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! 

52,010 Views
1449
Report
Regular Contributor

This is simply mistaken, there is no such law. . My challenge remains . . if you believe this is the law go to court and have it inforced. The last time I checked, courts are obligated to follow whatever the law actually is and if any disagrees, the decision can be appealed.

100% of the time such actions in the US have lost.

Here are some quotations from the decision which currently governs the matter in Oregon: (Baer v City of Bend).

"the fluoridation measure passes the test of reasonableness."

(fluoridation is) "no more practicing medicine or dentistry or manufacturing, preparing, compounding or selling a drug, than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet."

"But the liberty secured by the Constitution ..does not import an absolute right in each person to be ..wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good."

"Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy."

"Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own regardless of the injury that may be done to others."
0
Kudos
7286
Views
1,001 Views
11
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

A couple good responses to your good questions on "legal" and "NSF."

 

I would agree with you, most US court cases have ruled in favor of fluoridation, but not all.  And certainly international courts have not been as good to fluoridation.  But they have not wrestled and ruled on the science.

 

Those two issues of (A) courts and (B) NSF are too big to cover here, but I will touch on both with a few more points from others.

 

(A)    Courts generally support governments, so those harmed with excess fluoride have a higher standard to gain.  

 

1.   As you may know, like a scientific study, courts try to focus on one variable and often it ends up to be a war of court terms rather than the benefits and risks.  Only one case I know of, considered the science and that court ruled in favor of the science and opposed to fluoridation.  On appeal the science was not reviewed.

 

2.   The EPA approved SF for a post-harvest fumigant with residual concentrations up to, for example, dried egg of 900 ppm, similar to toothpaste.  Most dried egg is fed to children and seniors in schools and retirement homes. . . the most vulnerable.  On petition, an administrative judge ruled against the EPA on all counts.  Seeing the serious loss, Dow Agro went around the EPA and had Congress approve SF as a post-harvest fumigant.  Doesn't mean it is safe, just means money makes laws.  The politicians I talked to did not realize what they had signed.

 

3.   The court is currently reviewing fluoride in a TSCA suite.  We shall see how that plays out in a year or so. 

 

(B)  Regarding NSF.   

1.  NSF is a private company and documentation is not available to the public.  We don't know how "honest" NSF presents their data.

 

2.  NSF had a rule that permitted contaminants in a product, limiting the contaminant to 10% of the EPA's MCL added to the water.   Sounds simple enough.  10% of EPA's 4 mg/L MCL for fluoride would be 0.4 ppm.   NSF would therefore permit fluoridation up to 0.4 ppm.  

 

So I called NSF and asked them about the rule.  They agreed and explained it to me as I have to you.  I then asked why NSF permitted fluoridation to 1.2 ppm?   Silence.  They said they would call me back and did not.  I called a week later and asked again.  The person I talked to said the 10% applies to contaminants in the product, not the product itself.

 

I asked, "if we called fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by a different name, would it be limited to 0.4 ppm?"  NSF responded, "well yes."

 

Since then, NSF has made an exeption to fluoride.    And exceptions for fluoride are what we see with all regulatory agencies, such as the EPA, CDC, FDA, and others.  The rules are written and changed not based on science alone, but on politics and money.   When it comes to fluoride, NSF protects the fluoride manufacturers and those purchasing the fluoride.   Their decision is not based on science or health.  Their data is not open for public review.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH  

0 Kudos
1,064 Views
9
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

A couple good responses to your good questions on "legal" and "NSF."

 

I would agree with you, most US court cases have ruled in favor of fluoridation, but not all.  And certainly international courts have not been as good to fluoridation.  Few have wrestled and ruled on the science.

 

Those two issues of (A) courts and (B) NSF are too big to cover here, but I will add to other posts.

 

(A)    Courts generally support governments, so those harmed with excess fluoride have a higher standard to gain.    (Courts took years to rule against tobacco, long after science was firm.)

 

1.   As you may know, like a scientific study, courts try to focus on one variable and often it ends up to be a war of court terms rather than the benefits and risks of fluoride.  Only one case I know of, considered the science and that court ruled in favor of the science which is opposed to humans ingesting more fluoride. . . fluoridation.  On appeal the science was not reviewed.

