Find out how to register, vote early, research a candidate and more in AARP's midterm election guide.

Reply
Gold Conversationalist
1
Kudos
168
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

168 Views
Message 1 of 598

Johnny,

 

You desire to end the back and forth because you do not have the decency to apologize for slandering and defaming me to city councils.   If you look at my slides, I gave credit for the photos.  Cosmetic dentistry of a Pedodontist might be malpractice, I am not making that judgment.  But General Dentists do cosmetic dentistry every day.  We could go into details, but your apology is requested.

 

However, whether ingesting fluoride makes teeth harder and less caries prone is a secondary issue to the EXCESS EXPOSURE.   Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

You have not disputed nor have you disagreed with the fundamental issue that 60% of adolescents with various degrees of dental fluorosis is too much.  

 

You have to agree that water fluoridation supplements the fluoride exposure from other sources.  With 60% getting too much fluoride, a cessation of water fluoridation is essential.  

Johnny,

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
168
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
217
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

217 Views
Message 2 of 598

William,

 

Let me make an attempt to explain where you have not been clear in public presentations.  While you may expect an apology and your feelings are hurt, that is on you.  I have merely reacted to information that you presented in at least 2 communities where we have presented opposite each other.

 

William:

"You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public apology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an apology of your errors."

 

Johnny:

William, a letter was written to the editor of Neurotoxicity Research challenging the findings of the NTP report by fluoridation opponents.  Since you may not be aware of this letter, the link to it is below.  The editor, Dr. Jean Harry, responds to those challenges:

"In summary, far from generating “false results” that may “misinform the public”, our data utilize an exposure level near the recommended level for human exposure and provide an extensive, systematic evaluation of sensory, motor, and cognitive function in a relevant animal model.  Instead of misleading regulators and the public, the results of the McPherson et al (2018) help clarify a generally confusing database and can only facilitate decisions concerning the safety of fluoride exposure through the drinking water."

https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/1363-2/

 

While this robust study looked at all fluoride intakes from food and water, followed in utero development of male offspring to adulthood, and clearly and definitively found no evidence of neurological damage, you are choosing to minimize the study which you promoted and pushed for.  This study, along with that of Dr. Gary Whitford, were of high quality with clear results.  The studies that have been used by fluoridation opponents to attempt to get the EPA to stop water fluoridation were found to be highly biased and failed to show neuorological damage at levels of fluoride used in community water fluoridation.

 

William: 

"The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm."  

 

Johnny:

See the above.

 

William:

Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.

 

Johnny:

From the Document:

"As such, we have reached similar conclusions--there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of drug studies."

https://www.cochrane.org/MR000034/METHOD_comparing-effect-estimates-of-randomized-controlled-trials-...

 

I repeat their findings as this paper was discussed with the COHG in London in July 2015. 

 

Quality of the evidence

"The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence within the review. GRADE has developed over recent years as an internationally recognised framework for systematically evaluating the quality of evidence within both systematic reviews and guidelines. It aims to overcome the confusion that arises from having multiple systems for grading evidence and recommendations, and, because of this key aim, the GRADE working group discourages the use of modified GRADE approaches. However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area."

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/full

 

 William:

"Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing."

 

Johnny:

William, I invite anyone to watch and listen to your presentation that you gave in Potsdam, NY, recently.  It is easily found on YouTube by using the search words Potsdam NY Fluoride.

 

You stated earlier in this thread that the slides of the teeth with fluorosis and the veeners that were placed were from friends and colleagues of yours.  You never stated this in the presentations.  Giving credit to the appropriate person for using their slides is commonplace.  The presentation does not give the impression that these patients aren't yours.  As such, I commented on the treatment of these teeth appropriately.  

 

Secondly, you showed "Fluoride Bombs" in molars which again were not attributed to another person.  If they aren't your patient(s), then acknowledging that is commonplace.  You asked me earlier about my suggestion that if frank cavitation (an open, visual hole in the tooth) were not present, a sealant should be placed.  

 

I direct you to the "American Dental Association's Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry" for specific guidelines on how to approach pits and fissures of molars like you have shown.

https://ebd.ada.org/en/evidence/guidelines/pit-and-fissure-sealants

 

The specific review is entitled "

"Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants"

One of the specific sections addresses your questions about sealing over non-cavitated teeth, as well as incipient caries (decay).  Long term studies have been conducted in which caries was sealed over and found to have arrested this decay.  Yes, I have seen this in my 30 years of practicing pediatric dentistry in Florida as a Pediatric Dentist.

 

Potential Role of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants in Primary and Secondary Prevention

"From a primary prevention perspective, anatomic grooves or pits and fissures on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars trap food debris and promote the presence of bacterial biofilm, thereby increasing the risk of developing carious lesions. Effectively penetrating and sealing these surfaces with a dental material—for example, pit-and-fissure sealants—can prevent lesions and is part of a comprehensive caries management approach.11



From a secondary prevention perspective, there is evidence that sealants also can inhibit the progression of noncavitated carious lesions.9 The use of sealants to arrest or inhibit the progression of carious lesions is important to the clinician when determining the appropriate intervention for noncavitated carious lesions."

 

At this point, William, I choose to end this back and forth interaction with you.  You have started to become demanding when someone doesn't agree with you.  As the late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan said so well, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."

 

Warm regards,

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society - a not for profit group of all volunteer healthcare professionals who do not take a penny for their work to disseminate credible, evidence-based science that has been peer reviewed and published in credibly recognized scientific journals

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
217
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
252
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

252 Views
Message 3 of 598

Johnny,

 

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.   Send me one other dentist who claims I did malpractice or the treating doctors did malpractice.  Send me their name and contact info.

 

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

 

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
252
Views
Gold Conversationalist
2
Kudos
254
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

254 Views
Message 4 of 598

Johnny,

 

You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.

 

The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  

 

True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.

 

Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   

 

And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
254
Views
Gold Conversationalist
3
Kudos
262
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

262 Views
Message 5 of 598

CarryAnne,

 

An amazing compilation of powerful documentation raising serious concerns with fluoride exposure.  

 

In the last 3 years, this evidence has not been refuted.

 

“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! 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
262
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
282
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

282 Views
Message 6 of 598

The quote in question from the Cochrane review is as follows:
"We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults."

In other words, there was no determination made because the published work claiming benefit is not scientific. Scientists already knew this because all the studies were not controlled -- humans cannot be put in cages. So these thousands of publications on water fluoridation (97% were rejected) have little to no meaning.

The Ziegelbecker massive, inclusive studies, plus the 30 year massive study by Teotia and Teotia, and the detailed, meticulous studies published by John Yiamouyiannis are the best human observations we have and are completely consistent with the actual science on research animals in controlled environments in cages, proving that eating fluoride does not reduce caries while fluorosis incidence increases. The scientific case has been closed for a long time. You might get some benefit by reading Fluoride the Aging Factor by Yamouyiannis. It is very good biochemistry and the best human epidemiology we have on the subject.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
282
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
287
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

287 Views
Message 7 of 598

If the statement was intended to mean that all studies indicate that adults benefit from fluoridation, then you need to read the actual science as described in the textbook known as the Bible of pharmacology, Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics. In the section on ingested fluoride the correct statement is "fluoride is of no benefit to adult teeth".

The scientific consensus nsus in the 1940's and still today is correct. Fluoride found use as a rat poison and has always been considered unsafe to add to foods at any concentration. And in recent studies we know eating fluoride is ineffective in lowering tooth decay and causes skeletal and enamel harm. 

The consensus remains the same. 

The Kumar studies have been discussed before. The claim of caries reduction is not scientific. The slight difference is not even outside measurement error. A scientist does not accept a difference as being real, rather than an artifact, with data like that. 

Sorry

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
287
Views
Gold Conversationalist
3
Kudos
296
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

296 Views
Message 8 of 598

Johnny,

 

Your words, "true facts" made me laugh.  

 

You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public appology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an appology of your errors.

