Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

• 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
• 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
• 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

• a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
• b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

Really? 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

BMCL

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

• No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 “Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks! 

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real." 

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers. 

• UNSAFE: p. 2:  the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

• HAZARD: p 5:   The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
  
  

• CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
  
  

• VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
  
  

• SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. 

[DrChuckHaynie]

Dr. Sauerheber, Yiamouyiannis wrote a book claiming that a virus was not the cause of AIDS.   Individuals promoting ideas totally opposite to reality as he did disqualify themselves from serious consideration.   A copy of the book cover is attached.  It can still be purchased on Amazon.

[rs5526]

Thanks Dr. Osmunson for the response regarding Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Yes scientists don't know everything and in fact allow personal bias and their own thoughts to affect understanding sometimes.  But such mistaken extrapolations do not negate what the scientists did that was correct, or the actual true data that were compiled. 

For example Einstein was correct about the photoelectric effect and other items, even though he committed the blunderous thought that absolute time could be slowed if someone were to move quickly. That mistake that has been disproven does not negate the correct work that he did.

Likewise, the incorrect thoughts Yiamouyiannis had about AIDS does not negate the data demonstrating that fluoridated water consumption has no signfricnat effect on tooth decay.  

People who are often wrong are sometimes correct, and mostly-correct careful people are sometimes wrong. The data are what count. His analysis of fluoridated vs nonfluoridated cities and dental decay were compelling--and agree with the large studies of Ziegelbecker; and Teotia; and the CA study. Small sample studies such as are typically done by fluoridation promoters are subject to large effects from altered diets, brushing habits, etc. They are not reliable and usually have mean differences that are a small effect size. Kumar for example tries to claim fluoridated water lowers tooth decay but the mean diffrerences tell the story. The effect size is less than 1, with the standard errors being larger than the mean difference. A scientist would conclude that there is no signficant effect, but a fluoridation promoter is not so careful and attempts to claim the difference is significant when, from the large studies we know, there is no effect in reality.   .

[rs5526]

The fact that there are so many agencies that endorse fluoridation is being argued on this site as proof that fluoridation is good. This of course is absurd. It is a defense of the claim but contains no evidence proving it.   

Jumping on band wagons is as old as civilization itself and is very common in our society. For example many people support and belielve claims made by the White House, such as "Democrats organized the train of refugees to march toward the U.S." and that "Democrats want a wide open border" and that "there are Middle East terrorists and MC13 gang members in the train."  People actually believe what their leader or authority figure tells them. It was admitted that there is no proof of the terrorist claim, but neverthtless the claim was again made by rephrasing it as "there could be such individuals in the train".

What actually matters in the end is the truth, the facts that do not change. And the facts indicate that whole body fluoridation is harmful, useless, and illegal. The number of agencies believing otherwise has little to do with the truth. Many people can fall to deception, especially when those promoting the claim believe it themselves. 

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

Yiamouyiannis was wrong on AIDS and if alive he would agree.  No one is perfect, look at the facts, and the dates not the individual.   

Scientific discussions with faith based, endorsement based, trust based individuals is very difficult.    Science is not "individual" based, rather evidence based.

Your comment about Yiamouyiannis "disqualify themselves from serious consideration" is an example of science based on individuals rather than facts.

You may have heard the comment, "quote me but date me."   When AIDS was first considered, my most respected mentor also claimed AIDS was a judgment from God.  I was shocked, but didn't argue.    That did not negate everything else he said.  My mentor also reminded me, "50% we know to be true, is actually false.  The problem is we don't know which 50%."    

Be humble with our theories.  At one time I promoted and provided mercury fillings, root canals as the most successful treatment procedure in dentistry (short of the apex, to the apex, past the apex????), Dycal/Life, Centric Relation (with 26 different definitions I'll let you guess which one), and a whole host of other historic dental procedures and techniques.  It was the best I knew and the facts have helped me improve.  One certainty is I will change more. . . . 

The PHS, CDC, Courts, Congress, ADA, AMA, and even you and me have been wrong at times, and still are.  If our trust is in "individuals," learning that our "gods" are wrong can be a shattering experience.  If we are "fact" based, "evidence based" then we focus on the evidence, judge the evidence, and move our theories with the evidence.    If our trust is in individuals, then when those individuals die their theories are canonized and extremely hard to change when the evidence shows a better way.  

The question is not whether someone is perfect, because no one is.  The question is:

"What do you do with the evidence when the evidence disagree with the theory?"

Chuck, I would suggest you move towards evidence based rather than individual based.  Everyone has some opinions which are true and some false.  Use the evidence, the facts, to keep checking the theories and perfect the theories.

For example, fluoride has some benefit and some risk.  We have always known that fact.  Now the evidence reports that at least 1 or 2 in 10 adolescents have significant harm to their teeth from too much fluoride and 60% some degree of fluorosis.  Is the evidence suggesting many are ingesting too much fluoride?   If so, what do we do with the evidence?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

The idea that compromised immune system function by systemic fluoride might prevent resistance to AIDS and other infectious,diseases was his opinion. But im not talking about that. Im talking about the,data itself that clearty indicated, no significant effect of fluoridation on tooth decay in all age groups from children to the  elderly.

