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! 

28,854 Views
1449
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

So true Randy.

 

Internet debates every day reinforce my understanding that humans are not a rational species, more a rationalising one.

On the other hand, most of us do tend to respect expert advice and can only take so much conspiracy theory rubbish, In New Zealand, these days most community consultations on community water fluoridation show support for the health policy because people get the message that it is effective, economical and safe.

People have become so fed up with the anti-fluoride activists they do not get an audience these days. Very telling was that when a few anti-fluoride members of the NZ parliament organised a meeting at Parliament Buildings for Paul Connett last year no-one turned up.

On the other hand, while these anti-fluoride campaigners may be tiresome and do misrepresent the science their activity does keep good science on its toes. For example, dredging up poor quality research from areas of endemic fluorosis to argue that fluoride lowers IQ has led to genuine science checking this out in areas where fluoride intake is much lower (as in fluoridated areas). This research has shown no IQ effect.

Similarly, in New Zealand, the intense activity of anti-fluoride campaigners aimed at local body councils led to councils requesting a proper scientific review from authoritative bodies like the Royal Society. That resulted in the NZ Fluoridation Review - see Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence. It also resulted in councils requesting that the government take away responsibility for fluoridation decisions from local bodies and invest it in regional Health Boards.

Personally, I think local communities should have the final say and do not advocate introducing fluoridation where it is not suitable or the community is overwhelmingly opposed. To me democracy is important.

I leave the advocacy of health policies to the health experts. However, as a scientist, I object very strongly to the misrepresentation and distortion of since which is so rampart amongst anti-fluoridationists - as it is amongst climate change deniers and religious apologists (creationism, "intelligent design"). So I will get involved in debates where I see this happening (as it is here).

Finally, I accept that the die-hard anti-science, anti-fluoridation, climate change denying and creationist propagandists will not be convinced by my contributions. But I do not do it for them - my hope is that there are readers lurking in the background who may appreciate clarification of the scientific issues.


1,344 Views
0
Report
Reply
Contributor

Randy...you sound exactly like Randy Johnson ...a fluoride lobbyist who is from the American Fluoridation Society. Your president Johnny Johnson appeared at our City Council meeting and lied to our councillors  claiming concentrations in water would still be safe even 16x the levels considered optimal. We have it on tape.

why would anyone believe you or your group?

 

 

 

1,284 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Everyone knows most calcium in water supplies is from calcium salts other than calcium fluoride. So what?

NaF has an LD50 and CaF2 does not,

even though the fluorode ions are identical in structure in the two salts.

I never said calcium is reduced from fluoridation.

I said fluoridation with toxic NaF in calcium deficient water ( such as in pagosa springs or in hooper bay) is an extreme poison.  If calcium fluoride were used then an overfeed would not have happened due to solubility issues.

Calcium fluoride is very insoluble but sodium fluoride is the opposite, extremely soluble, even though the fluoride atoms are  identical in structure in both.

Anyway, there are plentiful sources of fresh clean water lacking F. The sun evaporates salt water (which contains 1 pom F) to form a distillate that is free of F. this is the,eource of rain  and snow that forms rivers,and lakes. If no F salts are in a reguon then the distillate will remain fluoride free..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,036 Views
2
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard - so you appear to be acknowledging that the normal treated water used for supply has no problem with toxicity because (in your eyes) the calcium levels are relatively high?

Of course, the other aspect is that the fluoride levels are extremely low - concepts like LD50 are just not relevant.

Uncontrolled use of CaF2 would produce far higher levels of F than is optimum for treated water. And at those higher concentrations, skeletal and dental fluorosis would be and are, problems.

As for snow and rainwater - don't forget that they also pick up contaminants from the atmosphere. In fact, rainwater taken from a roof can often be problematic because of contaminants.

0 Kudos
1,220 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

LD50s not relevant? Tell that to the survivors of the Hooper Bay, AK fluoridation overfeed. The lawsuit is still not resolved , the loss of life not recompensed, and the government relations with native American tribes is lost.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,296 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

This is bizarre. Of course fluoride anions are identical in any salt compund or as the free ions in solution. So what? When fluoride is in calcium rich water as in natural sources it is not possible to drink enough to be acutely fluoride poisoned. The LD50 for calcium fluroide does not exist. But when fluoride is in calcium poor water at high amounts from sodium fluoride then people have been killed from lethal fluoride poisoning as in fluoridation overfeeds (JEPH 439490, 2013). If calicumfluoride had been used to fluoridated then no one would have been acutely poisoned. This is because fluoride toxicity depnds on the chemical environment in which the otherwise identical anions are located.  The LD50 for sodium fluoride is about 65 mg/kg (Merck Index) and sodium fluoride (but not calcium fluoride) is listed in all poirosns registries as a toxic substance.

But I was not discussing that. That has been published for all to read.

I was pointing out the Perrot statement that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water in the Connett section.I have no problem with Connett's words there, but with Perrot's.. 

Clean fresh drinking water deos not contain detectable contaminant fluoride. I suppose it doesn'tmatter how many times I say the pdf statement is worng.But the readers can read the pdf report themselves.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
861 Views
1
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard, I take it from your reaction that you now acknowledge that your claim about me referring to fluoride-free natural waters was wrong.

I also think Connett's claims were bizarre - as you say "Of course fluoride anions are identical in any salt compound or as the free ions in solution." But he worked very hard to justify his statement that there was a difference.

However, you also seem to be arguing desperately for differences - without providing a single fact.

1: Calcium fluoride, by itself, does not control the calcium concentration in natural waters - there are a number of sources. So the calcium concentration in natural waters can vary quite independently of fluoride.

2: Similar fluoride in treated water drinking water does not control the calcium concentration - nor does the calcium concentration generally control the fluoride concentration. This is because the fluoride concentrations are very low and the solubility product does not come into play.

3: There is generally no reason for the concentration of calcium to drop when water is treated for drinking. Because lime is often used for water treatment the calcium concentration may well be higher after treatment.

 

4: You do not attempt to back up your implied assertion that somehow the calcium concentration of fluoridated water is lower than in the natural source water. I don't believe you can.

5: I have been into this discussion before and shown that the concentrations of calcium in our "soft" drinking water are much higher than anything CaF2 could contribute see - Calcium fluoride and the “soft” water anti-fluoridation myth
See figure:
hardness.jpg

As I said then your claim was hogwash. It still is.

0 Kudos
908 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

It is under Ken Perrot Oct 30 the medical argument written criticism of paul connetts point 1.

I stand by what I said.

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

It is under Ken Perrot Oct 30 the medical argument written criticism of paul connetts point 1.

I stand by what i said.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
732 Views
6
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Progress, at last, Richard.

This is what I wrote on page 9:

"Connett’s point 1: Why should we not be concerned about controlling the dose of natural levels of fluoride (or many of the other elements we consume) while only be concerned about the fluoride added as a “top up?” The are no differences between the “artificial” and “natural” fluoride anions in drinking water. In reality most elements like this have a sufficiently wide range of concentrations and intakes for efficacy that it is just ridiculous to treat them like powerful drugs which need accurate dosage."

What do you actually object to? I ask because there is nothing here relevant to your original claim.

In fact, Connett objected many times and at length to my statement "The are no differences between the “artificial” and “natural” fluoride anions in drinking water." - which is surprising for a chemist. he could not point to anything to support his objection.

815 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Ken,

 

You make no sense because you have never said how much,  "fluoride added as a “top up?”

 

You have never said how much fluoride is desired to reduce dental caries?

 

Top up to what?  

 

Why add more fluoride when you don't know how much fluoride is desired?

 

Ever since I've communicated with you, perhaps a couple years, you have been silent on the most fundamental question.  How much fluoride prevents dental caries?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

1,240 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard and Ken,

 

Total fluoride exposure is so very important.  Fluoride from all sources.

 

Fluoridationists evade the issue and want to talk about fluoridated water as though it is the only source.

 

You are spot on Richard to bring up the issue of fluoride from all sources.

 

And Ken, you really mush look at total exposure.  Even though you support adding more fluoride to everyone, you must answer the critical questions of

 

1.  How much do you want?

2.  How much are we getting?

3. How much more should we get and is that still safe?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

836 Views
3
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Bill - I think your problem is the use of meaningless words like "fluoridationist." What exactly does that describe?

Heath authorities are not as idiotic as you seem to wish them to be. When considering the introduction of health policies like community water fluoridation, etc., they rightfully consider a range of factors especially total fluoride intake - including dietary intake.

I cannot see what you comment has to do with Richard's mistaken attempt to attribute a claim to me.

0 Kudos
831 Views
2
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Ken,

 

You said, "Heath authorities are not as idiotic as you seem to wish them to be. When considering the introduction of health policies like community water fluoridation, etc., they rightfully consider a range of factors especially total fluoride intake - including dietary intake."

 

In many areas of Public Health, that is true.  However, not with fluoride.

 

Name the "Health authority" (and link) who is responsible for determining the optimal dosage (mg/kg BW/day) of fluoride for humans.

 

You are such a trusting soul.  

 

Perhaps you have not read my questions, but lets make it more simple for you.

 

How much total fluoride is needed to prevent dental caries?

 

You refuse to answer because you don't know, no one does.  

 

The rest of fluoridation is a house of cards, built on a myth of unknown dosage, assumptions of benefit and assumptions of safety.

 

I have no idea why you would cling to such an obsurd concept as fluoridation which has no basis in quality science.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

1,291 Views
1
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Bill, you are being disrespectful (or worse). I am not the authority to ask questions about dietary uptake of anything - not my field, not my interest.

I would simply look up the appropriate sources to find an answer to your question - and I suggest it would be more efficient for you to do this yourself. After all, I know you will reject any answer you get from me - so why don't you take the pleasure (for you) of rejecting the real experts instead of a chemist without any nutritional training, at all.

 

Conspiracy theorists surely can't get much please from rejecting me - can they?

0 Kudos
1,285 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

In an attempt to imply that fluoride ingestion is no big deal because fluoride is ubiquitous naturally, the claim was made in the pdf that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water. You might want to read the pdf again. The other claims against Connett are for the most part misinterpretations of Connett's words that are not his fault. But who wants to spend their life correcting others' junk? 

Furthermore, we have fought the San Diego city council for decades, both in a group setting, San Diegans for Clean water, and as many of us individually, and in public gropus at water district headquarters.  So to say we need to do something about the overruling of the cities' two votes against fluoridation and the city ordinance against it, as though we haven't, is laughable.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
821 Views
1
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard, you tell me "You might want to read the pdf again."

But a quick check on the Connett & Perrott (2014) document suggests to me that perhaps you need to read it yourself.

Nowhere in that article can I find the claim by me that there is"no such thing as naturally fluoride-free water."

So you appear to be arguing with a straw man.

In fact, checking through the document it is Paul Connett who refers mostly to natural fluoride in water or naturally fluoride-free water - not me.

Have a search for the word "naturally" to check that out.

Of course, if you can produce a quote of mine I am open to discussion - but as it stands there is nothing here to discuss.

0 Kudos
808 Views
0
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

Ken,

 

You are telling us that, people are so brain damaged by fluorides in this country that they cannot discern facts from propaganda? You say that:“Voters make their decisions according to values - not science.” Ok, so what values? The value to be able to ingest clean water or the value imposed by the brainwashing of the fluoride disposing industry or the propaganda ministry of the milutary industrial complex?

 

 Then you claim that: “The science is far too complex for even representatives to understand, let alone voters.” Really? The science is more than clear that all fluorides are neurotoxic endocrine disrupting enzyme poisons. What is so compkex about that? 

 

“It comes down to where one lays one's confidence” - Yes, with valid science and not with venally interested “health experts” of the fluoride disposal industry. They can ingest their rat poison toorhpaste as much as they wish, but what right does any “health expert” have to poison the public water supply? Again, where is the informed consent that belongs to individuals and not to some unknown “health experts” that take no responsibility for any outcomes whatsoever!

0 Kudos
845 Views
11
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

sirpac271999 I think your "reply" (actually intervention) illustrates my point.

0 Kudos
879 Views
10
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

Ken,

 

This is a public forum and not a private “conversation” between you and Dr. Sauerheber. Thus, my reply is hardly an “intervention”. If you don’t want people to post on this public forum, then keep your opinions to yourself. The water fluoridation issue is a matter of public interest, since such policies are forcefully imposed on the public. 

 

Then, I have heard your venally interested “health experts” make such idiotic statements as: “Fluoride is a natural mineral”. Omg! That right there makes it clear that these so called “health experts” know absolutely nothing about fluorides, since fluorine is a gas and not a mineral. Thus, fluorides are compounds of multiple different chemicals and metals, but these “health experts” obviously do not know that. Therefore, keep those parroting charlatan “health experts” out of the public water.

818 Views
9
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Again - your reply does illustrate my point. 

You seek to offend and in the process display a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.

No one with an ounce of chemical knowledge describes fluoride as a "mineral." It is an anion. It occurs naturally in minerals (but in itself is not a mineral) and it is ubiquitous in surface waters as the hydrated anion.

Fluorine is the name of the element which is gaseous (as the F2 molecule) at normal temperatures and pressures. However, it is very reactive so easily convert to the fare more stable ionic form.

As a collective term fluoride can be used to describe chemicals and minerals, naturally occurring and synthesised, containing the fluoride anion in their structure. However, it is incorrect to use the term where the F atom is covalently bound as in many organic compounds and in natural minerals like apatites.

0 Kudos
741 Views
8
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

So Ken and Richard are at the fluoridation issue.  Amazing how you two get around.

 

Ken, you wanted a "discussion" "debate" on fluoride and I agreed, sending you information about excess exposure.   You were having email/computer problems and that is the last I heard.

 

Simple questions on exposure should be considered.

 

1.   How much ingested fluoride is recommended to prevent dental caries?

 

2.   At what age should the fluoride be ingested?

 

3.  At the recommended dosage, what are the risks for all ages?

 

4.  What label should be placed on the fluoride products?

 

5.  How much fluoride is each person receiving from other sources than artificial fluoridation?

 

Of course there are more questions, but those seem to be the most basic. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

761 Views
1
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Yes, Bill, you had agreed to a scientific exchange with me and actually sent me a pdf for your first contribution. I got back to you wanting your help in providing the references and one of the images to make it suitable for publication.

At that stage, my hard drives packed up and I lost most of my material. It has been a slow process recovering what I could from backups.

I am still waiting for your final version of the contribution (I think you were traveling or also having computer problems at the time so couldn't respond at the time).

Anyway, I can start the exchange as soon as I get the final version of your contribution with the references and proper images.

I look forward to this exchange as you were concentrating on dental fluorosis and I had been preparing something on that.


0 Kudos
779 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Except that the suffix "ide" is also used when naming any bnary compound which of course contains two types of elements. So this also includes organic fluorides such as CF4 being named carbon tetrafluoride, etc.

For a review of the meaning of fluoride you might want to read the endnote supplement to the article "Physiologic Conditions affect the Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride," Journal of Environrnental and Public Health 439490, 2013 availalbe online at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
797 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard, I prefer a more exact nomenclature - especially as some people get confused about how covalently bound F is released to form the fluoride anion.

Anyway, I take it that from your inability to provide quotes and citations you no longer wish to pursue the arguments you were making about "inaccuracies" in Connett & Perrott - The Fluoride Debate.

0 Kudos
784 Views
4
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

But fluorinated drugs most certainly are partially metaobolized, typically about 10% releasing free fluoride ion. There is nothing wrong with the chemical recogtnized by IUPAc, nomenclature system that incluedes naming C-F compouinds as fluorides, such as ethyl fluoride, methyl fluoirde,etc. If you want to take up your desires with IUPAC, be my guest.

 

And no the arguments protecting Connett from the false claims in the pdf were not dropped. The posts already made are simply being ignored in order to conveniently attempt to drop them.

What I said stands.. There are waters that are naturally frree of fluoride, contrary to the claim in the pdf. And just because ingesting fluoridated water does not immediately lead to clnically detectable symptoms and signs does not justlfy the claim that fluoride causes no harm. That is insane. Bone accumulation begins with the first sip of fluoridated water and likewise the earliest pathologic abnormality is elevated calcitonin and PTH together, along with formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal sturicture.  At first for a chronic ttime periodr there are no associated symptoms or signs, either one.So what? That does not mean Connett is wrong, it means he is correct to criticize and denounce fluoridation of people even befroe there are clinically detectable abnormalities.  We have no equipment or  test that is noninvasive to assess the bone damage that occurs during the "subclinical' stage of bone fluorosis. Where do you get this stuff? It would be like claiming it is OK to eat pure cholesterol because for many years you will have no clinically detectable stroke symptoms or angina or other heart symptoms, all while one's carotids and heart artereis are becoming structurally abnormal due to atherosclerosis.  Just because there are no symptoms or signs does not mean it is healthy. Quite the contrary. Fluorosis in the temporary absence of symptoms is nevertheless pathologic.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
822 Views
2
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard - please be specific.

You say "contrary to the claim in the pdf." Could you please quote the claim and identify the pdf?

Who said what (exactly) where.

Otherwise, discussion is impossible.

0 Kudos
773 Views
0
Report
Reply
Moderator
Moderator

Hello everyone,

 

Whilst we welcome robust debate, we ask that everyone abides by the guidelines.

 

Please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

https://community.aarp.org/t5/custom/page/page-id/Guidelines

0 Kudos
821 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

A new study reporting the ranges of values for kidney and liver parameters in a healthy population is being actively misrepresented by anti-fluoride campaigners. The Fluoride Action Network’s (FAN) latest bulletin claims the study shows “that fluoride at commonly experienced doses can damage the kidneys and livers of adolescents.”

The study shows nothing of the sort. How could it – individuals suffering liver or kidney disease were specifically excluded from the study population. The reported parameter values are all for healthy individuals.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/08/14/anti-fluoride-activists-misrepresent-a-kidney-liver-s...

0 Kudos
771 Views
0
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

Anyone who argues for water fluoridation policy is a fluoride promoter! It is ridiculous to argue otherwise. Also, there is no demorcracy in the forced fluoridation policy, which is imposed on brainwashed inhabitants of fluoridated districts. As noted by Dr. Sauerheber, such unethical fascist  policies have nothing to do with democracy. Not only have citicens of many of these locales voted against such unconsented mass poisoning, it is obvious that the will of the subjects makes no difference to the policymakers, as the forced poisoning continues. Thus, the US is not a democracy, as long as the forced fluoridation continues. 

 

Finally, medicating individual bloodstreams with artificial industrial waste silicofluorides should never be a policy issue in the first place. The Nuremberg code and the Helsinki and Belmont declarations make it clear that forced medication is unethical and requires individual informed consent. If any single person refuses to consent to be forcefully medicated through the water supply, then they have a right to refuse, and such policy cannot be ethically imposed. Since fluoridation continues, regardless of individual right not to be forcefully medicated, it is obvious that water fluoridation is based on fascist dictatorship and not on any democratic principles or truth for that matter.

 

892 Views
0
Report
Reply