- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
1. The cost-effectiveness of fluoridation is without question. I will gladly cite the numerous peer-reviewed studies clearly demonstrating this fact. If you want to trot out Thiessen’s study as cherry-picked “evidence” against these studies I’ll be glad to explain to you the fallacy of her study.
2. The safety fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is without question. In the 73 year history of this initiative, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, there have been no proven adverse effects. Zero. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at this level is, in any manner, unsafe.
3. The effectiveness of fluoridation is without question. It has been clearly demonstrated in countless peer-reviewed studies right up to the present. I will be glad to cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.
4. Opinions are opinions. Justices are not health-care professionals or experts. They issue rulings on legal points of law, not on science. While they are as welcome to their personal opinions as is anyone else, these opinions are no more binding than those of the GSA or anyone else. Your implication to the contrary is erroneous and dishonest.
Rulings by the court are legally binding. The reasoning they used to get to that point is not.
5. I didn’t state that “Washington state is an ‘unknown state’ “. You simply stated that “in all state laws I have reviewed” without specifying which states, or which laws. Therefore, whatever laws to which you refer were from some states unknown to readers. Given that you now only mention Washington, it seems a safe assumption that your “in all state laws which I have reviewed” means you have read through a few of the laws of the state of Washington.
6. Consumable, retail fluoride under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration is labeled by that agency under its drug classification, as opposed to labeling it under its food classification. Fluoride in water supplies is under the jurisdiction of the EPA. The EPA does not label such fluoride as a drug. Those are the facts.
7. Sure the FDA classifies retail consumables under its jurisdiction as either food or drug, depending on what the FDA deems is their intended use.
The EPA does not categorize substances under its jurisdiction in such manner. Among many other responsibilities, the EPA determines safety levels of substances within drinking water supplies, and mandates adherence to those levels. Fluoride in water is under the jurisdiction of the EPA, not the FDA. It is therefore not subject to FDA classification or labeling, any more than it would be subject to the classification and labeling system of any other agency. The laws and regulations of the FDA are irrelevant to fluoride under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
The EPA maximum allowable level of fluoride in drinking water is 4.0 pom.
Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, well under that level.
8. Arsenic is everywhere in nature. Arsenic dissolved out of rock formations is added to water as that water flows over rocks or when the ground water level sinks to a certain level. It is added to water from industrial pollution, fertilizer and pesticides in runoff, and from rain and snow which removes it from the air. Any arsenic added to water from hydrofluorosilic acid is in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety.
A zero level of arsenic is neither attainable nor likely to be desirable. The EPA maximum allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion. Given strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient, a zero level would likely do more harm than good.
9. How you so desperately want the US Environmental Protection Agency to classify substances under its jurisdiction is meaningless and irrelevant.
10. The EPA does not add anything to water for the treatment of humans or animals. Decisions to add additional fluoride to water are not made at the federal level. They are made at the state and local level, with implementation at the local level.
11. Anything in drinking water supplies other than H20 is a contaminant. The EPA regulates the levels at which contaminants may exist in drinking water for purposes of safety. The maximum allowable level of fluoride in water is 4.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, far below this maximum.
12. Yes, let’s do look at the evidence....the valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Your personal opinions, desires, and speculation do not qualify as such.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
We agree on many aspects and accuse each other of not following the facts and the science.
We agree, science should not be religion and we need to look at factual evidence, not opinion.
We agree the FDA does NOT have jurisdiction over public water.
We agree opinions of organizations are not facts, just opinions.
We disagree on cost effectiveness of fluoridation.
We disagree on safety.
We disagree on judgment. Appears you feel the Girl Scouts opinion is just as reasoned as Supreme Court Justices.
We disagree that Washington State is an "unknown" state.
We disagree that fluoride is a drug. Toothpaste says it is. As a dentist I have prescribed fluoride. FDA says it is a drug. Those are facts.
We disagree on the FD&C Act's definition of drug. Natural occuring fluoride is not a drug, it becomes a drug when marketed with the intent to mitigate, prevent, cure or treat a disease. Steve, the definition of a drug is not the chemical, but the use of the chemical, the marketing of the chemical. The FDA regulates the manufacturer and the manufacturer must gain FDA NDA for any substance used with the intent. Read the FD&C Act. Read the FDA web page on drugs and the development of drugs. Read for yourself. Read the facts. The FDA does not exempt a manufacturer from NDA simply because they "adjust" the concentration of the chemical. The chemical can be fake, non-existant, ineffective, or placebo, the definition is based on the "INTENT" of use.
I agree with the fact that arsenic is added to water as a contaminant of such things as hydrofluorosilicic acid and water treatment chemicals. The MCLG is zero, but that is not usually possible.
If the intent of adding arsenic to water was to treat or prevent a disease, the substance then becomes a drug.
Steve, think this through. If I took a drug which exists in water in very small amounts, such as penacillin or lithium, and simply adjusted the concentration, would that substance be legal to market and sell as a substance to treat disease and without a prescription or FDA NDA? No. Dilution of the substance does not exempt the substance from FDA NDA. Concentration makes no difference. Efficacy makes no difference. The intent of use determines whether a substance is a drug.
Your quote of the SDWA is correct but incomplete. The SDWA also prohibits the EPA from adding anything for the treatment of humans or animals. The EPA regulates contaminants, which fluoride is a contaminant.
So lets look at the evidence.
Later. I'm off to protest and march against children being taken away from their parents and treated like criminals.
Bill, I’ll go round and round in your little circles as long as you would like. However, no matter how many times you keep repeating the same invalid arguments, the facts will not change.
Yes, science should not be treated like religion or politics. It is a mystery why you continue to do so. The only ones I see injecting religion into the issue of fluoridation, for whatever reason, are opponents. You and Connett do so repeatedly.
Again, posting misrepresentations, false claims, and misinformation does not you make you a “messenger” of anything but nonsense. I am personally aware of no attempts to “shoot” you, for whatever bizarre reason you keep making that reference.
Yet once again.......
1. The opinions of the New Zealand justices were just that....opinions. They are not rulings, and carry no force of law. Countless people have opinions on fluoridation. Interestingly enough, the opponents putting out their nonsensical misrepresentation of this ruling, conveniently omit the opinion of the justice which differed with those of the others. The ruling of the NZ Supreme Court in this case was that the arguments presented by the antifluoridationists were inadequate to warrant overturn of the lower court ruling against the antifluoridationists. Their appeal was therefore rejected and the lower court ruling was upheld.
2. The US FDA has no jurisdiction over the contents of public water supplies. It therefore makes no more difference to water fluoridation what the FDA approves, than it does what the Girl Scouts of America approve.
3. The US FDA has jurisdiction over consumable retail products. It is certainly free to testify to Congress or anywhere else how it classifies these products. Such testimony has no relevance to contents of public water supplies.
4. The NZ justices did not agree that “fluoride is a drug”. Just the opposite. They unanimously agreed that under the regulations set forth under the NZ Medicine Act, fluoridating agents are not drugs. The antifluoridationist challenge to the validity of those regulations had already been rejected.
“The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed New Health’s appeal against both aspects of the Court of Appeal decision. The Court found that the regulations were valid because they were not made for an improper purpose, nor were they made on the basis of an error of law. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the question as to whether the fluoridating agents were medicines prior to the making of the regulations was moot.”
Fluoridation: New Health NZ v South Taranaki DC Wednesday, 27 June 2018, 12:30 pm Press Release: NZ Supreme Court Supreme Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Mana Nui 27 JUNE 2018 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1806/S00307/fluoridation-new-health-nz-v-south-taranaki-dc.htm
5. You forgot to include the Girl Scouts in your little list of whom you claim thinks fluoride is a drug. Where does GSA stand, Bill? I mean, their opinion on the contents of drinking water supplies is every bit as relevant as that of the other groups you list.
6. What you deem you have gleaned from a perusal of the laws of some unknown state or another, could not be any more meaningless or irrelevant. How you personally define fluoride could not be any more meaningless or irrelevant. Produce a ruling from any court of last resort that water fluoridation is illegal.
7. My comment does not “suggest” there are no drugs involved with fluoridation. It states this as a fact. Whatever “poison laws” to which you refer, are a mystery.
What you personally deem to be “options” for fluoride classification is meaningless and irrelevant. Fluoride has always existed in water. It is regulated by the US EPA, as are all other contents of such water.
8. The concentration of the existing fluoride content in public water supplies is adjusted through fluoridation to that level at which has been established that maximum dental decay resistance occurs in the population served by that water, with no adverse effects upon anyone. The fluoride ions added to adjust to this level are identical to those which already exist in water. An attempt to suddenly proclaim these fluoride ions to be a “drug” is obviously ludicrous.