 

2.   The EPA approved SF for a post-harvest fumigant with residual concentrations up to, for example, dried egg of 900 ppm, similar to toothpaste.  Most dried egg is fed to children and seniors in schools and retirement homes. . . the most vulnerable.  On petition, an administrative judge ruled against the EPA on all counts.  Seeing the serious loss, Dow Agro went around the EPA and had Congress approve SF as a post-harvest fumigant in the Farm Bill.  Doesn't mean SF is safe, just means money makes laws.  The politicians I talked to did not realize what they had signed.

 

3.   The court is currently reviewing fluoride in a TSCA suite.  We shall see how that plays out in a year or so.   The neurotoxicity of fluoride is central.

 

(B)  Regarding NSF.   Do not trust NSF to evaluate the safety or efficacy of fluoride ingestion.

1.  NSF is a private company and documentation is not available to the public.  We don't know how "honest" NSF presents their data.  And what we know is a concern.

 

2.  NSF had a rule that permitted contaminants in a product, limiting the contaminant to 10% of the EPA's MCL added to the water.   Sounds simple enough.  10% of EPA's 4 mg/L MCL for fluoride would be 0.4 ppm.   NSF would therefore permit fluoridation up to 0.4 ppm.  

 

So I called NSF and asked them about the rule.  They agreed and explained it to me as I have to you.  I then asked, "why NSF permitted fluoridation to 1.2 ppm when 10% of 4 ppm MCL is 0.4 mg/L?"   Long pause.  Finally, NSF said they would call me back and did not.  I called a week later and asked again.  The person I talked to said the 10% applies to contaminants in the product, not the product itself.

 

I asked, "if we called fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by a different name such as lead or silicate or arsenic, would the dilution of the product be limited to 0.4 ppm of fluoride?"  NSF responded, "well yes."  

 

NSF makes no sense.  Change the name and the product cannot be added to the water at current concentrations?   Nothing about a name change will change the toxicity of the product.

 

Since then, NSF has made an exeption to fluoride.    And exceptions for fluoride are what we see with all agencies and fluoridationists, such as the EPA, CDC, FDA, and others.  The rules are written and changed not based on health and safety, but on politics and money.   When it comes to fluoride, NSF protects the fluoride manufacturers and those purchasing the fluoride.   Their decision is not based on science or health.  Their data is not open for public review.  

 

Do NOT rely on NSF for the health and safety of fluoridation.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH  

0 Kudos
1,079 Views
7
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill,

 

In your comment, timestamp 0-13-2018 02:37 PM, you said:

 

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10"

 

That seemed odd to me, since Freedom of Information Act Requests are designed to make undisclosed or hidden documents available to the public.  FIOA Requests are not intended to provide clarity on existing laws.  

 

So I went to this EPA / FIOA Website:  https://www.epa.gov/foia

 

On the right-hand side of the page is this column:  "Resources for FOIA Requests," and the Fourth Item in that column is "Search Existing FIOA Requests."  

 

I clicked that link and was redirected to this page:  https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home

 

Unable to find any reference to your FIOAR on any of the 3 search engines on that page, I then went to this Advanced Search Page:  https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/search/advancedSearch

 

In that search engine I searched by Requester's Name, your name "Osmunson."  No results found.  Then I tried Bill Osmunson.  .  .  No Bill Osmunson.  Then I tried Dr. Bill Osmunson. . . No matches.  Then I tried Dr. William Osmunson.  Nothing.  

 

Then I tried looking under Search Criteria: Tracking Number.   I copy/pasted  HQ-FOI-01418-10.  No Results Found.  Then FOI-1418-10.  Then 01418-10.  Nothing.  Nothing.  No Results Found.  

 

Dr. Bill, perhaps you could tell me the date of this request of yours, and perhaps you could tell me the "Received Date,"  the "Perfected Date," the "Due Date,"  or the "Closing Date" of your alleged FIOA Request so that I could search by any of those criteria.  

 

That shouldn't be too difficult for you.  

 

And Thank You in advance of your normally prompt response.

 

 

0 Kudos
959 Views
6
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

Thank you for doing homework and looking.  

 

My suggestion is to contact EPA and ask them for a copy.

 

I did the research for myself and no longer have a copy readily accessable.  And if I did, you would probably say I faked it.  So. . . contacting the EPA yourself is the best way to get a copy from them.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

0
Kudos
7287
Views
Bronze Conversationalist

Billo,  your comments defy belief.

 

Quote:  "My suggestion is to contact EPA and ask them for a copy. . . I did the research for myself and no longer have a copy readily accessable."

 

First of all, you are saying that you no longer have a copy of their reply?  Yet, for some reason you have the FOIA identification number?  You saved that, but not the actual reply?  

 

If you weren't going to save the reply, why did you go to the trouble of obtaining it in the first place?

 

Now, after I have searched the entire catalogue of EPA FOIA Requests using the identification you provided, you are telling me to contact them directly.   What are they going to do if not search the entire catalogue of FIOA requests.  More likely they would simply direct me to the website that they have already provided, so that they wouldn't have to waste their time with questions such as these. 

 

They would direct me to a website that I have already used to search for FOIA Requests.  So, when I went to "Search Existing FIOA Requests,"  there was no evidence to support anything you said.  I invite any readers of this thread to look at the EPA sites I have looked at.  I list them in this comment:  Timestamp 10-17-2018 07:56 PM.  .  . 

 

My conclusion is that you were untruthful about your claim that the EPA ever said:  “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

 

Surely something of this importance would be readily available on an EPA website.

 

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

0 Kudos
822 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

When I wrote to the EPA, asking them to place an injuctiuon on fluoridaiton by water districts, the EPA Office of Water replied in writing that the EPA does not endorse or request or regulate water fluoridation--that is the responsibility of the FDA. So my response was about that sent to Dr. Osmunsen.

 

Although these statements are correct (since the EPA regulates accidentally spilled and naturally present contaminants in water, not materials added intentionally for some putative health purpose) nevertheless the EPA could place an injunction since an NPDES permit is required by any entity to intentionally discharge EPA contaminants into public water supplies.

.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes the EPA  works with water districts for the purpose of helping them set up fluoridation equipiment so as to help ensure the systems don't allow water to exeed 2-4 ppm fluoride. 

Pretty wierd, no?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, get your facts right.  You just said:

 

"When I wrote to the EPA, asking them to place an injuctiuon on fluoridaiton by water districts, the EPA Office of Water replied in writing that the EPA does not endorse or request or regulate water fluoridation--that is the responsibility of the FDA. "

 

The FDA has nothing to do with community water fluoridation.  This is the FDA reply when asked about water fluoridation:

 

"Please know, the FDA does not regulate the quality of water, including water fluoridation, as this is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You may find information on their website about water purification processes,

http://water.epa.gov/drink/standardsriskmanagement.cfm and fluoride in drinking water,

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm.

The EPA Office of Water may also be contacted directly by mail at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4100T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Best regards,

Drug Information Specialist, LK |Division of Drug Information

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research |Food and Drug Administration"

 

Mr. Daniel Ryan in New Zealand asked these questions to both the EPA and the FDA.  His exchanges can be found here.  http://msof.nz/infomation/is-fluoride-a-drug-or-medicine-epa-and-fda-reply-to-our-questions/

 

They completely contradict your stories, and unlike you, he has presented the exchanges in full.  His conclusion was that neither the FDA nor the EPA will classify optimally fluoridated water as a "drug."

 

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

0 Kudos
821 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Everyone knows that the FDA does not regulate water fluoridation. They are mandated to do so (because it is used as a drug or supplement) but they don't, and they assume the EPA does (becaue fluoride is an EPA regulated contaminant in water).

Neither the EPA nor the FDA actually regulates fluoridation. No Federal Agency does.

No Agency (including the private  NSF) is now measuring the fluoride levels in blood or urine of people in fluoridated cities. No Agency is monitoring bone disease incidence in fluoridated cities, including hip, knee, and elbow replacement surgeries. No Agency is monitoring the incidence of infant mortality in fluoridated cities. No Agency enforces Good Manufacturing Practices from fertilizer plant waste that is required under law for any substance used for human ingestion. 

Everyone should know the FDA is responsible, and everyone should also know the FDA does nothing to regulate the intentional discharge of fluosilicic acid  materials obtained from fertilizer industrial scrubbers that is discharged into public water supplies for the purpose of treating human tissue without FDA approval. What is so difficult to understand? 

No one wants to take resonsibility or accept any liability for the insane act known as "fluoridation".  Who wants to pay for the millions of U.S. teens that have dental fluorosis? Who wants to make the inane claim that fluoridation of bone to thousands of ppm, which alters the crystal structure and forms bone of poor quality, somehow has nothing to do with the increased incidence of bone fractures and bone replacement surgeries in the  U.S.? Who wants to claim that although infant mortality was reduced in Chile when Dr. Schatz convinced Pres. Allende to halt fluoridation of poor neighborhoods, that poor neighborhoods in the U.S. are somehow magically immune to the effects of whole body fluoridation of infants in the womb?

Of course the FDA AND EPA are negligent in their duty. This is not a news flash.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, I really have to wonder what is in this for you.  Either you are completely out of touch with reality, or you are purposely trying to make a relatively simple, easy to understand issue, confusing as hell.

 

Your quote:  "Neither the EPA nor the FDA actually regulates fluoridation. No Federal Agency does."

 

Resonse:  Not exactly true.  The FDA has nothing to do with water fluoridation because optimally fluoridated water is not considered a "drug" by any Federal Agency.  

 

There is no Federal Agency which considers water with 1 ppm F in it a "drug."  Wrap your head around that.  Either water with 1 ppm F isn't a drug, or there is some massive conspiracy of silence between all U.S. Federal Agencies.  Which is it?

 

Optimally fluoridated water is no more a drug than bread fortified with folic acid, . . . than milk with Vitamin D added, . . . . than cereal fortified with vitamins.  Sometimes people put stuff in stuff we consume for our own good.  

 

Now, is this a massive conspiracy between all U.S. Federal Agencies, or is optimally fluoridated water really not a drug?

 

 

0 Kudos
785 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Well said Dr. Osmunsen.

When an EPA listed contaminant is added on purpose into water for some believed "useful" purpose, then the NSF ignores its own rules on contamianants and relabels it as a product. This is the same rationale the EPA's Rebecca Hamner used when she signed the ruling that fluosilicic acid, an EPA hazardous waste, could be relabeled a water additive IF someone were to want to purchase it for such a purpose.  Since then, fluosilicic acid hazardous waste has been used as a cheaper source material for fluoride than sodium fluoride used before. Then the EPA asked the private group the NSF to do the regulating work that the EPA should have done.

 

The first step toward accepting oppression and double-speak is to reject facts. To counter the bone fluoridation program that has spread across the country, it is necessary to believe in and to present the truth. Labeling a non-nutrient contaminant of water and blood as something that is useful to ingest, to elevate in the blood, is not truth--it is opppression. And when Federal agencies like the CDC and NSF change laws to accomodate it, that becomes a National mandate and an abrogation of truth where those who actually speak truth become re-labeled as extremists.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,065 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Sue to what end?  When people presume fluoride is a mineral nutrient, the case is lost before you begin.

Two court cases were tried with much detail already and concluded that fluoridated water consumption increases the incicdence of cancer mortaltiy. But a higher PA court overruled the decision to halt fluoridation because, ironically, it was ruled that "no one has a right to tell anyone else what to drink"  This thought meant to that judge that the people had no right to tell the water district to stop putting fluoride in the water. But such thoughts should mean that no water district has the right to force fluoride into anyone's water. Again, when people imagine that fluoride is harmlesss mineral or even a "nutrient" added at levels far below that already in toothpaste, then the case is incorrectly lost before it even begins.

 

Everyone has to drink water to remain alive. So the choice for many in fluoridated cities where well drilling is not allowed is to either be harmed chronically with a bone fluoridation program in the water that is supplied to you, or be harmed acutely by not drinking the fluoridated water supplied to you. This false choice should not exist. The U.N. declaration of human rightrs guarantees that all persons have rights to access to fresh drinking water (i.e. without added bone altering agents or unnecessary chemicals).

This is simply too difficult for fluoridation promoters to grasp.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,064 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Every federal agency including the CDC is obligated to abide by the SDWA. The CDC has everything to do with the law. That is precisely why they use the word recpmmend instead of require for fluoridation. Water districts that bow to CDC demands are not free of the law either and know full well that the cdc has no rights to force districts to comply.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Conversationalist

It is interesting to see how the fluoridationists have modified their language in the past few years. Whereas they had steadfastedly insisted fluoride was a nutrient, a mineral, and essential - in fact, claiming dental disaster and deformed teeth if children didn't consume it (see Myths & Manpiluation 2015), they are now choosing their words more carefully.

