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]

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication." -  Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

• Saturday, Jan 13th, 8 PM EST live stream: https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

• Document Fraud at CDC:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377152337_Document_Fraud_at_CDC/

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

• Kumar P, Gupta R, Gupta A. Vitamin D deficiency in patients with diabetes and its correlation with water fluoride levels. J Water Health. 2023 Jan;21(1):125-137.

• Meng X,  et al. Relatively low fluoride in drinking water increases risk of knee osteoarthritis (KOA): a population-.... Environ Geochem Health. 2023 Sep 16.

• Dhapola R, et al. Insight into the emerging and common experimental in-vivo models of Alzheimer's disease. Lab Anim Res. 2023 Dec 11;39(1):33.

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

“Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spurs, spondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health": 

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

MODERN SCIENCE: https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

• Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
• Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
• Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
• Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
• Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
• Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

Then there was the officious Stanley Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

• Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
• Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
• Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
• Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
• Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue." 

Really!!!!! 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

[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. 

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Hi Carry Anne,

I will refer you back to the information that I posted initially regarding the National Research Council's Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html

This panel of 12 unpaid experts, led by the top Toxicologist in the U.S., met for 3 1/2 years and reviewed all literature on fluoride in water for impacts that it may have on our health.  

The EPA maximum allowable fluoride content in water is set at a point where no adverse health effects are expected to occur and the margins of safety are judged "adequate".  That level is 4mg/L of fluoride in water.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_bri...

This panel is assembled every few years to evaluate whether this level is still appropriate considering all available research.  Over 200,000 residents in the U.S. have drinking water that exceeds 4mg/L.  Fluoride is in almost all water at varying amounts.  Ground water picks up fluoride from igneous rocks as the water flows over them.  This study is conducted as part of responsible government looking out for the health of our residents.  The study cost over 4 million dollars.

All body organs and systems were evaluated in their 3 1/2 year review. NO adverse health effects were found in any organs or systems at 4mg/L of fluoride in water, except for severe dental fluorosis.

This included:

1. Endocrine system (thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, pineal, adrenal, pancreas....)

2. Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral (IQ, other disorders)

3. Kidneys

4. Immune System

5. Gastrointestinal System

6. Cancer

7. Reproductive and Development

8. Genetic Damage

9. Musculoskeletal System

10. Liver

This comprehensive literature review answers all claims that are made by those that oppose community water fluoridation.

Community water fluoridation (CWF) contains 0.7mg/L of fluoride.  This is 1/6th of the maximum allowable level set by the EPA as safe to drink (4mg/L).  No adverse health effects have ever been shown to be caused by CWF.  Over 70 years of fluoridation in the U.S. and thousands of research and publications have shown CWF to be safe to drink and effective in reducing cavities by at least 25% over a person's lifetime. It benefits both children and adults.

Leading health and scientific organizations endorse community water fluoridation as safe and effective for all.  These include:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

4. American Medical Association

5. Mayo Clinic

6. World Health Organization

No credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  Not one.

I hope this helps put this issue into perspective for my fellow AARP readers.  A list of credible references is listed below for further information on CWF.

Respectfully,

Johnny

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society, non-profit organization of unpaid dentists and physician

www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org

@afs_Fluoride

References:

American Academy of Pediatrics

CDC

American Fluoridation Society

American Dental Association

National and International Organizations that Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Communty Water...

[651241]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CharlesH595927]

Doull's reply was in the context of the 4 ppm and greater fluoride concentrations which was the Committee's charge. They collected all of the available literature without regard to quality or relevance.

It is a straightforward fact that the final NRC opinion was that the EPA's maximal allowed fluoride of 4 ppm (nearly 6x higher than fluoridation) protects human health from disease save for severe enamel fluorosis.

Anyone who wants to verify exactly what the NRC concluded can listen to the summarization in this press conference:

https://www.nap.edu/webcast/webcast_detail.php?webcast_id=325

[CharlesH595927]

It is an easily verifiable fact that America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and Internal Medicine Specialists along with well over 100 other groups of sophisticated, committed  legitimate scientists and professionals are on easily verified public record affirming this decision.   Fluoridation at the optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm prevents cavities, saves tons of money with lower dental bills and is completely safe.   

The concerns and opposing arguments raised here have been dissected with reviews of all the relevant science in many systematic reviews done both in the US and around the world.   There is a unanimity that fluoridation prevents cavities and is safe.  Many older people can no longer brush their teeth well and if in a residential care facility may have minimal or no oral health care.  The only dental care they receive is from their tap water.  

Given the overwhelming professional and scientific consensus in support, how can a mainstream organization like AARP even consider opposing.  If they wish to change positions on fluoridation, Dr. Limeback and others have an obligation to make their case before legitimate scientific forums and not simply bring arguments to lay audiences that have been rejected by experts.

Anyone wishing to learn more about the importance of community water fluoridation should start here:

American Academy of Pediatrics
https://ilikemyteeth.org/

Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html

American Fluoridation Society
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/

British Fluoridation Society
https://www.bfsweb.org/

American Dental Association
https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation


While community water fluoridation (CWF) is not a silver bullet, it importantly decreases the oral health disparities which come with economic disadvantage.   To argue against CWF is to argue for greater pain, suffering, greater health inequality and lifelong oral health disadvantage for people of all ages.

C. Haynie, M.D.

[sirpac271999]

It appears there are many trolls holding DDS decrees, on the fluoride question community. The American Fluoridation Society is a trolling group created to deceive the public into believing the fluoridation fraud. Fortunately there is a lawsuit pending in the Federal Court (9th), which is barely covered by the corporate media to stop forced water fluoridation in the United States. The details are available from Bloomberg law, see https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro....

