Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 851 of 1,450



I've pulled together a few research studies on the mechanism of fluoride neurotoxicity.  As toxiclologists and scientists know, a key aspect to understanding toxicity of a substance is to understand the mechanism of how the substance affects the body, organs and cells.    Due to limits on space, here are a few incomplete clips from studies for your consideration.  Although brief, you will get the idea. . . .



Mechanism, Low Glucose Utilization and Neurodegnerative changes:  Jiang (2014) “Fluorine, a toxic and reactive element, is widely prevalent throughout the environment and can induce toxicity when absorbed into the body. This study was to explore the possible mechanisms of developmental neurotoxicity in rats treated with different levels of sodium fluoride (NaF). The rats’ intelligence, as well as changes in neuronal morphology, glucose absorption, and functional gene expression within the brain were determined using the Morris water maze test, transmission electron microscopy, small-animal magnetic resonance imaging and Positron emission tomography and computed tomography, and Western blotting techniques. We found that NaF treatment-impaired learning and memory in these rats. Furthermore, NaF caused neuronal degeneration, decreased brain glucose utilization, decreased the protein expression of glucose transporter 1 and glial fibrillary acidic protein, and increased levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor in the rat brains. The developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride may be closely associated with low glucose utilization and neurodegenerative changes.”


If fluoride reduces glucose utilization, would fluoride increase obesity?  Just asking.   Good research project.


Mechanism: Object Recognition Memory: Han (2014) “This study aimed to investigate the effects of long-term fluoride exposure on object recognition memory and mRNA expression of soluble N-ethylmaleimidesensitive fusion protein attachment protein receptors (SNARE) complex (synaptosome-associated protein of 25 kDa (SNAP-25), vesicle-associated membrane protein 2 (VAMP-2), and syntaxin 1A) in the hippocampus of male mice. . . . Taken together, these results indicated that long-term fluoride administration can enhance the excitement of male mice, impair recognition memory, and upregulate VAMP-2 mRNA expression, which are involved in the adverse effects of fluoride on the object recognition memory of nervous system.”


Mechanism of Neurodegenerative diseases:  Pal (2014) “Fluoride, a well-established environmental carcinogen, has been found to cause various neurodegenerative diseases in human. Sub-acute exposure to fluoride at a dose of 20mg/kgb.w./day for 30 days caused significant alteration in pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant status of brain tissue as reflected by perturbation of reduced glutathione content, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, nitric oxide and free hydroxyl radical production and decreased activities of antioxidant enzymes. . . .  Resveratrol was found to inhibit changes in metabolic activities restoring antioxidant status, biogenic amine level and structural organization of the brain. Our findings indicated that resveratrol imparted antioxidative role in ameliorating fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative stress in different regions of the brain.”



Mechanism of Harm and Amelioration of Harm:  Sardar (2014)  “Beneficial effects of oleanolic acid on fluoride-induced oxidative stress and certain metabolic dysfunctions were studied in four regions of rat brain. Male Wistar rats were treated with sodium fluoride at a dose of 20 mg/kg b.w./day (orally) for 30 days . Results indicate marked reduction in acidic, basic and neutral protein contents due to fluoride toxicity in cerebrum, cerebellum, pons and medulla. DNA, RNA contents significantly decreased in those regions after fluoride exposure. A. . .  Appreciable counteractive effects of oleanolic acid against fluoride-induced changes in protein and nucleic acid contents, proteolytic enzyme activities and other oxidative stress parameters indicate that oleanolic acid has potential antioxidative effects against fluoride-induced oxidative brain damage.”


Mechanism of Known Harm: Hamza (2015) “Sodium fluoride (NaF) intoxication (brain, kidney, liver, oxidative stress, reproductive toxicity, testes, anti-oxidants) is associated with oxidative stress and altered antioxidant defense mechanism.”  


Mechanism of Known Damage: Zhang (2015) “To explore the mechanisms by which chronic fluorosis damages the brain, we determined the levels of the advanced glycation end-products (AGEs), the receptor for AGE (RAGE), NADPH oxidase-2 (NOX2), reactive oxygen species (ROS) and malondialdehyde (MDA) in the brains of rats /and or SH-SY5Y cells exposed to different levels of sodium fluoride (5 or 50ppm in the drinking water for 3 or 6 months and in the incubation medium for as long as 48hr, respectively).. . . In conclusion, our present results indicate that excessive fluoride can activate the AGE/RAGE pathway, which might in turn enhance oxidative stress.”


Mechanism of Locomotor Activity, Exploratory Behavior Suppression, Spacial Learning and Memory Loss:  Zhang (2015)  “Results showed that in rats with chronic fluorosis compared with the controls, locomotor activity and exploratory behavior were significantly or very significantly suppressed, spatial learning and memory ability were significantly declined;. synaptic membrane fluidity and the protein level of PSD-95 of hippocampus were greatly decreased. The data indicated that the changes of synaptosome membrane fluidity and PSD-95 expression level in hippocampus might be the one synaptic mechanism of learning-memory injury induced by chronic fluorosis in brain.”


Mechanism of Deficit in Learning and Memory: Dong (2014): “To reveal the molecular mechanism of deficit in learning and memory induced by chronic fluorosis, the expression of muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) and oxidative stress were investigated. . . . Our results suggest that the mechanism for the deficits in learning and memory of rats with chronic fluorosis may be associated with the decreased expressions of M1 and M3 in mAChRs, in which the changes in the receptors might be the result of the high level of oxidative stress occurring in the disease.”


Mechanism of Central Neural System Injury: Niu (2014) “Fluoride and lead are two common pollutants in the environment. Previous investigations have found that high fluoride exposure can increase the lead burden. In this experiment, in order to study on the molecular mechanisms of central neural system injury induced by the above two elements, differently expressed protein spots in hippocampus of male mice treated with 150 mg sodium fluoride/L and/or 300 mg lead acetate/L in their drinking water were detected by two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) and mass spectrometry (MS). The behavior tests showed that 56 days of fluoride and lead administration significantly reduced the vertical activity and lowered the memory ability of mice. In addition, results of 2-DE and MS revealed that nine spots demonstrated above a twofold change in the same trend in all treatment groups, which were mainly related with (1) energy metabolism, (2) cell stress response/chaperones, (3) cytoskeleton development, (4) protein metabolism, and (5) cell surface signal transduction. The findings could provide potential biomarkers for lesion in nervous system induced by fluoride and lead exposure.”


Mechanism of Apoptosis: Lou (2014) “The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of chronic fluorosis on apoptosis and the expression of Bax and Bcl-2 in the cerebral cortices of rats in an attempt to elucidate molecular mechanisms. . . . The results showed that the animal model of chronic fluorosis was successfully established in the study. In the cortices of the rat brains with chronic fluorosis, as compared to controls, the percentage of apoptotic neurons was significantly increased, with a dose-dependent tendency between the rate of apoptosis and the F contents in drinking water. The expression of Bax and Bcl-2, at both the protein and mRNA levels, was clearly elevated in the rat brains with chronic fluorosis. . . . .”


Mechanism of Neurotoxicity: Zhou (2014) “A significant decrease of TGF-B1 was found, in both the gene and protein levels, while no significant change occurred in the levels of IL-4, IL-1B, IL-6, and TNF-a gene. Fluoride may damage the hippocampus by significantly decreasing the expression of TGF-B1 gene and protein, possibly by an unknown post-transcriptional mechanism. . . . .”


Mechanism and Known Harm:  Reddy (2014) “Aims: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of sodium fluoride (NaF) in inducing neuroimmunological, oxidative and antioxidative damage. . . .  Results: Increase in the NaF concentration resulted in increased fluoride deposition in brain tissue. This increased fluoride content led to increased levels of certain neurotransmitters such as epinephrine, histamine, serotonin and glutamate and decreased levels of norepinephrine, acetylcholine and dopamine in a dose-dependent manner. NaF exposure led to the decrease in the levels of CD4, NK cells and IgG1 coupled with marked increase in lipid peroxidation and impairment of the antioxidative defense system.  Conclusion: The result of the study emphasizes the toxic role of high NaF doses on the neurological and immunological functions.”


Chromosomal anomalies and Primary DNA Damage: Tiwari (2010) “Our study has supported the role of As [arsenic] and F [fluoride] as potent genotoxic agents, since in vitro exposure of both caused increased chromosomal anomalies along with primary DNA damage, in human peripheral blood cultures.”


Known Harm Measured by Deficits in Attention, Auditory Retention, Physicial Dexterity and Acuity and Emotional States:  Guo (2001, English translation 2008) “In recent years, the damage fluoride inflicts on nonskeletal organs, and in particular the nervous system, has received a great deal of attention. . . .  RESULTS: The results of the NCTB testing in this investigation revealed significant differences among the fluoride-exposed groups for various indices as compared to reference standards and the controls, with particular deficits in attention, auditory retention, and physical dexterity and acuity as well as abnormal emotional states.  . . . There is a definite relationship between the damage caused by fluoride and the level of exposure.”


Mechanism of DNA Damage: Zhang (2008) “Some recent studies have suggested that DNA damage may be a potential neurotoxic mechanism of fluoride. The tail length, as measured by an ocular micrometer, is increased in fluoride-treated human embryonic hepatocytes in a previous study carried out to investigate the geneotic effect of fluoride (Wang et al., 2004). In the present study, we performed OTM and percentage of DNA in the tail as indices of DNA damage. OTM, multiplication of the tail length and percentage of DNA in the tail, objectively and sensitively reflects the effect of fluoride on DNA damage. Our findings showed that fluoride-induced DNA damage and OTM was more a sensitive measure than percentage of DNA in the tail. The correlation analysis showed a positive correlation between ROS formation and OTM level (r2=0.583, P < 0.05), which indicated that ROS might play an important role in the course of DNA damage.”


Known Genotoxic: Zhang (2009) “Twenty four agents were used to evaluate this screening assay. We selected the agents, ranging from DNA alkylating agents, oxidative agent, radiation, DNAcross- linking agent, nongenotoxic carcinogens, precarcinogenic agents, which included . . . sodium fluoride, acrylamide . . . . The results showed that all 20 tested known carcinogenic and genotoxic agents were able to induce gadd153-Luc expression at a sublethal dose.. . . .”


Known Genotoxic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic: Ercivas (2009) “In this study we concluded that NaF, in 5 and 10 lg/ml NaF concentrations cause genotoxic alterations. So genotoxic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects of NaF need to be carefully screened and evaluated together with other long-term effects using in vitro and in vivo animal test models.”


Mechanism of Known DNA Damage: Wang(2004)“As cells were exposed to higher doses of fluoride, the percentage of L-02 cells with DNA damage increased. This result is consistent with other studies... Therefore, considering previous studies, we think that fluoride can cause lipid peroxidation, DNA damage and apoptosis, and that there is a positive relationship among these changes.”


Mechanism of Known Harm: Aardema (1989) “Based on these results and those previously reported for NaF and APC, it is proposed that NaF-induced aberrations may occur by an indirect mechanism involving the inhibition of DNA synthesis/repair.”


Mechanism of Known Harm: Lasne (1988) “Sodium fluoride was found to induce morphological transformation of SHE cells seeded on a feeder layer of X-irradiated cells at high concentrations (75-125 micrograms/ml). When the cells were seeded in the absence of a feeder-layer, the transformation frequencies increased in a dose-dependent manner with the concentrations of sodium fluoride ranging from 0 to the highly toxic concentration of 200 micrograms/ml. In the BALB/3T3 cell system, sodium fluoride was negative in the standard Kakunaga procedure, while through the experiment designed by table L8 (2(7] of the orthogonal method, an initiating-like effect and a weak promoting activity were detected within the concentrations ranging from a 25 micrograms/ml to a 50 micrograms/ml concentration which is highly toxic for BALB/3T3 cells. From these results, it is suggested that, besides a genetic mode of action, sodium fluoride could possibly act through a non-genotoxic mechanism.”


Known Mutagenic: 1990 NTP “In summary, sodium fluoride is mutagenic in cultured mammalian cells and produces transformation of Syrian hamster cells in vitro. The reports of in vivo cytogenetic studies are mixed, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured mammalian cells. These mutagenic and clastogenic effects in cultured cells are supported by positive effects in Drosophila germ cell tests that measure point mutations and chromosome breakage. In vivo tests in rodents for chromosome aberrations provide mixed results that cannot readily be resolved because of differences in protocols and insufficient detail in some study reports to allow a thorough analysis. The mechanism(s) by which these effects result from exposure to sodium fluoride is not known.”


Preponderance of Evidence: 2001 Bassin “The effects of fluoride as a mutagen, carcinogen, and antimutagen are inconsistent, but the preponderance of evidence in cultured mammalian cells indicate that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges.”


Known DNA Damage: Chen (2000) “To investigate the effects of fluoride on DNA damage as well as the effects of selenium and zinc against fluoride respectively or jointly in pallium neural cells of rats, single cell gel electrophoresis was used to detect the DNA damage of neural cells prepared in vitro. The results showed that the degree of DNA damage in the fluoride group and the selenium group were significantly greater than that in control group (P < 0.01). The damage in the fluoride group was even more serious. The damage in the fluoride + selenium group and fluoride + zinc group was slighter than that in the fluoride group but with no significant difference. The extent of DNA damage in the fluoride + selenium + zinc group was significantly slighter than that in the fluoride group(P < 0.05). It suggested that fluoride and selenium could induce DNA damage in pallium neural cells of rats respectively.


Known Genotoxic Rivedal (2000) ”In the present work, 13 compounds [chlordane, Arochlor 1260, di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,1,1-trichloro-2, 2-bis(4-chlorophenyl)ethane, limonene, sodium fluoride, ethionine, o-anisidine, benzoyl peroxide, o-vanadate, phenobarbital, 12-O-tetradecanoylphorbol 13-acetate and clofibrate] have been tested for their ability to induce morphological transformation and affect intercellular communication in Syrian hamster embryo (SHE) cells... In vitro morphological transformation of SHE cells is now one of the most frequently used cell transformation systems. Around 500 chemicals have been tested in this system, and a good correlation has been obtained with the ability of compounds from different chemical groups to cause tumours in animals and humans. The SHE cell transformation assay also responds to tumour promoters and carcinogens not detected by tests for genotoxicity... [N]ine of the 13 tested substances (TPA, o-vanadate, DEPH, phenobarbital, Arochlor 1260, clofibrate, o-anisidine, limonene and NaF) are considered positive for induction of morphological transformation.” 

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride is Neurotoxic - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 852 of 1,450





Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  60% of adolescents show signs, biomarker, of excess fluoride exposure.



A. A recent review of fluoride for the Irish Department of Health, Sutton (2015).   “The evidence base examining the association between health effects and community water fluoridation is scarce”  and “Having examined the evidence, and given the paucity of studies of appropriate design, further research, would be required in order to provide definitive proof. . . .“    


For 70 years Governments have continued to dispense fluoride based on a “paucity of studies of appropriate design.”  Intentional fluoride exposure under police powers, solely for therapeutic intent, should be suspended until such proof of efficacy and safety is provided.  


B. The Public Health Service recommendation in 2015 (PHS 2015) estimates about 60% of fluoride exposure for adults and 40%-70% for children is from water fluoridation.  The PHS (2015) does not mention infants on formula with fluoridated water who would get close to 100% of their fluoride from water at 0.7 ppm or greater. 


C. There are some streams of evidence the FDA should consider which are fundamental to common sense even though they may not fit within a prescribed research format such as PECO and protocol approach, such as intent of use, lack of physiologic requirement, ethics, mother’s milk, and the FDA’s withdrawal of NDA and fluoride dental products’ warnings, etc.

1. For example, mother’s milk: Only the NRC 2006 report seriously addressed mother’s milk which has undetectable fluoride in most samples and mean concentration of 0.004 ppm.  Infants on formula made with 0.7 ppm fluoridated water are ingesting 175 times more fluoride than mother’s milk.   Perhaps the survival of our species has been dependent on mother’s milk.  The paucity of high quality studies on fluoride’s safety and efficacy do not outweigh the historical record of mother’s milk.  Mother’s milk is considered the nutritional standard for infants against which all other substitutes are judged.  Reviewers of science usually omit or avoid the most fundamental, historical, obvious scientific evidence of nature’s dosage of fluoride for infants, in part because dosage of 175 times more than mother’s milk of a highly toxic substance without consent sounds hellish.  

The undisputed evidence of the virtual lack of fluoride in mother’s milk must be the dosage considered optimal for infants unless overwhelming proof that mother’s milk is deficient or defective is provided. 


CDC reports about 13% of infants are exclusively breast fed through six months.

Hujoel (2009) provides the graph below confirming an increase of dental fluorosis in formula fed infants.


Primarily, English speaking Government agencies dispense fluoride with assumed dental caries reduction and without any high quality studies.  Yet promoters  demand high quality “proof” of harm.  


2. Another stream of evidence  is the FDA . The FDA requires a label (variable wording) on fluoride toothpaste because fluoridated toothpaste makes a therapeutic claim that it “helps protect against cavities.  Fluoride is a drug,   The label says, “Drug Facts.”  “do not swallow,” use a “pea size.”  The pea size pictured is about twice the size the FDA is referring to.  A pea size of toothpaste has 0.25 mg of fluoride, the same as each  glass of fluoridated water.  Diluting a quarter milligram of fluoride in a glass of public water does not make the fluoride safe. 


Governments do not make sense when they warn not to swallow the same amount of fluoride as they require each person to swallow in each glass of water.



3. We should consider Congress as a stream of evidence.  

“21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”  Sodium Fluoride is listed in the 2007 US Pharmacopoeia pages 3194-3196.   Congress and the President have clearly defined drugs, and fluoride is listed as one of the drugs.  Fluoride is exempt from Federal and state “poison” and “highly toxic” laws as a drug and not exempt as a food. State Board’s of Pharmacy have determined fluoride is a drug.


The ingestion of fluoride with the intent to mitigate dental caries is not approved by the FDA CDER and is therefore an unapproved drug.


D. Reviews of potential harm from fluoride ingestion have a selection criteria usually limited to human studies and usually conclude, “Ecological studies are not adequate to infer causality.”  


Reviews have in part been a house of cards, narrow in focus, assumed efficacy, and/or failed to consider evidence from all streams of evidence. 


E. Prospective Randomized Controlled Human Trials (RCT) testing children to see how much, for example, their IQ decreases, at various ages, dosages, synergistic chemicals, health status and nutritional variables would certainly increase confidence but would be unethical.  Determining the toxicological endpoint of chemicals such as fluoride for a public health (population wide) non contagious disease by dispensing of toxicants requires a significant factor of uncertainty to protect everyone, especially when benefit is controversial.  Therefore, the FDA should review the science with the premise, “if in doubt, do no harm.”


F. Ethically, clinical evidence for efficacy for toxic substances administered with therapeutic intent must be a different scientific standard and methodology than evidence of safety and harm for random or unavoidable toxins.   Fluoride is different than an industrial toxic product because it is administered by Governments without individual consent, label or legend and without efficacy and toxicity oversight. 



G. “Weight of evidence” for an ecological study maybe stronger than an individual study when the bigger picture is evaluated such as: sample size, precision of measurements, choosing an appropriate sample, avoiding biases such as confounders, age, gender, race of cohorts, objective or subjective evidence, etc.   




H. Current human studies have centered on IQ as a measurement tool of neurotoxicity for humans.  Rocha-Amador (2009) reminds us that IQ is only one form of testing for chemical neurotoxicity:

“Intuitively, though it might seem that an IQ test would be an ideal measure [for determining the neurotoxic effects of a chemical], this assumption would be ill founded, because some toxicants could affect only specific functions, such as attention, memory, language, or visuospatial abilities without clear decrements on IQ scores. Furthermore, the exposure dose as well as mixtures of toxicants are important factors that also need to be considered.”  


Yazdi et. al. concluded that “neurobehavioural testing is useful for detecting impairment of psychomotor performance and memory that is associated with occupational F exposure.” 


I. A neurotoxic substance has been defined as a substance which alters the normal activity of the nervous system in such a way as to cause damage to nervous tissue.  Symptoms of this alteration may appear immediately after exposure or be delayed. The range of symptoms include loss of IQ but also include limb weakness or numbness, loss of memory, vision, uncontrollable obsessive and/or compulsive behaviors, delusions, headache, cognitive and behavioral problems, sexual dysfunction and pain. 


J. Although research on the neurotoxicity of fluoride is robust enough to suspend artificial fluoridation, the research finding harm is in its infancy.  Research will become more refined, focused and demonstrate even higher risk for subpopulations.  An uncertainty factor must be included for safety.   Each day of delay, leaves many at risk.  

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 853 of 1,450



You desire to end the back and forth because you do not have the decency to apologize for slandering and defaming me to city councils.   If you look at my slides, I gave credit for the photos.  Cosmetic dentistry of a Pedodontist might be malpractice, I am not making that judgment.  But General Dentists do cosmetic dentistry every day.  We could go into details, but your apology is requested.


However, whether ingesting fluoride makes teeth harder and less caries prone is a secondary issue to the EXCESS EXPOSURE.   Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.


You have not disputed nor have you disagreed with the fundamental issue that 60% of adolescents with various degrees of dental fluorosis is too much.  


You have to agree that water fluoridation supplements the fluoride exposure from other sources.  With 60% getting too much fluoride, a cessation of water fluoridation is essential.  



The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  



Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 854 of 1,450



Let me make an attempt to explain where you have not been clear in public presentations.  While you may expect an apology and your feelings are hurt, that is on you.  I have merely reacted to information that you presented in at least 2 communities where we have presented opposite each other.



"You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public apology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an apology of your errors."



William, a letter was written to the editor of Neurotoxicity Research challenging the findings of the NTP report by fluoridation opponents.  Since you may not be aware of this letter, the link to it is below.  The editor, Dr. Jean Harry, responds to those challenges:

"In summary, far from generating “false results” that may “misinform the public”, our data utilize an exposure level near the recommended level for human exposure and provide an extensive, systematic evaluation of sensory, motor, and cognitive function in a relevant animal model.  Instead of misleading regulators and the public, the results of the McPherson et al (2018) help clarify a generally confusing database and can only facilitate decisions concerning the safety of fluoride exposure through the drinking water."


While this robust study looked at all fluoride intakes from food and water, followed in utero development of male offspring to adulthood, and clearly and definitively found no evidence of neurological damage, you are choosing to minimize the study which you promoted and pushed for.  This study, along with that of Dr. Gary Whitford, were of high quality with clear results.  The studies that have been used by fluoridation opponents to attempt to get the EPA to stop water fluoridation were found to be highly biased and failed to show neuorological damage at levels of fluoride used in community water fluoridation.



"The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm."  



See the above.



Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.



From the Document:

"As such, we have reached similar conclusions--there is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, or inclusion of drug studies."


I repeat their findings as this paper was discussed with the COHG in London in July 2015. 


Quality of the evidence

"The GRADE approach was used to assess the quality of the evidence within the review. GRADE has developed over recent years as an internationally recognised framework for systematically evaluating the quality of evidence within both systematic reviews and guidelines. It aims to overcome the confusion that arises from having multiple systems for grading evidence and recommendations, and, because of this key aim, the GRADE working group discourages the use of modified GRADE approaches. However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area."



"Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing."



William, I invite anyone to watch and listen to your presentation that you gave in Potsdam, NY, recently.  It is easily found on YouTube by using the search words Potsdam NY Fluoride.


You stated earlier in this thread that the slides of the teeth with fluorosis and the veeners that were placed were from friends and colleagues of yours.  You never stated this in the presentations.  Giving credit to the appropriate person for using their slides is commonplace.  The presentation does not give the impression that these patients aren't yours.  As such, I commented on the treatment of these teeth appropriately.  


Secondly, you showed "Fluoride Bombs" in molars which again were not attributed to another person.  If they aren't your patient(s), then acknowledging that is commonplace.  You asked me earlier about my suggestion that if frank cavitation (an open, visual hole in the tooth) were not present, a sealant should be placed.  


I direct you to the "American Dental Association's Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry" for specific guidelines on how to approach pits and fissures of molars like you have shown.


The specific review is entitled "

"Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the use of pit-and-fissure sealants"

One of the specific sections addresses your questions about sealing over non-cavitated teeth, as well as incipient caries (decay).  Long term studies have been conducted in which caries was sealed over and found to have arrested this decay.  Yes, I have seen this in my 30 years of practicing pediatric dentistry in Florida as a Pediatric Dentist.


Potential Role of Pit-and-Fissure Sealants in Primary and Secondary Prevention

"From a primary prevention perspective, anatomic grooves or pits and fissures on occlusal surfaces of permanent molars trap food debris and promote the presence of bacterial biofilm, thereby increasing the risk of developing carious lesions. Effectively penetrating and sealing these surfaces with a dental material—for example, pit-and-fissure sealants—can prevent lesions and is part of a comprehensive caries management approach.11

From a secondary prevention perspective, there is evidence that sealants also can inhibit the progression of noncavitated carious lesions.9 The use of sealants to arrest or inhibit the progression of carious lesions is important to the clinician when determining the appropriate intervention for noncavitated carious lesions."


At this point, William, I choose to end this back and forth interaction with you.  You have started to become demanding when someone doesn't agree with you.  As the late U.S. Senator Daniel P. Moynihan said so well, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."


Warm regards,


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society - a not for profit group of all volunteer healthcare professionals who do not take a penny for their work to disseminate credible, evidence-based science that has been peer reviewed and published in credibly recognized scientific journals

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 855 of 1,450



You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.


The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  


True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.   Send me one other dentist who claims I did malpractice or the treating doctors did malpractice.  Send me their name and contact info.


Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   


And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.



Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 856 of 1,450



You suggest, "True Facts."   Sounds like you and D. Trump have some in common.  Makes me laugh when you try to say "True Facts" after you defamed me and slandered me publicly claiming I did malpractice.    I did not do the cosmetic treatment you claim and cosmetic treatment is not malpractice.


The fact is you said you would address your defamation and slander if I responded to the NTP study. I did and will more.  But the "True Fact" is you have not appologized privately or publicly.  If you have, please send me a video or copy of the letter to the Potsdam Village Council.  


True Fact.  You promised and did not keep your promise.


Regarding the NTP, I agree with you on the first phase and you have blown one study against many others.  You certainly have not convinced me with any statements from the NTP that their one study negates their determination that all the other studies in the review have now been rendered false by their one study.   


And now the more than 50 human studies reporting developmental neurologic harm.  It will take more than one study to refute all the other studies.   Before you get too confident, perhaps we should wait for the final report.



Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 857 of 1,450



An amazing compilation of powerful documentation raising serious concerns with fluoride exposure.  


In the last 3 years, this evidence has not been refuted.


“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. 



  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞
  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.😞 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞

  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); 

  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.):



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. 



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.

  • 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. 



  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: 
    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:
    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): 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999):
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011):
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 



Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 858 of 1,450

The quote in question from the Cochrane review is as follows:
"We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults."

In other words, there was no determination made because the published work claiming benefit is not scientific. Scientists already knew this because all the studies were not controlled -- humans cannot be put in cages. So these thousands of publications on water fluoridation (97% were rejected) have little to no meaning.

The Ziegelbecker massive, inclusive studies, plus the 30 year massive study by Teotia and Teotia, and the detailed, meticulous studies published by John Yiamouyiannis are the best human observations we have and are completely consistent with the actual science on research animals in controlled environments in cages, proving that eating fluoride does not reduce caries while fluorosis incidence increases. The scientific case has been closed for a long time. You might get some benefit by reading Fluoride the Aging Factor by Yamouyiannis. It is very good biochemistry and the best human epidemiology we have on the subject.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 859 of 1,450

If the statement was intended to mean that all studies indicate that adults benefit from fluoridation, then you need to read the actual science as described in the textbook known as the Bible of pharmacology, Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics. In the section on ingested fluoride the correct statement is "fluoride is of no benefit to adult teeth".

The scientific consensus nsus in the 1940's and still today is correct. Fluoride found use as a rat poison and has always been considered unsafe to add to foods at any concentration. And in recent studies we know eating fluoride is ineffective in lowering tooth decay and causes skeletal and enamel harm. 

The consensus remains the same. 

The Kumar studies have been discussed before. The claim of caries reduction is not scientific. The slight difference is not even outside measurement error. A scientist does not accept a difference as being real, rather than an artifact, with data like that. 



Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 860 of 1,450



Your words, "true facts" made me laugh.  


You promised to respond to my claim you defamed and slandered me if I responded to your question on NTP.    I expect and request a public appology here and at your next public meetings and a letter to the communities you have slandered and defamed me, with an appology of your errors.


Johnny,  the ingestion of fluoride might have some benefit, might not.  Take the weight and amount of caries prevention possibility  and add to the evidence of risk for brain, thyroid, bones, teeth, cancer, kidney from many studies, then weigh the evidence of increased caries and risk from excess exposure and the lack of freedom of choice and individual dosage.   When you stack all those issues  together and weigh all of those factors, CWF becomes unacceptable.  


Research by nature takes one or as few variables as possible and tries to measure the variable.  Public Health Policy must take a look at the big picture, all the studies, all the possible benefits, risks, dosage, along with the lethality and contagious nature of the disease before people are forced to ingest the medication/treatment.  The big picture must be considered.


The one animal study by NTP should be taken along with the other studies.  One study which had limitations showing no harm is reassuring, but does not negate the many studies reporting harm.  


Cochrane.  Thanks for the link.  Note the authors conclusions are not as robust as your claim.


"Authors’ conclusions
Our results across all reviews (pooled ROR 1.08) are ver y similar to results reported by similarly conducted reviews. As such, we have
reached similar conclusions; on average, the re is little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies
and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study de sign, heterogeneity, or inclusion of studies of pharmacological interventions.
Factors other than study design per se need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs
and observational studies. O ur results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level
of he terogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding of how these factors influence study effects
might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness."
Little evidence is not no evidence.  And observational studies are important.  RCTs are still considered the gold standard and to my understanding are usually required by Cochrane reviewers and FDA, etc.  
Here are a few limitations often found in the observational studies on fluoridation:
  • A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors such as serious decline in caries of 5 teeth per 12 year old prior to fluoridation.  What caused the decline and control for that unknown.
  • B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials are required due to serious unknowns.   
  • C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
  • D.   Inadequate size 
  • E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay
  • F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 
  • G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
    vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 
  • H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined
  • I.     Oral hygiene not determined 
  • J.     Not evaluating Life time benefit 
  • K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
  • L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered 
  • M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
  • N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  
  • O.    Genetics not considered


Cochrane did find benefit for children from observational studies.  But those studies did not control for all of the concerns above.  


Pressure on Cochrane by fluoridationists so you say "they took the unprecedented move to totally re-write their Plain Language Summary"


Obviously, if political pressure is placed on someone after their studdied written opinion, that is bias.  Perhaps the original version was their true conclusion and under pressure they changed.  Seen that often with fluoridation.  Preventing publications, can't find peer reviewers, delay in publication and out right junk research published.


Johnny, I expect and appology and put all the pieces of the puzzel together.  Stand back and line all the evidence and weigh the evidence.  60% of adolescents in 2011-2012 with too much fluoride is too much fluoride, even if you think it is a good thing.


Report Inappropriate Content
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Have a health tip to share or a health question to ask? Check out the Health Tips forum today