Content starts here
CLOSE ×
Search

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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! 

377,439 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

41,615 Views
35
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 

View solution in original post

40,359 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 Brian 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

View solution in original post

32,036 Views
2
Report
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

27,914 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

41,616 Views
35
Report
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. 

 

 

27,915 Views
1
Report
Regular Contributor

   For about 25 years as a dentist with master's degree in public health, I promoted fluoridation.   Then I read the research.
 
 Fluoridation is not safe.

 

 

Fluoridation of public water is not safe because not once did the EPA expert scientists during the two-week trial before the Superior Court testify that fluoride was safe, or even effective.

 

Fluoridation of public water is not safe because it is a highly toxic contaminated, adulterated, misbranded and scrubbings of manufacturing.  By law regulated as a poison, or a contaminant, or a prescription drug depending on intent of use.  Fluoride with intent to prevent dental caries is not FDA approved for ingestion.  Topical is FDA approved with the warning, "Do Not Swallow" read your toothpaste label.  The fluoride added to public water is not pharmaceutical grade.

 

Fluoridation is not safe because it violates an individual’s consent, freedom to choose.  The only reason to dispense fluoride in water is to force people to ingest it, to remove their freedom of choice.  

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride causes dental fluorosis.  I, and most dentists, made (make) hundreds of thousands of dollars treating cosmetic and functional dental fluorosis, selling fluoride, and promoting fluoride.  Your pharmacist and toxicologist are more objective. 

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride ingestion increases developmental neurotoxicity as measured with lower IQ.  Lower IQ increases the rate of special education in schools, lower wage jobs, more unemployment, more divorce, more incarceration, more grief, fewer gifted, and is bad for America.  

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride ingestion harms the developing fetus, infant and child as measured with increased miscarriage, increased premature birth, and increased infant mortality.  

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride ingestion is stored in the bones and as the bones remodel the fluoride is given off.  Mother’s blood concentration of fluoride in the third trimester increases when she has inadequate intake of calcium for her fetus’s needs. 

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride ingestion harms the joints causing rheumatoid and osteoarthritic-like pain.

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride ingestion harms the thyroid and is an endocrine disruptor, increasing diabetes, obesity and ADHD.

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride ingestion increases osteosarcoma a rare but lethal bone cancer, mostly in boys drinking fluoridated water during growth spurts.

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride ingestion harms the kidneys and GI disorders.

 

Fluoridation is not safe because the dosage is not controlled, although the concentration is controlled at 0.7 ppm.   Some drink very little water and some drink ten times as much water as the average person. (NRC 2006)  Fluoridation does not have an intraspecies uncertainty factor or margin of safety.  More than half of children now have a biomarker of fluoride toxicity.  Half or more of fluoride exposure comes from other sources than fluoridated water.  

 

Fluoridation is not safe because fluoride interferes with the function of the mitochondria of human cells.

 

Do not let the fluoridation lobby confuse you.  The Board’s job is to assure safety and fluoride ingestion is not safe or significantly effective.  The dental lobby’s job is to gain FDA CDER approval.  They have failed, but you must not.  

 

The American Dental Association (ADA) has a major financial bias in supporting fluoridation.   Just like they testified in court, "the ADA has no duty to protect the public health."   

 

 There are alternatives to fluoridation if a person wants to ingest fluoride, such as a doctor's prescription, avoid organic foods, swallow a rice size of toothpaste (most do anyway), eat mechanically deboned meat, and many other foods now contain fluoride as both a pesticide and/or post-harvest fumigant.  

 

The determination of effectiveness, dosage, safety and label of fluoride ingestion with intent to prevent disease is the duty of the FDA.  The FDA testified to Congress that fluoride is a drug.  Fluoride ingestion is not approved because the FDA has said the evidence for efficacy is incomplete. 

 

2,278 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 “When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts.” -  Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel laureate on evidence and data analysis (1959)

 

“When we have to deal with vice and vicious characters, I maintain it is better to depict them as they really are than as they would wish to appear." - Anne Bronte

 

Trust the experts, you say? This week: 

  • The key EPA witness in the upcoming trial was caught perjuring himself and withdrew. The government had been touting this dental researcher's "Spanish Study," an extreme outlier, as proof that the NTP study was untrustworthy. No surprise that it was those involved with the Spanish study who are untrustworthy.
  • The EPA tried to block the NTP Science Director who signed off on the NTP report from testifying, but the Judge wants to hear from Brian Berridge, PhD about the science and process. 

 

The fact of the matter is that fluoridation policy poisons brains, bodies and bones from womb to tomb, but is very profitable to vested stakeholders. Any reduction in cavities is somewhere between inconsequential and imaginary while evidence of harm is significant and life-altering. 

 

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/judge-rejects-epa-bid-exclude-witness-fluoride-lawsuit/ 

3,061 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne continues to present anti-science arguments regarding fluoridation.  Fluoridation opponents (FOs) are a very vocal minority that ignores the scientific consensus of over 75 years that fluoridation of drinking water at low levels (0.7 ppm) is safe and helps reduce the risk of dental decay.

 

The EPA lawsuit has been ongoing since 2016 – as has the NTP Fluoride Monograph.  The lawsuit is largely based on the NTP Monograph which has undergone three reviews which repoprted many criticisms, for example: “NTP therefore should make it clear that the monograph cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding low fluoride exposure concentrations (less than 1.5 mg/L), including those typically associated with drinking-water fluoridation.” & “However, the committee is still concerned about the presentation of the data, the methods, and the analyses in the revised monograph and finds that the monograph falls short of providing a clear and convincing argument that supports its assessment.” (2021 Review of the Revised NTP Monograph)
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted a systematic review of the scientific research on fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects in humans. The report underwent two peer reviews by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). Both times, the NASEM committee stated that NTP had not adequately supported its conclusions that fluoride should be classified as a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard for humans.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK567579/

Hopefully the judge will understand and accept the actual, legitimate scientific evidence, understand the limitations of the NTP monograph (and the dismissal of optimally fluoridated water as a “cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard”) and dismiss the lawsuit.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride
https://www.acsh.org/news/2023/05/30/fluoride-controversy-never-dies-17093
https://www.afslaw.com/perspectives/alerts/lawsuit-forces-early-release-ntps-draft-report-fluoride-a...

 

Bottom line:  The overwhelming majority of accepted scientific studies continue to support fluoridation is a safe and effective water treatment method to reduce the risk of dental decay - even with the use of fluoride toothpaste and fluoride dental treatments.  Science can only progress by researchers challenging an accepted consensus.  Fluoride opponents have been challenging fluoridation for over 75 years. 

 

If valid, high-quality evidence actually supported the opinions of FOs, the scientific consensus would change.  However, currently over 100 major science and health organizations worldwide continue to support fluoridation and NONE support the beliefs of FOs.  The reason – the anti-F studies continue to have significant flaws.

https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhoSupportsCWF.html

https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Green.html

 

The Children's Health Defense (CHD) is an American 501(c)(3) nonprofit activist group and ignores the scientific consensus.  It is mainly known for anti-vaccine disinformation.  It also is anti-fluoridation.

 

The “Document Fraud” article was written by Karen Spencer and Brenda Staudenmaier – both extremely active fluoridation opponents who only present information they dig up that supports their beliefs.

 

Vitamin D deficiency in patients with diabetes and its correlation with water fluoride levels: “This is a hospital-based study that includes the participants who voluntarily visited OPD; therefore, it does not represent the whole population. We were unable to get proper information regarding BMI, duration of sun exposure, alcohol and tobacco consumption, smoking, etc. Genetic polymorphisms in vitamin D and insulin receptors are also associated with the risk of T2DM and vitamin D deficiency which need to be investigated”.  Typical non-relevant study provided by FOs

 

Relatively low fluoride in drinking water increases risk of knee osteoarthritis (KOA): a population-based cross-sectional study in China: “In conclusion, excessive fluoride dose in drinking water could increase the risk of KOA.”  No mention in abstract of what constituted normal and excessive F levels.  In the U.S. Normal levels are 0.7 ppm and excessive levels are more than twice as high.

 

Insight into the emerging and common experimental in-vivo models of Alzheimer's disease: This article made no mention of links to water fluoridation and Alzheimer's disease.

Randy Johnson
3,762 Views
31
Report
Periodic Contributor

Randy, I hope you will watch the CHD one hour documentary "Fluoride on Trial" I am curious how you will critic/spin it. You can not just use distraction, by name calling the people involved with making the film-- 

 

3,446 Views
5
Report
Trusted Contributor

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

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

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
3,397 Views
4
Report
Periodic Contributor

Randy-- I ask you one more time would you please WATCH the “Fluoride on Trial” film and comment on the CONTENT presented- and NOT distract by attacking those involved in presenting the information. The facts presented in “Fluoride on Trial” are from sworn testimony and official documents. In your reply, you appear to want to make excuses to NOT WATCH the film. Why because it would be hard to criticize sworn testimony and official documents showing the fact ingesting fluoride is unsafe?

