Reply
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! 

61,140 Views
1462
Report
Conversationalist

Richard, your spelling is deteriorating.

You, of course, have backed away with vague comments like "brief interval." But, in fact, that interval is about 1 hr. so that eating and drinking throughout the day helps to maintain a protective concentration of F in saliva.

You have to be living a hermit life scientifically to claim there is no evidence that fluoride plays a protective role or to ignore the clear differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated populations in simple regional and ethnic areas of a country.

Making such a claim just indicates how strongly ideology prevents you from seeing the bleeding obvious.


0 Kudos
1,132 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Ken,

 

Am I to understand you are suggesting that if a person eats or drinks about every hour, the fluoride in the beverage and food protects against tooth decay?

 

Would you provide references?

 

What research do you rely on to show, as you say, "a clear differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated populations in simple regional and ethnic areas of a country." 

 

As a dentist, I have attributed fluoride as beneficial because that is what I was taught in school.  However, a simple comparison between states, or counties, or provinces of Canada when they are ranked on their whole population fluoridated, does not show a clear benefit from fluoridation.  Indeed, there is a very clear difference in caries based on socioeconomics, but not fluoridation.  

 

And the studies I have seen show very little diffeerence and have serious confounding issues which were not considered.  

 

Again, fluoride might have a benefit but detecting any benefit on a population basis is simply not clear.  Perhaps due to the excess fluoride from other sources, but benefit from fluoridation is not based on good science.  

 

I took CDC and HHS data and ranked the 50 states on the percentage of their whole population fluoridated and percentage of each state reporting the percentage of "good or excellent" teeth.   You can see by the dark blue line below that one state had almost no fluoridation and one had almost everyone.   

 

You can see the pink ranking of tooth decay for the more wealthy is about 82% and the poor, although not as consistent, is about 55%.   Clearly the wealthy report better oral health.

 

Consider the effect of fluoridation.  We do not see any common cause between fluoridation and good teeth.

 

The evidence of a public health benefit must be measured in the public at large.  

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

50 states comparison.jpg

Conversationalist

Bill, I feel the need to warn you that I am the Ken who you blocked on social media in an attempt to close down a discussion. I will understand if you now retreat from this one.

However, it is surely hypocritical to block me on social media and then expect to enter into a discussion with me here.

The question of persistence of calcium, phosphate and fluoride transferred to saliva and plaque from food was discussed in my exchange with Paul Connett. I suggest you refer to that for citations (I am away from home on holiday at the moment so do not feel like doing that search for you - ex=specially with your blocking behaviour.)

As for studies showing the efficacy of CWF, you could start with the Cochrane review. If you argue about quality, etc.. then I challenge you to provide a citation of higher quality showing no benefits - particular a replicated, blinded controlled study. The ball is in your court.

No, the pathetic graphs Connett's crowd produce comparing changes in tooth decay prevalence in various countries from WHO data does not qualify as a study, let alone a reputable one. There is nothing new in your observation of socioeconomic effects. Nor is there anything new in ethnic effects showing up in health statistics. 

I have often shown the New Zealand data shows a clear difference when ethnic effects are removed (something the anti-fluoride activists locally dishonestly refuse to do. And the NZ Oral Health Survey used populations selected to balance out socioeconomic and ethnic differences and showed a clear difference.

I honestly cannit get my head around anyone who pretends to have any authority on this subject making the claims you do.

Bronze Conversationalist

Many dentists believe and state that lack of fluoride increases caries incidence. Like the yiamouyiannis claim on Aids this claim is also false r. Caries,are,caused by bacterial acids subsequent to growth from sugary foods left on teeth.

But dentists can be wrong about this while still being correct about other things they ro.

Ditto john yiamouyianns.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

Ken P.,

Still referring to  C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

Your comment, “Pyromorphite is usually the Cl compound Pb5(PO4)3Cl. Yes, isomorphous substitution occurs but what surprises me is that there are no analytical data given in this section for F. See table C27, page C106. This makes me suspect the pyromorphite identified by XRD is not the fluoride analogue but more likey a Cl, phosphate, OH analogue.

The description of pyromorphite as the fluoride analogue in Table C26 appears to be a mistake. If the authors seriously suggested it was a fluoride analogue they would have provided analytical data for F, not Cl. I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

end your comment

Yes I noticed no analytical data for F on page C106, unfortunate but not conclusive.  How can you speculate what the authors intended or not? This does not mean the data clearly labeled as fluoropromorphite is a ‘Mistake”.  Figure C.95 clearly labels dominant peaks of pyromorphite, Pm =fluoropyromorphite.
Table C26 has at the top of the column “Pb5F(PO4)3” and when listing various forms of pyromorphite on page C-107, why X=F is mentioned first before Cl or OH? Not Alphabetical? By most abundant?

 

Where is the statement you said is in the report, “fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common." ” ?

 

Unless you get the authors' of this report to correct their "mistakes", I stand by my statement the scales were mainly compounds of fluoride.

Conversationalist

Sorry skanen144, I missed this comment before. I have now answered your question about the location of the comment about rarity.

I am not speculating about what the authors intended - just drawing conclusions from the information they provided. The XRD pattern identifies the crystalline species present but not the composition. It especially would not identify the relative amounts of OH, Cl and F in the structure (although a fine structure analysis might go part way). The Chloro form is most common but one would expect a reasonable amount of OH in the real-life pyromorphite - and some F if any is present in solution.

But it would be completely unreasonable to attribute the XRD peak to just one pure end member analogue, and even more unreasonable to attribute it to a pure end member F analogue.

You are welcome to "stand by" your statement - no skin off my nose. I am just saying it is not warranted by the evidence. And I really have no interest in chasing up the authors - where would I have time to live if I followed up every vague statement in reports.

I am not sure what the whole point if this pointing to pyromorphite scales after phosphate treatment is, anyway.

Bronze Conversationalist

the point is that fluoridation is not the operation that somehow magically only decreases teeth caries while having no effect whatsoever on people or plumbing parts or anyting else, like fluoridationists claim. One water district official argued that the quality of rhe watrer is totally intact and unaffected by fluoride. I merely said if that is the case then why bother to add it?  He quit his job within a week.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

These reports are whole country averages in fluoridated and nonfluoridated regions and cannot show the effect of fluoride in impairing death rate declines. Yiamouyiannis used well controlled city cases.

For,example look at population growth in the whole world from the 20th century and you could conclude there ,was never a world war  because of the ever increasing population. But if you just look at countries that were involved in the war the populatuon showed an overaall huge dip because there indeed was a WWII with massive deaths.

The,examples,here are all factual but the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down.

The yiamouyiannis  data does show the impairment. Whole country averages mask the effect. And of course fluoridationists use that to denigrate the yiamouyannis study.

John was giving an early opinion on AIDS that was incorrect. What expert is never wrong?  Being wrong on something else does  not negate the correctness of an actusl study done properly.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Richard,

 

Still trying to fear-monger using a pamphlet whose author (the guy who said HIV doesn't lead to Aids) was discredited by reputable organizations in the last century. 

 

Your quote:   "These reports are whole country averages in fluoridated and nonfluoridated regions and cannot show the effect of fluoride in impairing death rate declines. Yiamouyiannis used well controlled city cases."

 

Of Yiamouyiannis' work, the National Cancer Institute said, "The National Cancer Institute, whose figures are cited in the Federation report, in March noted errors, omissions, and statistical distortions in the Federation report and stated that "Results of this analysis fail to support any suspicion of hazard associated with fluoridation."   Please, take a look.   -  https://www.dentalwatch.org/usphs/fl-76.pdf  Your argument is with the National Cancer Institute, not with me.

 

I'm confused by this quote from you --  "the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down."

Odd you would say that, since you are the one who brought up cancer mortality rates in the first place, (Timestamp ‎02-18-2019 01:28 PM)  . . and you're a really smart guy, . . so if "cancer survival" is irrelevant because of improved treatment, as you are saying now when presented with valid current data, why would you even bring it up in the first place?  

Bronze Conversationalist

One thing you said I agree with, that is you are totally confused about my quote. 

I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them.

To help your confusion:  Yiamouyiannis carefully examined pre and post fluoridation data on cancer mortiality in cities in the U.S. In all cases, the decline in cancer mortality incidence that occurred in all cities was slowed by fluoridation. So, again, the idea that others have somehow proven that fluoridation does not impair the decline in cancer mortality is absurd. The cancer statistics you provided are for the whole country and do not separate fluoridated from non fluoridated people. So of course cancer overall incidence declines will be found due to improved detection and treatment. 

But fluoridation interferes with one's ablity to fight cancer because fluoride is a toxic foreign substance in man and the rate of decline of cancer mortality incidence is not as great in fluoridated cities. This has all been thoroughly vetted in several court trials by epidemiologist experts. You can choose to believe who you want because of your desires. i choose to stick with the actual data from observations that were well done to address the specific question. 

Please stop spreading your confusion to everyone else.

And I don't scaremonger. If fluoridated water is all you have to drink in the middle of the desert, then drink it.  But if you expect me to hide the truth about its long term ingestion you are barking up the wrong tree. i don't lie, to my family, friends, or anyone else.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, still at it I see.  

 

Your quote:  "I did not say that cancer survival was irrelevant. It must be nice to change peoples' words to have the luxury of criticizing and demeaning them."

 

Response:  Before you play the victim here, slow down and take a look at what you said:  "the notion that fluoridation does not affect cancer survival is not proven by the presented data. That suggests improved detrction and treatment methods are helping to bring rates,down."

My response to that was:  "so if "cancer survival" is irrelevant because of improved treatment, as you are saying . . "

 

As you seem to have limited capacity, yes, you said  current data which shows cancer rates are declining (that would be cancer survival) is irrelevant to the fact that the practice of water fluoridation is increasing.  You said this is because of improved treatment methods . . . which begged the question, why did you bring it up in the first place.

 

It must be nice to live in a world in which you can absorb half a thought, take it out of context, and then pretend that you are some sort of victim.

Bronze Conversationalist

What  if cancer mortality incidence dropped from 7 million to 4  million per year due to improved detection/treatment methods somewhere. If fluoridation were nonexistent then the rate could have went from 7 to 3 million. But fluoridation is present and the rate of decline is not as great because of it (Yiammouyianas finding).

Your claim that fluoridation is irrelevant in affecting mortality incidence is not proven by the data you presented. No one looked at fluoridated vs non fluoridated regions so the effect would not be recognized. You cant see what you don't look for. A snake under a rock is never seen unless you roll over the rock.

Why is this so difficult for you?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Yes and in the real world in a city with 1 ppm fluoride water, in the 21st century, ,eating and drinking modern foods  and beverages , the average fluoride level in saliva is 0.016 ppm. Do you want me to change the number the NRC 2006 Report published??

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

Richard, I think I have done enough for the average intelligent person to understand. For somene to insit of thinking freshly excreted saliva before eating and drinking is relevant to someone eating food and drinking beverages requires a level of intellectual stubbornness which makes rational discussion impossible.

But you are welcome to provide the citations for measurement of saliva chemical concentrations for someone actively drinking and eating if you can.

Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride from saliva on fluoridated cities bathes teeth 24 jours a day, sll without any use. Fluoride from foods and beverages are also not near 500  ppm and ate not present on teeth 24 hours a day like saliva.

 Water fluoride is 0.7 ppm and also resides on teeth during swallowing and soon replaced with saliva.. So what? I try to eat foods devoid of fluoride to protect bone accumulation of fluoride which far more difficult in a forced fluoridated region. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

Richard, please stop squirming in an attempt to avoid the established science. Whether or not the slightly elevated F content of freshly excreted saliva has an influence or not is not at issue.

We are discussing the real world saliva which during the day contains fluoride, phosphate and calcium directly obtained from food and beverage. And also from toothpaste use and CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity. This has absolutely nothing to do with freshly excreted saliva - please stop trying to confuse the issue.

Whether or not you attempt to avoid F in food is also irrelevant. The established fact remains that in communities with water fluoridation tooth decay is reduced and the science indicates that with existing teeth this arises from the surface reactions involving phosphate, calcium and fluoride in saliva.

Bronze Conversationalist

Virtually the entire state of Nebraska voted against fluoridation and that had nothing to do with me either. The cities of Portland, Wichita, Albuquerque, Prince George Canada, and on and on have done the same. Some people have rational brains and trake care of their fresh water supplies.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923-2018)

 

What we are talking about is the immorality of adding a poison to municipal water supplies based on a 1940s assumption that an arbitrarily determined concentration of it is not harmful when consumed in any dose by everyone from pregnant women to senior citizens with kidney disease. 

 

What we are talking about is the arrogance of fluoridationists who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & public into compliance. 

 

What we are talking about is the stupidity of assuming our attempts to pH balance water systems and our fluoridation mechanisms don't fail resulting in permanent damage to people, plpes and planet. 

 

Fluoridation is medically contraindicated or ill advised for millions, including pregnant women, bottle fed babies and senior citizens.

 

  • Fluoridation adds toxins to the environment and is a false dilemma.

Buy a gallon jug for a buck if you don't believe brushing your teeth with it is enough. There is no need for cities to buy truckloads to flush 99% of it down the toilet. There is no need to cause disease, disability & premature death in millions with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid & kidney disease.

 

RECENT STUDIES: 

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE: Describes impact of fluoride-induced stress and inflammation in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and demonstrates the mechanism for cell death in its worsening over time.

- Goschorska M, et al. Potential Role of Fluoride in the Etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19 (12), 3965.

 

BRAIN INJURY: Fluoride interferes with calcium metabolism which impacts brain chemistry and poisons the hippocampus.  “The imbalance of calcium metabolism caused by fluorosis may be a pathogenesis of brain injury induced by fluoride.” 

- Qiuli Yu, Dandan Shao. Rui Zhang, Wei Ouyang, Zigui Zhang. Effects of drinking water fluorosis on L-type calcium channel of hippocampal neurons in mice. Chemosphere. Volume 220, April 2019, Pages 169-175. [Online Ahead of Print]

 

IODINE-THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities have a heightened risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine metabolism. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they are mildly hypothyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Study excluded those already diagnosed with thyroid disease.

- Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674.

 

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt). Excluded those with health conditions such as kidney disease as well as considered confounding factors such as tea consumption. 

- Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. October 2018. 

 

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4% of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride due to consumption of products made with fluoridated water. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, which is associated with increased incidence of learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. 

- Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018.

 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children were individually tested. Study found attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride specific to dose. This is the 3rd report out of the NIH sponsored 12 year study that seems to have been designed with the intention of showing no ill effect, but instead has three times confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. Excluded those with history of mental illness or conditions such as diabetes and renal disease. 

- Morteza Bashash, Maelle Marchand, Howard Hu, ChristineTill, Angeles Martinez-Mier, Brisa N. Sanchez, Niladri Basu, Karen Peterson, Rivka Green, Lourdes Schnaas, Adriana Mercado-García, Mauricio Hernández-Avila, Martha María Téllez-Rojo. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 658-666.

 

IQ: Validated that IQs of children are lowered on a dose-response trend line correlated with the amount of fluoride exposure as measured via urine tests of their mothers during pregnancy and individualized IQ tests of offspring. In the range consistent with doses in optimally fluoridated communities, there was up to a 6 point difference in IQ. This NIH sponsored 12 year longitudinal study excluded diabetics as well as those with kidney disease or pregnancy complications and allowed for many confounders. 

- Morteza Bashash, Deena Thomas, Howard Hu, et al. Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico. Environ Health Perspect. Sept 2017. Vol 125, Issue 9.

 

 

 

 

 

Conversationalist

CarryAnne you express concern about people who "who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance" And then you post a long list of claims related to scientific studies which would be interesting to discuss and discuss in a respectful way.

 

I am prepared to offer you full right of reply in an ongoing exchange of scientific opinion on all the claims you make here (they are far too extensive to discuss rationally in this forum). This could be done by alternating articles on my blog Open Parachute.

 

Paul Connett and I carried out such a good faith scientific exchange 5 years ago and covered these sort of claims in detail. it was well received by readers and is available as a pdf to download - Connett & Perrott (2014) The Fluoride Debate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate

Would you agree to a similar exchange with me? I think this would overcome charges of science denial, denigration and bullying. And the formal scientific nature of the exchange will encourage it to be respectful.


Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in such a scientific exchange - and if so, some way of contacting you to make the arrangements.


Conversationalist

CarryAnne you express concern about people who "who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance" And then you post a long list of claims related to scientific studies which would be interesting to discuss and discuss in a respectful way.

 

I am prepared to offer you full right of reply in an ongoing exchange of scientific opinion on all the claims you make here (they are far too extensive to discuss rationally in this forum). This could be done by alternating articles on my blog Open Parachute.

 

Paul Connett and I carried out such a good faith scientific exchange 5 years ago and covered these sort of claims in detail. it was well received by readers and is available as a pdf to download - Connett & Perrott (2014) The Fluoride Debate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate

Would you agree to a similar exchange with me? I think this would overcome charges of science denial, denigration and bullying. And the formal scientific nature of the exchange will encourage it to be respectful.


Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in such a scientific exchange - and if so, some way of contacting you to make the arrangements.


Conversationalist

CarryAnne you express concern about people who "who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance" And then you post a long list of claims related to scientific studies which would be interesting to discuss and discuss in a respectful way.

 

I am prepared to offer you full right of reply in an ongoing exchange of scientific opinion on all the claims you make here (they are far too extensive to discuss rationally in this forum). This could be done by alternating articles on my blog Open Parachute.

 

Paul Connett and I carried out such a good faith scientific exchange 5 years ago and covered these sort of claims in detail. it was well received by readers and is available as a pdf to download - Connett & Perrott (2014) The Fluoride Debate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate

Would you agree to a similar exchange with me? I think this would overcome charges of science denial, denigration and bullying. And the formal scientific nature of the exchange will encourage it to be respectful.


Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in such a scientific exchange - and if so, some way of contacting you to make the arrangements.


Bronze Conversationalist

Well, "Carrie Anne,"  this is an interesting comment from you:

 

"What we are talking about is the arrogance of fluoridationists who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance."

 

It is interesting in light of the fact that you began this thread which you yourself dubbed,  "Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action."  

 

Please don't tell me you don't see the irony here.

Bronze Conversationalist

Excuse me but we need more of Carry Anne, not less.

The city of San Diego voted in two separate elections -- yes, twice-- not to add fluoridation chemicals into our pbulic water supplies. Eating fluoride should be a choice, not a police-forced mandate. And yet all SanDiego is forced to make payments for water in their kitchen sinks that is fluoridated, regardless of whether you want it or not.

Yes I see the irony.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Really, Richard?  San Diego voted twice to end CWF?  I wonder if they were dishonestly influenced by people like you.  

 

You, for example, who have said in an email to me, " in 1988 EPA published in the Federal Register            that it terminated the  agreement  it  made  in  1979  (1979  MOU)  with  FDA  to  regulate water  additives.   This  was  effective  in terminating the1979 MOU (53 FR 25586-89 to be forwarded later)."   

 

That is your quote.  You were trying to say that nobody is in charge of Community Water Fluoridation in the United States.  

 

As evidence, you presented this document:  http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/53-FR-25586.pdf     

 

I invite any readers of this thread to fully read this document.  It is about the EPA outsourcing some of its responsibilities to NSF and the private sector, which was formalized in 1988.   It has nothing to do with ending a Memorandum of Understanding between the FDA and the EPA about the authority over water fluoridation in the U.S.

 

Since you have the unwaivering habit of never admitting you are wrong about anything, I'm sure you will stand behind your ludicrous statement.  

 

So, did you, personally, have anything to do with the San Diego vote?  If so, they were misled.

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

The absurd and impossible  claim that fluoride remineraluzes teeth is false advertising.  Healthy normal rock hard translucent crystallinw teerh enamel contains no fluoriide. So how could fluoride cause it to be mineralized again? It cant. If one said calcium phossphate remineralizes teeth at least you would have a chemical argument to make..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

Yes, of course, phosphate and calcium, together with fluoide, are involved in remineralising teeth, as well as inhibiting acid attack. The scientific observation that acid attack is moved to lower pH values when fluoride is present underlines how the involvement of fluioide in saliova helps reduce acid attack but calcium and phosphate are also involved in the chemical reactions occurring at the tooth surface.

There is a natural concentration on fluoide, but there are similar research reports of calcium levels in drinking water influencing the prevalance of tooth decay. In my own research, I have seen how calcium contrations in soil solution have a dramatic effect on the solubility of fluorapatite in soil.

Tooth enamel contains a small amount of fluoride in its chemical structure. But the important fluoride for existing teeth is at the surface of the tooth and in the saliva where it is involved, together with calcium and phosphate, in the surface reactions.

That important fluoride is in the surface layer of only a few nanometres. Read my recent article on this describing the recent research showing how that surface fluoride inhibits acid attack - https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/protection-of-teeth-by-fluoride-confirmed-yet-again/ 

Bronze Conversationalist

Your article suggests that fluoride is a peripheral contaminant on the surface of teeth when it is applied at 500 ppm. This has nothing to do with water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm that produces 0.016 ppm fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically.

Further, one would need to brush teeth with 500 ppm fluoride every 20 minutes to actually retain this effect. It would be more efficient to paint teeth with white paint.Atleast theprote4citon from acid erosion would last for a while.

All this to justify increased cancer mortality, increased thyroid impairment, lowered IQ, and permanent bone accumulation forming bone of altered crystal structure and poor quality.

Count me out. .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

Richard, you are being purposely obtuse. The study I referred to was with a model apatite system, not teeth but designed to answer the question of whether the very thin surface layer with high fluoride content could provide the correction required. They used the 500 ppm solution to create the surface layer in their model - but this surface layer in existing teeth has been recognised before.

You continue to refer back to the 0.016 ppm F in saliva from INGESTED F - freshly excreted saliva without any interaction with food and beverage. You purposely attempt to confuse the issue because you know very well I have been discussing saliva with fluoride, calcium and phosphate levels which are far higher because of exposure to beverage and food during eating. Also to F released from CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity.

Please stop attempting this confusion - which seems quite common from people trying to deny the science. Paul Connett got to the stage of arguing that when one drank water there was no way it made contact with saliva in the mouth!!

Yes, the level of salivary chemical species like fluoride, calcium and phosphate does decline quite rapidly - that is why research shows that drinking fluoridated water has a protective effect above and beyond the use of fluoridated toothpaste once or twice a day

I just hope you can reduce these deliberate attempts at diversion and confusion as they make good faith scientific exchange impossible.

Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, your quote:  "All this to justify increased cancer mortality,"

 

Response:  While water fluoridation is increasing in this country,  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/FSGrowth.htm

cancer mortality is declining.  https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.html

 

No doubt you will try to defend your comment, even in the face of reality.  Poor Richard.

Bronze Conversationalist

I am not "poor".  I am merely aware of the data from the text Fluoride the Aging Factor by biochemist John Yiamouyiannis. I do not dispute the data like fluoridationists do. It is valid and was used in several court cases to demonstrate that cities before fluoridation had diminishing cancer mortality at a much faster rate than after fluoridation began.. 

What else do you want me to say?  Denounce the data?

No thanks.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

To our Online Community Members,

We wanted to let you know that our Community Guidelines and Terms of Service have been updated. The changes are intended to foster more civil discussions in AARP’s online communities. The issues discussed in these communities – including healthcare, retirement and politics – are serious and stir up strong emotions. We should have spirited debates about all of them, but those debates should always be respectful, on topic and fact based. We will be applying these standards in our online communities as we work together, with all of you, to address the challenges that face older Americans. Thank you.


AARP Membership Flash Sale

AARP Games

Throw it back and play Atari's Missile Command. Grab your arsenal to neutralize your enemy and protect your cities from a missile attack. You got this!

AARP Games Atari Missile Command

Your Daily Puzzle

Enjoy our interactive brain-teasers and treat yourself to some mental gymnastics. Try one today.

Your Daily Puzzle