Reply
Periodic Contributor

Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation

I was reading with interest the dozens of posts about fluoridation and the call for AARP to take action. 

 

I am a Canadian senior. I'm a retired professor of dentistry with years of funded research experience and publications on fluoride in teeth and bones. I served on the 2006 US National Academies of Sciences Fluoride in Drinking Water Committee, was head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, worked as the fluoride expert of the Canadian Dental Association, was president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and wrote the textbook "Comprehensive Preventive Dentistry".

 

I am worried about the health of my fellow seniors, both in my country and south of the border in yours. Readers of the AARP forum should be alerted to the health threat from fluoridation practice.

 

Fluoridation a serious issue. We in Canada are slowly weaning ourselves off of adding fluoride to the drinking water. It is a toxic waste product (not purified additive) with cancer causing contaminants. Fluoridation policy is unconscionable and immoral. When I discovered, through my own research and review of the literature, how much fluoride harms humans, I simply had to speak out. 

 

I have been attacked publicly by my profession (other dentists) and by members of the self-proclaimed America Fluoridation Society (AFS), who have recently joined AARP. They are relentless in making claims of 'safe and effective', shooting down every single post on fluoridation across Canada and the United States when it shines a bad light on the practice.

 

Proponents of fluoridation rarely if ever voiced their criticism of distinguished scientists overseas opposed to fluoridation in Europe, such as the Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson. (1923-2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/obituaries/arvid-carlsson-who-discovered-a-treatment-for-parkinso...  

 

In his later years, Dr. Carlsson was an outspoken critic of fluoridating water supplies to prevent cavities. He said that fluoride produces side effects, such as mottled teeth, and that fluoridation was contrary to the principles of modern pharmacology because there was no way to regulate the amount of fluoride individuals received. 

 

Although there are pros and cons to the practice from a scientific viewpoint, in my estimation, the cons have it. Here are my top 10 cons. I can support all of these with science (don't worry, I won't cut and paste and throw reams of complex studies at you) 

 

  1. Human Rights Violation: In many states in the US, fluoridation is compulsory. When it's not mandatory, local city councils sometimes make the decision to fluoridate when grants are made available without consulting their communities. And when communities vote for it, the vote is often split, so half the community is forced to accept fluoridation whether they like it or not - a violation of individual informed consent to medical treatment, a human right.

 

  1. Medical Mandate: You cannot avoid fluoride once it is the water. You have to install expensive filtration equipment in the home, not eat processed foods, and never eat out at restaurants again. 

 

  1. Contamination of Water: Fluoridation is mass medication. Although proponents will say it's 'adjustment' of natural fluoride levels - that's incorrect. The fluoridation additives are industrial waste chemicals contaminated with cancer-causing elements. 

 

  1. No Dose Control: The dose of the drug cannot be controlled when it is in water supplies. Some people may take in very little, others way too much.

 

  1. Ineffective: If it works (it might save one filling per person over 40 years) it works topically, not by swallowing it. Rinse with fluoridated water then spit it out (of course you need to drink water for hydration so that's not practical). Well, you could buy bottled water to drink and use tap water to rinse if you think it works to reduce dental decay. There are no studies to show that fluoridation works in older adults. 

 

  1. Contraindications: People with extra sensitivities to fluoride cannot avoid fluoridated water. You develop more sensitivities as you get older because there is more fluoride in your body and bones as you age, mostly from drinking water.

 

  1. Unmonitored Effect: The side effects of administering this drug (fluoride) to the entire population are never monitored. Ask your MD next time you see him or her to do a fluoride analysis on you and you will likely get a blank stare. 

 

  1. Cumulative Damage: If you live in a fluoridated area your bones will accumulate more fluoride and as you get older fluoride accumulation is associated with arthritis and brittle bones. We all know what that means! 

 

  1. Neurotoxic: If you have grand-kids on the way, discourage expectant moms from drinking fluoridated tap water. Prenatal exposure to fluoride has been shown to be associated with lower IQs in the offspring in multiple studies over the past 25 years.

 

  1. Dental Damage: Fluoridated tap water added to infant formula has been shown to increase dental fluorosis in kids (white streaks and splotches), and this condition, which includes more severe dental fluorosis (brown staining an dental enamel flaking) is increasing in the US.

 

I refuse to engage with the members of the AFS in this thread or any other thread on this forum. They have been insulting and abusive here and in many other online venues.

 

I offer my advice as an expert, freely and without prejudice but I cannot give dental advice online. I have no financial interest whatsoever in this fluoridation 'fight'. I simply want the truth to come out and for people to not to be unduly influenced by self-proclaimed spokespersons for fluoridation. 