I encourage all that read this scroll up and read the comments from BillO538145 and CarryAnn. Randy you have been given a plethora of facts yet you continue to repeat the same talking points. 

But to answer your question I see your list of organizations that support fluoridation, but mine trumps them all, the FDA has been the leading organization to oppose the addition of fluoride into public drinking water and recognizes that some water naturally contains fluoride.  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.

To quote a former Pro-Fluoridation dentist “the ‘dental lobby’ are government agencies (authorities) who block the release of fluoride research when it does not support policy, dentists and public health professionals who do not review science but simply trust authorities, and of course industry who have financial gain from the public remaining ignorant”.

Randy, you do not want to go down in History as a Pro-Fluoride shill, do you? 

4,394 Views
3
Report
Regular Contributor

First, I want to thank the editors of AARP for taking out some of my last post.  It was out of bounds and they did me a favor.

 

Here is research out of England, just published.

Future benefits of water fluoridation not guaranteed, study shows (manchester.ac.uk)

I have not read it or carefully evaluated even the reports, but the thrust seems in line with the latest research.  At least the sample size was good.

 

The biggest flaw in their research is they did not include any treatments for dental fluorosis damage, or brain damage, or thyroid damage, or bone damage, or tooth damage etc. etc. etc.  from excess fluoride exposure.  

 

So long as researchers evade the harm fluoridation is contributing to and causing, the policy does not look as bad.   

0 Kudos
4,476 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy, you wrote the most anti-science, anti-thinking, anti-educational anti-intellectual and most arrogant post I have seen in a long time, if not ever and clearly presents why you and I disagree on fluoridation.

 

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

 

 

 

You blindly trust authority.   When public health promoted blood letting you were right there with blind belief?  When dentists use mercury treatments, are you blindly believing?  When public health did the Tuskegee research on syphilis without patient consent, did you trust public health authorities?  Are all Government authorities always correct?  Have you ever heard of intellectual curiosity?  You are the type, like I was who blindly trusted a religious cult.   That burned a huge dose of caution for trust in authority.  

 

Until you are willing to open your mind and consider an opposing view, any communication with you is pointless.  You will not burn in hell for watching a video on court sworn testimony.  

 

For about 20 years as a dentist, I promoted fluoridation.  I was wrong.  The way I found I was wrong was reading the science and laws for myself.  Started out by reading the toothpaste label. Not complex, just read the label.  Or does that go against your belief in fluoride authorities?

 

My mind jumped to dosage and I took a small tube of Crest toothpaste and squeezed out pea size amounts and calculated out how much fluoride was in each pea size amount.  I later learned my small pea size amounts were twice as big as they should have been.  FDA warns not to swallow a quarter miligram, the same as in a glass of fluoridated water.  That shocked me.  One agency says do not swallow while the other "authority" requires me to swallow the same amount in each glass of public water.  Made no sense to me.  Randy, you trust the dental lobby, so I would suggest you do not read your toothpaste label because you might be defiled with contradictory information.

 

I also read the EPA scientists summary:

 

"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk.  That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small - if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."

-Dr. J. William Hirzy, Senior Vice-President, Headquarters Union,

-US Environmental Protection Agency, March 26, 2001  

 

That blew the socks off my feet. Those are good scientists, the authorities bypassing the political filters i.e. dental lobby. OK, I knew fluoride was toxic at large amounts and the FDA warned against swallowing.  But the EPA?  I sincerely believed fluoridation prevented dental caries.  I was a believer. . . like you.

 

 Let me explain my strong belief.  I had played a game with my assistant that I could tell where the patient lived based on the health of their teeth.  I was about 90% correct, I was looking at their teeth and assumed the people with better teeth were on fluoridated water.  Looking back and reading research I realized I was looking at socioeconomics, not fluoridation.

 

The paradigm shift for me was painful and took me over three years and hundreds of hours of study to be willing to speak up against fluoridation.  And speaking up has cost me financially and professionally.  

 

In closing, my mentor in dental school reminded me that 50% of what they teach is wrong, but they don't know which 50%.  In other words, always keep an open mind, never "camp" on a theory and theories are different than facts and facts can be made to fit different views.  

 

I had another mentor on a school board I was on and he would say, "I never learned anything from someone who agrees with me."

 

By the way, I had the COVID vaxes and got pericarditis and in the hospital for it twice.  I'm not opposed to vaccines, but I am cautious.

 

4,508 Views
0
Report
Trusted Contributor

 ri1666 – If that documentary had reliable, verifiable testimony then it would not have been presented by an anti-science organization. 

 

Provide specific, verifiable evidence that the FDA is against fluoridation of drinking water.  The FDA regulates fluoride in bottled water, not community water, and states that it helps prevent tooth decay.
The maximum added fluoride level in the final rule [0.7 milligrams per liter] is consistent with the current recommendation by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) for the fluoride concentration in community water systems that add fluoride to their water. This maximum level will balance prevention of tooth decay and the risk of fluoride overexposure.”  How would that be possible if it “has never approved fluoride ingestion” as you claim.  Also, fluoridation has nothing to do with adding fluoride to foods.
https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-releases-final-rule-added-fluoride-levels-bot...

 

My question to you is why, if there is substantial, verifiable evidence to support your opinions on fluoridation risks, are there no major science or health organizations in the world that support your opinions.  Do you distrust all recommendations of the organizations that support fluoridation – or do you believe the organizations & members are only wrong about fluoridation?
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhoSupportsCWF.html
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/CWF-Opposition.html
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridation.html

 

ri1666, you do not want to go down in History as an anti-science shill, do you?

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,596 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Randy, 

 

You have not read the National Toxicology Program (NTP) draft report, over 700 pages.  If you had, you would also see that the NTP disagreed with the criticism because the NTP evaluates "TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE" not just fluoride from water.  

 

The dental lobby would like everyone to think that fluoride from fluoridation is the only source of fluoride when in reality usually one third to two thirds of the total fluoride exposure is from water.  

 

And Randy, you suggest fluoridation has been going on for 75 years at 0.7 ppm which is factually incorrect.   Fluoridation ranged from 0.7 to 1.2 ppm for many years and research, only of lower quality, was at that concentration.  Please provide research showing benefit at 0.7 ppm fluoride in public water.

 

Please provide one randomized controlled trial of water fluoridation at any concentration.

 

Randy, why are you opposed to freedom?  Freedom to choose medications.  If a person wants to ingest fluoride they can from several sources, such as a pea size of fluoride toothpaste.  Oh, right, the label says "Do Not Swallow" which is the same amount as one glass of fluoridated water.

 

IQ is like a "tool" to measure the amount of neurologic development.  

There are other "tools" to measure the development of the brain and health of the fetus such as miscarriage, premature birth, birth weight, and infant mortality.

 

I have only started to look at research on premature births and infant mortality, but it does appear fluoridation increases both.  Of course the evidence is preliminary but very concerning, similar to lower IQ from fluoride research was 15 years ago.  

 

Please give people the freedom to choose because there is much we do not know and 75 years of doing the wrong thing does not make it right.

 

 

5,006 Views
24
Report
Trusted Contributor

Bill –– 

 

Have you actually read the reviews of the NTP Monograph???

I have read the NTP monographs and the reviews.  The authors of the NTP Monographs apparently had a goal to interpret poor studies as accurate – that’s how questionable studies can be presented by anti-science activists as legitimate.  However, in this case, “Both times, the NASEM committee stated that NTP had not adequately supported its conclusions that fluoride should be classified as a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard for humans.”  The NTP monograph has undergone serious criticism from the reviewers.  https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/ongoing/fluoride

 

The “dental lobby” does not believe/claim that “fluoride from fluoridation is the only source of fluoride”.  In fact, “Fluoride can be delivered topically and systemically. Topical fluorides strengthen teeth already present in the mouth, making them more decay resistant, while systemic fluorides are those that are ingested and become incorporated into forming tooth structures. Systemic fluorides also provide topical protection because fluoride is present in saliva, which continually bathes the teeth.”
https://www.ada.org/en/resources/research/science-and-research-institute/oral-health-topics/fluoride...

As noted in the history articles below, the original recommended fluoridation levels were around 1.0 ppm because there were no other sources, and the reduction in decay was significant.  Today, fluoridation does not usually cause a 60% drop in decay rates (as early studies showed), but fluoridation still lowers decay rates even in conjunction with fluoride toothpaste, rinses and other sources.
Trendley Dean, was director of the dental hygiene unit at the National Institute of Health. “Starting in 1931, Dean established that at levels of up to 1 part per million in drinking water, fluoride (a fluorine compound, usually sodium fluoride) didn't cause mottling but helped prevent decay by slowing the demineralization of tooth enamel.   It also promoted remineralization of the enamel. In 1944, he persuaded the City Commission of Grand Rapids, Michigan, to add fluoride to its public water supply. After just 11 years, Dean announced that the decay rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent.” … “And thus was brought into existence what's been called the single most effective public health measure to inhibit tooth decay.
https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation
https://www.northcoastjournal.com/life-outdoors/colorado-brown-stain-and-fluoridation-9358318

 

I never ”suggested” fluoridation has been going on for 75 years at 0.7 ppm.  Fluoridation levels were originally recommended at around 1.0 ppm because that was the level in early studies that lowered decay rates without causing significant mottling.  Since then, there has been   “The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its updated Public Health Service recommendations on April 27, 2015 that call for fluoride levels not exceeding 0.7 milligrams per liter” because fluoride had become available from toothpaste, dental rinses and other sources.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/federal-government-calls-for-lowering-fluoride-le...

 

Please provide one randomized controlled trial of water fluoridation at recommended levels (0.7 ppm) that proves it is ineffective or harmful to health.  There are numerous studies that have demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Reviews.html

 

Bill, why are you opposed to public health measures – do you also oppose vaccination, seat belt laws?  Fluoridation is no more “medication” than chlorination of water to reduce the risk of disease is a form of medication.  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

 

Various findings “led the United States Public Health Service to do extensive epidemiological surveys to study both dental caries and dental fluorosis in the late 1930s.  When it was confirmed that fluoride intake from water was associated with the prevalence of dental fluorosis as well as a reduction in dental caries, many delivery systems and strategies were investigated to optimize the benefit of fluorides at the community level as well as the individual level.
https://www.dentalcare.com/en-us/ce-courses/ce670/fluoride-history

 

Should we worry about fluoride? No. Despite the occasional scary-sounding warnings presented by a handful of PhD-toting outliers, there are no major health risks from drinking municipally fluoridated water. Nor are there risks from using toothpaste and the like, unless you’re letting your kiddos gobble it.
Fluoride is one of many naturally occurring substances that are added to our diet in tiny amounts. Consider iodine in salt, vitamin D in milk, or folic acid in cereals. These compounds have helped to abate tragic conditions that used to be commonplace—like goiter, rickets, and spinal bifida.”
https://frontporchne.com/article/38217/

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,942 Views
23
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,  Part II.

 

you specifically asked if I had read the NTP reviews.  Some, probably not all, but more important for me is to read the document itself.  Reviews are filtered through the authors.  For example, read the reviews of science put out by the tobacco industry and the science on smoking is still tentative.  Even the science on blood letting has mixed reviews.  

 

Randy, you wrote, "The NTP monograph has undergone serious criticism from the reviewers."

 In science, serious criticism is what a review should be.  The reviewers were doing their job to help the NTP answer questions they may not have considered.  That is the purpose of peer review.

 

Randy, you wrote "The “dental lobby” does not believe/claim that “fluoride from fluoridation is the only source of fluoride”."

Yes and No.  The dental lobby is sneakier than that.  You have to be very cautious when reading their material to be sure they are talking about total fluoride exposure.  If they are talking about fluoridation, then they may only be considering a small part or a third or less of total fluoride. 2 out of 3 children now show a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.  Too much fluoride.

 

And by faith and trust you write, "systemic fluorides are those that are ingested and become incorporated into forming tooth structures."  Two points here.  First you assume the ingested fluoride goes to the tooth structure.  What about the fluoride going to the developing brain and causing developmental neurotoxicity? Bone cancer? and other physiologic harm?  Second, if what you say is correct that fluoride is incorporated during development, then why give fluoride to everyone adults who have developed teeth or regardless of whether they even have teeth? No benefit for adults, but the people you trust say fluoridation benefits everyone.

 

You then present historical evidence but that does not mean it still is beneficial when we have so many other sources.  Excess fluoride causes dental cavities, pitting, chipping, fractured teeth and bones.

 

There are no quality studies, randomized controlled trials of fluoride ingestion which report statistical benefit.  Not one.  There are many studies, but not one high quality study.  Just because two events happen, does not mean they are related.  For example, more people drown during the summer and more people eat watermelon during the summer.  The obvious conclusion is they are drowning from watermelon. . . but we know that is not the case.

 

Randy, you wrote: Bill, why are you opposed to public health measures – do you also oppose vaccination, seat belt laws?  That is a cheap shot.  A trick in discussions if you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. 

 

I should not lower myself to that kind of nonsense.  Randy, you are so trusting, do you trust everyone in government just because they are hired by our taxes?  I have had many vaccines.  Got Covid vaxes and got pericarditis.  Let's get specific with the flu vaccine.  Research (Cochrane) reported the flu vaccine prevents one out of every 77 flu cases, no fewer hospitalizations, no fewer days off work.  Do I get a flu vaccine, no.  The risk outweighs the benefit.   And I think there are times and ways to get a vaccination which provide less risk.

 

Randy, look at your state laws on fluoride. Washington State's RCW 69.38.010  (an all state laws I’ve read) defines poison as any substance that when introduced in the body "in quantities of sixty grains or less, causes violent sickness or death.”  Sixty grains equals approximately 3,888 milligrams.  Fluoride can cause serious illness or death with 25 milligrams.  Not difficult to see that 25 lis less than 3,888. Fluoride is a poison and the law exempts the poison when regulated as a drug.  Is fluoride regulated as a drug?  Yes, and approved in toothpaste as a drug with a label and warning not to swallow a pea or smear size with 0.25 mg of fluoride the same amount of fluoride in a large glass of fluoridated water.

Fluoride is not a nutrient.  Dental caries are not caused by inadequate intake of fluoride.

Keep looking Randy.  Blind belief is risky.

Bill  

 

4,781 Views
8
Report
Trusted Contributor

I read the 2022 NTP draft, and the summary stated, “ 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...

 

As I have noted previously, science can only progress by finding and accurately critiquing new information from reliable, reviewed studies.  The NTP reviews clearly stated excessive exposure levels causing harm were over twice the recommended fluoridation level.

 

The term “dental lobby” is your invention to suggest those making accurate, science-based decisions on the effectiveness of fluoride are not the overwhelming majority of science and health experts that continue to support fluoridation.

 

Ingested fluoride goes throughout the body, just like virtually all chemicals.  Legitimate, high-quality studies have not provided any verifiable evidence that fluoridation causes harm – otherwise the scientific consensus would change.  I have previously stated that evidence shows “Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces tooth decay via these mechanisms. Low but slightly elevated levels of fluoride in saliva and plaque provided from these sources help prevent and reverse caries by inhibiting demineralization and enhancing remineralization.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10086924/

 

There are no quality studies, randomized controlled trials of fluoride ingestion which report statistical harm. Not one I’ve seen. 

 

Do you support the Children’s Health Defense organization?  They are both anti-vax and anti-F.  You are free to believe whatever you wish, but “A new CDC-coauthored study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that flu vaccination last season substantially reduced the risk of serious flu outcomes.”  Obviously you ignore the evidence accepted by the majority of science and health organizations and accept only what you want to believe.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2023-2024/new-study-vaccine.htm

 

The vast majority of legitimate scientific evidence continues to support the consensus that the risk of dental caries (in young and old)  is reduced by fluoridation.  Blind acceptance of unsupported opinions is risky.

 

How do you explain the fact that over 100 major science and health organizations worldwide continue to support fluoridation, and NONE support your beliefs?
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhoSupportsCWF.html

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,688 Views
7
Report
Conversationalist

randy, my friend,

I don't have the time to raise each point in your post.  

 

A letter I can send you from Steven Neugeboren, Associate General Counsel, Water Law Office, to Gerald Steel regarding the status of an MOU between EPA and FDA which was published in 1979. 

 

“Your first question is whether, from the viewpoint of EPA, the purpose of a 1979 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between EPA and Federal Drug Administration (FDA) was “to take away from FDA, and give to EPA, responsibility for regulating public drinking water additives intended for preventive health care purposes and unrelated to contamination of public drinking water?”
                 

“The answer to your first question is no, so there is no need to address your second question.  The purpose of the MOU was not to shift any responsibilities between Agencies.  Rather, it was to help facilitate effective coordination of our respective legal authorities.. . EPA does not have responsibility for substances added to water solely for preventative health care purposes, such as fluoride, other than to limit the addition of such substances to protect health. . . The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), acting through the FDA, remains responsible for regulating the addition of drugs to water supplies for health care purposes. . . The MOU did not address drugs or other substances added to water for health care purposes.” 

 

The FDA testified to Congress that fluoride is a drug.  FDA has approved toothpaste withe fluoride with the label, do not swallow.   I'm not sure why fluoride promoters (dental lobby) don't understand the words, "do not swallow."  Seems clear to me.

