- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
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.
- 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
- 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.😞
- 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
- 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);
- 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.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
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
- 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
- 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
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- 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.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
More false claims from a fluoridationist. The mean urinary fluoride level in women in fluoridated areas was 0.69 ppm. The mean level in areas without fluoridated water (natural fluoride was present) was 0.4 ppm. The difference was a mere 0.39 just as I stated.
I don't know where you get your data, but I got mine from the actual source.
And by the way if the IQ drop in boys the authors reported was in your opinion not significant, then what about the difference in IQ drops between boys and girls? The authors ate also wrong about this noted difference?
Stop changing data collected by others please.
Sorry, I read the F intake estimates.
But you seem to be saying that in this study the intake levels were too similar to deliver an IQ difference in children? In other words, the study did not show an effect of fluoridation on child IQ?
So why are anti-Fluoridationists using this study to claim the fluoridation reduces child IQ as they do in my city? Are they telling porkies?
Are you really serious right now? You expect me to explain yet again the results when we already went over this?
The increase in urinary F is reported to produce a detectable lowering of,IQ, as one would expect from many other studies for the increase in urinary F found.
If the control women had been typical of levels found in most nonfluoridated areas as published in the NRC Report them a greater IQ lowering would have been expected.
This is yet again changing my words so as to have the luxury of claiming I am incorrect when such is not the case. Who in his right mind takes such liberty with the statements of otjers? Sorry but I dont get it and actually I dont want to get it.
Richard, you are not being clear nbut I gather you do agree with me.
In this study, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CHILDREN'S IQ IS INFLUENCED BY THEIR MOTHER'S RESIDENCY IN FLULODIATED VS UNFLUODIUATED AREAS.
Do you agree with that? After all the figures are clear nonfluoridated mean IQ = 108.1, fluoridated mean IQ = 108.2. Nothing to do with urinary F.
So the billboards used in NZ are wrong? Their claim is completely fake.
As for the rest - you are speculating. Urinary F data is so rare and the methodology used in this paper so inexact that one just cannot extrapolate.
But even so, considering this study alone, would you consider the difference between the 25th and 75th percentiles to be realistic for the effect of fluoridation. From the data what do you expect the IQ difference to be? What do you expect the CIs to be? Do you think that is at all significant?
Yes, do listen closely..... The Editor and editorial are severely lacking in dental expertise.
Further, the Editor, a physician, has spoken openly in "print" media that he would not have his wife drink fluoridated water based on this study. REALLY? Like depending on one study on immunizations by Andrew Wakefield???
Then, the Editor even mentioned Wakefield in the Podcast. Yah, go listen. Then he does exactly the same thing and makes a recommendation based on ONE study. And he says that he'd recommend that pediatricians questioned on it recommend this too. He'd have them drink bottled or filtered water. He doesn't state which bottled water or filters. That is poor. Bottled water can contain up to twice or more fluoride than tap water and isn't labeled on the bottle's contents. You know this I'm sure. But for the readers here that really want to know, this information can be found by calling the phone number on the bottle, or on the International Bottled Water Association's website, IBWA.org.
Filters: Which filters? We know it is reverse osmosis and whole house carbon filters, don't we? Of course we do. We've spoken about this in other forums. Don't try to decieve the folks here. I'm an AARP member and won't let you scare them or their children/grandchildren who may be pregnant.
Nearly 75 year of credibly conducted scientific research that's been published in peer-reviewed, credibly recognized scientific journals has repeatedly shown water fluoridation to be effective and safe for everyone. Over 6,500 articles are listed on Pubmed when the word fluoridation is entered. One study does not reverse the overwhelming body of evidence on water fluoridation. Neither do 3-4 which have not been repeated. If and when something changes, the scientific community will be the first to announce it, not you and others who oppose fluoride in water at any level, even the natural levels that are in all water in the world.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
"Thou protesteth too much, me thinks." A reasonable person without an agenda would be pleased for new research and request/encourage even more.
Should a 'pill' be offered to increase IQ of the children, I bet many would ask for it. If there is some idea or suspicion that something may decrease IQ of the children, that is equally worth attention as well as alarm or avoidance.
See what this Medical Doctor has to say about the study. https://youtu.be/oSTTQKo6jxc
I wonder why you protest so much and so strongly.
A registered nurse.
CarryAnne I see you cite yourself regarding the claim that "JAMA had two professional statisticians review the research. "
I think we need something more authentic. Could you please let us know where you got this from? Did JAMA announce this? Have you seen the statisticians' reports, etc?
it would be highly unusual to include 2 statisticians in a review panel (I have never experienced more than 1), but this may be because of arguments over the statistics used - that has been widely criticised by independent experts for this paper.
How do we know lack of fluoride does not cause dental caries? Easy. Read and read more. And remember that on the world stage fluoridation only started 75 years ago and people had lived for millennia and many still had normal teeth.
1. The Ziegelbecker extensive data set on natural fluoride in water supplies proved no link whatsoever with caries incidence and F level even up to 6 ppm F. This includced the Dean data set that was found to be mere scatter in the 1 ppm F level area.
2. The Yiamouyiannis extensive analyses that included most major U.S. cities both before and after artificial fluoridation began showed no effect whatsoever iln anyh age group on dental careis incidence.
3.The Teotia and Teotia 30 year extensive world wide analysis of careis incidence and the levesl of calicum and f in water which showed that the highest careis incidccne occurred in areas with high flujoride an low calcium ahd the lowest incicence occurred in ares with low F and high calicum. This is becuae calicum builds storng teeth, not F.
4. The Phillip Sutton extensive analysis of all fluoridaotn traisl that proved all claims of effectiveness were from "studies" that were notr controlled properly. Talk about lies abounding--wow.
5.And of course the NRC data which show that F does not actually incorporate into the enamel matrix.. CaF2 globules on teeth from brushing with F'd toothpaste is readily dissolved upon eating/drinking and the F is swallowed and incorporated into bone, not teeth.
Dental caries are caused by acids formed by bacteria feeding on sugar in the oral cavity.
Personal testimony from trusted sources are also valuable. For example, my WWII 101st Airborne Uncle who learned how to care for teeth in the Army. He never had a single cavity his entire 85 years of life . He did not use F'd toohtapse or f'd water and lived on a farm in IN that had spring water without F. He was spared because he brushed with baking soda daily which neutralizes any bacterial acids before any damage can be done. He brushed after eating sweets.
Good dental care, which is made easiest when one has had a good level of dietary calcium during the teeth-forming years, is how to prevent caries. F has nothing to do with it and was a false correlation made on a limited set of data that led to the deceptive story told to the Public Health Service.
There you have it.
Fluoridation is ordered into water by Boards of Health in the US using their police powers. This happens despite the fact that if any wants to consume fluoridated water, it's cheap and easy to do so while the water 'filters' that actually reduce fluoride are expensive and generally ineffective.
I depended on a high quality water filter for drinking water for decades. It may have reduced the fluoride a little, but it did not eliminate the fluoride and was insufficient to protect my health. I accepted diagnoses of arthritis, IBS, chronic fatigue syndrome, etc. not realizing I was being fluoride poisoned. Those decades of misery ended quite quickly when I switched to bottled water, even to brush my teeth.
Moreover, some people shouldn't even shower in fluoriated water as liquids that go on the skin, also go in the skin. I know of people who have spent thousands on whole house systems only to find them ineffective for their needs. I know of others who have rigged up complex systems for bathing and still need to time their showers and change their filters much more often than recommended in order to prevent their symptoms of fluoride poisoning.
There are obstetricians, pediatricians, thyroid doctors, kidney doctors and oncologists who recommend their patients avoid fluoridated water. Hence, artifical fluoridation of water supplies is a immoral medical mandate that harms many consumers, especially the poor.
Water, like air, is necessary to life. Safe water, like safe air, should be safe for the most vulnerable among us. Therefore, the appropriate government model should be the one adopted in many places that ban public smoking.
Some of my students have F reactions on skin when showering which began when fluoridation began. The way they cope with the red rashes is to use calcium gel on their skin during bathing.
The F anion is the same size as the water molecule except the ion is spherical. So yes a traditional filter has no ability to remove F from treated water. Some properly made bone char (baked bone hydroxyapatite) can remove it, and modern RO membranes under pressure can remove it well. But only thise who can afford very expensive whole house RO which wastes much water could treat their home water supply.
All this remember is not accompanied with any effect on teeth. Lack of F does not cause dental cavities.
It must be nice to change the words of opponents so it gives you the luxury of condemning them.
I did not say the U.S. is a police state.. I said the truth, which is water fluoridation is a police action and in CA it is a mandate forced by the State. It is a blunder.
Adding F into public water, which does not sanitize water, is illegal. The SDWA prohibits even the addition into water of a banana peel , or vitamin C, etc. The public water supply is not a repository or medium to be used to treat humans with any food , nutrient, drug, or in the case of F a poisonous substance. The Act is a derivative of the water pollution control act which was first conceived by president John F Kennedy, with the purpose of maintaining the chemistry of the natural waters of the country.
But fluorudationists have broken the law by excusing the infusion of F which fluoridates peoples' bones, where 95% of assimilated F accumulates .
Only substances that purify water and make it potable and non-infective are legal additives.
But when laws are broken and the police do nothing abour it and in fact help enforce tbe breaking of the law,
call it what you like, but it is nevertheless illegal, anti democratic, and there is nothing a normal cirizen can do to correct it. And Im not crying crocodile tears. I feel sorry for people who are so taken in by falsehood. Again, I fail to see the humor. And posting the truth online does not force anyone to stop fluoridating themselves. Just brush one extra time daily with F'd toothpaste and that should cover what you get from the fluoridation of a cities' entire water supply to treat teeth.
The purpose of this AARP forum is to empower Americans over age 50 to live their best lifes. The purpose of JAMA Pediatrics is to advance the health and well-being of infants, children, and adolescents.
JAMA Pediatrics is the oldest and top ranked pediatric journal in the world. It subjected the MIREC study by Green et al. to extensive scrutiny from expert scientists, including a number who support fluoridation policy. JAMA Pediatrics also subjected this study to two independent statistical analyses - all because the editors wanted to believe the myth of fluoride instead of the science. However, those medical professionals had the integrity to admit that this study is very high quality with sound findings and conclusions that deserve to be published. The editors also noted that science is iterative and consequently changes with new information.
If you want to continue to believe that consuming fluoride provides some dental benefit, this study has no opinion on that.... but even if fluoridation did prevent cavities (the best evidence finds it doesn't, or at least not by much), there is substantial evidence including the evidence in this study that finds fluoridation and low dose exposure to fluoride causes subtle brain damage. Since that brain damage manifests as lowered IQ in the very young, the best modern recommendations are that pregnant women avoid fluoride and fluoridated water during pregnancy. Other studies recommend the same for families with preschoolers because of evidence of unsafe fluoride overdoses from diet. Researchers in fluoride and neurodegenerative diseases like dementia recommend the same thing for seniors.
Students of statistics and anyone else with time on their hands are welcome to play with the numbers themselves, but, in my opinion, persistent use of this forum in an attempt to deny valid published science based on amateur evaluations of data that differ from the expert analyses contradicts the purposes of AARP and JAMA Pediatrics.
Now that the difference betwen correlation and causation has been brought up, let's mention the real culprit in all this floridation nonsense. In the 1930's Dean looked at the correlation between fluoride content in drinking water and dental caries and claimed that the correlation was indeed a causation, that higher F levels actually caused lower caries incidence. That was a gross blunder and is the reason we still have water fluoridation today. What really happened is that higher F levels increased dental fluorosis incidence, which is unsightly and people who have it think they are not taking care of their teeth well so they tend to brush teeth more, so of course it is possible that F in water might be associated with caries going down.
However, the bottom line is that the entire data set (that Dean ignored in order to make the correlation and the causation claim) was published by Ziegelbecker and it reveals over a very broad concentration range that F in water does not affect caries in the slightest, even up to 6 ppm in drinking water.
But before the complete data set was examined, the boondoggle of water "fluoridation" was sold to the Public Health Service. Several of the dentists who proposed it later recanted and apologized, but a military government program, who can stop? We are still unable to stop it even 75 years later, especially when we have people claiming that there is no harm based on small differences in correlation studies over small F level range differences, where higher F levels demonstrate the neurotoxicity -- all while those same people claim F in water decreases caries a little bit when even at 6 times higher levels there is no effect.
Talk about baseless self promotion of one's own idea while at the same time spewing baseless denunciation of others' truths -- wow.
Here in the 21st Century we have someone claiming that fluoride or fluoridation does not affect IQ based on this single study with only slight differences in urinary F levels that occurred with only slight corresponding differences in IQ.
That is as absurd as claimng: since the stuctural damage to the city this year from 65 mph winds was not markedly different than last year at 61 mph, that it must be that wind does not cause structural damage !!.
I am newly astounded daily at the misinformation that is spread by proponents of fluoridation, most of whom think everyone else is a crackpot and "anti-science" and should bow down to them and accept the fluoridation of your bony skeleton because they know more than you, that the treatment is for your own good..
Below is a list of the claims you made in this discussion (copied for you to re-read).The only reason I added a comment is because of these insane comments that left alone are bald faced lies. You have no right to twist the Green study into the claim that fluoride has no effect on IQ. The study ws not on caged humans where some were not exposed to any lfuoride. The difference in fluoride content of the mothers in the control and experimental groups was very small. If water already contains substantial fluoride, then adding a little more will only produce effects that are difficult to detect, obviously. So your claim is nonsense.
there is no effect due to fluoride on IQ ("The answer is a resounding no in the digitized data.")
But I stress - there is no effect of fluoride on IQ
In fact, fluoridation has no effect on the mean IQ for boys (104.78 vs 106.31) or for girls (111.47 vs 109.68)
There is a very significant effect of sex on IQ - once that is removed there is no effect of fluoride on IQ.
What I am saying is that the data in the table shows no difference - no effect of fluoride on IQ.
Richard, Bill and whoever. I have posted an article on the Green et al study - you can find it at "If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help."
This is attracting some good comments so hopefully we can develop a good exchange there.
These fluoridation proponents claim that the authors of the Green et al. (2019) study manipulated statistics and then outrightly dismiss the very evident significance between boys and girls exposed to fluorides as "highly irregular". However, it is well known that there is a 4/1 sex difference in neurodevelopmental disorders, where boys are most affected. Thus, these fluoridation proponent arguments are approaching laughable, since there are now over 50 human studies and hundreds of animal and other studies finding harm from fluoridation. Yet, these proponents claim that there is nothing to see and then manipulate statistics to show something else.
In contrast, these fluoridation proponents have not a single valid empirical study showing any benefit of ingesting fluorides (i.e. opinion articles are not empirical studies). Still 70% of US public water is fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate. Not so in Europe, where 98% does not fluoridate (only the Irish Republic, 11% of England, and 3% of Spain does). As for dental health and most cancer prevalence, the Irish republic has the worst dental health and cancer prevalence in Europe. We don't truly even need studies, since we can look at population statistics as evidence of the truth that fluoridation is harmful and not beneficial. For example, in the US, Kentucky is the most fluoridated state and they have the worst dental health. Thus, manipulating valid studies without the original data is a low point.
sirpac - you seem to have a blinkered view of this research when you say it shows a "very evident significance between boys and girls exposed to fluorides."
You miss the whole point - it showed a difference in the IQ of boys and gurls for both fluoridated and unfluoridated groups. There was no statistically significant difference due to fluoridation. This is the data from Table 1 in the paper:
But the authors who actually did the study concluded differently, that for every 1 mg per day increased intake of F in pregnant expecting mothers, there was a 3.2 IQ drop for both boys and girls. One can twist data all they want and excuse fluoridation, but i dont give my innocent grandkids drinks made with fluoridated water or foods made with the garbage.
Why cant everyone else in San Diego and elsewhere have that option in their public drinking water when they want that?
rs5526 - how can you say they concluded differently when the data in my table is taken from their table 1?
As for their regression analysis (which explained only 1.2% of the IQ variance), you are completely wrong. They did not say:
"for every 1 mg per day increased intake of F in pregnant expecting mothers, there was a 3.2 IQ drop for both boys and girls."
What they actually said was:
“A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14) in boys and girls.”
I will reproduce below my lengthy explanation that I provided for Bill on my blog (he was having trouble understanding the statistics and I guess you are too).
1: I hope you are familiar with what the word “associated” mean. Particularly it should not be seen as some sort of proof of a cause.
2: Again, it does not say the coefficient (the slope of the best-fit line) was exactly 3.66. It quotes a 95% confidence interval – in this case –7.16 to -0.14. There is a 95% chance the coefficient will be in this range.
3: That is the coefficient – but what would be the associated IQ values be. [Please don’t forget the word “associated” – it is too easy to fall into sloppy thinking and assume we are talking about an actual loss caused by fluoride. That has not been shown at all.]
The figures relate only to the best-fit line and that range of coefficients indicate values for the best-fit l line at a MUF of 1.0 mg/l in the range of 103.13 to 110.15. (I am using a constant for the line of 110.29 estimated from the paper’s Figure 3).
4: Now here is the figure with the data points taken from the paper.
5: Please note that the values from the quoted statement refer only to the line. 110.29 – 3.36 = 106.93 = the IQ value of the line at MUF of 1 mg/ml. The CIs indicate a 95% probability of values in the range 103.13 to 110.15. That range is indicated by the grey shade showing the place the best-fit line could occur.
6: Now note that at a MUF of about 1 mg/L ACTUAL values occur WELL OUTSIDE THAT RANGE. At least 74 to 140 or even wider.
In fact, only a few of the values are in the range given in the quote.
This tells you that the reported association [“3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14)”] is an extremely poor predictor of what the actual values associated with the MUF will be.
7: The reason should be obvious. The data has a very wide scatter and the fitted line explains only a very small percentage of the true IQ variance. This can be calculated from a normal regression analysis – the authors would have the figures but did not report them. I think that is a major deficiency in this paper and similar papers from this group.
My estimate (using digitally extracted data from the figure) is that the reported association explain only 1.2% of the IQ variance. That is a very small value.
8: Finally, the author’s rely on p-values (in this case 0.04) and conventionally we say a relationship is “significant” if p is less than 0.05. By itself, p-values can be very misleading – and are often simply used to confirm a bias. Authors should provide all the information for their statistical analyses. In this case, an R-squared value of 0.012 (which they refused to report) would have told us that the reported association was meaningless. I do not think this is honest or objective reporting by these authors
On the other hand, I must compliment them for at least showing us some of the data – this enables us to come to our own conclusions about the significance of their results. Of course, anti-fluoride activists will only be discussing the p-value in their misrepresentations.
Do you know of any human studies on the toxicity of lead which you accept as quality and up to your standards? Or do you consider lead to be safe to ingest?
Is there any study reporting harm to humans of any substance which meets your requirements?
And when are you going to respond to the total fluoride exposure excess?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, did you read my explanation of the statistical analysis in Green et al's paper? Did you understand it?
Do you agree the observed correlation is extremely flimsy?
Perhaps more could be said about the MUF analysis for boys. The residual plot suggests the assumptions inherent in a linear regression are suspect. The residuals are improved by a log transformation but I think this just adds to my point that this reported association is meaningless.
Why should I answer you when you do not answer me.
Ive asked for many months and sent you a pile of references on excess exposure.
You know now too many are ingesting too much and you refuse to respond to the basic concept of dosage.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Ken , you say that my contribution to discussion here relies on activist ideology and unsupported attacks on science.
So if I quote Basic methods for assessment of renal fluoride excretion in community prevention programmes for oral health, World Health Organisation, 2014, where it is stated that ingested fluoride from all sources, whether deliberately or unintentionally ingested, is excreted primarily in the urine. Thus, studies of urinary fluoride levels are ideal for assessing the total intake of fluoride in populations and, more particularly, such studies also provide a basis for decisions on the use of fluoride for caries prevention and that the report also clearly states that public health administrators should assess the total fluoride exposure of a population before introducing any additional fluoridation or supplementation programmes for caries prevention - is that activist ideology and an unsupported attack on science?
And then if I refer to the major National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006) which provides evidence that:
• Endocrine systems and thyroid functions are impaired at exposure levels to fluoride below the consumption levels expected from drinking what is described as optimally fluoridated water,
• kidney patients and diabetics are susceptible subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides and that this is relevant to fluoridated water as low as 1ppm concentration, and
• as a calcifying tissue that is exposed to a high volume of blood flow, the pineal gland is a major target for fluoride accumulation in humans with the calcified parts of the pineal gland containing the highest fluoride concentrations in the human body - higher than either bone or teeth and that fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans - is that activist ideology and an unsupported attack on science?
Both Bashash et al. Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico and Green et al. Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada find an association between prenatal exposure to fluoride and cognitive development disorders in children and that these studies’ findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforce the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children, and to ensure that the benefits of population-level fluoride supplementation outweigh any potential risks. So if I advocate application of the precautionary principle to public policy is that activist ideology and an unsupported attack on science?
If ever there was a need for the precautionary principle to apply it is now.
That principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientiﬁc near-certainty about its safety.
Under these conditions, the burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action (like CWF) not those opposing it.
The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of evidence and the incompleteness of scientiﬁc knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society. (See: Taleb et al., The Precautionary Principle: Fragility and Black Swans from Policy Actions, University of East Anglia, 2014)
Ross, I don't know what your purpose in this discussion is.
The Green et al paper had been discussed extensively here and I have written about it in my article If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help.
I have also written extensively on the Bashash et al and similar studies - here are some articles.
