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! 

16,139 Views
1449
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Carrie Ann,

 

Are there any documented examples of people who have had thyroid problems because they drank optimally fluoridated water?  

 

Are there any documented examples of pregnant women who have had health problems because they included optimally fluoridated water as part of their diets?  

 

The answers will be no, since optimally fluoridated water has not been shown to be harmful to those who drink it.  

 

By the way, despite your overly suspicious mindset, I am not baiting either Dr. Osmunsun or Sauerheber.  I am asking them for evidence to support their unbelieveable comments.  

 

Dr. Sauerheber, the FDA has never claimed that optimally fluroridated water is a drug, in any sense of the word, and you have been able to provide no evidence to the contrary.

 

Dr. Osmunson, The Safe Drinking Water Act does not prohibit community water fluoridation, despite your misrepresentation of one statute which does prohibit a federal mandate.  States and local jurisdictions are free to do what they choose in this regard.

0 Kudos
582 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride that is unavoidable from natural contamination of fresh water is a mineral, but it has no nutritional value.

Also it is not lying to repeat what officials from the EPA or FDA have writen, whether a link to such a written statement exists or not. Truth is not all contained in computer links..

Most people know the SDWA wording that prohibits a national requirement for adding fluoride. But fewer understand that the Act was written to halt the spread of water fluoridation Graham and Morin).

The FDA allowed wording on bottled water does not constitute approval for the intentional addition of fluoride into water for ingestion. Fortunately the FDA still cannot approve any such substance for ingestion without controlled clinical trials data.

And the notion that ingesting fluoride MAY reduce dental caries (because many people claim so) has no meaning. Fortunately it is stated to not be intended for ingestion by infants.

The FDA ban petition for the country is still pending under review. Pray it will happen, to end all this lack of knowledge gross propaganda.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber says: 

"Also it is not lying to repeat what officials from the EPA or FDA have writen, whether a link to such a written statement exists or not. Truth is not all contained in computer links..

Most people know the SDWA wording that prohibits a national requirement for adding fluoride. But fewer understand that the Act,was written to halt the,spread of water fluoridation ."

 

Dr. S., I will respond to you exactly as I have responded to Dr. Osmunson.  Since I see both of your names plastered all over a website called "Fluoride Class Action," why doesn't your friend, Attorney James Deal take this case to court?  With all this documentation which you claim exists, even though you can't seem to provide evidence of it here, that would seem to be a natural solution.  Isn't that what Attorney Deal is supposed to be doing?

 

https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/

 

By the way, I've asked Dr. Osmunson, but I can't seem to get an answer.  How much money does  Attorney Deal take from prospective clients whom you've made afraid of fluoridated water?  .  .  And how much has he actually collected for them?

0 Kudos
495 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Sorry, but many people, even in government, believe false claims, including the notion that fluoride is an "essential nutrient." The old notion posited by fluoridationists was that fluoride, which "must be good," therefore in bone "must strengthen bone." But the FDA commissioned the NIH to study this and found that fluoride in bone does not strengthen bone at any concentration. The claim is false, and in fact fluoride in bone causes the formation of bone regions of poor quality and abnormal crystal structure. Moreoever, the hallmark of a nutrient is that when it is lowered in concentration its effect is reversible. Fluoride in bone has such a very long half life that it may be considered irreversible through normal biochemical means. It is a chronic cumulative poison, which is why "community water fluoridation" is actually a permanent, chronic bone fluoridation program.. .

 

Second, detailed controlled experiments with mamals in two U.S. labs and one in the U.K. proved that raising animals in the complete absence of fluoride for lifetimes does not cause any adverse condition (as reviewed in: Yiamouyiannis, J., Fluoride, the aging factor, 1985). Hence fluoride is correctly not listed as an essential nutrient. Internet sites exist that claim the opposite but have no basis in fact.

 

Third,  controlled experiments indicate that providing fluoride water to mammals does not decrease the incidence of spontaneous dental caries. The entire idea that somehow fluoride "strengthens" teeth enamel but without actually being able to penetrate into the enamel matrix is false and always has been a false correlation. Correlation of coincidental lower caries rates with fluoride in water does not prove causation, and this is a prime example. Lower caries rates in some areas with fluoride in water were presumed to be related, but were not..

 

Finally, James Deal has stated that he has never taken any fluoride case to court, namely because 1) of the difficulty of dealing with people who believe the myth, such as the person who accuses me of presenting falsehoods on this site, and 2).proving harm from fluorldated water in a victim who was not kept in a cage to know for certain where his fluoride exposure was from, or at least monitoring the person during his chronic exposure, is nearly impossible, other than for dental fluorosis from exposure in youth, which is readily visible. The known effects on increasing TSH levels and elevating both PTH and calcitontin levels simultaneously whilch is pathologic, as published for populations on 1 ppm fluoride in water described in the NRC 2006 Report, are very difficult to exlusively blame in any particular person on drinking water. This is because of other sources of fluoride that could be blamed instead which are difficult to prove never occurred. The legal expense of fighting such cases is prohibitive, when dealing with a low dose chronic very long term poison. In any event, the answer to your ridiculous question is zero funds have been collected from fluoridation lawsuits by James Deal because he has never litigated any. The title of his fluoride class action site, which reflects the hope that one day such a case could be brought to a high court, really bothers some people, but I say, so what?.The truth really hurts, doesn't it?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

Clearly fluoride can be .

A natural mineral in drinking water
A mineral nutrient
A water additive
An over the counter medication
A prescription medication
An industrial chemical
An industrial pollutant
A fumigant
Used as a rat poison

Each of these statements is true.  There are important, critical distinctions between each use, each concentration, and the purity standards which define the various incarnations of "fluoride."   Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use.

The willful refusal to acknowledge these clear and easily understood distinctions is an important element in fluoridation opponents misleading the general public.

--------

I've made this point before her (June) but am repeating it because of the claim continues to be repeated. 

Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

 

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

 

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

 

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluble vitamins (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

 

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

 

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvy with Vit. C.).

 

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

 

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Regular Contributor

Not all nutrients are essential. I didn't claim F- to be an essential nutrient.

Although you disagree, fluoride ions are generally believed to be of benefit to teeth and the skeletal system (see especially Li et al 2001) and therefore should and is considered a mineral nutrient.

The pharmacy (USP) standards would not specifically guarantee purity as does Standard 60 which water additives must meet. USP has only a global total maximum for heavy metals, Std 60 specific standards for each. Additionally, the USP standard demands no independent monitoring or quality assurance testing. Actual testing of fluoridated water shows no evidence of detectable changes in the levels of regulated micro-contaminants. Arsenic has been specifically analyzed. The incremental intake of arsenic from fluoridation is a minuscule fraction (2/1000) of normal dietary arsenic. (see Peterson et al 2015 and Dietary Reference Intakes 2001).

There are also physical granularity standards in the NSF/ANSI water additive regulations which protect water utility workers that USP doesn't cover.

see: https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm



0 Kudos
490 Views
5
Report
Moderator
Moderator

Hello everyone,


We are a community of people with diverse beliefs, opinions and backgrounds, so please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

 



Thank you for your cooperation in making the AARP Community a safe and welcoming place for all.
http://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

This is inane. Comparing USP standards for drugs with the private organization NSF Standard 60 is elevating a private criminal enterprise to the statuure of drugs regulated by the Federal FDA.

USP regulations for drugs are applied only for substances that are FDA approved or allowed, and by definition are manufactured under well-controlled conditions that are completely sanitary, knowing that the intent from the outset is for eventual human ingestion.

The NSF is a private organization that rubber stamps fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as being an acceptable "water purification agent", as claimed on their inserts with the material. The hazarodus waste silicon tetrafluoride gas scrubbers at fertilizer plants is NOT prepared using the Good Manufacturing Practices required for drugs under USP regulations by the FDA. The fluosilicic acid chemical material contains radioactive elements, and many substances that are not yet even identified because the starting materials are contaminated fluoride-rich rock. USP drugs are synthesized de novo from sterile materials of known purity in controlled laboratories with strict GMP procedures. 

 

And by the way, since when must a population be forcerd against their will to ingest a substance that is not necessary for human nutrition, as stated here even from a fluoride promoter?  San Diego citizens know the truth and voted against fluoridation twice. And yet the city is fluoridated anyway. What un-American, anti-Democratic nonsense that amounts to oppression and an unlawful operation.. Fluoridation of peoples' bones is a scam that some have come to believe is actually somehow useful, when it is useless, harmful, and illegal..

I have an acuaintance who consumes fluoridated water and eats soups, etcd. made with it in Escondido which ha been fljuoridated since 2005 without Federal monitoring of effectiveness, bone accumulation, urine levels, or any other health measure. Now he had to have a knee replaced. There is no way to prove that fluoridation caused the knee joint pain but please understand that consuming 1 ppm fluoridated water that is not particularly hard for 13 years is known to accumulate fluoride in bone to about 2,000 ppm on average. This level of accumulation has caused bone pain in many individuals as listed and described in the NRC 2006 report. But can he successfully litigate the city for this damage to his bone that fluoridation of bone causes? Of course not. How does he prove that he drank city water all these years?How does he prove he did not over-use fluoride toothpaste all these years, etc.?

There is no legal recourse for him. He lives with a phoney knee and that's that, al lwhile fluoridation gets a free pass and a claim that it is some useful mineral. A pretty sick joke becaue no one I know is laughing..

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

Both USP and NSF are independent non-governmental organizations well established as reliably enforcing standards for drugs, products and systems. There are many similarities and nothing whatsoever to suggest either is asleep at the wheel with respect to the public's safety as you apparently believe. As private organizations both own their respective logos used to identify certification America trusts both for good reason.
0 Kudos
724 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

I agree with you that we should trust agencies as "reliable;" however, I am certain when it comes to fluoride and fluoridation, we MUST verify the statements and agencies positions.   Trust but verify.

 

I briefly touched on sulfuryl fluoride, a post-harvest fumigant called Profume by Dow and here is more which directly applies to the EPA's MCLG and fluoridation. 

 

As you may know, SF Profume, a post-harvest fumigant was introduced a few years back.  We don't like bugs in our food and we don't want to throw away bug infested foods.  You can read the history at https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/19/2011-917/sulfuryl-fluoride-proposed-order-granti...

 

We objected to the EPA's permitting additional fluoride in foods in large part because too many are ingesting too much even without additional fluoride. The case went to an administrative review judge.  Please read the decision at http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/sf-nov.2006.pdf


So much information in that decision which should be carefully reviewed and understood.   The judge was not kind to the EPA. . . and neither should we when it comes to fluoride.

 

Summarizing the judge:

 

“EPA agrees that aggregate exposure to fluoride . . . does not meet the safety standard in FFDCA section 408.”

 

Too much fluoride.

 

 “The fluoride MCLG is not protective of the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones;”

 

Very important to consider, MCLG refers to the fluoride concentration in water. 

 

"The fluoride MCLG is not protective of other neurotoxic, endocrine, and renal effects of fluoride;

 

EPA has not adequately protected children;

 

EPA cannot determine the safety of sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride in the absence of a developmental neurotoxicity study;

 

EPA has underestimated exposure to fluoride; and



  EPA has committed procedural errors in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq"

 

 However, Congress overrode the EPA Judge and has permitted sulfuryl fluoride on foods.

 

We should not blindly trust the EPA until they correct the gross errors.  Even with the judge telling the EPA they are not protecting the public the MCLG still remains unchanged. 

 

Politics trumps science.

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  A reduction in exposure must start with a cessation of water fluoridation.  At least Profume provides a very useful function, killing bugs and preserving food.  Water fluoridation does not provide any benefit to the water. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Please. NSF's Standard 60 prohibits adding into water any substance recognized as an EPA contaminant to a level higher than 10% of its EPA MCL. The MCL and MCLG for fluoride are 4 and 2 ppm and 10% of 4 is 0.4 ppm, and yet NSF certifies fluosilicic acid for the treatment of water to 0.7-1 ppm fluoride. NSF doesn't even follow its own regulations.

 

Nor does NSF have any legal authority to regulate drugs or supplements sold for human ingestion in the first place. NSF personnell have no clue about official GMPs (good mahufacturing practices) required for all synthetic substances to be taken internally by humans.  Fluosilicic acid form sulfuric acid dissolved rock that produces hazardous wastre siicon tetrafluoride that is then scrubbed as an aqueous solution and relabeled suddenly not a hazardous waste but instead a water purification agent is not made under sanitary controlled conditions as required by law. Period.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
759 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

I certainly agree with you that fluoride is found in many substances and used for many purposes, it is a powerful, excellent element.  I do acknowledge your statement and the many uses of fluoride.  That is one reason 60% of adolescents showed dental fluorosis in 2010-2011 NHANES.  And 20% with moderate/severe.

 

You also correctly state, "Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use."   I acknowledge and agree.

 

The EPA regulates fluoride in water as a contaminant.  Currently, 4 mg/L Maximum Contaminant Level.   

Contaminating water makes no sense and is a violation of law.  We can discuss contaminating water below MCLG, but we are still contaminating the water.

 

Fluoride is highly toxic and fits within all state and Federal laws defined as a poison.  Look up your state laws defining "poisons" and fluoride fits as a poison and is exempt from poison laws when regulated under either pesticide or drug laws.   No law permits regulation of highly toxic substances as a nutrient.  Caffeine and all oil soluable vitamines (such as A and E) can be toxic, but the dosage required is above poison laws. 

 

When the INTENT is for use as a pesticide or fumigant, then fluoride is exempt from poison laws (highly toxic laws) and regulated under pesticide/fumigant laws.

 

When the INTENT is to prevent disease, then fluoride is regulated under drug laws (FDA) such as prescription medications (many contain fluoride) or over-the-counter such as toothpaste.

 

I have not found anywhere that the Food and Drug Administration claims fluoride to be an essential nutrient.  Dental caries is not caused by an inadequate intake of fluoride (like scurvey with Vit. C.).

 

And I agree with you, there are different purity standards.  The purity added to water is not pharmaceutical grade.

 

Thanks Chuck for your well said comment.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Regular Contributor

One statement is not true

A nutrient is defined as a substance that provides nourishment essential (please note essential) for the maintenance of life and for growth.

There is no evidence that fluoride fits that definition, even for teeth.

Bronze Conversationalist

Ross says:  

"One statement is not true

A nutrient is defined as a substance that provides nourishment essential (please note essential) for the maintenance of life and for growth."

 

Response:  

I'll bet you got your information from an anti-fluoride website . . perhaps the Fluoride Action Network?

 

To your comment,  .  .  .  And yet fluoride does occur naturally in the body.  Dr. Paul Connett will be the first one to admit that an amount of fluoride does exist naturally in mother's milk.  

 

Ross, are there any examples of anyone who has had the fluoride removed from their bodies and lived to tell the tale?  Of course not.  You are simply parrotting what FAN has spoon fed to you without thinking about it.  

 

"Fluoride is the ionic form of the naturally occurring fluorine element. The anion increases the structural stability of teeth and bones through interactions with calcium phosphates."  https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/minerals/fluoride

 

"The fluoride AI and UL for 0-8 year olds were updated in 2017. The following updated reference bodyweights were used when the NRVs were expressed in mg fluoride/day; 0-6 months 6 kg, 7-12 months 9 kg, 1-3 years 12 kg, 4-8 years 22 kg."  .  .  "Rationale: The purpose of the AI for infants and young children is to provide information on the level of intake that provides protection from inadequate intake, .  .  "  https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/fluoride

0 Kudos
638 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

There are many opinions on the internet, contact the EPA an FDA on who has jurisdiction over fluoride when used with the INTENT to prevent disease.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
369 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill:  "There are many opinions on the internet, contact the EPA an FDA on who has jurisdiction over fluoride when used with the INTENT to prevent disease."

 

Response:  I don't have to contact them.  It's right here:  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm

 

" In 1979, EPA executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to establish and clarify areas of authority in controlling additives in drinking water. FDA has regulatory oversight for food additives, which includes bottled water, and EPA has regulatory oversight of direct additives in public drinking water supplies."

 

Now, in case you want to muddy the waters on this also, it is saying EPA has oversight of additives in drinking water supplies.  There is no mention of intent.  It simply says EPA has oversight.  

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

0 Kudos
393 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Vote on whether a town wants to fluoridate or not?  Wow. What planet do you live on?