 

Yes there are many organizations who endorse fluoride ingestion.  But only one in the USA authorized to approve drugs . . . the FDA CDER.    And you mentioned fluoride added to bottled water.  But that did not go through the FDA CDER regulatory approval process.  Under a new law the FDA was "notified" the manufacturer would make a health claim.  The FDA did not have authority to block the health claim.  But they did say the product should not be marketed to children under 2 years of age.

 

I agree with your statement, "Of course, too much fluoride – as with any chemical – can be harmful."

 

So how much fluoride is harmful?   What dosage is harmful to teeth?  brains? bones? cancer? pineal gland? mitochondria? etc.

 

Different studies are reporting between 0.2 and 0.3 mg/L of fluoride in mother's urine is the lower threshold.  Mother's urine is close to fluoridation concentrations.  Clearly, fluoridating at 0.2 and 0.3 mg/L would be safe with the warning not to drink more than 2 glasses of the water a day.

 

You raise a great point about pharmacies and the FDA and fluoride.  Actually, the Washington State Board of Pharmacy determined fluoride to be a prescription drug and Idaho State Board of Pharmacy determined it to be a drug.  Australian Board of Pharmacy responded to my question that fluoride is a drug and not approved.

 

 

4,564 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Hello my friend Randy,  Part IV

 

You are correct.  I put more credence or strength on the FDA CDER than the CDC when it comes to drug approval, regulation, label and risks.   However, I put significant weight to the Cochrane evaluations.  

 

You mentioned the CDC for flu vaxes.  A new CDC-coauthored study published in Clinical Infectious Diseases found that flu vaccination last season substantially reduced the risk of serious flu outcomes.” 

 

Yes, indeed, sounds like they got it better last year. . .  although I have not read that report, sometimes some parts of the CDC are reasonable.   The Cochrane review was for several years and many studies, therefore, predicting the future I think the Cochrane reviews are less biased.

 

I can assure you, my understanding of vaccines is much less than fluoridation.  I'm not an infectious disease expert.  I've seen a report where many diseases were in decline I know enough to be confident dental caries is not a highly contagious lethal disease.

 

And the Cochrane review, lowered their standards from RCT's to accept ecological studies on fluoridation.  The Cochrane review reported there was a slight decline in caries for children but not for adults.  

 

Regardless of adults, in my opinion, brains are more important than teeth.  I can fix teeth but not brains.  

 

Have a good week.

Bill

4,609 Views
1
Report
Trusted Contributor

The 2015 Cochrane Fluoridation Review: “Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth. These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.” The review also found, “Within the ‘before and after’ studies we were looking for, we did not find any on the benefits of fluoridated water for adults.
https://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

 

However, a Critique of the review of 'Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries' published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2015 found that “The Cochrane Review used methods which were very restrictive: the American Academy of Pediatrics commented that the Cochrane Review of community water fluoridation had excluded 97% of the evidence.  Those considering this Cochrane Review or embarking on a further review of water fluoridation should bear this in mind.”  The review also provided evidence of fluoridation benefits for adults that were apparently ignored: “The earliest study of the effect of fluoridated water on the dental health of adults was reported in the USA in 1943.  Since then, many studies have reported lower caries experience in adults who have lived in fluoridated communities than adults who have lived in communities with low concentrations of fluoride in drinking water. In 2007, Griffin and co-workers, working for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), published a systematic review49 on the effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. For the nine studies which satisfied the inclusion criteria, water fluoridation significantly reduced caries experience (p <0.001). For the five studies published after 1979, the prevented fraction was 27%. Since the publication of that systematic review, several publications have supported its conclusions.
https://www.nature.com/articles/sj.bdj.2016.257

 

Brains are definitely important, but the evidence that fluoridation at optimal levels (0.7ppm) lowers IQ or has any other negative effects on the brain has not been accepted by the overwhelming majority of relative experts.  I have looked at many of the studies and can easily see the flaws (data graphs that look like a shotgun blast).  There are also a number of studies that have not shown any reduction in IQ from fluoridated water.  If the majority of relevant science/health experts determine that drinking optimally fluoridated water actually lowers IQ, otherwise harms the brain, or causes other health issues I will change my mind.
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-green.html

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,585 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

My goodness Randy.  You are working hard to understand and need credit for what you have done.  Rather than defending a position, try to weigh both sides.

 

You wrote, "There are no quality studies, randomized controlled trials of fluoride ingestion which report statistical harm. Not one I’ve seen".

 

True, true, true.  But wait.  Think about your statement and consider ethics.  There are never ethical randomized controlled trials to find harm.  None.  Unethical.  what are your ideas for a study? Are you suggesting people sign up for a study to find out when they will be harmed?  Who wants to sign up to be harmed? Get two groups and give one group fluoride until we see them fall over dead or demonstrate brain, kidney, bone, teeth or any other harm?   Hitler was worse, but not much.  No research ethics board should approve an RCT looking for a dosage where the cohorts are harmed.

 

But an RCT study looking for benefit is ethical and it must include a careful evaluation of risk/harm.   One was done on pregnant moms with fluoride supplements and children were evaluated for any caries reduction from mom's ingestion of fluoride passed on to the fetus.  No statistical benefit.  And they did not evaluate potential harm.

 

An RTC on fluoridation is in progress and the cohorts were not given informed consent.  Highly unethical, but the fluoride lobby got it going.  Think about it Randy.  Over 70 years of claiming efficacy and the first high quality study is just started, too small, but at least a start.  That's my dental and public health profession for you, good at marketing, poor at research and toxicology.  "Never let a rational thought interfere with a lucrative procedure."

 

Regarding the NTP report, there are two sections.  The first is a result of the dental lobby and the second section is a meta-analysis consistent with other meta-analysis.  About 3 IQ loss for those on fluoridated water. The data from the NTP and other researchers (ex. Grandjean) is clear, harm is happening above about 0.3 to 0.2 ppm of fluoride in water.  And not everyone is in the statistical "mean."  Physiology, genetics, health, exposure are different for individuals.  

 

Question for you Randy.  What percentage of the population should be protected from harm?  The EPA uses 90th percentile.  Are you comfortable with about 20 million people exposed to the most fluoride being harmed or should they also be protected?  Are you one of those?  And the EPA refuses to even consider those under six months of age.  And the EPA raised their so called "safe" dosage by 33% because too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  Even then, most under 7 years of age are ingesting more than the EPA RfD.

 

My term for the "dental lobby" are government agencies (authorities) who block the release of fluoride research when it does not support policy, dentists and public health professionals who do not review science but simply trust authorities, and of course industry who have financial gain from the public remaining ignorant.

 

FOLLOW THE MONEY:  For example, in the dental office I last joined, the office was making about $240,000 a year on fluoride treatments.  All the work was by the team and the dentists did not spend anytime on the treatments.  The ADA makes plenty of money on endorsements.  If the public became concerned that they were  being harmed, the public would refuse the treatments.  And public health agencies get millions from dental insurance companies to push fluoridation.  And millions are made/saved by the fluoride manufacturers.  Lots of money in fluoridation. 

 

2 out of three children have dental fluorosis. . . not all will get treatment, but some will and about half do not like the looks.  

A study by the EPA at fluoride concentrations between 1 and 4 ppm concluded:

“A mean cost for all consultants shows that the estimated costs for restoring function exceeds the cosmetic costs in all categories except the minimum later costs. This represents a new finding and raises an issue that has been overlooked or ignored by previous investigators and the profession. i.e . that repair of the cosmetic discoloration was the only cost involved; or that repair of dysfunction was never considered to be a problem.”  

016/j.ecoenv.2021.112950. Epub 2021 Oct 28. PMID: 34755634.

 Collins, E., V. Segreto, H. Martin, AND H. Dickson. ANALYSIS OF COSTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF DENTAL FLUOROSIS. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA/600/5-87/001 (NTIS PB87170817), 1987.  Revised 2005.  [EPA Link ],  However, Data Revised 08/02/2022 . EPA Science Inventory Accessed Dec. 27, 2022

 

The dentists do not appear to be cosmetic dentists.  Based on my preliminary ecological comparisons, fluoride makes teeth harder, more brittle, more fractures, more crowns needed to repair the teeth, more office visits with fractured teeth in fluoridated communities.  What dentist is going to complain about more business?  fluoridation is simply money in the bank waiting to be transferred to the dentists account.  

 

Please provide one study which shows cost benefit of fluoridation which includes the known cost of treating just dental fluorosis both cosmetic and functional harm.

 

Randy, you asked about the more than 100 organizations who support fluoridation.  Many examples in history where many organizations followed each other and ended up being wrong. You are only looking at one side of the controversy.  Like you, I promoted fluoridation until I read the research for myself.  

 

Of those 100 organizations, did you list any Board's of Pharmacy?  Or the FDA?