9. Arsenic is ubiquitous in nature. It is added to water constantly. To prevent this occurrence would be nearly impossible. The amount of arsenic which can legally exist in drinking water at the tap, is 10 parts per billion The amount of fluoride which can legally exist in drinking water at the tap is 4.0 parts per million. As long as these amounts are not exceeded there are no legal violations. Optimally fluoridated water contains 0.7 parts per million fluoride.
10. Under the US Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the EPA has complete jurisdiction over the contents of drinking water. There is no “EPA legal council ” that somehow cedes this jurisdiction to the FDA. It is a congressional mandate.
“SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. US EPA, states, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met.”
11. The FDA never “withdrew approval of fluoride supplements”. Unlike fluoride in water, fluoride supplements are retail consumables, regulated under the FDA. They are therefore subject to the “drug” label of that agency. Drugs which were already on the market prior to 1938 when the 1906 Food and Drugs Act was revised were grandfathered in under the then new regulations. The 1906 law was revised to require testing of new drugs introduced into the market after 1938. Drugs already on the market at that time with no evidence of safety concerns were considered to be safe and not required to undergo the testing for new products which had no such existing record. Fluoride supplements were already on the market then, with no reason to question their safety. To this day, here has been no credible evidence that these supplements are in any manner unsafe. Had there been, the FDA would have reevaluated its decision to grandfather the substance......as it is currently doing with caffeine, a substance which had also been grandfathered but is now being questioned due to to effects of large doses in energy drinks.
The list of grandfathered drugs is extensive and includes, along with fluoride supplements and caffeine, such commonly ingested substances as acetaminophen, aspirin and codeine.
Antifluoridationist attempts to portray the grandfathering of fluoride supplements as an indication that such substances are unsafe, are misrepresentative and dishonest.
12. Penicillin does not already exist in water as does fluoride. Introducing this drug into water supplies as you suggest would be introducing a new substance not already being ingested from the water. Penicillin also has clearly documented adverse side effects, including potentially fatal allergic reactions, which fluoride does not at the optimal level utilized in fluoridation.
13. I have not stated you to have received any payment from FAN or AEHSP. I stated that you were extensively involved with this antifluoridationist faction. Given your lack of denial that you are a former Director of FAN and your admission that you are the Chair of the AEHSP Board, which is the same Board for FAN, the extensiveness of your involvement with FAN is self-evident.
14. Seeking to undermine the most cost-effective means of dental decay prevention in entire populations based on nothing but false assertions, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation is neither ethical nor moral.
to be continued......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
15. I have no “paradigm shift”. I’m doing exactly as I said. I’m correcting the misinformation you continually post, and have no desire to “discuss dentistry, fluoride, or other issues” with you, as you proposed in your previous comment.
16. The FAN claim of what “NHANES shows” is FAN’s interpretation, not that of NHANES. You clearly admit here that moderate/severe dental fluorosis is not attributable to fluoridated water. What you are therefore seeking to do is end fluoridation due to an effect that is not attributable to this public health initiative.
17. Yes, your arguments against the NTP study are not compelling in the least. This is particularly true in view of the fact that your group promoted and blustered about this study from the very beginning, yet by some strange twist now finds it to be fraught with limitations and having utilized questionable methodologies. The no uncertain terms in which the results of the study debunked FAN’s claims, has nothing to do with this sudden shift in confidence in the NTP, I presume........
I fully agree. No one study is proof of anything. This is precisely the point fluoridation advocates have been hammering home against the cherry-picking of antifluoridationists for years. You should tell this to your FAN colleagues. They are the ones who blustered about the NTP study as one “that could end fluoridation”, who misrepresent Bashash as “proof” of neurotoxicity, and who constantly cite Bassin for their ridiculous cancer claims, while ignoring the volume of science which has clearly demonstrated just the opposite.
Your claim of 6 to 1 is typical of the unsubstantiated nonsense constantly put forth by antifluoridationists. Providing titles of studies which contain the word “fluoride” in them somewhere does not denote relevance, validity, or proper representation of the results of such studies......as the EPA made clear in its 40 page rejection of the most recent meritless FAN petition.
