Prevention is the best medicine when it comes to avoiding surprise medical bills! Learn more.

 

Reply
Conversationalist
1
Kudos
855
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

855 Views
Message 1151 of 1,357

In relation to Dr Haynie's comment, I was involved in the presentations to the European Union's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risk (SCHER) in 2011. This was a comprehensive review by a panel of scientists who were primarily toxicologists by training. Their comment on cancer was as follows:

 

"SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in
drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from
animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic."

 

This is just one of many comprehensive reviews by experts in their field, none of which have concluded that fluoride causes cancer, and certainly not at the levels found in fluoridated water.

 

The SCHER report is available online at  https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf.

 

Joe Mullen BDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
855
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
894
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

894 Views
Message 1152 of 1,357

Your opinion is opposite to that in the reports prepared by teams of distinguished scientifoc experts who are selected on the basis of their expertise to look at all scientific sides of issues. These systematic review panels debate the evidence and draft a final report and recommendations.

Since the 2011 California Carcinogen Identification Committee decision by unanimous vote that fluoride does not cause cancer in any concentration. additional systematic reviews finding no risk to cancer from fluoridation has included the Australian National Health and Medical REsearch Council, the Ireland Health Research Board, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the HHS Community Preventive services Task Force and the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks. Perhaps I've missed a few.

The public can have high confidence in the evaluation of the science that occurs through such processes, whatever their findings might be. In the case of community water fluoridation, every such panel of experts that has met to review and critique the evidence has concluded that community water fluoridation is safe and effective.

C. Haynie, M.D.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
894
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
897
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

897 Views
Message 1153 of 1,357

David,

 

This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.  

Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."

 

 

David,

 

This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.  

Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."

 

Known Carcinogen: 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. Decreased proteolytic and transaminase enzymes' activities, protein and nucleic acid contents and associated DNA damage were observed in the brain of fluoride intoxicated rats. The neurotransmitters dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin level was also significantly altered after fluoride exposure. Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative dysfunctions was evaluated. 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.

Known Carcinogen:   McCully (2009) “. . . Depletion of thioretinaco ozonide from cellular membranes is suggested to underlie the carcinogenic and atherogenic effects of fluoride and other electrophilic carcinogens.”

Known carcinogen (increase incidence): Marigold (1969)  explained that fluoride has a paradoxical action on cancer.  Some of the most effective anti-cancer drugs have contained fluoride and yet other inorganic fluoride compounds are powerful carcinogens such as dimethylaminoazobenzene who’s cancer-producing ability is enhanced seven times as much as by substitution of fluoride with other halogens.

Known carcinogen (chronic exposure - shorter life span): Taylor (1954) carried out a total of 12 experiments involving 645 mice. The data indicated that drinking water containing as little as 1ppm of fluoride shortened the life span of cancer-prone mice by an average of 9%, regardless of whether they died of cancer or another disease.  In contrast, 1953, Fleming36 transplanted sarcoma 37 into young adult mice and guinea pigs.  For a few weeks, one group received 20 ppm NaF in drinking water and another 1,000 ppm intraperitoneally while controls received no fluoride. The fluoride treated animals lived longer, lost less weight and had tumors inhibited by fluoride.   One striking difference between Taylor’s and Flemming’s studies is “time and dosage,”  Taylor had chronic low dose exposure while Flemming had acute high dose.

Known carcinogenic: Taylor (1965) reported observations from 54 experiments, 991 mice bearing transplanted tumors and 58 experiments with 1817 eggs implanted with mouse cancer tissue.  Sodium fluoride accelerated the growth of cancer tissue.  Taylor’s work has been repeatedly confirmed.  Note: Talyor’s first study was criticized because he did not control the fluoride in animal feed, probably CaF.  His subsequent work did control for total fluoride exposure and the results were confirmed.

Known Carcinogen: Suzuki (1991) “We tested the induction of mutagenic effects by in vivo and in vitro bone marrow micronucleus tests. A significant increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was observed 24 H after intraperitoneal injection of sodium fluoride at a dose of 30 mg/kg body weight. In the in vitro micronucleus test, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was increased significantly at concentrations of 2 and 4 MM. These results indicate that the micronucleus test may be useful in evaluating the cancer risk of sodium fluoride.”39

Known Carcinogen:  Pati (1987) “Genotoxicity of Sodium fluoride was evaluated in mice in vivo with the help of different cytogenetic assays.

 

Known Carcinogen:  Tazhibaev (1987) “The test animals were fed with low-grade food during 2-5 months under conditions of acute and chronic action of hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride induced by inhalation, that resulted in the pronounced impairment of the chromosomal apparatus of the bone marrow cells in the rats. A principal possibility has been established of modification of the hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride cytogenetic effect by the alimentary action. In particular, it has been found that the effect is significantly higher when the rats are fed with a low-grade ration than under conditions of balanced nutrition.”

 

NTP mutagenic: According to the National Toxicology Program “the preponderance of evidence” from laboratory “in vitro” studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound. Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens. As is typical for in vitro studies, the concentrations of fluoride that have generally been tested were usually, but not always, higher (millimolar levels) than the concentrations found in human blood (micromolar levels). In Khalil (1995), the authors found a statistically significant mutagenic effect at a concentration of just 1 micromole (0.019 ppm). This is similar to blood fluoride concentrations among individuals living in fluoridated communities. More recent research has found effects at 24 uM (Zhang 2009) and 34 uM (Tiwari & Rao 2010).

The relevance of the in vitro findings are further amplified by the fact that there are certain “microenvironments” in the body, such as the bones (3,708 ppm Eble DM 1992 JPHD), teeth, kidney (50 fold increase over plasma, NRC 2006), bladder, and pineal gland (21,000 ppm, Luke 1997; 2001), where the cells can be exposed to fluoride levels many times higher than the fluoride levels found in the blood (between none detected and 0.01 ppm). 

Bone mineral is regularly broken down by osteoclasts as part of the bone remodeling process, the fluoride sequestered in bones (and other tissues) may be periodically released, exposing bone cells to increased fluoride concentrations. This might help explain why fluoride has been associated, in both human and animal studies, with osteosarcoma (bone cancer). One in vitro study, for example, found that 10 to 19 ppm fluoride caused mutagenic effects in bone cells after 24 to 48 hours of exposure. (Mihashi 1996). According to the authors:

Known Carcinogen: “Significant increases in the frequencies of chromosome aberrations were induced in a dose- and treatment time-dependent fashion when NaF was administered to [rat vertebral bone] cells at 0.5 and 1.0 mM [=9.5 to 19 ppm] for 24 and 48 h. The results indicate that NaF is genotoxic to rat vertebrae, providing a possible mechanism for the vertebrae, as a target organ of NaF carcinogenesis.” 

Known Genetic Damage:  Humans and apes have been found to be more susceptible to fluoride-induced genetic damage than rodent cells. (Kishi 1993). Chromosome breaks occurred in human and ape cells at fluoride concentrations (19 to 114 ppm) that had no effects on rodent cells.  (Note: Fluoride varnish is 22,600 ppm)

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.”

Capable: 1993 Environment Canada “Fluoride (as sodium fluoride) should be considered capable of inducing chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and sister-chromatid exchanges in vitro in mammalian cells, although the results from such studies have been inconsistent.”

Genotoxic:  1991 HHS “Genotoxicity studies are highly dependent on the methods used… Despite the apparently contradictory reports appearing in the published literature, fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in bacteria (Ames test). In some studies fluoride has been reported to induce gene mutations in both cultured rodent and human cells. Fluoride has also been reported to transform rodent cells in vitro. Although there is disagreement in the literature concerning the ability of fluoride to be a clastogen (induce chromosome aberrations) in cultured cells, it has been suggested that fluoride can cause chromosome aberrations in rodent and human cells. Fluoride induced primarily chromatid gaps and chromatid breaks, indicating that the cells are most responsive in the G stage of the cell cycle, i.e., after chromosome duplication in preparation for cell division. Negative results reported in some cytogenetic studies are likely the effect of inadequate test protocols…. Although the mechanism(s) by which these cellular effects result from exposure to fluoride is not known, a number of possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the genetic activity observed. These mechanisms have been based on the observed reactions of fluoride in solution with divalent cations or necleotides, or the physiological and inhibition protein synthesis, or a result of the direct inhibition of DNA polymerase. Fluoride can react with divalent cations in the cell so as to affect enzyme activities that are necessary for DNA or RNA synthesis, or chromosome metabolism or maintenance; it may react directly with DNA as part of a complex; or it ca disrupt other cellular processes such as cell differentiation or energy metabolism.”

 

 

Known Carcinogen: Zhang (2009)   “Twenty four agents were used to evaluate this screening assay. We selected the agents, ranging from DNA alkylating agents, oxidative agent, radiation, DNAcrosslinking 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.”

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
897
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
971
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

971 Views
Message 1154 of 1,357

The references for the statements, on the FDA ruling against fluoridated water in dialysis wards due to increased fluoride-inducedd morbidity when it is used, and the position statement of Edna Lovering at the FDA that fluoride added into water is "an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug," are in:

Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490  (2013) at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

By the way fluoride was ruled in two separate U.S. court cases to be a carcinogen in man. But since bone cancer fortunately remains rare and fluoride promoters incessantly demand absolute proof that they would accept for this, which is never sufficient, I discuss instead the adverse effects that fluoride causes in all consumers, namely abnormal bone structure of varying degree depending on length of exposure and other factors.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
971
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1000
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,000 Views
Message 1155 of 1,357

Dr. Sauerheber has said two different things now.  First he said, “The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton in 1945 under the direction of officials from the U.S. military.”  ( https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2022558#M753 )

 

When I challenged him on his claim that the FDA opposed water fluoridation, he says, “The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion.” 

 

Now, these are two different things, Dr. Sauerheber.  However, you did provide a citation for your first claim that the FDA opposed water fluoridation.  Your claim originates in the book, “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson . . . who also alleges in this book that Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) has its roots in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program.  

 

Do you have any other source beyond Bryson’s book of conspiracy theories to support your claim that the FDA ever opposed CWF?  A quotation or a link to an actual FDA website would be adequate verification. 

 

Dr. Sauerheber also said, “Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride, ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug, forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards, and banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women.”  (Same comment)

 

Well there’s a lot here, Dr Sauerheber.  First of all, since the FDA does have regulatory authority over fluoridated Bottled Water . . Can you please show me anywhere on the label of Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” bottled water where pregnant women are warned not to drink this product. 

 

Of course you can’t.  Your first comment was not true. 

 

Can you show me anywhere where the FDA says that water fluoridation “is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug?” 

 

Of course you can’t.  Your comment was false. 

 

Now this is interesting:  “(The FDA) forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards . . “

 

Technically, that may be true.  The FDA also forbids calcium, salt, iron, magnesium, or anything for that matter in water that is to be used for kidney dialysis.  In other words, only purified water may be used for kidney dialysis.  (I won’t call that a lie, but it was certainly deceptive.)

 

Carrie Anne says something interesting:  “Yet, another f-troll heard from . . “  (She’s referring to me.)  This is my second comment on this page.  Without counting, I am guessing (and we can check) that Carrie has made at least a dozen comments thus far.  So . . the definition of a “troll” is someone who disagrees with her?   Is that right?  Is BillO51 a troll?  Of course not.  He is scare-mongering against water fluoridation. 

 

Carrie’s full quote:  “Yet, another f-troll heard from with his standard "somebody would have sued already and won" response as a denial to scientific evidence which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015.”

 

She is saying that the Courts are not an adequate standard for deciding the merits, or dangers, of water fluoridation.   Fair enough.  And yet, for some odd reason, BillO538145 finds it appropriate to present a list of Countries (Political entities are not part of the “scientific evidence which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015.”) as well as such organizations as the Sierra Club, Whistleblowers, International Chiropractors, Center for Health, Environment & Justice (that sounds like we are getting into the purview of the Courts to me).  Odd, this double standard, isn’t it. 

 

Lawsuits are flying through the courts in Flint, Michigan, because people WERE poisoned by lead in their drinking water.  This is provable.  And yet, with all the ailments these people attribute to fluoridated water, I stand in disbelief that no litigation has ever been successful against the practice!

 

Just so we’re clear.  Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen.  No legitimate scientific or medical organization says that it is.  Neither the American Cancer Society, nor the World Health Organization says that it is.  (Holistic Dentistry or medicine does not qualify as such.  I will not see a midwife to have my appendix taken out.  Steve McQueen died of cancer because he believed in holistic medicine.)

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1000
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1014
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,014 Views
Message 1156 of 1,357
The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion. For example toothpaste boxes have warning signs not to swallow.
But on the other hand the FDA has not entered into the practice of ordering a ban on fluoride ingestion, and hence do not ban bottled water that may contain it at 1 ppm or less.
FDA officials in 1945 were poised to oppose water fluoridation trials in grand Rapids but were afraid that such opposition might impede the war effort (Bryson, The Fluoride Deception).
The FDA over the years has written that fluoride ingestion is not FDA approved (with the full endorsement to do so that is implied with such approval). No controlled human clinical trials have ever been completed or submitted to the FDA to solicit approval.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1014
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1087
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,087 Views
Message 1157 of 1,357

“The evidence of adverse health effects is of such magnitude and human being so varied in their individual constitution state of health at any moment, eating and drinking habits, etc., that it is inappropriate to say that fluoridation is a totally healthful and safe practice for all.” - Dr. Brian A. Dementi, toxicologist Dept of Health, VA (1980)

 

"We know fluoridation harms some people. That doesn't matter, they are collatoral damage for the greater good. That decision was made decades ago."  - chair of a Board of Health (2014) 

 

Another one of the well known fluoride trolls has joined AARP and posted "somebody would have sued already and won" as a denial of scientific evidence documenting harm which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015. In a previous life, some of these folks may have been part of the Pope's court of scientists who condemed Galileo.

 

Several lawsuits have found fluoridation harmful, but legal under the law of the land - legal to condem Baby Boomers and their descendents to accumulate fluoride in bones where it causes or worsens arthritis and increases brittleness, to accumulate in brains where it disrupt brain function on a cellular level and calcifies the pineal gland contributing to sleeplessness, and to contribute to age related diabetes in service of a dental myth that it might reduce cavities in some children with lousy diets who don't brush their teeth. 

 

Here is a collection of 23 scientific affidavits from credentialed experts condemming fluoridation as harmful that were filed in one such 1993 lawsuit in Wisconsin:  

Safe Water Association Incorporated (Plaintiff) vs Fond du Lac County (Defendant)

 

Also see the legal memo and attached scientific affidavit from a Canadian lawsuit filed in 2014 that is being held up by all sorts of political machinations. 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1087
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1084
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,084 Views
Message 1158 of 1,357

Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus: 

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” 

 

The standard that I use for a carcinogen is:  Does the substance cause cancer.  The World Health Organization, and The American Cancer Society both have presented lists of known and probable cancer causers.  Over 100 substances are listed.  Nowhere on either list is fluoride mentioned.  If indeed Dr. Marcus actually said that he is wrong, according to both the WHO & the American Cancer Society.  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

Carrie Anne then attempts to answer a question posed by Charles H595927, “Dr. Saueheber - - you make a number of allegations which if true, surely would have actionable legal consequences.”

 

Carrie Anne says, “Since lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), they typically have other complicating issues.”

Nonsense.  Any good attorney with financial motivation would take a case of “poisoning via water fluoridation” pro bono – for free.  After all, if anything merits a lawsuit it would be the intentional poisoning of citizens by a local government through its water system.  No deep pockets to sue?  I wonder why lawsuits are flying throughout the city of Flint, Michigan, where the City actually is being sued because local citizens were poisoned through the water system.

Carrie Anne is trying to defend comments by Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who also said, “The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton . . “  Not true.  The FDA has never opposed community water fluoridation.  Show me anything from the FDA to prove me wrong.

 

Dr. Sauerheber also says, “Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride,”  Not true.  While the FDA has no regulatory jurisdiction over community water fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water.  The FDA does allow the sale of Fluoridated Bottled Water.  (For example, Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” bottled water is regulated by the FDA which allows Dannon to sell it.)