 

“. . .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.”         FDA Letter to 35 Companies           DRUG THERAPY 1975

 

You appear to rely on organizations without jurisdiction.  What about the toothpaste label?

 

What about Congress?  21 USC 321(g)(1)(B) A drug is defined by "Articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease. . . . "  There is no dispute on the intent of fluoridation.

 

In 2001, the FDA testified to Congress that fluoride is a drug.

 

The EPA law office, Steven Neugeborn confirmed "the FDA remains responsible for the addition of drugs to the water supply for health care purposes."

 

Washington State Board of Pharmacy, "Fluoride is a legend (prescription) drug."

 

SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ”      42 USC 300g-1(b)(11):

 

National Research Council: “Some subpopulations (such as athletes, diabetics, laborors, pregnant and lactating mothers) consume much greater quantities of water. . . . NRC 2006    P 23

 

CDC: “Ingestion of fluoride is not likely to reduce tooth decay.” Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. MMWR, 48(41); 933-940, October 22, 1999

 

Here are a few problems that are sometimes found with current efficacy research:

 

  • A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors: Caries declined more before fluoridation than after.  What caused the huge decline and those effects have not been controlled in any research.
  • B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial   
  • C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
  • D.   Inadequate size 
  • E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay
  • F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 
  • G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year         round vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 
  • H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
  • I.     Oral hygiene not determined 
  • J.     Not evaluating Life time benefit 
  • K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the water.
  • L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered 
  • M.    Mother’s F exposure, Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
  • N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  
  • O.    Genetics not considered

Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Hungary, Japan, China, Israel, and more have rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation.

 

I'm sorry I'm too busy to give you full answers and all the streams of evidence regarding fluoridation.  Keep looking.  If a person only looks at one side of science or politics, they will not get a full picture.

Ethics

Laws

Dosage

Margin of Error/uncertainty factor

Quality of each study date and author

Risks to all cells of the body

Benefits to teeth. . . no other structures have benefit

physiology, genetics, health of the patient

 

All streams of evidence must be considered for a global judgment of the evidence and I have only just begun.

 

My best to you Randy.

 

 

 

 

 

4,654 Views
3
Report
Trusted Contributor

My goodness Bill.  I am (and have been) weighing both sides of the fluoridation issue.  I began decades ago with serious concerns about fluoridation after reading a bunch of articles about alleged harm.  I spent months examining the evidence and eventually came to the conclusion that I still hold – that the overwhelming majority of reliable, supported scientific evidence continues to support the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce the risk of dental decay.  Of course, too much fluoride – as with any chemical – can be harmful.

 

You keep presenting your opinions and misrepresenting data rather than accepting the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective method for reducing dental decay (which can be harmful).  You claim, for example that, “Of those 100 organizations [that support fluoridation], did you list any Board's of Pharmacy?  Or the FDA?”. The facts are, neither pharmacies nor the FDA make decisions on fluoridated water – but the FDA does regulate bottled water at 0.7 ppm.  This is just another example of you “adjusting facts” in an effort to support your beliefs.
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/frequently-asked-questions-popular-topics/does-fda-regulate-fluoride-drink...
20) Is my child getting an appropriate amount of fluoride from drinking water and tooth brushing?
Yes, if you and your child are among the 196 million Americans who receive their water from an optimally fluoridated community water system (0.7 to1.2 milligrams per liter) and you follow guidelines in your child’s tooth brushing, then it is highly unlikely that your child is receiving too much fluoride.
”  This was written before the optimal level of fluoridation was reduced to 0.7 ppm.
https://www.epa.gov/dwsixyearreview/fact-sheet-questions-and-answers-fluoride
An optimal level of fluoride in drinking water provides enough fluoride to prevent tooth decay in children and adults while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis, which is the only unwanted health effect of community water fluoridation.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/public-service-recommendations.html
The maximum added fluoride level in the final rule [0.7 milligrams per liter] is consistent with the current recommendation by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) for the fluoride concentration in community water systems that add fluoride to their water. This maximum level will balance prevention of tooth decay and the risk of fluoride overexposure.
https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-releases-final-rule-added-fluoride-levels-bot...

 

You ask, “What percentage of the population should be protected from harm?”  Obviously as many as possible.  There are potentially severe health risks from dental decay, so fluoridation is a significant way to reduce that risk.  “Although cavities are largely preventable, they are one of the most common chronic diseases throughout the lifespan.  Untreated tooth decay can lead to abscess (a severe infection) under the gums which can spread to other parts of the body and have serious, and in rare cases fatal, results.”
https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/conditions/index.html

 

You claim “2 out of three children have dental fluorosis”.  However nearly all of the fluorosis is barely noticeable, and those with noticeable fluorosis have probably been swallowing fluoridated toothpaste.  Optimally fluoridated (0.7 ppm) does not cause severe fluorosis, but it does protect health.  Your reference to the EPA Analysis of Costs for the Treatment of Dental Fluorosis was a study that “was initiated to provide basic data to be used in a cost/benefit analysis for communities whose fluoride levels exceeded the drinking water maximum.

 

What reliable studies have proven that drinking optimally fluoridated water “makes teeth harder, more brittle, more fractures, more crowns needed to repair the teeth, more office visits with fractured teeth in fluoridated communities.”  And provide reliable studies which show a community with optimally fluoridated water has an increased cost of treating fluorosis and cosmetic/functional harm and a lowering of  dental decay costs and health effects.

 

You asked, “What about Congress?  21 USC 321(g)(1)(B)” 
“(1) The term “drug” means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia,[1] official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them; and (B) articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals; and (D) articles intended for use as a component of any article specified in clause (A), (B), or (C).”  If your argument applied to fluoridation then any water treatment chemical (like the WW1 chemical weapon chlorine) would also be considered drugs!
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/321

 

Your list of problems (A. – O.) with current efficacy research, like all your other arguments, are meaningless and have not been validated – otherwise the scientific consensus would change.  I have looked at arguments from both sides of the fluoridation issue, and have found that the so-called evidence provided by fluoridation opponents is far-far less believable than that accepted by the scientific/health communities.

 

I am looking at all sides of the issue from “Ethics” to ”health of the patient” – and yes, “All streams of evidence must be considered…”.  I am also looking at the way that information is evaluated.  I continue to accept the scientific consensus.

 

My question to you is why, if there is substantial, verifiable evidence to support your opinions on fluoridation risks, are there no major science or health organizations in the world that support your opinions.  Do you distrust all recommendations of the organizations that support fluoridation – or do you believe the organizations & members are only wrong about fluoridation?
Again, https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhoSupportsCWF.html
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/CWF-Opposition.html
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/Fluoridation.html

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,628 Views
2
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy,

Sometimes it is hard to follow the threads on this forum and I have not seen your responses recently.

 

You mentioned the 100+ organizations supporting fluoridation, none of them with regulatory authority, all endorsements of the dental lobby.  

 

Consider these. . . ALL with regulatory authority in various jurisdictions.  These are not endorsements by believers, these are regulatory agencies or their scientists:

 

I.  The Washington State Board of Pharmacy. . . disbanded in part because they agreed with the law and science that fluoride ingested with intent to prevent disease is a prescription drug.  Are doctors or organizations promoting fluoridation or organizations willing to put your license on the line prescribing the drug for everyone in your community without the individual patient’s consent or being patients of record or FDA CDER approval?  That would be unethical. Pharmacists have more training and expertise with toxins, dosage, adverse reactions and inter reactions of toxins than any other licensed profession.    (the Idaho Board of Pharmacy determined fluoride is a drug but needed legislative approval to determine if it was legend or not.)

 

II.  U.S. Congress which has authorized the Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (FDA CDER) to evaluate substances used with intent to prevent disease and Congress prohibit the EPA from adding anything for the treatment of humans.

   

III.           FDA CDER has determined fluoride ingestion lacks evidence of efficacy.  And the FDA has given warnings to bottled water manufacturers (not FDA CDER approved) the fluoridated water must not be marketed to those under two years of age.   Organizations endorsing fluoridation are complicit in harming the public by disagreeing with authorized regulatory agencies.

Randy, you mentioned fluoridated bottled water with approval for manufactures to market with a health claim.  You are correct.  But remember, the FDA was notified a claim would be made.  The fluoridated bottled water did not go through the FDA CDER drug approval process.  And the FDA has warned DS Waters of America that their product, "Nursery Water" is in violation of laws.  The water must not be marketed to infants and children under 2 years of age.  

 

IV.   The Environmental Protection Agency scientists finding over two decades ago that fluoridation borders on a criminal Act because of toxicity and lack of current benefit.  And the EPA Dose Response Analysis and Relative Source Contribution of 2010 reporting that most or all infants and toddlers are ingesting too much fluoride. 

 

V.   The National Research Council 2006 report for the EPA that EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride was not protective.  That’s right, fluoride is a contaminant the dental lobby recommends adding to water.  