His,expertise,was in epidemiology as a biochrmust. And the opinion he held btw,was based on the array of enzymes that are inhibited by fluoride at concentrations found in blood of 1 ppm fluoride,water consumers.

His work was confirmed by ziegelbecker and by teotia and teotia and also the study in CA of 39000 pchildten that cost 3.5 million in taxpayer money that found,ingesting fluoride water has no effect on dental decay.

This is also consistent with the biochemistry where fluoride cannot incorporate into enamel but can inhibit enzymes responsible  for removing proteins in the developing stage of enamel formation.

[CarryAnne]

“I was speaking with a public health dentist on the phone about 10 years ago regarding fluoridation.  He said, ‘we will promote fluoridation until a judge tells us otherwise.’  I asked about scientific evidence.  He responded, 'I don't care about science and I don't care if it is right or wrong, I only care if a judge tells me the policy is wrong.'"- Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2018)

“When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr.  Andrew Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)

"It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers.” - Dr John Colquhoun, former chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand (1993)

I read everything. I answered all of the fluoride proponents questions multiple times here and elsewhere already. Their goal is to bury science and rational answers in order to discourage new readership of this thread and intimidate the uneducated into silence. 

All three ot those quoted above promoted fluoridation until they actually did their homework. John Colquhoun was the leading dental officer for the country of New Zealand. His experience makes fascinating reading.  http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation. Just north of us, Parry Sound, Ontario  voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week. Vive le Canada! However, fluoridationists will continue to do what they do motivated by power, prestige and paychecks. 

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – You claim to have answered my specific questions: (10-20-2018 05:45 PM) & (10-20-2018 01:56 PM) (09-03-2018 10:26 PM), (08-30-2018 04:12 PM), (08-26-2018 05:47 PM) (08-21-2018 09:36 PM). 

I have been unable to find those specific answers.  Provide links to those specific answers as I have done below (or simply copy/paste your answers), because unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists I do not wish to quote you out of context or make unjustified, unsupported comments about your claims.  I would like to see your specific answers to my specific numbered questions in your specific words – that way there will be no confusion or misunderstanding.  If you do not understand a specific question I will try and clarify it for you.  Some questions ask essentially the same thing in different ways – again, so there is no confusion about your answers.

Q1 – Please clarify your rather broad accusations – do you believe your description of CWF supporters as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” is descriptive of all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate or only the ADA, EPA and most dentists? The descriptions can be found in context here: (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) (07-25-2018 11:30 PM)
 If your description is not inclusive of all CWF supporters, describe exactly which of the 100+ organizations and their members fall into which categories and why?

Q 2 – If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be support by all the major science and health organizations if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege?

Q 3a – Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined. 
Q 3b – If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example. 
The only “answer” of yours I could find was on (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) where you stated, “Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections.  There  is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety.”  
That hardly answers my question – if there “is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety” regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation then I ask yet again, how do you explain the FACT that the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF?

Q 4 – Why did you leave out the final two sentences in the US Public Health Service review you quoted on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM  & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM which concluded, “Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations” and completely contradicted the point you were apparently trying to make in your quote.  Unless you can provide another explanation, I will keep in in my list of examples of how anti-science activists deliberately distort evidence to try and scam the public.
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf (P 162-163)

Q 5a – How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years as evidenced by nearly universal support from the science and health communities?  If you don’t believe there is such support, then provide specific, verifiable evidence that proves the majority of relevant experts actually agree with the anti-F opinions – all I have seen are quotes from some professionals and a list of .

Q 5b – If the evidence against CWF is legitimate, obvious and compelling, explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of that evidence.

Q 6 – If you mean what you said in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals. 

The progress and knowledge gained in every field of science was made possible by challenging a current scientific consensus with new, legitimate evidence with conclusions different from the consensus.  That legitimate evidence, if evaluated and tested by experts and found to be valid, eventually led to changes and advances in all areas of science and health care.  The issue of CWF is no different – there has been no significant change in the consensus in over 70 years because the majority of relevant experts have found no legitimate evidence to abandon it. 

As noted elsewhere, the conclusions of studies that show a possible suggestion of potential correlations between low levels of fluoride ions and some health issue do not evaluate or adequately consider relevant potential confounding factors (other potential reasons that can explain the possible correlation), and they do not provide sufficient evidence to change the expert consensus.  Those study conclusions, however, are sufficient in many cases (particularly when the study limitations are ignored and health effects inflated) to create unwarranted fear and change public perceptions.  Also, studies that confirm the effectiveness of fluoridated toothpaste, rinses and other fluoride treatments do not disprove the effectiveness of CWF as an effective public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay in communities – particularly in those individuals who may not have access to good dental care.

Q 7 – Provide specific links to the comments where you claim I went “on and on about the legality of fluoridation”.