Criticisms of these studies could be made related to methodology (eg you should know the inadequacies of spot urine tests used in these studies if you have truly read the WHO document you refer to. I covered these in my article Anti-fluoridation campaigner, Stan Litras, misrepresents WHO. However, this is hardly worth it because the reported relationships are so weak as to be meaningless. This is the point you should be engaging with - not citing studies without understanding their meaning.
As for calcified tissue adsorbing reactive ions like fluoride, phosphate, citrate, etc. Simple chemistry - not a cause of calcification.
Ken, just to change your current tack a little, in an earlier posting I did not say that the democratic process is quaint. I was asserting that your reliance on a referendum or poll to resolve a CWF issue as quaint and I did not imply that democratic expressions must be "forced" from people such that you should apply the word ‘obscene’ to my comments.
The real obscenity in your city, Hamilton NZ, was that the outcome of a non-binding referendum forced over 11,000 citizens to receive unmonitored doses of a neurotoxin in their tap water against both their collective and individual consents.
Clear majorities of voters in a referendum should not determine that the rest are forced against their will to take a health-affecting toxin, at any concentration, in their drinking water.
I’m sure, Ken, that if you become ill and attend a medical centre, you don’t revert to asking assembled strangers in the centre’s reception area to vote on suggested treatments for your condition so why should fluoride in community water supplies be any different?
Those who believe in ingested fluoride treatment for dental health care can have it clinically prescribed by a physician so to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number fluoridation should be abandoned world-wide.
You asked me to present evidence that there are viable oral health alternatives to CWF which have been demonstrated in several countries, including New Zealand.
I know you are well aware of Scotland’s Childsmile programme which functions successfully without a fluoridation overlay. There are similar approaches to children’s oral health in parts of the UK and Denmark.
For a New Zealand model I refer to Ellen Clark’s June, 2017, thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Dentistry at the University of Otago, Dunedin, titled ‘Supervised tooth brushing in Northland’ (New Zealand). Northland is not fluoridated.
This thesis was supervised by Associate Professor Lyndie Foster Page and Professor W. Murray Thomson of the Otago dental school.
The results were far better than hoped with children who were brushing teeth at school having a mean number of 11.7 tooth surfaces that improved. In comparison, children not brushing had 8.6 tooth surfaces that deteriorated over the year which was regarded as quite profound.
The author said that the beauty of the study was that it removed the usual inequalities in oral health caused by poverty and that the results had prompted interest from overseas and from district health boards around New Zealand.
The author had expected it would be several years before such significant results were seen.
These results were achieved with brushes and toothpaste, children spitting into towels, rinsing brushes at a water fountain and the cost of a teacher aid for an hour daily.
This low-tech intervention could do the same for New Zealand as whole, at a relatively low cost, compared with the tens of millions of dollars that would be involved in installing infrastructure with legislatively imposed nation-wide CWF which on its own would have little , if any, effect on improving children’s dental health.
Ross, you still seem to be saying that "reliance on a referendum or poll" to resolve a democratic issue is quaint. That is just silly. And you did use the word "forced."
You use it again saying "referendum forced over 11,000 citizens to receive unmonitored doses of a neurotoxin in their tap water against both their collective and individual consents."
That is absolute rubbish. I live in Hamilton and I have yet to see any evidence anyone being held down and administered with anything, let alone a toxicant. No one is forced.
The great thing about a democratic decision like this is that everyone gets a say. The decision is determined by the majority and the minority still get to do what they want. It's a win-win situation.
All the local anti-fluoride people I have talked to use alternatives - either the publicly supplied non-fluoridated water, a filter or another source. Absolutely no one has been forced to drink anything against their will. I think the people who make such outrageous claims are just upset that they are prevented from intervening in the health of others - paritcualry children who cannto defend themselves and who suffer the most from painful tooth decay.
No, of course, the best treatment is not determined by a vote - it's determined by science and logical thinking. That is why the sensible person voting in such referenda listens to what the real experts say rather than either flipping a coin or listening to the crazy next door neighbor.
You claim "Scotland’s Childsmile programme . . .functions successfully without a fluoridation" but seem oblivious to the fact that an essential component of the programme is regular fluoride varnish treatments for the young children
Elements of the Childsmile programme and similar programmes are also used in New Zealand. Sensible health experts use what works and is appropriate for their situation (Yes, CWF is just not suitable for some situations independently of whether the community desire it or not).