 

VI.  The National Toxicology Draft Report of 2023 report of 55 human studies, 52 reported IQ loss a 95% consistency.  And their meta-analysis reports IQ loss.  Not everyone has the same sensitivity to drugs/toxins or the same health or the same ability to handle drugs/toxins.  Some individuals had much more IQ loss and some were probably unaffected.  The mean is not protective or representative of each individual.  We must  protect everyone, not just the healthiest and wealthiest. 

 

VII.  97% of Europe, most developed countries, their drug regulatory and health agencies do not fluoridate or recommend fluoridation of their water.  And their dental caries are a similar rate as fluoridated communities and states not fluoridated. 

 

VIII.  The National Toxicology Program.  Although the NTP is not a regulatory agency, it certainly is the most competent Federal agency to evaluate toxins. 

 

Randy, I do not dispute there are many organizations and individuals in English speaking countries who endorse fluoride ingestion. 

 

Most people in the world fluoridated are in the USA.  These other countries have weighed the evidence, legal and scientific and ethical and have rejected fluoridation.  

3,992 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy, 

Got a question for you.  What is the most common disease in children?  Frequently the answer is dental caries.  Among children aged 6 to 8 years, over half (52%) have had a cavity in their primary (baby) teeth. Children from low-income families are twice as likely to have untreated cavities as higher-income children. Among adolescents aged 12 to 19, more than half (57%) have had a cavity in their permanent teeth.

 

However, I would suggest another disease has become even more common.  
What disease do you think it is? 

 

 Have you watched https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/exposing-fluoride-with-attorne...

 

Or is information which does not support your beliefs and trust so concerning that you refuse to consider it?

of NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 1986 to 2012 and 2015-2016 data reported about 70% of children and adolescents have dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride ingestion prior to age 8.

 

EPA study reported, 

“A mean cost for all consultants shows that the estimated costs for restoring function exceeds the cosmetic costs in all categories except the minimum later costs. This represents a new finding and raises an issue that has been overlooked or ignored by previous investigators and the profession. i.e. that repair of the cosmetic discoloration was the only cost involved; or that repair of dysfunction was never considered to be a problem.”

 

Compared to a professional [20] diagnosis, 17.5% of 7-year-old children who do not have all their adult teeth were assessed by lay and dental observers as a notable concern of dental fluorosis.   Another study [21] of adolescents at 12 years of age reported 52% at a fluoride concentration in water of 0.7 mg/L had dental fluorosis.  Of the subjects, 95% wished to remove the spots. In contrast to the subjects reported concern, only 14.5% had professionally diagnosed mild, moderate or severe dental fluorosis.  The contribution of fluoride added to community water to an individual’s total exposure is authority administered iatrogenic harm. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder rather than the eye of the diagnostician and patient perception of beauty is more important than dentists placing black mercury fillings.    

 

Randy, the most common childhood disease is dental fluorosis and it is caused in large part by the dental lobby.   But as one dentist said to me, we make money on either disease. 

 

 

4,029 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Hi Randy,
 
Nine years later and you are still on the same "trust" train of thought.  You have a long post and I will not cover all of it here, just some principles.  Most developed countries, their health, drug regulatory agencies and governments do not approve of fluoridating public water. If you are into trust, what about those?
 
As a Dentist with Masters in Public Health (MPH), it is important to understand the bias of my professions.
 
In my last MPH class the instructor said we must promote policy regardless of our personal opinion.  I raised my hand and asked what I should do if my bosses policy recommended I promote something like tobacco smoking?   He had a long pause and said, "promote tobacco smoking, but not to the best of your ability." 
Public health are obedient soldiers without critical thinking.
 
And you trust public health professionals for the best science?  No.  Do not trust.
 
My dental profession is even worse.  In court, the American Dental Association defended themselves by saying, "the ADA owes no duty to protect the health of the public."  The purpose of the ADA is to protect dentists and the industry supporting them.  
 
The ADA started promoting the pulling of dentists' licenses when dentists spoke up against mercury fillings.  For example, if I took a black mercury filling out of your mouth, I could not dump it in the garbage because the filling material is too toxic for the dump.  I could not put it in the drain because it is too toxic for the sewer.  I could not mail it to you because it is too toxic for the postal workers.  But the ADA not only still promotes mercury therapy for teeth (I understand they have the patent on the material) but historically tried to force all dentists to use mercury fillings.  Even the manufacturer's warnings were and are more protective than the ADA's.  
 
That is just the tip of the problems.
 
And you want me to trust the ADA?????
 
Bill

 

4,780 Views
13
Report
Trusted Contributor

I definitely continue to trust the conclusions regarding health issues that are accepted by the majority of science and health organizations worldwide instead of accepting the opinions and beliefs of a minority of individuals who distrust those organizations.

 

What your MPH instructor said has nothing to do with how science works or the fact that your opinions are not supported by the bulk of legitimate science.  Do you distrust all of the 100+ science/health organizations that support vaccination and fluoridation?
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhoSupportsCWF.html

 

No link to the ADA court case?  The ADA’s “Principles of Ethic & Code of Professional Conduct” seems to prove the ADA is actually concerned about their patients!  Search on “public” in the code, you will find that the ADA is committed to the public’s welfare.
Section 3 PRINCIPLE: BENEFICENCE (“do good”). The dentist has a duty to promote the patient’s welfare.
https://www.ada.org/-/media/project/ada-organization/ada/ada-org/files/about/ada_code_of_ethics.pdf

 

At high exposure levels mercury, like any other chemical, can be harmful.  Like fluoridation amalgam fillings are safe.  The current use of amalgam has not posed a health risk apart from allergic reactions in few patients. Clinical justifications have not been available for removing clinically satisfactory amalgam restorations, except in patients allergic to amalgam constituents. … Also a recent review by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs states that: ‘Studies continue to support the position that dental amalgam is a safe restorative option for both children and adults. When responding to safety concerns it is important to make the distinction between known and hypothetical risks.’ The IAOMT “smoking tooth” video  is an example of how easily misinformation can be spread.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3388771/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/mercury-must-be-bad-if-not-in-vaccines-in-teeth/
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dental_woo
https://quackwatch.org/consumer-education/Nonrecorg/iaomt/ https://quackwatch.org/?s&_sf_s=mercury

 

The major problem is that you and other fluoridation opponents don’t trust the science.   I would certainly trust the ADA over your opinions!

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
4,673 Views
12
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy,  Part D

 

The USA Food and Drug Administration, FD&C Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, and state laws which apply to fluoride are very important to consider.  Let's look at a couple points on the FDA.  (Fluoridated bottled water later)

 

You have not responded whether you have watched the video Have you watched https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/exposing-fluoride-with-attorne...

 

I'm trying to answer your questions and add information where I consider you have only looked at one side of the issue.  This takes time and judgment, so it will take several posts. . . at least a thousand.

 

You asked about a reference for the ADA and the court case:  

The Superior Court of the State of California Case

No. 718228, Demurrer (October 22, 1992).

 

Let us look at the FDA.  

I would suggest we start with Definition of a Drug (April 2017) | FDA

There is a short video where pharmacists discuss drugs, in brief:

"Whether a product is regulated as a drug, a cosmetic, or both under the law is determined by a product's intended use. FDA Drug Info Rounds pharmacists discuss the key differences between a drug and a cosmetic."

 

"Whether a product is regulated as a drug, a cosmetic, or both under the law is determined by a product's intended use. Drugs are defined as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and as articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals."Transcript: Definition of a Drug (April 2017) | FDA

 

(My Emphasis in blue)

 "To establish a product’s intended use, FDA may consider a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence. This includes any claim or statement made by or on behalf of a manufacturer that explicitly or implicitly promotes a product for a particular use and any circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product or the context in which it is sold.  For example, FDA may consider the following to establish intended use: 

  • Claims stated on the product labeling, in advertising, on the Internet, or in other promotional materials.  Certain claims may cause a product to be considered a drug, even if the product is marketed as if it were a cosmetic. Some claims establish the product as a drug because the intended use is to treat or prevent disease or otherwise affect the structure or any function of the human body. For example, claims that products restore hair growth, reduce cellulite, treat varicose veins, or regenerate cells are generally drug claims.
  • Consumer perception, which may be established through the product's reputation. In other words, asking why the consumer is buying it and what the consumer expects it to do.
  • Inclusion of ingredients that have a well-known therapeutic use. An example of this is fluoride in toothpaste."

Fluoride in toothpaste is approved as a drug and has label, although I think fluoridated toothpaste should be sold by Rx only.  Too many kids swallowing toothpaste.

 

See also A Brief History of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research | FDA

4,184 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy,

 

Have you watched https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/shows/good-morning-chd/exposing-fluoride-with-attorne...

 

The video will jog your mind and raise concerns and provide answers to many of your comments here.

 

I trust you put the two thoughts together. . . the ADA position on mercury fillings and fluoridation, and  the label on mercury and lack of label on fluoride. 

 

The ADA testified under oath to the court that they owe no duty to the public.  Think fluoridation. . . the ADA owes no duty to protect the public from harmful effects of fluoridation or excess fluoride exposure for anyone in the public.  

 

Think about the 100+ organizations who mistakenly rely on the ADA for, supposedly unbiased scientific evidence.  The evidence they are relying on may not be the best science for the public, but it sure is the best for the dentists' pocket-book.  As one of my mentors said, tongue in cheek, "Never let a rational thought stand in the way of a lucrative surgery, policy or theory."  Another said, "when scientists agree, hang on to your pocket book."

 

Money is a huge driving force in health care and science.  Think about the scientists supporting the tobacco industry, DDT, dioxins, etc.

 

Every chemical, especially highly toxic substances classified as poisons by law and exempt when used as a drug have a label, warnings, cautions, etc. . . except fluoride.

 

Think about the label on the mercury filling materials and keep in mind the lack of fluoridation label mass dispensed without individual consent or label.

 

Here is the manufacture's label for Dispersally a mercury dental filling material.

 

2.1 Warnings 1. When mixed and used as designed, this product will contain mercury. Properly mixed Alloy amalgam products contain mercury, which can cause skin sensitization or other allergic reaction. Although the mercury in this product is bound within the amalgam following trituration, proper care should be taken to prevent exposure to mercury. These preventive measures include the wearing of safety glasses and gloves, good ventilation, the use of an enclosed amalgamator, and the use of a mercury absorbing compound in the event of spillage. It has been suggested by the Ad-hoc working group established by the European Commission that the following information, be kept in mind when considering the use of dental amalgams.

  • After placement or removal of dental amalgam restorations increased mercury concentration in blood and urine has been observed. According to available scientific knowledge this increase has not been associated with any adverse health effects.
  • If placed in close contact with other metal restorations galvanic effects may occur. In most cases they will be of short lasting duration. If the effect persists the user should consider replacement of the dental amalgam filling with another material.
  • There are no proven adverse effects on the fetus associated with the placement or presence of dental amalgam fillings in the mother. It is sensible, however, where clinically feasible, to minimize health interventions during pregnancy and avoid any unnecessary chemical exposure of the fetus. This precaution should be observed with the use of all dental materials. It has also been recommended by certain regulatory authorities that consideration be given to the use of amalgam fillings in children and that amalgams not be used in patients with severe renal disease.
  1. 2. Health Canada Warnings • Non-mercury filling materials should be considered for restoring the primary teeth of children where the mechanical properties of the material are suitable.
  • Whenever possible, amalgam fillings should not be placed in or removed from the teeth of pregnant women.
  • Amalgam should not be placed in patients with impaired kidney function.
  • In placing and removing amalgam fillings, dentists should use techniques and equipment to minimize the exposure of the patient and the dentist to mercury vapor and to prevent amalgam waste from being flushed into municipal sewage systems.
  • Dentists should advise individuals who may have allergic hypersensitivity to mercury to avoid the use of amalgam. In patients who have developed hypersensitivity to amalgam, existing amalgam restorations should be replaced with another material where this is recommended by a physician.
  1. Properly mixed Alloy amalgam products contain mercury, which can cause skin sensitization or other allergic reaction. Proper care should be taken to prevent exposure to mercury.
  • Avoid skin Contact with this product by wearing protective safety glasses, clothing and gloves. If contact with skin occurs immediately wipe off and flush with generous amounts of water, then wash well with soap and water after contact. If skin rash, irritation, sensitization or other allergic reaction occurs, discontinue use and seek medical attention immediately.
  • Avoid eye contact as product may be irritating to eyes. Before using this product wear protective glasses as well as covering the patient’s eyes to protect from excess. The use of an enclosed amalgamator is recommended. In case of accidental contact with eyes, rinse eyes immediately with plenty of water and seek medical attention.
  • Avoid ingestion of this product. Do not swallow or take internally. Whenever possible, the use of protective barriers such as rubber dam isolation and protective mask during placement and removal is recommended. If accidental swallowing occurs, drink lots of water. If nausea or illness develop, seek medical attention immediately. Contact regional Poison Control Center immediately.
  • Avoid inhalation as this product may be harmful if vapors are inhaled. Use with adequate ventilation. Whenever possible, the use of protective barriers such as rubber dam isolation, high-volume evacuation and protective mask during placement and removal is recommended. Give oxygen or artificial respiration if necessary.
  1. This alloy contains Zinc; amalgam made therefrom may show excessive expansion if moisture is introduced during mixing and condensing.

2.2 Precautions 1. This product is intended to be used only as specifically outlined in the Directions for Use. Any use of this product inconsistent with the Directions for Use is at the discretion and sole responsibility of the practitioner.

  1. Wear suitable protective eyewear, clothing, mask and gloves. Protective eyewear, and whenever possible, barrier techniques such as rubber dam is recommended for patients. (See Warnings)
  2. Devices marked “single use” on the labeling are intended for single use only. Discard after use. Do not reuse.
  3. Mercury reacts with and embrittles particular metals and their alloys. Avoid unnecessary contact between mercury and those metals (and their alloys).
  4. Mercury presents a health hazard if incorrectly handled. Mercury is toxic by vapor inhalation and the effect is cumulative. Spillages of mercury should be removed immediately, including places which are difficult to access. Use a plastic syringe to draw it up. Smaller quantities can be covered by sulfur powder and removed. Individual small droplets can be picked up by tin (i.e. Sn) foil and removed. Avoid inhalation of the vapor. During and after a clean up thoroughly ventilate the area where the spill has occurred. Vacuum cleaners should not be used.
  5. 6. Regulations for disposal must be observed. Adherence to the American Dental Association’s current “Best Management Practices For Amalgam Waste (BMPs)” and “Dental Mercury Hygiene Recommendations” is strongly recommended. Among these practices:
  • • Salvage and store non-contact amalgam scrap in well-sealed containers and recycle.
  • Salvage and store contact amalgam pieces from restorations, traps and filters in well-sealed containers and recycle.
  • Do not dispose of amalgam scrap, waste or extracted teeth in regulated infectious waste containers that will be incinerated, or in regular garbage.
  • Recycle used disposable amalgam capsules. 7. Waste material and all primary containers that have held mercury shall be disposed of following appropriate management practice.
  1. DISPERSALLOY®ALLOY CONTAINS ZINC; If moisture is introduced into the dental amalgam before it has set, properties such as strength and corrosion resistance can be affected adversely. If the alloy contains zinc, such contamination can result in an excessive expansion (delayed expansion). Use a dry field, whenever it is possible.
  2. 9. Manufacturer’s variation in amalgamators and differences in local electrical current may necessitate adjusting trituration time to obtain an optimal mix.
  3. Insufficient data exist to support the use of amalgamators not listed in the chart below. Use of amalgamators other than those listed may result in less than optimally triturated amalgam. The operator must investigate non-listed equipment compatibility and/or consult amalgamator manufacturer for recommendations.
  4. Do not attempt to place improperly triturated amalgam, or amalgam that has exceeded working time (dry, crumbly)
  5. Drilling, polishing and grinding dental fillings should always be combined with water-cooling and suction under a vacuum.
  6. Do not place dental amalgam in direct contact with other types of metals to reduce risk of corrosion and galvanic reaction.
  7. The following precautions are required by the General Director AFSSAPS (Agence française de sécuité sanitaire des produits de santé – French agency for Sanitary Security of Health Products): • Store amalgam capsules in a cool and ventilated space. • Work in ventilated rooms with decontaminable non-textile surfaces. • Realize shaping and polishing of amalgam always under cooling and suction of the operation field. • Condense amalgam with classical methods (plugger) and do not use ultrasound condensers. • Do not place amalgam in direct proximity of other metallic restorations in order to avoid all risk of corrosion. • Avoid placing and removing amalgam during pregnancy and lactation. • If local reactions, in particular lichoid lesions in the proximity of amalgam, occur, it is justified to remove the filling. 2.3 Adverse reactions (when mixed with mercury as intended) 1. Product may irritate skin, eyes. Skin contact: irritation or possible allergic response. Reddish rashes may be seen on the skin. Eye contact: irritation and possible corneal damage. (See Warnings and Precautions) 2. Inhalation of vapors may cause varying degrees of damage to the affected tissue and also increased susceptibility to respiratory illness. (See Warnings and Precautions) 3. Product may cause neurotoxic, nephrotoxic or other serious health effects if inhaled or ingested. (See Warnings)
4,199 Views
0
Report
Regular Contributor

Randy,

Regarding Mercury fillings which the dental lobby says are safe.  Although not safe for the sewer or trash or postal workers. . . .  Have you read the Manufacturer's warnings and advice as of January 16, 2024.  Dispersalloy-Tablets-Powder-DFU-yldq98l-en-1508.pdf (dentsplysirona.com)  My comments in bold

 

2.1 Warnings 1. When mixed and used as designed, this product will contain mercury. Properly mixed Alloy amalgam products contain mercury, which can cause skin sensitization or other allergic reaction. Although the mercury in this product is bound within the amalgam following trituration, proper care should be taken to prevent exposure to mercury. These preventive measures include the wearing of safety glasses and gloves, good ventilation, (Ventilation for the patient and dentist and team.  However, after placement the mercury comes off and the patient does not have ventilation but rather direct inhalation.) the use of an enclosed amalgamator, and the use of a mercury absorbing compound in the event of spillage. It has been suggested by the Ad-hoc working group established by the European Commission that the following information, be kept in mind when considering the use of dental amalgams.

  • After placement or removal of dental amalgam restorations increased mercury concentration in blood and urine has been observed. According to available scientific knowledge this increase has not been associated with any adverse health effects.
  • If placed in close contact with other metal restorations galvanic effects may occur. (Amalgam buildup under gold crowns or adjacent or opposing is common.)  In most cases they will be of short lasting duration. If the effect persists the user should consider replacement of the dental amalgam filling with another material.
  • There are no proven adverse effects (proven is a very high bar. Previously, the recommendation was to not place in children or women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant.  The dental lobby had the manufacturer partly back down) on the fetus associated with the placement or presence of dental amalgam fillings in the mother. It is sensible, however, where clinically feasible, to minimize health interventions during pregnancy and avoid any unnecessary chemical exposure of the fetus. This precaution should be observed with the use of all dental materials. It has also been recommended by certain regulatory authorities that consideration be given to the use of amalgam fillings in children and that amalgams not be used in patients with severe renal disease. (What do they mean by "consideration"?   Not to use or use for sure?)
  1. 2. Health Canada Warnings • Non-mercury filling materials should be considered for restoring the primary teeth of children where the mechanical properties of the material are suitable. (Other materials are more suitable in more situations than amalgams.)
  • Whenever possible, amalgam fillings should not be placed in or removed from the teeth of pregnant women.  (Why?  Clearly there is a risk to the fetus.)
  • Amalgam should not be placed in patients with impaired kidney function. (Why? did the mercury contribute to the impaired kidney function?)
  • In placing and removing amalgam fillings, dentists should use techniques and equipment to minimize the exposure of the patient and the dentist to mercury vapor and to prevent amalgam waste from being flushed into municipal sewage systems. (So it is not safe in the sewer but safe in the patient's mouth?  Makes no sense.)
  • Dentists should advise individuals who may have allergic hypersensitivity to mercury to avoid the use of amalgam. In patients who have developed hypersensitivity to amalgam, existing amalgam restorations should be replaced with another material where this is recommended by a physician. (Randy, How can a patient or dentist tell if the patient is hypersensitive to the amalgam?  What are the indications?)
  1. Properly mixed Alloy amalgam products contain mercury, which can cause skin sensitization or other allergic reaction. Proper care should be taken to prevent exposure to mercury.  
  • Avoid skin Contact with this product by wearing protective safety glasses, clothing and gloves.  (What kind of safety clothing and gloves should the patient wear to protect them from the implantation of the product in their mouth?  No, this is to protect the dentist, not the patient.) If contact with skin occurs immediately wipe off and flush with generous amounts of water, then wash well with soap and water after contact. If skin rash, irritation, sensitization or other allergic reaction occurs, discontinue use and seek medical attention immediately.
  • Avoid eye contact as product may be irritating to eyes. Before using this product wear protective glasses as well as covering the patient’s eyes to protect from excess. (At least the patient's eyes should be protected, but not their body or swallowing.  Makes no sense.)   The use of an enclosed amalgamator is recommended. In case of accidental contact with eyes, rinse eyes immediately with plenty of water and seek medical attention.(Constant contact with the eyes during placement and removal)
  • Avoid ingestion of this product. (The majority of the mercury comes out of the filling over the next few years.  Should the patient never swallow?) Do not swallow or take internally. (And the ADA says these are safe.) Whenever possible, the use of protective barriers such as rubber dam isolation and protective mask during placement and removal is recommended. If accidental swallowing occurs, drink lots of water. If nausea or illness develop, seek medical attention immediately. Contact regional Poison Control Center immediately.
  • Avoid inhalation as this product may be harmful if vapors are inhaled. Use with adequate ventilation. Whenever possible, the use of protective barriers such as rubber dam isolation, high-volume evacuation and protective mask during placement and removal is recommended. Give oxygen or artificial respiration if necessary.  (The patient's nose is closer than the dentist and they walk out breathing the filling material and swallowing much even with a rubber dam.  Much is repeated below and my family is calling me, must go.)
  1. This alloy contains Zinc; amalgam made therefrom may show excessive expansion if moisture is introduced during mixing and condensing.

2.2 Precautions 1. This product is intended to be used only as specifically outlined in the Directions for Use. Any use of this product inconsistent with the Directions for Use is at the discretion and sole responsibility of the practitioner.

  1. Wear suitable protective eyewear, clothing, mask and gloves. Protective eyewear, and whenever possible, barrier techniques such as rubber dam is recommended for patients. (See Warnings)
  2. Devices marked “single use” on the labeling are intended for single use only. Discard after use. Do not reuse.
  3. Mercury reacts with and embrittles particular metals and their alloys. Avoid unnecessary contact between mercury and those metals (and their alloys).
  4. Mercury presents a health hazard if incorrectly handled. Mercury is toxic by vapor inhalation and the effect is cumulative. Spillages of mercury should be removed immediately, including places which are difficult to access. Use a plastic syringe to draw it up. Smaller quantities can be covered by sulfur powder and removed. Individual small droplets can be picked up by tin (i.e. Sn) foil and removed. Avoid inhalation of the vapor. During and after a clean up thoroughly ventilate the area where the spill has occurred. Vacuum cleaners should not be used.
  5. 6. Regulations for disposal must be observed. Adherence to the American Dental Association’s current “Best Management Practices For Amalgam Waste (BMPs)” and “Dental Mercury Hygiene Recommendations” is strongly recommended. Among these practices:
  • • Salvage and store non-contact amalgam scrap in well-sealed containers and recycle.
  • Salvage and store contact amalgam pieces from restorations, traps and filters in well-sealed containers and recycle.
  • Do not dispose of amalgam scrap, waste or extracted teeth in regulated infectious waste containers that will be incinerated, or in regular garbage.
  • Recycle used disposable amalgam capsules. 7. Waste material and all primary containers that have held mercury shall be disposed of following appropriate management practice.
  1. DISPERSALLOY®ALLOY CONTAINS ZINC; If moisture is introduced into the dental amalgam before it has set, properties such as strength and corrosion resistance can be affected adversely. If the alloy contains zinc, such contamination can result in an excessive expansion (delayed expansion). Use a dry field, whenever it is possible.
  2. 9. Manufacturer’s variation in amalgamators and differences in local electrical current may necessitate adjusting trituration time to obtain an optimal mix.
  3. Insufficient data exist to support the use of amalgamators not listed in the chart below. Use of amalgamators other than those listed may result in less than optimally triturated amalgam. The operator must investigate non-listed equipment compatibility and/or consult amalgamator manufacturer for recommendations.
  4. Do not attempt to place improperly triturated amalgam, or amalgam that has exceeded working time (dry, crumbly)
  5. Drilling, polishing and grinding dental fillings should always be combined with water-cooling and suction under a vacuum.
  6. Do not place dental amalgam in direct contact with other types of metals to reduce risk of corrosion and galvanic reaction.
  7. The following precautions are required by the General Director AFSSAPS (Agence française de sécuité sanitaire des produits de santé – French agency for Sanitary Security of Health Products): • Store amalgam capsules in a cool and ventilated space. • Work in ventilated rooms with decontaminable non-textile surfaces. • Realize shaping and polishing of amalgam always under cooling and suction of the operation field. • Condense amalgam with classical methods (plugger) and do not use ultrasound condensers. • Do not place amalgam in direct proximity of other metallic restorations in order to avoid all risk of corrosion. • Avoid placing and removing amalgam during pregnancy and lactation. • If local reactions, in particular lichoid lesions in the proximity of amalgam, occur, it is justified to remove the filling. 2.3 Adverse reactions (when mixed with mercury as intended) 1. Product may irritate skin, eyes. Skin contact: irritation or possible allergic response. Reddish rashes may be seen on the skin. Eye contact: irritation and possible corneal damage. (See Warnings and Precautions) 2. Inhalation of vapors may cause varying degrees of damage to the affected tissue and also increased susceptibility to respiratory illness. (See Warnings and Precautions) 3. Product may cause neurotoxic, nephrotoxic or other serious health effects if inhaled or ingested. (See Warnings)