Reply
Highlighted
Conversationalist

TSCA lawsuit against EPA: Unreasonable Risk of Fluoridation

571 Views
Message 1 of 1,450

'The MIREC & ELEMENT studies are strong, well-conducted studies - the best science we have..... I don't believe the results.' -  Dr. Ellen Chang, Experian scientist for hire testifying for the EPA

 

'My main point is I’d hope the EPA would apply the proper standard and look at new evidence presented in this case.' - U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chan, presiding over Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA

 

The quotes above are from my notes of the trial on fluoridation policy suing the EPA for failure to follow their own rules relevant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The quotes may not be letter perfect, but they are pretty close. The trial began on June 8, 2020 and is currently paused by Judge Chan in order to give the EPA an opportunity to re-examine the evidence provided by plaintiffs in order to take actions consistent with its mission to protect the public from harmful chemicals in water supplies. The EPA has until August 6th to come up with a response/actions that satisfies plaintiff attorneys.  

 

There were many highlights in the trial, but I've got to say that one of my favorites is when one of the high paid white coats for hire listed 10 studies that she considered in reaching her conclusion with the MIREC & ELEMENT studies on the top and the New Zealand studies, including one by Ken Perrott, at the bottom. She said specifically that none of the NZ studies were good, but particularly pointed out that Ken P's study was low quality and so she did not give it any weight, even though she included those NZ studies on her list to justify her opinion. 

 

Then in a small voice, I believe during cross examination after emphasizing how important it is to do the science in a disciplined way to prevent bias from coloring decisions, Dr. Chang said she 'did not believe' the findings of the best studies. OMG - poster child for scientific bias! 

 

Other highlights included when the EPA was called to task for misrepresenting findings of studies, like of Mullenix et al. 1995 (found neurotoxic prenatal impact), CDC and EPA management getting caught misrepresenting facts, and Dr. Kathy Thiessen's chart that shows even accepting the flawed (yet touted) McPherson et al. 2018 animal study from the NTP, the reference dose (RfD) for fluoride is well below the intake of many populations, especially of bottle fed infants. In other words, formula fed babies in fluoridated communities are being poisoned with a substance that can and does lead to learning disabilities and lowered IQ. These are life long neurological deficits that extend into old age. 

 

EPA tried mightily to impeach Dr. Thiessen and other plaintiff witnesses, to no avail. Plaintiff's witnesses actually used science and based their expert testimony & opinion on science, not beliefs. Even the EPA/NTP witness who was a 'fact witness' and barred from offering her expert  opinion said that much of the consistent animal evidence of neurotoxicity was of moderate quality and none was very low. In a previous setting, Dr. Kristina Thayer had said you would not expect that an animal literature review would ever rate higher than moderate. 

 

Dr. Thiessen's calculations of Reference DoseDr. Thiessen's calculations of Reference Dose

 

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,866 Views
Message 2 of 1,450

Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that pollutes a shared resource necessary to life with a toxin that compromises the health of vulnerable populations as well as poses an environmental threat to other species. 

 

Fluoridation is politics pretending to be science. City councils aren’t doctors, water workers aren’t pharmacists and my neighbors don’t have the right to make medical decisions for my family. No one has the moral right to add a drug to my water because he believes it might prevent a cavity in some hypothetical kid.

 

Fluoridation is medically contraindicated for millions with inflammatory/autoimmune, thyroid/endocrine and kidney diseases. It is also ill-advised for pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any in fragile health.

 

Despite claims of efficiency, independent sources who have tested filters have not found any that adequately reduce/elminate fluoride for the purported life-span of the filter. Perhaps some of the more expensive types are effective for two to four months of their six months warantee, but short of distilled water (which has other adverse health effects attached), filters are an imperfect remedy. Moreover, water is ubiquitous. When you depend on your filter, that doesn't address foods in restaurants, foods in the grocery, and even food and drink at your friend's house that are prepared with fluoridated water.