 

The list of untruths goes on and on.  Time and space limit a proper response, but these examples illustrate the accuracy of these anti-fluoride arguments, and the lengths that people will go to in order to generate paranoia about safe drinking water.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1084
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1121
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,121 Views
Message 1159 of 1,357

Johnny and All,

 

Sorry for the typos.  Written in haste while multitasking.  If you want to quote me, please correct spelling or ask me for a corrected copy.

 

Thanks,

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1121
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1176
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,176 Views
Message 1160 of 1,357

Hello Johnny,

 

In response to your statement: "Not a single, credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  NOT ONE."

 

I disagree.

 

First, I would agree that most USA science and health organizations endorse fluoridation.  But not all.  

 

And, I do not put much scientific weight on endorsements.  Most endorsements are not backed by a good scientific review of all sides of the literature, rather they reference each other.  CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.  For that matter, you could reference me, but you would need to date it prior to 2000.  To put weight on an endorsement, review their scientifically referenced position papers (if they have one) and consider the date.  The IAOMT's position paper is more scientific than the ADA or AAP's.  I can assure you, I have not personnally reviewed every organization's and country's position on fluoridation.  

 

Second:  Which of the scientific organizations promoting a range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm fluoride in water, reviewed the total exposure and high prevelance of over exposure, recommended lowering the concentration of fluoride in water before HHS's recommendation.   They were silent because they never looked at the science.  When HHS finally lowered their recommendations, ALL the scientific and health organizations were wrong until they obediently fell in line with 0.7 ppm.   But NONE, NOT ONE, reviewed the NRC, EPA DRA and EPA RSC, NHANES and recommended reducing fluoride exposure before HHS recommendation.    

 

All the so called "scientific" organizations were all pupets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.  Finally HHS did, and I am told the decision was very controversial, but finally pushed through at 0.7 ppm.    I do not think any of them, NOT ONE, are credible scientific organizations because NOT ONE reviewed the science.   Even the ADA waited for HHS.  And HHS does not fluoridate, but they were more on top of fluoridation than any so called scientific organization. 

 

Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust.

 

Those allegidly "credible" scientific organizations promoting fluoridation at 1 ppm have not and did not review the science and follow the science.  They all waited for someone else to stand out from the herd and protect the public. 

 

I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation.  Just because a person is an expert in one area of science, does not make them an expert in all scientific areas.  A Pedodontist is the best of the best for my grandchildren's oral health, but I am not taking my daughter to one to deliver her baby or do open heart surgery.  And how many bicuspids did I take out  on the recommendation of Orthodontists, before we began to consider airway?  We all have made mistakes, following the herd is the most common.  Daily I see the adverse effects of closing down the size of the mouth and airway.   

 

 Third:  In my 41st year as a practicing dental clinician and public health, I have seen times when the "herd of organizations" have made mistakes because they protected their professions rather than the public.  Change is very slow when following the herd.  Change is faster when following science. 

 

Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion.  Apparently some have interest in endorsements, here are some health and scientific organiztions opposed to fluoridation, and I have not read all their position papers:



International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology.  https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/
American Academy of Environmental Medicine
International College of Integrative Medicine
International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
Holistic Dental Association
Environmental Working Group
Center for Health, Environment & Justice
Sierra Club

International Chiropractors Association
Organic Consumers Association
Food & Water Watch
The National Whistleblower Center

 

Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added

Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.

Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of       caries....“

Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries

Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark.“

Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated“

Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!

Netherlands REJECTED: Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgment overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.

Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.

Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

Israel SUSPENDED mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects.: June 21, 2006 “The labor, welfare and health Knesset committee”

China BANNED: "not allowed“

France Was 50%  now 30% fluoridated Salt, but no food service salt.

Ireland 74% Fluoridated

UK 9% Fluoridated

 

Canada had about two thirds fluoridated and now about one third, from what I hear.  British Columbia has almost no fluoridation and their caries rates are lower than Oregon with 19% fluoridated and Oregon is lower (in most surveys) than Washington State with about 2/3rds fluoridated.  

 

 

Bill

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1176
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark