Repeating bad science on fluoride

Anti-fluoride propagandists have been trumpetting a new “peer reviewed” scientific paper in their campaign against fluoride. Most of them don’t seem to realise that the claim is not new – just a re-presentation of claims from a paper they already promote ad nuseam (the Harvard study – see Quality and selection counts in fluoride research). Then again, if they did know – would that stop them from such double dipping for their “evidence?”

It’s the old  “fluoride decreases chidren’s IQ” claim. It’s already resulted in a host of claims on blogs, facebook and Twitter and will no doubt produce more in the future. We are sure to see more tweets like these:

SusieOMG (@OmgSusie)
Children Exposed to Brain-Harming Chemicals Fluoride from Drinking Water Can Contribute to a Seven-Point Drop IQ” shar.es/FfXNn
Chad Kanera (@chadkanera)
@RT_com: Children exposed to more brain-damaging chemicals than scientists thought shrd..by/sYrtNq#fluoride is one.

It started with a press release from the Harvard School of Public Health - Growing number of chemicals linked with brain disorders in children. This promoted a paper which went on-line  less than a week ago - Grandjean & Landrigan (2014) The Lancet Neurology, 13(3) 330 – 338, March 2014. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity.

On the surface – just another paper reviewing evidence for harmful effects of industrial chemicals on child development.

The paper contains only one reference to fluoride – a shonky reference at that (see below) but this ensures that even though main stream media reports mostly didn’t mention fluoride the anti-fluoride brigade are promoting any and every report as if they did.

What do they say about fluoride – and why?

Here is the only mention of fluoride:

“A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fl uoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose–response association would be desirable.”

Their sole reference – 44:

Choi, AL; Sun, G; Zhang, Y; Grandjean, P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 2012; 120: 1362–68.

Yes, its the paper that get’s the most tweeting, facebooking and blogging from anti-fluoride activists – the paper I analysed in Quality and selection counts in fluoride research. The review that based its conclusion on a few less than randonmnly selected poor quality papers.

Some of the mainstream reports are awake to problems with this new paper.

“In Chemicals erode child IQ: disputed study Health Hub wrote:

“Other experts, however, said the paper had limitations and was based on an array of previously published surveys of varying reliability.

“Because the paper lacks rigour, it is impossible to assess the validity of the authors’ claims, many of which seem highly speculative,” said David Coggon of the University of Southampton’s Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit.

“The conclusions of more focused and thorough reviews have been less alarming,” he said.

Others said autism, ADHD, cerebral palsy and dyslexia have not been definitively associated with industrial chemical exposure.

As for fluoride:

“In comments prepared by the Science Media Centre, epidemiologist Jean Golding of the University of Bristol accused the pair [Grandjean and Landrigan] of issuing scare statements.

“To implicate high fluoride, which they quote as one of the new chemicals… they quote only one paper; this only compares the mean IQs of children in villages with different levels of fluoride, with no allowance made for any other differences, and no actual measurement of fluoride in individual children and comparison with their IQs. This is not good evidence.””

Another poor quality paper?

Attentive readers may notice that Philippe Grandjean is senior author on both this current paper, and the review mentioned in Quality and selection counts in fluoride research.

Warning signals – here is an author relying excusively on his own work to draw a conclusion that fluoride has been confirmed to be detrimental to child IQ! What’s more, his qualifications about confounding factor have dissapeared in the 18 months between the two papers. A case of double dipping his data and removing qualifications second time around.

In the first paper,  Choi et al (2012), Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis, they wrote:

Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious ones, that limit the conclusions that can be drawn. However, most deficiencies relate to the reporting of where key information was missing. The fact that some aspects of the study were not reported limits the extent to which the available reports allow a firm conclusion. Some methodological limitations were also noted.”

and

“most reports were fairly brief and complete information on covariates was not available,”

On other possible factors possibly influencing IQ they wrote:

“Information on the child’s sex and parental education were not reported in > 80% of the studies, and only 7% of the studies reported household income. These variables were therefore not included in the models.”

and

“Although official reports of lead concentrations in the study villages in China were not available,”

In fact the only other factors considered were year of publication and mean age of the study children! All those qualifications above were thrown away in the intervening period and in Grandjean & Landrigan (2014) Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity he claims:

“Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies.

Frankly I call that misleading – especially as he lists fluoride as a “newly identified “industrial chemical known to cause neuorotoxicity!” I don’t have the expertise to comment on the other chemicals he claims neurotoxic but this example makes me really suspicious. I could not rely on this paper with any confidence as a source of information on chemicaltoxicity.


Note: The American Council on Science and Health went further in their criticisms of Grandjean and Landrigan’s paper than other commenters seem to have. In the article Upholding its tradition, a new Lancet piece on chemicals aims to scare rather than inform they question the authors’ credibility in toxicology. Instead they are:

“experts in the subject of trying to scare parents and the media about remote or hypothetical chemical threats. In this case, they wave the skull-and-crossbones banner of a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.”  If they hoped to garner media attention — and they surely did — they succeeded beyond expectations: fright is in the air.”

Their Executive Director and Medical Director Dr Gil Ross says of the paper:

“This piece in essence is simply a call for the precautionary principle: if there is ‘concern’ about a chemical — or substance, or behavior — then ban or restrict it until/unless it can be proven ‘safe.’ But when applied to the tens of thousands of chemicals in our environment, our commerce, and our consumer products, if applied as these authors demand, it would require a complete abandonment of our way of life, period. They don’t seem to care, or even take notice. But why should they: they got what they wanted, publicity and scare-mongering adherents.”

Actually, his comments on the journal, The Lancet, weren’t too complimentary either.

Similar articles

About these ads

292 responses to “Repeating bad science on fluoride

  1. “experts in the subject of trying to scare parents and the media about remote or hypothetical chemical threats.”
    Ouch. That’s gotta sting.
    More seriously – well spotted, Ken.

    Like

  2. Thanks for your great review since I can’t get access to the full text, and this thing is all over Facebook. The best objection to fluoride I’ve heard is that the additive used at water treatment plants comes from China (where sometimes lax quality control in other product areas has been well documented), and no one independently tests the additive before it’s put into our drinking water in the U.S. (or so they say). Hence, I was surprised to see this paper cited all over the place. Thanks for your excellent review.

    Like

  3. For me the best argument for the safety of fluoride in drinking water is the fact that tea (camellia sinensis) infusions naturally contain levels of fluoride much higher than fluoridated drinking water, about 4 mg per liter.[1]

    Tea consumption, however, is consistantly and dose-dependently associated with neuroprotective and other beneficial health effects. Not because of the flouride, but (probably) because of the polyphenols it contains, but the flouride at least doesn’t seem to interfere with its benefits.

    Like

  4. This is actually very good science.
    Fluoride is very toxic.
    But the main issue that I have is that there is NO consent obtained from the population or individuals to their forced medication. This is perfectly illegal, and I, as a physician woould lose my license for doing so.
    I have personnally stopped using tap water. And recommend same to all my connections.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Steve – we have just had a High Court judgement here which rejected the argument that fluoridation is medication.

    However, could you please tell me why you say this paper’s claim is “very good science?” What specifically is wrong with my analysis?

    Sure fluoride is toxic – at high concentrations! Like many things which are beneficial at low concentrations.

    Like

  6. “Sure fluoride is toxic – at high concentrations! Like many things which are beneficial at low concentrations.” [Homeopathic theorem right there.]
    All I ask you is where and how do the water companies get the silica fluoride? It is not made in a scientific laboratory. If you think using a toxic industrial waste product from aluminium smelters and fertiliser chimneys is sound science, then you may have consumed too much of it already. Fluoride is working at making people dumber and sicker than ever without any critical questioning. Why can’t we question the science without being called nutjobs? Indeed you may be wrong about this subject, and likewise it may just be me and my gut that’s got it all wrong.
    Regardless I try and avoid it as much as possible, I’m a healthy skeptic.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. David, I don’t see your logic in talking about a “homeopathic theorem.” Very many elements are toxic at high concentrations or high intake yet beneficial at lower concentrations and intake.

    Nor can I understand why you seem to think that fluorosilicates produced as a by-product of phosphate production is something to be upset about – as if they were any different to what could be produced in a lab.

    You claim to be a “healthy sceptic.” That is good (but then why make such silly claims about fluoride making us “dumber and sicker” and accuse me of consuming to much fluoride? – that does not come across as healthy or sceptical)

    Now no one has called you a nut-job here (yet) and of course we must always question science – but do it on the basis of evidence and reason.

    I am happy to discuss the issue rationally with you – but enough of such extreme statements. Stick to the evidence.

    Like

  8. If you think using a toxic industrial waste product from aluminium smelters and fertiliser chimneys is sound science, then you may have consumed too much of it already.

    It’s simply a sensible sourcing decision.

    Perhaps David thinks it a better idea to scorn a cheap source of fluoride and replace it with an expensive source of exactly the same thing. What’s the bet that it would be even better if it was made by Steve!

    Like

  9. Dr. Dean Burk – Fluoride Causes Cancer Put his Name and Reputation on the Line to confirmation Fluoride Causes Cancer. Something things to consider the next time one decides to drink water with fluoride http://anewsreporter.weebly.com/fluoride.html

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Fail.
    Consider this

    Dr. Dean Burk, college of Yiamouyiannis and bogus (laetrile) cancer cure promoter.

    http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Nonrecorg/nhf.html#burk

    In 1974, NHF announced that opposing fluoridation would be its number two priority and that a biochemist named John Yiamouyiannis had been hired to “break the back” of fluoridation. Yiamouyiannis soon began issuing reports based on misinterpreted government statistics, claiming that fluoridation causes cancer. He was joined in this effort by Dean Burk, a retired National Cancer Institute employee who was also a leading promoter of laetrile. In 1980, Yiamouyiannis left NHF and founded another group whose structure and activities were similar. Although NHF remains opposed to fluoridation, it has had little political involvement since Yiamouyiannis departed.

    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

    The NCI Scientist

    Although facing problems on some fronts, the Laetrile movement gained adherents. Dr. Dean Burk was a biochemist with a Ph.D. from Cornell Medical College who had joined the National Cancer Institute (NCI) in 1939 as a research fellow. After ten years he was appointed as Head of NCI’s Cytochemistry Section, which had a staff of four persons at the time of his retirement 25 years later.

    At McNaughton’s request, Burk did an experiment in which Laetrile was used to kill a tissue culture of cancer cells. He reported to McNaughton that he could “see the cancer cells dying off like flies.” Eventually Burk concluded that Laetrile was the most effective treatment available for cancer, that it relieved the pain of terminal cancer victims, and that it might be useful in preventing cancer. He also claimed in Congressional testimony that Laetrile was less toxic than sugar. Burk became fast friends with Krebs, Jr., and was given a permanent room in Krebs’ San Francisco mansion. He was soon on the “Laetrile circuit” and was given the Cancer Control Society’s “Humanitarian Award” in 1973.

    Burk also became active in opposing fluoridation and spoke against it in many cities throughout the United States and Europe. An inveterate tobacco user, he claimed in Congressional testimony that he had developed a safer cigarette.

    Like

  11. Christopher Atkinson

    Hi David – you are David?

    Odd how someone calling himself “John Unwin” posted the exact post (above) you did yesterday on the Making Sense of Fluoride fb page….

    are you real steve?

    sigh…yet more anti-fluoridationists hiding behind false names…

    Like

  12. yet more anti-fluoridationists hiding behind false names

    Speaking of which, I belatedly realised that in replying to bojangles in another thread, I had in fact been replying to Trevor Crosbie/Trevor Nutter/bojanglessomething.
    At least 3 different names used by him in here. I find that quite discourteous.

    Like

  13. This hiding behind names must result from a conspiracy theory obsession. There doesn’t seem to be a rational purpose.

    >

    Like

  14. Joanna

    Something to consider next time one relies upon filtered and edited “information” from antifluoridationist websites, instead of exerting the minimal amount of effort required to obtain accurate information from legitimate sources:

    There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.

    A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.

    ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982

    • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

    —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
    ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005, http://www.sfdph.org/phes/ water/fluoride/Osteosarcoma_fluoride fact_sheet.pdf

    Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.

    ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999. Available at http//www. nhmrc.gov.au/advice/pdfcover/fluocov. htm, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.

    The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.

    ——-McDonagh M S, et al., Systemic review of water fluoridation. BMJ, 2000. 321.

    A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).

    ——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.

    ——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.

    ——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.

    Steven D. Slott

    Like

  15. David

    The reason that antifluoridationists are called “nutjobs” and other such things is because they refuse to acknowledge the science of fluoridation, they refuse to access accurate information from respectable, legitimate sources, and they spread half-truths and nonsensical information about this very beneficial public initiative. Frequently they invoke conspiracy nonsense instead of science, and make so many ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims that it is hard to keep up with all of them. They answer to no one for the misinformation they constantly and irresponsibly put forth, are not held accountable for their often intentional misleading of the public, and tend to say and spread their nonsense with impunity.

    Your questioning of the silica fluoride is an excellent example. Instead of properly researching the issue, you simply regurgitate nonsense you have gleaned off of antifluoridationist websites and blogs about their favorite misnomer, “toxic waste”. This is nothing but pure laziness and a demonstration that you care not one bit about truth and accuracy in regard to this issue. You read bits and pieces which confirm your bias and then spread them around as if they were fact.

    Had you bothered to do even a modicum of proper research on this issue, you would have discovered that it makes no difference from where the silicafluoride comes. The only water with which we are concerned is that which we consume or otherwise utilize……in other words, water from the tap. As long as the water from the tap meets all safety standards, then it makes not single bit of difference from where the additives sources. Fluoridated water at the tap in the U.S. meets ALL of the stringent certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation, as mandated by the EPA. If it didn’t it wouldn’t be allowed. It’s as simple as that.

    I’m not familiar with the water safety regulations of New Zealand, but I do know that they are no less stringent than those of the U.S. If fluoridated water at the tap did not meet the water safety standards of New Zealand, it would not be allowed. It’s as simple as that.

    So, how about dispensing with the silicafluoride source, China, “toxic waste” etc. red herrings, do some proper research of your own, and cease spreading misinformation and nonsense about this public health initiative. Okay?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  16. Steve

    If you are a physician, it is truly difficult to imagine where you got your education. No properly educated, informed, intelligent physician would buy into the “forced medication/informed consent” nonsense fabricated by antifluoridationists. Too, at least in the United States, absence of “informed consent” if it becomes an issue with a treatment, is grounds for civil action, and possible action of some sort by state licensing boards, but, depending on the seriousness of the outcome, is certainly not grounds for automatic loss of license. This is just typical uninformed antifluoridationist rhetoric.

    I highly question that you are a physician.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  17. Bruce, do you have trouble reading? The article was about the specific paper mentioned in the article you linked to. Do you go around blindly putting links into comments like this?

    What about commenting on my article? It after all criticises the paper you are promoting. Or have you not even read the paper?

    Like

  18. Actually Ken, I put it there for you to read as I am not sure you gleaned the finer points and thought perhaps you should read it…if indeed you had not. I am puzzled why you shill continue to beat on a dog that is well beyond it years. Fluoride is on its way out as it should be. It does not prevent cavities and perhaps people like you and the Pew Charitable Trust are afraid that if a certain area discontinues poisoning its citizens…and there is no increase in dental caries, that your big charade will be over. In fact that is exactly what is happening for the world to know. Ireland is a perfect example. What is in it for you, Ken. I can not imagine anyone with any degree of intelligence can continue this dark mark on humanity. Unless of course anyone whom is subject to a licensing board or trade association must follow rank. “Yessr Boss. Whatever Alcoa say” They are going to hang people like you.

    Like

  19. Bruce, what are these “finer points” you think I have not gleaned?

    Or perhaps you yourself have not actually read the paper? Tell me – how many times is F mentioned in the paper?

    And you have made absolutely no specific criticism of my article. Perhaps you don’t understand it?

    Like

  20. I knew you would ask; so here is just one of them. Weighing what is within against the possibility of reduced cavities in children. Are you nuts?

    /home/bog/Downloads/Health-impacts-of-Fluoride-case-study-Ireland-Apr-2013.pdf

    Like

  21. As I thought, Bruce, you haven’t read the paper.

    Like

  22. Kenny, Kenny, Kenny. Please do not make yourself look foolish by speculating on what you possibly can not know. Yes, I have read the paper and not just the summary describing the paper itself. If the best you can do in debate is to refer to the number of times it is pointed out by the author that fluoride can be scientifically related to Neurodevelopmental disabilities, then you have already proven my case for summary judgment.

    Your article? Don’t flatter yourself. When you keep begging to learn whether someone has read your literary drivel, you resemble a two year old who had left a poop in the toilet for approval of the ‘soon-to-be doting adults’ Frankly, your regurgitation is not quite that interesting. We have all heard your tired old endorsements and claims. Talk about some poo poo.

    Like

  23. Steve Slott

    Bruce, I agree with Ken. From your comments, it seems highly doubtful that you have even read the paper, much less understood any of it. Your transparent attempt to cover, with abusive bluster, your glaring deficiency of knowledge on the issue is very telling.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  24. Bruce hasn’t read the paper. Bruce is dumb.

    (,,.,points at Bruce and laughs….)

    Like

  25. Cedric. Childish. And Steven, is there anything anyone can say that you do not intend to criticize, ridicule, or condemn? So why should I bother. I could say black and you would say white and frankly I have better things to do than to argue with someone who is stuck in their belief system…as I am…so you can just go right ahead make your silly little points by suggesting I have not read something… which Kenny boy has already made the incorrect assumption. You seem to think that the world is behind you when in fact you are fighting a losing battle.

    What is it that you blockheads have against pure water? You claim it is safe at any level. Does a receptionist get the sameu dosage as a water guzzling asphalt layer? If it is safe for her, then is it safe for he whom drinks 5 times more than she?

    You can shout your mantras all you want. I can’t believe anyone would believe them. Fluoride cause more harm than good and if you want to give children dental fluorosis then give it to the children of the parents to stupid to know the harm. Fluoride is a toxin. I don’t give a damn how much you dilute it. Why don’t you just go back to stuffing peoples mouths full of mercury. That is another safe little killer. Jerk!

    Run your mouth all you want but do it to someone else because I am going to unfollow this tired old conversation and I will not see any of your garbage. If you must do it for your ego, blab on. I just won’t be seeing it.

    Like

  26. Steve Slott

    Bruce, I don’t seem to find a single word of any substance in this latest temper tantrum of yours. Do you have anything of any intelligence to contribute to the discussion? Any facts which you can support with valid evidence? Evidently not since you’ve decided to pack up your toys and leave.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  27. Christopher Atkinson

    Why don’t you just go back to stuffing peoples mouths full of mercury. That is another safe little killer. Jerk!

    You are an interesting case aren’t you Bruce!?

    Like

  28. Hmm, typical, it’s what happens when science deniers are asked for evidence to support their assertions.

    Like

  29. I need to understand why so many of you defend fluoridating water. It’s creepy. The government as well as the scientific community used to spray people with DDT because they believed it was safe. It was even taught in our colleges that it was safe. Asbestos also used to be “safe.” So why do we continue to believe that EVERYTHING we learn in college MUST be true? Why are so many of you so dismissive of those who question this topic? It should be discontinued based on ethics alone, screw the “science.” Steven Slott, YOUR a DDS, do you know what ethics are? I now MDs are supposed to know about ethics but judging from your comments, I’m not sure dentists do. By the way, spare these people your patronizing “I’m a DDS” bull crap… YOUR A DENTIST, not an MD.

    T. Turner, current student soon to be doctor of Physical Therapy GPA: 3.6

    See Steven I can be pretentious too.

    Like

  30. Turner, if you are honest in your claim of needing to understand then you would ask questions, listen and read what people say. You don’t do this so all I can conclude is that this is not an honest declaration but a silly attempt to ridicule people you disagree with.

    You do not even seem to be capable of advancing your own point of view on the subject.

    Like

  31. Steve Slott

    Turner

    For one who portends to be a candidate for a healthcare degree, your ignorance is appalling. Have you not learned even the basics of proper research? Apparently not.

    I sign each and every comment with my full name and degree for the purpose of full disclosure as to who I am and to what is my perspective, such that intelligent readers may evaluate my comments with that understanding. Whether they view a DDS as good, bad, or in/between, is of no concern to me, whatsoever. That you deem this to be “pretentious” is a clear sign of your own immaturity, inferiority complex, and ignorance.

    My advice to you is to first grow up, and second to remain in school until you at least learn the basics of scientific research. Right now it seems you have a long way to go on both counts.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  32. Turner, on this topic of fluoridation this blog has been overwhelmingly concerned with exposing and correcting (wilful) misrepresentation of science and data.

    This is not “defending” fluoridation of water, as that is a decision for each community or nation and should be based on best practice science and upon the ethics surrounding public health initiatives.

    Please speak up if you fail to grasp the point I make.

    Your attack on Steve Slott has already been called out for what it is.

    Like

  33. Bill Kelleher

    I think anyone who defends the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid to the public water supply is an idiot. I used to be nice about it. I know I’m breaking the sacred internet rule of no ad hominem attacks, but seriously… that shit is an industrial waste byproduct from the smokestack scrubbers of phosphate fertilizer plants. It is not processed or purified in any way prior to being added to the water supply. It has been confirmed by independent laboratory analysis to be 18-19% fluoride, upwards of 40% aluminum and also contains contaminants such as lead, arsenic, cadmium and mercury. It has NEVER been safety tested nor approved for human consumption. You people are morons.

    Like

  34. Bill, could you produce this “independent analysis” for us? I am sure the sample did not contain 40% Al. Nor would it contain significant contamination of arsenic, cadmium and mercury as regulations cover the maximum allowable amounts of these.

    Have a look at the article Fluoridation: emotionally misrepresenting contamination. This summarises actual contamination levels from a large number of certificates if analysis of fluorosilicic acid.

    I suggest you check out these facts before going around abusing people. You have been misinformed and really should be more critical in what you read.