 

I trusted filtered water to my detriment for years. I didn't realize how badly my health was affected. I now use bottled water even to brush my teeth and no longer have kidney or liver issues. My arthritis, IBS, and dizzy spells are also a thing of the past.   

 

Some of the participants on this thread viciously attacked the MIREC study published in JAMA Pediatrics in August 2019 that found lowered IQs in 'optimally' fluoridated Canadian communities and found the result to be 5 IQ points per 1mg/L fluoride in maternal urine - this consistent with dozens of other studies in other populations.

 

In December 2019, JAMA Pediatrics published the attached pithy rebuke for the specious attacks on Green et al. Increasing numbers of toxicologists and medical doctors are recommending that pregnant women avoid fluoridated water in order not to cause subtle but permant brain damage in their children. 

 

The Canadian studies from the MIREC project are among those using Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) data which document fluoridation programs as womb to tomb poisoning of the population

 

JAMA Pediatrics Dec. 2019JAMA Pediatrics Dec. 2019

 

For more, see the references in this 2019 #WeToo letter: 

http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/spencer-2019.we-too.pdf

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,340 Views
Message 3 of 1,450

Thanks Bill. Also understamd that the FDA does not require food or beverage labeling for F content. And i know of no one in my town who is capable of measuring F content in the foods and beverages they consume. Adding F on purpose in all public water supplies which also increases the F level in mamy foods is inane. 

A blood level of 1 ppm as in kidney patients who are dialyzed with city water have chronic heart muscle degeneration

Blood levels of about 0.08 or so in F'd water consumers cause chronic bone changes. F blood levels of 3-5 ppm of course as during accidental overfeeds at a time wben one happens to be extremely thirsty is acute poisoning.

Why on God's earth would anyone intentionally add a contaminant like that, which is useless when ingested for its intended purpose, to establish a country's policy wben the FDA does not approve the ingestion of any fluoride? Absolutely idiotic.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,350 Views
Message 4 of 1,450

Ken,

 

You responded in regard to 1.5 ppm fluoride in water:

"That is trivially true as excessive uptake of fluoride can occur from other dietary sources - toothpaste, coal fires, black tea, etc.

But in a normal dietary situation where water is the main source of F this is what research has shown. A normally informed person understands the difference."

 

Makes no sense. 

 

Who is a "normally informed person" when it comes to fluoride exposure.  Taken a long time us to even get you to admit some of the sources of fluoride let alone the wide range of fluoride exposure.

 

And what percentage of the population do you want to protect from excess fluoride?  90th percentile?  50th percentile?

 

When it comes to lead, arsenic, etc.,  we try to protect 100% of the population.

 

When it comes to the 200,000,000 in the USA on fluoridated water, 10% with excess fluoride exposure would be about 20,000,000 people you are saying it is OK to have excess fluoride, you can be harmed, go to hell with your health, because you are not "normally informed" purchasing non-fluoridated water, using nonfluoridated toothpaste, drinking too much tea, or had a general anesthesia, or taking fluoride medications, or eating mechanically deboned meat. 

 

Use some simple judgment Ken, what percentage of the population will you accept to be harmed?  Your family?  Mine?  Your town?  My town? 

 

Almost 70 human studies reporting neurologic harm and many more reporting fluoride as a known carcinogen.   How many people harmed in your "judgment" before you have a concern?

 

We are talking judgment, Ken.  Yours does not make sense to me, because you don't appear to have an intent to protect everyone to the best of our ability.

 

Bill Osmunson  DDS, MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,375 Views
Message 5 of 1,450

Nonsense.  Informed people undersand that the NRC Report data is valid, where consumers livng in a 1 ppm fluoridaed water region experience elevated PTH and calcitonin, a pathologic effect of fluoride incorporation into bone, and elevated TSH, and also that fluoridation of bone is permanent and it begins with the first sip, where fluoride alters the crystal structure of bone since it is not exactly the same radius and shape as the hydroxide ion it replaces by ion exchange. Fluoride in bone causes formation of bone of poor quality.