 

Chuck Haynie says fluoride is "generally believed to be of benefit" and admits that the fluoridation chemicals we use are contaminated with arsenic and other poisons but calls them "micro-contaminants" and are perfectly acceptable because of a stamp from NSF.  Erin Brockovich describes NSF as having a 'corrupt pay to play' business model.

 

Independent analysis of samples of fluoridation chemicals sold to communities have found alarming levels of contamination that demonstrate the testing criteria is not protective (Mullenix 2014). In fact, Erin B. has said, "Regulatory gaps are lobbyist created Grand Canyons designed to cheat the system.

  

Let me make this clear. No "micro" amount of this poison or the tramp contaminants that accompany each and batch of fluoride is necessary or even beneficial to teeth or any other part of body, bone and brain. 

 

Expert in Nutrition: “Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)

 

DHHS: “No essential function for fluoride has been proven in humans.” - The Report of the Department of Health and Social Subjects, No. 41, Dietary Reference Values, Chapter 36 on fluoride (HMSO 1996)

 

Textbook: “Fluoride has not been shown to be required for normal growth or reproduction in animals or humans consuming an otherwise adequate diet, nor for any specific biological function or mechanism.” - Applied Chemistry - 2nd edition by Wm. R. Stine (1994)

 

 

Conversationalist

“It seems like the goal is to disprove the communities' concerns rather than actually trying to prove exposures.” - ATSDR scientist in testimony to Congress on Regulatory Agency Fraud (2009)

 

As to harm, which has been asked and answered repeatedly, here’re two presentations at Otago University in New Zealand that include evidence of harm and testimony to harm. 

 

As to FDA position, “fluoride supplements that may contribute significantly to the total daily dietary intake of fluoride of persons consuming them are regulated as drugs because of their intended use (to prevent disease) and, therefore are not subject to the food labeling regulations." Also that  "the primary sources of dietary fluoride are beyond the purview of nutrition labeling regulations.” https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf

 

FDA does allow fluoride to be listed as an “ingredient” on bottled water, not as a nutrient. It also allows language on bottled water that fluoride “may” prevent cavities based on “authoritative statements” which are nothing more than endorsements of policy, but only so long as that statement is not used on any infant water. The FDA has nothing to do with water additives and the EPA really doesn’t want anything to do with them either, given their behavior. Fluoridation is a political decision made at the state or municipal level and the EPA contaminant levels are political.  

Bronze Conversationalist

"Carry Anne", your quote:  

 

"DavidF is consistent, isn’t he? Like a two year old. His intent is to bury meaningful comments and intimidate people into silence. Truth doesn’t matter to fluoride trolls. 

 

As to harm, which has been asked and answered repeatedly, here’re two presentations at Otago University in New Zealand that include evidence of harm and testimony to harm."

 

Response:  My intent isn't to bury meaningful comments.  I am simply asking questions here.  When the answers look suspiciously . . incorrect, then I will press further.  I am not burying anything.  How could I?

 

As to harm, here you responded here by posting 70 minutes of video.  In one video, audience members were literally wearing tin foil hats.  On another occasion, you presented an affidavit which proved nothing, and we won't dwell on the shortcomings of that "evidence of harm" here.  On another occasion you posted a link to "Moms Against Fluoridation" in which anecdotal stories were told by individual writers.  At the top of that website was a disclaimer from "Moms" in which they took no responsibility for the validity of any stories on their site.

 

It seems to me, "Carry Anne," that if community water fluoridation was as dangerous as you seem to be saying, there would certainly be more direct and easier avenues of presenting all this evidence of harm, than by posting 70 minutes of video in which one of the speakers is talking to an audience wearing tin foil hats. 

 

 

0 Kudos
773 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

If anyone missed your last post, please read it below.

 

How many places in Federal and state laws, poison laws, pesticide laws, FD&C Act, SDWA, clear statements from the FDA and EPA, FOI requests, US Pharmacopia, and all other health regulatory agencies is needed to convince a person fluoride is defined as a drug and to be regulated as a drug when marketed with the intent to prevent disease.  

 

Also note, the concentration, dosage, efficacy, risks, are not part of whether a substance is regulated by the FDA.  The key is "INTENT" of use.  Even a placebo needs FDA approval.

 

And the FDA does not go looking for violators (usually), the FDA learned early on that they could not keep up with all the new drugs and claims as policemen.  So the law requires manufacturers to gain FDA approval before marketing.   The burden is on the manufacturers, not the FDA or the consumer.  

 

Who are the final manufacturers of fluoridated water?  You got it.  Cities and water districts, the fluoridated water purveyors.   Government agencies are slow to have regulatory action against other government agencies. 

 

The only organizations considering fluoride a nutrient or mineral and not a drug, are frustrated nutritionists, fluoride pushers, and those looking to appease their financial donars.

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride, 60% of adolescents show signs of toxic overdose.  Studies show serious harm from overdose of fluoride.

 

The best place to reduce overdose for the public at large is to stop fluoridation.  Give people the choice.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

David and All Fluoride Lovers,

 

Please explain why this does not alarm you?  

Are Canadian women the problem?

Is the fluoridation at 0.7 ppm the problem?

Are American women safe because we have never seriously measured their fluoride urine concentration?   Do you feel that because we have not measured, we are safe?  Burry our heads in the sand and we are safe?

 

Oh, you say, "trust the experts."   Well, what do your experts say?  

 

See Bashish. . . these levels of fluoride in the urine also show lower IQ for children.   Is your position that teeth are more important than brains?

 

Please explain.

 

NHANES 2010 2011 reported 60% dental fluorosis for adolescents...too much fluoride.

 

Till et all, Oct. 10 2018, (see below) "Creatinine-adjusted MUF values (mean±SD; milligrams per liter) were almost two times higher for pregnant women living in fluoridated regions (0.87±0.50) compared with nonfluoridated regions (0.46±0.34; p<0.001)."

 

  

 

"Abstract

Background:

Fluoride exposures have not been established for pregnant women who live in regions with and without community water fluoridation.

Objective:

Our aim was to measure urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy. We also assessed the contribution of drinking-water and tea consumption habits to maternal urinary fluoride (MUF) concentrations and evaluated the impact of various dilution correction standards, including adjustment for urinary creatinine and specific gravity (SG).

Methods:

We measured MUF concentrations in spot samples collected in each trimester of pregnancy from 1,566 pregnant women in the Maternal–Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals cohort. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) to assess variability in MUF concentrations across pregnancy. We used regression analyses to estimate associations between MUF levels, tea consumption, and water fluoride concentrations as measured by water treatment plants.

Results:

Creatinine-adjusted MUF values (mean±SD; milligrams per liter) were almost two times higher for pregnant women living in fluoridated regions (0.87±0.50) compared with nonfluoridated regions (0.46±0.34; p<0.001). MUF values tended to increase over the course of pregnancy using both unadjusted values and adjusted values. Reproducibility of the unadjusted and adjusted MUF values was modest (ICCrange=0.370.40). The municipal water fluoride level was positively associated with creatinine-adjusted MUF (B=0.52, 95% CI: 0.46, 0.57), accounting for 24% of the variance after controlling for covariates. Higher MUF concentrations correlated with numbers of cups of black (r=0.310.32 but not green tea (r=0.040.06). Urinary creatinine and SG correction methods were highly correlated (r=0.91) and were interchangeable in models examining predictors of MUF.

Conclusion:

Community water fluoridation is a major source of fluoride exposure for pregnant women living in Canada. Urinary dilution correction with creatinine and SG were shown to be interchangeable for our sample of pregnant women. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3546

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

I described the truth before. I will try again.

San Diego voted twice against fluoridation. The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA). 

The city of LA did the same thing. The response from city officials is the CA state health department under the CDC requested fluoridation. (As though the CDC is the ultimate governmental authority on the subject). 

The CADPH official who requested LA fluoridate told me that he does what  the CDC tells him to do.

So fluoridationists don't have their facts straight.

Forced fluoridation is illegal and the SDWA was written to halt its spread (Graham and Morin). But their blind spot won't let them believe it.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard Sauerheber,  this is your statement:

 

"I described the truth before. I will try again.

San Diego voted twice against fluoridation. The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA)."

 

Response:  That is incorrect. 

 

This is the statute from the SDWA to which you refer, is it not?:

 

  “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

But you say:  "The city council forced fluoridation anyway on the population which is illegal since no additive other than for sanitation can be required (SDWA)."

