- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Your inability to read is manifesting itself again. Dr. Johnson was referring to a Dr. Limebeck's (a fluoride opponent) paper on microabrasion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16674673
Perhaps you should criticize your fellow anti-fluoridationist who wrote a paper on the subject in the first place.
By the way, you never answered the question. On this paper you list your affiliation with UCSD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract
UCSD was simply your alma mater. They did not publish your work and they did not fund your research. I had asked you if you knew of any other scholar who listed his place of graduation as his affiliated university.
For example, Carl Sagan listed Cornell on his work because Cornell published his material and funded his research. He graduated from the University of Chicago, but we don't see this on any of his work.
So, do you know of any other scholar who deceptively lists his alma mater on scholarly material as though that institution funded & was responsible for the work?
I don't believe what I'm hearing. A fluoridation promoter requests that dental enamel fluorosis, which is abnormally thin enamel, be treated with abrasion. In other words, don't bother fixing the cause of this problem by halting fluoridated water ingestion in childhood, but instead let's just treat the symptoms after they appear so the teeth will visibly look better while even losing more enamel.
Similar illogic is used when prescribing certain drugs to achieve a normal level of a body component such as high glucose from overeating sugar, so then you have two problems, the original cause of the high glucose plus the drug side effects.
When a cause can be corrected, correct it. Don't leave it there and treat its effects. In other words, eat less sugar and one won't need the drug. And stop eating fluoride and no one would need the treatment for fluorosis.
What a sick joke.
Why didn't you hang around in Potsdam, NY last night after your fluoridation presentation by Skype? You missed out on the best part of the presentation.
1. How you have the intestinal fortitude to show mild fluorosis that you've cut down and put veneers over at the cost of $10-15,000 (your numbers) is a sin. Why don't you ask your buddy Hardy Limeback about what he teaches and promotes as a conservative alternative to mild fluorosis? He would tell you to use microabrasion to remove these areas if people even asked to have it addressed.
Hardy has told me that "you Americans" put veneers over these areas as we aren't taught microabrasion. Well, I guess that you've made him correct.
Have you ever considered bleaching a patient's teeth and/or microabrasion?
2. It was very interesting how you, like FAN and other fluoridation opponents, avoid commenting or even acknowledging the National Toxicolog Program's Report which showed absolutely no IQ or neurological deficits, or any effects of any of the 9 areas that they studied? YOU pushed, praised and hailed this study that would be the one to end fluoridation. As you know, this prestigious group is not stacked with pro-fluoridation scientists.
The NTP looked at fluoride levels in water that the rats were given at 0ppm, 10ppm, and 20ppm. As you know, this coorelated to fluoride levels in water for humans of 0.7ppm (community water fluoridation) and at the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level of 4mg/L (ppm). No neurological issues from fluoride whatsoever. Why not just comment on it, Bill?
Incidentally, Israel voted to restart fluoridation and is going throught the steps to do so. You again misrepresented this fact last night stating that they voted it out without stating that they voted it back in.
3. You should learn the difference between Severe Early Childhood Caries (S-ECC) and Early Childhood Caries (ECC) if you are to continue seeing children as you stated that you do. Those slides that you showed, which happen to be almost exactly the ones that Paul Connett shows, is Severe Early Childhood Caries. These are distinctly different. Making claims about community water fluoridation and S-ECC is incorrect. You should be speaking about water fluoridation and ECC. As a matter of information, community water fluoridation reduces hospitalization under general anesthetic for full mouth rehabilitation of children with ECC by 2/3rds to 3/4ths. If you need the references for these studies conducted in the U.S., U.K., and Israel, I can supply them to you for your next presentation.
Maybe sometime you can actually come to one of these meetings instead of Skyping in like you did last night and in Cortland, NY. We can then face off in testimony and you'll have to back up your abuse of the credible science, unlike we, the American Fluoridation Society, uses the credibly conducted science to help decision-makers make educated, informed decisions. That would be fun.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society (AFS), a non-profit all volunteer group of healthcare professionals that do not accept a penny for what they do. AFS is funded by Delta Dental of California's Education and Research Fund.
Sorry it has taken a bit for me to get back to your comment. I wanted to get some research on fluoride and cancer on the table.
(Your comment in italics)
Chuck: "The final nail on the box dismissing the cancer claims was the 2011 California Carcinogen ID Committee determination by unanimous vote that fluoride does not cause cancer at ANY concentration."
Bill: Committee was biased.
Nothing in science is nailed shut. Beware of any suggestion that science is static. No scientist is satisfied with research.
There are several ways to achieve the desired results with research reviews. For example, suppose Ford wanted to know which pickup truck is the best pickup truck. Simply, ask each Ford dealer what make is their favorite pickup truck. The results are in the sampling.
How many scientists on the California Carcinogen ID Committee were opposed to fluoridation and how many in favor when the committee was formed? How was the committee charged and the scope, etc.
The NRC 2006 committee asked three people who were neutral or opposed to fluoridation to be on the committee and the results were of greater concern and caution, with specific recommendations which the EPA has still not followed.
Chuck: "California has all of the submissions made to the committee for consideration, including those from Fluoride Action Network and other opponents here:
No systematic review before or since has found fluoridation related to cancer cases. Why would America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and Internal Medicine specialists advocate for fluoridation if it causes cancer?"
Bill: No ethical person would intentionally cause cancer in humans. And no ethical person without bias, reading the research would be comfortable giving everyone an uncontrolled dosage (not everyone drinks 1 liter of water a day up to 10 mg more fluoride/day) of fluoridated water when they don't know anything about the patient or have the patient's consent or know how much fluoride the patient is getting from other sources.
A person supporting fluoridation is recommending giving everyone up to 7 -10 mg of fluoride a day. Would you put your professional license on the line and write a prescription for everyone without them being a patient of record for 7 or 10 mg/day of fluoride?
Science is not a belief system. Church has the nails in the cross/coffin. Science has no nails in any theory.
Another area for further study is fluoride's effect on KIDNEY, BLADDER, RENAL, PELVIS
LUNG CANCER AND LIVER CANCER.
There are many sources of fluoride and increasing the dosage of fluoride for at high risk individuals, makes no sense.
Kidney & Renal Pelvis Cancer
White (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages
Comparing the 10 least fluoridated states Incidence Rates 2007-2011 with the 10 most fluoridated states, Kidney Whole Population Fluoridated 2002 CDC and USGS and Renal Pelvis Cancer we do find an increased cancer rate of cancer, graphed here. CDC reporting for race is not complete, yet.
Grandjean 2004 reported on an extended followup on cancer morbidity for 422 male workers exposed for at least six months at a cryolite mill in Copenhagen.
Over 90% of the workers have since died. 10 Least 10 Most The authors conclude that “fluoride should Fluoridated States be considered a possible cause of bladder cancer and a contributory cause of primary lung cancer.”
Tohyama  “The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. The main findings were as follows. (1) A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities (r = 0.626, p < 0.005). (2) Even after adjusting for the potential confounding variables, such as tap water diffusion rate, primary industry population ratio, income gap, stillbirth rate, divorce rate, this association was considerably significant. (3) Furthermore, the time trends in the uterine cancer mortality rate appear to be related to changes in water fluoridation practices.” The study includes, “"Uterine cancer mortality rate in fluoridated municipalities appears to have declined rapidly subsequent to cessation of fluoridation."
An animal study by Patel (1998) should be considered. Ranking the states based on fluoridation did not demonstrate greater uterine rates in more highly fluoridated states.
More definitive search of literature will turn up more research on fluoride, renal, pelvis and lung cancer. A great deal of research uses 18-Fluoride PET/CT for diagnostic imaging purposes. Almost no research considers potential effects of fluoride increasing cancers in these tissues. A great deal of money is spent searching for profitable treatments and little for the orphaned concept of prevention. However, one of the reasons 18-F is used for diagnostic purposes is fluoride caries rapidly throughout the body to all tissues.
- LIVER CANCERS:
Hepatic Neoplasm: Toft (1988) “CONCLUSION: The feeding of sodium fluoride to B6C3F1
mice in their drinking water for 104 weeks at the stated doses resulted in the formation of an infrequently encountered hepatic neoplasm which, for purposes of this study, was diagnosed as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. ”
Anamika (2012) “From the present findings conclusion can be drawn that sodium fluoride can induce damage to the nucleic acids and protein content in mice liver, which can be effectively reversed by black tea infusion.”
Yiamouyiannis comments on the NTP rat and mouse studies of the ’80’s. “The most
significant finding was the occurrence of an extremely rare form of liver cancer, heptocholangiocarcinoma in fluoride-treated male and female mice. . . . Using historical controls and doing a binomial analysis of this, the odds of these results occurring by chance are less than one in two million. Normally, we consider it significant one in twenty; this is one in two million.”
 J.D. Toft, II, D.V.M., M.S., Manager, Pathology Section, Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final Report to National Toxicology Program, October 28, 1988.
 Anamika JHA, Komal S, RAMTEJ JV, Effects of Sodium Fluoride on DNA, RNA and Protein Contents in Liver of Mice and Its
Amelioration by Camellia Sinensis, Acta Poloniae Pharmaceutica - Drug Research, Vol. 69 No. 3 pp. 551-555, 2012
 Grandjean P, Olsen JH, EXTENDED FOLLOW-UP OF CANCER INCIDENCE IN FLUORIDE-EXPOSED WORKERS,
Fluoride 2004;37(3):231–238 Abstracts 231 http://www.fluorideresearch.org/373/files/FJ2004_v37_n3_p231-238.pdf
 Tohyama, Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan. J Epidemiol 1997 Sep;7(3):184. See also J Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;6(4):184-91.
Chinoy NJ, Patel D, Ameliorative role of amino acids on fluorde-induced alterations in uterine carbohydrate metabolism in mice. Fluoride 1996; 29(4):217-226.
Another area where research is needed is fluoride and Oral Cancer.
- ORAL CANCER:
Research into the potential contributing factor of fluoride with oral and pharyngeal cancer is minimal. The thought of our toothpaste or ingested fluoride causing cancer is difficult for dentists to consider. We are trying to do good, not bad. The research focuses on using fluoride to reduce dental caries during cancer treatment rather than asking whether the fluoride is increasing cancer risk.
Plotting the percentage of the whole population and
oral cancer in the population at large for the 43 reporting states, we again see an increase trend, the higher the percentage of fluoridation, the higher rate of oral cancer. When consideration is given to the high fluoride concentrations in fluoridated toothpaste and fluoride varnish, the modest concentration of fluoride in water would seem insignificant. However, the fluoride in water is systemic and represents an additional chronic dosage.
Dentists frequently have office policies to give everyone additional fluoride without diagnosis, irregardless of whether the patient has dental fluorosis, the science, FDA approval, total exposure, or any considerations other than the dental insurance company pays. “Never want to put a rational thought in the way of a lucrative procedure.”
NTP (1990) “A second potential target site for sodium fluoride when given in drinking water is the upper digestive tract and oral cavity. Squamous cell neoplasms of the oral mucosa (tongue, palate, or gingiva) occurred with marginally increased incidences in dosed males and female rats over the rates in controls. The increased incidences of these neoplasms were not statistically significant when compared with the incidences in concurrent controls; however, the incidences in the high-dose groups were significantly higher than the incidences observed in historical control animals (0.7% male rats; 0.6% female rats).
“As with lesions of the bone, a direct comparison with the historical rates for oral cavity neoplasms is not completely accurate because of the increased attention given to the oral cavity and teeth in the sodium fluoride studies compared to previous NTP studies. Rates for oral cavity neoplasms similar to those observed in high-dose male and female rats in the sodium fluoride studies (4%) have been observed twice for males and once for females in the historical control database of 42 dosed feed or water studies. Neoplasms of the oral cavity were observed in control male and female rats in the current studies; one was observed in an age-matched control male rat and one occurred in a control female rat in the main study.
“An argument could be made for combining the male and female rat studies for analysis of oral cavity neoplasms because a marginal increase occurred in both groups. An analysis for significance of the combined P values for the logistic regression trend tests for males and female rats resulted in a nonsignificant P value of 0.065.
“In contrast to osteosarcomas, for which there are no recognized benign or preneoplastic counterparts (Litvinov and Soloviev, 1973), squamous cell hyperplasias of the oral cavity are considered preneoplastic precursor lesions of squammous cell neoplasms of the oral cavity (Brown and Hardisty, 1990). Squamous cell hyperplasia occurred in no more than one animal in any of the dosed or control groups in the current studies. Thus, based on the absence of statistical significance versus the concurrent controls, the occurrence of these tumors in control animals, and the lack of a dose-related increase in non-neoplastic precursor lesions, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to relate tumors of the oral cavity with administration of sodium fluoride to male or female rats. Glattre and Wiese (1979) reported an association between a decrease in human mortality due to oral cavity neoplasia and increasing fluoride content in water over the range of 0 to 0.5 ppm.”
Research animals were not given fluoride varnish, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride medical and dental products and these other sources need to be included in research on a possible connection between oral cancer and fluoride.
 National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health ...ces, Research Triangle Park, N.C. p. 73-74.
I would like to post additional research on fluoride's relationship with specific cancers, and then respond to comments.
- BRAIN CANCER RATES
Fluoride appears to cross the blood brain barrier with similar concentrations as blood. Hu (1988) reported controls with a range of 0.14--0.23 ppm fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and those with fluorosis at 0.10-0.38 ppm fluoride for both blood and CSF. I was unable to find studies measuring CSF fluoride concentrations for brain cancer patients. Just because studies have not been published is not proof of safety.
The theory of fluoride being involved with brain cancer is plausible.
Ranking the 50 states on the percentage of whole population fluoridated, the trend of increased cancer continues as graphed below, although Blacks appear to take the most significant hit. It is strange almost no studies look specifically at race and the fluoride cancer connection.
A similar comparison for Black women shows less increase. Perhaps fluoride affects the male chromosome more than female?
Considering that fluoride exposure has increased significantly in all states, an increase in White male cancer of perhaps 8%-10% and Black male cancer rates of perhaps 13%-15% is reasonably consistent with Burk’s 17%.
Comparing states based on water fluoridation (NHANES 2011 60% with fluorosis) does not account for other sources of fluoride, age, diagnostic and treatment centers, toothpaste ingestion, whether a person is actually drinking the water and other confounding effects. The PHS 2015 suggests water fluoridation currently represents perhaps 14% of total fluoride exposure and comparing a 30% fluoridated state with an 80% fluoridated state would represent even less of a difference.
When we rank the 50 USA states on the percentage of the whole population fluoridated, a slight increase in brain cancer is found for males. (Females did not show an increase)
Moolenburgh 1994 “Tiel was
fluoridated until late in 1973. After those twenty years the High Court of the Netherlands came to the conclusion that fluoridation of the water 125 supplies had been illegal all that time, and Tiel stopped adding fluoride to the drinking water.
Van den Berg wanted to know if differences in health had occurred between Tiel and
Culemborg (not fluoridated) 20 years after the measure was stopped. She chose the people between 40 and 60 years of age, as these people had drunk fluoridated water from their birth onwards for twenty years. Of course only those people were taken into consideration who had lived in the two cities the whole of their lives (as happens frequently in the Netherlands). There was a surprising 40 and 46% response to the 14,200 enquiry forms that were sent out.
Here are a couple results:
Brain and Nervous Diseases: Fluoridated Non-fluoridated Women 51-55 years, N=146 Tiel 18.6%0% Culemborg 7.0%
Women 56-60 years, N= 109 Tiel 11.10% Culemborg 3.10%
A more than tripling of cancer for women due to water fluoridation seems extreme based on other studies. The small sample might be a factor along with other confounding factors. However, the trend is consistent with a fluoride/cancer connection.
Research on the effect of fluoride to brain cancer is beginning.
Altonen (2012) “We conclude that vanadate- and propranolol-sensitive LPP activity locally guards the signalling pool of LPA whereas the majority of brain LPA phosphatase activity is attributed to LPP-like enzymatic activity which, like LPP activity, is sensitive to AlFx- but resistant to the LPP inhibitors, vanadate and propranolol.”
Altonen (2012) Figure 5
“AlFx-(not NaF) generates the LPA1receptor-mediated response; AlFx-also blocks the LPA phosphatase activity. . . Note that NaF partially and AlFx- totally inhibit LPA-derived Pi formation and that DFOM reverses these actions.”
Xu (2011) “The mechanisms underlying fluoride-induced apoptosis in neurons still remain unknown. To investigate apoptosis, caspase-3 activity, and mRNA expression of Fas, Fas-L, and caspases (-3 and -8) induced by fluoride, human neuroblastoma (SH-SY5Y) cells were incubated with 0, 20, 40, and 80 mg/L sodium fluoride (NaF) for 24 h in vitro. The data show that cell viability in the 40 and 80 mg/L fluoride groups were significantly lower than that of the control group. . . The results indicate that fluoride exposure could induce apoptosis in SH-SY5Y cells, and the Fas/Fas-L signaling pathway may play an important role in the process.
Although the evidence of fluoride contributing to brain cancer is only a theory still to be investigated, adding the negative effects of fluoride onto cognitive effects certainly warrents further investigation.
 Hu Yu-Huan, Wu Si-Shung, Fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid patients with fluorosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 1988;51:1591-1593.
 http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/FluoridationV.asp pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table05.html and http:// pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table05.html CDC for cancer data. Fluoridation data is used to determine the percentage of the whole population fluoridated in each state for graphs below.
 Data for these graphs was obtained from the CDC fFact sheets on fluoridation and then corrected for “whole population” of each state on public water. As of 4/25/15 this link was good http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/FluoridationV.asp www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/uscs/pdf/2002_USCS.pdf 2002 cancer statistics still current as of 4/25/15 http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table05.html Current 4/25/15 used to determine percentage of population on public water
 Moolenburgh, H. MORE NEWS FROM TIEL AND CULEMBORG, Fluoride Vol. 28 No.2 119-122 1995 Letters to the Editor 119 Accessed 4/25/15 http://www.fluorideresearch.org/282/files/FJ1995_v28_n2_p119-122.pdf
 Aaltonen N1, Lehtonen M, Varonen K, Goterris GA, Laitinen JT. Lipid phosphate phosphatase inhibitors locally amplify lysophosphatidic acid LPA1 receptor signalling in rat brain cryosections without affecting global LPA degradation. BMC Pharmacol. 2012 Jun 11;12:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2210-12-7.
 Xu B1, Xu Z, Xia T, He P, Gao P, He W, Zhang M, Guo L, Niu Q, Wang A. Effects of the Fas/Fas-L pathway on fluoride-induced apoptosis in SH-SY5Y cells. Environ Toxicol. 2011 Feb;26(1):86-92. doi: 10.1002/tox.20543.
What nonsense. The United States Constitution guarantees rights of free speech to all citizens. Our government is [supposed to be] a government of, by, and for the people. Lay persons in the U.S. are totally enitled to enter into the realm of public policy and to debate health "experts".
And health "'experts" do not exist when it comes to artificial fluoridaiton of people. If they were experts we would not have rampant dental decay, rampant bone pathologies, etc. All people are biochemically very different. Neither the policy of, nor the toxicology of, fluoridation of people is taught in any U.S. or foreign medical school. It is a government policy, mentioned in U.S. dental schools, that was started by misguided dentists who saw a mistaken correlation that also had nothing to do with causation (fluoride in water does not affect dental caries even up to 6 ppm but indeed does cause dental enamel hypoplasia in children).
We now know with certainty that fluoridation of the bloodstream has nothing to do with dental caries and is in fact harmful, causing permanent, pathologic accumulation of bone fluoride during lifelong consumption. And infusing chemicals into any public water supply that do not purify (or prevent contamination of) the water is illegal. Ignoring these facts, although this is widespread and very common, is absurd.
- If they do not, I recommend that you stop urinating in your bathwater - if it's the chloramines.
You are telling someone to stop urinating in their bathwater but don’t even know if they do such a thing in the first place. And it is none of anyone’s business in spite of fluoridationists presuming it is, as they do when presuming fluoridation of all people will harm none.
- Why don't you put calcium & magnesium in your bathwater if you're getting hives and you know this will help?
Of the many students I know, several complained about rashes when showering after silicofluoridation started in their city. One was helped by using a calcium-rich gel quickly after showering. There is no mechanism by which calcium and magnesium could be added to the bathwater in our modern society where water districts determine what water to supply to a home and how it is piped onto one’s property. Construction of a metal-infusing tank for bathwater that is also heated is an expensive proposition and I know of no one ever doing it. And why should this be required when all the city need do is stop purchasing and adding useless fluoridation chemicals that do not sanitize water (and do not prevent corrosion of metals into water) and are thus illegal?
- You don't drink seawater. – Irrelevant
It is most certainly relevant. Fluoridation of water supplies is conducted, not to treat human skin, but to be ingested, to elevate fluoride levels in peoples’ bloodstream where it is a contaminant (that fluoridationists argue can somehow by some unknown mechanism affect dental caries). Any rash caused by contact with silicofluoridated water on the skin, after ingestion, can also affect intestinal epithelia. But seawater contains 412 ppm calcium and 1,292 ppm magnesium, both of which minimize fluoride assimilation. AND sea water is not consumed as a beverage anyway, so any internal effects in artificial fluoride-allergic or sensitive people would not be a concern (fish consumption could also be avoided if it were necessary). But fluoridated water with little calcium ion most certainly is consumed, where fluoridationists demand it be piped into homes as their paid-for source of water for drinking, bathing, cooking, etc., regardless of fluoride sensitivity or whether anyone has kidney or bone disease, or other pathologic issues.
And seawater averages 1 ppm fluoride (along with the hghly concentrated divalent metals). That is only 1.4 times the recommended fluoride level of 0.7 ppm. Cities now allow however 1 ppm fluoride because it is dififcult to maintain levels at precisely 0.7, and this is the same as in seawater.
Carry Anne, you accused the AARP of Criminal Behavior if they don't submit to your demands.
Your quote: ""Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics."
Most normal people would consider that "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community." That would make you the troll wouldn't it.
Under your attack on me, your definition of "Astroturfing," because you would never go off topic, you are accusing me of "masking the sponsors of a message or organization."
I'll tell you right now, that is a slanderous lie against me. I will accept your apology anytime.
I am commenting under this thread because I don't like bullies. Your "demand" of the AARP, and your accusation of criminal behavior against them is nothing short of extortion.
Moreover, I think it is incredibly dangerous to allow a bunch of self professed experts to hijack a proven health initiative. "Experts," like yourself, who have graduated from the University of Google, who probably suffer from extreme hypochondria, and definitely paranoia, have no business pushing their way into the domain of health experts and public policy.