The FDA recognizes all this and ruled just last year that fluoride is a toxic substance at any level and should be regulated as such by the EPA under the Toxic Substanes Control Act.

Where have you been?  It appears you need to study more.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Periodic Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,377 Views
Message 6 of 1,450

In an environmental context, the precautionary principle can be defined as such: when an identified threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or human health exists, a lack of full scientific knowledge about the situation should not be used to delay remedial steps if the balance of potential costs and benefits justifies action (Resnik, 2003).

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,458 Views
Message 7 of 1,450

Richard, you say:

"An upper limit of 1.5 ppm F in water does not protect all consumers from either dental or bone fluorosis"

That is trivially true as excessive uptake of fluoride can occur from other dietary sources - toothpaste, coal fires, black tea, etc.

But in a normal dietary situation where water is the main source of F this is what research has shown. A normally informed person understands the difference.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
0
Kudos
12724
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,462 Views
Message 8 of 1,450

Give us a break from a CDC advertisement please.. An upper limit of 1.5 ppm F in water does not protect all consumers from either dental or bone fluorosis. Humans do not live in cages so as to not be exposed to other significant sources that depend on the distary behaviors among various people. And even if they were caged from other F sources, bone F levels during lifelong consumption cause  formation of bone of poor quality.. fluoridation of people is a useless harmful waste.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
12724
Views
Highlighted
Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,474 Views
Message 9 of 1,450

Ross, that is not the finding of Aggeborn and Öhman. What they actually reported is that fluoride has a positive effect on income and well being in later life as well as on dental health. They actually say:

"Fluoride has positive effects on log income and employment status which could indicate that better dental health is a positive factor on the labor market."

That is, they are offering a hypothesis to explain their findings.

This is from their abstract:

"First, we investigate and con rm the long-established positive relationship between fluoride and dental health. Second, we find precisely estimated zero-effects on cognitive ability, non-cognitive ability and education for fluoride levels below 1.5 mg/l. Third, we find evidence that fluoride improves later labor market outcomes, which indicates that good dental health is a positive factor on the labor market."

 

They did, however, use some dental repair data to support this hypothesis and commented:

 

"The estimated effect could be interpreted as a beauty-ffect. Given that we found larger effects for non-academics in the earlier reduced-form analyses, one explanation might be that people working in the service sector { which is not uncommon for this age-group { are more sensitive to bad looking teeth. This is probably not the entire explanation however. Having bad dental
health is probably associated with pain, and individuals with dental problems should on
average be more sick and more absent from work. This could explain why they earn less
and are less likely to be employed."

 

Yes, it is always more difficult to conclude a zero effect - that is the real only valid criticism of the Dunedin study (and all other studies). But Aggeborn and Öhman had a very large sample size which means their confidence intervals were very small. It would be simply desperate to argue that there really was an IQ effect hiding within that small confidence range.


There is nothing exceptional about fluoride at being dangerous at high concentrations - this is the case for other beneficial microelements as well. An upper limit of 1.5 mg/L seems well established and most authorities argue for a lower optimum level to overcome any risk of dental fluorosis.

None of the work of Grandjean, Malin, Till and Choi et al. would suggest changing that accepted level.

Report Inappropriate Content
Highlighted
Periodic Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

3,499 Views
Message 10 of 1,450

If you tell a physician you dont want fluoroquinolones, they will honor it.  They know its black boxed.  I put it on my allergy list.  

 

Avelox, a fluoroquinolone, was given to my friend.  After a few doses, she developed numbness in her extremities.

 

General anesthesia uses a F bolus to help put you to sleep and wakes you up with CaCl to bind the F.  For some people, cognitive issues persist for 30 days or more until enough of the F dissipates from the body.

 

AARP needs to take this information, research it, and let seniors know the risks involved.  This is an extremely critical health information.

 

A Registered Nurse

Report Inappropriate Content
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask? Check out the Health Tips forum today