxic substance and are in the most precarious position from chronic exposure. Bone levels can only go so high until preclinical skeletal fluorosis turns into stage II with bone pain and mobility problems. The elderly have Been exposed to fluoride long enough.
“There are studies that show that osteoporosis, thinning of the bones, is higher in fluoridated communities and that when you get towards the end of your life the rate of hip fractures is measured to be twice as high in fluoridated townships in America than non-fluoridated ones.” - Dr Vyvyan Howard, toxo-pathologist at the University of Ulster Coleraine (2013)
Thanks, RandyJ for the excerpts of some of my AARP comments. Let me elaborate on this one you pulled with additional commentary:
“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) https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf
Since that 2003 statement above, considerable science has been published that supports the increased susceptibility to adverse effects from fluoride for vulnerable populations who include the very young, seniors, pregnant and those with immune or inflammatory disease which includes arthritis and most kidney disease.
Click here for over a hundred scientific citations attached to a 2018 open letter to professionals, politicians and public signed by leadership in a cross section of organizations. Those references are organized by year and mostly published after 2003.
Here are just a couple of comments of note supporting the observation that low dose concentrations of fluoride in 'optimally fluoridated' communities poses a hazard to all consumers with an increased risk to vulnerable populations. Fluoridation undoubtedly harms millions of consumers.
2014: "....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 Toxicology
2018: “We are putting this in our water and aren’t sure of what each person’s exposure is... There is a growing concern in the public health community… This is a compound that is shown to affect the thyroid, there is no disagreement with that in the medical community.” - Brian Bienkowski in Environmental Health News
CarryAnne – It is interesting that you did not explain why you misrepresented your “adjusted citation” I highlighted, but that is typical of the way anti-science activists “bend” the evidence in an attempt to support their inflexible beliefs.
Those adjustments and misrepresentation of the actual scientific evidence is the reason the alleged “scientific citations” in your “2018 open letter to professionals, politiicans and public” have not been able to convince nearly all members of the scientific and health communities that anti-science activists have anything of value to contribute to the ethical or scientific discussions of health-related issues. All of the alleged evidence will have significant limitations (and/or outright misrepresentation) which may not easily be recognized by the politicians and members of the public to whom the “open letter” is addressed.
When anti-science activists present their “evidence” (which has been rejected by most scientists and health experts) to the public, it will typically have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only be suggestion of a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable; 6) the study will be demonstrably flawed &/or 7) The claim will be a complete fabrication.
That is why Ken has requested that you engage in a discussion of specific claims instead of trying to respond to a dump-load of hundreds of irrelevant &/or misrepresented citations.
It is easy to provide a list of citations that support a specific position. For example this is a list of 33 reviews and studies published since 1999 that support the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure.
This list includes the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health:
—> Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water ﬂuoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artiﬁcial water ﬂuoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.
—> More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have conﬁrmed that water ﬂuoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.
—> The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to ﬂuorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.
This link provides over 200 citations of studies that support the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and beneficial:
The difference in the citations that CarryAnne provides and those I provide is that the overwhelming majority of science and health experts and professionals agree with the interpretation of the studies that support the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure.
In contrast, no recognized science or health organization in the world agrees with the interpretation of the anti-science activists that CWF is a dangerous and ineffective public health initiative to poison innocent members of communities worldwide.
As always, CarryAnne includes a bunch of opinions in her comments from other individuals (Vyvyan Howard, A. Martín-Pardillos et al. (mixed results study which had absolutely nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water), Brian Bienkowski, and Verena Romero et al. (an opinion piece), to support her opinions.
Also, you never responded to my suggestion that you might be interested in contacting another very active anti-science activist, Karen Spencer, who spends considerable time on the Internet fighting against the scientific consensus and constructing threatening letters to health organizations like the American Thyroid Association referenced in my previous reply “suggesting” they stop supporting fluoridation or face a lawsuit. I am sure she has absolutely no relationship to you, but your stories – publically provided by both of you – are very similar to each other, so you might want to consider reaching out since you might be interested in her lack of concern for public health and employment of disingenuous anti-science tactics.
CarryAnne 07-07-2018 04:49 PM
My Story (summarized):
- As a pregnant woman, I almost lost my child when my city began fluoridation.
- As a young woman, I experienced rashes, arthritis and gastrointestinal conditions that were untreatable.
- As a senior, I experienced chronic kidney pain and a liver crisis that scared me into abandoning my water filter in favor of no-low fluoride bottled water.
- Bottom Line: Now in my 60s, my arthritis of decades duration, as well as my chronic allergic cough, dry gums, IBS, nerve pain, etc., have all disappeared - and they did so in less than two weeks of my switch to no-low fluoride water. No more kidney pain and no more liver episodes, either.
Karen Spencer, Gloucester MA
As to my involvement as an activist, it is personal.
- The city started ﬂuoridating July 1, 1981 during my pregnancy. I became seriously ill during my second pregnancy in 1981 and almost lost my child.