    Like

  35. Bill Kelleher

    Some interesting reading for Dr. Slott: 2006 NRC Report on water fluoridation. EPA scientists union statement on water fluoridation. Or how about the 1986-87 NIDR study of 39,207 children aged 5-17 from 86 regions in the US? They were divided into 3 groups based upon the fluoridation status of their region– fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated. They found no statistically significant difference in the level of tooth decay across the three groups. When I first got into medicine 24 years ago, I learned that you need to give the right drug at the right dose for the right duration. You cannot control the dose of fluoride someone receives. “Low concentration” is meaningless. It is the total dose received. Even the CDC and HHS have recognized the overfluoridation of our population by recommending the safe level be lowered from 0.7-1.2ppm to a cap of 0.7ppm. This was based primarily on rates of dental fluorosis, which is brushed aside as a “cosmetic issue” by pro-fluoride apologists. If you think that dental fluorosis is an isolated issue in an individual who has been over fluoridated, and that systemic fluoride does not also affect bones and other body systems in these individuals, then you have a serious failure of logic.

    Like

  36. Bill, the 2006 NRC report was not on fluoridation. It was specifically about the issue of reducing the EP maximum level of 4 ppm F.

    Fluoride is actually an normal and natural component of bioapatites, our bones and teeth. Problems arise if there is too little or too much – a common issue with essential or beneficial micro-elements. It is not honest to use evidence from research of high levels of fluoride to critique water fluoridation. Which uses lower optimum, levels. See my last article Toxicity is in the dose or concentration of fluoride

    Like

  37. Bill Kelleher

    Abusing people, Ken? Thank you for providing NZ’s standard, but I live in the US. Nice quote from the NZ publication, though: 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.2 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.3.4 DELIVERY PackagingandShipping Fluoride compounds are toxic and should be handled with care. Suppliers of fluoride compounds must comply with the relevant regulations for classification, marking, packaging, labelling and transporting of material, including the Toxic Substances Regulations 1983 and NZS5433:1988, Code of Practice for the Transport of Hazardous Substances on Land.”

    Ken, please provide me the FDA approval letter for the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid for human consumption. And while you’re at it, please address my other post. As for the independent analysis, it was from the work of PhD toxicologist Dr. Phyllis Mullenix presented at the IAOMT in 2009.

    Like

  38. Bill Kelleher

    Ken, here is Dr. Mullenix’s presentation. At approximately the 1 hour and 5 minute mark, she presents the lab data on HFS samples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eou_UMhHlm4&app=desktop. It’s quite informative, you just may learn something about the toxicology of fluoride.

    Like

  39. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride was charged with evaluating the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, for adequacy of protection of the public against adverse effects. After a detailed, exhaustive 3 year review of all pertinent literature on fluoride, this Committee made but one final recommendation….to lower the EPA primary MCL for fluoride down from the current level of 4.0 ppm. The sole stated reasons for this recommendation were concerns with severe dental fluorosis and bone fracture with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. No other reasons. Had the Committee deemed any other concerns to be a threat to the public at levels below 4.0 ppm, it would have stated so. It did not. Additionally, the Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary level of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level that the 2006 NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower.

    In 2013, in response to continued twisting of his words by antifluoridationists, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride, made the following statement:

    “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”
    —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

    The EPA Union was nothing more than a few members attending a meeting of a small union who voted to support the antifluoridationist activities of its then leader, William Hirzy, the discredited current paid lobbyist for the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN. This union went defunct shortly after that vote, and most certainly did not speak for the EPA.

    As far as your attempt to use out-of-context information from the Iowa study to support your position, i will gladly cite as many peer-reviewed scientific studies as you would like, which clearly demonstrate he effectiveness of fluoridation. Just let me know.

    When I first got into dentistry 32 years ago, I learned to rely on accurate information from proper sources, and to get my facts straight before making a fool of myself by making ignorant statements. Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let’s go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg “dose” of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or “dose” from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day. 

    The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.

    The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

    http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf

    The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to water fluoridation is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.

    —-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
    Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH

    http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long

    If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects on “bones and other body systems” as a result of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, then properly cite it. Your personal opinion of that which constitutes a “failure of logic”, does not qualify as such.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  40. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    Mullinex was completely refuted by Ross and Daston:

    “In summary, much of the ambiguity in the interpretation of these results could have been avoided with information from two concurrent or historical control groups: 1) a group to define the behavioral signature  resulting from long term adulteration of the drinking water, and 2) a group to define the behavioral signature of animals with hippocampal damage in this testing system.  Such controls are an essential feature of test validation and experimental design.  Novel behavioral chemicals of unknown toxicity are dosed, and all possible results interpreted as neurotoxicity.  Instead, both positive and negative control materials should be evaluated, and the results linked with well-characterized functional and morphological indices of neurotoxicity. 

    We appreciate the opportunity to provide our interpretations of this study.  We do not believe that the study by Mullenex et al. can be interpreted in any way as indicating the potential for NaF to be a neurotoxicant”

    Dr. Joseph F. Ross, D.V.M., Ph.D
    Dr. GeorgeP. Daston, Ph.D.

    Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 685-686, 1995

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  41. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    The FDA has no authority over fluoridated water. This regulatory authority is entirely under the EPA.

    Hyfrofluorosilic acid does not exist at the tap in fluoridated water. It is not ingested. It is of no concern, whatsoever. As HFA is not consumed by any sane human, there is no reason, or need, for approval by the the FDA or anyone else.

    “Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation. These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance to be evaluated is the fluoride ion (F-).”

    ——SCHER, Opinion on critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water – 16 May 2011.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  42. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    In regard to your “YouTube” reference of a presentation to the IAOMT:

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

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology

    It would not be at all surprising if you were a member of this group.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  43. Bill Kelleher

    Steve, have they refuted everything Mullenix has said/done? Which specific study of hers are they discussing in your quote? Have they refuted that it is a potent enzyme inhibitor? Surely you’re not going to argue that it’s not. The black box warnings on fluoroquniolone antibiotics with regard to tendon rupture speak to just this issue. It disrupts collagen production and weakens connective tissue.Has anyone refuted Jennifer Luke’s work demonstrating high concentrations of fluoride in the pineal gland?

    And no, I’m not a member of that group. If you’d like to continue ingesting a substance whose mode of action is topical in a systemic manner, you go right ahead.

    You mentioned the Iowa study? I presume you’re talking about the NIDR study I quoted. If you have a refutation of it, by all means, supply it. The same trend bears out when you look at fluoridated vs non-fluoridated countries.

    As many studies as you can come up with, i can supply more to match. I can supply them across a broad range. Interference with neurotransmitter production, melatonin production, increase in fractures, the list goes on and on.

    In fairness and full disclosure, I make no money from my “anti-fluoridation” activities. How much money do you make each year through providing fluoride treatments, and how much, if any, are you paid by the pro-fluoride lobby?

    Like

  44. Bill Kelleher

    According to the DHHS’ own figures, the average person ingests 1.6-6.6mg of fluoride per day, which is pretty close to what you are stating. I believe this estimate to be low due to people consuming commercial drinks reconstituted with fluoridated water, fluoride based pesticides still being used on certain food crops, for those who smoke, fluoride in the tobacco, etc. But let’s just use the DHHS’ figures for argument’s sake. Fluoride was previously used as a medication for hyperthyroidism, because it displaces iodine in the thyroid (as do other halide compounds such as chlorine and bromine). It is known to suppress thyroid function. The dose typically used was 2-5mg per day, over a 6 month period– in some cases, up to 10mg.

    Richard Shames, MD (a real doctor), the author of a number of books on the thyroid, has this to say: “We know that 4 or 5 mg per day of fluoride is too much, but the problem is that no one knows how much people are actually getting. Those who exercise and drink a lot of water, bathe frequently, swim in pools, etc. or use fluoridated toothpaste or mouthrinses, may be overexposed to fluoride without realizing it.”

    This comes down to the main problem with fluoride. You cannot control the dose. Do you have long term studies to quote demonstrating the safety of 5-10mg or more per day? What control group are they going to use for that study? Even if people drink purified water that has been de-fluoridated, they still ingest it unknowingly in commercial drinks, in their food, toothpaste and other sources.

    Now correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the EPA Minimum risk Level 0.06mg/kg? That would mean for an average 70kg person that 4.2mg per day would being to put them at risk, would it not?

    Like

  45. Bill Kelleher

    Incidentally, although HHS recommended a few years ago (2010, I believe ?) to lower the fluoridation rate from a range of 0.7ppm-1.2ppm down to a cap of 0.7ppm, that recommendation has yet to be followed by the majority of fluoridating communities in the US. The county I just moved from was still at 1ppm. Thankfully, I now have a private well on my property that I filter.

    Like

  46. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    I properly cited Ross and Daston. Look it up, if you know how, for answers to your questions.

    There is no substance known to man which s not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. Let’s stick to that which is relevant to fluoride at the concentration at which it is utilized in fluoridated water, 0.7 ppm. Okay?

    If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any disruption of enzyme inhibition or collagen production as a result of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, then properly cite it.

    I have no need to refute Levy, simply to expose your use of out-of-context information from his Iowa study:

    “Results:Caries incidence was quite low except on the firstmolar occlusal surfaces. In initial models of specific risk factors, incidence was positively associated with the surface having a D1lesion at baseline, low family income, having untreated decay or fillings on other teeth at baseline, lower home water fluoride level, and higher soda pop consumption. In the final multiple variablemodel, significant interactions were found between tooth brushing frequency and initial D1 status, and also between
    family income and home tap water fluoride level.
    Conclusions:
    D2+F incidence on first molar occlusal surfaces in these young adoles-
    cents was associated with prior caries experience on other teeth as well as prior evidence of a D1 lesion on the occlusal surface. More frequent tooth brushing was protective of sound surfaces, and fluoride in home tap water was also protective, but significantly more so for adolescents in low-income families.”

    —–Factors associated with surface-level caries incidence in children aged 9 to 13: the Iowa Fluoride Study
    Barbara Broffitt, MS, Steven M. Levy, DDS, MPH, JohnWarren, DDS, MS
    Joseph E. Cavanaugh, PhD,
    Preventive & Community Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
    Department of Biostatistics, University of Iowa College of Public Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
    Journal of Public Health Dentistry . ISSN 0022-4006

    In regard to Luke:

    “A single researcher has published one study in a peer reviewed scientific journal regarding fluoride accumulation in the pineal gland. The purpose of the study was to discover whether fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland of older adults. This limited study, conducted on only 11 cadavers whose age at death was 82 years, indicated that fluoride deposited in the pineal gland was significantly linked to the amount of calcium in the pineal gland. It would not be unexpected to see higher levels of calcium in the pineal gland of older individuals as this would be considered part of a normal aging process. As discussed in Question 22, approximately 99% of the fluoride present in the body is associated with hard or calcified tissues.(192) The study concluded fluoride levels in the pineal gland were not indicators of long term fluoride exposure.(252)

    The same researcher has theorized in unpublished reports posted on the internet that the accumulation of fluoride in children’s pineal gland leads to an earlier onset of puberty. However, the researcher notes that there is no verification that fluoride accumulates in children’s pineal glands. Moreover, a study conducted in Newburgh (fluoridated) and Kingston (non-fluoridated), New York found no statistical significance between the onset of menstruation for girls living in a fluoridated verses non-fluoridated area.(253)

    —-Fluoridation Facts
    American Dental Association , 2005

    192. Whitford GM. The physiological and toxicological characteristics of fluoride. J Dent Res 1990;69(Spec Iss):539-49

    251. Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Pineal gland. Access December 29, 2004

    252. Luke J. Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Res 2001;35:125-28.

    253. Schlesinger ER, Overton DE, Chase HC, Cantwell KT. Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study XIII: pediatric findings after ten years. J Am Dent Assoc 1956;52:296-306.

    The mode of action of fluoride is both topical and systemic. First, the mild dental fluorosis which antifluoridationists constantly attempt to trump up into a major disorder, can only occur systemically through ingestion of fluoride. As previously noted, Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, a definite benefit. Second:

    “Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel (12,13). As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface (14). The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate (12,15–19) (Figure 1). Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel (20). Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”

    —-http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

    Instead of providing hollow claims, as antifluoridationists frequently do, that you can come up with studies, properly cite any that you believe support your position. Please cite only those which are relevant to fluoride at the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.

    In regard to your typical antifluoridationist obsession with money, money, money, I know of no fluoridation proponent, certainly influding myself, whol profits in any manner , whatsoever, from advocation for the public health initiative of water fluoridation.

    Just to point out your hypocrisy, here are the only ones Of whom I’m aware that actually DO profit from keeping this issue alive:

    1.  Paul Connett, the Director of the antifluoridationist group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), long time antifluoridationist zealot-   Paul’s non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, sells for $25 per copy.  Paul claims that he donates all royalties he receives from his book sales, to his non-profit group, FAN.  Given that FAN presumably pays all or part of Paul’s fluoride chasing trips all over the United Stated, to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and anywhere else he chooses to visit, this “donation” would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.

    Additionally, both Paul and his wife receive monthly payments of $1,000 each from the umbrella organization under which FAN operates.

    2.  William Hirzy- the long time antifluoridationist, and close Connett affiliate, Hirzy, is the paid lobbyist for Connett’s group, FAN.

    3. Attorney James Deal- close Connett affiliate, and donor  to FAN, Deal, maintains a website devoted soley to attempts at stirring up  class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably profit in the delusionary dream that he would ever succeed. 

    4.  Alex Jones- Connett  affiliate, and syndicated, controversial radio host, Jones, of “Infowars” infamy, is now pushing, for $39.95  a solution called “FluorideShield”

    According to Jones’ website:
    “Introducing Fluoride Shield™, an Infowars Life exclusive blend of key herbs and ingredients specifically infused within the formula to help support the elimination of toxic forms of fluoride and other dangerous compounds like mercury, chlorine, and bromine from within the body.”

    ——http://www.infowarsshop.com/Fluoride-Shield_p_1223.html

    5.  Whatever may be paid to Connett’s son, Michael, for his “services” to FAN as well as to any other Connett family members and/or friends.

    As FAN operates under the umbrella of another non-profit organization, the FAN financials lack the transparency as would normally be expected of any such non-profit organization dependent on public donations, and exempt from federal income taxes.  

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  47. EVEN if fluoride is beneficial to people at stated levels, how is the dosage controlled. Some people drink lots of water, and brush their teeth 5 times a day, and others not as much. It is impossible to control a dosage with current delivery methods. To be apathetic to this situation is pure madness, being that one person thinks its perfectly alright to force their beliefs(that fluoride is only beneficial) on another(who isn’t sure if it is or not and would prefer to just leave it alone but is now forced to buy a filter, or bottled water).

    Like

  48. Hi Jon,

    EVEN if Iodide is beneficial to people at stated levels, how is the dosage controlled. Some people add lots of salt to cooking, and eat salty fries, and others not as much. Some even swallow sea water. It is impossible to control a dosage with current delivery methods. To be apathetic to this situation is pure madness, being that one person thinks its perfectly alright to force their beliefs(that Iodide is only beneficial) on another(who isn’t sure if it is or not and would prefer to just leave it alone but is now forced to buy uniodised salt.

    Yes Jon – pure madness

    Like

  49. I note the way opponents raise complete and utter nonsense, get shot down and ignore their error instead of acknowledging it,

    Take Bill Kelleher, above. he writes

    [Hydrofluorosilicic acid] has NEVER been safety tested nor approved for human consumption. You people are morons……

    and after inexplicably accusing Ken of “abusing”…

    Ken, please provide me the FDA approval letter for the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid for human consumption.

    How often have we heard this absurd argument before, usually coupled to the “industrial waste” cannard? It signals an appalling lack of understanding of basic chemistry and of the fluoridation process. Particularly egregious from someone who implies he has medical training

    When I first got into medicine 24 years ago,

    .

    No advertisement that.

    Steve Slott spelled it out for Bill.

    Hydrofluorosilic acid does not exist at the tap in fluoridated water. It is not ingested. It is of no concern, whatsoever.As HFA is not consumed by any sane human, there is no reason, or need, for approval by the the FDA or anyone else.

    Does Bill own his own words and acknowledge his fundamental error?

    Of course not. He just Gish Gallops on, raising more PRATTs.

    This is all more reprehensible because I suspect he is something of an anti fluoride campaigner, Bill’s comment ;

    I make no money from my “anti-fluoridation” activities.

    So he would know that his argument regarding Hydrofluorosilic acid is PRATT, pure PRATT and 100% PRATT.

    This behaviour from someone familiar with the issues can only be regarded as deliberate. It is dishonest. It is reprehensible.

    Bill ought to be ashamed.

    Like

  50. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    What you personally consider to be a low estimate of fluoride intake is irrelevant, especially in view of the slipshod manner in which you seemed to have “researched” this issue. The CDC has estimated that of the total daily fluoride intake from ALL sources, including dental products, 75% comes from water and beverages. The Institute of Medicine has established that the upper limit of daily fluoride intake, from all sources, before adverse effects will occur, long or short term, to be 10 mg. Before this upper limit would be attained, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

    http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf

    “Richard Shames, MD”, whomever that may be, needs to research this issue far better than he obviously has.

    See my previous comment in regard to “dose”.

    HHS has not made any recommendation to change the optimal level. The optimal level of fluoride was initially set as a range of 0.7 ppm-1.2 ppm due to the different levels of water consumption in different climates. Recent studies have shown that, due to air conditioning and other amenities, the level of water consumption between climates is no longer significant. In recognition of this fact, along with fluoride exposure from many more sources now than when the optimal was originally set, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that DHHS change the recommended optimal level from the current range to simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. DHHS has as yet to adopt that recommendation, but is expected to do so in the immediate future.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  51. As a layman there are two things I look at when assessing things like this. What are the actual proven reasons for not doing something, and what are the proven reasons for doing something.

    I appreciate there’s a lot of FUD about the negative aspects of fluoridation, it’s seems increasingly apparent that there’s less evidence to suggest that it has any significant benefits. It’s all well and good dispelling the bad science about fluoridation, but continuing to stick with the status quo would seem a little inappropriate. If we can’t administer the right amount, lets not do it at all. If there continues to be a clear understanding that we should fluoridate, and we have a clear understanding about delivering a correct dosage, only then should we continue. I am not sure we have that. This is risk vs reward. I don’t see much reward, regardless of the risk.

    Like

  52. James, you appear to have made several unwarranted assumptions here which you should really justify.

    1: The claim fluoridation is ineffective – yet there is plenty of work showing that it is effective. Sure there are reports that can be cherry picked and misrepresented to support your claim – but in fact they don’t.
    2: Talk about being unable to “admninister the right amount.” Fluoride is not a drug that has to be administered. It is a beneficial micro-element which does not require such fine “administration. And we do have a very good idea of what upper and lower limits we should aim for in supplkementing oru water, salt or milk.

    As they stand your claims are not supported but I welcome anything you can cointribute to support them.

    Like

  53. James,

    Perhaps this will enlighten you about the effectiveness of fluoridation:

    1)  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/
    Results 
    Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively. 

    ——Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
    Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD

    2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550501 

    CONCLUSIONS: 
    Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care. 

    ——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
    Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
    Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
    Source
    Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

    3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488212 

    CONCLUSIONS: 
    The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method. 

    —–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
    Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
    Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
    Source
    Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. joej.mullen@hse.ie

    4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8500120 

    Abstract 
    The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars. 

    —-Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
    Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
    Murray JJ.
    Source
    Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

    5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23252588 

    CONCLUSIONS: 
    Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities. 

    —-Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
    Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
    Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.
    Source
    Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. jrlauris@fob.usp.br

    As Ken has pointed out, there is no need of "administration" of fluoride at the minuscule level at which is added to water. It requires no more such "administration" than do chlorine, ammonia, or any of the other commonly added substances to our water.

    The reward of the public health initiative of water fluoridation has been clearly demonstrated in countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies. In the 69 year history of this initiative there have been no proven adverse effects, in spite of relentless efforts of antifluoridationists to find anything, anything at all they can claim to be problems. There is no better evidence than this of the total lack of ANY reasonable risk associated with water fluoridation.

    Steven D.Slott, DDS

    Like

  54. I’m amazed so many people such as James (as he is no means alone) even entertain the notion that the world’s medical and public health authorities initiate and maintain initiatives such as CWF without the backing of the best scientific evidence available.

    Do they really believe these things are undertaken on a punt or whim? or are the product of a conspiracy to deceive?

    Like

  55. Bill Kelleher

    Dated January 13, 2011: “HHS proposes that community water systems adjust the amount of fluoride to 0.7 mg/L to achieve an optimal fluoride level. For the purpose of this guidance, the optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water is that concentration that provides the best balance of protection from dental caries while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis. Community water fluoridation is the adjusting and monitoring of fluoride in drinking water to reach the optimal concentration (Truman BI, et al, 2002).”

    https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/01/13/2011-637/proposed-hhs-recommendation-for-fluoride-concentration-in-drinking-water-for-prevention-of-dental

    Like

  56. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    Yes, DHHS proposed the change and has sought public comment. A proposal is not an official recommendation. The optimal level of fluoride is an official recommendation made by DHHS. It carries no legally enforceable mandate. As of yet, the optimal level recommendation by DHHS remains a range between 0.7 ppm-1.2 ppm. It has as yet to officially adopt the recommendation to reset the optimal at 0.7 ppm.

    From the link you provide:

    “The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks public comment on proposed new guidance which will update and replace the 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards related to recommendations for fluoride concentrations in drinking water.”

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  57. Bill Kelleher

    My issue with your and the IOM’s interpretation of dose is that the upper limit per day is a set number of milligrams (10mg as you’ve noted) as opposed to a weight calculated dose, especially since the MRL for fluoride is weight based at 0.06mg/kg. I believe your exaggerating by saying water intoxication would occur before a dose of 10mg would be exceeded. DHHS’ own figures show the average person ingesting upwards of 6.6mg per day from all sources. It would not be unheard of for someone to hit or exceed 10mg, depending on what foods or drinks they might consume or overconsume on a daily basis. Then there is the issue of a set dose for the max limit. For a 70kg person, their limit at the MRL of 0.06mg/kg should be 4.2mg/day, not 10mg.

    Typical of you to attack Dr. Shames. As I stated before, fluoride was previously used at doses of 2-5mg per day to treat hyperactive thyroid. Fluoride is proven to displace iodine in the thyroid and does affect thyroid function.

    Like

  58. Bill Kelleher

    So…. walnuts make a (valid) health claim and get smacked down by the FDA because the health claims make it a “drug” in the eyes of the FDA, but fluoride can make (questionable) health claims and yet the FDA doesn’t have to approve these health claims. Got it.

    Like

  59. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    The “forced medication” ruse has repeatedly attempted by antifluoridationists in U.S. Courts. It has been rejected each and every time by those courts. Fluoride at the optimal level is not “medication” and it requires no “calculated dose”. That you personally dispute the findings of the United States Institute of Medicine is certainly your prerogative. However, I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers to easily discern the fallacy of that.

    What you don’t seem to comprehend is that fluoride is simply a mineral which has been present in groundwater and ingested by humans in that water since the beginning of time. Water frequently has concentrations of such “naturally occurring” fluoride at, or above the optimal level already. There is no “calculated dose” for this fluoride. The only thing that fluoridation does is to raise the existing level of fluoride up to the optimal level, in those systems in which the existing level is below the optimal. For those systems which are determined to have an existing level at or above the optimal, no fluoridation is necessary, and none is added. Those systems which are determined to have a fluoride content in excess of the EPA mandated maximum level of 4.0 ppm are directed to lower the fluoride concentration through filtration.

    The fluoride ions added as a result of fluoridation are identical to those which exist in water already. Don’t even bother claiming that they aren’t. As I have demonstrated to you, I don’t make claims I can’t support.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  60. Bill Kelleher

    Explain then why the MRL for fluoride is weight based but the daily max limit put outby the IOM is a set number of mg per day.

    Like

  61. Bill Kelleher

    Is there a peer reviewed, placebo controlled study demonstrating these safe upper limits, or are they simply extrapolated by the IOM?

    Like

  62. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    “Walnuts”??

    The United States Environmental Protection Agency has full regulatory authority over all mineral additives to public drinking water. The FDA does not have any regulatory over such additives. In recognition of this delineation of authority, and in order to eliminate any confusion, the FDA and the EPA, years ago, signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) to this effect. Because antifluoridationists constantly seek to further their cause through the attempted “forced medication” ruse, does not change this delineation of authority.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  63. Bill,

    “https://muskoka.civicweb.net/Documents/DocumentDisplay.aspx?Id=16740″

    What you have provided here is a link to an “interpretation” of data made by the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN. You don’t seriously seek to compare a FAN opinion, with valid, peer-reviewed science….do you??

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  64. Bill,

    The IOM upper limits are based upon NOAEL and LOAEL for fluoride. These limits have been determined by extensive epidemiological studies in which dental fluorosis, for children in tooth developing years, and skeletal fluorosis, for all individuals 8 years and older, were the critical thresholds for the NOAEL and LOAEL. These effects were utilized as critical thresholds due to their being the first observable adverse effects, with all others occurring at higher concentrations. As mild to very mild dental fluorosis is the only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to fluoridated water, and skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the 74% fluoridated U.S., as to be nearly non-existent, the validity of the IOM upper limits has been borne out over the 69 year history of fluoridation.

    “Dental fluorosis results from excess exposure to fluoride during the age of calcification of the teeth (up to about 8 years of age for anterior teeth). Dental fluorosis in its mild form is characterized by white opaque areas covering 50% of a given tooth; in its severe form, dental fluorosis is characterized by brown to black stains and pitting (50 FR 20164). There is considerable controversy over whether objectionable dental fluorosis (moderate and severe) is a toxic and/or adverse health effect. However, the U.S. EPA has determined that objectionable dental fluorosis is a cosmetic effect and not a toxic and/or adverse health effect (50 FR 47142). Numerous epidemiologic studies have been conducted in the U.S. concerning the relationship between dental fluorosis and fluoride levels in drinking water (50 FR 20164). Based on these studies, the NOAEL for objectionable dental fluorosis is approximately 1.0 ppm fluoride in drinking water. Assuming that a child weighs 20 kg, drinks 1.0 L of water/day and ingests fluoride at 0.01 mg/kg/day in the diet (50 FR 20164), a NOAEL of 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water corresponds to 0.06 mg/kg/day. Since data are available for the only susceptible population (children), an uncertainty factor of 1 is appropriate.

    It has been estimated that the development of crippling skeletal fluorosis in man requires the consumption of 20 mg or more of fluoride/person/day over a 20-year period, i.e., 0.28 mg/kg/day (U.S. EPA, 1985). While the NOEL for crippling skeletal fluorosis in humans is unknown, a safe level of fluoride exposure can be determined. No cases of crippling skeletal fluorosis have been observed in the United States associated with the consumption of 2 L of water/day containing 4 ppm fluoride (50 FR 20614). Assuming a 70 kg adult ingests 0.01 mg fluoride/day in the diet and consumes 8 mg fluoride/ day in drinking water (2 L/day containing 4 ppm fluoride), this would correspond to a total intake of 0.12 mg/kg/day. Thus, 0.12 mg fluoride/kg/day is a safe exposure level for this more severe endpoint in adults.”

    ——-Fluorine (soluble fluoride) (CASRN 7782-41-4)

    http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0053.htm

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  65. Bill Kelleher

    Steve, your description of the EPA scientist union is disingenuous: http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm.

    You are also discussing overt, crippling skeletal fluorosis. Subclinical skeletal fluorosis is virtually indistinguishable from osteoarthritis. Do you really believe that if there is dental fluorosis that it is an isolated effect in the body with no effects on bone or connective tissue?

    Like

  66. Bill Kelleher

    Another aspect I’ve not seen broached here is fluorinated medications. Let’s use fluoxetine (Prozac) for example. : Each molecule of prozac contains 3 fluorine atoms. The molecular weight of F is 18.9984032. With 3 F in each Prozac molecule, the total molecular weight of F per molecule of prozac is appoximately 57. The molecular weight of the Prozac molecule is 345.79. This makes the proportion of Fluorine to Prozac 57/345.79 = .165 or 16.5%.So, for a typical daily dose of 20mg of Prozac the amount of fluorine would be .165 x 20, or 3.3mg (6.6mg for a 40mg/day dose). Every day a person takes a standard dose of Prozac, they get 3.3 milligrams of fluorine. So people who take these fluorinated meds (prozac is one of many) are getting extra, unexpected fluoride on a daily basis. We’ve already discussed that most people are getting at least 5-6mg per day or more. Now add a 40mg dose of fluoxetine, and that puts them well above your max level of 10mg/day. What about these people? What about dialysis patients? I encounter them on a fairly frequent basis, and no one has told most of these people to exercise caution ingesting fluoride due to their impaired kidney function. Do these people matter?

    Here is a database of fluorinated medications:

    http://www.slweb.org/ftrcfluorinatedpharm.html

    Approximately 20% of pharmaceutical medications are fluorinated, including blockbusters like lipitor. Sure, with only one fluorine atom per molecule, and given its molecular weight of 558, a 20mg dose would only yield about 0.6mg of fluoride. But take a look at the database of fluorinated meds. It wouldn’t be unheard of to find patients on multiple fluorinated meds totaling close to or exceeding your “safe” limit of 10mg per day just from their meds, nevermind their daily load from water, toothpaste, commercial beverages and produce.

    Wade through this and then we’ll delve deeper into pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, if that’s an area your comfortable with.

    Like

  67. Bill Kelleher

    Another interesting wrinkle: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11233755/

    This isn’t the only study that has shown this association between higher lead levels and silicofluoride exposure. It is unique to SiF exposure and is not seen when NaF is the fluoridation chemical used. Why do you suppose that is?

    Like

  68. Bill,

    “Steve, your description of the EPA Scientist Union is disingenuous”

    The only thing disingenuous here is your continued effort to promote this support for the antifluoridationist activities of Bill Hirzy, the current paid lobbyist for the antifluoridationist faction FAN, by a few members of a union which went defunct over a decade ago. This, while you ignore the 100+ highly respected organizations, worldwide, which clearly support the public health initiative of water fluoridation. Would you care for me to list them?

    In case there is any doubt, whatsoever, as to what this “union statement” was all about, at the end of the document to which you provided a link:

    “This document was prepared on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 by Chapter Senior Vice-President J. William Hirzy, Ph.D. For more information please call Dr. Hirzy at 202-260-4683.”

    In regard to Hirzy, in 2013 he filed a petition with the EPA requesting that the EPA recommend cessation of use of HFA to fluoridate water systems. He based this request on data from a recent study by himself and fellow antifluoridationist, Robert Carton, which they concluded showed a vastly increased cost with HFA due to incidence of cancer. When the EPA personnel reviewed the petition, they quickly discovered that Hirzy had made an elementary miscalculation in his data, resulting in a 70-fold error. When they corrected for this error, they found that Hirzy’s data actually demonstrated the exact opposite of what he had concluded. Needless to say, the EPA rejected Hirzy’s petition. When notified of this error and rejection, Hirzy stated that he was “embarrassed”, as well he should have been.

    The EPA response to Hirzy may be found:

    http://www.environmentguru.com/pages/elements/transporter.aspx?id=1297832

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  69. Bill,

    “You are also discussing overt, crippling skeletal fluorosis. Subclinical skeletal fluorosis is virtually indistinguishable from osteoarthritis. Do you really believe that if there is dental fluorosis that it is an isolated effect in the body with no effects on bone or connective tissue?”

    The United States is 74% fluoridated. There is 69 years worth of experience with hundreds of millions of people having chronically ingested fluoridated water over this time frame. Were there any connection between the minuscule few parts per million fluoride ions in fluoridated water, and skeletal fluorosis, there would have been massive epidemics of it by now. Clearly there have not been. Your personal speculation about osteoarthritis is meaningless in the absence of any valid, peer-reviewed science to support this speculation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  70. Bill,

    “Another aspect I’ve not seen broached here is fluorinated medications.”

    Do you seriously think that you are the only antifluoridationist to attempt to bring Prozac into the discussion? This is simply another tactic gleaned from antifluoridationist websites.

    Fluoride ions bound in various medications are irrelevant to the minuscule few parts per million free fluoride ions in fluoridated water. The active ingredient in thermonuclear weapons is hydrogen. Do you fear explosion when you drink a glass of water, two-thirds of which is composed of this substance of mass destruction? Provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your speculation of any adverse effect of water fluoridated at the optimal level, in conjunction with ANY medication.

    In regard to fluoridated water and kidney function:

    “Because the kidneys are constantly exposed to various fluoride concentrations, any health effects caused by fluoride would likely manifest themselves in kidney cells. However, several large community-based studies of people with long-term exposure to drinking water with fluoride
    concentrations up to 8 ppm have failed to show an increase in kidney disease.”

    ——https://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

    “People exposed to optimally fluoridated water will consume 1.5mg of fluoride per day. Available studies found no difference in kidney function between people drinking optimally fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. There is discrepant information in studies relating to the potential negative effects of consuming water with greater than 2.0ppm of fluoride.”

    “Available literature indicated that impaired kidney function results in changes in fluoride retention and distribution in the body. People with kidney impairment showed a decreased urine fluoride and increased serum and bone fluoride correlated with degree of impairment; however, there was no consistent evidence that the retention of fluoride in people with stage four or stage five CKD, consuming optimally fluoridated water, resulted in negative health consequences.”

    —–Ludlow M, Luxton G, Mathew T. Effects of fluoridation of community water supplies
    for people with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007; 22:2763-2767 

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  71. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    “Another interesting wrinkle”

    Urbansky and Schock completely refuted Coplan and Master’s attempt to tie lead uptake to fluoridation.

    “Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(II) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions. ”

    Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
    Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.
    Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637

    As did Macek, et al.

    “Given these findings, our analyses, though not definitive, do not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause higher PbB concentrations in children. Current evidence does not provide a basis for changing water fluoridation practices, which have a clear public health benefit.”

    Environ Health Perspect. 2006 January; 114(1): 130–134. Published online 2005 August 17. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8319 PMCID: PMC1332668
    Research
    Children’s Health
    Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988–1994
    Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Dolores M. Malvitz

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  72. Bill Kelleher

    I’ll address your other responses later. You’ve grossly mischaracterized my post regading dialysis patients. My point was that in thes people with existing end stage renal disease, their clearance of fluoride is impaired and their fluoride intake should be monitored. Briefly, one of your quotes mentioned that people drinking “optimally fluoridated water” ingest 1.5mg per day. We both know that is a very low ball number for total fluoride intake from all sources.

    You’ve also not correctly identified organfluorines as the compound in fluorinated pharmaceuticals. Several fluorinated meditations have demonstrated that the fluorine-carbon bond in these organofluorines can be broken and impact total free F. Chief among them is cipro and its fluoroquinolone analogues. Do you have any pk/pd data from any of the other 20% of pharmaceutical medications demonstrating that the fluoride-carbon bond remains unbroken and does not increase free F?

    Regarding your assertion about an “epidemic” of arthritis symptoms, have you checked Scott Levin data for arthritic medications in the US? Again, subclinical skeletal fluorosis is virtually indistinguishable from arthritis. You still do not have appeared to answer this question: If there is dental fluorosis, do you really believe that it is isolated as if teeth are the only thing in the body that is affected?

    Regarding your studies refuting the SiF/lead connection, I will be reviewing them, their design and their funding sources. The study I posted I certainly not the only one to find that connection. Remarkably, it is unique to SiF and is not seen with NaF treated water.

    Like

  73. Bill Kelleher

    Please also provide any existing safety studies where SiF were the compounds studied in humans, preferably over a long term and at realistic doses that are ingested from all sources daily.

    Your side clamors for studies showing detriment (which I’m nowhere near finished with yet), but I ask bow are these studies to be done? How can you have a control group when even people who don’t ingest fluoridated tap water receive it unknowingly from so many different sources, such as commercial beverages, crops sprayed with fluoride based pesticides, foods processed with fluoridated water, etc.

    Like

  74. Bill Kelleher

    With regard to dialysis patients, I’m sure you’re aware of this case: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, July 31, 1993, Fluoride Blamed in 3 Deaths: Traces found in Blood of U. of C. Dialysis Patients – Gary Wieby. A dialysis clinic’s filtration system failed, resulting in the deaths of three patients, confirmed by the CDC to be caused by fluoride intoxication.

    Like

  75. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    I’ve mischaracterized nothing. You attempted to fear-monger fluoridation with renal disease. I simply provided peer-reviewed scientific evidence to refute this. Medically compromised individuals must carefully monitor ALL substances which they ingest, in strict accordance with the directives of their healthcare providers. That they must do so is not a reason to deny entire populations the clearly demonstrated benefits of a public health initiative such as water fluoridation.

    Again, the CDC estimates that of the total fluoride intake from all sources, 75% comes from water and beverages. The IOM has established the daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources, before adverse effects, to be 10 mg. if you want to continue to attempt to substitute your personal, unsubstantiated speculation for the opinions and recommendations of the CDC, and IOM, feel free.

    Again, provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of ANY adverse effects resultant of fluoridated water in combination with ANY medications.

    I made no “assertion” about “arthritis symptoms. My assertion was in regard to skeletal fluorosis, for which you still have as yet to provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your speculations. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your personal speculation about “arthritis symptoms” then properly cite it.

    What I “really believe” is irrelevant. Unlike you, I don’t attempt to substitute unsubstantiated speculation for valid evidence. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of fluoridated water due to an effect on any other “thing” in the body, whatever “thing” may mean.

    Please do review all of the studies I have presented. You could certainly use the education on this issue.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  76. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    “Please also provide any existing safety studies where SiF were the compounds studied in humans, preferably over a long term and at realistic doses that are ingested from all sources daily.”

    Another favorite tactic of antifluoridationists is to demand proof of a negative……put out unsubstantiated claims then demand proof that they are not valid. This is not valid science. In order to credibly demand proof that a problem does not exist, there must first be valid evidence that a problem does exist. Again, as has been repeatedly made clear to you, silicofluorides do not exist at the tap as a result of water fluoridation. They are thus not ingested. There is thus no need for any “safety studies ” of SiF in any manner regarding their use in fluoridating water systems.

    I have no “side”. There is the science which fully supports the public health initiative of water fluoridation, and there is the junk-science, speculation, and unsubstantiated claims constantly put forth by antifluoridationists. I choose to believe in the valid, peer-reviewed science which clearly supports water fluoridation.

    I don’t “clamor” for anything. I simply point out the total lack of valid substantiation for the unending array of ridiculous claims constantly disseminated by antifluoridationists. I point out to readers that if there is to be any credibility accorded these claims, then there needs to be the provision of valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support them. Otherwise, they are nothing more than meaningless personal opinion, speculation, and anecdotes……which is basically the “foundation” for the whole antifluoridationist movement.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  77. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    “With regard to dialysis patients, I’m sure you’re aware of this case: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, July 31, 1993, Fluoride Blamed in 3 Deaths: Traces found in Blood of U. of C. Dialysis Patients – Gary Wieby. A dialysis clinic’s filtration system failed, resulting in the deaths of three patients, confirmed by the CDC to be caused by fluoride intoxication.”

    The catastrophic failure of equipment is a reason to investigate the equipment in question, not deny entire populations the benefits of a public health initiative such as water fluoridation. Dialysis patients use large volumes of water, 300 liters per week as compared to a normal average use of 14 liters of water. Thus, filtration systems are critical for those undergoing such treatment. The failure of such a system does not condemn water fluoridation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  78. Bill Kelleher

    I’m sure those words are a great comfort to the families of the three people who died.

    Let’s talk pk/pd of fluoride in kidney impaired people.

    Also, please answer the question if you believe that dental fluorosis is an isolated occurence in the body when it happens, or if it is quite possible to have other systemic effects such as subclinical skeletal fluorosis and other maladies that are currently blamed on “genetics” or labeled “idiopathic”. I realize you are a dentist and focus only on teeth, but there is a whole body that fluoride goes through before arriving at the teeth.

    Like

  79. Bill Kelleher

    I’d like you also to explain the WHO data showing no statistical difference in DMFT between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. I’m sure you’ve seen the data, I can provide a link if needed. I’m still waiting for pk/pd studies demonstrating that other organofluorine medications don’t convert to free F like the fluoroquinolones and others have demonstrated to.

    Please also provide safety studies proving that “optimally fluoridated” tap water is safe to be consumed at normal levels by patients with ESRD.

    Like

  80. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    My words are not meant to be a “great comfort” to anyone. They are provided to expose the fallacies of the “arguments” you keep attempting to present.

    It is ironic that of the repeated requests I have made for you to provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims, all have been ignored by you, while you attempt to divert from your failure to provide ANY such evidence by trying your best to engage me in your unsubstantiated speculation. As I said, I rely upon valid evidence, not speculation. You have provided no valid evidence of water fluoridation causing any “subclinical skeletal fluorosis and other maladies…..”. Provide such evidence, and I will gladly discuss it with you. Otherwise, I have no intention of being drawn into unsubstantiated fantasy speculation.

    Also ironic are the constant attempts by antifluoridationists to disparage dentists, as if that makes one bit of difference in discussion of peer-reviewed science. Frequent comical comments to the effect that dentists “only know teeth”, are demonstrative of the lack of understanding by antifluoridationists that the head is connected to the rest of the body. Also demonstrative of ignorance is the inexplicable conviction of antifluoridationists that they are in possession of some “greater” knowledge of the body than dentists who only “know teeth” while they, the antifluoridationists, provide nothing but the same, stale unsubstantiated “arguments” which have long since been considered and addressed by appropriate healthcare personnel and authorities. In your adherence to “arguments” you’ve gleaned from antifluoridationist websites and other such sources, you have, very predictably, followed this same pattern. Once you understand that you possess no special knowledge of the effect of fluoridated water on the “entire body”, that has inexplicably been totally overlooked by the worldwide community of respected science and healthcare, you may then begin to understand this issue.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  81. Steve Slott

    Bill,

    “I’d like you also to explain the WHO data showing no statistical difference in DMFT between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. I’m sure you’ve seen the data, I can provide a link if needed. I’m still waiting for pk/pd studies demonstrating that other organofluorine medications don’t convert to free F like the fluoroquinolones and others have demonstrated to.

    Please also provide safety studies proving that “optimally fluoridated” tap water is safe to be consumed at normal levels by patients with ESRD.”

    Again, you keep demanding that I explain this or that, or engage in your speculation, while you have failed to provide one scrap of valid evidence to support your claims. In regard to the WHO, data, it seems that you do not understand that the causative and preventive factors in formation of dental decay are myriad. Attempting to assess one, single preventive factor, water fluoridation, based on a snapshot of data which controls for no other factors……is ludicrous.

    I have no need to provide any studies on “organofluorine medications”. You raised that issue, not I, and you have provided no valid evidence, whatsoever, of its relevance to the issue of water fluoridation.

    I have already provided you with peer-reviewed evidence in regard to fluoridation and renal disease. Since you seem to have overlooked, or not understood it, I will do so again. Again, the fact that severely medically compromised persons must carefully monitor their intake of ALL substances, is not reason to deny entire populations the benefit of a public health initiative such as water fluoridation.

    “Because the kidneys are constantly exposed to various fluoride concentrations, any health effects caused by fluoride would likely manifest themselves in kidney cells. However, several large community-based studies of people with long-term exposure to drinking water with fluoride
    concentrations up to 8 ppm have failed to show an increase in kidney disease.”

    ——https://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

    “People exposed to optimally fluoridated water will consume 1.5mg of fluoride per day. Available studies found no difference in kidney function between people drinking optimally fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. There is discrepant information in studies relating to the potential negative effects of consuming water with greater than 2.0ppm of fluoride.”