18. Anecdotes about what you claim the NTP told you are meaningless and irrelevance.
The ones who “pops open the champaign” were FAN and its followers who blustered about this NTP study at the beginning, only to have their champaign go completely flat when the study results didn’t go as planned......to the surprise of no one except antifluoridationists.
19. As both York 2000 and Cochrane 2015 clearly noted, RCTs on large, population-based initiatives such as water fluoridation are infeasible, and will thus never be done. Not only are the observational studies on fluoridation entirely acceptable, such studies have been clearly demonstrated to provide equally reliable results as RCTs.
“We found little evidence that estimates of treatment effects in observational studies reported after 1984 are either consistently larger than or qualitatively different from those obtained in randomized, controlled trials.”
—-A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled Trials
Kjell Benson, B.A., and Arthur J. Hartz, M.D., Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1878-1886
“However, empirical proof that observational studies of treatment are widely off the mark has been surprisingly elusive.2 Four meta-analyses contrasting RCTs and observational studies of treatment found no large systematic differences (Benson 2000, Concato 2000, MacLehose 2000, Ioannidis 2001).”
—-Why do the results of randomised and observational studies differ?
BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7020 (Published 07 November 2011)
20. Perhaps it is you who “should read the NZ court case again”.....or actually read for the first time, which your comments indicate you have not yet done. If you did, then maybe you would cease misrepresenting it. That aside, it’s interesting that you attempt to base your “choice” argument on one court case in New Zealand given that you previously professed the inadvisability of relying upon “one single study”. I rest my case about the cherry-picking of antifluoridationists.
You have the option of purchasing fluoride-free bottled water, utilizing an RO filter, utilizing rain water, obtaining water from rivers and streams.....
Options are choices. Inconvenience does not equate to force. You are free to consume fluoridated water, or to obtain fluoride-free water from other sources. Entirely your choice.
21. Your “bottom line”:
a. Your personal opinion as to whom is ingesting what is unsubstantiated, unquantified, and does not demonstrate harm from optimally fluoridated water. It is certainly not a reason to deprive entire populations of the very valuable disease preventive benefits of this public health initiative.
b. The dose of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled. For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not of concern in regard to adverse effects. Before this level could be attained from ingesting optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with fluoride intake from all other normal sources of fluoride, water toxicity would be concern, not fluoride.
This is true not only for fluoride but for chlorine, ammonia, and the myriad other substances routinely added to public water supplies.
c. There are no “freedom of choice” issues involved with water fluoridation. You are free to consume it or not. Entirely your choice.
d. The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.
—-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
Additionally, topical effects of fluoride are made possible through its ingestion. Saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing of the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.
Further evidence of systemic benefit is provided by:
------Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
United States Centers for Disease Control
Recommendations and Reports
August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42
Additionally, in a 2014 study Cho, et al. found:
-----Systemic effect of water ﬂuoridation on dental caries prevalence
Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
---Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2011, vol 22, pp 97–114
e. Unsubstantiated claims about some phantom studies existing somewhere or another....are meaningless and irrelevant.
f. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any sensitivity to fluoride at the optimal level.
G. Your “greatest blunder” in regard to this issue is a failure to properly educate yourself on it from reliable, respected sources of accurate information.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Science should not be treated like religion or politics. Shooting the messenger does not prove science. Historically, religions and governments shot the messenger. Science focuses on the message.
To your numbered points:
1. Please read my post again and I agree, the NZ Court ruled in favor of fluoridation. But the judges did acknowledge some key points. They did say fluoride is a medicine, although the case was not specifically on determining whether fluoride is a medicine. I'm not a lawyer. . . as you know. But I do agree that since fluoride pills are drugs, simply diluting the pill in water does not make it anything else. The intent of use makes it a drug/medicine. And important to note, the ingestion of fluoride has never gone through the drug approval process in any country.
3. The US FDA has approved fluoride topical use in toothpaste with warnings not to swallow. Drug Fact.
And the FDA testified to Congress fluoride is a drug when used with intent to prevent disease.
And NZ judges agreed fluoride is a drug. . . .
And Washington State judge agreed fluoride is a drug. . . .
And the Washington State Board of Pharmacy determined fluoride is a drug. . .
And the Idaho State Board of Pharmacy determined fluoride is a drug. . . .
The FDA is clear, their interpretation of the FD&C Act is any substance with a health (mitigation, treatment, prevention, cure of disease) claim is a drug, even a placebo is a drug and needs NDA. Dilution or efficacy is not the criteria of whether a substance is a drug. The intent of use, claim by the manufacturer for marketing defines the substance as a drug.
In all state laws which I have reviewed, fluoride fits within the definition of a highly toxic substance, poison. There are strict penalties for adding poisons to water. However, there are two exemptions to poison laws, when they are regulated under pesticide or drug laws.
Your comment suggests there are no drugs involved with fluoridation. OK, then the law gives the choice of either fluoride is regulated as a pesticide or a poison. Which would you prefer? Drug, pesticide, or poison? There are no other options. Fluoride is not a food and is not added to treat water. Fluoride is not added to treat water and make it safer, rather fluoride is added with the intent to prevent disease in humans. Just because arsenic naturally occurs in water does not mean a person could legally add more arsenic.
The EPA legal council clearly stated the addition of fluoride to water is under the jurisdiction of the FDA. And the FDA said the EPA has responsibility. You have suggested the FDA has no problem with fluoride in water. Really? Has anyone tried to get a New Drug Approval (NDA) from the FDA for fluoride diluted in water. Fluoride added to bottled water did not go through the NDA process and receive approval. The FDA did not evaluate any science on the efficacy or safety of fluoride. The FDA was notified of a health claim that was going to be put on bottled water based on other government agencies supporting fluoride ingestion. The FDA and EPA avoid fluoride regulation due to politics, not science.
And what about fluoride supplements? We know full well the FDA withdrew approval of fluoride supplements because the evidence of efficacy was incomplete. Swallowing fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries has never been approved with a NDA.
Suppose we add a small amount of penacillin to water with a claim the water helped prevent bacterial infections? Certainly we would need FDA NDA.
4. FAN. I have never received any money from FAN or AEHSP. I am a volunteer. Ethically and morally I am trying to stop my patients and humans from being harmed.
5. You wrote, " I have no desire to talk about, “dentistry, fluoride, or other issues” with you. I simply correct the misinformation you post." Sounds like you are doing what you don't want to do. A paradigm shift can be uncomfortable.
7. Dental fluorosis. You have suggested the only dental fluorosis associated with "optimally" fluoridated water is mild to very mild. Then why does the NHANES 2010-2011 CDC survey in the USA show 20% of adolescents with moderate/severe dental fluorosis. I would agree if a person only received fluoride from fluoridated water, we would not see moderate/severe cases of dental fluorosis.
Do you disagree with the NHANES survey? Why? Where are they wrong? What are the other sources of fluoride? Or is the dental fluorosis due to synergistic chemical effects? The huge increases in dental fluorosis should be alarming to everyone.
And what sources of fluoride should be reduced to lower the risk of harm? Fluoride pesticides?
Fluoride added to water? HHS suggested lowering the fluoride concentration in water, which was a good start, but not enough.
8. NTP study. You don't find my arguments compelling? Well, for scientists, no single study is proof of anything. We evaluate the weight of evidence, the quality of studies. The NTP only did one study. We can't hang our hats and declare ingestion of fluoride is safe for the developing brain, based on one study. There are some human studies which have found no harm to the brain. But for every study which did not find harm to the brain there are more than six which have found harm. And as we are still in the infancy of studying the fluoride/brain relationship, the research is becoming more focused and of higher quality. Several studies a year on humans are being published and the vast majority report harm at ever lower dosages.
The relavance of what the NTP told me is important. They are not finished with their report. Perhaps one should wait for them to finish their report before one pops open the champaign.
9. Yes, I maintain so little quality research on fluoride has been done. Not a single prospective randomized controlled trial on fluoridation or fluoride ingestion with the intent to prevent dental caries. You mention 50,000 studies in your search. Yet not one RCT???? They can be done and maybe they have and found no benefit.
Yes, fluoride has been used to cause cancer in animals so new cancer drugs can be tested. But those kinds of studies do not prove fluoride is either safe or effective.
10. You have suggested ingesting fluoridated water is my choice. Perhaps you should read the NZ court case again. The judges found one could not avoid fluoridated water, they did not agree fluoridated water is an individual's choice.
For me, the bottom line is:
1. Too many are ingesting too much fluoride. (NHANES and EPA)
2. Dosage of water is highly variable, some drinking very little and some drinking a great deal. Distribution of any substance without control of dosage is problematic.
3. Freedom of choice is violated.
4. Fluoride's effect is primarily topical, not systemic.
5. Many studies report risks to most cells and systems of the body.
6. Some individuals are chemically very sensitive.
Fluoridation is one of my professions greatest blunders.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Two more points. Yes there is no Constitutional right for anyone to decide what the chemical composition of their drlnkin water is--that is not specifically itemized in the Constitution. So why then do fluoride promoters presume the right to force homeowners to accept water treaed with exogenous fluoride from fluosilci cacid waste? There is no Constitutional right for it.
Second, the NRC concluded that the current EPA allowed maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water is not fully protecifve of human health and should be lowered (p. 352). This is because longterm fluoride intake at that level is known to cause stage II skeletal fluorosis. The tabulated data indicaed bone pain at levels far lower than the aveage lbone level listed in the text for cuasing bone pain.
And the secondary macimum contaminant level also was concluded to not completely prevent modeate dental ene mal fluorosis (which is enamel hypoplasia).
The committee was not allowed to evaluate water fluoridation at 1 ppm but did publish much daa of advese heatlh effects in consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water. At this concentration, parathryod hormone and calcitonin are both elevated in consumers, as is thyroid stimulating hormone particularly in those with insufficient dietary iodine, and ingested fluoride at any concentration accumulates in bone, forms bone of poor qualit,y and is not removable with normal biochemical mechanisms.
It is a straightforward fact that the final NRC opinion was that the EPA's maximal allowed fluoride of 4 ppm (nearly 6x higher than fluoridation) protects human health from disease save for severe enamel fluorosis.
Anyone who wants to verify exactly what the NRC concluded can listen to the summarization in this press conference:
Bill, first of all, you need to cease attempting the “poor victim” tactic of claiming personal attacks when there are none. Such tactics do not belong in intelligent discourse. Attacking the misinformation you post does not constitute a personal attack, and the posting of false claims and misinformation does not make you a “messenger”.
1. As I have clearly stated, the out-of-context quote you posted is nothing but the personal opinions of 3 justices of the NZ Supreme Court, while you conveniently omitted the opinion of another, which differed from those 3. Such opinions are just that....opinions. They carry no more weight than do the opinions of anyone else, and confirm nothing. What does confirm, and carry the weight of law, is the ruling by these justices that the arguments made to overturn the lower court rulings against the antifluoridationists were without merit, that the appeal was rejected, and that the lower rulings stand.
There is nothing accurate about posting out-of-context quotes and implying them to be legal rulings.
2. What you personally call anything is irrelevant, and does not represent what “In the USA we call” anything, whatsoever. Your personal nomenclature has no bearing on this discussion.
3. There are no drugs involved in water fluoridation, thus, there is no “drug approval process” necessary for this initiative.
The US FDA has no jurisdiction over the content of drinking water supplies. What the FDA approves or does not approve has no relevance to optimal level fluoride in public water supplies. This is fact.
That said, the FDA does have jurisdiction over consumable retail products. This includes fluoridated bottled water. The FDA has approved the following claim to be made about this water: “Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay].”
Obviously, the FDA has no problem with fluoride in water at the appropriate concentration. It is a mystery as to why you believe they do.
4. Yes, I’m aware that Paul Connett has recently resumed the position of FAN Director from which he had retired. Do you deny that you were the Director, or Interim Director, of FAN during a portion of the time after he retired?
Given that the AEHSP has no apparent function other than to cloak FAN, thereby keeping FAN finances hidden from public scrutiny, and that the Board of Directors of AEHSP is the same as that for FAN, your extensive involvement with that antifluoridationist group is clear.
5. I have no desire to talk about, “dentistry, fluoride, or other issues” with you. I simply correct the misinformation you post.
6. Your obsession with people attacking other people is somewhat bizarre, as I see no evidence of that occurring here.
7. The only dental fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. This level of dental fluorosis requires no treatment. If you are cutting down mildly fluorosed teeth and placing veneers as you have implied in the past needs to be done for such teeth, then you are arguably committing malpractice and your state dental board should be notified.
8. While I appreciate your being the sole FAN associate having the courage to finally comment on the NTP study, your arguments against it are not very compelling, to say the least.
A. First of all, the result of the initial NTP literature review was not “ ‘moderate’ evidence of developmental neurotoxicity from fluoride.” as you claim. It was a reported finding of moderate level of evidence suggesting adverse cognitive effect in animals exposed to fluoride as adults, and low level of evidence suggesting cognitive impairment in animals exposed during development. Given that you, yourself, claim in this comment that “it would seem reasonable to test the effects of fluoride when the neurological system was in its most critical developmental phases.”, then the lowest level of evidence for cognitive impairment was in the group you admit to being the most critical.
B. That you are not aware of any animals “more resistant to the effects of fluoride than the one they chose” is not a very convincing argument. Assumedly, you are not an expert in the physiology and pharmacokinetics of rats relative to all other animals.
C. You instigated the NTP review. FAN touted and promoted the study, lavishing praise onto the “cutting edge scientific tools” and integrity which the NTP would employ in this study. Now that the results of the study found no evidence to support FAN claims of neurotoxicity or other purported adverse effects of fluoride in these animals, you deem the study to have had serious limitations, and the methodology of the NTP researchers to have been flawed.
Hmmm......Perhaps you should have found a more competent and reliable toxicology program than the NTP to have performed the study you requested. Oh, wait.....there is no such entity.
D. Anecdotal claims about what the NTP told you really have no relevance at this point.
9. There is no medicine involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. Your claim of “so little research” could not be any more ludicrous. Water fluoridation has been the most studied public health initiative in history. PubMed lists over 50,000 studies on fluoride.
“So little research”?? Seriously, Bill?
10. Your consent is not required for local officials to approve the concentration level of existing fluoride in public water supplies under their jurisdiction. If you don’t want to consume such water, then don’t. Entirely your choice.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Yes I agree with you the court dismissed the cases. However, I think you will agree that the quote I cut and pasted that fluoridation is a medicine, is accurate.
In the USA we call medicines . . . drugs. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has jurisdiction over drugs in the USA and has not approved the ingestion of fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries. . . no NDA . . . no drug approval process.
Why have proponents never received FDA approval to ingest the fluoride drug? FDA has rejected approval because the evidence of efficacy is "incomplete." The FDA calls unapproved drugs "illegal."
When people attack the messenger, it is a loud statement they don't have the evidence to counter the message.
Paul Connett PhD is Director of FAN. I'm too busy treating patients. . . some with dental fluorosis. I am Board Chair of the organization (AEHSP) over FAN. If you want to talk about dentistry, fluoride or other issues, I'm with you. If you want to attack people, I'm not interested.
You asked about the NTP study. Good question. Three steps to their review. The first part of the NTP review was available animal studies. The result was "moderate" evidence of developmental neurotoxicity from fluoride.
Second, NTP proposed to do research to fill in one or more gaps in the animal research. The resulting NTP study is the study you are refering to and I will comment on it below.
Third part of the report is a review of the human research. The human research review was to come out late 2017 and did not. I contacted NTP and was told Spring of 2018. We are not past Spring and I expect the report anytime. Why the delay? The NTP told me that should the human research also show a "moderate" risk, both animal and human moderates would indicate fluoride is designated as a developmental neurotoxicant.
You ask specifically about the animal study NTP did on animals. The study has serious limitations, in my opinion. A big one was the choice of animals. I don't know of any animal more resistant to the effects of fluoride than the one they chose. The second item I objected to in their study was the age of the animals tested.
Because the testing was for "developmental neurotoxic" effects, it would seem reasonable to test the effects of fluoride when the neurological system was in its most critical developmental phases. Avoiding giving fluoride to the animals while during the development of the neurologic system would make no sense. NTP started the study after the animals were weened. In other words, prenatal and early development of the neurologic system was not included in the study. Many children get a huge dose of fluoride when fluoridated water is mixed with formula rather than breast fed (mother's milk contains almost no fluoride.)
The study is not without merit, simply has limitations. In fact, the results help us focus on the possibility of the most harm happening during early exposure, consistent with the Bashash human study and others. If we are going to test the effect of fluoride on development, the fluoride should be given during development. . . wouldn't you agree? And because fluoride affects the genetic systems, a good study would start prior to conception and the development of the sperm and egg in dad and mom.
So much to learn about fluoride which science has not even begun to explore. Sad that tradition forces people to ingest a medicine with so little research which has had mixed results.
I do not give my consent to be medicated with fluoridated water.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH