Content starts here
CLOSE ×
Search
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 

 

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. 

 

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! 

459,756 Views
1523
Report
3 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

 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.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

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. 

 

 

View solution in original post

110,231 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 “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

27,405 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

'"It is public health malpractice to continue adding fluoride to community water systems."  -  Dr. Joseph Ladapo MD, PhD Florida Surgeon General (Nov. 22, 2024) 

 

 "This is a human rights issue and public health issue, separate from other public health issues." - Dr. Ashley Malin, PhD (Nov. 22, 2024) 

 

The Surgeon General of Florida announced yesterday that he was "appalled" at the evidence of harm caused by fluoridation policy which has been ignored for years. He announced that he was recommending that all water treatment plants(WTP) in Florida end fluoridation. immediately. 

 

Dr. Ladapo also said he always believed fluoridation was "safe and effective" because that was what he was taught, but that after looking closely at the science as a result of the September verdict agains the EPA and Bobby Kennedy's statements, he realizes that fluoridation is anything but safe and effective.  He went on to say that he and his family were taking measures to reduce their fluoride exposure

 

Yet, what do the fluoridation profiteers and their corporate partners do? They launch more smear campaigns in the media- against Joe Ladapo, Bobby Kennedy, or anyone else who challenges their profitable tooth-fairy tale.  

 

One of the fluoride-lobby claims, which they offered in court, is fluoride consumption might be harmful if the dose is at 1.5 mg/L or above but fluoridation concentrations in water is half that at 0.7 ppm. 

 

Let's make this clear:

1. Not only do some people drink more water than others, fluoride is in foods prepared with fluoridated water or treated with fluoridated agrichemicals. Dose is dependent on intake, not water concentration

  • This is why there is supposed to be a 10x safety factor applied to hazards like fluoride, although 100 is more typical. That would reduce the assumed safe concentration to 0.15 or 0.015 ppm.

 

2. The assumption of a dose of 0.7 mg/L is based on only one liter of fluoridated water consumed (and with a perfectly calibrated fluoride 0.7 ppm concentration)

 

3. The dose of 1.5 mg/L recognized as unsafe is reached by consuming a couple of mouthfuls over 2 liters of water

 

4. The rule of thumb medical advice is that a healthy adult should consume at least eight 8 ounce glasses of water daily (8x8), which provides just under 2 liters. A half glass more (or fluoride from another source) will bring you into the red zone. 

 

5. NASEM recommends fluid consumption, primarily water, be:

  1. About 15.5 cups (3.7 liters) of fluids a day for men
  2. About 11.5 cups (2.7 liters) of fluids a day for women

 

Go to FluorideLawsuit.com to see a copy of the verdict and a hyperlinked annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed science published in credible journals since 2015 documenting that fluoridation is DANGEROUS and INEFFECTIVE. and since it affects brains in the womb and is stored in our bones, fluoridation policy poisons us all from womb to tomb. 

 

Then tell the Surgeon General in your state that he should follow Dr. Ladapo's lead.  

View solution in original post

0 Kudos
5,906 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“If we were to use the standard of certainty for regulating environmental chemicals then virtually every regulation we have today to protect the public from toxic chemicals would disappear overnight. You virtually never have certainty as to the dose that causes the harm. That's the purpose of risk assessment. How do you best navigate the uncertainty to best protect the public.” - FAN attorney Michael Connett (October 2024)

 

Given that disingenuous fluoridationist parties are continuing to promote fluoridation with smears and disinformation, I thought I'd post a little one page meme which references the following for anyone who wants to approach their water department or local/state decision-makers. 

 

0 Kudos
1,232 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

'"It is public health malpractice to continue adding fluoride to community water systems."  -  Dr. Joseph Ladapo MD, PhD Florida Surgeon General (Nov. 22, 2024) 

 

 "This is a human rights issue and public health issue, separate from other public health issues." - Dr. Ashley Malin, PhD (Nov. 22, 2024) 

 

The Surgeon General of Florida announced yesterday that he was "appalled" at the evidence of harm caused by fluoridation policy which has been ignored for years. He announced that he was recommending that all water treatment plants(WTP) in Florida end fluoridation. immediately. 

 

Dr. Ladapo also said he always believed fluoridation was "safe and effective" because that was what he was taught, but that after looking closely at the science as a result of the September verdict agains the EPA and Bobby Kennedy's statements, he realizes that fluoridation is anything but safe and effective.  He went on to say that he and his family were taking measures to reduce their fluoride exposure

 

Yet, what do the fluoridation profiteers and their corporate partners do? They launch more smear campaigns in the media- against Joe Ladapo, Bobby Kennedy, or anyone else who challenges their profitable tooth-fairy tale.  

 

One of the fluoride-lobby claims, which they offered in court, is fluoride consumption might be harmful if the dose is at 1.5 mg/L or above but fluoridation concentrations in water is half that at 0.7 ppm. 

 

Let's make this clear:

1. Not only do some people drink more water than others, fluoride is in foods prepared with fluoridated water or treated with fluoridated agrichemicals. Dose is dependent on intake, not water concentration

  • This is why there is supposed to be a 10x safety factor applied to hazards like fluoride, although 100 is more typical. That would reduce the assumed safe concentration to 0.15 or 0.015 ppm.

 

2. The assumption of a dose of 0.7 mg/L is based on only one liter of fluoridated water consumed (and with a perfectly calibrated fluoride 0.7 ppm concentration)

 

3. The dose of 1.5 mg/L recognized as unsafe is reached by consuming a couple of mouthfuls over 2 liters of water

 

4. The rule of thumb medical advice is that a healthy adult should consume at least eight 8 ounce glasses of water daily (8x8), which provides just under 2 liters. A half glass more (or fluoride from another source) will bring you into the red zone. 

 

5. NASEM recommends fluid consumption, primarily water, be:

  1. About 15.5 cups (3.7 liters) of fluids a day for men
  2. About 11.5 cups (2.7 liters) of fluids a day for women

 

Go to FluorideLawsuit.com to see a copy of the verdict and a hyperlinked annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed science published in credible journals since 2015 documenting that fluoridation is DANGEROUS and INEFFECTIVE. and since it affects brains in the womb and is stored in our bones, fluoridation policy poisons us all from womb to tomb. 

 

Then tell the Surgeon General in your state that he should follow Dr. Ladapo's lead.  

0 Kudos
5,907 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

  Looks like another reason Trump's proposed Office of Government Oversight is a good idea.  Far too much over-regulation by bureaucrats of  previous administrations.

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Yes. Let's hope and pray that the EPA will do more than simply telling water districts to include a statement in their water bills to the effect that pregnant women should avoid fluoridated water. That is not enough and will accomplish very litte.. The 80 page detailed Court ruling indicates that the fluoride water level at which it may be expected to have no detectable effect on brain development is from 0.07 to 0.15 ppm. Cities have full liability for fluoridated water since the EPA and CDC  refuse to accept liability, as these Agencies have merely requested fluoridation and don't actually require it (which would violate the Safe Drinking Water Act). The scam has gone on now for 79 years. There is NO need for ciies to carry this risk of litigation. The Court ruling is your rational reason to halt the infusions. The fluoride damage of brain tissue is both pathologic morphology and dysfunction. And ingested fluoride does not affect dental caries systemically. What kind of a country infuses hazardous waste fluosilicic acid into water supplies to treat innocent people with the bone-acccumulating calcium chelator toxic fluoride ion? Incredible. Continuing to promote fluoridation of people is a gross violation of the order of the  Court.   . 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,790 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 “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. 

27,406 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

117,263 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Stanley Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

108,940 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

That there is no known accurate threshold water fluoride level at which there is no IQ lowering appears to be recognized by both sides. All agree that there are significantly detectable adverse effects at 1.5 ppm. EPA lawyers argue since you can't see it below that, then it does not likely exist (wow). Plaintiff argues that with improved methods to assess IQ the effects probably there would be detected. Whoever is correct is irrelevant, where the EPA has no legal right to promote fluoridation of drinking water when the point of departure is still under debate. Wait until it is known with accuracy, then argue your fluoridation belief system to others, not before. .And many (kidney disease victims, diabetics, athletes, field workers, F'd toothpaste users) already exceed the intake level at which there are known effects. 0.1 ppm in blood from F'd water lifelong exposure causes bone accumulation to levels in excess of that known to cause bone pain and arthritis symptoms. 1 ppm in blood from data in kidney dialysis wards causes chronic heart disease which forced the FDA to halt use of F'd water at 1 ppm in kidney dialysis. 3-4 ppm in blood is immediately lethal due to heart block, where fluoride as a calcium chelator impairs calcium uptake during the plateau phase of cardiac cell depolarization that normally couples electrical excitation with contraction of myofibrils.. The SDWA and the TSCA prohibit adding ANY substance into water (other than required for sanitation) that is a recognized toxic material at modest concentrations. It is illegal to add vitamin C or medicines into public water supplies, including fluoride which is not added to sanitize water.  And there is no benefit to teeth of swallowed F where the saliva contains only 0.012 ppm F compared to the 1,200 ppm in F'd toothpaste. As expected, infant mortality and premature delivery are increased in incidence in fluoridated soft water U.S. states which confirms earlier studies by Schatz in Chile.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,575 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

Richard,

You make excellent points.  

 

And the EPA knows that if they admit all humans at all ages and all health conditions are not the same, (intraspecies variation) and admit some drink 10 times the mean amount of water and pregnant women in the last trimester drink three times the mean, a safety factor of at least 10 is needed.

 

One tenth of 1.5 is a water concentration of 0.15 ppm rather than the 0.7 ppm added to tap water. 

 

0.15 ppm is close to the Bench Mark Dose published in studies ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 ppm.  

 

Never ever let your daughter drink fluoridated water or swallow any fluoridated toothpaste starting at least 10 years before she might get pregnant or during the first six years of life.

6,541 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

Fluoridation is not related to the brain, thyroid gland or bones - it reduces the risk of dental decay without harming other parts of the body - as legitimate science has shown for over 75 years.  That's why the major science and health organizations continue to support fluoridation - and NONE oppose it.  "The fluoride you consume ends up in your saliva. Consistent, low levels of fluoride in the mouth (in the saliva and on tooth surfaces) can stop or even reverse the tooth decay process—it keeps tooth enamel strong and solid."

Michael Connett is a major fluoridation opponent – no reason to believe anything he says.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhoSupportsCWF.html
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/about-fluoride.htm 

The evidence that fluoridation protected against dental decay at levels around 1.0 ppm - lower than levels that cause fluorosis – was discovered long before sources were established.  There is no evidence that there are harmful levels of other chemicals in fluoridation products.

 

There are many causes for the issues you mention – fluoridation has not been shown to be a cause by the

 

Why would any rational person choose to watch or accept any misinformation promoted by an anti-vaccine, anti-fluoridation site that helped the spread of COVID?

https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/childrens-health-defense/  
Look up: "children's health defense" COVID

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
7,407 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Fluoride ingestion (fluoridation of public water) does not markedly prevent dental caries as my public health and my dental professions claim.  

 

Scientifically, the question is whether ingested fluoride "mitigates" dental caries, and the best evidence is that it might or might not.  

 

Several streams of scientific evidence need to be weighed in order to make judgment on fluoridation.

 

First stream of evidence is " Ethics and Jurisdiction" in the USA.

 

     Fluoridation lacks individual consent.  Do you see the anger, hostility, fear, emotions over wearing a simple face mask?  What if the public really understood fluoridation is mass medication without FDA NDA and without individual consent or doctor's supervision?  And fluoridation is usually done by elected city or water district managers, not scientists.

     Mass medication can indeed ethically be done to control highly infectious diseases which are highly lethal.  The COVID pandemic certainly demonstrates public health powers, all be it with serious push back.  

 

     However, dental caries are not highly lethal or contagious.  

 

2.     We have many sources of fluoride and the body does not seem to differentiate the source of fluoride.  Whether we take fluoride diluted in water or dry in a pill or mixed in medicines or pesticides, the body absorbs most and the kidneys clean out about half of what many of us ingest.

 

3.     In all countries there is a drug regulatory agency which reviews the science and approves drugs/medications with the intent to prevent or cure diseases in humans.

     Drug Therapy in 1975 published a letter from the FDA to 35 fluoride supplement manufacturers, ". . . there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling. . . marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have therefore requested that marketing of these products be discontinued."   

 

What?   The FDA did not and does not find the science is adequate to determine efficacy.  After all, if it doesn't work, any speculation of risk or cost or consent is too much.

 

The FDA also says unapproved drugs are illegal drugs. 

 

The letter was for fluoride supplements.  However, simply diluting the drug in water does not change the intent of use, safety or efficacy or requirement to receive FDA approval.  

    Discussion has been made that the EPA approves the addition of fluoride to water as a treatment for humans.  However, the Safe Drinking Water prohibits the addition of any substance with intent to treat humans.  Letters from both Agencies lawyers point the finger of jurisdiction at each other.  Without any agency accepting jurisdiction over fluoridation, the Dark Ages of fluoridation persists.

 

The FDA testified in Congress 2001 that fluoride is a drug.

 

The Washington State Board of Health confirmed June 4, 2009 that fluoride is a legend (prescription) drug.

 

Steve Neugeboren, Ass. General Counsel, Water Law Office EPA 2/14/2013 confirmed in writing that, "The FDA, remains responsible for regulating the addition of drugs to the water supply for health care purposes."

 

The FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste because the evidence of efficacy has provided adequate strength.  However, the label says, "Do Not Swallow."  The concern is a pea size of tooth paste which contains 0.25 mg of fluoride, similar to about a glass of fluoridated water.

 

Question, "How much fluoride should a person ingest?"  In other words, "What is the optimal tooth fluoride concentration?"  The most fundamental question of pharmacology.

 

The answer:  No one knows because both teeth with caries and without caries have a similar tooth fluoride concentration at each level throughout the tooth except for the outer few microns where topical fluoride might be beneficial.  Swallowing fluoride which has effect inside the tooth does not have a recommended tooth concentration.  

 

We have a problem.  If we don't know the ideal or optimal fluoride tooth concentration then how do we determine how much we need to ingest and at what age?  Simple answer, we don't know.    Should we mass medicate everyone with an uncontrolled dosage of fluoride when we don't know how much fluoride mitigates tooth decay?   

 

As the EPA scientists have said, "fluoridation boarders on a criminal act."

 

The irony of it all is fluoridation promoters claim to have the science.  They don't have science, they have endorsements and their heads buried in the Dark Ages of trust, hope, faith rather than science and fact.  

 

The next post will consider, "Too Many are Ingesting Too Much Fluoride."

 

 

27,799 Views
3
Report
Regular Contributor

Part II  

Review the streams of evidence of fluoride's dosage.  Too many ingesting too much fluoride.

 

Dental fluorosis is a biomarker of excess tooth fluoride exposure.  The tooth got too much fluoride while it was developing.  Dental fluorosis occurs while the tooth is developing before eruption into the mouth, in other words up to about age 6 to 8.   Any benefit from ingestion is also during those ages and those are ages of concern for the brain and other tissues.

 

When fluoridation started, my professions assured us that only maybe 10 to 15% of children would get dental fluorosis with fluoridation.  In  2000 NHANES (US National Health Assessment and Nutrition Evaluation Survey) reported dental fluorosis in about 40% of children with some degree and 7% with moderate/severe. 

By 2012 that number had increased to 70% of children with 28% having moderate/severe dental fluorosis.  The diagnostic definition was changed and current numbers reported have dropped due to change in definition.   

 

Health and Human Services (PHS) recommended a lowering of fluoride concentration in water to 0.7 ppm.  A direct recognition of too many ingesting too much fluoride.

 

1994 WHO advised, "Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride program for caries prevention."    The question must be asked, how much fluoride are people getting without water fluoridation and is it adequate?  We don't have good measurements (urine or serum) of current individual or regional fluoride exposure which is publicly available.

 

CDC advised, "Dental fluorosis only occurs when younger children consume too much fluoride, . . . when teeth are developing under the gums."   

 

Fluoride in water is an uncontrolled unapproved lacking in a legal intermediary dose of fluoride, in part because the NRC 2006 p 23 states, "Some subpopulations. . . consume much greater quantities of water. . . "

Mean is about 1 L/day or 0.7 mg/day

90th percentile is 2.3 L/day or 1.4 mg F/day (p 379)

99th percentile consume 4.8 L/day or 3.4 mg F/day

100th percentile consume over 10 L/day or 7 mg/day of fluoride just from fluoridated water.  

 

What dosage of fluoride is beneficial?  We don't know.  

How much fluoride is too much?   Certainly over 1.4 mg F/day is a concern.  

At least 10% of the population is getting too much fluoride.

 

American Dental Association Paffenbarger Research Center in 2012 stated, "After 60 years of community water fluoridation we still do not know how much fluoride is required to prevent caries."

 

Come on scientists.  Are you for real?  60 years and we don't know how much fluoride is required to prevent caries.  

 

The concept of forcing everyone with or without teeth, regardless of other sources of fluoride, regardless of health, without a doctor's supervision, to ingest an unregulated dosage of fluoride when we don't know how much is needed, borders on a criminal act.   Certainly that is not science.

27,777 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Part III   Fluoride is unlikely to reduce tooth decay.

 

CDC, "Ingestion of fluoride is not likely to reduce tooth decay."  +1999, Achievements in Public Health Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries MMR, 48(41); 933-940.  

 

A systematic review:  "The results show that the reviewed original studies on economic evaluation of caries prevention do not provide support for the economic value of caries prevention." Acta Odontol Scand. 2003 

 

After 70 years, no Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials of either fluoridated water or fluoride supplements (pills).  Pills would be easier than water, but neither have been done.  

FDA places responsibility for research on the "final manufacturer" of the drug, cities and water districts.

 

Current research on fluoride's alleged benefit have serious limitations.  A few concerns come to mind:

A.  Not one study corrects for confounding factors such as the huge decline in dental caries before fluoridation started and in other non-fluoridated countries.

B. Socioeconomic status often not controlled.

C.  Inadequate size of study

D. Difficulty in diagnosing dental caries

E. Delay in tooth eruption not controlled.

F.  Diet such as Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.

G.  Total fluoride exposure not controlled. 

H. Oral hygiene not determined.

I.  Life time benefit not considered.

J. Estimating the subject actually drinks the water.

K. Dental treatment expenses not included.

L. Mother's exposure, breast feeding, infant formula not considered.

M.  Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.

N.  Genetics not considered.

 

Regardless of fluoride consumption, all developed countries have reduced dental caries to similar prevelance.  (Chen et al BMJ 5 Oct 2007 and Neurath Fluoride Research 2006.

 

Prior to widespread use of fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste, from 1930 to 1960, caries declined from about 12 cavities per 12 year old to about 6 cavities per 12 year old.  No one has determined why, what caused the decline, what was the huge unknown crushing dental caries.  However, to this day the CDC suggests fluoridation is the reason dental caries has declined.  How did fluoridation reduce caries before fluoridation started?  CDC does not respond.

 

2009 Iida and Kumar reported an increase in dental fluorosis with an increase in water fluoride concentrations.  Seems reasonable.  However, caries remained similar regardless of fluoride concentration.

 

Comparing caries rates of the various states in the USA, finds no significant difference in dental caries regardless of fluoridation, but a significant difference in caries with SES.

 

Proponents suggest for every dollar spent on fluoridation, $38 of treatment are saved.  However, that concept is based on estimates of assumptions, not measured evidence.

 

Ko 2015 reported: "$3 per person per year for best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis."  Int J. Occup Environ Health.

 

If fluoride ingestion at some undetermined dosage is not significantly effective, any discussion of risk is mute.  However, Part III (another day) will start a review of fluoride's risks.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27,747 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

Part IV  in the stream of evidence which needs to be weighed before judgment on fluoridation is determined.

 

RISK

 

In 2006, before numerous current studies have been done, the NRC committee raised concerns for the following risks from fluoride ingestioin:

 

1.  Tooth Damage

2.  Rheumatoid and Osteoarthritic-like Pain

3.  Bone cancer

4.  Bone Fractures

5.  Thyroid Reduction, Obesity & Diabetes

6.  Kidney damage

7.  Reproductive problems

8.  Lower IQ and Increased Mental Retardation

9.  Allergies (overactive immune system)

10.  GI disorders.  

 

In the last 15 years new research has confirmed and strengthened the NRC 2006 support.

 

Without benefit, the ethics, jurisdiction, and risks become overwhelming.  I will briefly cover a few highlights of fluoride's tooth damage here.  The others in the next posts, when I have time.

 

Tooth damage.  The NRC 2006 unanimously found severe dental fluorosis and adverse effect.  NHANES 2012 reported 2% of the USA population have severe dental fluorosis.   How many people with harm are you willing to accept before you suggest that fluoridation is not safe for everyone?

 

I diagnose dental fluorsis frequently in my patients, although I don't usually treat the dental fluorosis because patients do not find it cosmetically objectionable for questionable with very mild or mild.  

 

In the previous 3 posts I did not raise the concern of the EPA judge regarding fluoride post-harvest fumigants on food.  He ruled:

"EPA agrees that aggregate exposure to fluoride. . . does not meet the safety standard in FFDCA section 408."

* "The fluoride MCLG is not protective of the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones:

The fluoride MCLG is not protective of other neurotoxic, endocrine, and renal effects of fluoride;

Epa has not adequately protected children;

EPA cannot determine the safety of sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride in the absence of a developmental neurotoxicity study.

EPA has underestimated exposure to fluoride; and 

EPA has committed procedural errors in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

27,735 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

BillO, CarryAnne, rs5526, WillardO:  Remarkable! 

  1. You continue to dodge my questions and divert attention away from the fact that a significant number of major science and health organizations (over 100) continue to support fluoridation and none support your anti-F opinions. I will continue to ask, where is the evidence that any major science or health organizations support your anti-F opinions??? 
  2. You also continue to make false, unsupportable claims that there is relevant, legitimate scientific evidence proving fluoridation is harmful and ineffective that major science and health organizations worldwide are selectively ignoring.
  3. It is informative that CarryAnne’s 02-02-2015 H. Limeback claim  that “The evidence that fluoride [with no context of exposure level]  is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming…” is still as misleading, false and unsupportable, in the context of community water fluoridation, as it was back then.  Links to support the following discussion.

 

BillO, 03-01-2021 10:17 PM:
The levels of a number of chemicals in drinking water are regulated by the EPA to ensure the health benefits of drinking the water are maximized and any potential risks are minimized. You seem to confuse the abbreviation EPA with FDA. The widely used disinfectant chlorine, for example, has been used as a chemical weapon, and it creates a number of byproducts like chloroform which, to use the out-of-context lingo of fluoridation opponents (FOs), are highly toxic. “Some people drink very little if any water and others drink 10 times average.” So, according to your “logic” you should be as opposed to disinfection as fluoridation. Actually, by your logic, water should be banned, since according to the Mayo Clinic adults should drink 2.7-3.7 liters of fluids a day. Drinking ten times that amount, 27-37 liters (7-9.8 gallons) will probably be lethal – water, after all, is a poison – to use a typical anti-F, out-of-context claim.

 

True, “There has never been a prospective randomized controlled trial of fluoride ingestion and they could be done.” Perhaps you could outline specific details of a fully blinded, randomized trial that would expose a few hundred families to either optimally fluoridated or low fluoride-level water – all other factors in their lives being similar &/or carefully monitored – for five to 10 years. The 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review stated, “…research questions where evidence from randomized controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.” FOs have had over 75 years to conduct a scientifically valid randomized trial…

 

So, for 25 years you accepted the scientific consensus of the 74 organizations listed – not to forget the state health organizations and over thirty dental organizations worldwide, and then you suddenly had an epiphany and decided to abandon the processes of science and attack fluoridation based on your “new interpretation” of “evidence” that had been rejected by the scientific community. Wow, that’s an interesting confession!

 

Regarding the FDA: Most rational individuals, who aren’t trying to manipulate reality to fit their agenda, will understand that the FDA does not regulate any water treatment chemical added to protect the health of citizens. Rational individuals also understand there is a significant difference between fluoridated bottled water (0.7 ppm F-) which is regulated by the FDA as a “Food For Human Consumption”, and fluoridated toothpaste (over 1,000 ppm F-) which is regulated by the FDA as an “Over the Counter Drug”. Your arguments about “approval processes” are based only on your specific interpretation of “reality” – confirmation bias.

 

I understand enough quite about scientific research and “primary evidence” to fully appreciate how FOs manipulate that evidence to support their inflexible opinions – regardless of the cost. Frankly, I trust the organizations worldwide that support fluoridation over the opinions of a small minority of individuals who can provide no legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions.

 

Three questions:

  • Do you have any evidence to prove your claim that all the organizations that support fluoridation do not review science to develop policy”? My conclusion is these organizations have, in fact “kept up on the more than 60 human studies on developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride”, and have come to the same conclusion as the NTP and the NASEM I quoted – that the studies are not relevant to fluoridation. FOs don’t bother with that detail.
    2) Do you trust any science-based conclusion
    about public health (like the efficacy of vaccination to protect people’s health) from the organizations that also support fluoridation? If members of these organizations are as dumb as you seem to believe, no health recommendation by the WHO, the AMA, AAP, NHMRC, BMA, CMA, CPS, EFSA, FSAI, HC, NZMA, U.S. DoHaHS, U.S. NIH, U.S. PHS, and dozens of others could be trusted.
    3) Again, can you provide the names of any respected science/health organizations in the world that support your interpretation of fluoride-reality?  Oh that’s right your other identity, WilllardO, listed the IAOMT and AEHSP which seems a bit short of the more than 100 actual science-based organizations that support fluoridation. 

 

WillardO, 03-02-2921 02:23 PM: The EPA 4.0 MCL is nearly six times the optimal fluoridation level and has nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water.  1.5 ppm is twice the optimal level in fluoridated water.  Why are you not opposing water chlorination since high levels of disinfection byproducts, like chloroform, can also be harmful to health?  Fluoridation levels are currently set at 0.7 ppm to maximize reduction of dental decay (which can have well-documented negative health consequences) and reduce the risk of mild fluorosis, which is the only documented negative consequence of drinking optimally fluoridated water – as confirmed and recognized by respected science and health organizations worldwide. 

 

There are many reasons that many European countries don’t fluoridate their water, but even respected organizations like the European Food Safety Authority and the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) recognize the benefits of fluoridation and don’t list any proven risks.


The IAOMT is a strange choice to list as a reputable health organization.  Last year, 9/20, defrocked British doctor Andrew Wakefield, whose study linking vaccines and autism (which fueled anti-vaccination passion) was exposed as fraudulent, and Judy Mikovits, a former biochemist who starred in a viral video that promulgated a litany of false information on the coronavirus spoke along with Christine Till.

 

The “American Environmental Health Studies Project” is an activist group ([cofounder] Cliff, who had grown up in an activist family , spending much of his formative years helping his mother run for Congress and sue the NRC…”)  which, like R.F. Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccination/Anti-F activist group CHD, uses science denial and selective reporting of “evidence” to promote their ideologies.  

 

You continue to confuse EPA fluoridation regulations with FDA F-supplement regulations.

 

CarryAnne, 03-02-2021 08:44 AM:

  1. So, all of the organizations worldwide who don’t support your opinions have caved in to “political pressure to protect fluoridation policy”? That’s an excellent excuse when you have no supporting evidence.
  2. Of course, “People have different fluoride exposures based on their water consumption habits…”, just as they have different exposures to other chemicals in drinking water (residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, for example – unlike fluorine, most of them are not beneficial to health at any exposure level. The safe exposure levels for all residual chemicals are carefully regulated. Can you list some specific kidney organizations that have concluded that fluoridation causes kidney issues?
  3. Can you provide the name of any reputable science or health organization that has concluded community water fluoridation causes “fluoride toxicity in their [senior citizens] bones, bodies and brains.”?

The fact is, “The pattern revealed in the high-quality studies identified by the NTP is undeniable…The pattern in those studies, even if determined by the majority of relevant experts to be “high-qualitydoes not come anywhere close to proving fluoridation lowers IQ or causes any other harm.


However, first, the majority of relevant scientists (not just in the NTP) must conclude that the studies are “high quality”. There has actually been unprecedented criticism of many of the studies from experts from around the world – particularly for the 2019 Green, et al. study.

 

Anyone with a moderate understanding of statistics can see that there is huge data scatter – which means that (1) any potential association between fluoride exposure and IQ is extremely weak, and there are other, far more important and unmeasured associations that could be responsible for the observations. (2) even a strong correlation between two things does not prove causation. In the graphs below, for example, there is clear evidence that increased sales of ice cream can increase murder rates and death by drowning, a higher income causes higher IQ and living in hotter climates lowers IQ.

 

rs5526, 03-02-2021 11:49 AM:

  1. Provide specific references that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes “substantial pain”, bone damage or other issues.
  2. So, you also believe the organizations I referenced have all supported fluoridation for over 75 years “based on anecdotal unproven observation”.  Do you trust any of the science-based health recommendations of any of those organizations – or do you just believe the unsupported anti-F opinions?
  3. How many of the studies fluoridation opponents use to try and support their opinions are published for free in reputable journals?
  4. Provide specific evidence that proves the “FDA has always opposed the ingestion of fluoride”.  I have never seen such a claim, and as noted, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a “Food for Human Consumption” not a drug – and there are no warnings required on fluoride-containing bottled water.
Randy Johnson
27,980 Views
8
Report
Trusted Contributor

I don’t trust any of those corrupt organizations that promote water fluoridation. No matter who they are. They have no validity or reliability whatsoever. Bunch of corrupt military industrial scam artists! 

6,487 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

No one is perfect.  We all make mistakes.  All the organizations have good valid aspect to their mission and vision for better health. 

Therefore, I don't really agree with lumping them in a basket of scam artists. 

 

At one time, I too promoted fluoridation because I trusted my professors and the big named organizations and they trust each other. 

 

Please judge the message rather than the messenger.

Bill 

0 Kudos
6,439 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

ICIM joins with our similarly minded medical partners in seeking to prevent illness. We whole heartedly support a national ban on the practice of community water fluoridation that augments natural levels of fluoride in the water with an industrially created chemical to a concentration deemed "optimal" by fluoridation proponents. We agree with the IAOMT who in 2017 published a Position Paper Against Fluoride Use in Water, Dental Materials and Other Products that the evidence of harm to the public and to the environment outweigh any arguments of dental benefit. We also agree with the AAEM who recognized fluoride as one of the common irritants for those with multiple chemical sensitivities in 2008. 