Your philosophical/moral bias is evident when you arbitrarily claim (‎08-21-2018 03:40 PM) that “even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication“, and your statement highlights the importance of personal, non-scientific beliefs to anti-science activists when evaluating and interpreting the evidence.  By your “logic” those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument.
 
Q 8a – At what point with public health measures do you agree that benefits outweigh the risks, and what criteria do you employ to make your decisions?  Do you use your personal opinions or the consensus of relevant science and health experts??
Q 8b – Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/chlorine-a-dangerous-addition-to-everyday-life/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/anti-chlorine-activists-hope-politics-will-trump-science

Q 8c – Do you believe that even if vaccination does help prevent diseases, vaccination policies could be legitimately be labeled by anti-science activists as immoral poisoning??

There are more specific questions that I would like to have your specific answers on, but this will do for now.

Bottom Line:  So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful at changing the scientific consensus.  Your only option then, is to carefully select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted.  You just stated (10-23-2018 07:34 AM), that “Honest & intelligent people oppose fluoridation.  Parry Sound, Ontario voted fluoridation out 2:1 this week.”  That sounds suspiciously like a change made by public opinion instead of empirical data. 

Unfortunately fear is an extremely strong motivating factor – Honest and intelligent people who are not scientists or health professionals and don’t understand the limitations and suggestions of weak possible correlations the actual empirical data, would have every reason to be scared to death if a group of vocal activists presented exaggerated claims as “scientific evidence” that “proved” CWF lowered IQ, caused cancer, thyroid problems, arthritis, diabetes ADD stained and brittle teeth, etc.

Three more quotes from FOs are not evidence of anything – that is precisely why understanding the scientific consensus is critical to understanding how best to interpret the existing body of evidence.

[BillO538145]

Randy, Dr. JJ, and All,  (provides partial answer to some of your questions)

PARRY SOUND – Parry Sounders have spoken; they do not want their drinking water fluoridated.   Hardy Limeback,  PhD, DDS wrote an opinion letter answering fluoridation claims.    Very concise and clear.

Quote:

"I read the Oct. 5 opinion letter by a group of local doctors trying to convince Parry Sounders to vote in favour of fluoridation in the upcoming plebiscite.

As one of the persons derogatorily labeled as a “so-called expert,” I’d like to offer some corrections and facts in response based on science, not politics or endorsements.

Claim1: “As health professionals we serve as first-hand witnesses to the impact that poor dental hygiene has on the overall health of the community.”

This is an odd statement, since physicians do not practice dentistry and are not familiar with dental science.

Fact: poor dietary choices (frequent sugar intake) cause cavities. “Poor dental hygiene” is a not a major factor in the prevalence and severity of dental decay.

Claim 2. Cavities cost Canadians over a billion dollars a year.

Sounds impressive, but that’s only $27/person/yr.

Fact: Other dental costs, including cosmetic dentistry to treat the dental fluorosis side effects of fluoridation, are 12 times higher.

Claim 3. The truth is, fluoride in drinking water has been scientifically studied for over 70 years without ever finding evidence that the low levels recommended in municipal drinking water have any negative health effects

Fact: While fluoridation has been in place for 70 years, studies have not been conducted to show safety. Our expert review panel (the National Academies of Sciences Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water) reviewed over hundreds of studies on fluoride toxicity. See https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards We found several problems with fluoride in drinking water because fluoride accumulates in the body, primarily the skeletal system.

Our own study (Chachra et al, 2010) published after our NAS Review of 2006 comparing the bones of fluoridated Torontonians with the bones of the non-fluoridated Montrealers showed that the people in Toronto had more fluoride in their bones and the physical properties of their bones had changed. Fluoride accumulation in bones weakens them.

But if you don’t look for problems you won’t find them.

There has never been a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial to see if fluoridation actually works. This kind of study is required for every drug that seeks approval from Health Canada or the US FDA.

Claim 4. In recent years, when communities have voted to remove fluoride from drinking water, cavity rates have risen.

Fact. This is incorrect. Nearly all studies, including in Canada, showed that where fluoridation was halted, dental decay continued to drop. The increased dental decay claimed was anecdotal and could not be backed up with good science. We published a critique of the findings in Calgary after it stopped fluoridating in 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28994462)

Claim 5. It is true that swallowing too much fluoride toothpaste can cause your teeth to stain (known as fluorosis); an uncommon finding even in those who brush regularly and have fluoride in their town water.

Fact. Dental fluorosis occurs when too much fluoride is ingested from birth to age 6 years. It is the total fluoride that is ingested that is important. By far, fluoridated water is the largest contributor, especially when a baby is given infant formula made with fluoridated tap water. Unfortunately dental fluorosis, a permanent scarring of the teeth, is now a very common side effect of fluoridation. Some estimates are that 1 in 10 children have unsightly dental fluorosis in fluoridated areas.

Claim 6. The point is, there are no known negative health effects from the amounts of fluoride added to municipal drinking water, despite decades of study on the topic.

Fact: The good doctors are obviously not up on their science. There are 4 studies published in the last two years that linked prenatal exposure to fluoride to lowered IQ in the children later in life. One study showed that dental fluorosis was associated with lowered IQ. This is not ‘misinformation’ as the doctors suggest. These are peer-reviewed studies from highly respected international researchers.

Claim 7. Will updating our fluoridation system cost money? Yes, but not as much as it will to deal with all the cavities we will face if we don’t.

Upgrading Parry Sound’s fluoridation system to current standards will cost taxpayers at least $350,000. Add to that $150,000 over the next 15 years to maintain and run the system. The total cost is at least $0.5 million.

What are the dental cost savings Parry Sound families can expect after 15 years of fluoridation?

Fact: The most up-to-date peer-reviewed study (Slade et al, 2018) shows that 0.5 teeth might be saved per teenager exposed to fluoridated water since birth.

There are about 850 teens in Parry Sound. Saving 0.5 tooth/teen from decay will save families in Parry Sound about $85,000.

Spending $0.5 million to save $85,000 in dental costs is not wise way to spend taxpayers’ money.  I was told that the cost to fluoridate will be recovered from increases in Parry Sound water bills.

Claim 8. It’s worth noting that no Canadian town has ever removed fluoride from water because of actual health concerns related to these low levels of fluoride

This is another unsupported claim. When Canadian towns have the opportunity to weigh the risks vs the benefits and look at all the health concerns, they usually vote to discontinue the practice.

Fluoridation is medication, as ruled by Supreme Court of Canada. You cannot control the dose. Everyone is obliged to take it whether they need it or not. It will harm the most susceptible even if they do not provide consent to this ‘medical treatment’.

In most medical schools graduates are asked to uphold the oath “primum non nocere” which is “first do no harm”.

But then those advising you to vote for fluoridation, including your medical officer of health and the group of doctors who wrote the OpEd letter, are not liable for any harm that fluoridation will cause your family.

Because of the Fluoridation Act of Ontario, if the answer to the referendum is in the affirmative, a majority of 51% of the community can tell the other 49% they have to contribute to the cost of fluoridation, pay for fixing dental fluorosis their children will get, pay for a home filtration system that removes unwanted fluoride and try and avoid foods made with fluoridated drinking water including foods served in the restaurants and coffee shops of Parry Sound.

This time Parry Sounders have a say whether or not they want fluoridation. It’s not up to the council, whether for or against.

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD (Biochem), DDS
Professor Emeritus and former Head of Preventive Dentistry
Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
Past member of the US NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water
McKellar Township"

Randy,

Note the Supreme court of Canada.

Note the lack of cost savings.

Note the harm to just the teeth.

Note the harm to the brain.

And he never seriously covered excess exposure.

So much more to be added.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

Randy,

I have also answered most of your questions but you fail to read, or at least fail to respond to the answers.  I understand there is a mountain of info here and I too am unable to devote full time to reading and responding.  Perhaps if you picked one question, we could focus on one, but you would need to respond.  I don't want to simply play intellectual exercises.  I'm too busy.  

If you get one question, it is fair that I should have one.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[RandyJ913440]

Bill - Here are three related questions from my most recent request for specific answers.

You still seem to endorse your 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim that the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”, and “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”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“ and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.” and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science.” 

Q2) I will ask you specifically, what makes you a better expert in fluoridation than the members of all the organizations that continue to support CWF?  It could be argued that you are a lemming, follower, part of a herd of FOs that allow their irrational fear of fluorine to bias their selection, evaluation and presentation of the scientific evidence.

Q3) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – Do you apply your above evaluation of the ADA, AAP and CDC to all members of all the organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF who either publically support CWF or have not publically accepted the anti-F position?

Q4) I have asked you before, and I ask yet again – What is your explanation for the fact that virtually every major science and health organization in the world either publically recognizes the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure, and the hundreds of thousands of members of these organizations have not rebelled?  

And please provide some evidence, and not just your opinions.

[rs5526]

The question of why people agree with fluoridationists' claims has been answered before (i.e. The Fluoride Deception, Bryson) but apparently the answers are being ignored. Is the book simply too detailed?

For a more trivial introduction to fluoridation see for example the Fluoride Debate stating the following:

The Journal of the American Medical Association (Sept. 18, 1943) states that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons — they inhibit enzyme systems, and water containing 1 part per million (ppm) or more fluoride is undesirable. This was the AMA's stand on fluoridation shortly before the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed nationwide fluoridation.

Industrial fluoride waste was industry's menace until Oscar Ewing, an Alcoa Aluminum lawyer, became head of the U.S. Public Health Service in 1947.  Alcoa was one of the largest producers of hazardous fluoride waste at that time. Under Ewing, the U.S. Public Health Service proceeded to conduct the fluoridated drinking water experiment on thousands of people without their consent, even though they knew at the time that there was little or no margin of safety between the hoped-for therapeutic dose and the toxic dose that causes dental fluorosis for children and skeletal fluorosis over lifetime exposure.