San Diego citizens voted in city wide elections against fluoridation of water TWICE. AND passed a city ordinnace prohibiting addition of fluoridation chemicals into water. .And yet the CDC recommendation to fluoridate, which led to the CA State "mandate", caused the city to capitulate regardless of how their own citizens voted.

 

A request from the CDC, a Federal agency, is identical to a requirement because who is to challenge the supposed head agency on the issue?

 

And the point is that thre are no controlled clinical trials for ingested fluoride in man and thus no FDA aqpproval can be granted for the ingestion of the substance, regardless of whether it is called a supplement, drug, etc. 

The CDC is requesting and promoting a bone fluoridation program that has no proven experiments to defend it and that is forbidden from being Nationally required anyway (as stipulated in the SDWA).

 

Regardless of what the FDA or anyone calls the substance and the program, there are no data that prove ingesting fluoride decreases caries. In fact the rigorous experiments we have that are well-controlled are mammals in cages given fluoridated water. There are no reduction in caries incidence from fluoridation.  But when the CDC ignores the facts, this is what we are dealt--correlations that suddenly are argued to be proven facts wihtout actual proof, which is luldicrous.

 

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

I have the letter from E. Lovering, the head if the FDA, stating in writing what I posted. Perhaos you could contact the FDA if you refuse to accept the truth from me.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,013 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

It's not even half way through the month, and look at the newest studies damning fluoridation as a public harm policy in just the past few days. 

 

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities at risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and do 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

 

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 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

 

LEARNING DISABILITIES: Over 200 children who were individually tested had attention deficit disorder apparently caused by their prenatal exposure to fluoride. 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. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412018311814

 

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume in 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 also 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 

 

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

1,131 Views
13
Report
Conversationalist

CarryAnne,

 

Thank you for those studies.

 

No one actually reading the research regarding the dosage of fluoride we are getting and the serious harm to our brains from too much fluoride would promote ingesting even more fluoride.  Makes no sense to intentionally harm brains.

 

Combine the current fluoride neurotoxic studies along with past studies and fluoridation will and must stop.  

 

To make matters worse, some attempt to reassure us that fluoride is effective in mitigating dental caries.  Unfortunately the research makes claims more by default, estimates, and assumptions rather than good research evidence.  The claim is often, "caries declined, so the effect must have been fluoride."   

 

It is time for promoters to provide RCT studies and gain FDA approval, show the evidence or stop forcing people to ingest excess fluoride.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
1,125 Views
12
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

This has been addtessed repeatedly in earlier posts. The FEW  ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved dtug. 

And regardless of whether one prefers  to call fluoride , which is added to treat human tissue , either a drug or a supplement, is irrelevant since the FDA has sole authority to regulate both drugs and supplements -- regardless of the method of dissemination.

Some argue fluoride is,a food but the FDA ruled that fluoride is not considered safe to add to foods.

Current FDA staff considers fluoride to be a toxic agent under  the toxic substances control act and that the EPA needs to deal with the problem, while  the EPA states that fluoride is added to mitigate caries and thus needs to be regulated by the FDA. Neither agency currently regulates fluoridation. 

This ,is  all old news.

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
1,067 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber for your barely legible response.  

 

For the m-teenth time now, could you please provide a link and a citation to an FDA website in which the FDA calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug?"  Since this was the entire premise of your rant, that would be necessary to back up what you were trying to say.

 

You haven't been able to provide such evidence before, so I don't expect miracles now.

Conversationalist

David.  

 

By your our response I can tell you have not read enough on the web site.  

 

FDA reviews drug applications.   

If no one makes application, no approval or denial on the FDA site will be found.  

 

Look for sodium fluoride pills and no approval will be found.  

 

You will either find approval or nothing.  

 

And the approval is specific with dosage warnings contraindications etc.  

 

listen to tv adds on drugs.  All the warnings and contraindications and side affects.   

 

Nothing on fluoride ingestion but there is on toothpaste.  

 

Your question makes no sense in the drug regulatory process.  

0 Kudos
955 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, 

 

Could you remind us all again how you would undertake an RTC with community water fluoridation?  

 

And why exactly would the practice of community water fluoridation need FDA approval?  Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't we talking about optimally fluoridated water?  Could you show me anywhere on this FDA regulated product (bottled water - the FDA has regulatory authority over bottled water because it is considered a "food") where the word "Drug," or the phrase "Drug Facts" are used?  This is the label from a bottle of optimally fluoridated water.

 

https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

 

Could you please cite any Federal Regulatory Authority which considers optimally fluoridated water a "Drug"?

Conversationalist

Hi David,

 

Such good questions.  Unfortunately, you seem to either fail to read my posts or read so fast you miss the answers.  I have responded repeatedly on your two questions.  Please slow down and read carefully.

 

To your first question on how to do a prospective RCT, consider several options.  

a.   Easiest to do an RCT with fluoride pills  The intent of fluoridation is to increase fluoride exposure (increase background dosage).  Fluoride pills have the same alleged benefit as putting the fluoride pill in water and swallowing the water.   In other words, have two sets of pills, one a fluoride pill and another a placebo pill.  Give the pills to people and keep track of who gets which pill  If an RCT were done with pills and demonstrated effective at a specific dosage and safe at that dosage, FDA approval could be applied for and approved.   Make swallowing fluoride legal with FDA approval.   If fluoride pills were legal, promoters of fluoridation would have a rather strong case.   The biggest problem would be to gain ethical approval.  With so many studies demonstrating harm, I doubt a university human studies ethics board would approve the study.   If an RCT is unethical, certainly forcing people to ingest the fluoride without consent should be questioned.

 

b.  There are communities in the North of Canada/Alaska and other remote communities in countries where water is trucked to the community.  A prospective RCT could be done with these communities. Again, the biggest hurdel would be ethics approval.  Too many studies showing harm.

 

David, we put a man on the moon, certainly we can make the swallowing of fluoride with the intent to prevent disease. . . legal and supported by the best of science.  The biggest problem to an RCT would be ethics.

 

To your second question of why fluoride used with the intent to prevent disease requires FDA approval.

 

   FDA approval is required by both Federal and all state laws.    21 USC 321 (g)(1)(B) states, "Articles intended for use in the . . . prevention of disease."   

 

The intent of fluoride is to prevent dental caries, a disease.   

If one argues that fluoride is not a drug, then fluoride is regulated under poison laws.  However, fluoride is exempt from poison laws when regulated under drug laws.  No exemption is made when diluted with water.

 

Fluoride is listed as a drug in all Pharmacopias and laws define drugs as those listed in the US Pharmacopia.

Fluoride is called a drug by the FDA.  See FDA.gov.   You can contact the FDA and ask the FDA if ingestion of fluoride is FDA approved whether in pills or liquids or disolved in water.

 

Note:  Drug Digest in 1975 notified 35 fluoride manufacturers:  

“. . .there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling. . . marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.”        

 

Read the FDA web site on Drug approval.  See FDA.gov Look under "drugs."  Then look at resources on the left side.   Look at how the FDA defines "drugs."  No exception to a drug just because it is diluted with water.  The intent of use defines the substance as a drug.

 

Now look at your toothpaste.  If fluoride is added, the toothpaste has a label, "Drug Facts."

Fluoride is approved in toothpaste with the label "Do Not Swallow."   Because, swallowing fluoride is not approved.

 

Now look at the Safe Drinking Water Act:

 

SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water. ”42 USC 300g-1(b)(11):

 

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 

 

Some have suggested they are simply adjusting the natural concentration of fluoride in water, and that is true.  But the intent, saying again, "INTENT" of use makes fluoride a drug and drugs are under FDA jurisdiction.   If fluoride were added to kill bacteria, then it would be legal, but fluoride is added to prevent disease.

 

At one time the natural concentration of lithium concentration was considered.  Lithium was considered so safe, safe for everyone, and would help those in need.  But lithium addition to water was stopped because it is a drug and found not safe for everyone.

 

Many other substances are found naturally in water but are not safe in larger quantities, concentrations.

 

Thanks for your questions, go to FDA.gov and they have much more.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

0 Kudos
1,024 Views
7
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, 

 

Your quote:  "Unfortunately, you seem to either fail to read my posts or read so fast you miss the answers.  I have responded repeatedly on your two questions.  Please slow down and read carefully."

