Trusted Contributor

Rhetorical Deceits, Childish Acronyms & Obscenities?

Message 751 of 1,450

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.

Report Inappropriate Content
Bronze Conversationalist

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 752 of 1,450

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?


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

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 753 of 1,450

My work has never been "debunked" although fluoridationists certainly wish they could. The poisoning in Hooper Bay was due to a sodium fluoride water feed that corroded a pump valve. When did I ever say the same system is used in other public water systems? And yes fluoridationist blogs have attacked the analysis but failed. I never said that using calcium fluoride in soft water lacking calcium, rather than NaF, would make a significnat impact in lowering blood and urine fluoride levels from the consumed water. Instead, the fact is that if calcium fluoride had been used in Hooper Bay, no one would have died and none of the 300 people would have had to have been evacuated to distant hospitals for their severe GI pain.

The reason this is so is because the solubility of calcium fluoride is limited to about 8 ppm. No natural fluoride in fresh water, even in Turkey or India or China where severe bone fluorosis is endemic, could immediately kill with heart block because the water does not contain added industrial soluble fluorides. Natural fluoride is calcium fluoride that is always accompanied with plentiful calcium from other calcium salts. Blood fluoride levels cannot achieve lethal concentrations even when water is 8 ppm natural fluoride.

But NaF is a different matter with infinite solubility in water.This is why the corroded pump valve produced 100 ppm fluoride in the drinking water. The bizarre thing is that the Public Health Service refuses to accept ANY liability for the death and poisonings and instead blames the city for doing it, when the PHS made the city fluoridate in the first place! Hooper Bay now rightfully refuses fluoridation even though the PHS still requests that they do. I defend their rights to deny fluoridation and abhorr that it is being forced on cities around the country against their express will -- so are youi going to shoot me?


Everyone knows that there are three currently used starting materials rubber stamped by the NSF. So what? They are all fully solubile in water to high concentrations and are all manufactured with industrial processes that do not follow GMPs required by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act as recently upgraded to include all supplements used in the U.S.

The idea that fluoridation is merely adjusting "water properties" and thus is not a supplement or a drug is false. The express purpose of water fluoride infusions (Conshow vs Escondido, 2005) as testifed by CADPH official David Nelson is to elevate the fluoride level in blood to attempt to prevent dental caries. The purpose is not to adjust the natural conditions of the water. The purpose is to alter the water so that blood fluoride levels will rise.

Whole body fuoridation is a crime--especially whole body fluoridation of infants in the womb where the U.S FDA banned the sale of all flouride compounds intended to be sold for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. This is all reviewed in the JEPH 2013 article. And yet there are vast numbers of pregnant U.S. women who consuime artificially fluoridated water in treated cities today, because current NSF personnel know nothing about nor care about the FDA ruling. NSF is a private money-making for-profit group. It is not a nonprofit governmental agency that is run by U.S. citizens through the voting will of the public.


"Debunk" this all you want, but such thoughts have no meaning.

And if yo want to debunk something, debunk the idea that blood fluoride somehow reduces caries when it doesn't. Even the CDC published research indicating that the effect of fluoridated water on caries (they believe occurs) is NOT mediated by systemic blood fluoride. Again, catch up with the truth because one day it will catch up to all.

The real problem is that infusing minute levels of a toxic material into public water supplies (which avoids acute toxicity through use of expensive electronic metered infusion systems in most U.S. water supplies today) fulfills the prediction of Buck (The Grim Truth about Water Fluoridation, 1960). He wrote that such a program would not be able to be proven as causing direct harm and thus those running such a program will not be stopped and chronic toxicity will prevail. I hold the view however that with enough time one day it could  be stopped. I don't give up on hope.

Again, CA AB733 does not have sufficient deetail to be meaningful. The purpose of blood fluoride is to lower caries (as stated underoath in court by one of the key authors of the law), but the CDC after that law was passed reported that blood fluoride does not lower caries.

And the use of calcium fluoride would prevent adverse acutely toxic overfeeds.   I can't change the facts.

I usually say I'm sorry, but with this crowd, I pass on that..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 754 of 1,450

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)


Report Inappropriate Content
Trusted Contributor

Major science and health organizations dismiss anti-F opinions

Message 755 of 1,450

CarryAnne – Your most recent post (10-20-2018 09:59 AM) carries the mistaken implication that that “21st century scientific evidence” supports the anti-F agenda. Exactly how do you explain the fact that this sampling of 21st century studies and reviews does not support the anti-F opinions?


The most recent studies you and other anti-F activists have listed are no more credible (or prove the anti-F opinions are valid) than the other studies which have been trotted out for the last 70 years.  Despite all of the anti-F opinions presented in this discussion, I have seen no rational explanation for why, if the evidence against community water fluoridation (CWF), as interpreted by fluoridation opponents (FOs), is even remotely legitimate or credible, virtually all of the major science and health organizations in the world continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.  If any of the anti-F opinions were reliable and accurate, one might reasonably expect a significant number of the hundreds of thousands of members of these organizations to rebel and munity against CWF and their organizations’ suupport – they have not.