    “Available literature indicated that impaired kidney function results in changes in fluoride retention and distribution in the body. People with kidney impairment showed a decreased urine fluoride and increased serum and bone fluoride correlated with degree of impairment; however, there was no consistent evidence that the retention of fluoride in people with stage four or stage five CKD, consuming optimally fluoridated water, resulted in negative health consequences.”

    —–Ludlow M, Luxton G, Mathew T. Effects of fluoridation of community water supplies
    for people with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007; 22:2763-2767 

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  82. Bill Kelleher, re you reference to WHO data. This is a common trick of the anti-fluoridationists – to show plots of declining tooth decay in fluoridated and unfluoridated countries and then conclude this “proves” fluoridation is ineffective. Of corse it “proves” nothing pf the sort – only underlines the fact that other factors are also involved in tooth decay.

    In my exchange with Paul Connett (Fluoride Debate) I underlined this point by using the same data for Ireland, but separating the fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. This showed a clear difference because of the effect of fluoridation in reducing tooth decay. Paul pretended not to understand my point but in the end acknowledged it.

    I will attach a figure to this comment later today when I have access to my computer. Meanwhile you could look through the Fluoride Debate articles and check for your self.

    >

    Like

  83. Steve Slott

    Bill,
    Your comments do not seem indicative of an MD, as you have implied that you are. Do you care to disclose your educational/professional degree?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  84. A splendid rebuff to this bad article from the Lancet..

    Like

  85. Steve does not understand the difference between “established science” and “establishment science” and how the latter claims (& finances) the former. They tend to blur into one and the same.
    He cherry-picks simply to protect an established practice, and is arrogantly snide, insulting and pejorative of the minds of those who question its wisdom. Science is, perversely, an extremly conservative field, full of rigid mindsets and vituperative and personal argument.
    Anyhoo the point is there is no certainly “established science” on the safety of Fluoridation.
    eg above Steve quotes
    “The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.”
    It was certainly cherry picking to cite this when the Chair of the York Committee working ggroup (Professor Trevor Sheldon) had to publicly rebuke the BMA, BDA, BFS & othe fluoridationist groupings for misrepresenting Yorks conclusions in a similar, optimistic manner. He mentioned

    1   The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as “just a cosmetic issue”.
    2    The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.
    3   There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.
    4    The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
    5    Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
    6    The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.

    Steve should not “big-up” one sentence of a review, mentioning 214 studies, when this “review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy.” ……Not at all the impression Steve gives.
    And it should be born in mind that York was set up by an ardently Fluoridation-supporting Government who changed and limited the terms of reference to suit a blessing and limit any bad news. eg no Toxicological Studies could be examined.
    FYI Fluoride (solely from a very heavying tea-drinking habit I once had) caused me constant gut pain & to be told I had IBS. By avoiding F I’ve now been free of it for 20 years……until I lived 7months in North Essex when my IBS returned. I asked the Water Supply Co if they fluoridated. “No” they said “But you have 1.5 mg /L natural Fluoride in your locality”. Bottled water solved it again.
    I found out later some of the first symptoms of systemic fluorosis are gut pain, bloating, cramping. How much of the mysterious IBS epidemic is Fluorosis?
    Steve if you were the guardian of Objective Science against the wackos you would be objective…. as York was (within its limits)…..but instead you pose as campaigning for objective truth whilst using propagandist selection. (This is to deny that which you say you wish to defend).
    You are just a conservative-establishment-man fighting the dissident-questioners. It is a pyschological and political war…… you’re only using “science” as your battleground. And in your “just war” cheating and distortion are OK because the important thing is to win and protect what is established?

    Like

  86. Harley, armed with his cutting-edge anecdotes, is another brave dissident for the truth, battling the establishment’s evil conspiracy.

    Like

  87. Steve Slott

    Harley

    Your conspiracy nonsense is irrelevant, as is your anecdote about your own medical problems.

    Science is science. There is no such thing as “established” or “establishment” science. There is an overwhelming amount of peer-reviewed scientific literature which clearly supports the public health initiative of fluoridation. The literature which antifluoridationists constantly cite in opposition generally arises from dubious sources, frequently has not been properly reviewed fir validity, and is, more often than not, simply quotes plucked from the literature and attempted to be used out-of-context in direct contradiction to the true meaning of that literature when viewed in its complete and proper context.

    Funny, that you claim I have “cherry-picked” studies while you take one single review, York, and attempt to use it to condemn fluoridation, while ignoring the volumes of peer-reviewed science demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation and rebuking the unsubstantiated claims constantly put forth by antifluoridationists. If that isn’t a clear example of exactly the type of “cherry-picking ” characteristic of antifluoridationist “arguments “, I don’t know what is.

    If you need a refresher on some of this science, go back and read the numerous peer-reviewed studies and literature which I have cited in my comments. It seems you must have missed them.

    That this particular York Committee did not like observational studies is no secret. That doesn’t in any manner negate the countless peer-reviewed studies which support fluoridation. This is simply the opinion of this committee.

    In regard to reviews of the literature, let’s look at the Report of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride. This Committee was charged with evaluating the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect the public against adverse effects. Their report which is constantly misused by antifluoridationists, had but one final recommendation….to lower the primary EPA MCL down from 4.0 ppm. The sole stated reasons for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis and bone fracture with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride concentration of 4.0 ppm or greater. After an exhaustive, 3 year review of all relevant literature on fluoride, these were the only concerns stated with fluoride content at the level of 4.0 ppm or lower. Had the Committee been concerned with any other problems at this level, it would have stated so. The Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride made no recommendation to lower.

    In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, highly respected toxicologist and Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride, made the following statement:

    “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”

    —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

    In regard to antifluoridationist claims of fluoridation link to cancer, York was not the only group that found insufficient evidence to support this claim. As you chose to ignore the other groups which I cited as rejecting this claim, let me refresh your memory in this area, as well:

    A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.

    ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982

    • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

    —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
    ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005, http://www.sfdph.org/phes/ water/fluoride/Osteosarcoma_fluoride fact_sheet.pdf

    Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.

    ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999. Available at http//www. nhmrc.gov.au/advice/pdfcover/fluocov. htm, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.

    A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).

    ——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.

    ——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.

    ——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  88. Follow

    Follow the money trail, it’s all about profits and “they” could care less about our health…..all of them it’s money…

    I agree with some others who say, any idiot thinks it’s a good thing…no way….. It’s wrong to add this stuff to our public waters….Portland Oregon did the right thing, rejecting it for their people up there….

    Like

  89. A bit of my history, born and raised in a fluoridated town in the East in 1938, so grew up in fluoride, have a mouthful of dental work….fluoride didn’t save my teeth… nor my parents. And we all drank and bathed in it for DECADES….

    I learned of the toxicty of fluoride in 1991 and it’s been a long road of fighting this evil and the FRAUD of it all.

    I haven’t had dental work done in over 6 yrs or so and I don’t touch fluoride if I can help it….all our foods are grown in it….it’s totally sickening.

    Again follow the MONEY…..nothing healthy about fluoride….

    Like

  90. Joy, did your even bother reading this article?

    All you have produced is a homily which has no significance beyond the personal.

    Like

  91. Steve Slott

    Joy,

    I’m aware of no fluoridation proponents who receive any compensation, whatsoever, for their advocacy of improved health of all citizens with the help of water fluoridation.

    However, since you seem hung up on this, let’s DO follow the money and take a look who actually does profit from keeping this issue alive:

    1.  Paul Connett, the Director of the New York antifluoridationist faction, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and long time antifluoridationist zealot-   Paul’s non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable opportunity, sells for $25 per copy.  Paul claims that he donates all royalties he receives from his book sales, to his non-profit faction, FAN.  Given that FAN presumably pays all or part of Paul’s fluoride chasing trips all over the United Stated, to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and anywhere else he chooses to visit, this “donation” would seem to be little more than a tax strategy.

    Additionally, both Paul and his wife receive monthly payments of $1,000 each from the umbrella organization under which FAN operates.

    2.  William Hirzy- the long time antifluoridationist, and close Connett affiliate, Hirzy, is the paid lobbyist for Connett’s, FAN.

    3. Attorney James Deal- close Connett affiliate, and donor  to FAN, Deal, maintains a website devoted soley to attempts at stirring up  class-action lawsuits against fluoridation, from which he would presumably profit in the delusionary scenerio that he would ever succeed. 

    4.  Alex Jones- Connett  affiliate, and syndicated, controversial radio host, Jones, of “Infowars” infamy, is now pushing, for $39.95  a solution called “FluorideShield”

    According to Jones’ website:
    “Introducing Fluoride Shield™, an Infowars Life exclusive blend of key herbs and ingredients specifically infused within the formula to help support the elimination of toxic forms of fluoride and other dangerous compounds like mercury, chlorine, and bromine from within the body.”

    ——http://www.infowarsshop.com/Fluoride-Shield_p_1223.html

    5.  Whatever may be paid to Connett’s son, Michael, for his “services” to FAN as well as to any other Connett family members and/or friends.

    As FAN operates under the umbrella of another non-profit organization, the FAN financials lack the transparency as would normally be expected of any such non-profit organization dependent on public donations, and exempt from federal income taxes.  

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  92. Everyone Needs to get paid for their WORK and I support FAN as best I can…..adding this “F” to our waters is wrong and I’ll never see it any other way. I’m not going to debate it but wanted to put my 2cents into the mix….

    The polluters make huge mega profits coming and going….and all the council members, I believe have deep pockets…..

    I’ll keep doing what I can to slay the “F” dragon but the polluters are so so huge with so much power from the CDC, ADA, AMA, lots of corruption in them all……..joy

    Like

  93. So, Joy, it is a matter of faith, for you?

    Does it not worry you that anti science people like Paul Connett are manipulating your faith?

    >

    Like

  94. Faith in what? Fluoride….No I have no “faith in this stuff…

    Dr. Connett is a scientist…..

    I think you are all paid by the polluters…..

    Like

  95. I say faith – because you patently avoid a rational discusioon of the facts. Talk about slaying dragons and a conspiracy of science and medical organisations. What next – chemtrails??

    Paul Connett has a PhD in Chemistry – so do I.
    He is now retired – so am I.
    He is being paid by his own political activist organisation. I am not being paid by any company or poltiical organisation.
    He has no original research on fluoride or fluoridation.
    The skill he is using is simply accessing the literature – unfortunately distorting and misrepresenting it as he goes.
    Have a look at the on line debate I had with Paul. I catch him out on multiple lies and misrepresentations of the science.

    Paul is a retired scientists – so are many other people. The improtant thing for you is to realise he is only one retired scientist and he is offside wioth practically all others – especially those working in this field.

    Like

  96. Steve Slott

    Sooo, Joy, when you “follow the money” and it leads directly to antifluoridationists, that’s okay with you, but not okay if it were to lead fluoridation advocates?

    Thank you. You have just provided an excellent example of the blatant hypocrisy of antifluoridationists.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  97. Steve Slott

    Joy is like all other antifluoridationists…..the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare is corrupt and incompetent, while the one retired chemist who is paid to vacation all over the world, spewing nonsense that has been refuted so many times, in so many ways, that it is impossible to even keep count anymore…….he is the only one who knows the “truth”.

    Thank you Joy. It took a lot less time to expose your hypocrisy and foolishness, than usual.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  98. There will be no debate from me on the 6 decade Fraud…..and I trust so few conventional doctor types….I do my best so steer clear of conventional md’s….and see mostly alternative dentists….you won’t find one pushing “F”….and see ONLY integrative MD for my general health….and do most of my own healing and prevention.

    I see this whole gang here as none I would want to be around in my friend circles.

    Like

  99. As I said – faith. Certainly no reason or evidence, Joy.

    Like

  100. Steve Slott

    Ignorance is bliss, Joy. Enjoy yours.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  101. Joy doesn’t do much thinking for herself.

    Follow the money trail, it’s all about profits and “they” could care less about our health…..all of them it’s money…
    (…)
    The polluters make huge mega profits coming and going….and all the council members, I believe have deep pockets….
    (…)
    I think you are all paid by the polluters…..

    Yes, Joy. It’s all a big, spooky-wooky global scientific conspiracy that’s been going on for the last 70 years. Sadly, you have no idea how it could even hypothetically work. Science deniers of all stripes do the same hand-waving. Reality refuses to meet you outside of your internet echo chambers so…there must be money changing hands….somehow.

    Claim CA321.1:
    The conclusions of scientists are motivated by scientists’ pay; they cannot be considered objective.

    Like

  102. Dr. Connett is a scientist….

    So what? Can you be that stupid?

    Take any science denial subject. It could be anything. HIV denial, climate denial, vaccine denial, evolution denial, moon landing denial, 9/11 etc.
    So…
    Point out one where the supporters don’t trot out their pet talking head with a Phd.

    (…awkward silence…)

    Yep.
    They ALL do it. It’s standard shtick. That plus shifting the goalposts, PRATT’s, fake papers, fake journals, coffee-table books and a whole host of other sciencey-truthiness.

    If you don’t want to be dismissed as some stupid, ill-informed idiot on the internet then stop behaving like them.
    Learn.

    Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works

    Like

  103. “In 1977, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis.”

    Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/top-scientist-fluoride-already-shown-to-cause-10000-cancer-deaths/#ixzz36gySFqrN

    Interview with Dr Dean Burk,

    Like

  104. I do a LOT of thinking for myself, don’t make that judgement…..

    I knew this was in the works, and only HOPE it comes to pass, if the gun nuts are working on this, gotta be some smarts in Texas… This wuld be a HUGE victory to get this scwap out of the texas waters….

    “”Fortunately, Americans are using their votes to keep this highly toxic fertilizer-industry byproduct out of their drinking water (the fluoride added to municipal water supplies is a toxic byproduct from the fertilizer industry—a rarely discussed fact!).

    Dallas is among the latest US cities considering whether or not to renew a three-year, $1.8-million contract that provides their drinking water with fluoride. Set to expire January 1, 2015, if Dallas ends fluoridation, it will become the largest city in the US to stop fluoridating its water.1″”

    Like

  105. Christopher Atkinson

    Hi Joy -

    Are you a real person?

    And what on earth do you mean by this ‘…if the gun nuts are working on this, gotta be some smarts in Texas…’

    Lordy! :-)

    Like

  106. No I’m a figment of my imagination….born in 1938.

    And I’m anti “F”, anti guns, anti war….and my belief is if everyone got a massage OFTEN and women ruled the world, it would be much more peaceful. Oh I can add anti religion for me, if others want it, go for it. I’ve been there for about first half of my life. joy

    Oh on Texas, and I’m far from there, just about everyone carries…wasn’t it a Target in TX that finally banned the nuts from open carrying their weapons….nuts is a mild word.

    Like

  107. Hi Jenny.
    What makes you think that it’s a good idea to cut-and-paste like that?
    It’s not.
    Bad Jenny.
    Stupid, gullible, bad Jenny.

    Like

  108. Steve Slott

    The chance of Dallas ending fluoridation is the same as is that of Joy paying attention to peer-reviewed science instead of antifluoridationist junk….in other words, zero.

    Out of a council of 14 members, a couple of them decided to throw the antifluoridationists a bone and listen to their nonsense. There is no chance that the other 12 members will somehow become mindless idiots all of a sudden and vote to end fluoridation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  109. I do a LOT of thinking for myself, don’t make that judgement…

    It’s hard to avoid. You don’t come across as very lucid. Other people have noticed. It sucks to be you.

    “I knew this was in the works, and only HOPE it comes to pass, if the gun nuts are working on this,…”

    (…awkward silence…)

    Where do these people come from? Why do they gravitate towards anti-fluoridation and feel the need to express their feelings on the internet?

    Like

  110. Christopher Atkinson

    Hi Jenny,

    Do mean this Dr Yiamouyiannis?

    http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/yiamouyiannis.html

    Hilarious ! You have sense of humour – you are trying to be funny…?

    Surely….please tell me you’re joking

    Jenny?

    Like

  111. Christopher, you cut and paste? my my my how gulible..

    Somone asked why others come here, curosity about the nonsense the other side spews…that’s why….If I had to pay here on the net, I would NOT be here…and I’m very lucid, thank you very much….often think why not have my head in the sand and have no opinions. Too many there already, heads in the sand…Sheepeople going with the flow of too many.

    Like

  112. Steve Slott

    Jenny Depew

    Ahhh, another “reputable” source of “information”…..”Natural Society”. Where do you people come up with all these ridiculous “publications”?

    Yiamouyiannis died in Mexico where he went to get Laetrile treatments for his cancer. He also claimed that HIV does not cause AIDS, and opposed vaccinations. Enough said about his credibility.

    The height of Dean Burk’s career was in the 1930s-1960s. Is his claim of fluoridation being “mass murder” an example of this “new, emerging science” which antifluoridationists constantly proclaim, yet are never able to produce?

    Burk’s “study” which you claim had “shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths” amounted to a comparison of cancer rates between two US cities, one fluoridated, one not. There were no controls for any other of the countless factors involved in the incidence of cancer. In regard to Burk’s bizarre claim:

    “This extraordinary claim originated with a paper on the subject of fluoride and cancer, titled “Fluoridation and cancer, age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation”, which was originally put forward in 1975 and then again in 1977 by Dr. Dean Burk and fellow fluoridation opponent John Yiamouyiannis¹. However, the paper was not well received by the majority of scientists at the time and the paper’s methodology was criticized, such as for failure to adjust for important variables. Numerous subsequent scientific studies from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, including a review of over 50 published studies contradicted Burk’s conclusion and found no evidence to support such an outrageous claim. The CDC has since been quoted saying,

    ‘at this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.’

    The American Cancer Society has also gone on record stating, “Scientific studies show no connection between cancer rates in humans and adding fluoride to drinking water.” But rather than listen to the scientific community, fluoridation opponents prefer to stay in their echo-chamber with select fringe “experts” where they can build their conspiratorial narratives.”

    —-http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/11/fluoride-cancer-quackery/

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  113. Christopher Atkinson

    Hi Joy :-)

    You are confused aren’t you! You don’t seem to know what. ‘Cut and Paste’ means!

    I provided a reference by way of a link

    - perhaps this go some way to explain why you are so resistant to rational thinking when you don’t even understand what you are talking about. ;-)

    Like

  114. Ah, how about all those who got to Mexico after they were cut, burned, and poisoned in the U.S. and went to Mexico to be saved….too late for them….

    MANY cancer centers in the U.S. now are using grape seed extract and pycnogenol in their cancer research….I’ve been on both these supplements, powerful antioxidants, for 19 yrs soon…..and yes, I’m LUCID….

    Like

  115. Steve Slott

    Jenny Depew

    In regard to cancer and fluoridation:

    A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.

    ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982

    • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

    —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
    ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005, http://www.sfdph.org/phes/ water/fluoride/Osteosarcoma_fluoride fact_sheet.pdf

    Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.

    ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999. Available at http//www. nhmrc.gov.au/advice/pdfcover/fluocov. htm, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.

    The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.

    ——-McDonagh M S, et al., Systemic review of water fluoridation. BMJ, 2000. 321.

    A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).

    ——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.

    ——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.

    ——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.

    Steven D. Slott

    Like

  116. Steve Slott

    Joy

    You may want to look up “Laetrile”, or have you tried that as well?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  117. No Dr. Slott, I have not tried Laetrile, for what? I don’t deal with any cancers…I take the powerful antioxidants as they MAY prevent any cancers…

    What will you use IF the need arises? cut/burn/poison route?

    Are you a practicing DDS? This is how you spend a day off?

    Dr. David Kennedy, retired DDS has been fighting this toxin for many years….as I understand now has a lawsuit against city of San Diego re: fluoridation of San Diego a couple yrs ago. I’ve met him at health expo years ago.

    Like

  118. Steve Slott

    Joy, you ‘re a lost cause, but typical of the fools on whom Connett and co. depend to spread their nonsense and on whom the “health food” industry depends to buy their worthless products.

    David Kennedy is another Connett associate, and former President of the dubious “International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology”.

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

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  119. Joy. one thing you need to learn, alterative medicine that works, is called medicine

    Like

  120. Well, Dr. Slott, if you can call me a lost cause, I can say the same about you conventional medicine brainwashed by the establishment….I questioned none of it for over 40 yrs of my life, NO MORE of that happening in my life…

    Thank goodness I can laugh when I get comments from this group. I’ll be gone and MAYBE other opposite thinkers will jump on…

    About 6 yrs ago I had an issue with a broken fillling on a molar on a bridge and my THEN conventional dentist panicked me, sent me to an endo and was preparing me for major major work and major $$$$$$$. After a course of amoxicillan it was all cleared up and I treat that area with herbals and I’m fine…thank god, and I’m not a beliver, that there is “health freedom” and we are no longer given only one route to follow.

    I’d enjoying saying what I’m saying to you to the MD who unsuccessfuly “tried” to treat my thyroid for 10 long miserable years, but he could write scripts for anti depressants very well. It took my great osteopath to call in for Armour and that 10 yrs of depressionn lifted in 4 days….I remember it so well…no labs nadda this OLDER doc knew…a 10 yr waste.

    So I’ve had my share of disappointments with MD’s and have learned so much from friends and my own work.

    And thanks to Connett, Kennedy, Green and MORE in fighting this long evil cwap in our water.

    You chose not to answer my question, what would you do IF cancer hit you?

    Like

  121. pity we cant ask steve jobs that question

    Like

  122. Joy said

    I do my best so steer clear of conventional md’s

    because, like, that decision worked so well for Dr Yiamouyiannis.

    Like

  123. Steve Slott

    Joy

    Your anecdotes about your ailments are irrelevant to this discussion. If you have any peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims, then properly cite it.

    If cancer “hit” me, I’d do what most intelligent people do……follow the recommendations of respected science and healthcare. Had your hero, Yiamouyiannis done this instead of running down to Mexico for Laetrile, he may still be alive. Instead, he died at age 55, as a direct result of his own poor judgment.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  124. joy It does not take much digging to find some real wakos in the group of people you follow for medical advice, some of their beliefs are real off the wall

    Like

  125. Everyone has choices on treatment and are prepared for their outcomes, or not prepared….and Dr. Y may not be alive regardless. My grandkids dad is gone at 55 with the burn/drugs route…maybe had he gone to Mexico he might be alive….He never opted for the powerful antioxidants I tried to get him to take for years. We do NOT know do we?. I think the front page here says “closed mind…….

    I don’t need lectures on alternative medicine, I’ve chosen this route about 25 yrs ago.

    Like

  126. Stuart Mathieson

    I presume Joy is an American. Quack and “alternative” medicine thrives in the US because of the rapacious health and insurance systems they have run to date. Practitioners who have invested nothing in real research will make big profits from the gullible and it is not that difficult to present yourself as a concerned responsible person with a bit of “sciency” paraphernalia and graphs the target audience are in no position to properly evaluate.

    Like

  127. Steve Slott

    Actually the irony is that while Joy harbors the common antifluoridationist delusion that greed and money are behind the public health initiative of water fluoridation, she dumps her own money directly into the pockets of those who hawk worthless “supplements” and other such offerings of the “natural” health food industry. Amazing….

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  128. If you’ve never been there WHY knock alternative healing, which I believe anyway, should be the first approach and then a toxic drug if needed…

    Like

  129. the difference is the ‘Toxic drug’ has been tested in the field and proven to work, unlike some strange leaf from a endangered plant from some valley in Colombo that is untested and the supplier has no responsibility if it does not work and the patient dies. they just run and hide

    Like

  130. Dr. Slott, I’ll dump my money where I choose, and it’s not on the toxic drugs, it’s on food based remedies and better to heal with foods that synthetic lab drugs….with miles of potential side effects….I know from that path.

    There are plenty of people taking the pushed drugs, almost every tv commerical is a drug being pushed….I understand that this is NOT the case in Europe….with drug ads on tv.

    To the previous poster, I’m an american thru and thru and my very first integrative MD is german born and took the extra miles to learn true healing and not pushing a drug on a patient.

    These integrative MD’s go many extra miles in their training to do real healing….

    So much ignorance in this group. I’ll be unsubscribing soon.

    This group is very closed as I see it so far….don’t need to waste any more energy on justifying my healing choices..

    Like

  131. Steve Slott

    Yes, Joy, it is quite obvious that you will dump your money anywhere you choose. Wasting money on ” alternative medicine” and “natural remedies” while making false claims to justify personal ideology against fluoridation is typical behavior of antifluoridationists.

    There is one born every minute…..

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  132. Sure and no deaths from all the drugs pushed down so many throats….

    Good grief even the class of antibiotics that are fluoride based like Cipro, Levaquin….I’ve heard from enough people with horrible joint damage from those drugs….longterm damage…

    You folks hang out here too much and keep your minds too shut.

    Like

  133. Steve Slott

    The active substance in many nuclear weapons of mass destruction is the same substance which makes up two thirds of water. Hmmm, wonder why you don’t blow up every time you drink a glass of water, Joy…..

    You’ve “heard”. That seems to be the main “support” for your nonsense.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  134. if the drug is from a recognized source,at least someone is accountable, shame about some ‘drug’ sourced out of the country. and sold by some ‘woo’ peddler

    Like

  135. Joy, this is how it works in regard to your natural and diet based *alternative* medicines:

    People get sick, they’ve been getting sick since, forever, the dawn of human kind.

    People notice that some diets, some minerals and plants appear to cure or alleviate sickness.

    Science says “oh goody, let’s check these things out”

    And science does.

    Those remedies that work then become medicine, mainstream medicine, medicine that helps people and can be shown to help people.
    Those remedies that don’t work, well, they just don’t work.

    Most people understand the process.

    (But not Joy. Joy spends her money on those things that science has shown do not work or are ineffective. Why? well because, according to Joy, the stuff shown to work is part of the konspiracy)

    Like

  136. I see where Dr. Slott is “famous” elsewhere….Why didn’t you answer the question about “why the warning on toothpaste” ? ummmm

    durhamagainstfluoride.com/dentists-against-fluoride/‎CachedSimilar
    I won’t waste time replying to you again Steve so don’t bother antagonizing
    myself. Thanks. Reply. Steven D. Slott, DDS says: June 15, 2013 at 1:03 pm. Kyle

    Like

  137. Richard, you just don’t get it or I should say you CHOOSE not to “get it” Our bodies are NOT drug deficient, but deficient in many other other things like minerals, hormones, and like myself went 10 long years being deficient in thyroid hormone….but MD kept writing drugs for depression. Finally got on Armour thyroid which has been around only about 100 yrs and depression lifted in 4 days…..

    So many struggle with hypoT and are NOT getting treatment…..BTW: Fluoride is known to disrupt thyroid hormone. And millions chug that “F” water down constantly……Talk about a lot of sick people….and not getting help and clueless to this drug they are consuming in their water and builds up and it builds up geeeezzzzz..

    Time for 60 minutes, think they would do a segment on “F”….no way….

    Like

  138. Steve Slott

    Now that’s truly comical!

    Joy is now perusing the little blog of the local uninformed antifluoridationist in Durham!! You need to sign up with him, Joy……you would fit in perfectly with his band of clowns!

    No idea as to when you might have inquired about the warning on toothpaste, but if that is something of which you are interested, fluoridated toothpaste contains 1200-1500 times the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water. THAT’s the reason for the warning. This elementary information is readily available from legitimate sources should you ever care to properly educate yourself on this issue.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  139. Ah, Joy, you seem not to understand that every substance known to man is toxic at improper levels, including plain water. The properties of fluoride at improper concentrations are irrelevant to fluoride at the optimal level at which it is consumed in fluoridated water. There are no proven adverse effects of fluoride at this concentration, thyroid or otherwise. If you care to belabor this point then properly cite valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your ridiculous claims.

    Your anecdote about your own thyroid ailment is irrelevant.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  140. Time for 60 minutes, think they would do a segment on “F”….no way….

    All is explained.

    Our bodies are NOT drug deficient, but deficient in many other other things like minerals, hormones,

    (I guess you forgot antioxidants).

    Who said they were?
    and Joy, please define “drug”.

    Like

  141. There is no proof of any medical or dental problems at the addition of fluoride at .7PPM -1PPM,except mild fluorosis,that is a cosmetic condition that will not require treatment, there is countless papers written about it, and then you look into them and all the fluoride levels are higher, if there is a problem
    All comparisons between areas with and without fluoride say the same thing fluoride works ,if it says it does not, look at the other factors, local treatment, natural fluoride levels, socio economic reasons, population transition,
    fluoride has been around for nearly 70 years and if there were problems ,they would have been found long before now. The activists started stirring the pot with Hirtzy before fluoride was introduced and still find nothing. This is is a cash cow for Connent and his family. They really dont want fluoride to stop or they will be out of a job
    So thats it in a nutshell,end of

    Like

  142. No, Dr. Slott I’m not joining that group this group is MORE than I dreamed I’d be on. How does it feel for you to know it all? You are just super and those dumb people in NC know nothing, just like me and millions of others….
    All I can say, good thing I know myself and learned from my long life about me and what is working NOW….My dream would be to see “F” totally gone before I am….one can dream……

    Like

  143. Dr. Connett and his family deserve every penny they make….everyone in this fight do.

    The cashogs are the polluters, they make it polluting going in and polluting going out. And I believe our council opened their pockets to these hogs…they are corrupt and I’ve lived here 48 yrs and no fluoridation until the pushers won out in 2008……very very sad day here…

    Like

  144. Why should anybody believe anything you say, Joy? You just ramble along doing a Gish Gallop. Bouncing from one topic to another. Quickly abandoning your position once challenged, only to move onto another topic.
    Anecdotes, opining, and the shaking of the head repeatedly don’t really work with educated people. Even if you repeat the same tactic again and again. You beclown yourself.

    Conspiracy theories conspiracy

    Like

  145. Well, Joy, if you define “knowing it all” as the verifying of facts before posting comments, rather than making a fool out of oneself by posting nonsense that cannot be substantiated…….that feels fine.

    The people in NC who accord any credence to the illiterate junk posted on the little Durham antifluoridationist website, are indeed “dumb”. Fortunately, however, the number of these people is so small as to be negligible.

    Given your comments on this page, I certainly have no argument with your claim that you know nothing. That’s one of the very few accurate statements you’ve made here.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  146. Joy

    “Dr. Connett and his family deserve every penny they make….everyone in this fight do.”

    Comical how quickly you made a u-turn on your “follow the money”. You obviously are okay with anyone profiting off of this issue…..as long as they are antifluoridationists. Your hypocrisy is staggering.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  147. Cedric

    “Beclown yourself”? Excellent! I will have to remember that very descriptive verb!

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  148. My personal anecdotal experience was not to “prove” anything, but rather to explain my personal stake in this discussion. I am fully aware of the closed minds I am facing and the successful job they have done branding dissidents as mentally ill or wacko. It was a Soviet Union tactic.
    Before my personal experience I too trusted there was such a thing as an informed scientific consensus on fluoridation. What I found however is that the white-coats just mentally sign up to what the institutions or authorities they were taught to respect say. (They have no time to do otherwise). But this allows the “scientific consensus” to be vastly overblown. In fact it is about allegiances; allegiances to trusted authorities…..the very opposite of science.
    And when a scientist breaks ranks, eg Mullinix or Colquhoun, their careers are destroyed,…..not because they suddenly became wackos, but because they have broken allegiance.
    Eg you say “The literature which antifluoridationists constantly cite in opposition generally arises from dubious sources….” But Mullinix was not dubious until her results found Fluoride harmful and Colquhoun was a World Tour exponent of Fluoridation until he discovered this “Overwhelming amount of supportive” science just wasn’t that.
    In fact the conspiracy-theorists are the Fluoridistas. They believe that every scientist that opposes Fluoridation is “a dubious source” on the basis that he/she oppose Fluoridation. It is self-fulfilling.

    I don’t believe that Fluoridation is a conspiracy, it occurred as just a confluence of vested interests and historical circumstances (See Chris Brysons’ analysis in The Fluoride Deception). It is now maintained also as a matter of faith and confidence in all the institutions that foolishly backed it. Professional and Institutional reputations are under threat; Individual-egoic and personal-career investments are at stake and the enemy must be vilified as “Wacko”.
    We must bear in mind that Fluoride is, by volume, the world’s largest toxic waste product. It can’t be legally dumped in landfill or at sea or diluted into watercourses (unless it is first passed through drinking water!).
    Finding uses for Fluorides is incredibly rewarding. That is a fact; it does not make it a conspiracy per se, but an intelligent person should know that it is not an irrelevant fact….in lobbying, politicking and even what research might be funded and whether results might be published.
    A good scientist bears in mind certain real world imperfections in science, as practice and abused. eg (1)You generally only find what you test (look) for.
    (2)Funding may depend upon potential rewards
    (3)Funding source seems to affect conclusions
    (4)Undesirable results may be suppressed and not published.
    I must say your inability to see my meaning of the difference between “established science” and “establishment science” was revealing. The “establishment” must always try to maintain there is only one truth, and one point of view…..it is settled and it is theirs. And as science is now seen as the final arbiter or all “truth” it is always up for grabs.
    How are you so naïve? Do you really believe that established authorities never “manipulate” science for their own ends, through funding choices for example or looking for scientific support to fit policy?
    In fact Professor Trevor Sheldon (Chair of the York Review Working Group) said about Fluoridation in a 2006 report that officials promoting fluoridation may have misrepresented the York Review findings to suit “prior beliefs and policy intent.” (Muddy waters: evidence-based policy making, uncertainty and the ‘York review’ on water fluoridation,” Journal Evidence & Policy, Paul Wilson and Trevor Sheldon).
    If the chief scientist charged with investigating and reviewing the scientific data on Fluoridation realises that establishment people can do this (and also that the evidence supportive of fluoridation is lacking)……just where do you get your dogmatic certainty and infantile trust from Steve???
    No doubt you had a great father who always knew best and never let you down. No doubt you believe policemen never lie, the courts never make a mistake and that Government never manipulates information. But we should be adult and realistic as well as scientific.
    Whether it is the Soviet manipulation of science to fit political dogma, or the corporate version (tobacco, asbestos, fluoride), science is done in a dirty world. Indeed the Military-industrial complex was involved in the very inception of trying to get some good news about fluoride to protect the Manhattan Project.

    When it comes to adding toxic waste to water supplies I do think observational studies are not good enough. And most of your cited reviews amount to “no evidence found” but I’m sure you know “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” and before you add toxic waste to water Grade A double-blind studies should be required. There are none.
    On the Contrary the Grimbergen trials were double-blinded and found numerous ill-effects at 1ppm.
    And a major complication is that the symptoms of systemic fluorosis are so multifarious, vague and similar to other maladies……Arthritis, Gut-pain, ulcers, and brainfog/fatigue from Throid suppression.

    Some contributors above talk about small doses of something toxic being good for you (“al a homeopathy”) .
    There is so much wrong with this………..that the “defenders of science poseurs” did not jump on.
    Firstly homeopathic theory itself requires a dosage below testable levels of even the physical presence of a molecule….. not at all the same as fluoridation which is close to acknowledged levels of harm; secondly this does not mesh with mainstream scientific paradigms; but most importantly, this portrays Fluoride as an essential nutrient that you can get too much of (like Manganese or Sodium). It is nothing of the sort.
    It is not a nutrient because it is not essential for any bodily process, nor is there any deficiency disease.
    The changes that occur to denature enamel may be seen as a “useful pathology”, (if topically applied and not carried to fluorotic destruction) but to ingest Fluoride is like swallowing tanning lotion to get brown. As a pesticide/poison Fluoride will also poison bacteria in the mouth. (I knew somebody who gargles with bleach to kill throat bacteria…..despite my counsels against it)
    Fluoride has nothing but deleterious effects on any other part of the body. It is a simple toxin. No lower threshold for harm is established. And in terms of widespread, low-level poisoning the evidence would be very hard to find as Fluoride is now ubiquitous in our environment (making unpolluted control groups hard to find) and the symptoms of systemic fluorosis are identical to a myriad of other diseases. So finding evidence of any likely harm is virtually impossible…..even if anyone were looking for it (which they aren’t).
    This is an ideal situation where the permissive format ….”No evidence was found…..” can be repeatedly invoked (by Steve & all Fluoridistas) to imply that the possibility of harm has been excluded, which it hasn’t. This is highly misleading and falsely reassuring.
    The effect (and purpose?) of this deception is to support current practice. Current practice is vastly rewarding to those able to sell a highly toxic effluent that otherwise would be enormously costly to deal with.
    That is a fact. It does not make a conspiracy; and I am sure we are all equally confident that the vast financial sums at stake have no influence or consideration at all in arriving at the political decision to put fluoride effluent into water supplies.
    We all know, from experience, that people running large financial concerns only ever act with the purest of motives and would never, ever deceive, simply to improve the balance sheet.
    However, despite my confidence in the purity of corporate & big-industry motives I still think it best not to add unnecessary poisons to water. If you believe Fluoride would improve your teeth there are better (topical) means to get the dental effects without risking ingestion.
    The precautionary principle and the maxim “First do no harm” require it.
    This returns me to my own experience. I found out that I was harmed by Fluoride (from tea). It recurred whenever I challenged myself with tea and when I moved (unknowingly) to a hotspot of high natural fluoride water (Feering, Essex). I was slow to accept the implications myself; when my daughter had gut pain it was a year before I thought to withdraw tea & F-Toothpaste (She was cured). I thought it was only me; but now I’ve discovered others and it was only ten years after my cure I read about the known links between gut symptoms & Fluorosis.
    If I, with my direct experience, was so slow to draw general conclusions, do you think I am naïve enough to think rigid minds, hateful of anti-fluoridationists, will do anything other than disbelieve and dismiss me?
    Still it happened, so I have to tell it. A changed mind is a rare thing especially in the field of science!
    “Mainstream, consensus science” virulently opposed much of what we believe today from Tectonic-Plate theory, The Big-Bang to H-Pylori causing ulcers. But it is still invoked to silence and marginalise dissent. In terms of potential political fall-out, changed ideas about the origin of the universe are nothing compared to the deliberate disposal of toxic effluent into water supplies. This house of cards will take a lot of tumbling. But tumble it must, and when it does perhaps it will play a part in reforming the abuse of science by vested interests.

    Tea.
    Many people in Ireland & the UK drink 6 or more mugs of tea per day (as I did). I find conflicting behaviours above from Fluoradistas in this regard. Sometimes it supposedly proves no harm from (much) Fluoride ingestion; Then it is omitted from calculations of average dosage and retention. You can’t have it both ways. Teas vary enormously in F content, as does individual consumption, but these “average” calculations for mass medication are horrific, & horrendously cavalier regarding the harm done to some. Some tea drinkers with Fluoridated water who happen to swallow toothpaste must certainly be harmed.
    It is a violation of all the prescribing principles. No sight of patient, no medical history, no consideration of other sources, no warnings of rare or common side-effects, no consent.
    It also displays a callous ignorance of the early symptoms of systemic fluorosis to believe that were it happening it would be obvious. It would not; as stated above, fluorosis causes IBS symptoms, Arthritis, and a myriad other banal diseases because it affects virtually every bodily process.

    Like

  149. My personal anecdotal experience was not to “prove” anything, but…

    What anecdote? What are you talking about?

    Like

  150. Harley, thank you, thank you for your long and thruthful commentary and YOUR story on the tea issue. I know folks in the UK drink a lot of tea and I know about the fluroide/tea connection…and I do believe the UK fluoridates their water, one of the only countries in Europe that does. I spent a little time in England and was horrified at the dental condition of the people there. Back, then never put this all together.

    I know about that allegance of the medicals with the establishment…. and we have an MD in our city who worked out of the mainstream “BOX” and had his medical license stripped….he now does his work in the form of an ND doctor.

    Again for me, I see only integrative MD’s who have their medical license and have gone the extra miles for true healing for their patients…hence the integration of both worlds…

    Thanks so much for jumping in and for your knowledge and your own personal story. I have NOT drank “F” water for years but I know there has been damage from many years prior to what I’ve learned since 1991 about this toxin.

    Good thing I’m a strong woman, or these “wackos” who have been so brainwashed could have reduced me to a zero…They’ve all drank and soaked in too much Fluoride, or maybe they don’t even use it themselves….

    Thanks again….j

    PS: Keep fluoridating and keep people sick….the BIG PLAN of the establishment….lot of truth to this I believe.

    Like

  151. Harley So we have a big speel about how good Colquhoun and Mullenix are, Shame the facts dont back up the claims Colquhoun did a study in Auckland on children living in fluoride and non fluoride areas, ok so to do that he just looked at the dental records from the dental clinics. There was no instruction on the way to record repair ,everyone did there own thing,He did not even look at location ,as some children lived in the fluoridated area and went to a”unfluoridated school’ area and the other way around.And if the parents decided they did not want their child in the research they could opt out. Reliable science
    Mullenix used rodents to try and prove that fluoride had a neotoxic effect on humans And when you want to make sure you get a good result just up the dosage, 125PPM was used in the end. we use .7PPM What does that tell you
    The thing you have to remember is if you are going to stand up and shout about some research you had better make sure all the T,s are crossed and the I,s dotted or somebody is going to shoot you down
    It is a shame that the activists still fall back to the old standbys as far as research is concerned, and think they can still fool the people, surely there is more recent research that follows you ideology, Or maybe there is not any. That could be why they keep flogging a dead horse,
    York Systematic Review
    The York review is one of a half dozen systematic reviews, and their standard
    was to exclude epidemiologic studies from their systematic review, for which
    they have been criticized, because comparing communities that fluoridate with
    those that don’t is key. Nonetheless, the York review still found that
    fluoridation reduced cavities by 15%. The review also found “no clear
    association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone
    cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was found.”
    1. The review found `no clear association between water fluoridation and
    incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was
    found´.
    1.The report also notes that `the best available evidence suggests that
    fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as
    measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean
    change in dmft/DMFT score.´
    Letter in the British Dental Journal, 190(10):522. 26 May 2001 regarding York
    Systematic Review:
    Sir,- Having participated in the York review of water fluoridation as a member
    of the advisory panel, and read the report in its entirety, I am at a loss to
    identify the supposed `changed situation´ that Baldwin of Bewdley refers to in
    his letter `Fluoridation jinks´ (BDJ 2001; 190: 340).

    Baldwin makes no mention of his position as Vice President of the National Pure
    Water Association. This is not surprising since it is clearly incompatible with
    his claim to the moral high ground on fluoridation. While he apparently
    considers the review `the most significant piece of scientific work in the
    history of fluoridation´, his organisation on its web site1 continues to
    condemn it as `a disgrace, a fiasco, and scientific fraud´.

    I cannot agree with Baldwin and his colleagues at the National Pure Water
    Association. The York team and their collaborators from the University of Wales
    Dental School must be congratulated on their thorough and comprehensive review.
    Overall, the review found `no clear association between water fluoridation and
    incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was
    found´. The report also notes that `the best available evidence suggests that
    fluoridation of drinking water supplies does reduce caries prevalence, both as
    measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean
    change in dmft/DMFT score.´

    The recommendation that the research base (mostly from 1945-1965) be
    strengthened is neither new nor unwelcome, and the Government has asked the
    Medical Research Council to advise on what further research might be needed.
    The report of York´s systematic review is available in full at
    http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm.

    Unacceptably high levels of tooth decay continue to blight the lives of too
    many young children in Britain – particularly those living in poverty. It
    remains our belief that, given over 50 years experience world- wide of many
    millions of people drinking fluoridated water, and the absence of any evidence
    of harm uncovered by York (or any other reputable body), water fluoridation is
    still the single most effective public health measure available to address the
    problem.

    M. A. Lennon

    Chairman, British Fluoridation Society

    1.www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/york_review.htm

    You also make a big thing about fluorosis, you move to a high fluoride area and still drink a lot of tea and then you blame the fluoride, the cure is simple, and then you say fluoride causes all these complications. Have you asked the council what the fluoride level is?, and adjusted your uptake to suit, probably not it is easier to keep drinking it and then make a big noise about how bad it is
    And then we have the old suntan lotion reference this can be found on any anti fluoride facebook page so dont try that one

    Like

  152. Wow, Harley, what a conglomeration of anecdotal nonsense. But, hey, Joy agrees with you so what more validation would one need……

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  153. My post above mentioned my personal discovery that my so-called IBS was simply gut pain caused by Fluorides from Tea. I have been cured ever since (20 years)…..except for when I moved to an area that turned out to have high natural F (1.5mg/l Calcium Fluoride).
    UK fluoridates 10% of supplies. UK Government wants to extend this. Latest attempt was Southampton. but the City Council opposes it, the County Council opposes it, all public surveys oppose it…. but a quango called Public Health England of people living outside the area are still trying to force it down our throats.

    Like

  154. Do you actually think they will not look at local conditions and adjust the fluoride levels to suit?

    Like

  155. Nuthin’like a good ‘ole story Harley -you ‘n Joy would have a great time spinning yarns around the campfire.

    Thing is, stories used to be a great method of transmitting information….back in the Bronze age.

    Now, I like to get my facts from experts…scientists, engineers and doctors (real ones…not pretend made up ones that prefer magical pseudo-science)

    It kinda comes in handy when I want my computer fixed, I want to take a flight overseas or treat acute appendicitis.
    It’s ironic, yet sickly hypocritical that you both criticize the very method that has brought you your way of life and home comforts, while you fanatically cling on to your smug ignorance.

    Like

  156. It’s ironic, yet sickly hypocritical that you both criticize the very method that has brought you your way of life and home comforts, while you fanatically cling on to your smug ignorance.

    WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT….YES YOU ARE WAITING FOR A RISE FROM ME…. THIS METHOD HAS BROUGHT ME NOTHING BUT DISCOMFORT…..this stuff you all push is pure poison…..Talk about sickly.

    What comforts has “F” given me, please tell me….

    Like

  157. That is a fact. It does not make a conspiracy; and I am sure we are all equally confident that the vast financial sums at stake have no influence or consideration at all in arriving at the political decision to put fluoride effluent into water supplies.

    (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

    We all know, from experience, that people running large financial concerns only ever act with the purest of motives and would never, ever deceive, simply to improve the balance sheet.

    (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

    Yep, it’s a global konspiracy. A vague, all-powerful, ever-present and yet completely invisible one that has successfully pulled the wool over the scientific community for 70 years.
    Daft doesn’t even begin to describe it.

    I am fully aware of the closed minds I am facing and the successful job they have done branding dissidents as mentally ill or wacko. It was a Soviet Union tactic.

    “Mandrake, have you ever seen a Commie drink a glass of water?”

    Dr. Strangelove – Water Fluoridation

    Like

  158. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT….YES YOU ARE WAITING FOR A RISE FROM ME…. THIS METHOD HAS BROUGHT ME NOTHING BUT DISCOMFORT…..

    Typing in allcaps now?
    Oh, yes. It was bound to happen. It’s almost obligatory.

    “There are lots of people out there who accept science when it’s convenient; but there’s a lot of things that science tells us they don’t want to hear and so then they reject those so-called inconvenient truths. And so this sort of weird, little way of doing things is not only true of creationists, it’s true of climate deniers, it’s true of AIDS deniers, anti-vaccers, a whole bunch of various kinds of alternative medicines–it’s a very common thread. And many of them have very similar strategies in the way they battle against the reality of science…this is a scary thing because they will accept what science has done in the way of ‘give us progress’ and ‘give us technology’ and ‘give us transportation,’ and yet they just don’t want science when it gets in the way of ideology or religion.”- Donald Prothero

    Like

  159. Well, do tell me, what comforts do I have now or did I ever get from “F”?

    I keep thinking “who are these people”, I know one is a dentist as they push “F” on their patients….conventional dentists anyway, not holistic dentists…..

    Are you mostly part of the pushers who come into towns to push this down the council members throats and into our city coffers? And throw a bit in their pockets….I’ve seen those crews come into our town when at council meetings, etc…

    I see nothing progressive about this 70 yr old fraud….. What I see as progressive are those who reject “F” and eventually remove it from public waters…..after too many years…..of swallowing this stuff…

    One of our council members who was against fluoridation, said he would not wash his auto with this stuff….he’s the only progressive on the council and the other man against it, died a year or so later as he was on dyalsis and it was said the “F” messed up the water going into the machine….

    Like

  160. Christopher Atkinson

    You mean fluoride lowers IQ in cars?

    Considering the concentration of F in the sea….think of the poor submarines… :-(

    Like

  161. I see nothing progressive about this 70 yr old fraud…..

    How does the fraud work? You have to admit, 70 years is a magnificent track record. Think of the work involved and the discipline to keep such a global fraud going. What are the nuts and bolts of the operation? Is Al Gore behind it?

    Like

  162. if you have an electronic engine management system in your car
    joy says if you wash it with fluoridated water ,it wont start

    Like

  163. No, chris, those are YOUR words…not mine….you are good at twisting other’s comments….

    You sound like my 14 yr old grandson who loves to be a joker….he’s not always funny, You havin FUN?

    Like

  164. Twisting other comments I know I have been around the activists too long they are masters at it, look at Connett

    Like

  165. You havin FUN?

    it was said the “F” messed up the water going into the machine

    Can anyone read this and not laugh?

    Like

  166. Christopher Atkinson

    very FUNNY Richard

    But F is SERIOUS

    It messes with your mind…and dialysis machines

    Like

  167. I believe there was recent Harvard Review of 27 studies found in back issues of “Car and Driver”. If I remember correctly, it compared cars found in various Icelandic and Hawaiian villages. The results showed conclusively that Icelandic cars washed with fluoridated water were 68.73% less likely to start in the mornings than were cars washed with fluoride-free water in Hawaii. This damning evidence should be fully discussed in an upcoming article in Lancet.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  168. “very FUNNY Richard

    But F is SERIOUS

    It messes with your mind…and dialysis machines”

    …….and cars.

    Like

  169. Happy that you BOYS are having fun and getting good laughs…I knew there was a reason for my being here…..

    Like

  170. OMG how dare they…

    INTERNATIONAL FLUORIDE FREE TELECONFERENCE – JULY 2014

    REGION OF PEEL, CANADA: “ARTIFICIAL WATER FLUORIDATION IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH”

    Register Today
    Saturday, July 12, 2PM(Pacific US)/5PM(Eastern US)/10PM(Dublin)
    Sunday, July 13, 7AM(Sydney)/9AM(New Zealand)

    On June 26, the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation Region made big news when their lawyer presented a legal opinion to Peel Regional Councillors arguing that artificial water fluoridation is unconstitutional and illegal in Canada and the regions councilors themselves would be liable for any harm caused by fluoridating the public water supply.

    Like

  171. “Happy that you BOYS are having fun and getting good laughs…I knew there was a reason for my being here…..”

    You bring it on yourself, Joy.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  172. “On June 26, the Concerned Residents of Peel to End Fluoridation Region made big news…..”

    “Big news”?? You mean old news. You’re a bit behind, Joy. The little “fluoridefreewhatever” websites, antifluoridationist websites and blogs, and esteemed online publications such as “NaturalNews” beat you to the punch in proclaiming this “big news”.

    An uninformed, antifluoridationist lawyer goes before a city council spewing the same, lame legal threats that antifluoridationists have had rejected for the past 69 years.

    Yeah, big news…….yawn…..

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  173. Ive seen those teleconferences advertised before Joy. They had one on how to prosecute local government, that leads to the question
    Now if their arguments against fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own ,without legal help. If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not

    Like

  174. I just went thru the whole thread here I think, when I jumped in here I hadn’t read ALL of the previous posts….and there are many more Anti F posters than I realized….wonder how many lurkers who don’t even comment.

    I know there is a yahoo fluoride poison group but I didn’t join it as I get too much stuff now in my inbox.

    Just a reminder about Iodine and Fluoride toxicity. iodine works to pull out heavy metals including “F” and there is plenty info out there on iodine deficiency in the U .S. No, I’m not a doc…..

    Like

  175. Christopher Atkinson

    Hi Joy,

    Still plugging away!
    Yes, I think we figured out you weren’t a doc.

    Do you realised that fluoride exists in unfluoridated water, your food and even in the air you breathe?

    So…how do you propose we avoid the the dreaded POISEN here?

    Like

  176. Christopher Atkinson

    Oh Lordy, my spelling is atrocious!

    Poison!

    Like

  177. I know it’s in SO MUCH and I do my best buying my foods as organic as I can.
    But, I don’t need the extra LOAD from this industry you represent…..

    I know it’s in rain water and it’s the natural occurring….not the stuff from scrubbers…..gezzzzzz As I said above somewhere I’ve lived in my city for 48 yrs and I knew there was natual occurring “F” in our waters, but add the extra load…..sickening.

    The iodine I HOPE helps with pulling out the “F that I’m getting… I’ve done my work on the iodine issue.

    Like

  178. “No , I’m not a doc….”

    Really, Joy?? Wow! From your comments, you sure had me fooled….

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  179. No, I’m not a doc…..

    Imagine our surprise.

    I’ve done my work on the iodine issue.

    Of that, I have no doubt.
    Really. ;)

    Like

  180. My sentiments, CHOICE….not forced…

    Aaron says:
    February 12, 2014 at 10:33 am
    I’m not sure why this debate has become so extreme (maybe it’s because it’s about our kids) but it has been really unhelpful. My own experiences with mine and my children’s teeth is that flouride can help with teeth and that the best way is to apply it directly to the teeth as opposed to putting it in the stomach.

    We found this out the hard way unfortunately so I wish everyone would step back a bit, take a deep breath and climb out of their trenches because it’s very hard to find objectivity anywhere.

    The situation is not helped by people on both sides of the fence who’s careers depend on the position they have taken. This is especially an issue with people high up in government organisations who have completely absorbed the values of those organisations.

    I also struggle with people who come to the debate to defend ‘science’. Both sides of the debate are using science to push their arguements and I think the need to ‘defend science’ is an emotional position rooted in the need for a stable and orderly world. I completely understand that a world where you can’t always trust government institutions is a worrying place but unfortunately that is the world we live in.

    For the record, I would rather have the choice about what is in my drinking water.

    Like

  181. “I’m not sure why this debate has become so extreme (maybe it’s because it’s about our kids) but it has been really unhelpful. My own experiences with mine and my children’s disease is that measles should stay outside the body as opposed to putting it in the body by jabbing with needles.

    We found this out the hard way unfortunately so I wish everyone would step back a bit, take a deep breath and climb out of their trenches because it’s very hard to find objectivity anywhere.

    The situation is not helped by people on both sides of the fence who’s careers depend on the position they have taken. This is especially an issue with people high up in government organisations who have completely absorbed the values of those organisations.

    I also struggle with people who come to the debate to defend ‘science’. Both sides of the debate are using science to push their arguements and I think the need to ‘defend science’ is an emotional position rooted in the need for a stable and orderly world. I completely understand that a world where you can’t always trust government institutions is a worrying place but unfortunately that is the world we live in.

    For the record, I would rather have the choice about if and when and what vaccines to vaccinate my child.”

    Like

  182. Joy, there are not “sides to this debate”. There is simply the peer-reviewed science which clearly supports the public health initiative of water fluoridation, and the “junk science” constantly put forth by antifluoridationists such as you, who do not not understand the difference.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  183. There are 2 sides Pro and Con forced “F”….

    You and your science crap, if I had listened to my science based dentist, I would have lost many teeth and spent so much money on what….science….
    I’m fine 5+ yrs later still have my teeth and my money…..

    And if I listened to the science MD’s, I’d be on celebrex for my OA issues and then deal with potential side effects from that expensive drug….gotta love those tv ads for that drug and 100′s more….

    This is for you Dr. Slott and it is RELEVANT!!!!!

    Such a dreamer to say your stuff is relevant….give me a break….no one else can have opinions….or is it arrogance and not a dreamer…
    .

    Like

  184. Another comment: it’s amazing, I guess, that fluoridation isn’t pushed on TV, although fluoride TP is advertised, those ads cost mega bucks…gotta keep the coffers filled up….For every community that rejects/removes “F”, the gang is out there pushing it to “new” areas…they’ve gotta be runing out of areas….huh….

    Historically, “F” was just added waters, people had no clue, only those pushing it and the water depts….

    Thanks to the “fighters” over many years and in recent years Bryson, Connett’s and those before these and the great worldwide net to get this info out to the masses and the growing populations of the young people….SO many older folks are dealing with this massive fraud and their health issues…and MOST don’t have a clue about the “F” they ingested for mega years…..truly pathetic….all a fraud in the name of science and deep pockets of the establishments of medicine…

    Like

  185. Joy, thank you. You do provide great entertainment. I’m not sure I’ve come across an antifluoridationist who so freely admits his/her science denial so openly as do you. You really should consider joining the “Flat Earth Society”. They don’t like to listen to all those old “science based” people either.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  186. Science Schimence that’s your only mantra….

    How does your mother/spose deal with you…..

    Someone here said a few posts back on how my life is so much more comfortable and I asked them to tell me in what way…and no answers….lots of questions are never answered by your folks….just keep talking science….grrrrrr

    CHOICE

    Like

  187. Yeah, I know, Joy. Very inconsiderate of us to want to talk science on a science issue.

    Like

  188. Waste by product = science. ummmmmm

    Back in the 1940′s did the population ask to be mass fluoridated in their waters, you all should have that answer…

    While adding this waste, why not throw in some laxatives and anti depressants…since SO MANY are constipated and depressed and on mega drugs for these 2 health issues….I believe the fluoride everyone chugs down is messing their thyroids and hence the depression, I know that one from 1991 to 2002.

    And constipation caused by many issues, and could be too much “F” there too…..never thought of that one.

    I know you are more entertained Dr. Slott….I had FUN posting all this entertainment and insights…

    Like

  189. You and your science crap….

    Joy, you are the perfect representative of anti-fluoridationists everywhere.
    Thank you.
    You’ve summed up their position better than we ever could with that one pithy comment.

    (…applause…)

    Like

  190. Chris said
    “There is no proof of any medical or dental problems at the addition of fluoride at .7PPM -1PPM, except mild fluorosis,that is a cosmetic condition that will not require treatment,”

    By “Fluorosis” you mean “Dental Fluorosis” I presume.
    Fluorosis is a systemic & skeletal disease. Normally such dental damage would be taken as a warning sign of systemic toxicity. What proof do that this “is merely cosmetic”. The York Review found this slogan did not have any scientific backing. (NB Precautionary Principle; you even ignore shouted warnings!)
    Bear in mind it would now be extremely difficult to find evidence either way if you are familiar with the manifold signs of early fluorosis that are indistinguishable from much of “Western” diseases. Arthritis, Gut symptoms (diagnosed as IBS), Headaches, Fatigue, Weight-Gain (due to Thyroid suppression). This is all rising in Fluoridated areas but no-one is free from rising background of Fluoride pollution in Water/Air/Pesticide -Residues.
    Is (for example) anybody comparing the blood fluoride levels of say IBS sufferers with non-suffers? I think not; it might deliver politically inconveniemt data.
    Until realistic studies actually look for the real early Flouro-toxicity symptoms and compare blood fluoride levels with non -suffers nobody is addressing the real scientific question here. They are simply justifying current practice with the formula “No evidence was found” Well the kind of evidence that could exist is not being looked for. What is looked for is policy-support.
    As the title says they are repeating bad science but it is not the sceptics repeating bad science but those desparate to find fig-leaves to cover a silly idea that would never be started today and was started with atrocious science such as the ending of the Muskegon Control.

    Chris also said………
    “All comparisons between areas with and without fluoride say the same thing fluoride works ,if it says it does not, look at the other factors, local treatment, natural fluoride levels, socio economic reasons, population transition,”………………..
    Don’t quite understand this “All comparisons do…..but when they don’t”!!!
    Anyhoo…….
    “But when they DO (apparently support Fluoride)” you should equally “look at the other factors, local treatment, natural fluoride levels, socio economic reasons, population transition,” That is the scientific viewpoint.
    Thanks for a perfect example of how scrutiny of a piece of research depends upon whether it fits your pre-existing viewpoint.

    Unfortunately Fluoradistas are cursed with this vice. They minutely fault critical reaearch, but swallow, and repeat ad nauseum, more grossly faulted supportive research.
    Professor Sheldon’s rebuke to the UK medical establishment for misrepresenting York’s conclusions said there was “The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.”……”Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews”.

    So the most rigorous review of the subject (even though structured & peopled by a Government seeking supportive data) found this to be area with “a dearth of good research” that “will continue to be a legitimate scientific controversy”
    So, why are the establishment-fundamentalists on here so keen to pretend this is a closed-case?
    It is not. And they do a disservice to science in this campaign. But worse they do a disservice to those who have suffered Fluoride toxicity such as myself. This is not just an intellectual spat, or a partisan war, it involves a potentially vast array of human suffering that will be very hard to find (if indeed it exists) unless it is actually looked for. Given the other sources of F, only this (blood fluorides verses disease) can settle this question.

    Like

  191. Harley, so goood to hear from you….Good News from the U.S. A great area of Bucks Country in PA have ended I’m sure LONG fluoridation of their water, I’m sure since 50′s as my birth place in Western PA fluoridated since the 50′s…and I have a mouthfull of dental work to prove it. and too too much arthritis to go along with it all. Thank you Dr. Connett and team of many.

    CHOICE.

    Like

  192. Harley

    Again, your unsubstantiated speculation is meaningless. In regard to York’s comment about dental fluorosis and cosmetics, the York Committee was speaking of dental fluorosis as a whole. There are different levels of dental fluorosis: very mild, mild, moderate, and severe. The only levels associated in any manner with water fluoridation are mild to very mild, barely detectable effects which cause no adverse effects on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. It is not even a cosmetic problem, much less anything else. The 2006 NRC Committee in its discussion of dental fluorosis classified moderate/severe dental fluorosis as an adverse effect due to the enamel pitting associated at these levels, which creates a potential for dental decay. It left mild to very mild dental fluorosis as simply a cosmetic effect.

    Your personal opinion that “Normally such dental damage would be taken as a warning sign of systemic toxicity.” is meaningless in the absence of valid, scientific evidence of systemic toxicity in association with fluoride at the optimal level.

    Meaningless, too is your personal opinion and speculation about arthritis, headache, fatigue, etc. Science and healthcare are evidenced-based, not personal opinion and speculation-based. The constant barrage of “symptoms” and “disorders” put forth by antifluoridationists, with no substantiation, whatsoever in regard to their purported association with water fluoridation….are meaningless. One hundred percent of people who get out of bed in the morning will die. Does this mean that getting out of bed in the morning causes death?

    Fluoride has been ingested by humans in their water since the beginning of time. Water fluoridation has been in effect for 69 years. This is obviously time enough for any “early signs” of toxicity to have evolved into full skeletal fluorosis, the first disorder which would be observed. In the 74% fluoridated U.S. skeletal fluorosis is so rare as to be nearly non-existent. If you want to test your speculative guesses about “fluoride toxicity” then commission a study to do so. Demanding “proof” against all of the unsubstantiated claims and speculation put forth by antifluoridationists is not valid science, and is the obligation of no one.

    Fluoridation advocates, “fluoridistas” rely upon valid, peer-reviewed science to support their position. Antifluoridationists, as evidenced by your comment here, rely upon speculation, personal opinions, anecdotes, and misinformation to support their position. Your complaint that fluoride advocates “fault crtical research” is a common one with antifluoridationists. However, because fluoride proponents have the knowledge and understanding to discern the difference between valid studies and invalid ones, while antifluoridationists believe any quote plucked from any “study” constitutes valid evidence, is not a sign of improper bias, it is simply the difference between those who truly have an understanding of science and healthcare, and those who do not. I, for one, can and do provide valid evidence to support my criticisms of any study.

    Properly cite whatever “critical research” you believe supports your position, and I will be glad to point out its flaws. Similarly, properly cite whatever “grossly faulted supportive research” you believe that fluoride advocates “swallow and repeat ad nauseum” and I’ll be glad to explain it to you.

    Your constant citing of the opinion of one, single committee as a condemnation of a public health initiative which has the full support of peer-reviewed science, and the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare, is an excellent example of the type of “cherry-picking” utilized by antifluoridationists.

    If you are implying that fluoride at the optimal level is responsible for any “fluoride toxicity” that you believe you or anyone else has “suffered” then provide valid, properly documented medical evidence of such. Otherwise your anecdotal comment in this regard is meaningless.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  193. And you KNOW Dr. Slott, everyone’s toxicity that have been ingesting this toxin for years…. Your info is meaningless….plain and simple ….absolute arrogance….you all need AA to help you with your addiction to this stuff…

    Like

  194. Joy

    Thank you for yet one more clear example of the intelligence level of the vast majority of antifluoridationists.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  195. Oh you ALL have your arrogant comebacks….you’ve been trained well….that’s the science of it all….the brainwashed training. Thank goodness PEOPLE are waking up at long last…..thanks to the wwwnet.

    Like

  196. The world of joy
    …………………………………..

    You and your science crap….
    (…)
    Your info is meaningless….
    (…)
    Thank goodness PEOPLE are waking up at long last…..thanks to the wwwnet.
    ……………………………………

    Joy, you are the perfect representative of anti-fluoridationists everywhere.
    Thank you.
    You’ve summed up their position better than we ever could with that one pithy comment.
    And the hits keep coming.

    (…applause…)

    Penn & Teller – Anti-Vaccinations Crazies

    Like

  197. Well, that would depend on time zones, Joy. PEOPLE in one time zone could be waking up while those in a different time zone may just going to sleep. Or, it could depend on occupational work schedules. Those who work first shift may be waking up, while those who work third shift could be just turning in. Or, on vacation schedules. Those not on vacation could be waking up to go to school or work, while those on vacation may still be sound asleep. Or, possibly due to physical or mental disorders. Those with one disorder may be waking up, while those with a different one may be just going to sleep.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  198. funny thing you dont see lines of people going to the hospitals with toxic poisoning from that horrid fluoride, and after 70 years you would think that there was valid evidence that it is a danger to human health at the .7-1PPM range, you cant find one paper that has scientific backing that supports your fantasy

    Like

  199. Dr. Slott, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Not Funny!

    MOST have no clue how much damage “F” is doing to their bodies…… Who gets lab work for fluoride build up?