Ten years later, by reading the statistics incorrectly they claimed a "65% reduction in tooth decay," and moved on to fluoridate more cities. Newburgh and Kingston were two of the original test cities. A recent study by the New York State Department of Health showed that after nearly 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh's children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston. ("New Studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits," by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News. Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989).

Today there is a great deal of scientific agreement that ingested fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. The largest study of tooth decay in America, by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-1987, showed that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,207 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in the 84-city study. The study cost the U.S. taxpayers $3,670,000, yet very few Americans are aware the study was ever performed. ("New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits." Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 67, No. 19, May 8, 1989).

So the scientific consensus of 1943 has been validated with the scientific consensus in 2018. The plain fact is that industrial fluoride has always been an insidious poison, cumulative in its effects when ingested in minimal amounts, unable to affect dental decay significantly, and this remains unchanged no matter how many claim otherwise.

[BillO538145]

Randy, 

I just answered your question again, in my response to Dr. Chuck.  Both of you are having the same thought process.

You asked,

"Q2) I will ask you specifically, what makes you a better expert in fluoridation than the members of all the organizations that continue to support CWF?  It could be argued that you are a lemming, follower, part of a herd of FOs that allow their irrational fear of fluorine to bias their selection, evaluation and presentation of the scientific evidence."

If there is one thing I don't want, is for people to blindly follow any persen, people, organization, or me.  

Become "EVIDENCE BASED" rather than "human based, individual, organization based."  

I was raised in a religious cult where the profit died and the followers lied and became very dishonest in order to protect "God."  At lest their theory of God.

When the evidence became clear that the cult was based on fraud, lies, and mistakes, I left the cult.  It has taken a couple generations for the cult to slowly change.   Change is hard for one individual, extremely hard for organizations. . . takes generations.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[CarryAnne]

“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.  (2014)

In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again. Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay. 

Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion. Science is supposed to be the best faith effort to interpret reality, i.e. truth. Unfortunately, like the law and all activities of men, science is often corrupted by bias and politics. 

Regardless of law, science or politics - the truth validated by empirical data and reported in scores of scientific articles is that fluoridation compromises kidneys, endangers thyroids, inflames guts, damages bones and poisons the developing brains of infants in the womb and bottle-fed babies. Modern citations for these assertions of fact and evolving medical opinion against fluoridation policy have been repeatedly detailed in this forum, ex: here and here and here. 

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – Remarkable, now you are comparing the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate water with the decision to allow or ban abortions – really?

I suggest a more rational comparison – the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate water with the decision to disinfect or not disinfect drinking water – or the decision to implement or not implement vaccination programs.  These decisions are based on decades of research with thousands of studies of varying relevance, quality and bias – and varying conclusions on the risks and benefits of implementing or not implementing these public health measures.

You made one correct statement, “science also changes”.  However, that truth is evidence that confirms the current scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective health measure.

The scientific consensus of all these public health measures is that the benefits of implementing fluoridation, disinfection, and vaccination are significantly greater than any known or suspected risks.   That is why the major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of these programs.  The overall body of scientific evidence continues to support their overall benefits.

The lack of legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions is the reason opponents to these public health measures have been unable to change the scientific consensus or the position of the relevant science and health organizations.  The absence of legitimate evidence and their inability to change the scientific consensus are the reasons that fluoridation opponents and other anti-science activists must resort to “adjusting” the evidence as selected and presented in hopes of scaring the public into believing their propaganda.

 You have still not answered my specific questions: (10-20-2018 05:45 PM) & (10-20-2018 01:56 PM)

[rs5526]

Legal rulings come and go, and change with time for many issues. 

The chief evidence I've seen of making false conclusions and turning data into propaganda is from those who promote fluoridation as though eating fluoride somehow reduces dental decay when it doesn't. The average study claiming benefit for example usually cites means that are not outside experimental error. Currently caries reduction is not sufficient to counter sugar consumption in causing decay with fluoridated toothpaste at 1,500 ppm. So some manufacturers are considering elevating it to 5,000 ppm. But data that are reliable from volunteers indicate no significant decrease in caries by going to this level. And why ecpect otherwise, knowing that  fluoride even at 12,000 ppm in gels does not incorporate into rock-hard enamel.

And  eating fluoride water at 0.7 ppm which produces a dismal 0.016 ppm in saliva is of course topically worthless for teeth. The modern invented idea is now that this small level works by incorporating into plaque on teeth surfaces where it "helps" toothpaste fluoride. This was invented because it is known that enamel is too hard to incorporate fluoride into its matrix. But plaque is something that most dentists remove from teeth and advise patients to remove regularly.

Fluoride ingested from water and foods does not systemically or topically affect dental caries.

On the other hand, whole body fluoridaiton of systemic fluid leads to gross incorporation of fluoride into bone. So the story was invented that since fluoride "is good" then it must strengthen the bones it enters.  But this was proven false (NIH, FDA) so most fluoridationists don't discuss much about fluoridation of bone except to sweepingly claim that there is no proof of harm. But altering the crystal structure of bone hydroxyapatite into fluoroapatite which is bone of poor quality, and eventually forming exostoses of bone that did not belong there in the first place, are indeed harmful.

So facts emerge over time, yes. And investigators modify positions based on those facts. But facts themselves are immutable. As it turns out scientists in the 1940's who concluded that the data they had then indicated that fluoride ingestion would be harmful have been fully validated.  Read for example the FDA opposition to fluoridation (based on that data) when fluoridation first began, as described in Bryson, C. The Fluoride Deception. 

   .  

[RandyJ913440]

rs5526 – Several specific questions:

• What does your response about “legal rulings” that “come and go, and change with time for many issues” have to do with anything?
  The entire issue of fluoridation rests on the scientific consensus, not “legal rulings”.  The entire point of the scientific method (not legal rulings) is to create and continually adjust the scientific consensus in all areas of science and health care based on legitimate scientific evidence.  The scientific consensus also is not the same as ethical beliefs or legal decisions based on personal interpretations of the consensus.
  
  
• Do you agree with CarryAnne’s (10-22-2018 09:52 AM) comparison of decisions to allow or ban abortions with decisions to fluoridate or not fluoridate drinking water? If so, explain exactly and specifically in what ways you believe those issues and decisions are alike.
  “In my youth, abortion was illegal in the U.S. Then it became legal. It might become illegal again. Regardless of your opinion on abortion law, it is obvious that laws change. Moreover, laws have remarkably little to do with truth and justice. In that way they are like fluoridation and tooth decay.”
  
  
• What is the point of your fluoridated toothpaste discussion? Do you believe fluoridated toothpaste has no effect on reducing dental decay?
  
  
• Do you believe there is a scientific consensus that the benefits of implementing disinfection and vaccination are significantly greater than any known or suspected risks and that those public health measures should be supported and promoted by the major science and health organizations?
  
  
• Another question: If the “alleged evidence” provided by fluoridation opponents is as legitimate and obvious as you seem to believe, what is your explanation for the fact that over 100 national and international science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation?  What is your explanation for the fact that the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of those organizations have not rebelled if they were presented legitimate scientific evidence that their patients and fellow citizens were being mass poisoned by a public health measure?

The facts are:  
1) The scientific consensus in all scientific fields/areas does change as legitimate scientific evidence is presented that provides new, relevant information that would require a change in perception &/or conclusions. 

2) The scientific consensus has not changed significantly regarding fluoridation for over 70 years of anti-F activists presenting their alleged “evidence”.  It has been tweaked, however.

3) Because the anti-F “evidence”, when evaluated by most relevant experts does not support a change in consensus, that “evidence” must be “adjusted” and presented to the public in a way that will effectively scare them into accepting the anti-F opinions as legitimate.

4) The “legal rulings” you seem to be focused on are not a scientific consensus, and may not reflect the scientific consensus at all.. Similarly,decisions by various local governmental bodies regarding fluoridation may reflect public opinion that has been effectively “adjusted” by anti-F propaganda instead of the scientific consensus.

[rs5526]

The point is that laws have changed for many issues, only one being fluoridation.

And the statement posted here by this fluoridation promoter is correct:

"The “legal rulings” you seem to be focused on are not a scientific consensus, and may not reflect the scientific consensus at all."

That is true. The legal ruling of the appealed case in Escondido that allowed fluoridation, and overturned the earlier ruling by the judge, does not reflect scientific consensus at all.   A scientist knows full well that adding industrial fluoride into drinkng water alters the bodily chemistry of the consumer. It not only elevates the incidence of dental fluorosis abnormality but also causes incorporation of fluoride into bone to thousands of ppm over decades consuming it, causing formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal structure.  So when the case was ruled to alter body chemistry, it was correct. But when fluoridationists appealed the case and the judge then overturned the earlier ruling, that ruling was incorrect and certainly has nothing to do with scientific consensus. 

[CarryAnne]

“They have no conscience, no compassion about the people who are being made ill by fluoride, and they have no social responsibility. It’s purely an ‘I’m all right Jack’ situation – ‘it’s just business’. And they’ll gas-light the people by saying, ‘No no, it’s good for your teeth’ – when really what they’re saying is, ‘Shut up and don’t stop my cash-flow’.” - Thomas Sheridan, author of ‘Puzzling People: The Labyrinth Of The Psychopath’ (2017)

Randy and his troop of propagandists were going on and on about the legality of fluoridation. My point is the law is maleable, imperfect and has nothing to do with emerging scientific evidence of harm. The issues are emerging evidence of harm, evolvig medical opinion against fluoridation and testimony of victims. 

Moreover, social media trolls and advocacy groups who engage in astroturfing in order to gaslight the public, politicians and whomever else falls victim to their ploys are neither scientists nor lawyers, although they play act as such online. 

AARP - You should be too smart to fall for these ploys. Do your due diligence. 

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – Your Thomas Sheridan quote (10-22-2018 03:50 PM) would only make sense if the body of scientific evidence actually supported the opinions of fluoridation opponents (FOs) that community water fluoridation (CWF) was ineffective and harmful.  If that were reality, however, the consensus would change. 

The reality, as described repeatedly, is exactly the opposite.  The majority of relevant experts have concluded (for over 70 years) that CWF is a safe and effective measure to protect the health of citizens by reducing dental decay in communities.  Because of that scientific consensus, virtually all major science and health organizations publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  I have asked you (several times without success) to explain this fact. 

I have also asked you to explain the fact that only about 6 alternative health organizations, 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (according to lists provided by you and BillO) plus other groups like INFOWARS (Alex Jones) and Natural News (Mike Adams) support the anti-F interpretations of the evidence.  A more accurate rendering of the quote based on current accepted science would be, “FOs have no conscience, no compassion about the people who at an increased risk of dental decay in communities with low levels of fluoride ions and poor diets and poor dental care, and they have no social responsibility.”

You have a remarkable ability to twist reality.  You claim “Randy and his troop of propagandists were going on and on about the legality of fluoridation.”  Did you even look at the comments which address the ”legality of fluoridation”?  Virtually every comment over the past couple of months about the ”legality of fluoridation” was posted by FOs (mostly rs5526  and BillO) trying to make the case that fluoridation is illegal.  My focus is on the scientific consensus – any legal rulings should be based on that consensus.

If you mean what you say in your (10-22-2018 09:52 AM ) comment, “Science also changes, or should, but based on empirical data rather than public opinion” then please explain why you and other FOs go to extraordinary lengths to try and change public opinion instead of using what you believe to be legitimate, conclusive, obvious scientific evidence to change the majority consensus of relevant scientists and health care professionals.  So far, after over 70 years of effort, you and other FOs have been unsuccessful.  Your only option then, is to select and “adjust” the evidence so it is successful at scamming the public into fearing fluoridation and demanding fluoridation be halted.

You still have not answered my specific questions.

[rs5526]

"relevant experts" mentioned here are those who do not opppose fluoridation.

This ignores experts who oppose fluoridation including John Yiamouyiannis (Fluordie the Aging Factor); Ziegelbecker;Teotia and Teotia;Sutton; and others who found that fluoridated wter is useless in reducing caries and instead is most efficient at causing abnormal fluorotic teeth enamel in children.

This also ignores experts who found that water fluoridation harms consumers, elevating TSH, PTH and calcitonin, and converts normal bone into fluoroapatite (published by the NRC committee 2006), and as published in many studies lowers IQ.

As far as answering the ludicrous question of how could so many experts and agencies be deceived?  You fail to recognize the power of false correlation. If you want to get a glimpse of how so many have been deceived since 1945 read Bryson, C. The Fluoride Deception. This is a chronicle of what took place to attempt to prove ingested fluoride is useful, as reported by this news reporter.

[DrChuckHaynie]

Sure . . Yiamouyiannis is the guy who claimed that fluoride, not a virus causes AIDS. . .(Readings in American Health Care: Current Issues in Socio-historical Perspective (1995) p 135) In the book you refer to. Yiamouyiannis claimed that fluoride harms the immune system, cause colds, premature aging, birth defects and of course cancer.

Dr. Y is well representative of the "experts" who believe the water fluoridation is neither beneficial nor safe.

[rs5526]

My friend Jeff Gren organized the suit. And I live in the outskirts of Escondido

 Yes you can read the verdict 5bat caused the city tovf lyorifat it's citizens. 

And just like I said, this,was the appealed case. The original case ruled against whole  body fluoridation of citizens because the intelligent judge agreed that the city water district  had no rights to alter the bodily chemistry of anyone. The purpose for whole body fluoridation is to adjust the composition of systemic fluid with a contaminant that is not a component of normal human blood

[DrChuckHaynie]

An appealed case overturned is a lower court judge deemed mistaken. There have been a few such cases. None have been upheld on appeal.

[rs5526]

That's my point. Court rulings against fluoridation are always overruled eventually. The justice system is wrong on several issues but rational judges know the truth on fluoridation

[DrChuckHaynie]

It isn't realistic for you to believe that lower court judges are rational yet appeal court judges are uniformly mistaken. An in any case, appeals are always possible unless you lose at the Supreme Court level.

[rs5526]

It is completely rational for one knowing the truth  to know if a ruling is correct or not. Many court cases are ruled incorrectly.. Many people are in jail,who,are innocent.

And being wrong on one issue doesnt mean a judge is irrational on any other issue. 

It is difficult to be a  judge and none are correct all the time. Many simply rule based on precedent or earlier rulings and incorrect decisions can spread widely particularly for a Federal progeam such as fluoridation which is illegal. The SDWA was written to halt the spread 8f fluoridation.   but who can find a high level judge who knows this today? Especially with so many fluoridation advocates who don't believe it.

,who vicallrcadset5 otgerwis4.

[rs5526]

And to be clear, CA AB733 does not mention ANY fluoride source, notthat you are free to choose form a list of three, nor that there are three, less, or more.  The discussion presented is meaningless since one cannot buy "fluoride". Fluoride is only always accompanied with its corresponding cation.  All soluble fluorides are listed poisons (all three of the NSF rubber stamped allowed source materials) on poisons registries, while calcium fluoride is not a listed poison because of its finite solubility. Ironically Nelson refused to accept the use of calcium fluoride because he felt the solubility would be too cumbersome to work with. Note: one country in South America that fluoridates uses calcium fluoride; and the original listed source materials for fluoridation by the CDC included calcium fluoride, but such records are getting harder to find in public now..

Ease to fluoridate first, long term safety last.

Again, AB733 is meaningless, vague, and deceptive in assuming that eating fluoride reduces caries and that mandating it by request of the CDC is somehow not in violation of the SDWA when it is. States can be no less restrictive than the SDWA, as stated in the original SDWA statutes approved by Congress.  But in today's world, who cares about laws?

[rs5526]

And by the way the 0.016 ppm fluoride level in saliva of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride water is a measurement published by the NRC that was also confirmed in,writing from NRC committee member Dr. K. Thiessen.

 This is indeed 96500 times less concentrated than in toothpaste at 1500 ppm. 

So how pray tell did this lead to the idea that  somehow my work is debunked? If you want to lash out about that, then do so with the NRC committee.

[CarryAnne]

Fluoridationists who use rhetorical deceits and come up with childish acronyms so as to use obscenities to describe those who campaign against the immoral use of municipal water systems to dose the population with an inflammatory drug aren't scientists. I suggest if winning is so important to them, rather than using social media as a tool to villify and victimize senior citizens and children, they should attend Friday night football games. 

From the lead investigator: “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous…" - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

From an international leader in environmental poison research: “Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously.” -  Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

From the Director of the US National Toxicology Program: "There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before.” - Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)

From a pediatrician who studies links between environmental exposures and health problems: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande,  pediatrician & associate professor at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al., Sept 2017

BTW: I have never quoted Alex Jones or Infowars for anything - ditto for Mike Adams. I prefer scientific evidence and professional opinion to entertainment. However, I can also recognize a put up job and never trust organizational endorsements until I verify their data. 

Philip R.N. Sutton is one of my fluoridation heroes. A statistician and dental researcher, he assumed the 1940s fluoridation trials were legitimate, until he did his due-diligence. His report  contains the following:

"...the evidence tendered in favor of fluoridation reveals two disturbing features. The first is that what must be essentially a statistical study does not appear to have been planned as such. The second is that even when sufficient information is presented, no comprehensive attempt at statistical evaluation has been considered." - Dr. Philip R.N. Sutton in “Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions in Experimental Trials” (2nd ed. 1960)

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – Interesting response.  If you are replying to my comment I noticed that you provided no answers to my very specific questions regarding your previous comments. 

Unlike fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science activists (ASAs), I try very hard not to take comments out of context.  As I demonstrated with your US Public Health Service quotes, FOs and ASAs extract and present any portion of a comment out context if it can be adjusted to fit their agenda.  BTW: You apparently accused me of claiming that you quoted Alex Jones &/or Mike Adams.  I have never made such an accusation – I simply stated that their organizations are among the few that oppose CWF, and their tactics and arguments are the same as those employed by FOs and other ASAs.  When did I use an “obscenity”, and what “rhetorical deceits” did I employ?  I simply asked several questions about comments you have made and pointed out where you had used an out-of-context deceitful quote.

I am trying to get straight answers in your words so I don’t misinterpret your position.

That is why I asked you very specific questions about very specific comments you have made about those who support community water fluoridation (CWF).  I will try again.

The fact is that over 100 major science and health organizations with hundreds of thousands of members continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  The members of those organizations have not initiated a revolution to stop that recognition. The questions reference this fact – if you dispute it, let me know.

• Please clarify – do you believe all CWF supporters &/or those who do not accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate, are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”?  If not, which groups and supporters fall into which categories and why?
• If your description above does not cover all CWF supporters then please explain why there continues to be such support if any of the alleged “evidence” proved that CWF was harmful to health. Why would the majority of scientists, dentists, MDs and other professionals around the world continue to support a public health measure that obviously (according to your claims) caused the type and degree of harm to their patients and fellow citizens you and other FOs allege? 
• Do you accept that there is a 70+ year scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure? If not, please explain what the scientific consensus regarding CWF is and how it is determined.  If you don’t accept that there is a scientific consensus regarding fluoridation, please describe exactly what you would replace it with when deciding which mutually contradictory conclusions to believe regarding a complex scientific topic like pro- vs. anti-vaccination positions, for example.
• How do you explain the fact that, if the alleged evidence provided by FOs in these comments (and elsewhere) has been even remotely presented accurately, FOs have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus for over 70 years.

Five quotes from FOs are not evidence of anything – that is precisely why understanding the scientific consensus is critical to understanding how best to interpret the existing body of evidence.