Solved: AARP Online Community and Discussion Forums - Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action - Page 9

CarryAnne · ‎02-02-2015

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞

2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);

2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

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

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)

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

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

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf

EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008

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

Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”

PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:

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

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!

CarryAnne · ‎10-14-2024

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

Well, it as been a busy few weeks!

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

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

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

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

View solution in original post

KenP315323 · ‎08-14-2019

Richard, you tell me "You might want to read the pdf again."

But a quick check on the Connett & Perrott (2014) document suggests to me that perhaps you need to read it yourself.

Nowhere in that article can I find the claim by me that there is"no such thing as naturally fluoride-free water."

So you appear to be arguing with a straw man.

In fact, checking through the document it is Paul Connett who refers mostly to natural fluoride in water or naturally fluoride-free water - not me.

Have a search for the word "naturally" to check that out.

Of course, if you can produce a quote of mine I am open to discussion - but as it stands there is nothing here to discuss.

sirpac271999 · ‎08-11-2019

Ken,

You are telling us that, people are so brain damaged by fluorides in this country that they cannot discern facts from propaganda? You say that:“Voters make their decisions according to values - not science.” Ok, so what values? The value to be able to ingest clean water or the value imposed by the brainwashing of the fluoride disposing industry or the propaganda ministry of the milutary industrial complex?

Then you claim that: “The science is far too complex for even representatives to understand, let alone voters.” Really? The science is more than clear that all fluorides are neurotoxic endocrine disrupting enzyme poisons. What is so compkex about that?

“It comes down to where one lays one's confidence” - Yes, with valid science and not with venally interested “health experts” of the fluoride disposal industry. They can ingest their rat poison toorhpaste as much as they wish, but what right does any “health expert” have to poison the public water supply? Again, where is the informed consent that belongs to individuals and not to some unknown “health experts” that take no responsibility for any outcomes whatsoever!

KenP315323 · ‎08-11-2019

sirpac271999 I think your "reply" (actually intervention) illustrates my point.

sirpac271999 · ‎08-12-2019

Ken,

This is a public forum and not a private “conversation” between you and Dr. Sauerheber. Thus, my reply is hardly an “intervention”. If you don’t want people to post on this public forum, then keep your opinions to yourself. The water fluoridation issue is a matter of public interest, since such policies are forcefully imposed on the public.

Then, I have heard your venally interested “health experts” make such idiotic statements as: “Fluoride is a natural mineral”. Omg! That right there makes it clear that these so called “health experts” know absolutely nothing about fluorides, since fluorine is a gas and not a mineral. Thus, fluorides are compounds of multiple different chemicals and metals, but these “health experts” obviously do not know that. Therefore, keep those parroting charlatan “health experts” out of the public water.

KenP315323 · ‎08-12-2019

Again - your reply does illustrate my point.

You seek to offend and in the process display a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

No one with an ounce of chemical knowledge describes fluoride as a "mineral." It is an anion. It occurs naturally in minerals (but in itself is not a mineral) and it is ubiquitous in surface waters as the hydrated anion.

Fluorine is the name of the element which is gaseous (as the F2 molecule) at normal temperatures and pressures. However, it is very reactive so easily convert to the fare more stable ionic form.

As a collective term fluoride can be used to describe chemicals and minerals, naturally occurring and synthesised, containing the fluoride anion in their structure. However, it is incorrect to use the term where the F atom is covalently bound as in many organic compounds and in natural minerals like apatites.

BillO538145 · ‎08-13-2019

So Ken and Richard are at the fluoridation issue. Amazing how you two get around.

Ken, you wanted a "discussion" "debate" on fluoride and I agreed, sending you information about excess exposure. You were having email/computer problems and that is the last I heard.

Simple questions on exposure should be considered.

1. How much ingested fluoride is recommended to prevent dental caries?

2. At what age should the fluoride be ingested?

3. At the recommended dosage, what are the risks for all ages?

4. What label should be placed on the fluoride products?

5. How much fluoride is each person receiving from other sources than artificial fluoridation?

Of course there are more questions, but those seem to be the most basic.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

KenP315323 · ‎08-13-2019

Yes, Bill, you had agreed to a scientific exchange with me and actually sent me a pdf for your first contribution. I got back to you wanting your help in providing the references and one of the images to make it suitable for publication.

At that stage, my hard drives packed up and I lost most of my material. It has been a slow process recovering what I could from backups.

I am still waiting for your final version of the contribution (I think you were traveling or also having computer problems at the time so couldn't respond at the time).

Anyway, I can start the exchange as soon as I get the final version of your contribution with the references and proper images.

I look forward to this exchange as you were concentrating on dental fluorosis and I had been preparing something on that.

rs5526 · ‎08-12-2019

Except that the suffix "ide" is also used when naming any bnary compound which of course contains two types of elements. So this also includes organic fluorides such as CF4 being named carbon tetrafluoride, etc.

For a review of the meaning of fluoride you might want to read the endnote supplement to the article "Physiologic Conditions affect the Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride," Journal of Environrnental and Public Health 439490, 2013 availalbe online at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎08-13-2019

Richard, I prefer a more exact nomenclature - especially as some people get confused about how covalently bound F is released to form the fluoride anion.

Anyway, I take it that from your inability to provide quotes and citations you no longer wish to pursue the arguments you were making about "inaccuracies" in Connett & Perrott - The Fluoride Debate.

rs5526 · ‎08-14-2019

But fluorinated drugs most certainly are partially metaobolized, typically about 10% releasing free fluoride ion. There is nothing wrong with the chemical recogtnized by IUPAc, nomenclature system that incluedes naming C-F compouinds as fluorides, such as ethyl fluoride, methyl fluoirde,etc. If you want to take up your desires with IUPAC, be my guest.

And no the arguments protecting Connett from the false claims in the pdf were not dropped. The posts already made are simply being ignored in order to conveniently attempt to drop them.

What I said stands.. There are waters that are naturally frree of fluoride, contrary to the claim in the pdf. And just because ingesting fluoridated water does not immediately lead to clnically detectable symptoms and signs does not justlfy the claim that fluoride causes no harm. That is insane. Bone accumulation begins with the first sip of fluoridated water and likewise the earliest pathologic abnormality is elevated calcitonin and PTH together, along with formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal sturicture. At first for a chronic ttime periodr there are no associated symptoms or signs, either one.So what? That does not mean Connett is wrong, it means he is correct to criticize and denounce fluoridation of people even befroe there are clinically detectable abnormalities. We have no equipment or test that is noninvasive to assess the bone damage that occurs during the "subclinical' stage of bone fluorosis. Where do you get this stuff? It would be like claiming it is OK to eat pure cholesterol because for many years you will have no clinically detectable stroke symptoms or angina or other heart symptoms, all while one's carotids and heart artereis are becoming structurally abnormal due to atherosclerosis. Just because there are no symptoms or signs does not mean it is healthy. Quite the contrary. Fluorosis in the temporary absence of symptoms is nevertheless pathologic.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎08-14-2019

Richard - please be specific.

You say "contrary to the claim in the pdf." Could you please quote the claim and identify the pdf?

Who said what (exactly) where.

Otherwise, discussion is impossible.

Underbat · ‎08-14-2019

Hello everyone,

Whilst we welcome robust debate, we ask that everyone abides by the guidelines.

Please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

https://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

KenP315323 · ‎08-13-2019

A new study reporting the ranges of values for kidney and liver parameters in a healthy population is being actively misrepresented by anti-fluoride campaigners. The Fluoride Action Network’s (FAN) latest bulletin claims the study shows “that fluoride at commonly experienced doses can damage the kidneys and livers of adolescents.”

The study shows nothing of the sort. How could it – individuals suffering liver or kidney disease were specifically excluded from the study population. The reported parameter values are all for healthy individuals.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/anti-fluoride-activists-misrepresent-a-kidney-liver-s...

sirpac271999 · ‎08-11-2019

Anyone who argues for water fluoridation policy is a fluoride promoter! It is ridiculous to argue otherwise. Also, there is no demorcracy in the forced fluoridation policy, which is imposed on brainwashed inhabitants of fluoridated districts. As noted by Dr. Sauerheber, such unethical fascist policies have nothing to do with democracy. Not only have citicens of many of these locales voted against such unconsented mass poisoning, it is obvious that the will of the subjects makes no difference to the policymakers, as the forced poisoning continues. Thus, the US is not a democracy, as long as the forced fluoridation continues.

Finally, medicating individual bloodstreams with artificial industrial waste silicofluorides should never be a policy issue in the first place. The Nuremberg code and the Helsinki and Belmont declarations make it clear that forced medication is unethical and requires individual informed consent. If any single person refuses to consent to be forcefully medicated through the water supply, then they have a right to refuse, and such policy cannot be ethically imposed. Since fluoridation continues, regardless of individual right not to be forcefully medicated, it is obvious that water fluoridation is based on fascist dictatorship and not on any democratic principles or truth for that matter.

rs5526 · ‎08-11-2019

No I understand it. Thats why I am a Democrat.

But fluoridation misinformation and deception is so bad, especially on the pro side, that informed voting is rare..

In San Diego even though voters were well informed and voted twice, in two separate elections, against it, San Diegans are all forced to accept water infused with industrial fluoride anyway.

Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation of water in So CA, where officials actually wrongly believe that it has some health benefit.

San Diego citizens voted and passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibits adding any fluoridation materials into our precious limited drinking water supply. And yet city officials accepted fluoridation against the voting public will anyway. Fluoridation is a forced police action and is as anti-Democratic as anything could get. I most certainly do "get it".

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎08-11-2019

Being a Democrat is hardly an indication of democratic views when we consider recent history where Democrat leaders refused to accept an election result purely because their woman didn't win.

If you think a referendum in San Diego was not followed then do something about it. This is what we did in our city and we won - the council was forced to reverse its undemocratic decision to stop community water fluoridation and accept the overwhelming vote of the citizens.

Voters make their decisions according to values - not science. The science is far too complex for even representatives to understand, let alone voters. It comes down to where one lays one's confidence - with scientific and health experts or with alternative and "natural" health experts (who are often financed by big business anyway)

rs5526 · ‎08-11-2019

The term "Democrat leaders" is nonsensical. When the GOP began using the term Democrat Congress or Democrat party (as though there is only one democrat in it) they revealed their disdain for the Democratic Party. I recall the term was invented when president Obama was elected. Most republicans never got over it and vowed to make him a one term president the day he was inaugurated.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

rs5526 · ‎08-11-2019

Please spare us. I've pointed out several false claims made in the provided link, like the claim that there is no such thing as a natural water that is fluoride free.

Dr. Connett does not do experimental research anymore So what? He is a teacher and sees his job is to explain the vast research that is done that demonstrates the fallacy of a worthless, harmful, un-Democratic procedure forced on people against their will. I applaud his efforts and oppose those who ridicule him and misrepresent the truth about "mass fluoridation".

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎08-11-2019

Richard, if you question a claim made in Connett & Perrott (2014), The Fluoride Debate (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate) then, by all means, make your critique - but please provide a reference or citation (page numbers and quote will do.

Remember there are two authors and the chapters alternate between authors. (Paul Connett made many false claims and I spent most of my time showing where he was incorrect or simply promoting misinformation).

I cannot respond to your assertion that I "claim that there is no such thing as a natural water that is fluoride free." I need to know exactly what you are objecting to in my writing.

To say that fluoride is ubiquitous is not at all contradicted by the fact that in many waterways the F concentration is below the detection method of the methodology used. That is simple chemistry.

But, please can you back your claims with some sort of citation and quote. For example - you say without citation "In the Pacific Northwest such as Klamath Lake there is no measurable fluoride in the water naturally (below 0.05 ppm). The same is true for many fresh drinking water sources." Yet Klamath Blue Green Algae, which is harvested and sold by alternative health advocates as a beneficial supplement, contains 872 ppm F. (https://algae.uk/minerals.html).

Yes, Paul, no longer does any research or teaching. But we are peers in the sense we have both done research and taught, although in different relative amounts.

The fact is that however he, or you, might "see his job" he makes many unsupported assertions about the science - even promoted many distortions of the science. I have covered many of these in b my articles and The Fluodie debate contains both his incorrect claims (in his chapters) and their refutation (in my chapters).

And here is a typical misrepresentation of the science coming from a FAN press release (which of course will have been written by, or eat least approved by, Paul):

"Fluoride exposure may lead to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents, according to a study published by Mount Sinai researchers today, August 8, in Environment International. "

Yet the fact is the cited paper did not research harm to kidney and liver - it simply presented the range of values for 9 kidney and liver parameters in a healthy population.