 

Response:  Actually, I have read your responses, and you were kind enough to repeat them here.  Let's look at what you propose for an RCT for Community Water Fluoridation (CWF).

 

Let's look at your proposal B first.  Your Quote:  "There are communities in the North of Canada/Alaska and other remote communities in countries where water is trucked to the community.  A prospective RCT could be done with these communities. Again, the biggest hurdel would be ethics approval."

 

Response:  You are correct.  Ethics would be a problem here since your proposal is a clear violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which requires each supplier of drinking water to supply its customers with written notification of the results of analysis on that water.  Under your proposal, people who drink water which is "trucked to the community" would not be privy to analytical results.  That is illegal.  

 

Moreover, your proposal is not an RCT, it is a prospective cohort study.  An RCT invokes random selection from within a population, not comparing 2 self-selected populations, so they would have to combine the names from both town, then randomly select people into the F and non-F groups, and force them to live in their assigned town for 5+ years.  That would split up a lot of families!

 

Now let's look at your proposal A.  Your Quote:  "Easiest to do an RCT with fluoride pills  The intent of fluoridation is to increase fluoride exposure (increase background dosage).  Fluoride pills have the same alleged benefit as putting the fluoride pill in water and swallowing the water. "

Response:  Pills.  You are suggesting that pills would somehow replace authentic community water fluoridation to determine that teeth are protected in the same way as a constant supply of drinking water.  

 

For the readers of this thread who may not be accustomed to your loose relationship with facts, let me illustrate how absurd this idea is.  

 

First of all, any study like this would fail an objecive peer review process.  Why?  

 

They are not the same things.  You want to test apples by applying oranges.  Allow me to illustrate the problem with your idea.  

 

I get up at 3 o'clock in the morning to go to the bathroom, and I drink some fluoridated water which not only neutralizes the acids in my mouth which have been accumulating since 9 pm' these are acids which would normally lead to decay.  Correct?  

 

In your scenario, instead of drinking water at 3 am, 6 am (when I get up), 7 am, in my coffee, and throughout the day in which 0.7 ppm F are bathing and remineralizing my teeth, .  .  .  you suggest that I take a pill once a day.  

 

You are literally nuts.  That is the most insane proposal I have ever heard.  It would in no way ever pass a peer-reviewed process as a substitute for community water fluoridation.  

 

It is simply not the same thing!  

 

So while you whine and say, "It is time for promoters to provide RCT studies," you must realize that your own ill-advised proposals lack any substance whatsoever.  

 

To your second point about FDA approval, I couldn't help notice that you have failed to provide any quotation, any citation, from any Federal Health Authority which has deemed optimally fluoridated water "A Drug."  

 

The only people in this county who call optimally fluroidated water a drug is YOU.  You at the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which takes money from Alternative Health companies who profit from the paranoia that FAN generates, .  .  .  and You at Fluoride Class Action, you and Dr. Sauerheber, who have your own web pages on that site.  

 

Interesting question. Both you and Dr. Sauerheber are all over the website "Fluoride Class Action."  My question is, how much money has Attorney James Deal taken from prospective clients as part of his fluoride paranoia campaign?  

 

Next question:  How much money has he actually collected from legitimate lawsuites filed against those responsible for the proven health initiative Community Water Fluoridation?  

 

You deceptively cite this from the SDWA:  "SDWA: “No national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."

 

Response:  So What.  All this says - when applied to water fluoridation - is that the federal government can not mandate it.  The Federal government can not require water fluoridation.  It is normally voted upon by the people, and in some cases states can mandate it, but your interpretation is . .  deceptive to say the least. 

 

The following quote from you is a blatant lie.

 

"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.”

 

That is a lie, Dr. Bill.  Please provide documentation of what you just said here.  

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

 

There is no such

 
0 Kudos
942 Views
6
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You call me a liar because I quote the FDA with reference.   Those are not my words, those are the EPA's.  Why don't you contact the EPA and ask them to explain the law on fluoride to you?

 

I asked you to read what I wrote and you made me laugh because right after you call me a liar you demand documentation.  May I quote:

 

"That is a lie, Dr. Bill.  Please provide documentation of what you just said here.  