 

Johnny,  the ingestion of fluoride might have some benefit, might not.  Take the weight and amount of caries prevention possibility  and add to the evidence of risk for brain, thyroid, bones, teeth, cancer, kidney from many studies, then weigh the evidence of increased caries and risk from excess exposure and the lack of freedom of choice and individual dosage.   When you stack all those issues  together and weigh all of those factors, CWF becomes unacceptable.  

 

Research by nature takes one or as few variables as possible and tries to measure the variable.  Public Health Policy must take a look at the big picture, all the studies, all the possible benefits, risks, dosage, along with the lethality and contagious nature of the disease before people are forced to ingest the medication/treatment.  The big picture must be considered.

 

The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm.  

 

Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.

 

"Authors’ conclusions
Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are ver y similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have
reached similar conclusions; on average, the re is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies
and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study de sign, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions.
Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs
and observational studies. O ur results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level
of he terogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects
might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness."
 
Little evidence is not no evidence.  And observational studies are important.  RCTs are still considered the gold standard and to my understanding are usually required by Cochrane reviewers and FDA, etc.  
 
Here are a few limitations often found in the observational studies on fluoridation:
 
  • A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors such as serious decline in caries of 5 teeth per 12 year old prior to fluoridation.  What caused the decline and control for that unknown.
  • B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials are required due to serious unknowns.   
  • 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 fluoridated water.
  • L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered 
  • M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
  • N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  
  • O.    Genetics not considered

 

Cochrane did find benefit for children from observational studies.  But those studies did not control for all of the concerns above.  

 

Pressure on Cochrane by fluoridationists so you say "they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary"

 

Obviously, if political pressure is placed on someone after their studdied written opinion, that is bias.  Perhaps the original version was their true conclusion and under pressure they changed.  Seen that often with fluoridation.  Preventing publications, can't find peer reviewers, delay in publication and out right junk research published.

 

Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing.

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
296
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
353
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

353 Views
Message 9 of 598

Rich,

Do you really understand what the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) was saying about the 20 studies that met their strict inclusion criteria out of over 4,000 studies that they quieried from various scientific databases?

 

None of the studies which met their strict inclusion criteria showed that adults didn't benefit from CWF.   They never said that there was no benefit from CWF to adults.

 

You might be interested to know that this same COHG reviewed the studies that the U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force was using to make its recommendations on CWF. This COHG approved the studies which they used, many of which were exactly the same as was used in their own study in 2015.

 

The U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmed in 2013 their recommendation of fluoridation based on strong evidence.  They used contemperary studies, similar to the one you referenced by Jay Kumar, to draw their conclusions from.  The COHG had not included these in their 2015 report on CWF.

 

I attended a meeting in London with the COHG and scholars from academia, research, and many others where we discussed their report.  Their report was so egregiously being misrepresented by those opposed to CWF that they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary so that could no longer be done.

 

Observational studies produce essentially the same results as Randomized Controlled Trials per one of the articles by a Cochrane researcher:

https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2/epdf/full

 

Using information from groups like Cochrane without truly understanding what it was that was being stated is how so much misinformation has been spun by those who oppose CWF.  

 

Thanks for bringing up the COHG.  It's nice to be able to share the true facts of their findings with you.


Warm regards,

 

Johnny

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
353
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
353
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

353 Views
Message 10 of 598

My opinions about why fluoride advocates  believe eating fluoride is effective and harmless are not important. But statements I make about the fallacy of fluoridation are certainly important. 

The comparison of fluoridation of people with the sanitizing.effect of chlorination is absurd. Chlorine is necessary to kill pathogens in water to avoid immediately lethal disease when it is consumed later.

Fluoridation does not sanitize water but is adds to treat humans to elevate fluoride blood levels in an attempt to affect caries when the proper method is to brush after eating sugar or drinking  sugar laden beverages, and to keep teeth clean. 

And as stated before, chloride has a an essential electrolyte in blood. Fluoride  is a contamunant un blood. 

There is  consensus on the usefulness of chlorination. The is no scientific  evidence that fluoride ion reduces decay  or is harmless. The scientific evidence using controlled animals proves fluoride in blood at water fluoridation levels does not reduce caries and indeed causes harm (fluorosis of both bone and teeth). 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
353
Views