    Like

  200. exactly, so its not a problem

    Like

  201. Joy

    “Dr. Slott, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Not Funny!”

    I see that you are not one of those “PEOPLE” who are waking up.

    Okay, so now, who exactly is this “most” person whom you report has no clue how much damage is being done to his/her body? In regard to water fluoridation, he/she obviously has nothing to worry about, as this water is carefully evaluated and monitored for fluoride content. However, if “most” is ingesting abnormally high levels of environmental fluoride, abnormally high levels of fluoride from uncontrolled, unmonitored well-water, or abnormally high levels of fluoride in unmonitored, non-fluoridated public water systems, you should probably advise this person to be evaluated by competent healthcare personnel for any signs of fluoride toxicity.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  202. Can i comment? You are all insane if you think it is a good idea to actively poison the water supply against the consent of the people by big gov’t/pharma

    Like

  203. Champion

    I couldn’t agree more. It would be insane to actively poison the water supply regardless of whether the people consented or not.

    However, this is irrelevant to the topic of water fluoridation, so you might want to focus a little better.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  204. Christopher Atkinson

    Ah Champion…

    Of course you can comment. Yes, it would be utterly insane to poison the water.

    Stark raving bonkers with nuts and bits of loopy fruit on top.

    But I guess you aren’t referring to poison are you?

    Like

  205. Christopher Atkinson

    Oh and Champion,

    Where I come from, the decision for community water fluoridation is made at the local government level- usually a dozen or so pretty average people performing pretty mundane jobs; rubbish, rates and roads.

    As for ‘big ‘ business, I think it cost about $48,000 annually for one of our local councils to implement the scheme – no ‘big bucks’ there I ‘m afraid .

    Nothing “Big ‘ going on here I would suggest except the conspiracy in your imagination.

    Like

  206. Just plain BULL S**T and such master manipulators of other’s words…

    What I know and got it from our water works in a report that I asked for….the initial installation of all the equipment, etc….was helped by the polluters to get our city going with this “F” poison, oh just a little bit is OK…..like being a little bit pregnant…..

    Foir 2012-2013 our city paid $103,000 to keep it all going…

    For 2013-2014 our city paid $118,000 “” “”””

    Nuts and insane are too gentle words for all these scumbags that do this dirty work.

    Like

  207. “What I know and got it from our waterworks in a report”

    Oh, well, Joy, with such conclusive evidence as that, who could possibly argue…….

    Will you be presenting this evidence at any upcoming scientific symposia?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  208. Christopher Atkinson

    Oh Joy,

    I am a little confused (you can be a little obscure at times) – you seem a little agitated too

    Are you agreeing with me about how little fluoridation costs by saying your town is larger than the example I gave from little old NZ?

    Like

  209. A community that stops fluoridating or never starts this process will find that local
    residents end up spending more money on decay-related dental problems. Evidence
    shows that for most cities, every $1 invested in fluoridation saves $38 in unnecessary
    treatment costs.
     A Texas study confirmed that the state saved $24 per child, per year in Medicaid
    expenditures because of the cavities that were prevented by drinking fluoridated water.
     A Colorado study showed that water fluoridation saved the state nearly $149 million by
    avoiding unnecessary treatment costs. The study found that the average savings were
    roughly $61 per person.
    So how does that relate to your $118,000 it costs to keep fluoride. that means to me there is a lot of money that can be spent on other things, but as usual with activists the only thing they worry about is pushing their little barrow
    the old activist rule, democracy is ok, as long as we get what we want

    Like

  210. This is total B.S. Many children don’t drink much water, many children drink bottle water, my grandkids drink all bottle water. I buy all my water..,,and my organs and joints don’t need to ingest “F”.,…..buy your toothpaste…..

    Your numbers don’t impress me for a split second,,,,this is totally wrong, adding this waste byproduct to our once safe enough water…

    As I once said I was born and raised in “F”” water and mouthful of dental work to prove WHAT…..the “F” saved me?

    CHOICE….

    Like

  211. Steven Slott

    Hmmm, Joy disputes the peer-reviewed scientific studies, claiming them to be “total B.S.”, based on what she claims are the experiences of herself and her grandchildren.

    So, let’s see…..Joy’s anecdotal tales, or peer-reviewed science. Man! That’s a tough one…..

    Steve

    Steven D. Slott, DDS PO Box 1744 Burlington, NC. 27216 336-226-5349

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

    Like

  212. Christopher Atkinson

    So Joy,

    If you don’t agree with something or you just don’t like something, instead of providing any facts , figures or reasons – you just throw your toys out of your cot, curse and revert to all caps…..

    I see

    Like

  213. This is total B.S.

    Don’t the rules of grammar demand that the preceding ought to have been followed by a colon and paragraph break?

    Like

  214. Seems to me, Joy, you are exerting all the legitimate choice one should have. You buy water for yourself (probably not understanding it also contains F) and your grandchildren.

    So why all the bitching? Do you want to deny us the choice of drinking water with adequate amounts of a beneficial trace element just because you have a hang-up?

    Like

  215. Christopher Atkinson

    I would’ve thought the rules of biology would have demanded that Joy’s B.S was preceded by a colon
    :-)

    Like

  216. Ken, I’m not denying you any of your chosen F water…..The water I buy does not contain the Poison you folks push. I know there is naturally occurring “F” in the atmosphere.

    So your joints and organs and glands need flouride, that is why you ingest it? Didn’t I read where areas in NZ are rejecting/removing “F” in public waters….

    I’m done here for a while, have your FUN without me.

    CHOICE

    Like

  217. Can i comment? You are all insane if you think it is a good idea to actively poison the water supply against the consent of the people by big gov’t/pharma.

    It doesn’t sound like a good idea really.
    So it would be a bit hard to sell that idea to sane people, right?
    Most people don’t want to poison a city’s water supply….because they drink it themselves. Or their friends, relatives etc.
    A bit hard to pursuade the water board (that’s responsible for water safety) to put poison in it.
    For seventy years.
    And nobody notices.

    And when I say “nobody” I mean nobodies like you and Joy playing at science on the internet. You do come across as crackpots, you know.
    Look at what you and others write.
    Dealing with anti-fluoridationists means being link-bombed, dealing with cherry-picking, abuse of scientific terms, conspiracy theories, endless cut-and-pastes, anecdotes, citing of the same tiny circle of “experts” that never seem to have time to publish in the scientific arena, total disregard of the basic rules of grammar, all caps and even more anecdotes.
    It’s just sad.
    People like you should be put into boxes with very little air and no electricity.

    Spooky-wooky global scientific conspiracy theories (lasting 70 years) don’t work. They’re physically impossible. It’s really stupid. Stop it.

    Conspiracy theories conspiracy

    Like

  218. Good Joy – you have your choice and non-one is denying it. You are not denying my choice. So all is fine and dandy.

    You are welocme to you opinion but without factual basis it doesnt really count for much.

    And it is pointless to promote it here as we are all exercising our choice, aren’t we?

    Like

  219. Ken, before I go, in the time I’ve been here posting comments and asking some of you questions, not ONE question was answered….

    Keep fluoridating yourselves…….

    Like

  220. Joy

    “I’m done here for a while, have your FUN without me.”

    Joy, you were “done here” before you even began…..as is the case with the overwhelming majority of antifluoridationists.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  221. Ken said “Good Joy – you have your choice and non-one is denying it. You are not denying my choice. So all is fine and dandy.”

    I think choice is very much being denied here!
    Medication without consent is the most flagrant denial of choice.
    And the disposal of toxic effluent into water supplies is contemptuous of the choice of individuals who wish to avoid it…..even though you may, (in your complacent assumption of superiority of your intellectual position), judge their choice to be incorrect. It should still be their choice.
    Fluoradistas are careful to avoid even the “choice of the majority to medicate everyone” through ballots (still an infringement of individual human rights).

    As to people “being done before (they) began”………. Steve if you know anything about Pyschology (& the history of science) you will know this is the usual state of most humans. This very much includes scientists & particularly Medics. Changing minds is just not the norm; and the more information people imbibe the more they tend to incoprorate it into their current mindset as reinforcement. You will know Max Plank’s qoute….
    “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” We all know this is true, and yet most of us prefer to maintain our rigidity. We confuse our intellect (& its viewpoints) with our very self…..which is not to be risked.
    Having said that there have been some remarkable “Road to Damascus” defections towards opposing Fluoridation.
    As I said above, even I was very slow to change my mindset. It took years of study to overcome my simple trust in the “authority of a supposed scientific consensus”.
    My own direct experience (of F causing my IBS) was pivotal in me personally taking this intellectual jouney.
    Of course this experience is pounced on “as anecdote” as I knew it would be. But…..
    (1) A rational man (with a good science education) who does not listen to his direct experience is no scientist. He is not capable of observing, recording and testing (As I did in this respect). And when I said I intially “challenged” myself with tea, somebody pounced on this as my continuing to consume F and muddling things. Far from it.
    (2)Anecdote does not equal “nonesense”
    (3)Anecdotes provide the source of hypotheses to be tested. (By good scientific studies)
    (4)Given the way this issue has been “sewn-up” (see below) by the Fluoradistas anecdotal experiences may be one of the few ways to get freah attention of open minds on this.

    The other fundamental issue here is that “A current practice is being defended” (Just think of the loss of face, litigation, etc of an admission of error)……Thus….
    (1)As current practice exists…. the onus has been cleverly put on those opposing the addition of this toxin to prove harm.

    (2)Unfortunately, as a enzyme disrutive toxin, the effects of F are multifareous. This means they are hard to find……unless you actually look for them.
    The Double-blind trials by Dr Hans Moolenberg in the Netherlands show as main symptoms…. gastro-intestinal, stomatitis, joint pains, polydipsia, headaches, visual disturbances, muscular weakness, and extreme tiredness.
    I have spoken personally with Dr Moolenberg and he was absolutely dismayed that, while the Netherlands stopped Fluoridation, the “Anglo-Saxon world just ignored the results”.

    (3)Therefore the official stance is to….
    (a)Carefully not look for the actual type of damage that might be occurring (ie blood F compared to symptoms)…&
    (b)Ignoring, ruling-out and/or minutely faulting research results that raise red flags.

    By applying these principles assiduously, the formula “No evidence was seen/found (of harm)” can always be used to protect policy.
    Evidence of harm will be, not looked for, ignored, buried or insulted.

    Of course it does not mean there is evidence of absence of harm.
    It means there is an absence of evidence (“that we will accept”), that harm (“from our avowed and long-entrenched policy”) has occurred.

    (Every piece of research can be faulted. The important thing is do the faults invalidate all consideration?)
    Peer-Reviewing can also cause establishment-weighting because journal boards reflect current mindsets.

    I really don’t like this acrimony but it seems to be part of the scientific tradition as of all debate. I know I can’t open set minds but I do think sadly of the wasted suffering of people suffering some of the symptoms above (Moolenberg/Grimbergen). If you suffer such, you might try non-F water, no tea, & no-teflon. Some of you may get a complete cure as I did, that’s why I’m bothering with this argument.

    Like

  222. My own direct experience (of F causing my IBS) was pivotal in me personally taking this intellectual jouney.

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

    Like

  223. Harley

    The constant claims by antifluoridationists that they are being “force medicated” is nothing but a despicable, self-absorbed attempt to exploit the sufferings of those throughout history who truly have undergone the horrors of being force medicated. The courts have rejected this nonsense each and every time it has been raised by antifluoridationists. It has no merit.

    The constant barrage of unsubstantiated claims put forth by antifluoridationists does, in no manner, constitute an honest search for “truth”. It constitutes nothing more than a barrage of unsubstantiated claims put forth by those seeking to further their own personal ideology at the expense of the health and well-bring of entire populations. Similarly, in regard to your defense of commenter “Joy”, the erroneous, uninformed statements and claims made by one who has obviously not bothered to do even a modicum of valid research on an issue on which she constantly babbles, does not in any manner equate with the experiences of scientists and medics. It is simply a clear demonstration of the laziness of antifluoridationists who are content to feed their own ideologies by lapping up nonsense spoon-fed to them by activist zealots, then regurgitating it verbatim all over the internet.

    As far as your “Road to Damascus defectors”, the epiphany with which you believe they were struck was actually nothing more than a lightning bolt of ignorance. They took a wrong turn somewhere along the line and are now traveling in the wrong direction. Perhaps when they meet Paul going in the opposite direction they will elect to rejoin him.

    And, yes, your unsubstantiated claim that your IBS was caused by fluoride, is nothing but meaningless anecdote. If you desire any credibility for this claim, then present, valid, properly documented medical evidence of the diagnosis and etiology of your disorder. Otherwise cease your transparent attempts to deprive an entire population the dental decay preventive benefit of water fluoridation, with such unqualified, unsupported personal opinion.

    If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims in regard to water fluoridated at the optimal level, then present it. Your philosophical rambling does not constitute such.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  224. On the subject of my IBS cure. I mentioned it to instance how even my own mind was rigidly set to favour official, authortative reassurances…… until repeatedly slapped in the face by direct experience.
    This was in the consideration of closed minds……in reply to your insult to Joy’s as being closed.
    Presumably, even if a similar event (on something controversial) occurred to you, and your direct (and retested experience) contradicted the “official” line…..you would still toe the orthodox line.
    That is not rational, nor scientific and the progess of science rests on those who, relying on their own experience, requestion received interpretations.
    You dismiss my experience out-of-hand and unkindly…. although there are plenty of researches supportive of IBS-type symptoms as fluorosis. (see Susheela, Waldbott & Moolenberg). What a cavalier & callous attitude as the “mysterious” IBS epidemic grows in fluoride-promoting societies.
    In the mean time you ignore the natural priority of fluoradistas having to prove no harm.
    They have not looked for the likely harm; they simply use the formula “no harm was found” after not looking for the likely harm and ruling out, or just ignoring, red-flag studies.
    e.g.
    (1)Please supply researches (that meet your own standards) showing instances of IBS (or other non-attributable gut symtoms) comparing groups with higher and lower blood-fluoride levels.
    (2)Apply this to the other symptoms found by Moolenberg
    (3)Tell me in what ways (symptoms) you believe Fluoride-toxicity would first begin to show?
    Begin here http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html
    Oh! Wait! Pubmed has made a political decision not to index Fluoride Journal. (Does that mean your mind cannot be “open” to “officially-unsanctioned” knowledge?) Neatly out-ruled by Pubmed financed by the US taxpayer.
    Build your defensive walls high in fear of unwanted data breaking through.

    The UK Medical Research Council deftly and callously deflects investigation thus ….”Fluoride exposure has been postulated to cause a number of health effects other than those described above. Many of these, although plausible, have not been substantiated. Those discussed are: immunological effects, effects on reproduction, birth defects, renal defects, gastrointestinal tract effects, intelligence, thyroid and six miscellaneous effects. For all of them, further research was considered a low priority”.

    The York Review said such researches were necessary…….but the MRC just says they are “a low priority”.
    These effects are “plausible” (perorative for “cogent”), but, (if the MRC gets its way) they stand no chance of being substantiated.
    This is not science;it is politics. It is manipulation to support policy.
    You insult my “philosophical ramblings” but it is essential to always place scientific discussion in such a context ……particularly when official authorities are trying to force closed a question that is far from settled.
    But throughout the history of science the majority of “scientists” have toadied to official groupthink than to open thought.
    Unfortunately to succeed as a Medic means you must be a great student which demands a great passive-sponge-brain, not great for innovation.

    I believe you are a dentist involved in this propaganda campsaign rather than a truthseeker
    Twenty-five years ago, the British Dental Journal (September 15, 1970, page 300) advised its readers: “Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not. . . . as soon as dentists recognize their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding. In politics, the emphasis is on propagandizing rather than education.”

    Like

  225. On the subject of my IBS cure. I mentioned it to instance how even my own mind was rigidly set to favour official, authortative reassurances…… until repeatedly slapped in the face by direct experience.

    It’s called an anecdote.
    It’s hugely unimpressive.

    Presumably, even if a similar event (on something controversial) occurred to you, and your direct (and retested experience) contradicted the “official” line…..you would still toe the orthodox line.

    It’s doesn’t matter who it happens to.
    It’s just an anecdote.

    That is not rational, nor scientific and the progess of science rests on those who, relying on their own experience, requestion received interpretations.

    Please do not use big words you clearly do not understand. You will impress nobody except the Joys of the world.

    You dismiss my experience out-of-hand and unkindly….

    It’s an anecdote, you moron.
    Helloooo?

    ….although there are plenty of researches…

    Spare us. If you only knew the number of idiots who try and talk all sciency. You don’t know what you are talking about. If you did, you wouldn’t mention anecdotes in the first place. Science is not your friend.

    Oh! Wait! Pubmed has made a political decision…

    Smell the konspiracy.

    Build your defensive walls high in fear of unwanted data breaking through.

    Take a big whiff.

    The UK Medical Research Council deftly and callously deflects investigation thus ….

    It’s not just them. Can you think of a single scientific community on the planet that rejects the scientific consensus on water fluoridation?

    You insult my “philosophical ramblings”….

    I’d called babble. Babble from a moron.

    But throughout the history of science the majority of “scientists” have toadied to official groupthink than to open thought.

    What’s your next trick? Are you going to name drop Galileo too?
    Please don’t. It’s so very predictable.

    I believe you are a dentist involved in this propaganda campsaign rather than a truthseeke

    Nobody cares what you believe. You are just some sad, paranoid konspiracy theorist peddling science denial. Get a life.

    The Problem with Anecdotes by QualiaSoup

    Like

  226. Cedric Katesby Lives ! ! !
    For about the last two years, I have been blessed/cursed with a commenter who calls himself Cedric Katesby. He lives somewhere in South Korea.
    Go here for a sample of Cedric in action. Cedric believes that we are causing the earth to get warmer. I don’t. I think earth’s temperature is on a natural cycle. I believe that there was a Medieval Warm Period. I believe that it was once warm enough to grow potatoes in Greenland. I believe that Al Gore’s “Hockey Stick” is more like a little pruning hook.
    Cedric believes otherwise. We have argued with each other for about two years.

    Then East Anglia University’s Climate Research Unit’s emails were hacked, revealing efforts to “hide the decline” of warming. Much nastiness was uncovered about the peer-review process.
    Then the Copenhagen Climate Change conference was a dud.
    I stopped hearing from Cedric. Dr. Ralph, among others, wondered where Cedric went off to, and my theory was that he might have lost his funding. I didn’t think I’d ever hear from Cedric again.
    A few weeks ago, I got an email. Cedric wanted to send me some books. I gave him my work address, and didn’t think much more about it.

    The other day, I got two large boxes of books in the mail from Barnes & Noble, compliments of Mr. Katesby in South Korea. Most of them are about Climate Change, some are about skepticism in general (Cedric still can’t believe that I’m not a religious fundamentalist) and some are about other issues where we’ve disagreed. A few of them he just thought I would like !
    It’s the most extreme example of true dedication to a cause that I’ve ever seen. I’m guesstimating that Cedric spent more than $200 on these books.

    Like

  227. Harley
    Not really anything that needs to added to Cedric’s assessment of your continued attempt to cover your lack of valid evidence, with philosophical nonsense, and anecdotal discussion of your undocumented claims as to the cause of your disorders.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  228. Christopher Atkinson

    Odd…

    Joy’s story of “The other day, I got two large boxes of books in the mail from Barnes & Noble, compliments of Mr. Katesby in South Korea. Most of them are about Climate Change, some are about skepticism in general (Cedric still can’t believe that I’m not a religious fundamentalist)”

    Appears to be a cut and paste from a blog in 2010??

    http://thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.co.nz/2010/03/cedric-katesby-lives.html?m=1

    Like

  229. Joy, I thought you took your toys and went home. Good to see that your science denial is not limited to fluoridation.

    The Flat Earth Society awaits you with open arms.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  230. Yes, Christopher, I also recognised the copypasta from Joy. The other give-away is that the tone was far more rational than Joy can usually muster.

    But the dishonesty of this . . .

    Does Joy not realise that being caught out in such a simple deception really is discrediting?

    >

    Like

  231. Thanks for the childish name-calling and insults from those posing as the men of science.
    No answer to my requests………………………………..
    “They have not looked for the likely harm; they simply use the formula “no harm was found” after not looking for the likely harm and ruling out, or just ignoring, red-flag studies.
    e.g.
    (1)Please supply researches (that meet your own standards) showing instances of IBS (or other non-attributable gut symtoms) comparing groups with higher and lower blood-fluoride levels.
    Failing that…..(at least for an unsatisfactory start/sketch) IBS rates in Fluoridated & unflouridated areas
    (2)Apply this to the other symptoms found by Moolenberg
    (3)Tell me in what ways (symptoms) you believe Fluoride-toxicity would first begin to show?
    Begin here http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html

    Your “boogy-man-conspiracy” jibes infantalise your opponents to establish a “parental” and sneering superiority. Not very rational or scientific.
    The more dangerous infantalism though is the naive trust in sheltering behind “majorities” or “consensuses” or trusting that “science” (when related to a contentious established policy which would be highly embarrassing to reverse) is not subject to political manipulation.

    Like

  232. Yes, this latest “Joy” did sound a bit more intelligent than the other. It’s hard to believe that Cedric would “argue” with Joy #1″ for more than one comment before blasting her nonsense completely out of the arena.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  233. Harley

    You are the one making unsubstantiated claims. It is not my responsibility to answer your “requests” or provide “proof” as to why your claims lack validity. If you desire credibility for your claims it is incumbent on you to provide valid evidence to support them. So far you’ve provided nothing but personal opinion, meaningless anecdotes, and irrelevant rhetoric.