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 "

 

Read that again David.  Do you see the documentation right after your tirade.  The EPA's response to my FOIA.  Contact the EPA and ask for a copy of their response, the number is right there.   See it????    FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10

 

May I repeat FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10 Contact EPA for a copy.

 

You are so focused on ripping me apart you fail to see the documentation in your own cut and paste of my quote.  

 

Contact the EPA, Contact the FDA, do your homework.   I did my homework before I spoke out against fluoridation.  I respect you not wanting to have blind belief, but you do have blind belief in the fluoridation public health blunder.  

 

I do not have time to argue with you on RCT methodology and requirements.  

 

You do not understand the theoretical action of fluoride ingestion benefit to teeth.  

 

Yes, there are some differences between the same dose in a pill or diluted in water.  And there are more differences because pills have dosage controlled whereas fluoridated water does not have doseage controlled.  Some drink very little water and some drink a great deal.  A study with pills would be better controlled and higher quality.  But RCT with water could be done.

 

Another option for a good study would be fluoride urine and serum fluoride concentrations and caries rates.  Measured results are so much better than evidence by default.  These should have been done long ago and they have not.

 

Like I said before, go to the FDA and read the definition of a drug, how a drug is approved, etc.   

 

Even a placebo is considered a drug by the FDA because of the intent of use.

 

Do your homework, go to the source.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

0 Kudos
930 Views
5
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, I called you a liar because you aren't telling the truth.  

 

BillO:  

"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.”

 

I had asked you to provide documentation of what you just said so we may all read the whole thing in context.  

 

Again, please provide a link which supports what you just said.

 

I said you were lying because the statute from the SDWA which you cited clearly does not prohibit water fluoridation.  It says the Federal Government can not Require it.   That's a little bit different than prohibiting it.  

 

A link please?  

 

Moreover, if what you are saying was true, take the EPA to Court.  Take every state regulatory authority which oversees water fluoridation to court. 

 

It should be easy for a guy like you.  I see your name, and Dr. Sauerheber's name plastered all over a website called "Fluoride Class Action."   Isn't that the sort of thing Attorney James Deal is supposed to do?   How much money is that guy taking from potential clients?   You never answered that question, did you.

 

Your deceptive quote:  "Now look at your toothpaste.  If fluoride is added, the toothpaste has a label, "Drug Facts.""

 

Response:  We are not talking about toothpaste.  We are talking about optimally fluoridated water.  Do you understand that there is a difference between these two products?  

 

Again, The FDA is the regulatory authority which oversees Bottled Water.  This is a label from the FDA regulated product, "Dannon's Fluoride to Go" bottled water:  Please show me the word "Drug" or "Drug Facts" on this FDA regulated product, . . fluoridated water . . you know, what we're talking about here.  

 

This label lists fluoride as a Mineral Nutrient.  That's an FDA regulated product.  

 

By the way, the FDA has approved the ingestion of optimally fluoridated bottled water.  It allows the Health Claim to be put on its bottled water: The claim language is: "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]." 

 https://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/ucm073602.htm

 

That's what a link looks like.  I look forward to seeing the link to your  FOIA, or the upcoming lawsuit against those whom you are claiming are violating the SDWA.

 

The FDA does not consider optimally flouoridated water a drug in any sense of the word.  You know that is true and yet you deceptively talk about toothpaste.  That is why I call you a liar.

 

 

 

 

 

Conversationalist

David, 

Contact the EPA and ask for a copy of the FOIA.

 

You wrote, "I said you were lying because the statute from the SDWA which you cited clearly does not prohibit water fluoridation.  It says the Federal Government can not Require it.   That's a little bit different than prohibiting it."

 

I agree with you, the statute is not very clear, to me either.  OK, we need to understand that if Congress does not require something and pay for it, then I presume the Agency is prevented from doing it. . . . maybe???

 

Because I was uncertain, I asked the EPA to explain the statute and they responded.  Of course I added a reference to the EPA.  And if I sent you a copy of the letter you would say I forged it.  So the best course of action is for you to do your own home work.  Clearly you have plenty of time with all the posts, so contact them.  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH