Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1371 of 1,450

Wow!!!   I’ve seen a mountain load of misrepresentations by antifluoridationists, but this one by the New Zealand antifluoridationist group has got to go to the top of the list.  The NZ Supreme Court did not make any of the rulings claimed by this New Zealand subsidiary of FAN, in its “press release”.  The court simply rejected the appeal by another New Zealand antifluoridationist group, New Health, of lower court rulings against the antifluoridationists.  While the Supreme Court  provided summaries of its discussions and reasoning, the dismissal of the antifluoridationist  claims was its only ruling.  It most certainly did not rule that fluoridation is mass medication, compulsory, or any of the other egregious claims made in this ridiculous “press release”.


A summary of the NZ Supreme Court ruling  against the antifluoridationists was prepared by the Justices.  It may be viewed:



Steven D. Slott, DDS


Report Inappropriate Content
Periodic Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1372 of 1,450

JUNE 28, 2018  

 AARP Read this and Please take action- to help STOP Fluoridation! 

Below is a press release from Fluoride Free New Zealand on the NZ Supreme Court's recent ruling on fluoridation of the public water supply:

Fluoridation is Mass Medication, New Zealand Supreme Court Rules

Water fluoridation is compulsory mass medication, in breach of human rights, the Supreme Court has ruled by a majority vote. It confirmed that fluoridation is a medical treatment as claimed by opponents for over 60 years. It is not a supplement “just topping up natural levels”, as claimed by the Ministry of Health.

The impracticality of avoiding fluoridated water makes it compulsory in practice, the majority also ruled.

Three judges held that there was conflicting scientific evidence, confirming that the science is NOT settled.

Chief Justice Sian Elias then held that fluoridation was not prescribed by law (i.e. is unlawful), applying section 6 of the Bill of Rights Act. That was the correct decision in Fluoride Free NZ’s view.

The rest of the majority held that it was prescribed by law, and it was then necessary to apply a balancing test to determine if the breach of the right – not to be subject to medical treatment without consent – was justified in the case of fluoridation.

Justice Glazebrook held that it was for a local authority to do this when making its decision, potentially taking into account specific local circumstances.

On the balance of information before the Court – the misinformation promulgated by promoters that water fluoridation measurably reduces tooth decay and presents no real health risk – two judges held that it was justifiable. This is despite the court reiterating that it is now accepted that benefit for fluoride is from topical application, not from ingestion.

The Court did not consider information published since the original High Court case, and the recent US Government multi-million-dollar study by Bashash et al, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, carried out by top scientists and researchers in top North American universities – had not yet been published. This study found that children exposed to fluoride at the same levels as New Zealanders had significantly reduced IQ, which could easily have shifted the Justices’ perception of safety.

Importantly, the Court held that this question of whether fluoridation is justifiable is to be determined on the balance of probabilities. There is no requirement for absolute proof of harm, as long-maintained by the Ministry of Health. As a question of fact, the two judges’ conclusion is not binding on any lower court or any statutory decision maker. With the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence that water fluoridation is ineffective and poses significant health risks, this opens the door to end the practice at any time.

The majority held that tooth decay was a condition in the community that a local council could address (through fluoridation) under section 23 of the Health Act. It necessarily follows that any aspect of health in the community, good or bad, must also fall under section 23. This includes the current IQ level of inhabitants. Therefore a local council is required to protect that condition under section 23. So if, on the balance of probabilities, water fluoridation reduces IQ significantly – and half a standard deviation (5 points on the scale used in recent studies) is significant – a council must not implement fluoridation, and in fact must cease it if it is currently in place. Arguably, this mandatory requirement would override any direction that a District Health Board might give a council under the proposed legislation currently before Parliament.

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled fluoridation is medical treatment without consent, and with the mounting evidence that it is ineffective and carries significant health risks, it is time for politicians and the health sector to rethink the practice. Its days are clearly numbered following this judgment.

Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1373 of 1,450
"Thousands" ??? The last time I checked (2014) there were exactly 341 dentists who had signed FAN's world-wide promoted petition to end fluoridation. The reason there are so few is that community water fluoridation is safe, effective and inexpensive.

In 2014 there were about 175,000 dentist in the US alone. dentists. 341/175000 = 0.2%
Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1374 of 1,450

For the purpose of disclosure, the commenter who hides behind the psedonym “CaryAnne” on this site, and other pseudonyms on other sites all over the internet, is Karen Spencer, a Massachusetts activist who is closely affiliated with the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, a group notirious for disseminating large amounts of misinformation about the public health initiative of water fluoridation.  


Ideological opposition to water fluoridation has existed amongst small pockets of ultra-conservatives since the post WW II anti-government paranoia of those such as the John Birch Society at the very beginning of this initiative 73 years ago.  Current antifluoridation activists are simply the latest generation of those who have attempted to keep this ideology alive through the decades.  The advent of the internet has accorded these little groups unfettered and immediate access to a worldwide audience, and constant, collaborative contact with each other to a degree never having before been possible.  As Spencer notes, in recent years, this heretofore unfettered dissemination of misinformation has become more and more challenged by those such as the American Fluoridation Society whose members have the knowledge and expertise to fully expose the fallacies and dishonesty of their claims.  The result is frustrated personal attacks and libelous claims such as that put forth by Spencer. 


There is little, if anything, in Spencer’s personal attack against the American Fluoridation Society and its members which bears any resemblance to the truth.  As a non-profit, the organization is fully transparent, with information about the organization and its members readily  available  on its website:


The members of AFS are all healthcare providers who volunteer their time, efforts knowledge, and expertise for no compensation, to provide evidence-based facts which correct and counter the mountain of false claims and misinformation about fluoridation constantly imposed upon the public by antifluoridation activists such as Spencer and her FAN.


In contrast, in addition to the aforementioned concealing by these activists of their true identities while posting libelous personal attacks and misinformation, the group FAN, with which they are affiliated, cloaks its financial information and activities beneath an umbrella organization, while refusing to disclose the  individuals and organizations who drive their funding and agenda.  Readers are encouraged to seek underlying information about this group, and discern for themselves the degree to which it is hidden.   What is known is that the leaders of FAN are paid for their efforts to disparage fluoridation, that the group has a paid lobbyist, that it receives significant funding from natural food salesmen such as the dubious Joseph Mercola, and that it’s misinformation has been promoted by the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his “Infowars”.  


So, the question here is whether AARP members would rather trust evidence-based information on a healthcare issue provided by healthcare providers who are fully open and transparent about who they are, and who rely upon the latest, most up-to-date peer-reviewed science, authoritative information from those such as the  US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics......or upon the unsubstantiated claims, misrepresentations, and misinformation of activists who have no healthcare education, training, or experience, who hide their true identities, who are paid for their services, who are backed by dubious individuals and organizations, who fail to disclose anything whatsoever about themselves or their organization, and who employ name-calling and personal attacks when backed into a corner by facts and evidence?


Steven D. Slott, DDS 

Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1375 of 1,450

Hi CA, or Karen Spencer, or whomever is hiding behing this name,


Your list speaks volumes about those opposed to water fluoridation. 


Take the IAOMT. The definition of this group from RationalWiki sums it up best:


"The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the "smoking tooth" video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson's and autism. They sell filling removal kits for "dentists" along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed "research," and supports "health freedom."


Thanks for bringing forward your group of opposition.  Now our readers truly can understand who these folks are and what they stand for.


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1376 of 1,450

“While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public.” - Judge Peter Vallone, Jr., former Chair of the NYC Public Safety Committee (2012) 


Thousands of scientists and dentists oppose fluoridation based on 21st century evidence. The IAOMT is a professional organization with a scientific mission. IAOMT membership is dentists, oral medicine doctors & toxicologists. See their 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use for Dental and Medical Practitioners, Dental and Medical Students, Consumers, and Policy Makers. They are one professional organization from over a dozen who openly oppose fluoridation in the 21st century. 


Thousands of professionals object, and this thread begun in February 2015 includes quotes from many of them. Moreover, it is an individual human right to choose what substance to take into one's own body. Fluoridation policy is medical treatment without individual medical consent that conveniently ignores those who have medical contraindications, which includes many senior citizens. For a small troop of trolls to insinuate that they are the only experts in an attempt to shut down this conversation in support of fluoridation decrees that poison baby boomers is bullying 101. 


  • I encourage anyone new to this thread to go to the oldest posts to read science and testimony of senior citizens harmed by fluoridation. Going forward, this thread will be pretty useless, as I stated in my last entry re the troll attack. 


See just a couple of pages of those dentists, doctors and scientists with integrity and courage who openly oppose fluoridation based on evidence of harm. More on






and a page of community leadership quotes from 2017: 


Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1377 of 1,450

Hello Sirpac & Carrie Anne,


First, dentists possess dental degrees, not decrees in the U.S. and around the world as I know it. We are Doctors if Dental Medicine (DMD) and Doctors of Dental Surgery (DDS). 


Secondly, we do not state

personal opinions in disseminating evidence-based scientific research. We are held to a higher standard of ethics and moral behavior as doctors. We have to accurate and evidence-based in our world of scientific expertise. We can’t simply quote our interpretations of the literature. Others may choose to do so. And when they do, their feet are held to the fire by the scientific community. 


Someone once said that the truth only hurts once. Another said don’t go away mad, just go away. 


Just sayin’


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry 

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society, a not for profit organization of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credible evidence-based scientific research that has been published in credible recognized peer reviewed scientific journals


P.S.  Have the courtesy to use your real names as we do. Hiding behind fake names and attacking the folks here is cowardly

Report Inappropriate Content
Periodic Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1378 of 1,450

Dr. Johnson isn't telling you the whole story about the 2006 National Research Council's (NRC) Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.


The NRC reports that there is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland.


According to a co-author of the NRC Report “Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency,” says Kathleen Thiessen, PhD,  “The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals,” says Thiessen.

Robert Carton, PhD, an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years for the U.S. government including managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, says “fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male.” (the levels recommended in public water supplies)

Among many others, the NRC Report cites human studies which show 

- fluoride concentrations in thyroids exceeding that found in other soft tissues except kidney

- an association between endemic goiter and fluoride exposure or enamel fluorosis in human populations

- fluoride adversely affects thyroid and parathyroid hormones, which affect bone health 

Further, Scientific American quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, “The thyroid changes do worry me.” 

In fact, both the ADA and CDC have voiced concerns about fluoride's toxic thyroid effects.  And the National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation endosement because of the evidence presented in the 2006 NRC report.

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1379 of 1,450
Fluoridation policy is a medical mandate that forces contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of harm caused to millions with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney diseases.  
The narrative promoted by fluoridation policy suppresses emerging science, silences evolving medical opinions and stifles the voices of victims. 


It seems the troop of trolls who for the past decade or so has overwhelmed every letter to the editor in small town newspapers across the country with scores of vitriolic personal attacks and reams of copy and paste disinformation in order to bully community members into silence has found this thread about the medical contraindications of fluoride consumption, particularly for senior citizens.


This 'rapid response team' was originally organized by Pew Charitable Trusts as part of their special interest funded fluoridation initiative. The team is sent daily email alerts with sample comments. The media consultant in charge recommends inserting 'outrage and anger' into comments in order to shut down civil dialogue. The North Carolina dentist on this thread once posted 179 vitriolic comments out of 215 comments on a social media thread in Massachusetts. The pro-fluoride machine also employs social media experts and astroturfers for the purpose of 'expanding and protecting community water fluoridation.'


A couple of years ago, the most active trolls founded their own non-profit advocacy group in order to monetize their hobby. Apparently Delta Dental made the first $50,000 donation. I am given to understand the members may contract their services personally to assist pro-fluoridation entitities with political style attacks on fluoridation opponents. Consequently, unless AARP bans Johnny Johnson, Steve Slott, Chuck Haynie and the rest of their gang of gunslingers when they show up, the usefulness of this thread from here on out is ended.


  • Therefore, I encourage those who are interested in fluoridation science to go the the oldest posts and read in chronological order so as to get the benefit of the AARP members who have told their personal stories as well as useful scientific information relevant to senior citizens. 


To track all fluoride science, see the Study Tracker on the Fluoride Alert website and the IAOMT webpage that includes their 2017 position paper against any fluoride use with 500 citations. 


Organizations Openly Opposed to Fluoridation include:

  1. AAEM: American Academy of Environmental Medicine 
  2. ICIM: International College of Integrative Medicine
  3. IABDM: International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
  4. IAOMT: International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
  5. HDA: Holistic Dental Association
  6. EWG: Environmental Working Group
  7. CHEJ: Center for Health, Environment & Justice
  8. Sierra Club: Environmentalists 
  9. ICA: International Chiropractors Association
  10. OCA: Organic Consumers Association
  11. FWW: Food & Water Watch
  12. CAAP: Coalition of African American Pastors
  13. LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens


Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 1380 of 1,450
You are kidding. The medical mandate for vaccination ensures herd immunity. Measles requires over 90% vaccination to achieve that. About 1/600 children with measles develop brain infections which are usually fatal. You oppose the CDC and the world's pediatric disease experts on the basis of a bunch of stuff you've copied off the Internet. Opposing vaccination mandates is particular nonsense for an advocate for older people some of whom may have either missed their childhood vaccines or with time no longer have an effective immune response. These elderly rely on the herd immunity in children to avoid an epidemic infecting them. . . .

Surely these ideas are easily identified as science denying mistakes.

C. Haynie, M.D.
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