    I know that you can provide no valid evidence to support your claims because I know that none exists. Your transparent attempt to divert attention does not alter that fact.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  234. Christopher Atkinson

    Harley,
    The more dangerous infantalism though is the naive trust in sheltering behind “majorities” or “consensuses” or trusting that “science” (when related to a contentious established policy which would be highly embarrassing to reverse) is not subject to political manipulation.

    Mmm… I suspect you don’t know the definition of infantilism, sounds good though!
    Perhaps if you had any ‘evidence’ rather than a plethora of stories and anecdotes you could confront the evil consensus, bring down the powerful illuminati and save the day for the unborn, infirm and weak

    Go Harley!!

    Like

  235. Harley, you claim the PubMed decision not to index the journal Fluoride is political – yet offer nothing to support that claim. PubMed has considered the quality of the journal and found it does not come up to the grade required for indexing. Have a look at my art Fluoride an IQ – again For the details of that grading.

    My criticism of the low standards of the journal was vindicated by the fact that the Iranian authors of the paper I commented on have now supplied some of the information lacking in the original via a letter to the editor of the journal. They acknowledged that the information was missing – but that should have been picked up by the journal’s peer review system.

    It is an extremely shoddy journal and you come across as childish in trying to deflect attention away from that fact by advancing a conspiracy theory. The fact that you and you mates have to rely on quoting such a shoddy journal really does discredit your case.

    Like

  236. Thanks for the childish name-calling and insults from those posing as the men of science. Harley

    Hope it was helpful.

    By the way, it’s not childish name calling, it is simple and clear identification.

    Idiocy exists.

    Like

  237. Joy doesn’t understand the Peer Review process
    This video may shed some light

    Like

  238. Thanks for the childish name-calling and insults from those posing as the men of science.

    The truth often hurts. If it helps you to whine about it then (shrug) good luck with that.
    Doesn’t sound like a winning strategy though.

    No answer to my requests……

    The burden of proof rests on the claimant. It’s a science thing. You clearly don’t understand science. Or big words.

    Your “boogy-man-conspiracy” jibes infantalise your opponents…

    You do that to yourself by behaving like a child. We are just pointing it out.

    The more dangerous infantalism though is the naive trust in sheltering behind “majorities” or “consensuses”….

    A scientific consensus does not appear by magic.
    There’s a scientific consensus on a whole lot of things.

    The Age of the Earth.
    Evolution.
    Climate Change.
    Germ Theory.
    Sexual Reproduction.
    Vaccines.
    Plate Tectonics.
    The Moon Landings.

    Want to claim that Nobel Prize? Overturn the current understanding of science? Impress your friends and family?
    Then stop behaving like a moron who’s mother was once frightened by a dictionary. It’s not your conclusions that matter. It’s your methodology.
    Your methodology stinks.
    Really.
    Let me help you with that.

    Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works

    Like

  239. I would like to follow up Cedric’s comment by recommending this excellent video on the scientific peer review process

    Like

  240. Appears to be a cut and paste from a blog in 2010??

    Indeed it is.
    Yet why? What exactly does Joy think she is achieving by doing this? Curiouser and curiouser.

    Like

  241. ‘Curiouser and curiouser’

    Yes! A fellow, Sheriff Andy fan!!

    Like

  242. A scientific consensus does not appear by magic.
    There’s a scientific consensus on a whole lot of things.

    The Age of the Earth.
    Evolution.
    Climate Change.
    Germ Theory.
    Sexual Reproduction.
    Vaccines.
    Plate Tectonics.
    The Moon Landings.

    but not the Ozone “hole” or Acid rain?

    Like

  243. Andy, consensual position can be evaluated on most matters under scientific study where there is a broad agreement within the relevant field over the interpretation of current knowledge.

    Like

  244. It’s not that hard to find out. Apply yourself.
    It doesn’t matter what the topic is, the methodology remains the same. You can either do what the flouride nutters do when then want to push their barrow…or…you can adopt a more reasonable methodology. Hence the video.
    It’s good advice.
    If you refuse to do the right thing and just continue to do what Joy and Harley etc are doing then don’t be surprised to find yourself put in the same box as them.

    Like

  245. Steve Slott is a snake.
    By: Jon Rappoport

    In 1997, Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson, two respected mainstream journalists, peered into an abyss. They found a story about fluorides that was so chilling it had to be told.

    The Christian Science Monitor, who had assigned the story, never published it.

    Their ensuing article, “Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” has been posted on websites, sometimes with distortions, deletions, or additions. I spoke with Griffiths, and he told me to be careful I was reading a correct copy of his piece. (You can find it—“Fluoride, Teeth, and the Atomic Bomb,” at fluoridealert.org.)

    Griffiths also told me that researchers who study the effects of fluorides by homing in on communities with fluoridated drinking water, versus communities with unfluoridated water, miss a major point: fluorides are everywhere—they are used throughout the pharmaceutical industry in the manufacture of drugs, and also in many other industries (e.g., aluminum, pesticide)—because fluorine is very active and binds with all sorts of other substances. Therefore, there is extremely wide public exposure to fluorides.

    I want to go over some of the major points of the Griffiths-Bryson article.

    Griffiths discovered hundreds of documents from the World War 2 era. These included papers from the Manhattan Project, which was launched to build the first A-bomb.

    Griffiths/Bryson write: “Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production…millions of tons…were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War.”

    The documents reveal that fluoride was the most significant health hazard in the US A-bomb program, for workers and for communities around the manufacturing facilities.

    Griffiths/Bryson: “Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to provide ‘evidence useful in litigation’ [against persons who had been poisoned by fluoride and would sue for damages]… The first lawsuits against the US A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the [government] documents show.”

    So A-bomb scientists were told they had to do studies which would conclude that fluorides were safe.

    The most wide-reaching study done was carried out in Newburgh, New York, between 1945 and 1956. This was a secret op called “Program F.” The researchers obtained blood and tissue samples from people who lived in Newburgh, through the good offices of the NY State Health Department.

    Griffiths/Bryson found the original and secret version of this study. Comparing it to a different sanitized version, the reporters saw that evidence of adverse effects from fluorides had been suppressed by the US Atomic Energy Commission.

    Other studies during the same period were conducted at the University of Rochester. Unwitting hospital patients were given fluorides to test out the results.

    Flash forward. Enter Dr. Phyllis Mullenix (see also here), the head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston. In the 1990s, Mullenix did a series of animal studies which showed that, as Griffiths/Bryson write: “…fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin…”

    Mullenix applied for further grant monies from the National Institutes of Health. She was turned down. She was also told that fluorides do not have an effect on the CNS.

    But Griffiths/Bryson uncovered a 1944 Manhattan Project memo which states: “Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect…it seems most likely that the F [fluoride] component rather than the T [uranium] is the causative factor.”

    The 1944 memo was sent to the head of the Manhattan Project Medical Section, Colonel Stafford Warren. Warren was asked to give his okay to do animal studies on fluorides’ effects on the CNS. He immediately did give his approval.

    But any records of the results of this approved project are missing. Most likely classified.

    Who was the man who made that 1944 proposal for a rush-program to study the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge, who worked at the Manhattan Project.

    Who was brought in to advise Mullenix 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, as she studied the CNS effects of fluorides? Dr. Harold Hodge.

    Who never told Mullenix of his work on fluoride toxicity for the Manhattan Project? Dr. Harold Hodge.

    power outside the matrix

    Was Hodge brought in to look over Mullenix’s shoulder and report on her discoveries? It turns out that Hodge, back in the 1940s, had made suggestions to do effective PR promoting fluoride as a dental treatment. So his presence by Mullenix’s side, all those years later, was quite possibly as an agent assigned to keep track of her efforts.

    Getting the idea here? Build an A-bomb. Forget the toxic fluoride consequences. Bury the fluoride studies. Twist the studies.

    More on Hodge. In 1944, “a severe pollution incident” occurred in New Jersey, near the Du Pont plant in Deepwater where the company was trying to build the first A-bomb. A fluoride incident. Farmers’ peach and tomato crops were destroyed. Horses and cows became crippled. Some cows had to graze on their bellies. Tomato crops (normally sold to the Campbell company for soups) were contaminated with fluorides.

    The people of the Manhattan Project were terrified of lawsuits and ensuing revelations about the toxic nature of their work. A heads-up memo was written on the subject. Its author? Harold Hodge. Among other issues, he reported on the huge fluoride content in vegetables growing in the polluted area.

    Also the high fluoride levels in human blood.

    The farmers began to bring lawsuits. Big PR problem.

    The lawsuits were settled quietly, for pittances.

    Harold Hodge wrote another memo. Get this quote: “Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents [near the A-bomb facility]…through lectures on F [fluoride] toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?”

    Griffiths/Bryson write: “Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.”

    This was a launching pad for fluorides as “successful dental treatments.”

    In the film, Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper rails about the destruction fluorides are wreaking on the “pure blood of pure Americans.” Of course, this character is fleshed out as some kind of far-right-wing fanatic. How odd that he and other military men in the movie are, in fact, ready and willing to start a nuclear war. Odd because, unknown to the Strangelove script writer, fluorides were, in fact, very toxic and were an integral part of the very program that created atomic bombs.

    Now you know why promoting toxic fluorides as a dental treatment was so important to government officials.

    Like

  246. My God you people are stupid Sheep if you knew what unbonded fluoride was or what calcium fluoride was or naturally occurring fluoride this discussion wouldn’t be happening safe in one form completely deadly in another understanding it yet does it not resemble salt
    Florida drinking water inherently bad lol go do your own research and stop listening to what people say

    Like

  247. Bob Rob, you do yourself no favours by mindlessly copy and pasting material quite irrelevant to this article. You inky I confirm in readers minds your inability to engage with the subject.

    Like

  248. Steve Slott is a snake.

    There. see.

    I told you all that antifluoridationist conspiracy theorists believe that the lizardmen from outer space are imposing a new world order.

    Like

  249. videogame tonic water you are very brave or very stupid to argue chemistry with Ken

    Like

  250. No one can argue against grammar like that. It’s impossible.

    Like

  251. Bob rob

    What exactly is the relevance to water fluoridated at the optimal level, of a regurgitation of conspiracy nonsense from a non peer- reviewed book written by an “investigative reporter”, that you copy/pasted off of a biased little antifluoridationist website?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  252. Videogametonicwater

    Perhaps you should go back to your video games and tonic water. Chemistry is obviously not your thing.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  253. The arrogance of some of these anti-fluoridationists is amazing. They often tell us to read a book or do research, as if they have bothered.

    On Twitter someone recently told me to go away and do some research. I pointed him to some of my articles here and then he came back criticising me because I must be paid by someone to do so much research and therefore couldn’t be trusted.

    You can’t win.

    >

    Like

  254. Steve. Go rot and get a life. You are a pathetic joke of a man.

    Like

  255. “Steve Slott is a snake.
    By: Jon Rappoport”

    Uh, oh……I’ve been outed.

    Like

  256. “Steve. Go rot and get a life. You are a pathetic joke of a man.”

    Actually, I’ve always considered myself to be a fairly good joke of a man.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  257. Snake or man?

    Do make up your mind Bob Nob. (a Lizardman covers both options)

    Like

  258. As per usual with the anti crowd once you get them in a corner with facts and they cant think of a reply the ‘pottie-mouth’ comes out, its great fun watching them squirm

    Like

  259. Arrogance, you are the GANG that wrote the
    book on arrogance and Manipulation of other’s
    words!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  260. “Arrogance…..”

    Oh, sorry, Joy, was there supposed to be some valid evidence in there which would support your position?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  261. at gets me about fluoride right now is that it is in everything. I came off well water and moved to the city to experience the awful taste associated with the tap water.
    If I chose to, based on how I feel about the water, I could not avoid it.
    Not based off science or anythiny, just my nose and a lot of paying attention to how stuff makes me feel, I’ve had a serious aversion to drinking the tap water.
    Now my layman understanding of fluoride and its purpose I believe it is making up for the atrocious diets of our society. Hate to sound holistic here but the health of the teeth doesn’t just reflect what comes in contact to them, but also reflects how the body is able to support them.
    And so, from what I’ve seen, we consume foods containing less minerals with that addition of processed grains, soda and any processed foods.
    I would say that the addition of a mineral in the presence of a mineral starved diet would be entirely necessary. But to limit it to a single mineral contained in water, instead of returning to a whole grain diet free of processed foods and abundant with green leafies and other sources high in minerals, to limit it such is a bandaid solution.
    Now I say yay to fluoride if that’s your choice, but I will say it is not mine. And it bothers me that having moved to the city its outside my control. I’d be much happier to see it as an optional pill or a prescribed dose or something where I can choose to opt out.

    Like

  262. Keith, many people complain about the taste of the water supply – but it is never due to fluoride, natural or supplemented.

    Most people take some imitative and use a filter to remove the objectionable taste. They are not expensive.

    Similarly, if you have a hang up about fluoride, chlorine or any other component if your water (did you check your well water? It can also have fluoride and other elements you may object to and it is never monitored) then filter it out. That is the responsible way to opt out. You should not deny what is a safe and beneficial social health measure to the rest of us.

    Like

  263. Fluoride at the minuscule optimal level as utilized in fluoridated water is odorless, tasteless, and colorless.

    In the 69 year history of fluoridation, with the overwhelming consensus support by the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare, including the leading medical and dental organizations, there is a pretty fair chance that nether the relationship between diet and teeth, nor that the “health of teeth doesn’t just reflect what comes in contact with them, but also reflects how the body is able to support them”……are concepts that are new to anyone with a modicum of knowledge about healthcare, and have been fully considered by the appropriate healthcare personnel, regulatory agencies, and those individuals and organizations which oversee and support this very valuable public health initiative.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  264. Steve said………..”Fluoride at the minuscule optimal level as utilized in fluoridated water is odorless, tasteless, and colorless.”
    True.
    But “miniscule” is misleading and loaded term here. 1mg/L of such a toxin is NOT miniscule.
    IF, this “miniscule” amount can affect teeth, it has the potential to affect every organ in the body of the creature ingesting it.

    Like

  265. Fine, Harley. Produce valid, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of adverse effects of optimal level fluoride. Your personal opinion of “potential of fluoride”” does not qualify as such.

    Do you believe that the chlorine and ammonia routinely added to your water are any less toxic than fluoride? If antifluoridationists honestly believed all the nonsense they seek to attach to fluoride at the optimal level, they would not get within a mile of fluoridated water, much less drink and/or otherwise utilize it, as do the vast majority of them in the US.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  266. Fair dinkum how much did they pay you to write this crap ? anyone who denies F is a Toxic Poison is seriously ill there is no 2 sides to this story ,only lies deceit and fraud typical Government stuff , and to those who actively support the use of F well they should be heading to jail soon enough because they are all criminals .

    Like

  267. Headed to jail?? OMG! That IS a scary thought! If all fluoridation supporters are in jail then that would leave only antifluoridationists to run all of science and healthcare in the world!!! Ayieeeeee…

    Wow, Connett’s 350 dentists and 550 MDs are gonna be extremely busy!

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  268. The problem that every single one of you have, from the DDS to the anti everything is your to busy trying to make a point. For one, for you degree holders, is your pieces of paper don’t mean shit. When big tobacco lobbied their campaign to convince the people that smoking wasn’t bad, they had scientists and doctors all talking about the benefits of smoking and how it isn’t harmful. Obviously they were lying. People have lost faith, and you treat these people like they are stupid for being skeptics.

    Like

  269. Yet neoslyck many are stupid and easily deceived,

    Take you, as example.

    As with those who believed the message delivered in tobacco company 1950s advertisements, you don’t understand the important difference between Science (with a capital S), scientific communities, scientific consensus and the opinions of individual scientists and actors in white coats.

    Even if and when this is made apparent to them many refuse to understand its importance and continue to bleat on. Trevor Crosbie/Nutter, local anti-fluoridation crank, is another good example of this. He loves to use the same argument as you, over and over again,and he includes lead in paint and other false parallels as well. But strangely, he can never cite any statement of scientific consensus that supports his claims that Science (with a capital S) ever claimed that tobacco or lead is etc harmless.

    People who buy these false parallels may not all be stupid, but they’ve all been taken in by stupid and false analogies.

    This is your opportunity to concede this point and show that you, neoslyck are in fact, not stupid.

    Like

  270. Anyone who believes Scientists are complete morons ,for they are scum , they are blatant liars and over educated idiots and of course criminals ,so anyone here who thinks or claims that fluoride is good for teeth or good in anyway is a blatant liar a criminal , and anything else that is bad ,so I say to you your days are numbered no threats just facts . As the whole world awakens it is the liars and traitors that will feel the full brunt of angry Aussies who have had an absolute gutful of our paedophile traitor so called government and all of the stupid labour liberal national fools they are mainly all total scum and really , if the Anzacs were here they would shoot them in the head in a second .

    Remember the Anzacs did not fight for Is-ra-el or the freemasonic dogs or Zionism they fought for freedom ,even though ,it is clear now that they were all lied to and killed innocent people for the Bankers or the jews ,you know the holocaust lying scum ,and it is because of all this that fluoride is put in our water ,because they know and I know just how important the Pineal Gland is …..and what it can do !

    And with the New Age of Aquarius it is even more critical now more than ever to have us dumbed down and stupid ,thus the many poisonous vaccines , and deaths or abnormalities , but they are all so greedy and arrogant nothing will stop the good sheep from awakening to the fraud of all this shit that the poor goyim are now put through . Israel really sucks our government is run by Zionist Israeli loving freemasonic traitor scum and they are going down sooner rather than later , Hitler will be back soon to finish his good work . Hitler the Great ! www 10 reasons why Hitler was one of the Good Guys @ Digger for truth . Live free or die ,anyone who gives up freedom for security will get and deserves none .

    Like

  271. lol,
    Ken ought to frame that one.

    Like

  272. Wow! Fluoridation really brings out the squirrels.

    Steven D. Slott,mDDS

    Like

  273. oh steve you look so important with all those letters after your name it’s a shame for you that you are not

    Like

  274. You cannot compare natural fluoride with chemical fluoride, made from waste of the alluminiumproduction.
    Ask Obama if he uses fluoride in his drinkingwater or toothpaste, or any senator, mp elsewere. Ask them if they eat food out of the supermarket, they don’t.
    Toxid waste, so toxid that they cannot dump in in nature is not good. Whatever people are telling, whatever paper is made up for the goofd of this industry.

    Like

  275. No, Nexus, I don’t think I will ask MPs, senators or President Obama whether they secretly consume different foodstuffs, water and toothpaste from everybody else. The answer is going to be no. Whether because it’s true, or whether they’re lying because they’re evil / reptilians / whatever.

    I mean seriously. If, as you postulate, all the politicians everywhere are wise to the secret dangers of fluoride and go out of their way to avoid it, what is your explanation as to why they’re perfectly content to leave it in the water (or particularly the toothpaste) for everyone else to consume? This would, after all, be a deeply immoral act.

    It must be a very depressing world you live in if you assume absolutely everybody in a position of authority (politicians, scientists, journalists, engineers, judges, you name it) is both deliberately lying to you and is so hyper-competent at it that almost nobody (save the select few whose eyes are open to the Truth) catches them in their lies.

    Like

  276. You joking mate or what ? As they say Condemnation without Investigation is the Height of ignorance , You Don’t get it do you ? Are you a Non Jew ? if so wake up yes the Politicians are leaving it in the water because non jews / Goyim are just dumb cattle that deserve death , I thought everyone was up on the jews but obviously only the awake ones are , Really ignorant lack of knowledge you show ,or you just maybe another freemason fraudster ??

    Like

  277. Yeah, see, I’m gong to go ahead and call you a lunatic, Clark. This is not something I do often, but I feel it is completely justified in your case. You are, after all, an evangelical neo-Nazi, preaching the Second Coming of Hitler.

    That or you’re deliberately faking it for reasons best known to yourself. But if not, you must surely qualify as amongst the craziest people I have ever encountered on the internet.

    Like

  278. When you actually wake up to yourself , you will find that Hitler was one of the good guys , the Greatest leader of the 20th century ,the only man to stand up to the jews ,and freemasons ,and the man that didn’t gas any jews ,or kill any jews ,see how ignorant you are if you don’t know this ,you are ignorant ,no 6,000,000 jews , no gas chambers ,and yes Is-ra-el is an illegal state . Get the picture yet ? ,because thousands every day are waking up to the lies about Hitler the Great ,just check 10 reasons why Hitler was one of the Good giys @diggerfortruth /wordpress , don’t be afraid to learn the facts for a change instead of parroting lies all your life so who is the real looney ?

    Like

  279. Clark, I am not interested in your delusional neo-Nazi rantings.

    Your warped vision of history, in direct contradiction of screeds of physical and documented evidence, is not up for debate. Reality does not kowtow to your personal ideology.

    Whatever life circumstances have led you to conclude that you are a victim of some vast conspiracy of Jewish freemasons will evoke no sympathy from myself or anybody else. Such are the people and cause you have chosen to align yourself with that you are damned by association.

    Like

  280. Some people like you will never know how dumbed down you really are , I bet you love fluoride water ,because everything you say was just dumb , Oh well what do you expect when you drink poison and live with your head up your ass ? Freemason’s are a threat to all of Humanity not just me , man you are dumb , so you cant see a freemason / Treason problem worldwide ? along with kiddy fiddling ? Don’t bother responding I know your answer , Dumb .

    Like

  281. Screeds of documented and Physical evidence ?? are you kidding ?? where is it ? and when are you going to look at the real History instead of parroting Lies your teacher taught you ?, and the History that’s written by the victors , you must be non human or something ? bit of Alien blood maybe ? no heart /soul or compassion ? Get over it mate you loose ., or Stop drinking fluoride .

    Like

  282. Oh noes! The internet neo-Nazi says I must lack compassion. However will I deal with this crushing and devastating blow to my psyche?

    Like

  283. Has anyone contacted the guys who wear white coats and carry around straight jackets? If not, “Clark” is in dire need of their services.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  284. I a, afraid “Clark Kent” has reached new heights in his personal abuse so I have put him back into moderation.

    >

    Like

  285. Good decision, Ken

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s