Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

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

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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

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

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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

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

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

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

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

Really? 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

BMCL

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

• No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 “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. 

[KenP315323]

sirpac - you seem to have a blinkered view of this research when you say it shows a "very evident significance between boys and girls exposed to fluorides."

You miss the whole point - it showed a difference in the IQ of boys and gurls for both fluoridated and unfluoridated groups. There was no statistically significant difference due to fluoridation. This is the data from Table 1 in the paper:

[rs5526]

But the authors who actually did the study concluded differently,  that for every 1 mg per day increased intake of F in pregnant expecting mothers, there was a 3.2 IQ drop for both boys and girls. One can twist data all they want and excuse fluoridation, but i dont give my innocent  grandkids drinks  made with fluoridated  water or foods made with the garbage.

Why cant everyone else in San Diego and elsewhere have that option in their public drinking water when they  want that?

[KenP315323]

rs5526 - how can you say they concluded differently when the data in my table is taken from their table 1?

As for their regression analysis (which explained only 1.2% of the IQ variance), you are completely wrong. They did not say:

"for every 1 mg per day increased intake of F in pregnant expecting mothers, there was a 3.2 IQ drop for both boys and girls."

What they actually said was:

“A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14) in boys and girls.”

I will reproduce below my lengthy explanation that I provided for Bill on my blog (he was having trouble understanding the statistics and I guess you are too).

1: I hope you are familiar with what the word “associated” mean. Particularly it should not be seen as some sort of proof of a cause.

2: Again, it does not say the coefficient (the slope of the best-fit line) was exactly 3.66. It quotes a 95% confidence interval – in this case –7.16 to -0.14. There is a 95% chance the coefficient will be in this range.

3: That is the coefficient – but what would be the associated IQ values be. [Please don’t forget the word “associated” – it is too easy to fall into sloppy thinking and assume we are talking about an actual loss caused by fluoride. That has not been shown at all.]

The figures relate only to the best-fit line and that range of coefficients indicate values for the best-fit l line at a MUF of 1.0 mg/l in the range of 103.13 to 110.15. (I am using a constant for the line of 110.29 estimated from the paper’s Figure 3).

4: Now here is the figure with the data points taken from the paper.

5: Please note that the values from the quoted statement refer only to the line. 110.29 – 3.36 = 106.93 = the IQ value of the line at MUF of 1 mg/ml. The CIs indicate a 95% probability of values in the range 103.13 to 110.15. That range is indicated by the grey shade showing the place the best-fit line could occur.

6: Now note that at a MUF of about 1 mg/L ACTUAL values occur WELL OUTSIDE THAT RANGE. At least 74 to 140 or even wider.

In fact, only a few of the values are in the range given in the quote.

This tells you that the reported association [“3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14)”] is an extremely poor predictor of what the actual values associated with the MUF will be.

7: The reason should be obvious. The data has a very wide scatter and the fitted line explains only a very small percentage of the true IQ variance. This can be calculated from a normal regression analysis – the authors would have the figures but did not report them. I think that is a major deficiency in this paper and similar papers from this group.

My estimate (using digitally extracted data from the figure) is that the reported association explain only 1.2% of the IQ variance. That is a very small value.

8: Finally, the author’s rely on p-values (in this case 0.04) and conventionally we say a relationship is “significant” if p is less than 0.05. By itself, p-values can be very misleading – and are often simply used to confirm a bias. Authors should provide all the information for their statistical analyses. In this case, an R-squared value of 0.012 (which they refused to report) would have told us that the reported association was meaningless. I do not think this is honest or objective reporting by these authors

On the other hand, I must compliment them for at least showing us some of the data – this enables us to come to our own conclusions about the significance of their results. Of course, anti-fluoride activists will only be discussing the p-value in their misrepresentations.

[BillO538145]

Ken,

Do you know of any human studies on the toxicity of lead which you accept as quality and up to your standards?  Or do you consider lead to be safe to ingest?

Is there any study reporting harm to humans of any substance which meets your requirements?

And when are you going to respond to the total fluoride exposure excess?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[KenP315323]

Bill, did you read my explanation of the statistical analysis in Green et al's paper? Did you understand it?

Do you agree the observed correlation is extremely flimsy?

Perhaps more could be said about the MUF analysis for boys. The residual plot suggests the assumptions inherent in a linear regression are suspect. The residuals are improved by a log transformation but I think this just adds to my point that this reported association is meaningless.

[BillO538145]

Yes, Ken.  I understand and disagree with your opinion on the Green data.

Do you understand my question on total fluoride exposure?  

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[KenP315323]

Bill, what do you specifically disagree with? I went to a bit of trouble to explain in detail soi feel I deserved a better response than that.

[BillO538145]

Why should I answer you when you do not answer me.  

Ive asked for many months and sent you a pile of references on excess exposure.  

You know now too many are ingesting too much and you refuse to respond to the basic concept of dosage.  

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[RossF715288]

Ken , you say that my contribution to discussion here relies on activist ideology and unsupported attacks on science.
So if I quote Basic methods for assessment of renal fluoride excretion in community prevention programmes for oral health, World Health Organisation, 2014, where it is stated that ingested fluoride from all sources, whether deliberately or unintentionally ingested, is excreted primarily in the urine. Thus, studies of urinary fluoride levels are ideal for assessing the total intake of fluoride in populations and, more particularly, such studies also provide a basis for decisions on the use of fluoride for caries prevention and that the report also clearly states that public health administrators should assess the total fluoride exposure of a population before introducing any additional fluoridation or supplementation programmes for caries prevention - is that activist ideology and an unsupported attack on science?
And then if I refer to the major National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006) which provides evidence that:
• Endocrine systems and thyroid functions are impaired at exposure levels to fluoride below the consumption levels expected from drinking what is described as optimally fluoridated water,
• kidney patients and diabetics are susceptible subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides and that this is relevant to fluoridated water as low as 1ppm concentration, and
• as a calcifying tissue that is exposed to a high volume of blood flow, the pineal gland is a major target for fluoride accumulation in humans with the calcified parts of the pineal gland containing the highest fluoride concentrations in the human body - higher than either bone or teeth and that fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans - is that activist ideology and an unsupported attack on science?
Both Bashash et al. Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico and Green et al. Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada find an association between prenatal exposure to fluoride and cognitive development disorders in children and that these studies’ findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforce 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. So if I advocate application of the precautionary principle to public policy is that activist ideology and an unsupported attack on science?
If ever there was a need for the precautionary principle to apply it is now.
That 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 (like CWF) 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)

[KenP315323]

Ross, I don't know what your purpose in this discussion is.

The Green et al paper had been discussed extensively here and I have written about it in my article If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help.

I have also written extensively on the Bashash et al and similar studies - here are some articles.

Criticisms of these studies could be made related to methodology (eg you should know the inadequacies of spot urine tests used in these studies if you have truly read the WHO document you refer to. I covered these in my article Anti-fluoridation campaigner, Stan Litras, misrepresents WHO. However, this is hardly worth it because the reported relationships are so weak as to be meaningless. This is the point you should be engaging with - not citing studies without understanding their meaning.

As for calcified tissue adsorbing reactive ions like fluoride, phosphate, citrate, etc. Simple chemistry - not a cause of calcification.

[RossF715288]

