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! 

32,452 Views
1449
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

As  said, the FDA does not permit itself to label fluoride levels in water, or to require that fluoride be labeled on bottled water by anyone. If you have a problem with that or with companies that label the fluoride level in their bottled water, then take it up with the FDA

 Dr. Groth first instituted this FDA policy, not me. If it were me, I would require fluoride level labeling if the water is  either natural at 1 ppm or above  or if any fluoride was added artificially from an industrial source. But that is me. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,391 Views
3
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Oh Richard.  The fluoride content and other contents used to be listed on bottled water.  I recall.  I stocked that aisle when I was working my way through college at a large Florida grocery chain, Publix.

 

Secondly, your comment about fluoride supplements not being approved by the FDA is partially accurate.  The same is true about aspirin.  The reason?  Both pre-date the FDA's testing criteria that is now in place.  Fluoride supplements and aspirin are grandfathered in.  

 

If aspirin or fluoride supplements were unsafe, they would be pulled from the shelves immediately.  The anti-fluoridationists have tried to get the FDA to change this in writing many times, but to no avail.  

 

I'm glad that you and the other anti-fluoridationists continue to post here.  At the ripe old age of 62, like my fellow readers here, we grew up without the benefits of water fluoridation.  And they, like me, continue to pay the price for not having had the benefits of water fluoridation.  Fillings, crowns, root canals, tooth removal, bridges, dentures, implants, and decreased quality of life are all attributable to not having had the benefits of water fluoridation, along with fluoridated toothpaste, perhaps not a well balanced meal, regular dental care, and a myriad of other factors that lead to tooth decay.

 

As a Pediatric Dentist, I have seen the children and grandchildren of folks who are reading your thinly veiled attempts to mislead them.  Every generation that has grown up with water fluoridation has better oral health than the one before them.  Even in the face of bad diets, poor oral hygiene, and lack of routine dental care, these kids are growing up with less cavities, and less severe cavities because of fluoridated water.  Fluoride toothpaste is a must.  Fluoridated water plus fluoride toothpaste work together.  It's like air bags and seat belts.  One does not replace the other.  They work in tandum to protect us from harms.

 

I won't have the time to go back and forth with you and the other antis, as I have work to do.  Suffice it to say that if there was a single health ill caused by fluoride in water at the levels in water fluoridation, or at levels much greater, we would have known it by now.  The benefits of fluoride were discovered in 1901.  The natural levels of fluoride in the water was found to be from 2-12 parts per million (ppm).  These folks did not have a single health issue associated with them.  Read about it here on a reputable website:

https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

2,041 Views
2
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Dear Johnny,

 

Read the primary research.

 

The  NIDCR link you provide to the history of the theory of fuoride and dental caries is interesting and illustrates the lack of scientific rigor which is accepted by fluoridationists.  Not a single reference to primary research.  As a dentist and scientist, those stories are a fun read, but not science.

 

GV Black, the father of modern dentistry, was worshiped in dental school, but that does not mean science will never improve or go past his theories.   And he would be the first to remind us to continue research, question all theories and improve on them or discard them.

 

NIDCR mixes systemic and topical fluoride use.  Topical fluoride has shown better benefit than systemic.

 

Your own opinion and story is certainly of human interest; however, consider scientific evidence, primary research, and a review of all the evidence rather than simply trusting tradition and opinion.  

 

The NIDCR story reminded me of a careful evaluation of national surveys we currently have.  I was very surprised to see dental caries rates change with the concentration of calcium and magnesium water concentrations.  The ratio of all three, fluoride, calcium, and magnesium affect dental caries, but at low concentrations (under 1 mg/L) fluoride has less effect than changes in magnesium and calcium concentrations.  An entire new world of caries prevention few have considered.

 

If magnesium goes up or down plus or minus from about 10 mg/L, caries goes up, depending on calcium and fluoride concentrations.  But over about 20 mg/L magnesium and caries goes down, and that is at 0.7 mg/L fluoride.  Change the fluoride to 0.1 and caries increases over 10 mg/L.   50 mg/L of calcium seems to be a sweet spot, but caries goes up with less calcium.  And at 1 mg/L of fluoride, both calcium and magnesium concentrations affect caries in a different way.   

 

We have been far to simplistic when we have focused exclusively on fluoride and caries prevention.  The ratio of other chemicals in the water need to also be adjusted or considered in order to maximize caries reduction and not have iatrogenic harm.  In fact, adjusting magnesium or calcium could have a greater impact on caries than fluoride concentration.  

 

Obviously, any caries research which does not include the confounding factors of magnesium, calcium, sugar exposure and other diet factors is seriously limited with a high risk of false positives.

 

As long as my professions are camped on the flawed and limited theory of fluoride exposure, we have not been able to move past fluoride to other chemicals which are perhaps more important.    And with careful research, we might find fluoride is beneficial with hard water but not soft water or other chemicals.  So much to learn and discover.  At this point, DMFS appears to be the same whether the fluoride concentration in the water is 0.1 mg/L, 0.7 mg/L or 1.0 mg/L.  

 

Read the primary literature rather than tabloid stories reaffirming tradition and based on tradition.  

 

People promoting or opposed to fluoride exposure are not bad people.  They have experienced and read different literature.  We must get past looking at people, picking teams, trust, and faith.  It is time to look at the primary factual evidence.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

2,291 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Hi Johnny,

 

FDA has approved Asprin but not fluoride.

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=BasicSearch.process

 

Essential review are Guidance documents of the FDA.  For example, unapproved drugs : https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070290.pdf

 

And a must review is FDA explaination and definition of a drug.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/healthprofessionals/ucm553116.htm

 

There is no exemption from drug approval due to dilution or dilution in water.  A drug is defined based on intent of use.  Certainly we agree fluoride supplements are drugs.  Taking the NaF or any substance and diluting in water, marketed with intent to prevent disease, does not exempt FDA approval, regardless of whether any other Federal or State Agency also has jurisdiction.

 

Quote from FDA:

 

"LCDR Wagner: Whether a product is regulated as a drug, a cosmetic, or both under the law is determined by a product's intended use. Drugs are defined as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and as articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals. Cosmetics on the other hand, are defined as articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.  Some examples of cosmetic products include skin lotions, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and face makeup, cleansing shampoos, hair dyes, and deodorants. . . . 

LCDR Wagner:  To establish a product’s intended use, FDA may consider a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence. This includes any claim or statement made by or on behalf of a manufacturer that explicitly or implicitly promotes a product for a particular use and any circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product or the context in which it is sold.  For example, FDA may consider the following to establish intended use: 

  • Claims stated on the product labeling, in advertising, on the Internet, or in other promotional materials.  Certain claims may cause a product to be considered a drug, even if the product is marketed as if it were a cosmetic. Some claims establish the product as a drug because the intended use is to treat or prevent disease or otherwise affect the structure or any function of the human body. For example, claims that products restore hair growth, reduce cellulite, treat varicose veins, or regenerate cells are generally drug claims.
  • Consumer perception, which may be established through the product's reputation. In other words, asking why the consumer is buying it and what the consumer expects it to do.
  • Inclusion of ingredients that have a well-known therapeutic use. An example of this is fluoride in toothpaste."

The FDA is quite clear, fluoride is a drug based on intent of use.  FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste.  For example, FDA Orange Book lists fluoride:

OTCSODIUM FLUORIDE; TRICLOSANCOLGATE TOTALN020231PASTEDENTAL0.24%; 0.3% RLDRSCOLGATE PALMOLIVE

 

I am unable to find any NDA for fluoride supplements with the intent to prevent dental caries.  I asked FDA and FDA responded fluoride supplements are not approved.  

 

Dilution of a drug does not exempt the drug.  Even a placebo needs FDA approval.  A brief excellent vido by the FDA is https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/HealthProfessionals/ucm553114.htm

 

Please watch at least the last half.  Even public perception without manufacturer's claim, puts the substance as a drug.   Certainly we would agree that public perception of ingesting fluoride is with the intent to prevent dental caries.  

 

If the ingestion of fluoride were effective, the FDA would approve ingestion of fluoride.  However, the scientific evidence, the facts, are not strong enough to pass FDA approval.  In fact, FDA reviewed the evidence available at the time and said the evidence was incomplete.  

 

The first step for those wanting to promote fluoride ingestion is to gain FDA approval.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

2,065 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

There are no lies in any of my posts. The FDA statements and actions are what they are.

 

As far as lawsuits for health effects of drinking fluoridated water, one that might have a chance of being proven would be hip replacement surgeries where the denigrated bone is assayed for fluoride. But physicisn don't order such tess. Period. Some patients have paid for them themselves at indsutrial analytical laboratories (non-clinical). But again, the suit would likely fail because people actually believe that fluoride belongs in bone and blood, when it doesn't.

 

Cigarette smoking many people tolerate genetically well, and bone fluoride can be tolerated by some to fairly high levels without necessarily developing pain, that others cannot tolerate. It took over 60 years of intense fighting to finally get cigarette makers to agree that smoking causes cancer in susceptible people even though others can tolerate it. And it would take just as long to convince fluoridationists that fluoridation of bone causes bone weakening and structural abnormality and in many cases bone pain. Lawsuits are not likely to go anywhere because fluoridationists would argue the exopsrue came from somewhere else, not the water. This is alreeady being done now with dental fluorosis. Water districts berate that dental enamel fluorosis is the fault of toothpaste makers since water fluoridation started first and toothpaste added to the total fluoride dose. But toothpaste makers blame water districts since toothpaste (by FDA guidelines) is "not to be swallowed or used in children undeer 6", while water fluoride is added with the specific intent to be swallowed. It is swallowed fluoride from both sources that casue dental fluorosis. So how does the lawsuit proceed on the premise that fluoride causes harm? Jeff Green avoided such impossible lawsuits under these ciricumstances (unlike more readily provable Chrojmim six) and used the law to force city councils to halt fluoridation.

People on this site who preach fluoridation believe that fluoride actually belongs in blood and bone. They are incorrect because fluoride is a contaminant of blood and bone. Of course hexavalent chromium that was measured in blood was key to winning the suit against PG&E. So what? It can be proven that F levels in blood of those living in fluoridated cities are higher than in nonfluoridated cities, but fluoride is not Cr which is recognized as not belonging in blood. So instead, Eein Brockovich is fighting to have fluoride removed from the list of ingredients thought to be part of a normal diet.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,615 Views
5
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

 

Dr. Sauerheber, your quotes, copy/pasted from your comments: 

 

“07-13-2018 03:58 PM

There are no lies in any of my posts. The FDA statements and actions are what they are.”

 

Of course there are.  Here is one of many examples in this thread alone.

 

“07-12-2018 03:46 PM

Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water. “  End quote.

 

After I provided a link to a label of bottled water on which fluoride was listed at 0.77 ppm, you changed your story to this:

 

“07-13-2018 11:16 AM

The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.“  End quote.

 

“The FDA statements and actions are what they are.”

 

Those aren’t FDA statements.  Those are YOUR statements alleging contradictory policy.  YOUR statements are false.

 

Please be kind enough to show me that somehow both of these contradictory statements, by you, are correct.  Please provide a links to FDA websites proving your statements are not lies.

1,427 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber you say, “People on this site who preach fluoridation . . “

 

First of all, to be clear, I don’t “preach fluoridation.”  I preach against unwarranted scare mongering.

 

Second, in your comment below you simply use the phrase “dental fluorosis,” or, “dental enamel fluorosis” as if all degrees of fluorosis are the same.  You know that is not true, and this blurring of the different degrees of fluorosis is typical of scare-mongers.   

 

You know that the mild degrees of fluorosis improve the health of teeth, making them more resistant to decay, improving quality of life, while the more severe degrees of fluorosis, which are NOT associated with optimally fluoridated water, are detrimental to quality of life . . just as dental decay is detrimental to quality of life.  That in itself is a lie by deception.

 

I mean, isn’t it odd that someone who claims to be a knowledgeable scientist is so vague when describing degrees of the symptoms of fluoride ingestion. 

 

Third, and to the point of your comment below, you claim that a lawsuit for health reasons would be almost impossible to prove in court.  That is interesting.  All you would need to have a successful lawsuit for health reasons is one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. 

 

Are you saying there has never been one documented case of harm to any human being from drinking optimally fluoridated water?  If there was . . you could win your lawsuit.

 

Speaking of lies, Sirpac says, “David, who is a troll, engages Dr. Sauerhaber into neverending distraction and falsification, because that is his job, . . “

 

Sirpac, no one is paying me to thwart the efforts of a few paranoia-generating scare mongers as they attempt to hijack a proven health initiative.  I do it because evil thrives when good people are silent.  But I appreciate you proving my point that most of you scare mongers don’t tell the truth.  Thank you.

1,441 Views
3
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Mild fluorosis due to fluoride Ingestion and moderate or severe fluorosis are abnormalities, with deficient enamel on teeth

Flluorosis of varying degree increases in incidence in all Fluoridated cities. There are no exceptions

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,448 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluorosis ends with the suffix osis because it is pathologic. It is only caused by fluoride Ingestion during childhood. Fluoridated water is one of, and usually the most significant, source of ingested fluoride that causes fluorosis. The systemic fluoride contaminant inhibits protein removal during teeth mineralization. It does so as an enzyme inhibitor. 

Notice however  that proving water fluoride, rather than some other fluoride source, is the cause would be disputed in court and, just as with mild bone fluorosis,  this interferes with lawsuits. 

I also  do this because evil flourishes when good people ignore the problem. U. S. kids are being fluoride poisoned, with fluorosis being the first visible sign. In adulthood the fluoride accumulation continues into bone, causing formation of permanent bone of poor quality, to varying degtees depending on total exposure. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,464 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

I take it from your responses that you are not able to cite one documented case of any human being who was harmed in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime . . .

 

. . . that you are unable to explain your contradictory statements that on one hand the FDA “forbids” bottled water distributors from providing fluoride levels in water . . yet on the other hand they don’t ban it . .

 

. . . and that you are still unwilling to admit that mild dental fluorosis, which is associated with community water fluoridation, makes teeth stronger and more resistant to decay, thus improving quality of life.

 

CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.”  www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

1,458 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Excuse me, but the best way to not poison anyone with exogenous industrial fluoride is to not add it into their water supply. For those who insist on doing so, in the U.S. (I don't know where you work) large cities with vast volumes of water to 'fluoridate' use sophisticated electronic equipment that monitors the precise fluoride levels continuously in real time, to both prevent overfeeds and if one were to occur since it is still not fullproof, the sensors are designed to signal that an overfeed has occurred so that the public can be alerted to not drink the water until further notice.  The facility at Lake Skinner, CA for all of North San Diego County to fluoridate its masive volumes of water, this facility  cost vast amounts of money. The facility is surrounded with barbed wire fencing so terrorists don't access the flujosis acid tanks, it is constantly under both electornic surveillance and also is guarded with guards in real time, etc. A few hundred dollars might work in Hooper Bay, but not for cities with vast millions of people whose blood is to be fluoridated.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,546 Views
1
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

While David engages Dr. Sauerhaber into neverending distraction and falsification, because that is his job, here is a relevant study regarding osteoporosis and fluoride ingestion:

Abstract

Carbonic anhydrase is a key enzyme for initiating the crystal nucleation, seen as “the central dark line” in the crystal structure in calcified hard tissues such as tooth enamel, dentin and bone. Both estrogen deficiency and fluoride exposure adversely affected the synthesis of this enzyme in the calcifying hard tissues. This led to the notion that fluoride exposure might increase the risk of developing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Using ovariectomized rats, which represent an estrogen (Es)-deficient state, as an animal model of postmenopausal women, we examined the causal relationship between fluoride (F) exposure and risk of developing osteoporosis. Two groups of rats, an Es-deficient group and a non-Es-deficient group, were administered free drinking water containing F ions (1.0 mg/L). Two other groups, an Es-deficient group and a control-group, were administered tap water. Soft X-ray radiography demonstrated a significant increase of radiolucent areas in the calvaria of the combined Esdeficient plus F group compared to that in the other experimental groups. Electron microscopy revealed an increase of amorphous minerals in the radiolucent areas. Light microscopy demonstrated that combined effects evidently of Es-deficiency and administration of F caused deterioration of the rat tibia with a coarse pattern of trabecular architecture, suggesting that a decline in bone formation might be the primary cause of osteoporosis. Consequently, F exposure might accelerate osteoporotic changes in postmenopausal women even at a low dose.

Reference:

Kakei M, Yoshikawa M, Mishima H (2016) Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Change in Postmenopausal Women: Animal Model of Fluoride-induced Osteoporosis. Adv Tech Biol Med 4:170. doi: 10.4172/2379-1764.1000170

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/fluoride-exposure-may-accelerate-the-osteoporotic-change-in-...

1,560 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Yes the FDA has problems with how it acts on fluoride. First of all, there are many divergent opinions within the agency.  But Groth was given charge of fluoride labeling on bottled water many decades ago. The fact that the FDA will not label F levels on water or require it to be labeled and that Groth opposed the FDA requiring the F level be labeled, if a botter does so the FDA doesn't go out of its way and ban the bottler for doing so. I don't know another way to say it, there were people in the Agency who wanted to require labeling but Groth forbid that. How else can I explain this to you?

 

Erin Brockovich is now advocating for the halt of all water fluoridation in the United States. Her organization has no better path to win a lawsuit for chronic poisoning as anyone else has. When half the country feels that it is acceptable to have fluoride forced into peoples' blood, how does one convince a judge otherwise?  With lead in Flint, most people recognize that lead is a chronic poison so measuring blood levels was sufficient to accuse the water district of being the source and the suit could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, measuring fluoride in blood which could prove the water district was at fault for infusing it, you and most people and judges would laugh all day long, and say so what? Don't you want it there? The Brockovich group knows what suits have a chance and what won't and is instead pursuing the government to remove fluoride from being presumed to be a nutriltional requirement. That itself in some circles is also dififlcut to achieve since so many are duped into thinking that dental caries reduction is sufficient to declare fluoride is a nutritional requirement, which is absurd. Fluoride has no physiologic role or reason for being in human/mammalian blood. Between those who think F belongs beionjg added into blood, and those who don't, I know who the sane people are.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,389 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, your quote:  “When half the country feels that it is acceptable to have fluoride forced into peoples' blood, how does one convince a judge otherwise?”

 

Response:  First you find victims of this alleged poisoning.  Then you do it with facts and evidence.  Evidently you have neither . . that’s why there have been no successful lawsuits for health reasons because someone drinks optimally fluoridated water and was harmed. 

 

Any objective reader of this thread will see that you have been caught in lie after lie after lie.  This isn’t rocket science.  When Pacific Gas and Electric was sued because hexavalent chromium 6 was in drinking water, it was provable.  Fluoride poisoning from drinking optimally fluoridated water is not only not provable, it’s a fantasy.  That is why there has never been one successful lawsuit for health reasons because people drink optimally fluoridated water.  It has nothing to do with all your garbled spin.  Simply put, successful lawsuits don't happen because there is no harm from drinking it. Period.

 

1,562 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

The study from Poland brings up a key point. The original corrlatiion by Dean that fluoride in water caused decreased dental decay was misinterpreted, as proven by the Ziegelbecker more thorough analylsis. But in addition, in any small sample that may have had fewer caries in children compared to children on similar diets in another sample, one needs to control for the fact that kids with dental fluorosis are embarrassed by the discoloration. It was called Colorado brwwn stain. And hence those kids were most likely brushing their teeth more often and longer, thinking that it was their own poor care of their teeth that caused the stains. This would need to be factored into any study deternining whether fliuoride ingestion had anything to do with caries reduction. In short, published studies in small samples claiming benefit are not worth much in spite of how nuerous they are. Animals studied in cages are the most reliable and proved beyond doubt that ingesting fluoride has zero effect on reducing spontaneous dental decay in mammals..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,461 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Nice try to avoid any significance of the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry. And overfeeds do still occur with some regujarity anyway. It's entropy driven, and the tendency for concentrated chemicals to disperse, and most easily for those that are corrosive as are fluorides.

Moreover, chlorination doe not treat pepole. Chlorine is added to sterilize water that otherwise could contain dangerous microbes. If chlorination overfeeds were able to kill people by drinking their kitchen sink water, then we could do away with it and boil our own water if we had to. But fluoridation does not clean the water. It is exclusively added under the disproven belief that eating and drinking  fluoride somehow through an unknown mechanism decreases dental decay even though in saliva it is at 94,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste. And even though the level in blood lifelong cauases bone fluoridation to several thousand ppm, higher than in toothpaste which is a bone abnormality that eventually produces pain similar to arthritis. All who consume it accumulate bone fluoride. There are no exceptions.  Sorry.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,466 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Again, Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:  “the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry.”

 

Millions of dollars?  No.  I have pointed out that redundancies are mandated to prevent incidents like this.  Check it out.  That’s what I said.  So, what is necessary to prevent such an incident?  Two things (thus the redundancy).  A feed pump activates when the main pump energizes.  This is what existed in Hooper Bay.  However, to prevent an accidental over feed, for a few hundred dollars, a flow switch in inserted into the water line and will only “make” when there is water flow.  An additional paddle flow switch would have prevented the Hooper Bay incident, it would have only cost a few hundred dollars to install, and they are part of modern chemical feed equipment. 

 

How much fiction from you must I disprove before you will resort to telling the truth?

1,419 Views
0
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

 

In addition to the Gulags in the former Soviet Union, Stalin used to fluoridate East Germany, which was under the iron curtain before the wall went down in 1989. Since the wall went down, East Germany ceased water fluoridation, 16.11 million people, with the following results:

 

Abstract

In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This trend corresponded to the national caries decline and appeared to be a new population-wide phenomenon. Additional surveys (N=1017) carried out in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg (N=9042) and Zittau (N=6232) were carried out in order to support this unexpected epidemiological finding. Pupils from these towns, aged 8/9-, 12/13- and 15/16-years, have been examined repeatedly over the last 20 years using standardised caries-methodological procedures. While the data provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48% on average), it has also provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may continue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply from about 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F. Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased during the years 1993-96, following the cessation of water fluoridation. In Spremberg, DMFT fell from 2.36 to 1.45 (38.5%) and in Zittau from 2.47 to 1.96 (20.6%). These findings have therefore supported the previously observed change in the caries trend of Chemnitz and Plauen. The mean of 1.81 DMFT for the 12-year-olds, computed from data of the four towns, is the lowest observed in East Germany during the past 40 years. The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, however, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis of future caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to be necessary.

 

Reference Information:

Künzel, W., Fischer, T., Lorenz, R., Brühmann, S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dental Oral Epidemiology, 28(5):382-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028005382.x 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11014515/

or

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pubmed/11014515-decline-of-caries-prevalence-after-the-cessation-o...

1,430 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

How does anyone attempt a lawsuit for chronic fluoride poisoining?  How do you prove beyond doubt that our particular case of arthritis is from bone fluoride alone?  Pull out a chunk of bone to assay it for fluoride?  How does one prove his IQ would have been higher if he had not been exposed to fluoride for long time periods?  He can't go back in time and udno it to see what his IQ would have been.

I'm afraid I don't agree with you. The absence of successful lawsuits proving chronic damage does not mean there is no chronic damage. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,375 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Wow!  Dr. Sauerheber you are something else.

 

Let me see if I’ve got this right.  First you say, “ “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water . . “  The word “are” indicates the present tense, correct?

 

Now your story is that, “The FDA cannot order a label for fluoride on water . . “  Despite your garbled wording, I assume you mean that the FDA can’t regulate how bottle water distributers label their product?  This is very confusing. 

 

On one hand fluoride levels are forbidden from being listed on bottled water . . and on the other, they can’t be forbidden from labeling fluoride levels? 

 

Your quote:  “What do you want from me?”

 

Response: Please cite one successful lawsuit for health reasons because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

How do you prove that?  I don’t know . . ask Erin Brockovich, she seems to have accomplished this.  Ask all the attorneys in Flint, Michigan.  They’re proving it.  Any other questions?

1,471 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

All the very many successful lawsuits against cities were won based on varied reasons. One key one though is the Safe Drinking Water Act. Anyone who thinks that fluoridating the bones of citizens, by chemically treating water supplies, is legal should consult attorneys who have litigated these cases and proved what the SDWA actually says, and what it was originally written to achieve (namely to halt thge spread of fluoridation across the country). Those who insist on fluoridating people have corrupted the Act and legal analysts are usually required to prove this to a judge, and it takes an expert to achieve it and it isn't always successful because so many "experts" in dentistry are out there to oppose anything against their freedom to fluoridate others (for what they presume is for the peoples' "own good" because the people simply are not experts and thus "don't understand").

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,401 Views
3
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, the following comments, from you, are classic you.  Can anyone take you seriously?

 

 “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water,”  07-13-2018 04:58 AM

 

After I proved to you that you were lying, you changed your story to this”

 

“The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.”   ‎07-13-2018 11:16 AM

1,387 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Both statements are true. Dr. Groth was the original FDA official in charge of deciding whether to allow fluoride labeling on water or not. And those are his words. He did not want to give the impression to the public that fluoride is a normal ingedient requried to be in water at any level.. The FDA recognizes intentionally aded fluoride as an unapproved drug and natural fluoride in water (often in bottled water) is unavoidable and thus not banned from being sold as long as it is 1 ppm or less. When Groth did not allow FDA to require fluoride labeling, it was for these reasons.

The fact that some bottlers do label it is not the FDA's fault or concern The FDA cannot order a label for fluoride on water because of Dr. Groth's work there. Nor does the FDA ban the sale of water that those bottlers choose to label for fluoride content.  If bottlers made a claim that the fluoride would reduce dental decay by ingestion, then the FDA would indeed ban the sale of such water. The  FDA is a stickler for false labeling.

What do you want from me?  I can't change the FDA.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,382 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber.  Your comments wreak of desperation.   I am pretty sure you can read, and I believe you are able to comprehend what you read.  Go back and review the comments between Carry Anne and myself.  You seem to enjoy blurring issues, so it appears I should be very specific.

 

There has never been one successful lawsuit, anywhere on Earth, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water even for as much as a lifetime.  Period.  This has nothing to do with the Safe Drinking Water Act.  It has nothing to do with a philosophical argument about “mass medication,” (and I’m certain there has ever been a successful lawsuit based on that either). 

 

I mean really, have you been reading these comments?  Carrie has been complaining about all her alleged ailments. . none of which have been proven in court.  And now you bring up the Hooper Bay incident?  Seriously?  I believe it was in the 1950s, is that correct?  There was a fluoride overfeed.  Well, Dr. Sauerheber, here’s a newsflash.  This is the 21st Century and redundancies are now mandated to prevent such an incident.  Your “Hooper Bay” reference is irrelevant.  Moreover, more people have been killed by chlorine, by a factor of thousands, which is also added to water to safeguard people. 

 

So, since you seem to want to wander off into irrelevant territories, allow me to be as specific as possible.  Please show me one successful lawsuit for health reasons, anywhere on the planet, because someone was harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even by drinking it as much as a lifetime.  It has never been proven in court because it doesn't happen.

 

 

1,396 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

You honestly expect me to find all the successful lawsuits? Jeff Green was the head of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water and headed many lawsuits. God rest his soul. Victories occured in Poughkeepsie, in Gilroy, Sant Cruz, and Selmer, Tenn, and other locations. But these are long, arduous struggles conducted by legal experts against municipalities and were not even attempted if city councils were unanimously controlled and sold on the policy to fluoridate people. The larger the city, the harder the task the lawsuit becomes.  The L.A. suit is still ongoing now for 11 years and is expensive.

Even the suit in Hooper Bay Alaska where a fluoridation overfeed killed a 42 year old Coast Guardsman is still not resolved. The city argues it is the State Board of Health's fault for making them fluoridate. The State argues it is the city's fault because the system was improperly operated.

I personally don't believe in suing people. My folks taught me to discuss a problem and get it resolved with facts to get reparations instead. Anyone who doesn't heed facts and morals is not worth suing anyway.  So don't expect me to sue anyone to get anything done. I admire Jeff though for doing all he could because fluoridation will not stop without such action since so many peple have been led to believe swallowing fluoride is useful and harmless, when in fact it is ineffective and chronically harmful.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,302 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Oh, please. Your argument falls flat on its face. There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation. The one in Los Angeles is still ongoing and requires a team of legal experts to even have a chance of getting very far. A few cases are won such as in Poughkeepsie New York but victories are rare especially  in large cities. Common cilizens have no ability to successfully sue ciites such as Los Angeles. Are you kidding?

The man in the White House of course has been sued a lot, but as a single person, not a suit against the Government, which is required to halt fluoridation in any city.  And even there what did all the suits against this man achieve? He is still in office.

Are you serious right now?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,316 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, you say, "There have been many lawsuits filed against fluoridation."

 

Response:  I stand corrected.  I should have said, 'Where are all the Successful lawsuits?'

1,326 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.  The original directive waa authored knowing that fluoride is a contaminant in water, not a required ingredient.   

The FDA described fluoride added into water as an "uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug." I have a personal copy of the FDA letter stating so. You don't have to believe me, but regardless this is true.

 

Luride (sodium fluoride) is a drug listed in the PDR, and is regulated by prescription, and has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA, but likewise is not banned. It is an allowed drug, not an approved drug. There are many such substances that the FDA is aware are being used. The FDA rules on minerals are now also the same as traditionally for drugs. So if one dislikes ruling fluoride as a drug, fine, call it a mineral, the result is the same. The FDA ruled that prescription fluoride should not to be used in areas where water fluoride exceeds 0.6 ppm (PDR, 2017). Adding fluoride ion into water to treat humans also fits the Congressional definition of a drug.

I'm sorry  if you have a hard time understanding this, but I don't think the fault is onb my end. And whoever said you are keeping track of statements of mine, that's great. This is written for the general public.

 

The SDWA exact words are "no National requirement for the addition of any substance into water other than to sanitize the water" may be made. So the CDC gets around this law by claiming the CDC only requests fluoridation, they don't actually require it. The original statutes approved by Congress also state that U.S. States can be "no less restrictive." So State attempts to mandate fluoride are in violation of Federal water law. But who follows laws when one is convinced that eating and drinking fluoride is necessary for a population and is a great health achievement, if only others would come to their senses?  Laws become something to argue against. The SDWA indeed was later modified to delineate exceptions for fluoride, which allowed keeping this desired action as though it is indeed now lawful. Treating people without their permission through altering natural water supplies is unlawful. The action even violates the original Water Pollution Control Act section 101 that was instituted by President John Kennedy, where the mission of the law was to maintain the natural chemistry of drinking waters in the U.S.  If a natural supply contains high levels of a dangerous contaminant, then the substance can be removed (Clean Water Act). But intentionally adding any substance into drinking water violates this law. It was adjusted later with the SDWA to allow for adding chemicals such as chlorine to sanitize water of microbes. The adiditon of other substances however is prohibited. It is unlawful even to add vitamin C into public water supplies, let alone a diluted hazardous waste simply becuse it contains fluoride.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,323 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

“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..... this can hasten health calamities.”  - Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, MD (1993)

 

Case studies abound, but stubborn doctors refuse to admit their existance. I remember when weighing only 90 something pounds, chronically ill and really frightented, I first asked my GP if the small clusters of coin sized bruises on my arm were hives. He leaned back in his chair across the desk from me to put more distance betwen us and said, "they're bruises." I said, you can't see that well from there and started to get up to go around to his side of his massive desk "Stay seated!" he demanded, "I can see from here" - I said, "my daughter has them, too," holding out her tiny arm. "Some people bruise easily"  - I pulled open my shirt to reveal one on my chest "I think I'd remember if I got bumped here?" Shrug - then I asked, "Could it be something in the water?" That got him out of his chair - waving his arms and yelling at me "Who put you up to this!" and complaining about people coming into his office to tell him there was something the matter with the water - he yelled me and my two small children out of his office - last time I saw him.

 

He was the chair of the BOH who ordered fluoride into the water begun two years earlier. I knew nothing about that, then. It was a subsequent doctor who diagnosed my 'bruises' as a 'lesion' an odd allergic hive.... which is well documented in case studies as a unique type of hive some women and children get in the early stages of fluoride poisoning - Chizzola maculaeBut I didn't find that out till over 30 years later. But he knew, why else would a doctor refuse to examine odd clusters of 'bruises' that a patient complained about? He didn't want to admit he had made a mistake that poisoned the women, children and senior citizens who were apparently streaming into his offices. 

 

See 1993 affidavit of and 2014 interview with Dr. Hans Moolenburg, a medical doctor who actually paid attention to the people who started streaming into his office from one of the two communities he served - the one recently fluoridated. He and his fellow doctors conducted a study that resulted in the cessation of the fluoridation experiment in the Netherlands.  

 

Case Studies: 

1993 Literature Review: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/spittle-1993/ 

1998 Collection: http://www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm

1967: http://www.nofluoride.com/allergy.cfm 

1969 "Neighborhood Fluorosis":  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3109/15563656908990948 

1957 topical: http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/16804/ 

International collection:  http://fluoridefree.org.nz/information/research/fluoride_allergy/ 

US self-reports: http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/mom-fluoride-stories

 

Contaminants & Concentrations

In India, 1.0 ppm is considered the threshold of an 'excessive' fluoride concentration in drinking water. The U.S. EPA sets 4 ppm as the actionable safety threshold. The rule of thumb is that there should be a factor of 10 between the lowest observable adverse effect level (LOAEL) and safe for vulenerable populations. It is well documented that 0.5 ppm causes adverse effects. Consequently, a 'safe' level of this poison should be below 0.05 ppm or 0.1 ppm or 0.4 ppm per accepted practices - but no government or health authority in fluoridating countries pays attention to those rules because it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm - which is doubled the dose documented to cause adverse impacts. 

 

1990: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853

2015http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf

 

BTW: From my reading of the scientific and medical literature, 5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure. That may take a couple of months, a couple of years, or a couple of decades - but in the US where 75% of the population consumes fluoridated water and essentially 100% of the food is fluoridated, that means  approximately 50 million Americans suffer from fluoride poisoning, about 1 million in my state and  4,500 in my city - whether they know it or not.  

 

1,336 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

 

Carrie Anne has said,

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus (1998)

         "Follow the money." - Deep Throat (1972)  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

 

And, “Dr. Wm. Marcus who wrote a memo about management interference for manipulation of cancer data in order to disappear the evidence of carcinogenicity in a fluoride study.”

 

Carrie Anne has also said, “Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room.”  (Timestamp 07-12-2018 03:53 PM)

 

Response:  I take it now that you Don’t wish to discuss cancer and water fluoridation, which you originally brought up in the first place, before complaining that the issue was a distraction.  Is that correct?

 

 

Carrie Anne has also said:

 “ . . lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), . .”  (Timestamp 07-04-2018 09:07 AM – this thread)  

 

 

And, “ . . it is big business to add fluoride to water between 0.7 and 1 ppm . .”  (Timestamp:  ‎07-13-2018 06:36 AM)

 

Response:  If it is big business to add fluoride to water . . there must be some deep pockets to sue.  Which is it?

 

Carrie:  “Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century.”

 

Response:  The Fluoride Action Network has a list of professionals, about 4500, who have signed the opposition to fluoridation statement.   

 

In the U.S. there are over 860,000 physicians, 2.8 million nurses, nearly 170,000 dentists and about 3.2 million PhD’s, or about  7 million.  If the list is accurate, then 0.064% or 1 in every 1555 oppose fluoridation. 

 

In other words, 0.036 % of all Health Care and other professionals are NOT opposed to water fluoridation.  I understand that about 25% of the US list of Professionals Opposed to fluoridation are from outside the US, so the actual percentages opposing fluoridation might be even lower if that is the case. 

 

0.036% can in NO WAY be considered a consensus!

 

Carrie, with all due respect, you and Dr. Sauerheber lack a certain credibility.  You have said blatantly false things about the Safe Drinking Water Act and what is in it.  Dr. Sauerheber has said the FDA bans  pregnant women from drinking fluoridated water.  He said, “fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom  being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water,” Which has been proven false, and on, and on, and on.

 

I bring these points up because now we have to take you at your word that you were harmed (rashes, gastro-intestinal problems, etc.) from drinking optimally fluoridated water.  There is no documentation.  You have cited Hans Moolenburgh . . he has a Youtube video in which he literally says, “We know it was the fluoride causing these problems because we took their baby bottles away from them and they stopped crying.”  It’s laughable.

 

You've cited something from Waldbott, from 1971, ("Chizzola" Maculae) to prove that people do get sick from drinking fluoridated water . . while in another comment you have complained to me that I am not looking at the "current science" (post 2015).  You are inconsistant and you have come to lack credibility.

 

Now you say, “5% may have a genetic intolerance that manifests immediately like my family and me, but at least an additional 10% become intolerant due to chronic low dose exposure.”

 

Ok, let’s look at that.  According to the CDC, in 2014 there were 211,393,167 people who were drinking fluoridated water.  https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/2014stats.htm  5% of that would be over 10.5 million people.  According to you, over 10 million people are intentionally being poisoned by their local governments and suffering great harm because of it.   If anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that. 

 

Where is this Class Action Lawsuit with 10 million plaintiffs?  You are right.  This is my standard response . . because it is so obvious!  We are blessed to live in a country that is so lawsuit crazy that the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot!!

 

You have said there is too much money behind water fluoridation and it is not possible to sue for that reason.  Odd!  I can think of a Billionaire who holds the record for being on the receiving end of more lawsuits than any other sitting U.S. president in history. 

 

You have said that it is too expensive to sue.  Many attorneys will not charge a fee until there is a payout.  I don’t get it.  There are no successful lawsuits by anybody who claims to have all these ailments that you allege.  You seem to be afraid to prove it in court . . where such a win could actually change U.S. policy.   A lot of people sue the EPA and win.  The EPA does have jurisdiction over CWF.  I would start there.

 

If nothing more, drinking optimally fluoridated water does appear to have a correlation with hypochondria, and I think you’ve proven that. 

 

 

1,275 Views
1
Report
Reply