 

The city council of San Diego is not a "national primary drinking water regulation "   A city council is not a national anything.  The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act does not make the scenario you have described "illegal," because that statute is a reference to the Federal government.  

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

0 Kudos
782 Views
3
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I was sent a direct email from the CA Dept. of Health officer who demanded that MWD fluoridate the L.A. basin. His  name is D. Nelson who is now retired. When he was unable to answer splecific questions, he wrote "Richard, I do what the CDC tells  me to do".

 

The U.S. CDC and associated figureheads, the U.S. Surgeons General, regularly declare fluoride to be a top public health achievement and request that waters in the U.S. be infused with fluoride.  CDC officials recognize that it is illegal for them to require it (SDWA) so their official wording is very careful so as to maintain deniabilitly of any liability or responsilbity for requesting it. 

If one doesn't understand that the CDC is responsible for various States mandating fluoridation because of their official request, then that person is stuck at square one with a long way to go.

 

The CDC requests National fluoridation which is an action that cannot be required by any Federal Agency and at the same time refuses to accept liability or the resonsibility for fluoridation and its adverse effects, including but not limited to widespread dental fluorosis in teens.  .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Wrong.

The city council in San Diego and the Metropolitan Water District Board in Los Angeles all used the same rationale to overturn the voting will of the public. It was stated that the CA State Board of Health under request from the U.S  Centers for Disease Control requested the aciton. The U.S. CDC is indeed a Federal or National agency.

We need the whole story, not a portion thereof that suits a special interest...

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, your statement:

 

"The city council in San Diego and the Metropolitan Water District Board in Los Angeles all used the same rationale to overturn the voting will of the public. It was stated that the CA State Board of Health under request from the U.S  Centers for Disease Control requested the aciton. The U.S. CDC is indeed a Federal or National agency."

 

Response:  Even if what you say is true, none of this is a violation of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.  Again, here is the statute which you are using:

 

 “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.

 

The U.S. Center for Disease Control has nothing to do with "National Primary Drinking Water Regulations."  We have already gone over this.  The Statute in question is a reference Safe Drinking Water Act itself (national primary drinking water regulation) and The CDC has nothing to do with the SDWA.  

 

There is nothing illegal going on in your story.

0 Kudos
777 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

When a Federal agency, namely the CDC, still claims fluoridation is a "great public health achievement" and requests that the eniter country's water districts fluoridate, that is the same as a mandate. A request from an authority is a mandate. It is illegal, and forced fluoridation against the voting public, as continues in CA, is illegal.

 

The SDWA is an offshoot of the CWA which is a modernized derivative of the WPCA which states its mission (section 101A) is to maintain the natural chemistry of all U.S. waters.

 

Get a grip, fluoridationists.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:  

 

"When a Federal agency, namely the CDC, still claims fluoridation is a "great public health achievement" and requests that the eniter country's water districts fluoridate, that is the same as a mandate. A request from an authority is a mandate. It is illegal, and forced fluoridation against the voting public, as continues in CA, is illegal."

 

Again, this is the statute from the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act that you doctors are trying to make confusing:  

 “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

Doctor Sauerheber, there is nothing in that statute which mentions the CDC.  The CDC has nothing to do with "National Primary Drinking Water Regulation"s.   The Statute is referring to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act itself.  This would fall under the domain of the EPA, and the EPA takes no official position on community water fluoridation.  There is nothing illegal, in any way, about this.  

 

Now, your blatant attempt to muddy the waters of a very clear and understandable statute is nothing short of deception.  

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

0 Kudos
663 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

The Hunt for Red October 

 

The baiting of Dr. Osmunson, a dentist and peer-reviewed published researcher, and Dr. Sauerheber, a chemist and peer-reviewed published researcher, is a strategy in the troll playbook to distract focus and bury substantive social media comments, such as my comment on the fluoride studies published ahead of print this month, all focusing on medical data such as  urine and blood measurements. 

 

Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X

  • 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).  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116302808

  • 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. 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 to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

  • 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

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe 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. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7 

  • 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. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987718308600

  • Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118325673  

  • P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! 

Conversationalist

David,

 

You keep asking for "proof" and yet I don't see that you are looking at the facts.

 

I have given you many studies on fluoride's effect on cancer, the human brain, and thyroid.  