I quote the authors of the cited 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."

This is just a single example of the misinformation and distortion of science promoted by Paul Connett that needs to be corrected. In this case, I consider that "my job."

rs5526 · ‎08-12-2019

Fluoridationists typically claim that fluoride ingestion does not harm bone because drinking it for years produces no clinical symptoms. What they overlook, as with kidney, brain and other organ altetations that are subclinical, is that fluoride accumulates its effects during lifelong consumption since fluoride is a calcium chelator. This causes in bone the formation of abnormal bone with an altered crystal structure which is not biochemically reversible. The NRC report summarized the effects by saying that clinical bone pain typically begins after F accumulates to about 3000 ppm in bone. But the data in the associated table demonstrate that bone pain occurs over a broad range, even in some cases at only 1700 ppm. Most people accumulate F to 2500 after about 20 years of ingesting fluoridated water.

The point is that fluoride is a contaminant that poisons bone, and the bone structure abnormality begins with the first sip of fluoridated water.

A low dose calcium chelator poison does not produce clinical symptoms at first, but the effects are nevertheless abnormalities. TSH and PTH and calcitonin levels in blood are all elevated in fluoridated water consumers where the hormones attempt to prevent clinical symptons, of thyroid deficiency and proper blood calcium levels, respectively. But the lack of clinical symptoms does not mean to go ahead and continue to let the abnormality progress.

Understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

rs5526 · ‎08-11-2019

What reference? I took the train to Klamath Falls and measured the lake water directly myself with a Lamotte fluoride ion specific electrode.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎08-21-2019

You obviously didn't bother checking out the F content of the Kamrath Blue-Green Algae.

Anyway, please provide citations/quotes, etc. when you claim something I have written - I always like to check I haven't been misrepresented.

rs5526 · ‎08-10-2019

People who willfully promote or protect the policy of the fuoridation of U.S. consumers I refer to as fluoridationists. They are other things as well of course, but the title indicates rhat they support fluoridation and oppose those who are against fluoridation.

And your own words indicate the title is fitting. You stated in writing here that your community made a wrong decision when they kicked out fluoridation and a correct decision when it was restarted.

You also oppose Connett who does the best he can to not state anything that cannot be backed up with evidence.. He goes so far as to not cite the detailed work of Yiamouyiannis and Sutton and Teotia and Teotia , the largest human studies that exist, one a 30 year comprehensive data set, all indicating that ingesting fluoridated water does not reduce decay at all. Connett presents the NIDR data suggesting that such water can affect about 1 cavity per lifetime.

What causes caries is not brushing after eating sugar. F has nothing to do with the cavitation process.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎08-10-2019

You don't get it, do you Richard? Some of my best friends "are against fluoridation." I do not oppose them for it and always welcome a healthy discussion.

I support the right of a community to make a decision on this issue whether it is for or against - because I support democracy.

The decision made by our local council was "wrong" because it violated democracy. It went against a previous referendum result and all local polling on the issue. It happened because the council was effectively captured on the issue by lying activists. The councilors themselves did no understand the science.

The fact that these activists are wrong in their claims about the science and their promotion of misinformation is, in the end, beside the point. The community makes the decision and I support that aspect of democracy even when I think they may be scientifically wrong or I do not agree with the people elected, etc.

I support the results of our government elections -even though in most cases the people elected are not the ones I voted for.

Simple democracy, Richard. You seem unable to understand that.

rs5526 · ‎08-10-2019

The link to a researchgate article called the fluoride debate has many distortions in it. First of all, this is not a peer reviewed publication and should not be considered scientific. Researchgate accepts any materials posted on it. There are good papers in it, and some have been separately peer reviewed by scientific journal editors where the author did not want to pay publication fees and instead posted it on the site. But much of the material can be misleading or incorrect because of lack of peer review.

This particular title itself was first owned by The Fluoride Debate written by Anita Shattuck also online for many decades that is a decent set of information. The title of the debate with Connett should therefore be changed.

One obvious problem with the researchgate article here is the claim that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water. Pure, pristine, natural fresh drinking water has no fluoride becaue fluoride has no human nutritive value of any kind and indeed fluoride is a contaminant of fresh drinking water (as defined and regulated by the U.S. EPA). In the Pacific Northwest such as Klamath Lake there is no measurable fluoride in the water naturally (below 0.05 ppm). The same is true for many fresh drinking water sources.

Second, there most certainly is a huge difference between industrial fluoride sorces vs natural fluoride found in some fresh water supplies. Natural fluoride ions are always accompanied with substantial levels of calciumand magnesium ions that minimize assimilation of ingested fluoride that are dissolved in the water from multiples types of ionic salts. Industrial fluoridation though uses sodium fluoride or fluosilicic acid. This adds three ingredients that do not actually belong in fresh clean drinking water, namely sodium, orthosilicic acid, and as mentioned fluoride. Every 30 tons of fluosilicic acid added into a city water supply produces 10 tons of sodium ion, 10 tons of fliuoride ion, and 10 tons of orthosilicic acid, none of which beong in fresh clean drinking water.

I could go on with a critique of the link, but what is the point? Arguing with a fluoridationist who debates minute detailed definitions with Connett while swallowing the entire made-up story, that lifelong eating/drinking fluoride has no adverse health side effects and also lowered dental caries at the same, time is a waste of time. One could ingest fluoride all day long but it will not prevent or cure a singel dental cavity. And one can only ingest miniscule amounts of fluoride in a calcium deficient water supply and will have compromised bone because there is no fluoride blood concentration low enough to block its accumulation into bone where it does not belong.

There is poor reserach on the antif luordie side, and massive amounts of pitiful reserach on the pro fluoride side. But the truth is that fluoride is useless, harmful, a complete waste of public funds, and is an immoral forced action on people who want to be free of it..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

KenP315323 · ‎08-10-2019

Richard, your comments about Researchgate are irrelevant. No one credible ever claims it represents peer-review publication. But it is a handy place to make one's publications and articles available. I, for example, have over 100 publications and articles on Researchgate, most of them peer-reviewed.

I don't know why Paul Connett does not put his articles on Researchgate (although he can not claim peer review for the vast majority of his articles, can he?

Of course, the credibility of an article and its contents never depends on peer review or not. I approach all articles critically and intelligently. There are plenty of peer-reviewed articles which a wrong - that is the nature of science.

This is why I get into this sort of review of articles used by activists. I think it serves a useful purpose and the fact that you are unable to show me wrong on any of my assertions shows that I must be serving a useful purpose.

KenP315323 · ‎08-10-2019

Richard, your comments on Researchgate and peer review raise some interesting issues which are worth discussion and I will post on them later.

But, first, a slightly related issue.

You have called me a "fluoridation promoter" - but that is certainly not the case and you cannot point to any evidence to support that claim.

In fact, I believe that the promotion of health policies like community water fluoridation are best left to the health and technical experts. It is dependent on community characteristics and these experts can make the best judgment call. I do not work as such an expert and have never appeared as an advocate on any body where these policies are advocated.

The second aspect of this is that the decisions of community water fluoridation in this country are, in the end, made democratically by the communities concerned. This is because of controversy around the subject. I support the right of the community to make those values-based decisions and have only participated in the discussion at that level because my own community was ignored when the local council removed community water fluoridation after its effective capture by activists. This wrong decision was eventually reversed after a second referendum where the community gave its overwhelming support for this health policy.

I am not an activist, normally. I do not advocate for specific policies (except democracy).

But my activity on this issue has been exactly the same as my activity on issues like religious distortion of science - eg., creationism and "intelligent design" or activist distortion of the science around climate change. I have vocally defended the science on these and similar issues, just as I have around issues related to fluoride. I have worked to expose and correct misinformation promoted by religious, political and "alternative health" activists.

In a sense, I am doing the job of peer review. This is particularly true with Paul Connett - I am his peer- similar age and qualification (although I have far more research experience and publications). I have simply pulled him up for his promotion of misinformation and distortion of the science. This is quite independent of the promotion of any health policy.

CarryAnne · ‎08-08-2019

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

Screen Shot 2019-08-08 at 10.55.24 AM.png

KenP315323 · ‎08-08-2019

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 · ‎08-09-2019

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.