Although this case has been in discovery for months, the EPA has not been able to provide any valid science to support water fluoridation, which is banned in most of Europe and Japan among other nations. Also, the industrial fluoride waste is labeled as category 6 toxic poison by law. See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/lawandcourts/pa-law-poison.html Yet, the trolls claim that there is some science supporting fluoridation, when there is none!

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Hello Sirpac & Carrie Anne,

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

Secondly, we do not state

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

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

Just sayin’

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry 

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

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

www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org

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

[CarryAnne]

“There is no doubt in my mind that fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay and the risks for harm to several organ systems, including the brain, are so significant as to make fluoridation a practice that can now be considered ineffective and unsafe.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist  (2017)

Speaking of trolls, the president of the AFS published a disingenous taunt on Dr. Bicuspid this week. See the reply from Dr. Hardy Limeback to JJ who has also started trolling this thread with his disinformation. 

[StevenS353310]

“CaryAnne”

Yes, please do see Dr. Limeback’s false claims, half-truths, and personal attacks in regard to the article by Dr. Johnson.  His claims are fully addressed and corrected in subsequent comments on that page, as are those of other fluoridation opponents who chose to post irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims on that page.  Your choosing to pluck and post Limeback’s erroneous claims here, implying that they are somehow credible, without posting the rebuttals to those claims, puts you in the same, irresponsible category as those opponents posting on Dr. BIscupid.

Limeback’s comment as well as the evidence-based rebuttals to his vlaims may be found:

https://www.drbicuspid.com/Forum/tm.aspx?high=&m=9051&mpage=1#9062

In addition, if you can produce any valid evidence, whatsoever, that any of what Dr. Johnson has posted on this page is “disinformation”, as you claim, then do so.  Your inevitable failure produce any such evidence will be further evidence of your dishonesty and attempt to intentionally deceive the AARP membership.

In the future, you might also consider having the courage to disclose your real name instead of posting your attacks while hiding behind pseudonyms.  

Steven D. Slott, DDS

[CarryAnne]

"It was found that F impacts human thyroid hormones, especially TSH and T3 even in the standard concentration of less than 0.5 mg/L." -   Kheradpisheh et al. 2018

“…thyroid disorder during pregnancy is a danger to both mother and baby. For mothers, the risks include preeclampsia… For babies, the risks include preterm birth, decreased mental abilities, thyroid disorder and even death.” - March of Dimes

I recently spoke with a woman who is unable to consume fluoride due to a thyroid condition. She developed thyroid disease as a child while being treated with fluoride to prevent cavities. All three of her children were low birth-weight and preterm - and she narrowly survived toxemia. Preeclampsia and toxemia are a poisoning of the placenta, and fluoride build up is one suspected cause. 

The latest fluoride study looking at impact on thyroid hormones found that  0.5 mg/L (which is less than half what my city considered 'optimal' between 1981 and 2015) depresses thyroid hormones. This is consistent with research going back to at least the 1950s. The thyroid is very sensitive to fluoride exposure at any level. On a population level, you see ill effect above 0.3 ppm. The ppm designation is typically used for concentration and is the equivalent of mg/L which refers to dose.

Since 2015, the current US 'optimal' fluoride concentration in drinking water is 0.7 ppm. India considers any concentration over 0.5 ppm to be 'excessive.' I believe the actionable Indian contaminant level for fluoride removal is 1 ppm. The US EPA has an action threshold of 4 ppm. The politically set US EPA MCL/MCLG is eight times what is documented to cause harm to the thyroid. 

Call your politicians in your cities, state and in Washington, call the American Thyroid Association and call the AARP. Tell them enough is enough - get the F- out of our water!

• 2018 Thyroid study:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20696-4#ref-link-section-d17e615
• 2017 Pregnancy Resources:  http://pregnancyandfluoridedonotmix.com/index.html 
• 2016 Letter to ATA with citations:  http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf 

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Carrie Anne,

Take a look at table one from the Kheradpisheh study that you referenced:

VariableCase Median(IR)Control Median(IR)*P Value

Fluoride	0.07 ± 0.38	0.07 ± 0.35	0.94
Temperature	0.6 ± 19.3	6 ± 19.3	0.16
pH	0.63 ± 7.3	0.56 ± 7.2	0.24

1. *IR, Interquartile range.

Look at the pH. Case median of 0.63+7.3.  Control Median 0.56+7.2.  Do you know what this means?

This shows the acidity of the water that the people were drinking.  If indeed these authors reported accurately, which I certainly hope that they did not, it would mean that these families were drinking water that had the acidity of sulfuric acid.  Not only would any health issues be moot, but these people would be dead from the acidity of water.

The problem with studies like this is that they are not well peer reviewed and make it into published journals.  This one problem, along with many other issues with their study, will make it highly criticized in the scientific community and possibly retracted from print.

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Dr. Hardy Limeback was one of twelve experts who served on the National Academy of Science, National Research Council’s (NRC) 2006 review of Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html

Dr. Limeback’ statements are his own opinions, not the conclusions of the NRC Committee which he served on, and the document which he signed off on (above hyperlink to the document).

The NRC Committee was reviewing the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of fluoride in water that the EPA sets as safe to drink, NOT community water fluoridation (CWF). 

A Contaminant is anything in water other than water molecules. This includes odor, cloudiness, etc.

MCL definition:

The maximum contaminant level (MCL) is the enforceable standard that is set as close to the MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) as possible, taking into consideration other factors such as treatment technology and costs. For fluoride, the MCLG and the MCL are both 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm [parts per million]).

The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is a health goal set at a concentration at which no adverse health effects are expected to occur and the margins of safety are judged “adequate.” 

The NRC Committee concluded that the ONLY adverse health effect at 4mg/L of fluoride in drinking water was severe dental fluorosis, a enamel effect which results in brown discoloration and pitting in the tooth enamel.

They also concluded that at 2mg/L, severe enamel fluorosis was virtually zero. 

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/fluoride_bri...

All body organs and systems were evaluated in their 3 1/2 year review. Again, NO adverse health effects were found in any other organs or systems at 4mg/L of fluoride in water, except for severe dental fluorosis. This included IQ, endocrine, reproductive, carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, or any other claims being made here. 

Community water fluoridation is set at 0.7mg/L, a level 1/6th that of the MCL. 

Community water fluoridation is set at 0.7mg/L, a level 1/3rd of that where severe fluorosis disappeared. 

Just setting the the record straight for my fellow AARP members. 

Sincerely,

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Certificate in Pediatric Dentistry 

President, American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit group of all volunteer dentists and physician 

www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org

Twitter: @afs_FLUORIDE

[sirpac271999]

There is no valid science to prove water fluoridation is either safe or effective, as noted by the Gold standard Cocgrane review, which noted that water fluoriation is based on very low quality pre-1975 observation only studies and non-clinical trials (Iheozor-Ejiofor, Worthington, Walsh, O'Malley, Clarkson, Macey, Alam, Tugwell, Welch & Glenny, 2015). Also, the FDA has never approved fluorides or conducted clinical trials for any safety or effectiveness. However, it has been shown that life expectancy has taken a nose dive in the United States, compared to other rich (non-fluoridating) countires (Case & Deaton, 2015). Thus, fluorides are un-approved drugs and we are forcibly fed such drugs without informed consent, which is a violation of basic ethical principles and multiple ethics codes, in addition to being the main culprit of multiple maladies and neurocognitive problems.

Informed consent arose from the Nuremberg Code (i.e. Nürnberger Kodex), which is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation set as a result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War (Schuster, 1997). Although it appears such principles pre-existed the Code (Chooi, 2011), the Nuremberg Code made these principles internationally known and ratified. It seems water fluoridation practice violates the Nuremberg Code, as well as several other ethics codes, because fluorides are unapproved drugs (i.e. not approved by the FDA) meant to treat the end consumer and not the water itself. Although water fluoridation is not Federally mandated and each state or local water board has its own policy, these governmental entities have not obtained individual consent from each person treated and have no way to control the dosage of such forced medication. Thus, it appears, water fluoridation is in violation of the Nuremberg Code, the UNESCO Code of Medical Ethics (WMA, 2013), the Helsinki Declaration, and the Safe Water Act, in addition to multiple other ethics codes, and basic ethical principles, such as the right to individual informed consent. 

Also, it appears fluorides and aluminum have a causative link to Alzheimer's disease. Mirza, King, Troakes and Exley (2017) provide a hands on study in reference to aluminum. An interesting point about any metal, such as aluminum, is that aluminum cannot pass the blood brain barrier (BBB) without an adjuvant, such as a fluoride, being present. The fact is that fluorides readily bind with aluminum or any other metal that then passes through the BBB (Dec, Łukomska, Maciejewska, Jakubczyk, Baranowska-Bosiacka, Chlubek, Wąsik & Gutowska, 2016).

Finally, a big fluoridation issue is policy-maker bias, because of political and venal interests. In researching fluoridation policy in Israel, Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz (2016) discuss ‘uncertainty bias’, or their term for the behavior of policy-makers, who do exactly what they accuse laypeople of doing, which is framing uncertainty in biased terms. Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz (2016) found that in order to establish mandatory regulation, health ministry officials in Israel expressed information in an unbalanced format, promoting the topic of fluoridation by framing it in exclusively positive terms. Thus, despite the lack of scientific support for fluoridation, and noted uncertainty regarding the efficacy or safety of water fluoridation, health officials continue to communicate it as 'unequivocally' safe and effective.

References:

Case, A. & Deaton, A. (2015). Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century. PNAS, 112 (49), 15078–15083, doi:10.1073/pnas.1518393112 Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full

Dec, K., Łukomska, A., Maciejewska, D., Jakubczyk, K., Baranowska-Bosiacka, I., Chlubek, D., Wąsik, A. & Gutowska, I. (2016). The Influence of Fluorine on the Disturbances of Homeostasis in the Central Nervous System, Biological Trace Element Research, 1-11. doi:10.1007/s12011-016-0871-4 Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12011-016-0871-4

Gesser-Edelsburg, A. & Shir-Raz, Y. (2016). Communicating risk for issues that involve 'uncertainty bias': what can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research, 1-22. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343 Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332

Iheozor-Ejiofor, Z., Worthington, H.V., Walsh, T., O'Malley, L., Clarkson, J.E., Macey, R., Alam, R., Tugwell, P., Welch, V. & Glenny, A. (2015). Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD010856. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2 Retrieved from http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

Mirza, A., King, A., Troakes, C. & Exley, C. (2017). Aluminium in brain tissue in familial Alzheimer's disease. Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology , 40, 30-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2016.12.001. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28159219

Schuster, E. (1997). Fifty Years Later: The Significance of the Nuremberg Code. New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1436-1440. Retrieved from http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711133372006

World Medical Association (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. JAMA, 310(20), 2191–2194. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.281053 Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/1760318

[CarryAnne]

“Research published in 2010 identified that the concept of ‘fluoride strengthening teeth’ could no longer be deemed as clinically significant to any decrease in caries linked to fluoride use. Furthermore, research has suggested that systemic fluoride exposure has minimal (if any) effect on the teeth, and researchers have also offered data that dental fluorosis (the first sign of fluoride toxicity) is higher in U.S. communities with fluoridated water as opposed to those without it.” - IAOMT 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use, p. 41

Although I'm not on board with all this screaming about 'fake news,' the self-censorship in our media is astounding. In September, there were two major stories that were all but unmentioned by the media. Apparently, even though the Washington Post and New York Times were each offered an exclusive on the findings of major NIH/NIEHS/EPA sponsored multi-year, mult-million dollar study on the impact of prenatal exposure to fluoride on IQ of children that validates the findings of dozens of  human and hundreds of laboratory studies - yes, any fluoride exposure even in extremely low doses consistent with doses of those living in 'optimally' fluoridated communities lowers IQ by up to 6 points - the major news desks declined the scoop and didn't say a word on the report.

The exceptions were mealy mouthed reports in CNN and Newsweek. I have it on good authority that the only reason those two wrote anything was because of insider support. The apparent reason why the rest of the major media outlets ignored this bombshell is because of sponsorship dollars from vested interests like Big Pharma and the toothpaste folks. The sugar industry also supports the myth of fluoride as a magic potion in order not to hurt their market. 

That the IAOMT Position Paper Against Fluoride Use was published just three days after the NIH report should have given the media a case of whiplash - but I haven't seen any news reports on this paper by a large international professional dental association based in the United States. Their position paper includes over 500 scientific citations documenting the harm done by the dental dogma around fluoride and recommends it not be used even in dental offices because of adverse impact on people and planet. 

Any reporter who cared to look would have found that per U.S. governement most recent statistics from 2011-12, over half of today's 15 year olds have some degree of dental fluorosis with more than one in five having at least two teeth with moderate to severe fluorosis which essentially guarantee crowns in young adulthood because these teeth are badly stained, brittle, and even pitted or deformed. Dental fluorosis is caused by fluoride poisoing during childhood and is associated with increased learning disabilities, bone breaks, and kidney disease. Kidney disease is also up per 2011-12 US statistics. 

God forbid a major news agency should report on this - it might hurt toothpaste and candy sales! 

2017 IAOMT: https://iaomt.org/for-patients/fluoride-facts/

2017 NIH IQ review on independent site:  http://www.mintpressnews.com/ada-study-fluoride-health-impacts/

2017 Dental fluorosis: 

http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2017/05/09/DC85141

2017 Politics: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/science-and-alternative-facts-about-fluoridation-false-dilemmas-and...

[CarryAnne]

“Infants, children and adolescents are at high risk of diseases due to over intake of fluorides, through drinking water and/or fluoridated milk, as the deterioration of health is proportional to the dose and time of exposure.” - Romero et al. in “The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health.” Revista médica de Chile (Feb. 2017)

 “Fluoride toxicity symptoms are threatening to steal away the golden years of the 'baby boomers,’ the first generation to be experimental subjects to lifelong water fluoridation.” - Susan Kanen, biochemist formerly with Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct, water treatment plant for Washington, DC, whistleblower on lead in drinking water (2016)

The latest meta review of fluoridation is from Chile and published in their major medical journal. Like all modern scientific reviews (but not those  sponsored by political organizations in the US, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia defending their policy), the Chilean team of scientists found fluoridation of salt, milk and water to be ineffective in preventing cavities, but causal for asthmatic, skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin diseases. You know, things like arthritis & brittle bones, learning disabilties & dementia, eczema & psoriasis, and thyroid disease & diabetes. 

• The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health. Verena Romero, Frances J. Norris, Juvenal A. Ríos, Isel Cortés, Andrea González, Leonardo Gaete, Andrei N. Tchernitchin. Rev. méd. Chile vol.145 no.2 Santiago Feb. 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872017000200012   

Excepts from 2017 Chilean report

[curtb124223]

Thanks for posting......I've heard of this before and believe its' true!   Now, for something else you probably ingest that WILL affect you.....read this below.

People need to know that the chemical sweetener Aspertame (also goes by other names) has been found to be the cause of Alzheimer's-type symptoms in many people.  People who eat and drink a lot of "diet" drinks and foods that have the Aspertame sweetener in them (including many yogurts) need to stop ingestion of that product immediately. Scientists (including Mercola) have found that by stopping the usage of Aspertame products, many of these patients bounce back to their near-normal selves again after a short period of time.  If you have been using Aspertame sweetened products, stop using them NOW. 

Here's a few links to verify:   (You're welcome).   😉

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/06/26/aspartame-methanol-alzheimers.aspx

https://www.theherbprof.com/InfoAspartameDisease.htm

http://wnho.net/prevalence_of_alzheimers.htm

The question is this:  If Aspertame is so dangerous to our health, WHY is still being produced and sold in the US?

My answer is this.....(sad to say) there's WAY too much tax money that would be lost if they did......just like all those Tobacco products that are being sold!!   Isn't that SICKENING???    ;-(

[CarryAnne]

“This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it...  Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected...” - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto (Sept. 2017) 

“Children are the primary victims of our failed fluoridation policy, and mothers are our last line of defense. To protect your baby's brain, we recommend mothers avoid drinking fluoridated water, swallowing fluoride supplements or toothpaste, and avoid fluoride dental treatments during and before pregnancy.” - Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2017)

The 12 year multimillion dollar study sponsored by the NIH, NIEHS, and EPA that was conducted by internationally renowned researchers at University of Toronto, University of Michigan, McGill University, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Harvard School of Public Health was designed to disprove any prenatal impact on IQ. It did the opposite. The study controlled for confounders and validated dozens of less rigorous human studies and I don’t know how many animal studies with the same findings - prenatal fluoride exposure damages the brain and reduces IQ by as much as 6 points on a dose-response trend line consistent with exposure in 'optimally' fluoridated communities. However, in typical research fashion, it concluded with “more research is needed.” 

Think about this. We have the evidence of harm and they want to do more studies on pregnant women? Get your own sisters, wives, and daughters to volunteer the brains of their unborn children for your experiment and leave my family alone, thank you very much! 

Community water fluoridation is human experimentation and must be ended immediately! 

Call your Congressman and the AARP. Tell them they work for us and we don’t want poison in our water!

Study: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/

Review: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-lower-iq-in-kids-new-study-sa... NIH study chartNIH study profile 

[CarryAnne]

“Evidence has shown that these early researchers had it backwards. It now appears that fluoride acts only on teeth that have already erupted.” - Lahey Clinic website (current)

“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority (2013)

If you haven't already, sign this petition directed to Congress and the National Acadmy of Medicine about the controversial 1997 decision to include fluoride on the Dietary Reference Intake table (DRI) without any special considerations because the NAM board of nutritionists depended on dental testimony that there was no adverse impact up to and including 10 mg/day and ingestion, per dentists, was good for teeth. They were not only wrong, they were manipulated by one or more bad actors. It is time the Food & Nutrition Board corrects their mistake.  

Sign and share: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/dietary-fluoride-and.fb48 

In 1999, the CDC admitted that the ingestion theory about dental benefit from consumption was invalid, although they couched their language by using the term "predominantly topical." There is absolutely no scientific evidence of any systemic benefit from consumption or "remineralization" either, which was the substitute theory dentists advanced. The only evidence of any benefit is from poisoning cavity causing bacteria when used topically in high concentrations, like in toothpaste.   

Since 1997, the evidence of harm is significant:

1. In 2006, the US EPA found 4 ppm as a MCLG to be UNSAFE. 
2. In 2009, the US EPA found fluoride to be a “developmental neurotoxicant” with substantial evidence of harm, one of approx 100 chemicals known to cause brain damage during critical periods of brain development 
3. In 2010, the US CDC released a report that approximately half of US 15 year olds have some level of dental fluorosis, with 4% having mod-severe which likely result in expensive cosmetic dentistry including crowns and veneers because of both the brittle nature of these teeth and unsightliness
4. In 2015, scientists from that same EPA 2009 team found fluoride to be one of only 21 chemicals with “gold standard” verification of human harm
5. Since 1995, multiple animal, in vitro, epidemiological, and case studies have proved that fluoride consumption adversely impacts memory, i.e. ability to learn. Moreover, modern studies have correlated dental fluorosis with genetic predisposition, kidney disease, and learning disabilities. Fluoride induced thyroid hormone suppression seems to play a significant role. Higher rates of low-thyroid disease is also correlated with fluoridation. 

REFERENCES: 

Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.  http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571 

W. Mundy, S. Padilla, T. Shafer, et al. Building a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants: Evidence from Human and Animal Studies. EPA, RTP, NC 27711; Curriculum in Toxicology, Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514; NCEA/ORD, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC, 20460; Cellumen, Inc., Pittsburgh, PA. 15238; 5U.S. EPA, Region 7, Kansas City, KS, 66101. 2009. http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/epa_mundy.pdf 

W. Mundy, S. Padilla, J. Breier, at al. Expanding the test set: Chemicals with potential to disrupt mammalian brain development. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Volume 52, Part A, November– December 2015, Pages 25–35. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0892036215300362  

Xiong X, Liu J, He W, et al. Dose-effect relationship between drinking water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in children. Environ Res. 2007 Jan;103(1):112-6. Epub 2006 Jul 10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834990 

A. Martín-Pardillos et al. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004  

Fei Liu, Jing Ma, Hui Zhang, Peng Liu, You-Ping Liu, Bo Xing, Yong-Hui Dang. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. Physiol Behav. 2014 Jan 30;124:1-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405   

Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis in Children's Intelligence in Endemic Fluorosis Area in Tianjin, China. Zhang S, Zhang X, Liu H, Qu W, Guan Z, Zeng Q, Jiang C, Gao H, Zhang C, Lei R, Xia T, Wang Z, Yang L, Chen Y, Wu X, Cui Y, Yu L, Wang A. Toxicol Sci. 2015 Apr; 144(2):238-45. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu311. Epub 2015 Jan 1. PMID: 25556215. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215  

Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS Data Brief, Number 53,November 2010. CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm 

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg and Yaffa Shir-Raz. Communicating risk for issues that involve 'uncertainty bias': what can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us? Journal of Risk Research · August 2016.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332 

[m673457s]

In the 21st century, chemical water fluoridation is totally outdated. It is based on the myth that ingesting fluoride reduces tooth decay.  It's junk science, a holdover from the 1950s when doctors recommended smoking cigarettes. It's time to end it.

 The Cochrane Collaboration review,  the gold standard of scientific rigor in assesing effectiveness of public health policy, in its 2015 review concluded..."Fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth,"or baby teeth, The review criticized studies supporting fluoridation as being weak, biased and of poor quality.  It found no evidence to support the efficacy of ingesting fluoride to reduce cavities.  

Fluoridation chemicals are industrial waste products collected from pollution control scrubbers primarily from the phosphate fertilizer industry.  This acid is caught in scrubbers because it is so lethal and corrosive that releasing it into the air, a lake, a stream or any body of water, is an environmental crime.  However it is somehow, "legal," to dispose of this corrosive poison in municipal drinking water.  Fluoridation benefits industry.  Rather than paying the high cost of disposing of it's toxic waste, it earns a profit on it.   

Fluoride is not a nutrient and has no use in the human body.  Forcing toxic fluoridation chemicals on the population is unethical and illegal. Fluoride is a drug.  If it's not in your municpal water, you can only obtain fluoride with a doctor's prescription.  Your doctor cannot administer fluoride to anyone without informed consent. However, citizens are denied the right to informed consent when it comes to flouride in our tap water.  Although fluoride is a drug that is a known developmental neurotoxin, endocrine disruptor and carcinogen, it is forced upon the entire citizenry without informed consent and with no regard to dose, age or medical condition.

Public health policy must be based on sound science.  It needs to be effective and safe for everyone, including vulnerable subpopulations.  It's clear that artificial water fluoridation does not meet any of those criteria and that artificial water fluoridation must end.

[sirpac271999]

Absolutely! Water fluoridation is industrial waste management by dilution. There are hundreds of empirical articles available regarding fluoride induced pathology. However, many researchers report that they cannot get their articles published without some fluoride promoting language included. Thus, many articles start with some “fluoride promoting language”, but there is rarely any citation to these statements or there is a citation, but it leads to another unsubstantiated article or mere statements and not empirical evidence. Therefore, these promotional statements are just unsubstantiated blur to get the article published and the rest of the article is where the substance lies. For example see:

Fluegge, K. J. (2016). Community water fluoridation predicts increase in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence of diabetes in 22 states from 2005 and 2010, Journal of Water Health, 14(5), 864-877. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27740551/?i=1&from=%22hexafluorosilicic+acid%22%5BNM%5D#fft
and

Kuang, P., Deng, H., Cui, H., Chen, L., Fang, J., Zuo, Z., Deng, J. & Wang, X. (2017). Sodium fluoride (NaF) causes toxic effects on splenic development in mice, Oncotarget, 8, 4703-4717. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.13971

[CarryAnne]

“…children who develop asthma or allergies later in life have altered immune responses to intestinal bacteria in the gut mucosal environment at an early age… also… the mother’s immune system may play a role in the development of asthma and allergies in children.” - Andreu Prados (2016)

Since autoimmune and inflammatory disease are my thing, I particularly like this latest study by Kuang et al. on adverse impact of prenatal and early postnatal exposure to fluoride on the spleen looking at immunology and mRNA (messenger RNA). Although focusing on the biology of dysfunction, it hints that a contributing factor to epidemic of autoimmune disease among American children may be from early fluoride exposure, which could possibly be from prescription fluoride drops for newborns and/or infant formula made with tap water. Apparently, fluoride interferes with  proper development of the spleen which has a life long impact on immune function. 

I agree with sirpac271999 that this study is particularly interesting to those of us with allergies and autoimmune disease because it suggests in more detail than ever before how fluoride causes the immune responses it does in the genetically vulnerable. This seems to be new information and is utilizing the latest science in biochemistry and epigenetics. Pay attention, folks - this isn't just about teeth. 

Peer reviewed, valid science published in a credible science journal in November 2017:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28846973/

[CarryAnne]

"Mandates are not objective realities, but subjective interpretations."  - Thomas E. Mann

Medical mandates are politics pretending to be science. They benefit corporations, not the public and certainly not the individual. There are two very interesting recent articles in GreenMed on medical mandates. 

Science and Alternative Facts: About fluoridation, false dilemmas and fake news slams the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control for their anti-scientific and biased promotion of fluoridation that is attempting to incentivize states to establish a medical mandate for fluoridation using Medicaid monies. 

NVIC Tracking 134 Vaccine Bills Introduced in 35 States reports on vaccine mandate laws in front of state legislature this year. I'm not going down the vaccine route, but this much is certain.... we Baby Boomers were not afraid of or dying from childhood diseases in the 1960s. Most of us had between 2 and 5 immunizations during our childhood which were happy, healthy and active. Everyone had chicken pox, measles, etc. without undo concern. There might have been one kid in our class with asthma, maybe. Practically no one had food allergies.

Today, 50% of our grandchildren who have received 25 vaccines in their first six months of life have a chronic illness - food allergies, asthma, anaphylaxis, learning disabilites, autoimmune disease, etc. Some are even on respirators, and some died for no known reason. The CDC schedule recommends our grandchildren have another 44 vaccines before they turn 18. There are more children on respirators now than were ever on Iron Lungs in the 1950s, and many of their families have testified that the paralysis occured shortly after being vaccinated, even beginning on that same day in many cases. Since the passage of a federal law in 1986, pharmaceutical companies and doctors have no liability for harm caused by vaccines. There are 200 additional vaccines in the CDC pipeline. The primary targets are children and the elderly. The laws criminalize non-conformance, even barring access to schools and threatening parents with loss of custody. 

Medical Mandates, whether finagled with financial incentives to fluoridate a community or legislated with  punitive actions against any parent who choses not to follow a vaccination schedule are dangerous to our health and our freedom. Phone your representatives and tell them the 1947 Nuremberg Code, the 21st century UNESCO documents on human dignity and bioethics and our own constitution which ensures us the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are violated by medical mandates. 

• ”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Bioethics and Human Rights (2005)

• ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - Informed Consent in UNESCO documents on Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

• ”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)

[CharlesH595927]

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

Surely these ideas are easily identified as science denying mistakes.

C. Haynie, M.D.

[CarryAnne]

”Development of the program must begin with re-education and stimulation of the individual dentist both in the community and in the dental school, whose active participation is essential to the success of any fluoridation program.  Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program and that non-participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility.  Initiation of this part of the promotional effort should include the preparation of a short fact sheet for wide distribution.” - American Dental Association (1979)  http://fluoridealert.org/content/1979-ada-white-paper/ 

". . . in the previous year (1955) many responsible persons had felt that the public should be spared the ordeal of “knowledge about controversy.” If word ever got out that the Public Health Service had actually done something damaging to the health of the American people, the consequences would be terrible. . . . We felt that no lasting good could come to science or the public if the Public Health Services were discredited.” - Congressman Percy Priest on the thousands of  paralytic illnesses provoked by the immunization and the many who died in the “Cutter Incident." The definition of polio was changed from a paralysis lasting more than 24 hours to one lasting more than 60 days in order to declare the immunization program a success 

When anyone tries to tell you that we are so much healthier than ever before and Americans have the best health care, they lie. The US did lead in good health in 1950, but since then our health has declined while our health costs have sky rocketed compared to our contemporaries in other countries. It's gotten particularly bad this century, with over half of our children suffering from a chronic illness and many more cases of paralysis diagnosed as Guillain-Barré Syndrome or Transverse Myelitis than ever before. Many of these GBS and TM victims require a ventilator, the modern version of an Iron Lung.... their number exceeds the 1950s polio victims.  

The Institute of Medicine wrote in their 2013 report U.S. Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health document that across all stratas, American health has been in decline since the 1950s.... you know what happened around 1950? As part of the "better living through chemistry" model promoted by our government, we started fluoridating our water, generously spraying poisons on our food and in our neighborhoods, and pushing drugs starting with the polio vaccine that provided an income to the government. Today, the CDC holds 56 vaccine and adjuvant patents and therefore makes money on every administration of these drugs.

I got very ill after that OPV vaccine. I missed months of school with a "kidney infection" and was unable to walk for several weeks. Couldn't be polio, but I was paralyzed. When recovered, I suffered fainting spells and horrible hay fever. I also needed glasse for the first time; my eyesight was shot. Same thing is going on in India today. Polio rates are down, but paralysis rates are up and paralysis associated deaths have doubled. As to that kidney infection, our government had known for several years that the polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40, a monkey kidney virus, but didn't want to waste the vaccines already manufactured or create any doubt in the public. SV40 virus is associated with several types of cancers with long latency, documented by the NIH and IOM. 

Whatever is going on overall, it's equal parts environmental and political. Government agencies and politicians are more interested in protecting profits than in protecting people. We have too many poisons in our water, food and medicines.... and FLUORIDE, which is in literally everything, is an inflammatory drug and adjuvant which intensifies the symptoms of any inflammatory or autoimmune disease. Get political! 

Start by signing and sharing:

1. Petition about fluoride: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/dietary-fluoride-and.fb48
2. Letter to Pres. Trump about pesticides in food and chronic illness among Americans:  http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/letter_to_trump?recruiter_id=96452 

REFERENCES: 

• 2017 CDC Patents: http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/examining-rfk-jrs-claim-cdc-owns-over-20-vaccine-patents 
• 2013 IOM report on declining US health:  http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13497/us-health-in-international-perspective-shorter-lives-poorer-health  
• 2002 IOM report on SV40, Polio Vaccinations and Cancer:
• https://www.nap.edu/read/10534/chapter/1 
• 2013 History of Polio in US: http://www.whale.to/c/DissolvingIllusions-Polio.pdf
• 2012 Paralysis and high death rates in India correlated with polio vaccines: http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/polio-free-does-not-mean-paralysis-free/article4266043.ece  

[CarryAnne]

“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts.” -  Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel laureate (1959)

“There’s no doubt that the intake of fluoridated water is going to interrupt basic functions of nerve cells in the brain, and this is certainly not going to be [for] the benefit of anybody……The addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake.” - Dr. Robert Isaacson, 2006 National Research Council panelist on Fluoride in Drinking Water (2007)

Six organizations plus several individuals filed a Citizen's Petition with the EPA on the topic of the neurotoxicity of fluoridation and the regulations of the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) in November 2016. The petition includes 46 pages of scientific citations specific to the neurotoxic effects of fluoride. I especially like section IX of the petition that points out that per scientific protocol, no potable water should be considered safe for consumption if it contains fluoride levels above point one parts per million, i.e. safe water concentrations should be set as < .1 ppm. 

The EPA has 90 days to respond. However, the best thing about this TSCA petition, other than further paving the way for lawsuits, is that it gives the EPA a way of ending fluoridation without addressing the naturally occuring or accidental contamination of water with fluoride which is the economic motivation for the high 4 ppm contaminant level found unsafe by the NRC in 2006 but still in effect. The TSCA regulation referenced only addresses the intentional addition of substances to water and EPA authority to act on the neurotoxicity science. 

See video, petition, and sign supporting letter: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/epa_fluoride_petition/ 

Also check out this podcast on Woman Power hosted by thyroid specialist Dr. Richard Shames on fluoridation neurotoxicity that features two moms and activists, one of whom signed the TSCA petition: 

http://www.iheart.com/show/209-WOMANPOWER/?episode_id=27861885

[CarryAnne]

“The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices.” - David L. Lewis, PhD, microbiologist (2014)

Have you seen the latest two exposes on fluoridation? 

Out of Israel, a social science team documents the misrepresentation of scientific  and historical fact by lobbyists and politicians in order to deceive the public and mandate a policy that benefits vested interests, but harms public health.  They call it "uncertainty bias" but I call it lies and bullying. August 2016 in Journal of Risk Research: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332 

Out of Scandinavia, team determines that incidence of Crohn's disease and other irritable bowel disease (IBD) experiences a sharp and significant uptick in  communities that fluoridate in Canada, the US, Australia and Wales. They also note that there is a similarly significantly higher rate of IBD in communities with naturally high levels of fluoride and in industrial workers exposed to fluoride on the job. People who brush their teeth frequently are more likely to suffer IBD, too. Plus, animal studies confirm, even low levels of fluoride inflames the bowels.  S**t! Vol 51, 2016 Issue 9 in Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365521.2016.1177855?journalCode=igas20 

[skanen144]

Fluoride accumulates lifelong in our bones. What makes a profluoridationist think it miraculously goes only to the teeth? Does the tooth fairy direct all the fluoride ion entering your bloodstream only to your teeth? Absurd! Bone sawed off my femur head during total hip replacement was ashed and measured 1500ppm as F. Analyzed by a reputable mineral lab because I couldn't find a medical lab offering F analysis of bone. I have many ailments (parathyroid and thyroid disease, kidney stones, osteoarthritis, dental fluorosis, GERD, uterine fibroids and prolapse, neurological problems such as loss of memory, hospitalized with acute pancreatitis, GI and bladder irritation) but AMA doctors have not recognized the contribution of chronic low level F poisoning even when I mentioned acute exposure to F gasses at work  as a chemist at a water treatment plant. Avoiding F for 3 years has slowly reversed many ailments especially normalizing parathyroid hormone levels, shrinking of thyroid goiter and  lowering of antibodies against my thyroid and GI issues.

Baby Boomers-connect the dots and awake up to the reality you have been part of an ill conceived human science experiment being lifelong exposed to chronic low level fluoride poisoning and many of the illnesses you currently experience are directly related to the level of your fluoride exposure lifelong. Protect yourself and loved ones now and avoid all the many exposures to fluoride.

[ri1666]

I appreciate this post very much. Thank you for drawing attention to these concerns! Many need help connecting the dots in this busy world.  

[CarryAnne]

“No school, college or independent medical research institution dares to be critical of fluoridation because they receive grants from the U.S. Public Health Service. Likewise, no big food, beverage or drug company will dare speak critically of fluoride because they are under the supervision of the FDA, a branch of the USPHS. One brewery official told me that their own research indicated grave questions about fluoridation, but they dare not speak out. As you know, the Food and Drug Administration can bankrupt any national food, beverage or drug company with a little adverse comment." - W .B. Hartsfield, mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, in Dental Survey (1961)

The politics of fluoridation promotion are staggering. The worst of the social media trolls formed a non-profit, bought an url, and are collecting grant money to continue to spew their lies. The "American Fluoridation Society" got at least $50,000 from Delta Dental. Delta Dental also funded a propaganda curriculum under the guise of "civic engagement" at Allegheny College that sent college students home ready to campaign in their home towns for fluoridation in order to help the poor kids. Doubt Delta Dental told these college students that hundreds of fluoridation studies during their lifetime prove that fluoridation inteferes with their ability to learn, disrupts their hormones, and does more harm to teeth than good. 

See April 2016 letter to National Governors Association from consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, water consultant Bob Bowcock, and "elite" whistleblower lawyer Michael Kohn regarding the  propaganda efforts to politicize fluoridation in order to drown out the science: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/brockovich-2016.pdf  

[CarryAnne]

“The current system in the United States for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is fundamentally broken,” - Project TNDR (Targeting Environmental Developmental Risks) 2016

“There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain…Communities of color and the underserved are disproportionately harmed by fluorides." - Mark Hyman, MD (2016)

Incredulously, the fluoridationist profiteers and their shills are not only continuing to pour millions of dollars into supporting this policy, they have managed to kill a CNN medical expose on fluoridation and are tying Medicaid dollars to fluoridation even as more studies are proving connections between fluoride consumption and increases in diabetes and irritable bowel disease. 

• 2016 in Scandanavian Journal of Gastronology Fluoride: a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? found statistical spikes in diagnoses of Crohn's and other IBD in America, Canada, Australia and Wales shortly after communities fluoridated.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199224 

• 2016 in Journal of Water and Health Community water fluoridation predicts increase in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence of diabetes in 22 states from 2005 and 2010 found that NaF, which is not only used to fluoridate water supplies but is also prescribed to children living in non-fluoridated communities, spikes diabetes.   http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/cwru-fcl081716.php

Folks - this is serious. Phone and email AARP executives and DEMAND the AARP use their power in Congress and with state officials to end the poisoning of our water supplies! 

[CarryAnne]

All I want for Christmas is for my water not to be poisoned! 

The arrogance of lazy lawmakers and corrupt regulators astounds me. Not only has the Institute of Medicine refused to respond to the April 2015 letter signed by consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, Wm. Ingram president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, David Matthews of Matthews & Associates, and others, but also Congress hasn't made a single request that the IOM do so. 

Sign this petition demanding a response to that letter: http://petitions.moveon.org/s/sVCrGR

Letter: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf  

Please share the link to the petition with your friends and family on Facebook and via Twitter.