 

I will be informing the Canadian counterpart to the AARP that the AARP is being asked to look at the fluoridation in light of modern science. It will be a real service to seniors in both Canada and the United States if they both issue a condemnation of that practice.  

https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/clntAddr?cid=265202&sMdKy=1415485555341

 

In the meantime, I can be found on Twitter if anyone wants to message me. https://twitter.com/@Drlimeback

 

Sincerely

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochem) DDS

Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto

 

7,205 Views
49
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Hi Hardy,

Still pushing for double blind studies for water fluoridation?

 

My Recommendation:

Secure funding and conduct this research yourself. Once and for all you’ll be satisfied that you have proof. As a scientist that served on the 2006 NRC Research Panel, that should be easy for you to secure. 

 

Simple. Easy to prove your point. 

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr. DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry 

Life Fellow American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry 

4,430 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Oh, before I forget, Dr. Limeback, you said,

 

“And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors.”

 07-24-2018 09:37 PM

 

I don’t believe that is exactly correct.  For example, here it says,

 

 “"We've known for some time that fluoridated drinking water can prevent tooth decay in children, but this is the first time that research has conclusively shown this in an adult population."” 

 

“The results show that adults with more than a 75% lifetime exposure to water fluoridation have significantly reduced tooth decay (up to 30% less) when compared with those with less than 25% lifetime exposure.”

"Those people who have had longer exposure to fluoride in water obviously will have the greater benefit. However, and this is an important aspect of the study, even those people who were born before water fluoridation existed have since received some benefit in their lifetimes,"   https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news59781.html

 

And this:  “Conclusion:  "These findings suggest that fluoride is effective in preventing caries in adults of all ages."  https://www.nature.com/articles/6400506.pdf

 

In light of these studies, and given the fact that older citizens often have recessed gums which expose roots, which are more vulnerable to decay, it would seem that these studies suggest fluoride does have a benefit to adults or seniors. 

 

Wouldn’t you agree with that?  Aren’t more vulnerable roots exposed as a result of gum recession?  Also, I look forward to your diagnosis of the teeth, mentioned earlier, which were photographed by you.

 

Thank you.

5,041 Views
13
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Please. There is no sentence that says fluoride infusions are prohibited. There is no separate sentence that prohibits adding food, or all known poisons, all known contaminants, etc. How could you list them all? To exclude them all including the contaminant fluoride, the general all-encompassing statement that prohibits them all was passed by Congress. 

Adding corrosion  inhibitors is an allowance for the purpose of reducing toxic metals in treated water systems. F has nothing  to do with that. F is not added to reduce contaminants. It is a contaminant itself. Arsenic at one time was used as a drug treatment and F is now used by some as a treatment, but both are contaminant toxic substances. Arsenic has been dealt with finally, but fluoride is still at large in spite of the SDWA that prohibits it from being required in water (because it does not belong in normal pristine clean fresh drinking water). Water is a required dietary ingredient. Fluoride is not. As stated before, the total absence of F has no pathologic consequence because F is not a nutrient.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
4,946 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, your comment:  “The SDWA was written with the intent to halt the spread of fluoridation (Graham and Morin, Fluoride litigation, Pace law review FOOTNOTE)” 

 

Response:  The SDWA was not written with the intent to halt water fluoridation. 
As evidence of you far-fetched claim, you cited a footnote from “Graham & Morin.”   You cited a legal opinion written by a paid attorney.  His legal opinion was obviously meaningless, since the law office of Graham & Morin were not able to convince any court of that rather odd interpretation.  You have provided no legitimate proof of that claim. 

 

Let’s look at your original comment:  “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it.”   ‎07-07-2018 05:27 PM

 

When I pointed out that Corrosion Control additives are required for populations >50,000, you then said, “Adding corrosion  inhibitors is an allowance for the purpose of reducing toxic metals in treated water systems.  F has nothing to do with that.” 08-10-2018 04:58 PM

 

Response:  I never said it did.  But the fact is your statement was incorrect, whether F has anything to do with it or not. 

 

You also said, “F is not added to purify water. It is added to increase  the F level in blood to affect  teeth.”  08-10-2018 04:39 PM

 

That’s a new one.  Could you please provide any documentation which supports your claim that anyone ever had the intent of adding to water to increase the fluoride level in blood? 

 

 

In another thread, you said water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in Sacramento.  You may see my response to that original claim here:  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2041354#M940

 

Dr. Sauerheber, we can do this until the end of time.  You can continue to make very strange, unsupported claims until the end of time, and I can waste my time trying to refute them.

 

But the bottom line is that the AARP has been given ample evidence to consider your “Demand that the AARP Take Action.”  Again, and again, and again your statements are proven false.  Perhaps it’s time to give it a rest.  Your “Demand” is going nowhere.

 

By the way, what exactly are you a Dr. of?

4,838 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

To answer your other questions:

 

This study https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news59781.html was a cross-sectional ecological study and not a randomized clinical trial. It stopped at about 40 years of exposure and found only one tooth difference between fluoride and non-fluoride exposed. There could be many reasons for this.

Slade et al (2013) only looked at toothbrushing, income and education as confoundersSlade et al (2013) only looked at toothbrushing, income and education as confounders There have not been any studies to convincingly show that fluoridation helps adults and seniors reduce dental decay. That review by Griffin that you cite (https://www.nature.com/articles/6400506.pdf) covers toothpaste etc. There is some evidence that fluoridated toothpaste helps to reduce dental decay in seniors, especially with exposure root surfaces. 

 

Thank you for those additional questions. 

Dr. Hardy Limeback

4,898 Views
10
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

I think I owe you an apology, Dr. Limebeck. 

 

Upon reading your comment a second time, and sleeping on it, I believe I missed the salient point you were making.  I had asked you about the second photograph in this article which is attributed to you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

 

The condition of the teeth is diagnosed as being Mild Dental Fluorosis.  Now, to be sure, Mild DF can be associated with Community Water Fluoridation.  So, anyone looking at this photo would get the message that this is what happens to teeth because of water fluoridation. 

 

I questioned the photo because Mild DF is characterized by white spotting, usually unnoticeable, dried and put under special lighting for the condition to even be photographed.  But these teeth have dark spots, to me they look brown, which is characteristic of Moderate or Severe DF.  

 

You are saying, and I seem to have missed this, that the spots on these teeth are a result of Iron in the water.  To me they look brown, you say they are orange, but you were the photographer, so you would know better than me. 

 

Nevertheless, this photo is being used as propaganda in an effort to end water fluoridation, a proven health benefit.  The most distinguishing characteristics of these teeth are the dark spots on them.  The message this photo implies is that this is what happens when someone is exposed to optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.  The prominent dark spots on these teeth, as you have said, are from Iron, not fluoride.  Moreover, you have said that this patient grew up in a non-fluoridated area. 

 

Doesn’t it bother you a little bit that this photo is used as an example of Mild DF, when the most obvious markings on them have nothing to do with fluoride at all?  Doesn’t that seem a little bit deceptive to show Iron stained teeth in an article about fluoride over-exposure? 

4,912 Views
3
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

In my original comment, I articulated my top ten reasons against water fluoridation policy which included the undeniable fact that fluoride causes illness in many consumers, especially those in vulnerable populations like senior citizens. My professional expert opinion is based on my professional experience as a dentist, scientist, and dental professor as well as my review of fluoride science which I extensively studied as part of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council.  Our 2006 committee was charged with recommending the EPA on their MCLG for fluoride in drinking water. We advised the EPA that the EPA MCL/MCLG of 4 ppm is not protective of human health. We also advised them that severe dental fluorosis which is afflicting more and more children every year is an adverse health effect. 

 

We advised the EPA that there was no scientific evidence of any safe level of fluoride in drinking water on which to establish a reference dose. We advised the EPA that it was reasonable to anticipate adverse health effects which included gastrointestinal, kidney, thyroid, and arthritic in vulnerable sub-populations at lower concentrations. Science since our 2006 report confirms that those effects are evident even at levels of fluoridation that cities and towns consider as optimum. 

 

I wrote in my original comment that I would not engage with the members of the American Fluoridation Society on this forum as they have proved themselves to be unethical and abusive in their online interactions. Apparently, the AFS has been busy coaching interested parties in how to use social media to promote fluoridation, which includes ‘reframing' the conversation in order to get it away from the evidence of harm. Also, apparently DavidF928895 has a long history of doing just that. 

 

I am happy to discuss reasons why AARP should support a ban on fluoridation. But I am not going to waste my time with trolls who are obviously being coached on specific wording in dental studies. Fluoridation opposition is not only about discussing what little modern benefits there are by examining the very weak dental studies - fluoridation opposition is about medical consent, individual rights and overall health. 

4,916 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Limebeck,

 

Thank you for bringing up the 2006 National Research Council Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water in which you participated as a member. 

 

I believe toxicologist, Dr. John Doull Chaired that Committee.  Please correct me if that is wrong.  

 

According to Dr. Doull:  “I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.”

4,887 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Limeback,

 

Since you specifically named me in your last comment I feel I have a right and a responsibility to respond to it. 

 

This is your comment to which I am referring:

 

“I wrote in my original comment that I would not engage with the members of the American Fluoridation Society on this forum as they have proved themselves to be unethical and abusive in their online interactions. Apparently, the AFS has been busy coaching interested parties in how to use social media to promote fluoridation, which includes ‘reframing' the conversation in order to get it away from the evidence of harm. Also, apparently DavidF928895 has a long history of doing just that.“

 

My first response is that I don’t believe that I have been abusive to you in any way.  If I have, please show me where and I would be more than happy to apologize.  Nor do I believe I have been unethical.  I have asked both you & Dr. Sauerheber questions about comments you have made.  If you feel that it is unethical for someone to ask you to defend, and prove, things you have said and done, then my response is, ‘what are you trying to hide?’

 

The AARP has every right to see your statements scrutinized and questioned so they can make a knowledgeable decision about something that you are trying to convince them of.  Especially since most of the scientific community disagrees with you and your fringe position.

 

Dr. Sauerheber has made, what I believe to be, a false statement about the Safe Drinking Water Act.  He said, “"The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it. If you can't follow the truth . . . then follow the law."

 

This is a false statement, as the SDWA does require the addition of corrosion control additives in populations > 50,000.  Moreover, I felt the wording of Dr. Sauerheber’s comment was confusing enough to imply that fluoride additives themselves were prohibited by the SDWA (“then follow the law”).  Since there is no law prohibiting fluoridation, I asked him to defend, and prove his comment by pointing out, where in the SDWA fluoride additives are prohibited.

 

Dr. Sauerheber has chosen not to respond or defend his comment.  That was his choice.  This is not the first time I have asked him to provide evidence of something he has said.  When his statements are scrutinized and questioned, as I have done, there seems to be no evidence for them.

 

Now, Dr. Limeback, in your comment above, you said, “Apparently, the AFS has been busy coaching interested parties in how to use social media to promote fluoridation, which includes ‘reframing' the conversation in order to get it away from the evidence of harm.”

 

To be clear, you are saying that this thread exists for the sole purpose of showing “evidence of harm,” from water fluoridation.  Yet, in your very first comment you said, “I offer my advice as an expert, freely and without prejudice . .”  I’m sorry, Dr. Limeback, but you can’t have it both ways.  If the only purpose of this thread, which you started, is to show some harm that allegedly exists because people drink optimally fluoridated water, then your point of view is prejudiced, your comments are biased and one sided, and the AARP has every right to know where you are coming from. 

 

By the way, if you really wanted to show evidence of harm, you would provide at least one documented example of any human being whose quality of life was diminished in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.  And I’m not talking about undocumented anecdotal stories of gastro-intestinal problems, or hives, which is really all we have seen from the anti water-fluoridationists here.  I’m talking about showing us one well-documented case which is agreed upon by the scientific community. 

 

It would also be nice to see the lawsuit that would have naturally followed from a municipality harming one of its citizens by intentionally putting something harmful into his or her drinking water.  Because if anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that; considering the fact that the U.S. is so lawsuit crazy that even the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot, I can’t imagine that no successful lawsuits have occurred based on all the harm you are alleging. 

 

You also implied that I have been coached in some way by AFS.  Unless you have some proof of that you may want to reconsider.  Frankly, you are making false allegations about me, while you play the injured victim.  That, alone, speaks to your character.

 

I pointed out that a photograph that you took of teeth which are iron stained, by non-fluoridated water, has been used as anti-fluoride propaganda.  I see this as deceptive.  I offer you the chance to defend it. 

 

I pointed out that when you said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors,” you seem to have had fore-knowledge of at least one study, a study upon which you were able to comment and criticize.  I see this as deceptive, to say the least.  I offer you the chance to explain yourself. 

 

Now, if you are willing to respond to discrepancies from your own comments that I have questioned, that would be fine.  If you choose not to, again, that is your choice.  But since, as you have stated, the sole purpose of this thread is to provide some evidence of harm of a proven health benefit, (a fringe position in the scientific community), in order to convince the AARP to take your fringe position, then the AARP has every right to see your comments questioned and scrutinized so that knowledgeable, well informed decisions can be made.

4,943 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

There is one other small thing I would like to bring up, Dr. Limebeck.

 

In your very first comment in this thread, you said, "I offer my advice as an expert, freely and without prejudice but I cannot give dental advice online. I have no financial interest whatsoever in this fluoridation 'fight'. I simply want the truth to come out and for people to not to be unduly influenced by self-proclaimed spokespersons for fluoridation. "

 

Fair enough. However, it's the "without prejudice" that I question.  In your response to JG, who supports water fluoridation (07-24-2018 09:37 PM ) you said, "Besides, you wanted double-blinded research and yet offer an anecdotal example of your own family.”

 

That’s true, his story was anecdotal, with no documentation.  But if you really wanted to respond to readers fairly, without prejudice, wouldn’t you also have said the same thing to KF who opposes water fluoridation.(07-05-2018 06:20 PM)?  If you will recall, she offered a few symptoms which she attributed to fluoridated water, said she felt better after filtering her water . . all with no documentation, making them anecdotal as well?

 

To be fair, without prejudice, shouldn’t you have pointed out to her that her stories were anecdotal as well?  Both stories were equal in merit, yet you only found a flaw in the pro-fluoridation story.  It seems to me that, thus far, you only point out the fallacy of a story if it supports water fluoridation.  And that isn’t really without prejudice, is it.

4,912 Views
4
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

DavidF:

 

In medicine, evidence should be the basis of all science and risk assessment should be the basis of all decision making.  Individual health is personal and each person, with their physician, can make decisions affecting individual health. Both evidence and risk assessment begin with observations and testimony.  Your dismissal of both personal testimony of harm or scientific evidence with your long comments (focusing on analysis of wording in laws or dental studies) has nothing to do with the health experience of those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability. 


There is substantial testimony, as well as science, showing fluoride consumption causes ill effects in some, if not many consumers, especially vulnerable senior citizens and anyone with kidney or thyroid disease. I noted several of those scientific studies in my original testimony in this forum. 

 

It did not require high level evidence (only anecdotal) nor scientific studies (incomplete) to approve water fluoridation mid-twentieth century.  In order to abandon the outdated fluoridation policy today, it takes a greater level of scientific evidence then it took to approve the policy.  On this issue of community water fluoridation, policy has dictated scientific evidence for too long.  Scientific method has gone by the wayside while political will has dictated dental care over individual risk.

 

Fluoridation policy today ignores personal testimony and medical science. Fluoridation policy is mob rule based on political decisions. Fluoridation is an intervention that worsens the physical and mental health of many, perhaps most, senior citizens.  Community Water Fluoridation is an unethical medical mandate. No doctor would continue prescribing a medication that harmed someone - and if by chance he did, the individual can opt to not take the medication.  Adding an unnecessary contaminant to something as essential as water, is criminal at best.  


”In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - Informed Consent in UNESCO documents on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)  

 

Informed consent is a BASIC medical tenant that community water fluoridation ignores.  Once community leaders understand this, they quickly remove Fluoridation Chemicals.  I would like to see the AARP take a serious look at the outdated fluoridation policy and write a resolution opposing fluoridation like the one written by the League of United Latin American Citizens in 2011:  https://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medic...

 

A Registered Nurse

4,858 Views
3
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

KF, just as a passing observation, but it is definitely worth noting.  You made the following comment to me: 

 

“Your dismissal of both personal testimony of harm or scientific evidence with your long comments (focusing on analysis of wording in laws or dental studies) has nothing to do with the health experience . . . “

 

In that light, I find it interesting that you would have given a “Kudos” to this comment by Dr. Richard Sauerheber:

 

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it. If you can't follow the truth (that ingested fluoride causes formation of bone of poor quality when accumulated into bone at any level), then follow the law.
As Graham and Morin published, the SDWA was written specifically to halt the spread of water fluoridation in the U.S. The fact that courts do not support the law is not unusual and is no excuse to ignore the law."  07-07-2018 05:27 PM

 

Aside from the fact that both of his observations are false, (He has brought up some law which he alleges exists in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and a legal opinion from some paid attorney) it is interesting that 8 lines of his 11 line comment are focused on analysis of laws which you claim “has nothing to do with the health experience of those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability.”  End quote.   08-11-2018 02:07 PM

 

If that’s how you feel about it, that this irrelevant subject has nothing to do with all the suffering that’s going on, I have to wonder why you would give that comment a “Kudos.”  Hmm. .   Perhaps because it doesn’t really matter what’s being said, or what evidence is presented, as long as it supports a particular agenda, then it is valid.  Is that your idea of good science?

4,871 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

KF46,

 

You have signed your comments, “A Registered Nurse.” 

 

My wife is a registered nurse and I am very proud of her.  She has worked and studied hard to get where she is now, and she continues to study and work hard.  She understands the scientific method, and she understands medicine enough to know that when she is ill she should seek help from a qualified professional who is able to treat her and document that treatment.    

 

In your comment you said this:  “ . .  those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability.”

 

You are a registered nurse who claims to suffer from what you call “fluoride sensitivity” which is, presumably, brought about by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  Presumably, because that is the issue at hand.

 

A registered nurse who suffers from fluoride sensitivity, who suffers when he or she drinks optimally fluoridated water, who has become an enough of an activist against water fluoridation that he/she is involved in a campaign to convince the AARP to oppose this health initiative, would have proper documentation at hand to support his/her activism.

 

A registered nurse would not simply throw a few undocumented, anecdotal stories out into the internet, with the hope that they would be believed.

4,850 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

KF46, there are a few things wrong with your comment.

 

KF46 . ., your comment:  “In medicine, evidence should be the basis of all science and risk assessment should be the basis of all decision making.”

 

Response:  We are talking about Community Water Fluoridation here, optimally fluoridated water.  Please name one governmental health or scientific agency, the EPA, the CDC, the FDA, . . . anyone who describes optimally fluoridated water as a “medicine.” 

 

KF46:  “Your dismissal of both personal testimony of harm or scientific evidence with your long comments (focusing on analysis of wording in laws or dental studies) has nothing to do with the health experience of those of us for whom fluoridation causes sensitivity, illness, and disability.”

 

Response:  First of all, the only reason I discussed laws (the SDWA), or dental studies was because erroneous statements were made by either Dr. Sauerheber, Dr. Osmunson, or Dr. Limebeck, in the first place.  I was only responding to their false statements and asking for evidence to support them.  If you have a problem with someone discussing the SDWA, talk to the people who brought these issues up in the first place.

 

Moreover, I don’t dismiss personal testimony, as long as it is properly documented and agreed upon by the scientific community.  Nor do I dismiss scientific evidence.  I do, however, dismiss cherry-picked studies, non-peer-reviewed books which claim to have a plethora of “scientific evidence” backing it up in the form of end-notes (like “The Case Against Fluoride), and comments taken out of context in order to support a particular agenda. 

 

KF46:  “There is substantial testimony, as well as science, showing fluoride consumption causes ill effects in some, if not many consumers, especially vulnerable senior citizens and anyone with kidney or thyroid disease.”

 

Response:  There is substantial testimony of alien abductions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction_claimants , but there is no documented evidence of it.  That is why we require documentation.  Aren’t you a registered nurse?  Haven’t you had medical and scientific training?  Don’t you know this already?

 

That being said, please cite one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.  A documented case, then, would be agreed upon and supported by the medical community.  That’s what documentation does.  It documents the event with solid proof.  Anecdotal stories are not documented evidence.  You are a registered nurse.  Don’t you know this already?

 

KF:  “It did not require high level evidence (only anecdotal) nor scientific studies (incomplete) to approve water fluoridation mid-twentieth century.”

 

Response:  Not true.  Dr. Frederick McKay documented a phenomenon called Colorado Brown Stain in the early part of the 20th Century, and correlated that with stronger resistant to decay.  His observations were well documented.  H. Trendly Dean conducted research examining lower, safer levels of fluoride in water.  He published his research in 1942.  More research by Dr. Gerald Cox was published after that.  All well documented.  There is nothing anecdotal about it.  Shouldn’t a registered nurse be aware of actual documentation of health issues before dismissing something as anecdotal? 

 

So, again, before you bring up issues like UNESCO, please name any U.S. governmental health or scientific agency which identifies optimally fluoridated water as a “drug” or “medicine,” . . and please cite one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime.

 

Along with that documented case, it would be nice if you could cite the successful lawsuit that would have naturally followed because a local government put something harmful in its citizens’ drinking water and poisoned them in some way.  Because if anything would merit a lawsuit, it would be that.  .  After all, we live in a country that is so lawsuit crazy that even the world’s most powerful fast food chain was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot. 

 

More people enjoy the health benefits of optimally fluoridated water in the U.S. than any other place on the planet, and more lawsuits tie up the courts here than anywhere else on earth.  I would think you should be able to find at least one successful lawsuit for health reasons . . with all the harm you are alleging. 

4,726 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Thank you for your responses, Dr. Limeback.  I realize you must be busy and it is very kind of you to take time to respond.

 

Taking one issue at a time, I would like to recap a few things that have been said, so they don’t get lost, and so we can view the comments in context to other statements that have been made.

 

You said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors.”

 07-24-2018 09:37 PM

 

I pointed your attention to two studies, one by Professor Gary Slade of Adelaide University.  The other demonstrating the benefits of fluoride toothpaste on adults & seniors. 

 

To that, you responded, “This study . .  was a cross-sectional ecological study and not a randomized clinical trial. It stopped at about 40 years of exposure and found only one tooth difference between fluoride and non-fluoride exposed.”

 

From the actual Review:  “The results show that adults with more than a 75% lifetime (Note: 40 years, per your comment, would be 75% if people only lived to 53 years) exposure to water fluoridation have significantly reduced tooth decay (up to 30% less) when compared with those with less than 25% lifetime exposure.” https://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news59781.html

 

It’s not the difference in your interpretation of the Study itself from the authors of the Review that I find confusing.  What confuses me is that you seem to be familiar with this study.  How could you comment on the merits of a study unless you were familiar with it?

 

To be clear, when you said, “And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors,” you were fully aware of at least one study which did show benefit to adults & seniors.  Am I correct?  If I am wrong, please explain how you could not be aware of a study and truthfully say that there were no studies of this kind; yet comment on the merits of that study.

 

I’m not trying to be abusive or insulting here.  I just find this very perplexing.  Please take a moment to explain the apparent paradox here which must end in one of two solutions.  1.) Either you were not truthful in your first comment, you were aware of that study while saying no such study existed; or 2.) you were truthful, you weren’t aware of the study, and yet you commented on the merits of this study about which you had no knowledge. 

 

However, we do seem to agree on the merits of the second study which stated that fluoride toothpaste can be of benefit to seniors whose vulnerable roots are exposed, making them more resistant to decay.

 

Ok, enough of that.  To the second issue.  I had asked you to make a diagnosis of teeth which you photographed, identified in an article as having mild dental fluorosis.

 

In your reply, you first criticized the Deans index, saying that it is ¾ of a century old, and has been improved upon.  Then, in describing characteristics of the teeth in that photo, you said, “While that typically put them in the moderate category in the old Dean's index, I was unsatisfied with the ordinal scale of his index, and those that followed.”

 

And this is important.  Because water fluoridation can be associated with Mild Dental Fluorosis.  You’ve allowed your photo to appear in an article on a website dedicated to the abolition of water fluoridation.

 

A few things first.  The Deans index, which you say would place this photo in Moderate fluorosis, is very much used, widely accepted, and certainly has merit.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10734619

You seem to be dissatisfied with Dean’s index because the cut-off lines for scoring are somewhat blurred (“The cut-off between scores (e.g. mild to moderate) was never clear enough.”), yet you seem satisfied that the teeth in this photo would be placed in the Moderate category in Dean’s index.  You seem clear enough about that.  It appears to me that one chooses a scale depending on one’s agenda.  I would like to understand the TFI scale so that I may scrutinize your categorization. 

 

But all this is secondary to another point.  The patient in this photo has never had fluoridated water.  (“That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area.”)   You allowed your photograph to be used by the Fluoride Action Network in their efforts to end water fluoridation, that is FAN’s sole purpose, and the teeth in this photo had never even touched fluoridated water.

 

Doesn’t that seem a little bit dishonest to you?

 

After we’ve resolved these issues, we can move on to the point you have brought up numerous times, the lack of a double blind randomized study and how you would execute such a study with community water fluoridation, . . but not until we have tackled the issues at hand.

0 Kudos
4,816 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Limeback.  First let me thank you for starting this thread.  It’s an important issue and I believe there are many misconceptions about it. 

 

In your first comment you said, “I refuse to engage with the members of the AFS in this thread or any other thread on this forum. They have been insulting and abusive here and in many other online venues.”

 

Let me assure you that I am not a member of AFS, I’m 59 years old and have been an AARP member for a few years now, and I am not here to insult you or be abusive in any way.  But I do have a question for you. 

 

This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do? 

4,900 Views
1
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

Thanks for the dental fluorosis (DF) question. The original dental fluorosis index was Dean's index.  That index is over 3/4 of a century old. It was improved upon with others that followed. I used the TFI. In my experience some mild cases (shiny, hard enamel surface) sometimes had yellow to mild 'orange' staining. While that typically put them in the moderate category in the old Dean's index, I was unsatisfied with the ordinal scale of his index, and those that followed. The cut-off between scores (e.g. mild to moderate) was never clear enough. So we developed our own. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16060470. Visual Analogue Scales (VAS scales) have become the standard in pain research. For the life of me I can't understand why our VAS scale of dental fluorosis never took off. It would have made using a scale that essentially was a 'cosmetic appearance' scale more accurate for research purposes. What is also important is the fluoride exposure history for each case. There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had. So along with the dental history, exposure history, and features of the enamel mineralization (quite solid), I would say that that stained case was still in the 'mild' fluorosis stage. BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback

4,922 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride has no physiologic function in man or animals, and is a contaminant in the bloodstream, and yet people who oppose eating and drinking materials with intentionally added soluble fluorides are  labeled scaremongers? Wow. The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it. If you can't follow the truth (that ingested fluoride causes formation of bone of poor quality when accumulated into bone at any level), then follow the law.
As Graham and Morin published, the SDWA was written specifically to halt the spread of water fluoridation in the U.S. The fact that courts do not support the law is not unusual and is no excuse to ignore the law.

R. Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,509 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,  

 

I question the validity of one of your comments, and perhaps we can shed some light on it here.  

 

You said, "The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits any requirerment to add any substance into public water supplies except for substances needed to sanitize it. If you can't follow the truth (that ingested fluoride causes formation of bone of poor quality when accumulated into bone at any level), then follow the law."  07-07-2018 05:27 PM

 

Again, "If you can't follow the truth . . then follow the law."  

 

What law?  The Safe Drinking Water Act DOES require substances to be added to water supplies that are not intended for sanitation.  For example, as part of the Lead & Copper Rule, communities of 50,000 or more, corrosion control additives ARE REQUIRED. 

 

(1) A large system (serving >50,000 persons) shall complete the corrosion control treatmentsteps specified in paragraph (d) of this section . . "   https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/141.81

 

But beyond that obvious example, to what law are you referring?  Since you said the act "prohibits the requirement" of any substance except for sanitation, (which, as we've seen isn't true) there is no prohibition of water fluoridation in the SDWA either.  

 

If you could, please point out where exactly where in the SDWA  a fluoride additive would be "prohibited."  

4,996 Views
0
Report
Reply
Periodic Contributor

Thank you for this support, Dr. Limeback, to cease Fluoridation in the USA.  I too have great concerns for my fellow seniors.   Fluoridation is a very serious issue from the cradle to the grave.

 

I am metabolically sensitive to the Fluoridation pesticides and the contaminated toxic waste additive to my drinking water.  I have been actively removing Fluoride contaminants from my ingestion for the last 10+ years.  It is a tedious process but I found it a good choice.  The value of my journey has proven to be profitable: every medication I was already taking dropped in dosage (1/4 to 2/3 lower dosage).  Two medications I have completely eliminated (anti-inflammatory and statin).  

 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) aggressively promotes fluoridation through the Centers for Disease Control and Oral Health Coalitions by representing fluoride as a mineral that is necessary for healthy teeth which should be optimized at 0.7 ppm in municipal water supplies. HHS together with its partners which include the American Dental Association (ADA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) receive considerable funding for fluoridation promotion.  Together these organizations claim fluoridation is a prophylactic measure to prevent cavities in the poor while claiming fluoridation is not a medical treatment but is the equivalent of ensuring a healthy diet. They do this despite two 21st century reviews that found inconsistent and unreliable evidence of any reduction in oral health disparity through fluoridation, as well as, questionable evidence of only small benefit (Iheozor-Ejiofor et al. 2015; McDonagh et al. 2000). 
 
Fluoride is a known developmental neurointoxicant (Mundy et al. 2009, 2015; Choi et al. 2012, 2015), endocrine disruptor (NRC 2006; Peckham et al. 2015; Singh et al. 2014; Ruiz-Payan 2006; Kheradpisheh et al. 2018; Rocha-Amador et al. 2014) and inflammatory drug (Butler et al. 1990; Loftenius et al. 1999; Kuang et al. 2017; Weia et al. 2016; Gandhi et al. 2017; Gutowskaa et al. 2015; Follin-Arbelet et al. 2016).  Fluoride is also a protoplasmic enzyme poison and consequently has an impact on immunity (Müller et al. 2010; Loskill et al. 2013; Schretter & Mazmanian 2017; Edelblum et al. 2017; Sharon et al. 2016; Khosravi & Mazmanian 2013).  And unfortunately, a fetus in the womb is heavily exposed to fluoride through their mother’s intake because it crosses the placenta (see compilation of scientific citations in “Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix” by MacArthur, 2017).
 
I do find young moms are beginning to question the water fluoridation practice.  Once seniors take notice of this ineffective, inefficient and unethical outdated policy, I believe policy will change. 
 
A Registered Nurse 
 
 
5,533 Views
0
Report
Reply