 

We are disturbed by the politicizing of what should be a medical decision that fails to take into consideration two glaring problems with the premise of fluoridation mandates, neither dose control nor informed individual medical consent are possible when municipal water is used to distribute a drug. We are thoroughly alarmed at the recent validation of a prenatal impact from low dose exposure to fluoride consistent with "optimal" fluoridation that results in a lowered IQ on a dose-response trend line. These findings validate findings from several hundred other studies since the mid-1990s. - International College of Integrative Medicine (2018)

 

Asked and answered, repeatedly, but RandyJ prefers his brand of disinformation to actual fact. 

 

NTP

FACT: The NTP report did not require a peer-review but actually underwent several because this is such a contentious issue that they thought it best to cover bases. Randy quotes from the 2019 & 2020 NASEM reviews which made three points of note: 

 

1- NASEM did NOT review the evidence and were only concerned in clarity so that both sides could agree on the results (sure)

2- That NASEM thought the single report should be done in two parts, a systematic review and separate meta-analysis 

3- That the NTP report should not be regarded as the "final opinion on fluoridation" and should remove the following: 

  • “NTP’s conclusion that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans is based on consistent evidence from 26 lower risk-of-bias studies that evaluated fluoride exposure and effects on children’s IQ and other cognitive effects.… A few studies also support the possibility of heightened sensitivities to the detrimental cognitive effects of fluoride exposures in individuals…”

 

Since 2020, the NTP divided their work product into two pieces as NASEM suggested, and removed the "presumed neurotoxic" sentence, but replaced it with other language that says the same thing if you understand how to read science. Most of us think this appeasement of pro-fluoride forces was a mistake as the NTP is charged with establishing hazard determinations which provide clarity but didn't. 

 

NASEM was correct, however, that the NTP does not have the "final word" on fluoride in drinking water. That authority belongs to the EPA which uses hazard determinations as input, although dental lobby groups and the CDC would have you think it belongs to them. Hence the trial. 

 

Since the NASEM reviewed the report, it has undergone several other reviews which it passed. In May 2022, political interference stopped its publication. However, a court order got it moving again in 2023. 

 

The only major comment on the last review was that the reviewers thought the two parter would be better as one report. You get that - NASEM said split it in two and another group said put it back together.  

 

In any event, there was unanimity that the last draft we saw, May 2023, with comments from five independent peer-reviewers who lauded the report. Their comments include: ‘what you have done is state-of-the-art’; ‘the analysis itself is excellent, and you thoroughly addressed comments’; ‘Well done!’; ‘Findings… were interpreted objectively’.” 

 

  • The 2022 and 2023 comment on the later version make the NASEM comments obsolete. 

That dentist who sell profitable fluoride treatments worth 100s of thousands of dollars a year to their bottom line, candy manufacturers who tell us we can literally have our cake and eat it too if we drink fluoridated water & use f-toothpaste, and other stakeholders who profit from the fluoride deception cling to their mythology isn't proof of anything. 

Several medical and dental groups oppose fluoridation policy. Other groups have removed their names from the ADA "endorsers" list which it no longer makes public on the web as the shrinkage was noted, although Randy has a dated copy on his vanity site. 

 

And although the organizations like ADA still promote fluoridation, plenty of ADA dentists like Dr. Curatola do not support fluoridation. 

  • The data is contrary to what has been the conventional belief that fluoride prevents cavities. There are non-fluoridated communities that have lower rates of decay than fluoridated communities. The CDC came out with research that 4 out of 10 adolescent children have teeth damaged by fluoride; out of that 16%  have severe fluorosis which usually requires very expensive restorative dentistry…..” - Gerry Curatola DDS, associate professor at NYU (2014)

 

Ditto for the pediatricians and their organization:

  • “I would advise them (pregnant women) to drink bottled water or filtered water...” - Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH, editor in chief of JAMA Pediatrics on “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada” (August 19, 2019)

 

Partial list of organizations opposed: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/FAN-World-Wide-Movement-5-1-23-FINAL.pdf 

 

In any event, I'm making popcorn to watch tonight's film. 

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

 

7,585 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne, explain how, if any of your opinions are legitimate and science-based, there are almost no major science or health organizations in the world that support your opinions.  The link you provide contains opinion-based (non-science) groups like Children’s Health Defense (anti-vaccination), Moms Against Fluoridation, Organic Consumers Association, League of United Latin American Citizens (none of which are science organizations)
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhoSupportsCWF.html

 

IAOMTis a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/wishart-misrepresents-fluoride-science-to-advance-his...
https://quackwatch.org/consumer-education/nonrecorg/iaomt/
https://quackwatch.org/related/holisticdent/


ICIM: The “most insidious family of organizations hyping implausible practices and the “freedom” to peddle them. These include the International College of Integrative Medicine (ICIM; formerly called the Great Lakes College of Clinical Medicine….
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pseudomedical-pseudoprofessional-organization-ppo/
In 2017, [Charles C.] Adams was president of the International College of Integrative Medicine, a nonprofit group that features “affordable introduction and advanced training in heavy metal toxicology and chelation therapy … In June 2023, following a seven-day trial, a federal jury concluded that Adams and his clinic had violated the False Claims Act by submitting more than 4,400 false claims to Medicare for chelation therapy reimbursements. The jury awarded more than $1.1 million in damages.”
https://quackwatch.org/chelation/reg/adams/

 

You claim:two glaring problems with the premise of fluoridation mandates, neither dose control nor informed individual medical consent are possible when municipal water is used to distribute a drug.”  Fluoridation is no more a “drug” (or medication) than adding chlorine to water to reduce the risk of disease is a form of medication (or, for that matter a chemical weapon used in WW1).  They are both water treatment methods to protect health.  How about all the other chemicals added to treat drinking water and protect health – does everyone have the “freedom to choose” what water treatment companies add to their water?
https://www.greensboro-nc.gov/departments/water-resources/water-system/water-treatment-chemicals

 

CarryAnne, Read the summary of the NTP Monograph 08 September 2022 below, it clearly excludes optimal fluoridation levels from adverse effects.

 

NTP Board of Scientific Counselors Working Group Report on the Draft State of the Science Monograph and the Draft Meta-Analysis Manuscript on Fluoride
Final Working Group Report: Approved by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors on May 16, 2023
The NTP authors made additional revisions to address the NASEM committee’s comments on the revised monograph, including removal of the hazard classification for fluoride, and decided to split the Revised Draft NTP Monograph into two distinct documents that could be published separately” (p.1)
This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure (e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the World Health organization Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride) is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.” (p.23)  That’s over twice the recommended level!
We cite the dental and overall oral health benefits of fluoride in the Introduction section; however, we have been careful to not give the incorrect impression in the Abstract or Discussion sections that we are providing any assessment of oral health benefits or weighing hazards versus benefits of fluoride exposures in the monograph.” (p.82)  A review that basically ignores the benefits of fluoridation and focuses on studies ignores the severe problems with the reviewed studies should be dismissed.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-green.html
Although the clarity of effects at lower fluoride exposures, which are presumed to be applicable to exposures in the United States, is improving, providing further context is speculative because there are no studies of the potential association between fluoride exposures and IQ in children in the United States, and nationally representative urinary fluoride levels are not available. These facts make it difficult to make more specific statements about the relevance of our meta-analysis findings to the U.S. population.“ (p.312) Just one of the many limitations of this review.


*** The revised monograph is after p.326
DRAFT NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review NTP Monograph 08 September 2022 (p.I-1)
Internal Deliberative – Confidential --- DRAFT NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION – So why has this Monograph been used by fluoridation opponents???
Summary:
The body of evidence from studies on adults is also limited and provides low confidence that fluoride exposure is associated with adverse effects on adult cognition. … This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure [e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride (WHO 2017)] is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.
” (P82-I97)
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/BSC_WG_Report_Final_Version_BSC_approved051623...

 

April 2023 ADA response to the most recent NTP Monograph
1. NTP should complete the full course of peer review with its original independent peer  review panel, NASEM. (NASEM is the acknowledged gold standard for peer review.)
2. NTP should update and publish its meta-analysis of epidemiological studies, but only after it survives peer review by NASEM or been accepted for publication in a reputable journal, as the BSC Working Group recommended.
3. NTP should provide clear context for statements about low-level fluoride exposures, as NASEM recommended.
4. NTP should include a stand-alone disclaimer indicating that the report should not be construed as an indictment of low-level fluoride exposures, as NASEM recommended.
5. NTP should revise its risk of bias rating for several studies, based on NASEM’s concerns2,3 and the enclosed analysis.
https://www.ada.org/-/media/project/ada-organization/ada/ada-org/files/advocacy/230428_ntp_bsc_fluor...

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
7,552 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy, to your second question:

 

2.    You asked, "Do you trust any science-based conclusion about public health. . . "

 

         Yes, science but not policy.     However, the question does not make scientific sense.    “Trust” is a word to be avoided in science.  Policy should not be made on "trust."  When we start to trust (and we all make that mistake) we are not scientific.  And “conclusion” is another word avoided in science (yes, we also all make that mistake).  Science is dynamic, we are discovering both new concepts and knocking down the flawed traditions and policies of the past.  50% of what they teach us in school is wrong, but we don’t know which 50%.  We must constantly challenge our current understanding and be humble about our theories.

 

By the way, fluoridation and vaccinations are not related, to the best of my knowledge.  I have had my Moderna vaccinations, have you?  Over 1,000 have died from COVID Vacs in the USA.  It is not without risk.  However, as a health care provider it is important for me to use every precaution I can to not spread the disease and cause my patients harm.  The Vacs are safer than the disease, based on my evaluation of the data.

27,857 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Have you even read the text by Cristopher Bryson? FDA officials were opposed to fluoridation when the action first began in 1945.

The FDA has been the leading organization to oppose the free and  open addition of fluoride into public drinking water and recognizes that some water naturally contains fluoride. The FDA thus ALLOWS fluoride to be present in bottled water but does NOT approve its intentional addition. The reason fluoride content is not required to be listed on retail water or food containers is because Agency officials did not want the general public to presume that fluoride actually belongs in water or food (personal communication with FDA). The FDA ruled that kidney dialysis wards must use non fluoridated water in kidney dialysis units where fluoridated water in dialysis units causes high morbidity in kidney disease victims. The FDA ruled fluoride is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug and has never approved fluoride ingestion. The use of Luride by prescription only is ALLOWED, not APPROVED by the FDA. The FDA ruled that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods. The FDA ruled in 2015 that, although it argues the Agency has no authority  to ban fluoridation of public water supplies, that addition of fluoride, a toxic substance at any concentration, into water supplies falls under the Toxic Substances Control Act that the FDA insists the EPA is in charge of its enforcement. The addition of chlorine into water is an allowed exception to the TSCA only because chlorine sanitizes water rendering non-potable water potable. There are no such uses or TSCA exceptions for the infusion of fluoride. Fluoridation of public water supplies is a violation of :Federal law.. The TSCA prohibits adding any toxic material into public water at any concentration. Just because uninformed organizations "endorse" fluoridation this does not make it lawful. Fluoride is useless in public water and is harmful to those who consume it longterm, where a 20 year period causes the accumulation of about 2000 mg/kg fluoride into bone, forming fluoroapatite instead of normal hydroxyapatite by ion exchange that is not biochemically reversible at physiologic pH. Since bone pain occurs at levels above 1700 mg/kg, and the NRC concluded that about 80% of all consumed fluoride comes from drinking water, fluoridation of public water supplies is a bone accumulating insult. The fluoridation of bone begins with the first sip, where 90% of all retained fluoride is incorporated exclusively into bone. Sorry but your endorsements and complaints mean little to those who know the truth and speak it. Over my 50 year scientific career I have only been personally and viciously attacked by fluoridationists, so the idea that it is those who oppose fluoridation who most commit personal attacks is absurd.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
27,949 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy, 

Science should drive policy.  Policy should not drive evaluation of science.

 

Science is dynamic and changing.  Policy is too often anchored in concrete.

 

Those who claim to be science based are often policy based and lack science to support their claims.  Let me again explain more and answer your first question now and the other two in the next posts.

 

We have gone over this several times in the last few years and your questions continue to have flaws.

  1.             You asked: “Do you have any evidence to prove your claim that all organizations that support fluoridation “do not review science to develop policy?”

            Yes.  The word "prove" is not correct.  I have enough evidence from what I've read of the organizations positions on fluoride to be confident they do not continually update their position with the latest science.  Read the organizations references, if and when they provide them.  Circular referencing.  For example, the CDC testified in court they had no studies which have found fluoridation is safe for the unborn or infants.  Instead of science, the CDC references other organizations such as SG, PHS, ADA, AAP, AAPD.  In turn those organizations reference the CDC.  Instead of quality research they reference each other.  Circular references is a house of cards and typical of flawed support of policy.

            You suggest the current developmental neurotoxic studies are not relevant to fluoridation.  Two serious concerns.  Proponents of fluoridation assume everyone ingests the same amount of fluoride and have the same ability to handle the fluoride and adequate intakes nutrients which reduce the toxic effects of fluoride such as iodine, calcium, potassium and other nutrients, and those individuals are healthy and do not have excess synergistic toxicants such as lead, arsenic, PCBs, pesticides,  etc.  And further, the best current studies do not find a lower limit where safety is found.   Of course, we want more studies, but we have enough for reasonable people to agree that some individuals or many are ingesting too much fluoride and the best place to reduce excess is stopping fluoridation.

 

27,869 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

Correct, science should drive policy, and you have not provided a shred of evidence (only your opinion) that any of the 100+ science/health organizations I listed have failed to review the science.  You have also failed to explain why, if these organizations can't be trusted to carefully review the science, anyone should trust any recommendations from any of these organizations.

 

Also, as previously noted, the current science (including the studies promoted by fluoridation opponents) continues to demonstrate no harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water at any age.  As I referenced, both the current draft NTP monograph evaluating the studies promoted by fluoridation opponents and the NASEM reviewing the monograph have stated finding from studies with fluoride levels lower than twice that found in optimally fluoridated water are inconsistent, and therefore unclear and can not be used to draw conclusions about fluoridation.

Randy Johnson
27,810 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“There are people who will protect fluoride no matter what the cost, no matter what the evidence says. They will disregard the evidence and continue to say that it is unequivocally safe and effective. We’ve seen this over and over by people who have strong interests in promoting fluoridation.” - Christine Till, PhD  (2020)

 

To counter the fluoridation promoters, let me recommend an outstanding video produced by a single working mother and water worker, Brenda Staudenmaier. This honest working woman very nicely sums up some of the major points against fluoridation in Message to Water Operators

 

For those of you who would prefer scanning recent science, see these 2021 items: 

 

  1. Genetics determine who will be more susceptible to fluoride toxicity:
    • Zhao L, Yu C, Lv J, Cui Y, Wang Y, Hou C, Yu J, Guo B, Liu H, Li L. Fluoride exposure, dopamine relative gene polymorphism and intelligence: A cross-sectional study in China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2021 Feb;209:111826. 
  2. Early life exposure to 'optimal’ fluoridation in US cities increases the likelihood of kidney disease in later life: 
    • Yudan Wei, Jianmin Zhu, Sara Ann Wetzstein. Plasma and water fluoride levels and hyperuricemia among adolescents: A cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of the United States for 2013–2016. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 208. 15 January 2021.
  3. Inflamed guts and microbiome result from any fluoride exposure: 
    • Dionizio A, Uyghurturk DA, Melo CGS, Sabino-Arias IT, Araujo TT, Ventura TMS, Perles JVCM, Zanoni JN, Den Besten P, Buzalaf MAR. Intestinal changes associated with fluoride exposure in rats: Integrative morphological, proteomic and microbiome analyses. Chemosphere. 2021 Jan 11;273:129607.
  4. Adequate Intake (AI) recommended by the IOM poison baby brains
    • Castiblanco-Rubio, G., Muñoz-Rocha, T., Cantoral, A., Téllez-Rojo, M., Ettinger, A., Mercado-García, A., Peterson, K.E., Hu, H., Martínez-Mier, E. (2021). Dietary Fluoride Intake Over the Course of Pregnancy in Mexican Women Public Health Nutrition, 1-25.
  5. Neurological damage for babies in the womb where the effects persist throughout life.
    • Ferreira MKM, Aragão WAB, Bittencourt LO, Puty B, Dionizio A, Souza MPC, Buzalaf MAR, de Oliveira EH, Crespo-Lopez ME, Lima RR. Fluoride exposure during pregnancy and lactation triggers oxidative stress and molecular changes in hippocampus of offspring rats. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2021 Jan 15;208:111437

As to the political wrangling, in January 2021, the NASEM wrote that the NTP should clarify their processes in order to satisfy stubborn factions (an impossibility), but does not dispute the NTP conclusion that:

 

”…fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans. This conclusion is based on a consistent pattern of findings in human studies across several different populations showing that higher fluoride exposure is associated with decreased IQ or other cognitive impairments in children." - Draft Monograph from National Toxicology Program, “Systemic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects”

 

Also in January 2021, the EPA advised that they do not have to consider fluoridation programs, that they are too busy with more important things. 

 

Let me try to clarify for AARP :

  • Senior citizens consider fluoridation important because it causes or worsens pain and ill health among us. We recognize that when we poison baby brains in the womb, the neurotoxic impact is life-long. When we continue to poison consumers with fluoride, we damage bodies, bones and brains. Fluoridation policy is #Womb2Tomb poisoning. 

25 of 27 NTP Studies25 of 27 NTP Studies

28,519 Views
9
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Get a grip people.

1. The statement is correct, where ingested fluoride, most from industrial sources purposely added to much of our nation's water supply, as a cumulative poison at doses and concentrations low enough to prevent rapid morbidity, is slowly compromsing the health of our bones and other organs. The low concentration of fluoridated bone at which there is no significant pain is simply not known. The NRC data indicate that some have experienced substantial pain at levels as low as 1700 mg/kg F in bone. This level in bone where it does not belong, as a contaminant, compares to the fluoride level in toothpaste, and is accumulated after ony a few decades of drinking fluoridated water. 

2. "Endorsements" have little meaning but can readily spread a rumor, based on anecdotal unproven observations, to someone else. Millions of people and organizations for example endorse a man who was guilty of racketeering and business fraud, and who commits regular tax evasion, kidnapped children at the border and transported them across interstate lines without parental permission to detention centers, and does not stop rioters from kidnapping state ofificals in MI or seiging the captiol of our Nation. Endorsements?

3. Articles published in journals do not count if the journal charges authors for publication costs? What about Nature who charges authors $5,000.00 to print even a brief work?  This journal does not contain truth?  I have never paid a single dollar to publish a single article  my entire career, so does that mean the work is OK? I stand by all my published work, but paying fees or not has nothing to do with a work's validity. The best studies we have indicate that fluoride in water has no ablity whatsoever to significantly decrease dental decay, as published in the comprehensive work of Ziegelbecker, and that of Teotia and Teotia, and that of Yamouyiannis.  All other brief but numerous claims and anecdotes have no bearing on the matter other than to incite rumors and endorsements.

4. The FDA has always opposed the ingestion of fluoride because it is not a mineral nutrient and is in fact harmful when ingested. The most recent Agency ruling is that ingested fluoride is toxic at any concentration and since the TSCA prohibits any toxic substance from being added to our drinking water supplies, the FDA concluded that the EPA must control this action under the TSCA for toxic substances. But the EPA who has "endorsed" or "allowed" fluoridation, whichever opinion you may take, refuses, and insists the FDA regulate fluoride added to water because iti is being used as though it were a drug.  The bottom line is, avoid ingesting industrial fluoridated water. The FDA does not allow Luride tablets to be taken by children (under 6) in any area where the water fluoride level is above 0.3 ppm.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
28,135 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

28,444 Views
7
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy,

To your third question, "names of any respected science/health organizations in the world" which support fluoridation.

 

I have previously answered this question.  97% of Europe is not fluoridated and their health agencies and dental associations do not endorse fluoridation, based on the best evidence I've read.  However, the question on endorsements is not one of science.   Approval by the FDA with NDA would be science I am more confident with.  

 

I have my Masters in Public Health, one of my professions.  My public health profession has wonderful aspects and like all professions has some flaws. 

 

     In public health we are taught to trust policy and not question policy.  When policy needs to change because science improves and good judgment determines the evidence has changed, my profession has staked their reputations on the policy and are very slow to change and follow the science.    In other words, trusting public health can be based on historic science.

 

An example is lead.  For years my public health profession did not object to lead in gasoline or paint.  For lead, there was no claimed health benefit but it still took years to get lead out of paint and gas.

 

Another example is mercury for treatments.  My professions claimed mercury was safe and effective as a treatment for disease (for many decades) and my dental and public health professions still claim mercury is safe for dental treatments even though the FDA has raised concerns and limitations for use.  My professions have serious financial vested interest in maintaining policy.  Change is slow and we don't want to change too fast.

 

Perhaps you studied about the "Dark Ages."   They thought they knew it all and any new information was wrong.  If we simply trust policy and organizations, then we are heading back to the dark ages.  

  

27,836 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

“New evidence questions existing policies about the safety of fluoride for babies' developing brains. Given that safe alternatives are available and that there is no benefit of fluoride to babies' teeth before they erupt or appear, it is time to protect those who are most vulnerable.” - Bruce Lanphear MD, PhD; Christine Till PhD; & Linda S. Birnbaum PhD in “It is time to protect kids’ developing brains from fluoride.” Environmental Health News (October 7, 2020)

 

  1. Randy Johnson signs his name and links to his private blog posts and to material from the pro-fluoridation group to which he belongs as a member of the "communications committee." That is self-promotion not science. 

  2. Claiming that those who oppose fluoridation are a handful of outliers, then  denigrating them with all sorts of other claims and name calling is known as a 'logical fallacy'  - a rhetorical technique to persuade people of something that isn't necessarily true, like in the story about The Emperor's New Clothes

  3. Endorsement by primarily dental organizations and Big Sugar are likewise not science. Neither are endorsements by organizations in support of their entrenched policies. This is a logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority.'

    However it is an extremely weak appeal in the face of the documented science and NTP report. The graph I included in my previous comment clearly detailed the exposure levels and number of studies used by the NTP. Eleven of the 27 studies were at 'optimal' or lower concentration levels and found neurological harm. NASEM played a word game saying the majority of the studies were above 0.7 ppm. Yes, of the 27 studies, two studies found no harm (one at 'optimal' concentration and the other at 'safe' concentration), of the 25 that did find harm, 11 were at 'optimal concentrations' but 14 were higher. I agree 14 is greater than 11, but that's when the NTP talked about consistency. Click here for details

    Moreover, the authors of the quote above are a pretty authoritative group: 

    - Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, a physician and epidemiologist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, has studied the neurotoxicity of lead, fluoride and other toxic chemicals for over twenty years. His studies were the key ones that led the CDC and the WHO to conclude that there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood. He recently testified as an expert witness in an ongoing U.S. trial agains the EPA re fluoride. Read his deposition

     

    - Christine Till, PhD, an associate professor of Psychology and clinical neuropsychologist at York University in Toronto, Canada has been spearheading a research initiative examining the neurotoxicity of fluoride on children’s intellectual abilities and behaviors. Dr. Till  received the President's Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) from the University of Toronto in 2019. 

     

    - Linda Birnbaum, PhD, is Scientist Emeritus and Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Birnbaum, who is internationally recognized for her work on the toxicity of flame retardants and other chemicals, was the Director of the National Toxicology Program when the report on fluoride began. Her expertise is in endocrine disruptors, for which she is recognized as an international expert. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor. 

As to repeatability, that is exactly what has happened. The remarkable consistency refers to two separate teams finding the same results in two different North American countries using two different populations subjected to 'optimal'  fluoridation policies. Both the MIREC and ELEMENT studies are recognized as the highest quality studies on the topic of prenatal and infancy fluoride toxicity. Studies in other countries have found the same effect. 

 

Most importantly, the NASEM pointed out the NTP omitted performing a dose-response and other analyses. There was a reason for that.... dose-response and BDML analyses have been done and they all show that there is no safe exposure to fluoride - just like with lead

 

Also, just like with lead, smoking, and second hand smoke, the supporters of leaded gasoline and smoking furiously and adamantly refused to accept the science for decades. Ultimately, they never did but relented when those with integrity finally stood up and were counted. 

 

  • AARP - Demonstrate integrity! Stand up and be counted. 

 

 

 

28,428 Views
5
Report
Trusted Contributor

In fact:New evidencedoes not question existing policies about the safety of fluoride when used appropriately in drinking water for babies’ developing brains. Fluoridation opponents (FOs) ignore and misrepresent the actual science. “When focusing on findings from studies with exposures in ranges typically found in drinking water in the United States (0.7 mg/L for optimally fluoridated community water systems) that can be evaluated for dose response, effects on cognitive neurodevelopment are inconsistent, and therefore unclear.” (9/16/20 second draft of the NTP Monograph, p. 2) “… the [NTP] monograph cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding low fluoride exposure concentrations (less than 1.5 mg/L), including those typically associated with drinking water fluoridation.” (2/21 NASEM review of the second NTP Monograph draft)

 

CarryAnne conveniently failed to address my questions with any relevant answers. Specifically:

  1. My claims, referenced in the previous comment, simply confirm the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective – and provide specific references. That is, in fact, promoting the actual science – not self-promotion. As I noted, and as CarryAnne seems to have confirmed, there are no major, respected science or health organizations in the world that support the anti-F opinions. I asked for an explanation for that fact, and have received none. I will also ask CarryAnne to describe her understanding of a scientific consensus and provide some rational alternative if she believes the process is flawed.

  2. My claim that those who oppose fluoridation are “a handful of outliers” simply highlights the fact that FOs represent a very small fraction of relevant science and health experts. That statement is supported by the fact outlined in points #1 & #3.

    The fact is, a very vocal minority, with very strong opinions, does not have legitimate, relevant scientific evidence to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – it they did, the scientific consensus would change. Lanphear, Till, Birnbaum and others who challenge the accepted scientific consensus are free to do so – challenges to an accepted scientific consensus or theory is precisely how science progresses. As I have noted, I have found no evidence that any major, respected science/health organizations support the anti-F opinions.

    Those challenges, however, require legitimate, relevant, reproducible, accurately presented scientific evidence to change the scientific consensus – that is also, precisely how science progresses. So far, those who have presented “evidence” FOs claim “proves” fluoridation lowers IQ and causes a wide range of other health issues have been unsuccessful in changing the scientific consensus – as evidenced by the conclusions of the NTP noted above. That lack of legitimate, validated, accepted evidence however, doesn’t prevent FOs from misrepresenting the “evidence” in an effort to bypass the scientific process and hijack the democratic process by trying to scare voters and elected officials (most of whom are not scientists) into fearing a safe and effective public health measure.

  3. Making absurd claims that “Endorsement by primarily dental organizations and Big Sugar are likewise not science. Neither are endorsements by organizations in support of their entrenched policies.” clearly demonstrates that CarryAnn has no concept of how the scientific process works to ensure legitimate, science-based evidence supports public health measures. I have found and verified over 100 major science and health organizations worldwide that support fluoridation (referenced in my previous comment) – well over half of those, listed below, are not “dental organizations”. If there was legitimate scientific evidence supporting anti-F opinions, one might expect the World Health Organization and the other organizations listed below to change their support.
    Does CarryAnne actually believe that ALL these organizations have made statements supporting fluoridation without bothering to initiate a careful, ongoing review the evidence?
    Again I ask, CarryAnne to explain how recommendations from any of these organizations could be trusted if they just blindly accepted random health claims without a thorough, review of the evidence.

 

Bottom Line: Trust the Experts – as represented by the overwhelming majority of science/health experts.

 

These are the non-dental organizations I have found that support fluoridation. The health departments of all 50 U.S. states, 6 Australian states and 10 Canadian Provinces also support fluoridation. If they can’t be trusted to make accurate, completely informed decisions, as CarryAnne and other FOs suggest, we are in deep trouble.

  1. World Health Organization (WHO)
  2. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
  3. American Academy of Family Physicians
  4. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  6. American Council on Science and Health
  7. American Dietetic Association
  8. American Heart Association
  9. American Medical Association
  10. American Nurses Association
  11. American Osteopathic Association
  12. American Society for Clinical Nutrition
  13. American Public Health Association
  14. American Water Works Association (AWWA)
  15. Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
  16. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
  17. Australian Government Department of Health
  18. Australian Medical Association
  19. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
  20. British Medical Association
  21. Canadian Medical Association
  22. Canadian Paediatric Society
  23. Canadian Public Health Association
  24. Center for Public Health Law Research
  25. Centers for Disease Control
  26. Council of State Governments
  27. Community Preventive Services Task Force
  28. Department of Health & Social Care, UK
  29. Environmental Protection Agency
  30. European Food Safety Authority
  31. European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)
  32. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  33. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)
  34. Green Facts
  35. Health Canada
  36. Health Research Board, Ireland
  37. Health Resources and Services Administration
  38. Health Resources in Action (HRiA) policy
  39. Indian Health Service (U.S.) states
  40. Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy
  41. Institute for Science in Medicine
  42. KidsHealth
  43. Linus Pauling Institute
  44. Mayo Clinic
  45. National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine
  46. National Association of County and City Health Officials
  47. National Association of Local Boards of Health
  48. National Black Caucus of State Legislators
  49. National Cancer Institute
  50. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
  51. National Health Service, UK
  52. National Kidney Foundation
  53. Network for Public Health Law
  54. New Zealand Medical Association
  55. New Zealand Ministry of Health
  56. New Zealand Nurses Association
  57. Paediatric Society of New Zealand
  58. Pan American Health Organization
  59. Pew Charitable Trusts
  60. Public Health Agency of Canada
  61. Public Health Association of New Zealand
  62. Public Health England
  63. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  64. Royal Australasian College of Physicians New Zealand
  65. Royal Society of New Zealand and Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor
  66. Singapore Ministry of Health
  67. Singapore’s National Water Agency, PUB
  68. State of Israel Ministry of Health
  69. U.S. Department of Defense
  70. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  71. U.S. National Institutes of Health ODS
  72. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
  73. U.S. Public Health Service
  74. U.S. Surgeons General’s statements
Randy Johnson
28,320 Views
4
Report