 

Once again, read CarryAnne's post on the recent published research on fluoride.  Repeating:

 

"Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. 

  • 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).  

  • 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. 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 to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. 

  • 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

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe 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. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more 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. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. 

  • Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting.  

  • P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

 

Remember, 60% of adolescents are ingesting too much fluoride.  It is time to reduce the fluoride exposure for the next generation. . . if we value their brains and thyroid function and bones and teeth.

Severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk and has reached over 2% of adolescents.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill says:  "Once again, read CarryAnne's post on the recent published research on fluoride. "

 

Ok, let's look at the first thing in her post.  

 

"THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. "

 

I'll ask you the same thing I asked her:  

 

Who?   You would have us believe that 18% of Canadians who drink fluoridated water are at risk of thyroid problems?  Who, Dr. Bill?

 

18% is almost One in Five of Canadians drinking this stuff.  We are talking about millions of people here.  Who?  Name one.  Of the Millions of People that "Carry Anne" has cited, there must be at least one documented case of some Canadian somewhere who actually had thyroid problems because they drank perfectly fluoridated water.  

 

Who was it?   Do you have a Freedom of Information Act request for that one too, that, for some reason, you can't copy-paste here?  

 

Who?  Please cite one docuemented case of any human being who has ever had thyroid problems as a result of drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

0 Kudos
730 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You keep asking for "proof" and yet I don't see that you are looking at the facts.

 

I have given you many studies on fluoride's effect on cancer, the human brain, and thyroid.  

 

Once again, read CarryAnne's post on the recent published research on fluoride.  Repeating:

 

"Another damning study was just published. Here are the October citations and urls to date with my thumbnail descriptions: 

 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X

  • 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).  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935116302808

  • 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. 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 to date confirmed low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities causes subtle but permanent brain damage for many consumers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

  • 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

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume unsafe 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. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, mottled teeth, a condition associated with more learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease. http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7 

  • 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. 

GOVERNMENT BIAS: A National Toxicology Program’s animal experiment used the wrong rats, the wrong dose, and the wrong study design in order to manufacture a finding of no prenatal or postnatal effect, apparently in an effort to protect policy instead of people. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987718308600

  • Karen Favazza Spencer, Hardy Limeback. Blood is Thicker Than Water: Flaws in a National Toxicology Program Study. Medical Hypotheses. Volume 121. December 2018. Pages 160-163

SKELETAL MUSCLE DISEASE: Doses consistent with doses in the general population of optimally fluoridated communities can cause an autoimmune response and cell inflammation that results in either skeletal muscle enlargement or wasting. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749118325673  

  • P. Sudheer Shenoya, Utsav Sena, Saketh Kapoor, Anu  V. Ranade, Chitta R.Chowdhury, Bipasha Bose. Sodium fluoride induced skeletal muscle changes: Degradation of proteins and signaling mechanism. Environmental Pollution. Available online 10 October 2018. 

 

AARP - it’s time to fish or cut bait. You’ve been informed of the modern evidence of harm and substantial scientific opinion against fluoridation. This forum began in Feb 2015. It blew up in June 2018 when a small group of fluoride trolls pounced on it. It is obvious that this topic is both of interest to seniors and that there is an organized astroturf effort to suppress science, silence medical opinion and stifle voices of victims. Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

 

Remember, 60% of adolescents are ingesting too much fluoride.  It is time to reduce the fluoride exposure for the next generation. . . if we value their brains and thyroid function and bones and teeth.

Severe dental fluorosis is an adverse risk and has reached over 2% of adolescents.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
670 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Carry Anne says, "AARP . . .  Issue a resolution against community water fluoridation as an unethical policy that violates individual human rights and the bioethical standards of medical consent and in so doing harms millions of senior citizens! "

 

Response:  This is another great example of the bullying tactics from a very small, fringe, vocal minority, most of whom are graduates of the highly esteemed University of Google, who because of their internet research, believe they are more informed about community water fluoridation than over 100 of the World's most Highly Respected medical organizations.

 

It is a dangerous thing to allow laymen to hijack any proven public health policy.  We see internet researchers spreading fear and paranoia about vaccinations, which can be dangerous to the larger community. 

 

This is akin to letting gratuates of the U. of Google build and fly the plane you are about to board.  Would any sane person allow that to occur?

0 Kudos
811 Views
0
Report