Ken, just to change your current tack a little, in an earlier posting I did not say that the democratic process is quaint. I was asserting that your reliance on a referendum or poll to resolve a CWF issue as quaint and I did not imply that democratic expressions must be "forced" from people such that you should apply the word ‘obscene’ to my comments.
The real obscenity in your city, Hamilton NZ, was that the outcome of a non-binding referendum forced over 11,000 citizens to receive unmonitored doses of a neurotoxin in their tap water against both their collective and individual consents.
Clear majorities of voters in a referendum should not determine that the rest are forced against their will to take a health-affecting toxin, at any concentration, in their drinking water.
I’m sure, Ken, that if you become ill and attend a medical centre, you don’t revert to asking assembled strangers in the centre’s reception area to vote on suggested treatments for your condition so why should fluoride in community water supplies be any different?
Those who believe in ingested fluoride treatment for dental health care can have it clinically prescribed by a physician so to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number fluoridation should be abandoned world-wide.
You asked me to present evidence that there are viable oral health alternatives to CWF which have been demonstrated in several countries, including New Zealand.
I know you are well aware of Scotland’s Childsmile programme which functions successfully without a fluoridation overlay. There are similar approaches to children’s oral health in parts of the UK and Denmark.
For a New Zealand model I refer to Ellen Clark’s June, 2017, thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Dentistry at the University of Otago, Dunedin, titled ‘Supervised tooth brushing in Northland’ (New Zealand). Northland is not fluoridated.
This thesis was supervised by Associate Professor Lyndie Foster Page and Professor W. Murray Thomson of the Otago dental school.
The results were far better than hoped with children who were brushing teeth at school having a mean number of 11.7 tooth surfaces that improved. In comparison, children not brushing had 8.6 tooth surfaces that deteriorated over the year which was regarded as quite profound.
The author said that the beauty of the study was that it removed the usual inequalities in oral health caused by poverty and that the results had prompted interest from overseas and from district health boards around New Zealand.
The author had expected it would be several years before such significant results were seen.
These results were achieved with brushes and toothpaste, children spitting into towels, rinsing brushes at a water fountain and the cost of a teacher aid for an hour daily.
This low-tech intervention could do the same for New Zealand as whole, at a relatively low cost, compared with the tens of millions of dollars that would be involved in installing infrastructure with legislatively imposed nation-wide CWF which on its own would have little , if any, effect on improving children’s dental health.

[KenP315323]

Ross, you still seem to be saying that "reliance on a referendum or poll" to resolve a democratic issue is quaint. That is just silly. And you did use the word "forced."

You use it again saying "referendum forced over 11,000 citizens to receive unmonitored doses of a neurotoxin in their tap water against both their collective and individual consents."

That is absolute rubbish. I live in Hamilton and I have yet to see any evidence anyone being held down and administered with anything, let alone a toxicant. No one is forced.

The great thing about a democratic decision like this is that everyone gets a say. The decision is determined by the majority and the minority still get to do what they want. It's a win-win situation.

All the local anti-fluoride people I have talked to use alternatives - either the publicly supplied non-fluoridated water, a filter or another source. Absolutely no one has been forced to drink anything against their will. I think the people who make such outrageous claims are just upset that they are prevented from intervening in the health of others - paritcualry children who cannto defend themselves and who suffer the most from painful tooth decay.

No, of course, the best treatment is not determined by a vote - it's determined by science and logical thinking. That is why the sensible person voting in such referenda listens to what the real experts say rather than either flipping a coin or listening to the crazy next door neighbor.

You claim "Scotland’s Childsmile programme . . .functions successfully without a fluoridation" but seem oblivious to the fact that an essential component of the programme is regular fluoride varnish treatments for the young children

Elements of the Childsmile programme and similar programmes are also used in New Zealand. Sensible health experts use what works and is appropriate for their situation (Yes, CWF is just not suitable for some situations independently of whether the community desire it or not).

[BillO538145]

Ken,

You seem to object to the concept of "forced fluoridation" or forced increased exposure to fluoride.

If a water purveyor does not fluoridate, a person can ingest fluoride from other sources, such as toothpaste.

If a water purveyor fluoridates, a resident cannot avoid the fluoridated water.  Restaurants and food service use the water for food processing, showers, beverages, etc.

Certainly you should agree a resident is "forced "to pay for it in their water bill, if they continue to live in that city.  And those chemically sensitive are usually in a low income because their health is compromised and can't afford to move; although, I know of one family who has moved twice.

I have not seen your evidence on exposure.  Too many are ingesting too much fluoride even without fluoridation.  Why add more?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

Rubbish? Fluoridation in the U.S. is a police action and is indeed forced. The city of San Diego voted twice against fluoridation and yet citizens are forced to accept it and they must pay for it in their municipal supply that is also required to be purchased. 

Even if a city were stupid enough to vote for the fluoridation of peoples' skeletons, then the rest of the city who opposes it are also thus forced to accept the mistakes of others.

The irony is that I guarantee you that if I see kids next door in a nonfluoridated city that I deem should be fluoridated, and I plumb a fluoridation feed system into my neighbor's plumbing against his wishes because I deem that it is "good for his kids", then I would and should br arrested.  But when the city does it to everyone, it is not only allowed, it is a forced, nonDemocratic police action.

A democracy is a system where the majority looks out for the minority, and doesn't trample over it because they "won" an election.

[KenP315323]

Richard, I did have a wee giggle at the thought of your thinking police force you to drink fluoridated water.

In my experience, anti-fluoride activists to a man and women do have alternatives in fluoridated areas. It's just that they want to deny this safe and effective health measure to others who have no objection to it.

[rs5526]

Why whats so funny? I didn't say the police hold me down and force feed F'd water down my throat. I said fluoridation  of public water supplies is a police action. If one objects with the water district and refuses to pay for the contaminated water that before was normal water, your water will be shut off to your house. Not just drinking water all water, for  your garden, cleaning, all water. Yes you pay to fluoridate laundry water, all water, not just water for treating teeth.

Most people cannot afford to haul water for cooking and drinking and also have to pay for the water into their  housr for all other purposes.  And most civilized people I know who can afford to haul water to not fluoridate their children and themselves have no time to deny others  access to F'd water nor could they achieve that in a policed action  anyway. The facility at which San Diego water is illegally treated with F is surrounded by barbed wire fences, armed guards, and any complaint registered there is disallowed and you are  subject to arrest for "loiterng" at a public water facility.

While  you giggle about the misfortunes of others, I fail to see the humor.

[KenP315323]

Crocodile tears, Richard. If you don't pay your rates or bills then, of course, there will be civil actions. I would face the same problem. That doesn't mean anyone forces you to drink the provided water. And all the anti-fluoride people I know take their own actions - all cheap - to do so. Just I as I would if I did not like the fluoride, chlorine or other things in my water. Many people use cheap filter systems, for example, and don't go around bitching about being "forced" by police to drink the provided water. That is just silly.

You say you and your mates "have no time to deny others access to F'd water nor could they achieve that in a police state anyway. " - Yet that is exactly hat you are doing. You have time to and money to go on social media, participate in all sorts of actions aimed at denying others access to a safe and effective health measure - against their will.

Then you describe the USA as a police state. There is a lot wrong with the US - its politics is disgusting, it illegally intervenes around the world to oppose the interests of properly in other countries. But only a nutter would call the USA a police state.

[rs5526]

Oh please. Who doesn't understand the diffetence between correlation and causation? Of course the stats cannot distinguish whether higher F causes a lower IQ,  rather than kids who  will in the future have a lower IQ cause in the womb mothers to consume more F, or that an unknown variable causes both F consumption and IQ to change together.

If there is a correlation,  I know which choice I would surmise.

And as far as the accusation that the authors are being "dishonest", or used stats to claim there is an effect when there wasn't, what about the claim that was made by the accuser that fluoridation does not cause lowered IQ (even though the study had only small differences in F exposure) and then later denying that was said? Accusing people of maklng up data or interpretations is quite a claim, and for scientists is an insult on integrity that needs to be defended against..

[rs5526]

I'm not the author of the study and I can't know.

But the reported urine levels also do not appear substantially different (only differed by 0.33 ppO. So what gives you the right to claim drinking fluoridated water does not affect IQ? Urine levels in fluoridated people are 1 ppm compared to nonfluoridated at typically 0.1 ppm a 10 fold difference.

Do you understand?

[KenP315323]

Seriously Richard. Can you not read a table like I had given you? Are you not aware of statistical significance in such differences?

You ask "So what gives you  the right to claim dronking  fluoridated water does not affect IQ?"

Where have I claimed that? What I am saying is that the data in the table shows no difference - no effect of fluoride on IQ.

I certainly have the right to interpret evidence presented in a paper. But I do wonder at your ability to do so if you start citing statistically insignificant data to me.

[rs5526]

And what pray tell happens to brain tissue after 22 years of ingesting F'd water? Humans do not have a fully grown and developed brain until they are in their 20's. Yiamouyiannis measured the F content in brain tissue for those in F'd areas and found that brain levels compare to levels in blood.  It is insane to force an industrial contaminant into the brain of man where it serves no purpose and does not belong.

[rs5526]

Ok. So the drop in boys IQ of 1.53 points in fluoridated areas could be important. This is obvious because most people in areas with F'd water don't drink the water regularly and if they did the F content would be even higher.. Many drink bottled water or other water based beverages. Here this is reflected in the low urine F levels.  When consumers actually drink F'd water,  urine F levels match the water F level typically very closely. So unless there are people here with 1 ppm in urine, and in control urine where levels are low such as 0.1 ppm, no one has any rigjht to claim the data here prove water fluoridation has no effect whatsoever on IQ. Such a claim is preposterous. Again, these people were not placed in cages to control their drinking habits. They are humans, not controlled caged mammnals that already have produced definitive data proving fluoridation is useless and harmful, and that F is not a dietary ingredient, and is not a normal component in blood. This is why there is no listing in the Merck Manual or in Nursing sources that list all normal blood components from A to Z. F is a contaminant of human systemic fluids. Im sorry but sometimes the truth is simply too much for some..

[KenP315323]

Richard, according to your reasoning, then, the increase of 1.6 IQ points in girls with fluoridation must be important.

Come off it. These differences are not statistically significant. Do you not understand that?

[rs5526]

It would be nice if some day people would stop lying, but they just don't. I have never made a statement in all history about the IQ study that is being discussed here, until 10 minutes ago. So the claim I referred to it as being as great as sliced bread is an outright lie.

Second, the Mullenix study is very relevant because unlike humans who cannot be controlled for diet and behavior in cages, mammals most certianly can and were.

Third, the fluoride systemic blood levels in the Mullenix studies matched that in humans who are unfortunate to have to live in an area with 1 ppm fluoridated water. So the argument that the brain abnormalities have no relevance to CWF is also absurd. The animals used have small stomachs and the residence time of HF in the stomach is most likely not long enough for full assimilation, so a higher water concentration is needed to achieve the same extracellular fluid level of fluoride that humans have in fluoridated areas. . 

Why don't you just say the studies are not relevant because mammals are not humans?

Agian, epidemiologic studies in man are nearly impossible to perform witthout extraneous variables causing scatter in the data. Some people are vegetatrians, some are not, some drink lots of soda, some do not. This is why fluoridation studies in man that "prove" dental caries benefit are so worthless. Teeth caries are a direct result of the envirionment in the oral cavity to which the teeth are exposed, so teeth caries incidence modification due to various treatments are the most difficult to study well in man.  In caged animals we already know that drinkng fluoridated water does not have a single detectable effect on dental caries. CWF is s a worthless procedure, regardless of whether this study turns out to be properly interpreted or not.

Fourth, it is not possible to state that fluoridation of man causes no effect on IQ. That is another lie. Where are the data that prove this? Especially when this study involved a very small difference in fluoride exposure.

[KenP315323]

Richard - You say:

"the fluoride systemic blood levels in the Mullenix studies matched that in humans who are unfortunate to have to live in an area with 1 ppm fluoridated water."

In fact, Mullenix cites plasma F levels in humans exposed to drinking water of 5-10, and 16 ppm F. Very far outside recommended concentrations.

[KenP315323]

Richard. I think an apology from you is required. It was actually Bill who said this (https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2174982#M2232😞

"The latest fluoride lowering IQ study by Green et al 2019, is rather powerful, with dosages of fluoride similar from all sources except fluoridated water."

I am confusing the two of you again.

But what is your view of the Green et al paper now that you have commented on it below:

https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2175262#M2251

Millunex's study used much higher concentrations of drinking water F. She cited a few levels for a few blood samples for humans receiving much higher than normal concentrations of F in drinking water. She did not make a proper evaluation of these and only opportunistic anti-fluoride activists make the argument you have.

[rs5526]

My view is the exact opposite of tbe claim that only fluoridation advocates would make, which is that the study somehow proves fluoride ingestion from water fluoridation does not affect IQ. That is deceived and beyond the pale. 

And only someone who is not an experimental biologist would dishonor the Mullenix study for not achieving the exact average midrange for F seen in human consumers of  F'd water. The technical difficulties with such adjustments are  not only extremely difficult  but are unbearably time consuming. She in fact lost her grant funds because fluoridation activists  could not stand obtaining more such data. The military officials desiring fluoridation laughed and began dumping their waste NaF into water supplies across the country without a second thought.

[KenP315323]

Richard, you write:

"My view is the exact opposite of the claim, that only a fluoridation advocate would make, that the study somehow proves fluoride ingestion as from water fluoridation does not affect IQ."

Well, here is the data for IQ from Green et al (Their Table 1):

That is, there is no significant difference in the mean IQ of offspring children with mothers from fluoridated or unfluoridated areas while pregnant.

Your "view" appears to ignore these facts.

[rs5526]

It is incorect to claim that the data discussed demonstrate that there is no effect of fluoride ingestion during development on IQ. The reduction reported for boys that is not seen for girls is not surprising and has so many possible explanations that it isn't even funny. First of all, boys are not girls and girls are not boys because boys alone have a Y chromosome. And boys only have one X chromosome while girls have two. The genetic differences are vast and there is no reason to exclude the possibility that systemic fluoride can differentially affect either Y chromosome haplotypes more than other chromosomes, or that women can withstand a fluoride perturbation by having two X chromosomes rather than only one. Fluoride is a normal hydrogen bond disruptor by forming abnormal hydrogen bond interactions, with significant adverse effects on large macromolecules like DNA. Fluoride even at only around 0.1 ppm inhibits DNA repair enzymes which are very susceptible to the ion. Fluoride is also a recognized mitogen.

Secondly, statistical covering is a significant problem in epidemiologic studies. For example, if you do not want World War II to have ever existed, you could convince yourself of that by simply lookng at world populations from 1930 to 1950. You will find that the progressive increase in population is smooth and regular to the naked eye. However, if you analyze only the population of Europe over the same time period you wll see a huge drop from the otherwise regularly increasing population occurred during the War years. And the reason we can prove that WWII existed is from other data (e.g. photographic proof, eyewitness testimony, personal involvement, etc.)

Likewise, if you don't want fluoride to affect IQ, ignore the well controlled Mullenix studies with mammals that proved fluoride ingestion does impair neurologic development and the Raady animal studies and the Varner animal studies, and the many other human studies correlating blood fluoride concentrations with IQ, and then claim that since girls did not experience any detectable effect in one study of xposure that caused onlyh a slight difference in F urine levels, that voila there is no effect of fluoride on IQ. The argument is baesless of couse but yet people love to do it.

[KenP315323]

Richard - you ignore Krutchen's point. There is a very significant effect of sex on IQ - once that is removed there is no effect of fluoride on IQ. And that is reflected in the mean IQ for all children - exactly the same in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

In fact, fluoridation has no effect on the mean IQ for boys (104.78 vs 106.31) or for girls (111.47 vs 109.68) which confirms what Krutchen says. There is no statistically significant reduction for boys or girls (if you claim there is could you please show me the workings).

Yes, of course, the effect of sex on IQ is important, maybe a worry. But one can't help speculating on the fact the sample in this study was not really representative. Several critics have commented on this.

But I stress - there is no effect of fluoride on IQ and the Green et al results appear to have arisen from the frowned-on subsampling they used and possibly a non-representative sample. One also must remember there will be an effect due to non-normal data distribution and the reported effect explains only a very small part of the IQ variance.

Concentration on fluoride is perhaps obscuring what should be the real worry - at least for males.

The Mullenix study is irrelevant to community water fluoridation - high F diet and rats.

You seem now willing to discard the Green et al study (perhaps wise) but formerly thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.