I have asked you and other FOs several times in this discussion to explain – and provide proof – exactly why the major science and health organizations (and their members) would continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF if there was a reasonable probability CWF was actually ineffective or caused significant and obvious harm.


Instead of specific, supported reasons you have described various CWF supporters as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks


Please clarify – do you believe all CWF supporters are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”?  Is that your only explanation for why the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF or do you have other explanations? 


These are your specific comments:

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis].  Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks

 (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates

(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”  Provide specific evidence of your claim these professionals are “cowards”. 
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics.  The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water fluoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontarioand other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…”


I would like to thank you for posting a quote from the US Public Health Service on 09-13-2018 03:44 PM  & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM in an effort to provide support for your opinions.


Those comments provide an excellent example that exposes and highlights a disingenuous, fear-mongering tactic regularly employed by anti-science activists (ASAs) and bias-science activists (BSAs) to peddle their propaganda.  They also help explain why ASAs & BSAs can come up with what appear to be long lists of references that appear to support their anti-science opinions – and explain why those opinions are dismissed by the majority of relevant scientists.


The tactic:  Extracting out of context content from published papers, which may appear to support their position, when the actual study design or conclusions of the study don’t. ASAs & BSAs not only cherry pick the studies they believe support their opinions (whether the study has anything to do with optimally fluoridated water or not), they cherry pick and present specific sentences out-of-context or cite completely irrelevant studies in their ongoing efforts to frighten the public.


Your quote included everything in the paragraph from the US Public Health Service review EXCEPT the last two sentences, which you conveniently scrubbed out – and which actually support the scientific consensus that fluoridation does not cause adverse health effects.  Here is the actual quote in context.

Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds.  These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems.  For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride.  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.” (Page 162-163)


That example clearly demonstrate why fluoridation opponents (FOs) have not been able to change any relevant scientific consensus.  Unlike most members of the public –– who  don’t have the training, experience, time or inclination to track each anti-claim to its source and understand the context –– actual scientists and health professionals can identify the erroneous claims of FOs for what they are – “adjusted evidence” manufactured and deployed in fear-mongering campaigns. 


That is precisely why virtually all major science and health organizations in the world (and their members) support fluoridation and why fluoridation opponents have no support for their paranoid opinions besides INFOWARS: Alex Jones, "I grew up in Dallas, Texas, drinking sodium fluoridated water. All the scientific studies show my IQ has been reduced by at least 20 points.", Natural News: Mike Adams, and a handful of alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations you and others have listed as opposing CWF.

Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 756 of 1,450

Dr. Johnny Johnson,


I'm still waiting for your apology for slander.   And what about 60% of adolescents (20% moderate/severe) having dental fluorosis a biomarker of excess fluoride, is safe?


Stop ignoring research, such as:


Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Wo...


Study: Fluoride levels in pregnant women in Canada show drinking water is primary source of exposure...


A new study led by York University researchers has found that fluoride levels in urine are twice as high for pregnant women living in Canadian cities where fluoride is added to public drinking water as for those living in cities that do not add fluoride to public water supplies.


The study “Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada” was published today in Environmental Health PerspectivesIt is the first study in North America to examine how fluoride in water contributes to urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women. The research was conducted as part of a larger study funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigating whether early life exposure to fluoride affects the developing brain.


“We found that fluoride in drinking water was the major source of exposure for pregnant women living in Canada. Women living in fluoridated communities have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in non-fluoridated communities,” said Christine Till, an associate professor of Psychology in York’s Faculty of Health and lead author on the study.

The Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study recruited 2,001 pregnant women between 2008 and 2011. The women lived in 10 large cities across Canada. Seven of the cities (Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Sudbury, Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg) added fluoride to municipal water while three (Vancouver, Montreal and Kingston) did not.


Urine samples were collected during each trimester of pregnancy for over 1,500 women. Fluoride levels in municipal water treatment plants that provided water to each women’s home were obtained. Information about each woman’s demographics, lifestyle and medical history was also collected.


In addition to fluoridated water, sources of fluoride can include toothpastes, mouth rinses, as well as processed beverages and food, especially those made with fluoridated water. Beyond water, products such as tea have previously been found to have high concentrations of natural fluoride.


In this study, fluoride level in water was the main determinant of fluoride level in the women’s urine. Higher consumption of black tea was also correlated with higher levels of urinary fluoride in pregnant women.


The levels of fluoride among pregnant women living in fluoridated communities in Canada were similar with levels reported in a prior study of pregnant women living in Mexico City where fluoride is added to table salt.


“This finding is concerning because prenatal exposure to fluoride in the Mexican sample has been associated with lower IQ in children. New evidence published today in Environment International also reported an association between higher levels of fluoride in pregnancy and inattentive behaviours among children in the same Mexican sample,” said Till.


The research team, including experts from Simon Fraser University, Université Laval, Indiana University, University of Montreal and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, is investigating whether prenatal exposure to fluoride in Canadian children results in IQ deficits, similar to the Mexican study.


Fluoride has been added to public drinking water in Canadian and American communities since the 1940s as a means of preventing tooth decay. Today, about 40 per cent of Canadians and 74 percent of the U.S. population on public water supplies receive fluoridated water.


 Bill Osmunson DDS MPH






Report Inappropriate Content

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 757 of 1,450

“The amount of effort, propaganda, and money the fluoridation-lobby is willing to utilize to cover-up their experiment-gone-wrong is unprecedented.  Their credibility and authority are tied too closely to fluoridation, and there is no letting go for them, regardless of emerging science, of facts, of reality, of anything.  They’re committed to protecting their policy and themselves, not you or your family.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2017) 


Although Gary Whitford is the fluoridationists' go to science guy for manufacturing questionable reports many of which are published in science journals, I do not believe Whitford's attack piece  on Richard Sauerheber's peer-reviewed 2013 publication is published anywhere other than pro-fluoride blog sites promoted by fluoride-stakeholders like JJ and Chuck Haynie.


More importantly, 21st century scientific evidence is very strong that whatever is happening on a chemical level, consuming fluoridated water or foods is bad for thyroids, kidneys, bones, and brains. 


THYROID: Even after excluding test subjects diagnosed with thyroid disease, 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities are at high risk of developing low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they have low thyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Overall, 9% of the population is diagnosed with low thyroid.

  • Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674.

KIDNEY: Not even arsenic is as toxic to kidneys (and livers) as fluoride. Fluoride is kidney poison.

  • Monica I. Jiménez-Córdova, Mariana Cardenas-Gonzaleza,  Guadalupe Aguilar-Madrid, Luz C. Sanchez-Peña, Ángel Barrera-Hernández, Iván A. Domínguez-Guerrero, Carmen González-Horta, Olivier C. Barbier, Luz M. Del Razo. Evaluation of kidney injury biomarkers in an adult Mexican population environmentally exposed to fluoride and low arsenic levels. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. May 2018. 

BONE: Chemisty inside people relevant to genetic profiles confirms that some of us are more likely to have ill effects which include abnormal bone chemistry which can lead to fractures and bone cancer.  

  • Gandhi, D., Naoghare, P.K., Bafana, A. et al. Fluoride-Induced Oxidative and Inflammatory Stress in Osteosarcoma Cells: Does It Affect Bone Development Pathway? Biol Trace Elem Res. 2017;175: 103. 

BRAIN: Fluoride doesn't just 'harden teeth' - it causes brain inflammation, which results in a whole slew of injuries. 

  • Chen, R., Zhao, LD., Liu, H. et al. Fluoride Induces Neuroinflammation and Alters Wnt Signaling Pathway in BV2 Microglial Cells. Inflammation. 2017;40: 1123. 




Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 758 of 1,450

Hi Richard,

There are only 3 fluoride water additives approved for use in the US by the American Water Works Association. Specifying which of these three that has to be used doesn’t allow the fluoridation decision-makers the flexibility to choose which they feel would work best for their community. The equipment design and costs vary depending on which fluoride additive that they choose.


As for for statements about calcium fluoride, the low salivary fluoide content, and fluoride not being able to enter the enamel matrix has been addressed in detail by Dr. Gary Whitford, a dentist, toxicologist, and researcher. Your statements have been scientifically been debunked:


Your encouragement of cities to stop water fluoridation because it doesn’t work is not supported in credibly conducted scientific research that has been published in credibly recognized peer-reviewed journals. 


The overwhelming consensus based upon the preponderance of the literature continues to confirm the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation at the low fluoride levels of 0.7ppm in water fluoridation. To promote stopping fluoridation is a willful disregard for families who suffer cavities and the pain and suffering that goes along with it. Do you oppose vaccinations as well?


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

President, American Fluoridation Society 



Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 759 of 1,450
Citing an incident in a remote Alaskan Yup'ik Eskimo village which does not serve individual homes; has no fresh water distribution system and no sewer system is hopefully clearly irrelevant to modern water utility plant operation. This is a good example why undecided readers investigating fluoridation should look to legitimate credible mainstream expert opinion rather than misleading arguments
Report Inappropriate Content
Regular Contributor

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

Message 760 of 1,450
this is utter baloney. Only approved water additives which meet NSF/AWWA Standard 60 criteria of purity and physical properties can be used as an additive in water treatment plants.

It is an easily verifiable fact that this author's opinions are opposite to the the support of fluoridation from America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians, Internal Medicine specialists and public health experts.

Readers must choose between a lone-wolf opponent and mainstream scientific opinion.

It is this opponent's wishful thinking that the California (and other state mandates) law is not actionable.
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