- My illness continued after I gave birth. It was marked by rashes, hives, fatigue, and gastrointestinal problems resulting in drastic weight loss.
- In 2014, my “chronic Lyme” hobbled me and I was having kidney and liver problems.
- Nine days after being assiduously strict in my avoidance of ﬂuoride, even using spring water to brush my teeth, my arthritis of 23 years disappeared. My kidney and liver trouble also disappeared. Even my painfully dry gums cleared up.
And whichever person on the NRC panel who decided to put in that last sentence completely contradicts findings in the rest of the Report. Notably, consumption of 1 ppm fluoride water chronically causes 1) elevated parathyroid hormone levels to compensate for the adverse effects of fluoride in converting bone to a different crystal structure where fluoride is not biochemically reversible after incorporation, and 2) elevates calcitonin levels to help build replacement bone that is compromised by fluoride intrusion, and 3) elevates thyroid stimulating hormone to counter the effect of fluoride on the thyroid, all to help maintain normal physiology during the fluoride insult.
So including the statement that there is no evidence that a population would be harmed by fluoride levels typical from fluoridation is an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth, and it is understandable why the false sentence was intentionally avoided for clarity.
Either you describe the actual hard data, the science, or you give opinions as done by whoever included that sentence in the NRC Report.
Fluoridationists on this site go with the opinion. Those who know the truth go with facts and data, the science.
Saliva F is 24 hrs a day continuous. And it is there mostly because the largest percent of F in the blood is from F'd water consumption (NRC).
F accunulates in bone of adults in F"d water areas to thousands of mg/kg long before F'd toothpaste,was widely used. Also the Dean studues,in the,30's reported,substantial dental fluorosis in 1 ppm fluoride water areas., long before,F toothpaste,was ever thought of.
Richard, you say "sorry." I wonder if that is a Freudian slip for being so obtuse.
There is nothing groundbreaking about the statement "Saliva F is 24 hrs a day continuous." Of course it is. But the chemical composition of that saliva changes during the day because of inputs from food, beverages, water, and oral treatments.
You and your mates purposely confound freshly exuded saliva with the bulk saliva in the oral cavity.
There is quite a bit of research showing the elevation fo fluoride concentration in saliva resulting from eating food, drink (including fluoridated water), toothpaste use and dental treatments. Some of this research also looks on the relaxation of these concentrations - due to freshly exuded saliva which has low concentrations of fluloide.
Read a few papers:
Sjöman, J. H. R., & Twetman, I. S. S. (2006). Fluoride Concentration in Saliva after Consumption of a Dinner Meal Prepared with Fluoridated Salt. Caries Res, 40, 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091064
Zero, D. T., Raubertas, R. F., **bleep**, J., Pederson, A. M., Hayes, A. L., & Featherstone, J. D. B. (1992). Fluoride concentrations in plaque, whole saliva, and ductal saliva after application of home-use topical fluorides. Journal of Dental Research, 71(11), 1768–1775. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345920710110201
Macpherson, L. M. D., & Stephen, K. W. (2001). The effect on human salivary fluoride concentration of consuming fluoridated salt-containing baked food items. Archives of Oral Biology, 46, 983–988. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003996901000401
Bruun, C., & Thylstrup, A. (1984). Fluoride in whole saliva and dental caries experience in areas with high or low concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water. Caries Research, 18, 450–456.
Eakle WS, Featherstone JDB, Weintraub JA, Shain SG, Gansky SA. (2004). Salivary fluoride levels following application of fluoride varnish or fluoride rinse. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 32(13), 462–469. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00185.x
Oliveby, A., Twetmanb, S., & Ekstrandc, J. (1990). Diurnal Fluoride Concentration in Whole Saliva in Children Living in a High- and a Low-Fluoride Area. Caries Res, 24, 44–47. Retrieved from https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/261237
Edgar, M., Dawes, C., & O’Mullane, D. (2012). Saliva and oral health. Retrieved from http://www.wrigleyoralhealth.com/content/docs/SHL_S_OH_A5_2015_FINAL.pdf#page=53
And the Oliveby study provided was discussed in the NRC 2006 Report. Notice that the "high fluoride water area" had 1.2 ppm F in the water and the night-long F saliva varied from 0.002 ppm to 0.14 ppm. The variation is likely determined by how much water one consumed before bedtime. So what? The levels are still multiple thousands of times less concentrated than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm for topical application. 24 hours at 0.016 ppm average from drinking water F in saliva is completely topically worthless.
Richard, I think you should read the papers. You are stubbornly looking at freshly exuded duct saliva and saliva taken a long distance from drinking and eating. You are stubbornly ignoring the rest of the time where there is a significant elevation of chemical species in saliva phosphate, calcium anbd fluoride which does help reduce acid attack.
Well, you can take a horse to water . . but it seems impossible for an anti-fluoridationist to see the real world situation.
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